Written originally for English Communications, a Stage 2 subject, during 2005.

Communication Studies: Mass Media 1

Quite recently, there has been a much anticipated film released in Australia from Cameron Crowe; director of films such as Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous and Vanilla Sky. That film is Elizabethtown, starring Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst. The reason for the hype surrounding the film is purely because of Crowe – since his highly original 90’s film Singles, he has been a director who fans “drool over’; waiting in agonizing anticipation for the next film. It’s been three years since his last film, Vanilla Sky, and the standard for his next effort was set at an almost unreachable level. So, when Elizabethtown was unleashed upon the world, there were inevitably going to be some who were greeted with nothing but much disappointment. Like Australian film critic David Stratton said; “Cameron Crowe’s new film seems likely to divide audiences”

Divide them it has, with many people saying it’s one of Crowe’s best film, and one of the best film of 2005, while others are arguing that the plot is nothing more than random vignettes strung together with a thin plot line. The interesting about this is that the two arguments are actually nearly limited to two mediums – one is text, the other speech. People who are quite fond of the film and have given it complimenting reviews are on television programs dedicated to reviewing movies, such as ABC’s At The Movies and SBS’ The Movie Show. Whilst the people who aren’t fond of the film at all, and have written some of the most scathing reviews I have ever read, are voicing their opinion through the medium that is online publications; websites dedicated to reviewing film. The internet is the most popular place for anything cinematic – even more so than an actual cinema complex.

Critics who review the film on television have the aid of showing video clips from scenes in the film, that way proving to the audience that the dialogue in the film is brilliant, and also the acting at the same time. But online critics aren’t as lucky in most cases; they are limited to text and images – but not moving images. This cripples the reviewer in a way because their argument that the dialogue is terrible isn’t as convincing or as assured without the proof; “… the worst thing about this movie is the dialogue. Which is saying something, since virtually everything in this movie is terrible. But the dialogue is bad enough to warrant an entire textbook analyzing what went wrong with it. No one has a conversation, they just trade bromides.” This isn’t a “sure” thing because we don’t know if we can trust the reviewer – without seeing the critic’s face on the television, speaking on the film, we don’t get that human-human connection. We’re merely reading a stale piece of journalism that could have been written in the heat of the moment, going off on a tangent. Whilst world renown film critic Roger Ebert said on his television show ‘Ebert and Roeper’ that the dialogue was “…some of Crowe’s best yet, shadowing the ultra-romantic monologues in Jerry Maguire and graduating to a level that 21st century romantics have been craving to hear” We believe him because we can see the sincerity in his eyes whilst he says his thoughts, plus we can hear his voice, reassuring us of his beliefs and opinions.

The audience that would be seeking out and taking notice of these reviews would be mid-twenties, as that is the target audience for the film, Elizabethtown, itself. They would be employed, but not in high position – middle class citizens. They would definitely have a high school education; the people seek out the reviews because they are interested in the film and wish to find out if it’s worth the price of admission or not, so they already have an idea of the film. The type of people who know about Cameron Crowe films are stereotypically intelligent, as the movies warrant a level of understanding of the emotional and artistic undertones used. It is a known fact that men use the internet more than women, so the online reviews would be read by mostly males, whilst the reviews on television are accessible for mostly anyone. Also, the fact that not everyone has access to the internet is a big factor.

One big issue that has been discussed highly in reviews published on the internet, whilst not even mentioned on television, is the resemblance the film has to the 2004 Zach Braff film; Garden State. Not one television critic, on Australian television anyway, has even murmured the similarities – yet, full reviews solely dedicated to the issue have surfaced online, within hours of the films release. “Orlando Bloom has the exact same blank stares which stained Zach Braff’s face this time last year, and Dunst’s character is an almost archetype of Natalie Portman’s Sam”.

In closing, whilst the internet is a very broad medium, it is still a limited one in a sense – many people still don’t have access to the internet, and even for those who do; it’s not guaranteed that you’ll see the review. But, with television, you are more likely to stumble across the review, and it’ll be more effective; you’ll be more intent to pay attention because of the image and sound based means of presentation. So, what do you want? The great quantity of reviews on the internet, or the quality reviews of television?