The Critical Scene in Films

After a rather long time, I came across a purely commercial picture that went on to say a lot. It went on to say a lot about the various permutations and combinations that we have drawn about films and a lot of categorizations that have compelled film makers to be more conscious of how they make their movies, rather than have their chief focus on what they make. Films made by the immortals like Fellini, Goddard, Ray – right up to Steven Spielberg, have given critics a tool to be used as a benchmark, as a touchstone to make judgment. When these critics land up to watch a film, they arrive with a kind of pre-conceived notion, where they arrive with a segmented mind – like whose will this film be – Fellini, Goddard, Ray or Spielberg? – and once they are through with the characteristic 12-15 reels, they get up from their seats and start channeling the A list against the B list and find out where they get the most amount of matches. If it hits anywhere, then the film is a sharp critique of transcendental hemorrhage and consequent blah, blah and that goes on to show a deep semiotic transference into further such rubbish … I’m sure you know what I mean!

I would personally feel insulted if someone came and told me, “Oh wonderful! Your picture reminded me of Ray’s Pather Panchali.” Like, hello, have I just made something that someone else already has. Yeah, like great, I am being linked to Satyajit Ray, holy Jesus, but crap, that’s it? He made Pather Panchali in 1951, with technology yet not being able to offer the zoom shot (the one that lay cameras offer as standard equipment today). And consequently, today I made something that was – a) Technologically inferior and b) I just made something that someone already has.

If we take the first point (a) into highlight here, this should be simple for anyone to understand. While in this category, I need to talk about the current osmosis regarding ‘remakes’ (oh my goodness, how could I even take that name) … Well, it’s not all that bad. And since I am just a writer and consequently should have no idea of what I am talking, let me refer the case to someone else. George Lukas, the maker of the evergreen Star Wars series, once had a very interesting insight into his inter-galactic escapades. He had wanted that different directors should direct the different parts of the series, so as to add the much needed perspective. Perspective is something very unique and therefore, the apparent use of it any work of art is completely brilliant. It gives a different insight into everything. I watched Don with apt attention, and let me tell you that the movie had its moments. While some departments may have faltered, and some snags left uncovered, there was no harm in seeing Don with all the latest technological up gradations and motifs. Like the original ‘red diary’ had now given way to a CD. Just like several other warrior measures were marked with similar concept upgrades. What if Farhan Akhtar had just made the movie, a kind of underworld corpus with similar links, then would the audience and critics cringed equally. No – then it would a great film maybe, to the everyday common critics, an Indian rip-off of James Bond. But when he takes the name of Chandra Barot’s Don, then we all have a problem. Even I did the same thing, though in my defense, I saw it in a bad hall where the cows go to graze and maybe everything went put for me instantaneously. But that is not the fault of the film maker but mine and therefore, I take this moment to apologize to everyone concerned with the movie. There was nothing wrong in ‘remaking’ Don, though some portions were a bit too far-fetched for anyone to like. Pointing those out will require a different time and place altogether.

But then, let me take the instance of another remake to hit the theatres recently. Yes, I sadly refer to Ram Gopal Verma Ki Aag. Now that is a travesty if there ever was any. I am not talking about his audacity to remake Sholay… My point is wholly cinematic and artistic. I still personally believe that Verma is one of the country’s best new-age directors, who provided us with master pieces like Sarkar, Bhoot and so on. But something went horribly wrong in …Aag. The whole blunder starts from the very basic facets of film making … the film stock, tacky lighting (especially the ones that were used for some sort of pseudo diffused natural light settings), a static camera, and finally, horrible performances. And mind you, these horrible performances came from the stalwarts of the Indian film industry. So, the critical question that surfaces here is not whether it stands up to Sholay, but where did the whole thing go wrong? I in my own capacity I have already pointed out some of the factors, though there is scope for improvement in many other streams – music definitely being one of them. That is the demarcation that we have to make and that is where we stand right now.
And now, I move on to the second category that I had been talking of earlier – the point of imitating someone. Critics have gone on to use words that have even been appended to regular dictionaries, globally. Words like Fellinisque and Goddardian have become term for the purpose of analysis. Therefore, when Anurag Kashyap makes No Smoking, reviews call it a Fellinisque film. Because it runs parallel to the kinds of films that Frederico Fellini used to make. But, the question remains, why? Why does Kashyap have to make something on the lines of 8½, and why do critics have to develop terms like the same? It goes through the old cycle – the word follows the action. It because critics categorize films with these terms that film makers see them as a benchmark for popular success and critical acclaim. But techniques like the jump cut can now be termed obsolete, because technology offers us much more. And critical methods employed today, have led to the dearth of originality and … perspective.

Film makers are now heavily engrossed in how they make it rather than what they make… People have stopped making movies from their heart and therefore there has been a sudden dearth in exponential ideas and motifs. With technological advantages beating down the door these days, there is no need to be Hitchcockian in method and style – it is much better to be the same in terms of your own name – as in it is better to Akhtarian in method and style, something which is far more apparent and satisfying – both for the maker and the audience.

Criticism is a very difficult subject to compromise so easily. Everything isn’t about a motive and every style does not give the same result. You can never compare 8½ to No Smoking, simply on the basis that both directors use the motif of jumbled progression and temporal mish-mash. This is not right to either film maker. Another thing that critics need to remember, is that their job is not limited to just finding flaws. It necessitates progressive thinking and a gradual focus towards achievable perfection. It is not the critic’s job to write-off anybody, as much as it is his job to explain what went wrong – and thereby hope that the next film that is made doesn’t have a red mark next to it.