30 August 2005

Film-shilm: Whose critic is (s)he anyway?

So I read a review in the Indian Express, telling me that "No entry" is a movie that should be avoided. An unfamiliar byline in Deccan Herald says it is fun.
Hmmmm.
My guess is that the latter is a newbie to the media, fresh out of a college, and enjoying herself--like the average youthful viewer.
Brings us to the question on film criticism: Is the reviewer someone who advises the reader to see or not to see a movie? Or is that someone imposing her/his standards on the reader? Or is this some arty critic using exalted standards of Cinema with a capital C, gorging on Truffauts like waffles for breakfast?
I broadly welcome the dumbing down of movie reviews, at least for their ability to connect with the average reader. But I would prefer reviews that assess films in their genre and mix healthy criticism with a feel for the readership. Easier said than done.
Writing for the Dumb requires a lot of Intelligence.
And it reminds me of a famous quote from Amitabh Bachchan, who was once asked why he was paid so much for running around trees.
Answer: "It is very difficult to make something stupid look convincing!"

2 comments:

N said...

I agree. I've often wondered whethere Indian critics take the meaning of 'criticism' a little too literally. Perhaps, they're insecure and feel it's better to err on the side of being too discerning rather than the opposite.

Anonymous said...

Five Star Indian Recipes...A collection of more than 1000 chosen Indian recipes.
authentic indian food
Great site for Indian food lovers.