Abhishek writes about the shallowness of movie reviews in Indian media
What bothers me is the shallowness of the movie reviews that are carried in leading media vehicles today. I understand that India churnes out more movies per year than any other country (where 9 out of 10 movies flop is another piece of important information) and that the journalists have to endure almost all of them with deadlines biting away their precious time to fill in the next dayâ€™s column which will be read by a million people from metros for there is not much to read in the papers apart from the chronicles of detailed follow up to celebrity weddings.
While what most authors say may be true, it is too generic. All of the above lines can hold true for all movies. There is nothing new that the author brings to the table about the movie that the reader whould want to read or would love to know about.
A Roger Ebert or a James Berardinelli tell you why they felt that the direction was shoddy. They seem to respect the space that they are given in the news papers. They will help you visualise why a Stanley Kubrickâ€™s steady cam did the trick in â€˜The Shiningâ€˜ and why Oliver Stone got it all wrong with his infatuation with turbulent camera jerks in â€˜Any Given Sunday.â€˜ Arenâ€™t Indian writers competant enough to use the english language to give us something new? May be our movies do not warrant the kind of clinical perception. But, with every Rang de basanti or a Munnabhai or the more recent, â€˜Gandhi, my Fatherâ€™ there are a hunderd reviews born and one among those stands out and gives me hope that the movie reviewing business ainâ€™t dead. Not as yet. It is just that our writers are plain lazy to put their mind on paper. Oh, the writing is just too shoddy! [The trouble with movie reviews]
There is only one film reviewer who does excellent analysis of films and this year he has deservingly won the National Award for the best film critic.