I Hate Theme-Centric Criticism. Here's Why.

Bong Joon-Ho's Parasite is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Conversely, the discourse surrounding it is some of the most disappointing I've ever encountered given how good the movie was. Journalists tend to think that the cultural criticisms baked into Parasite were what made it so great while completely ignoring the work that went into the slick writing, the three-dimensional characterization, the perfected pacing, the intelligent production design, and the intentional cinematography. I could go on and on, and I view the way we as critics talked about Parasite as a case study for the biggest bone I have to pick with modern-day film analysis: an unhealthy obsession with themes. I want to lay out three reasons why I generally despise this approach to film criticism, and I apologize for nothing.

First, it's easy for someone who knows next to nothing about film criticism to talk about what they think a movie was trying to say while still sounding intelligent. I could ramble on for hours about how The Dark Knight is really about post-9/11 fears in America without so much as acknowledging that there are many other movies out there sharing this undercurrent, and you would be a captive audience. But if what makes The Dark Knight good is its commentary on the fears of America after the Twin Towers fell rather than its taut and unpredictable writing, incredible acting, and relentlessly escalating pace, then who's to say that a narratively lesser movie such as The Reluctant Fundamentalist isn't equal to The Dark Knight? The point that I'm trying to make here is that we're taught from the very youngest of ages to walk away from a movie with a message. Gleaning an idea from a movie is a laughably easy thing to do. What's more, it's very easy to simply make stuff up when talking about themes from a movie, and it annoys me to no end when a critic reads into a movie too much, extracting an idea that the filmmaker obviously did not intend.

Second, theme-related film criticism gives journalists an easy excuse to praise movies that agree with their worldview while dismissing ones that don't. Theme-obsessed reviews tend to be written by the lowest common denominator of film criticism: second-tier news and opinion websites that are less concerned about the specifications of film criticism and more concerned with promoting a worldview. The rampantly left-wing Vox is easily the worst offender I've seen in this category, though right-leaning and right-wing sites are far from exempt. Breaking news: a movie isn't great just because it marks off your morality checksheet. Moonlight, Get Out, and to a lesser extent Blink Twice have been praised up and down the board for their commentary on gender identity, race relations, and violence against women respectively, but the social and political dialogue surrounding their big ideas has predictably and completely overwhelmed any manner of meaningful criticism of their working parts. If you've read one review of any of these movies, you've read all of them.

Finally, good ideas cannot make up for bad writing, and neither can underdeveloped ideas overturn good writing. On one hand, look at Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly. This movie contains a lot of solid commentary on the struggles of our nation that go ignored when we say that the USA and capitalism don't need to change in the slightest, but do these messages make up for fundamental shortcomings with the writing? By no means. On the other hand, consider George Miller's Mad Max: Fury Road. Google will tell you that the main themes of this film are societal decay and the struggle for survival, among other things. These are not lofty or revolutionary ideas, and yet Fury Road is just about universally regarded as a masterpiece, even though it has no super-complex deeper theme to explore. I use these two movies as an illustration to point out that bad movies can wrestle with complex themes and still be bad while great movies can contain simple themes and still be great. So, I ask again, what do themes really have to do with great writing? 

Don't get me wrong here, there are lots of great movies out there that contain challenging ideas, and criticism of themes has been part of the routine of the all-time greats in film criticism, most notably Roger Ebert. However, the difference between Ebert and modern-day journalists is Ebert's devotion to ultimately studying the craft, while modern journalists too often ignore the craft altogether. Critiquing themes and themes alone is an easy out for a journalist, and this piece I've graciously written is merely intended to hold these people accountable to their own profession. 

Don't make me come over there and rip that press pin right off your shirt. Do your job.

1 Corinthians 3:18-23