Week 8 - Writing a Review

Exercise for next week:

Write a straight film/book/television review for a straight newspaper column. Then, using exactly the same stimulus, write another review along the lines of Doug Anderson, or Jon Casimir in the SMH Monday Guide. The first review would be a traditional genre (see below), the second piece should be idiosyncratic, hip, edgy, over the top.

Thus choose a film/book/television show which you actually love or hate. Try not to sit on the fence. Recommend it highly, or warn readers off. Try to make the second review a tour-de-force - humorous yet informative, self-conscious, never objective, alluding to pop culture and/or other films/books/shows, perhaps self-deprecating.

Some links to sites for help writing reviews:

Writing a Film Review (Kathy Knight)

[These notes come from a set of modules designed to help students with a variety of writing tasks (in Health Comm). The modules are a part of a Nepean Seed grant.]

Whether it is seeking to educate or entertain (or perhaps both), a film presents a particular view or interpretation of the world to a wide audience. Its influence on the attitudes and behaviours of this audience may be considerable. The film review p rovides the critic with an opportunity to comment on the film and hence to mediate between the film and its potential audience.

The reviews that you are probably most familiar with are those written by film critics for the popular press and targeted to the general public. This assignment is quite different, because you need to take on the role of an expert in the field of heal th communication who is writing for a specialist audience.

To orient you to this assignment, we will look firstly at general reviews, then at specialist academic reviews, and we will compare and contrast the two styles.

STYLE 1: Reviewing for general audiences

The goal of reviews in newspapers is to inform readers about which films are `good' and which are `bad' entertainment, and hence to provide recommendations for viewing. The criteria upon which these evaluations are based is largely subjective; the rea der makes a decision about the validity of the review according to allegiance to the target publication and the personality of the reviewer. The reader takes up a position as a member of the group which would share the opinions of that critic.

Most film reviews in the popular press are about 250 words long and they follow are fairly predictable structure. The main differences between publications are in the type of language used, the level of the audience's assumed knowledge of filmic practi ces and the depth of criticism. Criticism focuses on the skills of the director, actors and other participants in the film-making process, and on the film's `message' as entertainment and/or social commentary.

Structure

Film reviews consist of four distinct stages:

Opening:

The reviewer begins by making a thematic point which is often a sideline to the film itself. This opening functions as a hook to engage the reader, and it also provides a way for the reviewer to assert his/her authority - it can be clever or esoteri c.

In less sophisticated reviews, this stage is often omitted and the reviewer jumps straight into providing a summary of the film's plot.

Elaboration:

In this segment, more information about the film is provided, such as director, actors, context, historical significance, or any other factual distinguishing feature.

Critical Examination:

Typically, film reviews provide a brief summary of film content. In poor quality or `lowbrow' reviews, this amounts to little more than a a recount of the plot. In more sophisticated reviews, the writer combines critical assessment of the the mes and issues involved with some information about the plot by selecting significant and representative elements.

Evaluation:

While expressions of judgement about the film's worth have been made already (particularly in the preceding section), reviews invariably conclude with a clear evaluative statement. Reviews in the popular press often supplement this with a grading (as b oth these reviews do). A grade implies that the film has been `assessed' objectively; these evaluations are, however, highly subjective.

Let's compare two reviews by looking at how the four stages mentioned above are handled. The first review comes from Who Weekly magazine and the second is from The Australian. Note that the review in The Australian i s far longer and has a much more serious tone; we will discuss why later.

Opening:

In the Who review, the writer takes the opportunity to reveal her considerable knowledge of film by alluding to another lesser known film. By doing this, she convinces us of her right to act as a reviewer on our behalf. The complex and colour ful language she uses also underlines her authority as a writer, and tells us that this is a `highbrow' review that is designed for trendy people such as ourselves.

In the Australian review, the writer begins by introducing a key theme (about social class) that will be followed up later in the review. It is enigmatic,though, because we are not sure just what `multiplexes' are, and so we are encouraged t o read on in order to find out. The also signposts the writer's approach of focusing on the film-maker as well as the film by opening his first sentence with his subject's name and affiliation.

Elaboration:

In the Who review, this information is provided in the second paragraph. There is just enough information there to enable readers to gain a foothold. A nutshell synposis of the plot and some information about the film's position in time and space also appear in paragraph two in the Australian review.

Critical Examination:

In the Who review, the writer describes large chunks of the plot as episodes in the film become the target of her satirical criticism.

This section of the Australian review is very different. In paragraph three we are led away from concerns of plot into discussion of the film's innovative form. The writer then links these formal choices to the film's themes (paragraph 6). He explores these themes in some depth, digressing into description of the film-maker's own personal history as a source of the film's preoccupations. The writer then moves onto the issue of language use in the film, which the film-maker defends as esse ntial for faithfully representing this aspect of the social world. Unlike the Who review, this one does not focus on summarising the plot; instead, the reviewer moves from form (the way the film is made), to themes (what the film's message is), to issues (components of this message, and how it is realised).

Evaluation:

The writer of the Who review sums up (with some sacrifice of clarity) in the final paragraph. The predictable rating follows.

In the Australian review, the writer lets the film-maker do the summing up, by using a quote in the final paragraph. By abdicating from this responsibility, the writer adds to the sense of objectivity and authority: he is using a `source'.

Language

The two reviews differ considerably in the way each writer uses language.

The style of the Who piece is flamboyant and self-consciously clever. The writer has limited space in which to express her reaction to the film, and uses excesses of language rather than long analysis to evoke a response in readers.

On the other hand, the Australian writer is quite sedate in his language choices. He has more space to explore his themes and relies upon a logical organisation of ideas rather than colourful language to achieve the desired rhetorical effect.

Which review do you consider to be the most successful. Why?

STYLE 2: Reviewing for specialist audiences

Unlike the popular press critic, the specialist reviewer does not need to demonstrate insider knowledge about the world of the movies, nor does he or she need to display virtuoso skills as a writer.

The task of the specialist reviewer is to interpret the film's content, themes and form in an informed manner for an audience which shares his or her subject knowledge and world view.

Planning

As a health communication `expert', you can begin by addressing these key sets of questions to help you think critically about your film review:

1. What themes and issues does the film address? Are they significant? If so, how? Are they relevant to current concerns in the field of health communication?

2. How does the film treat these themes and issues? Is it a documentary? Does a narrator lead viewers through the content, or does it consist of interviews so that first-hand accounts provide an impression of authenticity and balance? Or is it a fictio nal narrative with an embedded theme that viewers must uncover as the story unfolds?

3. Who is the film's intended audience? How is this audience likely to respond to the issues raised? How appropriate is the treatment of these issues for the intended audience?

In order to answer these questions, you need to enter into the discourse of the health sociologist. Your observations and comments will all pass through this filter. For example, if the film features well known `stars', your specialist audience will be more interested in how the use of these actors impacts on the film's reception than in their acting prowess or how much flesh they manage to expose!

Structure

An academic review follows basically the same structure as a film review in the newspaper, although it is more complex in the way that each stage is realised. A specialist review is typically much longer because a much deeper level of analysis is expec ted by readers.

Academic review: Example

Unfortunately, film reviews do not appear often in academic journals as yet. The book review is a far more common genre. Let's take a look at how a book review is handled by an academic writer. As you will see, the text follows the basic stages outline d above.

Opening

The writer begins by providing a context for the book rather than dealing with the book itself; note that he is also establishing his own credibility as an insider, with privileged knowledge about the book's inception.

Elaboration

This paragraph gives some basic information about the book - its length, aims and an overview of content.

Critical summary

The writer selects key issues, describes highlights and identifies (Paras 3-14): weaknesses. He also takes the opportunity to intrude his own ideas and perspectives as they relate to points raised by the book. This section is far longer than that in the newspaper reviews - it is here that the reviewer must demonstrate his knowledge of the field and the debates within it.

Evaluation

This conclusion provides a brief final evaluation, which in this case includes a recommendation. We gain the impression that this writer's evaluations are far more objective that those of popular press reviewers because the preceding section has pr ovided readers with arguments that relate to subject knowledge rather than simply subjective responses.

Language

We saw that in the popular press reviews, writers are able to use colourful, informal language. In fact, their skill in writing creatively is an important part of their reputation as a reviewer.

Contrast this style with the language used in academic reviews. Academic writers uses language in a way that follows the conventions of academic writing: impersonal, abstract and generally indirect.

In order for your review to be effective, your writing style must be appropriate for your readers. This does not mean that an academic review needs to be flat and boring - your readers can be challenged! But they are more likely to take you seriously i f you offer them imaginative, well grounded arguments than a racy writing style that abounds in figurative language.