I know the second part of the title is "An Interview of Sylvester Stallone,"
but I still feel like publishing the interview as the predominant text of the article is a total cop out.
When I was in high school, doing journalism, there were tons of times where it would be easier to just publish the interview rather than actually writing.
We weren't allowed to. We were told it wasn't real writing.
I can kind of see why now.
When you do an interview, you find it dynamic and interesting because you're with the other person, having a conversation. You're tempted to publish it so you can get in as many of the personal sentences said by the speaker, without getting quote happy, because you find what they say and the particular way in which they say it so intriguing.
After all, what better way to understand a person than by the predominant form in which they express themselves: words.
However, when reading this interview, I became confused.
I think the text of what Stallone is saying would be much easier to understand if you were in person, registering body movements and tones of voice.
I feel like something gets lost when you just put the words, and without the narration of the writer, you don't get the full effect. Part of confusion may simply come from the way Stallone expresses himself, I will admit.
I find a lot of his answers vague or metaphorical, but not the kind of metaphor that clears up a picture, rather the kind that muddies it up because there can be so many interpretations and you don't know which one is the "correct" one the speaker was trying to get across.
Overall, I liked the idea of this piece. It was thinking outside the box. It had an interesting message in relation to stereotypes, gender roles, and the male identity.
However, I don't like the piece itself, because I don't like its execution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's interesting that you should say this. I imagine part of the reason for maintaining its original form (though this is obviously only speculation) is precisely the reason you stated: that he often provides metaphorical or allegorical responses that sometimes tend to complicate issues further (these are, indeed, complex subjects being discussed). Perhaps Faludi felt it wise to not attempt to translate what he said into a standard article because she didn't want to misinterpret or misrepresent what he said. I also found it interesting to see how his responses dictated her next questions (which I imagine is how most interviews go, but still). There is a complicated dialogue developing here that we might miss if not for the form of the interview itself. That's why I, at least, found the form interesting.
Post a Comment