New York Times Defense
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/movies/06Watc.html
For my New York Time’s defense article I choose to analyze A.O. Scott’s review of the recently released film, Watchmen. Scott chose to open his piece with a very interesting format: his lede immediately projects the reader into his “but”. With his first two paragraphs, he manages to capture the readers attention and at the same time give them a very brief, but clear, opinion of the movie.
His lede states, “Dr. Manhattan’s existence is busy and fairly melancholy, but I do envy him his ability to perceive every moment of past and future time as a part of a continuous present” and is immediately followed by “If I had that power, the 2 hours 40 minutes of Zack Snyder’s grim and grisly excursion into comic-book mythology might not have felt quite so interminable”.
The rest of the article is structured by a juxtaposition of his perspective with that of a hypothetical “mid-’80s college sophomore with a smattering of Nietzsche, an extensive record collection and a comic-book nerd for a roommate”. He uses this technique to illustrate and further his claim that the movie is out of touch and irrelevant with the current times and would only provide anything of substance for this hypothetical moviegoer.
Scott presents details and context from the movie much later in the article in a rather unnecessarily lengthy way – but perhaps it feels this way because he was so quick to give his opinion and the reader is left with nothing to look forward to. Almost ironically, Scott’s own work begins to feel “interminable”.
He concludes his piece by refining his opinion of the movie suggesting it is better suited for an immature audience that dwells in the comic-book realm: “Perhaps there is some pleasure to be found in regressing into this belligerent, adolescent state of mind. But maybe it’s better to grow up”.
A little Sasha Frere-Jones
14 years ago
I also wrote about this review for my NYT defenses. I thik A.O. Scott is one of the most interesting writers for the NYT.
ReplyDeleteI like this because I had read the review earlier that day and didn't get all the way through- it was too long. I skimmed and remember the parts you pointed out. It made me want to see the movie less than even a outright pan normally does-maybe it the sex scene description but I think its that a critic does a bad movie more justice by still trying to be entertaining then A.O. Scott did to this middle-groudish review.
ReplyDelete