FilmIndia (1939)

PITy THE POOR FlliAl CRITIC There Is Too Much Competition From The Viceroy, Governors, National Leaders, Society Ladies & Studio Publicity Managers! By K. AHMAD ABBAS Famous Film Critic of "The Bombay Chronicle" I wonder if it is possible. But I will try. ♦ • * An old College acquaintance of mine met me recently after a long time. The first question he asked me was naturally about my profession. "I am a journalist", I briefly replied. He looked at me rather pityingly. "What exactly do you write about?" "I review films and conduct the cinema page." This time his expression betrayed pity not unmixed with contempt as if I had told him I was a scavenger or an undertaker! But, then, even scavengers and undertakers are necessary for society. So are the film critics. And yet, like my friend, the average person looks down upon us as if we were an inferior species. Why ? FACTS AND FICTION There seems to be a general impression that we are all blackmailers and, therefore, a contemptiule tribe. As if there are not black sheep even among temple priests ! This fiction about film critics and cinema journalists living on the bribes given to them by the producers is one of those legends about the film industry which persist in popular imagination. Another myth, of course, is that studios are like the courts of feudal debauchees where producers sit idly, surrounded by pretty damsels. I found how utterly baseless both these notions are when I came in touch with the film industry. For almost two years I have been writing about films and patiently waiting to be approached by a producer with an offer of money. Upto the time of writing, no such offer has been made. Rather discouraging for a budding blackmailer 1 GIVE US A SQUARE DEAL The prejudice against film journalists, shared by the Studio executives, film stars, the general public, is most unfortunate. As a small group of workers striving to help the industry as well as the average cine-goer, we deserve better consideration. Our conditions of wori are not enviable Our wages are low the hours of work are often from the first press show in the morning (sometimes at the unearthly hour of 8 a. m.) to past mid-night when the premiere of some film is over or the last proofs have been passed for the press. The Press Shows are bleak affairs as a dozen unfortunate beings sit in the ghost-like silent ol' an empty hall compelled to miss their breakfast to see a picture be it good, bad or indifferent. Those of us working for the daily press have to do many other odd jobs, too, anything from editing an article on the black beetle to reporting a football match. Some of us who have their own papers often combine the jobs ot editor, advertisement canvasser, copy-writer and lay-out men besides having to cope with screen struck persons in search of jobs and providing themselves as target to temperamental film stars out to avenge grievances real or imaginary. Not a few of us live in the cold shadows of the bankruptcy court. It should not be thought that I am complaining. Most of us have taken up this job by choice, because we are interested in films and have faith in its future as an art, as an entertainment and as a vehicle for new ideas. We are on the whole, quite a merry gang and we enjoy our work. But the main reason why I ask for a square deal for the film critics is that, really speaking, at presen' we can hardly be called filrr critics. At best we can claim to be striving to become film critics This is neither modesty nor bitte. irony. It is a fact. Having nc traditions of dramatic criticism o: any kind of art criticism to folio? in our country, we are only nov beginning to create our own stand ards and values of criticism by th. simple method of trial and error There are difficulties, howevei which beset our path difficultie inherent in our own shortcoming1 and in the attitude of the publi and of the producers towards us This article is meant to point ou1 some of them. Let s begin by debunking an] notion that film critics are bori| or that criticism is our exclusiv, estate. Personally speaking, mi own chief qualification for writin| about films is the fact that I sey at an average, a film every day anj have been doing so for some tirm The only essential difference betH ween a critic and a reasonably observant film fan is, as pointe^ 1 out by an eminent English criti«H that the former has "better oppor tunities for judging pictures, wide! standards of comparison and mom practice in summing films ul quickly." To this I may add that seeinj all kinds of films as a routine jol and a comparatively closer famii liarity with the technical processed of film production tend to give uJ an objective (you might call 1 cold-blooded ) attitude towarcl films so that we are not so easiB carried away merely by the glsl morous personality of an actrea or the glycerine-tear-stained climal of a sentimental photoplay, as tfcl average cine-goer is quite liable t| do. We also make it our busineil to study the box-office and on seel 20