When I was in school, English teachers would lose their shit over students who would summarize instead of analyze whatever they were reporting on. Years later, in the age of film theorist/dissector/reviewer YouTube channels, I have inherited that fury
I watched an hour long video about clowns in horror, which could have been interesting
Instead it was someone rattling off the plot descriptions of tv/film horror with clowns in them, occasionally interjecting whether he liked it, with very little explanation as to why. His analysis almost feels like non-sequiturs, they feel so unconnected
He brings up “The Tale Of The Ghastly Grinner” from Are You Afraid of the Dark as bad example
Okay, that’s fine, I’ve never watched the show! What’s wrong with it? Well.
“This episode is troublesome because it’s not a morality tale, there isn’t a lesson to be learned here. The Ghastly Grinner enters these children’s lives for no reason and it just kind of says that evil just exists, that there was nothing you did to bring this upon you but here it is nonetheless and you just have to deal with it. And for me, that’s a very existential concept to play with in a children’s show.”
Now you might be asking “hmm, that sounds very interesting and cool and not at all ‘troublesome.’ Why does a lack of a lesson make this story bad? What does he mean by it being very existential?”
I don’t know because after his summary and one sentence opinion, he starts talking about clowns on Seinfeld. That’s it. He’s done.
No depth, no questioning. This happened and then this happened and then this happened. I think it was good/bad. This is what 90% of YouTube film theory is