Writing Proces of "F for Fake" Review

First of all I have seen the movie. Then I read the top 5 reviews in imbd.com: Reel.com DVD review [Tim Knight], The Village Voice [Jessica Winter] , The Onion A.V. Club [Nathan Rabin], Cinematheque [Paul Logan], Philadelphia City Paper [Sam Adams] and after that I’ve seen the film again.
I haven’t followed any previous structure because the movie was pretty confusing so I have many problems. I have decided to explain the general plot and then I have written about the points that in my opinion are more important. This review has been much more difficult because the movie doesn’t follow a classical narrative structure, so I even have had problems to understand the opinion of the critics. When I’ve seen the movie I doubt about if it was convenient to review it. It has been a necessary challenge in the reviewing film task.
I have learned lots of different words: is focused (se centra), forger, counterfeiter (falsificador), hoax (estafa), metaphysical (metafisic), footages (imatges, escenes descartades), montage (muntatge), homage (homenatge), shot (pla), unsurpassable (insuperable), trick (truc), turns into (es converteix), bitter (amarg), and misunderstood (incomprès).

Review of "F for Fake"

F. for Fake, 1973

Directed by: Orson Welles
Screenwriter: Orson Welles
Music by: Michel Legrand
Photography by: Orson Welles
Genre: Documentary
Main actors:
Orson Welles
Oja Kodar

The documentary is focused on Elmyr d’Hory, one of the biggest art forgers of our time, and his biographer Cliford Irving, who was accused to write a false autobiography of the multimillionaire Howard Hughes.

Orson Welles creates an intertextual film, where he narrates the story and asks unanswerable metaphysical questions about art. The experiment began when the director saw the documentary that François Reichenbach made for the French television about forgers. Welles makes a chaotic collage using footages of the documentary, newspaper and TV specials about forgers and some additional images filmed by him. Mixing reality and fiction he shows the enigmatic personality of two notorious fakers, while he unmasks himself as a counterfeiter too.
The use of the montage in F for Fake is a master piece. It’s an exceptional homage to the Soviet theories of the 20’s, which tried to prove that the use of the montage can create an illusorily space continuity and change the meaning of the shots. The sequence where Pablo Picasso is fascinated for Oja Kodar’s beautiful body is an unsurpassable example of the magical ability of the director. He can make emerge, through the combination between photographs of the Spanish artist with sexy images of Oja Kodar walking in the streets, an extremely comical erotic attraction.
The whole film is a big magical trick; it transmits a constant sensation of confusion about whether is fiction or reality. The movie progressively turns into a personal reflection about art and its function in the world. Orson’s point of view is a little bit bitter and desperate; the scene in front of the magnificent Chartres cathedral built for anonymous people makes the director believe that what persist all over the history are the art works above the creators. F for Fake is an “essay film” of pure cinema of the greatest cinema artist of all times, unfortunately misunderstood for the America industry.

Writing Process of "Rumble Fish" Review

First of all I have readed the top 3 reviews in http://www.imbd.com/: Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times ,Variety.com [Variety Staff], The Onion A.V. Club [Nathan Rabin].
I have structured the review in different parts. At first, after a small summary of the plot, I write an introduction where I explain a general impression of the film. In the next part I talk about the photography and different technical procedures and recourse that give an especial visual image to the film. Then I give my opinion about the film cast. At the end, I explain some of the symbolic elements that appear in the movie and I finalize with a semi-objective opinion of the film.
I have learned many different words: oneiric (oníric), stroll along (deambular), time course (pas del temps), color-blind (daltònic), maudlin (queixica, plorener).
During the writing process of that film I have had fewer problems than with “The Shawshank Redemption”, because I had seen the film several times and I have a mental structure of how I wanted to say in the review. Once again, I found it really enjoyable and extremely usefull.

Review of "Rumble Fish"

Rumble Fish, 1983

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Screenwriter: S.E. Hinton and Francis Ford Coppola
Music by: Steward Copeland
Photography by: Stephen H. Burum B&W
Genre: Crime/Drama
Main actors:
Matt Dillon (Rusty-James)
Mickey Rourke (The Motorcycle Boy)
Diane Lane (Patty)
Dennis Hopper (Father)


Rusty-James is the leader of a gang band in an industrial city in the 50’s. He has been trying to live up the legendary reputation of his old brother, The Motorcycle Boy. Rusty and his band are fighting in a rumble, when The Motorcycle Boy returns home after two months. Some family secrets will be revealed, while the two brothers are leading themselves to the tragically end.

More than the actors, more than the story, more than the director’s style, what has had a direct impact to my mind is the amazing audiovisual experiment as a result of such an unconventional combination of images and sound.
The black and white photography together with an exceptional illumination work introduces the characters in an oneiric environment where they stroll along like ghosts; Coppola takes us back to the expressionist Germanic film of the 20’s. The water shine over the asphalt, the faces of the young gangs sweat profusely, the viewer can feel the heat of the atmosphere. The space-time coordinates are unreal. The high speed of movements of oppressive clouds over the city show an accelerate passing of the time. All over the sequences we can see lots of different watches symbolizing the importance of time in the humane nature.
The film has an extraordinary cast. Mickey Rourke performance is hypnotically. Matt Dillon and Diane Lane become sex symbols. Dennis Hopper as the maudlin drunk father of the brothers shows once again that he was born for that kind of characters.
The Motorcycle Boy is color-blind and a little bit deaf, he see the world like “a black and white TV with the sound turned low”. He’s fascinated for the rumble fish of Siam (they emerge colored from the black and white photography) oppressed in a fish bowl in the pet store. Those fishes symbolize the youth oppressed and monitored by the government; The Motorcycle Boy says that the fishes wouldn’t fight if they were in the river.
Francis Coppola has said that he wanted to make “an art movie for teenagers”. The result is a movie that contains more technical experimentation and visual imagination than no other in the 80’s.

Writing process of "The Shawshank Redemption" Review

First of all I have readed the top 3 reviews in www.imbd.com: Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times , Variety.com [Leonard Klady] , Guardian/Observer. Then I have looked at the link provided by the professor, http://www.xtec.cat/~vfeliu/writing/revi3.htm that explains how to do film reviews. After reading the professional reviews in imbd.com I have realised that the structure proposed in the link was too rigid, and the professionals opted for a more freedom structure. So, I have decided to mix the both options. I have started with the credits (some critics don't) and I have done a plot. Then I have started with my personal opinion and interpretation of the film. In this part I haven't followed a previous structure, I've just wrote instinctively but in a orderly way, trying to close the text with a kind of a conclusion.
The main problem that I have had, is that I wanted to say lots of things but I didn't know how to say it in English.
I have wrote the review very slow because I needed to write and re-write over and over again in order to make it intelligible.
I have learned different new words like staging (posada en escena), pace (ritme; no és rythm), lead (dirigir), hammer (martell) or new expressions like What strikes you most (el que més impacta), is well worth seeing (val la pena de veure-ho), as the years go by (en el transcurs dels anys). When reading the reviews I have to consult constantly the dictionary because the vocabulary was pretty difficult.
I would like to say that I found it extremely usefull, I have enjoyed doing the review and I think that I will imporve my writting skills, specially the vocabulary.

Review of "The Shawshank Redemption"

The Shawshank Redemption, 1994

Directed by: Frank Darabont
Screenwriter: Frank Darabont (from a Stephen King’s novel)
Music by: Thomas Newman
Photography by: Roger Deakins
Genre: Drama
Main actors:
Tim Robins (Andrew Dufresne)
Morgan Freeman (Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding)
Bob Gunton (Warden Norton)
William Sadler (Heywood)

Andrew Dufresne is accused of killing his wife and is send to prison for the rest of his life. In the Shawshank prison is seen as a lonely person, but gradually develops a friendship with Red, the man who controls the contraband in the jail. Andy says to red that he wants a tiny rock hammer because one of his hobbies is to analyze rocks. Andy is brutally beaten up by The Sisters, two homosexual prisoners, who putted an eye on him since the first day. Andy’s intelligence will reward him with the freedom that he deserves.

The Shawshank Redemption is not only an exceptional prison drama but also a monument to the importance of friendship. It’s an allegory of the value of constancy in human life. Stephen King terror is represented in the fact that the most of the prisoners have spent half of their life in a prison routine. The relationship between Andy and Red is pure emotion, it gives us hope, it’s an example of how magical can be the connection of different stereotypes of people.
One of the greatest sequences is when Andy and his mates are cleaning the roof of the prison and they drink the first bottle of beer since they had been in prison. Freedom, that’s the word that describes perfectly the feeling that the faces of the actors are transmitting. What strikes you most is the amazing interpretation of Tim Robins and Morgan Freeman.
However, the movie is a little bit long (it lasts 142 minutes) and some people could think that the pace is quite slow. In my opinion the script attracts the viewer little by little in a very delicate way, the crescendo lead us to an amazing end. The dialogs are incredibly written, the characters psychology perfectly explained and the director’s staging is masterly.
To sum up, The Shawshank Redemption is an excellent movie, only for the extraordinary performances of Tim Robins and Morgan Freeman under the great director of Frank Darabont, the film is well worth seeing. Like the good wines, the film has been improving its reputation as the years go by. Nowadays it’s catalogued as a first-rating film by critics and it’s one of the greatest movies of the 90’s.