Breaking Down Orlikoff’s Sunshine Cleaning
In the most recent issue of our beloved Columbia Chronicle newspaper the calm, and methodical film criticisms of Mr. David Orlikoff are frustratingly transformed from conventional to a staleness that feels obligatory. His most recent film review concerns the recent release of Sunshine Cleaning, a new “indie” comedy that Orlikoff chooses to consider and chronicle in an extremely bland and arid manner.
For the first portion of the review Orlikoff fills the page with a series of thoughts concerning the qualities that make up a true independent film, and how Sunshine Cleaning fits in with other trendy “indies” of recent years. Most of the information presented in this section is essentially a big no-brainer to anyone with an even casual interest in contemporary film. Five entire paragraphs are devoted to Orlikoff’s ramblings about how Sunshine Cleaning is another addition to the recent procession of films that includes Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Lost in Translation, Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, and finally Juno. Orlikoff continues on throughout this section to state that Sunshine Cleaning is similar to these past films because they are not truly independent works. They are the response from the mainstream studios to make a financial profit by marketing to a specific section of the film going population. Again, none of this information is revelatory, and none of this information is relevant to a discussion concerning the merits of Sunshine Cleaning.
The beginning of the review is so trivial that it makes you wonder whether or not Orlikoff was simply scrambling to fill or meet his required word count. It is difficult to see where this recycled information is needed to enhance or solidify any of the vague points that are made later on in the review. It seems that the point of the initial five paragraphs is to point out to the reader that Sunshine Cleaning is indeed a good film, but it is a film that is buffered by intense studio backing. This could have been conveyed in little more than a paragraph. Did we need to be dragged down memory lane of the past six or seven years of studio produced “independent” film? Apparently this was not only beneficial but essential and it provides an awkward transition for when Orlikoff finally gets around to reviewing the actual film.
As we move away from cryptic gibberish about the definition of an independent film the review becomes not only lazy but strangely lifeless. There are multiple paragraphs that touch upon each individual character and a simple rendition of nearly the entire plot of the film. There is not one word of the quality of any components of the filmmaking process, such as the effectiveness of the acting, directing, cinematography, or editing. We are told that the film has characters and should be about characters, but what the heck does Orlikoff want us to understand from this observation? Perhaps he is trying to reveal that this film is more of a character study than a narrative driven film, but his true feelings regarding almost every aspect of the film seem to be completely hidden.
Finally, he concludes his article by stating that “... the good outweighs the bad, and the missteps seem to be unfortunate miscalculations from a crew as tenderhearted as the characters.” First of all, what missteps? From the review Orlikoff only mentions the age of Oscar as being an issue, and that somethings in the review ..”just don’t work”. Also, is the fact that there appears to be no “malice” anywhere in the film make it a truly worthwhile experience to sit through or fork over your ten dollars for? And where does Orlikoff’s rating of four out of five come from? Where and what is he basing this assessment upon? There seems to be maybe one single paragraph in the entire review that contains a measure of legitimate film criticism. And what is the most significant point that this man chooses to focus on? The age of one of characters and how it comes off as being slightly unrealistic. This review is a sham and casts a dark shadow over the art of film criticism. Orlikoff and the Chronicle itself should be ashamed for the appearance of such an article in their weekly publication.
Adam, this is a thorough and careful reading of Orlikoff's review, and as such probably a really good thing to do as a part of this class. Here's my issue with this post though: who ever reads a review of a review? By the time I read your discussion of whether or not I should read Orlikoff, I could've just read Orlikoff and formed my own judgment.
ReplyDeleteThat practical problem points to a related issue: this doesn't reflect much effort at finding a subject for the review. Publications are fine, but this only deals with a tiny fraction of a publication. Dealing with a whole series of Chronicle film reviews and talking about the larger shape of their work in that department would be highly appropriate. But this is just too slight to be worthwhile for you or a reader. (See my first paragraph.)
And for the love of mike, couldn't you at least link me to the review? That seems like very little to ask. It would also bolster your position by tacitly saying, "look, dude, you can read it for yourself, I'm right."