Not Making a B.I.G. Enough Deal

I remember Tupac and "Biggie" like most of my peers remember the New Kids on the Block--with nostalgia that overpowers the embarrassment of having a childhood in the '90s. That is what made me so excited to hear that some of the Athens theaters would be playing "Notorious," the highly anticipated biopic of rap mogul Christopher Wallace.

Like most college movie-goers, I knew that Thursday's "Out & About" section in The Red &Black would probably have a movie review of "Notorious," but little did I know how confused it would leave me.

Though there were no clear grammatical errors within the article,the author doesn't seem to focus in on what should be the main object of her movie critique--the performance of the main actor. Especially with biopics, if the lead actor or actress fails to deliver a convincing performance, the movie is almost always guaranteed to bust.

Secondly, editors, as Professor Parks stated in class, should never assume their reader knows as much about the topics as their writers do. The reviewer assumes that the reader is a Biggie expert by mentioning events and controversies without further explanations. For example, she states "As for the controversy surrounding Biggie and Shakur's murders, the film takes a decidedly hands-off approach..." We may all know who Tupac and Biggie were, but many of us unfamiliar with the East/West rap rivalry circa '90s have no idea about what sort of "controversy" the author is talking about.

In a much more successful attempt, Flagpole Magazine also reviews "Notorious" but does it with clarity and explanations. The article contains the perfect amount of plot summary without being overbearing or spoiling the movie. The first graph briefly outlines the importance of each character and then eases into criticism and praise for filming style and, of course, acting. Unlike The Red and Black's review, the author of Flagpole's review doesn't assume the reader knows anything at all about the life of Christopher Wallace, but the author also makes the article relevant to us by making it important to us.

Lastly, the conclusions to both articles were trying to allude to the overall point of the movie, but since The Red and Black fails to simply state the reason the readers should care, the purpose of the entire review is lost. The Red and Black's review states that "'Notorious' concludes with a real-life montage of funeral onlookers dancing to Biggie's music, proving that in spite of the uneven execution of the film, there exists a valid point in making it," but simply leaves the readers wondering what exactly that point was and maybe we had missed it earlier on in the article.

Flagpole's conclusion aims to be clear and concise by stating "any 20-to-30-something who lived through the East Coast/ West Coast rap wars... will find Notorious an engrossing recount of recent pop history. "Or in other words, we watch movies about the "good ol' days" so that we can remember the "good ol' days." Duh.