Godzilla Minus One

Melhor blockbuster do ano e um dos melhores filmes de monstro do século 21. Me lembrou um pouco o caso de Top Gun: Maverick: não é um filme que vai se destacar pela originalidade, por grandes inovações, pois ele depende em grande parte do que foi criado do passado (incluindo o ótimo tema musical do Godzilla de 1954), porém ele é realizado com tanto capricho, tanta integridade e respeito pelo material original (ignorando totalmente valores "modernos" que Hollywood se sente sempre na obrigação de abraçar), que o filme se torna uma viagem no tempo e um caso exemplar pro cinema atual.

Gojira -1.0 / 2023 / Takashi Yamazaki

Satisfação: 9

Categoria: I

Maestro

Como mencionei na crítica de Tár, tenho uma admiração pelo Leonard Bernstein desde que vi gravações do seu Young People's Concerts em aulas na faculdade, então fui ver Maestro com um interesse especial, até por ter gostado do trabalho do Bradley Cooper como diretor em Nasce uma Estrela — e também por este ser um projeto que já esteve nas mãos de grandes nomes como Spielberg e Scorsese (que assinam aqui como produtores).

Além do tópico, o filme tem várias qualidades que o mantém interessante, apesar de alguns pontos fracos. Bradley está bem no papel (com a ajuda do trabalho mais notável de maquiagem que vi desde A Baleia), Carey Mulligan está melhor ainda, e os diálogos têm riqueza o bastante pra passar uma ideia de como seria um homem como Bernstein na intimidade (lembrando um pouco os méritos de Tár).

Porém Bradley Cooper como roteirista/diretor, pra mim parece ter deixado a pretensão subir à cabeça. Sabe aqueles cineastas prodígio tipo Orson Welles ou Francis Ford Coppola, que após algumas obras-primas, passam a se achar geniais demais para o "sistema" e começam a experimentar com a linguagem, fazendo obras menos acessíveis de propósito? É como se no 2º longa (e sem ter feito suas obras-primas ainda), Bradley já quisesse saltar pra esse estágio da carreira, e mostrar um tipo parecido de sofisticação (que pra mim é Pseudo-Sofisticação até mesmo nos casos de Welles/Coppola).

O filme tem uma abordagem semi-Naturalista que vê graça na mera reprodução do universo de Bernstein; em nos dar o privilégio de espiar a vida de um mestre por algumas horas. Por retratar um homem excepcional, bem-sucedido (em vez de uma pessoa medíocre) o filme foge do Naturalismo clássico, mas narrativamente, ele ainda não tem um senso de direção, um tema, algo a dizer sobre o personagem, e o Naturalismo se revela também nos aspectos da vida de Bernstein que o filme decide mostrar. Ao contrário de Steve Jobs (2015), que pelo menos focava em grandes momentos da carreira de Jobs (apesar de ser um filme também sem muita história, focado em caracterização), Maestro já faz um esforço grande pra não parecer uma celebração do talento de Bernstein. O fato mais conhecido de sua carreira — ele ser o compositor de West Side Story — é citado de forma tão casual que uma pessoa não familiarizada com o musical provavelmente sairá do filme sem registrar este "detalhe". O programa de TV Young People's Concerts (também um dos grandes responsáveis por sua fama) nem é citado.

Maestro está muito mais interessado no lado "humano" de Bernstein: nos problemas de seus relacionamentos íntimos, seus vícios, no fato dele ser bissexual, um homem um pouco egocêntrico, no câncer de sua esposa Felicia (que toma uma parte considerável do filme e é mostrado em mais detalhes que muitos filmes sobre doenças terminais). Não diria que a intenção do filme é manchar a imagem de Bernstein, pois há um glamour até mesmo na forma em que esses negativos são mostrados. Mas algo leva o filme a achar que pra cada virtude exibida, 3 fatos menos admiráveis sobre Leonard precisem ser incluídos pra equilibrar o resultado.

Fico me perguntando se isso é influência da ética altruísta; algo motivado por um senso de culpa, ou se é exatamente o oposto: se é a pretensão fútil de quem quer se mostrar tão superior, tão culto, tão parte da elite, que cita esses triunfos de forma casual, blasé, pois sabe que essa é a atitude de pessoas realmente sofisticadas.

Maestro / 2023 / Bradley Cooper

Satisfação: 6

Categoria: I- / NI

Filmes Parecidos: Tár (2022) / Steve Jobs (2015)

Como gravo meus vídeos pro YouTube

Wonka

Wonka / 2023 / Paul King

Categoria: Idealismo Corrompido / Anti-Idealismo

Satisfação: 3

Vidas Passadas

Past Lives / 2023 / Celine Song

Satisfação: 8

Categoria: Idealismo Diminuto

Cameo de Ayn Rand em "Past Lives"

Um detalhe no filme Vidas Passadas (Past Lives / 2023 / Celine Song) que talvez eu seja a única pessoa no mundo que reparou:

Imagino que seja algo acidental que já estava na locação (o filme não tem nada a ver com ideias de Rand). Mas ainda assim achei curioso, pois Journals of Ayn Rand é um livro que só objetivistas mais "avançados" costumam ter. Quem será o dono da casa?

Melissa Barrera e Julianna Margulies - Guerra divide Hollywood

Quando a Melissa Barrera foi demitida de Pânico 7 por apoiar o lado dos palestinos na guerra Israel/Hamas (e se mostrar ser o tipo de pessoa que minha primeira impressão dela sugeriu), achei que algo de positivo pudesse estar surgindo desta divisão que a guerra provocou em Hollywood - que costuma tentar manter a imagem de uma comunidade homogênea em suas posições políticas. Podia ser a chance da esquerda se dividir, da metade mais niilista ser exposta pelo que é, e disso ajudar a encerrar o clima de polarização extrema que caracterizou os últimos 8 anos. Mas vendo a diferença entre as reações a esses dois casos, já comecei a duvidar.

Vamos acompanhar - estou curioso pra ver o que farão com a Julianna Margulies (que não falou nada de homofóbico ou racista no podcast - acabei de escutar o episódio). Talvez ela se safe por não ser associada à direita, ser anti-Trump, etc. Mas se ela tivesse sua carreira prejudicada, adoraria saber se isso seria chamado de censura também, e se ela receberia um apoio tão expressivo da comunidade artística quanto Barrera.

Napoleão

Napoleon / 2023 / Ridley Scott

Satisfação: 4

Categoria: Idealismo Crítico Imperfeito

The 4 Pillars of Idealism

(Chapter 6 of the book Idealism: The Forgotten Principles of American Cinema)

The fact that a movie pleases and entertains the viewer still doesn't prove that it is Idealist, after all people with opposite values will enjoy and be inspired by opposite things. Idealism is not a morally neutral theory, concerned only with technical issues. It is based on specific values and has a specific philosophical bias. There are four particular concepts, four values, four emotions or four mental experiences that form the basis of Idealism:

- Objectivity

- Self-esteem

- Benevolence

- Excitement

These concepts are directly linked to human happiness, and the best works of art are those that best manage to concretize these values and make them real in the viewer's consciousness, at least during the consumption of the work. Each of these terms is a kind of umbrella concept under which a series of other related ideas and values are grouped. Let's expand on each one so that we can understand them better:

1. OBJECTIVITY

It's the experience of understanding reality, of seeing order in the universe, stability, structure, coherence, of having confidence in our cognitive abilities, of seeing reality in a simplified way, of knowing the truth behind things, which gives us a sense of control and security (raw, unfiltered reality will always be too complex to generate a state of mental clarity in the viewer). It's the attitude of never accepting ignorance, confusion and incommunicability as the natural state of things. Of never accepting subjectivism as an answer, of having respect for reason and facts.

A work of art can provide Objectivity mainly through its style, by the way it presents its content: having a clear, logical plot, creating a believable, cohesive universe with well-established rules, characters who act consistently, events that respect the law of causality, through the precision with which the artist communicates with the audience, guides the viewer's attention, the clarity with which he presents ideas in his work, the objectivity of the techniques he uses to express values, create emotions, narrate the story, demonstrate his skills, through the way he portrays reality, man, making clear and orderly what is often chaotic and confusing in real life. But objectivity can also be conveyed through content, in stories where the essence of the plot is the search for knowledge, explanations, solutions - detective stories, mysteries, courtroom dramas, to name but a few.

This concept of Objectivity is the most basic value of Idealism, and is a precondition for the expression of all the other values. It's what makes the other three pillars possible and real. If you try to project Self-Esteem, for example, but have no respect for reality (the characters' actions aren't convincing, aren't communicated clearly), the emotion won't be real for the viewer. It's a more epistemological value, while the other three are more emotional.

Objectivity is something that tends to be naturally respected by mainstream cinema, being challenged mainly by art films, experimental films (or by filmmakers who simply aren't competent enough to communicate objectively).

It is because of this pillar that I will emphasize the importance of clarity in the director's style, in the storytelling, and this is why Idealism is incompatible with Experimentalism, for example, which aims to portray reality in an ambiguous, inconsistent way, or worse, to create a state of chaos in the viewer's mind, decreasing (rather than increasing) his confidence in his mental faculties.

2. SELF-ESTEEM

It's the experience of feeling important, special, capable, proud, of gaining respect and being recognized for your virtues, of being the best at something, of believing in your individual potential, of believing that life can be great, that man can be admirable, heroic. It's the attitude of not accepting impotence and fragility as the true essence of man. Banality as the essence of life. Of not accepting one's own flaws as natural and inevitable. Of always desiring virtue, progress, success, of never taking pride in one's own failures or being lenient with them.

A work of art can't actually give a person self-esteem, but it can simulate/encourage this emotion and, by example, give them the inspiration and confidence to achieve it in their personal life. An artist can create this emotion through content, showing heroes, admirable individuals, telling stories of achievements, success, great events, but also through style, through the virtues demonstrated by the artist himself in the creation of his work - virtues such as technical mastery, expertise, a pioneering spirit, originality, genius, ambition, which provoke a sense of admiration in the viewer towards the work before them (meaning that even a work of art portraying flawed characters can stimulate a sense of Self-Esteem in this sense).

It is because of this pillar that I will later criticize the current trend of anti-heroes in popular culture, and it is also why I am critical of Naturalistic films, which not only tend to portray ordinary characters, without great virtues, but also do not show great technical virtues on the part of the filmmaker, who is more interested in portraying reality as it is, conveying a social message, etc.

3. BENEVOLENCE

It's the experience of believing that the universe is a suitable place for human beings, where happiness is possible and our values can be achieved. Believing that men can be perfectly moral, happy, and that their interests need not be in conflict. That conflicts, pain and evil are not to be accepted as normal, but things to be fought against and overcome. It's a certain respect for the innocence of childhood, for the vision of what the world could be (even a film with a sad ending or a movie about a corrupt character can respect the value of Benevolence, as long as the blame for the tragic results falls on the characters' wrong choices, and not on life itself, on human nature, as if it were something natural and inescapable).

Benevolence can be experienced through content - in stories where good is portrayed positively and evil negatively, where characters have free will and the power to achieve their goals, where we see positive and harmonious relationships between characters (rather than relationships full of cynicism, distrust, mutual contempt, incompatibility, which is what predominates today), where heroes are morally pure (they don't accept evil and corruption in themselves), never wish for evil or do anything to harm innocent people. But Benevolence can also be felt through the artist's style, in their general attitude towards the audience: in their choice to show beauty, in their desire to communicate, to talk about subjects that interest them, in their desire to provoke positive and inspiring emotions, to please the senses, etc.

It is on this basis that Idealism opposes films with a Malevolent Sense of Life, films that glamorize violence, suffering, that show only conflict-ridden relationships, unpleasant situations, that glorify corrupt and immoral characters, that insinuate that man is perverse by nature, that life is essentially tragic, films that are made to externalize the artist's destructive feelings, etc.

4. EXCITEMENT

It's the desire for entertainment, escapism, fun, pleasure, variety, stimulation, intense emotions. It is the experience of escaping boredom, the monotony of everyday life and normal states of consciousness, rules and irrational duties imposed by others and society. It's the desire to make life interesting and enjoyable. It's what makes us seek laughter, adventure, catharsis, fantasy, ecstasy, adrenaline, awe, astonishment, surprises. It's the attitude of not accepting boredom, duty, monotony or melancholy as natural and unavoidable states of existence. To consider happiness the highest and most desirable state of consciousness. To not consider it a virtue the ability to repress one's desires, to sacrifice one's pleasures.

Excitement can be provided by the content of an artwork - for example, in films where the characters go through great adventures, extraordinary situations, experience exciting, unusual events; but also by the style, the method with which the story is told: whether there is suspense, an engaging plot, surprises, intense emotions, whether the pace of the story is exciting, whether there is a satisfying climax (meaning that even a tragic story or a monologue can be Exciting depending on how they are executed).

It's from the pillar of Excitement that arises the need for a good narrative, a well-constructed plot, climaxes, Set Pieces and Ascension (a principle I will discuss later), and this is also why Idealism opposes Naturalistic, Experimental films with no plot, or films that put the social/educational function of art above the enjoyment of the audience.

Thus, when I say a movie is Idealist, it's because it has succeeded in projecting these four values, all of which are indispensable. It's acceptable for some of these values to be more dominant, and others less dominant in a particular work, or in a particular genre, but they all need to be present on some level. If one pillar is completely overturned and rejected by the artist, the others will start to crumble too - all these ideas are interconnected, so it's impossible to provide one of these experiences without starting to provide some of the others. For example: in order to create an admirable character and inspire Self-esteem in the viewer, there must first be the value of Objectivity in the story (you can only feel inspired by actions and values that you can observe, believe in, and that are being communicated rationally by the artist). And by stimulating this feeling of Self-esteem in the audience, there will also be an element of Benevolence in the intention of the artist.

EXAMPLE OF THE 4 PILLARS IN ACTION

In Pretty Woman (1990), one of the most touching moments is when Vivian (Julia Roberts) and Edward (Richard Gere) share their first kiss. As Vivian is a prostitute and Edward a successful businessman, there is a sense of mistrust and hopelessness throughout the story, because despite their mutual affection and Vivian proving to be a woman of good character, social differences become a significant obstacle, making a relationship between them seem highly unlikely. So, when the two finally break the taboo of the kiss (not kissing on the mouth had been a rule established by Vivian at the beginning of the story), it is the pillar of Benevolence that is realized and makes the scene emotional - the sense that despite all the obstacles and conflicts, happiness will be possible and the characters' goals can be achieved. Note that if the kissing rule hadn't been clearly established beforehand, and if the social obstacle didn't seem serious enough to the audience, the scene wouldn't cause any emotion - it's in this sense that Objectivity is indispensable for projecting any kind of value.

Although this particular scene focuses on the value of Benevolence, the other pillars are still present in the background: the fact that Vivian is a beautiful woman and Edward is an extremely successful, charming man reinforces the value of Self-esteem (contrast this with Naturalistic films that show love affairs between ordinary people). The intensity of the passion between them and the fact that the kiss scene is an important moment in the story, built as a small climax - a well-orchestrated sequence, with a beginning, middle and end, with an effective score - also generates an experience of Excitement. At other key moments in the movie, different pillars will be in the foreground, such as the classic "revenge" scene in which Vivian goes shopping on Rodeo Drive full of money, and decides to stop by the store where she had previously been rejected by the clerk for appearing underdressed. The idea of her being extremely elegant on Rodeo Drive, shopping with no spending limit, and getting back at the rude clerk creates a perfect combination of Excitement and Self-Esteem that makes the scene one of the highlights of the film (always with the help of music: if, in the kissing scene, the calm and romantic theme by James Newton Howard stimulated the feeling of Benevolence, in the shopping scene, the song "Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison is used to reinforce Excitement and Self-Esteem).

It is always through concrete elements (specific actions, events, objects, words, sounds, attitudes) that these pillars are realized in a story. "Self-esteem" cannot exist in a vacuum; only through specific things that will convey this idea and generate the corresponding emotion in the viewer. As Ayn Rand says in The Art of Fiction, a writer needs to learn how to "concretize abstractions" so that he can build a plot and express the themes of the story. He has to become fluent in this language: look at a concrete element and know how to identify the abstract values it projects, and at the same time be able to take an abstract concept like "Self-esteem" and know what concrete elements he can use to materialize it in his work.

Recently on my blog, a reader was intrigued by a comment I had made in my review of the film The Intouchables (2011), in which I noted that the film used "flight", "joyful music" and the "power of healing" strategically in the story, and that although The Intouchables doesn't reflect Idealism 100%, these elements were present in many films I like. The Intouchables is not a fantasy, an explicitly escapist movie, but in a way it is very close to movies like Mary Poppins (1964) or E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), stories in which "magical" figures appear to transform the protagonist's life, bringing fun, magic, adventure, and helping him solve his problems. This type of figure always provokes experiences related to Benevolence and Excitement, and it is very common for these three ingredients to be present in the story:

- Joyful music: creates a sense of optimism, happiness, fun (Benevolence + Excitement).

- Flight: projects a sense of freedom, hope and fantasy (Benevolence + Excitement, remembering that fantasy always falls under the umbrella of Excitement).

- Healing power: creates a sense of hope, overcoming problems, as well as fantasy in the case of supernatural powers (Benevolence + Excitement).

In The Intouchables, Omar Sy's character is a nurse who comes to take care of a quadriplegic, so the theme of healing is the most obvious here (he even uses marijuana as a tool for his healing power). Joyful music comes into play in scenes such as Sy dancing to "Boogie Wonderland" to entertain Philippe, and flight is carried out in the paraglider scene. In a movie like E.T., the character literally has magical healing powers, and literally makes the protagonist fly. He doesn't bring music to Elliott, but John Williams' amazing "Flying Theme" is directly associated with E.T.'s powers, so from the audience's point of view, E.T. is indeed a vector for joyful music (deep down, it's the audience, not Elliott, that E.T. has come to "heal"). Mary Poppins brings music to the children - she's singing throughout the entire movie - and appears flying in the very first scene. She doesn't have a magical healing power like E.T., but by giving the children a "spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down", she ends up evoking this theme a bit. These elements don't always appear together, and this is not a rule, just a curious pattern that illustrates how the pillars of Idealism manifest themselves through concrete elements in a story. In Titanic (1997), for example, Jack is the "magical" figure who comes to solve Rose's problems. He begins by saving her from suicide: healing power. Later, he takes her to dance and have fun with the irresistible music of the third class. And when he leads her to the bow of the ship and spreads her arms like wings, Rose exclaims: "Jack, I'm flying!". In The Sound of Music (1965), Maria brings joyful music into a house where music had been explicitly banned. She doesn't heal physical wounds, but she heals the emotional wounds of various characters: Captain Von Trapp's traumas related to the death of his wife, the sorrow of the children who feel rejected and oppressed by their father, Liesl's pain when her heart is broken. Maria doesn't fly, but she is always "climbing mountains", hills, and in the end the family is saved precisely because of Maria's mountains - the movie ends with everyone reaching the summit of a mountain, approaching the sky, and the camera keeps going up and up, taking the viewer towards the clouds.

The Intention of a Movie

(Chapter 5 of the book Idealism: The Forgotten Principles of American Cinema)

I don't know about you, but I can usually predict whether or not I'm going to like a movie from the first few minutes of the screening, or even before, from the synopsis, the movie poster, the trailer, or perhaps because I'm familiar with the director. Of course, the movie can surprise us along the way, and what counts in the end are the qualities that the movie actually presents. Still, there is something we can grasp even before we get into the story, which defines our initial attitude towards the movie: whether we will watch it willingly, with a skeptical attitude, or in a state of resistance.

What we grasp at that first moment is the basic intention of the movie (or, to be more precise, the basic intention of the author). Regardless of the theme and genre of the film, an artist can approach his work from different attitudes. It's not because a story is tragic that the artist's intention is necessarily negative, and it's not because the movie is a comedy that the artist's intention is necessarily positive. It all depends on how the story is presented. In film, it's usually the director who will define this: the same script filmed by two different directors will ultimately carry the intention of each director, and not necessarily that of the script.

The most positive intention an artist can have, in the context of Idealism, is to entertain, give pleasure, promote happiness, inspire, create a positive experience for the viewer (through the projection of positive values), while at the same time conveying his vision and demonstrating his virtues through the work.

This establishes a relationship of harmony and mutual benefit between artist and spectator, as it implies that the artist did not do the work for inauthentic reasons, just to please the audience and make money, but out of the desire to express his vision, exercise his talents, and provide something that he would like to experience as a member of the audience. And the audience, in turn, doesn't have to sacrifice itself for the sake of the author, spending hours of boredom in a chair out of respect for "art". They go to see the movie for their own pleasure, for their genuine interest in the story, and, of course, part of their pleasure also comes from a sense of admiration for the author and his achievement, so that the pleasure on each side reinforces and feeds the pleasure on the other.

Below I'll list some of the most common intentions in films, separating the positive intentions from the negative ones.

The best intention is the one I've already explained above. But another positive intention is that of the Critical Idealists, who show negative situations, corrupt characters, not to celebrate them, but with the intention of criticizing, condemning them, showing the viewer how things should not be, what they should not do in life, but still with the intention of providing a positive experience, showing talent, esthetic beauty etc.

Now I'm going to list the negative intentions I most often see out there (or at least the insufficient, incomplete intentions, if they appear disconnected from the intentions above):

- Merely distract/entertain the audience (usually in pursuit of money and fame), copying formulas and trends of successful films (without this being an authentic expression of the author, nor with the intention of creating a lasting work of art), resorting to superficial techniques and taking advantage of the naivety and low standards of the average viewer.

- Show off the director's talents - skills that do not relate to the viewer's pleasure. It's the kind of movie that requires the viewer to give up their interests, to watch something they don't really like, just out of respect for the artist, for "culture".

- Educate, inform or raise awareness about historical events, some social issue or contemporary problem.

- Prove a political argument, express the author's political views or convert the audience to some ideology.

- Demonize some individual or social group that the author despises; create caricatures or a persuasive narrative to convince viewers how monstrous certain people are, reaffirming a hatred they already feel.

- Alleviate the viewer's pain or low self-esteem by exposing the flaws behind the heroes, turning successful people into villains, showing unhappy, problematic characters as victims.

- Express the fears and negative feelings of the author, who wants to convince the viewer that life is tragic, that the universe is hostile environment, that man is mediocre, corrupt, that virtues are an illusion, etc.

- Annoy, disturb, depress or bore the viewer, to force them to live through unpleasant experiences, face the negative side of existence, proving the author's "courage" and "maturity" for dealing bravely with such themes.

- Deconstruct the concept of art. Show that the author doesn't care about the audience, doesn't follow any rules, that he's not interested in showing objective virtues, and that he doesn't play the same "game" of established artists.

- Attack Idealism and its values.

Some of these attitudes are absolutely bad and never appropriate (like this last one), but some are acceptable, as long as they appear within the context of the positive intentions I listed at the beginning. It's okay, for example, for a movie to educate/inform the viewer on some subject, or even to express pessimistic opinions, as long as it does so by demonstrating talent, rationality, inspiring and providing esthetic pleasure to the audience, not as an end in itself.

INSPIRATION VS. COMFORT

Just like the two types of viewers I discussed in the chapter "What Is Idealism?", there are two corresponding types of films: films that seek to inspire the viewer vs. films that seek to comfort them. While the first type is motivated by the desire to make life richer, more interesting and enjoyable, the second is made to make it less painful. Whereas one type presupposes that the viewer is in a positive state of consciousness, wanting to enjoy life, the other presupposes that the viewer is in a state of fragility, inadequacy, denial, sadness, seeking some kind of solace, escape or rationalization. While one is like a feast offered to the healthy, the other is like a medicine or painkiller offered to the sickly.

There's nothing wrong with trying to alleviate a negative emotional state when the overall intention is to inspire virtue, happiness and create something positive. But if the main intention of the movie is just to alleviate a negative feeling, it will be incomplete - if not harmful. Incomplete, because if happiness is life's goal, merely alleviating suffering is not enough. And for the viewer who doesn't suffer from that particular frustration, the movie will have no emotional impact whatsoever (a medication has no benefit for those who aren't sick). Furthermore, the film can be harmful when what it seeks to alleviate is not just a common and acceptable human frailty, but frustrations resulting from self-destructive behavior - pain that the viewer should continue to feel if they truly want to get out of the situation.

Of course, it's not enough for a movie to have a positive intention for it to be good. The artist may be well-intentioned, but simply not skilled enough, or make mistakes along the way. But the best films will always be the result of a well-executed positive intention. On the other extreme, a movie with a totally negative attitude, even if it's very well made, cannot provide a good experience. On the contrary: the more well-made a movie with a negative intention is (the more impactful, persuasive, effective, ambitious), the worse the experience will be for the viewer (at least for the Idealist viewer) and the more damage it will do, because all that skill is being used against them. That's why, below a certain point, you can't give credit to a malicious movie even if it has certain esthetic qualities. To say that a movie has absolutely evil intent, but give it a few points for being well photographed, competently directed, would be as absurd as giving the Nazis a few points for the beautiful design of their uniforms and the effectiveness of the gas chambers.