A Rhetorical Analysis Of FX Porn

In today’s time, films have been so much more than high priced motion pictures. Films are the back bone to our weekends, first dates, and so much more. With that being said, there are large expectations for new movies that come out and the first impression can be the difference in audiences everywhere deeming these films “good” or “bad”. In the article “FX Porn” David Foster Wallace argued that a “good” film follows a strategic cycle, he claimed that this is a well thought out process that has been critiqued to the “T” and is used by many people in the movie industry today. This cycle consists of having likeable actors, simple plots, and lots of advanced editing, per Foster Wallace these are the characteristics that we base our opinions of films off. Forster Wallace says, “What they really are is half a dozen or so isolated, spectacular scenes — scenes comprising maybe twenty or thirty minutes of riveting, sensuous payoff — strung together via another sixty to ninety minutes of flat, dead, and often hilariously insipid narrative.” As a movie watcher, these elements are great pluses to movies, but the standards that we base our opinion on should not be limited to such simple aspects. Audiences are constantly putting films in the

This holds true to how we view movies, we are too busy bashing the film because it isn’t what we’re used to, we turn a blind eye to the message that it is relaying. As blogger Robert Frost explained, “Film is art. Film is commerce. Film is spectacle. Film is documentarian. Film is protest. Film is stimulus. Film is conversation. Film is amusement.” We get so much from films whether it be an entertainment piece, short story, or “work of art” and we just take advantage of it. if this aspect of films keep getting ignored directors will feel that it isn’t a priority and there will be no substance to what we are