Given all of the evidence that pro-Trump bots were all over the Internet in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out the largest difference score was an anti-Hillary Clinton movie: 4% of critics liked it, but somehow 81% of the audience did. I won't do too much interpreting of the results-you can see for yourself where the movies fall by hovering over the dots. You can hover over any dot to see the film it represents as well as the audience and critic scores: The dots in blue are those films in the tables above. Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Partyīelow is a scatterplot of the two scores with a regression line plotted. The five biggest difference scores in both the positive and negative direction are found in the table below. 68.īut where do audiences and critics disagree most? I calculated a difference score by taking critic - audience scores, such that positive scores meant critics liked the film more than audiences. Audiences and critics tended to agree scores between the two groups correlated strongly, r =. The average critic score was 56.74, while the average audience score was 58.67 while audiences tended to be more positive, this difference was small, 1.93, and not statistically significant,, t(223) = 1.34, p =. ![]() The film names and scores were all put into a data frame. Then, I fed them into two functions that gets critic and audience scores: # get rotten tomatoes critic score Then, I wrote a little function (using rvest and magrittr) that takes this Google search URL and fetches me the URL for the first result of a Google search: # function for getting first hit from google pageĪfter running this through a loop, I got long vector of Rotten Tomatoes links. So, I scraped this table, took the names of the films, and I turned them into Google search URLs by taking "" and using paste0 to add the name of the film at the end of the string. The problem was I needed links to Rotten Tomatoes pages, not just names of movies. The movies I chose to examine were all listed on the 2016 in film Wikipedia page. So what I did was got critic and audience scores for movies in 2016, plotted them against one another, and looked at where they differed most. It made me think of the divisions between critics and audiences I thought that the biggest differences between audience and critic scores could be an interesting way to quantify what is “high-brow” and what is “low-brow” film. It scored very well with critics (92% liked it), but rather poorly with audiences (52%). A few days ago, I happened upon the Rotten Tomatoes entry for the movie. Showing how quotidian sexism is in a film makes for a slow-paced, quotidian plot. The only problem is that I found the movie, well, pretty boring. It isn't always a huge dramatic thing that is obvious to everyone-instead, most of the time sexism is commonplace and woven into the routine of our society. ![]() The film had a solid point in that it exposed the mundane, everyday ways in which women have to confront sexism. ![]() ![]() I was pretty excited to see it a blurb in the trailer calls it “Triumphant… an indelible portrait of independent women,” which sounds pretty solid to me. In his book Seabrook describes the key phenomena of nobrow: musical culture formed by MTV channel, Kurt Cobain and Nirvana – the primary destroyers of once unshakable barrier between the underground and pop-music, George Lucas and the “Star Wars” – the new “non-religious mythology”, the media, The New Yorker magazine in particular, as exponents of the new nobrow cultural hierarchy, the fashion, where the label has become much more important than good taste and style, the contemporary art and design.I went and saw Certain Women a few months ago. The usual hierarchy of “highbrow” (elite) and “lowbrow” (mass) culture is replaced by the common field of nobrow. Nowadays the products of culture, just as any other goods – cars, clothes or interior design products – are governed by the marketing criteria: fashionable/unfashionable, well-selling/bad-selling. bad taste, can no longer be applied to contemporary culture. John Seabrook writes about the collapse of the old cultural hierarchy: the criteria of highbrow vs. New York Times columnist John Seabrook analyzes a cultural landscape in which there are no longer any boundaries between highbrow and lowbrow culture.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |