Click here to follow Screen Digital on YouTube and stay updated with the latest from the world of cinema.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Remember the time when we used to wait for that one kid from the cinema-loving family who would watch every film over the weekend of its release, and come regale us with the stories on Monday? Remember the time when newspapers used to carry the review one week after its release? Remember the time when newspapers carried the film reviews on the Sunday of its release? It feels like a relic, right? A memory that is so far into the past that the majority of the ‘opening day’ movie-going audience now don’t even have that memory. Now, everything is instantaneous. It is all about being trendy and viral. You might write 1000 words to explain why a film worked or didn’t work for you, and it won’t leave half the impact as the one who walks out of a theatre with a disappointed look, and says a word that goes, “Meh!”
This past week, it is these reviews that have become a matter of concern for Tamil filmmakers. In a recent statement made by the Producers’ Council, it was argued that such public opinion videos and reviews made on electronic media and print are disrupting the reception to films. Taking the case of Kamal Haasan’s Indian 2, Rajinikanth’s Vettaiyan, and Suriya’s Kanguva, the organisation argued that negative publicity became the bane of such films. Of course, the merits of the film can also be brought to the same argument, but why let facts come in the way of a conspiracy. This statement from the producers’ council had immediate effect as a few theatres in Chennai decided to not allow YouTube channels to collect the ‘First Day First Show’ public opinions in their premises.
Here’s the post:
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
ALSO READ: As Kanguva continues on downward spiral, Tamil producers seek ban on YouTube reviews at theatres: ‘Stop personal attacks’
Many YouTube channels’ main source of content is collecting public opinion outside the theatres on the opening day of a film’s release. It has become so common that even the audience now know which theatres to frequent to ensure their opinions are heard and seen on most cameras. Honestly, there are huge sections of people who turn up for the ‘First Day First Show’ to enjoy their one minute of fame. It is almost beautiful to watch them use those priceless few seconds to establish something about themselves. It might be their nonchalant attitude about a film. It might be a thinly veiled insult coated with oodles of sarcasm. It might be an angry tirade or a heartfelt appeal to the makers. It might be a no-holds barred appreciation for their matinee idol. It just might be a funny line here, a cuss word there, and an exasperated sigh somewhere else. But with the advent of social media and the burgeoning reach of the digital era, the allure of becoming an internet celebrity is more appealing than ever.
Even these YouTube channels are smart enough to focus on these individuals, and use them repeatedly for their content, only to discard them after their time in the spotlight is over. It is a mutually beneficial deal that serves everyone involved. Now, the personal attacks, in the name of reviews, need to be called out. It also shows disappointing journalistic standards that such opinions are platformed on their channels and publications. There can be no two ways about it. But, in many cases, such statements are made because it gives the person an extended time in the spotlight. They are forced to do ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ things in front of the camera to stand out. In fact, a public reviewer from the neighbouring Telugu States became so famous that he even was bestowed with an award honouring his services to the world of online reviewing. He went on to become an influencer and an actor in Telugu cinema. Now, when such a success story is dangled in front of an audience, why wouldn’t they want to put their best or even worst foot forward?
Following the surmounting negativity around Kanguva, and the makers themselves alleging that a concerted campaign was run to bring down the Siva film, it leads to an all-important question. Can these public reviewers be bought? Can they be planted in various theatres to give a negative review for a film? Now, who is doing all this is an important question too. For instance, voices from team Kanguva allege that the negative campaign was propagated by fans of other superstars, and members of different political parties. Why should they do it, you might ask? They argue that it is because the fans want to stunt the growth of Suriya’s stardom, and the political parties want to get back at the actor and his family for their offscreen philanthropy and controversial quotes about education and politics. Now, do these allegations hold water? It actually might, but what happened with Kanguva was not a singular incident; it was the watershed moment. It was a moment waiting to happen, and it happened because sections of these filmmakers decided that social media relevance was the most important aspect for a film’s marketing, and pumped in their cash reserves to create an image for their products.
Cinema was always a commercial product, and the promotional activities took a turn of no return over the years. Now, a film isn’t just a film, and an actor isn’t just an actor. They are brands. And with every brand, understanding its reach, and catering to its consumer base became important. That is why calls about negative campaigning come with a really big corollary. So, are positive reviews also paid? If there are people willing to pay money to bring down a competitor’s product, wouldn’t it make sense that a brand owner pays money to popularise their own product? So, it completely dilutes the idea of a free and transparent market.
It is now all about who can dish out the most money since everything is sold, and everyone is saleable. It is an open secret that there are people who are paid to create a certain sense of ‘talk’ about every film. They might be part of social media journalism or even sections of mainstream journalism. It can be positive or negative, but as long as there are people willing to spend to create such campaigns, why blame the ones who are receiving the same? Last we checked, cinema and our country isn’t altruistic.
But, make no mistake, Kanguva is a watershed moment. There are actual changes happening in the ground level, and first up, they are clipping the wings of the YouTube channels who provide a platform for public reviews, which are also essentially campaigns. Some channels only show the positive reviews with a functional negative one, while others train the focus only on negative reviews with a perfunctory positive one. At the end of the day, there is no doubt that negativity sells more, because it is fun to see the popular being shown their place. But, again, this banning of YouTube channels from theatre premises isn’t happening with uniformity. There are theatres where public reviews are still being allowed, and it is funny because it will now create smaller pockets to gain popularity, which invariably means more crowd in those theatres. These are also theatres which the film’s cast and crew prefer watching the FDFS to give a sense of credibility to this entire endeavour. That creates competition too.
If anything, it is not a moment of introspection for the people in front of the mics, or in front of a keyboard, or their phones. It is a moment of introspection for the filmmakers who allowed this beast to grow, and kept on feeding it as long as it served their agenda. The moment it became ‘out of their control’, they cried foul. One person stops paying doesn’t change anything, right? Another person would start paying more, and compensate for their losses because just like any other system, cinema too is skewed towards people who wield influence. But who fed this system? Cinema people. Who benefits from the system? Cinema people. Who suffers from this system? Cinema people. So, why are some cinema people suddenly turning around and blaming the audience?
Over the years, when this said system was developed, not all filmmakers developed the sensibility to listen to the average movie goer, who was neither a fan, an influencer, a fanatic, or anything else. Their voices get drowned amid all the created cacophony and chaos. And that is why, after constantly being unheard, they now dress up in their finery, practice their poker face, enunciate their expressions, stand in front of the mic on the first day to make themselves heard, and prove to the world they are not average. They joined this system, and are ready for their closeups now. And as it is often said… the system always wins.
Click here to follow Screen Digital on YouTube and stay updated with the latest from the world of cinema.
