Film criticism and reviewing
As we stand on the threshold of PfC Ronin’s first round, perhaps this is the best time to discuss film criticism and reviewing. And then again, the subject needs no opportune time as it is one of the biggest banes of our industry and the art of film-making in India, needing most urgent attention.
The purpose of this article is to stress upon the need of a defining school of film criticism and try and assess what (our) film criticism should ideally be like.
More often than not film criticism is confused with ‘reviewing’. Both though overlapping, are not the same however. Film criticism analyzes, theorizes and scientifically critiques the film. A review explains superficially, it also advises a viewer on how watchable or not the film is if at all along with perceiving the effect it will have on its audience, its motive and the purpose. The former does not make any value judgments (or rather should not) and the other is based completely on them. The former bases its arguments on a school or theory of reading film as a work of art and visits it within its context. A review does not necessarily have such a responsibility to its film although how else it can make any valid value judgments is beyond comprehension.
This more or less forms an idea of what both consist of vis-a-vis each other. More inputs on the same are most welcome. It will help us define our discussion better.
First let us examine the purpose of criticism. The purpose of criticism to every art form is to provide an objective and scientific (how far possible, is a subject of another discussion altogether) approach to works in the realm of something as nebulous as art. Criticism is meant to provide a channel, a guide, and reality checks whenever necessary. Sort of an Opposition Party to the Ruling Government!
Criticism is also meant to lay bare the various forms and styles that art and imagination unearth within themselves and theorize it for the benefit of the very art in question.
Criticism is meant to provide a perspective to art and to its audience. It is the responsibility of Criticism to explain art to itself (whenever possible and if need be i.e.!)
Criticism as a scientific study is almost as vibrant and versatile a tradition as is the art-form. Why then, is the condition of film criticism so dismal in a country like ours who is way beyond celebrating 100 years of cinema and holds many more credits than that?
No scholar on this, I would like to know (from anyone who could enlighten me here) - Are the dismal reviews we see floating around (in popular tabloids and news dailies by almost celebrated names) the only form of film criticism being practiced in India today?
Why do I call our reviews dismal? For various reasons. The basis of a value judgment that a review makes is hardly ever rooted in knowledge or refined (or defined) perspective honed by exposure and experience. More often than not it is a personal opinion. And of whom? Almost anyone who has an opinion and a flair for expression. What would I gain from reading someone’s (however well-written) personal opinion even if he is a celebrated and opinionated personality of the media? And more importantly what will the film and film-making gain? Filled seats, thats all?
This brings me to question the relationship of a review vis-a-vis the film and its audience. Is it only to say how good or how bad it is and hence attract or detract audience? Does and should the relationship end there?
In view of lack of a stronger foundation of film criticism and in a dismal condition where trade pundits are dubbed film critics, shouldn’t reviewers then take their role more seriously, if for nothing than the sake of cinema?
This is not mere rhetoric spewed for effect. These questions bother me because unlike the 90’s, when I almost gave up hope for our cinema to ever bloom again, 2007 has cheered me to hope and believe in our cinema again. Yes, I believe like Anurag, that the New Wave IS (almost) here. But are we ready to usher it in and equipped to help it carve itself into something much more stronger than just a wave?
Filed Under
Movies
Loading ...
33 Responses to “Film criticism and reviewing”
Leave a Reply
(Ref smilies)
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
-
Advertisement
-
- Random thoughts on Yuv
- Dev.D- Emosional Aty
- An Interview With Oye Lucky Lucky Oye’s Dolly - Richa C
- SORRY
- The story of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi Reve
- Ada Music Review
- Ajay TG- Man With A Camera.
- Maharathi: Murder is in the Details (Zero Spoiler Review)
- Mukhbiir Versus Chamku – A toss-up between two lone rangers
- Random thoughts on Yuvvraaj
-
Advertisement
Hottest Today:
Recent Posts:
Majority of Indian critics only (try to ) review masala films. When it comes to non-masala films they start looking for a ‘message’ or review the audience or just end up classifying the film (art or masla) - they actually don’t review those sort of movies. There are other genres, you know… Indian critics do not understand that non-masala films can be entertaining and you can leave your brain at home as well.
For example, let’s look at “Taare Zameen Par”, majority of critics and audience did not see “Taare Zameen Par” as a film. They saw it as a some kind of social message. I do not think the makers of “Taare Zameen Par” made this film for an educational purpose, i think, they wanted to share a story with the audience. People took the film as some kind of a serious film. When “Taare Zameen Par” is a simple yet brilliant film.
well said Fatema!
Cannot agree with you more!
One major reason could be the readers too and what they expect out of a movie review.They would definitely not want an analysis. They would label it long and boring just like how people label meaningful films as “art cinema” and shy away from it.
All our indian readers need from a review is whether a movie is worth spending their money or not. This, all these “reviews” do. They pen a line about the plot,hero,heroine,performances,direction etc and end it up summing the whole thing. There are people who do not even read the whole review but just the last line to see how good a movie is! The value for the words of a reviewer at a prestigious magazine is much more than those of X or Y.
Film Criticism is hardly alive in India mainly because there would be no one to appreciate it. Film Criticism is an art and being able to appreciate an art is itself an art.
Let viewers first be able to appreciate “good films” in the 1st place and then we can come to Film Criticism!:(
Who reads criticism? Apart from scholers, students of the subject (when they have to sit an exam for it) and some conscientoius practitioner of the art in question?
Criticisn is okay for ‘high art’, where the intellectuals can share and celebrate their superiority, but is it relevant or required for a mass medium that is commercial cinema?
@ Vasu…U are spot on !
@ Goonda,…what do you mean TZP is NOT a serious film ?
@Fatema - Eloquently put!
But film criticism is merely an intellectual exercise confined to the pages of the “New Yorker” or “Cahiers Du Cinema” and such domains!!
Reviewing is more interesting, more accessible. But in this day and age, everyone who has some interest in films and a high speed connection can call themselves a critic or reviewer.
Nothing wrong with that, imo. The comments on imdb are way more reliable and interesting than those from a snob like Elvis Mitchell or Manhola Dargis!!
I think film criticism, as you define it, will stay alive always and is very likely to flourish in India (going by the kind of films coming about). A “scholar” would obviously try to distance himself from mainstream outlets!
“Film reviewing” in papers and popular news outlets is likely to deteriorate in terms of content. If an audience is eager to watch a film like “Welcome” and “Om Shanti Om” then they obviously see no reason for anything beyond Sukhanya Verma or Taran Adarsh
Personally I believe film criticism needs to work like any art form, where you interpret the artists work, attempt to perceive what is being conveyed, and whether he/she was successful in conveying it. Except here are artist is an entity comprising several different people, and part of the critique is analyzing whether each role player helped the artists vision or hindered it.
my biggest bone of contention is this great divide, the mainstream vs the non mainstream. Non mainstream reviewers almost never review mainstream movies from a critical stand point (bhardwaj being an exception). It would appear that they consider it beneath them, that such banal superficial movies didn’t warrant an in depth analysis. As a result entire movements go by without being analyzed for their impact on Indian Cinema.
A O Scott reviews Superman with as much vigor as he reviews There Will Be Blood, albeit with a more tongue in cheek tone. His reviews are sometimes more entertaining then the movies.
Indian mainstream cinema is a completely unique phenomenon, one we should be proud of and embrace. Not sneer at with condescension in an attempt to appear superior. If a Jab We Met is a successful rom-com, then it needs to be acknowledged at such, not shunned by the intelligentsia for its crime of being mainstream. If nothing else, they need to be analyzed as a phenomenon. Why did the indian audience love KKHH so much, inspite of its obvious superficiality? why did the angry young man movement happen? why did the sugary sweet movies suddenly become to order of the day?
Once more analytical reviewers get into the mainstream, people like Taran Adarsh will be wiped into oblivion.
I refuse to believe the Indian audience is stupid. That they watch stuff like Welcome because they genuinely enjoy it. Pather Panchali ran 16 weeks when it released. Pyaasa was a commercial success, so was Mirch Masala. Several people saw Ab Tak Chappan despite the abscene of Shah Rukh Khan. So why are they so alienated now?
Very relevant discussion. The Mainstream Media will find it difficult to put film criticism on its pages. heck, it finds it tough to have real news on its front pages. New Media offers hope but it takes a while to build credibility there and there are challenges which anonymity offers which makes it vulnerable to vested interests.
There are critics and willing audiences to usher and take forward the so-called New Wave. We need to continue building credible channels (like PFC)
@cinemaisdead yes,Indian mainstream is a unique phenomenon but within the Indian mainstream there are so many not-so-unique movies which churn the same yarn over and over so much that Indian mainstream has itself has started to have very rigid boundaries.
and yes, every film could be analysed, good or bad but hey, film analysts are the ones genuinely wishing for a revolution in India that breaks the conventions of indian mainstream. I supposed its justified when they feel a few movies are too redundant and they are just not worth an in-depth analysis!
JWM,KKHH,KHNH are films that mastered the indian mainstream format. They have become genre masterpieces..of the Indian Mainstream! But we would certainly do not want 100s of films trying to become one of those and failing miserably! If that keeps on going, experimental cinema would still be searching hard for the minority who appreciate it!
Somewhere, at some point of time, we need to take a look at ourselves and critique for us to move forward. So while we are proud of the uniqueness of Indian cinema, we also expect a major movement within India that would make Apu Trilogy,Pyasa and ATC as not exceptions but examples of the Indian genre.
Fatema,
I sometimes feel that we lack a ‘cinema’ culture (as opposed to a ‘movie’ culture)
Forget ‘Cahiers Du Cinema’ we don’t even have film magazines at the level of ‘Premier’ or ‘Entertainment Weekly’. Almost all our magazines are fan mags where you keep track of the stars or trade magazines with announcements and dubious box office figures.
Forget critical analysis, where are the articles on film making or upcoming films and trends or even serious interviews with actors?
Of course, exceptions exist but we need more platforms (and a public willing to support them)
“I sometimes feel that we lack a
If people in India are really that concerned, then maybe they should suscribe to Uma D cahuna’s Film magazine. It’s a serious film magazine which is gonna die very soon if it doesn’t find supporters.
Maybe Anurag can help you guys in finding out more about the magazine, as he knows Uma very well.
Many reasons Fatema!
1. Cinema (or as Navdeep pointed out ‘Movie’) is NOT an ART FORM in India. It’s the single largest mass-entertainment media (after TV, of course)…and hence doesn’t really require a theoretical critic. What it does require is - a social commentator, more equipped with the ways our films affect our society/culture (and vice versa). So, rather than a ‘well-versed with Cinema-theory’ critic, a society-commentator would make more sense in a transitional-phase developing country like ours.
2. As far as ‘reviewers’ are concerned - again, the sense of how a film is reflecting the growth or degradation of our society (say, lots of films having con-men as heroes)/choices (say, a Manorama Six Feet Under and No Smoking being made)/mass-psyches (comedy season)/collective-shames (films on religion, family feuds, Gandhigiri) - is more important than just the knowledge of nitty-gritties of Cinema.
3. Another handicap with Indian reviewers (the regularly published ones, and the old lot) is that they really don’t understand Movie-genres, something that has really taken multi-layers in recent times. For them, a hit or a flop or a massy or classy are the only distinctions…in addition to the broad categories of comedy/thriller/romance/horror. Eg., many known reviewers stuck to the ‘noir’ genre definition for Manorama Six Feet Under…but later, when ‘Johnny Gaddaar’ came, there was a clear nervousness on their part to club it with ‘noir’…not really knowing how to extend the original tailor-made definition.
Summing-up, I would say that there is not really a crying need for (better) critics…but yes, a crying need for some sensible and well-read reviewers surely is!
everybody is agree on this point that
- people watch crap, they have no sense of right from wrong.
i don’t agree with that
also i don’t agree with what you listen
somebody will not agree with what you read
somebody will not agree with what you eat
somebody will not agree with when you wakeup
somebody will not agree with who you fuck
whom you think is best suited to take decisions on you behalf.
have mercy, they are as frustrated about your eating habit on some blog as you are here, about there movie watching habits
art is as personal as anything can be
i enjoyed jab we met. should i feel guilty about it. and go right away watch a pain in ass movie because some snoots think that i should.
:-@ :-@
jamane ki thekedari chhod do
duniya tumhare paida hone ke bahut pahle se chal rahi hai
tumhare marne ke bahut bad tak chalegi
aur agar tum sochte ho ki duniya ko film ki tameez sikhani hi chahiye
to kuch aise bhi hain jo sochte hain ki duniya ko padne ke tameez sinkhani chahiye
ab faisla ye karna hai ki tum phale film ki tameez sikhayoge
ya litreture ki tameez seekhoge.
ya ye lafda khatam karo
chalo kuch gappein ho
main bataoon mujhe kya accha laga
tum bataoon tumhe kya accha laga
kuch log ise critique kahien unki marji
mera karyakrama mast hai .. main dono hi jagah anand uthata hoon.
:-h 8->
year footage from history book
1957 some people was trying to change cinema
1958 ———— do ———————–
1959 do
1960 do
1961 do
1962 do
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2004 do
2005 do
2006 do
2007 do
prediction
2008 some people will try to change cinema
* all these people have one more thing common between them. they never enjoyed anything.
:(|)
it doesn’t mean that i didn’t appreciate the role critique play
above three posts were just to provide contrast.
:-c
I am too tired of this critics v/s film makers, reviews etc etc thingy here on PFC….Just do a search here and find out how much gigabytes have been spent discussing this topic.
Fatema, welcome to PFC and a nice effort but hope to see some different and out of the box articles from you next time. Keep away from ghisa pita topics pls…
Fatema..You have started a good discussion. I have my original takes on this discussion.
1. Film criticism is a form of art dissection. As a society, India has not been very comfortable with Public discussion with somebody’s work. It has remained a very armchair and high brow thing. (check our History). We fend off criticism or look down on critics at personal levels. We look for agendas. So, cinema, as it has evloved in our country, is also prey to the same follies.
2. We do not respect art in this nation. For us, a software engineer or a carpetbagger industrialist holds far more respect than a sculptor or a writer. Today, the actors and actresses are famous and we know what they have to do to remain in the news. This is because if they only talked about their craft, there would be no one listening to them. This apathy is also very home grown. Even upto the 1940/50s things were far better for artists in terms of crictical appreciation. Here, as the democracy flourished, everything else other than moving up in life took a back seat. History says that every nation takes about 90 years to figure out itself after independence / civil wars / dark ages. So, we have another 30 years to go before we start to understand the finer things of life. For now, even the arts shall be looked at as investment instruments. So, what criticisms??
3. We are a very violent and impatient nation. Thta reflects on every aspect of our society. It is visible in our media too. There are hardly any person we meet or read who has a very equable and balanced take on somebody else’s work. (sample some of the comments here in PFC). Every thing that we see is tinged by bias. This world is not for knowledgable critics but for slap dash film columnists or trade pundits who in plain (or beautified) English / Hindi state whether we go to see this movie or not! I don’t blame them. Their employers would turn them away if they were very balanced with a movie like Dhamaal!!!
4. Trash begets Trash. We are not civilized that much as yet. I know I may anger many fellow commenters here but civility that comes from “well rounded” education, morality and social import is missing in all of us. There is no introspection at all. So, we celebrate the sole introspection that has taken place in the whole nation (and that all understood) - Taare Zameen Par.
We understand Chicken Manchurian more than “Five spiced Shanghai Chicken”
We understand “Welcome” is a good movie because it has been seen by countless people!
We understand “Tehelka” as those people who did only “some dubious reportings on Gujarat” and not the literate news magazine that it certainly is!
We understand “News” is Bhoot, pret, sex and scandal. Nobody watches BBC or CNN. Even if they do, they switch off when Africa is shown!!
Yuvraj and Deepika takes more of our waking moments than anything else!
So, it is not about what we should be getting. It is more about what we deserve to get!
We do not deserve knowledge led criticisms as yet. Mind you, blogosphere has many such talents who write and discuss so eloquently on most subjects under the sun..But who reads them?
So, we have to consistently do a lot more work before we deserve these commentators in Public forums!
Hi all!
I am actually new here but I find this discussion very thought provoking.
@Indraneel - Agree!
I personally feel that there lies a thin line between Criticism and Review of a film which common people (like me),even they are interested or “wanna be’s” in this field,do not understand.
So I think that the nature of that (criticism or review) is first needed to be understood in order to talk about cinema.
@Navedeep
I agree that we don’t have “Cinema” culture!
@Navdeep I agree, we lack a cinema culture…mainly because we are most inclined towards pleasing camps and more than that ’surviving,’ at the cost of killing the cinema living [if at all] inside us..besides lots of other reasons..
@Fatema…i am very curious to know this, infact oft i have argued about this fact, how much does the review/ critisism of a film by someone effect the movie goer from watching a film.. is the film review more impactful or influential than the mouth publicity of a film. Does a bad review deter a movie goer from watching the film if he /she really wants to .. and by what percentage?
Can we say who needs criticism, just because it has lesser takers? Art needs criticism doesn’t it? Those who appreciate art need criticism. I mean, for arguments sake, if we had a good and thriving body of informed criticism would we, at PfC spend so much time taking Khalid Mohammed’s **s? WE need criticism don’t we?
I agree we do not have a ‘cinema’ culture here but then isn’t there any other way out for the ‘movies’ (some of them deserving to be called the former) to be treated a tad bit differently so that the whole medium doesn’t sink to its lowest common denominator?
OK, too many questions there.
Some more -
So, we don’t have an informed body of film criticism and that leaves us with its lesser counterpart - reviews. Why can’t we have benchmarks for them at least?
Reviews, more or less are personal opinion. But isn’t possible for the opinion to be more informed and broad in range. AND worded in a balanced and objective manner? Shouldn’t we demand that? Why do we accept rants in the form of ‘opinion’ and take it to be ’style’? Sarcasm, humour, high-flying comparisons make a good reading. But doesn’t a movie (be it a silly Partner or something like No Smoking) deserve to be judged in its context and treated for what it is?
Balance, objectivity (the art of giving something {here-elements of the film} its due even if you did not like it) and a context is what lacks in our reviews (besides, knowledge, broad perspective etc etc). Is that asking for too much…?
Agree with a whole lot of you here. HG, Varun, Subrat, Navdeep, Indraneel, Vasu, cinemaisdead, bugsnest.
Varun, you made some pertinent points abt us needing social commentators and critics.
Indraneel, yes again about us not appreciating art enough.
Navdeep - ‘Of course, exceptions exist but we need more platforms (and a public willing to support them)’ Can PfC be a leader of sorts here? Just putting forth a thought. Can we pave a way in some way…
Mainik - How can we get hold of that paper? I for one would love to subscribe to it regularly.
Suchita - Sadly, ‘critics’ do influence movie-goers. Not great enough to influence BO ratings of changing a hit to a flop but people do read reviews and depend on them.
//Reviews, more or less are personal opinion. But isn
@Fatema..Context & Objectivity!! Exactly! The art of appreciating films by understanding what they are, what they try to say, what they want to do and not reviewing it by whether it stands up to one’s liking or his personally conjured definition of a good film!
Film Criticism is not exactly and only criticism but on the contrast, a higher level of understanding and appreciation!
If there are the intellectuals(in this context defined by somebody who can read a cinema) and the illiterates, then its the people in between who are responsible for bringing a good film. I’m referring to the ones who are literate but do not approach a film the way it should be! ‘Pseudo-intellectuals’ as Woody Allen would say!
They are the ones looking for loopholes in logic in commercial entertainers which actually require to leave your brains out and just enjoy! They’d be the ones dismissing a movie like RDB by saying “Thats illogical. How can a guy shoot an MP in the middle of road! This is Crap!” I mean, they just miss the whole point!
Not only that, these would be the ones writing reviews on blogs, spreading their word over, voicing their opinion wherever they find an opportunity and bfore you know, the good film might be out of theaters!
@Vasu
Good one!!! :d
Nice analysis of “kinds” of “art appriciatrs”
@Fateema
Its spelled M A I N A K. Not Mainik.:-<
I don’t remember anything about the magazine right now. Last time she was in LA she was carrying that magazine with her & She was gonna give me a copy later. But I forgot or got busy & didn’t meet her since. It was mostly about Independent indian films. A lot of regional films were covered. The chances that the magazine is still being published are 50-50. I would reccomend you ask Anurag Kashyap about it. He is a good friend of Uma.
Mainak. saw Charlie Wilson’s war. Hated it :p
The best of the year for me remain Diving Bell and There Will Be Blood. Although I bet CWW wins all the awards for its star quotient, along with Superbad purely for its originality in treatment and tenderness of content.
DIving Bell was the Best film of 2007. I agree. Filmmaking wise, Emotiona wise…
But CWW was the movie I had most fun at the theaters. It is not the best made film. I know that. But that was also intentional because it was about the 80s. The look & everything. Why did you hate it?
You have a problem with anything that shows the women in a sexual way. I’m not able to verbalize it well, but you get what I’m trying to say right? Bill Maher…and now Charlie Wilson. Sometimes some things should not be taken that seriously.
And its not going to win any awards. Neither will SUPERBAD.
Yes, I’ll admit it. I’m a raving feminist, so sue me :p But I still love Maher, just not as much as Stewart.
My dislike for CWW was more to do with the weird myopic subject matter. It just threw me off. Like generating a billion dollars to employ a country to be full time guerrillas was a good thing.
That war resulted in the complete collapse of two countries. I had some issue with the fact that it was made out to be a success. Maybe it had ironic undertones, I clearly missed them.
PS: I think Superbad deserves any award it gets. Though DB and TWBB were the “best” movies, superbad was my personal favorite movie of the yr.
btw belated happy new yr!
Fatema
didja get my reply? jus checkin……..
too late to reply or join in but will leave my comments nonetheless …
Comparing Art criticism to Movie reviews is disservice to both and that statement is not meant to reflect an ideal state of affairs but the prevalent state today.
Art criticism … specifically literature aims at a deeper understanding of the words of the author , the subtext , the character development , and a lot of things that are not evident in a lay mans reading of the book / poem / whatever. please note however that the above is possible since the author has taken some amount of pain and put quite a bit of thought in the work. When we critique the work , we try to understand that thinking process that went on behind the finished product. What definitely helps is that there is just one person behind that work of art.
I am sorry to be nasty but most of our films do not have that thinking process behind them. However Make no mistake a lot of hard work is there. even the worst of films has taken enormous efforts from a lot of people involved. The guy who did Amitabh Bachchan’s make up in RGV ki Aag did work really hard at his job. But when you are trying to critique a film , ideally you would need to critique everything from the script to the screenplay to the music to the singer to the editor to the actor … director … everyone … we would need to analyse what that person was thinking or trying to portray .. is that possible in todays mainstream media ???
if its not then we take the shortest possible route … did i like the film … why did i like the film … what do i recollect from the film once i leave the theatre … the answers to the above questions written in an opinionated manner constitutes 90% of film reviews in India. most reviewers will try and avoid using I to make their reviews sound like they represent a majority viewpoint. However its all very personal. Lets accept it.
Mainstream media believes that it has control over the minds of its viewers and thus ends their reviews with their advice : “please watch it” , “dont go near the theatre” .