Reviewers review

iIndian cinema’s battles with censorship are long and storied. Film journalism, for the most part, sympathized with his struggles. Restrictions on artistic and intellectual freedom are undesirable in any democracy. Regimes that inhibit or regulate art are equally adamant about the free flow of information. In such a climate it is possible, at least in spirit, for the creators and commentators of culture to stand together. However, this is increasingly not the case.

Filmmakers and producers expect tolerance, transparency and nuance from governing bodies, but are often reluctant to extend the same to the press. A series of recent developments illustrate this rift. From pre-screenings being scrapped by a major Bollywood studio to YouTubers receiving copyright strikes for posting negative reviews, film critics, journalists and content creators are losing ground in an already cluttered media landscape. It becomes puzzlingly difficult to report honestly and insightfully on Indian films; the scaffolding, however shaky, of conscientious dissent threatens to collapse.

Of course, there is some basis for the industry’s paranoid attitude toward the press. The digital age has made it difficult to distinguish genuine criticism from malice and sabotage. On social media, everyone is a critic or trade analyst. “Paid reviews,” welcomed when favorable, can become a nuisance when used by a rival camp or star. We also live in an age of boycott calls and manufactured controversy: a passing remark by an actor can be taken out of context and spread online, damaging the prospects of a release. So then it’s much easier to limit interaction altogether, favoring harmless city tours and fan meetings instead.

Both Bollywood and regional industries censor the media in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Press conferences and promotional interviews are conducted in an almost laboratory setting — praise and frivolity are encouraged, as are all “movie-related questions”; ask anything relevant or political, however, and you’ll most likely draw the ire of the five different PR teams. Streaming platforms prefer to record interviews on their end; this gives them the advantage of cutting out anything awkward or controversial at the editing stage. Actors are nonchalantly “apolitical” even when appearing in decidedly political films.

There are definitely problems with the entertainment media ecosystem as a whole. “A lot of reviews outside India are often political and paid,” actor Abhay Deol told Gulf News in 2021. “Reviewers and critics have lost their credibility.” Money doesn’t always have to be involved; providing access to movie stars is treated as currency in itself. Sensational, provocative views on the internet tend to trump more nuanced reactions. Tellingly – and vaguely amusing – India’s televised awards have a separate ‘critics’ category, meaning the main jury is bound by commercial restrictions.

So, do filmmakers, production banners and streaming platforms have the right to protect their interests in such a volatile atmosphere? For sure. But in short, restricting the press is not a solution to their woes. A release based on spectacle and star power will still attract audiences regardless of reviews. However, smaller, “indier” titles will suffer as they are dependent on positive pre-release critical buzz. Honest, meaningful writing about cinema takes time and effort. Reviews thrown out in the mad rush of Friday will lose quality and insight (or at the very least, carry horrendous typos).

Also read | Movie Reviews Intended to Inform and Enlighten, Not Destroy and Extort: ​​HC

Great art, they say, inspires great commentary. If the film industry is indeed undergoing a “crisis of confidence” as has been suggested in recent weeks, it can start by keeping its side of the bargain.

shilajit.mitra@thehindu.co.in