Between Reviews: Star Struck
STAR STRUCK
JUNE 15, 2008 – IN AN IDEAL WORLD, A RATING SYSTEM FOR FILMS would resemble a traffic light: “red” for “stop, don’t even think about checking this one out, “amber” for “well, think a bit before heading for this, and “green” for “go, right now, don’t even think.” That’s all that’s needed, really, from (and for) the critic – a choice between an unflinching negation, an air-punching affirmation, and somewhere in the middle, a vague shrug. Instead, we’ve come to tune our ears to the sound of stars, firm in the belief that a single one, in despondent isolation, is the knell of death, while a quintet of stars, standing proudly abreast, is the kaching of the box office counter.
But does a critic’s evaluation have anything to do with the audience’s desire to rush to the theatre? If you’re a Hrithik Roshan fan and if there’s a Hrithik Roshan release, isn’t he the only star that matters – and not the miniscule asterisk shapes doled out by someone who may not share your enthusiasm for the actor? Has anyone really verified how much these ratings affect people’s perceptions of a film? Aren’t reviews better read as simply an essay about a film, containing the thoughts of someone paid to rationalise his (or her) responses to the work in question?
These are all important questions – and these are all questions I’m not getting into here. I’m going to talk about what a bloody pain in the posterior these stars can be, something I’ve discovered only recently – as recently as last weekend, when I had to award stars to Aamir and Sarkar Raj. (In case you’re not aware, star ratings for reviews in this newspaper have come about fairly recently, after its relaunch – and the range, from one star to five stars, encompasses these verdicts: Avoidable, Poor, Average, Good, and Outstanding.)
It was easy with Bhoothnath. It was an okayish film, and “okayish” in critical parlance translates to “Average,” and hence, three stars. By a similar bout of deductive reasoning, poor Jannat got two – for Poor. Jimmy was the easiest to rate. With all the entertainment value of an exhaustive examination by a proctologist – as you can see, I’m still running with the “pain in the posterior” metaphor – an Avoidable was a no-brainer.
But then I got saddled with Aamir and Sarkar Raj. Both were good films, but if both were awarded four stars (for Good), it would seem that they were equal, while, in reality, one was an apple to the other’s orange. Aamir makes a straightforward play for audience engagement, while Sarkar Raj is more insidious in its effects. Despite (or perhaps because of) the Govinda chants and the off-kilter cinematography, the latter has the distinct stamp of a director who’s out to satisfy himself before satisfying his audience. Aamir reaches down to us, while Sarkar Raj asks us to rise up and meet it midway – and that ambition deserves a salute.
I felt, these things – and a lot of other things – considered, Sarkar Raj was the better film, and hence I gave it four stars. And Aamir ended up with three. There! I’d made my distinction between the two new releases. But then – ouch! – three stars means merely Average, and Aamir isn’t just an average product. So what happens now? Should I have rated Aamir a three-and-a-half? But a half-star is so odd – and what is a half star, anyway? Now you see where the traffic light comes in handy? A “green” for Sarkar Raj. A “green” for Aamir. That’s a signal that both films deserve a foot on the accelerator in the direction of the theatre.
With all this angst over the evaluation of just two films, I had a renewed respect for those who regularly put out all-time-best lists, with apples and oranges, chalk and cheese, south and north, Welles and Wilder all jostling for space and superiority. Just how do they go about it? Does ambition come first or affect? Is a film’s worth intrinsic (what the filmmaker is trying to say, how he’s saying it) or extrinsic (what the audience takes away)? (Because, if purely the latter, Aamir may be the better film, while, I suspect, once the dust settles, Sarkar Raj is the one that will last).
All this considered, I had a blast with the Top 100 Films of All Time list published by The Times (UK edition). In his introduction, the publication’s chief film critic, James Christopher, says, “We didn’t want simply to rearrange the furniture as other lists do. Nor to kow-tow to monolithic critical masterpieces routinely crowned year on year.” And so out went Citizen Kane and Psycho, and in came There Will Be Blood and Jaws. Talk about oil and water.
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
“With all the entertainment value of an exhaustive examination by a proctologist…” It is so worth it to read your reviews for just one zinger gem like that.
Also, my two cents, I don’t think film reviews matter when it comes to huge stars and fans of said stars. For instance, if SRK is in a film, I will watch it no matter how good or bad it is. On the flip side though, I may not have ever even heard of a film like Aamir were it not for all the great reviews it’s getting.
As for your 3 stars to Aamir and 4 to Sarkar Raj…I think most people will understand that it’s a green signal for both.
And can I dare to say, as a movie fan and at the risk of offending someone or other, that no matter how many times I’ve tried to appreciate Citizen Kane, I just end up finding it boring?
And totally off-topic – any chance you’ll be reviewing the Sex and The City Movie? What I wouldn’t give to read that review!
And even more off-topic, do you think Taran Adarsh has something against Yash Raj Films? He seems to take an undue glee in trashing their films..unless SRK happens to be in it.
Just curious. Too much time to contemplate such life-altering matters apparently….
Quite a few online and other reviewers I read for English/desi films have no problems doling out 2.5 or 3.5 stars for films. I guess 5 stars is just not enough of a scale for them
“Is a film’s worth intrinsic (what the filmmaker is trying to say, how he’s saying it) or extrinsic (what the audience takes away)? (Because, if purely the latter, Aamir may be the better film, while, I suspect, once the dust settles, Sarkar Raj is the one that will last).”
But how do you even conclusively determine which between the two is more intrinsically worthy? Isnt there some subjectivity involved in rating that(WHAT the director wants to say and HOW the director says what he wants to say?) as well? I have always believed that intrinsic value as a concept is highly debatable
Oh no, you too succumbed to the ’star’ pressure! Thankfully, I don’t read the print version. Please, please don’t let the ’stars’ make their way into this blog!
One thought, had Sarkar and Aamir not relased together, would it still be as bad a “pain in the posterior”
SB: I’m think of doing a column on SATC. And I have absolutely no idea about Taran Adarsh’s connection with Yash Raj…
Vijay: About intrinsic vs. extrinsic, I was talking more along the lines of what we discussed earlier about the deleted Aboorva Sagotharargal song. In the Anjaadhey post, remember?
You said, “That Aboorva sagodharargaL song was just average” and I said, “Okay, I think I nailed down what I found interesting about the song. It’s a standard 8-count rhythm structure, but the opening two lines last 12 counts each, and the last two lines that end the stanzas are spread out over 10 counts. This makes for perceived imbalance in the rhythm, which is quite unusual for IR, who usually doesn’t deviate much on a *rhythm* basis.”
See, now from a one-time listener, layman POV (and I’m not saying that’s *your* POV), there may be nothing to it, but the musician/artist may have done something interesting in there. So is the rating-value of the song (or piece of art) based on how it’s been created or how it’s being perceived? That’s where I was going. And of course, it’s all subjective.
Aditya Pant: Yes, man, my arms are tied
In general, awarding marks/stars etc. is a pain, multiple releases or not.
I think it’s a given that when you review a film, it is YOUR opinion that comes with it, making it thoroughly subjective.
But isn’t that why a review subsequently becomes interesting? The ‘Oh wow, he captured that so brilliantly.’ and the ‘Hmmm, I don’t think I quite agree with him…’ and not to forget the ‘What was he thinking when he wrote this!?’ People have different opinions, we discover new things about the movie and THIS is what makes the experience so enthralling, doesn’t it?
What I’m trying to say is, although ’stars’ make a difference, anyone who has read your review on Aamir can sense that nudge, that ‘green signal’ that’ll tell them to watch it. And depending on what THEY took out of it, they might rate the movies differently.
And I completely agree with SB. Reviews work best when they expose good films that the audience might otherwise ignore.
Baradwaj, regarding that song I found it to be average despite that beat structure.
As a whole it didnt do enough.
But that’s besides the point.
Here, I am talking about the comparison part. How can you say definitively that Aamir has a movie has lesser intrinsic worth than say SarkarRaj and that the latter will outlast the former? Going back to the song example, maybe there are a lot of other songs from Raja or someone else that have an unique beat structure, if not something else unique that is present in the song(like a specific raga or chords and so on). I am not sure if you can say which one is intrinsically more worthy without being subjective. And it is not as if there HAS to be something obviously unique about a song/movie for it to be considered more intrinsically worthy in the first place. A simple Kalyani song by Raja could outlast say, a song in some rare raga done by a small time composer. A lot of the old Hindi/Tamil songs that are popular today are simplistic in conception and dont necessarily have anything standout unique about them.
Just because Deva has composed a song in a raga that no one else has, will that alone ensure that the song will last longer “once the dust settles”? I dont think so.
And in movies it gets even more difficult than songs(WHAT the director wants to say and HOW he wants to say are certainly are’nt as objective as parameters in the first place). And like I said earlier, intrinsic worth by itself is a debatable concept.There are those who argue that there is no such thing and even if there is, there is simply no way of rating or measuring it.
Pradeep: “I think it’s a given that when you review a film, it is YOUR opinion that comes with it, making it thoroughly subjective.” Yeah, but you’d be surprised at how many people still get riled up when your subjective take doesn’t gel with *their* subjective take. And you captured my favourite part of a review – the ‘What was he thinking when he wrote this!?’
Vijay: “As a whole it didnt do enough” – meaning, it didn’t do enough for YOU. For ME, though, it was a very nice koothu number — especially coming from IR, who usually settles for a four-sour beat for these song situations. That’s why I said in the previous comment that it’s all subjective.
And about “How can you say definitively that Aamir has a movie has lesser intrinsic worth than say SarkarRaj?” I can’t. That’s why I said in the post that “I suspect” that will be the case. I’d never use the word “definitively” in these situations.
And another thing: As people educate themselves about an art (movies, music, painting, whatever) — or if they’re intuitive enough about the grammar and the rules and such — they *can* get closer to intrinsic merits is my contention.
“As people educate themselves about an art (movies, music, painting, whatever) — or if they’re intuitive enough about the grammar and the rules and such — they *can* get closer to intrinsic merits is my contention.”
They can identify/list the attributes of a creation when they become more familiar with the artform (like say, beat structure, raga, chord progression etc. when it comes to a song), I dont deny it.
But I am not sure that they can claim that one song is intrinsically more worthy than the other nor can they predict which song will outlast the other based on just listing those attributes. They cant say that song by A by Raja will outlast song B by Raja or some other composer just because song A has an unique beat structure and an unique raga. Song B need not have any unique listable attributes and could still end up outlasting Song A because as a whole song B might work to provide an unique experience to a lot of people, who knows?
In any case, the notion that there exists something as an intrinsic value is itself questionable, leave alone us finding a way to measure it and use it as a yardstick for comparison. Quite a few people think that the term “intrinsic value” by itself is somewhat of an oxymoron. When you assign a value it no longer is intrinsic.
There is an old adage “To go or to not go, that is the question”. Ok is not an old adage, but really that is the question the average person is looking to have answered when reading a review. So I would do away with the amber, because an amber (to me at least) is a green. As Chris Rock says, sometimes people ought to “make up their own damn mind.”
!
Deepauk M: “sometimes people ought to make up their own damn mind…” Wouldn’t that be a nice world? If only…
This is something I always try to point out to people. In Bollywood movies there’s often an absence of genrè because they always try to mix everything together. So people always classify movies into good and bad. Like comparing Boom and Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna. I try to make them think in terms of what they like and what the movie is about and then see if they are comparing different things. Like apples and oranges as you said.
Prasun: Yeah – and the other thing that drives me nuts is that people who’ve hated Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and K3G will go see KANK and say it sucks. You know the kind of filmmaker he is, you’ve seen two earlier films… Isn’t that enough to tell you if he works for you or not? And the same thing with Bhansali, when they say he isn’t “subtle”. I mean, what are you really looking for?
brangan: “As people educate themselves about an art (movies, music, painting, whatever) — or if they’re intuitive enough about the grammar and the rules and such — they *can* get closer to intrinsic merits is my contention.” I sort of agree with you, but the way I really see it is that it all has to start with a *fundamental interest* in the art form. That’s the much-needed spark, IMO, beyond which the road forks into two: The tried-and-true “get educated” route — where the progress is pretty organic…you slowly yet surely plow thru, paving the path from interest to passion to perhaps obsession — and the far more perilous route, the one paved by intuition…Perilous because there’s no paving, only leaping. From the interest stage one leaps right off the cliff of passion into the valley of obsession. And given its rip-you-heart-right-out-of-your-ribs rewards (oh yeah, the payoffs are way more than one possibly bargained for or is equipped to handle), it is my contention that it takes a Dionysian spirit to decipher the intrinsic value of an art form by choosing this route. (And speaking of oxymorons, “choosing this route,” (in the latter case, that is) would be a perfect one. Because — and at the risk of sounding all mythical — it’s my belief that the route really chooses you.)
Now to illustrate the “fundamental interest” point I make above from personal experience, I took Carnatic music lessons when I was 12 or so *only* because all my friends in school were into it, were from musical families (moms were singers, dads were violinists, etc), and I gave in to the peer pressure. But I didn’t last beyond a year and went running in the opposite direction, because my brain simply refused to process the ragas. The teacher told me my singing was half-decent, I could certainly refine it with practice, etc. but man, I couldn’t get past the raga block. I had no cognitive patterns I could tap in to as far as remembering ragas (and more importantly, matching them to the right song) go, so I simply gave up. So much for being the person, in the ocean of whose name ragas lay buried! (My dad had a solid theory on that: Kadal kulla irukardhu ellam kadal kosaram illa dee, meen kosaram. He probably heard that from his friend Kannadaasan, I’m sure! But for what it’s worth, he let me off the hook, phew.)
Lastly, to Vijay’s point, calling the term “intrinsic value” an oxymoron to me seems to shatter all kinds of laws…of economics, for instance. How does one then explain the bullion rates blowing thru the roof? Isn’t the value we place on gold a direct result of gold’s, well, “goldness”? Just a tuber for thought, that’s all.