Tone: I must admit that wading through even a portion of many of the ill-conceived ‘reviews’ was nauseating. The tone of most of these negative reviews is so glib, off-handed, ill-thought out, and dismissive, as if the film is not worth our time. The disrespect splats out, a rotten tomato indeed, but it does so without any substance or given reason. Unsupported rejection. There seems to be a built-in contempt pervading many. It is, if nothing else, not professional. Where did this attitude come from? Read on.
Assumptions: It was obvious from what they said that many critics started from the assumptions that the film was a romance and the target audience was teenage girls, specifically ‘Twihards’.
And so we get Rich Cline (Shadows on the Wall.co.uk) saying RM is “aimed at teen girls and no one else”. Critics didn’t, upon viewing, revise their opinion after they’d realized poor marketing had categorized it incorrectly. As professionals they should be able get past this, and judge films according to what they are. Some critics even cited how effective the marketing was: Alice Tynan (The Vine.com.au) says: “the marketing [targeting Twihards] has done its job well.”
So, instead of setting the record straight, many just let the misconceptions stand. Some critics took this further by predicting how audiences would react. The following instances show they insult not only the film but also future audiences:
Alistair Harkness (Scotsman.com) says: “It will strike some as grossly exploitative and offensive and slay others as poignantly tragic.” Really? He knows what we will feel? Who is being offensive?
Rich Cline says: “will get on the nerves of most viewers...” This pre-emptive strike is insulting. Meanwhile, Neil Smith (Total Film.com) “non-worshippers will want to...” and “Robert Pattinson’s acolytes will ensure solid returns”. He presupposes a Twilight fan base will attend. Alice Tynan predicts similarly:“Twihards will no doubt flock to the cinema...”
Via
No comments:
Post a Comment