when i was younger, i used to think being a movie critic was the cushiest job ever. well, that's because you not only get to watch all the movies before everyone else does, you get paid for it. and all you have to do is dish out a few senseless opinions and go "i give this FOUR popcorns!" or something similar.
anyway, i'm wrong.
to be a movie crtic, i realised you actually have to have a substantial and varied knowledge of cinematography and the likes of it. but even with this knowledge, without wit and any form of analytical prowess, it is just simply information.
in other words, having profound knowledge of this area, does not make you a felicitous and condign movie critic.
because a movie is just simply not dead.
the minds of the directors/screenplay writers/producers, etcetc aren't dead.
and it's this complex make up of parts that actually form a movie.
so you can't exactly transfer a live movie and hope it fits into the grooves of a textbook.
writing a movie review is alot like writing a lit essay except there isn't going to be a grade stamped on it.
it's sheer, technical information, coupled with biased opinions (i say biased because everyone has different opinions, leaning towards their preferability) and constructive criticism.
how did i come to realise this?
well, i was reading the Life section of the newspaper that day, because i spied a picture of Jeon Ji Hyun and the caption read "Review of Windstruck!".
and the review was full of technical terms and comments like "while Jeon managed to seamlessly sail from brazen to demurely shy, Jang seemed to be lost.." or "the director had taken the powerful effects of sweet, light-hearted humour, quick action, and tear-jerkers full blown to make you weep and wring your hankies.. but the movie seemed disjointed plainly because the director simply had too many genres in one movie" or "the great storyline however was lost in the ambitions of their director" or SOMETHING LIKE THAT!
anyway they're all things that would have escaped my notice.
if i'd shared the same opinions as the movie critic, i'd probably be left with feeling disjointed with a sense of loss after the movie, but NEVER would i think that its all because of the cinematography and.. i'm running out of technical terms to use.
right, all these rubbish thoughts about being a movie critic, just because i'd read a movie review.
BUT, i still want to watch Windstruck.
because disjointed or not, i really don't care :)
becky&swong: i can't plan a sleepover! i've got squash graded tournament the saturday RIGHT after terms i've got no time!
joan&meishi: ha ha i love you two for praying for me :)
anyway, i'm wrong.
to be a movie crtic, i realised you actually have to have a substantial and varied knowledge of cinematography and the likes of it. but even with this knowledge, without wit and any form of analytical prowess, it is just simply information.
in other words, having profound knowledge of this area, does not make you a felicitous and condign movie critic.
because a movie is just simply not dead.
the minds of the directors/screenplay writers/producers, etcetc aren't dead.
and it's this complex make up of parts that actually form a movie.
so you can't exactly transfer a live movie and hope it fits into the grooves of a textbook.
writing a movie review is alot like writing a lit essay except there isn't going to be a grade stamped on it.
it's sheer, technical information, coupled with biased opinions (i say biased because everyone has different opinions, leaning towards their preferability) and constructive criticism.
how did i come to realise this?
well, i was reading the Life section of the newspaper that day, because i spied a picture of Jeon Ji Hyun and the caption read "Review of Windstruck!".
and the review was full of technical terms and comments like "while Jeon managed to seamlessly sail from brazen to demurely shy, Jang seemed to be lost.." or "the director had taken the powerful effects of sweet, light-hearted humour, quick action, and tear-jerkers full blown to make you weep and wring your hankies.. but the movie seemed disjointed plainly because the director simply had too many genres in one movie" or "the great storyline however was lost in the ambitions of their director" or SOMETHING LIKE THAT!
anyway they're all things that would have escaped my notice.
if i'd shared the same opinions as the movie critic, i'd probably be left with feeling disjointed with a sense of loss after the movie, but NEVER would i think that its all because of the cinematography and.. i'm running out of technical terms to use.
right, all these rubbish thoughts about being a movie critic, just because i'd read a movie review.
BUT, i still want to watch Windstruck.
because disjointed or not, i really don't care :)
becky&swong: i can't plan a sleepover! i've got squash graded tournament the saturday RIGHT after terms i've got no time!
joan&meishi: ha ha i love you two for praying for me :)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home