The Role of Critics in Film and Television: The Art of Criticism and its Influence

You don’t need to be a certified expert to be a film critic; but you should follow some guidelines for efficient delivery.

Theoretically, cinema criticism may be described as the presentation and critique of a film's form, subtexts, and method. A critic often examines a film via numerous sociocultural and political aspects, including its influence on the spectator. A film critique is meant to be thorough and not especially time constrained, but a film review is more of a fast critical assessment of a film, sometimes published within a few hours following the theatrical or OTT release of a film. However, in today's setting, this may be separated into two categories: professional film critique that appears in newspapers and other media channels, and social media reviews where anybody can offer their thoughts. Some people have expanded the latter into personal YouTube video evaluations or blogs. You may be guaranteed that every kind of film criticism has a following.

It is not necessary that you belong to the film industry to be a critic

The people that are recognised globally as being some of the best movie critics like Roger Ebert, Pauline Kael, Andre Bazin, and India’s own Anupama Chopra did not create any films themselves, though it might be argued that Anupama is the better half of one of India’s leading movie producer and director, Vidhu Vinod Chopra. André Bazin was the co-founder of a film-centric magazine, Kael was an employee in a New York Magazine, and Roger Ebert started with sports reporting. Mike D' Angelo began as a blog writer. Baradwaj Rangan, our Indian equivalent, is a BITS Pilani graduate with no professional experience in filmmaking or screenwriting. Kael was recognized for her profoundly personal, funny, and opinionated assessments, while Roger Ebert made his cinema analysis enjoyable and accessible to lay audiences.

When experts illustrate the necessity for cinema critics to be technically adept in order to analyse a film, they are theoretically institutionalizing the profession. The idea that writing film criticism requires the validation of a film appreciation course or a film school may wind up de-democratizing this arena. Even the idea that you must have actual experience on a film set or produce a short or feature film to be competent to write film criticism is irrational, patronizing, and privileged. How many individuals have the financial means to attend film school or even get access to a film set or work under a film director? What if the audience voted to boycott filmmakers who did not attend film school? What if a film critic who attended the Los Angeles Film School is subsequently asked to get a degree from the Toronto Film School or the American Film Institute for further validation?

More significantly, whose point of view is more essential when it comes to film analysis? The filmmaker's or the audience's? The directors seem to believe that a film should be analysed via the same prism through which the creators experienced their movie. Isn't the film reviewer, in essence, a link between the audience and the filmmaker? They are here to share their reactions to the film with the audience. Furthermore, the ordinary review reader isn't seeking for technical jargon. Rather, they want to know whether or not their trusted reviewer loved the picture. Nine out of ten readers often remain with a critic depending on how much they agree with his or her points of view (which frequently linger on political/cultural/social levels). That is not to suggest that academic film criticism isn't valid; it just has a small readership.

Similarly, when you evaluate a film, you expose yourself to the public, placing yourself in a vulnerable position, letting the world know where you came from, your politics, beliefs, biases, and morals. A review reveals a lot about the writer, making it a highly personal experience. So objectively analysing a film seems to be almost difficult, while it is certainly feasible to aspire towards. Historically, most cinema theorists have made little effort to conceal their ideological objective. Even today, every film reviewer has personal prejudices, and their words are usually coloured by their views. However, their readers also expect them to take a stance.

How to get the art of film review right?

Moris Media, India’s leading celebrity management agency, provides some guidelines that can help you provide as objective reviews as possible. When reviewing, it's better to avoid any specific personal references of yourself since they convey the idea that the spotlight is on you rather than the film. It might also seem self-indulgent at times. So, unless you're writing a casual, personal message on social media, a film reviewer should never suggest a film. Isn't your review sufficient for the viewers to decide whether or not they need to watch it?

Furthermore, even though rating scores does not really should have that much of highlighting it receives, yet the public seems to start with the ratings before reading the review. It is also helpful if you avoid writing lengthy reviews for lousy movies.