| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
 Posted - 11/29/2012 : 23:26:59
|
"Four World Film Review" -- the name is deceptively simple. I think we can all agree on what the word "four" means, but the other three are up for debate and have, in fact, been hotly contested on this very Fourum. At heart are three basic questions for which there is no definitive answer, given the ephemeral nature of truth in this subjective world of ours:
* What, exactly, constitutes a "word?"
* What qualities must a work possess for it to be considered a "film?"
* Once a work has been deemed a film, what does it mean to "review" that film?
I've certainly gone back and forth with other FWFRers over those first two issues, but it is the third which concerns me today.
A few months back (probably more than I remember), I submitted a review for a foreign film which played briefly in the United States but failed to attract significant critical or commercial success here. It was reviewed in several widely-read mainstream publications, which is what put the film on my radar. In my proposed review of said film, I attempted to achieve two goals:
1. Create a pun which playfully suggested the title of the film without actually using either of the words in the film's title. The identity of the film, I felt, could reasonably be deduced from the review alone.
2. Deliver a clear, unmistakable judgment of the film's quality.
The review was rejected (twice, I might add) on the grounds that it did not describe or summarize the plot of the film in any way. This charge is true. I plead guilty. I did not make any attempt at summarizing the film. In my defense, I offer the following:
* The four word limit does not give the reviewer much leeway or room for error. A good FWFR is surgical in its precision with not a word wasted. I had used up all four of mine to accomplish the two goals named above. There were none left over to describe the plot as well.
* The site, after all, is called the Four Word Film Review and not the Four Word Film Summary. Faced with a choice between offering an opinion on the film and describing its plot, I chose the former.
Has summarizing a film supplanted reviewing it as this site's primary reason for existence? Would I have been better off simply submitting a matter-of-fact summary of the plot? In the case of this film, I could have done so, but it would not have been very satisfying for me or entertaining for the reader.
Opinions, Fourumers?
|
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 11/30/2012 04:16:12 |
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 11/29/2012 : 23:45:14
|
While I'm raising fundamental questions about the purpose and policies of FWFR, there is another issue which I think is at the heart of many disputes.
Some reviewers are attracted to FWFR to see how much they can accomplish in four words. It is the very openness of the premise which appeals to them.
Other reviewers are seemingly attracted to FWFR for the exact opposite reason. They like the strictness and narrowness of the site's underlying premise.
In my experience, FWFRers of the first kind will continually try to experiment within the format -- often by stretching the definitions of those three infamous words I mentioned previously. FWFRers of the second kind are the watchdogs and enforcers, ready to pounce when the boundaries are breached.
I am unabashedly in the first camp. I like to think of FWFR as a blank slate, keeping in mind that a real-life slate has definite physical dimensions (height, width, depth) but still suggests myriad possibilities to the imagination. A blank canvas, a blank sheet of paper, or a blank computer or tablet screen might serve the same purpose. FWFRers in the second camp feel, and not without reason, that if those of us in the first camp have too much leeway, the site will lose its integrity and become meaningless.
The times when I have become frustrated or disillusioned with FWFR are those instances when FWFRers of the second type seem to be overpowering those of the first. Ideally, a balance between the two groups should exist -- an equilibrium between creativity and discipline. I don't always feel that it has.
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/30/2012 : 00:53:17
|
As always, Joe, your probes go deep. Personally, I think the fwfr format invites both approaches - and as you say - some of us veer toward one or the other.
I admit I'm too often found in the summary side - but that's 'cause I'm too lazy too much of the time. But I do try try try to make mine either alliterative or in some way punny or word-playing.
For only a few have I taken the time to be truly creative. When it happens, it's a great feeling. If those ones are rejected - well, it's demoralizing as hell!
But if any of your reviews was declined because it failed to summarize the plot - that doesn't seem to me to be in the spirit of the site.
Do you remember what the film and your review were? Would you feel brave enough to post them here?
Yours in fwfr-hood
EmpathyBabe
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 11/30/2012 : 15:54:25
|
| With respect to review approvals at FWFR I am reminded of Old Lodge Skin's line in Little Big Man--"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/02/2012 : 16:38:26
|
To me, this site challenges you to cram as much info as you can into four words or fewer, as cleverly as possible. I'll admit I've fallen short many, many times. I personally don't like, admire or want to emulate fwiffs that simply report something that the author saw on the screen in four words or fewer, with no attempt at wordplay. Cheap, and what's worse, easy, say I.
However, I'm just one fwiffer. People use and enjoy this site for different reasons. To strictly parse the word "review" is one of the major things that has caused head-scratching among the few newbies I've invited here. Soon, those who elect to stick around understand. These aren't reviews. They're only comments. But "Four Word Film Comment" doesn't sound so hot, does it? [Especially to the Film Society of Lincoln Center, which pubs a well-respected magazine whose title chops off the first two words.]
The other problem which has reared its ugly head ever since benj was the only editor is this: every review is accepted or declined based upon a subjective decision. You will always be able to find -- and if you hang around long enough, be victim to -- the vicissitudes of human opinion. You can't draw ineluctable lines around creativity. You just can't do it. If you need mathematical proof, I'll offer Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but I don't think you need that, Joe.
BTW, you misspelled "Word" in your initial post. But I still knew what you meant. So much for exactitude. |
Edited by - randall on 12/02/2012 19:33:51 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Existential questions about FWFR
