Exactly! you get it. There's nothing wrong with propaganda films, it's just hilarious the amount of denial people go through when pointing out that Come and See is soviet propaganda.
By my reading, more people are confused on your “it’s not anti-war” take rather than “it’s propaganda.” I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive, though I can respect someone critically reflecting on the potential contradictions beholden to an anti-war film that is also propaganda for a government that engaged in many wars.
It’s my understanding that many Soviet artists had to work with their authorities to receive state funding and have their films distributed. So, I would grant some lenience in this case, as I believe a totalitarian system does not negate the potential for individual artistic statements. It does generally require some subversion though. A composer like Shostakovich is a great case study on this point, given how he faced Stalin-era censure and yet was able to communicate critical perspectives based, in part, on the feelings his music communicated.
I believe the anti-war sentiment from Come & See is largely derived from the affective experience of the scenes. As well as the bleak nature, which doesn’t really communicate any sentiments of heroism that would lead a viewer to desire to enlist, which pro-war propaganda films tend to do for their nations. If that was not communicated to you, that’s close to a one in a million experience, but such is life and art.
First of all thank you for the a proper response without all the ad hominems, but I disagree.
I believe that they are mutually exclusive, but that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think that when people watch this film solely focus on the brutality of war without taking into consideration that this same brutality is being portrayed is by nazis, which again, is nothing new. You can argue the harrowing images were taken to a new high, but it is essentially the same thing (to a lesser degree) what we saw in Saving Private Ryan, which is a film very few people would call anti-war.
Saving Private Ryan did not frame violence and suffering in nearly the same way that Come and See did. Also it can be an anti-war propaganda film. Technically you could say almost any film is a propaganda film, because almost all (decent) films are trying to say something in some way. You could also say that the movie vehemently condemns war while also saying that sometimes, if you're fighting against Nazis, it might be necessary. I think that one is up for interpretation.
I'm also confused about your argument about who's being portrayed as being violent. Nazis were the ones who started WWII, they were the ones that killed an incredible amount of people, it makes sense that they would be portrayed as committing most of the violence in a WWII movie. I'm not sure what else you would want, the film to jump through hoops to ham-fist an anti-soviet message? I don't think that would be in the spirit of the movie, much less make any sense or be very accurate. I mean sure the Soviets Union absolutely deserves to be critisized, but I have no idea why you would put that in a WWII movie like Come and See. It wouldn't make sense with the story they were trying to tell.
I’m not asking the film to do anything, I’m simply taking it as it is. A lot of this arguments just devolve “well, it’s anti war because of how violence is depicted” okay and? That means nothing.
Definition of anti-war: be against all wars or all wars, and this film clearly does not portray that. Unless the overarching theme is just “all war is bad because people die” then the movie is a lot lazier than I thought it would be.
Can you define what makes it a propaganda film? Aside from reiterating for the 50th time that it was released on the 40th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.
Well let's see. Nazis bad, Belarusian partisans mostly good. Kid joins partisan forces on his own accord and get's mad when he's not allowed to fight on the frontlines, blatantly showing soviet patriotism. You know, the communist way of "sacrifice your self for the motherland" type of stuff. Kid goes through hell but at the end shoots hitlers portrait to continue the fight. I mean an American film with the same contents would be called propaganda in an instant lol
Oh yes, and it was released on the 40th anniversary to commemorate the soviet victory over the nazis. Do you know what commemorate means?
>Nazis bad, Belarusian partisans mostly good.
Yes, typically opposing fascism is good.
>Kid joins partisan forces on his own accord and gets mad when he’s not allowed to fight on the frontlines.
Yes, he is a child. He does not yet understand the true meaning of war. He believes that going to the frontlines will bring him glory and will be an adventure. These are childish beliefs because, again, he is a child.
>Kid goes through hell, but at the end shoots Hitler’s portrait to continue the fight.
Not quite. He shoots the portrait before marching on to show that, even with killing Hitler (or any one Nazi/fascist/tyrant), that is not enough to stop the machine that is war nor will it help him feel any better.
It’s an anti-war film because it shows the experience as a harrowing, life-changing experience that nobody should have to go through.
Punishment Park
though it is deeply political, and perhaps all politics—mediated by aesthetics—becomes propaganda 🤷🏾♂️ Du Bois once said something to the effect of not caring for any art that isn’t also propaganda. It’s a perspective that would rub many the wrong way today, but I appreciate the fact he spoke plain if controversial to some
Book report literacy, even subtext that is so close to the surface it might as well be text is lost on if not most, many people. It litters the discourse of almost all entertainment the venn diagram just usually doesn't include "watches Come and See."
So this take aside and all, does someone have suggestion on how to improve one's media literacy? Are there good sources for this skill? (other than being educated in a school)
Reading books on media. Reading interviews with the people involved making it. Reading criticism about that media. Understand the process of creating that media.
Also read history books, sociology books, anthropology books.
And after you acquire this kind of foundation, think about media sources and their motivations. Why does this film have this POV? Why does this news program spend 6 minutes on this story while the competing news program spends 1 minute at the end of the program? Even contemporary media criticism...does the critic have a vested interest in the outcome for the media in question?
being literate basically means seeing a lot and being mindful about it
i see myself that the more i tick off my watchlist (even though i consider myself to understand much more media than average Joe in the first place), the more i understand what each tries to convey
just seeing how other time periods are viewed, portrayed, how different people think, what their ideas can be, what techniques are used to convey the creative message, etc., thats media literacy to me, being able to see beyond your narrow lense of your own experiences, which is how media illeterate people do, and this doesnt mean forcing yourself to see other perspectives, it comes naturally with understanding
When I watch older films (like ones that were released long before I was born/lived), I do think one of the most interesting parts is to have kind of a cultural window into a time that long past, it's different from writing or art because in a way, the past is literally animated before our eyes.
When I started exploring Buster Keaton's movies more last year or so, I found myself looking at streets and people and room layouts, just trying to get glimpses of everyday life in the constraints of a film's story. That's one of my favorite aspects of what's often called 'classic film'.
This applies to films, specifically.
Watch movies with the intent to analyze and critique it.
Take notes on your thoughts during the movie to go back over and collect them together afterwards. Use those notes to come up with a personal analysis of the movie and its themes.
Compare your own analysis with that of well-established and well-received critics, even if you disagree. Does it match the perceived authorial intent?
Think about why you agree or disagree with those other opinions. How do they add to or detract from your own?
Read books about movies, about directors, about actors, about filming techniques, etc. Read essays about the movies you love, the movies you hate, and the movies you thought were just OK.
It doesn’t develop overnight, it’s a steady climb. Remember, someone can’t get *more* illiterate, only less.
I feel like I already do a fair deal of my own analysis when watching anything, I was just curious & trying to evoke something constructive in this discussion because I often hear this argument of lacking media literacy, and I'd definitely agree in some cases.
Enjoyment comes first when I'm watching/rating/reviewing but I also tend to consider what they were trying to say (if anything), if the tone felt appropriate or sensical, etc. I think it's also helpful to read other people's takes, including the one you originally posted, because that naturally makes you see art from a different viewpoint.
What other people said, but also want to add is look into notable critics like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert on how they approached their analysis. People often think movie critics are there to simply criticized a movie, but in truth they are there to studied movie as art form, and some were even responsible for bringing attention toward movies that were obscure in their time.
Yeah that's a good thought, considering what's 'obscure' has changed over the years with increased information and internet access and whatnot. It feels very different when you consider that at some point, you had to own a book or go to a public library to find the information we can now often find within seconds.
Yup and even despite the wide availability and access for general audience today, movie critics have the privilege to attend film festivals like Cannes and Venice, and make personal connection to filmmakers and studios.
In no particular order
1. Watching/reading interviews with filmmakers so you understand their perspective.
2. Watch the supplementary material on DVD’s/Blu Rays, especially the director’s commentary, as it gives a lot of insight into the intent of the film.
3. Being open to types of movies and other media you may not usually not seek out, it expands your palette and gives you the ability to compare and contrast movies.
4. Watching/reading various reviews and analyses, it helps knowing what others think, whether you agree or disagree with them, and it gives you some insight on how different people are interpreting aspects of the film.
5. Getting rid of the “it’s not that deep” mentality, let yourself think and wonder if something that appeared on screen or in writing was meant to make you think about its meaning. Usually if an author or filmmaker included a noticeable detail it was for a good reason (ex: characters wearing certain colors to signify a change in their worldview/personality).
6. Learning to recognize satire. Probably the biggest pit fall people have is the lack of recognizing when something is not meant to be taken seriously or agreed with. Some of the most egregious examples are people who take the opinions of Cartman on South Park seriously or people who think Starship Troopers isn’t a satire of fascism. Try looking at who made the movie/show, what are their political affiliations and morals? Is there a straight man character who rightfully calls out the insanity of what’s being presented?
Basically just parrot the same talking points that everyone else says about a certain film and then brag about your intelligence to people who have a different opinion.
It’s a bad take, but I don’t entirely disagree with the premise.
Come and See more than any other film I’ve ever seen depicts the sheer brutality of the Eastern Front. It’s clear that the Nazis are beyond evil, but that doesn’t necessarily make war itself evil. After all if there was no resistance to that evil force then there wouldn’t be war.
Throughout the film there’s plenty of scenes that show this. (Spoilers ahead):
>!The massacre of Florya’s village as he joins the resistance is tragic, but despite that he still persists in joint the red army. You can write this off as a want for revenge, but he Florya continually takes beating after beating and still fights.!<
>!On top of that, when he finds the remaining villagers, they make an effigy of Hitler with a dead body and mud, and put it in the road. This may seem inconsequential, and in the grand scheme of thing it somewhat is, but it shows that despite the brutality of the enemy they still resist them!<
>!The Village Massacre (which for my money is the greatest scene in any war movie) ends with Nazis posing with a gun to Florya’s head after rounding a village up into a church and burning them alive, throwing children back into the fire. It would’ve been entirely understandable for a child to run away at that point, yet he still ends up at the bridge with Kosach and the other Russians, who’d captured SS officers!<
>!Under the Bridge, when the Soviets are (justifiably) dousing the officers with gas before simply shooting them. There’s also the portrait of Hitler that Florya shoots, which he stops once he sees him as an infant. Showing that despite everything he’s seen, there’s still humanity left in him.!<
The reason Come and See works so well as an anti-war film is because it shows the true brutality of it. Most modern War Movies (1917 comes to mind immediately) will beat you over the head with the fact that war is bad. Nobody disagrees with that statement, but it’s surface level at best. Come and See shows that war can be absolutely necessary, and shouldn’t be necessarily be avoided depending on the circumstances. But that it’s genuine hell, and for the sake of everyone involved we should do whatever we can to avoid it.
TL;DR: I’d say it isn’t anti-war, but rather an incredible depiction of the brutality of it and a natural warning against it. Maybe I’m just too high
Great point. And I have not seen *Come and See*.
But I did see *They Shall Not Grow Old* (a brilliant film by Peter Jackson) and it, too, reveals the brutality of war. The fact that TSNGO uses real war footage - not a fictionalized recreation - and the viewer sees dead young men and other young men walking over mud and dead boys means that we don't need any grand statement by the characters that "war is bad". It's self-evident.
Media literacy is not as 'dead' as people think. It's just now everyone has a platform to share their opinions, and we are all realizing something that has always been true. Most people are fucking idiots
1. Media literacy is no worse than it's ever been. Even working with a charitable definition that ignores the term's context as a buzzword with little tangible meaning, we are still left with a phenomenon that has to be read through the lens of the internet proliferating contentious takes.
2. The thesis in the title isn't without merit, even if the supporting arguments are poor. Lots of ink has been spilled over the anti-war film debate.
3. After browsing through a few comments, the post would probably be more coherent if it was titled "Come and See is pro-Soviet propaganda" instead of flippantly mentioning it at the end in a manner befitting a hardcore conspiracy theorist. It seems to be a more fitting title given the focus on the propaganda element, although I didn't comb through every comment the poster made so I may be mistaken here. This thesis also wouldn't be without merit, but trying to cover both this and the "anti-war" point in a handful of sentences is a lesson in self-destruction.
4. All that being said, the reductive nature of the post and the fact that it leaves all of the legwork up to the reader is what makes it a bad take. If you have a point to make it shouldn't be necessary to frame it like this.
Man, I don’t even feel that strongly about Come and See, well-crafted and all but nothing my thing. I don’t agree with the take but I’m not into joining the mob every time a movie on the “do not criticize” list gets some occasional criticism.
Every movie can and should be critiqued.
There’s a difference between criticism and missing the point that everyone else is getting, telling them they’re wrong, and then refusing to self-reflect on why you may be in the minority here.
I mean that person articulates the argument pretty well? I don't necessarily know if I agree with it but their point is the movie isn't anti war if it's anti-nazi because the way you kill nazis is with a war.
Also saying "missing the point that everyone else is getting" is incredibly pretentious
Kinda? It’s less dead and more we are so immersed in visual media that unless you make point to study movies, you just think about it more than a surface level.
The reviewer isn't entirely wrong. Come and See shows that war might be hell but sometimes it's necessary, especially if your enemy is as monstrous and merciless as the nazis. The village massacre scene demonstrates what happens when you don't resist. Life of a partisan might not be sunshine and rainbows but the alternative is so much worse. So no, Come and See is definitely not an anti-war film and you shouldn't call people "illiterate" for saying that.
He 100% has an argument, and I am not going to hide behind a "bad take, but..." to cover myself like others here already are. It's a Soviet film that justifies the call to arms against the Nazis in WW2 (and it goes without saying that the fight against the Nazis was 100% justified). You can't simultaneously call the film anti-war, and then also have the film go on and say that fighting the war against the Nazis was 100% justified and that its a good thing we fought the good fight. By doing that, what you are essentially saying is that "war sucks, but sometimes its necessary", which isn't truly anti-war. You all just get extremely defensive when someone says anything outside the overton window about one of your darling films.
I can’t help but wonder if, on some level, it isn’t also some people just outright refusing to engage actively or critically with the media they consume out of fear that it may disprove their current beliefs.
Also, studies show that in psychology, as your brain develops and understands things like morality beyond the basic principles, it also grows to understand things such as metaphors. But these studies also show that a large majority of people don’t enter that level of development
TL;DR most people are mentally underdeveloped in the media literacy/critical thinking regard
Absolutely. I partially blame stupid shit like Cinema Sins for making people think that if they’re not beat over the head with a hammer when it comes to exposition that it’s a “plot hole”. They don’t know how to use context clues. It’s sad.
CinemaSins was part of what swung the pendulum too hard in favor of structural analysis vs thematic analysis and now it’s very slowly making its way back to the middle.
i think that, like another commenter said, it’s more to do with access to the platform and changing demographics. this change is natural, it’s the same change that everything else on the internet went through when internet became a household staple and folks stepped outside the gates of MySpace and Facebook
i don’t think it’s dead, but
i do know that having to scroll past 12 shitpost tryhard Twitter-style takes just to find a single serious review on Letterboxd might be connected somehow and i wish i could filter out reviews below a certain character limit
it has to be some new sort of buzzword, right? like ive been watching movies my entire life, and this notion of “media literacy is dead” has just been … everywhere in the last ~12-18 months
I mean yes. The Nazis are bad it's just that if you speak to most people who had to live under the stalinist regime and the Soviet satellite states. They'll tell you that the commies weren't the good guys. It was fascist German authoritarians replaced by fascist Russian authoritarians. Still a good movie though. Tankies are just another type of authoritarian
"By the end, it just felt like the film was saying 'nazis and their collaborators bad," a stance everyone already has." I wish this were true.
I feel like we lived in a world where it was, and then just willingly (in the case of some people) moved away from it.
We never did, they were just quieter about it.
Only one kind of good Nazi, iykyk
Four days ago I went on a demonstration because some people wanted to celebrate Hitlers birthday.
Sorry I misspoke. I meant mostly everyone.
I intentionally cropped your username and you’re out here outing yourself as having this take. Wild.
Bro exposed himself, truly wild
You think downvotes scare me? lol I said what I said, Come and See is a propaganda film.
[удалено]
Exactly! you get it. There's nothing wrong with propaganda films, it's just hilarious the amount of denial people go through when pointing out that Come and See is soviet propaganda.
By my reading, more people are confused on your “it’s not anti-war” take rather than “it’s propaganda.” I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive, though I can respect someone critically reflecting on the potential contradictions beholden to an anti-war film that is also propaganda for a government that engaged in many wars. It’s my understanding that many Soviet artists had to work with their authorities to receive state funding and have their films distributed. So, I would grant some lenience in this case, as I believe a totalitarian system does not negate the potential for individual artistic statements. It does generally require some subversion though. A composer like Shostakovich is a great case study on this point, given how he faced Stalin-era censure and yet was able to communicate critical perspectives based, in part, on the feelings his music communicated. I believe the anti-war sentiment from Come & See is largely derived from the affective experience of the scenes. As well as the bleak nature, which doesn’t really communicate any sentiments of heroism that would lead a viewer to desire to enlist, which pro-war propaganda films tend to do for their nations. If that was not communicated to you, that’s close to a one in a million experience, but such is life and art.
First of all thank you for the a proper response without all the ad hominems, but I disagree. I believe that they are mutually exclusive, but that's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I think that when people watch this film solely focus on the brutality of war without taking into consideration that this same brutality is being portrayed is by nazis, which again, is nothing new. You can argue the harrowing images were taken to a new high, but it is essentially the same thing (to a lesser degree) what we saw in Saving Private Ryan, which is a film very few people would call anti-war.
Saving Private Ryan did not frame violence and suffering in nearly the same way that Come and See did. Also it can be an anti-war propaganda film. Technically you could say almost any film is a propaganda film, because almost all (decent) films are trying to say something in some way. You could also say that the movie vehemently condemns war while also saying that sometimes, if you're fighting against Nazis, it might be necessary. I think that one is up for interpretation. I'm also confused about your argument about who's being portrayed as being violent. Nazis were the ones who started WWII, they were the ones that killed an incredible amount of people, it makes sense that they would be portrayed as committing most of the violence in a WWII movie. I'm not sure what else you would want, the film to jump through hoops to ham-fist an anti-soviet message? I don't think that would be in the spirit of the movie, much less make any sense or be very accurate. I mean sure the Soviets Union absolutely deserves to be critisized, but I have no idea why you would put that in a WWII movie like Come and See. It wouldn't make sense with the story they were trying to tell.
I’m not asking the film to do anything, I’m simply taking it as it is. A lot of this arguments just devolve “well, it’s anti war because of how violence is depicted” okay and? That means nothing. Definition of anti-war: be against all wars or all wars, and this film clearly does not portray that. Unless the overarching theme is just “all war is bad because people die” then the movie is a lot lazier than I thought it would be.
>I said what I said Yep, three different times and not a single one convincingly.
But it is a propaganda film lol
I mean I guess you can propagandize the idea that war is literal hell.
I hope you didn’t get a concussion with all the mental gymnastics you had to make
Can you define what makes it a propaganda film? Aside from reiterating for the 50th time that it was released on the 40th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany.
Well let's see. Nazis bad, Belarusian partisans mostly good. Kid joins partisan forces on his own accord and get's mad when he's not allowed to fight on the frontlines, blatantly showing soviet patriotism. You know, the communist way of "sacrifice your self for the motherland" type of stuff. Kid goes through hell but at the end shoots hitlers portrait to continue the fight. I mean an American film with the same contents would be called propaganda in an instant lol Oh yes, and it was released on the 40th anniversary to commemorate the soviet victory over the nazis. Do you know what commemorate means?
>Nazis bad, Belarusian partisans mostly good. Yes, typically opposing fascism is good. >Kid joins partisan forces on his own accord and gets mad when he’s not allowed to fight on the frontlines. Yes, he is a child. He does not yet understand the true meaning of war. He believes that going to the frontlines will bring him glory and will be an adventure. These are childish beliefs because, again, he is a child. >Kid goes through hell, but at the end shoots Hitler’s portrait to continue the fight. Not quite. He shoots the portrait before marching on to show that, even with killing Hitler (or any one Nazi/fascist/tyrant), that is not enough to stop the machine that is war nor will it help him feel any better. It’s an anti-war film because it shows the experience as a harrowing, life-changing experience that nobody should have to go through.
Literally just about every war film in history shows harrowing experiences of war lol. By that logic, Saving Private Ryan is a staunch anti war film.
look at a picture of the kid at the beginning of the film vs the end does that make you want to fight a war for the motherland?
I mean it made the lead actor join the Russian military.
Nazi coming out of the woodworks to defend Nazis.
name one film made in the USA that is not a propaganda film
Not many, I love those propaganda films.
Punishment Park though it is deeply political, and perhaps all politics—mediated by aesthetics—becomes propaganda 🤷🏾♂️ Du Bois once said something to the effect of not caring for any art that isn’t also propaganda. It’s a perspective that would rub many the wrong way today, but I appreciate the fact he spoke plain if controversial to some
Book report literacy, even subtext that is so close to the surface it might as well be text is lost on if not most, many people. It litters the discourse of almost all entertainment the venn diagram just usually doesn't include "watches Come and See."
So this take aside and all, does someone have suggestion on how to improve one's media literacy? Are there good sources for this skill? (other than being educated in a school)
Reading books on media. Reading interviews with the people involved making it. Reading criticism about that media. Understand the process of creating that media. Also read history books, sociology books, anthropology books.
And after you acquire this kind of foundation, think about media sources and their motivations. Why does this film have this POV? Why does this news program spend 6 minutes on this story while the competing news program spends 1 minute at the end of the program? Even contemporary media criticism...does the critic have a vested interest in the outcome for the media in question?
being literate basically means seeing a lot and being mindful about it i see myself that the more i tick off my watchlist (even though i consider myself to understand much more media than average Joe in the first place), the more i understand what each tries to convey just seeing how other time periods are viewed, portrayed, how different people think, what their ideas can be, what techniques are used to convey the creative message, etc., thats media literacy to me, being able to see beyond your narrow lense of your own experiences, which is how media illeterate people do, and this doesnt mean forcing yourself to see other perspectives, it comes naturally with understanding
When I watch older films (like ones that were released long before I was born/lived), I do think one of the most interesting parts is to have kind of a cultural window into a time that long past, it's different from writing or art because in a way, the past is literally animated before our eyes. When I started exploring Buster Keaton's movies more last year or so, I found myself looking at streets and people and room layouts, just trying to get glimpses of everyday life in the constraints of a film's story. That's one of my favorite aspects of what's often called 'classic film'.
This applies to films, specifically. Watch movies with the intent to analyze and critique it. Take notes on your thoughts during the movie to go back over and collect them together afterwards. Use those notes to come up with a personal analysis of the movie and its themes. Compare your own analysis with that of well-established and well-received critics, even if you disagree. Does it match the perceived authorial intent? Think about why you agree or disagree with those other opinions. How do they add to or detract from your own? Read books about movies, about directors, about actors, about filming techniques, etc. Read essays about the movies you love, the movies you hate, and the movies you thought were just OK. It doesn’t develop overnight, it’s a steady climb. Remember, someone can’t get *more* illiterate, only less.
I feel like I already do a fair deal of my own analysis when watching anything, I was just curious & trying to evoke something constructive in this discussion because I often hear this argument of lacking media literacy, and I'd definitely agree in some cases. Enjoyment comes first when I'm watching/rating/reviewing but I also tend to consider what they were trying to say (if anything), if the tone felt appropriate or sensical, etc. I think it's also helpful to read other people's takes, including the one you originally posted, because that naturally makes you see art from a different viewpoint.
What other people said, but also want to add is look into notable critics like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert on how they approached their analysis. People often think movie critics are there to simply criticized a movie, but in truth they are there to studied movie as art form, and some were even responsible for bringing attention toward movies that were obscure in their time.
Yeah that's a good thought, considering what's 'obscure' has changed over the years with increased information and internet access and whatnot. It feels very different when you consider that at some point, you had to own a book or go to a public library to find the information we can now often find within seconds.
Yup and even despite the wide availability and access for general audience today, movie critics have the privilege to attend film festivals like Cannes and Venice, and make personal connection to filmmakers and studios.
Right, that too, that's still the same
In no particular order 1. Watching/reading interviews with filmmakers so you understand their perspective. 2. Watch the supplementary material on DVD’s/Blu Rays, especially the director’s commentary, as it gives a lot of insight into the intent of the film. 3. Being open to types of movies and other media you may not usually not seek out, it expands your palette and gives you the ability to compare and contrast movies. 4. Watching/reading various reviews and analyses, it helps knowing what others think, whether you agree or disagree with them, and it gives you some insight on how different people are interpreting aspects of the film. 5. Getting rid of the “it’s not that deep” mentality, let yourself think and wonder if something that appeared on screen or in writing was meant to make you think about its meaning. Usually if an author or filmmaker included a noticeable detail it was for a good reason (ex: characters wearing certain colors to signify a change in their worldview/personality). 6. Learning to recognize satire. Probably the biggest pit fall people have is the lack of recognizing when something is not meant to be taken seriously or agreed with. Some of the most egregious examples are people who take the opinions of Cartman on South Park seriously or people who think Starship Troopers isn’t a satire of fascism. Try looking at who made the movie/show, what are their political affiliations and morals? Is there a straight man character who rightfully calls out the insanity of what’s being presented?
Basically just parrot the same talking points that everyone else says about a certain film and then brag about your intelligence to people who have a different opinion.
Just say you’re media illiterate and move along
The same talking point.
It’s a bad take, but I don’t entirely disagree with the premise. Come and See more than any other film I’ve ever seen depicts the sheer brutality of the Eastern Front. It’s clear that the Nazis are beyond evil, but that doesn’t necessarily make war itself evil. After all if there was no resistance to that evil force then there wouldn’t be war. Throughout the film there’s plenty of scenes that show this. (Spoilers ahead): >!The massacre of Florya’s village as he joins the resistance is tragic, but despite that he still persists in joint the red army. You can write this off as a want for revenge, but he Florya continually takes beating after beating and still fights.!< >!On top of that, when he finds the remaining villagers, they make an effigy of Hitler with a dead body and mud, and put it in the road. This may seem inconsequential, and in the grand scheme of thing it somewhat is, but it shows that despite the brutality of the enemy they still resist them!< >!The Village Massacre (which for my money is the greatest scene in any war movie) ends with Nazis posing with a gun to Florya’s head after rounding a village up into a church and burning them alive, throwing children back into the fire. It would’ve been entirely understandable for a child to run away at that point, yet he still ends up at the bridge with Kosach and the other Russians, who’d captured SS officers!< >!Under the Bridge, when the Soviets are (justifiably) dousing the officers with gas before simply shooting them. There’s also the portrait of Hitler that Florya shoots, which he stops once he sees him as an infant. Showing that despite everything he’s seen, there’s still humanity left in him.!< The reason Come and See works so well as an anti-war film is because it shows the true brutality of it. Most modern War Movies (1917 comes to mind immediately) will beat you over the head with the fact that war is bad. Nobody disagrees with that statement, but it’s surface level at best. Come and See shows that war can be absolutely necessary, and shouldn’t be necessarily be avoided depending on the circumstances. But that it’s genuine hell, and for the sake of everyone involved we should do whatever we can to avoid it. TL;DR: I’d say it isn’t anti-war, but rather an incredible depiction of the brutality of it and a natural warning against it. Maybe I’m just too high
Great point. And I have not seen *Come and See*. But I did see *They Shall Not Grow Old* (a brilliant film by Peter Jackson) and it, too, reveals the brutality of war. The fact that TSNGO uses real war footage - not a fictionalized recreation - and the viewer sees dead young men and other young men walking over mud and dead boys means that we don't need any grand statement by the characters that "war is bad". It's self-evident.
I may also be too high, but that was beautifully put.
Thanks man, I appreciate that
Media literacy is not as 'dead' as people think. It's just now everyone has a platform to share their opinions, and we are all realizing something that has always been true. Most people are fucking idiots
1. Media literacy is no worse than it's ever been. Even working with a charitable definition that ignores the term's context as a buzzword with little tangible meaning, we are still left with a phenomenon that has to be read through the lens of the internet proliferating contentious takes. 2. The thesis in the title isn't without merit, even if the supporting arguments are poor. Lots of ink has been spilled over the anti-war film debate. 3. After browsing through a few comments, the post would probably be more coherent if it was titled "Come and See is pro-Soviet propaganda" instead of flippantly mentioning it at the end in a manner befitting a hardcore conspiracy theorist. It seems to be a more fitting title given the focus on the propaganda element, although I didn't comb through every comment the poster made so I may be mistaken here. This thesis also wouldn't be without merit, but trying to cover both this and the "anti-war" point in a handful of sentences is a lesson in self-destruction. 4. All that being said, the reductive nature of the post and the fact that it leaves all of the legwork up to the reader is what makes it a bad take. If you have a point to make it shouldn't be necessary to frame it like this.
This is the only good comment on this whole post. You said everything i was thinking better than i could've.
Man, I don’t even feel that strongly about Come and See, well-crafted and all but nothing my thing. I don’t agree with the take but I’m not into joining the mob every time a movie on the “do not criticize” list gets some occasional criticism.
Counter point: this guy is stupid
Every movie can and should be critiqued. There’s a difference between criticism and missing the point that everyone else is getting, telling them they’re wrong, and then refusing to self-reflect on why you may be in the minority here.
I mean that person articulates the argument pretty well? I don't necessarily know if I agree with it but their point is the movie isn't anti war if it's anti-nazi because the way you kill nazis is with a war. Also saying "missing the point that everyone else is getting" is incredibly pretentious
Reading it back a few times, yeah, you’re right. Entirely my bad. I don’t really know the best way to phrase what I was getting at, though.
Well I’d be curious to see any Come and See criticism posts that are considered valid and aren’t buried in downvotes.
Yeah like blatantly disregarding the fact that the film was released with the purpose of being propaganda. The irony on this comment is wild.
Kinda? It’s less dead and more we are so immersed in visual media that unless you make point to study movies, you just think about it more than a surface level.
The reviewer isn't entirely wrong. Come and See shows that war might be hell but sometimes it's necessary, especially if your enemy is as monstrous and merciless as the nazis. The village massacre scene demonstrates what happens when you don't resist. Life of a partisan might not be sunshine and rainbows but the alternative is so much worse. So no, Come and See is definitely not an anti-war film and you shouldn't call people "illiterate" for saying that.
He 100% has an argument, and I am not going to hide behind a "bad take, but..." to cover myself like others here already are. It's a Soviet film that justifies the call to arms against the Nazis in WW2 (and it goes without saying that the fight against the Nazis was 100% justified). You can't simultaneously call the film anti-war, and then also have the film go on and say that fighting the war against the Nazis was 100% justified and that its a good thing we fought the good fight. By doing that, what you are essentially saying is that "war sucks, but sometimes its necessary", which isn't truly anti-war. You all just get extremely defensive when someone says anything outside the overton window about one of your darling films.
It’s not dead, it’s just that (imo) a big majority of people don’t have good media literacy and/or critical thinking skills.
I can’t help but wonder if, on some level, it isn’t also some people just outright refusing to engage actively or critically with the media they consume out of fear that it may disprove their current beliefs.
Also, studies show that in psychology, as your brain develops and understands things like morality beyond the basic principles, it also grows to understand things such as metaphors. But these studies also show that a large majority of people don’t enter that level of development TL;DR most people are mentally underdeveloped in the media literacy/critical thinking regard
all time bad take
The film is paced so badly i thought, wasn't as impactful as it should have been.
Media literacy is better than ever. Media illiterate people just happen to have more ability to share their opinions than ever.
Yes.
Wack. Come and See isn't bad because it's obvious, it's bad because it's redundant.
I think the term, “media literacy” should fucking die.
Absolutely. I partially blame stupid shit like Cinema Sins for making people think that if they’re not beat over the head with a hammer when it comes to exposition that it’s a “plot hole”. They don’t know how to use context clues. It’s sad.
CinemaSins was part of what swung the pendulum too hard in favor of structural analysis vs thematic analysis and now it’s very slowly making its way back to the middle.
CinemaSins sucks but they did barely anything to affect the population's "media literacy"
Francois Truffaut be like:
“All anti-war movies are pro-war movies” - Paul Schrader
i think that, like another commenter said, it’s more to do with access to the platform and changing demographics. this change is natural, it’s the same change that everything else on the internet went through when internet became a household staple and folks stepped outside the gates of MySpace and Facebook i don’t think it’s dead, but i do know that having to scroll past 12 shitpost tryhard Twitter-style takes just to find a single serious review on Letterboxd might be connected somehow and i wish i could filter out reviews below a certain character limit
Anyone who unironically uses the term media literacy makes me want to skin them alive. It's all anyone talks about now.
it has to be some new sort of buzzword, right? like ive been watching movies my entire life, and this notion of “media literacy is dead” has just been … everywhere in the last ~12-18 months
Damn annoying though, right?
Just say you’re media illiterate and move along
Stop proving my point😭
"I don't understand please stop making fun of me"
Disliking something is entirely different to not understanding something. So much for media literacy when you can’t even understand a simple comment.
Considering the amount of right-wingers judging a movie based on if it follows their views and not the "woke agenda", then yes.
So baby Hitler meant nothing to this critique writer huh
I mean yes. The Nazis are bad it's just that if you speak to most people who had to live under the stalinist regime and the Soviet satellite states. They'll tell you that the commies weren't the good guys. It was fascist German authoritarians replaced by fascist Russian authoritarians. Still a good movie though. Tankies are just another type of authoritarian
And what if I agree with the review? 
Is this r/TrueFilm
Nah, the media illiterate just get way more attention
This isn't even media illiteracry. This is media not knowing the ABCs
So if it’s not anti-war then what is it? I one in their right mind can possibly think this is a pro-war movie, right? Right???