|
Film Appreciation
with K S Sivakumaran
Cinema and Film: any difference?
We writers, critics and reviewers on the film medium should remember
one thing: there is a difference between writing on the 'Cinema' and
'Film'. This is utter fuzziness, most readers would argue. But I
happened to hear a speaker explained this in an open forum in Goa, India
in 2008. This Open Forum on "Writing on Cinema" was organized by the
Federation of Film Societies of India (FFSI in association w
|
Martial Knaebel |
ith the Directorate of Film Festivals (DFF) and Entertainment Society
of Goa (ESG).
The speaker was an international figure in the world of cinema. He
was Martial Knaebel - a former director of Fribourg Film Festival. This
is what he said as far as my recording in my notebook goes:
"Writing on cinema involves a wider dimension. One must know the
socio-political situation during the period when the film was made. One
should study film and cinema as an art and understand the process of
making a film However, writing on film involves commenting about
individual films. The objective of writing on cinema is to preserve it
as a cultural heritage."
One bit of advice that emerged out of the forum for us practitioners
calling ourselves film critics was that film critics and serious writers
on cinema should not fall prey to market forces and distort their own
writings by diluting them for commercial reasons.
At the same time I tend to agree with author of books on cinema,
Haimanti Banerji who said that critics could not be blamed since even
the number of serious cinema had gone down.
A senior film critic and author in India, Pradeep Biswas rightly said
writing on cinema was not being treated as an art and many newspapers
felt anyone who recognizes film personalities can do the work.
Long standing member of the DFF, Senior Deputy Director Shankar Mohan
through his experience and wisdom said:"Film Criticism is useful to
share insights about cinema and critics should themselves be informed
about the ethics of filmmaking before taking on the work of reviewing
filmmaking" He added: "writing on cinema was a specialized field which
had helped to develop this audio-visual medium as an art form"
Shankar Mohan quipped that every festival needed critics since
'cinema without critics is like bread without butter'
Whenever I attend the IFFI (International Film Festival of India) I
don't miss seeing at least in sight a knowledgeable and serious film
critic B B Nagpal. He was also a speaker at the Forum. I was all agog
when he blasted the so-called film critics in such terms:
"Many critics and reviewers do not understand the medium. A good
review should analyze each and every aspect of film and leave it to the
people to judge it. Do not force your opinion on your readers." He
added: "Writers of major dailies went after glamour. Many of them are
not interested in the serious aspects of cinema and have never bothered
to learn about the medium or personalities they write about"
One other speaker at the Forum was a filmmaker. He was Mohan Sharma.
What he said was true. He said that cinema as an audio-visual medium had
its own idiom and this aspect was not brought forward by film critics.
"The cinematic medium has not sunk in" he said. He also suggested that
teaching institutions like the Film and Television Institute of India (FTTI)
should integrate classes in film criticism in their curricula on film
studies. A film critic needs to know the idiom, grammar of cinema so
that he can have better understanding and grasp what the film is all
about.
I hope it wouldn't be impertinent to say here that this columnist
followed a course some 10 years ago in film appreciation at the
prestigious FTTI. And that helps me to write this column.
It's high time that the Sri Lanka Film Corporation institute a fully
fledged training institute with assistance from FTTI under the envisaged
agreements between India and Sri Lanka.
[email protected] |
