IA assumes a journalistic role, that of an objective bystander, and places a few questions in the midst of leading film critics, academicians and bloggers to locate the role of film criticism in India.

1. Do you believe the idea of film criticism or a critique derives its exclusivity from the platform it appears on? In other words, is a piece of criticism published in a mainstream newspaper more an act of film criticism than say, a personal journal entry? Also, is it through the act of being made public that film criticism becomes film criticism? How important, thus, is the sphere of influence for a film critic?
2. The penetration of the internet lends a normal blogger the opportunity to be consequential. With the luxury of the opinion becoming so democratic, how do we identify who is a film critic and who is not? Also, do we need to make that demarcation? Doesn’t the blog, or the internet, permit a higher opportunity of interaction?
3. Even as critics in the West lament the oncoming death of film criticism, and anticipate the end of an era that celebrated its film critics – a much romanticized version – do you see it as being ironic that a nation like India is yet to witness its very conception? Do you see these differences in the levels of achievement when it comes to film criticism – is a factor that may revitalise the art of criticism – even in the Western nations?
4. Most writers on film in India apply prisms other than cinema to judge a film – they approach it from the perspective of a sociologist, a trade analyst, a historian, a feminist or a psychoanalyst disregarding the history, tradition and critical discourse of the medium itself ? Comment.
5. How would you try to explain the large critical void in India? Why haven’t we had many famous film critics to look upto – like America, France or UK, despite having a sizeable movie-going audience, and a large industry to serve the same?
6. What do you believe is the reason of the conspicuous absence of mentions of any great filmmakers from the sub-continent in the Western pantheon of film criticism, apart from the oft-touted Satyajit Ray and Ritwik Ghatak?.
7. What is your stance on auteurism?

———————————————————————————————————-

MK Raghvendra….

1) A piece of criticism must appear on a public platform and cannot be a private journal entry but only because public platforms imply mediation by a moderator/ editor. All writing must be subjected to disinterested scrutiny and correction and blog entries don’t allow that. Like all writing, criticism must be submitted to someone  authorized to edit and change

2) Critical opinion should not be ‘democratic’ if it is to be valued. There is always room for the expert. Just as you don’t have democratic opinion in economics, you cannot value democratic opinion in film. If you have it today, it is because film is less respectable than economics as a discipline – as it shouldn’t be. The expert is someone who has an argument and even when there is no hierarchy among critics, there is a hierarchy of arguments – which can only be on a recognized public platform. Arguments must be structured discursively and cannot  simply be ‘opinion’. Readers can take a view who is a critic and who is not a critic – but only when all arguments are made on a public  platform, and suitably mediated by an overseeing editor.

3) I don’t think film buffs are even aware of the work done in film studies, academic writing, essayistic writing and reviewing. This question betrays the misunderstanding that only newspaper writing is ‘criticism’. There is a huge amount of serious writing on Bollywood in books and academic journals. Is the film buff aware of it and getting a sense of how/ why this is different from ‘reviewing’? Reviewing is pretty much on the decline everywhere because it conflicts with the interests of the film industry. The New York Times reviews are as mediocre as are those in the Guardian, although the level of language is superior to the kind usually written in India. There is no reason why an Indian reviewer cannot write better than the writing in NYT.

4) These are as justified as approaches as any. The important thing is to say something interesting. In his essay on Kafka’s Metamorphosis, Nabokov approaches the novel from the viewpoint of an entomologist. The clues to understand a work can often be found in other disciplines.

5) There is a void of intelligent readers and audiences. We have only passive viewers of movies who explode into enthusiasm at the slightestreason – without even being able to provide the most elementary of arguments.

6) I think it is usually misleading people. Most filmmakers imitate themselves in their later life. As J.L Borges said, “Eventually every writer becomes his own least intelligent disciple.” This is perhaps even more true of cinema. Tarantino, Almodovar, Bergman, Fellini, Godard, Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Satyajit Ray produce(d) mediocre work late in their careers, which is/ was avidly described as ‘masterly’ and ‘great’ by the press. Every filmmaker is at his/ her best only within a short period of time after which he/ she is best ignored because he/ she is reworking old tricks. Bunuel, Rivette and Bresson are exceptions because they made great films when in their 80s.Very often the work of minor filmmakers is much more interesting that the work of their major contemporaries but when public attention is being taken up by Tarantino, Almodovar, Haneke and Lars Von Trier, why would you look at films by people you haven’t heard of? In any case, does the average film buff have confidence in his / her own judgment, as opposed to ‘opinion’ – which is really another word for publicity? But I also think the film buff is not well-informed enough to have
confidence in his/ her own judgments and will rely on ‘opinion’.

7) I think it is usually misleading people. Most filmmakers imitate themselves in their later life. As J.L Borges said, “Eventually every writer becomes his own least intelligent disciple.” This is perhaps
even more true of cinema. Tarantino, Almodovar, Bergman, Fellini, Godard, Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Satyajit Ray produce(d) mediocre work late in their careers, which is/ was avidly described as ‘masterly’ and ‘great’ by the press. Every filmmaker is at his/ her best only within a short period of time after which he/ she is best ignored because he/ she is reworking old tricks. Bunuel, Rivette and Bresson are exceptions because they made great films when in their 80s.Very often the work of minor filmmakers is much more interesting that the work of their major contemporaries but when public attention is being taken up by Tarantino, Almodovar, Haneke and Lars Von Trier, why would you look at films by people you haven’t heard of? In any case, does the average film buff have confidence in his / her own judgment, as opposed to ‘opinion’ – which is really another word for publicity? But I also think the film buff is not well-informed enough to have confidence in his/ her own judgments and will rely on ‘opinion’.

M. K. Raghavendra received the National Award for Best Film Critic in 1997. He is the author of Seduced by the Familiar: Narration and Meaning in Indian Popular Cinema (Oxford, 2008). He is the founder-editor of the web journal Phalanx (www.phalanx.in) and he has written on international cinema for web sites like www.jacques-rivette.com. He is particularly fond of film noir, David Cronenberg and French cinema

—————————————————————————————–

SACHIN GANDHI….

1) I believe good film criticism in valid in any platform, be it a magazine, newspaper or internet.  I rather judge a work by its quality rather than the location of its appearance.  My problem with the whole argument for exclusivity is that it assumes that film criticism that appears in one form, such as newspapers, is automatically superior to those that are being published on another, such as internet websites and blogs.  My point of view is shaped by how I arrived at reading film criticism.  In days before the internet, the best examples of film criticism that I found were mainly in books and not in newspapers because in my city the only film related segments in the local newspapers were Hollywood film reviews which basically outlined a film’s story.  The arrival of the internet provided me with access to various newspaper critics across the world and also introduced me to film magazine websites (Cinema Scope, Film Comment, Sight & Sound). Based on these website discoveries, I then hunted for print copies of these magazines. So I went about things in the reverse order in that I first found film magazines online and then subscribed to their magazine formats.  Currently, I regularly oscillate between magazine and internet for my film related reading.

The act of criticism being made public is an interesting question. I liken it to the statement if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Film, like art, needs an audience to complete the creation circle — after a director pours his vision and energy into a film, an audience devotes its time and money in consuming the film. Audience interpretations and reactions to a film then determine the fate of the filmmakers and their prospects for future projects.   There are many films that get made around the world but fail to find an audience because of various reasons like lack of viable distribution.  If these films are not seen, then for all purposes they do not exist.  In the same way, if film criticism is not published and resides hidden away from the world, it can be deemed to not exist. A film critic’s words can help enhance an understanding of a film, provide relevant feedback to a film-maker and allow a forum for debate with audience who may or may not agree with the critic’s words.  If there is no one reading a critic, then the words of a critic will merely float around in a vacuum without any purpose. The film critic’s words need to reach an audience and the audience feedback has to be able to filter back to the critic.

2) I always enjoy reading a well written work of film criticism and have never differentiated if the writer is a professional film critic, a film academic or a non-professional critic. In fact, I never check the credentials of the writer because the quality of the writing can elude to the writer’s film knowledge or background. Personally, I do not believe in making such a demarcation, but then again, I am not someone who gets paid to write about film professionally.

The internet does permit a higher opportunity for interaction and it is always interesting to see some well known critics debate passionately about films they champion. I think it is essential for film critics to keep a presence on the internet so that they can interact with fellow cinephiles and fans. Also, an internet presence gives a critic a chance to freely talk about older released films they like and give quick updates on film festivals, etc. Most newspapers carry reviews/critiques of newly released films but critics are not restricted to watching the current crop of movies; they are attending film festivals and revisiting classics.  So the internet gives them the option to talk about films that they normally would not be able to publish in print form.

3) I don’t believe in these reports about the death of film criticism.  This is something that has been mentioned for atleast two decades now, as is the lazy argument by some critics who keep repeating that the golden age of cinema was decades past and that there no good films being made today.  The truth is that there are plenty of good films being made around the world. Access to these films might be difficult but it is incorrect to say that the films made in the last two decades have been inferior to what was made in the 1960’s or even 1930’s.  Plus films are now being made in many more countries than previously and there is a greater chance to discover a gem from an unknown country more than ever. Which is why I think film criticism is more relevant in today’s day and age because we need critics to help shed a light on parts of the cinematic world that the general multiplex audience does not have access to.  The big change to film criticism might be in its delivery with more content moving online as opposed to being in print but film criticism will thrive. As long as love of cinema exists, then film criticism will be present.

I am not sure if it is a fair statement to say that India has not seen the conception of film criticism. Film criticism has existed in India, albeit in erratic & limited quantities.  I have come across some examples of Indian film criticism over the last few decades, but almost exclusively in books and magazines.  NFDC’s “Cinema in India” magazine no longer exists but it was a platform to read critics from different parts of India; it was a common platform for various regional critics to inform about cinema being made in their states.  It is true that the major newspapers in Delhi and Mumbai do not appear to carry any form of film criticism but I am not sure what the state of film criticism is in other parts of India, such as in Kolkata.

Now, there is a difference in the reception of newspapers between North America and India.  In North America, there is constant talk about the financial struggles of major newspapers and overall decline in print subscriptions but in India, newspaper readership and its subscription appears as strong as ever.  I think the reports about the death of film criticism is tied to the shutting down of newspapers in North America – papers have lost advertising revenue and are looking to cut costs, so they shut down film sections as a cost saving measure.  Now, some of these papers still print film reviews but they either republish reviews from other sources or use freelance film reviewers.  This struggle with the printed newspapers is being used as a direct link to the disappearance of film criticism.

I also don’t believe all Western nations have a thriving film criticism presence in papers. Here in Canada, most newspapers still only exclusively contain reviews about the newest Hollywood films with the rest of the week filled by film star gossip and rumours.  Only once a week is there a chance that an actual genuine film critique might appear.  This may not have always been the case but as things stand, film criticism in Canadian newspapers is mainly associated with basic discussion of Hollywood film stories.  On the other hand, there are some excellent Canadian film magazines such as Cinema Scope which more than make up for this shortcoming by providing intelligent and relevant film criticism

4) I cannot fully comment on this as I have not read examples of the various categories but I think this judgement of films in India might be tied to how cinema is not only made but consumed throughout the country.  If emphasis is only put on a film’s story as opposed to constructing a visual language, then it is inevitable that most conversations about film will only be about analyzing a character’s motive or studying the story trend.  Using Bollywood as an example, until recently most Bollywood films treated a camera as a stationary object whose purpose was to shoot a story.  The stories then changed as per a current trend such as the angry man Amitabh films of the 1970’s, love triangles, dark gangster tales, NRI family sagas or urban middle class youth portrayals. Many copies of this trend were then produced with just the locales and actors being changed. If films are made in a formulaic cookie cutter manner, then a study of such cinema is restricted in what it can cover.

There is nothing wrong in using different lens to analyze a film. I think it is useful if film is looked at from different perspectives but that does not mean that a film’s techniques should be ignored.

5) I will attempt to tackle this question on three fronts – language, consumption and support. India is a diverse nation with multiple film industries serving different linguistic parts of the country. The only unifying language that binds the country is English but it is not the language in which films are made.  The existence of multiple language means that only certain portions of the country will be able to fully comprehend the film.  Subtitled versions of the regional films are not freely distributed across India thereby preventing most Indians from seeing the diverse Indian cinematic works.  Then the critics who are writing about the various linguistic films end up being mostly read in certain parts of the country and their audience is further narrowed down.  Whereas in America, the two main cinematic divisions are Hollywood and Independent American cinema both making their films in the same language.  American critics from across the country will have access to the same films and their works will be easily accessible to different parts of the country.  In France, it is also a unified language that exists throughout the country with a common cinematic hub in Paris.  Bollywood tries to muscle in for India but in reality it is not even representative of the state that it resides in as there is a Marathi film industry.  While Bollywood films are in Hindi, there is still Hindi cinema made outside of Bollywood (not to mention Hinglish) plus Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Punjabi, Kannada, Telegu to name just a few. Each state’s critics may only write about their region’s films in the regional language.  Further, no single critic in India can possibly cover the various cinematic outputs. And even if one critic does manage to write reviews on all the regional films in English, there is no guarantee that the regional cinema the critic is discussing will be available in major cities.  So it is hard to believe that a single critic will ever be appreciated across the country.  I like to use Canadian cinema as an example. In Canada, there are two official languages, English and French, with French restricted mainly to the province of Quebec. Now, some of the best films that get made in Canada every year come from Quebec. Unfortunately, hardly any of these Quebecois French language films get a release in a Canadian multiplex and the avenue for most Canadians to see these Quebecois films is through art house cinemas, film festivals and DVD.  Not every city in Canada has art house cinemas, so people in most cities are restricted to DVD access for these films.   English Canadian film critics only cover these Quebecois films during a film festival or when the movie gets released in their city’s art house cinema.  Yet, films in Quebec are released throughout the year and film critics in Quebec write about these movies regularly.  But since these critics’ work is not translated in English, their work remains largely non-existent to the English speaking part of Canada.  So it hard to expect that any great Quebecois critic will become a major force in the whole nation.

Another reason that has led to a shortage of film criticism in India is how film is consumed.  Popular cinema in India casts a shadow over art and independent cinema and is driven more by star names.  In Bollywood stars are worshipped whereas directors and writers only get a cursory mention.  Newspapers are filled with entertainment gossip about the big stars because that is what drives more readership.  Newspapers used to carry film reviews at one point but now papers are asked to write more stories about stars rather than write articles about the technical aspects of a film such as lighting, editing and cinematography.  As a result, film criticism is not considered relevant and all effort is put into covering redundant details about what films an actor is going to be making rather than discussing film itself.

For film criticism to exist, there also has to be support from the industry itself. Hollywood holds advance press screenings for a majority of its films so that critics can write film reviews before the films hit the screens.  On the other hand, Bollywood does not hold such advance press screenings for most films.  Film critics in Delhi and Mumbai have to see the first afternoon show on a Friday, paying for the ticket with their own money, and then rush back to get their review done.  If their reviews appear in the local paper, then it will most likely be on a Saturday, a full day after the film has been released.  If a large industry like Bollywood does not care for advance film reviews, then it is hard to expect smaller Indian films, who have limited marketing budgets and a bigger struggle to get even one screen booked in a multiplex, to hold advance press screenings.  Also, Bollywood films are marketed based on stars, songs and sometimes a director’s name.  The film’s story is hardly ever revealed in advance, with most trailers showing only songs and a few dramatic/action/comedic sequences.  So if a film is marketed exclusively on song promos, then it is clear that Bollywood would see no benefit from having a critical assessment of their films.

6) I like to think the lack of Indian films shown at international film festivals is a contributing factor in the lack of awareness of Indian films in the West.  If Satyajit Ray had not won at Cannes, I believe he would have remained largely unknown outside of India.  Perhaps in the 1990’s he would have been discovered in the West and people would have attempted to dig up his old work.  Guru Dutt is an example of such a case. Last year, there was a first ever retrospective of his work in New York and the spotlight generated a few articles in film magazines/papers.  Why was Guru Dutt unknown to a majority of American cinephiles for so long? Possibly because his films were never showcased outside of India!

Sometimes being at a film festival is not enough.  Even if a film is at the right film festival, it may go unnoticed if it does not win a major award or if a critic does not champion it.  Aparna Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Buddhadev Dasgupta and Rituparno Ghosh have had films shown at various film festivals but they have not bagged top prizes at some of the bigger festivals (such as Cannes, Venice) and discussion about these directors is restricted to a small circle.  Winning an award at a major festival does help in theatrical distribution and subsequent DVD release, thereby increasing the global audience pool for a film.  Murali Nair won the best first feature at Cannes in 1999 and his 2001 film, A Dog’s Day, is quite accessible in Canada after it also showed at Cannes.

Limited distribution and availability of Indian films is also another reason why people in Western nations are largely unfamiliar with some of India’s best directors.  A lot of the bigger North American cities only have Bollywood films that show regularly in their theaters and most Indian stores only have the newest Bollywood film DVDs.  As a result, the only Indian cinema people in North America are exposed to is Bollywood.  In the last few years, there have been a number of Indian and Asian film festivals in North America that have tried to book regional Indian films, thereby raising some awareness that there is more to Indian cinema than just Bollywood.  Also, there has been a tiny Indian presence at some of the biggest film festivals in the last few months — Amit Dutta’s Aadmi Ki Aurat Aur Anya Kahaniya screened at Venice in 2009, Peepli Live was preset at Sundance this year, there were a few Indian titles to view at Rotterdam, The Man Beyond the Bridge was preset at Berlin and Udaan is screening in the Un Certain Regard competition at Cannes in May.  If more Indian films compete regularly in the official competition category for some of the bigger festivals, then there is hope for Indian films to enter a broader discussion forum among global cinephiles.

7) Auteurism is essential to the evolution of cinema.  If a director is allowed to express their unique vision, then new and inventive ideas of portraying film will take place.  Currently, film production companies are more concerned with profit and very few allow any variations from tried and tested formulas.  In Hollywood and Bollywood, formulaic films are the norm and big studios are reluctant to look at new ways of enhancing film.  Auteurs with backing from daring producers and artistic grants are likely to present new cinematic wonders.  Pedro Costa is an example of an auteur who has shown new ways to present and make films.  Armed with a digital camera, he acted as a one man film crew and inhabited the slum quarters of Fontainhas to shoot his film In Vanda’s Room with natural lighting and make shift reflectors.  The end result is a film that is a living breathing painting that lets the audience experience the varying shades of color while listening to the everyday life sounds.  The end result gives a real feel for the characters lives in Fontainhas. Another auteur with a unique view is Lisandro Alonso who lets his camera freely wander the countryside, enabling the audience to soak in the atmosphere and breathe the air of the Argentine landscape.

Sachin Gandhi is a cinephile and film programming consultant for the Calgary International Film Festival since 2004.  He also helped start up and run the Calgary Pan-Asian Film Festival.  His articles on film have appeared in The Hindustan Times, Cinema in India (an NFDC publication), Rediff, India Abroad and the Pune International Film Festival.  Sachin’s film blog can be found at likhna.blogspot.com

————————————————————————————————-

Subhra Gupta…

1) I do believe that the sphere  of influence of a film critic is enormous. This is the age of instant manufactured opinion and instant transmission, without any apparent thought going into the process ( of having arrived at that opinion), but there definitely is space for critics with much more than surface  knowledge of the subject. They are not prone to expressing knee jerk reactions for instant consumption,  and bring a fund of experience and a studied impartiality  when commenting on a piece of cinema.

What is important, I believe, is the quality of the criticism, which should be consistent and fair EVERY single time : it matters to me not a whit which platform it appears on, as long as I can discern a clear pattern and reasoned approach. My ambit would change if I were writing for a journal on cinema, than if I were writing in my newspaper column space, because the readers would presumably have different expectations from both, but my style would remain the same.

By its very nature, a personal journal entry remains personal. Unless it is shared on a public platform, up for consumption and review, challenged by other opinion, it is not really criticism, is it? I would at this point like to say that there is a difference between reviewing and critiquing : sometimes the difference can be vast, sometimes it is very slender. When I am reviewing I am looking more at content; when I am in critic mode, I am more concerned about the form. This is a generalized statement, and I would make a qualification every time, but these would broadly be the parameters which I would bring to bear upon my writing.

2) There is a difference, like I noted above, between reasoned, fair opinion and  flyaway condemnation, put out in the most crass manner, as is increasingly and distressingly the case, and which appears to have no basis. A real film critic ( by which I mean a someone who has both literary and practical knowledge of cinema) can be, by all means a blogger : but not all bloggers who write on the movies can be film critics.

3) The West is going through a financial crisis that envelopes everything, including the media. It is easier for conventional media to not have paid reviewers on the staff, because they believe all reader/viewer attention has migrated to the internet, and there are enough powerful opinion makers there who will suffice. I believe that this attrition is a sad loss, because we are having to make do with people who have no responsibility towards what they judge : the act of judging an art form is accompanied by huge responsibility, which to me seems to be no part of a lot of writing I find on the net.

India is unique in many ways. Unlike its counterparts in the West, India has a flourishing media universe which is expanding its reach with every passing day. But it is also seeing a decline in ethical practice and rigour, so the presence of genuine film criticism, like all other ‘serious’ writing is threatened on a daily basis. I do believe that it is our call, as critics and media aware people, to keep our spaces alive, and that calls for interactive readers and viewers, not passive consumers.

4)People will apply their prisms to what they see and hear. I will read what sociologists and historians and feminists have to say, if they engage and challenge me with their arguments. But I will not mistake it for film criticism : that is a distinction people have to make for themselves, or have to have made for them.

5) Part of the lacunae lies in the fact that for a long time, there have been  no academic attempts to analyse and study our cinema. Unless there’s a sizable community of people looking at cinema as a worthwhile *subject*, which I believe is now happening through the country ( but still not at the scale that it should, or could), it is going to remain at this abysmally low level. The irony is that to *study* Indian cinema, a student still has to go out of the country, because we have no resources to do it within, and then the prism of the study is determined by the academic parameters of the institution the student fetches up in.

6) I fear that the Western pantheon of film criticism, till very recently, divided the world into the *occidental* and  the *oriental* : India was, and still is, to most people on the other side of the Bosphorous, an alien land which produced the *most* films in the world, whose films are easy to deride, without any attempt being made to understand the inherent logic and spread of both mainstream  and non mainstream cinema in all our diverse languages and cultures. Only a handful of film critics take the trouble to track what is happening in the subcontinent consistently, and with sufficient knowledge of our cinematic traditions and histories.

7) Good grief, this would require an entire book! Where would cinema, indeed any art form, be without its auteurs? But they would have to be the real deal, the directors who take the visual form into never-before directions and realms, not pretenders.

SHUBHRA GUPTA is a film critic with the Indian Express

IA: FILM CRITICISM SYMPOSIUM- II

Tags: Film Criticism Symposium-11

Posted By IndianAuteurTm | Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 | Filed under Cover Story, News