Actually, it's both - house style demands a 250-word synopsis plus at least an acknowledgement of the basic narrative content in the main body of the review. How much depends on the actual film.Cinetwist wrote:I take it you mean a description of the film in the formal sense and not narrative/plot.
For me, it depends entirely on the film. Children of Glory, which I've just reviewed, appealed to me because I quite fancied a film about a real-life Hungary-USSR waterpolo grudge match in the wake of the 1956 revolution - which is far and away its most appealing element.This is the problem with a lot of film criticism/reviewing, at least for me. I don't give a hoot about the plot most of the time and can't remember choosing to watch a film because of its story.
We're explicitly told to assume that the reader will not necessarily read the synopsis (which is intended more as a reference tool) and should therefore compensate accordingly. I've even had a review sent back for revision because it was insufficiently descriptive!And since S&S introduced the synopsis segment which accompanies every review, I'm not sure all the reviewers have taken note (I'm not reoffering to you Michael, I'm not familiar with your film reviews, although I am with your dvd reviews). I often stop reading reviews because they're just telling me what is/should be in the synopsis.
But this depends very much on the publication and its purpose. It was impressed upon me from the start that Sight & Sound is a journal of record and it's widely anthologised in university libraries - so anything excessively subjective might well detract from its fundamental purpose.I think there's a real need for subjective reaction and violent subjective reaction too, laudatory or negative. For me, it's far more interesting to read.
I do try to offer some degree of subjective opinion, though anything too effusive will get subbed out. (I found that out the hard way, needless to say!)I just read your review of Midnight Talks and I wouldn't say you're guilty.