Film Review

Consumer Journalism – Reflection

An academically supported reflection of the conventions used in my review of short film Gregory Go Boom (2013).

  • The review was written with potential audiences yet to watch Gregory Go Boom in mind, as opposed to the creator/anyone involved with the film (Gilbert, 2016, p. 110)
  • Kept in mind utilisation of an engaging tone of voice (Gilbert, 2016, p. 111) – by balancing colloquial language, profanity, and genuine critical evaluation, a relatable and engrossing tone of voice appeals to readers. This builds trust and avoids boring audiences, favouring a charismatic consumer style rather than a professional critic “detached writing style” (de Jong and Burgers, 2013, p. 79)
  • Followed consumer critic conventions, such as utilising direct address, assertive descriptive words acting as “explicit evaluative language” (Hunston, 2004; Martin and White, 2005, in de Jong and Burgers, 2013, p. 80), and the overt inclusion of “jokes, quotes, questions” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 121). This relates to the fact that “consumer critics write with a more personal view on the movie” (de Jong and Burgers, 2013, p. 81)
  • Critically commented on the specific casting of actor Michael Cera as an awkward outcast in an overarching “appropriate and relevant” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 123) context to the overall review, whilst avoiding being personal, overly critical, or violating libel laws (Gilbert, 2016, p. 123-124)
  • Utilised examples of effects and dialogue as to “justify your assertions with illustration, explanation or argument” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 121)
  • Referenced other films in which Michael Cera has starred (from popular culture rather than niche indie shorts) as a point of comparison for characterisation, a convention of consumer critic reviews (de Jong and Burgers, 2013, p. 80)
  • Inserted a quote as to “make a wider point” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 115) that both supporting the critique and giving readers an extra (but still largely spoiler-free) insight into the film
  • The review introduction was short but loaded with opinion (though crucially not overloaded in a way that overwhelms and comes off as unfairly weighted one way or the other). This pithy method of opening is attention-grabbing and engaging whilst simultaneously being “straightforward” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 119)
  • Avoided spoilers that would ultimately ruin the plot for unaware readers and likely discourage them from watching the film, as to not “wreck the enjoyment of potential audiences and readers” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 119). However, the review was not entirely spoiler-free and detached, including a direct quote, a supported analysis of characterisation of the protagonist, and a slightly ambiguous discussion around elements of the ending. This follows the fact that “since a review is not an advertising trailer, it is entirely legitimate to reveal whatever the critic likes” (Gilbert, 2016, p. 119)

Bibliography:

Gilbert, H. (2016) ‘Writing Reviews’ In: W. Hicks, S. Adams, H. Gilbert, T. Holmes, J. Bentley Writing For Journalists3rd eds. 2016. London: Routledge Ch. 5

de Jong, I. K. E., Burgers, C. (2013) ‘Do consumer critics write differently from professional critics? A genre analysis of online film reviews’ Discourse, Context, & Media, 2(2), pp. 75-83

Consumer Journalism – Short Film Review

Review – Gregory Go Boom

Janicza Bravo’s Gregory Go Boom (2013) walks a tightrope of expert production and lacklustre plot devices. The short film is about a disabled Michael Cera unlucky in love being beaten down by life… and little else.

Emotional rollercoaster is a buzzword for up-down plots; Gregory Go Boom is more of an emotional drop ride. Whilst Bravo’s directing, dramatic BGM, and Cera’s performance do an excellent job at making you flip-flop between feeling sympathy for the paraplegic, outcast, impotent Gregory, and righteous condemnation against him, it’s jarring. Was there no better way to show Gregory is, bluntly, an asshole, than have him drop the homosexual F-slur, or tell a woman of colour she “[smells] like goat”? Why stoop to the lazy implication disabled people are entirely sympathetic characters unless they’re bigots? Plus, the typecasting of Cera as an awkward asshole (think Arrested Development and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) feels cheap – Bravo has clearly focused on finding a big name over having authentic disabled representation.

The ending, whilst not bad, figuratively and literally doesn’t go boom! Without overt spoilers, a certain prop is introduced that acts as Chekhov’s smoking gun, but doesn’t deliver. Sure, it’s used, but not in an exciting way. In fact, it leaves more questions than answers – there is no satisfying ending to be found here. Despite almost 20 minutes dedicated to documenting Gregory’s pathetic life, his motivations remain a mystery, and not the fun, intriguing kind. As such, the film leaves you less with an impactful punch and more confused apathy.

To the film’s benefit, it wastes no time. With such a short timeframe to construct and deliver a narrative, exposition is crucial to explain what’s going on succinctly, but comes with the high risk of unnatural overexplaining. Thankfully, Bravo knows when to show, and when to tell. For all its faults, Gregory Go Boom is a fine enough film because it’s short – a feature length adaptation would tank it.

Overall… Watch Gregory Go Boom, or don’t. It’s short, it’s engaging, it’s… Not going to make any difference to your life.