Earlier this week, the Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA) filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court, seeking a ban on movie reviews on social media for the first three days of release. The counsel representing the TFAPA listed three reasons that necessitated the request — review bombing through reviews shot in cinema theatres, stage-managing fake reviews by purchasing bulk tickets, and intentionally propagating a negative image of the film through fake social media accounts.
These are pivotal concerns that need redressal and creators must be protected from targeted harassment. Paid reviews are real and, as Taapsee Pannu recently quoted Shah Rukh Khan as saying, are nothing more than advertisement spaces for sale. And so when the said space is used to unfairly demean a film, a business, or an entity, the legislature needs to step in and protect the affected parties. However, concerns also arise about the apparent discrepancies in how film chambers navigate these issues; like the ambiguity in using terms like ‘reviewers,’; the irony in how YouTube reviews are used when favourable and flattering; and who is referred to as a ‘reviewer’.
Who is a reviewer?
Every time a star film that had promised big bites the dust, we are reminded of the times when the filmmaking ecosystem tended to pride itself on one key aspect — that audiences have the final say and that the industry respects their judgement.
Closely observing recent discourses paints a startling picture of the idea of film criticism that remains. You exit a cinema hall on a Friday afternoon and are faced with a mike-borne journalist asking for your review — an industry-propagated technique used in post-release campaigns. Or you are an independent YouTube reviewer shooting a video review for your portal. If you shower praises on the film, it can be used to further promote the title; if you criticise it in a language the makers deem offensive, you might be slapped with a defamation suit or a copyright strike. Or, as a recent example showed, the partner of the film’s leading man would label you a pawn of a larger ‘propaganda group’. The very people who empower the audiences as ‘kings’ strip away their powers to decide for themselves.
A star like Vijay Deverakonda might argue that his film Family Starwas a victim of review bombings, and Jyotika might have evidence to call the Kanguvadebacle the handiwork of Suriya haters, but refraining from specifically calling out these fake accounts or nefarious internet entities serves no purpose or change. Instead, it suggests an attitude of intolerance towards criticism. Calling these reviews the work of a homogenous group called ‘reviewers’ or ‘social media reviewers’ also adds to the woes of the industry’s favourite scapegoat —traditional film critics. From being stigmatised as a profession as immoral paupers to being denounced as the killers of a ‘creator’s child,’ the film critic has always been the film industry’s favourite punching bag to vent its shortcomings.
Pensiveness, insight, and the ability to read films and write incisive pieces that celebrate and propagate film appreciation are what the pundits claim differentiate a critic. But in a democratised post-internet world, the know-how of film criticism is scattered but accessible, and the growing passion for movies has enabled audiences to read films more sensibly. In the competitive media space of today, the passion and resolve it takes to make film criticism a profession, build experience over time, and sharpen said skills are what sets apart a film critic from a film buff with a blog. In all their steps to tackle abusive trolls, film producers have maintained that their steps protect the interests of sensible reviews, but one wonders who the adjudicator of reviewing sensibilities is. A gag order censors every voice, good or bad.
Read the finer lines of TFAPA’s writ petition and you sense a generousness towards critics from notable newspapers and online portals, “who provide constructive criticism.” But what confidence does an ecosystem that attacks one section of the audience’s freedom of speech instil in others? In the past, names like Kairam Vashi and Amol Kamwal have been attacked for their unfavourable reviews. The irony is in how producers who claim to stand by noteworthy newspapers and portals, pigeonhole such critics as ‘niche’ and offer other film-related opportunities like interviews to the same sensationalist YouTube media they claim need regulation.
The industry believes that promotions and reviews, positive or negative, certainly influences the opinion of the audiences. Introspectively, even if film critics are shielded from any future censorship, a gag order on platforms meant for all would disrupt the quiet in an ecosystem that both film producers and film critics depend upon.
The law’s reaction
From what transpired at the Madras High Court during the hearing of the TFAPA’s arguments, one is certain that the court stands against curtailing free speech, lending an ear only to guidelines that can keep online platforms safe from targeted attacks and intentional review bombings. Earlier, in 2021, in hearing a petition to ban film reviews for seven days of the release, the Kerala High Court appointed an amicus curiae, who suggested a few regulations for movie reviews, including a 48-hour cooling-off period; avoiding spoilers in reviews; avoiding disrespectful language, personal attacks, or derogatory remarks; and constituting a dedicated portal to resolve grievances related to review bombings.
How the Madras High Court might navigate TFAPA’s complaints remains to be seen, but the ambiguous usage of terms by the producers’ body does raise concerns about censorship.
Published – December 06, 2024 11:04 am IST
