Khalid Mohammed on Bhootnath and Bachchan: Tasteless Critic and Critique

Khalid Mohammed on Bhootnath and Bachchan: Tasteless Critic and Critique
Monday, May 12, 2008 - Commentary

Khalid Mohammed has written a rather tasteless piece on Bhootnath in the guise of a ‘film review’. Now, following a polemical response by Amitabh Bachchan on his blog, the ‘critic’ has delivered an even more ugly response. All of this is perhaps not ‘unexpected’. For the longest time Hindi film critics have crossed the line in various ways when it comes to evaluating Bachchan. The ‘rules’ have always been a little different, and paradoxically so, in dealing with this last of superstars. That Khalid Mohammed chose to join such a chorus is deeply disappointing and a little infuriating.

Let us be clear. Khalid Mohammed has every right to critique and criticize Bhootnath. He has every right to expect certain standards from Amitabh Bachchan in terms of film selection and performance. Even if one were to disagree with him one would always grant him that right. There are examples from all over the world of ‘open letters’ addressed to public figures in different media outlets. These writings are often polemical and expressed in relatively strong language. Often these cause offense to those who are addressed. This sort of dynamic is fairly common and if this is all that transpired in this case there would be nothing exceptional about it. But this is not the route Khalid Mohammed has taken. He has chosen the path of merciless ridicule. He has not written a dignified ‘open letter’ nor has he penned a serious piece of criticism. He has just penned an ‘assassination’ note by excessively relying on the ‘ad hominem’. It is this that now masquerades as a ‘film review’ that in turn is also supposedly not quite one!

Why and how does Khalid Mohammed take it upon himself to deliver a ‘personal’ response through a ‘public’ medium? There is surely something Swiftian about such logic! Is it not a little absurd for a critic to authorize himself in this fashion? Is not Amitabh Bachchan a little more deserving of this critic’s respect? Has such not been earned by the megastar over the years and not only with this critic? Did Amitabh Bachchan ever join the chorus of those who heaped ridicule on the critic’s own films? Publicly or ‘private-publicly’ (one needs a new term for Khalid Mohammed’s logic)? Was not Bachchan deserving of similar civility? Surely Bachchan is not complaining about ‘the critics’ as public figures usually do. Has he not maintained in fact the most perfect decorum on these matters throughout his career? A move that has in fact enabled ‘the critics’ to say whatever they wished at different points where such would not be dared with a number of other stars? Can Khalid Mohammed honestly say that he would have written exactly this sort of review on Shahrukh Khan or Hrithik Roshan?

The last point is not a facetious one. Before critics start taking themselves too seriously they should also engage in some introspection and try to figure out whether they have been writing on films in a manner that educates or enlightens their audiences or whether they just imagine banality to be the only ingredient in a film review. India even today does not have a proper film culture in this sense. People writing in film magazines and leading newspapers on cinema do not serious film critics make. Khalid Mohammed was a bit of an exception. One of the few exceptions. He is assuredly not a ‘hack’. So why has he chosen to become one for Bhootnath? This is not the only time when this critic has done so. His equally recent Tashan review has been ’staged’ like a comedy skit! But even that review is vastly kinder to the central stars of that film than the one of Bhootnath is to Bachchan. So the latter does not even deserve the relative civility that Akshay Kumar and Saif Ali Khan do in this critic’s world!

Perhaps Khalid Mohammed is completely disappointed with what Amitabh Bachchan has become in his version of events. This is a legitimate view. But rather than pining for the Bachchan who did Zanjeer and Deewar and now does Bhootnath would not this critic be better served to ask himself as to how much he has also been responsible for the evolution of a Hindi cinema that offers a giant like Bachchan roles hardly commensurate with his talents? In a healthy film culture critics like Khalid Mohammed do not routinely celebrate the kind of plastic cinema that Yashraj among others have fostered for more than a decade? Film critics who are serious, who are able to ‘inform’ audiences, also do not celebrate the stars in those films as thespians. Has Khalid Mohammed never been guilty of such? Has he never celebrated ‘mediocrity’ simply because it defined the times or only because it was considered ‘quality cinema’ by the audiences? Has he not followed his audiences like so many others in his profession rather than educate them? How often has he lionized the truly authentic films that Bachchan (or other stars) have done? Has he occasionally followed up with such ‘public letters’ to celebrate films that otherwise were ridiculed by audiences and critics alike? What is really the ‘difference’ Khalid Mohammed has brought about? What position of privilege does he now imagine himself to be in on any of these questions where he would then have the moral or ethical authority to launch such invective against Bachchan?

Some have now claimed in support of Khalid Mohammed that Bachchan cannot only expect ‘fans’ to write reviews of his films. It’s safe to say that Bachchan would be the last star to expect anything of the sort given the kind of criticism he has faced for most of his career on many different levels and especially over the last decade or more. Bachchan has received too many of the media’s ‘unkindest cuts’ to be naive enough or fatuous enough to expect ‘fan reviews’. He has been routinely treated in very hostile fashion by the media at various points and at others there has been a smear campaign lauched against him with the usual innuendo laden pieces and so forth (even if Vinod Mehta has never noticed this). Even Abhishek Bachchan has not been safe from such ‘targeting’. Eight out of ten media pieces on Abhishek Bachchan anywhere are sneers at various aspects of his private or public life. Bachchan would therefore have to be all the more challenged on intellectual grounds to expect anything ‘fair’ from the media let alone ‘fan pieces’! Again, the point here is that other stars in the business are not treated to the sort of slurs the Bachchans are, in every aspect of their lives, with anything approaching the same regularity, if at all.

Finally there is the usual insinuation that Amitabh Bachchan should retire rather than do such films. The critics do not wish their exceedingly refined sensibilities to be hurt. They want the latter to be kept safe for the next Yashraj installment or the next bout of mindlessly escapist multiplex fare. But who are the ‘critics’ to call for the retirement of any star, let alone one as enshrined in the public domain as Bachchan? Should Bachchan start calling for the retirement of Khalid Mohammed in return? Based on some of the latter’s writings, especially the Bhootnath one, he would have a plausible case! And the critic unlike the superstar is not being kept alive by ‘audiences’. If there was not a ‘market’ for Amitabh Bachchan he would not be around. Unlike the critic who does not have to depend on the vagaries of audience opinion or changing trends and so forth. One can disagree with a star’s choices but why does one has to insult the star in doing so? Why does one have to resort to this ultimate taunt of asking someone to retire? What right does the critic have to do this? The point here is not to paint stars, even someone of the magnitude and enduring impact of Amitabh Bachchan, as martys who are often demonized by the media. However, it is to suggest that a film media that is often lacking in competence, that is often complicit with one film industry outfit or another and therefore compromised, is often a much bigger part of the problem than the stars and films it critiques. Khalid Mohammed did not seem to be part of either model? Why then such a scurrilous piece?

I will finally end on a note of personal privilege. I did not like Bhootnath myself and for many reasons. I could think of a number of critical pieces to write on the film but not one would come remotely close to Khalid Mohammed’s modes. I will also allow myself a little immodesty in suggesting that those potential pieces would also enlighten readers and certainly be more cogent and provocative as criticism. If Khalid Mohammed does not find this plausible I would urge him to visit Bachchan’s blog and look up my responses. These are not too hard to find since I have addressed Bachchan on every single post of his, often in ‘critical’ ways. One might just have to navigate a bit through the hundreds of comments in each post to locate mine but then I suppose Bachchan should be held responsible for breeding so many fans over the years! I started engaging so thoroughly on Bachchan’s blog precisely to begin what has been an ongoing conversation for me, in other contexts, on the Bachchan ’signature’ and indeed I have tried to approach a study of the cinematic through this frame. My responses on Bachchan’s blog also includes a review of Nishabd which I think Khalid Mohammed should especially check out. There is a way of doing ‘negative criticism’ and this piece hopefully demonstrates this by example. Khalid Mohammed once offered such examples as well as does most notably Baradwaj Rangan today. Ironically, Khalid Mohammed has completely lost his own interesting voice from the past and the Bhootnath review is the saddest confirmation of this.

Satyam Syndication :