Brick, Champ, Brian and Ron are back, back, back in the Anchorman 2 trailer. Their legend became but a whisper told by the trees apparently and now nine years after the original, they return in a new decade to face the challenges of the 80s. When Ron and the gang start working on a 24 hour news channel, who knows what will happen? Check out the brand new poster and trailer below:
What we do know is Brick finds a kindred spirit in Kristen Wiig's not very bright lady friend and though the trailer doesn't show them; expect cameos from the likes of Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson and Sacha Baron Cohen.
Moving on from the rampant sexism of the seventies, Ron looks like he's found another social group to target. His dim-witted attempts to break down racial barriers at the end of this trailer look set to lose him a few fans in the African American community but will they see beyond the insults to the noble heart beneath that salon quality hair? Only time will tell...
What do you think? Will this match the original for laughs?
Here's the teasers from a while back if you missed them:
More trailers at I Love That Film:
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Wolverine
Pacific Rim
Man of Steel and The Desolation of Smaug
Pages
- Buy my book here! The Devil's Advocates - THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT - Buy now from Amazon by clicking here - Horror Channel call it a 'must buy' - Click here
- Home
- Rotten Tomatoes
- Starburst Magazine
- Amazing Radio
- Yahoo TV
- Media Magazine
- Interviews
- Short Stories
- Reviews A - M
- Reviews N - Z
- Trailers A-Z
- Published articles
- YouTube Videos
- Cannes 2015
- LFF 2017
- Static Mass Emporium
- What Culture
- Top 10 Lists
- A2 Film Studies
- AS Film Studies
- Music Video
- BTEC Film Studies
- BTEC TV and Film Industries
- All Time Top 100
Wednesday, 19 June 2013
Monday, 17 June 2013
More news on This is England 90: The Story, the Themes, the Musical, the End?
Those lucky buggers over at Digital Spy have been chatting to Shane Meadows, no doubt doing the rounds in order to promote his Stone Roses documentary Made of Stone. But the wonderfully naughty folks at Digital Spy managed to sneak in plenty of questions and got some juicy bits of info about This is England 90, the follow up to the This is England and the two TV series TIE 86 and 88.
Meadows confirmed in the interview that TIE 90 will likely be the end for the troubled youths on screens with no more plans to continue their stories. Meadows wisely says "I don't want to end up ruining it, but I love the cast." Hopefully he is joking when he added "This Is England the musical? Who knows!"
However if that makes you feel ever so slightly sad or suicidal, do not despair just yet as Meadows is clearly going to have a hard time letting these characters go (as I'm sure all us fans are) "It's really hard to put down when you have so much fun doing something, so I hope I don't push it too far and I hope '90 is maybe a full stop, but I daren't say forever."
Digital Spy also asked Meadows about the themes and he gave a great little insight into what the characters will be up to when we see them again in 1990. "The younger members of the crew, it becomes their time. In This Is England '90 it becomes about Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) and Kelly (Chanel Cresswell) and Trev (Danielle Watson) and Gadget (Andrew Ellis) actually getting into the Roses and getting into that scene and going clubbing and going raving and all of that. They sort of go off on that journey. Combo comes out of prison, he's served his time for manslaughter, and actually starts working in the community and the rehabilitation of his character begins. Woody and Milky set up a scooter shop. Woody finally gets out of that awful Mr Squire's factory that he's been working at, and him and Milky become really strong again. Everyone starts to do slightly separate things, but it's still got that beautiful unity that the others have all had. So, I've got the stories all lined up in my head, but I just need to get them down on paper."
Meadows confirmed in the interview that TIE 90 will likely be the end for the troubled youths on screens with no more plans to continue their stories. Meadows wisely says "I don't want to end up ruining it, but I love the cast." Hopefully he is joking when he added "This Is England the musical? Who knows!"
However if that makes you feel ever so slightly sad or suicidal, do not despair just yet as Meadows is clearly going to have a hard time letting these characters go (as I'm sure all us fans are) "It's really hard to put down when you have so much fun doing something, so I hope I don't push it too far and I hope '90 is maybe a full stop, but I daren't say forever."
Digital Spy also asked Meadows about the themes and he gave a great little insight into what the characters will be up to when we see them again in 1990. "The younger members of the crew, it becomes their time. In This Is England '90 it becomes about Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) and Kelly (Chanel Cresswell) and Trev (Danielle Watson) and Gadget (Andrew Ellis) actually getting into the Roses and getting into that scene and going clubbing and going raving and all of that. They sort of go off on that journey. Combo comes out of prison, he's served his time for manslaughter, and actually starts working in the community and the rehabilitation of his character begins. Woody and Milky set up a scooter shop. Woody finally gets out of that awful Mr Squire's factory that he's been working at, and him and Milky become really strong again. Everyone starts to do slightly separate things, but it's still got that beautiful unity that the others have all had. So, I've got the stories all lined up in my head, but I just need to get them down on paper."
Anyone else notice the glaring exception here? What about Lol? Meadows either didn't mention her or Digital Spy are holding something back from us (I doubt it's the latter). Vicky McClure has become something of the star of TIE 86 and 88 with a heartbreaking, BAFTA winning and brilliant performance as Lol. Hopefully two years on from TIE 88, Lol and Woody have managed to stay together or is that too much to hope?
If the younger characters are going raving, will it be all smiles, pills and happiness or do any of the characters go too far and get deep into addiction and misery? Combo's arc continues to be the most potentially interesting. Going from racist, messed up thug to saviour of Lol and sympathetic prisoner, will he now become a real hero to the youth and maintain that bond with Shaun? It's certainly going to be a fantastic watch with astounding performances but will it really be the end?
All I know is I can't wait. Are you excited for TIE 90?
More on This is England:
The History of Internet Movie Marketing
I'm currently writing one of the last chapters of my book on The Blair Witch Project for the Auteur Devil's Advocate series and I'm trying to find out a bit about the history of movie marketing using the internet as a tool. Everybody knows about the effectiveness of the website that was made to promote The Blair Witch Project but I'm curious about how ground breaking it actually was.
I'm finding it pretty hard to find out much about the history of internet movie marketing so I've put a few tweets out to see if anyone can help. Here are the tweets. This is, by the way, one of the many reasons I love Twitter. There are so many movie buffs out there and their knowledge, passion and desire to communicate astounds me. I'm just waiting for the day when I run out of movie buffs to follow but I hope that never happens.
And as usual with the power of the internet, I got a response to one of these question almost immediately. How good is that? Love Twitter. Love the internet. Very grateful to @beckygracelea for the information. I recommend you go follow her for being awesome!
So Stargate eh? Freaky that I've just finished writing a Roland Emmerich retrospective for Filmoria too (to be published next week). You'd have thought I might have stumbled across this little nugget of information. Here is the proof that @beckygracelea was right:
"Stargate was the first movie to ever have an official website. It was set up by Dean Devlin in 1994 and featured images, trailers and behind the scenes clips and actor information."
So now my other questions still stand, what happened next, when did it become commonplace? Was Blair Witch really the one that made movie makers see the power of the internet as a marketing tool? Any help would be extremely generous and much appreciated!
I'm finding it pretty hard to find out much about the history of internet movie marketing so I've put a few tweets out to see if anyone can help. Here are the tweets. This is, by the way, one of the many reasons I love Twitter. There are so many movie buffs out there and their knowledge, passion and desire to communicate astounds me. I'm just waiting for the day when I run out of movie buffs to follow but I hope that never happens.
Anyone know anything about the history of movie marketing on the internet?
— Pete Turner (@ilovethatfilm) June 17, 2013
Anyone know the first film to have a promotional website?
— Pete Turner (@ilovethatfilm) June 17, 2013
When did promotional movie websites become commonplace?
— Pete Turner (@ilovethatfilm) June 17, 2013
And as usual with the power of the internet, I got a response to one of these question almost immediately. How good is that? Love Twitter. Love the internet. Very grateful to @beckygracelea for the information. I recommend you go follow her for being awesome!
@ilovethatfilm Oddly, I do know this one - it was Stargate in 1994.
— Becky Lea (@beckygracelea) June 17, 2013
So Stargate eh? Freaky that I've just finished writing a Roland Emmerich retrospective for Filmoria too (to be published next week). You'd have thought I might have stumbled across this little nugget of information. Here is the proof that @beckygracelea was right:
"Stargate was the first movie to ever have an official website. It was set up by Dean Devlin in 1994 and featured images, trailers and behind the scenes clips and actor information."
So now my other questions still stand, what happened next, when did it become commonplace? Was Blair Witch really the one that made movie makers see the power of the internet as a marketing tool? Any help would be extremely generous and much appreciated!
Sunday, 16 June 2013
The Wolf of Wall Street Trailer
Here is the brand new trailer for Scorsese's latest The Wolf of Wall Street starring one of my favourite casts of the year including no less than... Leo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Matthew McConaughey, Jean Dujardin, Jon Favreau, Ethan Suplee, Spike Jonze, Rob Reiner and Joanna Lumley. If that isn't exciting enough, then just watch the trailer below!
It's based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a New York stockbroker who was convicted of stock market manipulation and selling dodgy investments and therefore making millions. Sounds potentially dry but no doubt with Leo as Belfort and Scorsese at the helm this will be more than white collar whining or just another Wall Street.
What do you think of the trailer?
More trailers at I Love That Film:
The Wolverine
Pacific Rim
Man of Steel and The Desolation of Smaug
It's based on the memoir of Jordan Belfort, a New York stockbroker who was convicted of stock market manipulation and selling dodgy investments and therefore making millions. Sounds potentially dry but no doubt with Leo as Belfort and Scorsese at the helm this will be more than white collar whining or just another Wall Street.
What do you think of the trailer?
More trailers at I Love That Film:
The Wolverine
Pacific Rim
Man of Steel and The Desolation of Smaug
Man of Steel Review: The Clark Knight Rises
As producer, Christopher
Nolan has left his mark on the new Superman but there was never much chance of
him bringing the man who could fly back to earth in the same way as he did with
Batman. Zack Snyder has a tougher job to make alien Kal-El and his antagonist
General Zod anywhere near as convincing as what Nolan did with another caped
crusader in his Dark Knight trilogy. But Snyder does try and he is occasionally
successful.
In
Man of Steel, Superman's roots as the last son of Krypton are explored and his
early years on Earth also get frequent flashbacks that are frequently some of
the best scenes in the film. The Krypton set spectacle at the start does not
convey the emotion of what is intended and the CG effects are more over
whelming than incredible. Snyder over does the style and loses some of the
heart despite Russell Crowe as Jor-El acting his socks off like its theatre and
Michael Shannon bringing the menace with ease.
What
works better are the flashbacks to Clark's
childhood down on Planet Earth. Here Snyder matches style with substance; the
young Clark struggling to accept his
difference from the other children and over whelmed by the extent of his
powers. It makes you wish for more from the young Clark;
a real Superman Begins that delves deeper into the Smallville years.
For
all Man of Steel's epic clashes including a barn storming (and smashing)
Smallville set piece, the action can never maintain its hold on the heart or
the head where so much special effects are thrown on screen. It's not that
there is any problem with the special effects themselves but when the action
ramps up and two (or three or more) super beings start going at it, it all
loses any sense of believability that has been built up before.
Perhaps
it is unfair to expect the same level of grounded realism that made the Dark Knight
such a convincing part of the modern world but Man of Steel does try.
Metropolis has many recognisable elements and the destruction of the climactic
scenes all has that familiar 9/11 feeling with dust covered survivors,
buildings falling and a city turned to ash. Unfortunately there is very little
sense of the extraordinary amount of death Zod's plan has caused and Superman
saves far too few people in his city to warrant the happy ending that is
undoubtedly on the cards. Again, the CG effects over whelm rather than immerse.
So
the Nolan influence is present as even in the midst of all the spaceships and
super beings pounding seven shades out of each other, there is some sense that
Superman is a believable creation and the world of characters (most notably the
military) reacts accordingly. However occasionally there are just too many CG
filled shots with one Superman vs giant space machine fight being particularly
far out and therefore hard to engage with. It is all very well to believe a man
can fly but when you have a hero fighting giant CG tentacles, it quickly loses
interest... unless of course that is exactly what you came to a Superman movie
for.
Better
but still occasionally over loaded are the scenes of combat between Superman
and Zod. While Shannon gets lumped with
numerous clichés for threatening lines, the clashes are occasionally spectacular
and drawn out only a little too long. At least their faces are not computer
generated and their acting convinces.
It
is a shame that Shannon gets so many
heard-it-all-before lines as there is a good strong character in Zod and it is
easy to quickly put Terence Stamp's version out of mind. The script is filled
with solid characters, making this the most convincingly constructed Superman
movie ever. The Kents are concerned, noble foster parents to Kal-El with Kevin
Costner giving a fairly brief but powerful performance, there is an overly
obvious but welcome attempt to make Lois Lane a strong and smart journalist (but
who still needs frequent rescue) and Clark himself is a man with a secret and a
real desire to keep it.
As
Kent/Kal-El Henry Cavill has more than just the incredible physique and the
handsome face. While he might make the ladies swoon, he also completely
convinces as both the other worldly outcast and in a brilliant final scene the Clark
Kent we are all so familiar with. Cavill is excellent, as is Hans Zimmer's wonderful score even if there is nothing quite matching the original Superman theme.
While
Snyder frequently gets carried away with the spectacle and special effects, the
story and particularly Kal-El's characterization is strong enough to make Man of Steel take off.
Though it may not convince as much as Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy, Superman is a
tougher caped crusader to sell in the real world. Man of Steel does however make Clark Kent
fascinating and ends the film with the potential for a sequel that will take him
onto much more familiar ground. With hints that Lex Luthor might be the next
villain in Man of Steel 2, let’s hope Snyder tones down the CGI in favour of
more practical and believable effects and makes a Man of Steel 2 that really flies.
Recent reviews at I Love That Film:
This is the End Review
Fast and Furious 6 Review
Ruby Sparks Review
The Look of Love Review
21 & Over Review
Iron Man 3 Review
Olympus Has Fallen Review
Spring Breakers Review
Pre- and Post-Viewing Experiences and Conditions of Reception: The Relationship between Audiences and Films Part 7
The enjoyment of a film can also be
affected by the pre and post-viewing experiences of the person who watches it and
where and how they watch it. For example if a viewer watched all the trailers,
promotional clips, interviews with the stars etc before a film is released,
they may have extremely high expectations of the film. This might mean the film
fails to meet these expectations. Comedies often have many of the best jokes in
the trailers of the films and these jokes will not be as funny when they are in the
final film if you have seen the trailer a few times. Similarly many trailers
give a great deal of the story away and show many of the best stunts. The
recent Fast and Furious 6 trailer seemed to have clips from all the major
set-pieces and therefore there was no sense of surprise when watching the film.
Prometheus was also a victim of its excellent marketing because people had huge
expectations and the film was not as good as many had hoped.
Before or after a film, reading reviews
might also affect a person’s enjoyment of a film. Sometimes I read a review and
I can’t get the words of the writer out of my head and it ends up affecting my
opinion. For this reason many wait till after they have seen a film to read any
reviews. Also discussing a film after it has finished can potentially change
your opinion of it. Though I still love The Dark Knight Rises, hearing people
pick out the all the plot holes has lessened my love for it a little bit.
How you watch a film is also important as
watching a film at an IMAX cinema with state of the art sound is a very
different experience to watching a film on a mobile phone or a dodgy pirate DVD
copy. Blockbusters particularly are supposed to be seen on a big screen in a
dark room with the sound up loud to get the full audio visual experience. If an
audience is laughing in a comedy or screaming in a horror, it will likely have
an effect on other viewers. Watching a film with mates is different to watching
it with parents or on a first date and watching it alone is very different to
watching it with a large audience. All these factors can affect enjoyment and
interpretation. 3D is supposedly more immersive but many hate it and some
people have home cinema set ups because they would rather watch a film in their
own home. I also find that if I see a really good film early (at a preview before
it is released) I think I often love it even more than if I was (seemingly) the
last to see it. I certainly feel the need to talk about it more to convince more
people to go and see it.
And that is the end of this series on the relationship between audience and films. Hope you enjoyed it. Please feel free to argue with me all you want it the comments below and check out the other posts in this series. All the links are below:
Did you miss...?
Part 1 on active vs passive spectatorship.
Part 2 on the pleasures of film watching.
Part 3 on frameworks of interpretation.
Part 4 on media literacy and intertextuality.
Part 5 on the effects of film.
Part 6 on fandom.
Fandom: The Relationship between Audiences and Films Part 6
Films do not just have
the potential to have an effect on audiences but also audiences can have an
affect on films. With fandom it can go both ways. Fans are people who love a
particular film, genre, character or star and they share camaraderie with other
fans. Sometimes being a fan can involve a huge range of activities such as
attending conventions, dressing up, writing fan fiction, blogging, starting a
website, attending premieres, collecting merchandise, writing fan mail or even
getting into film production and referencing the films you are a fan of.
Though the films have clearly had an effect
on the fans by making them get obsessed and turning the film into a hobby for
the person, the fans also have an impact on the film. They turn it into more
than a film, making it a cultural phenomenon such as Star Wars. Fans are now becoming
filmmakers so Kevin Smith references Star Wars in most of his movies and J.J.
Abrams is now making a Star Wars movie after being a huge fan of the original.
Fans have expanded the Star Wars universe by writing their own fan fiction and
their continuing love for the franchise has led to more and more sequels. Some
fans have even gone as far as to call ‘Jedi’ their religion and some Trekkies
have learned the (fictional) language Klingon from Star Trek. Some Avatar
fans were even reported to be feeling depressed or suicidal as they could
not visit the fictional planet Pandora. How much of this is really believable is
debatable but there can be no doubt that fans take films very seriously and
films can have a big impact on peoples lives.Check out this story on the tension between fans.
Did you miss...?
Part 1 on active vs passive spectatorship.
Part 2 on the pleasures of film watching.
Part 3 on frameworks of interpretation.
Part 4 on media literacy and intertextuality.
Part 5 on the effects of film.
Read more:
Part 7 on pre and post-viewing experiences and conditions of reception.Are you a fan? What do your fan activities consist of?
The Effects of Films: The Relationship between Audiences and Films Part 5
Despite the fact that most people reject
the idea that cinema audiences are a completely passive mass who do not
question or interpret films in different ways, some theorists have argued that
films can have serious and damaging effects on viewers. In the past, the media
(particularly tabloid newspapers) have been quick to blame films and video
games when individuals have committed terrible crimes. The murder of the three
year old James Bulger by two ten year old boys was blamed on the murderers
having been exposed to the film Child’s Play 3 with calls for the film to be
banned despite no real evidence that the boys had seen the film. Natural Born
Killers and A Clockwork Orange were also blamed for copycat violence with the
argument that some people see bad things in films and want to copy them.
The main effects that people are concerned
about are desensitisation, fear, violence in society and viewer aggression. If
people see a lot of violence in films, the argument is that they might become
desensitised to real life violence. The more blood you see on screen, the more
you get used to seeing blood and the less shocking it will be. The concern is
that particularly children could be affected if they see too much violence and
pain on screen, perhaps they will not feel as strongly about it when they see
it in real life. This could make them dangerous human beings that do not
empathise with people in pain and therefore they would be capable of being more
violent in real life.
Similarly if there is more violence in films, there is an
argument that society will become more violent. Films will make audiences feel
that violence is an acceptable part of life and being violent is an acceptable
way to behave. If film characters solve their problems with fights and killing
the bad guys, people might follow. This also ties in with viewer aggression. If
a viewer watched lots of violent films or films that make them angry, they
might be more aggressive. I have had more than one student in the past tell me
that watching a film like The Football Factory actually does make them want to
fight. Again the real concern is children who are considered to be more
impressionable. Will watching Ninja Turtles or Power Rangers or even Spiderman
or Lord of the Rings make them more aggressive and enjoy the idea of fighting
more? However this is why we have the BBFC and age ratings to stop children
from seeing things that society deems unsuitable. The BBFC are very good at
researching what the public views are on things like sex, violence and
swearing. However they still occasionally but very rarely ban or cut films that
they argue are too offensive or ‘dangerous’ even for people over the age of 18
due to harm these films could supposedly cause.
The other effect that might be a concern is
that with all this violent entertainment, vulnerable people may actually start to fear
society and other people. If an elderly, frail person watched a film like Harry
Brown or Kidulthood, it may make them fear London youth because of the stereotypes it
presents. Horror movie watchers might be more afraid of being alone, women
could be more afraid of men and the threat of rape and all because of violent
films that people watch for entertainment.
Did you miss...?
Part 1 on active vs passive spectatorship.
Part 2 on the pleasures of film watching.
Part 3 on frameworks of interpretation.
Part 4 on media literacy and intertextuality.
Read more:
Part 6 on fandom and film fans.
Part 7 on pre and post-viewing experiences and conditions of reception.I'm curious about this one. What do you think about the media effects debate? Can films turn us into monsters? Do movies create pscychos? Or do movies make psychos more creative? Drop a comment below if you have an opinion on the matter...
Media Literacy and Intertextuality: The Relationship between Audiences and Films Part 4
Another major factor or framework of interpretation that must be considered is the media literacy of the viewer. If someone is very educated about the media, as in they have done a media course or they watch a lot of special features on DVD’s and are very aware of how media texts are constructed, then this is likely to have an impact on their enjoyment and interpretation of a film. A viewer who is more media literate will likely be aware of how the text is positioning them and may therefore be less suggestible to the messages of the film. This viewer will be more aware of how the preferred readings of a film are constructed and may therefore resist the ideology or messages of the film more than someone who is less aware of how films construct meanings and provoke specific emotional responses.
For example some viewers may find
Kidulthood to be a realistic depiction of London’s
youth whereas others may see it as a sensationalistic film that stereotypes London teens in order to
sell more tickets at the box office. Some viewers will not enjoy fantasy films as much because
they are overly aware of how the special effects are created and this ruins the
magic for them. Some viewers may appreciate the films of Tarantino more or less
than others because they are more or less aware of the references to other
films that Tarantino alludes to. They may also enjoy a film such as Pulp Fiction more because they find the structure challenging and interesting
compared to a traditional narrative whereas others may find the non-linear narrative confusing and pointless.
This also ties in with intertextuality
which is where a film references another piece of media. This can be deliberate
or unavoidable. For example spoofs such as Scary Movie deliberately reference
other films such as Scream in order to parody them and make viewers who are
aware of the film being referenced, laugh at the imitation. People who have
seen Scream are more likely to enjoy Scary Movie as they will be more familiar
with the target of the mockery. Tarantino on the other hand pays homage to
films he loves such as Lady Snowblood in Kill Bill or City on Fire in Reservoir
Dogs by imitating them but not to mock them and make people laugh.
However intertextuality can also be less
deliberate and almost unavoidable. This is often the case with genre films and
the use of stars. Any time a filmmaker wants to make a slasher film where a
killer stalks a bunch of kids and stabs them one by one, that film will always
have unavoidable references to the whole slasher sub-genre of horror. Similarly,
any time a filmmaker casts a star such as Will Smith for example, the viewer is
likely to be reminded of previous Will Smith films. If I see Will Smith on a
poster, I suspect he may save the world (or at least be the hero) because I’ve
seen him do this a few times. I see Jim Carrey and I expect a comedy. This can
be used to sell a film or it can be used to subvert expectations but either
way, the use of certain generic conventions or stars can impact the experience
for the viewer, particularly if they are media literate or very knowledgeable
about films.
Did you miss...?
Part 1 on active vs passive spectatorship.
Part 2 on the pleasures of film watching.
Part 3 on frameworks of interpretation.
Read more:
Part 5 on the effects of films.
Part 6 on fandom and film fans.
Part 7 on pre and post-viewing experiences and conditions of reception.
Frameworks of Interpretation: The Relationship between Audiences and Films Part 3
Part of the theory of active spectatorship
is that the audience is made up of individuals who all read and interpret films
differently from each other. What makes us individuals are a range of things
and these could be considered our frameworks of interpretation. For example I
am a (vaguely) young white British man who has been through higher education
and is (probably considered) middle class. All these factors such as my age, my class, my ethnicity,
my education and even my past experiences will all have some bearing on the way
I read and interpret a film. Though I might agree with many other people, there
could also be differences. For example my interpretation of a film might be
very different to an old African lady. Though the film may have a preferred
reading, there may be some differences in the way people interpret it due to
their differing frameworks of interpretation.
Examples of this can be found everywhere.
Where I found Avatar to be about a so-called ‘primitive’ species of aliens that
taught a human that he should be more respectful of his surroundings and nature
and the environment, others criticised it for portraying the aliens as savages
and for the use of African-American and Native American actors in the roles of
the aliens. I interpreted it as James Cameron suggesting that the ‘primitive’
cultures were honourable, noble and cared for the planet, whereas the humans (often
played by Americans and Europeans) had basically destroyed Earth through
carelessness and greedy consumption of natural resources. However others
consider it a patronising view of non-white cultures and criticised it for
having a white hero who has to save the savages. Perhaps some critics with different frameworks of interpretation to my own were more sensitive to these issues than I was.
Did you miss...?
Part 1 on active vs passive spectatorship.
Part 2 on the pleasures of film watching.
Read more:
Part 4 on media literacy and intertextuality
Part 5 on the effects of films.
Part 6 on fandom and film fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















