New York, I Love You

New York I Love You (2008)

       New York I Love You is a series of vignettes set in a fantastical city of the same name, set to mirror the magic of the city and it's bending promises. The New York Times spoke as the voice for its city, and took the film as a sort of insult. The Times was not pleased with the misrepresentation of the city for which it writes, as in the film, New York is simply Manhattan, but this does not include Harlem or any other place unfashionable to the New York tourist's eye.

    Naturally, A.O. Scott, the author of the article, is very particular of the cinematography and direction of the film; it would fit that the author wants his city portrayed as it is. Scott begins his article this way. He acknowledges that his readers are New Yorkers as well and tells them their city is still a fantasy to the French and Chinese directors who shot the film. Scott notes that the film, although very artsy and naturally ridiculous (it centers love in New York. Apparently this is silly to a New Yorker because that's not what New York is about), doesn't work well because the stories aren't intertwined closely enough.

     A.O Scott uses very obscure references that require much time from the mind. In this respect, Scott labels the cinematography as very cheesy, and thus commences to reference the plot to a collection of badly written stories from an angsty college course. The plot isn't mentioned in depth, as the movie doesn't really have one. Instead, Scott writes about the plots of each vignette, largely accusing the stories to not make much sense. Scott credits this to the actor's performances, which he finds dry and unappealing; almost as if the actors are trying too hard.

This means that the to A. O Scott, the film is aloof and a wannabe indie film.

   I think we should write a lot like A.O Scott. We should be able to use obscure references, and to write metaphors that make little sense to a reader at first glance, but make the reader think. As such, we should be given creative freedom to the assignment. There shouldn't be a structure, because the structure will come naturally to the nature of the review, and the person's connections with the film.This would make the assignment more understanding and important to the writer. It would also be much more fun to write, and I'm sure there wouldn't be as many students doing it last minute in the library and turning it in a minute after they finished it.

Peace

http://diigo.com/0sywi