Question

Choose one set of reviews (and only one set) for your response:

Restaurant reviews (Pete Wells and Marilyn Hagerty)
Dunkirk reviews (Alonso Duralde and Phil Villarreal
Consider the following rhetorical features and other features of writing:

The review’s audience (note particularly source of publication)
The review’s purpose (report, inform, persuade, argue, etc)
The review’s message, means, and stance (objective, critical, curious, opinionated, passionate, indifferent, etc.)
Attention to context of review
Provide support/examples for your judgments and conclusions
Knowledgeable about subject
Support and reasons
Concrete, sensory details
Use effective and precise word choices
Aim to persuade
Finally, write a response to three of the four questions below. In your response, please note specific passages in each review that illustrate your claim.

1.Consider the intended audience of each review. Do the reviews have the same or a similar audience? Why or why not? Do the writers have the same purpose?

2. What is the genre of each of these pieces of writing? What are some of the differences in genre or style?

3. What is the writer’s message or means in each review? What in the review indicates each writer’s stance? How does the audience and genre or style of each review affect the writer’s stance – and vice versa?

4. Consider each writer’s position, writing style, claims, and support. Are these reviews effective in terms of their purpose and audience? Why, or why not? What makes them effective?

Minimum word count: 300 words

Answer 1

1. Consider the intended audience of each review. Do the reviews have the same or a similar audience? Why or why not? Do the writers have the same purpose?

To analyze the intended audience, you can consider factors such as the source of publication, the language used, and the tone of the reviews. Look for clues within the reviews that indicate who the target audience might be. For example, if the reviews are published in different magazines or websites, they may have different target audiences. Similarly, the language used and the tone of the reviews can also provide insights into the intended audience.

2. What is the genre of each of these pieces of writing? What are some of the differences in genre or style?

The genre refers to the category or type of writing, such as a restaurant review or a movie review. Look for specific characteristics in each review that align with the conventions of the genre. For example, a restaurant review might focus on the food, ambiance, and service, while a movie review might discuss the plot, acting, and cinematography. Pay attention to any differences in style, tone, or structure between the two reviews.

3. What is the writer’s message or means in each review? What in the review indicates each writer’s stance? How does the audience and genre or style of each review affect the writer’s stance – and vice versa?

To identify the writer's message and stance, analyze the content of the reviews and the language used. Look for key points or arguments made by each writer and consider how they convey their opinions. Pay attention to any persuasive techniques used, such as the use of personal anecdotes or persuasive language. Consider how the intended audience and the genre or style of each review might influence the writer's stance and message.

4. Consider each writer’s position, writing style, claims, and support. Are these reviews effective in terms of their purpose and audience? Why, or why not? What makes them effective?

Evaluate each writer's position, writing style, claims, and support to determine their effectiveness. Look for evidence, examples, or reasoning provided by the writers to support their claims. Consider how well the writers communicate their ideas and engage the audience. Assess whether the reviews achieve their purpose, such as informing or persuading the audience. Additionally, consider how the specific elements of the reviews, such as their tone or use of concrete details, contribute to their effectiveness.

Remember, for a comprehensive analysis, it is essential to refer to specific passages or examples from the reviews to support your claims and judgments.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

below

Step-by-step explanation:

I'll be focusing on the Dunkirk reviews by Alonso Duralde and Phil Villarreal.

**1. Consider the intended audience of each review. Do the reviews have the same or a similar audience? Why or why not? Do the writers have the same purpose?**

Alonso Duralde's review was published on TheWrap, a prominent entertainment news source. Duralde's audience is likely movie enthusiasts, fans of Christopher Nolan (the director of Dunkirk), and individuals interested in film critiques. Duralde's purpose is to provide a detailed analysis and evaluation of the film's cinematic and artistic merits.

Phil Villarreal's review, on the other hand, was published on the Arizona Daily Star, a local newspaper. His audience is likely a more general readership, including locals looking for entertainment options. Villarreal's purpose is to inform and advise his readers about whether or not they should watch the movie.

In summary, while both reviews are targeted at individuals interested in movies, Duralde's review is more in-depth and aimed at cinephiles, while Villarreal's is more accessible for a broader local audience.

**2. What is the genre of each of these pieces of writing? What are some of the differences in genre or style?**

Both reviews fall under the genre of film criticism, but they have distinct styles. Duralde's review is more of a traditional film critique, featuring detailed analysis of the film's direction, cinematography, and acting. He uses precise and specialized terminology common in the film industry. In contrast, Villarreal's review is more conversational and approachable. It combines film critique with a recommendation for a general readership. His language is less technical and more relatable, using everyday expressions and humor.

**3. What is the writer’s message or means in each review? What in the review indicates each writer’s stance? How does the audience and genre or style of each review affect the writer’s stance – and vice versa?**

Duralde's message is clear: he sees Dunkirk as a cinematic masterpiece, and his in-depth analysis is intended to persuade the audience of the film's exceptional qualities. His stance is passionate, bordering on reverence for Christopher Nolan's work.

Villarreal's message is more straightforward: he gives a general recommendation to watch the movie but also highlights its intensity, which might not appeal to everyone. His stance is opinionated and cautious, catering to a local audience that may not be as familiar with high-intensity war films.

The differences in the audience and style shape the writers' stances. Duralde's sophisticated style matches his passionate stance, catering to a more specialized, knowledgeable audience. Villarreal's more accessible style aligns with his opinionated but cautious stance, as he addresses a broader, potentially less experienced audience.

**4. Consider each writer’s position, writing style, claims, and support. Are these reviews effective in terms of their purpose and audience? Why, or why not? What makes them effective?**

Both reviews are effective for their intended purposes and audiences. Duralde's review is compelling for cinephiles and film enthusiasts due to its detailed analysis, precise word choices, and passionate stance. Villarreal's review effectively informs a local readership and aligns with their preferences through its conversational style and opinionated but cautious stance. The writers' knowledge of the subject matter and their skillful use of concrete details and persuasive language make these reviews effective for their respective audiences.