To understand a film review, I first had to analyse other film reviews and compare them to each other. I analysed a review of New Moon the Twilight Saga which was written by the Guardian and Johnny Mad Dog by Sight and Sound which was written by Sight and Sound. The Guardian though being considered a "high-brow" intellectual newspaper for left wing adults, it is not quite to the standard Sight and Sound work at. Which tends to be very lengthy and involved in every aspect. Therefore there is a strong contrast between the two.
Comparison of film reviews; Twilight – by the Guardian and Johnny Mad Dog – by Sight and Sound
From immediate reactions it is clear from reading that, Sight and Sound gives an in depth explanation of plot and review specifically paying attention to detail; whereas The Guardian is somewhat more abrupt in its description of the film and its response.
Though both audiences are considered intellectual strong differences can still be found. Sight and Sound show subtle criticisms throughout suggesting ‘Johnny Mad Dog’ is “yet another hackneyed effort stimulating rage”. Then moving on to compliments to sound scores “magnificently unsettling”. However, The Guardian doesn’t hold back in giving constant blatant criticisms being more sarcastic and insulting that Sight and Sound. This is due to the different audiences both publications are aiming for; The Guarding is aimed at left-wing intellectuals using youth socio-lect to be ironic. Whereas Sight and Sound is very technical assuming that the audience has a wide knowledge of film.
Both The Guardian and Sight and Sound follow similar structures, beginning with an explanation of the story, criticisms, compliments then draws to a conclusion. However the details are different. Sight and Sound jump straight in with talking about ‘the French film-maker’, The Guardian begins with immediate insults and follows with a brief mention of the director now stopping for details. This is also as a result of the assumed knowledge the audience has. Sight and Sound assumes that the audience will already know about the director not feeling the nee
d to use his name, as it is reviewing the film not the creator. While The Guardian mentions the directors name presuming the audience will know of Chris Weitz, as they are on the pulse of news.
The language in Sight and Sound is greatly more technical and descriptive. Where The Guardian repeats words such as “Buff” and uses the ironic youth socio-lect “shag” for example. Almost doing an impression of the tabloid news that younger generations read, as; The Guardian is known for its high- brow views similar to Sight and Sound. Which is also clear on who their audience is and what they want to know; Using film lexis e.g. “disordinant score” and in depth insights on what the audience can expect from the film. Though the Guardian seems intent on mocking and insulting the plot line, due to its high brow status.
One thing both reviews share is a tendency to compare or at least mention other publications, Where ‘New Moon’ is put with ‘Frankenstein’s Monster’ in a negative light. ‘Johnny Mad Dog’ is said to be alike ‘The Heart of Darkness’ which is automatically assuming that the reader will have a previous knowledge of the book mentioned.
Doing this Review analysis has shown me how The Guardian and Sight and Sound are different in the way that they review films, though they are both "high-brow" and extremely arty liberal leading publications seen in a professional sense, they both have different ways to reach out to their readers. Where Sight and Sound is thorough on every aspect from acting to technology The Guardian works a different way; mostly focusing on actors and Directors and giving an overall response which can be either very flattering or just slander the film all together.
Film Review Plan - From my research, I have been able to find the codes and conventions of a film review.
Begin with a brief summary with the film itself
-Title and year
-Genre
-Director
-Screenwriter
-Music or soundtrack
- Main actors
- Then introduction of director
- Place and time: Where does the action take place? When does the action take place? (Present time, 19th century…) Is the story chronological (according to the order of time) or flash back.
Background: society, country, kind of people (age, culture social class), historical time, genre:horror, comedy, drama, adventure or thriller.
-Initial reaction to film
-Depending on quality of film: criticisms and compliments
-Comments on sound and lighting
-description of shot and camera movement and how it affected the film, mention on camera man
-Mise en scene references – quality of sets and realism e.g. fashions
-Overall conclusion and recommendation star rating out of 5
However these reviews were for feature length films. This was because it is rare that short films are reviewed publicly by professional critics. Therefore, the review that I will write about my movie will be in the general feature length format. I.e. star ratings, director, actor and writer comments and so on. I will be writing my review in the format in which Empire Magazine would. I have chosen this format as I felt that the Guardian was too informal while Sight and Sound tended to be more long-winded and Technical. The format that Empire Magazine does is more my style of writing. Before doing so however I will need to analyse some film reviews done by Empire Magazine.
The first review I will analyse is for a film called Green Zone. The review can be found on: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=134769
To begin with Empire gives you the plot and a short verdict as well as star rating. To read the full review you must choose to do so.
Again the full review begins with a short plot describing the film. Next to the plot is an image taken from the film of the central character, in this case actor Matt Damon. The review of Green Zone begins with a comment on it being "a long time coming" comparing it to Wembley stadium. This gives an idea of the anticipation for the movie, a promising opening for the review. The second paragraph discusses the actor and directors previous work together, questioning whether it will be alike to what they had done before (The Bourne Ultimatum). By doing so the review gives insights to the plot of a soldier in Baghdad looking for weapons of mass destruction. The next paragraph then goes in to tell us the audience that the film is based in what Tony Blair said why the troops were in Baghdad. Therefore, the film has been based on previous events. So far the structure of the review has told us about the actor (Matt Damon), Director (Paul Greengrass), the plot line and the ideas behind the plot line. So far no critical analysis of the film itself.
Finally in the fith paragraph the actor is credited for his acting. Empire compliments Matt Damons acting as not just "showboating" but actually delivering the character of a "patriot". In doing so Empire is commenting on the actor whilst commenting on the character in the film itself. This is a key part of the review as the audience will now know the acting is quality and the characteristics of the lead himself. Thus the audience has an understanding of the central character. The word "showboating" itself can be considered Media-Industry lexis which can be associated with film reviews.
In the following paragraph, Green Zone is compared to films; Hurt Locker and The 39 Steps. Being linked to those films compliment Green Zone especially after all the academy awards Hurt Locker gained in 2010. Being compared to a high esteemed film like Hurt Locker, is sure to make readers believe Green Zone will be good.
Comparison of film reviews; Twilight – by the Guardian and Johnny Mad Dog – by Sight and Sound
From immediate reactions it is clear from reading that, Sight and Sound gives an in depth explanation of plot and review specifically paying attention to detail; whereas The Guardian is somewhat more abrupt in its description of the film and its response.
Though both audiences are considered intellectual strong differences can still be found. Sight and Sound show subtle criticisms throughout suggesting ‘Johnny Mad Dog’ is “yet another hackneyed effort stimulating rage”. Then moving on to compliments to sound scores “magnificently unsettling”. However, The Guardian doesn’t hold back in giving constant blatant criticisms being more sarcastic and insulting that Sight and Sound. This is due to the different audiences both publications are aiming for; The Guarding is aimed at left-wing intellectuals using youth socio-lect to be ironic. Whereas Sight and Sound is very technical assuming that the audience has a wide knowledge of film.
Both The Guardian and Sight and Sound follow similar structures, beginning with an explanation of the story, criticisms, compliments then draws to a conclusion. However the details are different. Sight and Sound jump straight in with talking about ‘the French film-maker’, The Guardian begins with immediate insults and follows with a brief mention of the director now stopping for details. This is also as a result of the assumed knowledge the audience has. Sight and Sound assumes that the audience will already know about the director not feeling the nee
d to use his name, as it is reviewing the film not the creator. While The Guardian mentions the directors name presuming the audience will know of Chris Weitz, as they are on the pulse of news.The language in Sight and Sound is greatly more technical and descriptive. Where The Guardian repeats words such as “Buff” and uses the ironic youth socio-lect “shag” for example. Almost doing an impression of the tabloid news that younger generations read, as; The Guardian is known for its high- brow views similar to Sight and Sound. Which is also clear on who their audience is and what they want to know; Using film lexis e.g. “disordinant score” and in depth insights on what the audience can expect from the film. Though the Guardian seems intent on mocking and insulting the plot line, due to its high brow status.
One thing both reviews share is a tendency to compare or at least mention other publications, Where ‘New Moon’ is put with ‘Frankenstein’s Monster’ in a negative light. ‘Johnny Mad Dog’ is said to be alike ‘The Heart of Darkness’ which is automatically assuming that the reader will have a previous knowledge of the book mentioned.
Doing this Review analysis has shown me how The Guardian and Sight and Sound are different in the way that they review films, though they are both "high-brow" and extremely arty liberal leading publications seen in a professional sense, they both have different ways to reach out to their readers. Where Sight and Sound is thorough on every aspect from acting to technology The Guardian works a different way; mostly focusing on actors and Directors and giving an overall response which can be either very flattering or just slander the film all together.
Film Review Plan - From my research, I have been able to find the codes and conventions of a film review.
Begin with a brief summary with the film itself
-Title and year
-Genre
-Director
-Screenwriter
-Music or soundtrack
- Main actors
- Then introduction of director
- Place and time: Where does the action take place? When does the action take place? (Present time, 19th century…) Is the story chronological (according to the order of time) or flash back.
Background: society, country, kind of people (age, culture social class), historical time, genre:horror, comedy, drama, adventure or thriller.
-Initial reaction to film
-Depending on quality of film: criticisms and compliments
-Comments on sound and lighting
-description of shot and camera movement and how it affected the film, mention on camera man
-Mise en scene references – quality of sets and realism e.g. fashions
-Overall conclusion and recommendation star rating out of 5
However these reviews were for feature length films. This was because it is rare that short films are reviewed publicly by professional critics. Therefore, the review that I will write about my movie will be in the general feature length format. I.e. star ratings, director, actor and writer comments and so on. I will be writing my review in the format in which Empire Magazine would. I have chosen this format as I felt that the Guardian was too informal while Sight and Sound tended to be more long-winded and Technical. The format that Empire Magazine does is more my style of writing. Before doing so however I will need to analyse some film reviews done by Empire Magazine.
The first review I will analyse is for a film called Green Zone. The review can be found on: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=134769
To begin with Empire gives you the plot and a short verdict as well as star rating. To read the full review you must choose to do so.
Again the full review begins with a short plot describing the film. Next to the plot is an image taken from the film of the central character, in this case actor Matt Damon. The review of Green Zone begins with a comment on it being "a long time coming" comparing it to Wembley stadium. This gives an idea of the anticipation for the movie, a promising opening for the review. The second paragraph discusses the actor and directors previous work together, questioning whether it will be alike to what they had done before (The Bourne Ultimatum). By doing so the review gives insights to the plot of a soldier in Baghdad looking for weapons of mass destruction. The next paragraph then goes in to tell us the audience that the film is based in what Tony Blair said why the troops were in Baghdad. Therefore, the film has been based on previous events. So far the structure of the review has told us about the actor (Matt Damon), Director (Paul Greengrass), the plot line and the ideas behind the plot line. So far no critical analysis of the film itself.
Finally in the fith paragraph the actor is credited for his acting. Empire compliments Matt Damons acting as not just "showboating" but actually delivering the character of a "patriot". In doing so Empire is commenting on the actor whilst commenting on the character in the film itself. This is a key part of the review as the audience will now know the acting is quality and the characteristics of the lead himself. Thus the audience has an understanding of the central character. The word "showboating" itself can be considered Media-Industry lexis which can be associated with film reviews.
In the following paragraph, Green Zone is compared to films; Hurt Locker and The 39 Steps. Being linked to those films compliment Green Zone especially after all the academy awards Hurt Locker gained in 2010. Being compared to a high esteemed film like Hurt Locker, is sure to make readers believe Green Zone will be good.
No comments:
Post a Comment