A review is an artistic-analytical journalistic genre, which is written as a result of an avaluation of an artistic or scientific work. It is an author’s evaluation of a work of art (film, play, book, piece of architecture, fine art exhibition) that explores the question: “What did the author want to say and how did he express it?” As a work of art is a concentrated wywtem of forms that reflects the atists’s impression of the surrounding reality, the critic tries to understand what that reflects the artist’s impression of the surrounding reality, the critic tries to understand what the author wanted to say and how it was reflected in the work. This is the search for answers to the questions: “What did the author want to say?” and “How did he say it?” – all this helps us to create a unified idea of the reviewedsubject and determines the purpose of the journalistic text. The process of creating a text mirrors the course of thinking of a critic-publicist. The question of what to review is of paramount importance to the author. It is clear that the reviewer is simply not able to cover all the phenomena of cultural or scientific life with his attention, and this is impossible due to the limited capabilities of the media. Therefore, the most outstanding performances, books, films, including “scandalous” ones, are reviewed mainly. Works that have caught the attention of the public. The review, of course, should pursue some importante goal – to tell the audience about what really deserves its attention, and about what is unworthly of its attention, to help it better understand the issues of the area that the reviewed work concerns. The review should be clear in content anf form, accessible to addressees of different categories of readers, listeners, viewers. To do this, the reviewer needs to deeply study the work under review, taking into account the principles and rules that guided the writer, scientist or artist, be able to use analysis methods and be fluent in the language of the work under review.
Read full abstract