The Dark Herald has an excellent post where he dissects some SJW word salad and points out something that is worth a reminder: that critics are no longer really, as a whole, evaluating whether or not movies are good entertainment and stories. Instead, as he puts it, they are telling you what you should be seeing - not the same thing.
Dare I say he didn't go far enough?
Not caring about craft has been obvious for a while. I'd been making posts about how the level of actual technical skill and polish was consistently high, that the only real way to guess an Oscar was to see which one checked off the current hot-button SJW issues. I've been wrong, but usually because I was blindsided by a movie I'd barely heard of that checked off even more of the bingo squares, such as the Green Book (white guilt and racism in the US south).
The old expression was that such-and-such was an "important" movie. The implication was that it was so well constructed and told, or was groundbreaking for a form of storytelling, camera work, or so on. Take the Godfather, for instance. Over time, though, another meaning crept in, the Marxist one. Something was an important story, or documentary, or whatever because it adhered to or promoted the correct thought and principles.
The old meaning is still conflated with "it's such an important film", but the new meaning has killed it dead. That is the sense which the Herald means. These are the movies you should see to reinforce the proper belief system.
They are also the movies you should be seen watching. It's not just taking in and reinforcing correct thought, but signaling your virtue by making a public display of it.
