Free Toxic City

A while back, I stumbled upon a PragerU video about the declining standards of art. I remember being confused and frustrated, especially when the narrator pointed out that his students couldn’t tell the difference between a Jackson Pollock painting and his apron. It was really meant to jab at modern sensibilities, which I get in hindsight. But while anyone with sense knows that the video is full of itself, I still feel that it’s relevant. And not for the reasons most people think.

I recently watched Free Guy on Disney+. It’s not “amazing”: the premise borders on derivative, its villain’s way too cartoony and the ending shot’s pretty cliché. It also has many contrivances, including one that, while certainly understandable in context, feels like an excuse to change a key detail without developing it. But I really enjoyed it anyway. It’s an original movie with a cool idea that’s executed well, and it’s funny.

That said, while Free Guy won’t be to everyone’s liking, I think it’s exposed, yet again, some toxicity in the film community. And I don’t mean that in a “people who don’t think critically about what they consume” way, though there’s lots to unpack there too. No, I mean that in a more insidious way. I’m finding that the movie’s existence, as well as its parent company being The Walt Disney Corporation, has led to a resurgence in gatekeeping. To quote a disgraced internet celebrity, “Thanks, I hate it!”.

For context, and this’ll mean spoilers, there’s a scene in the climax where Guy faces off against a dumber, more macho clone of himself named “Dude”. Dude has the upper-hand initially; after all, he’s big, burly and more aggressive than him. Guy keeps trying to avoid confrontation, all the while failing, until he retrieves his special glasses and whips out Captain America’s shield. The Hulk’s fist and a lightsaber follow, and for each item their movie themes start playing. To add to that, Chris Evans makes a cameo in a coffee shop and reacts to the shield.

I’ll admit it: it all feels corporate. Similar to “No Strings On Me” being a recurring motif in The Avengers: Age of Ultron, these inclusions are on-the-nose reminders that Disney owns this film’s licensing and distribution rights. It also feels like the gratuitous, intertextual fan-service Disney likes tossing into their films, a wink to the audience that’s more grating than sincere. But whereas it’d be an issue in Disney’s live-action remakes, here it makes sense because the in-movie world’s already intertextual. Free City’s a GTA-style sandbox game, so anything goes.

So yes, I get it, but I also don’t get it. And what I especially don’t get is how much of the internet’s film community has decided that this scene ruins the experience, and how I, a “film omnivore”, am a shill with no taste for liking it. Not only does that make someone a snob, it ties back to the aforementioned PragerU video. That’s not a good look.

Three points need to be understood. Firstly, the art’s subjective. Doubly-so enjoying it. What you may like, I may hate, and vice-versa. That doesn’t make me correct, nor does it make you incorrect. Me liking Free Guy, particularly this fight scene, should have no bearing on you, because it’s none of your business.

Secondly, gatekeeping art isn’t cool. This goes for corporately-made art too. While you may not like something under the Disney umbrella, and you’re entitled to, that doesn’t give you the right to dictate others’ experiences. What if the movie made someone’s day? What if it spoke to someone and encouraged them to positively contribute to society? What makes you the judge, jury and executioner of quality? Trust me, I had to learn this myself!

And thirdly, so the movie was “pandering”. Does that really disqualify it from having merit? Isn’t the point of art to manipulate you subconsciously? What makes your “high art #3454578” any better than Free Guy? Is it because it “dares to be artistic”? Because, if so, you need to return to reality.

This ties into why I disagree with Martin Scorsese’s claim that Marvel movies aren’t “high art”. I know bringing him up to “own the nerds” is a favourite pastime of people, even though it’s douche-y, but I think he ignored what “mindless action” movies can do for people. There’s a corporate angle to these films, yes, but they get people into seats more than the artsy experiences people arrogantly claim as “true art”. The Free Guy “discourse” fits into that.

I like all kinds of films. I’ll even defend biopics! But while I enjoy Aronofsky and Fincher-style movies from-time-to-time, trashing Free Guy like this is still elitist. I’ve seen the power of populist entertainment. I know it strikes a chord for moviegoers in ways that arthouse films can’t. And that’s not a problem.

When the pandemic hit last year, I did some reflecting. I knew I liked seeing movies in theatres, and I somewhat miss that, but for the ridiculous prices that movie tickets are, as well as how much I make financially, my sympathies started shifting to those moviegoers who only visit cinemas a handful of times a year. The theatre-going experience is so riddled with nonsense that it takes a lot to persuade me to keep returning. A movie has to do something special to overlook many of the issues, essentially. Having your film be an event, something corporately-made experiences excel at, is one of the ways to do it.

No, that doesn’t mean these movies are immune to criticism. Yes, we should think about them on a deeper level. But gatekeeping isn’t the way to do it. It only makes you look bad, like the narrator from that PragerU video. And, once again, that’s not a road you want to go down.