© Pierre Maré,
2004 - 2007
Offbeat 107
This column was supposed to be about the link between high quality thought and large amounts of money, but something interesting featured on my radar this week, so I have decided to serve up mutton dressed as lamb.
As far as mutton and lamb go, the two are fairly interchangeable, especially if you are making a curry. If you cook both long enough, the result will be wonderful. If it is one of those sweet, yellow Malay curries, all the better. How do I know that the meat is mutton? Because I have alluded to several of these thoughts a number of times.
The fact that these thoughts are not entirely new to this column, like lambs to the proverbial, can be extrapolated into a dish that has been stewing for a while. Will it taste good? That depends on your particular taste. Now, on to the meat of the matter.
Quite a while back, I noted the film, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’. As far as I remember, I said that Johnny Depp’s entry should rank as one of the funniest moments in cinema. I loved the movie unashamedly, and only now, after about the 14th viewing is it beginning to lose some of its luster, but only slightly.
The ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ sequel, has just been released. I haven’t seen it yet. However, I made the mistake of reading the critics. They were mostly uniform in their condemnation. If the critics are to be believed, I should stay at home and try to deal with my disappointment at the critiques, rather than going to the cinema and suffering the greater disappointment of actually seeing the movie.
But the beauty of the web, aside from easy access to the writings of the critics, is the fact that members of the audience also have the opportunity to give their own responses; critique the critics, so to speak.
And the audience has spoken in a very loud voice.
The critics contention is that the film is overlong and has a confused story. The audience responses, posted on the websites of critics, has been that the film is the most fun since the first ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ movie was released, and that the critics alternatively suck or blow. In fact, I have personally never seen a counter-response to critics, as loud, angry and misspelled as this.
Poor spelling aside, the audience has a point to make. Critics apparently have difficulty fulfilling their purpose of telling audiences what is worth seeing.
Critics seek qualities approved by intellect. Films that critics enjoy have depth, meaning, finely nuanced performances and, if possible, subtitles. Films that the majority of audiences enjoy have entertainment value determined by great plots, funny and / or exciting moments, awesome effects, fair acting and, generally, no depth to draw attention away from the important things, for instance having fun and enjoying the sensation of a jaw dropping.
To paraphrase one back row critic’s response on the website of some or other hapless professional critic, the concept of ‘good’ doesn’t matter if the movie is more exciting and action-packed than the exercise of Middle East policy.
Personally, I was very glad to have the counterbalance of the audience’s approval. I intend to do my very best to enjoy the new ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’.
The quest for meaning and depth marginalizes the important aspect of entertainment which is, believe it or not, entertainment. If you examine Shakespeare from a purely subjective point of view, with your brain in neutral, you will discover great stories. The same applies to Dickens, Chaucer and almost every enduring piece of ‘literature’. On the other hand, James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’ endures only because students are subjected to its ream of jumbled words.
If there is a need for ‘good’, it must be subject to entertainment value. Without entertainment, all that is good becomes nothing more than an intellectual diversion for a small group of critics.
‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ won’t be great literature, but I am sure it will be great entertainment.
Back to the archive • Previous • Next • Home
