Musings of a film critic

Being a movie critic has its obvious perks, including watching all the latest movies, occasionally before the general public get to see them– but I often ask myself: Of what relevance really is the opinion of a film critic? How is the opinion of a film critic more important than any other film fan?

I think the most obvious answer to that question is the knowledge of the technical aspects of film-making that every critic ought to know enough about to assess: Aspects like cinematography, editing, scripting and screenplay require some background knowledge but, once again, who really needs to know these things?

The widespread use of social media like Tik Tok, Instagram, Facebook and X (FormerlyTwitter) have complicated the film industry across the globe and the same certainly applies to Tamil cinema. Anyone with access to social media can now take on the role of a film critic and comment on films to hundreds or thousands of others.

In the past, people were dependent on views from trained film critics and this served as a useful barometer. Even if one disagreed completely with a critic one could gauge a film by comparing one’s own tastes with that of the reviewer.

Now, the situation has become very complex with every film fan taking on the role of a critic when they comment on a public forum.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but an opinion posted on a public platform must be grounded in an understanding of films. 1-line reviews of films tell the reader very little. For example, simply saying that a film had a weak screenplay is not enough – One needs to explain what made the screenplay weak.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the very purpose of social media is to express opinions, so how does one balance this right with the effect such expression has on films and music?

Part of the job of a critic is to assess how well the film is made, but most people also expect a critic to make some prediction about a film’s success – praising them when the box-office proves them right and berating them when the box-office proves otherwise.

A lot of a critic’s integrity depends on being objective but, being a critic requires one to enjoy movies and to be a movie fan. How then does one separate personal tastes and preferences when making an objective assessment? What about religious, moral, social and political views and how they cloud an assessment of a film?

Personally, some of the best films I have seen are films I do not wish to see again. Films like Paradesi, Sirrai Chaalai, Subaramaniyapuram and Pithaamagan are classics that most critics would find praiseworthy, but they are not the type of films one would want to watch more than once.

On the other hand, a film like Chandramukhi, which is filled with so many flaws and weaknesses, is the type of film that most people would not mind watching and enjoying dozens of times.

I know for certain that my tastes in films seldom corresponds with those of the majority. I found Anbulla Appa to be one long bore with artificial sentiment and filmy exchanges but many regard this film as an all-time classic. I thought that Paasa Malar should have ended at interval and that Deva was corny and clichéd – but public opinion says otherwise. I found Oru Kal oru Kannadi a severe test of my patience, but the box-office and award committees thought otherwise.

The job of a critic is thus a lonely and often thankless one, and the only source of hope is the belief that one’s assessments of a film would highlight aspects of the film that otherwise would not have been considered by the casual viewer and therein lies my biggest dilemma: How does one dissect a film, a scene or even a script or screenplay without referring to “spoilers”.

How else does one justify an assessment without referring to specific incidents in the film? How does one indicate a story without giving away so much that it ruins the enjoyment of those watching the film after reading the review?

I still vividly remember a radio critic writing “It was a shocker when the viewer finds out that Jyothika (obviously referring to the character played by Jyothika) is possessed by a supernatural force.

Unfortunately, such spoilers are necessary if one wants to substantiate a view but so often I find myself stifled about talking about a particular scene for fear of ruining another person’s enjoyment of the film.

In an ideal world, a critic would be allowed to write two reviews: One when the film is first released, and another when the majority of people have seen the film.

Personally, I don’t read any review of a film until after I have seen the film. I don’t even like to be around anyone who has seen a film before I have and I certainly won’t want to hear them talk about it. Can you even imagine what would have happened if people told you the story of Pizza before you saw the film?

So, until I find an acceptable alternative, I will try to assess a film without substantiation, not because I can’t. but because I am too much of a film fan to ruin another’s enjoyment of a film.