Towards the end of November 2004, an Indian blog pointed out that a film critic of The Times of India had lifted direct sentences while reviewing the animation film Shark Tales. To the blogger it was plagiarism, but in truth the reviewer had made it clear that they were not her lines. But instead of naming the person—a reputed American film critic of Chicago Sun-Times Roger Ebert—whose sentences she lifted, she turned one person into many. ‘Critics say…’ she wrote, before repeating entire sentences and opinions of Ebert. It remains a puzzling affair. Why would anyone use another’s opinion in one’s opinion piece? Either the reviewer had not seen the movie or had no opinion of her own, which in her chosen profession can be a little bit of a disadvantage. Ironically, other than a few murmurs on the web, it did not make any difference to the reviewer, newspaper or film industry.
While there are hundreds of reviewers, the film industry is only anxious about seven-eight mainstream critics; the rest are mere frills. But this surfeit of opinion becomes a convenient excuse for not taking any review seriously if it goes against the film. As actor Ajay Devgn once said, “I know critics are important, but do you know there are some 400 critics today? Every channel, there are two people discussing films when they don’t even understand film-making. You’re harming someone’s business, career; a producer could have put in all his life savings. It’s not fair. There has to be some kind of qualification before you become a critic.” Others have said the same thing less delicately. “Why don’t you try to make a film if you’re so good at pointing out what’s wrong with it?” one brash star belligerently asked of reviewers.
It’s not just in India. All over the world, critics and filmmakers have had uneasy relationships. When Hollywood comic Rob Schneider attacked Los Angeles Times critic Patrick Goldstein over his comedy Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, he argued that Goldstein was unqualified because he had never won a Pulitzer Prize. Roger Ebert came to Goldstein’s defence against Schneider. He said he was a Pulitzer Prize-winner and “Your movie sucks.”
Filmmakers do have a point that reviewers have no qualification for what they do. Practically every features writer at a newspaper or magazine feels competent to do it. The sole qualification that most reviewers possess is that they like to watch movies and have seen lots. A few would have done a film appreciation course. Ratings are completely subjective—which is alright. But every critic also has a firm idea of what good cinema is, and there would be a sea separating that from Bollywood’s output, crafted mostly by the dictates of economics. Which is why some in the industry feel shortchanged. All they do is make entertaining masala films or slapstick comedies. Singh Is Kinng and No Entry director Anees Bazmi, Billu and Khatta Meetha director Priyadarshan and Kambakkht Ishq producer Sajid Nadiadwala, apart from actors Akshay Kumar and Salman Khan, fall squarely in this category.
At one press conference, Salman venomously made digs at a couple of senior critics, insinuating that movies they recommended were such flops that they went straight to DVD. The most vocal in this bunch of critic haters is TV host-turned-director Sajid Khan. He does parodies on critics at award functions, mangling their names in qawwalis or taking potshots at their reviews. In interviews before his movie Housefull this year, he stated, “Every time I step out to make a film, I do it for that 90 per cent worldwide audience which loves Hindi films. Yes, I know that there are the 10 per cent—the pseudo-intellectual people who like slow, boring, insignificant and non-entertaining films. But then for me, cinema is only about entertainment.”
While there are hundreds of reviewers, the film industry is only anxious about seven-eight mainstream critics; the rest are mere frills. But this surfeit of opinion becomes a convenient excuse for not taking any review seriously if it goes against the film. As actor Ajay Devgn once said, “I know critics are important, but do you know there are some 400 critics today? Every channel, there are two people discussing films when they don’t even understand film-making. You’re harming someone’s business, career; a producer could have put in all his life savings. It’s not fair. There has to be some kind of qualification before you become a critic.” Others have said the same thing less delicately. “Why don’t you try to make a film if you’re so good at pointing out what’s wrong with it?” one brash star belligerently asked of reviewers.
It’s not just in India. All over the world, critics and filmmakers have had uneasy relationships. When Hollywood comic Rob Schneider attacked Los Angeles Times critic Patrick Goldstein over his comedy Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, he argued that Goldstein was unqualified because he had never won a Pulitzer Prize. Roger Ebert came to Goldstein’s defence against Schneider. He said he was a Pulitzer Prize-winner and “Your movie sucks.”
Filmmakers do have a point that reviewers have no qualification for what they do. Practically every features writer at a newspaper or magazine feels competent to do it. The sole qualification that most reviewers possess is that they like to watch movies and have seen lots. A few would have done a film appreciation course. Ratings are completely subjective—which is alright. But every critic also has a firm idea of what good cinema is, and there would be a sea separating that from Bollywood’s output, crafted mostly by the dictates of economics. Which is why some in the industry feel shortchanged. All they do is make entertaining masala films or slapstick comedies. Singh Is Kinng and No Entry director Anees Bazmi, Billu and Khatta Meetha director Priyadarshan and Kambakkht Ishq producer Sajid Nadiadwala, apart from actors Akshay Kumar and Salman Khan, fall squarely in this category.
At one press conference, Salman venomously made digs at a couple of senior critics, insinuating that movies they recommended were such flops that they went straight to DVD. The most vocal in this bunch of critic haters is TV host-turned-director Sajid Khan. He does parodies on critics at award functions, mangling their names in qawwalis or taking potshots at their reviews. In interviews before his movie Housefull this year, he stated, “Every time I step out to make a film, I do it for that 90 per cent worldwide audience which loves Hindi films. Yes, I know that there are the 10 per cent—the pseudo-intellectual people who like slow, boring, insignificant and non-entertaining films. But then for me, cinema is only about entertainment.”
read more here:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/art-culture/review-of-reviewers
Most of the umpires are not high level cricketers but can officiate game better than cricketers.
ReplyDeleteOr for an example a product on amazon is revieweed by user who has no knowledge about intricacies of product but writes a reviews based on his/her experience. But then there are products like camera/technology where you do need expert opinion.
Movies like camera could be judged by both average audience or expert. It is just that there are too many average audience claiming to be an expert :)
"Every channel, there are two people discussing films when they don’t even understand film-making."
ReplyDeleteWhen there are filmmakers who don't even understand film-making like Sajid making films what's wrong in this?
"There has to be some kind of qualification before you become a critic."
How about "some kind of qualification" before becoming a director? How about "some kind of qualification" before becoming an actor/actress rather than the one now of being from a film family?
Khanabdosh - you make a valid point. I do not have to be a chef to be bale to tell good food from bad. I do not have to know all the ins and outs of film-making before I can tell if the film will satisfy me. But sometimes good reviewers will point out things I would never have caught, and that aspect does enhance my viewing pleasure.
ReplyDeleteAnon - you make a good point about hack film-makers deserving hack reviewers!!!
This is kinda similar to some people saying cricketers should control BCCI . one has to realise not every cricketer can be good administrator or coach .
ReplyDeleteSome of best Managers in footbal never played football .
Classic example was the Olympic swimming champion Mark Spitz - his coach had never set foot in a swimming pool!!!
ReplyDelete