WRITING ABOUT FILMS 13

C H A P T E R 2

Writing
about Films

You’ll typically encounter three sorts of writing assignment in an

introductory film course. A short screening report asks you to
demonstrate your understanding of a film and its relationship to a course
topic. It’s somewhat like an essay answer on an examination. Another
type of assignment is the film review, which lets you try writing the sort
of evaluative commentary you might find in Newsweek or Rolling Stone.
Third, there is the analytical essay, a longer piece that digs more deeply
and develops a sustained argument about the film. The analytical essay is
the longest, most complicated, and (for most students) the most
challenging writing assignment.

The Screening Report

A screening report usually runs one to two double-spaced pages. Your
purpose here is to demonstrate a general familiarity with the film and to
show that you understand its relevance to a course topic. You should
think of writing two to five paragraphs that explore a single aspect of the
film, using examples from your notes.
For instance, suppose that the course is currently studying film
genre, and the assignment asks you to submit a screening report pointing
out aspects of Halloween that make it typical of the horror film. In a page
or two, you can develop only two or three main points, so you should
select what is most central to the reading, lectures, and discussions in the
course at that point. Suppose that the course has focused on genre
conventions. You could then pick out three aspects of Halloween that
rely on horror conventions. You might focus on the nature of the
14 CHAPTER 2

monster, the structure of the plot, and the treatment of the female
protagonist.
For each of these points you could develop a solid paragraph.
Michael Myers, the slasher-figure, might seem to be a mortal man, but he
is unstoppable by knives, bullets, and a two-story fall. He seems to fit the
definition of a monster as a creature with powers not explainable by
ordinary science. Your paragraph could make these points and supply
instances of scenes where Michael takes on monstrous invulnerability.
Another paragraph might be devoted to plot structure. Like many horror
films, Halloween builds its plot around the monster’s stalking and killing
several characters; here, each of Michael’s assaults replays the night he
murdered his sister after she had sex with a local boy. This brings up the
genre convention of punishing sexually active characters, a common
element of 1980s horror (parodied in Scream and its follow-ups). A final
paragraph could be devoted to the teenage Laurie, who seems to be a
special target of Michael’s stalking. Unlike her pals, Laurie is not
sexually promiscuous, and she genuinely cares about the children she
baby-sits for. As in many horror films (King Kong, Nosferatu), the pure
beauty attracts the monster but also plays a role in his downfall.
The thrust of your screening report is descriptive. Instead of
developing an original argument, you’re showing how the assigned film
is relevant to issues being examined in the course. By drawing on clear,
powerful examples from your notes, your report can demonstrate not
only that you’ve watched the film with understanding but also that you
are actively engaging with the broader ideas in class. The same skill at
relating aspects of the movie to issues in the course will be helpful for
you in writing essay examination answers.
Key Questions for a Screening Report
1. Have you shown how the film is relevant to issues
explored in the course or the specific assignment?
2. Have you displayed your familiarity with the whole
film?
3. Have you confined yourself to one, two, or at most
three aspects of the film, each one developed in a
paragraph or two?
4. Have you drawn concrete examples from the film–
shots, lines of dialogue, elements of plot or
characterization–which support the aspects you’ve
picked out?
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 15

The Film Review

The screening report tends to be mainly descriptive, although you may be
asked to express an opinion about what is interesting or valuable about
the movie. The film review makes evaluation far more central. It is
essentially a judgment about the quality of the movie, backed up with
enough information to indicate that your judgment is based on good
reasons. If you write for a campus newspaper or an online publication,
your review will be devoted to a film currently playing in theatres, so
you become a consumer adviser, trying to indicate whether the movie is
worth buying a ticket for. “I look at films,” says Los Angeles Times
reviewer Kenneth Turan, “and I provide a point of view on them, for
people who are trying to figure out if they want to see the movie or not”
(Projections 10, ed. Mike Figgis [London: Faber and Faber, 2000], p.
61).
Professional reviewers like Turan are commonly known as film
critics—a term which implies their commitment to making judgments.
Yet even though many readers think that film critics are too tough on the
movies they see, film criticism isn’t devoted to finding fault. The best
reviews aren’t simply thumbs-up-thumbs-down opinions. For one thing,
a good review avoids extreme judgments (“a thoroughly bad movie,” “a
flawless film”). Most good films aren’t perfect, and many weak films
have some good points. The sensitive critic tries to take both pluses and
minuses into account.
Moreover, most critics recognize that not all readers have the same
tastes. One reader might find Titanic thrillingly romantic, but another
might find it slushy. So the review might offer something like this: “If
you like shameless wallowing in old-fashioned rich-girl-poor-boy
romance, you’ll love Titanic. For me, a little schmaltz goes a long way.”
This acknowledges that the reviewer is aware that the reader might
actually enjoy the film that’s about to be judged harshly. Readers quickly
sense a critic’s preferences and tend to follow critics whose tastes they
trust to be like their own.
The film review is a genre of journalistic writing, and it depends on
certain conventions. There must a brief plot synopsis, suggesting the
main conflicts and character developments. Typically, however, the
reviewer doesn’t divulge the ending. The main characters’ names are
followed by actor’s names in parentheses:
Neo (Keanu Reeves) follows Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss)
down the rabbit hole into an adventure that calls the very
existence of our world into question. (The Matrix)
16 CHAPTER 2

Reviewers are also expected to mention striking aspects of the film:

impressive sets or costumes, notable visual qualities such as color design
or editing or music, and, above all, acting. Comments on these matters
can be given separately or woven into the synopsis (“The hacker Neo,
played by Keanu Reeves with his usual unflappably dazed look….”).
Reviewers also compare the film at hand with other films that belong to
the same genre, which are made by the same filmmaker, or which raise
similar thematic issues. This convention demands that the critic be
familiar with a wide range of films and some film history.
Perhaps the biggest constraint is brevity. The typical film review
runs two to five pages, double-spaced–not a lot of room to develop a
complex judgment of a movie. Newspaper critics labor under very tight
space restrictions, although magazine critics tend to have more chance to
develop their ideas. Many of the most famous film critics, such as
Graham Greene in the 1930s and André Bazin and François Truffaut in
the 1940s and 1950s, wrote for weekly and monthly publications.
The best reviewers excel as writers. They render their opinions in
short, memorable strokes. They devise arresting openings and pointed
wrap-ups. To give the flavor of a movie, they aim at vivid descriptions.
In a few words they can evoke the look and sound, even the emotional
overtones, of a movie. Here is Dwight Macdonald on L’Avventura:
The sound track is a miracle. Instead of relying on “mood
music,” Antonioni uses everyday sounds, modulating and
blending them to get his effects: the wash of waves, dogs
barking, trains groaning and clicking along, the harsh
confused sounds of a crowd, the panting breath of lovers. In
the visit to the deserted town near Noto, silence prevails,
punctuated finally by the slamming of the car doors as the
baffled searchers drive away.
(On Movies [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969], p.
333)
When a critic wants to point out the defects in a movie, there is no room
for a lengthy demolition job. A crisp killer line serves best, as when
Pauline Kael’s appraises Robert DeNiro’s quiet, expressionless acting:
“He could be a potato, except that he’s thoroughly absorbed in the
process of doing nothing” (Taking It All In [New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston, 1984], p. 241).
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 17

The reviewer may cultivate a highly personal style. Manny Farber is

one of the most distinctive voices in English-language film criticism,
mixing tough-guy cynicism with an eye for precise visuals:

There is a half-minute bit in Twelve Angry Men in which the

halo-wearing minority vote on the jury, a pinch-faced
architect (Henry Fonda), is seen carefully drying each
fingernail with a bathroom towel. It is a sharply effective,
stalling-for-time type of adverse detailing, showing the jury’s
one sensitive, thoughtful figure to be unusually prissy.
Unfortunately, this mild debunking of the hero is a coldly
achieved detail that sits on the surface of the film, unexplored
and unimportant.

(Negative Space: Manny Farber on the Movies [New York:

Da Capo, 1998], p. 122).

Macdonald, Kael, Farber, Andrew Sarris, Phillip Lopate, Vernon

Young, and other critics have published collections of their film reviews,
and these are worth studying as pieces of careful writing. To get a sense
of current reviewing practice, you can examine reviews by Todd
McCarthy (Variety), Andrew Sarris (The New York Observer), J.
Hoberman and Amy Taubin (The Village Voice), Armond White (The
New York Press), Elvis Mitchell (The New York Times), Richard Corliss
(Time), Roger Ebert (The Chicago Sun-Times), Michael Wilmington
(The Chicago Tribune), Jonathan Rosenbaum (The Chicago Reader),
Manohla Dargis (LA Weekly), Lisa Schwartzbaum (Entertainment
Weekly), Geoff Andrew (Time Out, London), and Philip French (The
Observer, London). Some publications file reviews on their websites.
Longer reviews are published in Film Comment and Cineaste (New
York), Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Sight & Sound (London), Cinema
Papers (Victoria, Australia), 24 Images (Montreal), and CinemaScope
(Toronto).
Key Questions for a Film Review
1. Have you somewhere clearly indicated your judgment
of the film’s quality?
2. Have you provided a brief plot synopsis?
3. Have you mentioned specific elements of the film
which support your judgment? Have you described
these quickly and vividly, using concrete language and
metaphors?
4. Have you qualified your judgment by balancing
positive and negative aspects of the film?
5. Have you begun the review with an attention-grabbing
opening? Have you concluded it with a striking
sentence?
18 CHAPTER 2

The Analytical Essay

The analytical film essay typically runs 5 to 15 double-spaced pages.

Being an analysis, it points out how various parts of the film fit together
systematically (see Film Art, p. 414). Like a screening report and a
review, the analytical essay includes descriptions, but the descriptions
are typically more detailed and extensive. Like the review, the analytical
essay also puts forth the writer’s opinion, but here the opinion doesn’t
usually address the ultimate worth of the film. When you analyze a film,
you’re defending your view of the ways parts of the movie work
together.
Think about a sad song. You could describe the song in various ways
(“It’s about a woman who wants out of a dead-end relationship”). You
could also give your evaluation of it (“It’s too sentimental”). But you can
also analyze it, talking about how the lyrics, the melody, and the
instrumentation work together to create the feeling of sadness or to make
the listener understand the relationship. That’s the sort of thing people
who study film do when they analyze movies.
The analytical essay is also an argumentative piece. Its goal is to
allow you to develop an idea you have about the film by supplying good
reasons for considering that idea seriously. The sample analyses in
Chapter 11 are argumentative essays. For instance, in analyzing The Thin
Blue Line, we argue that the film tells a real-life story in a way that
suggests how difficult the search for truth can be (p. 447). Likewise, our
discussion of Raging Bull tries to show that the film criticizes violence as
used in mass entertainment while still displaying a fascination with its
visceral appeal (p. 457).

Preparing to Write
How do you come up with an argument for your essay? The preparatory
work usually consists of three steps.

1. Develop a thesis that your essay will explain and support

Start by asking yourself questions. What do you find intriguing or
disturbing about the film? What makes the film noteworthy, in your
opinion? Does it illustrate some aspect of filmmaking with special
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 19

clarity? Does it have an unusual effect on the viewer? Do the film’s

implicit or symptomatic meanings (pp. 56-57) seem to have particular
importance?
Your answer to such questions will furnish the thesis of your
analysis. The thesis, in any piece of writing, is the central claim your
argument advances. It encapsulates your opinion, but not in the way that
a film review states your evaluation of the movie. In an analytical essay,
your thesis is one way to help other viewers understand the movie. In our
analysis of His Girl Friday (pp. 415-418), our thesis is that the film uses
classical narrative devices to create an impression of rapid speed. With
respect to Man with a Movie Camera (pp. 443-446), our thesis is that the
film makes the viewer aware of how even documentary films manipulate
the world they present to us.
Typically, your thesis will be a claim about the film's functions, its
effects, or its meanings (or some mixture of all three). For instance, we
argue that by creating a wide variety of characters in Do The Right
Thing, Spike Lee builds up interconnected plotlines; this allows him to
explore the problems of sustaining a community (pp. 423-428). In our
discussion of North by Northwest, we concentrate more on how the film
achieves the effects of suspense and surprise (pp. 418-423). The analysis
of Meet Me in St. Louis emphasizes how technique carries implicit and
symptomatic meanings about the importance of family life in America
(pp. 452-457).
Your thesis will need some support, some reasons to believe it. Ask
yourself, “What would back up my thesis?” and draw up a list of points.
Some of these reasons will occur to you immediately, but others will
emerge only as you start to study the film more closely. And the reasons,
which are conceptual points, will in turn need backup—typically,
evidence and examples. You can sum up the structure of an
argumentative essay in the acronym TREE: Thesis supported by
Reasons that rest upon Evidence and Examples.

2. Draw up a segmentation of the entire film

Analyzing a film is a bit like understanding a building’s design.
When we walk through a building, we notice various features—the shape
of a doorway, the sudden appearance of an immense atrium. We may
not, however, have a very strong sense of the building’s overall
architecture. If we are students of architecture, though, we want to study
the design of the whole building, and so we’d examine the blueprints to
understand how all the individual parts fit together. Similarly, we
experience a film scene by scene, but if we want to understand how the
20 CHAPTER 2

various scenes work together, it’s helpful to have a sense of the whole
film’s shape.
Movies don’t come equipped with blueprints, so we have to make
our own. The best way to grasp the overall shape of the movie is to make
a segmentation, as we suggest in Film Art. (See in particular pp. 64, 94-
95, 135, 142-143, 151, 158.) Breaking the film into sequences gives you
a convenient overview, and your segmentation will often suggest things
that will support or help you nail down your thesis. For example, in
studying The Thin Blue Line, we made a separate list of all the flashbacks
to the murder. When we saw them lined up on our page, we spotted the
pattern of development in them that became part of our analysis (pp.
447-448).
Now that you have a segmentation, you can go on to see how the
parts are connected. In examining a nonnarrative film, you will need to
be especially alert to its use of categorical, rhetorical, abstract, or assoc-
iational principles. See our analysis of Gap-Toothed Women (pp. 134-
140) for an example of how you can base an analysis on the overall
shape of the film.
If the film presents a narrative, your segmentation can help you
answer questions like these: How does each scene set up causes and
effects? At what point do we understand the characters' goals, and how
do those goals develop in the course of the action? What principles of
development connect one scene to another? The opening scenes of Jerry
Maguire establish Jerry as a sports agent who’s having a crisis of
conscience. Fearing he’s becoming “another shark in a suit,” he
impulsively sends out a memo (what he calls a “mission statement”) that
criticizes his firm’s policies. Because of his insubordination, he’s fired.
Because he needs a job, he tries to build his independent agency on trust,
but he sometimes still takes his clients for granted. The bulk of the film
consists of his struggle to remain principled—with the help of a woman
who tries to bring out his better side and a football player who tries to
teach him the value of direct communication. Thus the romantic plot line
develops in relation to Jerry’s efforts to improve both his business and
his personality. An analysis of the narrative would show how each scene
continues the cause-effect logic, affects the hero’s goals, and traces out
the changes in his character and his love life.
Should you include your segmentation in your written analysis?
Sometimes it will make your argument clearer and more convincing. We
think that a broad scene breakdown helps illustrate some key points in
our discussions of His Girl Friday (p. 415) and a more detailed one
clarifies The Thin Blue Line (pp. 447-448). Perhaps your argument will
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 21

gain in strength if you bring out a still finer-grained segmentation; we do

this in considering the three subsegments of the final chase scene in
North by Northwest (pp. 421-423).
However much of your segmentation finally surfaces in your written
analysis, it’s good to get in the habit of writing out a fairly detailed
segmentation every time you examine a film. It will help you get an
overall sense of the film’s design. You probably noticed that nearly every
one of our analyses includes, early on, a statement about the film's
underlying formal organization. This provides a firm basis for more
detailed analysis. Writing out a segmentation is also good practice if you
want to become a filmmaker yourself: screenwriters, directors, and other
creative personnel usually work from a plot outline that amounts to a
segmentation.

3. Note outstanding instances of film technique

As you watch the film, you should jot down brief, accurate
descriptions of various film techniques that are used. You can get ideas
for analyzing style from Chapter 10. Once you have determined the
overall organizational structure of the film, you can identify salient
techniques, trace out patterns of techniques across the whole film, and
propose functions for those techniques. These techniques will often
support or refine your thesis.
As a start, be alert for techniques taken one by one. Is this a case of
three-point lighting? Is this a continuity cut? Just as important, the
analyst should be sensitive to context: What is the function of the
technique here? Again a segmentation will help you by drawing attention
to patterning. Does the technique repeat or develop across the film?
At any moment in a film, so much is going on that it’s easy to be
overwhelmed by all the technical elements. Shot composition,
performance, lighting, camera movement, color design, dialogue, music–
all these things can be present and changing from second to second.
Often, beginning film analysts are uncertain as to what techniques are
most relevant to their thesis. Sometimes they try to describe every single
costume or cut or pan, and they wind up drowned in data.
This is where planning your paper’s thesis in advance helps you.
Your thesis will make certain techniques more pertinent than others. For
example, we argue that in North by Northwest Hitchcock creates
suspense and surprise by manipulating our range of knowledge (pp. 418-
423). Sometimes he lets us know more than the main character, Roger
Thornhill, and this builds up suspense: Will Thornhill walk into the traps
that we know are awaiting him? At other moments we know only as
22 CHAPTER 2

much as Thornhill does, so that we’re as surprised as he is at a new turn

of events. Hitchcock devotes particular film techniques to creating these
effects. Crosscutting between lines of action gives us more knowledge
than Thornhill has, while POV camerawork and cutting restrict us to his
understanding of certain situations.
So other techniques, such as lighting or performance style, aren’t as
relevant to our thesis about North by Northwest. (They might, however,
be very relevant to some other thesis about it—say, that it treats thriller
conventions somewhat comically.) By contrast, we emphasize acting
technique more in our discussion of Raging Bull, because acting is perti-
nent to our discussion of the film's use of realistic conventions. Similarly,
the editing in Meet Me in St. Louis would be interesting from the
standpoint of another argument, but it is not central to the one that we are
making, so it goes almost completely unmentioned.
Once you have a thesis, an awareness of the overall shape of the
film, and a set of notes on the techniques relevant to your thesis, you are
ready to organize your analytical paper.

Organization and Writing

Broadly speaking, an argumentative piece has this underlying structure:
Introduction: Background information or a vivid example, leading
up to:
Statement of thesis
Body: Reasons to believe the thesis
Evidence and examples that support the thesis
Conclusion: Restatement of thesis and discussion of its broader
implications
All of our analyses in Chapter 11 adhere to this basic structure. The
opening portion seeks to lead the reader into the argument to come, and
the thesis is introduced at the end of this introduction. Where the
introduction is brief, as in the His Girl Friday analysis, the thesis comes
at the end of the first paragraph (p. 415). Where more background
material is needed, the introduction is somewhat longer and the thesis is
stated a little later. In the Thin Blue Line essay, the thesis comes at the
end of the third paragraph (p. 447).
You can sometimes postpone the full statement of a thesis by casting
it as a question, as we do in our analysis of Chungking Express (p. 438).
We end the second paragraph by asking what the film accomplishes by
following one brief plot by a second one containing a new set of
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 23

characters. But if you pursue the question-based structure, be sure to

provide at least a hint of the answer fairly soon (as we do in the last full
paragraph on p. 438) to guide the rest of your argument.
As you know, the building block of any piece of writing is the
paragraph. Each slot in the argumentative pattern outlined above will be
filled by one or more paragraphs. The introduction is at least one
paragraph, the body will be several paragraphs, and the conclusion will
be one or two paragraphs.
Typically, the introductory paragraphs of a film analysis don’t
display much concrete evidence. Instead, this is the place to introduce the
thesis you want to advance. Often this involves situating the thesis in
relation to some background information. For example, our analysis of
Tokyo Story situates the film in a tradition of noncontinuity editing
before stating our thesis (p. 433). Usually the introductory paragraph or
two set out generalizations of this sort.
If you’re adventurous, you may wish to avoid background
information. You can start with one concrete piece of evidence—say, an
intriguing scene or detail from the film—before you move quickly to
state your thesis. Our Meet Me in St. Louis piece uses this sort of opening
(p. 452).
Writing a film analysis poses a particular problem of organization.
Should the body of the argument follow the film's progress in
chronological order, so that each paragraph deals with a scene or major
part? In some cases this can work. We try it with our Gap-Toothed
Women discussion, which traces out the patterns of development across
the film (pp. 134-140). By and large, however, you strengthen your
argument by following a more conceptual structure of the sort indicated
in our outline.
The body of your essay consists of a series of reasons to believe the
thesis. You’ll back those points up with evidence and examples.
Consider our analysis of Breathless (pp. 428-433). Our thesis is that
Godard’s film both pays homage to film noir outlaw movies and reworks
their conventions through a rough-edged treatment. This thesis obliges us
to use a comparison-and-contrast strategy. But first we start with a
paragraph of background (p. 428), sketching the relevant Hollywood
outlaw-movie traditions. The second paragraph shows how the basic
story of Breathless resembles the criminal-couple-on-the-run movie. The
next three paragraphs make the point that Godard’s film also reworks
Hollywood conventions: Michel seems to be imitating tough-guy stars,
while the film’s form and style seem casual, as if aiming to let the
24 CHAPTER 2

audience enjoy a new, more self-conscious version of an American crime

movie.
Since the essay relies on comparison and contrast, the body of the
piece explores the film’s similarities to and differences from Hollywood
conventions. The next eleven paragraphs seek to establish these points
about the film’s narrative form:
1. Michel is like a Hollywood protagonist in certain ways (p. 428).
2. The action is, however, much more choppy and digressive than
in a Hollywood film (p. 429).
3. The death of the policeman is handled more abruptly and
disconcertingly than in a normal action movie (p. 429).
4., 5. By contrast, the bedroom conversation of Patricia and
Michel is untypical of Hollywood genre scenes because it is
very static, marking little progress toward Michel’s goals (p.
429).
6. Once the plot starts moving again, it stalls again (p. 429).
7., 8. Moving toward resolution, the plot again picks up, but the
finale remains enigmatic and open-ended (p. 429-430).
9., 10. Overall, Michel and Patricia are puzzling and hard to read as
characters (p. 430).
11. The characterization of the couple is thus sharply different from
that of the romantic couple in most outlaws-on-the-run plots
(p. 430).
Each of these points constitutes a reason to accept the thesis that
Breathless uses genre conventions but also revises them in unsettling
ways.
Supporting reasons may be of many sorts. Several of our analyses
distinguish between reasons based upon the film's overall narrative form
and reasons based upon stylistic choices. The portion of the Breathless
essay we’ve just reviewed offers evidence to support our claims about
the film’s reworking of Hollywood narrative conventions. The
paragraphs that follow this material (pp. 430-433) discuss Godard’s
similarly self-conscious use of stylistic strategies. In analyzing Meet Me
in St. Louis, we concentrate more on reviewing various motifs that create
particular thematic effects. In either case, the argument rests on a thesis,
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 25

supported by reasons, which are in turn supported by evidence and

examples.
If you organize the essay conceptually rather than as a blow-by-blow
résumé of the action, you may find it useful to acquaint your reader with
the plot action at some point. A brief synopsis soon after the introduction
may do the trick. (See our North by Northwest analysis, pp. 418-423, or
our Chungking Express discussion, pp. 437-442.) Alternatively, you
may wish to cover basic plot material when you discuss segmentation,
characterization, causal progression, or other topics. The crucial point is
that the writer isn’t forced to follow the film's order.
Typically, each reason for the thesis becomes the topic sentence of a
paragraph, with more detailed evidence displayed in the sentences that
follow. In the Breathless example, each main point is followed by
specific examples of how plot action, dialogue, or film techniques at
once refer to Hollywood tradition and loosen up the conventions. Here is
where your detailed notes about salient scenes or techniques will be very
useful. You can select the strongest and most vivid instances of mise-en-
scene, cinematography, editing, and sound to back up the main point that
each paragraph explores.
The body of the analysis can be made more persuasive by several
other tactics. A paragraph that compares or contrasts this film with
another might help you zero in on specific aspects that are central to
your argument. You can also include a brief in-depth analysis of a single
scene or sequence that drives your argumentative point home. We use
this tactic in discussing several films’ endings, chiefly because a
concluding section often reveals broad principles of development. For
instance, the last two scenes of Jerry Maguire underscore the two
plotlines, professional and personal. First comes his professional reward:
Jerry’s client Rod triumphs on the field and pays tribute to Jerry’s
personal investment in his career. The last scene shows Jerry, Dorothy,
and her son strolling past a playground, underscoring their reconciliation
as a family (and developing the hints dropped in the beginning that one
of Jerry’s redeeming qualities is his concern for children). Just as we
advise you to pay particular attention to the film’s ending as a key place
to discover what the film’s trying to do (p. 64), a close analysis of the
film's ending can be a convincing way to end the body of your analysis.
In general, the body of the argument should progress toward stronger
or subtler reasons for believing the thesis. In discussing The Thin Blue
Line, we start by tracing how the film provides a kind of reconstructed
investigation, leading to the killer (pp. 446-449). Only then do we ask: Is
the film more than a neutral report of the case (449-450)? This leads us
26 CHAPTER 2

to argue that the filmmaker has subtly aligned our sympathies with
Randall Adams (p. 450). Yet the film goes beyond aligning us with
Adams. It also bombards us with a great deal of information, some of it
fairly minute, even trivial. The purpose, we suggest, is to urge the viewer
to sort out conflicting data and notice details (pp. 450-451). This is a
fairly complex point that would probably not come across if introduced
early on. Only after the analysis has worked through more clear-cut
matters is it possible to consider such nuances of interpretation.
How to end your argumentative essay? Now is the time to restate the
thesis (skillfully, not repeating previous statements word for word) and
to remind the reader of the reasons to entertain the thesis. The ending is
also an opportunity for you to try for a bit of eloquence, a telling
quotation, a bit of historical context, or a concrete motif from the film
itself–perhaps a line of dialogue or an image that encapsulates your
thesis. In making preparatory notes, ask yourself constantly: Is there
something here that can create a vivid ending?
Just as there is no general recipe for understanding film, there is no
formula for writing incisive and enlightening film analyses. But there are
principles and rules of thumb that govern good writing of all sorts. Only
through writing, and constant rewriting, do these principles and rules
come to seem second nature. By analyzing films, we can understand the
sources of our pleasure in them and we are able to share that
understanding with others. If we succeed, the writing itself can give
pleasure to our readers and ourselves.

Key Questions for an Analytical Essay

1. Do you have a thesis? Is it stated clearly by the
end of the first or second paragraph of your
analysis?
2. Do you have a series of reasons supporting the
thesis? Are these arranged in logical and
convincing order (with the strongest reason
coming last)?
3. Are your supporting reasons backed up? Do
your segmentation and your stylistic analysis
provide specific evidence and examples for
each reason you offer?
4. Does your beginning orient your reader to the
direction of your argument? Does your concluding
A Sample Analytical
paragraph Essay
reiterate your thesis and provide a
vivid ending?
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 27

The following paper was written for an introductory film course by a

college sophomore. The assignment asked for an analytical essay on
Martin Scorsese’s King of Comedy, concentrating on two or three scenes
of particular importance to the paper’s thesis. A segmentation of the film
(not included here) was attached.
Note how the essay begins with some general observations and then
focuses its thesis in the second paragraph. In order to trace the greater
blurring of fantasy and reality in the film, the author develops a strategy
of comparison and contrast. Each paragraph develops specific evidence
of the various techniques Scorsese uses, considering editing, sound,
camerawork, and staging. The paper concludes by speculating on how
these techniques affect the viewer and reinforce one of the film’s themes.
A crisp summary line drives home the main thesis: “Our final image of
Rupert may be an image of the man or it may be an image from the
man.”

Fantasy and Reality in The King of Comedy

by Amanda Robillard

America is obsessed with fame. Television shows and magazines have

been created in order to let the masses delve into the personal lives of
their favorite stars. Friends gossip about people they have never met, but
whom they feel they know because of the mass media. The lives of
celebrities may not be perfect, but they definitely are exciting. Learning
about your favorite star's life is an entertaining escape from what can
seem a mundane existence.
Fame becomes alluring because a fantasy world surrounds it. Martin
Scorsese's film The King of Comedy focuses on Rupert Pupkin's
obsession with fame. Not only is he obsessed with a famous comedian,
but he is consumed with becoming a famous comedian himself and
comes to believe that his idol is more than willing to help him in his
quest. Pupkin's obsession goes beyond a mere interest in fame; it takes
over his life to the point that he can no longer distinguish reality from the
fantasies he has concocted. Because the viewer is allowed to see these
fantasies through Rupert's eyes, one can track his progression further and
further into his fantasy world. In The King of Comedy, Scorsese uses
various aspects of style in order to manipulate the boundaries between
fantasy and reality in such a way as to draw a parallel between Rupert's
28 CHAPTER 2

progressive withdrawal into his own fantasies and the viewer's inability
to tell the difference between the two.
The first fantasy scene of The King of Comedy, segment number
three, blurs the line between fantasy and reality, but the line is
nonetheless still discernible. Here Scorsese uses aspects of style to create
a coherent fantasy that is easily recognizable as such. It is distinctly
separate from surrounding scenes of reality while at the same time
drawing on them in order to create the fantasy.
A combined use of sound and editing is used to tie the fantasy to
reality. This is apparent both in the scenes that surround segment three
and within the scene itself. Rupert invited Jerry to lunch at the end of
segment two. This invitation leads into a shot of Jerry and Rupert seated
in a restaurant in the following scene. This link from actual dialogue to
fantasy is a continuing pattern throughout the film, brought out by first
mentioning the act in a real conversation and then having it carried out in
a fantasy later in the film. Editing the scenes together in such a way is
one device used to blur the distinction between fantasy and reality.
Within the scene, juxtaposing Rupert's fantasy with his acting it out
in his mother's basement serves to create a distinction between the two.
Sometimes reverse-shots of Rupert show him dressed for the lunch; at
other moments, the reverse-shots show him in his basement, dressed
differently. Similarly, while still seeing an image of Jerry and Rupert
eating lunch together in a restaurant, we hear Rupert's mother yelling for
him to keep quiet or inquiring whom he is talking to. The editing and
sound techniques guide the viewer back into reality, where Rupert is
actually enacting the fantasy in his basement. Again, however, some
elements carry over between fantasy and reality. Photographs behind
Jerry in the fantasy are echoed by photographs on the wall behind Rupert
in his basement. Jerry also happens to be wearing the same shirt and tie
that he had in the previous scene, although with a different jacket. Also,
the source of lighting seems to be coming from Rupert's right in both
fantasy and reality, although it is softer in the shots in his basement.
All of these elements of style serve to connect fantasy to reality
while at the same time drawing definite distinctions between the two.
Similarities are needed in order to create a believable fantasy that Rupert
would feasibly have at the time. Drawing on these similarities allows the
viewer to notice patterns that develop across the course of the film, and
the variations in these patterns serve to steadily blur the line between
fantasy and reality even further with each fantasy sequence. At this point
in the film, there are still enough differences between the two realms to
clearly separate the two from each other. This is true for Rupert—as he
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 29

acts out the two roles of his fantasy, he is distinctly aware that the events
are not actually happening to him—as well as for the viewer, who is
provided with subjective fantasy shots as well as shots of Rupert's sad
reality and enough stylistic clues to separate what is really happening
from what Rupert would like to happen.
One of Rupert's later fantasies, in segment fifteen, marks a further
progression into the fantasy world. Rupert's mind is no longer occupied
by simple matters like having a lunch date with his idol. Instead, he now
dreams of receiving, all at the same time, everything he could possibly
imagine wanting: a spot on the Jerry Langford Show, fame, apologies
for every wrong ever done to him, and the love of his life becoming his
wife while millions of people watch. Rupert's fantasies have become
much more complicated as he gets more and more obsessed with
becoming a famous comedian with the help of Jerry Langford.
These more intricate fantasies require a bolder use of style. Because
Rupert is becoming ever more wrapped up in his world of make-believe,
the added time he spends dreaming up this world allows for more special
effects. Sound and editing are once again used to blur Rupert's reality
and his imagination. It should be noted that this fantasy sequence is
sandwiched between two framing sequences of Rupert in the offices of
the Jerry Langford Show, waiting to see what they thought of his tape.
This fantasy is not a distinct unit in and of itself, as the first one was,
but instead a scene firmly entrenched in the scene surrounding it. An
entire phrase is uttered from the fantasy while the image track still shows
Rupert looking around the office. Also, this fantasy takes place in the
same place where Rupert's body is really located at the time of his mind's
wanderings. Granted, one is in the studio and the other in the office, but
they are both in the same building, unlike the earlier restaurant/basement
segment.
Style is also a crucial element in the portrayal of this fantasy. Rupert
imagines this scene as if it were on television. The fuzzy picture and the
tinny sound of the dialogue serve to suggest this medium. Characters in
the fantasy also present themselves directly to the camera. The set design
of the show is the same as that really used on Jerry's show. The more
complicated subject matter of this fantasy is portrayed using more
complicated cinematography and editing. Throughout most of the movie,
editing is made to go unnoticed. However, in this scene many steps are
taken to make sure the editing and camerawork are noticed. An extreme
close-up of the piano player's hands zooms out to a shot of him and the
piano, before panning up and left as it dissolves into a shot of Rita, and
then continues to pan left as she makes her way to Rupert. Here the
30 CHAPTER 2

image zooms out to a long shot of the couple before dissolving into a
close-up of Rupert and Rita. This is by far the most complicated
sequence in the film, a film which otherwise consists mostly of invisible
editing. These stylistic elements are meant to be noticed. They serve as
an illustration of Rupert's more complicated fantasy world, a world
which is becoming ever more real to him.
Although it would seem that this fantasy world is becoming
increasingly more important to Rupert, the viewer is still aware of the
sequence as a fantasy, but through fewer cues this time. Gone are the
blatant juxtapositions between the two worlds and the interruptions of
fantasy by reality. Rupert is no longer shown acting out both roles in his
fantasy. A single voice, that of Dr. Joyce Brothers, sounds unnatural, as
if a man were impersonating the higher pitch of a woman's voice. Within
the scene, this is the only sonic betrayal of reality, and it can only be
heard if one pays close attention. However, the intricate camera
movements and editing used to show Rupert's appearance on the Jerry
Langford Show also serve to distinctly mark it as a fantasy. It is far more
complex than anything seen in any reality segments and thus must be
taken to be fantasy.
Although the viewer can tell that this segment is fantasy, it is
exponentially more complicated than previous segments and thus also
serves to show Rupert's withdrawal further from reality. If the first
fantasy segment was one in which the line between fantasy and reality
was blurred but still distinctly there, this segment serves to blur the line
even further, so that the line is no longer as clear as it once had been.
This segment is an integral part in the process of a complete loss of
anything separating reality from fantasy, both for Rupert and for the
viewer.
The final segment of The King of Comedy is such a segment.
Nothing can be said for certain as to whether it is reality or fantasy. The
ending is left ambiguous. The two have become completely blurred so
that the question of reality or fantasy is left in the hands of the viewer,
with just enough stylistic and narrative prodding to leave you second-
guessing yourself no matter what decision you make. At first glance the
scene can be dismissed as reality, but a second look clearly identifies it
as fantasy. A third, and you're no longer sure exactly what it is. Even if
you think it is one or the other, there is still an inkling of doubt that
refuses to be ignored and causes you to wonder. Scorsese doesn't hand
over a clear and concise ending to top this film off but instead forces the
viewer to earn it.
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 31

Most of this segment (number twenty-nine) could be interpreted as

simply Rupert’s fantasy of achieving fame, but that would be premature.
While its elements may not be completely compatible with reality, they
don't blend completely with fantasy either. For example, the segment
begins with an announcer's voice telling of Rupert Pupkin's outrageous
debut on the Jerry Langford Show. This voice is heard first over a black
screen. The image is soon replaced by "file tape" from news reports. Was
this sound bridge from black to footage meant to be a bridge from reality
to fantasy, as the previous ones had been? Or is it meant to separate this
segment from the rest of the film so as to be taken as a lapse in time
between Rupert's arrest and his rise to fame? The "file tape" label
creates a sense of reality, whereas the flamboyant nature of the
announcer does the opposite by creating what Rupert would surely
believe to be the perfect soundbite. The grainy television image also
brings up questions of reality versus fantasy. Is it reminiscent of the
television appearance Rupert made in his third fantasy segment? Or is it
instead actually footage from his monologue on the Jerry Langford Show
being rebroadcast on different news channels?
In either case, the panning, zooming, and craning of the camera over
the magazine headlines and book displays all call to mind the wedding-
fantasy sequence. However, the number of headlines present is hard to
believe as the workings of a single man's thoughts. And, given the nature
of fame in our culture, isn’t it likely that Rupert would receive book and
movie offers as a “reward” for his kidnapping of Jerry?
Still, interpretation is then left swinging back toward fantasy when
one notices that the news reports never mention his accomplice, Masha.
Is this because Masha's involvement was really deemed too
inconsequential by the press? It seems more likely that her absence here
would arise from Rupert's obvious disdain for her. In his fantasy he
would be likely to erase Masha from any involvement in the plan.
The final shot of The King of Comedy does little to resolve these
issues and instead serves to complicate them further. This shot begins as
a high angle and cranes down and in so as to get closer and closer to
Rupert's figure standing in the spotlight on stage as an announcer
continues to describe him as a success and the crowd cheers. The lengthy
take and the announcer’s repetition of Rupert’s name, along with the
applause that ceases to die down, could suggest that we are now
definitely in Rupert’s mind, as he prolongs his moment of triumph. Yet
the shot is very similar to others we’ve seen on Jerry’s show, and we
cannot rule out the possibility that in today’s celebrity culture Rupert has
indeed achieved his goal of becoming a famous comedian. After all, the
32 CHAPTER 2

real audience for Jerry’s show did seem to enjoy Rupert’s rather lame
jokes.
The fact that this final segment cannot simply be dismissed as
fantasy serves to illustrate the fact that Scorsese successfully built up
narrative and stylistic elements in his fantasy sequences so as to blur
their distinction from each other. Each fantasy remains dependent on the
previous reality and fantasy scenes so as to be distinguishable as such.
As Rupert's obsession with becoming famous grows, so too does his
fantasy world. As his fantasies grow, they become more entrenched in
reality and thus more plausible to the viewer. Our final image of Rupert
may be an image of the man or it may be an image from the man.
Perhaps Rupert ends up only being successful at his craft in his fantasy
world, but Martin Scorsese definitely manipulated stylistic elements of
The King of Comedy to successfully craft a film in which the line
between fantasy and reality is blurred not only for the character but for
the viewer as well.

Writing Resources

Library Sources
The Notes and Queries section at the end of each chapter of Film Art
points you toward books and articles that can help you learn more about
the topics covered. In addition, here are some general library reference
works you should be acquainted with.
For a thorough dictionary of terms, see Ira Konigsberg, The
Complete Film Dictionary, 2d ed. (New York: Penguin, 1997). Also very
useful is Ephraim Katz, The Film Encyclopedia, 2d ed. (New York:
Harper, 1994). Both of these are available in reasonably priced
paperback editions.
When you want to find articles about a film subject, turn to two
annual indexes which most college libraries hold: The Film Literature
Index (Albany: Albany Filmdex, inc., 1999) and The International Index
of Film Periodicals (Copenhagen: FIAF). These can help you find
articles by film, director, genre, topic, and author. Older but still useful
sources are Richard Dyer MacCann and Edward S. Perry, eds., The New
Film Index (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1975), which surveys English-
language articles between 1930 and 1970; and John C. Gerlach and Lana
 WRITING ABOUT FILMS 33

Gerlach, The Critical Index (New York: Teachers College Press, 1974),
which covers articles in English from 1946 to 1973. Film reviews are
reprinted in Film Review Annual (Englewood, N.J.: Jerome S. Ozer).
University libraries also provide access to databases, which may be
accessible online as well as in the library. To find credits and information
about a film, consult: Film Index International (Chadwick-Healey),
which lists credits for 90,000 films since 1930; the American Film
Institute Catalogue (1893-1950, 1961-1970); and, on the Internet, the
Internet Movie Database <us.imdb.com/a2z>. The following databases
supply references, and often complete versions, of articles about cinema:
Academic Search
Essay and General Literature Index
Humanities Full Text
International Index to the Performing Arts
ISI Web of Knowledge
MLA Bibliography
MLA Directory of Periodicals
ProQuest Research Library
Keep in mind that most bibliographical databases do not go back past
the 1980s, so you may still need to consult the print bibliographies listed
above to find older sources of information.

The Internet
There is a remarkable amount of information about cinema available
online. The Web is so dazzling a resource that we tend to forget its
drawbacks. For one thing, its information is ephemeral; a website may
vanish overnight. Moreover, material published in books, magazines,
newspapers, and scholarly journals has to be reviewed for accuracy and
reliability, but a webpage can assert anything, no matter how fanciful or
unreliable.
When appraising Web-derived information, ask yourself: Who is the
author? Is the host a reliable site? Is the information current and
objective? Is it designed to promote or sell a product? Is the author
presenting information in order to inform readers, or is there another
agenda at work? When possible, you should verify information with both
Web-based and print-based sources. These questions are explored in
Moira Anderson Allen, writing.com (New York: Allworth, 1999), pp. 22-
23.
34 CHAPTER 2

Web resources come in many shapes. A search engine, such as

Google or Ask Jeeves, allows you to search websites by keywords. If you
want information on Steven Spielberg, a search engine will locate
fansites devoted to him, as well as sites established by film companies to
promote particular Spielberg films. There are meta-search engines such
as <mamma.com>, <www.dogpile.com>, and <www.metacrawler.com>.
It’s always advisable to try several search engines on a given topic, since
each one may bring up different sources. There are also directories, like
Yahoo!, which are more selective but less comprehensive than search
engines. The Internet also contains databases related to film, the most
famous being the Internet Movie Database <us.imdb.com/a2z>.
A clearinghouse selects and assembles information on a specific
topic. Clearinghouses are usually created by people with solid knowledge
of the subject, and they often include links to the best websites. A good
general clearinghouse for film studies is Screensite: Film & TV Studies
<www.sa.edu/TCF/welcome.html.>
For more websites, please visit the Online Learning Center at
<www.mhhe.com/filmart.>