Kerala, a State known for its vibrant public sphere, is now in the news for what film producers have termed as the phenomenon of “review bombing”. Makers of a couple of films have approached the Kerala High Court, seeking a gag on social media and YouTube reviews for at least seven days following a film‘s release; the claim being that these reviews can make or break films, and by extension the sustainability of the Malayalam film industry. The Kerala police have also booked some online reviewers and social media platforms, following complaints from producers. The State is now witnessing a heated debate with a groundswell of support for the reviewers, raising pertinent questions on freedom of expression. B. Unnikrishnan and C. S. Venkiteswaran add their two cents to the discussion, in a conversation hosted by S. R. Praveen. Edited excerpts:
Do you think a call for a gag or a ban on negative reviews is justified? Can you tell us from the perspective of the industry regarding immediate online reviews?
Unnikrishnan: I’m not for implementing any ban on any review whatsoever. The case filed by the producers’ association has not made a demand for a gag on reviews, although individual producers have. The producers’ association has raised some pertinent issues regarding online marketing and “paid reviews”, and the High Court has taken it seriously and is addressing the issue from various possible legal angles. I think not only me, but no filmmaker in Malayalam would also agree with that because criticism is something which constructs the discourse around cinema. Without criticism, cinema cannot go on, and cinema cannot be.
Also read | Film Employees Federation of Kerala reiterates support for restrictions on negative online reviews of movies
During the interactions we have had with the producer’s association, PRO’s unions, and other stakeholders, they cited some instances. As the matter is sub judice, I cannot talk about it in detail, but the budget for digital marketing of cinema has gone up considerably. One year ago, the total budget allocated for an online campaign of a big superstar film was just around ₹10 lakh. Now, it has touched almost ₹50 lakhs. This figure is in no way justified because there are digital marketing agencies who exploit the insecurity of filmmakers and producers who have this mistaken notion that the old way of publicising a film would not work. All of them are now compelled to pump in more money. So, more false promises are made. For instance, an agency has quoted around ₹10 lakh for generating hundred “positive reviews” and around 10,000 Facebook comments. It’s an absurd scenario. The discussion revealed that there are a lot of discrepancies in the figures quoted, and malpractices occur.
Secondly, coming to online reviews, there are a lot of issues regarding body shaming, remarks which are racist and gender prejudicial. Some of them are also without much basis in facts and tarnish the reputation of the people involved. So, these things have to be handled legally. It’s not easy because while addressing them legitimately or legally, we have to make sure that the freedom of expression of a critic is in no way curtailed.
Do you see it as ironic that a State like Kerala with a long tradition of sharp criticism of everything, with people like M. Krishnan Nair and even Mr. Unnikrishnan who was a critic in the past, would also be the first one to have a court case against reviews?
Venkiteswaran: Yes, very much. The whole idea goes against the very foundation of criticism and against the very grain of cinema which is a free interface between movies and people. So, this is a violation of the whole spirit of cinema. From what Mr. Unnikrishnan said, there are two aspects to it. One is the mess or the problem that is in-house, within the industry, between producers, exhibitors, and marketers. All [these] are industry-related problems which the industry has to address, and which should not be pushed on to people or the viewers or used to curtail the freedom of the critics.
Comment | Review at your own peril
The second thing is about the content of certain Youtubers or online reviewers, which again is a question of freedom of expression. All these questions about body shaming or whatever malcontent has to be sorted out within that domain. Looking at the larger perspective, what has in effect happened is that the industry — through this case — dragged the surveillance of the State into the domain of art. It has asked the court and the State to arbitrate upon a domain where art and public meet each other. By doing this, the industry is cutting at the very roots of its own existence because the filmmakers’ freedom to produce and express, the freedom to exhibit, and the freedom of the viewer to watch and comment are all integral to this interface and all draw from the same constitutional provisions. Once you drag in the State, it is going to work against the interests of the industry itself in the long run.
This demand for a seven-day ban on reviews or about what should be said in reviews, all these will naturally permeate into the content of the film. Now, people can file cases and there will be judgments about the content of the film, about the kind of criticisms that you can make within the film. To fight these archaic laws like censorship, the cinephiles and critics were the natural allies of the industry. You are now antagonising them. Dragging an industrial problem into the public domain, which leads to gagging of opinions, is a very serious thing, especially in the socio-political context we live in today in India.
Are reviews really the reason for films bombing at the box office, as producers are claiming? We have had close to 200 Malayalam films releasing this year and only less than ten of them have made considerable money at the box office. Many films which were not reviewed had bombed. Are reviewers being made a scapegoat to deflect attention from the real issue — the quality of a majority of the films?
Venkiteswaran: Actually, what is this whole anxiety about? Like filmmaking has shifted from celluloid to digital, film writing, and criticism too has changed. It has become instantaneous and viral, unlike the celluloid era, when there was a gap between the release of the film and the reviewing cycle to begin. Now, social media does not follow the rules of conventional legacy media in any case. We are in a transitional stage where online film writing and reviewing is also evolving. In the long run, only credible and intelligent responses are bound to stay. But, to put a gag now is to burn the house to kill the rat.
Editorial | Reviewing freedom: On the Kerala High Court case and negative reviews of films
There is this absurdity of prescribing periods of ban on film criticism. Many of them are actually immediate off-the-cuff responses and troll-like reviews to get likes and it is the virality that the authorities of the industry fear. But, as you said, if you look at the actual figures, many of the films which were not reviewed or negatively reviewed, I don’t think it had any kind of influence on the actual success of the film. Like any other activity, online writing is also a mixed fare, where you will find all kinds of approaches. Many of these YouTubers have a huge viewership, which owes to the entertainment value of the content they generate... These vloggers themselves are content generators who have their own consumers. What about their freedom of expression, just like that of the filmmakers?
Unnikrishnan: The success rate of Malayalam cinema on average is always below 8%. It has been so for the past three decades. I don’t think the recent developments or online reviews have affected that percentage in any substantial manner and there is no scientific study which really analyses this data. In the past, an average film of a popular star used to generate some expected returns, something we call minimum guarantee. Let’s say a star like Mohanlal had a certain minimum guarantee value attached to his films till a few years back, but now that is totally gone. In this age of virality, if a film is bad, that information spreads everywhere in no time. So, an average grosser will end up as a disaster. This is just a deduction, not supported by any scientific study.
There is now talk of a protocol being evolved for online film reviews. Can a protocol be fixed for free expression? Also, is it fair to use terms like review bombing?
Venkiteswaran: I think it’s not at all fair. Producers and filmmakers have been saying that this is an industry with huge financial investment and hence should be protected. The logic of this industry is about risk-taking. You take risks and sometimes your products or films are not accepted by the consumers. Secondly, investment is not financial alone, be it for a reviewer, a singer or a writer — they all are investing quite a lot of effort into what they are producing.
Even post this legal imbroglio situation, you can see how these YouTubers have responded very creatively, making fun of the whole thing, whereas the industry doesn’t have any clue. The panic reaction from the industry shows a kind of lack of confidence in its own product. So, I think they have to find a way out of it by depending on the strength of their content and believing in the media of cinema. That’s the only way out.
B.Unnikrishnan is a filmmaker and general secretary of the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA); C.S. Venkiteswaran is a national award-winning film critic
