How much criticism is too much?

Actor Yami Gautam’s angry response to a review of her latest film ‘Dasvi’ has put the focus back on the artiste vs critic debate

S Shyam Prasad

K M Chaitanya

Bollywood actor Yami Gautam was recently upset with one of the reviews of her latest film ‘Dasvi’, which also stars Abhishek Bachchan and Nimrat Kaur. “I usually take criticism in my stride. But when a certain platform keeps trying to pull you down consistently, I feel it’s necessary to speak about it,” she posted on Twitter.

Tapsee Pannu recently had a similar complaint about some film critics. This issue put the focus on the relationship between critics and artistes. Where should a reviewer draw the line? How much is too much criticism? Are the film personalities mature enough to receive feedback without getting offended?

Showtime spoke to an experienced film critic and filmmaker for their opinion on the issue.

Healthy disagreement missing

Sandalwood’s greatest star Rajkumar once wished to invite journalist Gauri Lankesh home for lunch after she had written a scathing review of one of the late actor’s movies. The idea was shot down with the emotional-logical argument that the film was already a big hit and it would hurt the sentiments of the director.

The line demarcating reviewing a work of art/entertainment and personal prejudices masquerading as a critique is the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the celebrity, the lesson is; “It is not defamation to express any opinion in good faith regarding the qualities of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public.”

The above exemption provided under Section 499 of IPC, which deals with defamation, favours the critic. The exemption, however, is not absolute. Ascribing the personal qualities of a film maker or artiste as the reason for a poor work is defamatory. In layman’s terms, saying ‘this film is stupid’ isn’t defamatory. But saying ‘this film is stupid because I know the director is mad’, is defamatory.

Even for a layman, what the IPC says would sound more like common sense than a profound theory of law. The problem is when this line of common sense is breached. Let us admit the sad fact that there is near absence of academic critique of movies in Kannada and other Indian languages. What we have are ‘pulp’ film reviews in publications whose biggest asset is the ‘star ratings’ assigned to these movies.

Even then, these ‘pulp’ reviews (for lack of better connotation) aren’t meant to protect the investment of the producer or the ego of the star or to escape the fan troll armies. These reviews are the critic’s duty to the newspaper’s readers, and the subscriber’s faith. A discerning reader will always see through personal prejudice that has crept into an analysis.

The challenge is to avoid bias and prejudice which unfortunately can be found in abundance. Celebrities calling this out is perfectly valid.

Meanwhile the new-age social media ‘reviews,’ especially the YouTube variety, have turned into entertainment in themselves. Unlike anything said and done in mainstream media, trying to fix responsibility on these mom-and-pop outlets has usually ended up in ugly spats.

Today, a healthy disagreement seems hardly possible. So we are amazed to know how a Puttanna Kanagal would analyse reviews of his films in post-release press meets.
It is still a fine line for journalists on how to critique a work without just being critical and celebrities to be mature enough to receive it. Dr Rajkumar had the grace to accept it. What about others?

S Shyam Prasad
Experienced film critic

Change of thought process needed

The growth of social media in the last 10 years has been rapid but the journalists don’t seem to recognise it. In social media, opinions are more personal in nature though many call it criticism or reviewing. So, the challenge for a journalist is to move beyond being just a Facebook post.

If a person has already read people’s opinion on Facebook or Twitter, then he expects the journalists to have more expertise. It has to be a criticism that is weighed in with a thought about the film’s content and technique.

Unfortunately I don’t think we have journalists of that calibre. Ranga Shankara has an annual festival every year. In one of the editions, they held a workshop called ‘Bariri’ (write). It was a workshop for journalists on how to write about theatre.

I understand that films are consumed by most people. A popular argument that’s in favour of journalists is that they don’t have to be an expert to review a movie. Because the film isn’t made for experts but for the common people. So the journalists must write like common people. My point is, if the journalists write everybody’s point of view, why should I read his review. Because I would have already heard or read such views from others.

Media should change its thought process from now. It should give a different kind of a take on a film, something that you don’t get from the masses or non-experts. Artistes must understand that as long as they are in the profession, criticism will be part of their careers. There is nothing they can do about it.

If somebody says you are not fit for the role, you should have the constructive mindset to take the feedback in stride and work on it.

Or if you think the criticism is unfair, then it’s better to ignore. Because if you react to it, it doesn’t serve any purpose. Every time you talk about it, you catch the attention of people who haven’t read the criticism.

Many times, reviews can’t do damage to a film’s overall result because nobody exactly knows the formula for success.

K M Chaitanya
Filmmaker and theatre personality