In an age where everyone can call himself a reviewer, a critic or even an expert, much thanks to the exposure social media have granted, the discourse regarding what it actually means to be a reviewer and in essence, what it means to review, has become a rather hot topic, particularly among film buffs and academics. As I have been reviewing (almost exclusively) Asian movies, anime and TV series for more than ten years now and having reached a number of texts that surpasses the thousand, I thought it was about time to offer my two cents on the topic.
First of all, and although I understand that, in theory, writing a review and writing criticism are two different things, I do not distinguish between the two, as I feel that both are texts aiming to analyze the film in a way that allows the reader to understand what he is about to see. If there is a difference, it lies on the latter presenting a more academic approach, while it often addresses people who have already watched the title it refers. In that regard however, comes my first note about the concept. A review is primarily an article and not a piece of literature. This means that the highest values a review should include is being clear, to the point, and exhibiting a language that makes it easy for the reader to understand the text. Intense intricacy in language, poetic types of phrases, repetition of the same words for emphasis, allusions, and autobiographical references, particularly regarding the sentiments of the writer, are better suited for novels and poetry rather than critiques, and can actually confuse the reader instead of helping him understand. Of course, I realize that one can interpret a film through a sentimental approach, and that a number of movies can be perceived mostly through the senses rather than logic. Even in these cases, nevertheless, the writer should refrain from becoming too personal, since, otherwise, one would only address people who either know the reviewer personally or have very similar life experiences.
Another issue quite frequently appearing in movie reviews is the lack of reference on cinematic values, particularly regarding aspects like cinematography, editing, music/sound, and on a secondary level, acting (secondary because occasionally it is referenced in reviews). A number of reviewers tend to focus solely on the narrative/direction, particularly the comments the filmmaker wants to make through the movie and the way he/she communicates them through the story. However, unless the reviewer also deals, at least to a point, with the aforementioned production values, one can actually be writing about a novel and not a movie. Furthermore, this approach also leads to another frequent issue, that of writers revealing too much about the script, a tendency that can actually ruin the experience of the reader/viewer.
The cinematography refers to the visuals of the film, including framing, coloring, lighting and camera movement, essentially how the film looks and how the story and the various comments are presented on screen. The editing, particularly through the frequency of cuts, is the department responsible for the pace and rhythm of the movie, essentially dictating if it is slow or fast, a factor that plays quite a significant role to most viewers. Music also plays an important role occasionally, in communicating the essence the director wants to give to various scenes, and thus deserves mentioning. The work done in the sound department is, unfortunately, mostly evident when it is not good, but also deserves a mention. Lastly, and in another frequent omission, I feel that the names of the people in charge of the aforementioned departments should also be mentioned, since their role is equally important with that of the actors, director, etc,. This, despite the fact that it is usually difficult to understand where the work of the director stops, and that of the editor, for example, begins. Acting is self-explanatory, although neither this aspect is mentioned in reviews occasionally, while recently, after reading an excellent paper on Yuzo Kawashima, I now consider the (cinematic) past of any actors quite significant for the narrative. For example, think the impact a film about an action movies star that cannot move anymore would have, if the protagonist was someone like Jackie Chan, instead of another actor.
Of course, the aforementioned require at least partial knowledge of the technical aspects of cinema, which I consider one of the few prerequisites every reviewer should have. Some knowledge regarding the culture and history of the country of origin of the movie can also help the writer to understand what he is watching and to share it with the readers. However, including many historic and cultural elements in a review can result in a text that is tedious, and the fact remains that there is some value in the opinion of someone who does not have particular knowledge of these two aspects, since the same probably applies to the readers. For example, when a Greek reviewer writes about an Indian movie, he may not understand all the cultural/historical references but the same would probably apply to his readers, thus his opinion would be closer to theirs.
On a completely different issue, in the age of the Internet, some restraint in the number of words a review should have is also a prerequisite, particularly since the latest generations do not tend to read articles that are more than 800-900 words long (those who do actually read at least). Ideally, an (online) review should be about 600-700 long.
Considering all the aforementioned elements, I would like to propose a structure for reviews, which is the one I actually follow, more or less.
- Prologue: A paragraph referring to the impact of the film (box office, festival presence, awards, significance (particularly when the film is a classic), etc.
- Story-script: 1-2 paragraphs regarding the story of the film, revealing as little as possible
- Direction and context: characters analysis, meaning of the story, messages it wants to communicate, “tricks” used in order to do so (metaphors, allegory etc).
- Acting: A reference to the actors-actresses and their performance.
- Technical aspect. Cinematography, editing (definitely including a few words about the pace, if the film is slow or fast), music, or whatever technical aspect the reviewer feels is noteworthy
- Epilogue: A conclusion, where the synopsized opinion of the reviewer about the film is presented in a paragraph
Of course, depending on the type of film, these elements should change. For example, regarding animated movies, reference should also be given to the drawing and animation, instead of cinematography. Documentaries do not include acting (unless there is some kind of dramatization), while the editing plays a much more important role here, particularly regarding the way the different kinds of footage usually implemented (videos, photos, interviews) are connected and presented. Lastly, reviews of short films will probably have a shorter portion of the article dedicated to story and direction, but there is no need for the other parts to be smaller than the ones in feature reviews.
At this point, I would also like to refer to the mentality of the reviewer. I believe that the highest and most difficult to attain trait a critic should have is objectivity, which should reach the point of distinguishing between personal taste and actual quality. Of course, for one to abolish all his personal preferences is not exactly easy to do, but I feel this a trait all critics should always strive for. Consequently, factors like genre, style, context, even amount and presentation of violence for example, should not be a factor, with the same applying to the comments the filmmaker wants to make. It is very unfair when a critic gives a bad review on a movie just because he does not agree with the opinion of the filmmaker, or just because one thinks violence is too intense, the genre is not to one's liking, etc. The opposite of course also applies, while I truly despise reviews that are positive just because the protagonists are good-looking, a tactic that appears frequently among younger reviewers (although not only there.) To synopsize, the reviewer should be able to comment on a film objectively, despite everything, including his actual character.
As a conclusion, I would like to mention that I have not studied on an academic level, all I have learned is through my own reading, practice, watching, thinking, discussing and obsessing with movies. Luckily, cinema is a field that allows such an approach.
*The aforementioned express only my personal thoughts and opinions and not Asian Movie Pulse as a whole, whose 30+ writers might as well have their own, different opinion on the subject and write their reviews in a different way.
