Here is the work, but I need to turn it into a Matrix
Discussion
2: Synthesizing Three Movie Reviews of “CODA” (2021)
Main
ideologies and challenges can be derived by comparing and contrasting three
reviews on “CODA” by Richard Brody, Ann Hornaday, and Amanda Morris. Thus, the
critics approach the film with separate outlooks and create a comprehensive
picture of its strengths and weaknesses. Among the widespread concerns that
arise, one of the most significant and relatively objective is the portrayal of
deaf people and sign language in the film. In the New York Times, Morris, for
instance, goes further in this respect by exploring this aspect with references
to the debate in the deaf community. She said, “Some deaf people say the
film authentically captures their lived experiences… Others say it’s a
clichéd portrayal.” Similarly, although Brody agrees with Morris to some extent
in his review of The New Yorker, whereby he notes the film “reduces Ruby’s
family members… to their deafness.” Following a Washington Post review,
Hornaday pleasantly notes what she calls a “warm and genuine depiction of Deaf
culture.”
The
last topic that needs to be discussed is the presence of clichéd elements in
the film and elements of the storytelling. Hornaday does not deny clichés, but
recalling that this is understandable, she suggests that effective use of
clichés can be made, claiming that “What ensues is a classic coming-of-age
story… executed with such sincerity and emotional intelligence that even the
most familiar turns feel revelatory.” Brody, in his turn, can be considered
more severe to such a He categorizes it as “a feel-good movie that feels bad,”
implying that like most Hollywood films, this movie looked good on the surface
but was shallow, shallow on the way it Beautifully dealt out and used the play
of emotions in making a good movie out of what was supposed to be a
philosophical masterpiece of art. Morris’s work does not tackle this aspect
directly, as it mainly looks at a representation problem.
The
actors in “CODA” remain another item on the critics’ agenda. Hornaday is more
than offering a compliment to the principal star cast of the film, especially
Emilia Jones as Ruby, who she regards as “spectacular,” being good with the
deaf actors and actresses too, Troy Kotsur and Marlee Matlin being good in
charge, and as for “piquant chemistry.” As for Brody, he might not be as
enthusiastic as Hornaday, but he statistically avails a moment to acknowledge
that there are “distinctive and moving performances” of Shanti. At the same
time, Morris’s article is more concerned with the community’s reactions and
pays less attention to analyzing specific performances.
Also
unique to the synthesis is the focus of each review, which was completed
separately from the others. Finally, Morris’s piece is precious because of the
emphasis on the deaf community’s reaction to the movie, which shows that the
matter is not so simple regarding representation. Hornaday’s review is the most
positive regarding the norms of America, criticizing the execution of the
familiar motifs. Brody’s account is the most analytical among the three due to
his recognition of the film’s ability to elicit emotion yet his observations
regarding the film’s substance. Another critical aspect of the film, mentioned
briefly in the reviews, is the depiction of music in the plot of the drama
movie. Likewise, the following analysis of the movie is by Hornaday, who says
that it “pays homage to the transportive power of music,” and by Brody, who
uses the aspect of music as a “simplistic contrast” of deafness. This shows
that critics may have different perceptions of the same components in a
production, as seen from the two articles.
In conclusion, these reviews provide a complex
picture of “CODA.” Although there is a shared recognition of the movie’s
ability to provoke an emotional response and portray capable actors, people’s
attitudes toward the deaf representation and conforming to the conventional
storm cinematography pattern remain heterogeneous. Analyzing these reviews
synthesizes the finding that “CODA” is a film that invites contemplation and
conversation about race and ethnic representation and the field’s endeavor to
strike a meaning between narrative coherence and truthful representation of
minorities. It is evident that although the film has received immense acclaim,
it also leaves one with a reflective outlook on how tales of the minority are
depicted in the mass media.
References
Brody, R. (2022, February 23). “CODA”
Is a Feel-Bad Feel-Good Movie. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/coda-is-a-feel-bad-feel-good-movie#:~:text=It%20isn
Hornaday, A. (2021, August 10). Review
| The movie “CODA” reminds us that cliches sometimes work — and brilliantly. Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/coda-movie-review/2021/08/10/f95ad63a-f7a6-11eb-a49b-d96f2dac0942_story.html
Morris, A. (2022, March 30).
Representation or Stereotype? Deaf Viewers Are Torn Over “CODA.” The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/movies/deaf-viewers-coda.html
