As my DA evolves from ill conceived film youtube channel (rip passion pop culture) to establishing myself as a film/pop-culture-essayist-and-reviewer I become increasingly acquainted with how cultural criticism functions on a semiotic level. For example lets look at the BCM-analysis-friendly world of Film Twitter.

At first Film Twitter appears to be an unquantifiable beast. After all it is a decentralised network comprised of thousands of users, across the entire world, who collectively contribute to it. However, with a bit of closer inspection we can see certain trends, memes, and propaganda emerge. From there I can then better discern where I fit into the discussion.

For instance. Film Twitter actually extends across several social media platforms. People who are a part of Film Twitter tend to also have a Letterboxd profile… and a Curiouscat… and a personal blog… and contribute to film blogs and magazines (anyone on film twitter is a “writer”). It’s on these film blogs and magazines especially that propaganda trends emerge, with sites often repeating each other. Just check out the propaganda-ness quality these reviews from sites Roger Ebert, Movie Metropolis, and Much Ado About Cinema.

It is not originality that defines Film Twitter, but rather personality. Leaning into the eccentricities of your personality is what allows you to stand out. It’s The Lucy watching Captain Marvel five times (one for each star she rated it) or Mia Vicino claiming she is in the midst of a torrid lover affair with the ghost of John Cassavetes. It’s Fran Hoepfner creating an entire podcast dedicated to Jude Law.

These people still participate in the propaganda, but they inject their personality to make it their playthings. It’s not about what you say as much as about how you say it.

To end have a starter pack of film twitter, and starter pack of me, hopefully exploits the points where they intersect.

(imgur.)

(imgur.)