ART IN THE MART
Is creativity in mainstream Indian cinema a contradiction of sorts? And are we, the audience, responsible in some way?
AUG 22, 2010 – IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY WEEKLY Part of the Picture posts, where I discuss foreign-language art cinema, a reader wrote, “When I read your musings on parts (and sometimes the whole) of some of these films, one thought (apart from the sense of appreciation of the ‘art’ of foreign cinema) that keeps recurring is: When did Indian cinema go down to the depths of Hades it (mostly) resides in? From what I seem to understand, our cinema did not start off terribly; after all, we have had a rich history of theatre for a long time, one which was not merely vaudeville but had serious art in it. Are the 80s the real culprit? Indian cinema had been hijacked by a bunch of tasteless businessmen, who removed even the pretences of art from it, and that is why most of our movies, even the ones from the better filmmakers, suffer from some affliction or the other.”
I empathise with his anguish. But at least with regard to commercial cinema, consider this: Any mainstream film industry in any corner of the world is the darkened-hall equivalent of a Fellini whorehouse. The intent, indeed the raison d’être, is to parade an array of tarted-up beauties so that enthusiastic customers will loosen their purse strings. And most of these customers are interested in big breasts and acrobatic adeptness, rather than the ability to carry out candlelit conversations about Kafka. (It’s the critics, primarily, who care about brains, and that’s why they are invariably impotent when it comes to box office results.) The comfort of the familiar, that’s what most mainstream audiences want, and the trick is to make each prostitute look different – with a new wig perhaps, or even a whip – and yet the same. The skill of the entertainer lies in convincing the customer that he’s enjoying this experience for the very first time.
It is for this reason that mainstream-cinema creativity is a slightly different beast than what is seen (or possible) in independent film or alternative cinema (the kind covered in the Part of the Picture posts) – especially in a country like ours, where films are financed by individual producers. In Hollywood, for instance, the studio system is still operational, and these studios regularly churn out lowest-common-denominator spectacles that routinely amass millions of dollars around the world. Critics, there, frequently bemoan the lack of creativity in these blockbusters, but audiences don’t care because they have their something-same-yet-different. The important thing is that at least a portion of the profits from these tarted-up prostitutes goes towards grooming a Kafka-spouting courtesan, who will set about seducing the Oscar voters. There are, therefore, both the financial means as well as the honorific incentives to court the kind of creativity that Bollywood simply cannot afford to. (I restrict the discussion to Bollywood because it’s our biggest mainstream industry and therefore amply symptomatic of the “problems” in Kollywood and Tollywood and so forth.)
That, however, is a reflection of reality and – as the reader points out – it cannot be the excuse for the largely unremarkable state of creativity in our mainstream cinema. If creativity is seen as the ability to transcend traditional paradigms and wind up with something new, what we have to show is mostly remakes – from our own films (Parineeta, Karz, Umrao Jaan, Sholay, Don), from Hollywood (Memento, Hitch, Disclosure, Man on Fire), or distressingly, even from Iran (Children of Heaven). But this lack of “originality” isn’t the point. If creativity is viewed simplistically as the origination of the never-before, the equivalent of the invention of fire and the wheel, then Brahms wouldn’t be so celebrated for Variations on a Theme of Paganini. It’s the old distinction between being inspired versus plagiarising. Brahms not only credits his source, but, more importantly, he reworks it and reclaims it. He takes something from someone else and makes it his own. That is creativity.
The problem of crediting the source material, with respect to mainstream Bollywood, is something that we won’t get into here. It’s shameful that – with exceptions like the forthcoming Karan Johar-produced remake of Stepmom – our producers and directors turn a blind eye to the fact that they have chosen to profit from the sweat dripping off another person’s brow. But the aspect of being “inspired” is certainly within the scope of this discussion, and it is exemplified by films like Chak De India (from numerous Hollywood underdog-victory sports sagas) and Omkara (from Othello) and even Slumdog Millionaire, which, though technically not a Bollywood film, is easily mistaken for one, what with its impoverished brothers growing up to be on either side of the law, with the girl (instead of, say, the mother in the case of Deewar) caught in the middle. But these overfamiliar tropes were rendered fresh and new through the cast and the darting cinematography and the docu-verité treatment of melodrama.
It’s no secret that we’re slowly becoming one world now, with one mind and one voice and one taste. The television programmes we metro-Indians watch have all been tried and tested in other countries (Who Wants to be a Millionare?, Big Brother, Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?, American Idol), and the India that we used to be in the pre-liberalisation era (which now appears to be a thousand years ago) has been relegated to regional cinema. (The Hindi-heartland-based Bhojpuri film or the Madurai-set Tamil film, today, is more “Indian” than the cinema made in the national language, which, ever since its Farhan Akhtarisation with Dil Chahta Hai, looks towards multiplexes in the metros for its returns.) It’s reasonable to assume, therefore, that creative fires are increasingly going to be struck with sparks from elsewhere. The question, however, is whether we hear the voice of the creator – not the “original” creator but his “inspired” namesake.
This voice we consistently hear only in the individual components of our films. Bollywood’s promotional departments, for instance, are truly cutting-edge in terms of ideas and design. The quality of graphic art in some of our posters is comparable to the best from anywhere in the world. So too the cinematography, the production design, and most importantly, the music, with the metro-friendly AR Rahman and Amit Trivedi and Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, among others, having cornered signature status. Our antennae may perk up at the sounds of Taare Zameen Par or Rock On, with their unembarrassed deployment of classic-rock templates, but these sources remain, at most, an inspiration. These albums are entirely original (and creative) variations on those themes. The tones and textures of the cinematography of Dev.D may hark back to European cinema, but those influences have been subsumed organically – again, as variations on themes.
Why, then, don’t the films themselves, in their entirety, reflect this creativity? If the building blocks are creative enough, why does the completed edifice reek of second-handedness? One reason is surely that the writing, when not illuminated by a voice, can never come across as original. But could there be another? Could it be that, as a scenario in L.A. Confidential posited, we, the paying public, are content with look-alikes of originals? In that film, which is as good a metaphor as any for mainstream moviemaking, the prostitution racket flourished because it was impossible to spend a night with the original stars, and only the make-believe replicas were available. The customers slept with cosmetically engineered fakes and convinced themselves that they were sleeping with Lana Turner or Veronica Lake. Maybe we’ve become those customers, with respect to demanding creativity from mainstream Bollywood. Maybe we have little hope for truly transcendental originality and routinely settle for second-best, and because we keep the cash counter ringing, there isn’t an incentive to class up the joint. After all, we still have the power to choose the ways in which we want to be pleasured.
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.
Suresh kumar
August 21, 2010
Speaking of TV shows. See how they have tried to copy the Susan Boyle chapter from “Britain’s Got Talent” in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa..
http://srgmpss.zeetv.com/videos/sa-re-ga-ma-pa-singing-superstar-august-13-episode-video-mugdha-performs-at-mumbai-auditions.html
Obviously, poorly scripted and poorly performed by the judges
LikeLike
Aditya Pant
August 21, 2010
I wouldn’t call Parineeta and Umrao Jaan as remakes of our own films. I look at them as another adaptation of literary classics. Would you call Muzaffar Ali’s Umrao Jaan a remake of Zindagi Ya Toofan or Mehndi, both of which were based on Ruswa’s novel? JP Dutta’s Umrao Jaan, for example, follows the narrative structure of the original novel more closely than Muzaffar Ali’s version.
LikeLike
Niranjan
August 21, 2010
I was expecting a sound byte off you when I wrote that comment, but an entire “Between Reviews” is such a great response, not to mention, wonderful read!
Yeah, your observations about various departments of Indian cinema music, cinematography, graphic design and so on seem to narrate a parallel story of their own! But like how a good ‘meal experience’ at a restaurant is determined primarily by the food, and is only enhanced by the ambience, the cutlery and so on, without good writing all the pains in these elements coming crashing down.
One other thing that struck me was how our movies try to ‘keep things simple’. The makers of the movie seem to want to tell us, these are the good guys, root for them, those others are the baddies. In other words, they are terrified of the possibility of interpretative versions.
I have wondered how the makers of Darr might have initially reacted when the film Darr was a huge commercial success but the expected reaction from the audience must rate the movie a ‘flop’; after all, the intended psychopath made off with the audiences’ sympathy, and in fact most audiences cheered when he stabs the hero!!
LikeLike
Shashi
August 21, 2010
Brilliant, Baradwaj!
Adding to what you have already said, the audience doesn’t want films like Udaan. How can we blame the industry for generating trash?
LikeLike
vijay
August 22, 2010
I am not sure about Hindi cinema, but atleast in Tamil the 80s were sort of the tipping point, with big houses like AVM favoring Murattu kaalai or Sakalakalavallavan over moondram pirai or Mullum malarum, driving frustrated directors like Balu Mahendra to make suggestively titled movies like “Neengal kEttavai” . And Kamal, in a case of misguided loyalty to AVM, set about to do bad and badder movies for them. I actually think things are a little better now than they were in the 80s. There are at least about a half a dozen directors at any point of time doing something they like(mostly with a rural or semi-urban milieu) as opposed to doing something the big houses would want them to. But on the flip side the excessive hype coupled with hijacking of media by political interests is killing some of it. Shankar, the producer, deserves some credit here. Rajkamal films mainly served Kamal, but Shankar set about realizing scripts from newcomers that would have otherwise found no takers. His Kaadhal was some sort of a pioneering effort in Tamil cinema looking back. It has inspired this whole slew of Madurai-based and in general small-town films. His S pictures have been hit or miss of late, but atleast he set the ball rolling. Now Gautham Menon wants to emulate him by producing indie kind of films with his Photon films. Unless there is some collective effort like that from big names towards producing fresh scripts, can’t expect much of a difference. The economics has to change, before we can expect a big change on screen.
LikeLike
anamika
August 22, 2010
An excellent overview and perspective which as an avid film buff(ess!) has been gnawing me when one sits through another reel where painted stars in popcolored suits parade with their gucci and mobile phones intact.Aishaa was one big ad film…and the total disconnect(it was not even an intended disconnect)actually left me feeling fatigued…the audience and the canned laughter…the uncomfortable restlessness if there is even thirty seconds of silence and just the lack of anything community about watching films in a theatre.
Malayalam cinema has its rahrah kind of films with ageing superstars (there are only 2!)but in teh madness always produces alternative cinema also…at least interesting films that try to push boundaries and feel real, in the sense of depiction of certain milieu.
An oasis is the kurosawas’ of the world..even today rashomon gives me a high..
a friend gave me a marthi film natarang…in this little gem of a film…i still believe in hope!
thanks Br and if you have been invited for an onam sadhya..enjaaay!
LikeLike
bran1gan
August 22, 2010
Suresh kumar: But one show that grips me whenever I manage to catch it (on Colors) is India’s Got Talent. It’s just the sheer variety of either talent or cluelessness in our country that makes for a great watch. It’s actually quite surreal at times.
Aditya Pant: I was just going from the aspect of “not new” but you’re right. These aren’t remakes but re-adaptations.
Niranjan: “Keep things simple” is just an economic strategy. If you want to reach a large audience, you have to keep it simple and dumb things down — whether here or in Hollywood. Why else do you think Inception is such a big hit?
Shashi/vijay: This has become a problem ever since the VCR era began and home-viewing became a comfortable and preferred option. It’s like what happened with Anbe Sivam or Kannathil Muthamittal. Everyone saw it on TV and said things like, “Oh, this is such a good movie. I wonder why it didn’t run in theatres.” Well, it didn’t run because people like YOU didn’t go to the theatres 🙂
And in case anyone’s interested, Truffaut’s last interview from The New Yorker. “I think being a critic helped me because it’s not enough to love films or see lots of films. Having to write about films helps you to understand them better. It forces you to exercise your intellect. When you summarize a script in ten sentences, you see both its strengths and its weaknesses. Criticism is a good exercise, but you shouldn’t do it for too long. In retrospect, my reviews seem more negative than not, as I found it more stimulating to damn rather than praise; I was better at attacking than defending. And I regret that. I’m much less dogmatic now, and I prefer critical nuance.”
LikeLike
vijay
August 22, 2010
So, did being a critic help you in K2K? 😉
LikeLike
vijay
August 22, 2010
I consider many of these so-called Reality shows as just a bad byproduct of globalization or whatever. 15-20 yrs back quiz or singing contests used to be no-frills no-nonsense shows, with competent hosts. Now the fake drama, the SMS bullshit, bogus judging and a bunch of other things just turn me off.And also due to the multitude of channels the talent in these shows get diluted. Someone who gets rejected in one channel promptly shows up in the other with the same fake humility, emotions and mannerisms. Of course not everything is as bad. Once in a while some good ideas, even if unoriginal, like Naalaya iyakkunar are welcome. But for the most part it is annoying. Those who haven’t sung 4 or 5 songs worth a damn are the judges on a lot of these shows. I guess they make more money judging contests than getting to sing. There is so much stuff to skewer here. I wish someone would go George Carlin on this whole setup.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
August 22, 2010
A really vast topic to chew on, and one which might have no answer. But it’s good to start chipping from one side at least.
I think there are many small vicious circles at work. I’d say the relative quality of our mainstream to the west has always been the same, be it 1950s or 2000s. But the absence of a substantial alternate cinema has been troubling.
One reason might be that cinema has long been considered a pastime of charlatans and the undignified. As a friend remarked, a Robert Ludlum book is any day better than a Robert Bresson movie (the degradation starts right at this word – movie). May be it’s because of the amount of money and scandals involved. Consequently it has been treated as if anyone can handle it.
Likewise the absence of a good body of film criticism feeds on and feeds the proliferation of bad cinema.
But why this should be a uniquely Indian phenomenon beats me right now.
LikeLike
bran1gan
August 22, 2010
vijay: You keep forgetting that k2k is milind’s film — not mine 🙂
JAFB: Yeah, a really vast topic. But I don’t see why the absence of a good body of film criticism should abet bad cinema. I’d think the lack of viable financial outlets is more like it. If the multiplexes can be proved to be viable outlets for small-budget niche films in a really sustained manner, then we too can become like Hollywood — a lot of mainstream crap, plus a lot of interesting indie stuff. Criticism, I feel, is more an adjunct to the whole issue.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
August 22, 2010
But then, who’s to tell the public what is good cinema and what isn’t. If all had gone well, the normal movie goer in India would be acquainted with a lot of really good films. It’s the critics job to boost certain films, hit the nail on the forehead of those pretentious stuff, tell the audience what the film really conveys. Then we’d have a very perceptive audience.
LikeLike
Arthi V
August 23, 2010
Have been watching quite a few films of contemporary Korean cinema and it’s amazing how within the said setups of commercial movie-making these guys come up with such varied films. (whether a crime thriller or horror or rom-com or the melodr kind). You’d make connections or sense familiarity but the two hours or so that you invest is more often than not very worthwhile. Nothing is ever placed on a platter for the viewer. There is so much creativity of precisely the kind that you write of that is dearly lacking in the cinema here.
LikeLike
yadu
August 24, 2010
@BR: In my view, this has always been the classic dilemma of film makers in India. The problem has mainly got to do with the different social strata (apart from the urban-rural divide), with each stratum being equally passionate about cinema. How does a film maker create something that is loved by all? Something that is popular (populist?) as well as creative? So they seem to take the easy way out and make movies based on successful templates.
As RGV says, a creative film maker ultimately has to make the movie for his/her own self and not for the audience, as no one can predict what clicks with an audience. And that’s the reason why I still watch RGV, Vishal and Mani’s movies, even if they fail sometimes.
LikeLike
Apu
August 25, 2010
JABF: ‘But then, who’s to tell the public what is good cinema and what isn’t….It’s the critics job to boost certain films, hit the nail on the forehead of those pretentious stuff, tell the audience what the film really conveys.’
While I am a ardent fan of what BR writes, and I check up on this site whenever a new movie releases to see what his opinion is, I still think that no one should have the right to choose what is ‘good’ for me, be it cinema, books, or art in any form. I would always look for opinions and suggestions, but your statement almost makes a critic sound like a censor board or a search optimization engine which tells me which results are more relevant. I might have misunderstood.
Cinema, like art or literature, is a medium of communication between the maker and the viewer, and when the communication is effective, i.e. the maker has managed to convey what he/she intended to convey, it makes the viewer think, and/or feel and maybe act. In this entire process, what makes a movie ‘good’ – the thought or intentions of the maker, his/her effectively communicating the thought/idea, the way this effective communication grasps the viewer or the after-effects?
I understand that I am over-analyzing, but if the parameter of creativity is Dev.D, then my machoistic streak is not strong enough for me to see any other ‘creative’ or ‘artistic’ movies. In other words, while some movies are glaringly bad, for a lot of them, there is no black and white way to group them, and one man’s art is the other man’s noise.
LikeLike
Niranjan
August 25, 2010
Actually its movies from countries like Iran and Mexico that make our movies look utterly asinine. For instance, from what I’ve read, the budget of Guillermo Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth was about the same as that of Kkrish (not sure if I got all the k’s). Likewise whenever I heard people compare Yuva/Ayudha Ezhuthu with Amores Perros because of the way the stories unfold, and I found it a bit unfair to both movies. Yuva is a completely different story indeed, but the latter is a vastly superior movie.
And this is the primary problem. There seems to be a kind of reductionism at work here which insults the Indian audience collectively. No wonder,we often hear the preamble, “For an Indian film, the movie is quite good….”
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
August 25, 2010
Ah, you’ve probably opened another can of worms – subjectivity vs objectivity etc. It’s not about choosing for you or being authoritative, it’s about giving a refined perspective, which surely is the job of an expert.
In this entire process, what makes a movie ‘good’ – the thought or intentions of the maker, his/her effectively communicating the thought/idea, – Consider this, a filmmaker makes a film that has very objectionable (objectionable to humanity, in general – being racist for eg.) undertones. The movie is so well made that the pop culture assimilates it. Will you say it is a good movie then? The job of the critic is to deny that complacent luxury. Likewise, if a very low-key film with great ideas comes, it is the critics job to boost it, to make it a point of talking among the general mass.
A critic is largely responsible for what should permeate general way of life and what doesn’t. His is a veryy responsible job. If the critic was not needed to tell you what is good and what is not, why at all have commentaries? I can argue that is a great director by defending my subjectivity, while I’ll be nailed if I say Shane Warne is one of the best batsmen in the world. That’s because criticism has helped people to judge parameters better.
Without criticism, there are no canons, no history to keep track of. This means your present prism of evaluation does not have a solid basis (to open another can of worms).
one man’s art is the other man’s noise. – But then, will you accept noise as art if it appeals to you? I respect subjectivity, but there’s much value to things such as expert opinion and truth value of art, which sadly is looked down upon when it comes to cinema.
I’m not saying that success or failure of a movie is based on the critic’s word (an ideal view that is unfortunately untrue given the Goliathian marketing machinery), but that the critic must always act as a gatekeeper to the culture, shileding it from regressive ideas of certain films.
LikeLike
Amrita
August 25, 2010
As JAFB notes, way too much to say. One of the things I would argue is that movies reflect the state of the country in which they are made. If you get the leaders you deserve as a people, then you definitely get a variation of that with the movies.
The reason Hollywood makes the “one for them, one for me” mix of commercial and indie movies is because there is a very real perception, to a large extent serviced by box office results, trade analysts and movie criticism, that there is a vast audience out there of basically idiots whose sole interest in going to the movies is to see shiny things go boom on a big screen or gawk at their favorite movie crush, and then there are the elites who like their movies to mean something. They (occasionally) phrase it more politely than that but that’s where this concept is coming from and imo it dates back to the 1970s and that whole cultural change that took place.
At the same time in the 70s, Bollywood came into its own, pushing aside the Hindi cinema of old, and retreated deep into fantasy where the little guy didn’t just take on the system and win, he won it with his fist. It’s the cinema of the powerless. A more extreme example would be a North Korean movie. The Iranian cinema that gets lauded so much is not mainstream cinema. It’s arthouse fare that got its start with the political movements that led to the Revolution and in many cases are banned in Iran. I’ve always had the impression that the reason they make the movies they do is because they’re working under a lot of pressure.
Bollywood today finally has a place for Hindi cinema once more because Indian society has changed dramatically in the past 10 years or so, creating the “multiplex audience” which doesn’t really know anything all that much better than its “Gandhi stall” parents 20 years ago, but the difference is that once it exits the theater (or even when it is still inside the theater, for that matter, thanks to Twitter), it is privy to a larger discussion about what it has just seen.
I know Aamir Khan is a big proponent of cinema spearheading change but the fact is cinema rarely does anything of the sort. It might publicize an issue to a greater extent but it’s really playing catch up all the time.
LikeLike
bran1gan
August 26, 2010
Niranjan: “Actually its movies from countries like Iran and Mexico that make our movies look utterly asinine.” I don’t think you can compare the two. They cater to very different audiences. I agree with Amrita that this is mainly arthouse fare we see from Iran — their equivalent of our Ishqiyas and Udaans (without songs, of course). But Iran doesn’t have a commercial/mainstream film industry and so you cannot compare and say we suck. Our ratio of (mainstream) crap-to-decent films is probably the same as mainstream Hollywood’s.
LikeLike
Niranjan
August 26, 2010
“Our ratio of (mainstream) crap-to-decent films is probably the same as mainstream Hollywood’s.”
You really think that is the case? I find it very hard to believe!
On a related note, have you had the occasion to talk with/interview some of the current crop of better directors? The ones I have in mind are Anurag Kashyap, Dibakar Banerjee, Shimit Amin, and perhaps some others.
LikeLike
Amrita
August 27, 2010
Actually, I hear Bollywood is very big in Iran. 😀 State TV apparently shows it all the time.
LikeLike
arijit
August 27, 2010
What is somewhat sad is the lack of a cohesive and original voice among our current crop of filmmakers. Maybe only Vishal Bharadwaj and Dibakar Banerjee come to mind in Hindi cinema, Rituparno Ghosh in Bengali cinema (I have zero exposure to cinema in other Indian languages)…they are perhaps the only ones who have truly imbibed the international stylistics and created something that bears the mark of originality…in a certain sense they can be called close to being auteurs…
LikeLike
vijay
January 19, 2011
JAFB, you put too much stock on what a critic has to do. Read AO scott’s line on a critic’s role quoted by BR in the latest bitty ruminations(#35). I don’t think a film critic has to take it upon himself to lead the poor ignorant audience from the dark passages to the light, helping them tell progressive from regressive culture and such. He doesn’t have to be the self-anointed culture police. What you are suggesting is downright condescending. A critic, because of his exposure to movies and occasional insider’s knowledge can provide well informed options(especially can identify cliches). And a well articulated insight into the film. That’s about it. Nothing more.
“I can argue that is a great director by defending my subjectivity, while I’ll be nailed if I say Shane Warne is one of the best batsmen in the world. That’s because criticism has helped people to judge parameters better.”
No, its because in sports you have a lot more objective parameters to evaluate a performance in the first place and so you get nailed easily if you make an absurd statement like that.I don’t need a Harsha Bhogle to tell me that Warne is not a great batsman.
And even in music, singing is a lot more easier to evaluate objectively than say, composing.
LikeLike
rameshram
January 19, 2011
ok guys? (and X) perspective?
India: billionpoint two five people, 1245 languages for films: mainly 17.
Iran: number of films 70 population of Iran : 72 million number of languages/dialects for the 70 films made in iran each year: 5
Mexico: 70 (films made) 107(population) languages : 1
India , in other words does many more things with its films than most of the rst of the non Hollywood world PUT TOGETHER.
so one X saying dismissive things about its male audiences predilictions or one niranjan comparing it dismissively to countries that tailor films for cannes, is not definitive of Indian cinema.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
January 19, 2011
Wow, I’m surprised that someone actually came back to this.
Vijay,
I agree. The sports example doesn’t get us anywhere.
Also, I did not mean to be condescending. What I mean is that a film critic is not just criticizing a film, he’s reviewing a cultural commodity. So his review is a reflection on culture itself.
Your stance seems to be the opposite extreme. That makes critic little more than a guy with lot of time in his hands. What is an “insight into the film”? What makes for good cinema? You do agree that Just because film criticism is subjective does not mean the crtiic’s opinion is as good as any other’s?
LikeLike
rameshram
January 19, 2011
I mean seriously? imagine dilshad darius the rug merchant in la jolla being the target audience for khiarostami ‘s certified copy!
LikeLike
vijay
January 20, 2011
JAFB, what I meant by insight was trying to articulate clearly his thoughts on why the product worked/did’nt work for him, as against saying this was just a ‘bad’ or ‘good’ film. That’s about it.
He doesnt have to tell the ignorant viewers what is culturally regressive or progressive. And that is even subjective to a large extent. I think remixes are regressive for music, but maybe a million others differ.
“You do agree that Just because film criticism is subjective does not mean the crtiic’s opinion is as good as any other’s?
‘
For the most part it is. Except that a critic has seen a lot of movies, and also has an understanding(and in some cases even an insider’s knowledge) of how the medium works and that helps him make a bit more informed opinions on certain aspects like say, cliche identifications and such. And of course he can also pen down his thoughts better. That’s what made him a critic in the first place.Almost all serious movie watchers or movie buffs are film critics, in a sense.
LikeLike