Interesting Things. May 7, 2020 13:52:35 GMT
Post by Kapitan on May 7, 2020 13:52:35 GMT
I do not like this NYT profile on actor Val Kilmer at all. (And I know, the world was waiting for my response to it.) There are two reasons.
1. The writer, Taffy Brodesser-Akner, inserts herself and her friend into the feature to what I find an annoying degree. Her recollections of Kilmer's earlier work, OK, that's to be expected, I suppose. Her friend's bout with cancer (with the tie-in being Kilmer's previous bout with cancer) ... okay ... the obligatory "this was hard because coronavirus" angle? Kill me now. Come on.
2. The writing. It surprises me, although maybe it shouldn't, that New York Times Magazine's editors allow for a style this colloquial.
"...later that day, literally seriously that day, he was inspired to call his agent..."
"And I thought: Right?"
After several mentions of his being a method actor, "Maybe he was burned out already from all that Methoding."
"See what he did there?"
"...that he perhaps definitely did."
I know there were others but I don't want to mine the whole, lengthy thing in more detail just now. My problem, though, is that it feels very much like an informal, personal blog. Or maybe a message board post. It just doesn't feel remotely like journalism, even celebrity journalism (which is only a distant cousin to journalism to begin with). It reminds me that the Washington Post recently had a series called something like "How to Adult," another egregious violation of the language. That the country's leading institutions have (as I see it) pandered to the people with this level of informality, this kind of purportedly trendy slang, really annoys me.
So there, NYT. Now you know.