Why is it that some reviewers, particularly of films, often give the end away when they must know that readers want to enjoy the work without knowing who done it or if the girl does get off with the lord of the manor or if the bloke does win a hundred thousand pounds at poker - or whatever.
I think there is an attitude among critics that indicates their contempt for the storyline; surely, they think, what matters is the meaning of the work, what it tells us about life etc.
I have just read a piece by Jeremy Clarke in his "Low Life" regular section in The Spectator in which he tells of going to see the film "Taken"; he not only decribes what goes on in the film, all the killings and torturings, but tells the reader what happens at the end of the film when the girl..... No, you won't get me doing such an underhand and plainly petty thing as to give away the end.
The thing is that Clarke disliked the film so much, disaproved of it so much that he couldn't believe that any sensible, intelligent human being would like it or approve of it. So it wouldn't spoil our fun if he revealed the end.
Luckily I have already seen the film and. contrary to most critics' opinions, I enjoyed it as a sort of adult "boys own" story. OK it was pretty nasty but the characters the hero was up against were more than pretty nasty.
Unlike seeing, say, "Hamlet" when I know the story well and know how it ends, this film is exciting because you wonder how it will turn out. With "Hamlet" you don't; you enjoy it for other reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment