The interactive seminar, jointly organised by FIPRESCI-India (The International Film Critics Federation) and the V Shantaram Foundation, examined various issues ranging from the role of popular cinema in India to the exact purpose of a film review or critique.

Quoting the example of the New York Times, Benegal pointed out that film reviews in Indian publications do not influence audience choices as dramatically as they do in the West. "For instance, Shakespeare In Love which got a glowing review in the paper went on to become a hit, while Elizabeth which didn't, failed at the box-office," he said.

However, he said, there is a case for constructive criticism. "As a director, I like to read areview to know how my film bounces off people, simply because their response may be quite different from what I expected," he said.

On a lighter note, veteran critic and president of FIPRESCI-India, Chidanand Dasgupta titled his presentation, `Asking Film Criticism To Go Away'. "Nobody wants it," he said, "and as far as the film makers are concerned, it is nothing more than an instrument of publicity. The system actively marginalises the role of the critic."

Dr Aroon Tikekar, editor of Loksatta said, while there's no special qualification required to become a critic, it is important to be honest on the job. "The ideal situation is one where the reviewer has no axe to grind and artists aren't over-sensitive to criticism," he said.

Writer-director Vinay Shukla urged that popular Indian cinema be reviewed within its defined framework. "The critic must offer sufficient analysis to support his opinion," he said. Added Benegal, "It is also important to consciously avoid casual reviews andcomments."

Finally, it was Prof Kedar Awati of the FTII (Film and Television Institute of India) who offered an estimate of a critic's function in the Indian situation. "It is necessary for a critic to be able to relate to a work directly. For, his role is that of a facilitator -- one who allows someone else to share his experience," he said.