There are good films and there are bad films. Sometimes it looks as if good and bad are only measured subjectively. Since film is art, and since there are no "laws of art", but aesthetic tastes involved, one is tempted to agree. However, this is not quite true. There are films that managed to hurt the feeling of viewers not because of their lack of quality, but because of their inconvenience. They force the viewer to see things differently, to think a bit more, to say good-bye to the usual, traditional, uninspiring, superficial entertainment they are used to. Sometimes, people will learn from these challenges what films can also be they are taught to appreciate films in a different manner, and they are thankful for the experience. But some viewers dislike being challenged. They want to see the breaking-up of traditional; they don't want to be intellectually involved. They have certain expectations, and they like being disappointed. Which is why they are angry at these particular films. For them, abandoning the usual patterns is like being forced out of their homes. Thus they strike back: They call the film rubbish, boring, stupid. It's less likely that they will say: It's too different to be liked; I don't want differences. Rather, they conclude that their personal taste which is, after all, also the taste of the "majority" is the "right" taste to have. Films that don't fit can't be so good. No doubt bad films exist. "L'Humanité" is not one of them. It's a challenge, but it will only work if what you ask of cinema is more than just being entertained for the moment. If you want a fast and furious dinner of the usual, don't bother to watch. This is a philosophical way of movie-making, designed only for very few people. Like all great films, it will find it's audience and remain. Unlike the bulk of average films, it inevitably also finds it's enemies. However, this is nothing to worry about. Depending on who dislikes it, it is rather a sign of quality.
Review of Humanity
