Star Vs Star: Are film critics worth their salt?

New Delhi: When it comes to certain stars, the film makes money regardless of what the reviewer says. Then they start looking like small street dogs barking at a huge elephant: Shyam Benegal.

Quite a few things in cinema transcend logic, and this is one of them. Films that stick like a bone in the throat of film reviewers go on to do phenomenal business at the box office (yes, we may be referring to 'Bodyguard') while films that are praised liberally are often left famished when it comes to making money. There seems to be a discord between filmmakers, film reviewers and the audience in the largest film-producing country of the world. What then is the role of a film reviewer and a film review in a space that is churning out all kinds of cinema parallely?

"Your reader has to know much more than whether the film is good or bad, watchable or non-watchable. The review has to help them make an informed choice," says Sanjukta Sharma who reviews films for business newspaper Mint.

A film review is much more than merely absorbing a film and writing about it in a perfunctory manner; it is a creative endeavor unto itself.

"Primarily I consider film reviewing a creative exercise, but a journalistic one," Sharma adds.

For reviewers, the buck doesn’t stop at informing people whether the film is worth their money or not. If we were to consider films just as a means of entertainment, perhaps it would do to tell which film deserved investment of their money and time.

"I rarely review films to tell the reader to see it or not. My review must stand on its own because I hope to provide enough to tell people what the film is trying to do," says renowned film scholar and critic MK Raghvendra, "While my purpose when I’m writing about extraordinary films is to get people to see them, in the case of routine films I want to simply awaken them to other issues – aesthetic, philosophical, political."

That is where the distinction between a film review and a film critique comes into play. The debate that there is hardly any space today for serious and elaborate critiques of films is an ongoing one.

Veteran filmmaker Shyam Benegal feels that a review is written taking the readership of the publication as a reference point. "A reviewer doesn’t operate in a never-never land."

On the other hand, criticism is the analysis of a film in context of cinema itself. A film is analyzed on several parameters like aesthetics, innovation, performance, form and content. The critic also responds to a film depending in the culture he/she resides in. "Such criticism is essential for the health of cinema," the filmmaker points out.

But not all filmmakers would agree with such impassioned breaking-down of their films and their viewing in socio-political contexts. Recently, Anurag Kashyap commented on Facebook, "Critics sometime see way too much, more than intended. Filmmakers never agree with academicians."

The master of Indian cinema– Satyajit Ray once said that a critic should "build a bridge between the director and the audience."

While some present day filmmakers may consider critics superfluous, others hold them in high regard.

Rajkumar Gupta, who has made films like Aamir and No One Killed Jessica welcomes criticism because like any other form of art, the review of a film gives the filmmaker several perspectives. "You get to know many points of views about the film which may not necessarily coincide with what you as a filmmaker thought about."

Umesh Kulkarni who has made critically acclaimed films like Vihir couldn’t agree more. He says that there are kinds of films which the audiences are not used to. A critic helps them to look at those kinds of films. "Film reviews came in handy in creating awareness about Vihir." He goes on to add that film reviews help filmmakers to place their films in the canvas of time, and keep them informed about the changing trends in cinema.

Whether filmmakers agree with critics or no is one thing. We have all seen them flashing those three or four stars that the reviewers stud their films with on their posters.

"Marathi audience doesn’t rush to the theatres on Friday. They wait to see how critics have rated a film. But unfortunately there are few Marathi critics who give serious critiques without giving out the story of the film," Kulkarni laments.

"99% of the filmmakers care about reviews. Those who say they don’t are lying," Gupta gets candid.

Benegal jokes, "If I find a review is going to kill my film, I feel like killing the reviewer if he/she is not being fair to my film."

The next logical question arises that if filmmakers care about reviews because they have a bearing on the business of the film, what goes wrong in the case of films which after being written off by the reviewers break all records at the box office?

Here filmmakers seem to agree; that big-budget films with stars are beyond the scope of film reviews. They only matter for small-budget, content-driven films which depend on word-of-mouth for publicity.

"15-20% business of small films comes through good reviews," says Gupta.

"When it comes to certain stars, the film makes money regardless of what the reviewer says. Then they start looking like small street dogs barking at a huge elephant," Benegal’s statement exudes sarcasm.

Critics don’t differ from filmmakers on this. "In Indian cinema, stars overwhelm story or technique. Often critics are universally scathing about a film’s formulaic qualities or its lack of heft or originality. But it still makes money. But for smaller films, by which I mean films made with small budgets, which may not have had the luxury of stars or aggressive pre-release promotion, validation from critics can help," Sharma says.

Another concern that filmmakers and audiences face alike today is the plethora of reviews that are available on the internet. How to differentiate self-indulgent or fanboy/fangirl writing from serious film criticism then poses a big question mark. "With anybody and everybody reviewing a film, the credibility is debatable," Gupta makes a point.

Somen Mishra, who runs a popular blog on films called Fightclub clears the air by saying that bloggers bring another credibility on the table which mainstream critics in India are questioned again and again on – how biased or unbiased they are?

"Unlike in the west, most critics in India are editors/journos as well as critics. So they meet the stars, make friends with them, interview them and review their films and will meet them again. Consciously or sub-consciously, to review without any bias is becoming a difficult task in such a scenario. At least bloggers don’t have that issue."

Though we use the terms reviewer and critic interchangeably here for convenience, there is no denying that there is scope for some serious work in critical evaluation of films in India today.

"The reviewer must have the ability to evoke the film in a short space," Raghvendra says.

"I have to give my honest, but informed opinion on a film. I have to retain my voice, but I can’t be clinically objective about it or be driven by biases," says Sharma.

Filmmakers have some valid points here as well. Gupta says that reviewers should be free to criticize a film but they take it too far when they say that people shouldn’t watch the film because they didn’t like it. They should table their point of view without passing any judgments.

Film reviewers have some thinking to do on how they can be more relevant and useful to their readers and the filmmaking fraternity operating within the constraints the medium imposes on them. At the end of the day, we all would like to believe a film review is of some consequence to everyone who engages with it.

As Mishra puts it, "I believe reviews do matter. There have been big and bad films which have got huge opening (weekend box office) based on the good buzz, star power and publicity, but turned disaster from Monday onwards like 'Tees Maar Khan', 'Blue' or 'Chandni Chowk to China'."