Friday, November 18, 2016

Getting it right -- with some Dunst on the side

I've been MIA for a bit, as sometimes life really does get in the way, even for the most ridiculously committed hobby bloggers.  Never fear: all is well, and life's drama should remain on the screen for a little while.

I was pulled out of my reverie of overwhelm today, however, by a Tufts student's stream-of-consciousness rhapsody on an actress that has elicited from me alternating respect and head-scratching over the years: Kirsten Dunst.  Ms. Dunst is a good actress, and is at her best when her character is feisty, and a little unpredictable. Playing tweens and teens in Interview with the Vampire, the quasi-period Marie Antoinette and the unfathomably enjoyable Bring It On, her overwhelming personality and perkiness have served her well.  But now that she's been tackling portrayals of full-grown women for several years, she still has a few tics that smack too much of precociousness, and are often cloying for no character-driven reason.  Those tics worked in Cameron Crowe's Elizabethtown, and were balanced by a champion's laser focus in Wimbledon.  She has managed to transform herself more fully in excellent dramatic turns such as Mona Lisa Smile and Melancholia, which is one of the most profoundly beautiful films I've ever seen.  But the glimmers of cuteness can be distracting in otherwise compelling roles such as Eden in Upside Down (a film with it's own issues), or the pitiable Katie in All Good Things. Both of these are good films, for which she served up commendable performances, but we're never able to forget who we're watching.

Enough Dunstian analysis -- suffice it to say that I'm a fan, in spite of myself.  What I was drawn into earlier today was a frustrating post that showed little or no preparation and research, and didn't seem to have a purpose of its own.  It may have been a class assignment, or perhaps it was an extemporaneous musing. I contributed what I hope was a polite comment, and was careful to include the encouragement we all need.  For me, no piece is perfect, and my writing is always a work in progress.  This hapless young man certainly wasn't expecting feedback from the likes of me, and probably felt safe writing in the shelter of his college blog.

But while I feel confident that I've avoided ripping him to shreds, my ever-guilty self wonders: is it necessary or even useful to enforce standards of fact under such circumstances?  If we must blog, don't we have a responsibility to get the facts right, or is posing the argument good enough on its own?  For the record, I do believe that responsibility exists, or we're just filling the world with vanity and misinformation.  But really, why should I care if a college freshman's hyperbole gets away from him on a blog that I just happen to have tripped over in a spontaneous search?

I'd love to hear from readers, if you're inclined to discuss such cerebral ponderings.  Do facts matter? Must opinions always be framed in context and backed by at least some historical understanding, or have I made a mountain out of a molehill?  Are there no editors or advisors at Tufts?  When is it better to let stream-of-consciousness be what it is? Because blogs live such a long time, shouldn't there be some basic standard of quality?  Or is that idea just elitism run amok?


No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome! Please feel free to comment, but keep it polite. All comments are moderated. Thanks for visiting!