Why Media Video Essays SUCK!

Summary

The speaker argues that many media video essays fail as criticism because they substitute plot summaries and broad judgments for close analysis of how a work functions.

Main points

• Plot recap is not criticism. Many essays spend most of their runtime retelling events in sequence. This is unhelpful to viewers who have already seen the work and can spoil it for those who have not.
• Descriptions are not verdicts. Calling a story “rushed,” a character “unlikable,” an ending “ambiguous,” or prose “repetitive” identifies a feature but does not explain whether it succeeds or fails. Criticism should connect observations to the work’s aims and effects: What was the choice meant to do? How well did it work, and what did it cost the audience?
  • A short work may be fast-paced because it has little space; a long exposition scene may be compelling because the exposition itself is part of the experience. A label alone does not establish a flaw.
• Criticism should attend to the medium. Film, television, and animation are audiovisual forms, yet essays often focus almost entirely on plot and dialogue. The speaker urges critics to discuss choices such as framing, composition, camera distance, editing, shot duration, rhythm, acting or animation, sound, music, production design, and timing.
• “Bad writing” is often an imprecise catch-all. Problems caused by editing, performance, direction, studio reshoots, or the relationship between gameplay and story are routinely blamed on writing. The speaker suggests this happens partly because scripts and dialogue are easier to discuss than audiovisual craft.
• Many essays serve as confirmation rather than inquiry. Viewers often choose videos that validate opinions they already hold. Algorithms reward agreement, while arguments that complicate viewers’ views may be rejected. Such videos can provide community and talking points, but the speaker says that this is not the same as criticism that changes how someone sees a work.
• Secondhand takes can replace the work itself. Opinions may pass from a video essay into other videos, comments, and posts until people are discussing a “summary of a summary” rather than the actual film, show, or game. Plot and controversy survive this process more easily than the work’s original audiovisual qualities.

Suggested approach

When evaluating a media essay—or making criticism yourself:

• Ask whether it offers analysis or mostly retells the plot.
• Treat descriptors as starting observations, not conclusions.
• Explain what a creative choice appears to be doing, whether it works, and what effects or trade-offs it creates.
• Support claims with specific evidence from the screen and soundtrack.
• Discuss the work’s medium-specific choices, not only its plot or screenplay.
• Consider whether the essay has changed your understanding or simply confirmed what you already believed.
• Whenever possible, experience the original work rather than relying on recaps or repeated interpretations.

The speaker acknowledges that this video is also one step removed from the works it discusses and encourages viewers to check the original media rather than simply accept the speaker’s conclusions.

Speakers and sources mentioned

• Speaker: One presenter, speaking alone.
• Works and media referenced: Lolita; I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (the short story and video game); The Lord of the Rings and the Council of Elrond chapter; Pride and Prejudice; Fanboy and Chum Chum; Obsession; and the Star Wars sequel trilogy.
• Other references: TV Tropes, IMDb, Twitter, video essays, and online comments and discourse.