Le cinéma reconnaîtrait-il enfin le jeu vidéo à sa juste valeur ?
J’attends 300 avec une certaine impatience. Véritable spectacle visuel, il a reçu un accueil critique plutôt mitigé (ce qui n’empêchera pas son succès commercial). 300 fait il trop jeu vidéo ?
Variety retourne cet argument fallacieux, en mettant en avant la richesse narrative de beaucoup de jeux.
"Once the newness of '300's' look wears off, which it inevitably does, what we are left with is a videogame come to life," wrote Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times. " '300' will ... be talked about as a technical achievement, the next blip on the increasingly blurry line between movies and video games," added Slate's Dana Stevens.
"[T]he excitement amounts to little more than a video game on the big screen," wrote USA Today's Claudia Puig. And in the New York Times, A.O. Scott said he would rather play "the video game that '300' aspires to become."
First off: What's wrong with a movie being similar to a videogame? While it's a young medium compared to movies or literature, any culturally literate person in the year 2007 should be able to see that videogames are creative productions, not mere pieces of software.
Those critics who complained that "300" is short on narrative and long on mind-numbing violence implied that videogames are the same. Popular videogames like "Gears of War" and "Mortal Kombat" do fit that description, but there are many other games that don't. Even the much-derided "Grand Theft Auto" features relatively complex storylines and large casts of characters.
In reality, videogame developers have created acclaimed works that span genres.
Few horror pics are able to instill the bone-chilling terror of "Resident Evil 4." A dramatic filmmaker should aspire to reach the epic scope of "Shadow of the Colossus." And those looking to make the next great franchise should should only hope their movies engrossviewers half as well as "World of Warcraft."
[ Variety ]