From time to time we all come across a film review which has us scratching our heads in confusion, as we try to work out whether or not the critic had watched a totally different film from the rest of us. We sometimes stumble across a review that is toxic that you wonder whether the critic has a personal grudge towards the filmmakers involved in the picture. There are the reviews where the critic seems to go off on a rant that feels a little uncomfortable. And, then there’s a review like Todd McCarthy’s review on “Dora And The Lost City Of Gold” for The Hollywood Reporter.
Reading McCarthy’s review is an experience like no other (and I’m not talking about a pleasant one). Here’s one section which discusses the age of the main actors in the film aimed at young children.
“What keeps things alive, up to a point, is the imperturbable attitude of the titular heroine, who is invested with try-and-stop-me spirit by Moner, who’s actually 18 and looks it despite preventive measures. The same goes for Wahlberg, who’s 19. There’s a palpable gap you can’t help but notice between the essentially innocent, borderline-pubescent nature of the leading characters and the film itself, and the more confident and mature vibes emanating from the leading actors.”
Deconstructing this paragraph, I can see what McCarthy is trying to say here. “Dora And The Lost City Of Gold” sees Dora from the animated series as a teenager, and according to McCarthy Isabela Moner is slightly too old for the role and her co-star (and potential romantic interest) is a year older which is off-putting.
“McCarthy’s reading of the film seems to be that he feels that the actor’s ages and their sexuality is impossible for the director to mask.”
In McCarthy’s opinion, he believes the age of the leading actors undermines the film and affects the immersion. However, his wording is a little off. The use of the words ‘pubescent’ and ‘mature vibes’ sticks out and it’s for this reason that many on Twitter have called McCarthy out for being creepy.
McCarthy’s review doesn’t stop there, he continues with this closing paragraph.
“The director seems to be trying to keep the hormones at bay, but there are some things you just can’t disguise, perhaps human nature first and foremost. Dora seems committed to projecting a pre-sexualized version of youth, while throbbing unacknowledged beneath the surface is something a bit more real, its presence rigorously ignored. To be believed, this story should have been set in 1955.”
McCarthy’s reading of the film seems to be that he feels that the actor’s ages and their sexuality is impossible for the director to mask. However, the use of the word “throbbing” in a review of a film aimed at children is frankly a poor decision. Several tweets summed up the thoughts of so many:
The issue with McCarthy’s review is that it is open to interpretation and the general consensus is that the review gives off a very perplexing vibe, and it is hard to see why many have deemed this review and its reviewer as being ‘creepy’. The word “throbbing” is a word that has several meanings including a sexual one.
“The underlying fact is that mentioning sexuality and children is a very sensitive subject.”
In his review, McCarthy seems to be remarking that the film is too safe and that Moner is being presented as a young, innocent girl despite being older than the character she’s playing. I can’t remark on this aspect of the film as I haven’t seen it, but I can’t help but wonder what sexuality has to do with a film aimed at children?
Although one can see what McCarthy was attempting to say in his review, the underlying fact is that mentioning sexuality and children is a very sensitive subject. One has to wonder why The Hollywood Reporter decided to go with this piece, knowing that it would more than likely blow up online? McCarthy is by no means a newbie at this film criticism lark, but perhaps he was a little out of his depth here with this film?
And, that leads onto a recurring issue with film criticism…there is a lack of diversity. I find myself saying this statement over and over again until I am blue in the face, but when I come across pieces like McCarthy’s “Dora the Explorer” review I can’t help but ask the same old question.
“I think the industry should have a shake-up and that the films should be fairly distributed to film critics.”
As I have stated before, I do not want to see jobs being taken away from the critics already well established in the business. To do that would be petty and trivial. Nor would I personally want to be judged on my gender alone, and hired simply to fill a quota.
However, I think the industry should have a shake-up and that the films should be fairly distributed to film critics and taking into account as to whether the film critic is the best suited for the film. Of course, that’s not to say that every female critic should only be assigned to films directed by women.
Still, at the end of the day, publications need to reflect on the content that they are publishing and the opportunities that they are offering to writers from all backgrounds.
What are your thoughts regarding Todd McCarthy’s review and do you think The Hollywood Reporter should have published it? Please tell us below.
Discover more from Filmotomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
