23 Review

The word "review" of Latin origin ("recensio") and in translation means "view, report, evaluate, review about something." It can be said that a review is a genre, which is based on a review (first of all - a critical one) about a work of fiction, art, science, journalism, etc. In whatever form such a review is given, its essence is to express the attitude of the reviewer to the work being studied. The difference between reviews and other newspaper genres consists primarily in the fact that the subject of the review is not the immediate facts of reality on which essays, correspondence, sketches, reports, etc. are based, but informational phenomena — books, brochures, performances, films, television programs. .

The review, as a rule, considers one or two works and gives them an appropriate assessment, without setting themselves other, more complex tasks. In the same case, when a journalist, on the basis of an in-depth analysis of the work, puts forward some socially significant problems, his work will most likely not be a review, but a literary-critical article, review.

The question of what to review is of paramount importance to the author. The most outstanding plays, books, films, including “scandalous”, i.e. touched by the attention of the public works. The review, of course, should pursue some important goal - to tell the audience about what really deserves its attention, and about the fact that it is not worthy of attention, to help it better understand the issues in the sphere of the work under review.

The review should be clear in content and form, accessible to the recipients of different categories of readers, listeners, viewers. To do this, the reviewer must thoroughly study the work under review, taking into account the principles and rules that guided the writer, scientist or artist, be able to use methods of analysis and be fluent in the language of the work under review.

But the main task of the reviewer is to see what is imperceptible to the uninitiated in the reviewed work. The more specialized knowledge a journalist has, the more chances he has to prepare a truly professional review.

The review is based on an analysis, therefore it is necessary that it be comprehensive, objective. The author of the review should be able to notice in the analyzed work something new that can become a “center” around which his thoughts and opinions will “rotate”. In the modern press the most common are reviews, the authors of which analyze only one side of the work, for example, only the theme or only the skill of the author, or the performers, or the work of the director, etc.

Reviews published in periodicals can be combined into typological groups:

1. By volume, reviews can be divided into two types: large (grand reviews) and small (mini-reviews). A large volume gives the author an opportunity to sufficiently deeply and comprehensively cover the topic under study. Such reviews are usually prepared by venerable critics with authority from the public, with stable socio-political and philosophical and moral views.

Mini-reviews are now widespread wider than detailed ones. The volume is usually up to one and a half typed pages, such a review can also be included in the category of informational genres, if its content is just a brief notice by the author of the reader about his impressions of the film or the book read and does not contain their justification aspects of the subject of display. If the mini-review is a concise, rich, reasoned analysis of a work, then it should be attributed to analytical genres. Of course, the small volume does not allow the author to unfold, does not leave room for retreats, personal impressions, memories - all that in the grand review serves primarily as a means of "presenting" the person of the writer. In a mini-review, the thought of the critic should be brief, capacious, as accurate as possible.

2. According to the number of analyzed works all reviews can be divided into mono-reviews and poly-reviews . In publications of the first type, one work is analyzed, although the author, of course, can make some comparisons and mention other works for this purpose. But the amount of comparative material in the mono-review is very small. In the multi-review, two or more works are analyzed, they are usually compared with one another, and such analysis takes a fairly large place. In mono-reviews, the author usually compares the analyzed new work with the already known audience. In the multi-review, a comparative analysis is conducted of newly created works, not known or little known to the audience.

3. On the topic reviews are divided into literary, theatrical, film reviews , etc. Recently, along with the types of reviews that are already well-known to the public, reviews of a new type are published - reviews of animated and non-game films, television reviews, reviews of advertising and other clips. This is explained by the fact that the volume of animated and documentary films, TV shows, saturated with dramatic conflicts, life content, as well as a sharp increase in advertising production, has significantly increased.

One of the most difficult types of reviews is film and theater reviews. So, if in a review of a literary or visual work, a critic deals only with the work itself, the skill of its author, then in the theater, in movies, on television, in concert activities, except for the author, directors, actors, musicians, designers, etc .d The work of the performing team as a whole and each author separately should be evaluated in this case by a review.

See also

• Reportage
• 15 Review