Miyazaki would be the
polar opposite of Haneke. His films
celebrate life. He doesn't shy away from the realities of sorrow and sadness, but uses them as a part of the human experience.
And about that critic: I'm glad you know the secret to reading critcism- find a critic who you understand and use them as a yardstick. I always used Roger Ebert. I only agreed with him about 50% of the time...But when he didn't like something, I knew exactly where he was coming from (even if I disagreed) because I had read him for so long, that I knew how his mind worked. In that way, a dissenting opinion is still helpful. I knew Roger would almost always hate a David Lynch film, and always give a pass to anything Star Wars (he loved the prequels).
-
"I wonder if you will like this film when you decide to watch it."
I would change the "when" to an "if"...The older I get, I find that my time is a commodity to not be wasted.
Lately thee have been a lot of films on the subject. Maybe too many. It is not one to be taken lightly, and maybe we should always have films made to remember so that we may not forget.
But, at the same time, it is rare that I find myself deciding that I want, for the evening, to take a cinematic stroll through Auschwitz...no matter how noble the film. And if I did, I would probably take a look at something I haven't seen by a more established master - Like Polanski's The Pianist.
I haven't seen that, despite loving Polanski films. Because, again - I don't often feel the want to experience that.
And it is a strange phenomenon, but I have seen it quite a few times in recent years: when a reviewer castigates a film, and points out all its shortcomings and flaws...and then ends by giving it a high score!!
What?!!
*Critic peer pressure.
It exists.
*'
Critic Peer Pressure': see Ghostbusters 2016*
