After Brief 1's abysmal feedback, I've thus far acquired a new 'skill', which all the literature gathered (by way of defining reflective practice) ranted somewhat repetitiously is its purpose; and that skill is . . . never assume you know what you are doing, or assume you can 'wing' an assigned task with the fuzziest comprehension of what is required, and even if you are relatively certain of what is required there is no loss of dignity in double checking with a lecturer, willingly at our disposal.
Anyway . . .
This is fun. I’ve so far enjoyed ripping my two exemplar reviews (of Melancholia), the positive and negative, to composite pieces to then reassemble (without perfectly emulating either) as my own ‘middling’ review. That’s middling as in neither too positive or negative (I'm too much of a narcissist to question my own ability). However, I think I might be disadvantaged in having restricted myself to the ‘middling’ stance, between the expository stances of my exemplars. The idea was that my comparative analysis of each would give me enough proximal familiarity with the stronger stances, and then my ‘middling’ one would be a reflective exploration of both. But how can I give myself the range of a versatile critic when my writing is all in one gear (so to speak)? At some future-point in this project, I might have to go back on my own specifications for the review and assume a strong yay or nay, or suffer the spineless stylistic rut of the middle-path indefinitely.
This is fun. I’ve so far enjoyed ripping my two exemplar reviews (of Melancholia), the positive and negative, to composite pieces to then reassemble (without perfectly emulating either) as my own ‘middling’ review. That’s middling as in neither too positive or negative (I'm too much of a narcissist to question my own ability). However, I think I might be disadvantaged in having restricted myself to the ‘middling’ stance, between the expository stances of my exemplars. The idea was that my comparative analysis of each would give me enough proximal familiarity with the stronger stances, and then my ‘middling’ one would be a reflective exploration of both. But how can I give myself the range of a versatile critic when my writing is all in one gear (so to speak)? At some future-point in this project, I might have to go back on my own specifications for the review and assume a strong yay or nay, or suffer the spineless stylistic rut of the middle-path indefinitely.
I think that reviewing a film as divisive and as steeped in external controversy as Melancholia, is what has brought this proposal flaw to my attention. Thanks Lars!
Kirsten Dunst gives Trier the stink eye as he 'gaffes' like a Nazi at Cannes
Interesting to note; the negative review was considerably longer than the positive. It was not that the negative was any more or less singular in its argument, only that the negative reviewer more rigorously justified his stance by citing actual craft flaws, whereas the positive reviewer’s primary reference was the films emotional accessibility and his/her own emotional responses; how it made him or her feel. I considered this generally revealing of cinemas function on an individual level; that we go see a film with the expectation of an immersive engagement that will diminish the gap whereby one can be objective, taking away the consummate effect which, if successful, leaves us blissfully unaware of 'flaws'. The particularly acerbic tone of some negative reviewing perhaps comes from the betrayal of that expectation, more searing than prosaic disappointment with that not-so-special effect or that lacklustre performance, etcetera.
