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?
Recent Comments