hifting away from erudite critics to bloggers seeking free tickets diminishes the worth of cinema and the audience’s experience.

Recently, I attended the premiere night of a local movie as a reviewer and one of the ushers exchanged pleasantries before leading me to the theatre with a subtle, “Feel free to share your positive feelings about the film on Twitter after the screening.”

This wasn’t the first occasion my colleagues and I encountered such a nudge but we felt censored. Why should they receive our positive responses if they won’t accept our negative ones?

The intent behind this approach is a no-brainer: along with the film’s extensive marketing campaign, favourable responses on social media are aimed at guaranteeing that even the most sceptical among potential viewers are persuaded to make it to the cinema during the crucial opening weekend, which significantly impacts (and pretty much ensures) a film’s box office success. The critical reviews that show up in print a week later lack the advantage.

The preview screening’s predominant assembly of influencers served as yet another blatant marketing ploy with only a few established critics invited.

This would not have hit as hard were it not for the fact that it meant many serious film critics were unable to see the film before its release.

In their quest to wield narrative control, film studios often arrange advance screenings to bolster a film they believe in or eschew them altogether if they lack confidence. However, the tactics employed nowadays venture into the realm of the extraordinary.

These occurrences are a prevailing trend that has been unfurling over the recent years. Featured primarily in the social media bubble, it is reaching far beyond the realm of film criticism and casting its influence upon the broader fabric of culture.

When influencers, motivated by the prospect of receiving free tickets/ merchandise, monopolise the pre-release discussions about a film’s merits, what kind of film landscape can we anticipate? In a world riddled with the scarcity of challenging, thought-provoking and reasonably impartial discussions, where will such conversations brew, and how can the audience gauge critically what is being marketed to them?

Critics are often seen as pessimistic writers and disgruntled artists who are ‘hard to please’. Nevertheless, if critics sometimes come across as harsh, it’s because their love for cinema drives them to seek the best for it.

Critics are primarily seen as pessimistic writers and disgruntled artists who are ‘hard to please’. Nevertheless, if critics sometimes come across as harsh, it’s because their love for cinema drives them to seek the best for it. 

Criticism, and not mimicry, is the best compliment. It is important for art and cinema to have a strategic role and be as aesthetically pleasing and mindfully transformational as possible, instead of being merely a profit-driven endeavour to encourage consumerism. In recent times, cinema has evolved beyond that cliché.

What this boils down to for a layman’s consciousness is a blurring of the line between critics and PRs. Strangely, writers now find themselves at the opposite end of the spectrum, where a critic is seen as someone who adores every film without any critical evaluation.

These ‘critics’ steer clear of any controversy due to internet backlash against unpopular opinions. Instead, they choose to generate bloated enthusiasm for a new release.

The perpetrators are, of course, responsible for overwhelming the young bloggers with elaborate merchandise that they otherwise may not be able to afford - and removing from their mailing lists those who fail to provide favourable reviews.

This is still not the root problem. The problem lies where, in a challenging environment where the film industry already faces difficulties and streaming services have made significant advances, given the option to watch unlimited films for a modest subscription fee instead of paying for expensive cinema tickets, film enthusiasts may be enticed to prioritise promoting cinema at any expense. Why dissuade the public from visiting the theatre by providing an unfavourable review?

What follows is not just the internet enabling the devaluation of cinema through streaming platforms, but also equally contributing to the devaluation of film criticism. From spelling errors to inadequate grammar, film writing has visibly deteriorated. So, it is difficult to encourage people to read more criticism when it frequently leads to monotonous or frustrating experiences.

The convergence of subpar standards, widespread accessibility and diminished enthusiasm have already dealt a heavy blow to regular publications. Should the critics now resort (or succumb) to cheap marketing tactics to promote films, one wonders about the role film criticism can have in contemporary culture.

Having grown up in editorial rooms where critics were revered, one always knew that a critic could make or break a film.

However, in today’s blogger world, envisioning impactful voices may be challenging for contemporary film criticism. However, this doesn’t imply a scarcity of excellent writing by established as well as emerging talents. These writers are far from being mere hype machines. They weave personal experiences, cinematic wisdom, critical acumen and film enthusiasm into pieces that question archaic norms and providing insightful reflections on the world we inhabit.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in Karachi