Follow up on business talk that should be art talk

I was just reading about the next film by the guy who made Paranormal Activity in the NYT Arts Section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/movies/27paranormal.html

Why is this article in the Arts section? As I was saying, there is nothing interesting to say about the film, so they talk about the business. But really, couldn’t they have found some small film somewhere to champion with their front page Arts article? This is how film criticism got killed in the first place, isn’t it?

The article itself is about how the producers can’t find a buyer for P.A. director’s next film. Could it be that this is just another story about studios tightening their wallets, or is it that the studios are seeing this for what it is: a box office fluke; and that they can’t get over the fact that this film was shot on a camcorder and looks like shit and the movie sucks, no matter what audiences say?

But really, who the fuck cares!!!

Is the reason they are talking about this because the movie is unworthy of discussion? Whatever happened to Art? Why couldn’t they have an article on the phenomena that this movie is: a piece of crap that audiences line up for? Or even, an appreciation of the artistry of the film, maybe done by someone who likes it and thinks that the critics are snobs. Anything but this!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s