During an earlier interview to an online portal, actor Mohanlal, while promoting his film Aaraattu, had a rather controversial opinion to share. “People who have no relation to cinema are criticising it. Do you even know anything about editing when you comment on it? You should have some idea about filmmaking. In Hyderabad, they love their cinema and won’t write any negative stuff about it. They respect the industry. I am not sure if that is prevalent here,” the veteran actor said. Not only was this comment condemned and trolled on social media, but a section of the audience also felt that this was a petty remark, especially coming from an actor of Mohanlal’s stature. More so, considering the unwavering love he has always received from his fans over the decades.
Clearly, the recent spate of bad films, which naturally resulted in bad reviews and declining box office numbers, seems to have coloured the actor’s sense of judgement. So Mohanlal would rather blame “paid hate campaigns” for the poor performance of his period drama Marakkar: Lion of the Arabian Sea, than own up to its poor quality.
A similar response came from director Rosshan Andrrews during the promotion of his latest film, Saturday Night starring Nivin Pauly, when he ridiculed the “marking system” in film reviews. He also felt that we should learn a thing or two from “Koreans, who never criticise their films”. He also insisted that “one should have some qualification to criticise, and that includes an experience in either writing, acting or directing a film.” Interestingly, both Mohanlal and Rosshan Andrrews stressed on the futility of critiquing films. That is why they wholeheartedly endorsed Hyderabad and Korea in every movie lover’s travel itinerary, alongside the claim that the people there abhor criticising films.
A few weeks later, writer-director Anjali Menon shared a similar take. But unlike Mohanlal and Rosshan, she candied her words. In an interview with Film Companion, Anjali had spoken about the “significance of having basic knowledge about the technicalities of filmmaking before writing reviews.” She went on to talk about a veteran film critic who, before writing her first review, interned on the sets of Raj Kapoor and learned editing from Hrishikesh Mukherjee and other technicians. “I am really amused when people comment on the pace of a film. That’s for the director to decide,” she had said.
Read Wonder Women review: Anjali Menon’s film is often moving but needed more heft
Anjali eventually clarified her statement on Instagram, saying that since these are times when the audience themselves write interesting, detailed reviews, she felt the professional reviewers should aim even higher. But by then the damage was already done, because not only did Anjali’s comments seem to have come from a space of privilege, but her tone came across as disturbingly contemptuous and mocking.
Theoretically, film criticism can be defined as the exposition and analysis of the form, subtexts, and the approach taken by a film. A critic is often viewing a film through various socio-cultural-political lenses, including its impact on the viewer. If a film review is more of a quick critical study of a film, often written within a few hours after the theatrical or OTT release of a film, a piece of film criticism is expected to be comprehensive and not particularly time bound. But in today’s context, this can be divided into professional film criticism that appears in newspapers and other media outlets, and social media reviews where anyone can share their opinion. Some have further diversified the latter into personal YouTube video reviews or blogs. Rest assured, every form of film criticism has an audience.
Some of the most feted film critics in the world, be it Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, or André Bazin, never had a background in filmmaking. If André Bazin was the co-founder of a film magazine, Kael wrote for the New York Magazine and Roger Ebert started as a sports writer. Mike D’ Angelo started with a blog and later got a full-time gig with Time Out New York. Our Indian counterpart Baradwaj Rangan is a BITS Pilani graduate with no formal training in filmmaking or cinema writing. If Roger Ebert made his film analysis entertaining and accessible to layman audiences, Kael was known for her deeply personal, witty, and opinionated reviews.
When Anjali talks about the need for film critics to be technically proficient to analyse a film, she is also in theory institutionalising the profession. The argument that you need the validation of a film appreciation course or a film school to write a piece of film criticism may end up de-democratising this space. Even the argument that you need to get the firsthand experience of a film set or make a short film or feature film to be qualified to write film criticism sounds illogical, patronising, and privileged. How many people have the resources to get funding in film schools or even get access to a film set or work under a film director? What if the audience decided to boycott filmmakers who have no film school degrees? What if a film critic who has studied from the Los Angeles Film School is later expected to take a degree from the Toronto Film School or the American Film Institute for more authentication?
More importantly, whose viewpoint is more crucial when you sit down to analyse a film? The filmmaker’s or the cinemagoers’? The filmmakers seem to think that a film should be analysed through the same lens as how the filmmakers have perceived their cinema. But isn’t the film critic essentially a bridge between the audience and the filmmaker? They are here to convey to the audience how they have experienced the film. Besides, the average review reader isn’t looking for technical paraphernalia. Rather, they only want to know if their trustworthy critic has liked the film or not. Nine out of ten readers usually stick to a critic based on how far they align with his or her views (which often lingers on political/cultural/social layers). That is not to say that academic film criticisms aren’t valid, it is just that they have a niche audience.
Similarly, when you critique a film, you are also exposing yourself to the world, putting yourself in a vulnerable spot, allowing the world to know where you come from, your politics, ideologies, prejudices, and morality. A review speaks a lot about the person who writes it, which makes it a very personal journey. So it almost seems impossible to objectively analyse a film, though you can definitely strive to achieve it. Historically, most film theorists have rarely bothered to disguise their ideological agenda. Even today, every film critic comes with their own personal biases, and their writings are invariably coloured by their ideologies. But it is also true that their readers too expect them to take a stand.
Here are some minor tips to keep your review objective (or make it appear so!). It is always best to avoid first-person narratives while reviewing, as that seems to give the impression that the focus is more on you than the film. It also comes across as self-indulgent at times. So a film critic should always stay away from recommending a film (unless you are posting a casual, personal note on social media). Isn't your review enough for the audience to conclude whether they need to see it or not?
Ratings never really made sense to this writer, but unfortunately the audience seems to first have a go at the ratings before even reading the review. Another golden rule this writer follows while reviewing is to never write a lengthy review of a bad film.
Coming back to the constant tussle between filmmakers and film reviewers, another interesting contradiction lies in how the same filmmakers sing a different tune when they get positive reviews. Then the reviewers require no special qualifications, and eagerly share those glowing reviews, including the star ratings/headlines for their social media promotional posters.
Once a director told this writer that he only checks the star ratings, and never bothers to read the reviews. Have you ever seen a filmmaker or actor gracefully share a critical review of their film or performances ever? They only want undiluted praise or nothing. For every art form and artist to grow, critiquing is necessary from time to time. This incompetence to self-analyse or update themselves have cost some of our veteran directors like Kamal, Sathyan Anthikad, Fazil or Priyadarshan dearly. In the last few years, the discourses around female representation and misogyny by women film critics as well as people on social media have resulted in writers and directors treading with caution when it comes to representation.
When a veteran megastar like Mammootty says that the “audience has evolved a lot and are exposed to more films than filmmakers”, it shows his willingness to learn and renew with changing times. That in a way is reflected in his recent choice of films too. Director Basil Joseph also shared a similar opinion — “Our judgements needn’t be correct at all times. If you want to hear the correct feedback you should read the comments under the troll pages, cinema pages and YouTube videos. I think we need to keep ourselves informed through that.”
Director Jeo Baby has no qualms in admitting that the source material for his seminal work, The Great Indian Kitchen, was inspired by the writing of several feminists he was following on social media.
For all the film critic bashing, it is also a reality that traditionally most of the box office hits were panned by the critics. And with social media, a film’s fate despite excessive marketing depends on word-of-mouth reviews. From where we see it, as long as cinema exists, the film critic and filmmaker will always be at odds with each other. Until the filmmaker temporarily decides to bury the hatchet after a 5-star rating.
Neelima Menon has worked in the newspaper industry for more than a decade. She has covered Hindi and Malayalam cinema for The New Indian Express and has worked briefly with Silverscreen.in. She now writes exclusively about Malayalam cinema, contributing to Fullpicture.in and thenewsminute.com. She is known for her detailed and insightful features on misogyny and the lack of representation of women in Malayalam cinema.
Views expressed are the author's own.
Watch: Wonder Women speak to TNM