Here in 18 you quote:
“In one movie, a wimpy grease spot of a guy in his twenties complained that Angelina Jolie “fetishises” Louie Zamperini’s suffering. It must have been a new word he read in a dictionary.”
And you haven’t seem the movie?
I don’t use such terms but I am defending his view. He is right
That anyone should find this movie anything but weird and boring if not bizarre is so strange to me
Jolie did something to you, long ago maybe? Like put you in a locker in middle school?
You are a troll. I watched the movie. There was nothing bizarre except the actual events which must be used to tell the story. The boredom of being on a raft for 45 days must have been excruciating. But instead of feeling that, and empathizing with the characters, you think it’s a flaw of moviemaking that must be relayed immediately. Huh? Why are you here? There can only be one reason; to keep people from seeing the film. If the film was bizarre, or inaccurate, or poorly made, then your comments might make sense. However, since it is none of these things your presence here suggests an alterior motive. A boring movie does not motivate anyone to say anything but... Hey, it’s boring.
I don’t know you personally, so I am not going to comment on what you would find strange or not. But I do have evidence of what you find strange in others, so I can comment on that.
I personally find the use of the term “fetish” in conjunction with this story to be “strange”. It has overtones of sex, obsession and compulsion.
If he or you say she “fetishizes” it because she, as the director, spends an inordinate amount of time on the privations he suffered in the raft, and the abuse suffered by this man at the hands of his captors, I would counter by saying it is a key factor in the way the story must be told, and is in fact told in that fashion, in the book.
If he said she obsessed on it, I would still disagree with her, but accept the word. To people like the critic, words supposedly have meaning, until someone puts them on the rack about their use of a word, and then they whine and say they are being misinterpreted, which is a favorite liberal tactic, and is often used by people on this very forum.
I could be forgiving in my interpretation of the critic’s use of that word in a key point of his criticism, but why on earth should I give any quarter to someone like that who so obviously won’t give any quarter to the object of his criticism unless that person was standing in front of him? (In which case, I could imagine the wimp groveling)
You see what you wish to see through your own eyes, and that is fine. But you come across as derogatory to anyone else who might see it differently.