That is a tantalising question, isn't it? Going by an eye-opener of an article in
Open, filmmakers have a point when they carp at reviewers saying they have no qualification for what they do:
When Hollywood comic Rob Schneider attacked Los Angeles Times critic Patrick Goldstein over his comedy Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, he argued that Goldstein was unqualified because he had never won a Pulitzer Prize. Roger Ebert came to Goldstein’s defence against Schneider. He said he was a Pulitzer Prize-winner and “Your movie sucks.”
Here in India, write
Madhavankutty Pillai and
Pratibha Singh, actor Ajay Devgn has the same complaint:
"I know critics are important, but do you know there are some 400 critics today? Every channel, there are two people discussing films when they don’t even understand film-making. You’re harming someone’s business, career; a producer could have put in all his life savings. It’s not fair. There has to be some kind of qualification before you become a critic."
The article also refers to the digs made at critics by Salman Khan and Sajid Khan and it then explains that, sometimes, it is not just the reviewer but newspaper policies which determine how opinion is shaped:
For years until the early 2000s, a filmmaker would have to try really hard to get a kind, non-sarcastic word out of The Times of India’s critic Khalid Mohamed. After he shifted jobs, the newspaper went to the opposite extreme. It almost seems paranoid about offending filmmakers. Rarely does any film get below two stars.
Or take the case of DNA. It has outsourced its film reviews to the owner of a trade magazine. He was replaced a couple of months ago with the owner of another trade magazine. A trade magazine essentially provides information about the business that movies do, upcoming launches, etcetera. Mainstream newspapers will not shut shop if the Hindi film industry stops advertising; trade magazines will. Also, a lifetime of tracking box office numbers does little for one’s ability to analyse a movie. At one stroke, both objectivity and competence are called into question by such an appointment.
Harsh words, indeed. But they ring true. How can you be objective and competent if you are beholden to the industry you are critiquing?
There is one glaring flaw, I think, in an otherwise interesting and enlightening piece. Where are the critics' views?
Read
"Review of Reviewers" and tell me if you think
Open should have given us film reviewers' opinions on the matter, too.
'Film criticism in India has become a joke'
 |
| Noyon Jyoti Parasara |
Commitscion Noyon Jyoti Parasara (Class of 2007), who is an entertainment journalist and film reviewer in Mumbai, comments: This is one thing I have been talking to people about for ages now. I agree film criticism in India has become a joke; most times it is pointless criticism.
I can only speak for Bollywood cinema. The industry is at a very interesting stage, with a change in the type of films that are being made. Movies such as Udaan and Tere Bin Laden, and filmmakers such as Anurag Kashyap, Shivam Nair, Shimit Amin, Onir, and Rajat Kapoor are trying hard to do something that has so often been rejected; when it comes to movie-viewing, they are trying to put the audience through rehab of sorts. But these directors often end up being booed by certain reviewers who cannot identify with these films because they grew up on the ’80s movies and now just chug along with the (same) flow.
On the other hand, there is a young generation of reviewers who welcome the change. And in their excitement they sometimes show the green light to just about any movie which pretends to be 'new'. These reviewers also go about blacklisting any 'mass entertainer' labelling them 'same old trash'. What makes things worse is that most of them are kids who have not seen half as many Hindi films as they have seen Hollywood movies. I know people in their early twenties who have been reviewers for a couple of years — but they have not seen the films made by Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, or B. Subhash. While the first two made classics, B. Subhash gave us Disco Dancer!
Hence, there is a lack of balance.
On a personal note, I was pushed into reviewing — clients of the media company I worked for at the time wanted reviews. There are many others who get into reviewing just as I did — because it's a job and it needs to be done. I refused to do Hollywood reviews though, because I thought I was not qualified. But I love watching Hindi films so I carried on with it.
 |
| "You don't expect everyone to like a film. I loved Tere Bin Laden; some hated it. I hated Housefull; some loved it." |
Over time I have learnt the ropes
— and I have also openly admitted that I have been wrong about my judgment on many occasions. Today I believe a film is fine if the director tells the audience what he wanted to tell in a good way. That's one thing that probably should be kept at the top of one's mind while reviewing movies. You don't expect everyone to like a film. I hated
Housefull; some loved it. I loved
Tere Bin Laden; some hated it. That depends on what kind of humour you like. I found
Golmaal Returns better; my friend and fellow-Commitscion
Victor Mukherjee found
Golmaal 3 better. The point to be considered is this: Did the director manage to do what he set out to do? And if he didn't, what were the issues?
That brings me to something very important: Reviewers cannot take their preconceived notions into the cinema hall. While reviews are supposed to be opinion pieces, reviewers have to be ready and willing to critique all kinds of films. It is their duty to watch the film and give a perspective to the audience on what the film is about and how to look at it. Just because I hate horror films doesn’t mean I can slam every film in that genre. What I should ideally do is tell people that this is a horror film and if you like the genre, this is for you. If you don't like horror films, you need not watch it, but, nevertheless, the film has been made well.
 |
| "More often, people end up bashing a film, completely ignoring anything good in the film. Even RGV's Aag, which seems to be the epitome of trash for many, had good things about it." |
But, more often, people end up bashing a film, completely ignoring anything good in the film. Even RGV's Aag, which seems to be the epitome of trash for many, had good things about it — for instance, it had better sound than many of his previous films. And then there are people who just can't stand an actor or a director and slam the film. One trade person panned MNIK so severely he used exactly 3,242 words to tell readers what he thought of the Shah Rukh-starrer.
Finally, all the above holds good only for true-blue media outlets. For me, I cannot be dishonest in my reviews. I write what I think is right. And if the readers find that I am in sync with their tastes they will continue going by my opinions. Many media houses are already losing followers because the ratings — the "stars" awarded to each film by the reviewer — are for sale, and, apparently, Rs.1 lakh per star has become the norm. I learnt about this "star" racket when someone once asked me if I had been offered a 'package' after I said I liked a film that many others had panned!
I was alerted to this gem of a book by a review in The Hindu Literary Review earlier this month. Referring to it as "a stylish, cultural landmark communicating one man's passion to a larger audience", reviewer Suresh Menon wrote:
