Essay rubric

Spread the love

Essay rubric

The volume of essay rubric can be divided into large and small Large volume gives the author the opportunity to cover the topic under investigation in sufficient depth and comprehensiveness. Such reviews are usually prepared by venerable critics who have authority from the public, who have stable socio-political and philosophical and moral views. The volume is usually up to one and a half typewritten pages, this review is a compressed, rich analysis of a work and is read in a single breath. The small volume does not allow the author to turn around, does not leave room for digressions, personal impressions, memories – all that in the big review serves primarily as a means of “presenting” the person’s personality.In a small review, the critic’s idea should be short, capacious, as accurate as possible. publications of the first type, one work is analyzed, although the author, of course, can make some comparisons and for this purpose mention other works

On the subject of essay rubric are divided into literary, theatrical, film reviews, etc. Recently, along with already well-known public types of reviews, reviews of a new type are published – reviews of animated and non-feature films, television reviews, reviews of advertising and other clips, It is explained by the fact that the volume of animated and documentary films, television programs, saturated with dramatic conflicts, vital content, and also sharp growth of advertising production has considerably grown.

Preparing a essay rubric of a particular type involves overcoming difficulties of varying degrees paper writer. One of the most difficult types of review is the film and theater review. In such works, the critic faces a difficult task – to combine a purposeful analysis of the author’s and director’s design with the characteristic of the creative embodiment. The matter becomes even more complicated when the author of the review sets out to compare the literary source with the adaptation or theatrical staging. To agree all three or even four “layers” of such a review – the original source, the play on it, the director’s interpretation of the play embodied in the play, the author’s performance – it is very difficult.

 To evaluate the director’s plan, the actor’s embodiment of this play, say, in the Moscow Art Theater is much more important and interesting for the reader (viewer), and for the authors of the analyzed works, for critics, for the theater in general.

On the one hand, a critical analysis is needed first and foremost for the artist to help him to compare his view of his own work with the opinion of a person from the side, which he may appear to be a reviewer. On the other hand, the reader and the viewer also wants to understand what the artist offers him.