If you have been following South Indian movies closely, there is this ugly rift between filmmakers and reviewers.
Filmmakers are unhappy with reviewers’ negative reviews and sometimes sarcasm/trolls. Reviewers say they have the right to share their opinions. YouTubers, Instagramers, etc.
Things are kinda serious. Lawsuits and all happening.
Between all this mess, I noticed one important perspective missing - of the audience.
I’ll present each side’s argument, then will share what I think as a viewer who neither misses a film or a review.
If you have no idea what the fuss is about, I will make it as entertaining and contextual as possible for you. Think of it as a movie lover’s insight, if not anything.
So... this is what filmmakers think about reviewers
They influence or impose on people not to watch movies.
They make negative videos by trolling the actors/movie so that they get more views.
Reviewers have no knowledge or qualification to talk about the movie. “Come make a movie and talk” is a common narrative.
Reviews are unbiased only if you don’t make money from sponsorships or YouTube.
And... this is what reviewers think about filmmakers
It’s free speech. Everybody has a right to share their opinion.
Movies are a product and can be reviewed. Why shouldn’t we do it independently?
We want people to watch better movies.
You can’t threaten us with lawsuits or YouTube strikes because we are vocal about not liking your film.
Now... What I think
I have nothing to do with filmmakers or reviewers. I don’t know them. I only want to share my perspective as an audience.
I am a marketer and have worked on 70+ projects in the last three years. I understand how creators think.
More importantly, I have watched South Indian films for 26 years. Multiple languages, thousands of movies - so I know my connection with movies. Plus I consume teasers, trailers, most marketing interviews.
Then I watch reviews too.
If there is a perspective I am missing, it’s that of a filmmaker. I don’t make movies, so I don’t truly understand how they feel. I might be biased to reviewers or blinded to makers.
That aside, I’ll share the popular arguments and my opinions.
“Crew works hard to make movies. Years of effort and we lose crores because of negative reviews.”
Nobody cares about the effort. We watch a movie for a great experience with our favourite genre, artists, etc. That’s the core reason why. Appreciation of your hard work or any other feelings are only secondary.
“There is no story. Why are people even encouraging the old school movies with over-the-top action and dialogues.”
Value is different for different people. I watch movies for a good story and performances. But some people don’t care about the story and only watch for their favourite star. Seeing their ‘hero’ for two hours on screen is value to them. You can’t blame filmmakers for serving a hardcore fanbase.
“...over-the-top action and dialogues - part 2”
From teaser to movie promotions, the expectations are set clearly. As audience, we know if we’re in for comedy, cringe comedy, romance, action, intense drama, etc. Any person who expects Christofer Nolan’s making in Fast and Furious series is searching for wrong value at wrong place.
“...over-the-top action and dialogues - part 3”
There’s this actor, Balayya, who makes action films. Fights are over-the-top and almost all movies are the same. Yet his last four films made 100 Cr each.
See? Set of audience → Attracts value → Brings money to business.
“Filmmakers take our love for granted and raise prices like crazy.”
As makers, they have the right to set the price. I believe the audience has no say in this. End of the day, it’s business. Makers measure the buzz and price the number that brings the most profits. There’s enough pre-release material, maker’s history, etc., to decide if our money is worth spending. If not, there is an OTT release within two months.
“What qualifications do reviewers have to talk about films?”
You are confusing a critique with a reviewer. The way I see it - Critique criticises the movie or makers, considering the technical aspects like cinematography, sound, screenplay, etc. There isn’t a strict qualification, but you need a journalism or arts background as a foundation.
Reviews, on the other hand, share their opinions as an audience. They don’t follow a set of metrics or technicalities, but only mention what they like or don’t like about the film.
Every person who watches a film will have an opinion. Some share it with friends. Some share it on public platforms, turning into reviewers.
My point - Critique might need qualifications, but the qualifications of those sharing opinions don’t make sense. By this logic, none of the audience has any qualification to watch, decide, or share word-of-mouth.
Reviewers are no separate breed. They are the same people for whom the filmmakers make films.
Only that they share opinions publicly.
“Why don’t reviewers make a film? Show how it’s done?”
Taste and Skill evolve at different speeds.
Your ability to judge art develops way before your ability to create. That’s the reason you know what design, book, or food is good/bad, but you can’t make it any better or create from scratch.
Skill comes from millions of reps.
The job of reviewers is to judge a film based on their taste. (FYI: That’s how audience watches too) Filmmakers are challenging reviewers’ skills. Totally different games.
“Reviewers speak negatively about the film for views.”
I agree. Once a creator cracks a code with sarcasm, humour, or anger, they want to double down on it. You don’t want your movie to have branding any different from what you imagined and you definitely don’t want it to be a meme.
But again - audience are smart. They might fall for the review a few times, but eventually will learn to not trust the reviewer.
Btw, there is a bright side too. No one really accounts how reviews bring visibility to underrated, unappreciated movies.
“Is reviews’ influence strong enough on people to stop them from coming to theatres?”
Yes. There is influence when there is uncertainty - when audience consider a movie but aren’t so sure.
I dropped going to theatre to kill time because reviews were bad.
I went to theatres because the reviews were great for the movie I had no intention of watching.
Influence works both ways.
The authority a movie holds over an audience is much larger than of a review.
If the movie is decently promoted and audience see substance in trailers, nothing stops them from watching it in theatres. Including the bad talk and even the bad movies.
Our movie culture has wired us to watch movies regardless.
“Reviewers are manipulating the audience” vs “Audience deserve better movies from makers”
Ever heard of sunk cost? You spend lots of time on your product, so you lose objectivity and assume it is more important than it is.
Both filmmakers and reviewers miss one thing in their arguments - Audience are smart.
Audience are smart enough to not solely rely on movie’s marketing material or the reviews. They are smart enough to decide if the movie is for them or not. They are smart enough to know if they really like the movie or just fitting in with public opinions. They might not voice it, but they know. They also know their expectations of the movie and where it exceeded or failed them.
Even the most hardcore fans who defend their favourite stars with zero logic know deep down the film isn’t that great. Their love and pride won’t allow them to admit it, but they’re smart as well.
So don’t worry about us as much maybe?
Makers and reviewers are significant catalysts in forming opinions or driving audiences to theatres, but they are nowhere close to the causation.
