What.
Anyway, for those of you who haven't seen it (guys) it was actually a potentially decent movie that just ended up being about strippers. Who knew.
I told her all about that, and she told me that I should write a literary analysis of it on my other teacher's wall.
So I did.
And here it is:
So, I've been keeping up with the media and literature scene this summer, as I'm sure you're glad to hear. There have been so many great movies and wonderful books that I've just read though they're really not new, in fact many of them are actually very old, but they're new to me. Anyway, I do appreciate all types of media, which is exactly why I've seen Magic Mike twice. Channing Tatum was just a
bonus, I swear. And that is why, as a voracious learner and critic or all things intellectual (or whatever you want to call it, I mean, it was about strippers), I have decided to do you the wonderful courtesy of describing the movie to you in all of its virtues and flaws (I'll try to keep it PG). So here it is... my literary analysis of the stripper movie, Magic Mike.
May I just start by saying that it actually could have been a good movie. For the most part, movies like that put about as much thought into the plot as the strippers in them put into picking out their names ("Bubbles. Because I like bubbles. Perfect!"), but this one contradicted that almost immediately. Within the first two minutes of the film, the subplot of Mike's custom furniture business had already been introduced, complete with the conflict of the banks not being willing to give him the competitive loans he wanted because he dealt mostly in cash. It was so promising that I almost believed it would actually be a movie equally balanced in plot and visual attraction. Alas, I was proved horribly wrong when they proceeded to ignore that subplot for the next hour, replacing it instead with (mostly) naked men and Matthew McConaughey's obnoxious voice and overall existence. Sorry, not a fan. Only near the end did they decide to return to real substance and give the quick and dirty version of "conflict-climax-resolution" by cramming it all into roughly twenty minutes of film and replacing "resolution" with "magical lack of conflict." And though the final product was somewhat disappointing, I was still impressed by the existence of a more complex plot at all, eliminating all guilt that I may have felt at going back to see it again. After all, responsible journalism does require extensive research, does it not?
I bet you want to go see it now, don't you. Yeah, you're welcome.
I got a double-like from both of them. And he said he needs "time to compose a proper response."
When that happens, it will be on here. Guaranteed.
I bet everybody wishes they taught me lit.
May I just start by saying that it actually could have been a good movie. For the most part, movies like that put about as much thought into the plot as the strippers in them put into picking out their names ("Bubbles. Because I like bubbles. Perfect!"), but this one contradicted that almost immediately. Within the first two minutes of the film, the subplot of Mike's custom furniture business had already been introduced, complete with the conflict of the banks not being willing to give him the competitive loans he wanted because he dealt mostly in cash. It was so promising that I almost believed it would actually be a movie equally balanced in plot and visual attraction. Alas, I was proved horribly wrong when they proceeded to ignore that subplot for the next hour, replacing it instead with (mostly) naked men and Matthew McConaughey's obnoxious voice and overall existence. Sorry, not a fan. Only near the end did they decide to return to real substance and give the quick and dirty version of "conflict-climax-resolution" by cramming it all into roughly twenty minutes of film and replacing "resolution" with "magical lack of conflict." And though the final product was somewhat disappointing, I was still impressed by the existence of a more complex plot at all, eliminating all guilt that I may have felt at going back to see it again. After all, responsible journalism does require extensive research, does it not?
I bet you want to go see it now, don't you. Yeah, you're welcome.
I got a double-like from both of them. And he said he needs "time to compose a proper response."
When that happens, it will be on here. Guaranteed.
I bet everybody wishes they taught me lit.
No comments:
Post a Comment