I think this is where questions like “What does it say to me” get really subjective. Correct me if I’m wrong but apart from Rangan I dont think reviewing is a profession for any of us here on the board, so the questions we’d ask would be different from someone who’s writing said reviews for a newspaper. It’s been a while since I read Rangan in print but I remember them editing him pretty drastically compared to his pieces here, no?

PS – go ahead, thank me! I’ll take ‘em all

Rangan – Good point re: “About” but I still don’t know how many people actually listen to that stuff. For example, I remember Karan Johar on some show talking about the first show he held for KANK and some auntie came out and tapped him on the shoulder. He thought she was going to tell him how much she loved it but turned out she’d taken her recently divorced daughter to see the flick because “it’s a Karan Johar movie and it’ll take her mind off her troubles” only to find her exact situation at home being played out So it makes me wonder if all those interviews actually count for something or are they just filler? And this is a SRK-Karan Johar movie that was endlessly hyped and probably a show that was held in Bombay. So either that lady was totally clueless or people just like to look at the pretty people and not listen to what they have to say!

TZP: the more I think about it, the more bothered I am, lol. I think the movie would have worked if Aamir had left the speechifying out but then he couldn’t have been the Messiah he was in the film. He couldnt have the One with All Answers. The second half just couldn’t have been that simplistic and shifted attention to the Tortured Inner Life of Ram Nikumbh the way it did. For that aspect to work, it was necessary that he give the speech and occupy the high ground. The parallel to Erin Brokovich is really interesting because of course, that’s what he did EXCEPT this is a movie not about Erin Brokovich but one of the side characters who were actually affected by the toxins like, say, Marg Helgenberger (can’t remember anyone else’s name offhand – damn you CSI!). So there’s that big resultant shift between first and second half.

Sigh. I think too much

It’s the same thing with music too for me. I like to listen to music “technically” and derive great satisfaction, while being the butt of jokes from my “less-technical” friends. However there is no offence taken here. They have the right to listen to it as they please. I just wish they would get an insight into what I experience and see what they are missing out on. That’s all. Everybody is entitled to their opinions including the reviewer. We could just learn to accept that and move on. It’s a peaceful world…let it be!

So there.

BR: No matter what you do, just don’t give in to such demands

Amrita: “what people get from those reviews is what is important to the author rather than any information about the movie itself.” In general — and not speaking about Taran Adarsh’s reviews — I feel “information ABOUT the movie” is a fairly redundant thing these days. There are web sites, there’s non-stop TV and press coverage (which includes quetions like ‘what is the story about’ and ‘what is your part in the film’ — why on earth would anyone want to know this BEFORE waching the film?). So the function of a review, IMO, is really only ‘what does it say to me’ (of course, recognising the fact that some movies, like Sunny Deol’s Big Brother, may not exactly be made for *me*) Reg. “the message of the movie dictates the way it says it,” are you saying that if Aamir hadn’t talked down to the camera/audience about those issues, the film wouldn’t have worked? This isn’t about the mertis/demerits/whatever of TZP, but let’s say some director had made the story of a dyslexic child the way Sai Paranjpe made (the outstanding) Sparsh. Of course that wouldn’t have become a fraction of the all-India hit that TZP has become, but THAT MOVIE TOO is possible within the current Indian context, given the multiplex scenario. If we flocked to see Saif in something as out-there as Being Cyrus, wouldn’t we do the same for Aamir in an artier TZP? Conversely, it would be interesting to contrast Michael Clayton with the far more crowd-pleasing Erin Brockovich, which cast a big star and played up the very aspects that make Julia Roberts such a big star (versus Clayton, where Clooney is not in coasting-glamour mode). So I’d say Aamir chose the popular route, the Erin Brockovich route, and that’s fine, but he could have just as well done a Michael Clayton (for smaller audiences) and pulled it off (to a lesser extent, naturally) in an Indian context, I feel. And please, miniblogging is good

Shankar: “Do people actually make their movie-watching decisions based on what reviewers say?” Actually, like Aditya says, lots do. The regulars on this site know what to expect in my reviews, but you can tell from first-timer comments that they have a hard time wrapping their kinds around what Amrita says, that “Any review, regardless of medium under discussion, is an opinion piece.”

That is precisely the reason for vehement reactions for reviews. People do not see them as opinions, but as guidance or the ‘ultimate truth’. Sad, but true.

I tremendously enjoy BR’s reviews for his views and his ability to express them. However, instead of saddling the reviewer with the onerous task of “How & Why”, I would rather do it myself and see if the film works…since only I can be the best possible critic/reviewer for the films I watch!