@Saajid Khan can be blamed for so many things in film-making and direction for all these years, with lack of #connoisseurship being one of them whilst the mere retreading of the genre being the other.
But for once last week I’ve merrily come to agree with one of his famous propagandas in the visual media some couple of years ago to be precise deciphered by me in the process of analyzing/understanding the combative attitude he perpetuates towards film critics in general once defiantly quoting himself that “Film-critics are nothing but speed breakers or pseudoistic gibber’s for a film and a franchise by way of intentional negative reinforcement!”.
It really stalked my provocation on the subject. I even liked the angst-ridden inherent sarcasm in his voice, for people like Saajid just like Rohit Shetty and Shankar from the south for that matter - belong to a privileged category of big budget money-spinning directors in the industry who also seems to have got a pulse of the audience which even the great directors couldn’t sting together sacrilegiously speaking for lack of a better, more perennial example.!
Yes he makes bad. Yes he doesn’t have it in him to make great films. But despite that, most of his movies encompass an inherent zest and energy within that framework, in a manner which echoes the self-referential worst director of all time “Ed Wood” from Hollywood who once made a movie called “Planet 9 from outer space!” an over-the-top out-of-space, intergalactic extravaganza.!
I guess I don’t get to be a film critic or a film buff for that matter without ever divulging my thoughts on this rather heightened, thought provocative rhetorical question; that whether or not “We’re speedbreakers for a film or an actor” so to speak which stalked my interest in the subject once more in MouthShut_Official & albeit in a subjective one-paged article.
Yes opinion leadership is a highly subjective theory. Yes it is has its fair share of pros and cons. But is it really about how it is about vis-à-vis what it kinda perpetuates Saajid’s theorem god forbid that “Are critics speed breakers for an audience.?”
The best way to answer that question I guess is to take a look at what the great @Roger Ebert had to say once about film critics in general whilst never flinching away from the essentials of the astute art!, the sanctity of the medium of criticism – print vs tv or even the inborn purpose of the job which is the zest and interest on the field versus the financial/fame related credentials that is lingering in there somewhere.
He says “Film criticism, simply put, is all about reporting on a film” aka one’s instinctive reaction on a film” not necessarily as opposed to “What I saw in a film” aka “The Report” stemmed off from the vicarious by-products of the medium, in other words the visual, the textual and the other elementary facets of films – underpinnings, ideologies – the kind of stuff which are more often than not buried under the canopy.
As a reviewer I think it’s highly unnecessary to talk too much about acting and actors in a film all the way through-out the entire portion of the review vis-à-vis the technical aspects of the art. We might understand a thing or two about films by way of perennial experiences - for instance the nature of the direction, story-telling or even the sweeping cinematography to name a few but acting.? I guess that’s one area or facet of a film which are best left unmentioned or unspoken unless of course it’s extremely good or extremely bad left too isolated a soured thumb so to speak.
I open up my Nokia lumia every now & then and scroll through some of the old reviews on MouthShut_Official and I find it extremely gob-smacking to fathom, to the very fact that the reviewers, some of the them, have given too much of a credit to the actors of the film vis-à-vis the material hat’s been put on show or even the technical aesthetics of the men behind the camera - which is where the real action takes place.
Take DDLJ & Krrish 3 for instance where the acting is little over the top perhaps or hammy for lack of a better word, an approach to film acting in our Industry which arguably have stemmed off from what the film-makers wanted from the starcast as a matter of fact – that is to simply look good in the film & in-turn spell-rush through the dialogue often hamming it up on places transcendently meshing up their pretty little faces for once sporadic by the good ol’ glycerinsque misty-eyed downpour so to speak aimed to overwhelm every single audience sitting in-front of the sierra screens!
I’ve to ask without ever sounding sacrilegious to these actors and their respective performances in the yesteryear blockbuster - In which film almanac does it say that these are “great acting.?” god forbid.?
Do people understand acting at all.? Do they know about the elementary methodical acting philosophy invented by the great actor #Marlon Brando, who, once in a prehistoric era perpetuated that real acting stems from connecting the dots by the actor on his/her films by way of relating his/her character with respect to real life scenario’s from life, which is what frames the basis for most of the characters that’s written for films & stage plays not to mention the megalomaniacal out-of-the universe spectacles which we often encounter with from time to time.?
Do reviewers spent more time analyzing films like “A Street Car Named Desire!” and “The Godfather Part I” for instance directed by Italian born director “Francis Ford Coppola.?” which had plenty to say about film acting and perspective towards films in general - more than any other film in that particular era.?
Hrithik Roshan have done three Krrish sequels in the last 10 ode years but never once he gave me the impression that he really got under the skin of the character albeit the superhero one or even the non-superhero character in Krrish movies doesn’t really offer much acting scope for an actor forget the masculine B-town handsome that is Hrithik Roshan.
He is a sweet guy & that’s why he’s a star but a reviewer must make sure that that hallo effect surrounding an actor like Hrithik be expressed in his/her write-ups cum profession for that matter, often undermining the role of a critic to a mere temporary job; a rather grass root, often down to earth naivety that is all whilst sitting on the otherwise cozy hospitalities of a coveted international film-festival so to speak and getting a taste of the free-of-cost highly non-vegetarian centric food buffets/bazar’s.?
This is with respect to positive appreciation. Do also remember that the same applies to negative pseudoistic reviews as well the one’s which says – “The guy lacks six pack abs” or something – which has nothing to do with the facial expressions of an actor not in a million years.!
I was going through the review of “Om Shanthi Oshana” the other day, a rather unconventional Malayalam language romantic comedy which I’m goanna soon review in ms pre-valentines day; where the reviewer have sacrilegiously quoted out – the lead actress who is the incredibly beautiful Nazriya Nazeem_ the new found heartthrob of Malayalam cinema FYI - have simply spell rushed through her role all the way through whilst hamming it up in most of the places without ever getting under the skin of the character.
She acts badly.? May be she does. She hams it up more often.? May be she does that as well. But come-on… Who cares about all these things.? She’s done fair justice to her role in “Om Shanthi Oshanana” and hamming or no-hamming she has made the character that much interesting to look at.!
That she hams it up in most of the places the reviewer sledge hams on us throughout the entire write-up. That she’s a “cracker put on top of a lollipop!” the reviewer doesn’t allude not even once in the entire 2 paged article.?
Ebert would have said “The girl is extremely sweet. The movie takes a different perspective to genre cinema all together. What more do ya want.? I mean something is moving on the screen & you look to see what it is.!”
Instead of being a snob all of a sudden. The kind of “fingernails on the blackboards!” connoisseur’s sophistication; who are out there to superimpose their language and knowledge all of a sudden while & then never ever appreciating the effort and thought process behind the movie and acting in general which might have gotten some or the other things right in the movie/the screenplay as a matter of fact if not all ‘em simply on an automatic pilot.
Are we being speed-breakers to a film and its performers with respect to a billion audience who are out there who haven’t seen the movie.? I would say in tandem with the films being made in our industry may be we aren’t that overly critical or too hypocritical as such but with respect to acting – It’s an unequivocal YES!
We’re divulging too much into acting credentials of an actor or an actress so to speak whilst never understanding a damn thing about acting and actors in general highlighted by the lack of knowledge with respect to all the nuances in film acting & stage play acting or whatever the case maybe. You don’t have the thing to bash the career of an actress albeit Positive feedback albeit Negative feedback. Doesn’t matter. This is one line-of-control which we should keep for ourselves or else the almighty won't forgive you for unintentional subterfuge.
