Frankly

eat, read, watch, listen :a regular feature of the quick witted and rather fresh Australian magazine frankie; is an example of good journalism writing.

It is unique in its two-page dedication to entertainment. Most magazines tend to allow a page. frankie’s reviewer goes that one step further and recommends places to eat as well. The style of the writing is friendly and conversational in its judgement. Anything negative is rebutted with something the reviewer did like.

The overall style of the reviews is approachable. (Which is the attitude adopted throughout the mag.) The reviewer does not come across as an expert on films, books or music for that matter. A food authority they are not, they’re just a person who enjoys a good time. This reflects in their writing. Ben Harper’s ‘Both Sides of the Gun’ being “home to his raw blues…funky-soul…political angst…and that damn fine slide guitar” on one side and “a Sunday-arvo affair with power ballads…” suggests a colloquial and youthful approach to critiquing.

It flows nicely because there is none of this “I liked it because…it was cool because of…I liked it when this happened...” It is clear and concise, without giving too much away.

In respect to the film/novel storyline, reviews should give a taste/tit bit of what the story’s about. A line/quote, a scene here and there is fine. But telling what happens ruins it for most.

For instance the film ‘CANDY’; the reviewer doesn’t go into great detail about how the character’s lives unravel nor do they elaborate on the hospital scene which will “leave you feeling absolutely gutted for days.” The intrigue to see this film is created by what the reviewer doesn’t say. The same goes for ‘Live and Become’; the meaning of the title is explained without giving away the whole film. In my opinion a review should outline the story, not tell all. This is why Harry’s magic words cast lasting spell, ‘Waikato Times’ review of the final addition to the Harry Potter series, is an example of not –so- good journalism.