“So did anyone watch or do anything interesting over the weekend?”

Alexia always introduces the Monday session with the above question. Sometimes when I’m late I always seem to catch the class into some deep conversation about some film or latest episode of some T.V show (Twin Peaks usually). Alexia’s experience with Floatation really intrigued as she described it as if she slept for 3 days! (Something that we all really need once in a while).

The rest of the tute involved questioning the purpose of curating in the contemporary world. Historically, curating was only exclusive to curators of Museum’s or art galleries for its audience. Nowadays, there are curators for mood board’s and flat lays on blogs that it becomes a personalised curating for themselves. Someone even mentioned that it becomes driven by consumerism and is self-representing. Many of the modern curators include Oprah, Gwyneth Paltrow and even Martha Stewart. The more I think about curating, the more I realise how much of my Facebook newsfeed and Instagram is all curated content based on the likes I give (mostly Broadsheet articles and upcoming events) or the people I follow and who they follow. To avoid this filtered and potentially biased content we’re consuming, it’s important to realise that we have to try and source information and content outside our echo chamber. Expand and keep your mind open!

Our exercise on Wednesday involved picking a random show from the top our head and pick a prompt from a ~magic~ hat. The show was Scrubs and the word was body. Immediately you would think of dead or alive bodies in a hospital but my mind on a Wednesday did something weird as always:

“Everybody is a fragment of J.D’s imagination: the bromance that occurs between him and Turk, his romance with Elliot and the many incidences between him and the janitor”

Patrick added an interesting take on it; that J.D is in a coma and all of these interactions are happening in his mind. Perhaps one of the best conspiracy theories?

After our little chat about interactions with celebrities (I don’t even remember how this conversation came up), we then moved onto what is the difference between an active and passive voice?

Active: It’s all about action; who is doing what to what?
Passive: States fact at times but only use with short sentences.

Alexia recommends that active voice is preferred when writing a review as it gets to the point and has a better flow to a piece of writing. As someone who struggles with simple sentence structure, I found that it put my writing into perspective and something I’ll be more conscious about on my next critical piece.

“I woke up late this morning – as usual”

How does someone manage to keep a Monday class glued to our seats and entertained with 3 hours’ (even more) worth of stories and insight on their experience as a writer? Well, editor in chief and founder of Bread Wine & Thou Yossi Klein managed to do so.

Yossi made the point that in order to be a great writer, you need to be your own worst critic and the importance of surrounding yourself with people “who will take the time to give a shit about your writing because there was one time that someone gave a shit about them”.  He assured us that no matter what venture we may take (even if it means writing for Broadsheet for instance), always remember to always add in that story or quirk you have as a writer because that’s what makes you piece come to life and that’s what allows you to continue writing. Both Alexia and Yossi also encouraged us to explore other forms of writing such as poems as “there’s a musicality about them”. We also had the opportunity to hear one of his completed poems that could potentially be published sometime soon (seriously, keep an eye out for that)!

One thing that really struck me was the point that Alexia made that as a critic, you don’t want to be in that position where you can’t say anything about something. It’s a scary thought, especially in a world where political correctness is prevalent and where an open mind on both ends of an issue is essential to having an open discussion and to help understand one another.

_______________________________________________________________________

“I woke up late this morning – as usual” was the first sentence I selected to “fluff up” from the paragraph we were given (ironically, as every Wednesday morning, I did sleep through my alarm and arrived late to class). With only about 10 minutes to spare this is what was produced:

Shit, 7am. The snooze button had suffered enough of my exhaustion from the last 15 minutes and the many Wednesday hump days well before. I can’t help it. Why would anyone want to stop themselves from being served copious amounts of tequila sunrise? Served by –

Yeah, I had no idea how to end that sentence. Other than that, I really enjoyed this exercise as it put what I really needed to improve on in a different perspective. For instance, I found myself editing the piece throughout the 10 minutes rather than writing down what I was thinking and then editing it afterwards. This will definitely benefit me in my critical writing as it reflects how I were to describe a certain film / text to my readers.

“Think internationally”

Great Scott it’s already week 4! And probably one of the most insightful and enlightening Wednesday classes I’ve had in a while.

Internationally renowned film critics Simran Hans and Philippa Hawker graced us with their presence on Wednesday. On a side note, little did I know, until during the Q&A session that one of my favourite articles on Frank Ocean and about the film references in his songs was actually written by Simran herself! Philippa’s “Teen movies: familiar tropes of school, detention, love and growing up” review was not only a trip down memory lane, but also a thoroughly researched review that supports how Spider-Man: Homecoming embraces the teen movie tropes and executes as a highly regarded teen movie, like the ones we’ve grown up to love.

One particular nuisance I face with writing is writer’s block. Both Philippa and Simran openly discussed their way of dealing with such an affliction. Essentially, the way to overcome it is by distracting your brain and taking a break from staring at a blank page. More specifically, they advise us to:

• Try switching to pen and paper. Writing things down tend to stick or flow more
• Take a short break, get some fresh air like walking around the block
• Strict deadlines help in the process
• Remember that sometimes, in reality, done is better than good
• Just write the first thing that comes to your mind. Doesn’t matter if it is gibberish, it’s a start and anything is better than a blank page

They shared with us their life as freelance writers. Simran and Philippa both iterated to “think internationally” in terms of what we write about as we may never know who it’ll attract at any given moment. As a freelancer, it’s about targeting the large media companies to earn what you deserve in that piece you write about, and it’s as simple as contacting them with a short email of your pitch once you’ve obtained their contact details (of course it’s not that simple at first, but it’s all in the language and your approach). Remember, it’s not necessarily all about networking and at times commercial imperative can get in the way of your writing. Yes, and sometimes it gets to a point where you find yourself writing for the sake of earning an income, like for “trashy” lifestyle / celebrity fixated media outlets.

In terms of finding our persona, it’s all about writing heaps and trusting in our own taste. Simran mentioned that even though you do write about a diverse range of content for different audiences, you actual writing persona is rarely affected. Philippa and Simran told us it’s all a matter of faking it ‘til you make it as long as you know that you’re doing what you love and it’s what your passionate about (as cheesy and as cliché as it sounds, it’s true!)

“I am the truck, my truck is me” – Jonathan Gold.

Courtesy of: http://www.latimes.com/food/jonathan-gold/la-fo-goldbot-20161221-story.html

Lauren Gabbert’s City Of Gold (2015) documentary on the Pulitzer Prize-winning food critic Jonathan Gold. Essentially, the documentary was a mix of Jonathan’s “love letter” to the city of Los Angeles and his colleagues, friends and family praising Gold as a person beyond a critic.

As someone who has visited L.A a couple of years ago, the film did change my perception of the city. From what I considered to be a complicated city, is what I perceive now as a postmodern city evolving from different centre points that expanded and eventually collided with the other centres.
The documentary was visually appealing in moments where Gold would experience writers block with s blank laptop screen, mid shots of navigating through L.A’s infamous traffic, and even capturing the melting pot aspect of the city; a wide shot of a Caucasian jogger next to an old Asian lady with her walker waiting for the light to turn green.

Before delving into food criticism, Gold was initially a music critic and was even present during Snoop Dogg’s recording of Doggystyle (1993). Besides being such an interesting dude, there were particular moment in the film that I found valuable in terms of being a writer. Gold constantly surrounds himself with books to read, he interacts with other writers and creatives, visits a restaurant at least 2-5 times before writing a review, and most importantly, never judges a book by its cover through an open mind (or palette) with everything; no matter how eccentric (or spicy) it may appear (or smell).

“I’m not actually sure—for me being a “critic” is a natural extension of being a viewer. There’s a fine line between watching movies and thinking about them— and writing criticism” – Adam Cook.
(https://www.cineaste.com/spring2013/film-criticism-the-next-generation/)

What is the difference between criticising and reviewing? At first glance it seems like they’re just interchangeable terms / synonyms of each other. However, with a Pete Mare’s panel featuring the colourful Adrian Martin, the award winning Gillian Armstrong, the eccentric Mel Campbell, and the cool-as-a-cat Fenella Kernebone; my definition of these terms have slightly changed in terms of discussing the role of a film critic.

A review can be as simple as an assertion of an opinion and superficial with no explanation of how a film is “good” or “bad.
Criticism is channelling your argument through providing evidence and the “how” explanation.

What was most interesting about the panel discussion is how there’s a hierarchy in film criticism where high-arts culture reviews are “snobby” and are stuck in the past that it doesn’t even appreciate the art of film. On the opposite spectrum are aggregated scored sites that lack the analytical aspect of criticism. Furthermore, issues like commercial liabilities that are often associated with media conglomerates limit a critic’s creative freedom and further jeopardises the role of a critic. On the other hand, the use of social media and the rise of bloggers further blurs this line of who or what is considered a legitimate critic.

Should it all just be determined by the individuals themselves to be socially responsible on what or who they trust? Do you think that the role of the critic is actually dead / dying?

Wednesday involved constructively criticising our peers’ 300-word review on anything they’d like to write about. A few things are important in providing feedback on a piece of writing:

• Remember that you’re criticising the piece of writing and not the writer themselves. Language matters!
• Give examples on what could improve the piece.
• Consider tone, use of examples, be aware of their target audience.
• Start with the positives and then gradual transition into how they could improve.