For representative purposes. , Photo Credit: Getty Images
EEarlier this week, the Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA) filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court, seeking a ban on film reviews on social media for the first three days of its release. The lawyer representing TFAPA cited three reasons for the need for the request – review bombing through reviews shot in movie theaters, stage-management of fake reviews by purchasing bulk tickets, and deliberate negative publicity of the film through fake social media accounts. To promote the image.
These are major concerns that need to be addressed and creators should be protected from targeted harassment. Paid reviews are real and, as Taapsee Pannu recently quoted Shah Rukh Khan as saying, are nothing more than advertising space for sale. And so when the said space is used to unfairly defame a film, business or entity, the legislature needs to intervene and protect the affected parties. However, concerns are also raised about apparent inconsistencies in how the Film Chambers approach these issues; Like the ambiguity in the use of words like ‘reviewers’; It’s ironic how YouTube reviews are used at times to be favorable and flattering; And who is called ‘reviewer’?
Who is the reviewer?
Whenever a star film making big promises fails, we are reminded of a time when the filmmaking ecosystem used to take pride in one key aspect – that the audience has the final say and the industry respects their decision. .
A closer look at recent discourses reveals a startling picture of the idea of ​​film criticism. You walk out of a cinema hall on a Friday afternoon and are faced with a journalist with a microphone asking for your review – an industry-promoted technique used in post-release campaigns. Or you are a freelance YouTube reviewer shooting video reviews for your portal. If you admire the film, this can be used to further the title; If you criticize it in language that the creators consider offensive, you may be subject to a defamation lawsuit or copyright strike. Or, as a recent example shows, the partner of the main man in the movie will brand you as a pawn of a big ‘propaganda group’. The same people who empower the audience as ‘kings’ also take away their powers to make their own decisions.
A star like Vijay Deverakonda can argue that his film family starSamiksha was a victim of the bomb blast, and Jyotika may have evidence to call CanguvaDefeat the handiwork of Surya 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 critics’ also increases the discomfort of the industry’s favorite scapegoats – traditional film critics. From being stigmatized as immoral paupers as a profession to being condemned as murderers of ‘producer’s children’, the film critic has always been the film industry’s favorite punching bag to expose its shortcomings.
Pundits claim that depth, insight, and the ability to read films and write incisive pieces that celebrate and promote film appreciation is what sets a critic apart. But in the post-Internet democratic world, information on film criticism is scattered but accessible, and the growing passion for films has enabled audiences to read films more intelligently. In today’s competitive media arena, the passion and determination required to make film criticism a profession, build experience over time, and hone said skills is what separates a film critic from a film lover with a blog. In all their moves to deal with abusive trolls, the filmmakers have said that their steps protect the interests of discerning reviews, but one wonders who is the arbiter of review sensitivities. A shutdown order censors every voice, good or bad.
Read the fine lines of TFAPA’s writ petition and you will realize the leniency towards critics of notable newspapers and online portals, “which provide constructive criticism”. But what confidence does an ecosystem that attacks one section of the audience’s freedom of expression instill in others? Names like Carrum Vashi and Amol Kamwal have been attacked for their unfavorable reviews in the past. The irony is that producers who claim to have standing with notable newspapers and portals term such critics as ‘niche’ and offer other film-related opportunities like interviews to the same sensationalist YouTube media about whom they are Claim that they need regulation.
The industry believes that publicity and reviews, positive or negative, definitely influence audience opinion. On introspection, even if film critics are protected from any future censorship, a ban order on platforms meant for all would disrupt the peace in the ecosystem on which both film producers and film critics depend.
law response
What happened in the Madras High Court during the hearing of TFAPA’s arguments makes it certain that the court is against curbing free speech, paying only attention to the guidelines that protect online platforms from targeted attacks and deliberate review bombing. Can keep. Earlier, in 2021, while hearing a plea to ban film reviews for seven days after release, the Kerala High Court appointed an amicus curiae who suggested certain rules for film reviews, including a 48-hour cooling off period. -Off period also included; Avoiding spoilers in reviews; Refrain from disrespectful language, personal attacks or derogatory comments; and setting up a dedicated portal to resolve complaints related to review bombing.
How the Madras High Court might act on TFAPA complaints remains to be seen, but the vague use of words by the producers’ body raises concerns about censorship.
published – December 06, 2024 11:04 am IST
