Write about Snapshot by Andrew Lund (2006).
Write about Snapshot by Andrew Lund (2006). Then write a short introductory paragraph that explains the film’s basic narrative in its first sentence and then for the remainder of the paragraph explains the film’s central theme.That’s enough for the first paragraph: two, three sentences, tops. But please note that, as I note in Grochowski’s Guidelines, a theme of a film is not its moral. A moral is a lesson to be learned from watching it. A theme is a more abstract concept that is represented by the film – what the film is “about” in a general sense, rather than in a narrative, or plot, sense. Themes are often summed up in a short phrase. Having provided a succinct introduction, you are now to write four paragraphs – one for each of four different elements from the six above – in which you fully analyze that element and how it expresses the theme you’ve identified. You may write these paragraphs in any order you want, as long as for each paragraph you are analyzing one of four elements. Thus, were I analyzing, say, the short film Passengers, I would write about the contrasting performances given by all the characters as they are affected by the presence of the feather and I would note especially the performances of the two central characters, who are able to communicate so clearly without saying a word. Another paragraph would be about the way that the film’s mise-en-scene – especially its composition – serves to frame the characters before the feather “arrives” and how different that composition is as the passengers play with the feather. Another paragraph would discuss the importance of the sound to the film, both the realistic sounds of the train and the subway station and the crucial theme of the music once the feather “arrives on the scene.” Another would examine the cinematography and how it conveys the gritty realism of the New York City subway and how it still exaggerates the characters’ expressions. (Alternatively, I might write a paragraph about the film’s editing, or the way its narrative unfolds, instead of one of the above paragraphs, though the narrative is very much a function of the other elements, especially the music.) Again: you are only writing about four of the six elements of film as defined by Monahan and Barsam.
Because this is not an essay, you do not need to write a concluding paragraph; you only need to write that very short introduction and then four well-developed paragraphs that analyze the four cinematic elements. If you like, you can use the element in bold type to start each paragraph. Thus: Such a style is better than writing: “In this paragraph I am going to write about the acting.” (NO ANNOUNCEMENTS, PLEASE! Just analyze!)
In writing your analysis of each of the four elements, you must be sure to demonstrate that you are able to use the terms covered in Monahan/Barsam in an intelligent manner. You don’t have to define any of these terms in your writing. Rather, you must simply use them, correctly and effectively.
Some other guidelines:
I always defined a fully-developed paragraph as having at least ten sentences, when I taught remedial composition at the CUNY schools. It’s a good rule of thumb here.
Note that this means I have not given you a word-count range. Use your best judgment; be thorough, but do not be unnecessarily wordy. I won’t count how many sentences or words you write in each paragraph; I will assess the quality of your analysis.
If you are analyzing narration, don’t summarize the story events, and don’t do a plot-breakdown along the lines of what Monahan and Barsam do in Stagecoach. Focus on explaining how the film’s narrational style – its plotting, among other aspects – contributes to the film’s theme.
If you write about mise-en-scene, you can decide to focus mainly on either design or composition, but it would be a great analysis if you were able to do a thorough job on both in the paragraph.
The language you use for these paragraphs is analytical; I should see no “empty adjectives” like “amazing.” Be very wary of this, especially if you choose to write about the acting. (As that chapter noted, it’s hard to analyze – it’s so easy to get caught up in a good, or even really bad, performance.)
As I’ve noted in Grochowski’s Guidelines, avoid writing about the viewer experience: that means not writing about how much you liked/dislike the film (that’s the language of opinion, not analysis), and it also means not using language such as, “we see…”
