What I love doing...Critiquing the Critic!

This piece is dedicated to Rajeev Masand - the Great Indian Movie Critic for the discerning movie-goer, in case you didnt know.

He has made me think about what the ideal role of a critic, if only a movie critic, should be. Should the critic discharge his duties by commandeering his knowledge of the English language to express his personal opinions in no uncertain terms. Or should he subtly analyse and critique the subject on hand, highlighting pros and cons and leaving room for opposing viewpoints. In short, should he build a bonfire (of vanities!) and authoritatively guard the rising flames or stoke the embers and step back to allow fellow-campers to add brushwood to it.

In today's day and age, when the only meaningful skill that education equips you with is the ability to criticise, the question i'm raising is not altogether insignificant. Don't we all find it the easiest task to brandish our opinions and slap labels of judgement on any object or idea that crosses our path.

Criticism is almost instinctual. However, most of us do it in our personal spaces, arguably in an attempt to create a framework of thought for our actions. If not blatant justification for free speech/thought for personal use, that is almost reason enough (at least for the purpose of this piece of thought) to focus our attention on the public critic- the critic who takes his opinions outside his home and broadcasts it for public consumption. True, he has been given that position by the public, the audience which lends him a willing ear, if not hangs on to his every word. He is aware of his position as a thought germinator or even a thought leader. This is when my question at the beginning of this piece gains legitimacy and relevance. So what does he do? He who unabashedly states his opinion, either draws his audience into his fold of consensus or.....leaves a vacuum where no opposing thought can germinate and grow. On the other hand, the critic who provides a relatively balanced analysis rounded off with a direction to thought, has cleverly used his position to germinate thought and also establish his superior understanding of the subject. To me, its the second critic who can be seen to fulfil his role to a greater extent.
One might ask: Is this debate really critical (pun intended!), considering we have defined the critic in the realm of cinema (We are not exactly discussing world peace here!). Ram Gopal Verma will display surprise, if not shock, at this question and will have you know how much a critic can influence his fortunes- they have certainly 'Go'ne up in 'Aag' and been reduced to ashes! Well, while Ram Gopal Verma might even have reluctantly agreed with what the critics said about a couple of his recent films, there are other directors/producers who have legitimate reasons to direct murderous thoughts at the outspoken critic. Recent examples which fit the latter bill are movies like Laaga Chunari Mein Daag and Gandhi, My Father. Both examples of elaborate, full-bodied cinema, rather than the 'fast food' version , which is rapidly becoming the principal definition of cinema. Both these movies are very different from today's popular "Movies on the go", which dont dwell deeply on any subject and are peopled by sketchily drawn characters. Sure, they might be amusing, even wholesomely entertaining-a much needed popcorn-break for the harried city dweller, as makers of such movies love to put it. But surely, there is more to the movie-watching experience than flashy, urban slang and a couple of item numbers. Surely, stories that dont revolve around adolescent love or slapstick comedy but commit themselves to an involved storyline, are worth a appreciative audience. Not, if Masand has his way. He branded Laaga Chunari... as irrelevant to today's times and Gandhi, My Father, as simply boring. And Masand should know considering he speaks from his vast expertise in sociology and politics. Or does he? Laaga Chunari... is a story of a small-town girl, name, whose family lives in what used to be grandeur but has now come upon difficult times. Breaking the stereotype that the girl can't support her family financially, shes leaves for the big city to earn a living. She finds herself unprepared for the wily ways of the city, portrayed with realism by the director, where the viewer can sympathise even with the negative character. But Mr. Masand doesnt think so. According to him, it has "very little relevance and absolutely no resonance in today's times". Makes me wonder- does Mr. Masand exist in the same country where the urban-rural divide is widening constantly, where female foeticide and dowry are still raging social malaises, where thousands of girls fall prey to prostitution, in the absence of other respectable job opportunities in big cities like Mumbai? Well if he does, then Laaga Chunari mein Daag is simply an effort to portray live issues, which are no longer "Fashionable" to write about and fight against.

Would Rajeev Masand have had a different take on the same storyline had it been made by Ang Lee or Martin Scorcese, or any other Hollywood director?