Peeping through the lenses

There is a common term for the understanding of literature coined as 'Reading between the lines'. Movies for me are no less than the visualisation of those pieces of writing, at its core, with other layers of technical aspects attached. Coin a term you want that is analogous to the aforementioned term for the art of moviemaking (i.e. Peeping through the scenes or whatever deems best), and we have a way to understand this world better.

Take an example of the scene from Hitchcock's 'Vertigo'. The scene where Gavin Elster asks Scottie for help. On multiple viewing, one would realise how beautifully the scene has been set up with Elster's positioning around the room. Another one would be that of a surprisingly panned 'Meri Pyaari Bindu' and the use of cassette in the movie, or the movie in its entirety through Abhi's perspective. There is 'Dear Zindagi' or 'October' that demands a viewer to have such attributes to understand a film.

What I have been observing, particularly in the local audience is the lack of such abilities. In an interview, Zoya Akhtar mentioned how critics really do not read between the lines. There is a constant competition between them as to who could use better condescending adjectives to bash a film. A trend that I have been noticing for a very long time but ironically the critics have a habit of not taking criticism (on them) in a positive fashion. As a learner, I would love a review that consists of reasons as to why a film was good or bad. I would love the analysis of the idiosyncrasies of a character, or the scene if I can put it that way. Bashing of the film is acceptable on that woman's front (the VDW reviewer whose video went viral) because I really can't call her a critic and take her seriously.

There is a dearth of constructive analysis within the film industry's vicinity. And I see that trend in the group too. The film has layers to it. Those layers are exemplified by multiple processes that a filmmaker uses. The understanding of a film cannot be immediate (from my own understanding) as a film would take its own sweet time to encapsulate your mind because, in a single scene, it has so much to offer for the mind to grasp (Eg - Wes Anderson's work). The mind itself grasps everything but does not process it completely. A more layered film also requires a more layered commenting on it which is missing. This habit of ours to judge on a film based on its face value (analogous to judging the book by its cover) is a hazardous way to critic a movie because it leads to disastrous results.

An immaculate way to deal with it is to first acquaint ourselves with the ins and outs of films, writing or understanding the psyche of people. Another important quality that should have been obvious is to start believing that there is no one right approach and our own approach comes with flaws. I believe only then can we understand a thought that is completely different from ours. A lot of decent films have been subjected to oblivion because of our stubbornness to look beyond our boundary of knowledge. There can be films that are completely opposite to our morals. The perspective needs to be understood and not the morals that it might or might not be trying to preach.