đOriginally posted by: Kareenafanatic
The critics in India don't realize that a movie doesn't necessarily have to be meaningful to be good. The main quota of movies is entertainment. Not every movie can be meaningful, with that powerful impact.
These days critics appreciate only select genres--like serious thrillers, social movies, or political movies. And when they appreciate movies beyond these genres, it's usually biased.
If a HAHK or DDJL released today, the modern critics would tear it apart from the onset.
Also, reviewing a movie as a critique isn't as one-dimensional as these critiques make it appear. A movie such as Ready should be seen in different light as compared to a Kahaani. The audience, the intent, and the dynamics behind these movies are hugely dissimilar, but these critiques consider their "likes/dislikes" to be some sort of a scientific barometer in judging movies and that's where they fail.
Cinema is an art. It's not a science. A performance cannot have any barometer; it's independent and spontaneous in itself. The only thing one needs to understand is how the character relates to the story and the culture depicted in the movie. One cannot draw parallels between two different performances, nor two different movies.
Film-making is an art. It's not logical. It's emotive. It doesn't have any boundaries. It's free. And when somebody tries to tie it down into their own boundary, it loses its essence.
As an aspiring film-maker myself, I can comfortably claim that unless and until you study Film and its history thoroughly alongside other topics such as Sociology, Anthropology, Media, etc, you will forever fail to capture the essence and will only continue to "watching the visuals," as opposed to realizing the motive.
