When it comes to writing film reviews, there are two types of content to include. One is film analysis, in which the reviewer breaks the film down into its individual elements and goes into detail about each one. Another is moviegoer experience, in which the reviewer describes his or her emotions and thoughts going on during the movie. As far as I'm concerned, you pretty much need both to have an interesting review. Different film review styles may emphasize one over the other. Some critics have education in film and/or journalism and may be more capable to analyzing a film parts. Other critics may focus more on the experience of watching the film.
For me, I'm more in the latter category but I do my best with analyzing the film, even if it doesn't always go all the way. Keep in mind that I have no training in film or journalism. In real life, I have a science background but I love to write and watch movies.
This is just something I've been thinking about lately. I don't know if it's necessary to even discuss it, but I thought I'd see what you all think. So with that, what's your review style? Do you think certain ways of reviewing a film are better than others?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Anthony poses a good question to consider.
My background as a critic comes from 3 years of writing reviews for the high school paper, 3 years of writing reviews for the college paper, and now 2 years of writing reviews at the free lance professional level. While I have journalistic experience, my main writing background is in English. I double-majored in English (creative writing) and Political Science.
I approach a film as I'd approach a text in an English class. I read it, make an interpretation, and then make an argument about what it does, what it doesn't do, or what it should do. With each review I write I try and make at least one substantial point about something. I try and write something about the movie that distinguishes my review from everyone else's.
You're right that it's important to provide a little bit of both analysis and personal experience into the review. But the more important question is this: why should either of those things matter? Why should my personal experience of a movie matter to someone else? Answer: if an understanding of my experience can lead to them better appreciating the film.
When I read a review by any critic I want to get access to a thought about the movie that I wouldn't have had otherwise.
I'm a lot less cerebral than you guys! I just write the review as if I'm telling a friend about the movie.
And...more thoughts on this...
I think part of it's sheer logistics. I support my family of four on my writing, so I hammer out anywhere from 4 to 6 reviews a week, along with all my other print and online writing. I probably average about 3000 words a day. I just don't have time to be cerebral!
David, Jane, I like to consider myself a combination of you two.
You see, I like the idea of breaking a film into parts to look at more closely. That's the method of a traditional critic and I have nothing against that.
At the same time, certain condition might make doing so a bit tough for me. For one thing, I write reviews while keeping in mind both the people who haven't seen the movie and the people who have seen it. It's a balancing act, because while a detailed analytical review would likely appeal to someone who has seen it, someone who just needs a bottom line about whether the movie is good or not might want something quicker. Plus, if I laugh at a comedy or was blown away by an action movie, chances are that the reader might be, too (provided that I'm not heavily biased). I compromised by deciding to stick with the bottom line in a minimum of five paragraphs while injecting whatever major analysis I can. Major, meaning the analysis that I feel inclined to do. Because I'm not inclined to be too detailed, want to cover as many movies as I can, and other reasons, I don't try to discuss the plot, characters, style, directing, cinematography, etc. with every single film. I pick what elements stick in my mind the most for a particular movie.
Perhaps the biggest reason I stick to a simple review style is that I'm not doing it professionally, and I'm not trying to be the next Roger Ebert or any other pro. I'm doing it entirely for fun because I love to watch movies and I love to write. It's natural to combine the two. As long as I have opinions about movies and say more than just "it's good" or "it's bad," then I'd like to join the fun of reviewing movies.
And that's why we're all here, right? :-)
Anthony,
I was thinking about your review writing style vs mine and I had an idea for you.
I realized that I tend to write two kinds of reviews. First there's the weekly film review of a recent release. Second there are the blog posts I do. I realized that your reviews are often like my blog posts. They're what I term on my blog as "bite size reviews" -- basically pretty short, not too in depth, but still useful and fun.
These are basically snacks for the reader. Well, as film criticism chefs, sometimes it's fun to plan a whole meal for your reader -- to give them something they can really sink their teeth into. Just a thought for you. I'd be really interested to see you go in depth on a film or a genre or director
Jane, I want you life. I suppose you've put in the years to get to the point where you've earned it, though.
I'm not at the point yet where I can support myself and my family on my writing. I'll get there, though.
David, I like that analogy. I can agree that my reviews are bite-sized five-paragraph snacks. That's pretty much my trademark.
Once in a while, though, a film will have so much for me to say that I go well beyond five paragraphs and provide some more in depth commentary. It is fun to cook up a whole movie-review "meal." It's just not something I have the time nor effort to do with every single movie.
The best example of this is my review of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006). It may have only some in depth analysis, but I have a lot more to say in this review than others.
The other thing about this is that I really don't think most people have the time or energy or patience to read long reviews, especially online, where stories and reviews are generally shorter.
For myself, I tend to fade off if a story is longer than 5 or 6 paragraphs. I know I'm insanely busy, but so are most people in this day and age. Even print mags are reducing stories to bite-sized bits of info. Good or bad? Who knows, but it's the trend.
Sometimes I write longer reviews, if a movie is a smash hit or if I've interviewed someone in the cast or the director.
My interviews are generally long, too, but they're almost always in Q&A format, so people aren't reading long columns of text with no breaks.
This is certainly an interesting topic and I've been meaning to chime in on it for some time now. My approach to film writing is a bit of everything. It depends entirely on how I respond to the film. If the film had a great emotional impact on me, then my review is a lot more likely to focus on my personal interation with the film, how it moved me. If that stems from the filmmaker's formal construction of the film, then I will refer to this.
My background is in communication studies and I work full time in a bank. Writing is a passion and one that I make a great deal of time for. My reviews tend to run between 600 and 800 words. Any longer won't be read most likely. I have some experience with film studies so I do know how to approach a film formally but it isn't always my main concern.
I do also write keeping in mind that the reader may or may not have seen the film. There are some who read before going and those who read only after having been (like me). I don't like to give away too much and that can sometimes be tricky.
Essentially, I approcah films and the subsequent writing about them from a 100% subjective point of view. It is my philosophy that my reading of the film is tainted by everything I've experienced in my life - from personal situations to previous films. Who I am will play into the reading of the film because it can't not. So when I sit down to write, I try to share my values in the review because I believe that building a following will come from identification. My readers will come to know me in my writing and will in turn come to know if their interests in film are in line with mine. I've been told that my reviews give people insight into the film, what I think it means, what might have gone into making it and ultimately how I felt about it without any specific instruction as to whether the reader should or shouldn't see it. After all, it is up to them to make up their own mind and I like to try to leave that in their court.
One day, my second job will be my only job!
Joseph I think I'm with you 100%. I can't really find anything in your comment that I'd disagree with when it comes to my own approach.
Post a Comment