Author: Michael Phillips
Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/chi-0315-movie-violencemar15,0,4181994.story
This story was an opinion piece on the issue of violent movies and the kids who are watching them. Using the sensational new movie "Watchman" as an example, Phillips argues that many parents freak out about their kids seeing movies with bad language and sex, but don't blink an eye about letting them watch senseless violence. I thought the article was very effective because it used a current example that almost everyone has heard about to present an arguement for a larger issue. Phillips starts out by saying that no parent should bring their kids to see "Watchmen" and then gives several examples of some of the more violent scenes in the movie. He then compares it to other R rated movies that lots of parents wouldn't let their kids see just because they say the F word a few times. I think the reason I found this article to be effective was because Phillips used vivid, specific examples for every arguement he made. I hate when columnists rant and rave about some pet peeve of theirs and no where in the piece do they have anything to back it up (Michael Coulter from buzz *cough*). It's like "Ugh, people like this suck, blah blah blah, I hate them." In this article, the examples speak for themselves and the reader can actually relate to what the author is trying to say. I like being able to think, "He's right, it really doesn't make sense that 'Once' got the same rating as 'Saw V'" instead of just "Umm, yeah, I guess I know what he's talking about."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's what we mean when we say, "Show us; don't tell." Let the evidence speak and the readers form the opinions.
ReplyDelete