It’s not just these dumb comedies that make critics irrelevant. For a certain kind of reader, it can also be the deepest of dramas.
At any point now, I expect the director Sajid Khan to prop a ladder against the side of his house, clamber up, cup his hands around gleeful lips and cry out to the world that critics do not matter, proffering as proof his Housefull 2, which has been living up to its name at theatres everywhere despite a rash of reviews that retreated from the film as if from a flatulent grandfather in a closed car. The logic bolstering this critics-don’t-matter thesis, of course, is the apparent reality that few people make up their minds about a movie based on what critics say, and that even sleeper hits like Paan Singh Tomar and Kahaani have less to do with rapturous star ratings than the word on the street that these are movies worth watching. I know, at this point, that I seem poised to jump to the defense of my profession and say why Sajid Khan is wrong – but I’m afraid he’s right, absolutely right. Critics do not matter.

At least, they do not matter in the usually accepted sense of serving as some sort of consumer guide, shepherding mindless masses to the multiplex. I have written enough about my dislike for this perceived aspect of the profession, where we’re likened to traffic cops holding out STOP and GO signs, so I will spare you more hand-wringing. Should the day arrive that these brain-dead comedies are exempted from reviews, everyone will explode in ecstasy, the critics as well as Sajid Khan. The last thing any critic wants to do is write about something that cannot be written about in any interesting fashion, or attempt to manufacture an essay of a desired length from a subject that warrants, at most, a word or two. The usual term for these films is “critic-proof” but I’m more comfortable with “criticism-redundant” – it’s not so much that these films do not need critics to help them succeed as their not needing to be written about at all.
But critics can be redundant with dramas as well, those films whose seriousness would suggest that they can be written about in a meaningful manner, irrespective of their prospects at the box office. Because unless the reader is willing to accept a contrarian point of view as a valid approach to a movie, unless he’s willing to scratch his chin and say “Hmm… maybe, just maybe, there’s something in this line of analysis, even if I don’t see the film that way,” any critic whose opinion matches yours becomes a useful critic, and everyone else becomes redundant. If you’re not interested in someone else’s point of view, you are only interested in hearing yourself speak, and for that you don’t need to reach for a newspaper or visit a critic’s blog – you only need to stand in front of a mirror. Like certain comedies, your views too are “criticism-redundant.” And that’s perfectly fine. If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t like to be told (through a review) that your opinion could be “wrong,” who can argue with that?
The ideal reader of reviews, in my opinion (and only in my opinion; I’m not making a generalisation here) is someone who is secure enough in his own estimation of a film and is now looking at what the critics have to say, hoping that someone out there may have a useful point or two to add to the discussion that, so far, you’ve been having with yourself. The ideal reader, in other words, would let these other voices mingle with the voices inside his head, and keep the conversation going. But if you’re going to “fix” your opinion about a film after you’re through with your discussion with yourself, why would you even bother to read what someone else has to say? Isn’t it just easier to claim, like Sajid Khan, “Critics do not matter,” and move along? Critics matter only if you’re willing to engage with them, wrestle with their opinions, treat them as the equivalent of the friend in college you’d keep arguing with well past the fifteenth glass of rum. Otherwise, they’re all redundant.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
rameshram
April 13, 2012
Criticsm , like filmmaking is an artform. is that so difficult to understand? so how can you equate one critic with another? Obviously SOME critics matter (to ME…of course) and others don’t.
It s the blight of the industry theory of filmmaking which now pwns you and everyone who allows you to write film crit for a living , that you automatically look at it as a “filmmakers VS critics” competition(that’s like a boys Vs Girls math competition who will win? the team that has the smartest people, of course!)
I call for a return to meritocracy in the film business. It has to start with the smart audience voting with their feet…and their brains(and not the more extroverted member of their body)..
Vasisht Das
April 13, 2012
for instance, our very own dr.rangan is the kind of critic many of us haunters of this asylum are rather approving of…
apart of his basic and blatant love for movies, versatality of taste, one of the most important reasons being –
his diagnosis is almost always worth the footage – EVEN when you disagree with him.
and, he actually seems to know how to write in english
(of course, a certain visiting professor Who Shall Not Be Provoked will never tire of inconveniently complaining that we are all rombavey psychofans…valavalaa blah blah.
ptchah, it’s ok i say.)
vikram
April 13, 2012
Good write-up BR….the last part on who is the reader according to you, I concur with…many a times I have read your review, seen the film and come back to read the review again to identify points of congruence / points where we differed from each other…
The other main reason why I read reviews by someone such as yourself is that over a period of time, it has also subtly shaped the way I perceive movies and thus acted as an online film appreciation course if you will…
Sinduja
April 13, 2012
I think the problem of diminishing value of the critic’s opinion is manifold. On one hand, with the rise of web 2.0, that includes blogs, Fb and twitter, everybody is able to publish their two cents on a film. So, even before the trained critic is able to publish his opinion, an average internet user has had multiple opinions from different people and the majority of these different people represent the mass mentality…and their ‘reviews’ if you can call it that span a couple of lines – a quick, easy package. So, the first impression is done and latter reviews can hardly change that.
Secondly, while there are a few who churn out good reviews, like you, many critics employed with reputed organizations, at times, give out really biased ones. Of course, you could ask me how I can judge that. But sometimes, the oddity is so glaring that you can’t miss it. Or, just assume I compare it with the better ones.
Finally, loved the point about the trait of an ideal reader. “someone who is secure enough in his own estimation of a film and is now looking at what the critics have to say, hoping that someone out there may have a useful point or two to add to the discussion that, so far, you’ve been having with yourself.” – hmmm, if I may add, when we replace ‘film’ with experience, then you just doled out the ideal human being itself! Sorry for the long rant.
Krishna Kumar
April 13, 2012
“The ideal reader of reviews, in my opinion (and only in my opinion; I’m not making a generalisation here) is someone who is secure enough in his own estimation of a film and is now looking at what the critics have to say, hoping that someone out there may have a useful point or two to add to the discussion that, so far, you’ve been having with yourself. ”
Well said sir! Precisely why I enjoy reading/reading into your writing.
But the average quality of reviewing in this country is worse than the average quality of filmmaking. 5 out of 10 reviews are paid for. Another 3-4 are written by those with pathetic aesthetic sensibilities. And probably 1 or 2 are worth reading.
Enna Kodumai Saravana Ithu?!?!?
Pranav
April 13, 2012
I have felt for sometime now as I grow older that the cinema is not treated as a form of art by the vast majority of people in India and merely as a source of entertainment. A majority of cinema have been made in India with that motivation right from the beginning therefore do not qualify to be assessed by a critic.
Anu Warrier
April 14, 2012
What gets my goat about Sajid Khan, in particular (and Khalid Mohammed earlier, but that’s a rant for another day), is that before he began making movies, he trashed directors for making what he called ‘stupid’ movies. On his show, he criticised them for being ‘inspired’, he insisted that what passed off as ‘comedy’ was buffoonery, so and so forth. He held forth on people who plagiarised, then claimed they hadn’t heard, much less seen, the original.
And then.
He went off and did exactly what he had deplored, down to plagiarising and then claiming that his film was ‘different’, and now, he hides behind the ‘critics are useless, my real measure of success comes from the audience’ excuse.
It’s the hypocrisy that makes me want to clock him one. If there are directors today who make me want to go watch a movie solely on the basis of their names, Sajid Khan is one name which will ensure I do not step into the theatre.
rameshram
April 14, 2012
“for instance, our very own dr.rangan is the kind of critic many of us haunters of this asylum are rather approving of…”
Dasu,
one day you should google search for “ramesh review of Indian critics” which is how I caused the first riot /klan rally of BR thondars to come poring down to my site in indignation.
brangan
April 14, 2012
Vashisht Das / vikram: Regarding “EVEN when you disagree with him” and “points where we differed from each other,” I’m glad you say this. In the sense, it’s such a given that you’re not going to see eye-to-eye with someone all the time. And yet, people make it a point to keep mentioning this. They’ll be like “I enjoy your writing – EVEN THOUGH I DON’T AGREE
ALWAYS.” And I’ll be like, “Duh”
Sinduja: I was just going to ask you that. How do you conclude that a review is biased? For instance, I don’t like Madhur Bhandarkar’s filmmaking and I don’t think I’ve ever written a nice review of his films. A fan of his may conclude I am biased, right?
Anu Warrier: Sajid Khan had a show?
I thought Kunal Kohli was the one who reviewed films on TV and then went on to make them. Are there any others?
brangan
April 14, 2012
And Sajid Khan says — here — what we knew he was going to say
Sinduja
April 14, 2012
When a writer acclaims a movie like Vijay’s Sura, I don’t think I will actually bother delving into the intricacies of who is biased and who is a fan. Am I wrong? I don’t know. Sometimes, the ‘brain-dead’ tag is irrefutable and I expect the critic to be harsh. I like it when they are harsh when the situation demands it. Diplomacy is not a nice virtue for a critic.
KayKay
April 14, 2012
“How do you conclude that a review is biased?”
Negative bias may be a little tricky to classify (is the movie that bad or does the critic have a bone to pick with the film-maker, although it’s most often the former) but positive bias is dead easy.
Pick a few reviews from BollywoodHungama as an example and it’s easy to figure out that the reviewer (who shall not be named) has his mouth perma-glued to SRK’s schlong.
An excerpt of the Don 2 review:
“DON 2 marks SRK’s return to anti-hero roles after enacting such roles with flourish so early in his career. Recall BAAZIGAR, DARR and ANJAAM. He plays a wicked, debonair anti-hero in DON 2. The character he portrays is iniquitous and sinful, but attractive at the same time and SRK lives it up with gusto. Besides, SRK has also experimented with varied looks in the film, from a debonair looking guy to a person with unkempt hair and stubble. Without doubt, DON 2 is SRK’s best action movie to date. ”
Far be it for me to come between a gushing fanboy and his hero, but when a supposed “review” talks about it’s hero’s varied hairstyles as one if it’s major selling points, then I’m within my rights to squat and take a giant-sized dump all over it. This isn’t what I call a review, this is a stooge shilling for a flick whose studio most likely gives him inside access and scoops, stills, publicity material and paid junkets to premiers in exchange for critical hosannas.
It’s common in Hollywood as well (see Entertainment Weekly) and look no further than the popularity of the thoroughly mediocre Harry Knowles and his thoroughly mediocre Ain’t It ICool News web site to see the pimp-whore relationship between film-maker and (some) critics.
It’s bias of the worst kind.
Anu Warrier
April 14, 2012
Rangan, Sajid Khan had *several* shows on TV in the 90s. There was Top Ten, then there was something called Ikke pe Ikka, and Kehne Mein Kya Harz Hain – I don’t remember which of these was the one where he talked about the latest releases, and picked holes in them, but one would think that after professing such contempt for the usual masala tropes, the suspension of disbelief, even outright copies, he would, when *he* got the chance, make something sensible. (So says someone who has a great tolerance for the masala film).
vishal yogi
April 15, 2012
And when one does not have the leisure and perhaps the $$$ to catch every single flick that gets released – one cant help but try to get a feel for what’s worth a look. Neither are these the caveman days, nor is there any dearth of cinema being released.
So it’s not always practical to watch every movie, and then participate in a discussion with critics.
vijay
April 16, 2012
Directors who keep shouting that critics don’t matter after a hit have a funny and totally different way of responding when one of their next films bombs.Then the tone gets all angry and frustrated, kind of like Gautam Menon after his hindi VTV flunked. I bet these are the guys who are sometimes truly bothered by these reviews when others could be as oblivious as T Rajendar
ramadeva
April 16, 2012
Very good blog.Congrats!There is another Comic going on at the GOI,and they also do not respect,the Parliament,Court,Army,Civil Society or the Common-man.India is a Banana Republic from 2004!.In this situation,is it any wonder that,I have started an online petition against the GOI for “Rollback of petrol price deregulation”?.
Can you please add the Widget at your site?
If you are convinced,can you sign the petition?
Can you request your friends and acquaintances to sign and add the Widget to their blogs, too?Please remember,the GOI,is THREATENING to raise prices by May 7th.2012.please hurry up!
Please visit this site:-
http://veerar-analysis.blogspot.in/
or
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-government-of-india-roll-back-petrol-price-deregulation
Thank you in anticipation,
Ramadeva
Azazel
April 16, 2012
The issue is that ‘most’ critics are obliged to watch and critique every film. Not every critic might have the same taste in films and yet is forced to watch all kinds of films and comment on them. I am sure you too would love to avoid even going near the cinema hall that plays ‘housefull 2′ (gotta give it to Sajid Khan for coining the title… ).
I am the kind of reader who comes here with an open mind in spite of being an avid cinema lover who understands the nuances. Yet I find that I miss some things that you have not and it is gratifying to become aware of these things. I might not be part of the elite ‘intelligentsia’ that follows you but I like it that someone like me can point something to you and you too can graciously accept (in most cases) that your viewpoint could have been flawed.
Initially I used to think tht movies such as Housefull were a hit, in spite of what the critics had to say, purely because a large percentage of the ppl who watch these movies do not read reviews (and a large percentage of this sample can not read). However, I am amazed that when I had gone to watch Hunger Games here in Sydney, there were Doctors, Engineers and qualified accountants lining up to watch Housefull.
So clearly any sort of social discrimination is void. So I put it all down to our hectic and relentless lifestyles and the one word that explains the business of such movies is… escapism.
Shankar
April 16, 2012
@vijay, but aren’t they also the most interesting? (Not to say that TR is not interesting…he is, in his own way). At least these types care enough to get angry ( and maybe even reply to our nuanced as well as not so clever comments) rather than turn into a Ramnarayanan or Ramsey type of assembly line.
With regard to Sajid Khan, I couldn’t stand him then and probably can’t now either. Glad he had all those filmy connections otherwise I wonder what he would have done with his life!!
Shankar
April 16, 2012
@Anu Warrier, you should see Sajid Khan’s (director) Wikipedia page…it gives a good account (very briefly, obviously) of his talent!!
brangan
April 16, 2012
Azazel: Escapism is one factor, all right. It’s also the fact that movie-going is a bit of a ritual, and when there’s nothing else around, people will end up going to films like this. So the fact that this film is a hit does not automatically mean that people have voted for it with their wallets. There could be a large number of people coming out of this cursing the film. One of the big miscoceptions of our era is that Big Hit = Everyone Loves It.
Anu Warrier
April 16, 2012
@Shankar – *shudder* No, thanks. I’ll pass!
Rangan, another critic, who makes it personal, is Khalid Mohammed. Beware if he doesn’t like you – your film will be shredded apart, irrespective of whether it is the next Bicycle Thieves. Seriously. That man can be *very* vindictive! Conversely, if a) he likes you or b) you suck up to him – Housefull will be elevated to the ranks of the classics.
Rohit Ramachandran
April 16, 2012
“If you’re not interested in someone else’s point of view, you are only interested in hearing yourself speak, and for that you don’t need to reach for a newspaper or visit a critic’s blog – you only need to stand in front of a mirror.”
Haha! Well said.
rameshram
April 17, 2012
Portraits and others
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rameshram/sets/72157626640033588/show/
Shankar
April 17, 2012
@Baddy….digression…..I’m hearing lotsa good things about a new Malayalam movie “22 Female Kottayam”. I’m looking forward to it….do watch it if possible. It’s interesting that while the big guns (read the 2 M’s) are predominantly either rehashing their past glory or churning out insipid movies, there is a crop of new, sometimes young film makers that are trying to create new cinema within the Malayalam milieu. Renjith, Blessy, A Abu etc come to the mind. Some of the films I enjoyed watching in the recent past include “Passenger”, ” Traffic”, “Chappa Kurisu”, “Brahmaram” etc. even movies such as “Pranchiyettan and the saint” were different…
Gradwolf
April 18, 2012
More digression..among other interesting things, listened to Ishaqzaade?
vijay
April 18, 2012
“It’s also the fact that movie-going is a bit of a ritual, and when there’s nothing else around, people will end up going to films like this. So the fact that this film is a hit does not automatically mean that people have voted for it with their wallets. ”
And this is why marketing and timing of release is everything these days, when most money is made in the first few days of release before word of mouth gets around. But despite this advantage we have stuff like Raajapattai that manages to beat all expectations
Shankar
April 19, 2012
@Baddy….some more digression…
Heard your film went through a name change…it’s now called “Kadhal 2 Kalyanam 2 Kozhandakutty”!
Eppada vara poradhu?
brangan
April 19, 2012
Shankar: ROFL. I should tell Milind this, though I’m not sure he’ll see the humour here
Seriously though, I just wish, like the US, there was an alternate way to see these small films, like a direct-to-TV or something. A lot of people put in a lot of work into this, and it’s such a shame that they’re not even getting a podium to stand up and be judged. I am probably the only one for whom this was a one-off. For the rest, it’s a question of livelihood. FWIW, I think Divya Spandana did excellent work. She just got the character and brought her to life just the way I imagined her on the page, right down to the expressions.
srivi84
April 19, 2012
Have you removed the post on Mr. & Mrs. Pitt?
venkatesh
April 19, 2012
BR : Was i dreaming ? Wasn’t there an article on Brangelina on your blog after this one ? It seems to be missing.
Maxrider
April 19, 2012
BR – you’ve started an interesting discussion. Would this be an appropriate time to request a post on the work pressures of a full-time film critic? Nothing scandalous if you’re not up for it, atleast basic stuff like time pressures, quota of films to cover, content editing/freedom, whether filmmakers subtly or overtly try to impress you for a favourable review, etc. This would be quite insightful to us readers!
brangan
April 20, 2012
srivi84/venkatesh: slight scheduling goof-up. it will return soon.
Maxrider: Work pressures of any critic (book/music/film) are the same. We are expected to see/hear/read something once and evaluate it at some level. There’s not much time for stuff to sink in, plus there’s always the pressure of writing something that’s engaging/entertaining, as opposed to a mere recitation of facts about the film. So there’s not much time to shape the essay either. And this is the case all over the world.
I am no longer only a film critic and so I don’t have to cover everything, but I do have to see it all (at least the films that make some kind of noise) because it’s important to know what’s out there.
And no, I’ve never been approached my filmmakers for favourable reviews. One reason may be that I always make the point that these are not “recommendatory” reviews, and maybe they feel that only a few readers are going to read my analytical posts about films, and there’s no real box-office value to my writing.
The second thing is that I try to keep a distance from film folk. Of course this is easier said than done, because it’s impossible not to run into people in a gathering, say, or even for professional reasons, and you may strike up a rapport. But it’s better to keep away once you’re done with your interview or whatever, and form no friendships as such.
vijay
April 20, 2012
wonder who’s going to make a film on this. Just reading it was a bit overwhelming for me
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17693816