Dr. Strange
Nov. 7th, 2016 08:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rynlingThe Sherlock vs. Hannibal movie has been getting decent reviews, so yesterday evening I crammed a bunch of people in my car and drove to Bethesda to see it. It is in fact a good movie, especially if you're into stories about shitty wizards, Matrix-style wuxia special effects, and fabulous eye makeup.
I've been a lowkey fan of Benedict Wong since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and he is so, so good in this movie. I love his acting, I love his face, and I love his comedic timing. Basically Benedict Wong is perfect.
Tilda Swinton is also perfect. I adore her no matter what she does, but she is the actual star of this movie. She gets a ton of screentime, and she owns it. Don't get me wrong; Sherlock vs. Hannibal is pure silliness, but Tilda Swinton is grace and dignity personified.
I know there are some people who are going to call cultural appropriation on this movie. My suggestion to these people would be to run a Google search on where the film's production money came from, where it premiered, and where the majority of its box office profits are being made. There may in fact be cultural appropriation involved – I am not in a place to make that judgment – but the fact still stands that the power in the underlying dynamics of the global cinema industry is no longer located where many Americans seem to think it is.
Despite its ridiculousness, what I found especially interesting about Sherlock vs. Hannibal is the complexity of its handling of both Buddhist and Judeo-Christian bioethics. This topic deserves its own post, which I am never going to make because I'm busy writing pornography about gay dads, but let it suffice to say that the movie gave me a lot to think about concerning the implied perception of the worldview that is generally positioned as "Western" by a more global audience.
ETA: Ah, here we go, The Mary Sue just posted a short video critique (link) pointing out that the movie has whitewashed Tilda Swinton's character. This is a valid concern, because of course it is, but I still think the understanding of race expressed here is US-centric; the interests and concerns of people who live in Asia don't necessarily align with those of Asian-Americans, nor should they. That being said, as much as I love Tilda Swinton, it would have been really cool to see an Asian actress in her role, and I 100% agree with the commenter that an opportunity was missed in the casting.
ETA: I should probably be more transparent by what I mean when I say that the interests of Asians and Asian-Americans don't necessarily align. In this specific context, in which a significant portion of the production money and target audience is located in the PRC, where censorship and "guidance" are huge components of film development, portraying the Major Badass in Charge as a Tibetan man is not going to fly for obvious reasons. I'm not saying this isn't messed up (BECAUSE IT MOST DEFINITELY IS), but a simple "Hollywood is racist" blanket statement doesn't even begin to cover the tip of the iceberg of what's going on here.
I've been a lowkey fan of Benedict Wong since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and he is so, so good in this movie. I love his acting, I love his face, and I love his comedic timing. Basically Benedict Wong is perfect.
Tilda Swinton is also perfect. I adore her no matter what she does, but she is the actual star of this movie. She gets a ton of screentime, and she owns it. Don't get me wrong; Sherlock vs. Hannibal is pure silliness, but Tilda Swinton is grace and dignity personified.
I know there are some people who are going to call cultural appropriation on this movie. My suggestion to these people would be to run a Google search on where the film's production money came from, where it premiered, and where the majority of its box office profits are being made. There may in fact be cultural appropriation involved – I am not in a place to make that judgment – but the fact still stands that the power in the underlying dynamics of the global cinema industry is no longer located where many Americans seem to think it is.
Despite its ridiculousness, what I found especially interesting about Sherlock vs. Hannibal is the complexity of its handling of both Buddhist and Judeo-Christian bioethics. This topic deserves its own post, which I am never going to make because I'm busy writing pornography about gay dads, but let it suffice to say that the movie gave me a lot to think about concerning the implied perception of the worldview that is generally positioned as "Western" by a more global audience.
ETA: Ah, here we go, The Mary Sue just posted a short video critique (link) pointing out that the movie has whitewashed Tilda Swinton's character. This is a valid concern, because of course it is, but I still think the understanding of race expressed here is US-centric; the interests and concerns of people who live in Asia don't necessarily align with those of Asian-Americans, nor should they. That being said, as much as I love Tilda Swinton, it would have been really cool to see an Asian actress in her role, and I 100% agree with the commenter that an opportunity was missed in the casting.
ETA: I should probably be more transparent by what I mean when I say that the interests of Asians and Asian-Americans don't necessarily align. In this specific context, in which a significant portion of the production money and target audience is located in the PRC, where censorship and "guidance" are huge components of film development, portraying the Major Badass in Charge as a Tibetan man is not going to fly for obvious reasons. I'm not saying this isn't messed up (BECAUSE IT MOST DEFINITELY IS), but a simple "Hollywood is racist" blanket statement doesn't even begin to cover the tip of the iceberg of what's going on here.
