joshuahall

I played Serena before I knew any of its backstory. I’m glad you gave a concise history. It really contextualizes the game, and makes it even more impressive.

Like you said, the voice acting is a bit hokey, but the narrative is phenomenal. It really succeeds as a digital narrative, allowing the player to explore at their own pace without losing the quality of its storytelling. If this is the result of indie game-making collaboration, then I’m excited to see what else the industry has to offer. Removing Serena from the profit-driven industry and creating it for an artistic and striking purpose truly allowed the game to flourish. It shows how much of an impact a video game can make; games like this are defining the future of the indie industry.

You captured two dark storytellers very well. I’m not as versed in Neil Gaiman as I’d like to be, but I read a lot of Stephen King growing up, and I have to agree that his narratives are pioneering horror and magical realism in the postmodern.

What always struck me about King was the way he often made inter-human conflict the driving force. In Under the Dome, the trapped citizens face more conflict from the power-struggle than the dome itself. Often, King’s magical element is only a catalyst for human conflict. Pet Sematary and Needful Things are good examples of this. In Carrie, the human conflict creates the magical element, which is then fueled by further human conflict. The villains aren’t necessarily the magical elements, but the humans who use them.

My point is: King’s magical realism seems to be lens for looking into society. He can explain our conflict-driven world through his magical world. When reading his characters, we see ourselves. We are not heroes, or knights, or wizards, but we are writers, and cops, and doctors, and parents, and sometimes the world feels utterly against us. It’s why I love Stephen King horror. The enemy is not someone with an evil nature–it’s us.

I like the way you framed the critic as part of the creation of a film, even though most people assume that the critic’s role comes after the film is made. Movies are often discussed in terms of their director/leads, and the many hands who assisted in a film are usually forgotten.

Most often I view critics as contextualization; at least, that’s often how I use them. Their discussion is beyond emotional reaction and delves into artistic significance. Beyond a basic reaction, they discuss how the films fits into the larger trend of its genre, and whether the film succeeded in whatever it was trying do.

Critics are like quality-checks, ensuring that what’s made was made with purpose and vision. I enjoy your praise for the film critic, but I do have to disagree with your distaste for Sharknado. They can make those films until I die.