Short film magazine reviews

In order for me to establish the literary techniques that I will need to include in my short film magazine review I looked at various online examples to aid me in achieving this effectively.

http://www.filmguru.net/shorts/2007/070618.html : I found this particular website useful for identifying short film reviews and posters.


"Cyn"



I recognised various writing techniques throughout the review that will provide ample support for me when developing my own review. One predominant technique I identified was that upon writing, the reviewer needs to identify their own opinion about the short film before hand. The review is biased -not a counter argument-, the writer clearly find the short film enticing, engaging and interesting to watching. This is evident in the use of certain quotes, for example "he puts forward a film that perfectly showcases his style as a director","For director Alex Ferarri, the outcome is a powerful short film called Cyn" and "a touch of humor that is so often missing from young directors". Thus, emphasising that the reviewer feels so powerful about the film that he is willing to critise other directors -who are seemingly younger- in their bid to try and obtain audience members throughout a short film. Consequently, making the director of the film Cyn (Ferarri) more observant in the way in which he strives to engage his audience members unlike others.



Another technique that I identified was the mixture of quotes from Ferarri imbedded throughout the review. This makes the review more interesting to read as consumers are kept engaged with not just the evaluation of the plot but also the directors obeservation of it. Therefore, meaning that the review of the film is made more realistic as the reviewer has gained a different take on the film from not just watching it but getting evidence for the inspiration from Ferarri behind the six day shooting for the five minute short film.

As well as this website and review I also found the website:

http://moviepatron.com/blog/category/short-film/

To which I was able to identify other short films, one that I looked at was called "Now you see me, Now you don't" by Andrew James:



The film review began with background information about how the film came to be watched and the meaning behind the front cover of the DVD. I also recognised that above the review was a star rating, assessing how successful the film is. From this I was able to guarantee that I would be reading a good review. The reviewer emphasised the diverse narrative throughout, however also commented on the use of camera angles and shots within the film. " Every angle is different and interesting", thus emphasising the reviwer is going beyond assessing the quality of the plot. "Quite honestly I can’t really think of anything negative to say about the picture (and that’s RARE!). I can’t wait to see more from Szász". This emphasises the argument is not balanced, another technique that I recognised from the previous article whereby the reviwer will take one opposing side. This is used to convince the reader of the review into thinking the same thing. If this is achieved, then the reviwer has written a successful review.