After watching the film, Pulp Fiction, find a film critic’s review of the film. Make sure the review is from a credible resource/critic rather than a random online fan review of the film. Many well-know newspapers and entertainment magazines reviews can be found on the Rotten Tomatoes website.
After finding a review, write an essay where you evaluate the reviewer based on the questions found in “Evaluating the Reviewer” section on pg. 388-89 of your textbook. First, use the basic questions in the first paragraph of that section to determine if the reviewer leads you “toward a better understanding or a keener appreciation” of the film. Then, write a more thorough evaluation of the reviewer by using the questions in the bullet-pointed sections to assist you with this section of the essay.
I do not want you to just post the questions that are listed in the book and provide answers to those questions but rather I want you to write an actual essay using those questions to help guide your writing.
The essay needs to be a Microsoft Word document, 3-4 pages in length not including the works cited page, double-spaced, and in MLA format. Make sure to include appropriate in-text citations to avoid plagiarism.
Here are the questions to help guide
“Does the critic succeed in helping us understand more about the film than we could see for ourselves? Does he or she make the film medium itself seem exciting, so that we want to experience its art more deeply and intensely?
After answering these basic questions, we can move on to a thorough evaluation of the review by considering these questions:
In what parts of the review is the critic merely providing factual information, things that cannot possibly be argued with? How thorough is this information, and how clear an idea does it give of the nature of the film?
In what parts of the review does the critic serve as an objective interpreter or guide by pointing out film elements that are worthy of special attention, by placing the film in context, or by describing the techniques employed? Does the critic try to analyze or interpret the film objectively?
In what part of the review does the critic make relatively objective value judgments about the film’s worth? How does the critic support judgments with critical ground rules? Does the critic make these critical ground rules clear? Does the critic provide a logical, convincing argument in support of the evaluation, or does he or she judge the film dogmatically?
Where in the review does the critic reveal his or her subjectivity, prejudices, and biases? How much does the critic reveal about his or her own personality in this part of the review? How valuable are these subjective parts of the review in stimulating interest in the film or providing material for mental dialogue or argument? What critical weaknesses, limitations, or narrow attitudes are reflected in this review? Does the critic bother to warn us about his or her prejudices?
Page 389
Which critical method or approach does the critic emphasize? Does he or she place emphasis on how the film was made (film as technical achievement), on who stars in the film (film as showcase for the actor), on who made the film (the auteur approach), on what the film says (the humanistic approach), on the reality and intensity of the experience of the film (the film as an emotional or sensuous experience), or on how well the film conforms to or introduces variations on a more or less conventionalized form (the genre approach)? Does the critic focus on political or economic issues (the Marxist approach), or on issues of gender (the feminist approach), or on symbolic interpretation (the psychoanalytical approach)?
Does the critic carefully consider the level of ambition of the film and then select an approach to adjust for this expectation? If not, how does this shortcoming affect the review?”