On reviewing...

MARQUEE

I recently got an email from an acquaintance mentioning two conflicting reviews of a recent film and asking which reviewer he should "believe". I was in a crabby mood, so I replied, "They're both lying. Believe no one."

This was said only half in jest. Answering at greater length, I might have pointed out that this business of "believing" a review or thinking of a particular assessment of a film as "right" or "wrong" is fraught with danger.

It's possible ""through trial and error "" to identify a reviewer whose views match yours more often than not, but rest assured, at some point or the other he will definitely savage a film you've loved (or vice-versa). Holding someone else's tastes as a barometer for your own doesn't work in the long run.

Because the least useful (and most impractical) function of a good review is to tell the reader "Watch this" or "Don't watch this", I've been having some stimulating discussions on this subject with my friend Baradwaj Rangan, one of the best film writers around, and a reviewer whose open-mindedness towards all kinds of cinema is matched only by his awareness that any honest review can, at best, provide the perspective of a single person (though, hopefully, an articulate, informed person who knows how to back opinion with reasoned argument); a perspective that might not chime with that of most others, but which will at the least tell us how a certain sort of person might respond to a particular work.

At its best (as in the extremely personal, long pieces written by Pauline Kael for the New Yorker such a review might work as a fine, autonomous piece of writing in its own right, a form of self-expression that can be read and enjoyed regardless of whether you agree with it "" a window to an alternate way of thinking, in the manner of the best literature.

In India, there are many misconceptions about the nature and purpose of film criticism. Much of this has to do with mainstream media not taking it seriously (it isn't possible to engage with a film in 400 words, much less provide a personal perspective; all you can do in that space is to hurriedly evaluate the performances, music and a couple of other elements, and give a facile "star rating"), but also the tendency not to recognise that an opinion completely different from yours can be honest.

And, of course, kneejerk anti-intellectualism. Looking at message-boards on sites like Rediff.com (where thousands of readers follow the time-tested practice of personal abuse against anyone whose views differ from their own), I regularly find comments like the following: "Please, Mr Reviewer, spare us the big words. Your task is to tell us a) The plot of the film, b) Whether we should see it."

So there you have it, the obedient little lamb waiting to be led to the ticket counter if a film is Good or shooed away if it's Bad. And waiting to turn into a rabid little lamb if it turns out that the review was "wrong". (Disagree with a reviewer? Pick your response. You can rationalise that he is on the director's payroll. You can resort to that old chestnut from the Inverse Snob's Hall of Fame: "This guy is a pseud who has taken the film too seriously." Or that other chestnut, the bane of any honest reviewer: "Be objective." In other words, expect an "objective" review that endorses your own [subjective] view of the film.)

Given all this, can we really blame film writers in mainstream media for restricting themselves to the most banal and generalised observations? It's been said that a country gets the cinema it deserves. Maybe that's true for its reviewers too?

P.S. The argument that analytical works of criticism are of no relevance to the casual viewer is fair enough "" after all, the vast majority of viewers around the world don't feel the need to engage with a film as deeply as a Kael would "" but if it's saphead "objectivity" that the mass audience needs, the solution lies in un-bylined synopses that keep value judgement to a minimum and simply provide basic information about the film. Why pretend to carry sentient "reviews" at all?

(jaiarjun@gmail.com)