Critics are they sensible ???

The battle lines are drawn every Friday as critics dissect a film and pass a verdict, every time a critic lashes out on a film it not just affects the films Box Office run but also dents the reputation of people who were behind making the film.
Allegations, accusations and denials have been volleyed with no holds barred with neither side ready to acknowledge that the need of the hour is "Sensibility".

Are filmmaker's honest? , Is the critic consistent with his/her criticism? Critic rates the film but who rates the critic? , Are some of the questions which are bound to turn up. Few Critics have been accused of being "a limelight moth" at the expense of a Star or a film. It just takes a personal tiff with a star and a truck load of personal swipe in his blog. Voila! They are popular overnight with extremely high hits to their blog. It is only right to say that few critics have lost their moral obligation to make sure people don't miss out on good films. Film Makers vehemently allege that few critics are more concerned about bashing a bad film than providing a good impetus to a good film.

Isn't it enough for a critic to encourage good film makers and good films , provide young and passionate filmmakers with right push and throttle them up than mocking and bashing stars to grab a piece of pie called "publicity"?. Majority of today's critic's are either the puppets of big star's or publicity freaks who just want to be in the "news”. Only few manage to have morally sound conviction towards their profession.

Arun Vaidyanathan - The darling of the critics ever since he directed “Achamundu Achamundu” was his usual frank self about this issue. "Responsible and sensible critics have always been supporting people who are trying to do good cinema, however, there are few of them who want to bash a film because of their personal issues, its unfortunate and it shouldn't happen".

There were few critics who dismissed films like "Katradhu Thamizh " as a mere confused attempt when it was released, while in reality it was a film was about a "Confused, Psychotic and a frustrated" man. As a critic one is expected to posses’ good comprehension skills to comprehend cinema. Are critics really taken seriously by the people? Are they taking the might of their Pen for granted?

There seems to be a clear divide in the way both the sides think, the arrogance is seldom intellectual. Its high time film makers and critics open their ears to good “sensible” voices from both the sides, when this happens then Cinema will be the winner.