A Critique of a Critique

Why Does All The Eat The Rich Satire Look The Same Now

I actually agree with the conclusions of this article in general, but I feel it undercuts its message in one of the same ways some of the works it criticizes does: by its lack of specificity and precision. 

Let's look at how some of the films I've seen were analyzed:

If you haven’t seen Glass Onion yet, you’d probably think it’s an inventive murder mystery, not another two and a half hour film about why Elon Musk sucks (see also: Don’t Look Up).

Though it may fall victim to screenwriting predestined to turn into shareable screenshots, The White Lotus is most insightful in its smaller moments. It succeeds as satire by allowing its viewers to spend time with its affluent guests and get a feel for their idiosyncrasies, as opposed to The Menu or Glass Onion’s caricatures, who are only familiar if you’ve spent most of your life online.

The above two comments are the only mentions of Glass Onion, for example. If one hadn't seen the movie, I feel this would be inadequate evidence that it did not have substantive critique, and if one had, I'm unsure if this would be a compelling argument to someone who didn't already agree with the conclusion.  Also, the problem I have with including Glass Onion here is that I don't actually think its message is anti-capitalist at all (having a bone to pick with select obnoxious rich people does not in itself constitute an anti-capitalist critique).  I think a stronger argument could be made that Glass Onion is an 'eat the rich' story, as such a sentiment is not inherently anti-capitalist, but even that could be disputed because (spoilers under a cut)...

 

Read More...

the main murder in the story was the deposed business partner Andi (Cassandra), who is not portrayed particularly negatively.

 

As for Don't Look Up, another movie I've seen, the above mention is the only mention at all, and the reviewer seems to assume their conclusion on the film will be self evident.  However, Don't Look Up, while featuring an obnoxious rich billionnaire and friends, is not primarily about rich people.  It's an allegory for climate change.  Now, many people may argue that to care about climate change requires an anti-capitalist perspective (I, for example, would argue this), but that does not mean that Don't Look Up makes an argument for this position, and indeed I would say it does not.

Like Glass Onion, Don't Look Up is a satire, and one I would agree is superficial, but again to depict rich people behaving badly does not an anti-capitalist critique make.

Thirdly, I'll note Andor was included in this essay:

There was a lot of buzz when Andor, Disney’s latest Star Wars series, dropped in September, for example. The show was praised for its unexpectedly challenging politics, couched in everyone’s shock that a Disney+ series could raise even mildly disruptive questions. But while Andor may be a cut above the rest of Disney+’s roster, the fact that a company worth $203.63 billion feels comfortable parroting anti-capitalist talking points shows that something has gone seriously wrong.

And yeah, no argument from me that any message Disney puts out is one it doesn't feel threatened by.  Now, I love Andor.  It is my favorite Star Wars show ever.  I think there's so much interesting analysis that can be done about this show and I think it's going to haunt my spare thought cycles for a long, long, time.

But Andor contains no anti-capitalist critique.  It is not about 'eating the rich'.  It is about defiance and rebellion  against an oppressive government.  One of the main sympathetic characters is the wealthy Imperial senator Mon Mothma.

Oh, and also: Andor isn't satire.  Wrong genre.

So I feel this article doesn't engage with the works it is critiquing beyond a superficial level.  I feel like the author had a feeling, a dissatisfaction, that merits further exploration, but that the thinking behind this dissatisfaction wasn't properly fleshed out, nor the works it was caused by truly interrogated.  

I think I'll end with a response to this thought about satire:

You could argue that satire born out of this politics is predictable because its targets are predictable: we all know rich people suck and perhaps they don’t necessarily deserve nuance. But the beauty of good satire is in using a scalpel to eviscerate a subject, by having a distinct perspective and striking with precision.

I agree.  And a distict perspective that strikes with precision is also something I felt was missing from this essay, and was something I wish it had, for if someone else has already expressed the precise thoughts I am thinking, I can merely link their piece and need not write anything myself.