Viewers & Reviewers: The disconnect | Read P-8 - Page 7

I used to like Taran a lot but he always seems to give high ratings to films that aren't always brilliant work. Whereas the other critics are alright.

I think the fact that critics are paid to dissect the film and write on the craft, actor's performance, the content, direction and everything else, it takes away the focus from the entertainment. Indian filmmakers currently are more into making masala films which rocks the nation then good films which caters the niche audience and the critics.

Which made me wonder: are you critics totally out of touch with popular taste?

Critics are almost always out of touch with Popular taste as our motives of criticism are different. I can review a film like 2012 as a critic and say how corny and cheesy it is...or I can as a critic take the stance that I want to look at it as entertainment and I enjoyed it and will say it was fun...some films you know craftwise is not good (this can be anything why just movies) yet you still like them enjoy them. Each to his own. I expect critics to laud creative innovative interesting out of the box films as they are watching many kinds of films and it is their responsibility to bring those films to our attention (as audience voluntarily will not due to whatever reason). The audience can watch whatever they want...free will and studios/producers will run after money (can't change it). Let's agree to disagree and let people express themselves without judging their taste.

So it's great to see Shaitan being lauded by the critics but the halls are empty. But I am curious and I want to see Shaitan (which otherwise I might not have even heard of). That's good for cinema.

Also I feel its gud in a way that the disconnect is there else too much power wud come into the hands of a few since their reviews cud shape mold public opinion and affect film business ...so its gud that the reviewers continue to do their job and the public continue to like or dislike independent of the reviews ...its gud for both big budget entertainers and the small budget yet powerful films


And how many real reviewers do we have 10 or 15 ...their perception cant be equated to what a billion plus people think


Btw ...this is a real nice topic ...TY @topicmaker for this

Most of audience look at a movie as a source of entertainment whereas its the critics job to look at it as a piece of art.

Why just movie critics, there is a disconnect between most critics and audience in other fields too.

This disconnect is accepted and understood as crictics are supposed to have an in-dept, know how of the field they specialise in which means that they tend to look at things from a different perspective from a lay-man.

India needs more critics...there is just a handful right now and out of them many seem to have some personal agenda against certain people and certain production houses and certain genre of films. It takes away from their criticism and makes "critics" like Taran call them stuff. Just be a critic without getting personal which they often do. Makes them equally annoying as Taran. From mainstream critics, Anupama probably is the only one I like. Raja Sen sometimes. Masand earlier not these days.

Lifeolicious, Anupama once wrote another really good article once where she said some of the most renowned crtics in Europe and US never ever come in contact with any of the actors via interviews etc so that they never ever develop a personal affiliation with any of the actors and can be completely unbiased.

In the India the critic doubles up as a journalist, doing talk shows, interviews etc. They come in contact with these actors and start having personal rapport with them. So its just not possible to be completely unbiased.