Since it's Friday, let's play a game of make-believe, shall we?
So, you're Roger Ebert (don't worry, this pans out in the end). You're the most visible, if not the most powerful film critic working today. Everyone knows who you are, and, much like Caesar did for gladiators in the arena, you can determine whether or not a movie suffers a bloody end with a flick of your thumb. Also, you do this embarrassing framing thing with your hands whenever someone takes a picture.
Anyway, you've just seen the critic's screening of
Garfield: A Tale Of Two Kitties, the sequel to the movie that inspired dozens of reviewers all over the world to work the word "Cat-astrophe" into their vocabulary. But, you actually liked Garfield, and after seeing that loveable scamp meow his way around London, you decide that you like Garfield: A Tale Of Two Kitties too.
But what is the best way to convey this to your readers? Should you:
a. Write a sound review that makes your case for the movie in plain language, with many clear examples.
or
b. Write a review from the perspective of a cartoon cat.
We can stop playing here, because if you were the real Roger Ebert, you would have chosen b.
That's right, Ebert wrote a review in the voice of Garfield.
Here are a few highlights:
Garfield explaining his movie:
"Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties" is my most ambitious work to date, starring me in a dual role as (ahem) Garfield and also as a British cat named Prince. As in the first movie, I do Bill Murray's voice while playing myself. In my role as Prince, I do the voice of Tim Curry, an actor I have admired ever since Jon took me to a drive-in to see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" while he smoked human catnip.
Garfield explaining himself:
Having spent years within the cramped panels of a newspaper comic strip, I gloried in the freedom of the cinema. It allowed me to show off my body language: My languorous stretches, my graceful pirouettes, my daring leaps and bounds, my shameless affection for my owner, Jon (Breckin Meyer)
And my favorite part, Garfield praising Roger Ebert:
There will be malcontents who claim I am not the real author of this review, because how could a cat know that after you mention a character in a movie, you include the name of the actor in parentheses? Do these people believe a cat lives in a vacuum? I read all the movie reviews, especially those of Ebert, a graceful and witty prose stylist with profound erudition, whose reviews are worth reading just for themselves, whether or not I have any intention of viewing the movie.
Thoughts?