 The relationship between art and criticism can be compared to the stem of the lotus in the pond. The height of the stem will always be at the water level. Criticism of art is considered important for the growth of art. Any art that evades intense criticism will be a stunted baby.
We have not even crossed the first step in criticism of Tamil cinema. The reason for this is said to be the approach of the intellectuals at the advent of Tamil cinema.
Society was divided into classes and castes when Tamil cinema came into being in the '30s. Every caste had its own kind of entertainment. The so-called upper class considered the entertainment of the farmers as low class and kept away. That was when Tamil cinema came into being as an entertainment that can be seen and enjoyed by every one without regard to class or caste. The upper class could not digest it. This mind set was reflected in the writers and journalists of the day. They considered it shameful to write about cinema and avoided it. Even those who wrote aimed at criticizing it. About the film 'Nandanar' starring KB Sundarambal that was released in 1935, Kalki wrote a review saying that the buffalos and palm trees have put up good acting. This is just an example of the prejudice of the writers who wrote about cinema.
The mind set of the writers changed when Carnatic musicians like G N Balasubramanian, Rajaratnam Pillai, Dandapani Desikar and M S Subbulakshmi made entry into films. They started writing about cinema music with enthusiasm. When cinemas appeared with Gandhi's ideas, publications started reserving more space for cinema. Writers like Va.Ra. and B S Ramaiya started writing about cinema.
But all these criticisms were written without recognizing that cinema is a different art form and it has its own unique set of art aspects. They were written as a literary criticism without evaluating the screenplay and its core. Those criticisms never made an attempt in understanding the story through the scenes and never helped in moving towards the possibilities.
 It is rare to find serious criticism and essays on cinema even as it celebrates its 75th birth anniversary. Publications like 'Nizhal,' 'Kanavu' and 'Uyirmai' are some of the publications that devote space for serious cinema and interviews. Popular publications only carry very superficial reviews. Most of them are absurd. Reviews are carried in these publications without understanding cinema.
Cinema was shown with a projector in those days. Time was needed to change one reel after another. Projectors were stopped, when they got hot to avoid the risk of fire, as the materials were flammable. That called for at least 5 to 6 intervals for every movie.
All that has changed today. The hurdles in the way of continuous projection of cinema are removed. But intervals have become unavoidable in Indian cinema. Mostly there are no intervals in Western countries. The entire movie is shown without an interval. But in India what was followed for practical reasons has come to be a malady and being followed. What is more, even screenplays are written with interval in mind. Writers who write screenplays instruct on where the interval should find place and how the story should pick up pace, i.e. treating the screenplay keeping the interval as a centre piece. This absurdity is seen in cinema reviews too. For instance, a review like, ?Till the intermission, the film was good. After intermission, it dragged on,? is giving importance to the aspect of intermission, more than the film itself!
No film from outside India can be reviewed like this. Such things happen only to Indian films. In Hollywood also this is rare mainly because the screenplay is not written with an intermission in mind. Tamil films that are screened in international film festivals are shown without intermission. Hence the viewers are unable to comprehend the jump created by the intermission slot and flounder in their understanding of the film. This seems to be a continuing trend.
There is a need to investigate the elements that have no connection with cinema and weed them out. That there has been no language of criticism of cinema is yet another shortcoming. The reason is that words that describe them are not developed in Tamil. We are still using French and English words like 'fade out,' 'dissolve' and so on. The vital necessity for cinema criticism is to develop equivalent words in Tamil.
 Cultural aspects also seem to affect cinema. Family relationship is central to Tamilnadu. No one other than Periyar ever questioned the organization of the family. Our culture has the mindset to sideline such persons without questioning those who raise that issue. Tamil cinema has adopted this 'family relationship' that enjoys an unquestioned status.
A movie should be such that the family members should view it. In Tamilnadu there can be no opposition point of view to this. Moreover, there is an abundance of directors who proudly claim that they would produce films that could be viewed by the whole family.
 The members of a family, other than dining and watching TV, generally do most other things separately. There are many things the youngsters do without the knowledge of the elders. There are also many things that happen without the knowledge of both the elders and the youngsters. (They need not be considered as immoral things). What we share with our friends, we never inform others about them. From taking bath and going to sleep, there are a variety of things we do not share with the family members.
 When life itself is such, it is contradictory that cinema that reflects life alone should be viewed along with family members. It only means that not that cinema was not meant for family audience, but that should not become a condition. A movie does not become great just because the family members view it. Without understanding it, voicing the point of view that all films should be made for family viewing and the practice of writing screenplays to suit family viewing and awarding 5 additional points that a film is fit to be viewed by family audience is nothing but confining cinema within a small circle.
Like family, yet another element that affects cinema is realism. Our critics evaluate good cinema on the balance of realism. In fact, realism itself is fiction, fantasy. The film that was celebrated recently for realism is 'Kaadal.' In this film every cinema fan hoped that the two young lovers would unite. Would that fan permit his school going daughter to fall in love with a car mechanic? Or a brother would allow a mechanic to elope with his sister? Most definitely not. So, what is the reason for such fans to hope that the cinema lovers should unite, but would hate such an event in their personal lives?
 In a 2 and a half hour movie, the romance alone between the school girl and the mechanic is featured. When the viewers watch a relationship that happens over many years in such a short time they are pushed to a climactic state. They pray for the lovers to unite. They shed tears if there is no possibility of that happening.
Romance in real life does not happen like that. Romance happens as part of many other things like biological urge, economic and professional issues. Real life romance does not provoke what the cinema romance does. That is the reason why the viewers hate in real life what they hope for in the film. It is also possible to feature the various economic and professional issues of a mechanic in a film like that of his romance. How then would it be appropriate to call it realism when only one aspect is projected out of multi-faceted aspects of someone's life?
It is not an individual's intention to choose to wear uniform while going to school, wear silk saree for a wedding, and go in a tucked-in top for an interview, have snacks for breakfast and full meal for lunch and so on. We just happen to follow what someone or a group has already formulated. That is all! So, how does following a system become realism? Do we do many things in life spontaneously, realistically and as a 100% individual choice? It would only be a mistake to undertake a review of a film that projects just one aspect of life from the standpoint of realism. .
 Ignorance of various aspects of cinema is a weakness of cinema criticism. Cinema incorporates important elements like screenplay, editing, music and cinematography. Not all reviewers possess fundamental knowledge of these vital elements. That is the reason why either they celebrate cinematography or deride it totally just in one line. They don't get into such elements and examine them. Editors also have such weakness. For example, a reporter who goes to interview a music director ought to have knowledge of music and particularly the special orientation of music of that music director. It is not generally so. That is the reason why they tend to ask questions unconnected with music, but with gross questions like 'what time do you go to bed after setting music' or 'what would be your attitude when your music does not become a hit.' Readers too seem to be happy with the details of the personal life of the celebrities rather than their professional life.
If this situation has to change, everyone beginning from viewers, writers, journalists, government departments and directors to producers, have to recognize their roles and have to contribute. It is time for serious criticism with the realization that cinema is a different art form and avoid particularly, tributes, jazzing up and conditions that have become habits. This is the only way for the dawning of good cinema.
Read In Tamil -தமிழில் படிக்க
|
)
)