With the Internet’s help, we finally seem to have entered an era with more people being able to say what they really want to say. No wonder actors and filmmakers appear rattled.
There used to be a fairy-tale time when only a handful of reviewers opined about a film with some kind of seriousness. These reviewers existed in the mainstream media space, and they were read only in the places where the physical newspaper or magazine was available. So people in the film industry didn’t really pay much attention to reviews. Well, maybe they felt bad if they didn’t like something in the review, but in the overall scheme of things that wasn’t – as they say these days – such a biggie. After all, these reviews didn’t contribute all that much to the word of mouth about the movie. They didn’t go viral. Also, actors and filmmakers got so much from the non-reviewing side of the media, all those photographers and writers who made stars and directors feel like gods, and entered into an implicit pact that nothing too harsh would be said (otherwise future photo-ops and interview-ops would not be made available). Sometimes stars and directors would “cultivate” journalists, instil in them the feeling that they were friends, and thus ensure that nothing really bad got written about them outside of the reviews.
And then the Internet happened. Suddenly, reviewers could not be ignored. Everyone with a blog, a Twitter handle, a Facebook page began to voice his or her (very valid) opinions about a film or an album or a star or a song. With newspaper reviewers, there’s still the effort to maintain a sense of dignity in the writing, meaning that you try to remain polite even while expressing strongly negative views. “Not getting personal”, it’s called. Of course, sometimes the films are so bad that they demand you get snarky – and then all bets are off. My rule of thumb is this. If it’s a film made with some level of sincerity or if it’s by newcomers, then even if things aren’t great, I try not to get snarky. If the film doesn’t work for me, I’d just say the film doesn’t work for me. But if it’s something that’s consumed crores of production money and there’s nothing to speak of, then yes, snark is par for the course. Because these aren’t newbie mistakes. These filmmakers have treated us with contempt, and it’s only fair that some of this contempt makes its way back to them.
But this newspaper-contempt is nothing compared to what’s out there on the web. Newspaper reviewers may still be taken a little more seriously – but given that most of the people who matter read newspaper content on the web (or on their phones), the fact that one writes for a newspaper is beginning to matter less than the fact that someone out there on the web is writing something sarcastic and entertaining. Of course, there are serious web-based critics, but their readership is outstripped by that of writers who just aim to deliver a few laughs. And those writers don’t give a rat’s behind about the filmmaker’s (or star’s) reputation or body of work or the trials during the film’s making. Their thought process is extremely uncluttered. I liked it. I didn’t like it. It’s the purest, more elemental form of reaction. Black. White.
And here’s what’s terrifying for film folks. They could like the film and still make fun of you, and those jokes will go viral, and even the people who liked your film will laugh at those jokes, and sometimes that could end up defining your reputation for a while. “Total damage,” it’s called. There’s nothing you can do except mutter to yourself that you shouldn’t enter the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat.
So for the first time, an actual critical culture is looking possible in Tamil cinema. An actual critical culture can happen only if there are no sacred cows, and despite this government’s policies, the Internet has systematically gone about butchering all sacred cows. Those ivory towers where you locked yourself with a few fawning yes-men – all gone. Who you were doesn’t matter anymore. What you did doesn’t matter anymore. Even who you are, what you do doesn’t matter all that much. The only thing that matters is what side of the bed the Internet wakes up on the day your movie is released. It’s that arbitrary. Trying to control this is like trying to control the wind. Today, radio shows freely satirise and make sarcastic remarks about stars and directors, and then slap on a disclaimer at the end that this isn’t meant to hurt anyone. Even that disclaimer sounds sarcastic. In the mainstream-media era, this might have been considered disrespect. But today, it’s just irreverence. It’s a quality that’s fairly new in India. Or maybe it always existed, and it’s just now, with all this media around us, that we’ve realised just how irreverent we really are.
So what do you do if you’re from the film industry? My unsolicited suggestion: Write back. If a newspaper critic says something you don’t agree with, write back to the newspaper. Start a dialogue. The newspaper will happily publish your side of things. This back-and-forth interaction, without fear or favour, is a part of a robust critical culture. All bloggers already do some version of this on their comments space, which is open to everyone. And here’s what I’ve found. If people realise that you’re being sincere about your work, that you’re not just shooting your mouth off, then even if they think you’re an idiot, they’ll take pains to point out why they think you’re an idiot – and a lot of the time, they’ll do this nicely. Sometimes this helps. It makes you regard your work a little differently. But even if it doesn’t help, it’s part of the critical culture I’m talking about. I am a critic, but my word isn’t the final word. My readers are critics of my criticism. Some of those commentators turn critics of other commentators. It goes on.
This feedback, this dialogue is the thing that’s fostering a robust critical culture. And if you’re making movies with sincerity, you’ll find that there are enough people out there who’ll stand up for your work and counter the trolls. And if you’re just in the industry to make money, if none of this matters, then you shouldn’t care at all. It’s really the distributor who’s suffering the losses, right?
naina
April 14, 2015
ha ha timely article just when suhasini madam has publicly said that only baradwaj rangan sir can review ok kanmani since he was the only one who understood kadal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tina
April 14, 2015
nice to read your take on reviewing culture.
now this, at 1.04
and this, around 1.30:
LikeLike
brangan
April 14, 2015
naina: What??? You’re joking, right?
LikeLike
Anon
April 14, 2015
Heartening to read!
(I sincerely hope you are not overestimating this whole thing)
Finally hoping we can see enough of sincere, not-taking-audience-for-granted, forward-looking, gender-sensitive, aracha-mavu-busting, fresh attempts from Tamil Cinema starring big names.
LikeLike
Pranesh
April 14, 2015
@Anon: Why do you hope so? What changed because brangan wrote an article about being open to criticism?
I don’t see insincere filmmakers changing until we find a way to distribute movies on merit.
LikeLike
Maddy
April 14, 2015
Good read. But I suspect that whatever you have highlighted is relevant only to one particular section of the audience – the young, urban, multiplex going crowd addicted to internet. I doubt if this crowd determines the box office success of a film. And in many instances, there is a negative correlation between the rating of the critics (mainstream media/web based critics) and the box office collections – Khan and Sunny Leone movies being the obvious examples in bollywood. So, like Anon above above, we might be overestimating this whole thing.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 14, 2015
Khan and Sunny leone movies? Dont generalise. It is like saying all the southies are madrasis and tamil speaking.
LikeLike
Anon
April 14, 2015
@Pranesh: Nothing changes if/when one blogger writes. But one can surely hope that multiple netizens can amplify this enough for the feedback to reach the ears of the powerful nudging them to introspect.
But like I said this might also end up having absolutely no effect, in which case it’ll be a pity.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 14, 2015
If you like sambar with drumsticks and if I make fun of it, I will be hurting your feelings and disturbing the peace and I should be banished or hanged. If you criticise a star, his caste and religion people will get offended. Internet freedom is not what it was a few years back.
LikeLike
brangan
April 14, 2015
Karthik ‘milliblog’ Srinivasan (on Facebook) elaborates on what I started saying here with “Start a dialogue.” Thought it was worth reproducing:
The ‘start the dialogue’ comes with the assumption that you know who to write to and how. If someone says, ‘your film sucks’, I don’t see any sense in even responding to him – that’s a point of view that’s not worth having a dialogue with. If, however, the statement is, ‘I liked the film, but the climax in the railway station was so old fasioned’ that would be a good cue for the director to explain the reasoning behind that scene (if there was one, that is).
This understanding of what’s worth responding to and what’s to be ignored is inherent in the new scheme of many-to-many form of communication accorded by social media.
Finally, the line between an opinion and review does not exist anymore. Every review too is an opinion; it just happened to be in a medium that came readily with a large reach. Now reach isn’t that big an issue and anybody with internet connection can air an opinion on anything – earlier it was reach that accorded some respectability to opinions to crossover to become ‘reviews’.
Now that reach is within anyone’s reach (pun intended), does that make them only opinions and not reviews? Of course not – check Amazon, for book reviews from people like you and me. Check Tripadvisor for reviews on places, hotels from people like you and me. Check Zomato for reviews of restaurants from people like you and me. These are reviews too! Just like film reviews in IMDb, in mainstream publicaitons like The Hindu and 140 character reviews on Twitter.
LikeLike
srijithunni
April 14, 2015
This is a change that the Film Industry should wholeheartedly embrace. It was cringe-inducing to see what Suhasini told during the audio launch. I agree Film Appreciation is an art, but one cannot simply deny the right for a person who has spent money to see the film to speak about how he perceives the film. Suhasini should not even have reviewed films and given a thumb down to an Aaranya Kaandam!! Such an hypocrite i’ve never seen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mailmanju
April 14, 2015
Glad that Mani Sir in the interview video above, doesn’t share the same sentiments as his better half regarding reviewing.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 14, 2015
Review can be opinion but opinion cant become a review. That is why reviewers get more weightage. Opinion can be on anything and everything sometimes without really experiencing. Movie reviews are like product reviews after buying the said product.
LikeLike
the BRangan fan
April 14, 2015
sir
first there used to be a time when cinemaplus paper came only on the following friday
then it started coming on sundays
and now its like “whoever writes the first review is the winner” sort of trend
how do you think it has affected your quality etc.????
LikeLike
Ram Murali
April 14, 2015
This is a very balanced post which should benefit film makers and viewers alike. A few months ago actor Mohan Raman appeared in a program with Cartoonist Madan & Dhananjayan. In that program he said that people on social media don’t really have the right to say things like, “Editing seriya ille…screenplay seriya ille” without knowing the nuances of filmmaking completely. Well, it’s hard…nah, it’s impossible to convince people who have these free social network accounts / comfort of anonymity that they can’t say something without understanding it deeply…one approach is the open dialogue that you mentioned…another related approach I think is to strive to educate people on nuances of filmmaking…of course, the word “educate” might not get too many takers…but done the right way, you can really have the movie going public be better informed…
two of my favorite thought provoking pieces of discussion initiated by you are (1) the discussion that you had with Mani Ratnam around why a song sequence was not part of the Karthik flashback – that really made me think deeper about what songs fit well into a movie and how and (2) what you keep writing about pretty pictures not necessarily constituting great cinematography. I mean, it’s easier for the layman to appreciate PC’s work in “I” than Dan Macarthur’s work in “Yennai Arindhaal.” But give people different lenses (to paraphrase you from a 2014 post) to watch a movie with, they might start to tell you things that take you by surprise, pleasantly…
If reviewers like you and/or filmmakers start communicating to the general public (forums-kaa panjam!) about different aspects of film making in a lucid manner, then a critical culture will evolve where the filmmakers actually respect what I like to call the “fast food internet” reviewers have to say.
LikeLike
Srikanth
April 14, 2015
A lot of our filmmakers seem to have a really bloated ego which is why they can’t stand criticism of any kind from the common public. Take Mysskin’s speech at the launch of his film, “Onaiyum Aatukuttiyum”. When someone pointed out that the lack of songs could be a possible reason for him film’s failure, Mysskin immediately got offended and launched a tirade of abuse on the lines of “you can’t talk about filmmaking until you have made one yourself” and “people like you have spoiled the industry”.
While Mysskin may have excellent reasons for not using songs in his films (which I strongly agree with), his intolerance towards even seeing the other side of the coin is inexcusable. The whole argument about the common man not being qualified to criticise films also is flawed. As one commenter already pointed out, if I spend my money to watch a film, I can say whatever I want about it.
I also recall Vikram Bhatt, (director of drivel such as Raaz 3 and 1920) mention in an interview that he didn’t care what the audience or critics thought of his films and he wouldn’t change the way he made movies. The result of such ignorance is evident from the kind of garbage that he spits out every now and then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
April 14, 2015
Qualified or not, the “mango people” are the ones paying to see these films, so do their opinions not matter? Filmmakers are more than happy to take the money of the “unqualified” and to hear them say positive things. Of course only people who have negative opinions are labeled “unqualified.”
And then there’s the notion of “objectivity.” Everyone’s point-of-view influences how they see a film, whether it is their experiences or tastes, or even their mood when they saw the film. What matters is being able to articulate what one did and didn’t like about it, as well as not simply liking or hating everything.
Vijayakanth filed a complaint against whoever was making those memes about him. He seems to take his ridiculous on-screen persona utterly seriously. It just goes to show how self-serious some of these people are, which is especially preposterous considering the kind of movies they make!
LikeLike
sanjana
April 15, 2015
Film making cost crores, a lot of time, labour and heartburn. Critic thrashes the film in 10 minutes.Some critics have their own pet peeves, pet actors, hate certain actors. What I want to say is not all critics are objective and empathetic. There are exceptions.
Previously there used to be honeymoon period for films. One week. But now due to internet, we have tweet reviews and on the spot reviews.Remember one such famous or notorious reviewer who is now cooling his heels in anonymity?
I think word of mouth is somewhat effective for a film to run or not.
LikeLike
Pady Srini
April 15, 2015
I just dont understand why I should be a film maker to review movies. Why cant I comment about editing or graphics ? It is very simple – Did I feel a “WOW” effect while watching the movie ? If not, I will look into why it failed – story, screenplay, acting, camera, editing etc. These are all obvious to most movie goers. If the story is confusing, or the sequences are not in order, a movie goer means “editing”.
And am I expecting my clients to feel bad for my losses because I delivered a poor product and sympathize with me ? In which other business does this happen ? 99% of all startups in every industry fail. Does anyone care ? Why should the film industry be treated differently ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
April 15, 2015
srijithunni: I agree Film Appreciation is an art, but one cannot simply deny the right for a person who has spent money to see the film to speak about how he perceives the film.
Absolutely. And neither can you expect “fairness” from them. A critic may take into consideration, say, a filmmaker’s oeuvre and look at the film that way, but a lay viewer just isn’t going to invest that kind of energy into “perceiving” a film.
the BRangan fan: how do you think it has affected your quality etc.????
That’s for you to say, no? 🙂
Ram Murali: to strive to educate people on nuances of filmmaking…
Okay, there’s tons of stuff out there on the web. So anyone interested in “education” can just go look it up. I certainly did not go to film school or anything. But if you’re NOT interested, then no amount of screaming “editing is more than just about length” is going to do any good. People form opinions and they stick to them, that’s all.
Srikanth: A lot of our filmmakers seem to have a really bloated ego…
It’s not just that. It’s also that when you’ve just delivered a baby, you’re going to get all kinds of defensive when people call it ugly. This is true of any creator.
Pady Srini: I just dont understand why I should be a film maker to review movies.
You don’t. Just like you don’t have to be a cook in order to appreciate food. You don’t have to play cricket in order to know a good shot when you see it.
story, screenplay, acting, camera, editing etc. These are all obvious to most movie goers.
If the story is confusing, or the sequences are not in order, a movie goer means “editing”.
Nope. That example you give is wrong — unless you’re saying that’s how most filmigoers perceive editing. Most moviegoers don’t know the difference between a problem with the screenplay, say, and an editing problem. There are some really laughable reviews out there which confuse the two.
LikeLike
Ram Murali
April 15, 2015
Okay, there’s tons of stuff out there on the web. So anyone interested in “education” can just go look it up
–> BR, I agree with you that there’s stuff out there. But I don’t know if it’s in a form that’s easily accessible/comprehensible to someone who may not be consciously looking for that kind of information. For instance, if you had a person like Cartoonist Madan give examples from own cinema to make the layman understand say editing vs. screenplay using a Bharathiraja movie (I am just making this up), pretty pictures vs. evocative cinematography (I vs. Yennai Arindhaal…), don’t you think that will hold more appeal than say a blog post that talks about the cinematography in “Rear Window”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
April 15, 2015
Sanjana wrote: “Film making cost crores, a lot of time, labour and heartburn. Critic thrashes the film in 10 minutes.Some critics have their own pet peeves, pet actors, hate certain actors. What I want to say is not all critics are objective and empathetic. There are exceptions.”
Both good films and bad films take a lot of time, labour, and money. That doesn’t really mean anything to the viewer, critic or not. When you are watching a film, you don’t think about the fact that the crew was working 12 hour days, or that the producer spent a lot of money to fly the cast and crew to Thailand, do you? Of course not. You only think about how the film affected you, which is how it should be. You judge the result, not the effort. I say this as someone who has worked on films, and is in the media industry.
Of course some critics have their own pet peeves, actors they like or dislike, etc. Every person has that. You will not find a filmgoer on the planet that does not have their preferences and dislikes. Film criticism is not a science where you run a film through a machine to analyze its data points “objectively.” There is no objectivity to this. The closest to objectivity anyone can come is watching a film without preconceived notions that you will deem it to be good or bad.
LikeLike
Kutty
April 15, 2015
Those comments by Suhasini are puke worthy. Not sure when her ego bloated enough to block the sun out on a sunny Chennai afternoon.
Fantastic point Ram. I think explaining things in a local context with movies and settings which are familiar to the Tamil audience would go a long way in educating us on the technical aspects than reading about movies which we may never have seen.
Would BR want to take up this baton? Also, BR. I know that the Hindu does this section where it speaks about classics from the 50s and 60s. But, would it be possible for you to take up one of the classics, irrespective of the time period, and critique it with the same intensity of your critique of present day films? I loved your top 20 list last year and I think we, as readers, might discover more gems from such a column.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shankar
April 15, 2015
It’s easy for anyone to turn around and ask her how much she is qualified, to say, write dialogs for a film. If I recall, there was a fair amount of criticism about her work in that area. So, while what she is saying is quite absurd, I feel it is more due to the fear of failure. She may be fearing that “unqualified” reviews may bring the movie down…she knows better than anyone that Mani needs a hit now!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blasta
April 15, 2015
Current Art always moves away from whatever is its conventional narrative, and thus keeping itself fresh. Criticism also does the same.
Being a professional critic induces one positive factor, the discernment gained from experience, and one negative, ennui, what appears good becomes increasingly tilted towards what is new rather than what is average-ly good.It is a problem of plenty.
This is common to all the arts, and has historically been so. In retrospect, this is what gives new comers a chance, the critic is bored with what is, and over eagerly welcomes even efforts of dubious quality*.
However there is a common stream of experience that is rarely wrong in choosing what is good in what is new. This is what becomes an unqualified hit. You don’t need any references from old art, or you don’t need to explain to the masses or the classes, a hit is a hit, on any scale.
A hit is because it hits you. If it hits you late, if it grows on you, it is not a hit, period.
If such a hit does not energize you and instantly then there is something wrong with you, not the product, In most probability your ideas of what is good are not only stale but also petrified.
If the hit does energize even you, then it probably deserves to be termed a classic. Good art needs no explanation, nor explainers. Unfortunately in movies, and in music, the unqualified hit is rare, and what we have are mostly qualified hits, and therefore we need qualified reviewers just to point out what is good in what or vice versa.
The average viewer may have a feeling that something is wrong, but to put it in words, or to show what exactly went wrong, in such products, is better done by the hands of a qualified critic. Now how exactly does one go about becoming or making a qualified critic, and one not pedantic?
*Very few critics are immune to this and throughout history many artworks of dubious quality have been praised sky high, and for lack of subsequent counter criticism have managed to stay at the top and in contention. A lot of modern literature belongs to this class, crap congratulated as content, with critics being the main culprits. I think you can add a lot of Carnatic music and musicians too to the list, safely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Blasta
April 15, 2015
Suhas butt pain as always, reminded of IR interview about scoring for inane films, “as audience you just have to see it once, imagine my fate”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pady Srini
April 16, 2015
BR, the point I am making is, John Doe calling a movie “mokkai” is his right. And it is the right of his followers to agree to his review and not watch the movie. However illogical the review be. A filmmaker not able to accept this situation is the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj Balakrishnan
April 16, 2015
Great piece Baradwaj. However, I am not sure if this is really valid in the Tamil context. As in, I am not very sure of the level of internet penetration in the state. Majority of the viewing public may not have access to the internet and consequently these reviews/blogs. Therefore, filmakers/stars may not be all that bothered. Apologies if someone has made this point already, have not read all the comemnts.
LikeLike
srijithunni
April 16, 2015
@brangan : Neither have all reviewers been “fair”. Take for instance, Suhasini’s review of Aaranya Kaandam. The Lay Viewer will surely be fair, if the movie is able to craft a wholesome experience for him, inside the world it creates in his mind. A filmmaker should have the guts to let the audience rip apart and lay bare naked the experience a movie provides. Isn’t it the same, for a poem, a painting, a Bharatnatyam performance or a Light Music Song. Once the work of Art if finished and presented to the world, no one can deny anyone the right not to say what they feel about it, fair or otherwise. More often than not lay viewers opinion about a film have been more honest and fair than the reviews in my experience. This is not to say all reviewers are biased ( I still keep reading the copied and saved version of your ‘Iruvar’ review from time to time). Problem, is I cannot read another Brangan review of a Mani Ratnam movie and not doubt, whether in all fairness you are being fair to the lay viewer!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ntnnew
April 16, 2015
I think she should release her movies only to the press then. For anyone other than ’em are not qualified to even watch it!
Suhasini Maniratnam singlehandedly managed to suck the interest in watching the movie. SO MUCH FOR WAITING FOR ITS RELEASE
LikeLike
brangan
April 16, 2015
srijithunni: I cannot read another Brangan review of a Mani Ratnam movie and not doubt, whether in all fairness you are being fair to the lay viewer
There are two aspects to this statement.
(1) If you’re saying:
“I think BR is biased. His review is worthless to me…”
…then I have to respect that. It’s your POV. I cannot argue with that.
(2) Where I differ is this whole business of “being fair to the viewer”.
So you liked “Iruvar” and therefore you liked that piece of mine and keep going back to it. By the same token, don’t you think someone who hated “Iruvar” and found it pretentious or whatever would think my article is a biased piece of crap?
And let me tell you, “Iruvar” is highly rated only by a small section of cinephiles. It’s not really something the average viewer loves.
So I’d say you have stop expecting the reviewer to be “fair” to readers, as if readers are one entity, like the Borg, with a collective mind. What you think is an honest review, the next person may think is biased.
And I do think I am fair in my reviews, because I don’t tell the reader what to think.
I just lay out what IMO the film is about, what it does, how it fits into an oeuvre etc. Then it’s up to the reader to make up his mind about the film.
Take “Kadal,” which has got to be my most detested review. The key lines there are:
“…very much an in-transition work of a filmmaker constantly searching for something. Your tolerance for the inevitable rough edges, I suppose, will determine your response to the film… Kadal is less for those who want their films to be easily classifiable as good or bad, more for those who like their films interesting. I was riveted.”
I am saying it’s an in-transition work, it’s not perfect, it’s problematic, it has rough edges.
I am saying the film isn’t for people who want films to be good or bad, more for those who prefer films to be “interesting.”
And I belong to the latter category, so I’m saying that I — and only I — was riveted.
Now, if a “reader” reads this review and still thinks I’m calling the film a masterpiece and putting out an unqualified endorsement, then, I’m sorry, that’s his problem.
Or to use your phrase, I’d say the reader is “not being fair” to me 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
srijithunni
April 16, 2015
When I made that comment, it was definitely not the first aspect, but the second one. I am just saying a review in itself should add value to the viewer’s experience as well and might not be right for a review to not respect a lay-viewer’s opinion as well. I don’t think you are biased, but definitely would like to know on what side of the debate you are on the one kindled by Suhasini’s comment.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 16, 2015
I think film makers are also entitled to their views about criticism.
The reality with atleast internet savvy ones is reviews are more awaited than films. One can read between the lines and come to the conclusion what to watch.
The importance of critics and criticism has grown by leaps and bounds and multiplex audience take them quite seriously.
The latest mani ratnam’s venture has created enough buzz.
HIs Kadal failed. Saagar which also means Kadal also failed but won lots of critical acclaim for the actors involved and music by R.D.. Especially Kamal won many hearts.
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 16, 2015
srijithunni: I really do not understand the “might not be right for a review to not respect a lay-viewer’s opinion” part in your comment. A reviewer says “I liked A,B,C aspects of this movie and not the X, Y, Z parts”. What can qualify as not respecting a lay viewer here? Does it mean that the lay-viewer/lay-reader liked the X, Y, Z parts and not the A, B, C parts? In that case, the lay viewer is expecting the writer to write his/her own opinion in a better, more sophisticated manner and with a more stylish vocabulary. That is expecting too much. You can not direct the writer to think something.
BR: I am beginning to think that this particular line of thought happens more because you write for a newspaper and that too “THE HINDU”. Right from our childhood, we have seen our grandfathers pour themselves over this newspaper and our parents expected us to read an article or two in this paper to improve our English. We have started to believe that newspapers contain “the truth” and the reviewer who write for the paper should write the truth. I think that is where the “Think what I think or my feelings will be hurt” concept is arising from. It appears that you should be documenting the most common thought a particular movie can generate. (TR is funny, Rajini is old but stylish, Trisha should get married and settle down, Rahman rocks, Lyrics are worthless these days, etc etc)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prasad
April 16, 2015
“Now, if a “reader” reads this review and still thinks I’m calling the film a masterpiece and putting out an unqualified endorsement, then, I’m sorry, that’s his problem.”
Hi BR,
Very fair statement. Agreed. The below article wrote by you summarizes the views very aptly. It is purely based on the expectations and what we got in hand to see. It is purely a difference in the point of view. You may think That Mani is in a transition phase some of us have a different opinion.
Also I think it’s interesting to see the reactions for “ok Kanmani”. Right from songs promos looks like a Love story and a sequel to AlaiPayuthey. What if, going by the tradition of his previous 2 movies and he surprises us with a “Urban Thriller” or a “Meta Cinema”
If it is tightly scripted, acted well, do you think Public will reject this movie? I don’t think so.
What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
Ajith
April 16, 2015
BR – How do you really feel when Mani Ratnam himself says that Kadal was a failure when you praised the movie to the skies? Really, what goes in your mind when you see something like this?
http://www.bangaloremirror.com/entertainment/south-masala/Making-everybody-Mental-Manadhil/articleshow/46923330.cms
LikeLike
sanjana
April 16, 2015
Thumb rules to watch a film. Or not to watch it.
If critics blast a film, try to watch it, especially if it stars your favourite star or favourite director.. It may not be that bad and maybe really entertaining.
If critics praise a film, be careful. Try not to watch it on big screen.
If critics are neutral about a movie, praising it and also dissing it, definitely watch it.
LikeLike
MANK
April 16, 2015
I am beginning to think that this particular line of thought happens more because you write for a newspaper and that too “THE HINDU”
Rahini, But Brangan used to write in exactly the same way when he was writing for Indian express- which i believe is no less a revered and respected paper than Hindu-. Of course the internet was not very rampant at the time , so may be the reactions to his articles weren’t this extreme.But I think its more a reflection of changing times vis a vis our tolerance levels . we as individuals have become more cantankerous and belligerent to any view that doesnt ( exactly) matches with our own.Its just not the paper , you can go to every other site where film reviews are posted.The comments are pretty much on similair lines.Its just that people doesnt approach these reviews as one person’s opinion or a triggering point on a discussion on the merits of the film , but rather a definite statement on the film itself. Thats the mentality that has to change.
Otherwise you have to do what some of the foreign papers do – which is to have 2 reviewers review the same film, and more often than not – their reactions are exactly the opposite. So one guy trashes the xyz aspects of the film and hails the abc aspects. The other guy does exactly the reverse, so everybody is satisfied. 🙂
Just look at these 2 pieces written by 2 different writers for the same paper -Variety on the film The counselor
http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/film-review-the-counselor-1200758390/
http://variety.com/2013/film/columns/the-counselor-rearview-ridley-scott-1200770790/
one piece gives perhaps the viewpoint of what you call as lay viewer- who had totally rejected this film, while the other massages the ego of the filmmaker and tries to give his (read the intelligentsia) POV.
LikeLike
brangan
April 16, 2015
Ajith: To answer your hypothetical question, I believe that my perception of a film has nothing to do with a director’s perception. I trust my instincts more than I trust a director’s “explanations.” It’s worked quite well for me so far.
I call your question “hypothetical” because Mani Ratnam doesn’t call “Kadal” a failure in this interview. Neither did my review prai… oh well.
LikeLike
Rahul
April 16, 2015
“If he does what exactly I want and vice versa, we don’t need each other.”
That’s profound. And cinema is called the director’s medium and all that..
LikeLike
MANK
April 16, 2015
Sanjana , my my…. you do have unique and simple rules\solutions to complex issues\problems.I can think of a hundred instances to punch holes in your thumb rules ,
And Brangan, arent you tired of defending your POV vis avis the filmmakers POV. you should just make your ‘Trust the tale not the teller’ piece the preamble of your blog.
LikeLike
brangan
April 16, 2015
MANK: This isn’t about defending oneself. This is about asking for some accountability from the reader.
READ the thing PROPERLY first, and THEN come ask your questions — instead of skimming through the piece and forming a generalised opinion. I usually try to answer questions, but how can I respond to imaginary scenarios?
I suppose I keep doing this — answering these questions, I mean — is because of the somewhat vain hope that at least through my clarifications they’ll go back and read the piece properly. And thus learn to read slowly… not skim.
Because if this is how people are going to read, if these are the types of 2+2=5 inferences people are going to make, then writers are doomed.
Anyway, this is what Mani Ratnam said in the “Kadal” chapter:
RANGAN: Do you feel the film should have been longer?
RATNAM: No. I don’t like long films. I like them tighter. It’s just that this film had too much story, too much plot. There is the story between Bergmans and Sam that is happening right through the film. There is the story between Thomas and Sam—again, right till the end. There is also a story that is not developed much, between Bergmans and Thomas. And there is the track with Bea. That is what made the film interesting, different, and also difficult. It’s not a simple story. It’s not a Mouna Raagam, which is a straight-line story. Sometimes I wish we’d reduced the amount of plot and just focused on the characters. Plot is the thing that consumes time. You have to say what happened to this and to that and you have to tie everything up. That takes time, and that takes away from the characters and their growth.
RANGAN: Do you think this is because the film was adapted from a sprawling novel?
RATNAM: No, but so many big novels have been adapted to screen all these years, and I should also be able to do it. If I haven’t been able to do it, then there’s a flaw somewhere. A novel presents a problem because there is the desire to bring in all the elements in it, to have a multiple-track story without the audience realizing that it’s a multiple-track story. Like I said, I’m happy with most of the film except the Bea track, which I wasn’t able to crack correctly.
Of course, this is just what he said. It doesn’t mean we should take his words at face value and also be “happy with most of the film.” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
April 16, 2015
MANK: I did not mean only the Hindu, but all the main newspapers put together. Say BR is not in any paper’s payroll at all and is a chartered accountant who just maintained a film blog as it is his passion. Would people still demand that he think what they preferred? Or would they just think of him as a contrarian with a way words and shrug his opinions off?
BR: I don’t think you are just a contrarian with a way with words. I was just making a point. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
April 16, 2015
Again, the point of this excerpt from the book isn’t to say that THIS is the official version and the interview in the paper is a lie. It’s just to say that filmmakers, over time, say various things that aren’t exactly compatible with one another — which is another way of saying ALWAYS TRUST THE TALE, NOT THE TELLER.
Or put differently, trust your own responses to a film and don’t form your responses based on what the director or anyone else says.
His “truth” need not be yours.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 16, 2015
MANK. Every argument can be negated. I can also punch holes. Not in thousands but I will keep it simple and short.
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
April 17, 2015
This is what the internet can do to ‘celebs’ who came to be because of the internet. How can anyone not like this phenomenon?
I think if filmmakers are rattled about reviews on the internet, they should start their own review shows on youtube and review the reviews of these internet reviewers, making a point by point case of why their reviews aren’t accurate. That’s the best response!
But then the internet is so great that they’d end up in another mashup video as well 😀
LikeLike
Ashutosh
April 17, 2015
@Rahini: I agree with what you say and I’d like to broaden your argument. It’s true that several people simply use the Hindu to know what to think… most of the anger seems to arise from a conflict between a deep conditioning to trust Hindu and the freedom and currency — even enticement — that the internet gives for half-baked nonsense.
But, most of the mudslinging above on Rangan (and generally on critics, and even more generally on anyone who has an individual opinion) stems from our complete intellectual blindness which is very similar to sensory blindness.
So right from childhood, most of us are taught what objects should be used how. A pen shouldn’t be put in the ear, a rubberband shouldn’t be used as a weapon etc. Very early on we stop exploring objects and even develop a subtle fear for them. We look at others, see how they interact with it and mimic their actions without trying anything new with it. As we get older, we do the same thing with art.
So, we don’t know what to do with movies. We have incoherent reactions, we know we actually See it at some level, but we have conditioned ourselves to be blind, and to make us feel better we lash out at those who are trying to See. And this is where, intellectual blindness mimics sensory blindness. Two non-blind people see an object; one sees red, and the other sees green. Immediately, this fascinates them and they begin to explore what color the object really is, how color is produced, whether the creator of the object intentionally effected this, or whether the property of this object was a result of some trait in the creator etc. It’s endlessly adventurous. Now imagine a 10 year old and a nearly blind grandfather seeing the same object. The kid sees green and the grandfather sees pale gray. Because the latter is blind, and he knows it, he is going to be irritable and angry when the kid asserts anything concrete about colors. All he knows is that pale grays makes him comfortable, and pale browns makes him sad… or something. He sees conspiracy, cunningness, dishonesty, and ineptitude when anyone says anything about colors… he’s is a cynic for anything visual because his vision is poor. Most lay cinema goers seem to be blind grandfathers: they have suppressed their easy and natural ability to perceive things and as a result they’ve lost the ability to focus on the tale. The teller being a more graspable object than the tale, they grasp at him with nervous foolishness, hoping it will compensate for their blindness. If I tell Rangan he is pompous and biased, it will make me humble and fair, no? If I tell him his ideas are unreliable, mine will become more reliable, no?
LikeLike
thotsvandi
April 17, 2015
Wonderful views there. Your job is soo tough BR 🙂
I see Suhasini’s video as someone caring for heart ailed husband, but does she think she can cajole writers or critics as qualified people, then they will not discard OKKanmani like they did Kadal?
I liked Kadal, it was a different attempt except that I found its pace not even.
Despite all the negative response of kadal Mani Ratnam is really cool and matured (ofcourse!). I remember Mani himself stating in Conversations that it doesn’t matter if it your first film or how much you have struggled, it cannot be given as an excuse. From the way he has answered your questions I assume he is an honest and integrated person. I remember his answer for the positive climax of Thalapathi as ‘how could one do that to Karnan after all the unfair treatments he received?’ made me love that man very much 🙂
Just saw the first (unqualified) positive review on fb for OkKanmani and eagerly waiting for your review!
LikeLike
Pady Srini
April 17, 2015
Ashutosh – The kid sees green and the grandfather sees pale gray.
For this discussion, I see it differently. The layman viewer is the kid ( calling it as they see ) and the filmmaker is the grandfather ( who is not able to accept the true color of their creation )
LikeLike
sanjana
April 17, 2015
We cannot put all critics in one basket just like we cannot put all politicians in one basket.
I find BR refreshingly different and honest.
Hindu is not what it was years before but its tone remains unchanged. Relatively serious and well balanced.
LikeLike
rothrocks
April 17, 2015
@Ashutosh: Very perceptive comment on the ‘Indian condition’. On a somewhat related note I’d like to chime in to say that while I am all for pricking holes in the work of filmmakers without undue reverence the reputation, I wonder what purpose an instant review serves. The idea of tweeting ‘reviews’ simultaneously as the film unfolds seems even more dubious. Yes you have every right to indulge your need to react and I would be the last person to seek to deprive you of it. But in such a climate of ‘appreciation’ the audience will only get the films they deserve. It has nought to do with the ‘efforts’ put in by the artists since that is paid for by the audience. What I question is the attention span or lack thereof involved in forming and expressing opinions while the film is on. It suggests that the film here only fulfils a need for instant gratification and is not intended, perhaps not supposed to stoke your curiosity, engage your mind and challenge your assumptions about the world even at times.
LikeLike
Shankar V
April 17, 2015
I am a regular follower of your film reviews and like them. They help me determine which movie to watch and which ones not to.
Despite this, your review of Kadal left me speechless. It was a horrible movie to my layman eyes. Even the songs that are good to listen to were out of context in the movie. To see a bunch of fisherman sing and dance to a song like “Adiyae” made me yearn for the days when Ilaiyaraja used to score for Mani’s films. I love Rahman’s songs but definitely not his work for Kadal.
That said I would still respect your review of Kadal. It worked for you and not for me. This may mean that I would read your reviews of films after Kadal with a pinch of salt because I now know that my POV is not the same as yours. It was almost similar before that….now I am not sure.
What Suhasini said is a joke. She feels that Kadal was a failure because it got panned by critics. But no – the movie failed because it was a pathetic movie. End of Story. Unless and until film makers realize this, it would be difficult for them to take criticism in the correct sense.
I happened to discuss with a Telugu film director at length a few years back. He is a guy who makes some of the better films in Telugu – non-masala, but not artsy (this clue will make it easy to guess 🙂 )
I did ask him one question – when we in the audience see a film and within a few minutes are able to determine whether it is good or trash, how come despite watching the film from the rushes till it is released, the directors and other technical crew fail to realize that? Don’t someone realize that the film is going to end as a disaster?
His response was: 1. When yuo are the creator, it is difficult to step away from it and view it with dispassionate eyes. This happens to almost every creator – be it films, music, paintings, etc. 2. Sometimes the film changes track midway due to influence from the cast (aka the hero), the producer, the desperation to sell the movie makes directors compromise on including an item dance or comedy track etc and these change the original well thought out plot to be choppy and even sloppy as the director still has to finish the film within the 120-150 min length.
This probably is the reason why the film makers retort with “have you made a film yourself?” They are not questioning you on your film making credentials but about your ability to make something good despite all these hassles.
We should give more credit to films that come out actually pretty well. 🙂
LikeLike
thotsvandi
April 17, 2015
@Shankar V – is he Sekhar Kammula?
LikeLike
Ganesh Iyer
April 20, 2015
@brangan Reviews must help even uneducated people to understand what it is. critic like Madan will understand this but some will not understand. i am not saying he should not review but he must learn. see many movies learn why they are great. They must read some reviews by big personalities and see why they have rated a movie so high and same movie will be criticized by some. they must learn to analyze.
Padam puriyilana nalla illana solra kootaminnum irukku. puriyilaya watch it again. but dont say film is bad. any body can write their views but when u write the same as review it will make an impact. people look for review not views.opinion vera review vera. people will care when it is written in the name of opinion.
For eg in Bosskey kashayam (which is actually a review ) for Nanban his major criticism of the film is Vijay does not have a fight scene. Really is this how he reviews a movie. That is why we need crtic like you Mr.rangan,Madan,Rajeev masand . In hollywood we have top critics like roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, James Berardinelli, Peter Travers but here we hardly have who are reputed. but the problem here n chennai even some reputed newpaper crittics review like some common man. for example Kadal review. I don’t expect a common man to understand such a movie but every film critic should be positive on it. i hardly found them apart from rangan.
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 20, 2015
Ganesh Iyer: I am not very sure what you are saying here. To the best of my own knowledge, a review is just a collection of opinion about a certain piece of work. Why should opinion and review be vera vera? A well written review that systematically analyses a movie is more satisfying to some than a witty tweet about its watchability and It is an art form in itself. It can be thought provoking if the reviewer is a thoughtful sensible person. But it is still about the critics opinion presented to the reader in an enjoyable format.
Did Bosskey really say that comment in earnest or was he being sarcastic? Either way he has a right to feel what he felt about a movie.
Does this “every film critic should be positive on it” apply to all movies or just the movies that you think are great? I mean Ebert and Berardinelli and BR have been freely sarcastic about many movies. Why should they not be when the movie failed to please them?
“Padam puriyilana nalla illana solra kootaminnum irukku. puriyilaya watch it again. but dont say film is bad.” – Do you believe this about Monisha En Monalisa?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ganesh Iyer
April 20, 2015
@rahini Boskey was not sarcastic please he is the most bad reviewer(i wont call him critic)we need professionals not some nutcase. Padam jolly iruntha nalla padam konjam drag aachuna ketta padam. if you want to be critic you must some knowledge of cinema. it mean you should have many world class movies not just masala type. you should able to understand from different views. what hasini said correct. u just should not watch films for entertainment purpose u must watch like a art and try communicate what the director is trying to say. big example is Kadal. it was such amazing movie but many people could live upto it. it may have few hiccups but that movie does not deserve the beating it got.
I imagine remember how rangan reviewed Raja Rani. That is the perfect review. Chumma padam jolly irunthuchunu ore reasonkaga positive review kudukka kudathu. If it is comedy film and if comedy is part of the film like ullathai allitha then kudos but for Raja Rani when it is supposed to be a romantic film and you expect something like how these to people got together director chose very simple ways and sacrificed what would otherwise been good movie for santhanam and cheap gimmicks to get cheers from audience. it took 2hour for revathy to accept Mohan but here i think half an hour. Revathy was pushed to corner she had no choice but to open her heart about karthick. here they had duex ex machina from santhanam “mudhala love pannapo kudicha ippovo kudikran” and nayan ask “mudhal love” then after flashback over thats it fall in love( god please). Only a real critic will write all these flaws but for some guy like boskey and prashant please dont review and ruin goodmovies.
LikeLike
Blasta
April 29, 2015
Appreciation is a personal thing, while a review, because of its public nature, ceases to be personal. Even when cloaked under literary style, it does demands substance.
Independent reviewers are really sparse, and given that many of them aspire to reflected greatness, there is hardly anyone who gets the whole shebang right. The foremost question in someone seeking a review is (or should be) the question “is it worth my while”
When a reviewer substitutes style for substance in his review, the seeker has a right to feel cheated. Such criticism however does not apply to this blog and this reviewer. Not that it matters.
From reading the comments in this blog one feels that most visitors come to this blog not for a serious review, they seem rather attracted to your quotably(?) quaint writing style and even more exotic references, you are their “Rajnikanth of Reviewing” if one may call it so.
More dilettante than serious, and thankfully your light touch seems to work wonderfully with them. More power to the Thalaivar!
Now were we talking about quality reviewing?
Always thought that good criticism usually marries wicked with style, even when it is not called for. Like Pauli saying “this student has done so little given his very young age”. Hmm.
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 29, 2015
Blasta: I was groping in the dark for a particular word and you gave it to me. It is “Dilettante”. The more common word I believe is “Wannabe”.
I wonder why I was looking for the word just now.
LikeLike
Blasta
April 30, 2015
Rahini: “I wonder why” a poem Feynman claims that he wrote for philosophy class.
C for Clarify >> Ctrl C – Ctrl V – http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dilettante?s=t .
Reminds me of a Wodehouse line, said to Bertie, after he crashes a grandfather clock while groping in the dark “Surely it would be within the intelligence of a young man like you to find a light switch” Now why do I wonder as to why cats scratch at doors?
LikeLike