Does The Film Critic Matter?

India is movie-land.

No country on earth produces more films than us. And there’s got to be very few places where media is so heavily coloured by the “movie-factor”. Scores of weeklies, fortnightlies and monthlies – in every conceivable language – packaged with tantalising glitz 'n’ gloss, blitz the eyes at friendly, neighbourhood newsstand, seductively inviting the onlooker to bite and get hooked!

And yet, it is astonishing that in an environment like this, the Indian film critic is paid only scant attention. His “learned” observations and “considered” opinions are generally pooh-poohed by both the film industry and the hard-core audience. Sure, they are dutifully read (force of habit?) but in all truth, they do not exercise an iota of influence on either the movie-maker, the fate of his movie or the people who determine this fate – the audience.

So what are these film critics doing? What are they writing about? Who are they writing for? And why?

Before anything else, it would be useful to try and understand the real role of the film critic. Few have defined it better than the acknowledged “Big Mamma” of American Film Critics, the redoubtable (late) Pauline Kael.

“The role of the critic is to help people see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn’t be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work than they could see for themselves, he is a great critic, if by his understanding and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. He is not necessarily a bad critic if he makes errors in judgement. He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of the audience. The art of the critic, then, is to transmit his knowledge of an enthusiasm for this art to others.”

How does our “desi” fraternity measure up to this precept?

Respected, veteran film critic Saibal Chatterjee is first off the block with a zinger. “I don’t think it’s a question anymore, but a solid factual statement!” He is of the firm belief that this breed – Film Critics – is slowly getting marginalised and residing mostly in the world of blogs or little magazines. “What you got today are mostly reviewers who dole out opinions that are reader-friendly, touching the surface areas of the film in a glamorous way. It is completely in keeping with the mood of the times where cinema is perceived as a product to be consumed by the largest volume of consumers possible. So, marketing, branding, advertising and promotion skills take precedence over knowledge, scholarship or insight. Pitching it right to a dumbed-down readership is the name of the game. In this scheme of things, where does the poor film critic feature?!”

Communication specialist Bikram Ohri begs to differ. “Boss, movies in India are entertainment products. Can we please stop worshipping them, wait breathlessly for that magical ‘Eureka moment’ and cut to the chase?! The critics’ mandate today is clear: Blend commentary in a cutting-edge way that entertains as it enlightens. Also, please go easy on the heavies! As the great Hollywood director Billy Wilder once said, ‘If you are lookin’ for art, hell, go buy a Picasso. If you’re lookin’ to have fun and be entertained, hey, welcome aboard!’ Joining the party is a noted film critic who refuses to formally participate or divulge her name for professional reasons. “It’s all very well to talk about art, sensibilities and values but with the corporate folks entering the scene with their deep pockets, the equation within the system and industry has dramatically changed. Film criticism, an intrinsic part of this universe, has been impacted as well. There are no two ways about it.”

Film critic (HT) Mayank Shekhar brings his own spin to the table. “Some very novel things have happened in the last few years in the industry that has certainly impacted the role of the film critic. For one, there is this new entity called Trade Analyst. It is vague term but this person seems to grab a lot of space in the electronic and mass media. It presupposes some kind of academic/scholastic background but it really is about ringing up distributors from all centres to get box office collections! Does that answer the definition of a film critic? Then there is the smart, sharp and subtle co-opting of some members of the fourth estate by Bollywood to ensure popular reviews and feel-good notices in the media.” Shekhar explains that all this is a by-product of the huge budgets powering big-ticket Bollywood projects. Therefore the marketing machinery has to go full steam to reach, persuade and seduce the audience into seeing the film. “However, all is not lost, but yes, it is a tricky and challenging calling!”

Film director [Shabd, Teen Patti] Leena Yadav doesn’t buy into this argument at all and offers her own take. “Today, most so-called critics have no opinions – but agendas! I believe every film has something worthwhile to offer – photography, editing, background music, lighting, dialogues, supporting cast – but these are hardly given any importance.” Ms Yadav admits that she has zero problems with dissent and would respect a critic – even if she didn’t agree with him/her – for their fresh, out-of-the-box, unique perspective. “I find this totally missing.”

The hugely popular CNN IBN film critic Rajiv Masand is up next. He believes it is unfair to paint the entire frat with the same brush but understand where it’s coming from. “Today’s frenetic scene hardly allows a critic either the scope or space for reflection and meaningful viewer/reader connect. It’s driven totally by instant gratification, how many stars are pasted on which films and a basic go-see-or-avoid directive. This is hardly the most fertile turf for good, quality writing or enriching mentoring – two fundamental commandments of a good critic. Also, where are the role models and more importantly, can these endangered species be emulated in today’s slam-bang, nano-second times?!”

What better person than the Dada of Parallel Cinema, Shyam Benegal, to wrap up this debate with his evolved and informed opinion. “Saibal is right. By and large, we have no real film critics but reviewers with differing degrees of competence, knowledge and ability. There are excellent reasons for it.” Benegal is convinced that unlike the West there is complete lack of encouraging film studies and cinema culture, manifest in the complete blanking out of any art form by the establishment, corporates or publication houses, except as gestures of tokenism. “What you get is smartly-packaged hype catering to an audience that is driven by gloss, glitz and glamour rather than erudition, knowledge or gravitas. Do these guys influence public opinion? One brand of critics – especially in the electronic media – seems to, with their brash, aggressive, fast-talking glib- manship. It is clearly a sign of the times. The era of an Iqbal Masod or Chidananda Das Gupta is clearly over.”

So what gives? Have the dynamics of communication – both for the communicator and communicated – undergone a drastic makeover in recent times? Has the Mcdonald-isation of popular culture turned this serious calling into a fast-food zone where instant gratification is the key factor? Is sexy, smart, cool posturing with new age jargons (flashy, clever, witty) the new, hot, signature tune of today's new age film critics? Most importantly, are the three critical parameters – love & passion for cinema, knowledge of the subject & uncompromising integrity – sacrificed at the altar of commercial/populist compulsions everyday... or are we attaching too much importance to a bunch of people who dictate what is good for millions, through the prism of a perspective that may not connect zillions of aiwin-aiwin fans of Band Baaja Baaraat?

Over to you, readers!!