Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 08 Января 2015 в 17:37, курсовая работа
Цель работы - выявить особенности лексического выражения авторской оценки в жанре кинорецензии.
Для достижения цели данной курсовой работы были поставлены следующие задачи:
Дать развернутое определение жанру рецензия;
Проанализировать жанровые особенности и процесс создания рецензии;
Подробно рассмотреть структуру и компоненты кинорецензии;
Оценочную лексику содержат практически все компоненты кинорецензии. В основном, это общая оценка фильма, оценка игры актеров, сюжета и работы режиссера, сюда можно также добавить оценку спецэффектов и саундтреков. Преобладание позитивной или же негативной лексики зависит напрямую от самого рецензента, источника рецензии и аудитории, на которую эта рецензия рассчитана. Так, например, семейный мультфильм «Рио 2» получил весьма грубую и жестокую оценку, это связано с тем, что журналисты интернет-изданий, из которых был взят материал для анализа, рассматривают любую мультипликацию как серьезную картину и строго оценивают по всем канонам кинокритики.
В целом, все кинорецензии уравновешенны и сбалансированы, ведь основная цель рецензента – не раскритиковать фильм и уж тем более не приукрасить, а взглянуть на произведение кинематографа со всех сторон, учитывая все сопутствующие факты, и дать собственную объективную оценку, соотнося свой взгляд на окружающий мир.
По представленной в параграфе 1.5. классификации С. А. Прищепчук распределим некоторые лексические единицы по трем группам согласно виду оценочности:
is mostly successful/ "old fashioned"/ tender ruefulness/ only fitfully satisfying/ a good remake/ the marvelous voice/ cute/ better than everyone else/ an odd choice/ treated as an outsider/ cheeky/ to turn up the sleaze/ The best bit in the whole flick/ hardly flattering и др.
spinning its wheels/ brutal torture/ a mostly straight face / a magnet for our sympathy/ natural silliness in check/ the movie seems to be stalling for time/ a lavish, surreal travelogue/ spunky female partner/ sufficiently modest и др.
shaky-cam/ robo-romp / "everyman"/ a mystical self-help guru/ Ugh/ Is this a lesson we want little boys to learn?/ Why the hell и др.
Каждая рецензия несет в себе идею и задумку ее автора, отражает его мысли и чувства, отношение к поднятой проблеме. Оценка рецензента становится нашей собственной. Именно поэтому жанр рецензии требует особого внимания и отношения.
Жанр кинорецензии за сравнительно недолгое время существования уже имеет множество научных трудов и исследований, которые раскрывают и выделяют этот жанр.
В 1 главе своей работы, с опорой на соответствующую литературу, были выявлены основные черты и особенности рецензии в целом, ее структуру и формы изложения, также рассмотрена подробно история возникновения поджанра – кинорецензии, содержательные компоненты кинорецензии и способы выражения оценки.
Во 2 главе был проведен лексический анализ оценочной лексики нескольких англоязычных рецензий на фильмы различных жанров.
В результате проделанного исследования была достигнута поставленная цель - выявлены особенности лексического выражения авторской оценки в жанре кинорецензии - посредством выполнения ряда задач:
В конечном итоге можно сделать вывод, что, несмотря на уже имеющиеся исследования, кинорецензия требует дальнейшего изучения и углубления в некоторые области этого жанра. Это объясняется его новизной и стремительным развитием. Меняется мир, следовательно, меняется мода, взгляд на культуру и искусство. А кинорецензия, как уже известно, является неким звеном между миром и обществом. Отражение действительности – это предмет анализа рецензии. Каждый автор соотносит свой взгляд на мир с тем, что показано в анализируемом материале. Таким образом, искусство всегда будет нуждаться в культурном посреднике. Жанр рецензии не будет терять свой актуальности, он будет модернизироваться и изменяться вместе с обществом, ценностями, языком, событиями и миром в целом.
Список источников
http://www.mrqe.com/ - каталог англоязычных кинорецензий;
http://variety.com/2014/film/
http://www.reelviews.net/php_
http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/
http://www.flickfilosopher.
http://www.reelviews.net/php_
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/
КИНОРЕЦЕНЗИИ
«Робокоп» («RoboCop»)
ReelViews (James Berardinelli)
2014's iteration of Robocop is a kinder, gentler version of Paul Verhoeven's 1987 sci-fi orgy of violence. The storyline has been trimmed and reworked to allow it to slide under the PG-13 bar. That means a brutal torture/murder sequence is no more and a key battle has been reduced to a series of shaky-cam quick edits that transforms the fight into a largely incoherent series of flashes and bangs. All things considered, however, director Jose Padilha's Robocop reboot does some of the things a good remake should do: it retains the central ideas and themes of the original while updating and rearranging the narrative to lose a derivative feel.
<…>.
As a science fiction action film, Robocop is mostly successful, although some of the subplots - such as Robocop's investigation into Murphy's "murder" - are underdeveloped. Aside from the one battle where the fighting is obscured to mute the violence, the combat sequences are effectively choreographed, including one special effects-laden scene in which Robocop takes on a group of imposing drones. The climax is surprisingly low-key but effective nonetheless, validating the perspective that action movies don't always have to conclude with a loud bang.
2014's Robocop is more character-based than its predecessor. <…>.
Robocop wants to be more than an action-oriented robo-romp. It wants to provide social commentary. To that end, Padilha provides clips from a TV talk show hosted by ultra-conservative Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson), who champions Sellars' drone program and lambastes gutless politicians who back the law banning their use. This is intended to evoke the timeless debate of how much freedom people are willing to surrender in the name of greater security, but Robocop doesn't offer anything that's new or especially thought provoking. Its points are disappointingly shallow and its attempts at satire pale in comparison to Verhoeven's edgy jabs.
The cast represents an intriguing blend of familiar faces and relative unknowns. <…> Michael Keaton leaves Batman far behind to turn up the sleaze as Sellars. Gary Oldman has the most three-dimensional role, although a significant dose of ambiguity might have made Dr. Norton more interesting. <…>.
Robocop had a long and divisive journey to the screen. Originally, the remake was to be helmed by Darren Aronofsky. When he departed the project, the well-received screenplay was gutted by incoming director Padilha, who later complained of massive studio interference. Any behind-the-scenes conflicts are ultimately no more than a curiosity because the finished version, while not in the same category as the original, represents respectable midwinter entertainment. Although Robocop may not quite reach its goals, it at least aspires to be more than just another dumb, special effects-focused blockbuster, and it deserves credit not only for that but for holding the viewer's attention for two hours.
Variety (Guy Lodge)
The once-mooted prospect of a Darren Aronofsky-directed “RoboCop” was certainly tantalizing, but producers Eric Newman and Marc Abraham were wise to secure Brazilian adrenaline-monger Padilha to take the reins here on his first English-language feature. Just as the bleakly cynical liberalism of the original “RoboCop” was ideally suited to Verhoeven’s European perspective, so the new film benefits from a foreign helmer’s distance as it sends up American right-wing security concerns with a mostly straight face. Stylistically, however, Padilha and Verhoeven are very different brands of outsider: While the Dutchman aimed to beat Hollywood at its own flashy game, the Brazilian brings a rough, street-level energy to the proceedings, sometimes to the point of affectation.
<…>.
Working with brilliant but ambivalent scientist Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), OmniCorp CEO Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) hits on a solution: a robot fused with human body and brain parts that is capable of making moral judgment calls. <…>.
This essential elimination of the moral conscience that makes RoboCop politically palatable is snuck through the system, and the android Murphy is a hit on the Motor City streets, while Clara grows increasingly suspicious of OmniCorp’s motives. <…>.
Joshua Zetumer’s script cleverly reshapes the psychological quest of the original film to fit a 21st-century American culture arguably more preoccupied with emotional intelligence than it was in the late Reagan era: Where the first film had RoboCop discovering his humanity after being conceived and introduced as a robot, his more complex goal here is to regain the human qualities he was initially given, and by which he has been advertised to the public, politicians and his family alike. <…>. Tellingly, as befits a humanized, Captain America-style national protector, the new RoboCop suit has a retractable visor that allows the audience access to Murphy’s face earlier and more often than in the 1987 film. <…>.
Placing Murphy’s wife and child at the center of the narrative is essential to this more EQ-driven approach, though it’s also a more predictable — even conservative — route than that taken by the original film, which effectively wrote the family out of the picture, instead placing the emotional burden of recognition on his spunky female partner. Zetumer and Padilha’s modernization of the RoboCop mythos doesn’t extend to feminism: Though played with some steel by Cornish, Clara has no identity or agency beyond her marriage to Murphy, while more coldly high-powered roles for Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Jennifer Ehle (both excellent) are hardly flattering.
<…>. Best in show, handily, is Oldman, whose tender ruefulness as Norton does a good deal of the film’s emotional legwork.
<…>. The new “RoboCop” hits on a compromise: The degree of direct onscreen gore is sufficiently modest to ensure a PG-13 rating, but the clammy, on-the-ground atmosphere conjured by Padilha and Lula Carvalho’s restlessly roving camera feels both urgent and adult. <…>.
On the design front, the updates to the familiar RoboCop iconography are respectful but sleekly streamlined. Gone are the endearingly clunky robot effects of the original film, as all the machinery here — including, of course, that all-important suit, here given a slight Daft Punk accent — exudes contempo architectural glamour. Uniformly solid visual-effects work is most arresting in the lab scenes that show what remains of Murphy without his armor — a reveal that leads one to wonder, at least fleetingly, how a David Cronenberg “RoboCop” remake might play out.
«Рио 2» («Rio 2»)
Eye for Film (Angus Wolfe Murray)
The original Rio had a lot going for it. The story wasn't bad. At least, it moved about a bit, with birdnappers in the city creating a frisson of excitement.
<…>.
Blu thinks that he and his lady, Jewel, and their three chicks, now growing into cheeky American kids (birds), are the last of their breed. But he discovers from a clip on TV News that others exist along the Amazon.
The film is about family roots, where you come from, where you belong. On their return to South America Jewel has a toe curling reunion with her father, while Blu is treated as an outsider, a human pet.
Layers of sentimentality clog up the works to such an extent that even the synchronised flying sequences and cheesy ballads from the Simon Cowell songbook cannot stave off waves of nausea. As the film sinks into a morass of sugary fizz a serious question bursts to the surface: are children really interested in emotional cohesion within communities? Don't they want action?
There is a game, a kind of midair football, between The Blues and The Reds, but that's about it until near the end when the real villains, the loggers, turn up with their monster machines and army of chainsawers.
Comic relief is provided by traditional goofy oddballs, but they don't cut it. Even the bad tempered cockatoo, Nigel, is back, behaving like a disabled luvvie who can't fly.
Where is this going? Don't ask. It's already gone.
The Flick Filosopher (MaryAnn Johanson)
Why the hell anyone thinks kids would be interested in the marital happiness of a bird boy is beyond me. But this is what passes for a children’s movie these days: a 1950s sitcom drawn in pretty tropical CGI colors with a few mostly forgettable songs tossed in. Nerd bird Blu (the voice of Jesse Eisenberg: Now You See Me, The Social Network) was happy when last we saw him, at the end of the stridently mediocre Rio, and clearly that could not stand. So here, in the oh-so-creatively entitled Rio 2, <…>.
Oh! But Blu’s sitcom-ish trials are many, and tedious, and nothing you haven’t seen a hundred times before. He is a civilized city bird who does not travel without his GPS and his toothbrush, and there’s bugs and stuff in the jungle: yuck. And what’s this? <…> which means that Blu will be subject to a barrage of abuse about how Blu is not a suitable mate for Eduardo’s daughter. <…>. (Bizarrely, Jewel’s sitcom-wacky Aunt Mimi [the voice of Rita Moreno: King of the Corner, West Side Story] disappears almost as soon as she is introduced. Returning screenwriters Don Rhymer <…>, the latter of whom also is also returning as director, have obviously fallen down on the job.)
<…>. By the time Blu muttered, “A happy wife is a happy life” for the third — or was it the fourth? — time, I thought, “Stop being such damn doormat.” Is this a lesson we want little boys to learn? Ugh. (See? Conventional, conservative values are no better for boys and men than they are for girls and women.)
The villainous Nigel the cockatoo (the marvelous voice of Jemaine Clement: Muppets Most Wanted, Men in Black III) returns as well, and he is the most sympathetic character here. As we are reintroduced to him, he is being held captive by a human and forced to do tricks for tourists to earn the human money. His destructive escape is a happy bit of vengeance. The best bit in the whole flick is the wonderfully demented sequence in which Nigel’s sidekick, poisonous frog Gabi (the glorious voice of Kristin Chenoweth: Four Christmases, Space Chimps), sings of her tragic love for Nigel… tragic because the toxin her skin exudes means she can never touch him.
Human villains pop up, too: loggers clear-cutting the forest for shits, giggles, and greed. The birds fight back. If Rio 2 gets kids interested in ecology and conservation, I can hold my nose and let the rest of it slide. But why should I have to? The tiniest application of effort could have given us a story that doesn’t feel like a reject from Everybody Loves Raymond or The King of Queens. Won’t someone think of the children?
«Невероятная жизнь Уолтера Митти» («The Secret Life of Walter Mitty»)
Reeling Reviews (Robin and Laura Clifford)
One could make a compelling argument that The Secret Life of Walter Mitty does what a good remake should do: it takes the essential premise of the original and, while retaining some of the names and touchstones of its predecessor, moves in a new direction. Viewed from that standpoint, Ben Stiller's The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is both familiar and fresh. Fans of the 1947 classic won't feel marooned by a filmmaker with no affection for the original nor will they believe they're watching an inferior carbon copy. Unfortunately, where The Secret Life of Walter Mitty lets down its audience is with a flaccid narrative. It's hard to pinpoint the cause of the problem, but Walter's story never engages. His adventures seem perfunctory. The movie comes to life when stars Ben Stiller (who plays Walter) and Kristin Wiig (who plays his love interest, Cheryl) share the screen but it's less engrossing during the long globetrotting sequences that have Walter on the trail of hotshot photographer Sean O'Connell (Sean Penn)
Is the underlying premise of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty too "innocent" for a 2013 film? <…>.
The most enjoyable parts of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty are his fantasies, such as one in which he stands up to his boss in a way he never would in real life. The actual adventure arc, which takes up more than half the movie's running length and transports Walter to Greenland, Iceland, and Afghanistan, is more like a travelogue with a couple of action/adventure set pieces. The scenery is beautiful but the story seems to be spinning its wheels. The objective is to get Walter to experience life before he catches up to Sean but there are a lot of sequences when the movie seems to be stalling for time.
Информация о работе Лексический анализ англоязычных кинорецензий