At the time of the University, a quarter of a century ago, I had several knowledge that loved the old film Jules et Jim by François Truffaut. Having the good fortune of having the videotape of that film in the house, and having always had a certain passion for films and shows, even without ever feeling like a worthy cinephile, one day I decided to fill my gap and attacked to see Jules et Jim. I don’t like it at all.

Now I don’t remember if I interrupted him, or if I looked at him all the way (without even the help of a smartphone to pass the time) to be able to say that I didn’t like it right, and film, view, but I remember in particular a scene that made me doubt if I was witnessing a masterpiece in the history of cinema or a parody of his.

Over the years I have talked about my impressions on Jules et Jim to several people (not to those university knowledge, for quiet living) but it is the first time that I speak publicly, not without the fear of being mocked by anyone who understands a minimum of the glorious seventh art.

The courage for this confession gave me the dear Antonella Clerici, who ended up in the chopper (yes, a culinary metaphor, sorry Antonella) for having expressed her negative opinion on the anne, a film that has just won five Oscars. A small case, but in our opinion perfect to highlight some crucial aspects, in the small, of the cinematographic-television criticism, and, in the great, of the current society and how we behave a little on social media.

Brief summary of the previous episodes

Antonella Clerici wrote last Sunday on X former Twitter: “Anore the winner of 5 Oscar is one of the ugliest, most insight, useless films I have ever seen”.
The responses of many, who replied things like “returns to the kitchen” and the like, replied immediate and controversial. Dear Antonella returned to TV with her broadcast is always noon and has “reported” the attacks of which she was the victim for expressing a personal opinion.

What this story of television-cenmatographic criticism tells us

The first thing we thought, observing the amazement in Clerici’s eyes, was: “Blessed ingenuity”. In the sense: from a professional like you we have everything and only to learn, but having written a few hundred reviews in recent years we feel we are welcoming his surprise with a smile.

Dear Antonella, you have no idea of ​​the amount of insults, offenses, derisions, crippling of our names, sometimes even veiled threats or harmful wishes that we in the sector receive daily for having expressed our opinion on a film or a TV series, and when we liked it and when we did not welcome them.

Without making titles, once I saw a comedy movie that not only did not make me laugh not by mistake, but it didn’t make sense from start to finish: well, I still remember a comment that accused me of being a sad radical chic because I didn’t really like that film made with four money. So I can only imagine what they will have told you for having struck an Oscar movie.

From this point of view, therefore, total solidarity and support from all of us. Moreover, there is an aspect to underline on the film we are talking about, namely that anrao has also divided the criticism: just shoot on some page or social profile of cinephiles to note that there are those who give reason to Clerici, as well as those who disagree.

And to “give reason to Clerici” we do not intend to solidarize with her after the an avalanche of offenses he received for his tweet, but just agreeing with the content of his tweet according to which Anra is a bad and silly film.

And to “be in disagreement” we intend to accuse her and who thinks like her not to understand anything about cinema. And here we are the more general consideration that this case inspired.

The Clerici-Anra case perfect example of an increasingly divisive approach to everything

Better to repeat it: maximum solidarity and support to Antonella Clerici for the bad words of hatred he received. But let’s stay one thing: Clerici did not say that he didn’t like it, he called him “one of the ugliest silly and useless films” that he saw.

And he did not say that of that infamous dwarf, a film that I personally use to define the lowest form of stuff ever recited (if you don’t know it, here is his plot on Wikipedia), but of a film that has just won five Oscars.

Since Clerici has started his career as a sports journalist, it can be said that it is like arguing that a player who won the Golden Ball is a boot unable to play football. If you make such a tranchant criticism, it is easy to attract answers and reactions as many without touch. Not that it is right, but it is quite consequential, and perfectly predictable.

In short, it is the rule in contemporary society, in which the judgments, the opinions and opinions are increasingly extreme, whether we talk about films, where all in all we are discussing personal tastes, whether we talk about scientific and theoretically objective topics. And if there are people with “the eighth grade double malt” as a qualification that feels in the position of insulting scientists and even astronauts who support the three -dimensionality of the earth, receiving insults for a criticism of a film is almost a breath of fresh air, in comparison.