What has a critic’s stamp of approval got to do with your enjoyment? Um, absolutely nothing.
Universal Pictures, them of the cosmic name constricted to a disappointingly earthly logo, announced recently that their hundredth-anniversary plans – a yearlong celebration – included the restoration of 13 films, which were All Quiet on the Western Front, The Birds, Buck Privates, Dracula (1931), Dracula (Spanish, 1931), Frankenstein, Jaws, Schindler’s List, Out of Africa, Pillow Talk, Bride of Frankenstein, The Sting and To Kill a Mockingbird. There’s something in this list for fans of all stripes – of Spielberg (Jaws, Schindler’s List), of pedigreed literary adaptations (All Quiet on the Western Front, To Kill a Mockingbird), of animal-attack thrillers (The Birds, Jaws, the leaping-lion scene from Out of Africa), of classic chillers (Dracula, Bride of Frankenstein), of handsome leading men (The Sting, To Kill a Mockingbird), of titles that would double as names of vaguely pornographic features (Buck Privates, The Birds, even Jaws if you think about it with a suitably dirty mind), of movies spotlighting both halves of a definitively dysfunctional marriage (Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein)…
I’ll stop now, but the issue at hand stems from To Kill a Mockingbird. Flat-out masterpiece, right? Not according to a friend, who groused, recently, that he was halfway through Harper Lee’s quietly disturbing chronicle of innocent eyes being opened to a cruel and confusing world, and he couldn’t see what the fuss was about, why the book deserved the Pulitzer Prize, and what the people featured in the long list of accolades on the back cover saw that he wasn’t seeing. He asked me what it was. I didn’t say anything at first as this is such a vast, unanswerable question, whose answer hinges on matters of taste and patience and about a hundred other qualities that each one of us possesses in varying degrees. His question, in essence, was a rebuke to anyone, especially a critic, who says “This book is great” instead of “This book is great in my opinion.” The latter is an admission of personal joy and discovery, the former an admonition: If you don’t like this book, you’d better wear that dunce cap and go sit in a corner with the others who don’t get Hemingway and Dickens and Tolstoy.
The history of cultural criticism (art, books, movies, music), or indeed any criticism that deals with intangibles and unmeasurables – like how well an actor acts or how beautiful this musical interlude is, as opposed to how fast a sportsman ran or how many of his election promises a politician kept – is replete with finger-waggers determined to impose their tastes, their knowledge of pearls, on a world of uncultured swine. This isn’t about the critic’s function as gatekeeper, making an educated case for permitting a work of art into the canon, but about the relevance of these opinions to the public at large. This friend – no, it’s not “friend” in the Freudian sense, as in, “Doctor, I have this, cough, cough, friend with problems in the, erm, plumbing department;” let me state unequivocally that I love To Kill a Mockingbird (the book; the movie I merely like) – isn’t much of a reader. He probably ploughs through a book a year. And it killed him that he wasn’t reaping much pleasure from a novel he landed on after so much scrutiny – the Pulitzer for fiction; all those unending pages of raves; the word “classic” oozing from every pore. It made him feel that the problem lay within him.
The problem is actually with whoever decided, at whatever point in the history of the universe (or Universal Pictures), that what the critic says matters to the public, that his approval is a signal that the book/movie/song is one for the ages, and if he says something stinks, everyone else should automatically clamp a hand on the nose. A critic’s role is far more important than simply acting as a two-thumbed consumer guide – among other things, he should put forth perspectives, ignite discussions, which probably matter only to those with a burning passion for the art being considered. Why should an average reader, who just wants to amuse himself on a flight or a porcelain throne, concern himself with what the Pulitzer committee thought? In the spirit of things, let me extend a hand in solidarity to this hurting friend and admit that I, too, have undergone these bouts of misery from the other side, as a critic not getting something everyone else in the movie-going public seems to get – like The Shawshank Redemption, Number One on IMDb’s list of Top 250 films ever. Seriously? My vote for Hollywood movie about middle-aged male suffering set to shamelessly stirring music that makes me all gooey inside would go to Field of Dreams, but that’s not even on the list. So much for my capabilities as a public-taste arbiter.
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.
Gradwolf
January 13, 2012
Naa remba artist saar. Idhellam watch with art eyes nu azhaga tamizh la sollirkanum onga friend ta!
LikeLike
Parth Kulkarni
January 13, 2012
You dint like Shawshank Redemption?????? 😮 Blasphemy! On other note, Shawshank Redemption is a case for another phenomenon. It is number 1 on IMDB for a reason. Because in 90s, it wasnt really SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Most people didnt really knew about it. And so whenever somebody said “I like Forrest Gump”. “Huh.. Shawshank is better.. u dont know Shawshank?”
LikeLike
Rahul
January 13, 2012
Although I love imdb to death, couldn’t agree more about Shawarma-Lambshank Redemption.
LikeLike
Dilip
January 13, 2012
exactly..Shawshank Redemption deserves to be no 1 in the list…It is hard hitting and a moving piece..same pblm why that frnd dosent like that book is happened to baradwaj….
LikeLike
Zero
January 13, 2012
Cheers! (Regarding The Shawshank Redemption.) Just went to the IMDb page (not at all a fan of lists like their top 250, btw; I think the votes are not countable in this case) and found the one-liner description hilarious: “Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency.” Am I the only one?
LikeLike
Arun
January 13, 2012
I heard K2k is comin out, is that why we haven’t seen much of you in the new year? 😉 I think it’s safe to say we can look forward to a piece on your experience of taking part in the movie-making process. You’ve touched on it on and off, but I guess it’s only fair you write about it once it comes out no? 🙂
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
January 13, 2012
‘Shawshank Redemption’ and…(sorry guys, but-) our own ‘Guide’ ! (Yes, lovely songs. Period).
LikeLike
Aurora Vampiris
January 13, 2012
It’s all a conspiracy! Shawshank Redemption isn’t a good movie at all – but it was their awesome PR machine that did it… through that magnificent marketing took for the ages – the game of Dumb Charades.
(I’m being sarcastic).
LikeLike
Aurora Vampiris
January 13, 2012
*tool
LikeLike
Rk
January 14, 2012
If nothing else on your post ignites discussions, The Shawshank Redemption definitely should . I love that movie as well as Mockingbird novel. Shawshank actually had a good influence on my personal life itself.
Oh, haven’t watched field of dreams. Now that you like it so much, plan to.
I had similar concerns about the Mocking Bird. I felt like the kid of that age can’t be that mature, or could not have understood the seriousness of the whole issue. It is written by an adult, imagining like a girl and I saw that disconnect. But I loved the novel nevertheless. Haven’t watched the movie.
LikeLike
brangan
January 14, 2012
Does anyone know which channel is telecasting the Golden Globes Monday morning? Thanks.
LikeLike
rameshram
January 14, 2012
did you hear about the movie about the prisoner that is taught carnatic music and becomes famous?
Its kalled shawshankarabharanam.
LikeLike
sureshkumar
January 14, 2012
Golden Globes – vh1 India
LikeLike
rameshram
January 14, 2012
I wanna red scarlet 😦
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
January 14, 2012
Has to be World Cinema, right?
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
January 14, 2012
I meant UTV World Movies.
LikeLike
Sridhar Raman
January 16, 2012
Shawshank at #1 has never been that much of a debate-causer in my circles. But the movie (despite all its greatness) not as good as Stephen King’s novella? Ya, that has been a source of debate for the ages.
Of course, can’t complain too much, as Darabont (and Rob Reiner) are the only ones who have been able to do some justice to King’s works. At least, it is not the horror that was Stanley Kubrik’s adpatation of The Shining! The movie was so inferior to the original material!
LikeLike
brangan
January 17, 2012
Sridhar Raman: I haven’t read the book and so I can’t compare, but Kubrick’s Shining is one of the most creepy and chilling films I’ve seen. It’s cold formalism (in the shot-taking and so on) only adds to the chilly effect, and i know a lot of people who feel it’s too long but for me the length too feels right.
LikeLike
rameshram
January 17, 2012
Branigan,
I think the Shining thing is like the guide guide controversy. Lots of people loved the film which was a big hit but RK Narayan thought it was the “misguided” guide.
LikeLike
rameshram
January 20, 2012
hey question for you mockingbirds : IS Anurag Kashyap the new Ram Gopal varma?
LikeLike
venkatesh
January 20, 2012
“hey question for you mockingbirds : IS Anurag Kashyap the new Ram Gopal varma?”
Well someone to ask it – he is except he doesnt have a bona fide super duper hit like Rangeela or even like Satya.
LikeLike
Rahul
January 24, 2012
RameshRam : I think a crucial difference is that Anurag Kashyap does not seem to be interested in making a big budget movie
LikeLike