I feel that the argument David Denby makes in his article, "High-School Confidential: Notes on Teen Movies" is that people go to watch modern teen movies because they like to see the upheaval of the social systems in place in high schools."
To prove this the author has to provide evidence of popular teen movies that feature a social system that gets turned upside down or the hero violates certain principals of the system. Denby accomplishes this throughout his article as he brings up cases like Carrie where a girl is treated poorly, but get her revenge by setting the school on fire. People who watch the movie may feel like her actions are justified since she was the victim of bullying. Denby talks about other stereotypical plots where a nerdy girl attracts the attention of a popular guy. And ultimately they might fall in love like some classic Cinderella story. This goes back to people's want to perhaps go outside their social class and marry someone from a higher standing. Denby also talked about the movies where nerds are bullied but ultimately succeed at life while the jock dwindles his time away at a car dealership or some other inferior job. This seems to embody that old American ideal of working hard to rise through the social ladder to make it to the top.
I feel like the fact that the author wrote an article about teen movies seems to make him sound more credible. Books and written articles published in actual books are always viewed as more credible then statements made on a TV debate or written up on a website online. Denby uses logic to make deductions and statements about the examples he lists. I feel like most of them could be accepted as valid conclusions but they don't often seem like iron clad statements or reasons. He appeals a lot emotion through his vivid word choice. I imagine anyone who reads this will be plagued with either a sense of guilt or bad memories from high school at least one point in the article. He seems to really use pathos to emotionally charge the readers and get them thinking critically about what he's saying.
If I wanted to counter this argument there are a few options I could take. I might try and provide examples of teen movies that don't necessarily feature an upheaval of the social system, but I don't watch nearly enough movies so I can't really think of any off the top of my head. I would also try to make the case that people, at least Americans, wouldn't like the movies because of the social upheaval because that would remind them of communist uprisings. Of course that sounds incredibly outlandish, which might lead me to try and portray the author's argument as outlandish in and of itself and take the examples he lists and portray them as more simplistic to make it seem like he's over analyzing them. The final approach I could take would be to offer an even better reason that makes quite a bit more sense than the current one as to why people go to see teen movies.
In other news, yeah, this blog should probably be considered late. I completely overlooked that part underneath the reading assignment where it said to make a blog. Now if for some reason you want a semi-decent excuse as to why I shouldn't be docked points for posting late then I'll make the case that the news post title said "Assignment for Friday 10/5." This doesn't necessarily imply that it had to be done before class and as of my posting it is still technically Friday.
No comments:
Post a Comment