VINIKA VISWAMBHARAN | NT BUZZ
In a world dominated by social media and instant reactions, is the critic still a gatekeeper, an influencer or something else entirely? This was the topic in discussion at the roundtable discussion held at the ongoing 56th edition of the International Film Festival of India
The conversation brought together Barbara Lorey de Lacharrière, Deepa Ghalot, Sudhir Srinivasan, Meghachandra Kongbam, Baradwaj Rangan, and Elizabeth Kerr, along with Davide Abbatescianni as the moderator, each carrying decades of experience from different parts of the world.
The debate opened with a reflection on the rise of democratic platforms. Abbatescianni pointed out that almost anyone can write about cinema today. Blogs, online magazines, and short videos have opened the field to new voices and fresh enthusiasm. While he welcomed that inclusivity, he also pressed for a distinction between a professional critique and general commentary. For Abbatescianni, influence is undeniable, but influence alone does not equal criticism.
Ghalot responded with her own observation from India, where films often survive only for their opening weekend. With such a short window, film reviewing has become more about fandom than long form critique. “Influencers chase access to stars, because visibility brings more followers. That access encourages flattery or provocation, but rarely depth. When the goal is to appear on a celebrity’s Instagram story, honesty becomes difficult,” she said.
Rangan spoke of critics who wear T-shirts celebrating their favourite directors to screenings. For him, that simple act undermines the neutrality a critic is meant to embody. “A critic is a referee. Readers should not know which side they belong to before they write a single word,” he said.
Lacharrière meanwhile offered a view shaped by years of writing for major European newspapers. She described a time when her role allowed her to introduce readers to films they would never otherwise encounter, whether in India’s regional industry or in Turkey’s new wave. Her aim was to create curiosity and to bring distant cinemas closer to mainstream audiences. “Print outlets have reduced cultural coverage, and newspapers now expect critics to focus on local releases that will attract more readers,” she said. The switch to online platforms seemed natural, yet it created new challenges. As she noted, it is unclear who reads these pieces or how critics can survive in such an environment.
Kerr spoke next, describing the situation in Hong Kong, where influencers, known locally as KOLs, are often given priority access to early screenings while professional reviewers wait or sit in less desirable seats. “Film distributors pay these influencers significant amounts to promote major titles, and the imbalance leaves smaller films sidelined,” she said.
The panel also touched on the effect of overwhelming volume. Srinivasan noted that with so many weekly releases in India, choosing which films to review has become strategic. He observed that critics feel pressure to focus on movies that dominate cultural conversation, because a thoughtful review of a smaller or slower film may get lost. “Earlier, a reviewer could take a day or two to reflect before writing. Today, editors expect pieces to appear on the day of release. The time for deeper thinking is vanishing alongside the theatrical window,” he said.
The discussion widened into the changing habits of critics themselves. Social media has turned many writers into visible personalities rather than names on a page. Lacharrière pointed out that critics now post their festival badges, selfies with stars or travel moments more than their actual reviews. The critic has become both observer and product, sometimes overshadowing the film entirely. Abbatescianni acknowledged participating in this trend himself, but he warned that if the image becomes more important than the analysis, the purpose of criticism becomes blurred.
