Filed under: Movies | Tags: Ben Afflect, blogging, Helen Mirren, media, Movies, news, newspaper, online, print, Rachel McAdams, reading, Russell Crow, State of Play, Technology
In our new media world where everything is accessible online and we are seeing a decline in printed newspaper readership, State of Play has perfect timing with a character who is a blogger teaming up with a character who is a tried and true, hardcore newspaper man.
Russell Crow is our grouchy, sloppy and anything but sophisticated print edition guy. Rachel McAdams is our young, hip, yet not very experienced online girl. The initial interaction between the two characters plays to the animosity generally felt between bloggers and print writers. But after that meeting, the differences fade into the background of the movie and they become two reporters working together: one experienced and one still learning. In the end, the print edition is declared the superior medium for a tantalizing news story with a line from our young blogger that is something to the effect of, “I think people need to have newsprint on their fingers when they read this story.”
I have to call BS on that conclusion. Don’t get me wrong: I am an advocate of newspapers. I don’t want to see them die. But, the life of newspapers is not dependant on continued printing on paper. It is content that rules in this crazy world of changing media behaviors. A great story will always be great, whether read on a screen or on paper.
Forgive the digression, but I would have liked to see more play of the print versus the online throughout the movie rather than making it about experience versus inexperience. However, I applaud the movie for even bringing the issue to the forefront.
State of Play was a fine movie that kept me engaged during its entire run time. Politics, murder, corruption, affairs and the pressure of newsprint deadlines make this movie entertaining and interesting.
Filed under: Movies | Tags: Funny People, Movies, My Sister's Keeper, State of Play, trailers
I accept or reject movies instantaneously upon viewing the movie trailer. No review, however well-written, can make a difference. Not even a friend’s opinion can change my mind: I have already developed my very uninformed opinion after watching a three-minute move trailer.
The mistake in making a decision based upon the trailer: the quality of the movie can be skewed by a well-edited trailer.
Today, I saw State of Play (a fine movie, and timely in regards to the journalistic struggles of today’s traditional journalists versus new media journalists). While I waited for the movie to start, I saw several movie trailers. I only remember two: My Sister’s Keeper and Funny People. Based on the trailers, I will see Funny People and I will not see My Sister’s Keeper. The basis of my decision? My Sister’s Keeper made me want to cry and Funny People made me laugh out loud a little (I might have been embarassed by my outburst). I happen to like all the actors in My Sister’s Keeper and I am sure that it is a touching, heart-warming movie (although I find Cameron Diaz as a mom totally unbelievable). But it just came across as too sad in the trailer. And, really, who wants to go to the movies and cry? I don’t. I go to the movies to escape to my happy place.
