Reading the profile's of Deschanel and Ebert, I found two things. First, would be their easy readability. In both cases, the authors took a very conversational tone. The switch between scene and summary is smooth, but used often. If they had been biopics, I would foresee incredibly awkward transition scenes as the rapid switches between varying past events and the present interview have seemingly little sequential reasoning. The other thing I noticed was the thorough nature of the profiles.
The thoroughness of the two interviews really surprised me. With Deschanel, it not only covered her current projects, but her childhood, her impression on the author, and even a brief touched upon her sister’s acting career and thoughts on acting. Ebert’s profile had a similar omniscience, and I think that’s part of the appeal of a profile. In many ways, they read like third-person limited novels, where the reader gets to not only see the character, but also gets an impression of how he or she sees and feels. That type of knowledge feels intimate, and really makes the piece appealing. It also makes a little anxious to write my own piece. Giving emotions and stances to characters I’ve thought up is one thing -I have full ownership of that- but I’m wary of doing the same for a real person.
No comments:
Post a Comment