|
|
|
|
All works of art are contrivances, but (as a Roman saying puts it) the art is to conceal art. Does the film seem a mere tour de force, or does it have the effect of inevitability, the effect of rightness, conveying a sense that a vision has been honestly expressed? Are characters or scenes clumsily dragged in? Are unusual effects significant? Does the whole add up to something? Do we get scenes or characters or techniques that at first hold us by their novelty but then have nothing further to offer? Some final advice: Early in the essay it is desirable to sketch enough of the plot to give readers an idea of what happens. (In the previous essay the student does not sketch the plot, but she says it is a version of Macbeth and thus gives the necessary information.) Do not try to recount everything that happens; it can’t be done, and the attempt will frustrate you and bore your readers. Once you introduce the main characters and devote a few sentences to the plot, thus giving the readers a comfortable seat, get down to the job of convincing them that you have something interesting to say about the film—that the plot is trivial, or that the hero is not really cool but cruel, or that the plot and the characters are fine achievements but the camera work is sometimes needlessly tricky, or that all is well. Incidentally, a convenient way to give an actor’s name in your essay is to put it in parentheses after the character’s name or role, thus: “The detective (Humphrey Bogart) finds a clue....” Then, as you go on to talk about the film, use the names of the characters or the roles, not the names of the actors, except of course when you are talking about the actors themselves, as in “Bogart is exactly right for the part.”
|