Obituaries

I don’t make a habit of reading obituaries or what is called the death notices, but as part of my reading The Film Year Book Volume 5 (edited by Al Clark), I am finding myself delving into the lives of who died in the film industry during the 1985-86 film year. It’s in these obituaries that we get a good look at how one’s life panned out in the long run.

The book’s obituaries are to the point and informative giving me a solid summary of the cast or crew member who died and many interesting moments of a life.

I was amazed at how the obituary columns came together, as back then the information was not as easy to come over as it is today, with the advent of the internet and what not. Without meaning to sound macabre, the work gone into them makes those death notices all the more special and awe-inspiring. I think I will never look at a death notice the same way again.

Writers taking a break everywhere

Sometimes, a writer may get bored writing in the same genre. So, taking a break may do wonders for the writing and the outlook. One may turn their writing wares to another genre for a while and come back to the other one later.

I did this not knowing what good it would do me. I’d been film reviewing exclusively for four years but then turned to writing articles about film. I wrote and wrote and wrote article stuff about films that I look back on today and find hidden gems that give me insight into, funnily enough, film reviewing. When looking back on those articles, they encourage and reequip my reviewing. So when I do more reviewing these days, I’m more equipped, because I have reflected on the meanings of my old articles about film and how I can apply it.

Did that inspire you?

I may have grown out of writing articles for one reason or another, but I hope my published articles inspired, encouraged or made someone think, in terms of what the article was saying to a specific reader, who might have been seeking an answer, or food for thought, on the topic I raised. Some people need answers to a topic – such as how does one go about complaining about a film? And why would one go deeper into analyzing a film? And so on. It just depends on who’s reading the article and if the article is a right fit for a specific person on the day, among the readers the writer is reaching, no matter the “page views”.

No explanation required

Some readers know implicitly what a writer is talking about and the writer does not need to explain a thing. I say this in light of an article I wrote, about how many Oscar nominations The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King got in 2004. I didn’t even have to explain what The Return of the King was and what it was about because the readers would already know. Although, on the off chance someone didn’t know, I thought I should have explained it, but in the end, didn’t. There was no problem with it as the editor published it anyway, probably knowing that the subject was so well known among the readership that it didn’t require anything more than a mention.