|
Film critics generally face criticism for not being filmmakers. Do you agree with this criticism?
No. In fact, if they are filmmakers, they shouldn't be critics. People from the industry would find it hard to be objective. But if industry people wrote more about cinema, it would be interesting and illuminating. Personally, I never wanted to make films, and despite what Mr Ram Gopal Varma says (that I am an aspiring filmmaker/ scriptwriter), I am not even a member of the Film Writers' Association.
In your opinion, what qualifies one as a film critic?
Love for cinema and an ability to write obviously, a lot of exposure to cinema, a course in film appreciation (at least), some knowledge of film history, a desire to keep abreast of what's on in the world in terms of techniques, styles, etc.
How does one keep personal biases or friendship at bay when critiquing a film?
I can speak for myself, I have deliberately kept away from close friendships with people from the film industry and almost never socialized.
How important is it for an Indian film critic to have a perspective in world cinema?
Why just Indian, every film critic should have some clue about what's going on in world cinema. Today, more than ever, nothing can exist in isolation. Also today, with the net and DVDs, it is much easier to be well-informed. Not just about cinema, but also literature, art, music, dance, drama and whatever else goes into the making of a film.
Is technical proficiency in film craft a prerequisite of a film critic?
Maybe not for a newspaper critic, because they are writing for a readership that just wants to know if the film is worth seeing or not. For a critic writing for a cinema journal, they should know the finer points. But of course, awareness of film technique is always desirable.
How does one deal with the backlash that negative film reviews draw?
If it is just some petulant cribbing, laugh about it; if the other person has a valid point, listen to it with respect and act on it if possible.
In your opinion is film criticism of any value academically?
Yes, because if cinema is to be taken seriously as an art form, there has to be more material available on it, for posterity, than just publicity hand-outs. It is a film review (or serious film writing) that places a film in its proper socio-political context. It goes without saying that not all films or filmmakers deserve to be subjects of academic research.
Do you like to gather information about a film you are to review beforehand (Story, Cast & Crew etc)? Or do you prefer forming an opinion on it only once you've watched it?
I like to gather information beforehand, and even if I didn't it is inevitable, given all the information now available even in mainstream media.
Is a critic's judgement coloured by the audience response to a film?
We see films at previews, or in early shows, so we can't be coloured by popular response, but we do have to recognize that there are some stars, directors or genres of cinema that the masses like, and they are 'critic proof'. Public taste cannot, and should not, be uniform. But it does gladden a critic's heart when a good film also does well commercially.
Who are the critics that you enjoy reading?
Khalid Mohamed and Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.
Swati Rohatgi
|
