Medina 1

Chris Medina
Zack De Piero
Writing 2
18 January 2016
Reviewing Movie Reviews: The Revenant

Commented [1]: A "meta-review"? Cool!

Heroes can come in many different shapes and sizes. One of the many forms worthy of
the title are film critics. When peoples enjoyment are in danger, movie critics are there to
provide quality entertainment. They separate the good from the bad, sacrificing themselves as
crash test dummies in order to prevent a terrible a movie from wasting someones time.
However, movie critics are not dummies; they are perceptive writers equipped with fine tastes in

Commented [2]: Medina, I don't love this opening for a

few reasons. It starts out with a "trite" phrase that I've
heard a million times -- unless you're going to turn this
on its head, be original!
Also, I'm not sure how Sentence 2 relates to Sentence
1 -- are you suggesting that film critics are heroes? I'm
not sure what you're intending here.

the arts. They want to show the world their ability to either popularize a movie or ruin it. To do
this, they use a set of techniques within their reviews to persuade their audience into accepting

Commented [3]: Great. Sounds like you're getting into

the conventions of the genre.

their claims. For people to be trusting, the sources of the reviews must have a positive reputation.

Commented [4]: I had some trouble reading this. I'd

like you to take a step back and re-see this sentence. I
don't think it's as clear as it could be.

Some credible periodicals that publish movie reviews include The New York Times, Rolling
Stone, and Variety. Recently, they all published reviews for the film The Revenant, a story about
the survival of frontiersman Hugh Glass. Although all of them fit into the movie review genre,
each have their own unique approach to reviewing the movie. The distinctive style of each
periodical is embedded into the reviews, differentiating them from the rest to serve their own
targeted audience, while producing the same work.
As with every other piece of writing, the movie reviews in The New York Times, Rolling
Stone, and Variety are works of rhetoric; they contain exigence, and audience. Exigence is the
circumstance or condition that invites a response (Lowe). In the case of the periodicals, the

Commented [5]: This is an incomplete sentenceit

lacks a subject/noun (who or what the sentence is
about) and a verb/predicate that, together, form a
complete thought. I strongly recommend that you
check out this resource:
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/sentencepatterns/. Incomplete sentences generally arent
valued in academic writing, although theyre still
common in creative writing, magzine/op-eds,
advertisements/slogans, etc.
Commented [6]: OK, this is strong start for a supersolid thesis statement. What I'd like you to do now is to
find a way to get more specific -- what kinds of styles
differentiate them? Who is the intended audience(s)?
The more specific you can get here, the easier my
"reading job" will be as I follow along.
Commented [7]: Id advise you to refrain from using
free-floating quotes (ie, sentences that start and end
with a quote). The reader is probably going to be left
wondering, Who is saying/citing this, and how/why is it
relevant? Wheres it coming from? Try to introduce
the quote and give it context.

Medina 2
condition inviting a response would be the need to provide moviegoers an experts judgement of
the quality of The Revenant. Critics are able to watch films before their general release to bring
reviews to the people, saying whether or not a movie is worth watching before the public gets the
chance to watch it. All of the three periodicals have the same exigence; however, their approach
to responding to it are different. The New York Times is a newspaper, so naturally, they would

Commented [8]: This comment is in reference to the

whole paragraph:
When I see thiseven before I start readingI think,
Ahhhhhhh! Attack of the page-long paragraph!
See if you like this metaphor:
Pretend your whole paper is a big, juicy steak. Do you
want your reader to enjoy that steak in easy-to-chew,
digestable bites? Or do you want them to start
gnawing away at whole thing in one piece (think:
zombie).

the directors previous films and how the film was based on a book was given but there are only

Paragraphs are like those bites. Give your reader

your argument in little, digestable, one-idea-at-a-time
bits. By doing so, theyll be able to following along the
trail of your argument much easier. To relate it back to
the steak metaphor, readers need to be able to see the
different parts/pieces/bites of the argument that theyre
chewing on.

a couple of instances where the text is an argument (Dargis). Without including too much details

Commented [9]: You already established this in your

Intro, Medina -- no need to repeat it.

to prevent any spoilers, a brief summary is given. People read the review to get an idea of the

Commented [10]: To me,this sentence is wrapping up

"exigence" and the next one is moving on to how
they're different across the sources.

present the review of The Revenant as news. Their purpose for providing a review is mainly for
information. The review consisted mostly of facts and was less opinionated. Information about

movie, not the whole thing. Unlike The New York Times review, Rolling Stones has more
character. It is clearer to pinpoint whether the author stands in favor of the movie or against it.
Their description of the movie is exaggerated and the statements are opinionated. Their uses of
metaphors and similes to provide a description of the movie could easily be disputed by

Whenever you can spot a natural break like this -moving from 1 idea and into the next -- it might be a
good spot to start a new paragraph.
Commented [11]: Can you give me some textual
evidence/support for this? Help me SEE what you're
seeing.

someone. An example would be, We're relieved when Glass heads into the forest and a scene
that will surely blow you away, in reference to a bear attack scene (The). The promise of the
movie blowing away its audience is given, but obviously, there could still be some people who
say they otherwise. Author of entertainment magazine Varietys review also makes it clear to
their audience whether they approved of the movie or not, however their approach is more
sophisticated compared to Rolling Stones. In short, The Revenant must be appreciated first
and foremost as a sensory and aesthetic marvel, a brutal hymn to the beauty and terror of the
natural world that exerts a hypnotic pull from the opening frame (Film). Their use of language

Commented [12]: I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed -- this

paragraph is packing a ton of information, and when
that happens, the focus of the paragraph tends to be
lost. Right now, I'm wondering: what's Medina's
*specific* argument again? Why am I reading this?
Paragraphs can help remind your reader identify the
parts of your argument and understand how they fit
together.

Medina 3
is formal, stating facts while still being able to convey their opinion. They do not just state to
their audience an answer of good or bad. They provide details in how the movie exceeds and

Commented [13]: Do they quantify their ratings at all?

Stars or X/0?

how it does not and why. As a magazine that focuses on entertainment, Variety proves to be the
keenest in reviewing The Revenant.
Another critical aspect of a rhetoric is the audience. Each periodical has their own
targeted audience and writes in the way that would satisfy them. The New York Times writes for
the average daily newspaper reader, and like any other newspaper, the language used must be
formal while also understandable. Normal everyday citizens are the audience of The New York
Times, so for them to be able to read the newspaper, the newspaper must accommodate them
with everyday language. This use of a specific language is a form of constraint, a limiting factor
of a work of rhetoric to successfully satisfy the exigence (Lowe). Rolling Stone must also be
controlled by constraints. As young people are their target audience, they use a casual, informal

Commented [14]: What makes you say this? Does

the national-vs-local-publication dynamic have anything
to do with this?
And does the online-vs-print element do anything to
complicate this even further?
Commented [15]: Absolutely!

language in their writing. The review starts with, Note to movie pussies: The Revenant is not
for you. The magazines writers have to use a casual tone to make it suitable for young viewers,

Commented [16]: Ha! Glad you weren't afraid to cite

this. :)

occasionally using slang and curse words. Even though the author is able to write an academic
and insightful review, they have to adjust their writing with the magazines. With a reputation of
focusing on entertainment, Varietys target audience is closer to connoisseurs of film. The way
they review their movies must be professional and refined. As the surviving trappers flee with
whatever pelts they can salvage, we feel not just ambushed but surrounded by the attackers
lurking just off screen They state their opinions as truths, avoiding the use of first-person
pronouns except for we. By using we, the quote implies that the readers automatically agree
with the writer. Ethos, the credibility of the writers, is also important in determining the

Commented [17]: "Academic" usually means scholarly

-- written to other researchers using research-based
methods. Is that what you mean here?
(And how would you know that author is an academic
and/or can write academically? Stick to your evidence.)

Medina 4
relationship between writer and reader. The tone of the writing and whether that tone is
appropriate for the context helps build a writers ethos (Lowe). Readers of Rolling Stone
might think that the intellectual language of Variety is too arrogant, while readers of The New
York Times might think that Rolling Stone is too childish. As the higher the respect readers have
for the writers, the higher the chance the readers are willing to accept the writers claims. The
multiple amount of reviews helps target different demographics. For one who still doubts a
review, they could also confirm its legitimacy by comparing it to another.
Critics have spent their time critiquing others, but now it shows that they can also be
critiqued. Any form of writing that tries to persuade have a reason and means of doing so.
Although The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Variety share the same motive of providing a
movie review for potential moviegoers, they use different tactics. Knowing this and why can
help understand the true purpose of movie reviewers. It could help improve writing, building
relationships with the audience, and even save time and money for knowing beforehand what
movies to not watch.

Commented [18]: Excellent. This is the kind of

insights that I want you to be focusing on -- examine
their language for any/all clues to its rhetorical
appeal(s).

Medina 5
Works Cited

Dargis, Manohla. "Review: The Revenant Welcomes You to Paradise. Now Prepare to Fall."
"Film Review: 'The Revenant'" Variety. 4 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Jan. 2016.
Lowe, Charles, Pavel Zemliansky, and Laura Carroll. Writing Spaces 1 Readings on Writing,
Volume 1. Anderson: Parlor, 2010. Print.
The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2015. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.
"The Revenant." Rolling Stone. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.

Medina 6

Writing 2 Feedback Matrix for WP1

Table of Textual Features

Did Not Meet

Met Expectations

Expectations

Expectations

Thesis Statement

X-

Use of Textual Evidence

X-

from Genres
Use of Course Readings

X-

Analysis

Organization/Structure

X/X-

Attention to

X/X-

Genre/Conventions and
Rhetorical Factors
Sentence-level Clarity,
Mechanics, Flow

Exceeded

X-

Medina 7
Medina,
Other Comments

What a cool topic -- glad you chose something that you,

hopefully, found interesting. (It seems like you did.)

Please read through my comments on some ways to help get

this paper to the next level. On top of some of my other
suggestions, Id like you to make friends with paragraphs -- I
want you to use them (as the writer) to help guide your
reader along. Each paragraph should enhance your argument
in a meaningful and specific way -- I felt that , in some of
your paragraphs, there was so much information that I wasnt
sure what to take out of it and how it related back to your
thesis.

Also, Id like you to consider making more tie-ins to our

course readings (beyond just that one source). You can use
them to really help explore the major concepts of genre and
add another layer to your argument and analysis.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, Id like you to make as

much possible use of the textual evidence in these sources as
you can. Help me see what it is that youre seeing and that

Medina 8
you think is important. Convince your readers with evidence
and then explain to them how/why it supports your
argument/position.

Z
7/10