Towards unbiased and less controversial film criticism

By Amal HEWAVISSENTI

The Sri Lankan film history which spans from Kadawunu Poranduwa to Ira Handa Yata has correlative film criticism as a key component to reshape the spectators' outlook. Yet, throughout the history of Cinema, nothing is more prominent than the relentless confrontation attitudes between the critics and the filmmakers.

Rukmani Devi who starred in Kadawunu Poronduwa

But why? It is generally possible to draw a distinct line between the way a film critic views the particular cinematic work and the point of view from which the filmmaker looks at his own work. Moreover, there have been contradictory elements in different schools of criticism in the Sri Lankan cinema and this sheds enough light on the strengths and weaknesses of Sri Lankan film criticism.

All the same, a film critic is basically a spectator with more advanced vision and more improved taste than an average spectator who may depend on him to gain insight into and explore unseen dimensions in a particular work of art.

He is unarguably the person who, being far ahead of the spectators, is solely responsible to mould and make their taste far on in progress. In other words, his unmatched role is to focus in depth on the experimental trends, techniques, or symbols of a particular cinematic work and guide the viewers on the direction, which they should proceed in rather than on what they like!

Theoretical background

Critical theories do not exist peculiar to cinema alone but they have been formulated to bear on all forms of art. A film is unconditionally the offshoot of a collective effort but it reflects more outstanding features than any other form of art.

It is only through the genuine commitment to a medium of art that someone builds a realistic attitude to it.

A critic can better broaden his outlook and instil fresh attitudes in himself to cinema by having a good grasp of varied cinematic creations and widely generalised theories local and international.

For example, he may develop an insight into the views expressed by old theoreticians such as Bharathamuni or western theoreticians like Aristotle. Thereby he is fully equipped to formulate his own critical approach and his personal attitude to the film which would evaluate as a film.

Play down the commercial ends

It appears almost fair to say that a general knowledge of art of photography and camera work, lighting or editing is enough to ease the task of the critic which is to present a balanced and less controversial view of a film. Yet, a sound knowledge of these technical aspects is vital for a filmmaker who builds and operates his own style to give a piquant novelty to his work of art.

What triggers uninterrupted conflicts of attitudes and opinions between filmmakers and critics is the filmmaker's commercial orientation.

A close examination of cinematic art shows that it is invariably an artististic and commercial medium of art and its commercial trends are not to be refused.

A balanced criticism outright down plays commercial purposes of the film and directly addresses the spectator's mind and heart because good criticism serves as the 'golden thread' connecting cinema with the masses.

But it is totally unquestionable that the film critic has a high level of responsibility to focus his powers to do justice to the creation and the spectator.

Through his chain of thoughts. On the other hand, the unwritten law for the film critic is that he should politely and formally oppose the commercial purposes of the film and plan a correct appraisal of the beauty of the work of art. The film critic at the same time, should note that the cinema is a medium of art that constantly evolves through time and different aspects of cinema are to be studied by completely ignoring the commercial aims behind it.

Ruthless but not destructive

One of the major charges levelled against the current film criticism is the critic's destructive attitude to a certain cinematic work totally regardless of its aesthetic value. It has not escaped our notice that the film critic's role is to puzzle different layers meaning in a cinematic work and effectively make the spectator grasp those inner layers by means of totally unbiased interpretations.

It is absolutely unsafe for the critic to be destructive in his attitudes to the film he is reviewing. However, he must be ruthless in his approach though he is constantly in close relationship with the spectator and the artist. Most filmmakers express their deep mistrust and disapproval over most critiques because those critiques are often mapped out immediately after the critic has watched the film.

Thus the filmmakers are generally oriented towards the critics who present their critical comments time-consuming pondering of the particular film rather than overwhelming spectators with a labyrinth of conflicting interpretations.

The unbiased critic displays an astounding level of discipline in selecting vocabulary and phrases in his reviews, In spite of all this a good criticism should answer the spectator's motives and it is bound to shed broader light on the entire meaning of the film. To make a long story short, a successful critic focuses more on what has been conveyed or projected through the film than on what should have been conveyed by the artist by way of a realistic message.

Inadequacies

It is however a wide off the mark trend to analyse the screenplay acting, music, plot or language of a film in isolation and judge each component in itself. These vital aspects of a film should be viewed as a whole and the film should be assessed on the contribution of these components to the overall theme.

It appears fair to say that a film determines the critical criterion and an appropriate critical criterion should be formulated out of the film itself. One of the inadequacies of the current film criticism is the tendency to criticise a film through criteria that are totally alien to the film in question. Such criticism judges a film with criteria that do not in any way match the format of the particular film.

Saumya Liyanage in Ira Handa Yata

It is a cardinal error to deliberately ignore the fact that certain positive and advanced traits of popular films are often underplayed by critical criteria that are forcibly inserted into the films. Dr. Lester James Peries once said that modern critics are excessively worried about the socialist meanings in every film they review. He added that some film critics adopt a tone that implies that filmmakers should learn from them in film making. Amaranath Jayathilaka openly criticises the tendency of certain critics to make an appreciative appraisal of a film once it has bagged an award.

At the same time, one can obviously see longstanding conflicts of principles within the framework of schools of criticism. With a few notable exceptions, most of such conflicts spring from personal attitudes rather than theoretical differences. Paradoxically, the filmmaker is sometimes sandwiched between two groups of critics the first group underestimating the visual side of a film and the second the denigrating plot and dialogues.

The latter seems to view the film solely as a visual medium. But the intermediate critic who rejects both extremes, has the highest capacity to be a versatile man penetrating enough to give the least biased critical comment on a given film.

There is at the same time, a tragic trend to reject a film simply because it lacks the political ideals of the critic and fails to match up to the critics overall expectations.

It is probably best to say that a filmmaker should not be allowed to distort the social realities but we must recognise his moral right to portray his personal style in cinema.

To perceive the false aims and ends of a film, the critic must remain alert with a more elevated point of view. But the indiscriminate rejection or condemnation of a film for the absence of a critic's political ideals, is not a well guided, standard criticism.

Though the critic's role is traditionally framed to mould the spectator's outlook and taste, he has even greater responsibility to help the spectator grasp the social realities and be aware of the aesthetic value in a film. However, the criteria to judge a film should be built on the characteristics of the film because any school of criticism constantly changes through time.