TO READ… OR NOT TO READ
To know, beforehand, or to walk into a movie unencumbered by knowledge? That’s the dilemma dogging the critic in this age of information overload.
MAR 28, 2010 – BEFORE MOVIES STOPPED BEING ABOUT popcorn and started to mean pay-cheques and punishing deadlines – namely the days before I turned critic, a tranquil period that now resides only in the mind’s eye, warmed by the golden glow of a panoramic David Lean sunset – I was a serious consumer of entertainment literature. (Well, not literature literature, but you get the picture.) Filmfare. Sun. Cine Blitz. Connect. Stardust. The pop-rock essays in Gentleman. Tinseltown. Bommai. Pesum Padam. Sunil’s Lights On column in Kumudham. Even the odd issue of Mayapuri plucked from the wedges of a wooden berth in an express train snaking out of Kanpur. It wasn’t just about who was warming the bedcovers with whom (rather who was “we’re just good friends” with whom). The entire industry was shrouded in a fog of wonderment – you could reach but you could not touch. There were articles about star sons waiting to join the constellation. Or a director, no longer on the fast track, would indulge us with a fond look through his cracked rear-view mirror. Or a musician would open up about the genesis of a riff and we’d gasp as if handed the key to the universe.
Or a mini-booklet of lyrics, tacked on to a flimsy back cover with a measly staple, would finally clarify for us that, in I Wanna Hold Your Hand, The Beatles weren’t pursuing this aim through the use of recreational drugs (“I get high, I get high”) but rather with unconcealed desire (“I can’t hide, I can’t hide”). Or, even better, the gods would descend from Sinai and deliver their commandments, the first and foremost of which was: Thou shalt not bestow allegiance on a rival actor/star. Up in the old loft, under webbing so fine it would turn to powder with a breath, there’s still a cardboard box containing the collected clippings of every word bequeathed to print by Kamal Hassan and Amitabh Bachchan for a period in the eighties. That was a time entertainment information was still rationed out – monthly or weekly, depending on the periodicity of the magazine or television show. There was no daily dose of star news, simply because the only dailies – newspapers – were too dignified to devote supplements to the colour of nail polish on the starlet’s hand as she blew kisses to a phalanx of supplicant photographers.
Today, of course, Page 3 – not the monstrously overrated Madhur Bhandarkar movie, but the devil-spawned culture it set out to skewer – is part of humanity’s collective bloodstream. Prick your thumb and a viscous snippet about Frieda Pinto’s prospective stint as Bond girl will ooze out – and now that it’s everywhere, I have no interest. I don’t flip through movie or music magazines anymore. I delete the entertainment updates that skulk into my inbox. I don’t seek out interviews because they’re often little more than aggrandising puff pieces, the patronising platitudes of stars and directors and singers who know they’ve got to reach out and stay visible at least until time that the wide-eyed public views (or listens to) their product. I hate to be an old gramophone record stuck on a those-were-the-days groove – but most entertainment news, today, is simply snippety gossip. The nostalgia pieces, the mining of golden memories, the salutes to craftsmanship – these have gone the way of the bug-eyed villain and his moll with the ostrich-feather boa. And while I’m not immune to startling exposés about Sandra Bullock’s marriage hitting the rocks mere instants after she scooped up Oscar gold, I’ve ceased to care.
Perhaps I overstate a tad. I do care for the small section of entertainment journalism that still services the notion of cinema (as opposed to being devoted to chronicling every momentous minute of the lives of stars). But – here’s the paradox today – I cannot afford to sip from this unpoisoned well either, at least until after the release of the film (or album) under scrutiny. If the honourable attempt is to free the mind from every possible external influence, to walk into the theatre with a blank slate, I cannot read, beforehand, directors’ interviews and I should not squat down before making-of featurettes on television. And anyway, even with utmost trying, some information almost always slinks through the alligator-strewn moats you’ve consciously constructed around your brain – news about the intents and purposes of the filmmaker, or a squabble about a casting decision, or some rapturous early word from a fortunate soul at the rushes monitor who sped back to his blog (or logged into his Twitter account) and spilled his excitement. So a blank slate, in theory, is impossible today, short of taking up residence in subterranean grottos – peopled by fellow noble-minded, albino-skinned film critics – and surfacing only every Friday for the new releases.
But to the extent possible, I strive to stay away from early word, advance buzz, or any such information that could spoilerify my viewing, which is why – and finally, after all the rose-smelling scenic detours, arriving at the point of this piece – I observed, in my review of Dibakar Banerjee’s Love Sex Aur Dhokha, “The first segment of the triptych is the weakest. Poor-boy Rahul and rich-girl Shruti fall in love on the sets of the student diploma film that he’s directing (and she’s acting in)…” Apparently, this wasn’t the slant of this segment at all. According to a news item reported at ndtv.com (before the film’s release), “A cut with reference to caste in the love story between a low-caste boy and a high-caste girl by the censor board has left Dibakar unhappy.” And the director said, “This completely changes the perspective of my story as now the caste-challenged love story is turned into a poor-boy-rich-girl romance.” And that, precisely, was the ossified object of my contention.
Should I have divined the director’s purpose through preparatory reading, like a diligent student before an all-important examination? Along with this snippet, should I have also leafed through Love Sex Aur Censor, the Open magazine feature about the director’s harrowing wait while the Censor Board twirled its pencil moustache and debated on the many mutilations with which to mar his baby? But isn’t the purpose of a review to assimilate only what’s on (and not what went on behind the) screen? Because, otherwise, wouldn’t a sympathy factor, say, colour your analysis, and wouldn’t you begin to indulge in futile what-if games? Or wouldn’t a filmmaker’s elaboration of his visions influence you to watch the film that he wants you to see (as opposed to the film that you actually see, because the intents of a director needn’t always translate into tangible results, and consequently, the film that one wants to make needn’t be the film that one has ended up making)? Perhaps I’d have been less guarded in my response to Love Sex Aur Dhokha – which I still think is a laudable experiment – had I gone back to the person I was, that covetous consumer of movie and music literature. That, I’m sure, would have been less unfair to the film, less unfair to the director. But then, that wouldn’t have been fair to my viewing, or to my review.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Venkatesh
March 27, 2010
BR, I see what you are trying to say here but why so many long sentences and big words , something of your writing has changed in the last 2-3 articles. Its very “heavy” and instead of flowing ,seems ponderous.
MY 2 pennies ,, make of it what you will.
LikeLike
Aditya Pant
March 27, 2010
I also hadn’t read any pre-release stuff on LSD, so I was also as dissapointed by the first segment. However, while watching the film I did feel there was something amiss when Rahul makes an oblique reference to his caste by saying “hum to special case hain” or some such thing, whereas his lip movement was clearly something else. It was only when I read some online stuff after watching the movie did I realize that it was!
LikeLike
Vivek
March 27, 2010
Err. that’s the exact conundrum I face as a regular movie watcher. Do I read your review before or after watching a movie.
I am actually still not sure if my response to a Vivaah or Subramniapuram would have been very different had I not read your reviews beforehand.
In the age of RTI, how much information is really too much information?
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
March 27, 2010
Boy, you have become a real Indian blogger – “random” “musings/ramblings/thoughts” of a “self-deprecatory adjective” mind. 🙂
But a very pertinent question. I, for one, believe the adage: Don’t trust the artist, trust the art.
But the cinema journalism in India is at its lowest (hopefully lowest since I don’t want it go further down). Why else would critics be now called “entertainment editors”?
Mr. Masand has the uncanny ability to overlook every cinematic aspect of a film to stick to the surface of its story and acting. Has he ever used teh world camera in a review? 100 points for digging out one such review.
Ms. Anupama Chopra, who seems believe film criticism is the most useless thing int eh world, reviewing Benegal’s latest, recommended a DVD viewing so that we could control the pace of the film. That’s a critic who encourages skipping parts of the film. Why watch it anyway?
Ms Vetticad on HT: Enough said.
Mr Qureshi on Zoom seems to have a very neat idea of film direction.
I’m not putting down any of these critics. If that’s their way of working, fine. But they should please stop believing that their word is that of God. They are entertainment journalists serving us pop culture. Not more, not less.
Forget about the print media.
There you go, I have become an Indian blogger too!
LikeLike
ramesh
March 28, 2010
I say go with your gut. Read up if you feel the need and not unless
LikeLike
prasanna
March 28, 2010
great points raised!
LikeLike
vijay
March 28, 2010
BR, this piece was on one of my earlier requests – about your reviewing and how the variables affect it. Glad that you picked it up.Hope it is a series.
I agree with your overall take. Reading up on a movie can be helpful when it is about the topic or subject of the film rather than any interviews/reviews of what the director intended to do which might end up skewing things a bit. Like, if I am watching a biopic like Malcolm X or Milk and dont know who the heck they are or how they look or talk like, that could make the viewing a little less entertaining. Not to mention the appreciation for the actors concerned might not be entirely there. So reading up some there on the topic/subject could be helpful.
But most often it is interesting when you end up reading reviews/interviews after you have actually seen the film. To see if your own interpretation was kind of close to what the director intended to convey. Or how different it was. And many other things besides that.
Unfortunately in this era this doesnt seem feasible. I love the feeling of a great movie/song sneaking up on me without much notice and bowling me over. Used to happen more frequently in the 80s/90s. Like a Mani rathnam movie from the mid-to-late 80s. Or an IR soundtrack that catches you unwares. Not much now. The hype and the promos kill some of the surprise factor.
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
March 28, 2010
The fact that You weren’t aware about the cuts made in LSD is unfortunate, but yet very rare. But I am sure that doesn’t mean you should start keeping a track of every little buzz that the makers create about their film. Because more often than not, It fills us with several preconceived notions – both good and bad.
And as you said, The best way to watch a film is – with ‘a Blank slate’ in your mind. 😉
And thats the precise reason why I catch up all the latest releases on friday itself – also because people like You, Rajeev Masand and Anupama Chopra spoil me. 🙂
And I dont trust myself to be objective enough to watch the movie with same blankness after reading reviews by you guys [no buttering, but You especially :)]
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
March 28, 2010
Just Another Film Buff : Whatever I’ve read of Anupama Chopra and her film reviews, She seems to be the most humble reviewer on the scene.
Still, I do agree its not really ethical for a film critic to advice to “fast-forward the goings-on”.
And thats an interesting observation You made about Rajeev Masand. 🙂 But I dont understand how does that make him any less good?
Because you know :), for that matter, Even Rangan sir speaks not so much about Camera as about tone, director’s intentions and the narrative, from whatever hindi film reviews I’ve read by him (No offenses, Rangan sir.)
And even I dont think its a mandatory thing to write about Camerawork.. because Our films don’t seem to make much use of it anyways. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
March 28, 2010
Venkatesh: Yeah, I’m not very happy with this piece either. It all depends on how much in the zone you are when you’re writing these things. Sometimes the effects come easily. Sometimes, you try and try and all that effort shows up as a half-baked product. Win some, lose some, I guess. Which other article of late did you see this problem in, BTW? Now please don’t say “all” 🙂
vijay: Reg. “But most often it is interesting when you end up reading reviews/interviews after you have actually seen the film.” I like to see what others have “seen” in the film, how their idiosyncratic viewing has shaped the film in their eyes.
Reg. “I love the feeling of a great movie/song sneaking up on me without much notice and bowling me over.” Yeah, that’s totally gone today. I still remember… I didn’t even know Mani had done a Telugu film named Geethanjali, and one day there was a full-page Dinathanthi ad, with a dramatic still from O Priya Priya, and the movies name said Idhayathai Thirudathey. I thought it was actually a Tamil film 🙂
LikeLike
Hari
March 28, 2010
I am not one of those hardcore ‘first-day-first-show’ cinephiles who would not let even an ounce of a critic’s creativity seep into their mind lest it adulterate their viewing. Of late, I have got into the habit of ‘playing-it-late'(inspired by a few articles of yours truly)-I make it a point to let the initial hype surrounding a movie die down before I go ahead and watch it-so, it’s impossible for me to avoid the reviews even if I confine myself to ‘subterranean grottos’ before I settle down to watch it.
All these strategies notwithstanding, sometimes its’ OK for lay-people like me, who are just in the process of tasting different recipes to shape their taste, who might not have as much of diversity in their movie-portmanteau as you, to let their views get colored(whether it happens before the first viewing or after the first viewing is a matter of debate and preference)…..it’s better to have an ‘informed’ opinion than an ignorantly eccentric one even if the former happens to be slightly colored yet original.
For example, I guess it would have been impossible for an average cinephile like me to decipher the nitty-gritty of a few movies like ‘no smoking’ or ‘there will be blood’ had I not allowed my views to be at least partly ‘colored’-reading the reviews, or those observations(of informed critics like you). Reading the reviews, in these cases, became more of ‘informing myself’ rather than ‘adulterating my views.’
LikeLike
Hari
March 28, 2010
BR: I think you might not have had all the ‘tools’ at your disposal in the eighties you have access to now, so, your viewings(of the same set of movies) now might present a different picture than they used to earlier, right?
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
March 28, 2010
Harsh,
I absolutely agree. You needn’t actually drone about the camera work. Were is respect for cinema anyway in most mainstream criticism? But I told that when talking about Mr. Masand to denote the superficiality of his approach. When he speaks about the film’s story, he evaluates it as we get it. None of the undercurrents, subtexts or ironies are even referred to.
And Ms Chopra is humble alright. Too humble to be considered seriously. Every other remark she makes about film reviewing seems to be how inconsequential it is and how none of it matters box office etc. WHat does she want anyway?
LikeLike
Hari
March 28, 2010
I think you might not have had all the ‘tools’ at your disposal in the eighties you have access to now, so, your viewings(of the same set of movies) now might present a different picture than they used to earlier, right?
It would be interesting to read what BR the movie-buff(of the 80s) thought about his favorite movies then and how differently BR, the film critic views the same now.
LikeLike
Aravind
March 28, 2010
I am a bit disappointed with the piece too! But that is probably coz after reading the title I was expecting the piece to be on the “book first or movie first” dilemma that I have every time a well adapted movie is out. Maybe a piece on that sometime?
LikeLike
Adithya
March 28, 2010
So now I know why there were no replies to any of the comments regarding the LSD first story in the previous post!
LikeLike
Suresh
March 29, 2010
The review scene for movies as well as music (classical or film) is almost the same now. You can say that there is almost an absolute lack of ‘real’ criticism as I see it. I especially feel pained when I read the reviews of most of the Carnatic music concerts.
One of the reasons I think most of the reviews are very lukewarm in terms of content, is that most of the media organizations are now ‘media partners’ for a film. So how do you expect anyone from that publication to review a film negatively? This is probably something we would like to hear from Baradwaj than the topic that he has discussed here. Read it or don’t read it, I am sure a good critic will eventually evaluate the film based on what he sees on the screen. What I would like to know, how does the critic react to movies in which his / her own media organization has a stake? Do they have the freedom to write what they want? (A classical example here would be the review of the Tamil film ‘Valmiki’ in Vikatan. The film was torn apart by the general public but Vikatan gave it 42 marks. It was a Vikatan production.)
The whole media – entertainment nexus disconcerts viewers who want to read some unbiased criticism.
LikeLike
Sandhya
March 29, 2010
BR
My faveeeeeee topic…
“…covetous consumer of movie and music literature” is most definitely how my epitaph would read were I to be knocked down dead tomorrow. And yet I completely understand your urge to go in as uninformed as possible. But over-imbibification (yes I made up that word) is a by-product of cinema and music love especially when you cannot resist the entertainment section of any media channel you consume. Hell, entertainment news dominates the front page of every one of these channels be it TOI or CNN.com. My tactic – path of least resistance. If you don’t want to know too much about a forthcoming release, don’t read the reviews and certainly don’t google.If you’re eye is drawn to related tidbits of info, it’s okay to peek. Once I’m done watching the said movie, I mop up every written word if I want to (starting usually with your blog). You know the revelation I’ve had over the years? The best works of art are the hardest to pin down in print. People can say how much they liked or hated the product and give all the star ratings and thumbs ups and downs they want, but if an opinion does not clearly express the exact bone of contention or reason for satisfaction, I know I will be in for some kind of unforeseen experience, mostly pleasant…one that all the star interviews and rediff features and PFC fanblogs cannot dilute. A recent case in point for me was Inglourious Basterds…Having watched it months after release and read quite a bit on the movie, I wasn’t sure if I had ruined the experience for myself; was greatly relieved to be proved wrong. The opposite happened with Avatar, the movie added almost nothing to what I already imagined it would be like from my prior readings. So I guess a really good actor/director/music composer is basically defined by his or her success with filling the unspoken gaps that your mind cannot fill in after the larger pieces of the puzzle have been assembled from external co-ordinates defining the work.
LikeLike
brangan
March 30, 2010
Hari: About deciphering the “nitty-gritty of a few movies,” it’s again a matter of whether you want to:
(1) engage with the movie, have your own personal conversation with it (however crazy; after all, you’re conversing with a strip of celluloid), come away with your inferences, and then see if your interpretations are shared by others.
or
(2) just sit back, read up what others have to say, and then use those interpretations to understand the film, which essentially means that you’re watching the film through the reviewer’s eyes. That’s not always a good thing because you’re granting a critic too much power, power over your mind, power to influence your way of thinking/processing a movie.
Suresh: Maybe I’ll cross that bridge when The New Indian Express produces a film — or when(ever) K2K is out 😉
Sandhya: Beautiful comment, thanks. Very true about “The best works of art are the hardest to pin down in print… if an opinion does not clearly express the exact bone of contention or reason for satisfaction, I know I will be in for some kind of unforeseen experience.” That’s one thing that puzzles me about some reviewers. They say this is good and this is bad, but I’m not able to get a sense of *why*. WHY did this work (or not work) for them is the only reason for criticism IMO, because it gives me a point of view through which to look at the film. Without that POV, I’m just reading sentences about plot and actors and cinematography.
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
March 30, 2010
Rangan : Bravo! Thats exactly as you put it – Either to have our own conversation with the movie, or watch it through the reviewers’ eyes.
But But But… Here’s where you got me thinking….
“That’s not always a good thing because you’re granting a critic too much power, power over your mind, power to influence your way of thinking/processing a movie.”
So… What is the purpose of a Film critic after all ? To give his personal opinion about the movie, or to inform the consumers about how good it may be for them in general?
As much as I am thankful to Internet that it gives me a chance to read such insightful opinions by people like You, I am sure The Employers don’t work the same way. Or do they?
LikeLike
Hari
March 30, 2010
I would have completely agreed with you had you used this observation for a piece of abstract impressionistic painting but…in the case of a movie, especially if it happens to be one made in a country like ours with thousands of dialects spoken, 23 officially recognized languages and multiplicity of perspectives(even if there isn’t an ;audience’ as such for all of them),there is always a certain context to the story/screenplay that goes while making a given movie, a certain ‘vision’ the director has which she/he wants to get translated into motion in the process of which it evolves-even if the context gives room for subjectivity, there is always an element of ‘convergence of interests’ to it; therefore, people belonging to one ‘strata'(using this term in a broader sense) may find certain areas where their views match whereas people belonging to the other strata may find certain entirely contradictory opinions-which is fine, as long as the views of both are ‘informed’-this is where I feel a reviewer, a critic plays a vital role-a reader expects him to be capable of expressing ‘informed’ perspective-POV which might be entirely subjective but is expected to have strong ‘rationale’.
So, having one’s views ‘coloured’ doesn’t always have to mean a complete hijacking of one’s reasoning by the reviewer, it can also refer to looking for hitherto unknown/unheard perspectives. This adds another dimension to the reader’s perspective, but does not necessarily result in her/his mind getting strongly influenced..
I primarily use two ‘parameters’ to find-out whether a movie ‘worked’ for me or not:
a) What might have the ;vision’ of the director been(however abstract it might be_?
b) Whether the director has successfully translated his vision into motion.
In my opinion, the first point is where informed opinion by a writer like you helps-it helps a viewer put things into perspective before starting to watch a film-he might not agree with you and might look for a different vision as well, that’s fine, but he at least has a certain ‘context’-whether he lets the ‘context’ get the better of his idiosyncratic perspective is up to him.
Whether the vision has been successfully translated is for the viewer to search. find-out and argue-your take on the scene where Vasu bashes-up the lascivious villager in ‘moondram pirai’ could be a case in point-Balu Mahendra might not have intended to add any sexual connotation to the fight but your creative instincts(apparently with a Freudian angle to them? :)) made you decipher such connotation….
LikeLike
brangan
April 1, 2010
B.H.Harsh: The “purpose” of a film critic is to provide a well-argued (or well-reasoned) POV that constitutes an interesting opinion about a movie. If all critics do their job well, then we’ll have a whole bunch of such opinions, that will cover a film from various angles (emotional, academic, sociological, feminist) and thus provide a comprehensive look. Of course, this is the ideal, and this cannot be done for most mainstream films — say, Hum Tum Aur Ghost.
Hari: Excellent set of points. Thanks. I agree that “having one’s views ‘coloured’ doesn’t always have to mean a complete hijacking of one’s reasoning by the reviewer.” I was saying something slightly different. For instance, in My Dev.D review, I looked at Abhay Deol holding up a little finger (when he needs to go to the loo) as the action of an “infant” and then if I connected this to Paro’s “mothering” him in his dingy hotel room.
If you read this BEFORE your viewing, you’re going to look at the scenes and see what I see (even if you don’t agree with it). Whereas, otherwise, you may have seen something else. That’s where I was coming from, not hijacking of one’s reasoning by the critic but a strong nudge towards “reading” a scene from the critic’s POV (which, in the speed that a film plays out, as opposed to a novel that you can pause and ponder over, leaves little time for “argument” while watching the film).
LikeLike