Breaking into film journalism, one step at a time… Part 1

Without getting too personal about things - I’d rather not turn this into a ‘me me me rant rant rant’ blog after all - I thought I’d start a series of posts relating to my journey into the torturous, bewildering and oh so exciting world of film journalism. Here’s part the first, whereupon I watch some films, write some words and get lost in a hotel with the man who has managed to basically do everything I want to do in my career. The bastard.

Just before starting at City University on a journalism course (what else?) I started writing for a website called Nerditorial. I can’t stress this enough as a way to get yourself out there: find and volunteer to write for as many websites as you can. Or have time for. After a few weeks at City I was forwarded an email from one of the journo guys about a website called The Hollywood News. Here was yet another opportunity to get myself into the world of film journalism. And in the cut-throat world of, well, any journalism really, opportunities are not things you can wave at as they pass you by.

Sure, these aren’t the kind of opportunities that are particularly financially viable. I’m writing for free, but at the moment it’s just about getting my name out there. The Hollywood News in particular is brilliant for this: last night I attended a press screening of The Thing, due out in December. Five seats down was Kim Newman, author, film critic, journalist and contributing editor to Empire magazine. In short, everywhere I want to be.

I remember reading an article a few weeks ago, though I haven’t a clue who by, which described a very similar situation to mine. The author was breaking into film journalism, writing for free for some local fanzine, and was sent to a press screening. He described his awe at being in the presence of such renowned names in the world of film journalism as Newman, and… well, other guys from Total Film and stuff. This was when he knew he was beginning to ‘make it’; he was in the industry now and it was all gravy from here. Regardless, as I was reading it I was pretty sceptical about the whole thing; surely it was just a bunch of guys watching a film - the only difference being everyone else was getting paid for it and he wasn’t?

Yet upon entering the Charlotte Street Hotel last night, feeling horribly out of place in jeans and a tee, clutching a free copy of the Evening Standard and a bottle of Ribena, I was overcome with that same sense of awe. And nervousness, of course; I may have felt a tad better was I in a suit, with a copy of the Financial Times (or at least The Guardian), and perhaps a bottle of champagne instead of Ribena, but nevertheless it was a stomach-churning experience. I just couldn’t believe I was there; I felt like I’d made it already. It was the same thing I felt after attending City for a couple of weeks - everything was just completely surreal and I couldn’t believe I was finally on the course I’d been looking at for at least two years. But now this post really has become all about me. Bollocks.

Basically, in any kind of journalism you’re gonna find yourself working for free to start off with, unless you get incredibly lucky. But push yourself out there, across all platforms, in multiple ways; don’t limit yourself to writing for one publication or website. And if you want to get into film journalism, go write for The Hollywood News. On Monday I might be going to the film premiere of In Time to interview Justin Timberlake, Cillian Murphy and Amanda Seyfried. It doesn’t get much better than this… until I start getting paid for it, of course.

(Please note: I’m just describing my experience starting out, I have no idea whether this will actually get me into film journalism and taking my advice is a pretty daft thing to do in all honesty.)

The Amanda Knox Show

Freedom of press; a given right in most liberal third-world countries - yet at what cost? The case of Amanda Knox’s supposed murder of Meredith Kercher came to a head recently, in the form of the suspect’s eventual acquittal. But it cannot be denied that the global media may have had some bearing on this outcome.

Take, for instance, the American press: most publications were eager to support Knox, in both the run up to and aftermath of her lengthy appeal. Forbes, for example, stated outright that ‘Knox was not guilty of the charges against her.’ But such a determined stance on such a mysterious case may be impinging on its outcome; in reading simply the press, or even the case files, it is impossible to tell whether Knox and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito are guilty.

Such was the case for the appeal: the evidence was fraught with problems, and finally judged to not be enough to sentence someone upon. But if that was indeed true, then how can anyone be sure what happened that fateful night in 2007? The US media seems to think it can, but surely its lavish support for its own - Knox was American, after all; probably the reason she was so lauded by her native press - would lead to its impeding on the trial in some way?

It’s all debatable, of course; such an abstract concept is impossible to prove either way - would the case have turned out differently had it not been surrounded by such a media circus? Would Knox’s appeal even have been taken seriously? The nationality of all those involved plays a huge part in the spotlight upon them - first and foremost is Knox, the now 24 year old typical American college student on her junior year abroad, just out to have fun. Kercher comes second, though sadly oft forgotten in the appeal case coverage; she is the poor Brit student fallen victim to the hands of promiscuous, drug-fuelled violence.

Without these social factors in play, it is probable such a circus of hype and overzealousness would never have arisen. Had the case happened in, say, Somalia, with native youngsters, this article itself would never have existed. Knox's fame might have been overstated by the Daily Express - which afforded her a 'multi-million pound future' headline - but her celebrity is certainly much greater than it should have been, regardless of location. Yet the power of the press, and the social factors influencing such media, have made it so - and in turn, have generated such a controversial impact on the judicial process that even the importance of the law itself is negated by it. And there’s definitely something wrong there.