For example, that one paragraph that starts with “There is a gap of five days” keep that, then write about the exact same thing from a totally different perspective and treat it as fact as well. I’ve found myself critiquing things lately without giving alternatives, so okay, how do we fix this to make a more cohesive product? I think some more research into the nagra reels would really help (he gets the lunchroom conversation wrong in the same way that others who aren’t familiar with the tapes have done), but barring that, because I’m sure he’s under a time crunch, I think what would have been a really interesting way to take that article would be to write essentially two mini-articles. What I don’t like is that even having said that Jackson is manipulating the audience, even having said that it is a Rorschach test in which viewers project onto the footage the meaning they want it to have, the author goes on to describe their own very specific perspective and treat it as fact. I also thought the point about it both dispeling and confirming a few “myths” about the period was well taken. The lack of obvious emotional signposts and cues and talking heads to explain what is going on and the various band/friend dynamics you see happening really does create this interesting Rorschach test where quite often, depending on your knowledge level and openmindedness, what you get out of it can be what you bring to it.
That Bulwark article started out fine, it really did.
0 kommentar(er)
