9 August 2009

Some Peppermint Tejpal wrote a review in Mumbai Mirror, that is if it can be called a review, posing as if he is the world expert on cinema. If the only qualification of a reviewer is to just have an opinion then I would really like to know the process of a paper choosing and employing a reviewer out of millions of opinion makers. If it’s not about his opinion and it’s about expertise then what is peppermint’s expertise. It would be nothing but him being in love with himself the way he can rip apart a film much more than even his actual hatred for the film. So a Mayank Shekar leaves for a higher salary or some other reason and they fill his space with peppermint who nobody knows and after the reviews of 2 or 3 films he becomes as popular primarily because of the brand of the newspaper and the more nastier he becomes the more popular he becomes because instinctively this breed of reviewers understand this from the popularity of their predecessor Khalid Mohammed.

Twenty years ago Khalid wrote a review of my first film “SHIVA” calling it a piece of junk which is considered to be a cult film by most today. And believe it or not the same Khalid referred to it as a cult classic in a certain context of a review he wrote for some other film 10 years later. So does his mind work 10 years slower? After being kicked out and down the ladder from TOI to Mid-day to DNA, to HT to Asian Age, I hear that he writes for some obscure website which I doubt even 5 people will read. Also I hear some horrifying news that he is making another film and that news I think is more horrifying than any horrifying film I ever made. To fund him after those 3 or 4 fantastic masterpieces he made, his investors have to be one hundred time more dumber than any of my investors.

Also I have no problem in getting one star from sweetie cutie Anupama who thinks “Eklavya” is a classic and the lesser said about the Buffalo Bumzai the better. (I have gone this personal taking a leaf from them). I can’t get over the glee in Bumzai’s eyes when she is ripping a film. But I feel also that the psychology of these critics pales in comparison in negativisim to the psychological aspect behind the point of criticism by itself.

The purpose of a review could be to warn a viewer of how a film is and probably to prepare a mindset. But does anybody believe that this alone would be the intention of any of the reviewers. Eventually a film is a commercial product in a consumer market sheerly because so much money and so many people’s efforts, careers and businesses are linked with it. A car manufacturer comes out with a new model, it’s fair enough that some relevant expert can give his views on the car’s good and bad points to an ignorant customer. But he cannot go on a trip of a personal attack on the manufacturer and to having his presumptions on the intent of manufacturing the car.

So why is this discrimination against the cinema industry alone? Every other product put out there in the market gets a chance to be judged by the consumer directly whether he likes it or not, whereas only in the film industry’s case its products are constantly judged, ridiculed, made fun of, misinterpreted in the eyes of the people by using the platforms of mass mediums like newspapers and television channels.

It is not realized by many that hundreds of people and their families livelihoods are dependent upon a films run. To indiscriminately run down a film in a glee to hit at the maker will result in lot more hurt to many other people associated with the film in various others ways namely the actors, technicians, distributors, exhibitors etc who primarily have no way of controlling how a film will shape up but yet will bear the brunt of its failure in many cases much more than the maker.

Having said all this, more than the critics who enjoy trashing films it’s us film folk who relish a bad review as long as it’s someone else’s film and not our film. I think it is human nature to enjoy negativity. We like to hear bad things, we love to hear failure of others so that by default we feel successful. As long as it is in the realm of fantasy and wishful thinking that’s fair enough as like I said it is human trait which we can’t escape from but when it is implemented in a practical aspect it can damage the whole system.

The whole film industry literally celebrated the trashing of KAMBHAKT ISHQ as each of them would be jealous of Akshay’s raise and the brand of the film. The fact that they feel so small in front of that picture in the pre-release hype gives a high to them when it is being ripped. I hated KAMBHAKT ISHQ myself but I don’t think I or anybody have a right to come in between that film and the guy who wants to see it. If I go to a store to buy a shirt after seeing an advertisement by the manufacturer, the shop keeper has a right to display his goods in whichever attractive manner he chooses and I and every single customer have a right to choose whatever we want to buy depending directly on our individual tastes and sensibilities etc. But I would not want a guy to be at the door psyching me and influencing me on what to buy and what not to buy.

So as long as this discrimination is only on film products, unless we film folks take time off from enjoying other’s films being trashed and realize that the species of critics are becoming a disease to the film industry and its objectives after expending months and years work, we still would be continuing to be at the mercy of a few uninformed idiots who have nothing to loose and with zero accountability.

Also I respect a media enterprise for the intention of its creation and as a system in whole. But I would like to ask them to question themselves if the likes of peppermint are really worthy of representing their system.

Why AGYAAT?
I believe that a film is an emotional experience. It can make you laugh or cry or make you scared or thrill you. AGYAAT was designed as a concept on whether I as a director can through the use of just sound efx, background music and camera movements create a being just in the imagination of the audience and not show it at all. Apart from this I wanted to play with the changing mindsets of people who are in a stressful situation. Fair enough a few liked the concept, few didn’t, few thought I should have shown and others thought I did the right thing. This reaction is expected for anything which has not been done before and tried for the first time. Yes, everyone has a right to feel what they felt. Not only me no filmmaker anywhere will ever do a film which he thinks will not be accepted by the audience, but what they will accept one cannot know unless tried and only that’s how advancement in narrative styles and film techniques will progress.

Financials of AGYAAT
AGYAAT is made on such a small budget and because of that it’s a Hit on financial terms even before it released on account of pre-sales because of its potential in various markets due to the universality of the genre.

As for the individual members in the audience are concerned some liked it very much for its various different aspects and some others didn’t for the same and I appreciate and respect both their views equally.

As for the pepper-mints and sweeties and buffalos you can look forward for my next Horror.

Other articles by Ram Gopal Varma:
Lock-up lessons
My reaction to reactions
The Psychological aspect of BGM

Note: Thanks to Ram Gopal Varma for giving us special permission to republish his blogs in idlebrain.com (visit rgvzoomin.com to visit Ram Gopal Varma's blog)