A.O. Scott: Analyzing the Witty and Insightful Reviews of an Acclaimed New York Times Movie Critic
A.O. Scott has been the chief movie critic at The New York Times since 2000, and his reviews of films often bring both humor and insight. With his clever wordplay and thoughtful critiques, Scott’s writing stands out among others for its originality and intelligence. He has become a recognizable face in the movie reviewing world, and his career at the New York Times has served as a launching pad for further successful films and documentary projects. Let’s take a look at A.O. Scott’s credentials, review writing style, and noteworthy reviews.
A.O. Scott’s Credentials
Anthony Oliver Scott was born on June 6th, 1967 and raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He attended Harvard University, where he worked as an editor for the Harvard Crimson and graduated in 1989. After graduating from Harvard, Scott worked as a freelance writer and editor in San Francisco, before moving to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist. He joined the staff of the New York Times in 2000 and has served as their chief movie critic since then. His reviews have appeared in The Atlantic, Sight and Sound, and other publications.
A.O. Scott’s Review Writing Style
A.O. Scott’s reviews are known for his sharp wit, observations of detail, and his ability to encapsulate complex ideas. Scott’s writing style combines traditional film criticism with poetic description. He is often praised for his eloquent prose and his knack for making even the dullest films interesting. Through the use of similes, metaphors, and clever wordplay, Scott is able to infuse humor and insight into his reviews. He deftly weaves together elements of comedy and tragedy, creating a comprehensive and cohesive overall opinion.
Notable A.O. Scott Reviews
Let’s take a look at some of A.O. Scott’s reviews that have made an impact:
- Get Out (2017)
In his review of Jordan Peele’s horror film, Get Out, Scott writes: “This is not a horror movie but an eruption of bottled-up racial rage, beautifully made and full of mixed emotions”. Scott captures the essence of the film with his words, and even manages to use comedy when discussing the movie’s thematic elements.
- Lady Bird (2017)
Scott’s review of Greta Gerwig’s Lady Bird is a perfect example of his ability to make the mundane interesting. In speaking of the film’s screenplay and directing, Scott writes “Ms. Gerwig’s light touch revivifies the familiar while romancing the mundane…The jittery energy of the movie, its vibrant and sometimes painful awkwardness,” Scott perfectly captures the spirit of the film, celebrating its groundbreaking nature while keeping the tone light-hearted.
- Manchester by the Sea (2016)
Scott’s review of Kenneth Lonergan’s Manchester by the Sea is a masterclass in his ability to bring exacting detail to his work. Scott writes “The main sound in Manchester by the Sea is of boots crunching on frozen ground or salt-dried grass, a sound as spare, bleak and eternal as the East Coast winter.” Here, Scott manages to capture the film’s themes without giving away any spoilers.
4.The Square (2017)
In his review of Ruben Ostlund’s The Square, Scott examines the film’s awkward and uncomfortable humor, writing: “As social satire, The Square is both scathing and generous, and often, amid the kooky confusion, hilariously funny”. Here, Scott celebrates the film’s humor without diminishing its poignant messages.
- The Revenant (2015)
Scott’s review of Alejandro González Iñárritu’s The Revenant captures the film’s ambition, writing: “This is the language of apocalypse, and The Revenant consistently speaks in it.” Scott’s review focuses on the ambitious nature of the film and its thematic impact, recognizing the vast scope of the work at hand and providing a thought provoking analysis of the movie.
A.O. Scott is a prolific movie critic whose writing style is both witty and insightful. His reviews combine traditional film criticism with poetic description, and are often filled with clever wordplay and thoughtful critiques. Scott has become a recognizable face in the movie reviewing world and for good reason: his reviews of films bring humor and insight, making even the dullest of films interesting. He has been, and continues to be, an invaluable asset to The New York Times film criticism team.
