Reflection Post

There are many changes that have occurred within my concept of media criticism throughout this course. I had taken a media criticism course prior to this (media 205) but it was more of a breakdown of genres, theories, and production itself rather than actual criticism. This course has showed me many things from critiques to production intentions, to different styles of intertextuality.

            I think the biggest thing that has changed for me is my outlook on critics overall. I never looked up critics’ reviews of films, television shows, or anything in media really. The reason why was because most of the critic reviews I read prior to this class were very much the same. Most were very anal about minor details that I really didn’t care about and made movies that were actually moderately good sound like they could kill you by how terrible they were. Most of these reviews were from rotten tomatoes so I didn’t venture much further in hope of different or creative critic reviews. After I did the assignment to look up critics and read some of their reviews, I realized there were some very creative critics out there that shared a similar taste for media with me.

            There is a specific crew of critics that I follow now for every film that I am interested in. Their website is www.spill.com. I love these guys because they have a very different style of sharing their reviews. Instead of writing a review of a movie, they record a review session of the film and later edit an animation that goes with the recording to add a comedic discussion story to each review. This makes the review much easier to follow by keeping the viewers interest while allowing them insight into the highs and lows of a film. The people that do these reviews seem to be much more like the average moviegoer rather than a picky critic that is expecting gold for every movie they see. The site has a rating system to allow viewers to get a final verdict of each film. If it were not for this class allowing me to do research on different critics and their styles, I would never have found these guys.

            The way I look at media in general has changed a lot since this class, especially with television media. I find myself categorizing certain shows by their production styles, target audience, and even by their dialogue. I am much more analytical when watching a television show. I tend to pay more attention to the detail of the show and the overall meaning each episode is trying to convey. Intertextuality and its various forms is a lot easier to spot and understand now that I have learned about the various types that exist in the media world. In conversations, I use a lot more of intertextuality to relate anything in my life whether it is current or in the past to a show or movie.

            Although there are more things to media than just film and television, these are by far the two most affected categories in my experience with the class. In film, I tend to watch movies twice now. The first time to simply immerse myself in the story and the second time to actually critique the film and break it down in technicality. I look for the true meaning of the story and how the directors, writers, and actors went about expressing this theme to their expected audience. Patterns between films by specific directors are easier to pick up on. For many films now, I am able to figure out who the director is by little things such as camera angles, actor preferences, story themes, and action sequences. From a critical standpoint, I am more capable of figuring out exactly what it is about certain films that makes me either like or dislike them. For example, when a shot is overly distracting or too drawn out: Before understanding some critical points in media (and a little psychology), I would have known I didn’t like certain parts of a film, but I would not have known exactly how to explain why I didn’t like it.

            Overall, the class has taught me how to appreciate nearly all aspects of media and, perhaps most of all, media criticism. I can really pull useful information out of even the most negative critic and appreciate what he/she is trying to convey. I find myself following critics more often and hearing what they have to say as a strong reference point for my own personal use when observing the media they are critiquing. Although some can be overly harsh, and others can be a little too favorable, I can always find what they are highlighting in their reviews and understand what they mean by it when watching the specific media myself.

Intertextual Experiences

I think we all witness and partake in Intertextual Performance everyday. It’s all around us. I’m constantly hearing references to movies, tv shows, song lyrics, or even simple YouTube videos. Whenever there is something I think is funny in a film or show and I experience something in life that reminds me of it, I almost instinctively reference it by giving a quote or something along those lines to give a reference.

Hypertextual Production has occurred to me most often when I’m involved in a theatre production. The last play I was involved in was The Crucible, but due to the lack of funds and a small space to work with, the play had to be changed. Some of the scenes in the script were taken out. Some scenes were changed by means of movement while others changed by totally rearranging the set to accommodate the stage. Hypertextual Production happens all the time with plays since no two stages are exactly the same and a number of other factors.

I just recently used the concept of Metatextual Discourse today actually. Yesterday I went to see the movie Horrible Bosses for the first time. I was extremely impressed with the film and thought it was one of the funniest movies I had seen in a long time. Today, as I was at my friends house I mentioned the movie and he wanted to know some details about it because he was on the fence since comedies tend to be a hit or miss thing these days. So I described a few really funny parts of the film to him and I told him the whole movie was pretty much that funny all the way through. I then told him the film was worth every penny and that I was definitely going to buy it once it came out on dvd. During this conversation, my friend used Referential Metatextual Discourse by asking me how the movie was to get an assessment on how good it was and I used Persuasive Metatextual Discourse by explaining that the film was worth the money and by recommending that he go see it.

30 Rock & Community Critics Review

I am not too familiar with 30 Rock. I watched it when it first came out and I didn’t really like it that much. After watching it again, I can honestly say I do get a few laughs here and there, but I’m still not a very big fan of the show. I absolutely love watching Community. I pretty much laugh from start to finish. The only problem is timing. I don’t know when the show comes on nor do I really want to. When I watch television, I get nothing done, so I avoid following most shows. I just watch whatever is on at the time. So I haven’t seen many episodes of Community, but every one that I have has given me a ton of laughs.

Community Reviews: Robert Blanco: I only partially agree with Robert Blanco’s take on Community. He posted a sort of overview review of the show. In his review he states that it is by far NBC’s best current comedy: I totally agree with that statement. He also said the show tends to be repetitive by showing Jeff trying to improve himself and then starting over each and every episode. I don’t think this is all true. There are some instances where the show is focused on a completely different character at times; sometimes on multiple characters at once.

Daynah Burnett: Burnett claims similar things as Blanco, only she’s a little more focused on the positive. She also believes the story revolves around “accepting self-imperfection” which is very similar to Blanco’s synopsis of the storyline.  Burnett focused her review on the premiere of the show, saying the show was underwhelming, and lacked the fun of the first season. I do think the second season was a little more focused on seriousness then the first one. Not to say it’s not funny or it’s too serious, I just feel it’s a little more mature than season one. Even in her review she states that the shows focus on emotion while maintaining the fan base’s appreciation “… Just might be meta storytelling at its most sophisticated.”

Emma Matthews: I really agree with Emma’s viewpoints. She explained how Community wasn’t quite as slapstick due to the show reaching for a deeper cause and story rather than just shoot for straight comedy. She emphasizes how the little things in the show are just as important as the huge moments in the show. For example, the “blink-and-you’ll-miss-it single tear rolling down Chang’s cheek as he daydreams of joining the group… Hilarious aside adds depth to the already well-drawn characters.”

30 Rock Reviews: Robert Blanco: Just next to his Community review was his review of 30 Rock, so I figured why not? He wasn’t so nice about 30 Rock, stating that it can either be funny or its not. I have a similar viewpoint of the show. I either found the episode hilarious, or stupid. Blanco explains how the show focuses more on the characters entertaining themselves and small cameos to keep the show entertaining. I don’t really agree with this statement but I can see where one would suspect as much. The show does contain an awful lot of cameos. It is understandable, however, considering the show is based on the behind the scenes of major network shows.

Robert Canning: Canning’s review on the show was very positive. He explained “why” there were so many cameos. The reason for all the appearances is because many of the stars wanted to come on the show since it was such a favorite among fans. He praised the humor saying it was very clever, especially when Tina and Alec played off of each other’s comedic styles. I did understand where this critic was coming from but I’ve just never really been a huge fan of the style of comedy this show presents.

John Kubicek: John is very positive about the show. He explains how the actors truly do shine as the characters they play. The comedy each character portrays is perfectly done and truly exclusive to each actor who plays him or her. This changed the way I looked at the show a little bit. I never really looked at each character’s individual distinctness. Each one brings something very different and interesting to the table. Seeing the show from the perspective of what each character contributes really helps me appreciate the show more. This was probably the only review I read that changed the way I looked at the show I was reviewing.

30 Rock & Community Compare/Contrast

As far as production style goes, I feel that Community is a little more like a typical situation comedy. 30 Rock is very similar, however, it is a bit more cinematic to me. Although it is supposed to be a behind the scenes sort of show, the characters in the show have a bit more of a movie character feel to them. As compared to Community which portrays the characters as much more casual and down to Earth. Some of the camera angles in 30 Rock feel a bit more movie-like to me compared to the much more straight forward Community approach.

The intertextuality in 30 Rock tends to be towards a broader audience than Community. Community mainly focuses on current intertextuality. Jokes and references based on events that a younger generation can easily pick up on and relate to. In 30 Rock, there is a larger range and timeline to the different types of intertextuality. Some of the references are from a long time ago and based off of a historical event an older audience could interpret. There are also more modern references but most seem to be over more political issues.

I will focus on the comedy itself in both shows for my third discussion piece. Community proves again that it leans more towards younger audiences through its humor. The humor tends to be a healthy mixture of cleverness and slapstick. It often starts out with little situations that occur in real life (especially with college students) and then blows the situations way out of proportion in a comedic and entertaining manner. 30 Rock, on the other hand, tends to focus a little more on clever humor over slapstick from what I’ve seen. The humor tends to be a little more dry in my opinion. I don’t mean this in a bad way, I know tons of people who love dry humor and even I prefer it at times, but I find myself leaning towards Community’s approach to comedy a little more often.

Top Three Critics

Anthony Lane

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/12/13/101213crci_cinema_lane

Anthony is a film critic and from what I’ve read, he seems to go for more of the drama based films. I really like his insight on films. He is also very good at describing what he means through illustrating a specific scene. Ironically, this brings about the only problem I have with his style as well. Although he shows what he is saying by giving direct examples by the movie, he tends to get a little carried away with the descriptiveness of the scene. I had to reread a couple of his paragraphs due to losing interest in what he was saying or what he was trying to prove. Other than that I found his work very relatable. The articles I read of movies I actually saw had many of the same thought on them that I had with the film. Anthony speaks more from an average viewers standpoint rather than a stuffy critic who only looks for the negative of films.

Anthony Quinn

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/xmen-first-class-12a-2292269.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/green-lantern-12a-2298534.html

I gave two examples of this critic because I love how he gets straight to the point. He doesn’t overstate what he is trying to say at all. He simply says what the movie’s about, what he liked about it, and what he didn’t like about it. Period. There are no digressions or overly descriptive details. At the most, Quinn will give a quote from the movie as far as describing anything from the film. If you don’t like critics spoiling the plot or ending of a film for you, this is the critic for you. There is no word on the plot other than what is already stated from previews. What you will get from this critic is strictly his opinion on the film and that is it. Plus you don’t have to read through pages of a review to get the opinion.

Simon Abrams

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/thor/5496

The main reason I picked this critic is because I have a very similar style of thinking when watching movies. Reviews of films that I’ve seen have very similar thoughts to what I usually have. Some of the reviews have caused me to think of a concept in the film a different way. Abrams has a very observatory way of looking at films from multiple angles. If a film isn’t very good from a story telling perspective, Simon will acknowledge and appreciate a film from a cinematography perspective. He is capable of looking at a film from literally every angle for both critique purposes and enjoyment purposes. This critics only flaw is dragging out a review wayyyyyyy to long! I could barely finish reading his review on Tron: Legacy. He made very good points, I just wish he would have made them faster… A lot faster.

Two Articles

Both of these articles taught me about a man named Alan Sepinwall and how he revolutionized television criticism. The first article was about how Alan got his start and what he turned out to become. I learned how Alan changed the criticism world by having in-depth weekly reviews of a show he followed rather than watching a few episodes of a series and creating a short review for it that became irrelevant quickly as the show series progressed. The other article presented the argument that this new style isn’t always better. The fact the reviewer follows the show and tends to appreciate what it is taints the unbiased opinion of the matter. Sometimes the reviewer may overlook the flaws of the show and only point out the highs of it in order to promote it. In Alan’s case, the argument over his efforts to save the series “Chuck” is brought up. He offered some critique to save the show and after the show took his advice, his reviews were positive and promotional to get more viewers. The article emphasized the line between appreciating a show while critique its flaws and simply promoting a show through praise and avoiding pointing out any flaws for it.

The first hyperlink I clicked on was the link taking me to the article on Sepinwall making a cameo appearance on the show “Community.” I was curious to see how it happened or why it happened. It seems the article it took me to was a review by Sepinwall himself after his appearance on the show. It turned out to be a weekly review of the show and his involvement with it. He also temporarily discussed an interview he held with Gillian Jacobs. The second link I clicked on was a link to Myles McNutt. I really wanted to know who this guy was after he started criticizing Levin’s criticism of Sepinwall. I became more interested after seeing that Mcnutt continued the argument in the comment section of Levin’s response article to it. The link just led to Mcnutt’s original criticism review of Levin. From what I got from the article, I’m assuming McNutt is some type of critic as well and was using this article to point out to Levin that the questions and problems he points out in his article have been addressed many years ago and will always exist since there are no true answers or solutions to them.

Show List

Cory’s Show List:

I’m not too sure on how accurate this list will be since television watching is a very on and off thing for me but here it is: (some of these lists may be extremely short)

1.      Shows I’m watching these days: Franklin and Bash is about the only show I’m currently following this summer.

2.      Peripheral Shows: I’m currently living back home with my parents for this summer so I no longer have complete control over what I want... Unfortunately… Mom loves to watch HGTV, shows like DesignStar, House Hunters, Hidden Potential, and Selling New York. The only reason I tolerate these shows is because I’m either eating and I need something to watch or because I’m trying to fall asleep. I help my dad on his farm so we tend to watch Bloomberg to keep an eye on crop prices on the stock market so we know the best times to sell.

3.      Guilty No-Gos: I guess Family Guy could fall under this category, I’ve seen this show before but only a few times and it’s only been at friends’ houses. Every time I’ve seen it I’ve enjoyed it but I’ve never really attempted to follow it myself. Dexter is one I’ve heard a lot about. I absolutely love It’s Always Sunny but I can never work my schedule around to watching… Plus I don’t even know if my family’s TV plan gets FX…

4.      Guilty Pleasures: Honestly there are a few shows that I still watch on Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. Some of the shows on there such as Wizards of Waverly Place, Victorious, and Penguins of Madagascar can be legitimately funny without being raunchy.

5.      All-Time Favorites: That 70’s Show is BY FAR my favorite show of all time. Some others would be My Wife and Kids, Castle, and Supernatural.

6.      Shows I used to like, but not anymore: The CSI series, The Closer, basically any forensic crime investigation shows. I used to like them all until I realized they were all basically the same with a few minor detail changes here and there. Castle is the crime show I still watch and enjoy.

7.      Pretty much any show from Disney Channel or Nickelodeon fall into this category. I always thought shows on these channels were full of nothing but childish humor. It wasn’t until I was forced to watch them while taking care of my niece and nephew that I realized they actually had a lot of potential.

8.      Shows I refuse to watch: American Idol! I DO NOT understand how this show still exists!!! Any reality show falls under this category actually. Some other examples would be Jersey Shore, My Sweet 16, and the Bachelor or Bachelorette…

9.      Non-TV related shows I watch: I love to watch anything by Julian Smith, Ray William Johnson, and Rhet and Link. Those three youtube stars are hilarious to watch.