These next couple weeks we are working writing how to write reviews. Everyone will write one for a film and another of the their choice: music, theatre, restaurant or art exhibit.
For Tuesday April 24- all journalism classes are responsible for reading the review; however, only periods 7 and 9 (not 3)should answer the questions. These are due by midnight tonight.
MAKE SURE YOU HAVE HEAD OR EAR PHONES TOMORROW.
Please read the following the film review from The New Yorker on The Hunger Games and answer the following questions. Due by midnight tonight.
1. How has the author Denby prepared himself with background material to write the review?
2. What liteary elements do you note in the article. Give excerpts from the text.
3. What historical allusions does Denby make?
4. To what does Denby proclaim the success of the film?
5.What do we know of the actor Jennifer Lawrence's background?
6. Who is the cinematographer and what type of camera work is used in the film?
7. According to Denby, why is this film incapable of being a classic?
8 Discuss who the audience is for this review and how you know it.
The Current Cinema
Kids at Risk
“The Hunger Games” and “Bully.”
by David Denby April 2, 2012
Trying to explain the trilogy’s extraordinary
popularity, critics and commentators have reached for metaphors. Perhaps it’s
that the books offer a hyper-charged version of high school, an everyday place
with incessant anxieties: constant judgment by adults; hazing, bullying, and
cliques; and, finally, college-entry traumas. If you stretch the metaphor a
bit, the books could be seen as a menacing fable of capitalism, in which an
ethos of competition increasingly yields winner-take-all victors. Collins might
seem to be one of those victors herself: there are twenty-four million copies
of the trilogy in print in the United States alone. But maybe the reason for
its success is simple: it makes teens feel both victimized and important.
Collins understands her audience well, and
she can write. Her first-person narrator, Katniss Everdeen, who hails from a
shabby coal-mining area, is a tough, resourceful girl, a huntress who protects
her family. Collins, staying inside Katniss’s head, produces short, tactile
sentences that are precise about apprehension and physical experience. However
fanciful the basic premise, the books are rugged girls’ adventure literature of
the kind that used to be written for boys. Making an exciting movie out of “The
Hunger Games” should not have been that hard.
I certainly have no quarrel with the casting.
Jennifer Lawrence demonstrated a convincing strength as Ree, the Ozarks girl
with a husky voice and pale-blue eyes in “Winter’s Bone.” In “The Hunger
Games,” as Katniss—a more dynamic version of Ree—she has a lightly burnished
copper complexion, and when she’s still, there’s something luminous, slightly
otherworldly about her. Her gravity and her steady gaze make her a fine
heroine. And I enjoyed nineteen-year-old Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, the other
competitor from Katniss’s district, who adores her; he has a lost look, an
engaging not-quite-handsomeness. In true young-adult-fiction style, Katniss has
a second admirer—stalwart, gentle Gale, played by Liam Hemsworth, who looks, in
this movie, like a larger Taylor Lautner. Among the adults, Stanley Tucci and
Elizabeth Banks, wearing enormous wigs, camp it up as the rulers. Though the
satiric point of making some of the plutocrats monsters out of an
eighteenth-century farce eludes me,
But the rest of “The Hunger Games” is pretty
much a disaster—disjointed, muffled, and even, at times, boring. Collins
herself labored on the script, along with Gary Ross and Billy Ray, and Ross
(“Pleasantville,” “Seabiscuit”) directed. Working with the cinematographer Tom
Stern, Ross shoots in a style that I have come to despise. A handheld camera
whips nervously from one angle to another; the fragments are then jammed
together without any regard for space. You feel like you’ve been tossed into a
washing machine (don’t sit in the front rows without Dramamine). Even when two
people are just talking calmly, Ross jerks the camera around. Why? As the sense
of danger increases, he has nothing to build toward. Visually, he’s already
gone over the top. And the action itself is a thrashing, incoherent blur—kids
tumbling on the ground or wrestling with each other. Katniss stalks various
kids with her bow and arrow, but she kills only one intentionally—a domineering
sadist—and you don’t see the arrow hit him; you don’t even see him fall. Ross
consistently drains away all the tensions built into the grisly story—the
growing wariness and suspicion that each teen-ager must feel as the number of
those still alive begins to diminish, or the horror (or glee) that some of them
experience as they commit murder. The camera rushes through the wilderness,
but, in the end, the movie looks less like a fight to the death than like a
scavenger hunt. Katniss is always finding something useful in a tree or lying
on the ground.
“The Hunger Games” is a
prime example of commercial hypocrisy. The filmmakers bait kids with a cruel
idea, but they can’t risk being too intense or too graphic (the books are more
explicit). After a while, we get the point: because children are the principal
audience, the picture needs a PG-13 rating. The result is an evasive, baffling,
unexciting production—anything but a classic.
No comments:
Post a Comment