Pretty typical documentary paint-by-numbers. Filmmaker has an opinion on divisive issue, uses a series of images and talking heads and one-sided information to attempt to sway the viewer to his/her side of the story. How did documentary, the genre that by its very title suggests the closest film has to reality, become the most shamelessly manipulative of all film genres?
The movie somewhat "works" I guess in that its emotional heartstring tugging and complete villainization of the opposing side more or less made me think that I probably sided with the filmmakers on the issue, but the problem with these movies is that as soon as one starts to do their own research the entire thing falls apart. I guess it exists the way most news does, as something that assumes its viewer will take what it says at face value and buy into it for no other reason than because they state it with great authority.
And especially in this case, when they argue for the Barnes Foundation as a refuge for true art lovers to come and appreciate good art away from the horrors of silly faux-intellectual upper class elitists, just reeks of its own kind of elitism. Now that Barnes is dead who gets to appoint themselves the cultural gatekeeper who decides what a real patron of the arts is, as opposed to a phony who only pretends at art-loving? And why should we feel bad that the city of Philadelphia isn't going to let them?
No comments:
Post a Comment