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.
|