Uncharted territory. It's not something we always consider when it comes to reading reviews, whether it's a book or a movie or a game, we just assume the site put an appropriate critic for the work of fiction at hand, or forgot to consider the fact a single person can't judge everything properly. It's not exactly hard to find patterns in a critic, sooner or later, and you can often see signs of them simply not being the right person. So what do most people do internationally in this case? Find an appropriate person to review the type of work that's being reviewed.
It's another case when it comes to websites found in countries like Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. They expect the same critic to be able to review everything in one category. They'd review the 1200th generic 'masala' film where the protagonist is a normal human but punches someone through the ozone layer and harasses a girl into falling in love with him, as well as that indie film with Academy Award winning performances and themes of philosophy and the exploits of human nature.
This results in people reviewing things that are completely out of their comfort zone, and the results are often grave. I'll give an example with something that's been plaguing my mind recently, Monsoon Shootout and its treatment by the mainstream critique.
When I got my first impression of Monsoon Shootout, I was expecting a hit and, mostly miss type of indie flick that tries to set itself apart but fails to deliver and just ends up being one of the not-as-bad movies that fall onto the pile of Bollywood. Which is why I took ages to actually watch it, too. However, once I eventually started watching it, the movie instantly stood out as something better than average at the very least. I went in blind so I was completely surprised by its artistic style, the noir atmosphere, themes of morality, choices and consequences and as soon as the first choice of the protagonist was explored I was hooked into it, and it surprised me with how well it executes its ideas of having different choices with different outcomes for the protagonist to choose from and how it does not fall short of its intriguing plot and characters. The unconventional-for-Indian-cinema 1 hour and 26 minute run time was a welcome decision and the filmmakers did not make it any longer than it should have been.
To put it briefly without spoiling anything, the movie is a raw and gritty story about a new police officer who is thrown into the dark depths of his city as he is put on cases involving gangsters, and the turning point of the movie is when he comes face to face with Nawazuddin Siddiqui's character, and is faced with three decisions: the option he considers right, the option he considers wrong, and the option that comes inbetween. The entire movie is packed with intriguing decisions, consequences and raw performances from the cast, mainly Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Vijay Varma who prove that with the right cast, script, and direction, the Indian cinema is not lacking as we are often mistaken into believing by the mainstream 'formula' movies. Although I haven't formally reviewed it, I definitely recommend it to everyone reading this.
The movie was first screened in the Cannes Film Festival, and was very positively received with international praise towards the acting, direction and artistic execution of the entire plot and how it does not fail to deliver, with some even assuming it would be a box office success when released in India. However, what really happened when it was released in India was quite the opposite.
It received mostly subpar-to-average reviews, with some even calling it a failure. Going through most of the reviews, one thing you see present in almost all of them is the complaint that the movie 'fails to execute its concept'. Which brings us back to where this article started; uncharted territory. These critics have given high scores to the mainstream movies such as 'Main Tera Hero'. Monsoon Shootout is not a perfect movie, but one thing it did not do, whether you enjoy it in general or not, is fail its execution. It takes its concept, its script, its artistic direction, and it combines them all beautifully and makes the best out of what it could do. Whether you enjoy the final result or not, it's undeniable that it did execute what it had in mind and that too beautifully. The thing is, when you review something you're not really too familiar with you can't deny what you're hired for. What comes out of this is that the critic tries their best to fit into this new world and can be rather pretentious in reviewing said film because they judge it with unrealistic standards and use words they think would be appropriate to criticize it with even if it does not work in the context.
At the end of the day, reviews are of course something we read and either agree with or dismiss, no one loses anything and we go onto the next site to see what the other person said. However, it's not so simple for the people who actually make these films, and such critique can cause the movie to be a box office failure, shooing off an entire breed of people who may have loved it and prevents it from paving the way to a new, more mature cinema where bold movies don't mean films that just add more sexuality than considered normal; but movies that take risks and execute them into beautifully crafted movies that more people understand.
It's no insult for a critic to know their territory, and for one person to judge every genre, the quality and credibility of their criticism is lowered regardless.
1
2
3
4
