Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Scott Pilgrim Vs. Writing Project 3

To begin Writing Project 3: The Argumentative Essay Case Study centered around the controversy of how the film Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was received by film critics, we need to first ask, "What is the purpose of film criticism?" To help us answer this question, we'll start by reading New York Times' A. O. Scott's 2006 editorial "Avast, Me Critics! Ye Kill the Fun: Critics and the Masses Disagree about Film Choices".

Scott emphasizes that there are two types of film critics: professionals (those with formal training who are paid to review films) and consumers (those who watch movies and discuss them afterward). This disconnect seems to create a situation in which the films that experts love do poorly in the box office, while movies that are financial successes are often (again, to the experts) terrible. Scott even raises the question of whether or not his profession has real value as art criticism if the very audience he writes for (the consumer) simply doesn't listen. Finally, he makes it clear that this isn't a new phenomenom.

Address these questions in the comments section below:

1) What would film reviews from each of these discourse communities--professionals and consumers--look like or emphasize? How could each of them be important to society? How could each of them be controversial?

2) Which of the two discourse communities would most influence your decision to see a movie? Why?

3) Does one of these discourse communities seem more important than the other? Why or why not?

No comments:

Post a Comment