| Writing a Film Review
Grab a small group of fellow critics and check the theater listings, preferably choosing a film being released this weekend. Even better, aim for a sneak preview. Contact the film's distributor as far in advance as you can to see if this is possible. Regardless, here's how to make your first film review a success. You may also work with a digital or hard copy version of these instructions, Notebook and Rubric.
 Exercise 6-8
(77.0K)
- Choose group members, decide on a film to review and pick a time and place to meet. Exchange phone numbers to assist in coordination.
- Conduct some background research. Divide this up. Somebody in the group can research the director; somebody can research the main actors; somebody can research the screenwriter; and so on. Choose foci that you predict will be important. Most professional reviewers have access to promotional press packets with lots of background information. You probably won't (although you could ask for some if you had enough time), but you have the power to conduct your own research. Other reviews of the same film do not constitute legitimate background sources (and should be scrupulously avoided), although reviews of previous films with the same actor, director, screenwriter, and so on, may be useful, as would be seeing those previous films yourself. Make copies of your work for your team members.
- Meet (at a cafe?) before the movie to exchange and discuss your background research.
- See the movie. Take notes while you're there (so take a pen and notebook with you) on the small details that you couldn't possibly remember later, such as the color of the actor's eyes and the characteristics of the twitch he has when he's mad. (Practice writing in the dark before you go to the movie.)
- Meet (at a cafe?) after the movie to discuss your impressions and ideas. Nothing will assist you in developing your first impressions into full-fledged ideas better than exchanging them with your colleagues in the moments just after the film. Share your notes and thoughts, and take additional notes as your conversation progresses. Don't shortchange yourself on time; if you do, you'll be sorry later when you sit down alone to write.
- Each group member will write his or her own review, being sure to address key elements of filmmaking. Refer frequently to copies of the reviews presented in class for examples of form and style. Note, particularly, conventions that reviewers in your local paperuse (placement and form of running time and show information; how to refer to actors and characters; how to refer to film titles), and employ them in your own review. Notice that most reviewers don't use first person; you shouldn't either.
- Bring your review to class by the assigned date. Your editors undoubtedly would prefer that it be typed and double-spaced, and it will be more useful to you that way.
 <![CDATA[<a onClick="window.open('/olcweb/cgi/pluginpop.cgi?it=jpg::::/sites/dl/free/0073378917/364201/chap06_8.jpg','popWin', 'width=662,height=590,resizable,scrollbars');" href="#"><img valign="absmiddle" height="16" width="16" border="0" src="/olcweb/styles/shared/linkicons/image.gif"> (105.0K)</a>]]>
Note: Do not use this form as an outline for a review. It's merely a list of things to look for in a film. Select the most interesting, and focus your review on those aspects.
Film Review Rubric Bravisimo!
"Publish on front of A&E section!" | Bravo!
"Publish inside the A&E section." | Problema piccolo
"Revise and we'll talk later." | Problema grande
"Need to see the film again?" | This review, so polish-ed that it reads as if it were clipped from a professional publica-tion, does most or allof the following:
• Fairly but critically evaluates important aspects of the film; offers a developed, firm, con-vincing point of view regarding those aspects.
• Goes well beyond simply evaluating the film itself, artfully locating it in its genre, social context and/or relationship to other films from the same producer, director or cast members; readers understand how this film fits into the grand scheme of things.
• Offers a compelling hook, develops a middle section and comes to a powerful close; vivid writing motivates readers to continue throughout; no clichés; shows, doesn't tell; offers support for all claims.
• Shows few, if any, errors in the conventions of written English.
• Shows convincing, consistent control of language; consistent voice flows smoothly from beginning to end; shows flair, style, grace and/or pizzazz. | This review, although impressive, lacks the impact of a Bravisimo review. It still does most or all of the following:
• Fairly but critically evaluates important aspects of the film; offers a developed, firm, convincing point of view regarding those aspects.
• Evaluates the film in terms of its genre, social context and/or relation-ship to productions from the same producer, director or cast members, but perhaps not as convincingly as would a Bravi-simo review.;
• Draws the reader in with an interesting opening or angle, develops a middle section and comes to some sense of closure; motivates readers to continue reading, but perhaps less powerfully than a Bravisimo review.
• Generally shows instead of tells; may slip into one or two clichés.
• Shows few, if any, errors in the conventions of written English.
• Shows relatively consistent voice; inconsistently offers flair, style, grace and/or pizzazz. | This review reads more like a class project than a professional review. While adequately wri-tten, it lacks the impact of a better review. This review does most or all of the following:
• Demonstrates that the writer has observed and analyzed various aspects of the film and developed a point of view regarding those aspects.
• Indicates a vague awareness of the film's place in its genre, social context and/or relation-ship to productions from the same producer, director or cast members.
• Offers structure of beginning, middle and end, but does so more weakly than in a better review; readers' motivation to continue may waver.
• Offers show-not-tell evidence for some claims; might slip into clichés in several places.
• Shows more than a few errors in the conventions of written English.
• Shows traces of flair, style, grace and/or pizzazz seen in Bravis-imo and Bravo reviews. | This review doesn't meet the requirements of the assignment. It not only reads like a class assignment but is flawed in noticeable and significant ways A review in this category:
• Demonstrates that the writer has observed and thought a little about some aspects of the film and developed a point of view regarding some of those aspects.
• Indicates at best a vague awareness of the film's place in its genre, social context and/or relationship to product-ions from the same prod-ucer, director or cast members.
• Shows only a semblance of a beginning, middle and end.
• Offers only margin-ally convincing evidence for claims; tells rather than shows; might routinely offer clichés.
• Includes many errors in the conventions of written English.
• Very little, if any, flair, style, grace or pizzazz. |
|
