Sunday, October 17, 2010

Feeder 3.2: An amazing piece of film criticism

The main discussion of the article revolves around the movie "Scott Pilgrim Reviews Reveal What Film Critics Really Think of Gamers." The author of the article - Linda Holmes - shows her interest in the movie despite her not being a part of the target audience. She quotes several hostile criticisms from various newspapers in the article to educate the readers on ideas different from hers. Holmes argues against the sardonically negative comments on the movies and shows off her stand.

The critics in the magazines have succeeded not only in ridiculing their own criticism and alienating themselves from the general reader but also in whetting the general audience's desire to watch the movie. This is, in a way or another, such an incredible way to put things into perspectives. Assuming that the three aforementioned goals are the main purposes of the critics, it is obvious that they are doing such a wonderful job. Three cheers.

Firstly, the critics have succeed in making a clown of themselves and evoking abomination in the readers. Perhaps they know too well the fact that no extreme personal ideas or thoughts will be easily accepted by the majority. Therefore, the critics use the extremist comments as their powerful tools to effectively strike emotional chords among the readers. Taking a quick glance at the comment in Philadelphia Weekly and we can see the effects of the approach: the movie is "
insular, punishingly alienating experience preaching only to the faithful, devoted hearts of arrested 12-year-old boys." As one examines the full sentence, it is not too hard for one to realize that it is tinged with mean sarcasm, disdain and bias. Since negativity only brings more of it, the author of the comment has won the same amount of disdain from the readers compared to how he appears to feels about the movie. After this article, his viewership has decreased by at least one (me, of course).

Secondly, the vitriolic comments by the critics are effective in helping the critics achieve their goals of getting more audience to watch the movie. After a series of mean articles about a movie, one may want to find out why the critics hate it to such an extend. On the other hand, the audience may hit the cinema only to prove the critics wrong. The critics' personal dislike of the film has been transferred to the audience itself. There is no denial about the difficulty in conveying tone through online texts, therefore one may wonder in awe as they behold the effects of the critics' writing on one's feelings.

All in all, the critics have done an amazing job to evoke emotions in readers. Not only do the critics provoke abhorrence in readers, they also call forth the reader's desire to watch the movie. It takes more than an ordinary person to achieve that.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." – Plato

2 comments:

  1. Aside from your very brief summary (and mis-titling the film), this is excellent. It's good to a see a position statement with some reasoning and evidence behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you sir hehe I made the effort to quote something =D

    ReplyDelete