How can a normal audience member and a critic be equated? Being a critic is a job no? Or do you mean that every tom dick and harry today is a critic and so their 'opinion' should be take as proper critique of a movie? The thing is today's critics are not professional enough. Where they should be dispassionate towards a movie while critiquing it, they are even more inflamed by the themes of the movie and give one sided or biased reviews and it just makes their job easier to fuss over one issue and then base the whole review on it. So, like he said, they don't need to talk about the 20 or so other crafts involved in the movie. Aise toh koi bhi apna opinion deta hi hai, sabko critics kyun nahi bolne lag jate log and why give such importance to people like masand, anupama and others? And can't equate a critic having an opinion to a director having an opinion, those are two different roles. Directors create with their vision and that is important because how else do you create something if you're not convinced of it? Critics have to be dispassionate and rational though, that's the whole point of it. They can have an opinion and give it but not as review. As geenral audience member giving their opinion, like on twitter or wherever.
He didn't mention female critics anywhere. You misunderstood that somehow, he meant all the people who think this is toxic love haven't experience true love cuz acc to him you have whole ownership of the other person in that kind of love and again he meant both the people. His personal opinion.
He said these woman who are talking about this were never in love. Which he indicates to the critics who weren’t happy with the film. What is there wrong to understand?
Yes I know that being a critic is a job and they get paid for it. Because they shouldn’t write flop or hit when Review a movie like normal audiences does. Critics go much more into the detail of film makeing and give out the interpretation of the story and so on. No need to explaining me that part. Still there is no difference between a critic and a normal paying audience about whether they like the movie or not. Critics are allowed to say if they like it or not and what they didn’t like it. How can they review a movie without saying if they enjoyed it or not.agree that they should have mentioned other things than just the actor and the story. He was right about that.
I also mentioned earlier that of course it’s Not the movie critics Job if the movie should send a message or not. And how movies shouldn’t be made because people will do the same or whatever. That’s the job of a journalist who can write an article about the movie and it’s message itself and criticize however they want. That’s were the lines are blurred in Indian entertainment department.
Love Friendship Dating and Relationships
0