Had a conversation last night about this video from Bill Maher that I saw via a tweet from Scott Adams on this year’s Best Picture nominations, which Adams calls, “feel-bad ‘entertainment’ that gives you brain damage.” I haven’t seen all of the films (yet), but I wonder if Adams or Maher have either, or why exactly any of them would give one “brain damage?”
Maher’s argument is that movies should be less dour. I would argue plenty of movies are less dour, likely hundreds that were released last year alone.
“I’m not glad Stan Lee is dead, I’m sad you’re alive,” Maher said not that long ago, chiding those that like comic book and comic book films, and asking that grown-ups should read books that make them think. “Read James Baldwin, read Toni Morrison, read Michael Eric Dyson,” he pleaded.
Can film not do the same? If a movie can move you, or make you think, does it not hold value?
He continues, and this is the real crux of his argument, that the movies made in 2020 were not about entertainment, but virtue signaling. You can make that argument for Promising Young Women (to which I would disagree), but I can’t see that argument about any of the other nominees. (Side note: I would also argue Promising Young Women and The Trial of the Chicago 7 were wildly entertaining).
This is where he really loses me: “They used to know how to make a movie that was about something… that was also entertaining, and not just depressing,” he says while a list of films are shown on screen cherry picked from over 80 years of cinema, including Grapes of Wrath, 12 Angry Men, Look Who’s Coming to Dinner, Do the Right Thing, Schindler’s List, and 12 Years A Slave, all of which invalidate his “argument” and makes me ask:
What is it that Mr. Maher wants?
And what exactly is he trying to say?