Unfortunately due to personal life agendas, I was not able to attend of the classes for this week. I’m upset that I could not attend the MIFF Critics Campus Mentors Q&A Session. However I was able to read up on them and get an idea of who those people are. Hans, Simran seems to write a quick review when the content is not of high quality. Her review of David Lynch: The Art Life was very quick and informative enough of a review. Her one paragraph her is able to not only describe what the film is about, but also states the exact reason while the film is not very interesting, in an easy enough format for the casual reader. When she interviews someone like in her piece about Julie Dash, she shows she’s done her research and is able to relate with the interviewee with her questions. Simran seems to very adept at her work, but shows little passion when reviewing something she doesn’t like.

Philippa Hawker in her pieces shows she has a very broad and vast knowledge in cinema studies. Her piece on “neon” showcases her knowledge in cinematography. She mentions she is good at observing it and analyzing it, so it able to put out good descriptions to back up her claim. However she also mentions she’s only good at looking at it, but states that she is bad at making it. In her piece on teen movies, she shows an incredible amount of research, because she is constantly referencing and comparing different teen movies to each other. This is the same, when she wrote her piece on ‘neon”, because she is able to give evidence along with it. As reviewer, Hawker shows she is able to research and knows quite a lot about cinema to back up her claims.