Sunday, October 24, 2010

“you suck”

- quoted Sara D who posted one of the most decent comments in response to the article "Scott Pilgrim Vs The World" by Sean Burns.

In the article , Sean Burns expresses his disapproval towards the movie. He refers to the movie as "fan service," stating that the movie only aims to please its target audience. To him, "Scott Pilgrim Vs The World" only portray an obsession of the youth towards video games and an inappropriate attitude towards women. Sean Burns clearly states that the plot, the directing and the acting are, to a large extent, not up to standard. He also suggests that while the content may be better if the director have exploit the emotional conflict of young couples, the conflict, which may be such a highlight for the movie, is not used at all. Instead, the director focuses merely on the visual effects in order to please the target audience group consisting of gamers. Sean criticizes the directing of the movie as a collage is used to explain about the main characters' past. All in all, to Sean Burns, the movie is such a far cry from interesting.

You can clearly see my stand just by looking at the choice of title for this post. Even if the movie may not be excellent, it is not acceptable for Sean Burns to libel the director and his movie in such a biased manner. As long as the target audience of the movie and some others still enjoy it, the movie may not be considered a failure after all. Being a critic and a journalist, Sean Burns could have done a much better job if he has kept his extreme personal feelings aside and write an unbiased review. Philadelphia deserves better than him.

Firstly, it is not true that the movie is exclusive of those who are above 30 and non gamers. While Sean states that the movie is a "punishingly alienating experience preaching only to the faithful, devoted hearts of arrested 12-year-old boy," the rest of the people think other wise. Movies attract people partly not only because they offer a new and broader outlook on life and its various aspects but also because they are the entrance that leads the audience to a world different that the one the latter live in. It is natural that every one seeks new information and experience, and this movie offers both information and experience regarding the game world. Non-gamers may have a better idea of the gamers' world and via the information provided by Sean Burns, one can easily realize that the director indeed has done a great job creating the gaming environment with his heavy reliance on visual effect.

Secondly, Sean Burns has been overly critical towards the movie that he assumes that the director misses out the most exciting "vein" of the plot. Yet, he may be wrong. The directing of the movie may focus on visual effects since that is the impression on the audience that may be what the director desires. People go to the cinema mostly for entertainment. The kind of entertainment can come under many forms, such as beautiful visual effect, an unpredictable plot or a quirky way of directing. As long as the audience is pleased, it should not matter under which from the entertainment should be. Taking Avartar by James Cameron for instance. The movie is praised all over the world. It is thanks to its beautiful cinematographic although the plot is highly predictable. This example proves Sean Burns wrong regarding his thoughts of what is best for the movie and how it should be directed.

In a nutshell, I disagree with Sean Burns and his criticism of the movie "Scott Pilgrim Vs The World." Biased personal feelings should not come in the way when the article is assumed to be written by a film critic. Moreover, extremely libeling words should not be used either. Sean should put himself in others' shoes to appreciate the hidden beauty in it.

1 comment:

  1. I totally agree on disagreeing with Burn's criticism. Good point about how he should put himself in other's shoes to appreciate what he is even talking about.

    ReplyDelete