When Should Critics Stop Writing Official Film Reviews?

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?

Sell anything in Bollywood. But don’t try to hard-sell the same thing more than twice.

In management, we read a term PLC or Product Life Cycle. It meant that every product or product category has a defined life after which its public acceptance will start drooping down, diminishing. There are so many factors behind that which range from technology to public awareness, consumers’ want for more, competition,  consumer intelligence and, most importantly, fatigue.

While competition is an external factor, I’d like to count consumer intelligence or want for more as an internal factor in the product itself. Meaning that the product will, over a period of time, start losing its relevance or importance to the consumer. That the consumer will start feeling bored or tired of using the same product, same experience day after day. That his requirements and expectations will increase.

We have many examples. Starting from a poor landline phone which was hard to dial, to sleek business phones and blackberry, we’ve seen the transformation in little over a decade. Our poor PC that operated on Windows with basic functions has now taken various shapes, size, range and accommodates thousand times higher capacities than what it used to be ten years back. These are all results of fast changing consumer preferences with increasing usages.

Consumers develop a fatigue if they have to experience the same or a very similar product experience over a sustained period of time. The K-serials with Saas Bahu jhamela got over us to the hilt before Star had to take it off-air. Several other new formulas are going to meet the same fate on telly – be it reality shows with much of theatrical melodrama or, the so-called serials with social messages of child marriage, female foeticide and so on.

Remember, we had enough of “kutte main tera khoon pee jaungaa” in the eighties and they had to make way for refreshing romantic flicks. We had too much of one bad guy-in-a-happy-family-spoiling everything kind typical cinema in the name of family entertainment, very much like fatigued K-serials. They made way for better family drama like Waqt, Baghbaan and so on. With their new USPs they worked. We had too much of David Dhawan-Govinda kind cinema ruling the Bollywood for a long time. They worked when Bollywood was not producing enough of good humour. So, whatever vulgarity or flimsy content it came with, it sold with a particular category of audiences for a long time. Initially all those films had a Shakti Kapoor, Laxmikant Berde or so trying to poke with the same funny acts which failed to make you laugh after some time and looked idiotic. Qadar Khan’s double-meaning dialogues also faded out gradually. Soon, a new formula was devised by Dhawan sahib around infidelity where the hero would have two wives or multiple relations and his entire life went into saving both of his marriages. The initial bit probably amused some. But, he and some more film-makers went overboard by giving us so many films that I can count at least 8-9 films made on the same plot, with good star-cast. Later ones failed big time. Interestingly, I remember at least 2-3 films each starring Govinda as well Salman, on the same plot. Then came more of infidelity a la No Entry style. Do Knot Disturb sealed the fate for many, with the same lesson.

When Priyadarshan gave us Hera Pheri, we thought a new saviour had arrived. Gadually, all his films started resembling with each other so much so that now you can predict the entire plot after hearing the first line of the story. All the climaxes resembled each other to the extent that you can take one climax and fit into almost all of his movies without affecting their result. I think, he would do better by shooting one climax with all the artistes (and crowd) showing their back while running the race. It can be safely used in all of his next films, in case he intends to continue his trend and have different artistes in different movies. Just hope that he has thought of some changes for the climax of DeDana Dan which gives a déjà vu of Hera Pheri. Priyadarshan ji, if you haven’t and you can still manage it, my humble request, please do it now.

Then Madhur Bhandarkar type of films come replete with pessimism and sadism where the director takes pleasure in watching you cry and act like a whistleblower. Man, it is good to be in the whistleblower’s shoes but, it is worse to believe that the world can only be seen in either black or white. There are shades of gray in everything. His plot is always conceptualized, designed and developed by painting things in black and white. Man, grow up. Nothing in this world comes in either only black or white. Selling pessimism for a very long time like those sundry Hindi News channels who always can be seen predicting the end of the universe on a particular date & time for umpteenth time cannot help. World would believe once, twice, thrice but, not always. Sell anything. But please do not try to hardsell anything more than twice in Bollywood anymore. That simply doesn’t work. Every profession, everything in life has a good side to it too. Had it not been so, forget other things, Bollywood would also have just been a scam, a fiasco called casting couch. But it is not. It is into serious business of making films. There are aberrations everywhere.

Surprisingly, we notice, most of the directors who started with the promise of making something different for us ended up being so different that all their respective projects started looking look-alikes. A direct lift from another earlier successful film. Sad.

To this context, I’d likes to say kudos for traditional film-makers like the Yashraj or Karan Johar’s banners which do not pompously make any promise to serve us “different” cinema but whatever they serve is generally not such a big lift from the older flick.

The recent fiasco of so many films has proved that you can sell any damn thing at least once in Bollywood with a good success, if it comes in a good and complete package. A repeat is also allowable. For that matter people may even watch the same film multiple times, if it is watchable. But, showing them the same film with another name won’t work. Similarly, re-packaging the same formula and content in the new incarnation like old wine in a new bottle won’t work anymore.

I think, I’ve got at least one of the many concrete answers for the question I asked in my previous bloghttp://passionforcinema.com/“who-is-to-blame”-introspections-by-a-young-movie-maker/

Must thank my readers for their contributions.

Aladin’t or Euthanasia?

This post takes a lead from my last write-up. However, should have taken a while to write, had it not been for a “different” kind of discussion with one of the popular film-makers.

It was Friday late afternoon and, it so happened that one of the creative film-makers with quite a hitlist in his kitty (in varied capacities), posted a comment on one such public forum about the latest release - Aladin.

The one-word title of his post was quite amusing, intriguing and self-explanatory. Strange, we film-makers think we’ve already exhausted smaller titles for our films. Before his post, I had read and watched quite some reviews of the film (Aladin). It had already given me shockers and I was finding it hard to believe if Sujoy had once again underperformed with his much-hyped and much-awaited film. Yet, I wanted to watch it myself before actually believing in those reviews till I read his post.

The title of the post, very strangely, was ALADIN’T. Man, it was just Friday afternoon. The film had just released in theaters. The dear friend had probably watched it on the eve of the release itself and waited for the film to release to post his stuff publicly.

The reviews and everything had already given feelers that Aladin was not a film to look forward to. That the film had blundered and faltered on several junctures. That neither Bachchan could create the magic, nor did poor Riteish. Sanjay’s character was portrayed by many as a spoof. That the film, in all probability, would fail. We all knew from our direct experiences or through friends that the film may not perform well at box office.

But, I found the title ALADIN’T a bit too harsh for a film that was merely one show old. That it was being unkind to write off the film which was yet to be through with its first matinee show for the public in theaters. And that it was unfair to take this message to few thousands of followers on a forum that communicates faster than the speed of light.

My contention was critics are alright to write about any film on the very first, second or any nth day in its life. Good or bad. Whatever! If we feel happy or go on to thank them for writing good about films, they have all the rights to write if and why a film would not work. For that matter, they have always existed in their space and are the most respected of the species, other than Censor Board. At times, equally hated. But, you love it or hate it; they have a job and, mostly, are doing their job quite well. They have done more good to good films than bad to bad films. Good films with a good word-of-mouth are boosted like nothing else. A bad film is anyway destined to die early. A bad word-of-mouth only accelerates its death.

Taking a leaf from my last post and comments thereon, a good film will work against odds. It may falter for external factors. But, what is intrinsically designed to work, works. Similarly, a weak film will fail. Sometimes, positive external factors may help prolong its death, to the relief of people behind it. These days, however, most of the external factors generally go on to kill and hammer as many nails in its coffin as possible to make sure it is buried well. Forever.

We have so many of news channels – who are obsessed with sadism and would make animations, dramatized versions and cooked-up stories to sensationalize a non-story like a cat getting caught up on a terrace for hours. Any day, there are channels promoting exclusive stories like the road to heaven, commissioner’s dog going missing, a cat caught on a terrace, a man walking on water and so on. The same channels will dig as many scoops related to a film and its cast/crew to get the eyeballs. But, the moment it is believed to have failed, they’ll do their last bit to kill it. If the channel hasn’t earned a pie from the media budget of the film. It is like the treatment meted out with Indian Cricket team. One good match, they are heroes. Past one bad show, they are termed ‘paper tigers’ and glam-gods good for nothing. What they actually thrive on is the short public memory in a country of billion.

The news spreads like a wildfire in this age of Facebook, Orkut, Twitter, Blogs, SMSes and so much of social networking. The medium communicates at the speed of thought. And when somebody with thousands of following across such social media communicates negatively about a film so early, he may not be held wrong or unethical in any way. He is not at all wrong.

But, my plea was when we have found something good in a film to endorse it or spread a positive word-of-mouth, let’s go ahead any day. But, if we must speak out against a poor film, let’s at least take a little time. Let’s keep ourselves silent for a little while. Let the film be at least one weekend-old before we actually voice an opinion against it. Alright that the film is going to die. But, give it a breather if, when we cannot and should not speak “good” about it.

Should we kill a weak film – mind it, which is not slapstick and vulgar – just because it is limping? Should we say “death” because it is finding it difficult to survive?

I think, I am not going to watch this in a theater anymore. Is it because I got so much of gyan about this film so fast? Or, was I destined to not watch this anyway?