This review of a heavily nominated film is able to capture the essence of the movie as well as voice some criticisms in a subtle fashion through its arrangement. The piece begins with a look into the history that the film is based upon. While perhaps giving away some spoilers (only to those unfamiliar with the true event) this opens the article to those who have not seen the movie and are looking for some insight.
Directly following the historical background is a paragraph dedicated to praising the director, Bennett Miller. As someone who has seen the movie, the review's author Ty Burr beautifully describing how Foxcatcher "could have made a three-ring circus of this story, pushing the weirdness and driving home his points about the evil, idle rich. Instead, “Foxcatcher” is measured and mournful sometimes to a fault." Burr is able to describe what you should expect going into the theater to see this movie, as it isn't action filled but rather tediously developed and possibly uncomfortable.
Following praise of the director is praise of the actors. Truly a film that is victorious because of its well-developed characters, Burr is able to emphasize the quality of the three male leads while continuing to explain a little more about the plot of the movie itself.
The review concludes with a repeated stance on the overall movie as "terribly sad". Which trust me, it was. Once again Burr peers at what some other critics say this time about the movie being a little far from the actuality of the event, but in his last effort to defend the film, explains why it may not matter.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
TOW #19- Why Children's Theater Matters (Written)
Why Children's theater matters is a transcript of a speech given by Lyn Gardner. The audience is stated to be those in attendance that the Unicorn Theater in London. Her speech followed that acceptance of an award for outstanding contribution to children's arts. Gardner develops an effective argument for more recognition needed to the performances done for children. She has excellent arrangement as she begins by establishing ethos through her analogy, explaining why this issue needs change, developing the issue in a greater context, and finally point-blankly stating how she believes theater should be viewed.
While clearly being viewed as one with upstanding credibility, given she was being recognized for it, Gardner still begins by giving reason for her opinion to be valued. She casually reflects into some of her past work, but in the field of children's novels. She equates the questioning of why children's books are seen as less to why theater is seen as less. This analogy is effective as it is not too far from the actual ideas Gardner plans to propose and easy to connect to. Even if you do not like theater, nearly every child of the parents in her audience is in love with a book, making it simple to establish a connection between her ideas and the audience.
Following suit, Gardner explains why there should be change. She defends art as a whole, but keeps her focus on why it is beneficial for children. She does not diminish the other forms of theater, but explains how even Shakespeare teaches us to cherish art for young people. She continues to explain why art should be fostered in schools, providing examples of when misconceptions arose of math and science being of far more importance. The entire body of her speech works to spark a new thought, or a different perspective, for her audience, and is effective in her overall goal of arguing that children's theater matters.
Gardner ends her speech with a simple two sentence paragraph that articulates what she has implicitly argued the entire speech. She takes the broad ideas she has developed and comes back to her original, pointed thought. By the end of her speech, Gardner develops a provocative argument that works to leave the audience questioning and pondering how children's theater is viewed.
While clearly being viewed as one with upstanding credibility, given she was being recognized for it, Gardner still begins by giving reason for her opinion to be valued. She casually reflects into some of her past work, but in the field of children's novels. She equates the questioning of why children's books are seen as less to why theater is seen as less. This analogy is effective as it is not too far from the actual ideas Gardner plans to propose and easy to connect to. Even if you do not like theater, nearly every child of the parents in her audience is in love with a book, making it simple to establish a connection between her ideas and the audience.
Following suit, Gardner explains why there should be change. She defends art as a whole, but keeps her focus on why it is beneficial for children. She does not diminish the other forms of theater, but explains how even Shakespeare teaches us to cherish art for young people. She continues to explain why art should be fostered in schools, providing examples of when misconceptions arose of math and science being of far more importance. The entire body of her speech works to spark a new thought, or a different perspective, for her audience, and is effective in her overall goal of arguing that children's theater matters.
Gardner ends her speech with a simple two sentence paragraph that articulates what she has implicitly argued the entire speech. She takes the broad ideas she has developed and comes back to her original, pointed thought. By the end of her speech, Gardner develops a provocative argument that works to leave the audience questioning and pondering how children's theater is viewed.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
TOW #18 - Gillette Razor (Visual)
In immediacy this advertisement strikes me as old-fashioned, heart warming, and to the point. These qualities help in making it effective in its goal to sell the product.
The baby in the photo is wearing a bonnet. He is surrounded by simple tile and in a vignette style framing. The font is straightforward and the colors are a little faded. This aged feeling brings the brand being sold a sense of wisdom. It is not a new brand, it is what has always been around. the brand is established as trustworthy and accountable, striving to connect the audience to the family brand, something that will not let you down.
The tone of the image is warming and inviting to a viewer. The prime focus of the piece is the laughing child, doing something a baby should not do, shave its face. Just like in commercials with the babies who speak in deep voices intellectually, this brings a similar humor. Not only that, razors are sharp and can cause damage. This ad proposes the idea that if a baby is able to use the razor without hazard, than a grown adult can as well. Perhaps they can even find skin as soft as a baby's.
Finally, the image is not too crowded and has a very clear message: this is a good razor. The brand name and company is prominent and emphasized, with a few catchy slogans around it that may stick in the viewer's mind. The word safety is included in the name of the product, articulating the very idea of the image as a whole. Overall, the advertisement is very effective and utilizes rhetorical strategies in order to create a clear vision of a product.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Intro IRB #3 - The Unkindest Cut
For the third marking period I will be reading The Unkindest Cut by Joe Queenan. As the cover describes it, Queenan;s work is about "how a hatchet-man critic made his own $7,000 movie and put it all on his credit card". The book was recommended to me by fellow APELC student, Max Benowitz, and I look forward to reading it.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
TOW #17 - "Still Alice" (Written)
Typically, reviews of films will give context of a film while providing a clear position on the effectiveness and likability of the movie itself. The review of "Still Alice" written by Peter Debruge fails to establish a clear claim, hardly discussing anything but the plot. While he has implicitly suggested he enjoyed the film, because of his syntax and points chosen to discuss, the reader is left still curious to the question of whether or not to see the movie, which is usually the reason they turned to the article in the first place.
Debruge opens his article by explaining that Still Alice is not like other movies dealing with Alzheimer's, as it is organized through the victim's point of view and not that of family members/friends. While Debruge does explain how this allows the audience to connect better with someone suffering from the disease, he does so so casually that it is almost missed. His diction is weak and undirected, leading to the reader feeling only semi-satisfied.
That being said, Debruge does make it clear that the lead of the movie, Julianne Moore, is impeccable. Her performance is praised, but in a somewhat confusing manner. Debruge utilizes words like "underplaying" which carries a negative connotation, as a way to support his claim that she was powerful and accomplished. Once again, the reader is left with a sense of confusion, unsure whether or not what took place in the film was bad, good, or neither.
Debruge also takes a lot of time to discuss the lives of the directors, without ever mentioning that the names given were the directors at all! While their lives are indeed fascinating, clearly paralleling the essence of the movie, the amount of time and detail attending to their story is inappropriate for the context of the review. DEbruge really missed the mark when it came to providing evidence to support his claim, which is unsurprising as his claim hardly exists.
Debruge opens his article by explaining that Still Alice is not like other movies dealing with Alzheimer's, as it is organized through the victim's point of view and not that of family members/friends. While Debruge does explain how this allows the audience to connect better with someone suffering from the disease, he does so so casually that it is almost missed. His diction is weak and undirected, leading to the reader feeling only semi-satisfied.
That being said, Debruge does make it clear that the lead of the movie, Julianne Moore, is impeccable. Her performance is praised, but in a somewhat confusing manner. Debruge utilizes words like "underplaying" which carries a negative connotation, as a way to support his claim that she was powerful and accomplished. Once again, the reader is left with a sense of confusion, unsure whether or not what took place in the film was bad, good, or neither.
Debruge also takes a lot of time to discuss the lives of the directors, without ever mentioning that the names given were the directors at all! While their lives are indeed fascinating, clearly paralleling the essence of the movie, the amount of time and detail attending to their story is inappropriate for the context of the review. DEbruge really missed the mark when it came to providing evidence to support his claim, which is unsurprising as his claim hardly exists.
Monday, January 19, 2015
TOW #16 - The Fervent Years (IRB Post 2)
The Fervent Years is different. It appeals to those who care about the subject matter, but if you are not looking for the information, you don't want it. The book second half delves into the details of the work with group theater. How it operated, how the people worked, and eventually, its end.
Clurman continues to be wordy in the latter parts of his book. Although at times it is appreciated. When writing, Clurman will never let you feel as though you've missed something. This very strategy parallels the ideas that follow his subject and it does not go unnoticed. As the book went on the seemingly unneeded word on a page turned into stories, and the novel-esque personality that Clurman's writing takes on is appreciated.
Previously I discussed how the confusion may have been because of Clurman's mixture between the facts and personal anecdotes. However, the two-wonge approach proved to be important by the end. He was discussing more than just an element of theater history, he was revealing history itself in the 1930s. His end purpose, to explain the importance of group theater's rise and fall, was achieved because of his intertwining of his personal growths, as well as those in the field.
Clurman uses an abundance of examples to support his ideas. While not totally necessary, as he has built in credibility, the use of evidentiary support really adds to his ideas. He constantly name drops, though maybe they are just his friends and colleagues, at times it clear the Clurman uses their credentials to support what he wants the reader to understand. Clurman also references plenty of journals that reviewed shows and plays themselves in order to effectively communicate his message.
An important part of how Clurman explains his process is how he lays out the entire book. It is written in six parts, each capturing an element of what Clurman wishes the reader to leave with. One pivotal piece was the "Farewell to the Thirties". This portion acted as the "fall" of the plot, as many fictional readers would describe what follows the main ideas. Clurman is sure to cover the time period from start to finish as a way to make his book the one to go to if you are curious about the thirties.
Clurman continues to be wordy in the latter parts of his book. Although at times it is appreciated. When writing, Clurman will never let you feel as though you've missed something. This very strategy parallels the ideas that follow his subject and it does not go unnoticed. As the book went on the seemingly unneeded word on a page turned into stories, and the novel-esque personality that Clurman's writing takes on is appreciated.
Previously I discussed how the confusion may have been because of Clurman's mixture between the facts and personal anecdotes. However, the two-wonge approach proved to be important by the end. He was discussing more than just an element of theater history, he was revealing history itself in the 1930s. His end purpose, to explain the importance of group theater's rise and fall, was achieved because of his intertwining of his personal growths, as well as those in the field.
Clurman uses an abundance of examples to support his ideas. While not totally necessary, as he has built in credibility, the use of evidentiary support really adds to his ideas. He constantly name drops, though maybe they are just his friends and colleagues, at times it clear the Clurman uses their credentials to support what he wants the reader to understand. Clurman also references plenty of journals that reviewed shows and plays themselves in order to effectively communicate his message.
An important part of how Clurman explains his process is how he lays out the entire book. It is written in six parts, each capturing an element of what Clurman wishes the reader to leave with. One pivotal piece was the "Farewell to the Thirties". This portion acted as the "fall" of the plot, as many fictional readers would describe what follows the main ideas. Clurman is sure to cover the time period from start to finish as a way to make his book the one to go to if you are curious about the thirties.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
TOW #15 (Written) I am Not Charlie
Following the shooting in France against the journalists at Charlie Hebdo, the phrase "Je suis Charlie" has been circulating. In english this translates to, "I am Charlie". However, David Brooks, writer for the New York Times, delves into why people should be careful not to utilize the trending saying. Through his arrangement and word choice, Brooks creates an effective argument and voices his unpopular opinion.
Brooks begins with a succinct current state of the situation writing how the journalists, "are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression". He is able to separate his opinion from something positive that is seen in the situation. He also recognizes his audience and doesn't go into detail about the current event, he just assumes his reader is aware. Brooks continues to explain that while the journalists were free to speak as they did, it never would've flown in America. Following such a grand claim, Brooks gives countless evidentiary support to the idea that just because someone is in favor of free speech, doesn't mean what they are saying is right.
Brooks continues very casually writing, "So, this may be a teachable moment." He beings to propose his idea of what needs change, as he has already established that he is indeed in favor of free speech. His casual tone dies, however, when he writes, "When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs." The indirect comparison between the writers at Charlie Hedbo and young teenagers is not a very kind one. He uses this newly proposed idea to explain that everything has a place and to not simply lionize something simply because it has been attacked.
Brooks concludes his piece with a very clear message, "The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating." Brooks has made it very clear that he is most definitely not Charlie.
Brooks begins with a succinct current state of the situation writing how the journalists, "are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression". He is able to separate his opinion from something positive that is seen in the situation. He also recognizes his audience and doesn't go into detail about the current event, he just assumes his reader is aware. Brooks continues to explain that while the journalists were free to speak as they did, it never would've flown in America. Following such a grand claim, Brooks gives countless evidentiary support to the idea that just because someone is in favor of free speech, doesn't mean what they are saying is right.
Brooks continues very casually writing, "So, this may be a teachable moment." He beings to propose his idea of what needs change, as he has already established that he is indeed in favor of free speech. His casual tone dies, however, when he writes, "When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs." The indirect comparison between the writers at Charlie Hedbo and young teenagers is not a very kind one. He uses this newly proposed idea to explain that everything has a place and to not simply lionize something simply because it has been attacked.
Brooks concludes his piece with a very clear message, "The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating." Brooks has made it very clear that he is most definitely not Charlie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)