Second favourite

I think most of us have enough time to read more than one film critic. So, while I am at it I might as well write about my second favourite who can be read here. No, It is not a real blog. He merely posts his published articles here. Real bloggers such as myself, who toil hard at the task, do not consider that sort of a thing blogging. However, the point is that his film reviews (and other writing) published in diverse publications can be read here.

He has much in common with Mr. Lane. He too has read “Gussie gives away the prizes” 256 times and can recite it by heart. He too is read enthusiastically be me. Actually, that is it. But, there is one significant difference. Mr. Lane has what appears to be an infinite word limit to do his pieces and can therefore bring that much more to his writing. Mr. Lane, if informed by his editor that his pieces from now on cannot be more than 583 words long, will in all likelihood not take the news any better than Bertie Wooster who has been informed by Honoria Glossop that she will marry him. Let me see him come up with “throwaway bon mots” and witticisms about “Gandalf and his special wand” in a review of “sin city” then.

Mr. Subramanian on the other hand does a great job with his shorter pieces. He brings out the most significant analysis possible where one’s scope for such analysis is limited. Knowing the reviewer helps a good deal. You know that you can trust the opinion of a chappie when you know how much of his time he spends watching the movies that should be watched and reading the writers that should be read on the subject. I also like the fact that he brings to the review the big broad perspective of someone whose ken ranges from Christian theology and Norse mythology to history and astronomy. When you read a “Lord of the rings” review, you want to read it from the person has been hobbit savvy since age 12 and knows what the “JRR” stands for. You also want to read the writing of a person who not only has a great vocabulary but also knows the three potential etymologies of most words and phrases used.

And since I do know how much he works sometimes to come up with that much desired Flaubertian mot juste as he does on the “segues and transitions”, I am not entirely surprised at the elegant style or the easy smooth flow of the prose that is so desirable in any good read. ( I particularly admire this as someone who would be hard pressed to write an elegant sentence if instructed to do so at gunpoint.)

Sure, I don’t see e to e with him on his tendency to like “eternal sunshine of the spotless mind”. I do not approve of remarks about his fantasies involving a certain porn star and an edible item that is sprayed from a metallic can and the review of “The passion…” was a bit tepid. I also disapprove in no small measure of the fact that I have not got any “free” tickets to any screening thus far, which I think I should have. But if that is all I have to complaint about in over three years of reading his reviews, I can confidently recommend his writing as jolly good stuff. More of Mr. Subramanian’s writing on film can be read here.