Sample these-
- Rajeev Masand declares after watching Don-The Chase Begins that "is naye Don ko jhelna mushkil hi nahi namumkin hai"
- Rediff reviewer Raja Sen gives Bhoolbhulaiya a single star out of five. His first reason is that "...Any film with Ms Patel in it -- even a small side role or a minor arc -- is automatically patently unwatchable"!
- In 1975, critic K.L. Amladi of India Today reviewed some movie called Sholay and decided it to be a "dead ember" and added, "Thematically, it's a gravely flawed attempt."
This is enough to make you stop and wonder. Do people do a competent job of reviewing? What qualities does a good reviewer need to have? What exactly is a good reviewer?
This itself a tricky question. What would one rather have, a reviewer who can gauge public reaction and reflect popular tastes or the one with a puritanical bent and classically inclined mind, stopping at nothing short of an artistically consummate level of work? May be a bit of both. As our movies contain a lot of masala thrown into one package, our reviewers also need to be a people’s reviewer- one who can understand what popular sentiments are, realize the mood and purpose of the intended audience and able to differentiate between good trash and bad trash!
What would all this require? Primarily two things. First, a keen sense of observation- this enables one see the subtler aspects of the movie which hint at the intended audience and gives you its feel. If you can see those hints, you will understand quickly what the director expects you to expect. Does he want you to switch your brain off and enjoy the ride? Or may be he expects you to have an open and alert mind to pick up the clues he leaves in the movie? Or does he expect you to be dominant in any one emotion- patriotism, feminism, anger, frustration…or a combination of all!
Once you are able to see what things are there, you should be able to make sense of what you have seen. For this the reviewer needs to be very knowledgeable. Breadth of knowledge is more required rather than depth. Knowing something about a lot of things would be more beneficial than having a PhD in a few things. One should be able to see through all the allusions, informed about the running gags and knowing the in and outs which are so much reflected in the dialogues and other aspects.
This itself a tricky question. What would one rather have, a reviewer who can gauge public reaction and reflect popular tastes or the one with a puritanical bent and classically inclined mind, stopping at nothing short of an artistically consummate level of work? May be a bit of both. As our movies contain a lot of masala thrown into one package, our reviewers also need to be a people’s reviewer- one who can understand what popular sentiments are, realize the mood and purpose of the intended audience and able to differentiate between good trash and bad trash!
What would all this require? Primarily two things. First, a keen sense of observation- this enables one see the subtler aspects of the movie which hint at the intended audience and gives you its feel. If you can see those hints, you will understand quickly what the director expects you to expect. Does he want you to switch your brain off and enjoy the ride? Or may be he expects you to have an open and alert mind to pick up the clues he leaves in the movie? Or does he expect you to be dominant in any one emotion- patriotism, feminism, anger, frustration…or a combination of all!
Once you are able to see what things are there, you should be able to make sense of what you have seen. For this the reviewer needs to be very knowledgeable. Breadth of knowledge is more required rather than depth. Knowing something about a lot of things would be more beneficial than having a PhD in a few things. One should be able to see through all the allusions, informed about the running gags and knowing the in and outs which are so much reflected in the dialogues and other aspects.
Then of course, the reviewer needs to know the art and medium. A bit of technical knowledge won’t hurt. Knowledge about plot devices, photography techniques, film and artistes’ history and international cinema are sure to help immensely in boosting the level of the review.
Now the interesting part. What was wrong with the reviews mentioned in the beginning? Well, Shahrukh’s Don was slick, glitzy, faster and contained a new interpretation and twist in the tale. It managed nearly everything an inspiration is supposed to achieve- Pay a tribute to the original as well as carve a niche for themselves. Shahrukh attempted and succeeded in doing precisely these two things. Same with Kareena. She might have shed a couple of kilos for this song and of course, no one expected her to beat Helen in dancing, but of course she had enormous screen presence! Sunidhi Chauhan’s effort in singing the Asha Bhonsle song was also a similar effort although it also received only mixed reviews.
What about Bhoolbhulaiya? Well it’s a cracker! A spooky movie with lots of circumstantial comedy, decent suspense and drama and most importantly, an intelligent script which remains mostly within the realm of rationality and reason. I have not seen the original Malayalam version by Priyadarshan but I don’t think that would have made a difference. This one was an entertainer, in line with Priyadarshan’s so far successful way of Hindi movie making. Finally, Amisha Patel was, without being extraordinary, reasonably good and fitted well in her role!
And Sholay? I don’t have anything new to say! That reviewer must have framed his review and put it on his drawing room. That review is his claim to fame- and an object lesson for others!
P.S. – Om Shanti Om is one of the best spoofing, parodying, self parodying and tongue-in-cheek potboilers to have come in recent times. A far superior presentation from Farah Khan than Main Hoon Naa!
