Do critics need a reality check - Page 3

Film criticism is a blend of objective and subjective. There are objective and technical criteria to judge the quality of various aspects like acting, direction, writing, editing, etc. But the enjoyment of a film, how it makes you feel, whether you connect with the characters, they are all subjective experiences.

People will always watch movies through the lens of their personal life experience. If something makes you laugh out loud till your belly hurts, you will appreciate it irrespective of how stupid or smart the humor is. If something makes you cringe and recoil, it will make you dislike the movie no matter how well made the movie is.

Critics should be objective in the sense that they should not let their friendships and biases taint their judgment. They should keep an open mind. They should review a movie on its own merit and not how they feel about the actors or makers.

To be honest, critics should also be subjective when it comes to the lens with which they enjoy movies. It will be highly dishonest and problematic if critics start adjusting their views to align with masses. They will be doing a great disservice if they think of what others think rather than their own opinion.

And it is usually pretty transparent whether a critic is giving a genuine review or it is paid/biased. I like genuine reviews even if they go against mine. I've disagreed with Tried & Refused productions on many of his reviews, but I will always watch his reviews because he seems genuine. I align and agree on a lot with Rajeev Masand but I've stopped watching him because I think he seems to hold grudges and get vindictive.

There tends to be a great gap between critic reviews and box office hits because overall critics in India tend to be upper class and affluent people. The only people reflecting the regular masses tend to be independent YouTube channel. The USA has a similar issue where affluent white men are critics. They tend to be tone-deaf to race, class and gender identity issues in movies.

I don't think critics need to change. But I think who becomes a critic needs to change. We need diversity in critics. We need everyday joes, we need minority groups, we need lower income groups to get the opportunity to go to film school and learn film criticism. We need media houses and publications to give them platforms to voice their opinion. We need people who will look at the subjective aspects of the film outside the affluent upper-class lens.

They most definitely do. It bothers me even more as some of them actually have turned to preacher rather than just giving their rightful opinion about the movies. Now this is what we most definitely called INTOLERANCE

Ab sab ko apni baat manwani hai. It's good to have a opinion but you better keep your nasiyat to yourself.

There is a difference between a movie critique and a movie review, as is their between a film critic and film reviewer.

Any Tom dick harry can be a film reviewer. But to be a film critic you need to have expertise in that field, movies in this case.

What we read in newspapers are subjective film reviews contaminated by the ideology to which the film reviewer belongs. It is not film criticism though it is passed as one.

I would like to see atleast one 'movie critic' from India take apart an acclaimed Indian film and critique it, explaining the technicalities, thought process etc etc. I doubt if there is a single 'movie critic' in India who might do that. It is best to call them film reviewer and not film critic. And a review should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

Don't care for critics reviews because the ones who are paid are obvious. Many are also biased and it's just not even worth your time if you know what said critic will already write.