The environment of a child molds them into the person they will become as an adult. The biggest influences in children lives are parents and celebrities. There are positive and….
Even though you might not see it at first, The Movie Star seems to do a lot to capture its readers from more then what they might initially think. No matter what Simmons is saying by his sport analogies, movie stats or bold statements about reader’s favorite actors, he seems to be able to easily intrigue you. Simmons clearly seems to know what his audience, from the people that fallow him from his fame in the sports world or if it’s the more pop-culture crowd enjoying the Grantland website.
Reading on throughout his article you continue to see his audience that he’s reaching along with in what context his work should be perceived in, Grantland being a big part of that context and contribution to who his audience is. Once he does this, it seems like any demographic of reader that have any interest in movies or celebrities get pulled in to understand his purpose and find out if they agree with his point of view.
Throughout Simmons essay, his text in its set context and in combination with his audience, he creates a bold statement while encouraging his readers to think about what Hollywood is really about.
Simmons starts his essay with his first of many sport references, in which he refers to a basketball games hype up of the crowd in the arena. He goes on to explain how teams all across the NBA have their own star that they put up there to scream at the crowd. But like in the situation that the Cleveland Cavaliers were put in, they went from having Lebron to Mo Williams. At first when beginning to read the essay I thought this was a weird introduction for his readers to have especially when the essay is called The Movie Star.
Once I finished the article though, I saw how it was the perfect way to get the reader ready for what his article was going to be about and in a bigger sense, his purpose. His introduction serves as key example of how even in the NBA, they need to find fill in stars even if they don’t necessarily have one for their fans to feel like they have one. Therefore getting them hyped up about their team, even if they just lost a great player/awful person like Lebron.
From this you begin to see how it could easily relate to Hollywood as well as someone like Ryan Reynolds being put in a movie just because they need a lead character just because someone had to be. There’s finally a transition where you begin to see the underlying meaning to his references in the next paragraph, where he mentions how it is that Hollywood has a Mo Williams dilemma? He then fallows his point by asking why these actors are forced on us in all these movies instead of them making a great script or a great picture.
In my eyes is very true about a lot of movies that just seemed to be made just because they can and are advertized to show these main characters as if they were these amazing movie stars that you should come out and see. When Simmons began his comparison he chose one actor that I thought was great was a great choice, mainly because I really dislike him, which was Ryan Reynolds. Then he goes on to include in his argument Will Smith, which weirdly I love in almost anything he has ever made. Now I don’t know if this was done on purpose, meaning that he picked two actors, people for the most part feel completely opposite about.
But what you do see is that he chooses Will because of my marketability and his amount of money he makes off of all his movies despite Simmons thinking he doesn’t make great movies. And on the other had he has Reynolds; someone that he thinks has never made a good movie let alone carried one to greatness. Simmons then comes at you once again with some more sport analogies, this time talking about the NFL and its starting quarterbacks. The league in this case being referred to as Hollywood and the actors being the quarterbacks that are needed to play regardless if their all stars or not.
For Simmons, the same thing is going on in Hollywood movies. You have numerous movies coming out constantly and its impossible to think that every single one is going to have an amazing leading actor. He then goes on to compare Reynolds to Alex Smith (over all number one pick) the quarterback for the 49ners because of Alex’s inability to be able to reach the Super Bowl comparing that to Reynolds improbability of winning an award or being cast in a great movie. Going on you see in Simmons article that it is much more than just Will Smith and Ryan Reynolds.
He goes on to list who he feels is the top movie stars comparing them to the NBA all star team. Basically saying if he had to pick, those would be his top “players”. From there he goes on saying who he thought shouldn’t be categorized as a movie star. Either way I really didn’t agree with everyone on either of those lists, but at the end of this essay and after extensive arguments in class you get to see that he wanted his audience to get more out of it then an argument of whose popular and whose not.
Simmons Probably had no point to saying who he thinks is great or not, but he wanted others to see that maybe there is no such thing as a movie star besides what we think is one at one point in time just to forget about him next year if hes not making any money. This whole essay, for me, served as a closer look into what Hollywood is really about and to think twice next time I get in an argument about who I think is an amazing movie star.