Two films of mine are opening in theatres in India within this week. One called APARTMENT, already opened yesterday with very little advertising, and one called CHASE, is opening on 29th with a robust marketing campaign. The one with little marketing is a psycho-thriller made at a modest budget with financial constraints but no creative interference from the producer and one with robust marketing is an action thriller made with generous budget but total creative interference by producer in the post production stage.
The film critics have not been very kind to the psycho-thriller and without the advertising support it needed to get the people to go to the theatres and judge for themselves, its box-office prospects appear rather bleak. I still stand by that film because creatively it represents my vision. Therefore, I am ready to accept the brick-bats with the bouquets.
The other one will open its cards next thursday so we don't know what the film critics will have to say until then, but because of the marketing effort, it atleast stands a chance to get better opening numbers in spite of the simultaneous release of a multi-star cast big budget, big banner film. I am not standing by that film because creatively, after the post-production tempering by the producer, it no longer represents my vision. It may get better reviews and better box-office but my conscience will not allow me to accept those bouquets and I will still stand by what my creative objections have been. In spite of them, I wish the film to do well.
I have ofcourse tried to get hold of all the reviews of APARTMENT and understand what the critics found lacking in the film. First accusation was that it is a rip off of Single White Female. Thematically both films deal with a psycho room mate. So does Pacific Heights (Psycho tenant), Crush (Psycho landlady) and I am sure research will unearth many such films in the psycho-thriller genre. Does that mean with out reference to others, in itself the story doesn't work? No critic analysed the script on its own merit and show what didn't work with in the framework of contemporary urban living in India. Critics use adjectives like run-of-the mill thriller. What does that exactly mean? Aren't all genre films run-of-the mill? Other criticism is it is linear and predictable. Since when linear story telling has become bad story telling. Aren't stories supposed to have a beginning, a middle, and an end? Since time immemorial stories have been narrated in this manner. Isn't that linear? Why has non-linearity for the sake of non-linearity become a virtue instead of a gimmic? Why does suspense have to be unpredictable? It is not a whodunit kind of mystery. Almost all stories in genres other than mystery are predictable. The fun is not in where are you going but how are you getting there. If that journey is engaging and suspenseful, that should be good enough.
One critic brought reference to the 1960 Billy Wilder film 'The Apartment' and said it is not even a distant relative. It is not even trying to be. Just because it has the same title 50 years apart in a different country and different language, the critic brings it up in a completely irrelevant context. Calling it a poor apology for soft core pornography is even more befuddling as there is no gratuitous nudity in this film and censors gave it an A certificate without any cut.
It is easy to call anything sappy, amateurish, bland and average without having to explain why. Rather than regurgitating the story, coming up with some fancy derogatory adjectives and no responsibilty to enlighten why specifically something doesn't work, the reviewers don't do anything else. If as a film maker, I wanted to learn something concrete from this feedback and improve my story telling skills for the future, I get no insights. All I have is one person's opinion which is unsubstantiated but important because of the platform on which it is expressed. This media platform has the power to give 'quality evaluation stars' for a film because of which it doesn't even get a fair chance to be judged by the target audience for whom it was made.
I totally agree with you Jag. Our critics, in most cases, are an ignorant, retarded lot. Most of them have seen one or two films in their life or read about them and they like to show off their limited knowledge of the same. The reference to Billy Wilder's "Apartment" ( a great film, but completely irrelevant with your film) is one such case.
ReplyDeleteYou only have to listen to an average journalist on the film beat today to realise how severely intellectually limited they all are!
I hope the film does well and recovers its money. I will see it ASAP and give my feedback.
Best
Sal
Hi Jag Uncle,
ReplyDeleteI quite agree to the points you have raised here. I am not sorry to say that I give critics no relevant marks for critically reviewing the film. They apparently seem to be in love with whatever "some" people make and totally and conveniently bypass their responsibility of "reviewing" a film in it's own identity. If a "Raja Hindustani" gets a five-star rating from all critics, I refuse to take their word on anything, leave aside films.
i will soon watch Apartment and share my feedback with you.
Till then,
Deeksha
"opinion which is unsubstantiated but important because of the platform on which it is expressed" - very well summarised !
ReplyDeleteI will see it this week
Thanks
Krishna
Mr. Mundhra,
ReplyDeleteBefore I pose my musings, let me assure you that I've sat through Apartment, lest you brand me as an armchair critic who didn't even bother to judge the film on its merits.
To begin with, let me correct a few misleading statements in your blog. There's a difference between referencing a theme and ripping off a film. Apartment, is most certainly the latter. Since, I've seen Single White Female, I can assure you that I'm not falling for your "referencing caper". Right from the puppy, to the banishing of the boyfriend to the...I'm sure you get the picture (for the readers, please see SWF to know what am I talking about).
Secondly, to come to the film itself, and without comparisons to SWF, let me raise a few questions of my own, since you raised a few valid once yourself. Since when has titillating an audience masqueraded as creative vision? Pray, what creative vision is involved in showing ice cubes being dropped on exposed midriffs, on item numbers (in a psycho thriller no less), focusing on a nude Neetu Chandra dousing herself in a bathroom, or dialogues to the tune of "...Sex sells. Even more than a Khan does". My word, if this isn't vision, I wonder what is?
If this is your idea of a taut thriller, then I sincerely pity the chaps, whom you taught at California. The film has zero pace, abysmally wretched acting, poorly written dialogues, umpteen sexual innuendos (they don't work), mistimed songs, and an anti protagonist who hams all the way, thanks to your vision. My question to you is how do I quantify this tripe that you are trying to pass of as creative work? Its like asking, "Justify, how the Hunchback of Notre Dam is not a handsome guy..."
You know, what disappoints me about people like you. It is your pretentiousness. Its when you start parading cheap shit nonsense like Apartment as creative works. If only you had the heart to admit the fact, that you made a film to cater to the basic instincts of the hinterlands of a country, I'd have atleast known that you have your target audience as well purpose of movie making clear in your head. In fact, I find it incredibly hard to digest that you are the same guy who made Bawandar.
The critics got it right this time Mr. Mundhra. For that matter, so did you, or atleast one of your dialogues in the film did. "Sex sells". Perhaps more than a Khan does. Let's face it, between the two of us, you atleast don't have the vision to afford the latter...
DAAYYYYYMMMMM ... some hot conversations taking place around 'Apartment!' I'm waiting for it to come out on DVD, since it's not playing at the theaters here ... looking forward to seeing the film.
ReplyDeleteMr. Bhattacharya,
ReplyDeleteIn my blog,I said creatively it represents my vision.
Creative Vision is nothing but a mental image and a concept. When a director tells a story in an audio visual format with the idea of stimulating the senses of the viewer and engaging them in a journey which takes them from the story's beginning to its end, he or she has to create a virtual world which in reality doesn't exist. Audience knows going in that it is a make believe world but if they are sufficiently engaged by the storytelling skills of the director they will be willing to suspend that disbelief.
When I am given a script to execute and translate it from words to images, I decide on what images will be captured and how they will be strung together on the editing table to tell the story I have been assigned to tell. When I have the creative responsibility to make a film and also the authority to shoot and edit it the way I want, I say that the resultant film represents my creative vision.
It is not assigned any loftier meaning with any degree of pretentiousness as you surmise and which seems to make you really angry.
You are entitled to your abysmal opinion of APARTMENT. But one must not forget that it is one person's opinion and doesn't constitute the universe. For every such negative opinion there is also a positive one and those who have that opinion also have a right to hold it without being called names by you because it seems to differ from yours.
Cheers.
Jag Mundhra
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete