If you think a film is dark, could you elaborate on that? A comedy can be dark, an action movie can be dark, a horror can hit the unexpected and be a surprisingly well lit, yet it is what it is, dark. In all of these examples dark can be used to define things that are unalike each other. You could say a comedy has self deprecating humour. The action film is comically violent or excesses in profanity. The horror dwells into the grotesque and violent imagery.
Should you just assume what this means according to the genre, or do you find the criticism of saying a film is dark(and calling it a day) doesn’t cut it? What do you do when a film reinvents a genre or blends genres in an original way? My criticism of the YouTube film critics nowadays, is that some apply this term to define a movie in their review, and no one ever seems to call them out. I know the average viewer doesn’t want garbage, so why accept this?
Ever since Sin City(2005), and Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, critics have been rallying audiences around the vestiges of the argument that ‘Dark’ story telling is what caters to the mainstream these days. Whatever that means or sweeps under the rug! The statement could probably insult the mass audience as your treating them all like they are 13 year old boys.
First of all, story telling wins audiences, but that very art form seeps into another element of the production called character(s). Regardless of colour or tone, the existence of character(s) and event(s) creates the story, or some would argue, writes the story. No film is great on the merit alone of its tone or imagery being dark or a contrast of black and white. A lot of you are fooled by the gimmick of thinking you hold a valuable film critiquing lens, the truth is, if you were ever satisfied with your opinion resting on a films merit as ‘dark’, you don’t.
Examples of YouTuber critics include; John Campea, The Critical Drinker, Kristian Harloff, probably others I have listened to as well but feel uncertain in naming them.
Comments
Post a Comment