Rather belatedly, I am drawing your attention to the fact that my weekly film column in Radio Times now goes up online automatically. My role at the magazine has mutated constantly since I became Film Editor in 2001 (bloody hell, that’s almost ten years!), certainly in terms of what goes on the page: my column has been a straightforward extended review of the Film Of The Week, then it became that plus a sort of industry insider piece, then it became a longer, broader-based “themed” piece (and my simpering face appeared at the top of the page), then back to Film Of The Week again – in fact, two: Terrestrial and Satellite, then an opinion piece again, which became unwieldy, then Terrestrial and Freeview, and now, under our dynamic, Fleet Street-schooled new editor, it has expanded to a pretty weighty, 600-word column, based around and spun off the Film Of The Week, with a personal angle built in. Phew. (So when I confessed that I used to hate musicals, but changed my mind in my 30s, the moderately misleading headline was: How I fell in love at 34 – eek!) Anyway, judging by the paucity of comments left after the online version of the column, gathered under the heading Film Watch, its presence there is little noticed. So I’m linking to it. As a public service.
“The fact that he wants to is testament to his ambition to prove himself as an actor…”
Or that he wants to make even more money than 42 million.
I’ll be totally honest – that bit was changed from my original copy. Not that I’m distancing myself from it. I think we’re both right: he wants to prove himself, and make another 42 million, although to be fair, he won’t do that by appearing onstage …
RT was sadly the first thing to go when I was looking to cut my spending (a logical choice given that I don’t really watch anything anymore). Does it still refer to “Freeview” and “Terrestrial”, as if Freeview somehow isn’t terrestrial? That used to get on my doodahs.
Surely the second “s” shouldn’t be there after the apostrophe in Andrew Collins’s Film Watch?!
Richard, I think this one is up for discussion. It could go either way.
Nooooooooo! Richard is right. In Bridget Jones’s Diary, personal hate of Lynne Truss, I believe that’s meant to show the nature of Bridget Jones.
It’s pronouced as if it’s there, it’s not written.
It matters! Oh it matters!
Sorry about this. It is correct to include the ‘s’, and also correct to not include it. Andrew is right, it could go either way, in the sense that neither way is incorrect. For me, I always include it: see what you say, as it were. Really, very very sorry. I also *always* capitalise ‘Internet’, for what it’s worth.
Oh. Ok. That’s fundamentally wrong to me, but I can’t claim to be the grammar oracle.
I am incorrect. Explained here http://bit.ly/dbX0jh. Can be both, it’s a stylistic thing.
Hmm, OK, maybe my old English teacher just preferred it to not be there then. Looks silly to me as a result.
i would say that in general the extra “s” is missing more often than not? Its rare to see it added anywhere these days.
mind you its getting rarer to see apostrophes used in the correct place at all these days. Grumble grumble…
Ah, your just getting upset at peoples’s misuse of there apostrophe’s.
That hurt me to write.
Apparently it’s also ok to use loose when you meant lose. Grrr.
Apologies Andrew, I can’t help myself.