> The wonder of childhood is the opposite of the cozy vision of “Inside Out”
That may be a key quote. Kids movies, and Pixar movies (which often are, or used to be, for adults as much as for kids) don't need to contain simplistic world views; they need simple and layered presentation, but the world may be rich, and the characters and situations be driven by nuanced and sophisticated themes under the colourful hood. Toy Story 2, The Incredibles and Frozen, in my opinion, are shining examples.
He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations.
Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids.
(By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)
Isn't that exactly what he disagrees with, though? I think he's looking for a director that can tell a kids' story, and show the shape of the inner mind, without having to dumb things down.
It's a tall order - he says it would require a director of genius - but I think his point is that if a director needs to dumb things down to make a film for kids, (s)he's better off not doing it at all.
In Australia we used to have Margaret and David before they recently retired. They were really good film critics with tastes that covered a large spectrum of movies.
As people whose work is very subjective, critics don't lend themselves to be read in an ad-hoc fashion, in my opinion. One should follow their reviews, compare them with the works one has also watched/read, and only then decide which critics are more appropriate for you.
This is the author's justification for why he's critiquing the film. I disagree, personally, because he himself is not a child. I doubt any child would enjoy "The Tree of Life".
The HN crowd typically comes from a very analytical, scientific background. This line of thinking is based on deriving ideas and concepts from one another based on first order logic, empirical evidence, and reproducible experiments. This is a great way to build accurate models of the world, and allows us to build cars, satellites, computers, grow food crops efficiently, and a myriad other wonderful things.
By contrast, humanities thinking is about accepting that things can be approached and analyzed from multiple angles, using a variety of ideas, frameworks, and concepts that might be at odds with one another but all still give us valuable insights into whatever it is we're studying. This is a great way to approach things like art, human emotions, raising children, and a myriad other wonderful things.
Each approach has its place, and being able to use either in daily life is probably a good skill to have. If an algorithm is incorrect, you fix it - trying to argue that an incorrect algorithm holds as much value as a correct one probably isn't going to get you anywhere. On the other hand, there isn't such a thing as a mathematical function to clearly define what love or a beautiful piece of art is - trying to define such a function probably isn't going to get you anywhere.
To tie it back within the context of the original post: the vast majority of critics loved the new Pixar movie, and it seems to be a wonderful movie in the cultural context of 2015. But humanities thinking tells us that there is value in taking the movie apart and criticizing it in the way that the article's author is doing. Not because he's reaching an objective, unique, true conclusion - but because there's inherent value in that process, and in taking a stance opposed to the mainstream consensus. It might give one new ways to think about analyzing movies, or put words on some slight discomfort one had while watching the movie even if one enjoyed it, or heighten one's enjoyment of the movie, or any number of other things.
As an old-school liberal education, new-school engineering type, I (personally) bristle at some of these critiques. You handled it quite deftly.
This did not need to be a public comment, but I don't know how to PM here, so ... there we are.
EDIT: By "these critiques", I meant the article that ... might not resonate with the HN crowd.
I've always find those questions that are generally regarded as stupid party amusing. Because I think those questions showing the difference in out thought process, and instead of stigmatizing it there are valuable lessons to be learned here.