EngLit 0530 – Film Analysis

Catherine S. Cox, PhD

Drama Unit Critical Exercise

Purpose: This exercise is designed to help you solidify your understanding of film and film analysis, including
expository analysis, critical analysis, and interpretive analysis. It will get a letter grade as a classwork exercise.

Instructions: Part 1 will address basic components of drama as a mode of film and related genre
characteristics. Part 2 will engage with published critical analysis. Part 3 will give you the opportunity to
develop your own interpretive analysis.

You may refer to your class, textbook, and Canvas materials as you work; this is an individual exercise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 1:

1 What is the primary purpose of narrative AND how does this concept relate to drama as a mode of film?
The primary purpose of a narrative is to convey a message or lesson through a story, often involving a protagonist.
This relates to a drama which involves realistic characters involved in serious conflicts. A drama can be a narrative,
as the characters involved in the drama can be realistic, and the subject matter can be serious.

2. What are three characteristics of drama as a mode of film?

3 Define and describe genre as it pertains to film types in general and to drama as a mode of film in particular:
Genre can be defined as a category that a film fits best in, often describing the overall tone the film takes. A genre
will tell people that haven’t seen the movie what kind of movie category this will most likely fit in. The genre of
drama is often much heavier and more serious than most other genres, with an emphasis on human emotion and
more intense, realistic subject matter.

PART 2:

First, write a summary/commentary on the capsule review of Anatomy of a Fall published in Slate
magazine(provided on Modules) –this should be done in two paragraphs, the first one explicating the review and the
second one explaining your own perspective in relation to it, with cited details of both the review and the film itself
(use signals and quotation marks where germane). Your purpose is to show that you understand the critic’s
assessment of the film and then to discuss the review in relation to your own assessment of the film.

The review of Anatomy of a Fall in Slate Magazine gives very high praise to the film. The whole review top to
bottom emphasizes how good the film is while giving the readers a spoiler-free taste of the plot. The author asks
multiple questions in order to increase the readers interest, writing “Did the successful novelist Sandra Voyter (the
uncannily gifted Sandra Hüller) push her husband, a less celebrated author, out the attic window of their chalet-style
home in the French Alps? Or did he fall by mistake, or jump on purpose?” (Slate). This review is a huge love letter
to the movie, highlighting a lot of the strengths of the movie, while previewing the plot to any readers who haven’t
seen the film.

I personally feel like this review is a huge exaggeration that comes off more as a sales pitch than an honest review. I
suppose this does make sense though, as this is in an article titled “Top 10 Movies of 2023” so the writer will want
to justify their answers by really nailing home how good these movies are. I strongly disagree with the description
of
“…suspenseful thriller that keeps the viewer asking who-, how-, and whydunit up to the last frame and beyond…”
(Slate). This movie did not feel suspenseful to me at all, it felt more like a slow burner that was boiling towards a
twist ending or big reveal, only to fizzle out with a forgettable and dragging ending. This review makes it seem like
there will be some high stakes scenes that have your heart pounding, which I certainly missed. I do agree with some
points the author makes, I agree that the courtroom drama portion of the movie were good, and the lead actress was
excellent. Overall, I disagree with some of the points made by the author, but I understand why they perhaps came
off so overly positive.

Second, write a summary/commentary on the review of Certain Women by Catherine Wheatley published in Sight
and Sound (provided on Modules) – this should be done in two paragraphs, the first one explicating the review and
the second one explaining your own perspective in relation to it, with cited review and film details (use signals and
quotation marks where germane). Your purpose is to show that you understand the critic’s assessment of the film
and then to discuss the review in relation to your own assessment of the film.

The review of Certain Women in Sight and Sound begins its review by trying to paint a picture of the atmosphere
and tone of the movie by describing the very first scene of the movie and the setting the movie takes place in. From
there, the author goes into an in-depth description of the cast and plot, while not giving away too many spoilers, but
also describing far more than any trailer would tell. The author also touches on the connection between the movie
and its source material, as the film is based on three short stories. The author gives high praise to the movie, mainly
on the topic of how the movie captures the lives of these women and their struggles with isolation and exhaustion.
Another point of admiration from the author is of the cinematography, where the author spends a paragraph
highlighting the cinematography and comparing it to other highly regarded films. The author wraps up the review
restating how powerful of movie this is and even adds that it made her feel closer to the women around her leaving
the theater.

I really enjoyed the review of Certain Women by Catherine Wheatley. I think they did an excellent job of
highlighting the strengths of the movie while also providing lots of interesting information like facts about the
people involved and comparisons to other films. I really appreciated the opening paragraph, which starts out with
“…Certain Women opens with a train moving slowly towards the camera. Its relentless motion announces a film
borne along on a sense of the inevitable daily grind, carrying us into the heartlands of southern Montana: a place of
pines and sandstone, traversed by tarmac roads…” (Wheatley). I think these openings paint such a beautiful
depiction of the film, while also capturing an accurate essence of the film’s composition. There are a few points the
author makes that I do not exactly disagree with but I certainly did not take away from the film, primarily the part
about the movie capturing the isolation and loneliness in women as a whole. I took the film as more of a depiction
of these, not to sound cliché, “Certain Women” and their individual struggles with these topics, but the connection
of these topics to women as a whole I found very powerful and enjoyed reading about.

PART 3:

Using our class analysis & discussion as a starting point, write up your interpretation of Taxi Driver’s epilogue/coda
in relation to the narrative that precedes it. Write one substantial paragraph, with a topic sentence that clearly
expresses your position, and includes specific details in your analysis and discussion.. Use appropriate film
terminology and precise descriptive and analytical language.

As someone who has seen Taxi Driver twice now, I can say that I have taken the epilogue differently upon each of
my viewings, and currently believe the epilogue is to be taken as real life. The first time I watched this movie, I
took the end sequence as an idealized dream scenario ending for our protagonist Travis Bickle, where perhaps he
was killed in the shoot out and see the future that he wished to live out. What led me to this was the sort of
psychedelic ending, where we see the streetlights sort of blend together and the music picks up as Travis makes eye
contact with the camera through the rear-view mirror. Another thing that may have subconsciously led me to
believe this was not real events, was the fact that I watched Scorsese’s King of Comedy before I saw Taxi Driver. In
King of Comedy, we see a lot of parallels with Taxi Driver, as our protagonist sort of goes through this intense
climax, but in King of Comedy the ending is supposed to be a sort of fantasy of the protagonist’s ideal finale. After
my second watch, I changed my mind. Why would Travis’s ideal world find him right back where he started? I
think the ending being real is much more powerful, as that means that Travis’s hunger for fame and distaste for the
city finally boiling over into a grand shoot out is all for really nothing. It seems Travis really has not changed at all,
as he still drives around his Taxi in the same city at night. I think leaving viewers with Travis riding around at night
is a very chilling way to end, as it is as though he will strike again when he gets that itch again.