Disclaimer: This could have been written by any film critic in the world and is addressed to every critic of theirs. So please don’t read this as a personal expression directed at you if you hate me/opinion. Best read with a little distance – like a party watching the fight from the best seat in the house.
You don’t hate your milkman, postman or watchman. In fact, you tip them once in a while. Or your family doctor or the architect who designed your house. You pay them for consultation. You probably hate a few celebrities, film and sport-based, and of course, politicians. Over the last decade, journalists, especially critics, commentators and analysts have joined the most hated club.
It’s understandable that you don’t like sportsmen or entertainers when they don’t perform or politicians when they don’t deliver what they promised and extending the same logic to commentators, analysts and critics, you could say you don’t like the way they do their job… which is to say you don’t always like the points they make. They all have opinions that somehow don’t always match with yours.
Let’s forget all the work experience, educational qualifications or specialised courses that got them these jobs, just like they got you yours, for a moment. Because once we bring that up, there is no further debate once you accept that just like doctors, engineers, lawyers, architects, these are professionals paid for their expertise in a certain area.
You don’t even pay them personally (unless you want to include your cable and newspaper bill which put together per month will be way less than what you pay your doctor per sitting or what you would spend on a single trip to the movie theatre with friends) yet you find this dislike surface every now and then. Why?
Here’s ten things you hate about them.
1. You want their job. Or you wish you had their job. You just can’t come to terms with the fact that you are stuck doing something else while someone there is bumming around on TV or typing away on a computer to make a living, watching cricket matches, interviewing influential people or just watching movies. And probably making more money than you.
2. You think you are always right. You may decide to resolve an argument with friends with the usual “Let’s agree to disagree” or by calling them names before changing the topic… Or sometimes, by producing proof that you are right by quoting from a person of some authority. And these critics sometimes happen to be those very people quoted back to you. From there on, it’s just your opinion versus theirs. Your hubris will never let you believe you are wrong, even if you deep down know that you don’t know enough.
3. You have an axe to grind. This usually happens when you or something you are associated with, has been at the receiving end of criticism in the past – either a long string of bad reviews as an established filmmaker/producer/affiliate or negative feedback as someone starting out. Imagine this. You want them to give you a line you can put on the cover of your DVD. They don’t find anything positive to say and politely decline. The next thing they know you are either going around town crying how they were mean and that they think too much of themselves. Or worse, you mail back saying that you understand, thank them for their honest feedback and then go on a hate campaign.
4. You want their attention. It’s probably cathartic to get it all out and have some closure but very rarely are you able to get them to hear all about what you think. How long can you handle this one-way communication? At some point you want them to know how you feel. Most troll behaviour on the internet is about attracting attention.
5. You hate their success. Schadenfreude. You derive immense pleasure watching someone slip-up, however minor. As Green Goblin told Spiderman: “The one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail.” Underdogs make news when they succeed while the successful make news when they fail. Your Schadenfreude is validation of their success.
6. You like to sail against the wind. You don’t want to be just another person agreeing with the majority. You don’t want to be ordinary. You want to be a rebel, cause or not, and would do anything to stand out. You can always say you are too intelligent to agree with a majority. Whatever floats your boat!
7. You have nothing else to do. As civil right activist, Eleanor Roosevelt once said: “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” With Twitter, Facebook, blogs and many more avenues to do absolutely nothing, you feel the need to discuss but are unable to go beyond people.
8. You know it’s easier said than done. You are the types who could give Mahendra Singh Dhoni advice on whether he should bat or bowl first. Or tell Dravid when to change gears between offense and defense. As singer Helen Reddy says, “Hindsight is wonderful. It’s always very easy to second guess after the fact.”
9. You forget it’s just one person’s opinion. As a fellow film critic, Mayank Shekhar says: “If you go to Australia and come back and write that you didn’t have a good time there, it does not mean Australia is a bad place. It just means you didn’t like it.” But here’s a thought. Would you take travel advice from someone who has just been to one part of Australia or someone who has been to more places there than you have?
10. You don’t see the futility. Do you criticise someone saying they cannot take criticism because they criticised your criticism of their criticism? If all criticism can be criticised, then every counter-criticism becomes the subject of further-criticism between all parties involved in an argument and if everybody has a right to their opinion, what is the point of it all? It’s like a Mexican stand-off with a bunch of people saying Fuck You to each other. Forever.
I enjoyed reading this piece. However, IMHO, without the trolls, the blogosphere will be a less colourful place.
epic! so well written! more power to you!
Hahahahaha. So true.
Oh, man. This is just … just … kick-ass. Sigh. All this bad language and intense poramai does one thing, though: make the critics grit their teeth, dig their toes in and just go on like battering-ram. More power to us.
1) There is too much importance given to ratings,How many stars you give sometimes spoils a good balanced review.Do away with the ratings(or stars as they are called).
2) Indian critics give away important plot points and their favorite scenes most of the time which makes reading the review before watching the film impossible and this defeats the very purpose of a review.
3)Film reviewers also double up as gossip journos,interviewing celebrities(most of the time mindless movie promotion interviews) ,You don’t need a reviewer to write about celebs life,Criticisms should be a specialized job.
1. Most often, words mislead how much you liked a film. When we all agree that reviews are anyway subjective and are one person’s opinion, what’s wrong in quantifying it so that you know exactly how much I liked it or not, whatever the reasons be.
2. Not just Indian critics, international critics do that too. I think it sometimes has to do with when the review comes out. If the reviewer is writing about a film a week or two after release, he may dwell into aspects that have now become public knowledge. Every critic has his own measure of how much to give out. Sometimes, I find it tricky to not talk about a spoiler when it happens to be the most problematic part of the film. Personally, I try to give a spoiler alert warning or hint at it without specifying what it is.
3. Yes, I would agree with you that people who interview shouldn’t review but the ground realities sometimes are such that you are assigned and you just do your job to the best of your ability.
Love that quote from Eleanor Roosevelt!
ha ha ha…true!. well, who is ur fav critic?
I have quite a few favourites… Raja Sen, Namrata Joshi, Shubhra Gupta, Sukanya Verma, Mihir Fadnavis & Baradwaj Rangan (esp. of yore).
Outside the country, I like Roger Ebert and Jeff Jensen (for TV shows, his series on Lost is the best form of dissection ever on any pop culture form).
1) I dont mind a critic’s review as long as its not on the first friday. Common, I love watching films, but I hate it when someone spoils it for me before I go watch them.
2) There are good critics and there are bad critics…some are just extremely negative. It gets boring after a while. I dont like reading Raja Sen’s reviews coz they are repetitive all the time, reeking with lot of negativity. Its like a girl whining all the time about how fucked up her boy friend is or how the entire male population is bad.
3) Some critics take themselves too seriously…especially the ones whos reviews r read in major newspapers n websites. Their language is filled with arrogance.
4) I read and respect reviews..therefore I dont like critics taking their audiences for granted.
But we don’t like filmmakers taking audience and reviewers for granted.
For that Sudhish might have to write a blog on good films and bad films and then we can rip them apart there…lol 🙂
If a guy is paid for his opinion, he has every right to sound like he knows what he’s talking about. I am not standing up for Raja just because he is my favourite critic, I am just addressing the very basic requisite of criticism… authority.
This is perceived as arrogance, condescension, and we are often accused of being patronising but it’s something we have come to terms with. We don’t expect you to like us. It’s a thankless job. The same people who loved us because we gave their favourite film a good review will turn on us the minute we disagree with them. Critics don’t need to be diplomats, they aren’t paid to be nice. They are paid to be candid. I wouldn’t want to read a review that’s trying to be polite or one that finds unintended meanings because the writer wants to sound like an art critic – someone who appreciates art. It’s all a matter of choice and taste. If you feel secure about your opinion, you can read any review and still be able to make up your mind about the film. I for one wouldn’t read reviews if I don’t want to know what to expect.
First of all, I wasnt talking about all critics…I am talking about some of them. And one or two in particular. About Raja Sen, I dont like his reviews, may be others do. Each to his own.
Every product is reviewed once its out in the market, every service is reviewed. Everyone wants to know the likeability and the quality of the product. Thats business coz money is involved and a lot pf it is at stake. But that doesnt mean, you kill it the day its released. I have a problem with that. Let the product take its own shape. Let it grow into the people’s psyche. Why kill it even before we have experienced it. If a critic’s job is to review it on the first day of its release then IMHO it shud be a very mature/ balanced review and/or a very balanced opinion.
No one is paid to be nice/diplomatic. But I dont think anyone is paid to be emotional/negative or to rip apart someone.
No critic is powerful enough to affect box office collections. NOBODY. Every critic knows this. If a whole bunch of critics react similarly and negatively, maybe the film is not working for many people. It does not mean the film is not good, it just means it may not be a popular film. I prefer reading reviews that take a clear stand rather than stay on the wall. A review that’s on the wall is of no use really to the public because their opinion of a film before they’ve seen it is anyway on-the-wall. They learn nothing new from the review.
I say, “Avar ungalukku thalanna, naanga (critics) ellam ungalluku vaalaa?” They, in an atrocious manner, wanted us to comment Mankatha good. Why the hell do I need to?
I would only say where the film stands. Do I have to say that it was the greatest film ever made, just because they had their Thala singing, dancing and yelling haphazardly in it?
Why should opinions be thrust on us when we just represent a section of the population to watch a movie and spread the opinion? Why should we succumb to the fan muscle?
Your humorous yet sarcastic and satiric take on those who read reviews is to the point. I see that most comments say, “Change your reviewer,” and the “reviewer must quit,” when they don’t like the review of the reviewer.
When it goes with their opinions, they celebrate their Thala and Thakkali and not a word about the reviewer. You could see this in all your reviews and comments.
Yet, there is nothing to fume about. I enjoy it. Enjoy seeing such less intelligent souls – enslaved by their Thala and Thalapathy – yell from behind cells in support of their dictator.
They would like reviewers less intelligent than they are or as they are. And why on earth do reviewers need to compromise on their intelligence?
You take the liberty of putting film croup son the same league of professionals like doctors, lawyers etc who have gone thru a profession specific body of knowledge and graduated. The way that Dr diagnosis an ailment is largely similar tp any other Dr will do, because they are aupposed to follow the same body of knowledge in understanding the symtoma and treatingan ailment.
Please tell me – do critics have a cmon evaluation criteria for films which are regional, cutting across genre etc?
If they all follow the same methodology to evaluate movies, then why does one person give a 5 star to the same movie which is rated as 2 by another criic, who supposedly used a different yardstick…
The film critic, could best be compared to someone like a palmist or astrologer- they all base their predictions on some understanding of the subject and hopefully some logic, but one palmist reads the same hand differently from another…. Hope you would agree to this.
Also, why do film critics get worked up When someone disagrees to their “rating” or opinion – when one feels free to watch a free premiere and comment extensively ( mostly destroying) the movie and it’s cast and director and their efforts? Can’t they be more mature in accepting that people may like or dislike their reviews when they feel free to go all ballistic about someone else’s creative work?
While I am sure that there will be people who will be arguing that astrology and palmistry are legitimate sciences, I am not one of them. So I will have to disagree with your contention because I attended classes deconstructing films, understanding social sciences which is a recognised stream of study in most universities. And even after two years of such specialised intensive academic training, I still feel there’s so much that’s unexplored in the science of storytelling. This is a more complicated science than medicine or law because its rules go beyond the book and it’s earliest applications can be found from Aristotle to Joseph Campbell to Robert McKee. Also while diagnosis (observation made) may be similar, evaluation is bound to differ from person to person because not everyone has had similar life experiences or even the same inputs or has similar sensibilities. While two critics may note the same things about Karan Johar’s kind of cinema, one may like it for those very things and another may hate it for those. A film critic is paid for his informed opinion and is taken seriously only on his basis of the overall understanding of the art and the arguments he makes for why he likes or does not like it. It’s closer to law that way because it’s based on arguments and understanding of the rules and cognizance of the fact that rules can be broken unlike a speculative profession like astrology or palmistry. So while I find the comparison quite laughable but I am sure your opinion reflects a popular understanding of film criticism simply because you guys don’t come in to the classroom to see what we guys study and grapple with. If you want to understand the science of storytelling, do check out some of these books http://screenwritingindia.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/anjum-rajabali-writes/
P.S: And that’s just on the writing/storytelling aspect of it. Which is all you need to know even before you begin making a film. Reading film requires understanding of the text (the script), the subtext (what’s between the lines of that script – visual deconstruction) and the context (why that text/subtext important in our times). While reading the text is the easiest part of the film, it’s your reading of the subtext and the context that makes you a critic.
ok, so you have put up a lot of stuff to make your point that critics religiously and rigorously follow a “science” to dissect a movie. Glad to know.
However, you have chosen not to answer my earlier question. let me repeat.
1. If critics are all qualified in the subject and follow a strict discipline to dissect a movie and then rate it based upon their scientific analysis….then why does the same film get 5/5 rating by half of the critics while the other have give it 1/5 rating…..
While i accept your point about Doctors diagnosis of patients etc, Have u seen a Doctor declare a patient “terminally ill” when another has declared the same guy as “fighting fit” the same day….
does this happen with critics because:-
a) all the critics don’t apply the science to evaluate movies, thereby giving diametrically opposite ratings on same movie
or
b) do critics leave behind the science and decide to go by their “opinion”
or
c) do half the critics feel indebted for the free movie ticket and perks and decide to give a good rating…..or are they succumbing to pressure from their newspapers / other media or from the film lobby to give good rating
or
d) there is some other hidden factor affecting the ratings for the same movie….
Another point you have chosen not to respond is :-
***************
“”Also, why do film critics get worked up When someone disagrees to their “rating” or opinion – when one feels free to watch a free premiere and comment extensively ( mostly destroying) the movie and it’s cast and director and their efforts?
Can’t they be more mature in accepting that people may like or dislike their reviews when they feel free to go all ballistic about someone else’s creative work?””
*****************
Do you get affected needlessly by some criticisms for your criticisms and feel the need to make your feelings known and share your anguish by writing pieces like these which deride the person whom you are writing the piece for in the 1st place.
I’m from the same school as you and have been following your writing and works from the time you wrote “oohscare and crummy awars” section in the school mag and articles for annanagar times etc….and i like your way of presentation.
cheers,
karthik
Karthik says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 10, 2011 at 6:03 am
……You take the liberty of putting film crotics on the…
Apologies for the typos in my comment, had sent from mobile
Sudhish,
I read all your reviews, only after I have seen the movie though! I usually agree with most of your reviews so I have never commented in your blog space before… I especially liked the way in which you put down commonly accepted intelligent films (e.g. Black, Guzarish, Yutham Sei, Nandalala – I had any day watch a mainstream masala movie than this pseudo art shit). I also immensely enjoyed your perspective of the Terrence Malick Poetry – “Tree of Life”.
But this is the first time I seriously object to a blog post from you. To begin with, I don’t think you have to justify yourself to anyone – Period. I dont think you meant this to be a justification of your work, but thats exactly how this piece comes across to a neutral person like me. It also looks like you cannot stand ppl criticising your criticism and had to vent out your frustration to get it out of your system. So now when you ask others to take your criticism lightly it looks like the devil preaching or more like paithiyathuku vaidhiyam pakara doctor-ke paithiyam pudicha madhiri 😛
I think critics are absolutely essential to any art form to keep it away from Kitsch. And most of the Indian movies are nothing if they are not Kitsch! The trouble starts when critics become experts or pseudo intellectuals and start preaching to the public (Note – I am not saying your reviews are preachy, no they definitely are not. Otherwise I wouldnt be reading them! What I like most about your reviews is the matter fact manner in which they are written).
Because no matter how many movies critics watch they can never become an expert. Lets take the example of cricket commentators. How many ever matches they commentate on they can never become experts until they have played the game – and that too a few times. Some one like Harsha Boghle knows this very well. He never gives expert opinion but he is one of the best cricket critics that there ever was and is! If you want to become better in your profession (like all of us do) you cannot look at a better role model than Harsha!
If you haven’t already seen it watch the movie called F for Fake by Orson Welles. Then you will know the folly of becoming an expert!
Keep up the bad criticisms Sudhish and dont get sucked into the void that you are advising others to avoid! With great power comes great responsiblitiy, help keep the society away from Ktisch 🙂
Cheers
1. You are taking this piece quite seriously. I wanted to write a piece that any critic in the world can use. You read the tone wrong.
2. There’s nothing wrong with kitsch.
3. Your analogy about cricket and movies is not quite accurate because sport is a matter of chance. Films are constructed by design and only their fate is left upto chance.
the point no 8 and 9, consecutively …. its so true.. the way you have produced a funny piece, of nothing… but a serious and simple thought inside that everyone should understand …. 🙂