Donate
Loading ...
Role of Critics !
Every Friday new films are released and few people, named as film critics, try to seal the fate of these new films through their review writings. Film critic has to earn bread and butter so s/he has to write about the films. No wonder some of the criticisms are sponsored also as a part of promotion of the films and some times there are well planned efforts to sabotage a film by declaring it as a bad film even on the 1st day its release.
People always have short memory and they have so many other things to do in life so who can recall who wrote what few years ago about an actor or a film?
When an Engineer or a Doctor or any professional joins his job then seniors and others dont expect much from them and its a understood thing that they will learn with time and even if they do some mistakes in their earlier career its digestible. But this is not the case with films or books or any other art form and perfection is expected there.
How many people can believe that for initial few years Times of India and its film magazines had been continuously refusing to accept Dilip Kumar as an Actor. They described him as an anaemic hero who never could act. Critics ridiculed Sholay as simply Cholay at the time of its release. Dont know what such critics would have felt some time later? or when they found Satyajit Ray to say that Sholay was a complete film.
Anil Kapur has described the story of critics in one of his interview that when he was not much popular then critics used to present him as a wonderful actor who could beat even AB and Dilip Kumar and when he became popular after the bumper success of Mr India, Ram Lakhan, Tezaab etc. then they started pulling him down.
Khalid Mohammad has been a famous film critic with times group and his writing has been involved in destroying various films and actors atleast in his articles. When Hero was released he had ridiculed Jacky Shrof as simply a carbon copy of Dev Anand. Either KM or some other critic even compared Jacky as a stick because he was too thin in that film. Now what a newcomer like Jacky would have felt with such cheap criticism?
At the time of its release, Khalid Mohammad had simply trashed completely, Hum Apke hain kaun , as a film but same Khalid Mohammad was found to address same HAHK as a classic film, 4 years later in his another article.
Salman Khan rightly shows his anger towards Khalid Mohammad when he asks that what is the quality of Khalid Mohammad’s films (Fiza, Silsilay etc). And KM timidly reminds his critics that he has made only 2(or 3?) movies.
Its far more easy to preach than doing. This is mostly true with critics of any art form. When its time for self creation then most of them also become hopeless creator.
Naseeruddin Shah also has done this mistake. He is a wonderful actor and he has been very vocal against the quality of films made in India and at one time he disowned every major film maker he was working with. About Shyam Benegal , he had said that Shyam Benegal as a director is stopped at Ankur and there is no growth and it was the time when he was shifting his focus from so called Art films to commercial cinema through Jalwa (Pankaj Parashar). If it was not the case of Yellow Journalism then he famously claimed while Karma was going to be made that he would teach Dilip Kumar, how to act? Now people saw the Karma.
Now Naseer recently has directed his own film” Yun Hota to kya hota“. Is it a film at par with his old films made by others, like Nishant, Bhumika, Paar, Sparsh, Katha, Mandi, Mirch Masala, Sarfarosh or Gulzar’s TV serial Mirza Ghalib?
As someone pointed out that FTII graduates dont give respect to those film makers who did not study film making in the Intsitute.
Is it not hypocrisy? But they also do want their products to get success what commericial filmmakers films get. There needs a balance in approach.
Now film making is not defined by something kept in the Science centre in Switzerland that everybody has to follow that same path.
Do time teaches critics that what they were saying or writing was their own outburst infected with their own feelings or mood?
In most of the cases we find film criticism as biased. Some of them dont analyse the film as a final product. Film making is not like writing a book where only author is responsible and concerned and others dont affect the quality of the product. Film making is the collective work of so many people and so everything and anything in a film cant be rejected completely. A film can be good or bad in some departments and would not it be better to assess the films on that basis?
41 Responses to “Role of Critics !”
Leave a Reply
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.
- Contract : An interview with GGV
- Joker! & Shortage of actors in India..
- Towards a more credible Indian Cinema
- How I discovered Woodey Allen
- Contract: A Must Watch…
- Joker! & Shortage of actors in In
- Contract: A Must Watch&#x
- Towards a more credible Indian C
- How I discovered Woodey
- Copy times X = Res
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
good write up, RK. and good that you took up the issue of critics separately, as it was going on another thread on Piracy.
Critics are just any other people in any other business. But just the fact that they can make or mar a film’s fortune gives me the shivers. why should an entity as huge and phenomenal as a film be prey to a critic’s personal preferences.
Indian critics need to grow up and take a clue from the well researched and detailed reviews of western film journals. I might be sounding cynical but one has to agree that films get much more respect as a profession in the west. whereas reading a film review becomes a ‘not-to-do-while-you-are-at-work- activity in here. it almost stoops down to the level of watchin porn. its time we grow up to critiquing as a profession of minimum requisites, at least when the reviews are published in a public space, they cant do without ‘analysing’ the film, not just say that it is a ‘hit’ or a ‘flop’.
the critics should keep the financial possibilities of a film away from its cinematic abilities or elements.
check out the below mentioned link to see how beautifully indian films are analysed in the west.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/index.html
I seriously think that reviews should be published atleast one week after the film has released..I know that it doesn’t work in favour of the audience but doesn’t the makers of a film deserve a chance? Does anyone actually have the right to be a self proclaimed critc and discard someone’s hard work as a piece of shit under the title ‘Critical review’? One more things which critics in India dont know is writing a review tastefully and with grace. People appreciate roger ebert for the simple fact that when he says he loved a film,he gives a reason for it and when he says he hated a film,he goes to great lengths to explain why.. I remember ebert giving usual suspects a one and half star after its release and people iced him for that.he went again to watch the film and re published a review with the same rating!But he did give an explanation for why his personal choice begs to differ.And here we have taran adarsh who feels fanaa and krrsh are four star films and that ‘Hava’ is one of tabu’s best performances (He said that!!!)
Nishikant kamat (the guy who made the award winning dombivli fast which is being remade into tamil with madhavan and in hindi by abbas mustan) once told me that “How can you talk about film - making if you dont know what film making is?How much do you know about lighting?What do you know about art design?A lot of hard work,time and money goes into a film.What the general audience can comment at the most is on the story telling and not ‘Film-making’.”This may sound rude on his part he had said it about those who thrash films left and right and dissect them easily.
All I am saying is that repsect the medium and then criticise..Film making is fucking tough!
Thats a very good point made out….. I do not remember any critic getting into the details of technicalities of film making. They would merely focus on storytelling, acting and sometime would add a line spectacular cinematography(without going into details of lighting, camera movement etc). No one comments on the sound part which forms a seperate department by itself in a film.
I think all the department in the film should be given separate rating. A proper breakdown of a film. Also if one takes into account the budget of a film its also quite critical. few people have to compromise coz of budget.
- Chaitanya, I agree with what you’ve quoted Nishikant Kamat. The general audience can critique about the story telling aspect of a film and not film making since not many of them (including me) are knowledgeable about what else (besides the story, acting, camera and music) goes into making the movie. There is absolutely no denying this fact. Infact when I see a movie it’s purely from th e point of view of “How much could the story of the movie suck me into it” and not how good the sound design was that made me stick my ass on the chair for three hours.
Yet, I don’t see any qualified critics in the India. These are journalists, wanna be directors or whatever else exists these days…
The two critics that influenced me a lot were Iqbal Masud (Indian Express) and Khalid Mohamed (Times of India). I couldn’t have my Sunday morning tea before reading the KM review. I liked his style, his command over English, his different humor approaches and ofcourse his coined phrases or zuuup zaaap words. And I’ve been reading him for more than 25-28 years. Infact a lot of the process of “what to look in” a movie, I learned from his reviews.
But does it mean, he was always true. No. Was he partial? Yes ofcourse. Do I respect his reviews like I used to in my teens. Nope. He lost that the moment he started labelling movies as “great pieces of work” - movies which in fact were nothing but trash.
It’s a classic you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours case - between movie makers and Indian critics. Critics need to be in business, those exclusive interviews, those invites to premieres, scoops, and these days… funds to make their own movies…
So I think the internet - bloggers are now offering more “UNBIASED” opinions about movies they see than the critics - even if the review of the bloggers is simply a visceral reaction to the story, style, structure, music and at times cinematography and editing.
Majority of critics review movies through ‘Bolly-meter’ and if the movie does not meet ‘Bolly’ requirements, then they disregard the movie even if it is a good picture.
RK, very good points. But you’ve look at the reviewers problems also. I know that for sure at least in India web portals/newspapers demanding review in hours after the first screening. I’ve heard that in the West reputed reviewers get private screenings & even VHS/CD/DVD copy of the film to study it in depth.
If the critic gets more time, he/she may surely do a better job (even watch the film a couple of times before forming/declaring an opinion).
Chaitanya is right that reviews should appear only after a week. It will be good for film & the critic also.
I remember T. G. Vaidiyanathan’s reviews in Gentleman. I’m particularly fond of him because his reviews were very lengthy/indepth. I loved the way he tore apart Khalid Mohamed’s review of Hey Ram sentence by setence (BTW, KM is God to me, but couldn’t agree with his views on Hey Ram, K3G, KANK etc. etc.) :D
- Gattu, do you have a link to that T.G.Vaidiyanathan’s review where he tore apart Khalid Mohammed? It would be interesting to read that one.
Critics might give their point of view but at the end of the day people would see what they want to see…Fanaa and Krrish were panned but the films’ BO collections have a different story to say…
tushar : thanks for the good link and views. There is a need of good reviewers for indian cinema. Rather need is to have analysts than to have critics. Analysis is a better word. Critic itself sounds a negative word and Indian cine critics literally lives the meaning of this word.
Chaitaniya: In normal case, yes the common viewer would concentrate on the acting and overall presentation of the film rather than to focus on deep technical aspects, But if technical aspects are screaming loud then even ordinary viewer would take a notice. But to know that Satyajit Ray started using diffused light from his 2nd or 3rd movie is far reached goal for ordinary viewer.
If film technically is good but acting department is weak than it makes no sense in the eyes of viewers. Film has to be presentable and able to convey the story well. Different people go to watch a film with different intentions and a film which can appeal to a large cross section of viewers will be called more successful and then there are films which move ahead the knowledge about cinema in toto. and they truely are called mile stones in every field of cinema.
Oz:
Did you read Nikhat kazmi also in TOI?
BTW, I found better film reviews in Nav Bharat Times, the Hindi newspaper of times group when Rajendra Mathur was its editor in mid 80s till early 90s. Vishnu Khare, Vishnu Nagar and Vinod Bhardwaj wrote better articles about films than what KM etc were writing at same time. This was in NBT, when it covered International film festival held in New Delhi, that I got to read about Hollywood’s entry there and later when I watched those films, I was not able to restrict me from praising these film analysts.
Vishnu Khare’s article on Raj Kapoor” Ek Tara na jane kahan kho gaya” is worth and must to read for fan of RK and hindi films.
In NBT I had read about Scent of Woman and I was longing to see the movie after reading the review and when years later I got to watch the film I was overwhelmed by the film and Al Pacino’s performance. Reviewer had done true justice with this top quality film.
Your are right about the technical aspect thing, RK.
One only notices the technical aspects of a film once the narrative strengths start digresing. I dont recall thinking about the backlight or the tracking in a Hera Pheri. Ina Asoka, you are made to digress to the camera and the back ground score since that is so overpowering to the story.
Perhapos on that kind of a yardstick, I would rate a Rang De Basanti pretty high.
Having said that, the same statement might not be universally true.In a film like Iruvar, you are immersed in the narrative yet cant fail to ignore the technical finesse.
Moreover, I pretty much agree with oz when he says a review is a review is a review(oh hedidnt say that?!) You would be called a qualified fool if you write a technical analysis of commercial potboiler in say, Mid Day(just for example). Such stuff is more suitable to a film lecture in western schools(like the one done in the link I gave earlier).
I also prescribe to the concept of an ‘analysis’. You should know what you are selling and to whom once you are in the market.
Gattu:
You are right that one has to keep in mind that publishers demand reviews in short time and film analysts are with tight scehdule but even then they should be able to analyse and should have an attitude to understand the different facets of a film rather than to attack the actors or directors personally.
In my opinion It does not matter if review is published on same day of release. As people read their fortune in morning in the newspaper but that does not affect them deeply as show has to go on, in same way people may read abt a film without getting affected deeply. But analysts should refrain giving ultimate judjement about the film. They can analyse film but not its fate.
It will really be nice if you upload that article of TGV where he has dissected the writing of KM.
Tushar:
yes audience’s level decide the level of a product. Nirma madea hole in the market of Surf and T Series fetched a mount everest like piece of cake from just under the mouth of erstwhile proudy HMV suggest the same. If we read about Ray in a book then all technical aspects are bound to usher in mind but when we go with friends in a film then it has to be watched on macro level. Micro analysis is a later thing.
Oz: No buddy. The magazine is now defunct. It was published by the Express Group. TGV was a regular contributor. Try to grab it from some fanatic. That is the best option.:d
Yes, very true. On the same point but a different example, when a Javed Akhtar analyses or judges a TV talent show in an ‘intellectual’ manner, people mock at him, but in the same ’sample’ if a Jaaved Jaffry gives people what they want i.e. a sarcastic remark, they love it.
RK: Thanks, I know an editor who would literally tear somebody who would write unduly negative review. Her logic: these people work so hard, spend crores of rupees. You can’t just write haphazardly about a film b’cos u have 500 words space in a pubication.
Got Your Point… Thnks
RK; The point is, that even if the critics want,they CANNOT understand and know how many departments are involved and how much goes into film-making until they undergo the process of it themselves..Those who will actually make a film first,will never write negative reviews or criticise in bad taste (Except in cases of prejudice or really bad films).i know for a fact,that the biggest of directors never criticise a bad film openly or in front of four people.A subhash ghai or a yash chopra just says , “I didnt like the film.” Thats it.Nothing more,nothing less.They believe that badmouthing a film will only be a public display of the gutter in themselves.Obviously you have exceptions like mahesh bhatt and sanjay gupta…
Chaitanya, your intent seems ok but unfortunately your arguement lacks logic. I can taste food and can definitely say whether it is good or bad, I may not be an expert cook. I may not be able to bowl as fast as Akhtar or lee but can certainly know who is bowling best and fast. Who told you only someone who has directed or work on technical aspect of film can only write correct reviews? By that logic, Harsha Bhogle can never be a good commentator. Knowing and doing are mutually exclusive. Frankly speaking, 95% of what bollywood dishes out is pure unadulterated crap and critics, reviewers and readers all are nuts to indulge.
jwalant,I agree with you upon that..But i have stated this fact in my earlier post on the same subject.My point is ,your choice is your choice but dont let it damage someone’s career or business..ofcourse, the coomon janta has full right to criticise or praise film if they are paying for the ticket.Even if their views are published,they will be placed under the heading of ‘Audience reaction’ and not ‘Critical analysis’.But these self appointed critics assume a place which they consider a notch above the common people and their articles sometimes have an air of ‘We know it all’. What are the qualifications that are needed to be a critic in India? Do they give a written test or something about what they do and do not know about cinema.It is very easy to rent foreign dvds and watch them in your cosy living room and then pan bollywood but it’s a different ball game altogether to actually make a film.
As I had said earlier also,this point is specifically focussed towards those who do it in a bad taste or with a feeling of superiority complex over the director himself.Talking of harsha bhogle,if tomorrow he starts insulting players for their bad forms and makes sarcastic comments about their failures,I am sure no one’s gonna say he is a good commentator.They will call him sajid khan then!:d
Chaitanya,
If a genius is making a film then its not necessary that reveiwer can understand the complete film in the same way as filmmaker has made it. its case with any analysis of any art form. But like in literature, analysts dont only analyse that peice of writing but they analyse a particular work based on their own thorough knowledge and the impact of that work on life and literature in total and then its called a good analysis. Analysts go deep in to the work and its not necessary that they themselves can write better than the piece of writing they are analysing. For contemporary context we can see Pankaj Mishra who writes review for Ney York Times. he wrote a good review of God of Small things and he wrote later his first novel and his novel is not at par with the books he has been analysing but that does not make him less capable analyst. But at same time he does not trash a book completely. So a balance is needed and a thorough knowledge of the medium is must. It has been proved again and again that its not necessary that a brilliant student can make a good teacher also because his own fast speed of learning can be an impediment in teaching and he cant understand where an averaage student can feel heavy burden of the subject and good researchers also turn out to be bad teachers.
This is proved with cases of Khalid Mohammad and Naseeruddin Shah. Both have been very vocal against the other film makers and when they made their own films they were far inferior than films they they were talking about. KM has written good films for Benegal. Naseer’s was the first attempt and there are chances that next time he improves in multiple fold.
Thanks Jwalant
for your comment.
In Cinema Script and Acting is primary every thing else is secondary!
You can not go anywhere without a good script.
If these 2 departments are rock solid a film can not go wrong.
If a film is outstanding, why would anyone critise a film? I might not be convincing in saying only an average film would receive criticism and appreciation, A diaster would only be critised. A brilliant film will only be admired!
Kamal Haasan’s Masterpiece
(Review of ‘Hey Ram’ by T. G. Vaidyanathan in the April 2000 issue of the Gentleman magazine)
Almost incredibly, the 46-year-old Kamal Haasan’s film career spans a period over four decades! Since his 1960 debut as a child artiste in Bhimsingh’s Kalathur Kannamma, Kamal has always intrigued his fans. Chameleon-like, he has appeared in a variety of guises, as a mafia don in Nayakan (1987), a dwarf in Appu Raja (1989) and more recently, as a middle-aged Brahmin woman in Chachi 420 (1997). And, in these days of ‘talkative’ movies, he has even appeared in a silent movie, Puspak Vimana (1989)! All these were commercial bonanzas but artistically vapid and so it is indeed ironic that his latest film Hey Ram – undoubtedly his chef-d’oevre –has been so coldly received by our critics.
Kamal’s canvas here is nothing less than the whole gamut of Indian civilisation. The eponymous hero of the film, Saket Ram, is seen at the beginning assisting the legendary Sir Mortimer Wheeler, former Director of the Archeological Survey of India, who discovered the ruins of Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa in the 1920s. And, at the end, the death of the octogenarian, Saket Ram (b. 1910) on December 6 and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948 are virtually telescoped and presented as one monolithic occurrence. The film traces the gradual evolution of the apolitical Saket to the gun-wielding firebrand activist who is only pipped at the post by his real life alter ego – Nathuram Godse.
The film is decidedly not anti-Muslim although unthinking mobs initially vandalised theatres in Calcutta (which, more recently, gave Kamal a rousing reception) and even indolent and verdant Bangalore (where I saw a truncated version in a theatre, bang opposite a large Muslim slum, with atrocious acoustics) where cricket is clearly the flavour of the month. It is true that Altaf (the tailor) and his cohorts are responsible for the rape and murder of Saket’s Bengali wife, Aparna – a perfect cameo by Rani Mukherjee who beautifully enunciates Jibananda Das’s poem, Rupashi Bangla, which eulogises undivided Bengal in a tranquil conjugal felicity just before her own gruesome end. But the political fulcrum of the film is the abiding friendship between the Brahmin Saket and that Gandhi-loving Pathan, Amjad – played flawlessly and not in the least “as a star prop” by Shah Rukh Khan. Even on his death bed, Amjad will not betray his friend, Bharat (Saket) to the police and this alone serves to turn Saket away from the path of political vendetta to souvenir-seeking Gandhian at the end. So why are the Muslims cribbing about the film’s partisan politics?
The aesthetic objections, too, stem not from the film itself as from not watching it closely enough. A distinguished Mumbai film critic has found (The Sunday Times, February 20, 2000 p.20) the film “mammothly self-indulgent” with Kamal Haasan hogging all the scenes (but you could say the same of Shakespeare’s Hamlet!). Finding Saket’s “boudoir frolics” with second wife Mythili, “a kinky cross between a Michael Jackson Video and a Salvador Daliesque surreal nightmare” the same critic proceeds to indict the film which “wavers fatally… in its distracted story-telling, mysterious add-ons like a ghostly blind kid, and in its failure to set up strong supporting characters”.
But let us begin by briefly revisiting the “boudoir frolics” with Mythili that our finds “a kinky cross between a Michael Jackson Video and a Salvador Daliesque surreal nightmare”. Of course, it is nothing of the sort! A rather inebriated Saket (of the twirling moustache!) abruptly “takes” wholly unprepared Mythili after witnessing a routine Maharashtrian tamasha. But if we have been watching carefully we will have noted that the “trigger” of Saket’s sexual explosion is provided by the moment when the tamasha dancer is transformed into the dead Aparna who herself had appeared in the previous scene when the conspiracy was hatched as an evening Durga! Mythili’s ravishment, itself, disguised reprise of Aparna’s earlier rape by the Muslim insurgents led by Altaf and Mythili herself in an earlier transformation, preludial to the conspiracy, becomes the blind Muslim girl for her slain father. These imagistic linkages are vital to our understanding of the film’s inner logic. It is the unexpected reawakening of these hitherto dormant Aparna-rape-memories that leads to Saket’s sexual explosion with a wholly bewildered Mythili.
A Kaleidoscopic cluster of images thematically and rationally linking the film’s overlapping themes (religious, political and sexual) aided and abetted by the wonderful dialogue written by Manohar Shyam Joshi – not in the least like the “Daliesque surreal nightmare” of Un Clean Andalou or L’Age d’or which the highly eccentric Dali had designed in Paris with Luis Bunnel in the late 1920s – bind the film’s polysemous structure way beyond the intellectual radar of our Bombay editor who ruefully confesses to being “neither shaken or stirred”.
Almost certainly, Kamal’s multi-layered Hey Ram – quite unlike the sentimental pieties of Attenborough’s schmaltzy Gandhi – should garner a clutch of swords at this year’ National Awards.
Folks,
I’ve typed this from the Gentleman. Couldn’t find KM’s review in my archives otherwise would’ve posted that also. :D
Another vintage TGV dissecting Monsoon Wedding
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/01/13/stories/2002011300260500.htm
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/01/27/stories/2002012700110400.htm
Gattu:
A big thanks!!! and far bigger thanks for your labour to type whole article.
Thanks man
you fulfilled half of the demand and perhaps one day you post also KM’s review of Hey Ram.:)
RK: You’re welcome :) It was just two bits for my PFC :D Have to get the copy of TOI from Mumbai. Mummy threw all my cuttings fearing termite attack :((
- Gattu, Thanks for this!!! This is quite interesting. Enjoyed the fact how TGV strips the lines of Khalid Mohamed and rips them apart. It also provides an amazing insight to how divergent views two people can have over the same scene, character or story. Thanks again for this and the links!
It also provides an amazing insight to how divergent views two people can have over the same scene, character or story.
Oz: That just proves that either critics view a movie without prejudice or we ignore those reviews. But with most Indian reviewers, plot spoilers, contradictions, arbit opinion mongering, classification (like a certain reviewer’s ”mass” vs “class” branding)are hallmarks. Class, research and restraint sadly are not.
I have seen music reviews where the reviewer paid a glowing tribute to a soundtrack only to do a volte-face and and trash it (in relative terms, may be) while reviewing the movie. I don’t mind if they changed their mind about something, but that change of view has to be accounted for by corroboratory evidence. that’s maybe too much to expect, but it is nevertheless valid, IMHO.
Gattu:
Its my first ever reading of TGV’s review. You might have read many and perhaps you know his background also. With all due respects to TGV, I am curious to know was he active supporter of Communist ideology?
RK: I’m sorry to say I don’t know much about him. Don’t even remember when did I first read him. But don’t think he supported any isms. He was a professor of English in bangalore. Have put few interesting links about him. You should grab his book ‘Hours in the Dark’. He has torn apart Attenborough’s Gandhi (almost 15 pages) & the holy cow of crossover cinema 36 Chowrangee Lane.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2002/04/07/stories/2002040700290400.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Hours-Dark-T-G-Vaidyanathan/dp/019563764X
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2002/03/31/stories/2002033100100200.htm
Gattu: Thanks a lot for the links. Will try to get his book.
I dont say he supported any -isms but reading his analysis of Hey Ram and his last lines compelled me to ask about his socio-political ideological bend. Without any connection in Hey Ram he has commented on Attenborough’s Gandhi. I have not read TGV except the links you provided and feel hitch to write about him. Apart from the fact that I did not like TGV’s aproach towards Gandhi film, I will read more of his film reviews. I liked Hey Ram but after watching Gandhi around 60 times ( I dont say I can understand films better than TGV or any other critic can), I did not find if Hey Ram reaches somewhere close to Gandhi in terms of cinematic presentation of a story related to real life. It does not matter whether Attenborough made Gandhi as fan of Gandhi as Basu Bhattacharya once was accusing and TGV is also taking similar critical approach. Its cinematic beauty of the film Gandhi which leaves a deep impact on audience.
Raj Kumar Santoshi once had supported this line that it was not 20 cror Rupees which made Gandhi a great film but passion of Attenborough as a directr to bring Gandhi’s story ob screen. One can differ from Gandhi ideology but as a film Gandhi is a Super film and only ideological differences can compell TGV to comment like that without any reference. He wrote good about Hey Ram but spoiled his article by this last line. To support one’s work does not mean we have to degrade other’s work and TGV did this. That asks if TGV was perfectly unbiased critic? or sometimes he also took line which KM took that supported only those films and stars, he liked on personal basis?
Thanks a lot Gattu for links and introducing me to TGV’s cine reviews
.
RK: I think TGV wrote about Attenborough’s Gandhi much before ‘Hey Ram’ was made & I think it’s general that critics are baised towards actors/directors they like. :). This may be true of TGV also, but I’ve no idea wether he liked Kamal Haasan to be baised :d.
I support your views on Attenborough’s Gandhi: it made us youngsters familiar with Gandhi & brought us closer to him. :)
Gattu: ya
certainly he wrote abt Gandhi much before Hey Ram was made. Tale abt his tussle with Girish Karnard was interesting to read. Nobody is beyond common human emotions no matter how big celebrities are.:)
My friends,
This is one of the most enjoyable threads I’ve read on film criticism. I’ve learned many things from it. Some of the things you’ve written here are things I already knew, but to read your words is for me to see it from a wholly new perspective. Thank you.
One comment stands out for me,
>…analysts should refrain giving ultimate >judgement about the film. They can analyse film,
>but not its fate.
I agree with this opinion. To be a good critic is to be objective, discussing both good and bad points of a film, so that the reader (and viewer-prospect) might make up his own mind, as to the film’s merits.
I personally don’t enjoy reading criticisms that are personal attacks or glowing deference, either sweeping praise or denunciation.
I’ve seen lots of films, some I dearly love, but it’s hard to accept that one film or another is the “best” or “worst” of all time.
Yet, that’s often what I read, week after week.
That must sell newspapers, or else they’d write something else.
Best to you,
Sam
Hi Sam:
its good to see your comment on this post. Sorry for late notice.
You provided very valuable points here. Thanks.
I loved it when you say,
“I
amazing thots n discussion here.by chance found it in archive of pfc. found it more interesting dat its more than 1 year old article n discussion. TGV was best film critic in india.
intelligent comments r made here. liked wht Sam wrote.
its funny though that pfc made ths post last year but many of pfc writers did not learn anything from discussion.;)
they go on writing one sided reviews without considering many aspects of the films.
:d
it strike me dat pfc shd repost their valuable posts again where very good comments generated a great discussion. its hard to find in archive nd its matter of chance.
sumthing newspapers do - last year today…. links can ve given of posts made on today last year.
…..2 cents thout:)
khalid mohamad’s reviews are availabe. it ll b gud if any can post iqbal masud’s articles.
gattu, tgv’s manson wedding articles wre 2 gud:)
iqbal masud’s amazing article i found
http://www.screenindia.com/fullstory.php?content_id=9980
another link abt review of book written by masud.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=19971215&fname=booksa&sid=1
a schoking incident ab sahib biwi aur ghulam
http://www.openspaceindia.org/essays_48.htm
@M,
Thanks for links on Iqbal Masud and his works. Its old post. new post may appear in near future.
internet world has becum small 2.. like world:d
iqbal masud google search brought on pfc again…. very small internet world…..
mostly films related google search carries to pfc….:)
think its better 2 search at pfc 1st b4 trying google
interesting discussion….:d
luved comment= 34:)