Views on Reviews

Guru last week had a post on how not to write a review. He made some sweeping statements that I disagreed with but since I've already expressed my disagreement as comments to that post, I'll just stick to my views here.

A review(of a movie in this context, though it could apply to books, music and pretty much everything else you have an opinion on) is simply put, an individual's personal opinion about a movie. The person who says "Padam Supernga, bore adikkaama poguthu" to the Sun TV interviewer when exiting a theater is, as long as his comment is honest and unbiased, as much a reviewer as the person writing long reviews in newspapers, magazines, websites or blogs. The difference is just in the number of words the two use to express their feelings about the movie. Its upto us to decide which of them we are going to believe.

Since its an individual's opinion, a review is by its very nature, subjective. There is no such thing as an objective review. The very fact that it is written by a human being ensures that. The reviewer's likes, dislikes, expectations about the film, feelings about the movie's theme, cinema knowledge(or lack thereof), mood, the atmosphere he saw the film in - all make their way into his/her review. This subjectivity is what makes the reviews different. Any subtexts the reviewer sees in the movie, any reading between the lines he does and any hidden meanings he construes all arise from his personal makeup. If not for these personal influences, every review would be exactly the same. And that would make things real boring, wouldn't it?

By the same token, is there any review that can be called a bad review? Personally, I don't like reviews that contain spoilers about the movie. There is a reason why they are called 'spoilers' - revealing them spoils the moviegoing experience for the viewer. But I know people who like to walk into a movie knowing everything beforehand. One of my friends even liked to know if a movie was a tragedy or not and forced me to reveal the ending of movies I had seen since he hated sad endings. So the spoiler-heavy reviews that narrate the story to the point of describing the last scene told him exactly what he wanted to know about the movie. So to him, the Kumudam and Vikatan reviews were not bad reviews.

So, just as a review is subjective, so too is your opinion of it. If you really like reading reviews, whether to decide if you are going to watch a movie or just to see what the reviewer said, try out a few reviewers. Find one or more whose style you like, whose frequency seems to match yours more often than not and most importantly, whose reviews you enjoy reading, whatever the reasons may be. It is pretty much impossible to find a reviewer whose feelings match yours on every single movie. So you simply have to find a reviewer whose reviews are well-written. For me, these reviewers are James Berardinelli, Roger Ebert and Mr.Cranky. I like the 3 of them for completely different reasons but I enjoy reading every one of their reviews whether I will see the movie or not and whether I agree with their verdict on a movie or not.

As far as I am concerned, the only 2 qualifications needed to be a movie reviewer are a love of movies and the ability to express your thoughts and feelings about a movie you have seen. Writing about the movie, whether praising or criticizing it, then comes naturally. In my comment to Guru's post I said "I write reviews because I like watching movies. I don't watch movies because I like writing reviews". That to me, is the key to writing reviews. I might watch Meesai Madhavan, Kaatrullavarai and Iyer I.P.S in the same week. But when I pick up my next VCD and pop it into the DVD player, I still experience the same thrill and anticipation that I did when I first started watching movies. As long as that happens, writing the review is a piece of cake. And the day I don't feel that will be the day bbreviews closes...