The Rhetorical Style of Time Magazine Reporter Richard Corliss

Richard Corliss is an expert writer, and he knows it well. With an air of intelligence and near-superiority, he reports for Time Magazine about the goings on of the entertainment universe. His movie reviews stand far from scathing, but just close enough for readers to feel the heat of his criticism. He articulates his opinions subtly through his artful diction, pessimistic tone, dark humor, and other rhetorical strategies. He manages to produce well-rounded reviews by surrounding his negative comments comfortably with blankets of soft compliments and praise. His artful technique and personal writing style make him a revered critic, though not as well known as Roger Epert or others, and one whose opinion counts for more than a quote in the entertainment section.

The very words he uses set the stage for Corliss’ articles. He utilizes uncommon vernacular when describing his subjects, usually films or the people behind them. The vocabulary, paired with his sentence structure and use of alternating short and lengthy sentences, makes his work interesting to read. He counteracts the draining effects of long, information-filled statements with curt, amusing chasers. “That’s $44,475 per screen, making this the highest-ever average for a medium-size release. Paramount Pictures’ clever viral media campaign helped, but credit the movie’s breakout status to old-fashioned word of mouth and newfangled word of thumb. Twitter strikes again.” (“Box-Office Weekend: Couples Fills a Vacuum”)

Throughout most of his articles, Corliss’ language is scholarly; he makes use of such words as “indefatigable” (“Can The Beatles: Rock Band Save the Music Business?) and “malfeasance.” (“The Entertainer”) However, he offsets his sometimes overpowering expressions with jargon, referring to “gorenography” when speaking of horror movies in “Box Office Bloodbath: Paranormal Slaughters Saw VI,” a term that only those deeply interested in the concept would understand. His diction and syntax contribute greatly to the overall tone of his articles, making them informational with a cunningly amusing feel.

It is easy to sense the sarcastic, despondent tone of Corliss’ writing. His articles begin, without fail, with a bold, callous statement, usually one of pessimism or discontent, but powerful nonetheless. “There was blood at the wickets of this pre-Halloween, as the corpses of every one of the weekend’s new movies littered the lobbies of North American theaters,” (Box Office Bloodbath: Paranormal Slaughters Saw VI) begins one recent article. That first sentence encompasses the mood of the rest of the article, where Corliss expresses his frustration for the embarrassment that is the current state of the horror genre. Oftentimes, he uses his pen as a sword when undermining the quality of films and the talent of their actors. In “Box-Office Weekend: Couples Fills a Vacuum” he artfully suggests that Couple’s Retreat’s success was based entirely on star power and uses the rest of the article to abuse the film and praise Paranormal Activity. One thing proves certain in Corliss’ writing: In terms of praise or attack, when it rains, it pours. In several recent articles, he has cited Paranormal Activity as a stroke of box-office genius, and has used it in contrast with big-ticket films that have failed to meet his standards for quality entertainment. In short, when Corliss likes something, everyone knows it. In some instances, however, his sarcasm is blunt, unblemished by elaborate wording or fine rationalizations. When speaking again of current horror movie trends, he moans, “Oh, no – a fright season without Jigsaw luridly dismembering nubile teens? Say it ain’t so!” (Box Office Bloodbath: Paranormal Slaughters Saw VI) His cynical tone extends to virtually all of his articles, even those dripping with approbation. He seems incapable of giving a direct compliment, like a man too proud to admit when he is wrong, but he says everything necessary with his tone. While his articles have a reliable edge of ridicule, that edge is softened ever so slightly when Corliss reviews movie he thoroughly enjoyed. Of Ricky Gervais’ The Invention of Lying, Corliss says simply that Gervais is “cute.” (Pants on Fire! The Inspired Invention of Lying) This changes the entire tone of the article, making one picture a writer who appreciates the adorable things in life.

Richard Corliss is a master of his craft. Beneath his concentrated intelligence and satirical humor lies real, pertinent (to the average, media-obsessed American) information presented in an impeccable way. Corliss writes for the layman, but with a distinct style that leaves the layman with no doubt that Corliss is much more intelligent than he. He employs the use of intense diction to make his readers understand his purpose and interesting sentence structure to reinforce it. His tone is consistently unforgiving. He is a true critic, analyzing and condemning films and pop culture phenomena in a way that makes the reader trust his every word. It is this kind of twisted, intriguing, self-serving and selfless style that makes Richard Corliss a brilliant writer and a voice to be heard.