When it comes to reviewing, what the film is about is less important than how the film goes about realising its ambitions.
I wasn’t very impressed with Hansal Mehta’s CityLights, and when I wrote a fairly negative review, a reader complained, “Even assuming that ‘Citylights’ doesn’t break new ground in terms of cinematic narrative, is it still not important that hard-hitting movies like this get made, if for nothing else than to make us pause and think about the lives of the less fortunate? Especially given the usual escapist fare that throngs our multiplexes week after week…” This is similar to what some readers said when I didn’t appear overly enthused about Kochadaiiyaan. A similar logic was at work, and rewording the earlier reader’s complaint, the point this time was this: “Even assuming that ‘Kochadaiiyaan’ doesn’t break new ground in terms of cinematic narrative, is it still not important that technology-pushing attempts like this get made, if for nothing else than to make us pause and think about the future of cinema? Especially given the usual fare that throngs our multiplexes week after week…”
One reader, in the Kochadaiiyaan review, had the perfect name for this line of thinking: the “A for Effort” syndrome. And this is a genuine issue when it comes to appraising movies. The essence of film reviewing is asking yourself these two questions. (1) Did you like the film? (2) If yes, why, and if no, why not? And as long as a film is structured along familiar lines (one might even say escapist lines), this rule of reviewing is fairly easy to follow. But when a film is “different,” we begin to feel somewhat uneasy with this kind of evaluation. We wonder: “This is not the usual film. Should we, therefore, cut the film some slack? Should we consider the fact that a film of this nature at least got made in this escapist-blockbuster climate? Even if one person who watches this film is able to feel something he hasn’t felt before or if his eyes are opened to something and he does something good that he’s never done before, then has it not achieved its purpose, and shouldn’t we therefore try to view this film not just through our own eyes but through other eyes as well?”
There may be something to this, but these considerations shouldn’t be confused with reviewing the film, which is always something you do through your eyes, your viewpoint. (Hence the “you” in the first of the two questions above.) I can write a column or an opinion piece from a social perspective, stating why CityLights (or Taare Zameen Par or any other film that had a “worthy” subject) needed to be made, and why it’s heartening that someone has invested time and money in a project that’s not a prefab blockbuster. But this shouldn’t be a factor while writing a review, where you look at what the film aims to do and how it achieves these aims – and this is always a personal perspective. Thus, if a film has a “worthy” subject, but – in your view – if the way it handles this subject from a cinematic perspective isn’t impressive, then you should try to say that instead of awarding a gold star for trying, which is that whole “A for Effort” thing.
I’m not saying I always manage to do this. This sort of barbed-wire fence between what a film is about and how it goes about realising these aims is particularly difficult to put up in the case of a first-time filmmaker who genuinely thinks out of the box – like Halitha Shameem, who made the really interesting (even if not entirely successful) Poovarasam Peepee. If I were to write an opinion piece about how Tamil filmmakers are opting for increasingly offbeat subjects, then I would have nothing but words of praise for Shameem and her film – but a review of the film can only consider what she wanted to achieve and whether she achieved it. A review isn’t about being fair to a first-time filmmaker or to a filmmaker who’s set out to tackle a never-before subject. A review is about being fair to your viewing experience. It’s about what’s on screen and how you ended up processing it.
This is how reviewing is done everywhere, Consider, for instance, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, the Tom Hanks-starring 9/11-themed drama that bombed. As “worthy” subjects go, this is right up there with the Holocaust. But most of the major American critics hated it. Here’s one opinion that could fit CityLights as well: “Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock … Max von Sydow, Zoe Caldwell, Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright, John Goodman… thanks for your honest efforts in the service of a fundamentally dishonest weepie.” Here’s another: “Sorry, but there must be richer ways of dramatizing so obvious a theme.”
As I said, this isn’t easy always, whatever the art form. Remember the Eric Clapton ballad Tears in Heaven? It’s about a horrible real-life situation, a father coming to grips with the death of his young son, but the song itself, with its banal lyrics, is just schmaltz. Clash Magazine wrote that it “seems churlish to even contemplate getting gobby about Clapton’s ‘Tears In Heaven’ – a song written about his four-year-old son who fell to his death… Yet art is art and by placing it in the public domain you implicitly consent to dissemination, interpretation and evaluation regardless of the personal worth bestowed upon it by the creator. Accordingly…‘Tears In Heaven’ is less a song and more a mawkish treatise into a self flagellation, wherein Clapton smears his grief all over a cynically pious melody that is designed expressly to transform menopausal women into merchandise consuming machines.” For a far better treatment of the same situation (albeit in a different medium), we don’t have to look any further than how Imam sahib, in Sholay, expresses what it means to lose a son. “Jaante ho duniya ka sabse bada bojh kya hota hai? Baap ke kandhon par bete ka janaaza.” Where Clapton makes the emotional twee and personal (I must be strong / And carry on), Imam sahib makes it universal and far more resonant: the biggest burden in the world is that of the father carrying his son to the funeral. Two ways of doing the same thing – yet only one is art.
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 ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Anu Warrier
June 6, 2014
BR, I agree completely with what you have written. It is not enough that a film is ‘different’. It has to be ‘good’ as well. More often than not, I’m coming out of a theatre (after watching a ‘different’ movie) thinking – yes, and what is all the hype about? I felt that about The Ship of Theseus which so underwhelmed me, especially in the Monk’s story, which was what everyone raved about. What I liked about the film was actually the interaction we had with the director after the show. Anand Gandhi comes across as an honest, passionate film maker, who agreed that he had several agendas that he was trying to push through the film. But ‘the best film to come out of India in a decade’? Give me a break!
I think we get so dazzled by the fact that ‘something different’s come our way’ that we overlook all the flaws that we would hold a magnifying glass to, in ‘lesser films’. Ultimately, if the film maker remains ‘true’ to the story he is telling, I’ll forgive a flawed but well-made film. I might like it, or not. It might cause me to think, or not. But as a film? It has to stand on its own right – without excuses, without justifications.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ram Murali
June 6, 2014
I have succumbed to the “A for Effort” Syndrome many a time…movies like “Housefull” and “KudaikkuL Mazhai” (both made by Mr. Wasted Talent Parthiban) fall into this category to me…
But superior efforts like “Anbe Sivam,” “Rhythm,” “En Uyir Thozhan” and “Aaha” that have some obvious shortcomings have made a tremendous emotional impact on me that I hate to nitpick…the extended flashback in “Anbe Sivam” does not bother me because the portions pre and post flashback are so bloody well acted… the songs in “Aaha” are crappy but the dialogues are so hilarious…the performances by Bhanupriya and Raghuvaran are to die for…the songs in “Rhythm” (esp. in the 2nd half) stick out like sore thumbs and the climax was pretty cinematic but the scenes with Arjun and his parents are what I remember the film for…so, to me, it’s “A- for Overall Quality; A+ for Emotional Impact” 🙂
LikeLike
burcidibollyreview
June 6, 2014
My opinion on this topic is as follows. I had thought about this exact issue when most people disliked Ghanchakkar but I liked the film.
…whether someone likes a film or not depends on so many different factors. I think it depends on their worldview, culture, experiences, education and also on their present psychology. If you are not in the mood for a certain genre of film, will you enjoy it? No, but that doesn’t mean that the film is not worth watching. And just as our thoughts change, our tastes change too. There are films which I disliked at first watch, but actually liked years later. Or I may have liked a film a long time ago but may dislike it now.
This is why we need to be open minded when we see films. Reading film reviews is nice. Aside from telling the audience whether a film is worth three hours of their life, it does give viewers new perspectives about cinema. But reviews should not be thought of as something set in stone. It’s just one person’s opinion which might not match yours. The only way to know whether a film is really worth it is to actually see it. No one can tell you what your experience will be when watching a film. This is why I take film reviews with a pinch of salt. For some reason, most people will completely cross out a film because it has bad reviews, or will go to see something because of a good review. Reviews can be indicative of a film’s content and quality, but there is no guarantee that it will be accurate for you. Films are a personal experience and your experience will be unique.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shalini
June 6, 2014
These defensive pieces are the saddest for me to read. It’s sad that you’re having to defend your reviews…yet again. It seems to me that all you’ve ever promised your readers is *your* response/thoughts on a work of public art/entertainment. As far as I can see, you’re fulfilling your promise with integrity. What else do people want from you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
venkatesh
June 7, 2014
I echo Shalini’s opinion with a twist ; stop writing these defensive pieces.
Why not have a tagline that says – Caveat Emptor at the very beginning and then just get on with it.
LikeLike
Santa
June 7, 2014
My 2 cents. The concern I have with judging a film solely by how well it achieves its aims is not at the ‘upper’ end of the film spectrum where something novel, worthy, or socially relevant is being attempted. It is at the other end in which the the creator sets out to make trash and is successful in that attempt. Such films needed to be called out for the trash they are rather than giving them a pass for meeting their own low bars. If intent or effort was not a consideration for me, I would end up ranking Neil N Nikki (an utterly insufferable film) as a ‘better’ film than, say, a Matru Ki Bijli.
Shalini: I don’t see BR needing to defend himself or his reviews. It should be clear enough to us regular readers that the reviews posted are his opinions and his response to a film. And that’s what we come here to read: his opinions. Because we value them for their insight. At the same time, though, not all responses posted by readers are going to confirm to the same viewpoint. And a divergent opinion is just that: a divergent opinion, not an attack. Or at least I hope that that is the spirit with which divergent opinions are taken.
LikeLike
Santa
June 7, 2014
Yikes. ‘conform to the same viewpoint…’, not confirm.
All for the want of an edit button 🙂
LikeLike
KayKay
June 7, 2014
I don’t read these as “defensive” pieces at all. After all, can’t B have an opinion….on our opinions???? It’s about how certain viewpoints, could be mine or others that trigger a thought process leading to articles like this.
“But this shouldn’t be a factor while writing a review, where you look at what the film aims to do and how it achieves these aims – and this is always a personal perspective. Thus, if a film has a “worthy” subject, but – in your view – if the way it handles this subject from a cinematic perspective isn’t impressive, then you should try to say that instead of awarding a gold star for trying, which is that whole “A for Effort” thing.”
Bang on! Exactly what I was trying to say in the Kochadaiyaan post.
Its makers set out to make a period film that was 100% realized via computer graphics featuring live actors animated via a technology called Motion Capture. The aim was quite obviously to deliver a rousing and entertaining action epic/drama that would also seek to “wow” audiences by the way this was achieved with state-of-the-art effects without utilizing any live sets or actors.
It failed.
For me, as a viewer, from my own purely subjective viewing experience, it failed.
It neither immersed me into its world (the 20 minute prologue of Dasavatharam did more to draw me into it’s period setting than 2 hours of this movie) nor impressed me with how it’s actors were animated. I couldn’t get past the robotic movements and lifeless eyes. And so, for me, the movie did NOT achieve it’s aim.
And what rankles the shit outta me is to be told that “hey, but if you look PAST the shoddy graphics, the story’s pretty good”. What if the quality of the graphics IS the deal breaker for me?
To be told, “Don’t expect H’wood style quality in the effects because it has 1/5th the budget”. Then why do it? Wait for the budget, engage a better team of technicians or build up the capability yourself and then attempt it. James Cameron waited 10 years to make Avatar while the technology caught up to his vision.
A misplaced sense of pride in a shoddy product does no favours to genuine filmmakers with vision and the technical prowess to realize them.
The makers of Kochadaiyaan want me to swallow their baby food and call it caviar for the ages.
Not doing it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahini David
June 7, 2014
Key for the Sholay line please.
LikeLike
Bhavadas
June 7, 2014
Another debatable topic ! Of course, a review is very subjective as seen now a days. My dream review would be one which 1. Introduces the reader to unique aspects about the film (blow down of childhood scene at the beginning of Vennilaa Kabaddi…); 2. Identifying similarities / pattern in the film with the director’s other works (QT’s repeated dialogue “that’s interesting”); 3. Evaluation of all aspects of the film – starting from titles to music to lighting to end credits (adage se right’s excellent start titles) 4. Views of other directors, actors about the film. This might help the reader in getting a more objective review to read. I would really not care for someone’s personal like or dislike about a film.
LikeLike
brangan
June 7, 2014
Anu Warrier: It is not enough that a film is ‘different’. It has to be ‘good’ as well.
Yes — but we have to understand that that ‘good’ is a purely subjective evaluation. As in, you have to be okay with the fact that someone else found “Ship of Theseus” a ‘good’ movie even though it did nothing for you.
Ram Murali: I’ve said this before, but “Aaha” is such a feel-good movie for me. The mediocre songs, etc, are hardly deal-breakers.
burcidibollyreview: whether someone likes a film or not depends on so many different factors. I think it depends on their worldview, culture, experiences, education and also on their present psychology. If you are not in the mood for a certain genre of film, will you enjoy it?
Well said. A review is more useful if seen as a perspective than as a decision-making tool.
The only way to know whether a film is really worth it is to actually see it.
Absolutely.
Shalini: I see these more as pieces that continue a dialogue that began in the comments. I don’t know I am defending myself so much as getting into more detail about an issue than I would in a comment. But… thanks 🙂
Santa: Such films needed to be called out for the trash they are rather than giving them a pass for meeting their own low bars.
Trashy entertainment is different from a film that ends up being trash. The problem with “Neil N Nikki” isn’t that it’s makers wanted to make a trashy (i.e. guilty-pleasure type) entertainment. It’s that they did it so badly.
As for me, I wouldn’t even compare this film with “Matru…” The “is better than” is possible only between apples and apples.
Rahini David: The line is explained a little later in the text.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sudipta Bhattacharjee
June 7, 2014
BR: Firstly, I am thrilled to see that my little comment has instigated a full blog-post 🙂
I take your points about how a review should be and how “A for effort” syndrome should be avoided.
On a separate note, given how personal reviews are, what are your thoughts vis a vis personal ideology playing a significant role in film-evaluation? For example, if you read reviews by Anna M Vetticad (not sure you have heard of her; link: http://annavetticadgoes2themovies.blogspot.in/), you would notice that she often uses ‘feminism’ (for lack of a better word) as a touchstone for film evaluation. initially, I used to find that a little strange and she often faces the ire of ‘bhai-tards’ for not-so-positive reviews of our superstar vehicles – but now I read her reviews regularly especially because she brings in that additional perspective in my evaluation of a film. Can one see and evaluate a film divorced from one’s convictions, ideologies etc?
LikeLiked by 2 people
MN MURTHY
June 7, 2014
Well, “If A = Effort, then B = Sincerity” is hardly followed rule here. So that yardstick of measure should be thrown out of the window.
Off course cinema is not merely a visual art exercise anymore! Now there are huge business investments and risk factors, employment opportunities, grandeur entertainment for the blunted / passive society, et al.
Yet Cinema – being the seventh-art-form, (trailing behind architecture, sculpture, painting, dance, music & poetry) still owes up greater responsibility for the society and culture in large than all the other art forms, for the very simple reason : its ability to influence or fashion mindsets in seconds.
In that aspect – i believe, seven key people (Producer, Screen Writer, Director, Cinematographer, Editor and a Reviewer) have to be very learned and influential – in articulating the
message / storysubstance – a film has or does not have. Our very own BR has been doing it very well, sometimes poetic and sometimes acidic, but nevertheless – fair, just and out-spoken.About supporting Difference, Ironically, here we have the nerve to tag IT’S DIFFERENT> to something and everything, that is quite evidently DISTORTED AND DISORIENTED. The only thing that is understandably different are the trailers, they are so different, that they look totally disconnected to the main feature itself 😛
We all should hug and welcome new wave of film and filmmakers, but we also should see sense to the banal deception regularly employed from the ace directors to the one-festival-old-director.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MN MURTHY
June 7, 2014
Oopsie – Its not seven, typo there, it’s SIX key people!
LikeLike
burcidibollyreview
June 7, 2014
I think another issue is that the worth of a film is often determined by how it does at the box office and we all know that a film doesn’t necessarily have to be good by our standards to make money. There is a serious clash between how we, the audience, rate a movie based on the content, acting and direction and how, say, the producer rates it. If a crappy film does well at the box office, it’s labeled a success and producers will invest in that type of film again. If a great film does bad at the box office, a similar type of film is probably not going to be attempted anytime soon.
So A for effort or A for achievement?
Maybe it’s both. The effort needs to be there, but the film also needs to achieve some ground both at the box office and in critics’ reviews. Maybe we shouldn’t think of this as an either or issue. Just as we wouldn’t consider a film good only because people went to see it at the theater, we ought not consider a film good just because the filmmakers tried something different. If we have a rating scale for films, then both effort and achievement need to be on the list.
LikeLike
Rahul
June 7, 2014
You come at a movie based on your set of innate prejudices and biases, but what comes out of that is an experience that is very individual and this experience is fashioned out of who you are at the point in time you are watching the movie. On reading a review, you are trying to establish a connection with the reviewer than the movie.
Your only connect with the reviewer is whether the reviewer was able to articulate the reasons on why a movie kicked ass or sucked, or evoked a particular reaction. Do not judge a movie by the review…but hopefully, if you have established a connect with the reviewer, the review will probably point out areas of the movie that you think would make for interesting discussion.
In that respect, I value BR’s review and in reading him I am beginning to understand him and where he comes at while watching a movie.
Also, I don’t look at a movie to give me a message…I don’t look at movies as a social change vehicle.
Cheers,
Rahul
LikeLike
aneek
June 8, 2014
something similar happened in “motorcycle diaries”.the movie for me was a bit tedious even though it had some genuine “moments”.it was the theme that was more appealing than the movie itself.
LikeLike
Anand
June 8, 2014
http://claptrap.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/the-hindu-holocaust-911/
LikeLike
hansalmehta
June 9, 2014
I am so happy to see a review leading to healthy discourse rather than vicious and vacuous ranting. As a filmmaker I crave criticism that will allow me to introspect and perhaps help take my journey forward in a constructive manner. I might often disagree with a critics take on my work but I have realized over the years that introspection is something that can only happen much after the frenzy of public gaze is over. I prefer to reflect on the criticism much later and to use it (or reject it) to better my art. I try my best to be honest with myself during this reflection and expect the critic to be honest while writing about the film.
I hold Baradwaj Rangan’s reviews in high esteem and also believe that criticism cannot be simply for the effort but only for the cinematic quality of that effort and the experience it offers to the particular critic. Thank you Baradwaj Rangan for always being that rare critic who keeps my faith alive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
June 9, 2014
Sudipta Bhattacharjee: I think ideology is very useful. I’ve said earlier — no one person can hope to give all viewpoints about a film. We need different people who see films through different “prisms” to fully get at what the film is about. (eg) “Highway” could be viewed through a narrative (i.e. screenplay) lens, a feminist lens, a socioeconomic lens, a genre lens, a Bollywood-history lens (“Kidnapped Heroines: From Hero to Highway”) — and each of these essays would reveal different things about the film. Unfortunately, in our country, we seem to think that only the director knows what the film is about and we trust whatever he says, even if the film offers direct contradictions to whatever he says.
burcidibollyreview: By “achievement” I wasn’t talking about box-office achievement. I was referring to whether the film “achieves” what it sets out to do.
Rahul: “On reading a review, you are trying to establish a connection with the reviewer than the movie.”
Beautifully said.
hansalmehta: Thank you for that comment. I was interviewing a filmmaker yesterday for a forthcoming piece in the paper, and he said something similar: “A filmmaker should have the confidence to take a negative review. He can say ‘this critic didn’t get what I did’. But if he doesn’t have the confidence to take a negative review, then he’s got no convictions.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srini
June 10, 2014
Very happy to see Hansal Mehta’s comments.We need more artists who are open to honest opinion that doesn’t necessarily flatter them.
LikeLiked by 2 people