When Should Critics Stop Writing Official Film Reviews?

Deepak Singh   | Talking-Points | November 22, 2009 at 7:57 am         Print

Take a situation. If a judge wanted to take one of the sides in a proceeding. A Jury member had his own film nominated to be sent to Cannes. Or, the daughter of the promoters of a beauty pageant were to participate for the crown. Unthinkable. Right!

Yes, writing this post, I know I am going to attract the wrath of some friends in the industry. One of my earlier posts already referred to how and why should people exercise self-restraint when it comes to publishing reviews on larger platforms like a mainstream newspaper, magazine or a TV channel.

The question, here, is – should there be a criterion for the empanelment or appointment of film critics and reviewers with large newspapers and channels. I think, yes. But, why?

A lot is being said and written against the critics who have, of late, been receiving flak from the fans and film-makers alike. For the simple reason that the business of critique a la sensational news channels has come to harm the film business, especially post recession. Further, film critics’ business has also come to be seen as a method to methodologically killing films prematurely.

It has come to be believed by the industry insiders as if critics are confused between the process of critique and criticism. As if the two are synonymous.

But, my argument has a different locus standi. For that we should see beneath and find out who are the kind of people working as film critics with these channels and publications. Film critics are often people with good exposure to the filmdom, its people and techniques. They are given enough hospitality and respect by the industry stalwarts for obvious reasons. And, we have them in plenty now.

They are spilling worms at films the same day of the release. The love-hate relationship continues. As the ‘most hated critic in the film circle’ who has emerged is the veteran Mr. Khalid Mohamed who has attracted wrath of almost every director and producer ‘except a few’. The core of this post revolves around these “few” people who are bound to be spared from the critics’ axes. Fortunately and, as a saving grace, these “few” happen to be different film-makers for different critics. And that is how, we often hear good words from one-two corners about films, which are written off by other critics. The question, therefore, is why do critics spare some film-makers. Or, the other way round, how can every film-maker safely expect some breathing space from at least 1-2 critics when every other guy is out with death sentence? Trust me, if you try and figure out, you can observe a clear trend as to who is sparing whom.

The answer is much simpler though. Majority of these film critics happen to be part-time, wannabe or even successful film-makers themselves. At some point of time, either they themselves have had ventured into film-making or, would like to get a chance to do so.

On the Bollywood canvas, most ostensibly, Khalid has attempted it more than the rest of his clan. I liked Fiza in spite of all the criticism his films have attracted. He has written some award-winning movies and directed a few more, though most of them proved to be duds in box office terms. But, he remains at the top in that list of guys doubling up as Bollywood-Director-Critic and, generates more hate than admiration at the moment. Hope things get better for him. Next in line, we have Raja Sen, very active and highly applauded on the regional circuit and a more admired critic presently. Taran’s Bollywood adventures are yet to reach the heights compared to these counterparts but he has been a very successful producer and commands quite a following with his writing. Rajeev Masand achieved early success on television as a reporter, analyst and anchor to a level of following to the extent of starting his show after his name – ‘Masand Ki Pasand’. His Bollywood antics are yet to be seen or felt, if he is nurturing any. Let’s wait if and what kind of films he happens to make, provided he actually thinks of doing so, some day. So for Nikhat Kazmi, who probably happens to be the most widely read film critic, representing the Times Group. She has been one of the most stable critics in the last decade when we saw many of them coming, indulging into several adventures and attracting wrath. Among one of the veterans doubling up as filmmaker-critic we have Chidananda Dasgupta, a contemporary of the likes of the legendary Satyajit Ray. Among the present lot, we have others like Derek, Anupama and many more names we cannot accommodate all of whom in one place. Nor is the purpose of citing their names an effort in the direction of outlining their filmy biography. These examples are enough to present my cause.

The whole message is that the business of film critic is like that of a Jury Member in a selection process, a Judge in a proceeding or, an examiner in an examination. All of these responsibilities and roles require a total balance. That you belong to no one. Or, you belong to each side. That there is no relative, no friend, no enemy, no well-wisher and no foe. Simply, no personal or business interest.

Critics can maintain this line and have done this well till the writing business of theirs was mixed with the business of film-making. It is generally a myth that they take sides for monetary gains while trashing or favoring particular sides. But, yes, it is almost impossible to be neutral to all the films the moment one enters the business of film-making.

For the simple reason that film-making, unlike many businesses and industries is a collaborative business. Here, you need so many people in the entire value-chain of the film-making process. From a spot boy to the distributors and theater operators all are key stakeholders.

Now the paradox; the moment a critic crosses the line of being confined to writing and enters film-making business in any sense, one cannot be unpleasant to the producer who produces or is potentially going to produce his/her film. Even if you just did one film with the producer but the custom of returning favors has to be maintained. Then, maybe a critic may also double up as a producer for his film, but the distributors. Let hell break, no film-maker would ever like to displease the distributors. So can’t you alienate the theater owners.

The entire equation has quite a multiplier effect. Once a film-maker and associated with whatever producer(s), distributors(s), it is hard to trash their films unless for very obvious reasons. Once a filmmaker you remain a filmmaker. A lesser critic.

At the same time, however, in this age of sadist journalism, a writer needs to be as provocative, negative and sensationalist as Sansani (better call it horrow show) to be marketable. So, while the new demands of a critic’s role want him/her to be dipped in negativity and sadism for readership/viewership reasons, a filmmaker critic cannot be equally negative to all films with equal parameters. This creates doubts in the minds of the readers who can see the trend of judges taking sides in particular cases.

It is high time, those critics who don, have donned or plan to don the filmmaker’s hat, should also plan their exit from the business of film review and critique on mainstream media. Gracefully.

Blogs and microsites spared.

Don’t you agree?