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.