I'm the Muffin wrote:anthoto1 wrote:Analyzing is not a problem, obviously. Analyzing a work of art with a political agenda and seeing it through this lense only is. It's very sad as it prevents these people for appreciating these works for what they really are as they're trying to make them look as they want them to be.
Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter. The show isn't interested in whether or not, for example, a character like Candie has 'agency'. That is a 3rd wave feminist preoccupation. The show is not better or worse for conforming to commodified social justice standards. The relevance of these issues, while maybe worth touching upon--well, their importance has been blown out of all proportion, to put it mildly.
Yes, it is political. I suspected, before the season aired, that the SJW crowd would inevitably watch the show through this lens, that Lynch would be scrutinised for how closely he conforms to recent trends in social correctness--but I actually expected the lack of 'diversity' to be the sticking point. I'm happily relieved to have not seen much of that--but instead we have this. It's a barrier to actual aesthetic discussion.
It would have been totally okay if Lynch would have had an artistic fetish for naive, dependent blondes getting raped and dominated. Some artists like to paint the life of farmers over and over again, others always use the colour blue, others like the theme of cruelties against women.
Of course you can like a certain artist better than the other, but is complete nonsense to be "disappointed" in a filmmaker because his female characters have too little agency or are portrayed in a certain way.