For this journal entry, I wanted to find a film review that would reflect the critic’s ability to critique a movie based on intellectual thinking and knowledge rather than based off of a biased interpretation of the film. I chose a review written by A.O. Scott from The New York Times for the movie Pan’s Labyrinth.
What I particularly loved about Scott that instantly set him apart from some of the other critics was the knowledge that he possessed to relate some of Guillermo Del Toro’s earlier films to his most recent, Pan’s Labyrinth:
Apart from now being a fanatic about A.O. Scott’s reviews, my favorite part from his particular style of writing was how he describes that Pan’s Labyrinth is something more than just a movie:
This small element of the review, especially the part in which Scott states that this movie is art, is what truly inspired me to take this course in the first place. I see film-making as an art because it’s a way of expressing feelings and emotions through moving images that all together capture the essence life to convey an overall theme or moral to a story. While some are meant to evoke happiness or sympathy, others are produced to create suspense or horror, but even so, film-making is a form of art that often times, the typical person oversees.
All in all, I feel that A.O. Scott’s film review of Pan’s Labyrinth reflected my opinion of the film. I say this because, like Scott, I never truly thought that I could appreciate a movie if it didn’t conclude with the typical “And they lived happily ever after…” scenario (Well, I guess it kind of did end happily, but in a different perspective). This review also introduced me into a new way of analyzing the movie because Scott interprets the film as being playful because it uses something as innocent as a children’s’ fairytale story to underlie and mimic the truth about fascism in Spain during the early 1940’s. So in reality, I guess there’s more to a film-review than just opinions because a professional one inspires the readers to think in a new, unforeseen fashion.
What I particularly loved about Scott that instantly set him apart from some of the other critics was the knowledge that he possessed to relate some of Guillermo Del Toro’s earlier films to his most recent, Pan’s Labyrinth:
This Mexican-born filmmaker’s English-language, Hollywood genre movies — “BladeThis small bit of information provided by Scott about Del Toro’s previous films helps me in understanding the themes that exist in this film. I feel like sometimes critics overlook the importance of the themes or symbols portrayed in the plotline because they get carried away as they are desperately trying to convey whether or not they liked or disliked the film.
2” (2002), “Hellboy”
(2004) and the ill-starred but interesting “Mimic”
(1997) — have a strangeness and intensity of feeling that sets them apart from
others of their kind. In his recent Spanish-language films, “The
Devil’s Backbone” (2001) and this new one, he uses the feverish
inventiveness of a vulnerable child’s imagination as the basis for his own
utterly original, seamlessly effective exploration of power, corruption and
resistance.
Apart from now being a fanatic about A.O. Scott’s reviews, my favorite part from his particular style of writing was how he describes that Pan’s Labyrinth is something more than just a movie:
Fairy tales (and scary movies) are designed to console as well as terrify. What
distinguishes “Pan’s Labyrinth,” what makes it art, is that it balances its own
magical thinking with the knowledge that not everyone lives happily ever after.
This small element of the review, especially the part in which Scott states that this movie is art, is what truly inspired me to take this course in the first place. I see film-making as an art because it’s a way of expressing feelings and emotions through moving images that all together capture the essence life to convey an overall theme or moral to a story. While some are meant to evoke happiness or sympathy, others are produced to create suspense or horror, but even so, film-making is a form of art that often times, the typical person oversees.
All in all, I feel that A.O. Scott’s film review of Pan’s Labyrinth reflected my opinion of the film. I say this because, like Scott, I never truly thought that I could appreciate a movie if it didn’t conclude with the typical “And they lived happily ever after…” scenario (Well, I guess it kind of did end happily, but in a different perspective). This review also introduced me into a new way of analyzing the movie because Scott interprets the film as being playful because it uses something as innocent as a children’s’ fairytale story to underlie and mimic the truth about fascism in Spain during the early 1940’s. So in reality, I guess there’s more to a film-review than just opinions because a professional one inspires the readers to think in a new, unforeseen fashion.
4 comments:
Susie-
I really liked your sense of voice. As Mr. K said today that we will most likely find a person who we will have to read over and over again, you are one of them. I liked how you agreed with the critic but just didn't say I agree with this and that and this. Nicely done. Wahoo
yeah, i have to agree with allison k. AO scott is a very respected critic, and i enjoy his commentary a lot more than anything else.
Susieee! I love how you write, "I see film-making as an art because it’s a way of expressing feelings and emotions through moving images that all together capture the essence life to convey an overall theme or moral to a story." I agree. Well put!
Susie: Wonderful job. I love how you ended your post -- your thoughts about what a movie review should do are spot-on. Helping the reader think about the film in a new way is much more important than getting in the quotable opinion. I really need to see Pan's Labyrinth, too -- it's one of the many recent movies I'm embarrassed I haven't seen. Anyway, you've got a terrific voice -- keep it up!
Post a Comment