Can a Social Critique Also be Genuinely Entertaining?
It is tough to talk about a social problem faced by a social minority, especially in a country like Japan where social minorities are often assumed to be absent or nonexistent. Many people simply do not want to face the uncomfortable fact that there are minorities among them who missed out of the country's general sense of prosperity and order. Instead, they struggle for both society's acceptance and just make ends meet in the direst of material conditions. A recent Japanese film Shoplifters, in such sense, is truly an uncomfortable one to watch for many Japanese people.
The film tells the story of a put-together "family" of what some would call social low-lives, with histories of crime and rebelliousness against families that conform to mainstream social norms. They live by shoplifting and deceiving social norms, constantly hiding their true identities simply to ensure the most basic level of survival. In most of the film, government authorities are absent, oblivious to the plight of the family members, only to punish them for present and past crimes they committed for survival. By compelling the audience to sympathize with the plight of the "low-lives," the film questions the effectiveness of the government in helping those truly in need.
The film's sharp social critique earned itself international recognition in the form of Palm d'Or at the Cannes International Film Festival, which in turn created an abnormally large buzz among the domestic audience more used to feel-good comedies and fictionalized conflicts on the big screen. But the nature of the social critique also predictably draw plenty of criticisms from prominent members of the country's elites as well as a near-silent treatment from the government that saw its image tarnished by rather exaggerated depictions of how neglect can force strangers to seek survival in drastic ways.
The fact that the film's social critique is so apparent and prominent, however, has in some ways taken away needed attention from the film's other merits. Considering the holistic manner with which entries to Cannes is evaluated, the film could very much have won its honors through its technical excellence, attributable to the high level of realistic acting put forth by the main protagonists. There is no denying that there need to be clear emotions that needed to be conveyed in the process of portraying a family that was both formed and destroyed by crime and social pressures. And the actors delivered such emotions powerfully and naturally.
The excellence of the acting, in itself, make the film worthy of attention as a piece of art with enormous entertainment value. In combination with the over-the-top but still very much realistic storyline, the film delivers all the elements necessary to make a good film, even without the sensitivities surrounding the topic of how governments and other authorities need to handle socially marginal populations. Yet, as the main conversations about the film surround its underlying social critique, such artistic elements of the film, unfortunately, become less prioritized in analyses and less noticed by the audience.
The conflict between evaluating a film based on its technical excellence versus its main idea brings forth the question of exactly what makes a film entertaining and worthy of the audience's attention. Surely different people enjoy films for different ways, but film critics, with a job to analyze the merits and demerits of any particular film, must focus on one aspect or the other to get their points through. Given their limited space, the readers' limited attention, and their own limited knowledge, they must prioritize one aspect over the other in their analyses.
It is sad but understandable to see social critique being the main point of view. It is the media's interest to keep as many readers' attention as much as possible, and there really is no better way of doing so than purporting to support radical views with sensationalized commentaries. Such sensationalization is becoming the norm in film critiques just as it is in news reporting. And as interesting as nuances of acting may be for some film lovers, explosive and polarizing social critiques are much more likely to draw the attention of a bigger slice of the general public in much more lasting ways.
In the context of the Shoplifters, that sensationalization falls on a quiet attack of government negligence, whether or not that was what the film's conceivers and director originally intended as the main message. By playing up the film as a piece of social dissent, critics and their audience ensure public attention is diverted away from its artistic elements. As they carry the conversation toward the social critique side, it becomes less and less possible to note the technicality of acting as what makes the film entertaining and worthy of watching. It is indeed unfortunate but a reflection of how public attention can be captured in specific ways.
The film tells the story of a put-together "family" of what some would call social low-lives, with histories of crime and rebelliousness against families that conform to mainstream social norms. They live by shoplifting and deceiving social norms, constantly hiding their true identities simply to ensure the most basic level of survival. In most of the film, government authorities are absent, oblivious to the plight of the family members, only to punish them for present and past crimes they committed for survival. By compelling the audience to sympathize with the plight of the "low-lives," the film questions the effectiveness of the government in helping those truly in need.
The film's sharp social critique earned itself international recognition in the form of Palm d'Or at the Cannes International Film Festival, which in turn created an abnormally large buzz among the domestic audience more used to feel-good comedies and fictionalized conflicts on the big screen. But the nature of the social critique also predictably draw plenty of criticisms from prominent members of the country's elites as well as a near-silent treatment from the government that saw its image tarnished by rather exaggerated depictions of how neglect can force strangers to seek survival in drastic ways.
The fact that the film's social critique is so apparent and prominent, however, has in some ways taken away needed attention from the film's other merits. Considering the holistic manner with which entries to Cannes is evaluated, the film could very much have won its honors through its technical excellence, attributable to the high level of realistic acting put forth by the main protagonists. There is no denying that there need to be clear emotions that needed to be conveyed in the process of portraying a family that was both formed and destroyed by crime and social pressures. And the actors delivered such emotions powerfully and naturally.
The excellence of the acting, in itself, make the film worthy of attention as a piece of art with enormous entertainment value. In combination with the over-the-top but still very much realistic storyline, the film delivers all the elements necessary to make a good film, even without the sensitivities surrounding the topic of how governments and other authorities need to handle socially marginal populations. Yet, as the main conversations about the film surround its underlying social critique, such artistic elements of the film, unfortunately, become less prioritized in analyses and less noticed by the audience.
The conflict between evaluating a film based on its technical excellence versus its main idea brings forth the question of exactly what makes a film entertaining and worthy of the audience's attention. Surely different people enjoy films for different ways, but film critics, with a job to analyze the merits and demerits of any particular film, must focus on one aspect or the other to get their points through. Given their limited space, the readers' limited attention, and their own limited knowledge, they must prioritize one aspect over the other in their analyses.
It is sad but understandable to see social critique being the main point of view. It is the media's interest to keep as many readers' attention as much as possible, and there really is no better way of doing so than purporting to support radical views with sensationalized commentaries. Such sensationalization is becoming the norm in film critiques just as it is in news reporting. And as interesting as nuances of acting may be for some film lovers, explosive and polarizing social critiques are much more likely to draw the attention of a bigger slice of the general public in much more lasting ways.
In the context of the Shoplifters, that sensationalization falls on a quiet attack of government negligence, whether or not that was what the film's conceivers and director originally intended as the main message. By playing up the film as a piece of social dissent, critics and their audience ensure public attention is diverted away from its artistic elements. As they carry the conversation toward the social critique side, it becomes less and less possible to note the technicality of acting as what makes the film entertaining and worthy of watching. It is indeed unfortunate but a reflection of how public attention can be captured in specific ways.
Comments
Post a Comment