Introduction
A reviewer, regardless of the art form, has a responsibility to readers to be knowledgeable about the specific art form. Reviewers do not simply express opinions. There’s a huge difference between “I liked Killer Ants Devouring Lithuania,” and “Killer Ants Devouring Lithuania was a good movie.”
In the former, you’re only expressing a personal opinion based on your likes and dislikes. You have the right to that opinion, but as a reader, my reaction is, “who cares?” I want to know about the movie or book, not about you. In the latter, you have a set of criteria by which you can judge the work of art. Too many people fail to see or accept that distinction. If you fall into this category, you’ll write lousy reviews of no interest to the reader; you’ll merely be feeding your own ego by seeing your name in print.
But if you study the medium, its history and trends, if you can break a performance into its component parts to evaluate how they fit together, if you can put your review into the context of similar works, then you’re offering valuable insights that will help readers decide whether to experience the art, and you’re teaching them how to enhance their experience and appreciation.
Here’s where it gets messy. These criteria are not completely objective nor are they totally subjective. They lie somewhere in between. But if you deny the criteria and claim that all opinions are subjective, why bother to review anything at all? Your opinion carries no more weight than a three-year-old watching the same movie.
What follows are standards used by professional critics, and few people have the time to engross themselves this thoroughly in an art form. Don’t be overwhelmed by the complexity; rather, use this article as a starting point, adopting ideas and concepts that make sense and recognizing that, to become a good critic, you never stop studying the medium.
It’s also important to emphasize that while there’s not one right way to write a review, there are essential elements that make it either a good or bad one.
Elements of a Review: The Hook
Like all good writing, a review has to have a “hook,” an opening sentence or paragraph that draws in the reader. Rarely, if ever, should that hook include the word “I,” which tells the reader “it’s all about me.” Most will stop reading and move on to another article. Another trap to avoid is being obvious while attempting to be profound. For example, comments about short stories, poetry, or essays not getting the kind of attention they deserve insult your readers’ intelligence.
Article comments
1 - Steve C.
I was with you all the way to the conclusion. If I, as a filmgoer and critic (on a strictly amateur basis), hate and despise something, then I'm not going to say it's a great work. That, to me, is fundamentally dishonest and leads to Mantlepiece Movie Syndrome -- you know, the kind of meticulous, gorgeous, perfectly realized filmmaking that is nonetheless hermetic and dead. (The Cider House Rules is my go-to example of this phenomenon.)
Then again, maybe I'm the wrong person to be commenting here, as I freely admit to enjoying trashy cinema. Is Doris Wishman's Indecent Desires a good film? By general standards, no. By the standards of the genre it inhabits, yes. You don't seem to leave room for relativity in your rules here. Or am I misunderstanding?
2 - Rodney Welch
Gag. What stiff, unpleasant and unreadable writing. You sound like that stodgy old teacher in Dead Poets Society.
3 - Mark Schannon
Steve, you're right, I did leave out the notion of relativity. I don't use the same standards when judging a meal at a diner that I do when going to a fine restaurant. I think Bruce Willis' "Die Hard" films are great--for their genre.
However, when you talk about "hate and despise" something, that's an emotional opinion. If it's based on an analysis of the elements of a movie, then you'd also make the judgment it's a bad movie.
For some reason, I can't stand Cher. I have no idea why. I've seen a couple of her movies, and while the critic in me can appreciate their value, I'm squirming every time she's on the screen.
This like/hate vs. good/bad issue is one of the most contentious in aethetics, so you're not alone in your opinion. I'm just trying to get people more in the center and less focused on their personal reactions.
4 - Steve C.
I can't claim to be above irrational dislikes (Andy Garcia, for some reason, gets on my nerves). But I think the key to a reconciliation of these issues is to be able to react from both positions -- to start with the emotional response (i.e. I hate Andy Garcia) and justify that reaction through an examination of the artistic worth (i.e. Andy Garcia is a bland and dull actor with bad taste in film roles -- I mean, The Man from Elysian Fields? Please).
An example, from 1982: George Miller's The Road Warrior vs. Peter Greenaway's The Draughtsman's Contract. I like the former and dislike the latter. In terms of artistry, both films are good, and anyone viewing the two side by side objectively would conclude that Contract is the 'better' film. But it isn't. Greenaway's film is impeccable in terms of artistry, as are all his films. It's also arid and humorless, a triumph of direction and nothing else. Contract lacks the scholarly playfulness of many of Greenaway's other films that leavens the arrogance that seems to waft off his pretentious screenplays. Because of that, I see it as a bad film. The Road Warrior, on the other hand, is not only well-constructed -- it's well-constructed to a purpose. The tight, elegant immediacy of the film's action setpieces is matched by a similar economy in character and storytelling. We learn everything we need to learn and nothing else. There's isn't one wasted or superfluous minute in the film. Thus, it is a good film, despite its classification as an action film (typically considered a 'low' genre). The comparison may be a tad unfair, as The Road Warrior is a transcendent example of its ilk. But I think the argument works.
Also, just as a side note: While personal-to-a-fault 'critics' (i.e. Harry Knowles) are an irritant, I tend to also be unimpressed by people who stick solely to 'objectivity'. (There's a reason I try not to read Film Comment.) Most of my favorite critics manage to find a graceful middle -- I don't want to read impersonal, staid criticism any more than I want to read someone who can't articulate beyond "It was awesome!"
5 - Mark Schannon
Rodney, I always wonder about people who take pleasure in belittling others with not even at attempt at a cogent argument. It reminds me of a Napoleonic complex. I feel sorry for you.
Steve C, hell, I should have had you co-author the article with me. Your analysis of Andy Garcia is exactly right--but, what if you can't justify the emotional response? (Me & Cher, for example.) At some point, if you decide your dislike of an actor has no relation to the actor's skills, your aesthetic sense has to take precedence over your personal feelings, right? How else would you handle it?
Your analysis of the two films is excellent--you make your point both from a personal but, more importantly, from an artistic/technical point of view why Road Warrior is a better film, even though the genres are so different. I'm going to steal it & use it in other articles(giving you full credit of course.)
The challenge, which you address perfectly in your close, is the balance between hard-core analysis and personal taste.
I hope my article doesn't give the impression that reviews have to formal, stiff, and boring. I tried to throw humor in there and used examples that were anything by dry. However, if it does come across that way, I'd appreciate you letting me know & I'll work on it.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the thought you've given this.
In Jameson Veritas
6 - Che
Mark, your rules are fine for the days of stiff, scholarly critiques, but nowadays, in the age of voyeurism, the reader not only wants to know about the book (or the movie, or whatever)they want to know who it is thats recommending this. They want a peek inside the person to see if they relate. A scholarly review might get you a bunch of readers quickly, but a more personal approach will slowly build a core group of regular readers who identify with YOU and value YOUR opinion because they know, like and trust you.
In every book review I write, I reveal a little something of myself. I also explore writing style, atmosphere, character-development and plot. I try to understand WHO I'm writing for and what they'll be seeking when they pick up a book from the shelf. Knowing your audience is good. Forming a relationship with them is better. I like to read, and I like communicating with people who like to read.
Even in the Blogcritics file that is sent out when you first join there is the recommendation that you write about "what it means to you". I prefer to stick with that.
Rules are good. Breaking rules is better.
7 - Mark Schannon
Che,
I'm convinced I need to rewrite the article. People are coming away thinking that there's this stiff, formulaic, boring way of doing reviews that is best. I didn't get across that that is not my intention at all.
The process you describe in no way "violates" any of what I wrote, although I take full blame for not making that clear. In fact, I fully support what you wrote: "In every book review I write, I reveal a little something of myself. I also explore writing style, atmosphere, character-development and plot. I try to understand WHO I'm writing for and what they'll be seeking when they pick up a book from the shelf."
You search for a balance of the personal "a little something of myself" and the aesthetic, "explore writing style, atmosphere, character-development and plot."
And I never mentioned who you're writing for--another omission I'll correct. I think I went overboard on the formal side because too many reviewers overdo it on the "I like it" "look at me" side. I...sigh...forgot my audience.
Thanks for the feedback, as much as I hate to think the article is that unclear, I'd rather get it right.
In Jameson Veritas
8 - Mark Schannon
Che, One more point. You can't break the rules if you don't know what they are. Wandering through the Picasso museum in Paris a few years ago, we were looking at paintings from his "Blue" period when we saw this incredibly realistic painting from the same period.
It was as if Picasso was saying, "Look I can paint realism, I know all the rules of composition, color, perspective, etc. I just don't want to do that anymore." But he was able to paint such incredible work because he'd learned the basics of painting.
In Jamesons Veritas
9 - Steve C.
I do have a couple blind spots, and one is actress Selma Blair. Maybe her performances are good. Maybe they're not. All I know is that when I see her on screen, all I see is a mumbling, tone-deaf shrew and I want to run away, far away. To answer your question, if she popped up in a film and was no good even though the film was, then I'd praise the film and try to avoid talking about Blair. If I had to talk about her, I'd probably admit my bias up front, a la Roger Ebert confessing he doesn't like Rosie O'Donnell in his review of Exit to Eden. That's all you can do, really. (Having said that, on my weblog I've slagged Ms. Blair a couple of times, but she keeps making it easy by picking crappy films.)
You've inspired me, actually, to pen an article of my own expanding on the idea of turning "love/hate" into "good/bad". I know exactly what films to use, too.
10 - Mark Schannon
Steve, let me know when you've written it. I'll be interested to see your take on it. I've had so many arguments with people over the years who refuse to acknowledge that there's a difference.
But that's to say that knowledge is of no value, that the personal opinion of a kumquat is as valuable as that of someone who's spent a life studying an art form.
Good luck with the article.
In Jameson Veritas
11 - Baronius
Distaste for Andy Garcia is simply recognition of a scientifically provable fact.
Excellent article. I recently read a review on Blogcritics, and realized afterwards that, if it weren't for the title of the article, I would have no idea what was being reviewed. This piece is a necessary reminder.
12 - Mark Schannon
Baronius, thanks for restoring what little is left of my ego. I think Steve and Che raise good points, but did you agree with them? The reality is that this, in some form, is going up in the BC files to help people get better at reviews, so I want it to be clear as possible.
Thanks.
In Jameson Veritas
13 - Thomas M. Sipos
You wrote: "A reviewer, regardless of the art form, has a responsibility to readers to be knowledgeable about the specific art form. Reviewers do not simply express opinions."
I once heard some differentiate between reviewers and critics. The former simply states what a film is about and whether they liked it. The latter gives a more formal analysis based on objective aesthetic criteria.
I myself, when I review something, differentiate between my subjective response (whether I liked it) and my objective analysis (whether it was good).
Some films I recognize as bad, flawed, a real mess, full of plot holes, yet extremely enjoyable (the 1978 Terror). Other films I personally dislike, but I recognize their merit (many, not all, Hal Hartley films). Other films are both objectively and subjectively admirable (Lost Souls) and still others bad on both levels (the remake of Carnival of Souls).
14 - Mark Schannon
Thomas,
Interesting distinction I'd never heard before between reviewer & critic, but it's clear from your comments that you understand the like/good distinction and apply it well.
BC isn't looking for "reviewers" in the sense of pure description and personal taste--that offers little to readers. We do want people to be more critics--although as the previous comments make clear, that doesn't preclude personal tastes nor enforce some rigid, formal style.
In Jameson Veritas
15 - Glen Boyd
Mark,
I just wanted to thank you for including the opener from one of my BC reviews as an example of a good one. After reading your piece, I honestly feel honored by the inclusion.
Reading your...yes, somewhat dry...but equally expert lesson in Critical Journalism 101, I was also reminded, somewhat painfully I might add, of some of my own occasional excesses (the "Me! Me! Me!" thing unfortunately reminded me of a few of my own reviews).
Anyway, I thought your article was a very good read. And that's my review.
Thanks for the lesson.
Glen Boyd
16 - Mark Schannon
Glen,
Thank you--your comment means a lot.
I am surprised at how dry it came out, which sure ain't my style. It's going to be going up in the BC files but I told Eric O that I wanted to rewrite it first--to capture a lot of comments made here and make it a lot less dry & more fun.
Mark
In Jameson Veritas
17 - A. Horbal
Being a critic is hard work, it requires study and analysis, but if you're just starting out, this article should be consider inspirational rather than a foundation you have to build before you can proceed.
Absolutely. And it also requires a great deal of practice, preferably in a public forum where people will respond to you and where you can try different things. A place like Blogcritics.org. Good criticism does not spring fully formed like Zeus from the head of the writer, however studied he or she may be. Nice article.
18 - Mark Schannon
Thanks. It'll be better when I make it less dry & clear up some of the misunderstandings...although I have no idea when I'll get to it.
Appreciate your comments.
19 - Matt SUGRUE
Just want to say thank you to evryone who takes the time to chide in, thats what keeps the fresh keepinn refreshed,
20 - Anonamous
On the point of devorsing yourself from the experence to make a statement, I would have to disagree. There are a great many critics that have been able to remain within the experence of what ever it is they happen to be reviewing and put out completly unbised opions on the work.
I may have goten your meaning wrong on that point and if I have I am sorry. I just do not think that you have to neglect the experence to give a good unatached review.