The first step is to introduce the film in a sentence or two in order to provide the viewer with an initial insight to what they are going to read about.
The second step is to describe the plot of the film without giving away any of the spoilers. This is an important part of the film review as it will describe what the film is mainly about and what interpretations the review has received from watching it.
The third step is to talk about what was liked and disliked about the film and this can cover many areas such as the cinematography, actors, dialogue e.t.c. This reviewing part can make or break films because it is this section in which viewers will want to read and will in the end make them think about whether they are going to go out and see the film, or not.
The final step is to give the film a rating, and a summary of their thoughts. This will sum up the review and conclude whether the film is deemed to be good or bad.
Resources-
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090511015502AALqmES
Analysis of two film reviews from different sources (Johnny Mad Dog, Sight and Sound and Did you hear about the Morgan's?, Empire)
Introduction-
Sight and sound magazine is a film magazine published by the British film institute. It is seen as a more high brow review magazine, however it has and is very important to the film industry, especially in the UK.
Empire film magazine on the other hand is more populist in its entity and reviews films in a different way compared to more 'serious' magazines such as sight and sound.
Analysis-
The two film reviews from these differing magazines offer contrasting styles of reading that will suit and please varied readers. The Sight and Sound review has a middle to upper class feel, as the material that is provided uses language in a specific way to meet the expectations of this demographic. This type of audience is far different from the review that is provided by Empire magazine. This seems to be more suited to a working class everyday person, that will be less interested to read about issues such as the social impacts of a film; instead it talks about how the film is worth paying for and also brings some humour into the material. These reviews are obviously therefore designed for differing readers who have contrasting lifestyles. However this is to be expected as one magazine is published by the BFI and the other contains information such as what is the best gag in The Simpson's?
The language used in both of the reviews is vastly opposed to each other and they have distinctive features that make them sound different because of the diverse style of language used. The Empire review is written in more informal language, like they are speaking to the reader. This makes it easy to read for the audience and would attract a certain type of reader who likes an easy understanding piece of writing. The Empire review also has other features that are not common in the Sight and Sound review. For example they use phrases such as rom-com and chitchat, whereas the other review uses words such as cacophony and redolent. However, the Sight and Sound piece does use some phrases that are similar to Empire like raggle-taggle, but the way the review is written with the language used makes it seem to be more sophisticated, and also sarcastic in some places. This could be because of the writer that is behind the review, or to meet the needs and wants of their audience. Generally though, the language used in these two reviews is very separate and this is mainly because of the age and status of the reader they are trying to attract. Empire's more fresh and humorous touch to their review makes it seem attractable to younger readers, while the Sight and Sound review does have some humour and sarcasm in a small amount of places, but seems to be written for a more mature reader that wants a more serious and relevant review.
The structure of the film reviews have some parts that have similarities and some that have been written and thought out in a different way. The first part of both reviews is to give a brief synopsis of what the film is about, and this is very standard with most film reviews as they will want to give the reader a sense of what the content of the film is and how the story builds up to a conclusion. The first paragraphs of the actual review are very different from each other, as the Empire review talks about the abilities of Hugh Grant and has humorous wording. The Sight and Sound review talks more about the filmmaker and his attempt on creating a film that portrays the real Africa without just showing all of the conventional things that the audience place with such an issue, such as poverty.
The next part of the review from Empire starts by talking about the audience and their expectations from the film, and then what they actually receive. It gives some examples of parts of the film that are good, and then ends with some criticism about the story that is presented. On the opposite side, this part of the review also talks about the story, however is not criticising it, but is making it sound appealing, but with a caution of how it is a 'dark film'. The third paragraph of Did you hear about the Morgans? review is criticising Sarah Jessica Parker's acting skills and saying that she does not share the same chemistry with Grant as other actresses have. For the Johnny Mad Dog review, this paragraph talks about the characters and how through the story, the children have been turned into animals and therefore is creating a disturbing concept, but at the same time is not criticising it.
The final part of the review by Empire sums up the review by saying that the film is neither good nor bad and this makes the reader somewhat anxious about going out and spending money to see it. For Sight and Sound this is the opposite as in this paragraph they are saying that its a good film that connects with the audience, but is dark and so they are trying to make the audience aware of this. These two film reviews mostly differ in their structure as one is recommending the film, and the other holds a neutral view. There are fundamental differences with the content in each paragraph from these reviews, however they both cover the same topics for discussion and come to a conclusion. Therefore it could be said that they do have some similarities and differences when it comes to the structure of the review.
To conclude, these two film reviews are obviously going to be different in many aspects such as their style of writing and the wording they use. The Empire magazine review uses a lot more humour and speaking language than the other review which would appeal to a young audience. The Sight and Sound review is a lot more sophisticated and technical with the way it words its review, commenting more on the actual filmmaking than other aspects such as the acting. Because of its use of more extensive vocabulary, this review would be made for an older more upper class personnel. Consequently, the analysis of these reviews makes it even clearer that they are very different in many ways and they use different techniques to appeal to their specific audience.Summary-
Analysing these two film reviews has shown me that in order for me to create a film review for the audience my film is appealing to, the language used must be suitable. This is very important as the readers of the review are likely to be younger people that are more interested in easy reading and so creating a film review that appeals to them and getting them to read it will be a challenge. The structures of the reviews has also shown me that there is generally a universal structure that although may hold some differences, does mostly have similar ways in which the paragraphs are set out. This will be helpful as although I may want to change some parts of the structure for my review, I can use this conventional structure as a starting point and continue from there. Analysing these film reviews therefore has allowed me to learn much about how the writers use the language and structure to manipulate the readers, in order to create interest and consequently have as many viewers as possible.
Because of a technical reason, there is no way to inlarge the film review page so that the writing is readable. Therefore I have put the information which is on the page below.
Synopsis (in grey box on page)-
Southern England, the present. Lily is a young, innocent looking girl, whom like all younger siblings wants to know what her older brother, Leon, is up to at all times. This leads her to look into Leon’s bedroom on each day, and on the first, to find that he is in possession of a knife. Following this, Lily looks into Leon’s bedroom again, only to have the door slammed in her face. That night, Lily hears a dubious conversation outside between Leon and an unknown voice, so goes down to investigate where she then finds her brother inside arguing with her mother, which leads to Leon storming out. Lily returns upstairs none the wiser.
The next day entails Lily going past Leon’s room, but to find it shut on this occasion. Lily is then seen on the sofa playing hangman and spelling out the word brother on the game. The penultimate day sees a policeman turn up at the house to question the mother, and Lily comes to investigate again, only to receive a remorseful glance from her mother, when the policeman leaves. The fifth and final day commences with Lily again walking past Leon’s room, only to find the door wide open and the room clean. She then goes downstairs with her mobile in her hand, and sits with her mother on the sofa, where she hesitates; but then puts her phone away and they both look at each other in unison.
Review (the main paragraphs on the page)-
This debut short film from the director, Camilla Braine, is the portrayal of the emotional outcomes of one family member becoming involved with gang life, which takes effect on the mother of the household, and more significantly the younger sibling. This story for the half action, half enigma film produces and builds tension which is then stalled at the end, where the conclusion is unclear. This conventional aspect of many short films has been used to the advantage of the narrative and the overall message, as the audience has to engage into the fine details of this story, to be able to come to their own conclusion. This somewhat confusing outcome is very effective in extracting the emotions of the audience, which conventionally is in need, in order for a short film to be compelling.
The narrative structure consisting of five days in which each start in the same way is a convincing tool used to develop the story, creating an axiomatic identification of what main character is being focused on. The costumes and props also help to generate this, as they demonstrate each characters specific identity which helps the audience to understand what these characters are meant to be portraying. The way that this has been constructed shows clear planning and engagement with what audiences want to see from specific stereotypes.
The film is technically commendable, as the camera shots, angles and framing used to see the effects on Lily grip the audience to where the dialogue and the diegetic and non diegetic sound represent an atmospheric illustration of each character. These two aspects have been cleverly combined (which could have been ignored) that create a sense of praise from the viewer.
However some parts of the film are not as well created. Firstly, the acting in some scenes can seem dull and unenthusiastic, which reduces the excitability factor that the film has potential for. Also, with the confinement to one location, the house, it would have been more engaging if there had been some experimenting with different locations, where there may have been a scope for some more creativity. Alternatively, the slow pace in some scenes could have been replaced with faster cuts and more shots, to create a greater shock value.
Overall, it’s a good short film that pleases the viewer and creates emotions and feelings which an exemplary short should do. The concept and the alternate narrative structure from this debut short is to be commended, as it does contain conventional aspects stemming from short films, but also challenges and implements a personal style that is apparent in order to provide the viewer with a strong message. However there are some places in the film which seem a bit vague and perhaps if more action had been incorporated, the viewer may have been struck with a more explosive message. Nevertheless, in the time period it had to portray its message, it contained adept material that makes it a well attempted short film.
Cast and crew information (bottom left side of the page)-
Credits- Directed by-Camilla Braine. Producers- Camilla Braine, Danah Hussain, Emma Horton, Sam Cunningham. Director of photography- Danah Hussain. Set designer- Emma Horton. Costume designer- Emma Horton. Production company- Danimal Productions. Soundtrack- Extracts from the work of Sylvan Lane.
No comments:
Post a Comment