'Are you qualified to review a film?': The never-ending debates on film reviewing in Kollywood

A few years ago, it was also not common for a mainstream, "mass" film to be dissected from different perspectives as it is now - gender, caste, class and so on.

Flix Opinion

The last two releases from the Tamil film industry - Mohan G's Draupathi and Raju Murugan's Gypsy - have renewed the debate on who should review films and how they should be reviewed. While the first film has been called casteist and drubbed by a section of reviewers, it has been celebrated by other reviewers. Gypsy, which takes on communalism, and underwent numerous cuts at the censors, is being celebrated for its politics by a section of reviewers, but drubbed by other reviewers for its preachy tone.

It's not only the film industries which raise these questions but the reviewing community itself. Before the explosion of social media, say till 2010 or so, film reviews were mostly limited to newspapers and TV shows. An individual was dependent on access to these platforms to express their opinion on a film. But after websites, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter entered the party, the review scene, particularly in Tamil Nadu, became a free-for-all.

A lot of people, including reviewers who've been in the business for a long time, don't think this is necessarily a good thing. The question that is usually asked is - "How are you qualified to review a film?". And this question, most times, isn't asked out of a genuine interest to know the reviewer's academic background, work or life experiences, but out of condescension. It mostly arises in contexts where the reviewer's opinion of a film significantly differs from that of the person asking the question.

However, it's also unclear what 'qualifications' people expect from a reviewer. Some believe they should have done a film appreciation course; some feel they should be capable of making a movie themselves. Still others want reviewers to "watch a film as a film" without getting into any discussions on its politics (to this category, reviewers are guinea pigs who watch the first day first show and are required to quickly tell them if it's worth watching or not). While some want reviewers to be irreverent and even abusive (because they're consuming the review only for its entertainment value), others want reviewers to be respectful and/or complimentary even if the film is insufferable.

Art is subjective but it's true that studying about an art form is likely to make you get more of it. You notice the nuances, the things left unsaid, new meanings open up - it's a richer experience. However, it doesn't mean that if you don't have this background, you can never review the art form, especially when it's a mass medium like cinema that is made for a wide audience and not a niche one, like say a ghazal performance or a kathakali dance drama. Most of our films are made to cater to vast sections of people and our filmmakers, in fact, go overboard with explaining things to make sure their audience has understood what they're trying to communicate. A reviewer who has some knowledge of filmmaking or has a grasp on storytelling might get more out of the film than the average person, but it's not as if someone who doesn't know either will be completely lost and won't be able to form an opinion on what they consumed.

In fact, for all the chest-beating that happens every now and then about "new age" critics, Indian reviewers who regularly wrote for mainstream newspapers before the social media explosion barely managed to discuss a film beyond giving a story summary and commenting on the performances. Perhaps it was a restriction of column space, perhaps that's all the readers wanted to know, or perhaps that's all they felt they had to say about a film. Certainly, there were books on film history and scholarly essays on films, but I'm only speaking about what passed for a 'review' every Friday. It was also not common for a mainstream, "mass" film to be dissected from different perspectives as it is now - gender, caste, class and so on in a review.

The etymology of the word 'review' is the French 'revoir' which means 'see again'. A reviewer's job then is to first see, and then see again, considering the different aspects of what they've watched critically. But how does a reviewer 'see again'? It's far from being an objective exercise. A film affects different people differently. A violent film on rape may not have any effect on a male reviewer or it may at the most make him feel uncomfortable, even angry. The same film might be deeply triggering for a female reviewer. Although there are male victims of rape, too, men in general do not live with the everyday threat of sexual violence hanging over their heads. A reviewer who belongs to a marginalised caste might be able to see several things wrong with how caste and class equations are portrayed in a film that does not raise any eyebrows in a savarna reviewer. A reviewer who's directed a short film themselves might be able to understand why the director included a particular shot of the character while others may not have noticed it at all. A reviewer who knows everything there is to know about film history and filmmaking may still not understand the politics of the film, if they're blinded by their privilege. We see and see again from where we are and who we are.

Claiming that one person's view of the film is the only way to look at it is ridiculous and adds nothing to film discourse. The kind of gatekeeping that goes on is also pretty annoying, to be honest. Especially when it's done without acknowledging that the traditional platforms were not easily accessible to all sections of society, and that because of it, what has passed for 'film criticism' has essentially been the views and voices of the privileged.

"Informed" reviewers can co-exist with the "other" kind who don't meet the undefined qualifications for film reviewing. Some reviewers cater only to their audiences, providing a quick snapshot of the film and making a recommendation on whether to watch it or not. Some reviewers express their views not only for their readers but also the filmmakers; they're interested in telling them what they could have done better or what worked for them - technically and/or politically. Both sections have their own followers, and if those followers believe that the person is unable to judge a film correctly consistently or that s/he is biased or is a sell-out, they will switch loyalties. Nobody will die.

The question of "how to review a film" also crops up frequently. Some believe there is such a thing as "pure art", others believe art is a product of human culture and it therefore cannot be divorced from the context in which it is made and consumed. The first category would have no problems with a casteist, racist or sexist film as long it's entertaining and made with finesse. The second is more invested in what the film is trying to articulate than how it is articulated. Reviewers may classify themselves in either category but the truth is that we all probably fall somewhere in between, whether we acknowledge it or not. As long as the "pure art" is not offensive or challenging to our own identities and beliefs, we have no problems with merely looking at it as entertainment, but when it touches a raw nerve, we become involved in its politics. Similarly, a reviewer may really want to like a film for what the maker wants to say because it aligns with their politics, but be completely bored by how it's being said. Ideally, reviewers must be willing to consider both aspects - but it's not an exact science.

In Tamil Nadu, especially, cinema invokes great passion among people. It's natural that reviewers are placed under a lot of scrutiny as a result. But at the end of the day, a review is just one person's opinion about a subjective piece of art that you can either ignore, find insightful, agree with or disagree. The film industries claim that bad reviews hurt their business, but this has time and again been disproved; films with great reviews have under-performed and films with bad reviews have become all the rage at the box-office. A reviewer's influence is limited to their circle of followers, and it's good for everyone to understand this - the industry, fans, and the reviewers themselves. There are different ways of seeing and speaking about what we saw. Let's not insist that our voice deserves to be heard above all others or worse, believe that it already is the case. Humility is essential for artists if they are to grow, and the same goes for reviewers.

Views expressed are author's own.