Others, however, watch horror for the plot and the bone-chilling backstory that messes with your mind and makes you think. Of those people who do enjoy horror, some watch it purely for the thrill of the scare and the adrenaline rush that keeps your heart pumping and your muscles tense. Do we have a clear sense of whether Park is writing to one audience or the other? Another way to put it is, what is the ratio of description to analysis in her argument? If you've seen the film, is there too much description? If you haven't, is there too little?īiography Works Cited Print Page Top of PageĪ horror film is a lot like bleu cheese.
![a quiet place plot a quiet place plot](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/DWDHufghPkdGpj84urkXad.jpg)
![a quiet place plot a quiet place plot](https://www.moviehousememories.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/A-Quiet-Place-2018-featured.jpg)
This essay is a visual analysis, but it spends a good portion of its analysis not on the visual but on the audial, on sound.
![a quiet place plot a quiet place plot](https://mmc.tirto.id/image/2018/04/09/a-quiet-place--mild--rangga-01.jpg)
How does Park's essay navigate those two sides (thesis and evidence)? Does it matter whether the connections that Park is making between the film and "modern media's booming voice" was intended by the film's director and co-writer, John Krasinski? In the absence of directorial intentionality, what evidence does Park use to defend her claims?