When one gets all the grimpy I mean grumpy editors, When one has empathy with their predicament, that being having to read through a creed of emails that contain “stuff”, mostly rubbishy contributions (including mine at one time or another), and understand when one faces a similar creed of emails. I feel for you. I understand, at last, why you never got back to me.
There’s a review I did that explained the story-line at some length, and just when Joe thought it had come to an end, something else made him think: that’s a complicated story-line. He meant the movie plot and not my review.
I have been gently studying the devotional markets I’ve been writing for already and have made some adjustments. In that vein, several devotions have been “put aside” in favor of the more appropriate ones. These should be a fit, more or less, for the publisher.Continue reading “Regulating”
Ideas are written down, somewhere, somehow. The first idea I wrote down was pretty imaginative and ideasy, but I wouldn’t say the idea was ‘mature’. It had to grow somehow or be used in the appropriate way, be that I could make it in something good with the appropriate traditional publisher or if a script the right producer, or go the self-publishing route and all that entails for the author, or hit the delete button, if all else fails. But sometimes ideas just sit there and flounder and do nothing. This is good because they are left to grow as the writer grows as a writer and an author.Continue reading “The maturing of ideas”
There’s the ability of the tongue to say too much in everyday conversation, that one is embarrassed by the end of it. But with an editor, the writer who says too much, is going to have his words cut down markedly, where necessary. There isn’t usually an editor for conversations, though, where one can’t take things back or cut them out. Words can sort of linger in the air…and depending on who’s there and if they don’t like it, the atmosphere can come down like a lead balloon. With an editor, there is a way to cut down on extraneous material and save unnecessary embarrassments. Because readers, like listeners, have ears, too.
The humble writer or artist and filmmaker for that matter, may shy away from publicity or at least attempt to. But, underneath, there may be a liking to the question, what will he do next? Will it be as good or better than the last thing they made? That’s when a writer and artist gets a little inkling they have made it. But what will be next? A widely received disappointment? After the artist has gained acceptance?
Amadeus (1984) is based on the play by Anthony Shaffer, who wrote the screenplay, who seems to take liberties from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s life. It imagines his descent at the hands of Austrian composer Salieri, perhaps who had a good relationship with Mozart in actual history, but in this film is filled with jealousy at Mozart’s gift and plans his downfall.Continue reading “Amadeus (1984)”
Just say one wanted to write something for a monthly, with sixteen pages in between it’s covers. Well, sixteen is not much, I must say. Where would someone come in there, if one wanted something published every month, as a freelancer and not a staff writer?Continue reading “Reality and fantasy”
Should one write journalistic style articles or other, more simpler, beautifully flowing ones? I asked myself this and came up with this: that if approaching a newspaper, to write for them, I just wouldn’t care about investigating the details on real life stories anymore, so I wouldn’t. But would love to keep on with the simpler style for work, that’s well-rounded, perhaps art-full even.
It’s always nice to be told you’re doing a good job, even when it could have better.
Writing can be an instinctual process. Sometimes, I may not be thinking too much about what gets put down on paper or how my words are looking on the computer screen. The writing can get ahead of me.Continue reading “Watch your language”
After seeing Top Hat again, I’ve concluded that there’s been a tendency in Hollywood romantic films to make the fiancé, who’s usually a good bloke, look silly or inadequate. The “new flame”, though, is a dashing handsome rival who’s got more than the goods on the lady’s pathetically portrayed fiancé. In the Astaire-Rogers musical Top Hat (1935), Jerry Travers (Fred Astaire) slowly dances his way into the heart of Dale Tremont (Ginger Rogers)—which may be innocent enough, if it weren’t for the presence of the fiancé. Unfortunately, it’s all another Hollywood glossed,Continue reading “Top Hat (1935)”
The purpose to write may not be planned, but in their quest, the writer may submit to places they never thought they would. When this happened to me, I was worried that I wouldn’t get paid a greater sum. The publication looked a little obscure and unknown from where I stood. But in the words of a wise old mother, literally giving a piece to someone, that may be discarded by others, is a volunteering kindness.
An ode to show business about a washed-up movie actor and dancer (played by Fred Astaire) who is seeking a comeback in a new show about Faust. The kind of show is against his instincts, but he is persuaded to star in. However, it is a musical which doesn’t have much popular appeal, so the producers decide to make the show more appealing with several upbeat routines. The Band Wagon is not so much a strong narrative as showmanship. It fails to impress when it relegates Faust—portrayed in this as a story about temptation and damnation—to the too hard basket, instead favouring the comforts found in escapism. Although this is about the merits of entertainment, it is not so much of an exciting musical, but about a minute of “Girl Hunt”—by far the best segment—stands out.
2 stars out of 5 stars
Sometimes the only purpose one writes about something is simply to write. One enjoys writing and one wants to write it. One doesn’t worry about the financial compensation (if any for that matter). One doesn’t worry about anything more than writing something that one can be proud of when it’s published. The only satisfaction is in the process of writing and the fact it got published so others can read it. It’s all quite lovely, really; and devoid of particular agendas.
In the previous post, I called Dinner at Eight a sheer delight, but I never use the word delightful in everyday speech. A guy I volunteered for once said he never used the word delightful in everyday speech, in response to me reading the word from a script in a segment for a radio show. I actually said the word delightful because I was reading from, not speaking to. For me, the word delightful has its uses in reading from and in writing, but not everyday speaking. One’s formal, the other’s not. One is presentation, the other is relaxed. Both forums, I think, require a difference in approach. One is like acting, the other is natural. These are the mediums we use.
When an article is merely interesting. If its my article, I deny it. Because I believe, rightly or wrongly, that articles need to be more than interesting. But there are two types of interesting which sort of makes up for it. A stimulating interesting in that one is always engaged in the article, that while it doesn’t jump off the page or screen, is always stimulating. And a dull interesting, in that the way it’s done isn’t that imaginative, but is always readable.
For me, when it comes to reading a piece, the best effect is when I’m intrigued and stimulated by the writing. From beginning to end, the piece falls into place nicely and sits well. The reader, that’s me, senses the piece is drawing one in, rather than away. How would one do that, as a writer? I think one must make it always interesting, with facts, color and imagination, descriptive prose, and good ideas, producing “the effect” on the reader.
Have you ever had the feeling a piece of writing goes on and on, especially in the middle, when it seems the writer is searching for words to fill in space? Words with empty spaces. Hardly inventive and arousing. Less than simulating. Should be overcome with a dose of ‘color’ and factual information to spice things up.
It’s a comedy farce that makes a sly comment about the lacks in capitalism at a philosophical and practical level, through situational comedy and wisecracks. It’s also got interludes of entertaining music and singing. I found it barely amusing, mostly unfunny, and uneven in its distribution of amusements, although the Marx Brothers are likeable enough but don’t quite make up for it.
2 stars out of 5 stars