check out this article here: 'The Greatest showman'The Greatest Showman is a new movie that hits theaters Dec. 19th. It has been a highly anticipated film and the first reviews regarding the movie are finally in. The movie is inspired by P.T. Barnum and his life while he started his circus. Further more, It deals with the rise and birth of show business and follows the story of someone who rose from nothing.
This article by Peter Travers is a review of the movie itself and tells his opinions on it, and gives a brief description as to why. Travers uses a mix of informal and formal diction in his article to get his point across of 'The Greatest Showman', not being so 'great'. He adds, "How do you cast a virtuoso Hugh Jackman as P.T. Barnum, spare no expense in production values...[and still make a bad movie]" (Travers). This illustrates his formal diction as he uses words such as "virtuoso" in explaining the actor Hugh Jackman, along with "spare no expense" to describe the money spent during production. This starts off immediately with a negative connotation towards the film. More commonly, Travis inserted informal diction, this is seen here: "end up with the shrill blast of nothing..." and "he sure acted like he did" (Travers). This comes across as informal diction because he uses phrases and words such as "shrill blast of nothing" and "he sure acted". These are both things that would be said to friends. Using these words gives the tone that he is talking to the reader directly, and helps connect the reader more to his negative opinion of the movie. The author does not hold much emotional attachment to this article, or movie. This can be determined through the language he uses since it is all informal and critical of the movie. In addition, it is a somewhat brief article, giving off the impression that it is not extremely important to the author. His language including "what a shame" (Travers) it shows a slightly sarcastic emotional level, and one that is detached as well as it is critical. The author gives off a critical tone in the article. This is to be expected as well since he is reviewing a movie, and critics are expected to be critical and examining people. This critical tone also comes across in his language. It is shown when he writes, "In cinematic misfire 'The Greatest Showman,' first-time director Michael Gracey fails to master..." (Travers). The critical tone comes through the phrase "cinematic misfire" as he compares 'The Greatest Showman' to this exaggeration that tells his opinion on how the movie missed the mark. In addition, he includes "fail to master" which further pushes his opinion of it being a mediocre or sub-par movie. He also helps to aid this argument by including his informal diction as it makes the movie seen unimportant or unimpressive, like simple language sometimes can be. His critical tone definitely helps to convey his disappointed, unimpressed, and critical attitude towards the film. By inserting "What a shame that Gracey buried Jackman and company in a pile of marshmallow" (Travers). His disappointment and unimpressed opinion is shown through this excerpt as he criticizes the movie for hurting and ruining Jackman's role in the movie. This is also critical as well, as it targets the director of the movie for overshadowing and underdoing Jackman's role with a "pile of marshmallow" (Travers). Travers also appeals to logos as he adds information about a critic who has also had negative thoughts about 'The Greatest Showmen: "[T]he film throws stones at theater critic James Bennett (Paul Sparks) who writes venomously... In the context of this story, bad reviews are fake news" (Travers). This helps support his claim by giving information informing the audience that his argument has merit as he is not the only one who feels this way. In addition, he adds ethos. The ethos is in regards to the film itself, because he writes about all the qualified and known stars, writers, an producers involved in the making of the film. He writes " add a score by Oscar (La La Land) and Tony (Dear Evan Hansen) winners Ben Pasek and Justin Paul..." (Travers). By adding this, it makes people somewhat angry and confused as to why such an 'allstar' team produced such a sub-par movie, according to his claim. The author's overall purpose is to inform readers on why 'The Greatest Showman' was not amazing and to tell others of his opinion regarding the film as critic. This is shown when he tells in his thesis how they made the movie "without ever mastering the crucial knack of building snippets of musical comedy and drama into a satisfying whole" (Travers). By writing this right off the bat, the reader knows his initial opinion and view on the film and impacts the reader because it is concise and makes a point. His goal was achieved overall because of his plethora of opinions and contradictory statements that idolized the cast, but then compared that to the plot, story, and presentation of this movie altogether. This purpose has some value because many look to critics like Travers to inform on on whether a movie is worth seeing or not. To add on, he also makes a living from this as well which adds value since it is his job and source of money to live. On the other side, shouldn't people be able to see the movie themselves and craft their own opinion without the influence of critics?; this calls the value of the article and its motives into question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Who's AnalyzingMaddie Sullivan. Archives
February 2018
Categories |