----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Reviewers are provided with "press kits" to assist them identify cast &
credits, to provide them with background to the film etc.  These kits
generally run to about 12 to 16 pages.
Neil Pollock
Australian Film Television and Radio School
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>     Finally! Heavenly Creatures has arrived in Switzerland. It's been a
>     long time since I was so emotionally involved in a film. The terribly
>     sad scream with which the film ends would seem to describe the pain
>     caused by the severing of such a beautiful intense friendship very
>     well. I seem to remember something like that ... A part of me, albeit a
>     foolish, reckless part, cannot accept that such a powerful friendship
>     could be severed by common law, given that they seemed to have lived by
>     their own rules until the real world started to intrude.
>     My curiosity about the 'true' story of Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker
>     led me to search for the last 100 references to the film in the press.
>     As could be expected, the range of qualitative crticism is broad. But I
>     was quite surprised to find a few discrepancies in the facts about the
>     film, at least as far as my recollection of the narrative goes. 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?
>     David Moon