Another interesting review Vincent, and well structured too :)
Just try not to write in the first person as you have done in your introduction. So instead of, 'Furthermore I will compare' you should have, 'Furthermore it will compare' and instead of 'My key sources', you could just have 'The key sources'...
In your bibliography, you need the author's surname first, followed by their initial, so Dodd, E. Hartwell, C. etc.
Hey Vincent - a nicely ideas-driven response. I just have a few nitpicks for you to consider in terms of taking your style forwards into later reviews:
Who is 'Grindon 35'? I can't find to whom this useful quote belongs? Meanwhile, when referring to your quotes, avoid constructions like 'This statement says' or 'This quote explains...' It is not 'the statement' saying anything and it's not 'the quote' that is explaining, it is the writer, so it should be 'Grindon's general observations on cinema relate specifically to King Kong' etc.
Structurally, my advice would be that Mulvey should 'go first' in terms of the theoretical hierarchy - her theory is absolutely key to your analysis - it is the 'toolkit' by which you're looking at the film - so I think your reader needs to also be an expert on Mulvey's ideas - defined, explained as part of the review - so they can follow your argument... so, something like this:
Introduction Short Plot Synopsis Introduce/define Mulvey's male gaze theory Apply theory to specific scenes in King Kong (1933) Compare King Kong (2005) to see if Mulvey's theories still apply. Conclude your argument....
In terms of your next reviews etc. just consider your structure in this same sense; if there's a key theory or idea you're going to use to analyse the film, you need to give it away to the reader before the analysis begins :)
Another interesting review Vincent, and well structured too :)
ReplyDeleteJust try not to write in the first person as you have done in your introduction. So instead of, 'Furthermore I will compare' you should have, 'Furthermore it will compare' and instead of 'My key sources', you could just have 'The key sources'...
In your bibliography, you need the author's surname first, followed by their initial, so
Dodd, E.
Hartwell, C.
etc.
Thank you Jackie for your feedback! I'll definitely keep that in mind for my next review.
DeleteHey Vincent - a nicely ideas-driven response. I just have a few nitpicks for you to consider in terms of taking your style forwards into later reviews:
ReplyDeleteWho is 'Grindon 35'? I can't find to whom this useful quote belongs? Meanwhile, when referring to your quotes, avoid constructions like 'This statement says' or 'This quote explains...' It is not 'the statement' saying anything and it's not 'the quote' that is explaining, it is the writer, so it should be 'Grindon's general observations on cinema relate specifically to King Kong' etc.
Structurally, my advice would be that Mulvey should 'go first' in terms of the theoretical hierarchy - her theory is absolutely key to your analysis - it is the 'toolkit' by which you're looking at the film - so I think your reader needs to also be an expert on Mulvey's ideas - defined, explained as part of the review - so they can follow your argument... so, something like this:
Introduction
Short Plot Synopsis
Introduce/define Mulvey's male gaze theory
Apply theory to specific scenes in King Kong (1933)
Compare King Kong (2005) to see if Mulvey's theories still apply.
Conclude your argument....
In terms of your next reviews etc. just consider your structure in this same sense; if there's a key theory or idea you're going to use to analyse the film, you need to give it away to the reader before the analysis begins :)