I'll be defending a review of The Book of Eli, which you can find here.
The writer of this review is the co-chief film critic for the New York Times since 2004, Manohla Dargis. She was the chief film critic for the Los Angeles Times and the LA Weekly.
She begins with a description of the film’s setting and a detailed account of Denzel Washington’s character. From the start the reader develops a mental image of the dead environment and the main character.
She provides context for the first time: this is the directors’ first film since 2001. She analyzes the film’s cinematography, explaining why certain parts are effective, and in great detail. Her use of examples legitimizes her opinion.
She describes visual aspects of the film. She shows her knowledge of the film’s technology; it was shot in high definition digital. She provides context again; she compares and contrasts the film with other movie genres and other directors.
The plot description arrives five paragraphs in and by this time the reader has enough context to appreciate her description.
The “but” appears when she transitions into acting. She explains where and why the movie went wrong. It’s appropriate in this paragraph because she believes it’s the script’s clichés and the timing of the characters’ arrivals, as well as the unrealistic costume design and polished faces.
She ends the review on a high note, with an overall light and playful mood. The movie succeeds because the plot is engaging, and the bits of humor are certainly appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Emily,
ReplyDeleteYour reviewer's review is thoughtful and wide in scope. In the limited amount of space you had, you touched on all major elements in the review (besides casting, on which Dargis spends a significant amount of time). I liked what you said about how putting the context first gives the reader a chance to judge the plot for themselves. I know 200 words is a tough limit for this assignment, but I wanted to hear some specifics of Dargis' "playful mood" and "bits of humor".
-Elaine
A very methodical analysis of the review. I personally wasn't a huge fan of the review itself, but your defense effectively made me see its good points. I also didn't really get where you touch on the humor at the end, (which I also felt in the review was just thrown in at the end) so I'd like to hear a little more about that. You did a good job pointing out where she succeeded in her review without stating it point-blank. Good work!
ReplyDelete