FAQs FOR FILM CRITICS / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

SHOULD I WATCH THIS FILM?

Should I watch this film? Who cares about your review? …And other questions most frequently asked to critics by readers and viewers.

By Anna MM Vetticad

Should I watch this film? Not only is this the question most frequently asked of critics, it’s also the toughest to answer. Because people expect to hear a “yes” or “no”, whereas the logical reply is this: “That depends on your taste in cinema. If your interests and tastes match mine, the answer is X. If not, the answer is Y. I would suggest though that you read my review because so many things that matter to me may not bother you and vice versa.”

You see, it’s not the job of critics to tell potential viewers whether or not to watch a film, though an individual critic may choose to do so if she or he wishes. The critic’s primary job, however, is to give people a considered, well-informed assessment of a film and put it in perspective keeping in mind the socio-political and cultural context in which it has been made (Is it misogynistic? Is it sucking up to the government? Does it do justice to the book on which it’s based?), that particular team’s body of work and other factors.

When I explain this to those who have the patience to listen, the next question invariably is this: with so many contradictory reviews, how do I decide which films to watch?

That’s easy. There are some stars and directors to whom we are so committed that the harshest review in the world couldn’t dissuade us from watching their work. For the general mass of films though, a discerning consumer of reviews could perhaps follow a number of critics over a length of time, find one or two whose views tend to match theirs and then heed those critiques.

Over the years, I’ve gathered a list of other FAQs directed at critics. Here they are:

Can I take my kids for it?

I love parents who are responsible enough to make this inquiry. My friend Ravi says I should introduce a parental guide on my blog for concerned dads like him. The only reason why I have not yet done so is that like the previous question, there is no simple answer to this one. It depends on what you are willing to expose your children to. Some people don’t want their children to see even a brief kiss, others are anxious about long smooches, yet others draw the line at explicit sex. Me? I worry about violence and prejudice.

Will it be a hit?

I don’t know. A film may get a great response from everyone who sees it, but they could be small in number because it was released at exam time when families were staying away from theatres. Box-office success is a combination of so many factors beyond our personal opinions about a film’s quality.

Who cares about your review?

This one comes only from angry fans if you’ve dissed their favourite star’s film.

Is this your review or your personal opinion?

I do not understand this one. Of course it is my personal opinion. A fellow critic once told me he watches films with the public rather than at press previews so that he can decide his review based on audience reactions. This approach completely misses the point that our reactions to films are governed by our backgrounds, the exposure we’ve had to the arts and so on. Besides, one person who adores a film may hoot, whistle and dance in a hall, another may smile quietly to herself. Responses may differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. It’s hard to tell what purpose a review serves if you cannot even stand by it, since it’s not your own viewpoint.

Do reviews make a difference to collections?

Yes. Most people agree that small films get a boost from positive reviews. Big mainstream films with major stars and massive marketing are less likely to be affected, and yet reviews obviously contribute to the buzz surrounding a film. If negative reviews combine with poor audience feedback, even a huge film’s collections could possibly suffer after the first day or weekend, as producers may tell you in their more honest moments. Likewise, if a team that traditionally gets negative reviews were to suddenly earn positive comments, this too could generate curiosity. Without doubt, Salman Khan was catapulted to a different league altogether — from having his own committed fan following to attracting the interest of those who weren’t traditionally his fans — when Wanted and Dabangg unexpectedly received good reviews from at least some critics who had not previously shown a fondness for his work.

Anyway, don’t take my word for this. Ask Rohit Shetty, director of blockbusters such as Chennai Express and Singham. When I interviewed him for my book, The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic, Shetty spent a considerable part of the conversation cursing critics and telling me how little we know about what the audience wants. He also insisted that critics should publish reviews on Monday, instead of on the Friday of a film’s release. If you think there is a major disconnect between what critics say and what audiences like, then it should not make a difference to you, I said. He replied: “I’m saying, ho sakta hai ek crore ka business aap log kha jaate ho. Ho sakta hai na? (It’s possible that you jeopardise a crore worth of business. Isn’t it possible?)”

Yes it is.

(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)

(This column by Anna MM Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on December 27, 2014)

Photograph courtesy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingaa

Note: This photograph did not appear in The Hindu Businessline

CAN FILM CRITICS & FILM PERSONALITIES BE FRIENDS? / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN HINDU BUSINESSLINE

FRIEND OR CRITIC?

If you want a critic to be kind to your film because of a personal connection, you might want to consider not grumbling about corrupt netas, police and journalists

“Almost all the so called elite critics rubbished Desi Kattey which I really don’t care but the way you have done it I am beyond shocked. You may criticize the movie but you are on and on humiliating it by posting re-posting it I cannot believe. We might not be big friends just ex-colleagues but at least we know each other. Good luck to you, you are doing your job earnestly but thanks I cannot allow it on my timeline. Good bye. What you critics cannot appreciate is that how somebody singlehandedly tried and penetrated the industry amidst biggies of the trade. All you can do it pull a hardworking person down with all your might. Doesn’t a small scale movie maker have any right to earn his living but no you critics love to dissect everything intellectually. All I want to say is even a small filmmaker has all right to co-exist, you don’t have right to instigate public by imposing your opinions.” (sic)


With this message, she unfollowed me on Twitter this week. Her name does not matter. Her reason does. She was not a friend, but a former colleague of whom I have fond memories. Her grievance? That I had given a negative review to a film directed by her brother, and then — as is my weekly practice with every single film I review — I posted the link on the social media more than once.

Since I began reviewing films for a prominent TV channel some years ago and later on my personal blog, this is my first experience of someone verbally expressing an expectation that because “we know each other” I should treat a film differently. It brought back to mind a question I repeatedly ask myself: can critics and film personalities be friends?

The answer for me, so far, has been ‘no’. Friendly? Sure. Friends? No. After all, in our personal lives, most of us don’t air our views about a friend’s work on public platforms unless we have positive things to say. It follows then that if I publish a no-holds-barred critique of her work for the world to see, I’m not being much of a friend. However, if my review of a film by a ‘friend’ is less than honest or is inconsistent with my usual approach to reviews, I’m not being much of a critic. To my mind, I can either be sensitive to a friend or fair to my readers. I cannot be both.

There are important issues of journalistic ethics involved here. The explosion in the media in the past 15 years has coincided with a decline in the reputation of journalism as a profession. If politicians must contend with the ‘all netas are corrupt’ accusation, then for the media it is ‘all
 journalists are for sale’. The charge has arisen partly because, as in every field, this one 
too has its bad eggs; partly because some media houses have
 set up departments that official
ly sell space for coverage in certain sections of their
 newspapers and magazines,
 thus leading to question marks
 over the entire publication; and partly because blanket statements are so much easier to make than balanced assessments.

And so, through private conversations, public statements and online fan clubs, many film personalities covertly or overtly encourage a view that tars every critic with the same brush. This makes it simpler for them to be openly dismissive on occasions when they get unfavourable reviews. More important, the film industry tries to discredit all film critics while tacitly wooing those critics who are open to undue favours, such as solo previews, exclusive screenings for the family and so on.

Ethical critics (who form the majority, I insist) can do little about these games beyond being doggedly, irritatingly, exasperatingly honest. Not everyone who makes different choices is dishonest, but each one of us must draw our own Lakshman rekha and refuse to cross it.

In time, the unjust accusations fade into insignificance. In time, you see the humour in a fan who otherwise describes you as “fiercely fearless, funny and fair”, but changes that to “mean, nasty and biased” if you slam her favourite actor. In time, you laugh off stars who tweet web links to positive reviews, but cast aspersions on the very same critics when they have not-so-nice things to say.

Years back, the great American film critic Roger Ebert gave a scathing review to Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo starring Rob Schneider. “Mr Schneider,” he wrote, “your movie sucks.” Yet when Ebert passed away last year, Schneider said in an interview to rogerebert.com: “...it (the review) made me reassess what pictures I really wanted to make and how I got to make a movie in the first place that even I wasn’t happy with.”

Bollywood producer-director Karan Johar once told me that in the week of a film’s release, he is too close to the project to be objective, and is wont to be angry with and dismissive of harsh reviews; but as he achieves distance from the film, he is able to separate constructive, informed criticism from the chaff and appreciate it.


Beyond a point, even such heartening reactions should not matter. For critics, there is just one thing to do: be fair to the film and honest to the reader. Even if it means being accused of humiliating an ex-colleague’s brother who made a bad film.

(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)

(This column by Anna M.M. Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on October 4, 2014)

Photograph courtesy: https://www.facebook.com/DesiKattey