Star Vs. Star: Are film critics worth their salt?1 min readReading Time: < 1 minute
Quite a few things in cinema transcend logic, and this is one of them. Films that stick like a bone in the throat of film reviewers go on to do phenomenal business at the box office (yes, we may be referring to Bodyguard) while films that are praised liberally are often left famished when it comes to making money.
There seems to be a discord between filmmakers, film reviewers and the audience in the largest film-producing country of the world. What then is the role of a film reviewer and a film review in a space that is churning out all kinds of cinema parallely?
“Your reader has to know much more than whether the film is good or bad, watchable or non-watchable. The review has to help them make an informed choice,” says Sanjukta Sharma who reviews films for business newspaper Mint.
A film review is much more than merely absorbing a film and writing about it in a perfunctory manner; it is a creative endeavor unto itself.
“Primarily I consider film reviewing a creative exercise, but a journalistic one,” Sharma adds.
For reviewers, the buck doesn’t stop at informing people whether the film is worth their money or not. If we were to consider films just as a means of entertainment, perhaps it would do to tell which film deserved investment of their money and time.