RELEVANT READING: the review in question

To be fair, Plugged In is generally pretty good about this. Since making the jump to an online-only publication, they’ve actually gotten better: if, in the reviewer’s estimation, a movie delves unnecessarily into harsh content in order to say something profound about the human condition, or if a flick is suitable for all audiences only by virtue of its unredeemably insipid childishness, they’ll call it like they see it; even when I disagree with them, they generally give me an informative, multi-dimensional rundown and some points to consider. I was a little hesitant to go through with this strip, due to the risk that James’ views might be mistaken for my own by those readers who do not read the notes for the strip (unlike you, you savvy Sketch Comedy reader you!). But then I posted it.

Coming from that vantage point, I of course found their review of “Good Time” so anomalous. Reviewer Adam Holz ends with the observation that the song is “a whole lot better than what we usually hear on the radio these days,” and it’s baffling to me that the tenor of his rundown would be so positive. But enough wall of text! Let’s end with a boldfaced question, as is the custom of numerous bloggers:

Can aesthetics and morality operate independently of each other in a single work? What do you think of “Good Time?”