Read on Twitter
the worst thing about bad takes is that they inspire endless philosophy about the art of bad takes. and in turn inspire tweets about the endless philosophy. like this one
also...my problem is less with the guardian doing these easy wins series at the moment, it's more than they're asking the same people over and over. find some new voices - people who actually need that £300 you pay right now and will have something interesting to say
there's nothing intrinsically interesting about the films you've never seen or the films you loved as a child. it's all about the context. 'because overeager men told me i'd like it' is a tired bit
what films did writers who grew up outside western cinemas love? who's just discovering wes craven as an adult after banned from watching horror as a child? when was the first time you saw yourself on screen? *have* you ever seen yourself on screen? these are better questions
i truly do understand that editors and writers are scared and scrambling at the moment and that maybe it's not the time but these are things i actually think have journalistic value and would be nice to read in these troubled times
but i think about how i got into film (vhs and dvds, 50p/£1 for a week at my local library) and how the cinema was a treat, a 4-times-a-year thing. i used to tape stuff off the tv. at 12 i was scarred by a late-night viewing of donnie darko
i love film so much, and whenever i read criticism (good or bad!) that's what i want to come across. how much you love the form, even if you're not a film critic
for what it's worth, i think it'd be funnier to know your favourite film at 5 and your favourite film at 17 in one joint piece. mine were chicken run and pulp fiction, respectively
