Warning: This article isn't actually about the movie itself, but the importance of the role the audience plays in artwork. Please ignore it. I'm ranting. Anything worth saying on the subject has already been said here and there, but it's time Lord Veltha put his two cents in. It's not the intention of this blog to write on subjects aside from myself, but as this is a matter of projected personal importance I need to speak my superior mind.
Scott Pilgrim Vs The World was not meant to appeal to everyone. It was specifically designed to cater to the aesthetic of the counterculture youth who grew up in the eighties and early nineties; the people with Batman posters on their walls and Legend of Zelda music on their iPods, the people who follow webcomics and/or have one of their own, the people seeking to balance the freedom of childhood with the responsibility of adulthood, and it punches their counterculture aesthetic in the balls with a fist of awesome.
If you did not laugh at that sentence, then Scott Pilgrim is not for you, and that's okay! You're not the audience for this film, and you don't have to be. This is the thing many reviewers neglect to take into consideration. Art is not meant to appeal to everyone, and that's good because it never will. This something I too forget when I explain my dislike towards the Twilight franchise. Obviously the Twilight series appeals to many on a core emotional level. These people are generally not worth my time as I'm lead to believe their core is a shriveled husk of ignorance, but I accept that and move on. I've never read the series or seen the movies, and have only heard tales of terror and disgust from like-personalitied individuals. The few clips I had seen of Eclipse were enough to make me cringe based on the camera work alone. The camera work. Not necessarily something I notice right away when watching other films. Obviously, I am not the intended audience for this series, and I should keep my snarky mouth shut. After all, the experience of the individual in regards to art is what matters. If a man paints a portrait of himself in his own blood in the middle of the woods and then dies so no one is ever able to see it, is it still art?
In school we were made to write a paper that would accompany our artwork called an "Audience Paper." The intention of this paper was to explain to our teachers the importance of our artwork to ourselves and the specific group in society that the implications of the work were intended towards on the off chance the teacher just didn't get it, so that they could understand what we were doing was in fact amazing and they just couldn't see it, so they would base their grades on whether or not our piece did appeal to those whom our projects were aimed at. This was the general theory, but like most papers the purpose of it was never adequately explained to a group of hyperactive teenagers, and so the meaning was lost until those who continued to pursue careers in their art-form just sort of clicked and swore under their breath upon the realization that the teachers they hated were right all along.
Scott Pilgrim Vs The World widely appeals to its intended audience IN ABUNDANCE! That cannot be said for all movies (*Cough* SuperMarioBrothersStreetFighter:TheLegendOfChun-LiSteelBatman&RobinDaredevilLauraCroft:TombRaiderSupermanIVCatwoman
BatmanForeverMortalKombatAnnihilationHowardTheDuckDoubleDragonMaxPayne *COUGH*) so the fact that it serves as a very niche movie that appeases the intended audience is applaudable. That alone is enough to warrant it a pass. The film is noticeably more entertaining amidst a crowd of people who get the movie than with a theater of mothers taking their children to see it (though it is often hilarious to watch the reactions of people who have no idea what they're seeing) and when the energy is high it's harder to notice some of the forced performances near the end when it almost feels like a public service announcement on conflict mediation and how not to be a douche-bag. Unfortunately, reviewers generally write based on personal interest and experience, which is fine so long as they clarify that and accept that their own opinion is no more than an opinion and not the definitive word. I've seen old classics, pretentious French films, and a little of everything else. Everything appeals to someone. My audience is an important thing to consider as I continue my work. I know who they are, and I am certain I do well by them. Now all I need is a way to reach them.
In regards to this blog being a record of my accomplishments, I assure you that I'm running behind on updating and I haven't been slacking off on my duties as an aspiring overlord. I have some very interesting news regarding bowling that ought to be shared, but haven't because of a long-time expired unwritten confidentiality agreement, and I have sold several copies of The Astonishing Dude on CD, but somehow this took precedence.
Pathos and good will,
Lord Veltha
No comments:
Post a Comment