It was difficult not to swear at my computer scream as I read the NY Times article feature on Emma Watson. I would love to write a thorough and blasting criticism of the utterly pompous and ignorant critic who Emma Watson had to unfortunately breathe next to, but I was supposed to be in bed an hour and a half ago.
So, this’ll have to do. Here are three reasons why Will Self of the New York Times is an idiot.
1. For whatever reason, Self has swallowed the idea that the Harry Potter books are on level with Captain Underpants, even though he has never read them, or bothered to observe that Rowling’s books have been translated into 67 languages, are the best selling books worldwide, and that the last four books of the series are the fastest selling books in all of history. If he was going for the intellectual snob approach, he nearly nailed it- just drop the intellectual part.
2. He seized every possible chance to present Watson as an unordinary
3. He openly admitted that he completely ignored her when she spoke of her film roles. It is his damn job to listen to every word that she says. We do not care what he thinks. We care about what Watson thinks. That’s why her photo was taken multiple times, and why, thankfully, a photo of "a downright cranky half-centenarian" was not.
Echee says: Last year's Vogue interview was way worse. Not because of the writer but because of her whining about having no control of a life. How it was written was even worse. Lines like these:
"It’s the pixie-cut hair and flawless skin that give her away. Emma Watson is dressed unobtrusively in a cotton flower-print French Connection dress and beige sandals, but she is unmistakable"
"Emma ignores the stares and continues to chat animatedly about Miró’s willingness to take risks with his art. An avid painter herself—“I love it and have a need to do it”—she can talk eloquently about every picture on the wall. Her favorite is The Farm, a painting once owned by Ernest Hemingway that brought the artist his first taste of success outside Spain. What she admires, Emma tells me, is that Miró was both a draftsman and a painter, unafraid to combine these talents to create something that was simultaneously surreal and hyperreal."
"As Emma takes me on a tour of her house, the extraordinary depth and breadth to her talents become obvious. Every room is framed around a beautiful artifact—a piece of furniture or fabric picked up at a flea market in Paris or Los Angeles—and her artworks show that she can both paint and draw exquisitely."
Click that link to read about a spoiled little brat as one person who commented had to say. It was not a popular interview for Emma. It was not even put on her official website because of that. It was her first post Potter interview and she tanked it. I used a few websites in my media posts that had people ripping her for sounding like an ungrateful ingrate.
The Vogue article is not as bad as the Sunday Style Times that was also from last year. Check out these lines;
"Suddenly, she’s coming towards me, tiny and superpretty in Azzaro. She could easily pass for 15, even in make-up. She shakes my hand and keeps hold of it sweetly, like an anchor. For someone who’s been doing this for years, the nerves still flicker about her face. Her palm is endearingly clammy. "You’re doing well," I say. "Oh, gosh, I hope so. Look at all this." She marvels at the stage, the cameras, the champagne-rinsed crowd, her name in enormous neon letters. She looks pleased — and ever so slightly scared"
"I immediately understood the sense of responsibility. My brother says I’m an eager beaver. It’s true. I’m very driven Bingo. Watson’s addiction isn’t to celebrity, obviously. It’s to self-betterment, to doing the "right thing". She is the definition of propriety, so when offers flooded in while she was at uni, she realised it would be a mistake not to maximise on her moment."
"No wonder. Still, hearing her natter on, you can’t help thinking she’d make someone a fantastic girlfriend. Loyal, hard-working, polite to a fault — and, let’s not forget, with some serious dough in the bank. She also, rather Britishly, downplays her fame, the reasons it exists and what it means to her"
Her fans would appreciate the Sunday Sttyle Times a lot better. It's written like fan fiction. It's something someone would make up on tumblr, wordpress or blogger. It made me a puke a little. It's something they are accustomed to. There minds work that way when they think about her because those are the types of interviews she normally has. It kisses her ass and makes her out as the most perfect innocent thing you'd ever see.
To get back to this New York Times t-magazine interview. It's a bit long in the tooth so I can't highlight all but there is the begining that struck me. It's different for a Emma Watson interview where the writer kisses her ass the entire time.
"Emma Watson, the onetime co-star of the most successful movie franchise ever, is a very grateful and a very lucky person. How do I know that? Because I sat down with the 22-year-old in a gastropub in a trendy neighborhood of North London, and in the course of an hour’s conversation she said "grateful" five times and "lucky" eight. True, of those five "grateful"s two were of the "ungrateful" form — yet these were embedded in clauses like "I felt guilty because I felt like that meant I was ungrateful. . . ." So, as you can see, Watson is a young woman who wants it put firmly on the record that she understands human lives are shaken up in the snow globe of uncertainty, and that simply because she’s ended up being covered in golden flakes, she doesn’t take it as her due, oh, no."
"I can’t say I ever paid that much attention to her acting in the Potter movies, but I’ve looked for many, many hours in the general direction of screens upon which Watson has performed spells, mixed potions, ridden magical beasts and generally cavorted about. With four children of my own, ranged over 11 years, the eldest the same age as the actress, and the youngest just 11, I’ve been exposed to a great deal more of the franchise than I would’ve wished."
"So, Watson will always be, for me, a nice middle-class English girl pretending to be another nice middle-class English girl who’s lucky enough to have magical powers for which she’s extremely grateful. That off-screen those magical powers consist of the ability to transform cavorting about into huge mounds of gold — her personal fortune is estimated at $40 million — only goes to prove that we live in a world at least as strange as J. K. Rowling’s fictions"
"I concede the above has been lightly purged of “like”s (although meanly I left the “just”s and the “really”s), those nonce words so crucial to the speech patterns of any Mid-Atlantean under 30, but it does give a fair flavor of Watson’s earnestness and dedication as an actress."
"Watson did talk to me a little about her roles, but I simply can’t hear actors when they speak about their work — the world around me grows sort of misty, and often I swoon away altogether. A famous Shakespearean actor was once talking to me over lunch about his Lear, and I very nearly put my eye out with the top of the pepper grinder"
"Nowadays Emma Watson is set to make a lot more lemonade, and as I left her I thought: I damn well hope it’s potable — then checked myself. After all, why does it matter to me? Unlike with her earlier screen incarnation, I will not be compelled by my children to witness these ones. No, I can decide to watch her movies or not, as I choose, just as she has chosen to become a real grown-up actress. And that, surely, is what cinematic art should be: an act between consenting adults."
If you read the article in a whole the writer does say some really nice things about her. They correlate a few things to make the reader think about it. The Emma loons are only focusing on these few negative tidbits I highlighted. They are always like that. It's like they have OCD and found one hair out of place. It drives them insane. But to the rest of us we don't even notice there is a hair out of place. They want to read stuff similar to the Sunday Style Times or any other related article or interview that is written like fan fiction. Reading this interview was the equivalent of them drinking out of a cup that had chewing tobacco spit thinking it was tea. It shocked and disgusted them.
Do you feel like the guy (Emma loon) who wrote that critique about this interview on his tumblr? What's your take on her interviews? Do you find them annoying with being over the top and scripted? Do you think her PR team and the writer have a plan on how it will be written? What do you think of the t-magazine interview? Do you think the writer has something against her or are the Emma loons reading too much into it because it's not formatted to praise her like a God? Click all the few magazine interview links I provided and tell me which one is fan fiction and which one is real journalism.
I thought this was interesting when I came across it. Are people finally breaking out from their trance to see the woman behind the mask?
Rupert Grint is %90 positive
Daniel Radcliffe is %70 negative
Rob Pattison is %87 positive
Jennifer Lawrence is %97 positive
Emma Stone is %94 positive
Kristen Stewart is %66 negative.