Roger Ebert’s review:
Michael Phillips’ review:
In addition to expressing an opinion, a major component of the critic’s job is to offer the reader a sense of experience. In “Roger’s Little Rule Book” by Roger Ebert, the author writes, “No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film.” While a review answers what the critic enjoyed or disliked, providing a sense of experience allows a review to inform the reader what he or she is jumping into. Looking at the reviews by critics, Roger Ebert and Michael Phillips, one can see that this guiding principle is where the two differ despite analyzing the same film. Although it may seem biased measuring one critic by the rule of another, it shows just how vital offering a sense of experience is to the reviewing process.
Much of the praise for Christopher Nolan’s film, “Inception,” surrounded the narrative’s intricate design. For many, the movie proved too challenging to wholly encapsulate the story. However, through simple yet effective vocabulary and emotional rather than structural focus, Roger Ebert clearly articulated the complex film-going experience. He starts his review by writing, “The film's hero tests a young architect by challenging her to create a maze, and Nolan tests us with his own dazzling maze. We have to trust him that he can lead us through, because much of the time we're lost and disoriented.” In two sentences, the review conveys an understanding of what the reader should expect - a plot labyrinth. During the rest of his critique, Ebert pinpoints key characters and specific visual moments to express the film’s intended emotional response. By ignoring plot points, Ebert does not confuse the reader with the film’s dense structure. After all, trying to cram the story within a linear style would prove futile. He reasons, “Here is a movie immune to spoilers: If you knew how it ended, that would tell you nothing unless you knew how it got there. And telling you how it got there would produce bafflement.”
Unlike Ebert, Michael Phillips fails to clearly express his viewing experience. For a portion of his review, Phillips refers to the movie’s jargon wastes time attempting to explain differences between dream layers and reality. Unfortunately, unless familiar with the movie, all this information registers as meaningless. In addition, Phillips fills his writing with diverse references ranging from “2001: A Space Odyssey” to “Rififi” to video games. Although he is attempting to create a context for the reader, these references only expand the reader’s expectations rather than define them. Instead of giving an idea of what to expect when watching “Inception,” Phillips loses out to details that fail to capture any significance. As a result, the film’s concept remains relatively untouched.
While both critics place the film in high regard, Ebert’s opinion holds more water simply due to the fact that he can vividly and coherently recall his viewing experience. Studying the two reviews, one can see the different approaches the two critics employed. Roger Ebert recognized the inevitable failure of placing the plot within a linear context and chose to focus on several of the film's emotional triggers. On the other hand, Michael Phillips only confuses the reader with tiny details and varying references. Certainly, an articulated experience can support and strengthen the overall effectiveness of a review.
No comments:
Post a Comment