Well, that's hard to say. I guess that's why there's value in looking at... other reviewers' reviews?
...market research? cultural anthropology? I dunno, I just figure you've got to study the actual people at some point and not just what movies they're watching to figure out anything terribly concrete there.
Well, what I think about things pretty much determines how I would write things differently, so I'd say yeah.
But the ultimate goal is to write something that doesn't just show what you think but rather makes the reader think, no? That's what I mean about a step removed. Otherwise it just seems like reacting and deciding what you think is like deciding this movie's target audience and how you would differently construct your own target audience.
First off, none of this is impersonal to me, at all. It's very personal - I was just trying to explain why heroes are more interesting to me than antiheroes, but even that stuff is all personal preference.
By personal, I mean personal like or dislike of hero-types (not whether or not they're intellectually interesting). Actual attraction or disinterest, like in real life (e.g. to war heroes, or sports 'heroes', or other kinds of leaders people look up to). I don't mean 'personal' as in 'we all have our own subjective opinions.' Not sure if that's what you mean.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in the rest of your comment starting with The only kind of legitimacy I'm really interested in seeing exerted is legitimacy based on honesty, respect, love, and dedication.
I'm just explaining why I'm personally put-off by (most) heroes people approve of. And then I make an exception for my own sort of suspension of disbelief about certain idealistic worlds in which idealistic heroes make sense. But I recognize that in the real world they don't make sense, and in more serious works, I don't really like heroes. But I also think it's possible to have 'real legitimacy'--say, a leader who honestly cares about people and honestly wants to improve the world and honestly dedicates his life to that endeavor out of sheer love and drive and probably insanity. Not that such people are perfect, either, or have no problems in their personal lives, and so on. But I think it's possible, if very, very rare. And I wouldn't mind hearing about such people, sometimes.
But the typical hero is just such an outright fraud that I have no interest in them. I just feel this profound apathy about it, like it makes me feel that not only the movie is meaningless, but its creation means that my life and the world at large are meaningless. It decreases the nobility of mankind, or something. I have a feeling that even if I saw it presented in a critical light, I wouldn't come away feeling any more hopeful, or impassioned, or interested in living.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-22 10:31 am (UTC)...market research? cultural anthropology? I dunno, I just figure you've got to study the actual people at some point and not just what movies they're watching to figure out anything terribly concrete there.
Well, what I think about things pretty much determines how I would write things differently, so I'd say yeah.
But the ultimate goal is to write something that doesn't just show what you think but rather makes the reader think, no? That's what I mean about a step removed. Otherwise it just seems like reacting and deciding what you think is like deciding this movie's target audience and how you would differently construct your own target audience.
First off, none of this is impersonal to me, at all. It's very personal - I was just trying to explain why heroes are more interesting to me than antiheroes, but even that stuff is all personal preference.
By personal, I mean personal like or dislike of hero-types (not whether or not they're intellectually interesting). Actual attraction or disinterest, like in real life (e.g. to war heroes, or sports 'heroes', or other kinds of leaders people look up to). I don't mean 'personal' as in 'we all have our own subjective opinions.' Not sure if that's what you mean.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in the rest of your comment starting with The only kind of legitimacy I'm really interested in seeing exerted is legitimacy based on honesty, respect, love, and dedication.
I'm just explaining why I'm personally put-off by (most) heroes people approve of. And then I make an exception for my own sort of suspension of disbelief about certain idealistic worlds in which idealistic heroes make sense. But I recognize that in the real world they don't make sense, and in more serious works, I don't really like heroes. But I also think it's possible to have 'real legitimacy'--say, a leader who honestly cares about people and honestly wants to improve the world and honestly dedicates his life to that endeavor out of sheer love and drive and probably insanity. Not that such people are perfect, either, or have no problems in their personal lives, and so on. But I think it's possible, if very, very rare. And I wouldn't mind hearing about such people, sometimes.
But the typical hero is just such an outright fraud that I have no interest in them. I just feel this profound apathy about it, like it makes me feel that not only the movie is meaningless, but its creation means that my life and the world at large are meaningless. It decreases the nobility of mankind, or something. I have a feeling that even if I saw it presented in a critical light, I wouldn't come away feeling any more hopeful, or impassioned, or interested in living.