« Ghalib's Meaning Generator | HomePage | Water of Life »
22 April 2007
Sorry State of Film Criticism
Criticism: "the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc."
"There's a common fallacy that anyone can review a film. But how can you do it if you don't have the proper tools to 'read' a film?" - What Every Film Critic Must Know by Ronald Bergan
Today's episode of Koffee with Karan had an interesting debate about the role of film critics. Kunal Kohli and Rakesh Roshan were expectedly very emphatic in their view that they have no respect for most film critics. What else do you expect from directors whose films have been thrashed by most film critics. On the other hand, the other directors on the show - Rakeysh Mehra and Raju Hirani, whose last films have met with almost universal critical acclaim, were less derisive. One point where there was some unanimity was the fact that the quality of film criticism in India is not up to the mark. Anyone who has even the most basic writing talent can pass-off as a film critic these days. Come to think of it, you don't even need any writing talent to become a film critic. Anyone who's read film reviews by Taran Adarsh would know what I mean.
I write a lot of movie reviews on this blog, and people have often suggested that I should start publishing my movie reviews in newspapers and magazines. I don't give any thought to that suggestion, because I know that I have no qualifications to become an official film critic. While it is true that I have watched a lot of different kind of cinema, I still do not have a solid understanding of the craft of filmmaking to pass judgments on the quality of films.
Film critics have a huge responsibility because sometimes what they write can make or break a film. Big films have enough marketing muscle to push their films to the realms of success and are hence less dependent on what film critics have to say, but relatively smaller films sometimes need favorable reviews for their films to be seen. And if critics trash those films, they better have a solid reason for doing so!
Personally I have no respect for Kunal Kohli because he was also a film critic once and did exactly what he accuses other film critic of doing now (he's at the receiving end now that he has taken up film direction). However, I can't agree with him more when he says that:
"I have very little respect for most of the critics today because I don't think their knowledge of cinema is deep enough. Their passion for cinema is not deep enough and I think critics need to have a great knowledge about cinema. He or she needs to have no agenda, needs to be absolutely unbiased and I don't see that in most of our critics."
The reality today is that most critics approach film criticism with a clear bias and personal agenda, they have no respect for research and their knowledge about cinema is shockingly shallow. I have read many reviews where the critics have lambasted a particular movie based on a fact that is not even true.
At the same time, I do not agree with film directors who equate commerical success with quality. One very common argument put forward is that if the audiences have liked their film, they have definitely a 'good' film. Now this argument is extremely fallacious. On the one hand they rightly say that the reviews of film critics who do not have a good understanding and knowledge about cinema cannot be expected to have a fair assessment of their films quality. In the same breath they say that they respect the judgment of the audience, and the acceptance of their film by the audience implies that they've made a 'good film'. Do they think that the audiences in general have that understanding and knowledge of cinema that they demand from film critics? So, why use an argument against the critics when they go against you, when you conveniently ignore the same reasoning when the audiences are in your favor. If this is not hypocrisy, then what is?
It must be obvious by now that I don't think too highly of most film critics in India. Still, I read the reviews of most film critics - all for different reasons. I read Khalid Mohammad and Raja Sen for their humorous writing style, Nikhat Kazmi because my opinion matches with hers most of time, and Taran Adarsh just so that I am constantly reminded what 'bad' writing is all about. Taran Adrash, like many other critics, doesn't even take the pains to put the story of the film in his own words - he just reproduces the film's marketing material verbatim. That is particularly irritating when you suddenly see a few well-written paragraphs, sandwiched between utterly amateurish writing. He also seems to know nothing about what 'spoilers' are. His reviews shamelessly reveal all the key plot elements, showing no respect for the readers' right to discover those on their own. I can go on and on about Taran Adarsh, but that's not the point here (and I shouldn't impose my personal bias, should I?)
However, there are two film critics I have immense respect for. One is Roger Ebert, who needs no introduction and it widely acknowledged as one of the best film critics in the world. Unfortunately, his health condition has kept him away from film criticism for almost a year now. The other critic I absolutely adore is Baradwaj Rangan, whom I have discovered only recently. He usually writes for Indian Express in Chennai. Ever since I discovered him a few months ago, I have been following his online reviews very religiously. What I like about him is the fact that he is absolutely unbiased and takes great effort in analyzing a movie in extreme detail (he never seems to be in a hurry to end a review). You might disagree with his assessment of a film, but you can never find fault with his arguments. He always provides solid reasons behind what worked for him in a film and what not. And he never approaches his reviews with the intention of either extolling or trashing a film. Read his review of the recently released Sunny deol Starrer Big Brother to understand what I mean. This is a film that's universally trashed by everyone - even Rangan doesn't like it - but see how unbiased his review is!
Till the time I can boast of knowledge like Roger Ebert and unprejudiced writing style of Rangan, this blog will be the only home for my film reviews.
23:15 Posted in Film | Permalink | Comments (9) | Email this | Tags: Movies - Opinion
Comments
I am not sure it's a linear path with the goal of elevating to the status of being a 'film critic'. The goals are perhaps more about developing a passion for film, developing the skill to understand it and also perhaps the skill to communicate the same.
Writing about films perhaps fuel one of these three objectives. To the reader however, the perception of each and it's attributed value will determine who makes his/her list of film critics.
When I read a review, I like to associate with the writer's passion for film. Attention to details of filmmaking are a distant second place. If the critic also writes well, it just makes the connection easier and is much appreciated.
Last, I can see your reviews in the newspapers Aditya - they certainly are earnest and thorough (and as you point out, this is rarely see in print examples these days)
Posted by: Priya | 23 April 2007
Priya - thanks for thinking that my reviews are worthy of making to print. Personally I think I have a long way to go. The passion's there all right but I still have to learn a lot about film (though I can boast of a lot more knowledge than most of the so-called film critics)
Actually you nailed exactly the qualities of a good a film critic. These are exactly the things that draw me to Roger Ebert and Rangan. Try reading Rangan's reviews and you'll know exactly where I find myself lacking! But I'll get there ;)
Posted by: Aditya | 23 April 2007
I did read Rangan's review of Namesake (gave up mid-way through the article though) -- I thought his take on Irfan was a bit cruel though I enjoyed the analogy too much (gasp!) ...There were some details there that I did not agree with at all -- so am not sure about the not biased part -- but he's definitely someone I wd read more of. Thank you for sharing the link :)
Also, the question needs to be asked: Why are these people who share/develop the above qualities called a film critic? Also, it's too dark to ponder on the power plays... I think a true 'film enthusiast' (not to go by the term film critic) would be unbiased to the financial power plays of film making -- or is that too idealistic?
Posted by: Priya | 23 April 2007
Hi,
You are right about Mr. Rangan, undoubtedly the best reviewer on the web. Could you forward this article to Mr. Kamath ? He is appalling.
Posted by: Why my name ? | 02 May 2007
Are you referring to Sudhish Kamath? I have read a few of his reviews, and I found his patronizing tone quite irritating.
Posted by: Aditya | 02 May 2007
I am a non-Indian Hindi (and other Indian) film fan, and I completely agree with you, both about there being not enough good film writing in India and about Baradwaj Rangan being absolutely wonderful to read.
I was surprised when I first got enraptured with Hindi cinema that there weren't dozens of good critical writers, since the movie tradition of India is so huge. As someone I know has pointed out, India doesn't seem at the moment (I don't know the history of this) to embrace the idea of "using movies to think with." Anupama Chopra is another one I like though I don't find so much of hers on the internet lately.
Looking forward to reading more of your writing, Aditya.
Posted by: NeeliAankhen | 02 May 2007
Taran Adarsh is obnoxiously bad at writing and YET he is a "respected" film critic. Ebert is good ...happen to be a bit biased because I have seen Roeper and Ebert and I am not a huge fan. The Nytimes crtics are much better...my favourite site for movie ratings is www.rottentomatoes.com. It gives you a better sense of what the movie is like because it collects all the reviews of the movie and based on the general consensus provides a tomato rating. You may know this and hence I apologize in advance.
Anyhow I am quite enjoying your blog...stands out from the usual crap out there....
Posted by: Divya | 20 May 2007
And whatever Priya may say I think Taxidriver was way superior to Rocky....;-) I saw Network .....Faye Dunawaye was amazing...I do however feel Taxidriver not getting the Oscar was retarded....Marty wuz ROBBED...that brother wuz ROBBED. And then he gets it for the Departed...we all know it was more a consolation Oscar then anything else because from what I hear and I am sure I will concur after I watch it Letters from Iwo was much better...oh well the Oscars have also made a number of mistakes and will continue to do so.
Posted by: Divya | 20 May 2007
I love Roger Ebert too. He seems to take every movie on its own terms and finds great joy in places I would never even think to keep my eyes open. I live in the town he grew up in and every year his Overlooked Film Festival plays here - great fun to see his discussions live and in person!
Posted by: Beth | 19 June 2007