(photo: A.O. Scott via the Ithaca Times Art Blog)
I have begun to follow A.O. Scott (from the New York Times), in the past weeks and have yet to be bored in the midst of one of his reviews; boredom was the preliminary dis-qualifier for my reviewer defense this week. I have a hard time making it through most of the reviews of performances that I have not seen on account of losing interest or getting lost in the unnecessary wordiness. When gleaning the arts section for pure entertainment and inspiration, he doesn't disappoint.
What is it that that makes A.O. Scott a critic worthy of defense in his review of "Fishtank"? It is the way he incorporates and analyzes bits of triva like, "Ms. Arnold [director] gave the script to her cast one scene at a time so that they did not know what was coming next." He discerns nuances in character from the actors' approach, "[M]s. Jarvis's tentative, sometimes opaque self-presentation registers the crucial fact about Mia, which is her confusion."
In terms of structure, Mr Scott begins with director, and the overarching sense of claustaphobia that the movie is meant to convey to the viewer. He touches on the characters, both in terms of their scripted relatinships to eachother, and as they are constructed by the actors. Within the sentences, Mr. Scott orders the words in a way that builds suspense. He does this, I believe, with anecdotes, and small insets of his own observation without giving to much away. He says, "The contradictions of adolescence create their own sadness." And I comiserate with him for a moment before moving on. He gives the reader the sense that we are on the same team, rather than giving us a lecture. Mr. Scott places the film in a ring with it contemporaries and builds his authority by comparing its elements to "An Education" and the director's first film "Red Road". The 'but' comes toward the end of the review after he has presented the film to the readership and given us a chance to come to our own conclusions about whether it is worth seeing.
Mr. Scott has been writing reviews for the New York Times for ten years, and still brings a fresh perspective to one more movie about a teenage girl in the projects, complete with a creepy stepdad.
FISHTANK REVIEW
from the New York Times on Friday January 15, 2010
Hi Ada,
ReplyDeleteYour review was very fluid with an audible voice. Like Scott's writing, I found yours entertaining to read. The observation that he specifies differences in actors vs. their acting was an interesting insight and made me believe that he is, in fact, a successful reviewer. I wonder if, since Scott recommends the film, you trust him enough to see it, even with your admitted distaste for going to the movies.
-Elaine
I really, really enjoyed reading your defense. It looks like you did a really thorough job of analyzing the article as well as the reviewer. In fact, after reading this it makes me not only want to read the review you are describing again, it makes me want to follow many of A.O Scott’s reviews! I really like how you talk about him building “suspense” and writing to readers as if we are all on the “same team”.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I really like how you give your own personal view of reviews and how they can be hard to get into because that immediately made me feel a little better about my own readings of reviews to know that I wasn’t the only one suffering through them. The title of this defense as well as the strong concise language used definitely gives audiences an authoritative perspective of you—which can be hard to do with so few words. So great job!