Monthly Archives: May 2020

Difference between Film Journalism & Entertainment Journalism

As we all know, film journalism involves giving information about films. It is largely about writing news and feature articles about movies, taking interviews of people associated with films and giving movie reviews.

In other words, film journalism is aimed at people who share a deep interest in films and who would like to get more information or knowledge on films and people associated with films.

The following are examples of articles that fall under the film journalism category:

— Will release films in theatres, but only when we’re comfortable, says director Kabir Khan

— Marathi horror film Lapachhapi gets a Hindi remake with Chhori

— Vidhu Vinod Responds to Kashmiri Students’ Critique of Shikara

— How a pair of folk puppets inspired Shoojit Sircar’s comedy Gulabo Sitabo

But the definition of film journalism has gone through a major change with the advent of online journalism over the last decade. This has given rise to a different branch of film journalism called ‘entertainment journalism.’ This is seen the most in websites that are completely dedicated to movies.

The definition of entertainment journalism is simple – to keep your readers or viewers entertained. Instead of giving information about films or cinema, it is about keeping your audience hooked with ‘stories’ about stars and superstars. More often than not, these stories are personal stories about famous people, which have nothing to do with cinema. And there is no place for faces that are not famous.

Some examples of entertainment journalism include:

— The best and the worst airport looks of 2020

— The super cute Taimur Ali Khan greets paparazzi saying ‘Aye Bhai Log’

— Hina Khan’s hot bikini pics have set the internet on fire

— How cute! Deepika Padukone has saved Ranveer Singh’s number in her phone as ‘ Handsome ’

— Neha Dhupia’s daughter interrupting her live Roadies Audition is the most adorable moment of the day

Going by the kind of news shared above, you must have understood that the only aim of entertainment journalism is to get page-views. In fact, it’s a battle on the internet for clicks between major and minor publications. And the only way to win the battle is by putting the kind of sensational or exciting content that would compel people to click on the link.

Also read: Hardik Pandya comments: We are channelizing our anger in the wrong direction

Along with such content, what works very well on the internet is glamorous pictures of actresses with skin show. The more skin show the more clicks. So, an actress sharing a hot picture on Instagram is news in today’s times. Then there are also photo galleries where all the glamorous pictures are dumped for someone to view them together.

It is understandable that a section of movie lovers abhor such content being dished out in the name of film journalism. This is completely understandable. And it is obvious that they slam these publications and their reporters for putting up such ‘news.’

However, it would be unfair to blame them. Trust me, almost every film reporter or journalist I know hates writing such stuff. There are people who entered this field to write about movies but had to be content with writing about Taimur. Even their bosses and the management personally don’t like bombarding such content to their readers.

So, why do they carry such content? The answer is simple. It is these news bits that give the maximum number of page-views. As hard as it may sound, page-views is the whole and soul for websites. Even for this, the editors and owners can’t be blamed.

The pressure is immense in today’s world where there are hundreds of movie websites. Hence, the only way to survive is to get page-views. People from the media would be aware about the dark period that’s going on in the profession. A long list of journalists have lost their jobs in the lockdown so far all over India. Such is the financial crunch in the media right now.

So, it is up to the readers. If they stop consuming news about Taimur eating an ice-cream and start giving page-views to concrete cinema news, there will be a complete change. It is in their hands to decide what would be published on cinema news portals.

When 2 part-timers opened the bowling for Australia

3 Replies

The mid to late 1990s saw the rising of Sri Lanka. After becoming the unlikely heroes of the 1996 World Cup, they became one of the bigshots of the ODIs (one-day internationals), along with Australia. So, a match between Sri Lanka and Australia was considered a clash of the titans, especially after their clash in the 1996 WC Finals.

But this particular match between Sri Lanka and Australia is remembered for the latter’s bowling strategy that, to put frankly, was weird. This was the third match of the 1996 Singer World Series played at the R Premadasa Stadium in Colombo. The other two teams in this quadrangular series were India and Zimbabwe.

In the match in question, Australia batted first and scored 228 for 9 with Michael Bevan top-scoring with 56 and Sri Lanka’s Upul Chandana taking 3 for 38.

Here came the baffling part when Sanath Jayasuriya and Romesh Kaluwitharana came onto bat. Australia had a deadly pace bowling line-up of Glenn McGrath, Damien Fleming and Jason Gillespie. But the bowling was opened by Steve Waugh and, hold your breath, Stuart Law!

On top of that, Law, who bowls leg-spin, was asked to bowl medium pace. He had just 12 wickets when his career was over. Steve Waugh was a useful bowler but why would you give him the new ball when you have three match-winning frontline pacers? And on top of that, Waugh and Law had to bowl to the most dreaded opening pair of Jaysuriya and Kaluwitharana.

This move had baffled me when I was a kid. Recently as I saw the scorecard of that match, I got another surprise. Except McGrath, Fleming and Gillespie, Australia didn’t play a single regular bowler in the match! I am yet to find any other instance of a team playing with only three regular bowlers.

Plus, they employed such a tactic in a match where they were pitted against, what was then considered, a dangerous batting order. If there were injury issues, they could have played some other bowler from the squad.

Playing only three regular bowlers meant that they needed to get 20 overs from non-regular or part-time bowlers, which is a daunting task. Maybe that’s why they wanted to finish off some of those 20 overs right at the start. Or maybe they wanted to give an easy time to the opening batsmen and then make them face some deadly bowling by the three regulars. Either way, it didn’t make sense.

But funnily enough, the weird tactic almost worked for Australia. Sri Lanka, at one stage, were reduced to 81 for 5, which made the target look steeper than it was. But the Lankans fought back and won comfortably with 4 wickets in hand. Aravinda de Silva top-scored with 83 not out while Roshan Mahanama made 50.

I guess not making a good fourth and fifth bowling option cost Aussies the match. Interestingly, in the other two league matches, Australia played four regular bowlers but in the final against Sri Lanka, they again played only 3 and paid the price as the Lankans won the cup.

Highlights of the final match of the series

But more surprising was the move in the league match were Waugh and Law opened the bowling. I am unable to find any other example of 2 non-regular bowlers opening the bowling in an ODI.

If you know any other such instance, please mention in the comments’ section.

Additional reading: Forgotten Cricket Moments: The real Lagaan match at Brabourne Stadium

Only time Tendulkar was NOT selected in team India, neither injured nor rested

England’s Mark Waugh also batted well & bowled off-spin. Here’s more…

Panchayat Review – A perfect ode to Swades

1 Reply

‘Real India lies in villages’ is something we have heard numerous times. It is quite incredible to see the huge difference in lifestyle between a metropolitan city and a small village. At numerous places, these villages are based just 100 kilomers away from a big city but appear like a different country altogether.

Deepak Kumar Mishra’s web-series Panchayat, which is streaming on Amazon Prime Video, tries building a connect between urban and rural India through the character of Abhishek Tripathi (Jitendra Kumar). After not scoring well in his exams, he is forced to take up the government job of a secretary in the village Phulera in Uttar Pradesh. He hates taking up this job but is encouraged by his best friend Prateek (Biswapati Sarkar).

Abhishek gets a culture shock once he lands in the village. The small accommodation, open toilets to nagging co-workers and villagers are enough for him to abhor this place as soon as he lands there. On top of that, he has to deal with the not-so-interesting work of a secretary. How long will Abhishek hang in there?

There’s a certain degree of likeability in Jitendra Kumar when he feels frustrated and helpless because of any reason. As the series progresses, we get to see different shades and emotions of the character. Much before the series ends you get convinced that he is a perfect fit for this role.

Panchayat is filled with a number of other prominent characters as well. Manju Devi (Neena Gupta) is the actual Pradhan [village head] of Phulera. As there was reservation for female candidates during the last elections, her husband Brij Bhushan Dubey (Raghuvir Yadav) makes her fight for the election. Although she wins, the task of the Pradhan is carried out by Dubey.

Yadav once again gives a reminder that he should get a place in the list of the best character artistes from India. As per his habit, he gives another example of how should one live and breathe a character. But as he is always seen in the village office, you wonder why they signed someone like Neena Gupta for such a small role. However, she gets her moments in the last episode where she outperforms others.

Panchayat looks at different incidents in the tenure of Abhishek Tripathi through a wide range of conflicts with each being explored in every episode. The incidents are a perfect mix of being interesting, moving and, of course, humorous. The series is a result of a fine piece of writing, which is clearly its biggest plus point. We have seen how a village setting offers plenty of scope for humour because of the lifestyle over there and the characters. The makers have made full use of it.

Also read: The Family Man Review

As the episodes go by one after the other, Abhishek slowly starts developing an unusual bond with the villagers and the village itself. Though he might not show it, it’s pretty evident. A moment which stands out is the one where Dubey and others decide to hold a simple party for Abhishek after they realize how lonely he is feeling in the village. Thankfully, a forceful love story isn’t used as a troupe here.

Surprisingly, there’s no negative point here. There are a couple of incidents which might not appear as appealing as many others. But they certainly don’t fall in the minuses zone whatsoever.

Along with the content and the characters, the other major reason why one falls in love with Panchayat is because of the location of Abhishek’s home-cum-office and its surroundings, including the high water tank. There’s something about it which makes you eager to visit it.

We had felt the same after watching Ashutosh Gowariker’s Shah Rukh Khan-starrer Swades (2004), which is considered a classic by many. Panchayat is a perfect ode to the film. Going by how the makers have included a couple of references of Swades, it seems that giving tribute to the film might be their intention too.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Director: Deepak Kumar Mishra

Producers: TVF (The Viral Factory)

Cast: Jitendra Kumar, Raghuvir Yadav, Neena Gupta, Chandan Roy, Faisal Malik, Biswapati Sarkar

Writers: Chandan Kumar