Publisher’s Note: The publisher has had no role in editing this column, which is published as the writer submitted it with the intention of publication in BEACONS.
By Melanie Lanzo
Wesley Morris is a American film critic and podcast host. He is currently a well known critic for The New York Times, as well as a co-host for The New York Times podcast still processing. He also wrote for The Boston Globe and Grantland. He also won the 2012 Pulitzer prize for criticism for his work with the globe.As known, Film reviews/criticism consists of being able to make an argument while making sure that your review is commentary, not necessarily a summary. Wesley Morris’s brilliant, resourceful film criticism gives a prominent emphasis on the pass through between the cinematheque and vast box office films. His work is a prime example of a marvelous and professional yet friendly execution of how a writer should write distinguished criticism; provoking his audience to think critically while watching these films.
The film The Help was given two and a half stars from Wesley Morris in his criticism column titled Race, class, and Hollywood gloss: 'The Help' manages to mean well without forging new ground. In this critical piece, Morris describes the necessary background information needed about the movie The Help, to then discuss why he feels the movie did not reach its full potential. He starts off by describing an incident that transpired in his life and relates it to the film so the audience can get an idea of what he is referring to (if you haven't watched the movie). By the way he introduces his topic of choice in this column specifically, you can already assume the type of writer he is. Morris is very articulate in a sense where he isn't afraid to say his opinion even if it's vigorous or it is not the perspective of the audience. He tends to add a little humor to lighten the mood, but not take away from the seriousness of the topic. In this critique he uses questions to emphasize his point of view. He states questions such as What went through the minds of Davis, Spencer, and Aunjanue Ellis, who plays Hilly's maid, as they put on those uniforms and went to work? What went through the minds of the extras? To address to the audience that these are things we have to note as we watch these movies that tend to fail at impressing a movie's social history.
Another impressive critic Morris shared and got awarded for in 2012 is his prestigious writing in Meaning of 'Life': In Malick's latest, the vision is lovely but not easy to understand. Just as the title states, his critique made it known that the vision of the director was captivating, but not easy to interpret. He gives his audience background knowledge to be able to see why he says the things he does in this critique and his interpretation of the film. By doing this, not only does it persuade your audience more towards your standpoint, it gives the audience an option to have a choice. As a reader, you want to know all the perspectives and ideas before deciding if what you are reading is true and Morris's writing techniques give you that space. Even when he explains the confusing ending, he describes the ending in a way that helps the audience understand his perspective. “The movie dares you to wonder whether Malick has completely lost touch with reality. That's a trick. He has never appeared to harbor a direct interest in our times.” Morris states. He states provoking ideas that gets the audience thinking and analyzing the film in ways they never did before.
Something that is noticed in Morris critique is his ability to not only write his negative opinions strongly but also his positive opinions too. This is meant in the sense that he is able to give cratics with more glows than grows and put a light on the spectacular films that are a must see. In his critique Everyday romance done right: When love happens to strangers his review really nails it down to the bone as to why this film deserves four stars. “Sometimes you don't want to escape. You want to connect with a movie that's really about something, to listen to a filmmaker talk things out, to watch him amp everyday life without calling attention to his turning up the sound...What you want is "Weekend," one of the truest, most beautiful movies ever made about two strangers.” The way he goes about describing a good movie, you can see the correlation he's making from an example of a feeling during a film, to the feeling he got watching this film. Morris does a very good job at making that bridge between two ideas and combining them; a skill not most critiques can do. As a critic you have to be able to incorporate a type of feeling (without using I) into your work so the audience understands why. If this doesn't happen the writing seems a bit forced and not easy to interpret. Morris not only uses good vocabulary, but structures his writing in a way that helps the reader comprehend and interpret the film the way he interprets it. It's a feeling of comfort. By giving personal affiliation at certain points, it keeps the reader feeling comfortable enough to trust what the writer is saying, and even at some point start to agree. In almost all his critics, Morris manages to give reasoning/descriptions of situations that are relatable to the topic in order for him to connect with the audience on a deeper and more complex level. He lets the audience know that he is also very confident in what he believes in as a critique, and the reader should believe what he is saying without it coming off too strong. His use of summation while describing why he believes his opinion is correct gives the audience reassurance that he is speaking the truth.
The last thing that needs to be mentioned about the talented Wesley Morris is his ability to characterize and outline criterias he sees from observation.The movie Water for Elephants is categorized as one of those films where it is loved by the audience due to its popularity with the actors. Morris' critique goes in depth about how the audience has seen the film from a certain type of perspective, but he wants to open that door of questioning the connection between the actors. This is something brave to do. Morris does a fantastic job of taking his observations and putting it down on paper in a way that allows his audience to see his point of view. He states “With all due respect to the casting process, this feels like a trio that tested better in an executive's office than on a movie set. It's that lack of chemistry that makes you think a scheme is brewing. Why else would one of them want anything to do with the other two? They wind up lavishing attention on the elephant.” him describing his thought process with questions, spark up that same concept of allowing the audience to question it too and It combines balanced opinion and concrete example. This is something that some critics struggle with, and tend to lose the idea of what a critique is by overbearing with their opinions. Morris’s skills to properly and respectfully question the actors themselves towards a film that is loved, shows that he is asking those questions that people are thinking but don't want to say. He's giving a voice to those who watch these films and look past the popularity of the film, and more into the depth of why certain things were done the way they were.
In summation Wesley Morris is a very strategic and articual critic. He manages to draw the audience in, not bore them with the history, and then gives his opinion in a way that makes complete sense. His choices from vocabulary to structure really helps the audience confide in him and believe what he says. In order to be a critic, you have to know how to give your opinion but in a way that's not overpowering and emphasized to the point where you're negative in your whole critique. Morris knows how to respectfully and calmly give his opinion without causing that much controversy. He states his ideas,throws them in the air, and the audience determines if he's accurate or not based on what he's written as a true critique should.
コメント