The Sea and Me

The highs and the lows…. The lows and the highs… Like waves in the ocean, life goes up and then down and then up again, the rhythm of life continues until it meets its end. The waves crash on sand and stone by the shore, the life crashes in the arms of death. Another wave is generated somewhere in the mid sea and starts its journey again towards the shore. With each second passing, we see millions of waves dying by the shore and many more raising their heads and rushing towards the beach as if this time they will defeat their destiny. Sigh! They fail, they fail miserably.

Each time I am defeated by the destiny, I rise, I have my highs and lows and with all the might I rush towards the final destination, falling and failing. They told me try and try until you succeed. Morons they were, having luxury of trying at each failed attempt. They were rich as their pockets were loaded with time. I tried and tried, believing in them, but unlike them, I neither was rich nor had luxury of time. Tired and exhausted, I sat by the shore with my head hanging between my knees. All of a sudden I noticed a red ball on the horizon, shining in its glory. I held my head high, and was marveled by the beauty of the sea. Only then did I notice, that waves came, some managed to break their previous record and establish the new ones, some died mid way. But in the end, they all die, neither reaching success.

Singing in chorus they all said, “Try and try until you succeed”. I felt my lips stretching across my face, and before I could realize the faint smile, it had already turned into a laugh, laughter that filled the silence, laughter that silenced the chorus. They all looked at me, initially amused, then with sympathy. A small wave crawled up to my feet and in worried, caring, warm voice, like that of a grand pa, it asked, “What makes you laugh? Do not give up my child, try and TRY until you succeed!”

I stood up, dusted my bum of the sand, with slippers in my hand, my exhausted feet carried me towards the road. In whisper I said, “Look at yourselves, tied and bounded with misery, desire and ambition. The more you try, the more you fail, in the end your hands are empty, there is no sand. It slipped away long time back. Only if you would have seen the larger picture, you would have understood there is no success. You rise and you fall and life goes on. Stop trying. Pick yourself up, accept your defeat. Become more humble, and learn your lessons. Enjoy the process and cherish your experience. Then move on to the next walk of life, where you might fly. Try only until you can try!”

Reviewers vs. Critics – II

In my last post with the same name, I floated a few questions and expressed my doubts over RJs as film critics. After having an interesting debate on the same with a friend, and revisiting my blog again, I felt that the questions/doubts were more like thinking aloud exercise. Be it a chef, dancer, director, artist, sculptor or a writer, they need to garnish and give final touch ups to their creative output. So here is the new blog, where I have tried to refine my thoughts, give them a sequence and rebuilt the entire argument. I am not starting from where I left; rather this is a new page and a fresh start.

Stating in a very technical manner, a critic is: a). One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter; b). One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works, e.g. Film critic, dance critic; c). One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder. Like many say and as we all know, every human is a born critic, anyone and everyone who has an opinion becomes a critic (definition ‘c)’ to be referred). But in this particular post we are talking about film critics hence, we shall go with the definition ‘b)’.

Film critics are generally divided into two broad categories, namely:

1. Journalistic Critic: They work with newspapers, magazines, broadcasting mediums or online magazines which give film reviews of the new releases. Describing plot summary, performances, direction, music, cinematography, etc. in brief forms a part of such reviews. Due to the space crunch, they are not very elaborate. Generally these reviews are considered to be very important as they impact the box office collections of films. People many a times consider their favorite reviewers opinion while deciding which movie they want watch over the weekend; 

2. Academic Critic: These kinds of critics generally are more theoretical in their approach. They analyze movies and write detailed review about the overall treatment given to the movie, factors that made it work/fail, technical nuances, how it impacts society and forms certain norms and notions. These kinds of reviews generally appear in academic journals or peer group review journals.

We will directly jump to the academic critic as I am more interested in analyzing movies rather than summarizing them. The seemingly trivial act of watching movies is not after all as trivial as it seems. At times when movies like Wanted, Dabang, and Housefull2 become the highest grosser at the BO, it silently comments on the kind of society we are forming or dwelling into. The pleasures that we derive when a well-built hero proudly calls himself Robin hood does corruption but takes care of people around him is not very comforting. So when the so called critics, sing praises of these movies and set the cash registers ringing at the box office, we have a right of questioning their unprecedented command and hold over a large number of audience.

Anything when becomes too technical and talks in heavy jargon loses mass appeal and tends to become aristocratic (read meant for a selected class of intellectuals). The ideas floated by them might be interesting, but the language becomes a jarring note between them and the actual audience, who buys the tickets. In order to reach out, these academic critics can try new mediums like the internet or radio which gives them better access to the actual audience. Mellowing down and using a simpler language might help them share their ideas and criticisms with a new group.

I was asked this question repeatedly about why I have a problem with RJs being film reviewers. The answer is:- like stated above, every human being has opinions. When we talk about critic, we mean someone who is professionally trained for understanding the art and giving his/her ‘judgement’. Most of these RJs are not even exposed to a wide range of cinema, leave alone being trained. They understand the pulse of their audience and hence most of the times, people relate with their reviews. Their language is easy to understand and they have tools that enable them to reach out to larger audience. Hence, when a Dabang is declared super-hit by these RJs, I am worried!

Again the argument that will arise is that, it is neither the critics nor RJs, it is the audience that decides the fate of a movie and they are the true critics. The answer is, just because you have the power of buying, does not mean that you have the power to judge the artistic value of a film. You definitely can seal their fate. The producers might not earn profits, but that does not mean that the movie was bad. Classics like Pakeeza did not make an impact at the BO in the initial weeks of its release that does not make it any less classic. Recent independent film Good Night Good Morning, though was a much better film than most of the commercial crap, did not have impressive figures. So money power or audience power, after a point and time is not a meter to gauge the artistic or aesthetic value of a movie. No art can survive or thrive in seclusion, so I am not being haughty and saying screw the audience, but living under the pretext that it is the buying power that defines good or successful cinema is not agreeable.

So I end this blog hoping that some RJ might read it, get curious and expose himself/herself to wide genres of cinema and see the commercial cinema with a new perspective. Also, I wish that some academic critic might read this and try to mellow down his/her language, get out of the academic journals and try and reach out to the larger/actual audience.

Next: We might just talk about small budget movies and independent film makers.

Reviewers vs. Critics

Now a days, there is this hot debate going on twitter and the internet, about whether critics matter or not. Sajid Khan said, "Fuck the critics! They don't matter." Not only he made a sequel of his mindless comedy flick Housefull but the collections of Housefull2 prove that yes, THEY (critics) do not matter. As movies are type of Art, do they form a part of the White Cubical?

In 1917 Duchamp placed a urinal signed R. Mutt in an exhibition as a piece of art. Since then (actually since much before that, this expression just voiced the question aloud) this debate of what can be considered as “ART” has not found any apt answer. Also it is not only about What can be considered as Art, but Who defines or legitimises Art. As movies are a form of art, the - what and who from the above question implies to them as well. Though the question might have been lingering around since quiet some time, it became more vocal in the recent times. Once the movie is produced and is out for masses to consume it, opinions will be generated by its audience. Some might hate it; some might love it while for many it won’t make any difference. In this broader or rather crude sense, anyone and everyone who has an opinion can call himself/herself a critic. But like in every system, we have authorities, who don the hat of ‘critic’ and give verdicts. They bisect, analyse and engrave their introspections post the retrospection of the pleasure their senses derived while their eyes were consuming the poetry running on the celluloid. How much do these critics actually matter in the present times is the main question.

Most of the people argue saying that we go to cinema to get entertained. After a long and loaded week, I would rather pay 200 bucks for a mindless comedy, laugh my lungs out and come home refreshed rather than going for serious cinema, brood over it, and take extra load. But if we read Aristotle and his theory of tragedy, he talks about catharsis. In a very crude way, it means cleansing or purifying. The term is used in drama to describe cleansing of emotions. In the dark theater, when you see misery on screen and cry along with the character, laugh with them and feel their emotions, you feel very light at the end of the movie. It is more like getting rid of your emotional baggage. Sorry, for this small insertion about my inclinations towards a specific kind of cinema. But the point is that, may it be tragedy, drama or comedy, good cinema, is always worth your money. Though at times not easy to understand (Rockstar can be the latest example), but once you follow, you love it. Critics technically should help you understand these movies. Yet, at the end of the day, their reviews are their opinions and how they saw it.

I Enjoyed Ra. One. Many RJs in my city (in places like Ahmedabad, RJs of popular FM channels are the ultimate critics) did not like it. So who is right? Me? Or they? RJs anyday! Because they have a platform, they give verdict. I, on the other hand, express my thoughts on a piece of paper or at the most debate on it when I am allowed. But hold on, are we not discussing that critics are non-effective to the BO collection of any movies? Then how come they gain a higher position?

It is because RJs in principle are not critics, they are reviewers! In today's age and time, RJs hold a higher position than many full time film critics. They have direct excess to a wider range of audience. They have the boy/girl next door image yet are very famous and have a rapport with their audience. Critics, in comparison with these reviewers seem like people with stingy nose. They look down upon the masses and say, "You know nothing, I shall teach you about how to view a film!" They are those strict teachers with glasses on the tip of their nose and a cane in their hand, ready to punish the naughty ones and pat the sincere nerds. While RJs/reviewers are the happy-go-lucky ones (more like Aamir Khan of Tare Zameen Par), fun while you learn types. They tell the audience, that I am one of you, they communicate in the same language and then tell them what to see and what not to. It does not look preachy and thus, their impact is bigger than that of critics.

They say Rockstar sucks, and a large number of audiences, without even watching it, believe that it is not worth their money and time. Result, disaster!! They thus become ‘elites’, the ‘who’ part, deciding what can be termed as ‘Good Cinema’. The masses or majority of the audience, whose money matters at the box office will refer to these RJs.

So even as the debate goes on, and there is no final verdict, on whether the critics are worth their stature or not, film makers, audiences and RJs/reviewers will keep making fun of them. In the process good cinema will keep on getting neglected while they keep on consuming those mindless flicks.