SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 2


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Shawn Levy <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:40:55 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (28 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>    So how
>    do film reviewers/ critics get all of the facts, such as character
>    names, actors, producer, cinematographer etc., for their articles? Do
>    they take notes whilst watching the film, dodging round the heads of
>    people standing up to leave as the credits roll, or are leaflets
>    distributed before or at the showing? Or do the reviewers, rather like
>    the girls in Heavenly Creatures, snuggle up to the poster outside for
>    the details?
Well, all three actually.  A press kit distributed by the studio/distributor
is the best (because the most retrievable), then I like to call someone who
might have a press kit (or check a review in "Variety" or "The Hollywood
Reporter"), then my handwritten notes from the screening, then I might call
another critic. I don't recall ever reading the poster for info, but why not
-- it's as subject to proofreading and contractual stipulations as the
credits or the press kit.  There's this to remember, however, when
determining where a mistake in a review was born:  Only the critic -- and
never the editor -- has seen the film in advance.  Typos, illogicalities,
etc. thus march unstayed into print, and the critic reads them at home when
the paper comes out with the same sense of chagrin as someone who hasn't yet
seen the film.
     Shawn Levy       |   "In a far recess of summer
 [log in to unmask]  |    Monks are playing soccer."