Alleluhia! Now if only we could get sites like IndiaFM to see Taran Adarsh for what he really is, a quack amongst film reviewers.

Aaah film reviews! I agree that Taran Adarsh is overhyped. However, there is something I positive I can say, however slight, about the perspective he reflects of the "eastern" viewers of cinema. By "eastern," I refer to the people that watch movies on the Indian subcontinent, that were born and brought up there, rather than the "western" viewers who were brought up in the USA or Europe.

Taran Adarsh reviews movies with this "eastern" perspective, I have to say. I do not agree with him completely, being partly westernized in my criticism of movies. However, most of the time, my counterparts in India, do not agree with me on my criticisms of the same movies at all. Yet the movies that they agree are good, are simple yet exciting Bollywood fare, such as "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai," or "Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge."

I really believe he gives more positive reviews to movies that the people from India find appealing, rather than movies that people in the west find appealing. I think many here would agree with me that the people in India find the fantasy bollywood creates more appealing than the reflection of reality it creates. Examples of this fantasy can be shown to have started with the Raj Kapoor films of past years, to films under the Yashraj banner such as "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" and even "Veer-Zaara."

I, for one, actually prefer the fantastic over the realistic, even though I like to watch movies with interesting, yet realistic storylines. I believe that that's what Bollywood has always been about. It has been about creating spectacular melodramatic scenes and song, and exciting dance sequences, rather than complex plots interwoven with complex imagery. To me, Hollywood is the choice if I'm in the mood for something more realistic and complex. Basically, when Bollywood keeps it simple, it's more enjoyable. The simplicity in the presentation of "Dilwale Dulhaniya le Jayenge," for example was definitely more enjoyable to me than something with a more interesting story such as "Phir Milenge."

If one sees the differences in the ratings of Taran Adarsh and "Planetbollywood.com," this is evident. For example, both "Swades," and "Raincoat," received over 9/10 from Planetbollywood, while they received very low ratings from Taran adarsh. These movies have neither the spectacle, nor the excitement and drama that Bollywood is notorious for creating, but they have complex and interesting plots and an equally interesting presentation.

I still believe that interesting and fresh storylines can be interwoven with the same cinematic simplicity, excitement, spectacle and drama that is the trademark of not only Bollywood, but Indian cinema as a whole. I saw this with "Lagaan," in Bollywood. However, I see this more concentrated in the South Indian Malayalam cinema and Tamil cinema. Movies such as "Kazcha," and the recent "Perumazhakkalam" come to mind in Malayalam, while movies such as "Pithamagan" and "Perazhagan" come ti mind in Tamil. These movies had the same character attachment, gripping storylines, and reflection of strictly Indian events that made movies such as "Do Bigha Zameen" a classic back in the days.

Back to Taran, well, given the context of his reviews and his lack of understanding of the mindset of "western" viewers, I can understand why he's so incomprehensible. I certainly don't even read his reviews before watching the movie, because he does have a chronic habit of giving away spoilers like someone mentioned. To me, his mind is very limited as to actually giving a thoughtful review like we expect. It's possible, however, a viewer living in India would not agree with me or others that he is so limited.

I would definitely like to hear comparing and contrastic views to this by everyone.

Ok, whoever hacked Rita's account, step forward and apologize!

By the way, if you mail him/them about factual errors in their reviews they don't bother to fix
them. I wonder if their feedback link is directly wired into /dev/null.

I don't think it's mainly an East versus West thing. More a monoculture versus multi culture thing. The moment you start questioning Bollywood formula fare (the bad stuff, not the best examples) is the moment you realise there is more to film than Bollywood (or regional commercial fare). That's not necessarily Hollywood only, but in general the riches of world cinema including non Bollywood Indian films. It needs exposure first, and then a surrounding culture which sees more in films or cinema than mere commercial commodities with zero intrinsic value beyond generating a profit for the industry marketing that commodity. In India film is traditionally not regarded as the major art form of the 20th century but as a dubious mob infested 'business' where lose morals, star cult and scandal are worth talking about, if it's not ignored alltogether. There is a lack of maturity in the film going masses and the media alike relative to the evalaution of the medium film. There is insufficient academic support as well. India is where the West was after the silent era. At the same time because of globalisation all sorts of influences stream into the country and a kind of culture shock is going on. India is at some places at the forefront and at others half in the stone age. An unpredictable explosive mix.

Just to clarify for those who may not already know, I am an Indian, born, raised and living in India, therefore I guess I qualify as an "eastern" viewer of cinema as described by your post. Having clarified that, Mr. Taran Adarsh in the opinion of myself and quite a few friends, is a Moron when it comes to films and has no business being a critic. I think his reviews reflect the likes and dislikes of the lowest strata of Indian society and not that of all Indians. By 'lowest strata' I refer to the least educated and the economically weaker individuals for whom cinema has traditionally been the only source of escapist entertainment and whom Mr. Adarsh refers to as the masses. Although Mr. Taran Adarsh might be oblivious to the changing dynamism of the Indian cinema business, the fact is that the so called masses are becoming irrelevant to the profitability of a film. The "multiplex viewer", as referred to by Mr. Adarsh, is slowly but steadly taking over as the primary source of revenues for the Indian film industry. On an average a multiplex viewer pays about 4 to 5 times the amount for a single ticket compared to the "masses", thus each mutiplex ticket sold is equal to 4-5 tickets bought by the "masses". It is this "multiplex audience" that also determines the other major sources of revenue for Indian films, namely sattelite tv rights, music rights and home video rights. The "masses" are surely and steadly losing their influence over Indian cinema. The sooner the likes of Mr. Adarsh understand this, the sooner "bollywood" will become more profitable and they might finally get over the 95% failure rate of their films.

Another thing, films like 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai', 'Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham', 'Mohabattein', 'Veer Zaara', 'Hum Saath Saath Hain' etc. in other words the 'Chopra, Johar. Barjatya' brand of films are far more succesfull overseas than they are in India. The fact is that the vast majority of the Indian overseas would much rather just watch the same sugary, "cultural" films regardless of how far from reality they might be.

Well I agree that it is not a definite East vs. West thing. However, when you talk of "Indian films" not being considered a major art form though, and furthermore considered strict 'business,' it opens up a whole new chapter in the discussion.

By this I mean that firstly, you will have to consider that India has many different movie industries, with each language in each state having its own. In that, it is very unique and it is a factor that many critics of Bollywood do not consider. Even though Bollywood is the primary and better known movie industry in India, it is definitely not the only one. The others are driven less by the mob and profit motive than Bollywood itself, even though it may be driven by these factors on moderate levels depending on the area.

Secondly, as far as art form, film is definitely not considered one in relation to Bollywood. However, other regional film industries have given it due consideration. I'm sure there are other states that develop pieces of art in its cinema, but since I know only about the state of Kerala, having lived there many years, I would like to talk about it as an example.

In Kerala, Malayalam films have been made without glitz and glamour for many years, even for the commercial market, although those factors have not been ignored completely. In Kerala, literature is highly regarded and received both by critics and the public at large from what I have seen, possibly a result of the high literacy rate in the state. As I saw it, my cousins even enjoyed writing poetry here and there in school, in addition to even love letters. A lot of the films have been adapted from well received literary works in malayalam and still are. It started with "Chemmeen," but has stretched to films of scriptwriter/director Lohitadas, who is known to write stories with a cultural touch even today. There is even a separate circle, or market even, for malayalam art films and a lot of them have gone on to receive awards, even though they are not considered commercial hits. Speaking of the numerous alayalam films that transcend the genre of 'art' and 'commercial' there is even the title of the coveted 'National award.' I do have a feeling that the Kerala movie industry is not the only one in India that exhibits these qualities.

I definitely agree that there must be films made that have artistic elements, and additionally should be exposed to a sorrounding culture. However, the cultural and communication dynamics of India are a lot more complicated. One must understand that India is a country with many different states, with sometimes wholly different languages and ultimately cultures. This leads to different movie industries. There are films made that are of good quality, and it is even accessible to the sorrounding culture in that state, but not entirely outside it. This is definitely an economic and marketing issue related to the film's budgets which are a lot lower for regional industries. Could there be a profit motive and mob interest? Yes, but it is more so in Bollywood than its lower budget counterparts, who sometimes do not have to consider a mob or a high profit motive, and can express a little creativity here and there.

I just wish that regional films were more accessible to us in the west.

Well I agree that it is not a definite East vs. West thing. However, when you talk of "Indian films" not being considered a major art form though, and furthermore considered strict 'business,' it opens up a whole new chapter in the discussion.

By this I mean that firstly, you will have to consider that India has many different movie industries, with each language in each state having its own. In that, it is very unique and it is a factor that many critics of Bollywood do not consider. Even though Bollywood is the primary and better known movie industry in India, it is definitely not the only one. The others are driven less by the mob and profit motive than Bollywood itself, even though it may be driven by these factors on moderate levels depending on the area.

Secondly, as far as art form, film is definitely not considered one in relation to Bollywood. However, other regional film industries have given it due consideration. I'm sure there are other states that develop pieces of art in its cinema, but since I know only about the state of Kerala, having lived there many years, I would like to talk about it as an example.

In Kerala, Malayalam films have been made without glitz and glamour for many years, even for the commercial market, although those factors have not been ignored completely. In Kerala, literature is highly regarded and received both by critics and the public at large from what I have seen, possibly a result of the high literacy rate in the state. As I saw it, my cousins even enjoyed writing poetry here and there in school, in addition to even love letters. A lot of the films have been adapted from well received literary works in malayalam and still are. It started with "Chemmeen," but has stretched to films of scriptwriter/director Lohitadas, who is known to write stories with a cultural touch even today. There is even a separate circle, or market even, for malayalam art films and a lot of them have gone on to receive awards, even though they are not considered commercial hits. Speaking of the numerous alayalam films that transcend the genre of 'art' and 'commercial' there is even the title of the coveted 'National award.' I do have a feeling that the Kerala movie industry is not the only one in India that exhibits these qualities.

I definitely agree that there must be films made that have artistic elements, and additionally should be exposed to a sorrounding culture. However, the cultural and communication dynamics of India are a lot more complicated. One must understand that India is a country with many different states, with sometimes wholly different languages and ultimately cultures. This leads to different movie industries. There are films made that are of good quality, and it is even accessible to the sorrounding culture in that state, but not entirely outside it. This is definitely an economic and marketing issue related to the film's budgets which are a lot lower for regional industries. Could there be a profit motive and mob interest? Yes, but it is more so in Bollywood than its lower budget counterparts, who sometimes do not have to consider a mob or a high profit motive, and can express a little creativity here and there.

I just wish that regional films were more accessible to us in the west.

That is, for me, the main problem with his reviews.

They are unpredictable (not necessarily bad) and unreliable (very bad).
When you follow the reviews of a good critic, you soon do get a feeling for his taste, so that, after some time, you can discern whether you will like the film he or she is reviewing whether or not the critic liked it. Taran just hammers away - and when I read some of his reviews of films which I have seen, I have the feeling that he could have written them without even actually watching the film. I'm not saying he doesn't watch the films he reviews, it just sometimes sounds like it.

Recent example: Compare the reviews for "Hulchul" on f.ex. Planet Bollywood with Taran's review. The review on PB is quite well written and insightful, I think, while Taran's review doesn't help (me) at all.
Though I disagree with both of them, because I didn't like the movie, I found the review on PB helpful, while I regret the time I spent reading Taran's review.

I guess one of the main reasons for this thread (and its title !) is Taran's aggressive self-marketing on IndiaFm which veers on the arrogant side. At least that's how it sounds for me.



Yes. But, in my opinion, a film-industry for a country is a matter of infrastructure and the support of the public. India is one of the few countries in the world with a self-sufficient film industry. And the only country in the world sporting at least half a dozen film-industries.

Art film is a completely different matter. It is just coincidence if a country is a strong force in the world of art films because it is not a matter of infrastructure, or supprt or something you can create by will, it just depends on the fact, in which country a huge talent is born.
It is, for me, f.ex. pure coincidence that Denmark is an import country for art films at the moment, because Lars von Trier was born there and that South-Korea is a very import art film country at the moment, as Chan-Wook Park and Kim Ki-Duk live and work there.

For India, well, there may be no one with the reputation of Ray and Ghatak at the moment , but as someone living in the west, I would consider people like Mani Ratnam and Ram Gopal Varma as very strong forces.
Their latest efforts bombed respecitvly? So what, Yuva/Aayutha Ezhutu (I've bought and seen both) and Naach were incredibly well directed films and I for one sure do not regret buying, watching and enjoying them.



Tell me about it.
I live in Europe and while I have no problems with the access to Bollywood, it is rather difficult to find good addresses for shops for regional cinema (availability of Tamil Cinema is quite ok, rest is difficult).

And I do not dare to ask, though I have many questions, because there are so many threads about it already..

As far as I know TA used to run a print publication called TRADE GUIDE (or thereabouts...uncertain of the exact name). This used to publish post-release data on films released on an all-India basis. This magazine became the de-facto publication on box-office numbers sheerly because there was none other in competition. In my analysis this got to TA's head, and somewhere along the way he decided to also state why certain movies flopped albeit this was all with respect to the Indian market. Ofcourse no one really cared for the views he expressed because people (this was generally a cross section from the FTII) were more concerned with numbers and would do their own analysis. Because there was no one to really criticise what he did, he simply kept on with it and thinking in his own mind that people actually read and respected what he wrote. In the meanwhile he also acquired a journalist's credential and was now privy to previews of films.

Now along comes the internet in the mid-90s. TA's fare which hitherto was unread by the majority of the people, in his own words the 'masses'(sic), was suddenly thrown at all and sundry. Now he continues to collate the numbers for all-India and translates trade-jargon such as 'hit', 'super-hit', 'average', 'profit-sharing' etc. well on the site he writes for, but because it does not cost the owners of the site any more money, they also carry his so-called reviews. Mind you he also attempted a TV show called 'Taran Adarsh Presents' (or something like that) which was so summarily rejected, that I dont believe it airs any longer. It goes to show how people really DONT care for what HE thinks about movies. This show needed to be seen to be believed. He made such an ass of himself, I wondered how it even got a slot to be aired!

In any case, I do hope that the owners of the India-FM site are reading the outrage here on Zulm and exercise some editorial function and make sure his reviews and he are cut down to size.

Sorry if I'm being rough but IndiaFM could care less than a dead dog's ass(and that's not pretty). I mean, the freakin' popups that fill up my screen when I go to the damn site is enough to feed the jackasses' money coffers, Taran Adarsh included.

More the reason then not to visit the above mentioned sites !

Pardon my ignorance ( again !) . why is there such an outpour of rage against this guy , is he like the Roger Ebert of India ?. Also while i am at it - Who are some the "respected" critics that you guys follow ?

BTW i read his review of meenaxi and it sucks

Philip Lutgendorf of the University Of Iowa has a lot of engaging critiqued reviews of popular hindi films up on his website(notes on Indian popular cinema). He's by far, the only film critic I'm aware of who actually understands the art of the medium and can review a hindi film accordingly, unfortunately, i've learned that he doesn't review films on a weekly- regular basis.

That harmless comparision will have boosted TA's overly inflated ego even more !!!

Try reading Khalid Mohammed's reviews on Mid-Day (http://www.mid-day.com) under columnists.....also Dinesh Raheja's stuff on Rediff.com. I dunno which magazine he writes reviews for currently. Then there is Jitendra Kothari who used to free lance for India-Today sometime ago and for sure Anupama Chopra (also free lancing for India-Today a while ago). These are by far the best movie critics today in India writing about movies from Bollywood.

I definitely agree with the fact that people will respond well to original and unique work in Bollywood cinema. To stretch it further, I think it's one thing for people in the International audience to enjoy Bollywood cinema, and another for it to be unique.

I mean, my family will enjoy Bollywood films such as those from the Bhatt film family and Abbas-Mustan. These films, however, are not original and are copied from other works and forcibly plastered into the Indian movie culture. There are even films that are only slightly or "loosely" based on western films, and some have managed to have entertainment value. I still really don't believe that this type of cinema can be related in any way to the Indian mentality and culture. As a matter of fact, these films are so far apart from Indian themes, however enjoyable they may be.

On the other hand, there are films that deal with India itself and what I can call "Indian films." This includes almost all films from the Ram Gopal Verma camp, Yashraj(give or take), and Maniratnam. These films include "Rangeela," "DDLJ," "Satya," and "Company." Others include "Sarfarosh," "Lagaan," and of course the Maniratnam films. There are however, films that are blatant even when it tried to deal with India itself. Prime example is "LOC," and even "Gadar"(box-office success but I hated it).

I just wish there were more storylines, where a more authentic Indian character is seen, rather than a character that is almost a strict caricature of one in western cinema.