I felt inclined to read two different movie reviews on a movie I saw yesterday. Animal Kingdom was a movie I had been very much looking forward to seeing due to its diabolical mother figure. I had heard from many viewers, that she was one of “the most evil mothers in film they had ever seen.” Since this would be a quite a popular archetype to triumph, It quickly became number one on my movies-to-be-watched list. Contrary to the opinions I heard floating around, the mother to the Australian Gang Members did not hold a candle to even the Disney villains I grew up with. Nevertheless I rummaged through a variety of reviews and compared not only the opinions of the writers, but how they structured their review.
The Guardian’s lede took what I would like to refer to as a chronological approach, starting off with the opening scene of the film. As the contemporary art/crime thriller opens up with a docile teenager sitting next to his mother, who has overdosed on heroin, its understandable why such a lede would seem appropriate. The New York Times however, opened up the review focusing exclusively on Jacki Weaver’s (The Mother) character. “With bleach-blond mane, a glittering blue-eyed stare and ferocious smile, Smurf Cody (Jacki Weaver) is the mama lion to a terrific Australian gangster film “Animal Kingdom.” Compared to the Guardian’s approach: “We know we’re in for a different kind of family values story as we watch a teenager sitting next to his passed-out mother on the couch while some inane game show blares on the television in the background.” While I do not feel especially oriented to either of them, it is nice to see how two reviews are conveying similar viewpoints through different structures. Each opening sentence pertains to this idea of a false image, something quite jarring compared to what is ostensibly “normality.”
Writer A.O. Scott used provocation in his New York Times piece titled “Are Films Bad, or is TV Just Better?” writer A.O. Scott used provocation in order to grab my attention—and it worked! I was eager to find out exactly what he meant by this statement. It wasn’t until I reached the middle of the article that he asks his big question: “Will any of the movies surfacing this fall provoke the kind of conversations that television series routinely do, breaking beyond the niches to something larger?” While I think this is valid question, I felt it was slightly overdue. So then I wondered: when is the inverted pyramid “too inverted”? In other words, when has the journalist given too much fat around the meat of their article?
Exploring cultural criticisms, or reviews in art and film have ultimately provided the most enticing comparisons. While I have yet to see “I’m Still Here”, The Guardian’s Ben Child did not review the movie, but the questions and controversies surrounding it. What I enjoyed most about this review was how Child “answered” the big question that the film entails, revealing that the “documentary” is in fact, fake, stating that “’ I’m still here’ nears the end of its [Phoenix’s] publicity run.” While I think this article has a strong opening, I noticed that it concluded with a quote. Though I did not see this as necessarily ineffective, I saw it as a similarity in many articles. Does such an ending distinguish journalistic writing from typical non-fiction or essay writing?
Alex, really glad to see you comparing and contrasting - a great way to discover what you like and don't like. It will certainly inform your own writing. And it's good to notice , how, as you do hear, the Guardian covers not the movie per say, but the controversy surrounding a movie. that will help you find angles for stories yourself. Keep up the good work. B+
ReplyDelete