All the Critic Men

Well, if you judge a book by its cover and an article by its title, then you are my ideal reader! For this article is about discovering the critic within! Sounds spiritual? Well trust me, critique is an art form far from spirituality! That’s the least I can assure you at this moment!

Leaving all small talks behind, let’s go straight to the part where I am supposed to make a point! For i am no longer a viewer, i have moved on to be a film critic! My initial experience with the established film critic Mr. Mayank (Hindustan Times), revealed that i do not have access to a the text book titled ‘Be A Film Critic In 7 Days!’; neither do i have a formula or a paved path to follow. Wow! i feel like Einstein! i can however ‘adopt’ the style of an existing film critic (without paying him homage), yet i am open to invent my own style! Wow again! Now i can knit ‘good abuses’ in my own way and play with them the way i like! Sounds awesome! But hey, this isn’t the catch! So, what exactly am i? i searched the Pocket Oxford Dictionary, which defines a film critic as ‘a person who reviews the artistic attributes of a film.’; so i shall be reading the film for the masses? Ouch! My high suddenly dropped! Still unclear about my luck, i tried reading ‘All The President’s Men’- the film. Just incase you didn’t get it, reading in a critic lingo means a-n-a-l-y-z-i-n-g !

All The President’s Men (1976) by Alan Pakula appealed itself to me as a clean piece of art; the auteur was quite clear while basing his film on an already existing piece of literature and a true event in America’s political history. He knew exactly what he had to choose to show. The film is from the perspective of two not-so-compatible reporters and how they investigate the Water Gate scandal. Pakula was clear while conveying his point across that escaped (quite well) high dramatic moments or over powering background scores. The high points of the film were the moments when the reporters rejoiced (in an aesthetically subtle manner) after getting leads for the story. Pakula’s sense of translating the characters from the book to the celluloid medium established him as an artist; each and every character was detailed, irrespective of its importance to the script. The characters in the editor’s meeting were made to be so realistic that one might forget they are actors acting! The film appeals at a greater level with its sub layerings and references. Dialogues like “Half the country doesn’t care about Watergate!” (Bradlee) might be stating the film maker’s disappointment (or assurance) about the casual film viewing culture. Other instances like the scene where the reporters are seen searching through the library-requests by a top angle long shot, symbolize their meagre stand inside the labyrinth of the American red tapeism. The film excels as an art form as everything holds on to the complete synergy with the story. The long shadows (remind you of film noir) will definitely trigger a sense of eeriness; the use of silence (reminds you of Bergman’s films) pulsates the serious investigations; the colour patterns adds on to the moods of the characters- where the reporters interrogate in a warm tone, and ‘analyze’ the investigation in a cooler tone, the serious points are in darker tones; besides this, the constant use of blue, red and white in all the frames gives you the feel of the American flag and again states the patriotic character of the auteur. However, in spite of these high points, the film fails to match the imaginative power of the literature medium- the book on which the film is based on. But, cinema is still a nascent art, unlike the matured and experienced art form of fiction literature. So, kudos to Pakula for interpreting the novel to fit the dimensions of cinema beautifully.

As i went on thinking about the film, i just couldn’t relax for a second. It felt as if i was searching for a treasure. As if with each discovery, my adrenalines pumped ink to my pen nib! Strange- my passion for cinema was my only fuel, writing just followed. Ah! So, is that what a critic is- a passionate cinema lover who knows how to frame a sentence as well! And with that i just made my first definition! My style? Well, as the expert said, style comes with time. Wait a second! Cinema captures time; so the more films i see the better ‘critic’ i become! Wow! My high is back!

That was the memoire of day 1 of the journey called Mumbai Young Critic, where all the critic men (and women) shall unleash the film critic within.

NB- ‘i’ represents all the 24 young critics; ‘I’ represents my own identity.