Hacker News Reader

Comment by tqi | Hacker News Reader

It troubles me that so much of this article is focused on how bad the films are. If the director had succeeded in making a masterpiece, would the conclusion have been that the ends (at least partially) justified the means? The article briefly mentions directors whose methods we now condem but whose work we still celebrate, but even then I felt like the message was "at least those directors produced great art."

View on HN

I don’t really trust polygon for reviews of art films. Looking at some critic reviews, it seems like Natasha the first film in Dau has had some rave reviews. For instance the guardian gave it 5/5

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/26/dau-natasha-rev...

But does the quality of the film matter? I don't think making great art justifies or excuses being a tyrannical/abusive artist, and feel that in general we should have consistent standards of acceptable behavior that is divorced from outputs.

Of course it matters... If art has any utility at all, then its impact must be factored into utilitarian calculations about suffering / opportunity costs and so on.

Whether the suffering that's alleged to have taken place in its production was 'worthwhile' is an open and complex question, and its a perfectly valid moral position to believe that it was not. But to suggest that behaviour should be 'divorced from outputs' is not a logically consistent position.

I think you are a bit quick to dismiss the entirety of deontology. Could you expand on what you mean when you say that deontological ethics ``is not a logically consistent position.''

There's a certain duality to the review where it alleges some terrible things happened, maybe, but then is more concerned about that in relation to saying the movie sucks.

It's like it is convenient to mention because they didn't think the movie was good.

The review seems as callous to the plight of the actors as it claims the director was....

That's the new thing. When a film doesn't agree with the reviewer's political biases, he never admits it. Instead, the movie is terrible and nobody should see it.

Remember Joker and the terrified reaction to it? It got panned in review after review. I watched it and it was fantastic. I immediately understood why it got bad reviews because it correctly pointed out how the media are the source of many problems in our society.

I feel like your two paragraphs are connected...

I can't help thinking I'm missing the point of your comment, but taking it at face value:

The second paragraph provides an example to illustrate the first paragraph.

The films are masterpieces. Highest ratings all over.

But SJW were outraged about the filming conditions years before already. It was a major production scandal, but the artists and backer sticked to it. Just an extremely long time.

You can watch them on the DAU website for a small fee. Corona killed the cinema prospects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com