Between Reviews: Journey to the Centre of the Film - The Sequel
JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE FILM - THE SEQUEL
SEPT 7, 2008 - LAST WEEK, I ATTEMPTED TO PUT DOWN in writing a few logical, rational aspects about a film that render it attractive – intelligence, say, or industry – even if the film eventually turns out… not-so-attractive. This week, I’ll try to look at the other side – the illogical, irrational responses that erect a wall of prejudice in front of the screen, beyond which the film that’s actually playing is no longer visible; only the film that’s coloured by your bias. In a way, going to a film is like going on a first date. As you take your seat, you hope things will work out, you hope there will be a happily-ever-after. You realise, of course, that no one is perfect and that people come with flaws, and you do your best to conquer the temptations of instant judgment and look at the whole package, the entire picture. But sometimes, the colour of a dress can put you off, or a chipped front tooth, or the way the shoulders shake during a laugh – and the deal is instantly off. It doesn’t matter, after that, if this person is simultaneously conversant with the works of Kant and Kalidasa, or can whip up desserts that can make you weep with gratitude. You’ll never find that out, because you’ll never be able to get past the colour of that dress.
There’s a school of thinking which posits that, to become a critic, you’ve got to let go of bias and open yourself up to the wonderful possibilities in the person in front of you, who just happens to like colours that you don’t. The people who subscribe to this notion, presumably, also believe that critics are the products of a Cameronian imagination – slice through the eerily lifelike skin and you’ll find meshing gears and a pre-programmed chip. In the real world, though, critics are honest-to-goodness human beings, as flawed as the next person, and that wall of bias does loom uncomfortably before the screen – and it could be different things for different people. For instance, I usually find it very hard to be charitable about a film that doesn’t look good. It’s not that it has to be glossy, or mounted on multiples of crores – but there has to be a visual design in its making. I find I’m able to watch older films when the primary visual strategy was just point-and-shoot. It could be that I subconsciously recalibrate my visual expectations of those earlier films and choose to concentrate on, say, the performances or the dialogue. (Note that I said subconsciously; very little of this is rational.) Or, perhaps, my nostalgia about the film is so strong that it elbows aside every other weakness.
But when a film of today ends up looking flat, like a television serial, I just can’t take it seriously. When the lead actor or actress features in a close-up and it’s evident that he or she doesn’t know the language (the lip-sync coordination with the dubbing artist is usually a giveaway), I just can’t take it seriously. When the reaction shots don’t match (that is, when the cuts from different camera setups are indiscriminately spliced together), it throws me out of the film and I just can’t take it seriously. When the editor decides to toss in jump cuts just because the scene needs to be speeded up, or when the audio guy chimes in with indiscriminate sound effects simply so we won’t nod off, I lose respect for the film and I just can’t take it seriously. I know what you’re going to say – that these are nits I’m picking. But these are the things that burrow into my gut and gnaw away at my insides and result in a visceral loathing, and there’s nothing I can do about it.
No – actually, there is something I can do, and that’s to finish watching the film and talk myself out of these biases. I can reason out, “Okay, so the heroine looked like she’s from Andalusia and she’s pretending to be a rustic Tamilian – but forget that. And the songs are shot without the slightest iota of imagination, and all they seem to be doing is standing still and moving both hands in circles, with outstretched fingers making a five – but ignore that too. It costs a lot to make a film and no one knows what works at the box office, so forgive all this and just look at the nice parts.” But of what use is that kind of criticism? I believe in the theory that the more strongly opinionated a critic, the more finicky he is about what he likes and dislikes, the more valuable his writing becomes. Because, otherwise, you’ll never see the film from the inside of his head – and if that doesn’t happen, you’ll never get a differing perspective, even if it’s one you vehemently disagree with.
And that is what I need to do, if I’m to be any good as a critic. This is hardly a new notion – and if you look at criticism the way I do, this entire piece is redundant – but you’d be surprised how angry people still get when you denounce something they love, especially in print. If two friends went to a restaurant and ordered the same dish, and if one of them was transported to the heavens while the other spat it out, they’d have a laugh about it over a beer. But when the difference of opinion occurs over a movie, the sense of humour takes a hike and suddenly it becomes personal, as if one of them had just evinced doubts about the marital status of the other one’s mother. I began by talking about the irrationality of my reactions to a movie, and I realise I’ve come to the end, talking about the irrationality of people’s reactions to my reactions to a movie. Is that why I feel, at times, that I should have chosen to commentate about sports instead, where the scoreboard at the end leaves you (and everyone else) on the same page about who’s the best?
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.
Nitpicking..No BR..I completely understand your POV. Now I am sure that you’ll understand why I hated Saroja.
Sometimes, a few flaws are noticed, but then because of the film’s brilliance, you tend to forgive these flaws..Case in point is Wednesday. Shot of Naseer pouring tea(same shot) is repeated twice. Though one notices it, because by the time, the second shot comes, you have started taking the movie seriously, you tend to overlook the flaw. But take a similar case in Phoonk. When Rajeev rushes home, there is a shot of his SUV going at top speed. When Rajeev rushes to Hospital FROM home, the same shot is used, giving away the attitude of the director.
Baradwaj,
I agree with you: there’s not much fun in objectivity when it comes to something like this. But aren’t you oversimplifying it a bit in your argument?
My guess is, many people read a critic’s opinion on a movie because it gives them an idea of whether or not to go ahead and watch it. In which case, what one looks for is: Here’s what the movie is about, here’s what I think it intended to be and here’s how well it achieved its objective.
The last part is is a matter of opinion, no way around it. But it’s reasonable, I think, to be at least aware of one’s biases and mention them if they are hugely relevant to the review.
Maybe the problem with being a professional film critic is that you get paid to provide an opinion. While this doesn’t in any way mean that your opinion should kow-tow to the public, I think the manner in which the opinion is expressed matters.
For what it’s worth, I think you’re doing a great job, so keep doing what you do
~ramsu
ps: If you need a scoreboard in film criticism, there’s always the box office. Every once in a while, someone’s argument could even be as simple is: the movie did well at the turnstiles, so what are you carping about?
It is unfortunate that a majority of the readers read reviews as a recommendation, and therefore, expect the critic’s word to be the gospel truth. As if there is a well-defined standard a critic has to follow…as if everyone should have exactly the same views about a movie. What’s sad is that some well known critics actually perpetuate this belief that a review is a recommendation. I was watching Rajiv Masand’s show on TV this morning, and he started of by saying something to the effect of…”I will tell you which films to watch”. Add to that this insistence by newspaper and magazines to give a star rating (which you have succumbed to as well).
If readers want what you write to be the gospel truth, and then it contradicts their view, it is bound to have irrational reactions.
just curious, have you been getting any hate mail?
Like RGV says, reviews are entertainment..that’s all..nothing more and nothing less.
But blogs like these are platforms where people can exchange views..it offers another POV. I do not see BR’s view of a film as a review. I see it as a POV. Thats what makes this site and a site like PFC and even RGV’s site interesting. There are so many POVs. So many insights. So many fond memories
Anand: “Sometimes, a few flaws are noticed, but then because of the film’s brilliance, you tend to forgive these flaws”
It’s not always a film’s “brilliance”. Sometimes one connects with a film for other reasons as well (personal connection, emotional involvement, etc.) and tries to ignore the flaws. As BR mentioned in one of his reviews, “when you find yourself liking a film, you look for reasons to explain away the things that you don’t like as much”
Aditya Pant: Yes..Completely agree..and to lesser mortals like me even the state of mind I am in at the start of the film makes a difference
God..Mr Rangan…I just can’t tell you how much I love your writing. For me you are not a film critic you are just a guy who loves cinema and that makes reading you such a pleasure.
and on a different note just to let you know, I remember reading your review of Jhoom Barabar Jhoom beforing going to watch that on sunday opening weekend and I am also probably one of few people who loved that movie. That movie worked for me for the same reasons you mentioned in your review while Fanaa, Krishh, Dhoom 2 couldn’t.
“If two friends went to a restaurant and ordered the same dish, and if one of them was transported to the heavens while the other spat it out, they’d have a laugh about it over a beer” - But if watching a movie is like a first date, its hardly about the food now is it
? Imagine 2 friends going out with the same girl, one thinks she is the one and the other thinks she is no fun. Might cause some problems no? Of course this is dependent on how friendly they are, and this applies to viewpoints on movies too, coz they are that important to everyday life in India.
I have to agree with Aditya that the issue is that there exist people who actually decide whether to watch a movie based on what BRangan or any other critic says. So other people, especially those invested in some way, with differing opinions get vehement because of the percentage of people who would not see the movie because of BRangan’s opinion piece (I prefer this term to review).
Baradwaj,
“I usually find it very hard to be charitable about a film that doesn’t look good” - Completely agree with you - one reason why I hated Dasavatharam. I couldn’t look beyond the poor CGI, tacky make-up, rather flat cinematography (how did they blow that 60 crores?). But there are many movies that look great but are absolutely shitty (Tashan, Race)
Anand: I guess we’ll have to leave our discussion of Saroja until after I watch it. But you’ve made me really curious
Ramsu/Aditya: “My guess is, many people read a critic’s opinion on a movie because it gives them an idea of whether or not to go ahead and watch it.” That’s a bit problematic, I feel, because then a burden of “responsibility” falls on the critic, in order to guide people the “right way.” And I’m saying, as Aditya does, that a review shouldn’t be read with the view of a recommendation. If you read a review and the film intrigues you enough to go see it, that’s a by-product and not the main purpose. I haste to add, all IMO
Pavitra: Ummm… why do you ask?
Amit goyal: Thank you very much. And I don’t think the JBJ fan club is small by any means. I just think they’re well hidden from view
Deepauk M: See, you can’t connect a first-para thought to a last-para idea and end up with a prospect totally alien to “Indian culture.” That’s just not done
But when you say, you look at reviews as an opinion piece, let me say I look at what I do as essays (or features) on films. If I went someplace and did a travel story, I’d write about what caught my attention, the food, the people, my bad experiences, my disappointments — it would be an essay/feature about the place. And that’s how I look at reviews — a record of my travel/journey through a film.
Raj Balakrishnan: See, but I wasn’t talking about the Race kind of films. That’s just “gloss” that can be manufactured if you have enough money. I’m talking about visual design/look.
yeah, thats a nice piece BR. Well written, too.
If you are talking about a movie in isolation that you review, then it is easy to agree that how you react to it depends on various factors.
When blanket statements are made about ‘this film heralds the arrival of a superstar/next big thing’ etc.’, then it ceases to be about the movie, and goes into arguable territory. Now, you had a problem with Singh is King and ‘I am the next superstar’ posturing by Akshay Kumar. I had a problem with Ranbir ‘He is the next best thing since,uh, well, Rishi Kapoor’ Kapoor so have this wall against movies like BeH. I am not saying you said that about him but there was enough buzz like that. There are 2 irritating things about that statement. One, Ranbir hasnt done anything to warrant that. Two, bloody Rishi Kapoor is a mediocre thing himself. Why bloody hype him?
Similarly Imran Khan. All he has done so far is what Abbas had done in kaadhal desam and Tarun in Nuvve Kaavali(especially the latter - there was a buzz about how he is the next big thing in Telugu etc similar to the buzz on Imran now). He may well do much better but until he does, can we switch off the hype machine, please?
I think a majority of those who read you, atleast the ones that comment, dont depend upon you to decide movie choices for them. I, for instance, dont even depend on my own perception or pre-built bias on a movie to decide for me. I go to a multiplex when I feel like it and watch what is available. Nobody, including myself, decides for me consciously. Fate does:-)
(which explains why I have watched even SiK, despite BR’s review giving me an indication that I am not going to like it)
I dont think you should take responsibility for telling people whether they should watch a movie or not. If someone does, he is a fool.
In occasional cases, I do take reviews as a barometer to decide whether to see a film or not. Mind you, only in occasional cases. For eg, RGV ki Aag…The five films made by RGV before RGVKA were Nishabd, Shiva, Naach, Bhoot and Company. There were trash films from Factory/Varma Corporation before RGVKA but these 5 films directed by RGV were either good or very good(Shiva was just about okay but IMO had its moments).The general buzz about RGVKA was negative but I anyway decided to watch the film during the course of the weekend. But the consistently poor reviews(including the famous egg throwing by Masand) made me change my mind and I have not watched it so far.
Similarly, I managed to watch certain gems like Drohkaal and Manichitrathazhu due to good reviews.
Yay JBJ - that’s just to reiterate what bardwaj said about the JBJ fan club being by no means small!!!!
“See, you can’t connect a first-para thought to a last-para idea and end up with a prospect totally alien to “Indian culture.”” - Ennathu Indian Culture-aa? Appadinna?
“you look at reviews as an opinion piece, let me say I look at what I do as essays (or features) on films” - It took me a second to realize why you make the distinction but I get it. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that you preferred people reading your reviews after they had seen the movies, so there could be an”informed” debate regarding its merits or demerits. Hence the term “opinion piece”. Maybe I misunderstood.
Personally I find that the times that if I read something insightful about a movie (which is why Sify,Rediff type reviews don’t count), I can’t see it any other way than how the reviewer saw it. It’s like I go on a trip and do the exact same things you did there, instead of having my own experiences - to borrow your analogy. Its good fun when a discussion or an article reveals that you saw the same things in the movie, but its greater fun when you see things in a new light after watching and greatest fun when 2 people completely disagree on occasion like Raj (mannchikko baa) and you
.
Deepauk..Exactly!! :-))
BR: Just a random thought..why don’t you ask IE to organize a small film buffs forum? We could meet and exchange thoughts over a tea? You can make an agenda for it..what say?
raj: “When blanket statements are made about ‘this film heralds the arrival of a superstar/next big thing’ etc.” But who makes those blanket statements on this blog, I wonder? But hype can never really be turned off. It’s a way of promoting the film and because Bollywood promotion budgets are bigger, the hype is correspondingly more deafening.
Anand: By the way, I did catch Saroja. Enjoyed it as something of a lark, mainly because I love Venkat Prabhu’s sense of humour. I love that wavelength of off-tangent, off kilter comedy, and as long as the foursome was together, the film wasn’t bad. But the overall film didn’t hold together at all. I thought the Prakash Raj-Jayaram bits were especially badly done.
BTW, caught Jayam Kondan and Dhaam Dhoom too. The former had its moments and was fairly easy to sit through, but the latter was dreadful. And, by the way, aren’t we exchanging thoughts already?
Sal: Yeah, that film really divided people, didn’t it?
“Enjoyed it as something of a lark, mainly because I love Venkat Prabhu’s sense of humour. I love that wavelength of off-tangent, off kilter comedy, and as long as the foursome was together, the film wasn’t bad.” - While their father’s sense of humor is unmistakably one of VP’s and Premji’s influences, we must all acknowledge the influence of another person his dad used quite well in his movies - the Richard Pryor equivalent for today’s tamil cinema, Koundamani. He is the forefather, as far as I know, of that off-tangent, throw out rhyming non-sequiturs style of comedy.
There is one moment is Saoja which I would like to mention. In one of the scenes, Premji is questioned by the other three on his choice of bringing the girl along, especially when they themselves are in danger. To which he retorts.” But I was helpless; I was cornered”. In a brilliant take- off of Sivaji, I think it portrayed what VP is capable of. This is no formula stuff(not the usual Crazy Mohan stuff which you find hilarious but what is does os merely stock to his formula writing). It is a pity that VP decided to make a “Kool” film with flash-cuts, split screens, Youvan music video and Die Hard kind of a narration. The movie would have worked as brilliantly as Ch-28, had VP chosen to treat it in a simple manner.
Deepauk: I beg to disagree with you; VP in Saroja has not used Koundamani kind of comedy, it is more of RGV kind of comedy(something similar to Brahmanandam in Ananganaga Oka Roju - only in RGV’s case, he made Brahmanandam take himself very seriously - remember Gulshan Grover in Rangeela); Saroja is tongue-in-cheek RGV.
Full-on empathy, saar.
Just wanted to say — as someone who began a career writing about motorsport — that the scoreboard shields the sports writer just as much as a box office report shields the film critic, or the election result the political commentator.
I remember a slow day at a former workplace when a sports editor, in the need for something incendiary, suggested I maybe write a piece talking about ‘Tendulkar being overrated or something.’ Heh.
People do take their films ’seriously’ — it is alarming how much dissenting opinion is considered a personal affront — but other genres are just as badly hit; you just have to find the passionate populace.
Even if it’s a smaller niche than the ones nitpicking over review-stars, opinion is always going to make some people seethe. Nowadays I just find the fury reassuring, really.
Anand: Speaking of Brahmanandam, I do hope people stay through the end credits to see what happens to that character. I thought the director had lost the plot (and that subplot), but then you see where he ends up and…
I agree. The film was begging for a simpler treatment, and the “kewl” factor kinda went against it. Still, I had a fairly good time. We are so used to dialogue being employed to “drive” the film forward that it was hugely refreshing to hear people speak for simply no other reason than… to speak. I’ll be in line for VP’s next
Baradwaj,
Now that you have seen the movie, can we expect a review of ‘Saroja’ this week?
Raja Sen: Motorsport, huh? But I’m still not convinced that the boxoffice is to movies what the scoreboard is to sport. The latter tells you, for sure, who was “better” (at least, on the given day), but what does the former tell you about quality, really?
Raj Balakrishnan: Actually, no. I’m taking a break. So there’s a Between Reviews and a Part of the Picture coming up, but after that, zip, nada… PEACE
BR: I do hope it the break is not too long..Like someone mentioned, you are our morning cuppa, bro.
“By the way, I did catch Saroja. Enjoyed it as something of a lark, mainly because I love Venkat Prabhu’s sense of humour. I love that wavelength of off-tangent, off kilter comedy, and as long as the foursome was together, the film wasn’t bad. But the overall film didn’t hold together at all. I thought the Prakash Raj-Jayaram bits were especially badly done.”
Ditto everywhere, Baradwaj!
Totally agree. The film didn’t hold together at all, and that’s where it falters. The thriller elements were pulled off in an appalling manner, much as the film tries to be seriously edge-of-seat type in these parts. What’s with all those swooshes, I wonder. Just about nothing registered for me.
Where the film scores is with its obscure sense of humour, duly retaining the spirit of Chennai 600028 (in a film which so tries to be something else that it’s a pity). So, when the four guys are in the forefront, it’s fun.
Anand,
The film references Sivaji in other places too. Premgi says, “coool!” when he falls down in a scene. The best reference is the throwaway bit in the traffic-jam sequence where various actors from ‘Chennai 600028′ appear in cameos. We see Jai stuck in the traffic (”kaNgaL iraNdAl” is playing in the background), is on the phone shouting at someone, “tation pakkaththula veedu venum, tation pakkaththula veedu venum ‘nu solli…” If this is the kind of fun Venkat Prabhu wanted to have, asking us to go figure it out ourselves, I’ve no clue why he’d film the thriller bits so badly — the way he cuts back to reveal things that are best understood without any explanation, how the purse fell off the pocket and so on.
Zero: Bulls Eye.
Oops…
Ha ha, Baradwaj, theriyAdhA?!
(Not that I knew of this film before Saroja happened, but, once the plot synopsis was out, there were some omniscient souls found out the plot similarities right away.)
In any case, the whole thing is poorly done in Saroja. But for the stray bits of humour, this is a very forgettable film. As the characters get caught in the plot, the jokes too begin to fall just flat.
And, have fun during the break, sir! Get recharged and all that.
Anand: I wasn’t speaking about Saroja at all. Haven’t seen it yet, and so I’m desperately trying to keep away from the spoilers
. It was more a general observation of the Venkat Prabhu’s brand of chennai humor.
BR: Quite distressing. This is being done so often that filmmakers dont even realize that they are committing a crime. There is no respect to intellectual property. A filmmaker like VP who has given an original gem like Ch-28, chooses to do this.
What right do these people have to ask filmgoers not to watch illegal VCDs?
I do not know if I am right or overreacting. I just know that this is not done.
Baradwaj,
Enjoy your break.
BR: How long is this break going to be?? Would have loved to read your take on The Last Lear.
‘I’m still not convinced that the boxoffice is to movies what the scoreboard is to sport. The latter tells you, for sure, who was “better” (at least, on the given day), but what does the former tell you about quality, really?’
Nothing at all. Which is exactly my point as re your last line, that — like us — writers who write about sports know that the final numbers might present fact, but that commentary is a whole different ball game. And one where fact is never all that matters.
Another lovely article by Roger Ebert on the same general theme. Do read it if you haven’t already:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/critic_is_a_fourletter_word.html
~ramsu