This post comes about because Tina, in the Saand Ki Aankh comments section, asked:
Also – why do we now have a reviewer who re-tweets actors/technicians who say he ‘gets’ the movie? Out of curiosity – does this happen anywhere else? It is really a bit annoying – because frankly, from my (very humble) perspective as a reader, what do I make of this? Even if you RT other tweets, somehow, where is the arms distance if you were to acknowledge the praise for your review from the very subjects in the review? What is to say you are not (subconsciously) seeking a mention from these actors when you are writing the review?
She added that this did not seem professional, and took away from the “sacrosanct-ness” of the review.
Now, this is something I have wrestled with a lot and talked to a lot of people about and changed my attitude towards over the years.
In the pre-Twitter years, I used to think like Tina. I was in my little box in Chennai, and whatever appreciation or criticism I got was through the blog. It was like a cosy little bunch of people who became like family, and (by extension) earned the right to praise me or rap my head with their knuckles in the comments section.
But post social media, my audience became “the world” (in the sense that I am still nowhere as popular as, say, Blue Sattai or Prashanth or Taran Adarsh etc.) but among the people who read my kind of review, the audience base started increasing hugely. So the people praising me or rapping my head with their knuckles weren’t just this “cosy family” on this blog, but also complete unknowns.
Plus, the digital-ness of the new era meant that oceans of information kept washing up at our feet. So why do I retweet a comment by Taapsee (or even an unknown tweeter)? (1) So that those who don’t know me but follow Taapsee or that tweeter will know that such a review exists. The tweet becomes a sort of “ad” for the review. The “cosy family” doesn’t care (they already know; they need no incentive to read the review), but for the others, this “ad” may make them check out the review, which adds to the views count of the review, which means my company benefits.
And (2), there is so much “noise” on the internet, that one tweet saying such a review exists is not enough. You have to keep plugging a piece, hoping that each plug makes it travel a little more.
Why is this important? Because we are in a situation today where we have to be present in the digital world, but very few people have figured out how to monetise this. So the more you retweet, the greater the chances of you furthering your company’s “brand”.
And the more the chances of you furthering your own brand (which in turn helps your company; it’s a little like how a more “known” actor would help a movie’s prospects). A long time ago, when I interviewed TM Krishna (man, how I miss doing those Carnatic music pieces!), he said to me very plainly and unapologetically, “I am a brand”.
https://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2006/05/07/interview-tm-krishna/
I think, as Indians (especially as south Indians), we are brought up with notions like “it’s wrong to blow your own trumpet”. So I was surprised that this (south Indian) artist was being so matter-of-fact about his position, essentially saying that “people don’t just come to me because they want to listen to this raga but because they want to listen to how TM Krishna sings this raga.”
But today, I realise I was being so naive about this (about my being surprised that someone would openly admit this).
What Krishna said (from the piece linked to above):
“Of course, Krishna didn’t just say that. He’d talked earlier about how the leisurely-paced padam is a lost art in concerts today and that it needed to be revived, and I’d asked him if audiences these days have the patience to sit through padams and javalis. That’s when he whipped himself into corporate mode. “The first time you come to a TM Krishna concert, you just listen. The second time, you expect something based on the previous experience. And so on for the third and fourth times. Now who decided those expectations? I did. I fed you with the data every time you came to my concert, and that data formed the basis of your expectations. Put in business terms, I am a brand. The qualities of a brand are decided by the manufacturer, which is me. You buy the product once. If you like it, you buy it again. So if I think I can create an audience that can listen to a padam or a javali, it’s up to me to try and do it. I don’t agree with artists who say that they do things because their audience wanted those things. That’s the biggest lie. Nobody wants anything from you except honesty.”
In my case, I am the “manufacturer” and my “product” is the review or interview or whatever. My company promotes my “products” to an extent. I should, too – through the “ads” I was talking about earlier. Because if we don’t promote what we create and give it the best possible shot at succeeding, then who will?
Now, to the main question. Does this end up compromising the “product”? I have a simple rule that I follow. If I know the review is going to be less than complimentary and if I know the filmmaker in any capacity, I send them a Whatsapp note saying that the film did not work for me. Why? Because I feel they should hear it from me first before they read it on the web. I did this for Vetri Maaran with Asuran, Mani Ratnam with Chekka Chivantha Vaanam, Lokesh Kanagaraj for Kaithi, Gautham Menon for Achcham Enbadhu Madamayada… I don’t know if this makes a difference to them, but it makes me feel sorted, and then, I can write my review with a clear head.
Because if you have been in this game for as long as I have – some 17 years – it’s inevitable that you get to know people from the industry. And this is long before I started doing video interviews. Sometimes, you run into them at events. Sometimes, you end up having long chats with them at film festivals. Sometimes, you are called to moderate a panel discussion. Sometimes, a publisher says, “Why don’t you write a book on so-and-so?” (If memory serves me right, I did end up writing that book.)
Some critics have an iron-clad rule about not meeting or knowing anyone from the industry they write about, but I don’t subscribe to this notion. I think you can do both, without “compromise”.
So yes, things are certainly different from the times I was “just a blogger”. For better or for worse, I am a brand, and I am learning to not be so embarrassed about it and for promoting my brand.
As to whether you “buy” my review, I have always maintained this: I take great care to “explain” why a film worked for me or did not work for me. I don’t just say “it sucks” or “it rocks”. So ideally, you would read the review for those reasons to see why the film worked for me (even if those very reasons are why the film did not work for you).
But of course, there are those who feel things like I have become more “compromised” by these interactions over the years, and frankly, these things are for each individual to decide. My job is to write. I have no control over how that writing is “read” by the reader. All I do is “push” that writing as much as I can.
As always, I am not saying I am right or wrong, or that you have to buy what I am saying here. Over the years, several readers have stopped reading me for various reasons. But this is an important subject and I am glad Tina brought it up, because I have been wanting to talk about this for a while.
Over and out.
Tina
October 30, 2019
Hayyo! I got a full fledged response. Big THANKS for taking the time to explain. You absolutely didn’t have to.
I do understand brand, impressions, awareness, so on and so forth. Your article clearly articulates your thought/writing process, giving us a bit more of a glimpse into how it’s just as hard for you and what you do to mitigate bias as much as you can.
You see, before social media, your KPI was purely your satisfaction and mine (i.e. the readers of your blog). That it has come to this, your KPIs more on reach vs. impact of the reach, is somehow a big change to grapple with – for me more than for you. Maybe some people like me just need more time to process this change. And maybe we don’t even matter in the bigger scheme of things, but thanks for explaining as you did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amrita Nayak
October 30, 2019
A clarification: did you mean “don’t come to me because they want to listen to this raga” here – “people come to me because they want to listen to this raga but because they want to listen to how TM Krishna sings this raga.”
Also there’s a parentheses [ ) ] missing from a line in the next para. I am imagining that you wrote this in a hurry or with a lot of pent up emotion. Anyway good to hear your thoughts as always 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
October 30, 2019
Amrita, thanks, made the change.
No, no — there was no pent-up emotion and all 🙂 Just been wanting to say these things and Tina’s comment gave me the excuse…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amrita Nayak
October 30, 2019
By the way, I loved the term ‘shying’; I am going to use it for my (very South Indian) husband 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
October 30, 2019
As Tina says, it’s a lot to grapple with. But thank you, BR, for explaining. And thanks, Tina, for asking. Because I was slightly bemused myself when BR posted Hrithik Roshan’s tweet about his review. One part of me understood – it’s nice when the subject of your review appreciates it. However, I, too, wondered about of ethics of it.
Now I’ll go grapple with it some more. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Varsha
October 30, 2019
Tina, as you have acknowledged, BR’s response to your query is more than sufficient, but I thought I would go a bit philosophical and add a movie reference to go with it, not only because I think it suits the topic so well, but also, well, this is after all a film blog!
I don’t know if you have seen the tamil film Merku Thodarchi Malai, but the overall conceit of the film can be thought of as a conflict between the hills and the plains, not so dissimilar from your and BR’s point of view about his “products” per se, respectively. In the film, the people living in the hills are so innocent that, despite their rugged and tough lifestyle, one feels like heaven living among them. But the “gravity” of the plains(read digital world and social media) relentlessly pulls them down, and all one can hope is to “fall” gracefully as BR has, in my view, unlike in the film where a character’s fall is anything but!
Long gone are the days when a product speaking for itself alone was sufficient for success! We may have lofty thoughts, but our actions today, in almost all walks of life, for better or worse, are as grounded as the plains!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Vikram s
October 30, 2019
To add, Everytime you post an RT from a celebrity, we in the cosy family get all chuffed with pride. And your reviews do strike a balance between you knowing the people behind the film and how the end product turned out for you. Though, at times it does feel like you get a bit long-winded in the explanation of why something didn’t work for you 🙂
LikeLike
Paras
October 31, 2019
Dear BR,
Really appreciate the fact that ‘you chose’ to explain your position. That only shows the supreme belief that you have in yourself as a critic and rightly so. From the inner recesses of my heart, I do really feel that you are the best critic in the country and the second best critic (if at all there is one) is miles behind you.
And that’s precisely the reason why I not only adore you but also revere you…for your knowledge, objectivity and clarity on cinema and cinematic aspects. I have considered you my Guru without even you knowing (like an Eklavya, if you will)
However, I am little worried that whether ‘my’ deitifying you was hurried. And i give my reasons as below:
Even I was little disturbed when i saw you ‘marketing’ yourself using Hrithik’s tweet. But then i thought it was one of a thing and a misstep and hence I never ‘questioned’ about it. But now since you have explained your so-called logic behind your self-marketing, I am compelled to write you…pls bear the lengthy rumblings.
Firstly, I feel an Art Critic’s role is like that of an Umpire/Referee in a match. He ‘has’ to be impartial, he ‘has’ to be above all suspicions and he should not be interested if his decisions i.e. evaluations are popular or not. His one and only interest should be to judge/evaluate and give Verdict if the player’s actions were right or wrong. An Umpire cannot and should not really ‘market’ himself and that too, using the praise/appreciations of the players whom he has evaluate. It’s a logical fallacy really, even if we ignore the issue of integrity.
LikeLike
Paras
October 31, 2019
Secondly, you have explained that you write a specific note to the film-makers whom you know, even before you publish the review for the aam jaanta. This is even more troubling to know, Sir. This is like…the Umpire consulting/informing the player that he is about to be penalised now, (even before declaring the penalty to the aam janta) …so pls bear with me. Doesn’t this look like an unholy Nexus to you…
What if the film-maker replies to your message and starts justifying to you and then you get convinced and change your review slightly. And to top it, you said you do this to only few film-makers whom ‘you know’ . Isn’t that grossly unfair to other film-makers whom ‘you don’t know’ that they don’t get a chance to explain to you beforehand, before you publish the review for mass consumption.
LikeLike
Paras
October 31, 2019
And lastly BR, I am saying all this simply because I am currently in a profession where I do lot of ‘vendors’ performance evaluation for my company. This role requires utmost knowledge, diplomacy, stringency and above all integrity. How will it look if I ‘market’ myself on LinkedIn using the appreciation and praise received from the very vendors about whom I am supposed to be critically evaluative. I am little paranoid about my role and so may be that’s the reason I don’t even accept even small gifts like a Rs. 100 pen or a simple coffee invitation from my vendors. Simply because I feel that’s a logical fallacy (and also an integrity issue) if I do that.
As a Cinema Critic, for me (and for thousands of your fans) you remain the epitome of movie knowledge and if in near future, if ever I do make it big in movie industry, a lot of ….in fact a whole lot of credit is to you BR.
Sorry for this post BR…If any other reviewer would have written what you wrote in this article, it wouldn’t have mattered to me but you are being adored and worshipped by serious movie fans like me and hence few of your actions do impact us emotionally…at a personal level.
LikeLike
shaviswa
October 31, 2019
Makes sense. I didn’t have a problem with the promotion as that is required for brand building and also attract traffic to your website. Especially when your content is free and your revenue model is based on eyeballs predominantly (I would guess that you also have other streams like promotions for movies. Some of the interviews seem to be part of the film promotion)
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
October 31, 2019
Purity is overrated. There is no such thing as an unbiased review, as we’ve seen often enough on this blog, but it’s still good reading. It’s all good if the actors and directors appreciate a certain reviewer and the reviewer uses that appreciation to draw viewers and vice versa! If this leads to gentler reviews, well he’s got to realize when it gets in the way of incisive criticism and sharpen his tools again, right? Sorry this third person style is too much fun.
LikeLike
brangan
October 31, 2019
Paras: The way I see it is like this. Take MOOTHON. I loved LIAR’S DICE. I spoke to Geetu Mohandas for an interview (published in FILM COMPANION). She was at the opening night party at the Mumbai Film Festival and we chatted a bit and even clicked a picture I was pulled into (it went on social media).
But at the end of the day, when I saw the film, it is what it is. And I hope my review was able to convey what I felt about it.
But I cannot quit working for the Mumbai Film Festival (or going to other festivals) because it MAY bring me face to face with actors or filmmakers. As long as I feel the review is not compromised, I am good.
Of course, YOU (as in, the reader) may unearth all kinds of reasons and motivations and biases in the review. And that is inevitable.
My point is simply this. If the reasons I lay out in my review and the way I build my arguments do not convince you about what I feel about a film, then nothing else will. If the review is not convincing to you, then no amount of whatever I say is going to be of any use.
As I said, MY job is to write, The reactions, I have no control over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
October 31, 2019
PS: In any case, whenever I read a reviewer, I have only been interested in WHAT he/she has written.
“WHY has he/she written the review this way” has never been a concern of mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vogon
October 31, 2019
I used to think the same way about your retweets earlier, but now I look forward to them. Many a video/article slips away for lack of time, but these tweets and retweets remind me to watch/read them. So I hope you keep at it.
LikeLike
Madan
October 31, 2019
Paras: Whilst I understand and don’t completely disagree with your concerns about integrity, I do disagree with the vendor example. In BR’s case, he is not paid by the filmmaker to write a review. His paymaster is Film Companion.
I think this sort of thing was bound to happen in the change from a newspaper for which movies were just one thing to a website devoted to films. And remember even during the Hindu days, BR was accused of Mani bias all the time.
LikeLike
KS
October 31, 2019
BR: Your demonstrably strong work ethics is evident in how you interact with your viewers/readers, interviewees & colleagues and most of all the transparency & clarity in your thoughts & writing. I admire the professionalism with which you approach your interviewees regardless of their stature (be it a Nagarjuna or a Tracker/Influencer). You truly have built immense credibility for your work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paras
October 31, 2019
Dear BR,
I said that earlier and say it again – You are the best Movie critic that India has and even the 2nd best is miles away in terms of caliber.
Your movie reviews are so well-informed, clear and have in-depth explanation that a serious movie industry aspirant can learn hundreds of aspects from your single review.
My only point was about “the ‘self-promotion’ using the appreciation received from those people about whom you are supposed to be critically evaluative”.
This…I feel is logically inconsistent. And this applies to any role that involves any criticism and pointing out things. Example: An Auditor. He should not really self-promote himself by using the good feedback from the clients whom he is auditing…Isn’t it?
Also, if at all promotion is required, it can be done by your company… isn’t it?
And second point I raised was about you informing only few film-makers beforehand about your opinion, before publishing it for the masses…This again seems unfair to other film-makers. Example: Does a court judge inform the accused/victim and that too in private, few hours before he actually announces the verdict?
And as rightly pointed out by you, we, the readers are always interested in WHAT you say about the movie. But WHY also matters Sir…else where is the scope for learning for the readers. As I said, I personally have learnt hundreds of things from this blog and your analysis and subsequent readers comments are equivalent to hundreds of YouTube videos and film-making books.
I understand that my viewpoint may not align with your views on this subject and so let’s agree to disagree.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Kay
October 31, 2019
Hypothetically speaking, if I’m a good auditor, and I’m gradually increasing my client base from regional to national and if I have a client like TCS and they say something good about me, why shouldn’t I put that in my website?
I think it’s perfectly ok to retweet an appreciation for the review. A review often contains the reviewer’s interpretation of the movie. When the director or the star themselves retweet the review it’s like a validation of the interpretation. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in doing it.
As shaviswa pointed out, Film Companion being a digital medium offering free content, they earn their revenues from the number of clicks. So it only makes sense that they would want to increase the number of views.
LikeLike
brangan
October 31, 2019
Kay: A review often contains the reviewer’s interpretation of the movie. When the director or the star themselves retweet the review it’s like a validation of the interpretation.
It is not about being “validated” by a star or director. If I say good things about a movie, they will of course “validate” the review. (That said, Anand Deverakonda’s tweet about my DEAR COMRADE review felt very from-the-heart.)
It is about these tweets serving as “ads” for the review, so that more people read it.
The validation feels good, sure, but that is a five-second ego massage that one can never take seriously. Driving more people to “buy my product” is the reason for the retweets.
LikeLike
Eswar
October 31, 2019
Great post BR. The retweets and “advertising” are quite understandable even without this post. But it is very kind of you to have taken time to explain it.
If there is an Aram in what you do, it is this:
If I know the review is going to be less than complimentary and if I know the filmmaker in any capacity, I send them a Whatsapp note saying that the film did not work for me. Why? Because I feel they should hear it from me first before they read it on the web.
No wonder you sleep well at night.
🙏
LikeLike
Heisenberg
November 1, 2019
I have a side question about the way you write reviews. Do you feel every movie is a continuity of some previous one or try to treat it as stand-alone product? I have been following your blog past four years, but only recently started noticing that many times in your review you make connections. It could be with previous movies of same director or even for a debutant director you make some parallels with old movies. Some times I feel these connections are very stretched (Sorry, not remembering any example now)
Sometimes even for an actor you would try to fit him in a certain category (like you do for Ayushmann khurrana – embarrassing secret).
Your approach to review a movie is, if a movie has achieved what it set out to do (am I right?). Then why do you have to throw in few other movies in most reviews and make connections?
I am not sure my question has come out right. Will be glad if you could answer. Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karthik
November 1, 2019
Having followed your blog from a very long time as a silent viewer, I rather feel glad whenever a celeb tweets your review. It is like finally Bollywood and other film industries have given you due. And there is nothing wrong in boasting a little. These mentions are from really popular people and you have all the rights to let your fanbase know too about it. Everyone deserves to grow further. One cannot resort to stagnation voluntarily.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Shankar
November 2, 2019
The problem we have is that we expect someone of stature to behave a certain way. In this case, for most of us, the only connection to BR is through what he writes. Everything else he does is his free will. As long as you enjoy the product he puts out, why impose so called righteousness on him? He can do whatever he likes. And if you don’t agree with what he does outside of his reviews, there are a number is distant second reviewers in town to choose from.
Let’s not subject all these folks, critics, sportsmen, film stars to these moral high grounds please. The only exception is if someone steps outside the boundaries of law and does something illegal. There is nothing of that sort here. So onward you go, BR! BTW, we may not comment here as often, but we still read you, just as we did before!😄
LikeLike