What to Expect

The unique approach of analysis in the films I will be discussing has prompted me to write this article. Firstly, I want you to be aware of what not to expect. This is not a site where you will find simple movie reviews or ratings. It is for critically analyzing motion pictures as a work of art; understanding their individual purpose and place in our culture. However, let me not be so pompous as to exclude the occasional rant or rave. With that being said, let me establish the way in which each film will be analyzed.

We must all agree, up front, that motion pictures are art. Granted, there is some really bad art out there, but it is art nonetheless. In order to analyze movies as art we must understand what a critic is, and what his relationship is to art. The first critic of worthy note is often cited as Plato. From there we can examine Aristotle and the many theorists and critics that have come after them. No, I won't be citing each of these men during my critiques. I will, however, be adding, as time goes by, an exploration of a new philosopher/critic/theorist through the coming months into an archive. This archive will allow you to link from the critiques to a specific theory I may be talking about with regards to a film for easier understanding. There will also be links on the sidebar of this page that can provide quick answers to other, possibly confusing, topics of interest. But that will come when the time for it is needed.

For now we will breakdown the four central questions to artistic theory. Alright, there's no such thing as the "four central questions to artistic theory". There does exist, however, the four central questions of literary theory. We will be applying the questions, with the help of some rewording, to motion pictures. The questions are termed mimetic, expressive, rhetorical, and formal. The following is a quick reference to what each term asks:

Mimetic: how do motion pictures reflect or represent truth or reality?

Expressive: how is a motion picture created?

Rhetorical: what effects does or should a motion picture have on its audience?

Formal: what parts, structures, and qualities should a motion picture have, and how should those parts work together?

These terms were formed by the literary historian M. H. Abrams in his influential treatise The Mirror and the Lamp (1953). More specifically, mimetic theory focuses on the relationship between the work of art and the world. The rhetorical theory emphasizes the relationship between the audience and the work of art. The third type he called expressive stresses the relationship between the artist and the work of art. Lastly there is the formal theory which stressed the aesthetic relationship between the parts of a work. Think of it as the analysis of "themes" or "motifs". Below is a version of the Abrams map, which may help you to better visualize what we have been discussing.

While your local newspaper's film critic has probably learned about these theories, he by no means applies them to Harry Potter when he writes about it in his weekly column. That is where this site comes into play. I have been hoping for something of this sort for a long time, and having been starved of it I decided to attempt it myself. This is, however, a work in progress, and your help and interaction are both needed and welcome.

Our work is cut out for us. We have much learning to do, and I'm sure with each passing film we look at you will not only be pleased, but more open to films you never thought you'd like. The following article entitled "Who Needs a Critic?", will outline in specifics the purpose of critical analysis, its history, and why it is important. With that, we are closing in on our first critique. Onward!