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.