One important topic I felt hasn't been talked about enough in our class is the way marketers portray movies in their trailers. Movie-makers really make themselves out to be rhetors by the way they persuade you that their movie is worth your eight dollars at the cinema. They also try to make you think that all the critics that have seen this movie before you want you to see this movie as well. Why don't the bad reviews critics make of movies end up making it into commercials for movies? Well, I think that answer is obvious. It's also funny the way marketers seem to know the right opportunity to lock in their target audience such as in the case of trailers for "Chick Flicks" making it onto national spots during The View. This may seem like "hot air" when they try to persuade you that their movie is great, but don't we always start to wonder "Is that movie going to be as good as they make it seem?" Usually, that answer is no.
When it comes to hegemony, I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of movies try to make their lead character out to be the oppressed subject of the movie against what they try to make you think as "unachievable turmoil" against a dominant figure, more commonly considered the villain in our society. The lead character is always trying to achieve some sort of power, but wouldn't that in turn make them the dominant force behind hegemony? I tend to prefer movies where the bad guys win. I'm sorry if that makes me weird.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment