Ever read books by an author a long time ago, remember liking them so much that you check out the longest one you can find, and quickly realize he's actually insufferable?
I used to breeze through a Tom Clancy novel, in a couple of days, between coursework finished early and the next assignment, or between homework and (in retrospect) bad television, but finishing this "The Bear and The Dragon" is not enjoyable. I should be paid for every chapter, if not sooner.
He managed to take a perfectly good idea and waste it, spending as much time as possible pushing angles once regarded as Liberal and not being much of a writer. The fact that many are even worse, in one way or a multitude, is less of a praise of Tom and more of a criticism of others. How can a book be so lengthy yet so lacking in effort? It's as if these books were generated by machines, rather than a Human. Perhaps "liability" and marketing data determined his belief system, rather than life experiences and demographic data.
I've noticed that many writers have declined in quality, both print, stage and screen, with the newcomers mostly no better or even worse, with those of more talent largely wasting it or not in the mainstream, not coincidentally, as in other professions, which indicates that the craft mattered less - thereto - than the profit.
Why, then, did those ever bother making something complex - especially with the various risks involved in many film productions? If not that there had been a fondness that was lost, as if in a state of depression or neurosis, from duress, perhaps, be it physical, financial, reputational or a combination thereof, whether the subject of the blackmail is truth or fiction, it's that the audiences used to be smarter and/or differently principled; more overtures had to be made, when less deviation from the norm was tolerated. Now, it is the subversion that is the rule; the old rule now deemed subversive. Subversion of narrative now does not merely defy expectations, with coherence, but defies the quality the narrative could have had and does so with subversion of once-valued concepts.
We do not need content that is enjoyed despite it's various flaws, when these flaws are avoidable (and often easily so) by the producers or relying upon the ignorance of the consumers. We need content that holds up to scrutiny by an informed audience.
They once made everything as if for children, when children were assumed to be stupid because the education was oriented around producing efficient workers, rather than innovators and deductive reasoners, as any questions that were allowed were aimed at disestablishing any structure - conceptual or material - that hindered the fiscal growth and adulation of The Oligarchy, whether the system were called Capitalist, Socialist or Communist, with Anarchy arising only where The Oligarchy could fill the void, rather than being a transitional period between The Oligarchy and its replacement, be it another oligarchy or otherwise, rather than dismantling said mind-numbing or warping oligarchy, before allowing more mature but at least equally propagandistic forms of entertainment to arise; more serving than challenging The Oligarchy, when bothering to do the latter. Now, it is returning to producing for a childish audience; the only difference being that neither the audience nor producers are as White as in prior decades - the main result and intention of said propagandists.
One may say that none of this is the adulthood of cinema, which may be said to be "Occult Forces" (an exposé of such) and other Dissident Media (i.e. that for which Systemic Media has condemnation; not for differences in terminology, leaders or other methodologies, but due to opposing ends).
Murdering Jean Mamy but not executing those producing now-refuted (if not also then-refuted) propaganda, after W.W.II, clearly indicates the nature of the bias.
Even a Confederate Sympathizer production receives more leeway than one challenging certain "Sacred Cows", with even Miscegenators once willing to profit off easily-manipulated Southerners, though not those bold enough to dare even think "I'd rather be speaking German.", as if even necessarily required of anyone not a diplomat or a downside, which is why you could have "Gods & Generals" but not "Jud Süß" in theaters. Every "Gettysburg" is outnumbered many works of fiction - often presented as if "factual" or "representative of facts" - that serve as propaganda for a war that *purportedly* ended decades ago. Rather, it changed some of its circumstances. Even "Babes in Toyland" got edited, so as to remove certain allusions and literally march to a different tune.
