Audience’s right to access movie reviews

NEW DELHI: The movie business has changed tremendously over the last two decades. While theatres were the only medium for watching movies, reviews in print media could hardly influence the audiences. By the time reviews appeared in newspapers and magazines, word-of-mouth reviews circulated simultaneously.

Theatrical collections were the only sources of realising the return on investment in movies and that could be realised over a few months. Gradually, with the additions of TVs, VCRs, satellite channels, and eventually the internet, video piracy also arrived.

With OTTs, we have come a long way from the experience of watching movies solely in theatres. Today, to counter digital piracy, movies are released in theatres worldwide on thousands of screens to gain a handsome return on investment in the first three days of theatrical release. We see a trend of big-budget movies being released worldwide on more than 10,000 screens on the same day. Theatrical success becomes a necessary condition for a movie’s success on OTT and satellite releases. Similar to digital piracy, the newfound fear revolves around movie reviews on social media adversely affecting theatrical collections. In Madras and Kerala High Courts, two parties have filed petitions seeking a gag order on movie reviews in social media in the first week after theatrical release.

The petitioners before the Madras High Court have placed a few arguments. The livestreaming of bad reviews from audiences in theatres creates immediate adverse effects. Fake and anonymous reviews and personal attacks on actors, producers, and directors in social media are affecting the theatrical collections. Flooding social media timelines of users with hundreds, at times, even thousands of negative reviews soon after watching the film in the theatre is described as “review bombing.” Sometimes, this includes anonymous reviews being posted from different locations. This is believed to have the most damaging effect on the fortunes of a movie. It affects the box-office collections soon after the review has gone live, starting with the next show itself. Producers and actors want this review bombing to be banned.

The petitioner, before the Kerala High Court, is the Director of the film, who sought a gag order directing social media not to publish any reviews for at least 7 days after the theatrical release of his film. The Madras High Court, citing freedom of speech, refused to issue an order stalling reviews in social media while directing the state and union governments to file counters. The Kerala High Court conducted frequent hearings and appointed an Amicus Curiae in this case. The state and union government authorities evinced interest in addressing this issue. Final orders in both cases are expected after the completion of hearings.

A movie is a classic example of an 'experience good'. An experience good is one whose value is realised only after it has been experienced or consumed. Music, services of doctors, lawyers, and teachers are examples of experience goods. Unless we experience these 'products' firsthand, we cannot honestly assign a value to them. Moreover, such experiences are irreversible. Time and resources spent, and the damage such services cause cannot be reversed. Choosing an experience good is choosing to

experience something. Therefore, the choice must be based on some reliable information about the expected experience.

Unless we watch a movie, we might not know its value. Experience is subjective, and so is the value of an experience good. This creates a challenge for the audience to decide on watching a movie. It is equally a challenge for producers to bring audiences to theatres with a promise to provide experiences worthy of the ticket price.

Producers use all the possible channels, including social media, to sell their movies. This is obviously to inform the audiences about the experience they could expect while watching the movie. Intentionally, this is a one-sided, rosy perspective on a movie. Unlike food products and medicines, there is no labelling of contents and the caution of adverse effects in movie promotional activities.

Audiences cannot rely only on producers’ promotional activities and advertisements, they need movie reviews. While film producers have the right to promote their movies through paid programs on satellite channels and social media, the audience has the right to get real-time reviews and even pre-release reviews of movies. This right of the audience cannot be alienated from them.

Reviews come in many forms. Film critics can give a review that may be theoretically sound and appreciative of artistic nuances. Such reviews may not be relevant for an ordinary filmgoer. The common viewer's views are subjective. Every filmgoer spends a lot of money watching movies in theatres.

Spending time and resources to gather information about the movies to watch is commonplace now. In this context, social media is a cheap and attractive source of information . A filmgoer may respect the common man’s reviews on social media owing to the relatability factor. Some social media influencers can introduce films to audiences, but their reputation can be easily tarnished by a single misleading statement. That may be the reason we have new reviewers coming up on social media with every new film. Permanence of these social media influencers is a myth.

An individual has a right to free speech and, hence, the right to review the movie soon after watching it.

The prospective audience would want an honest review without the jargon of film criticism. The emphatic single liner from a common man is liked by the audience while it is detested by the movie business community. A candid review by a viewer can be uninformed, unlike a professional reviewer, but that cannot be the reason to ban it.

The orchestrated, ill-intentioned review bombing should be resisted. But discerning a genuine review from an ill-natured one is difficult. If we err, the right to speech of reviewers and the consumers’ right to access review will be violated.

Freedom of speech is restrained only in cases where it incites violence or creates a threat to physical existence. Film reviews in social media do little of either. It is also a moot question whether a review that does not incite violence but affects the business could be considered ban-worthy while compromising on the right to speech. Obviously not. Negative reviews by consumers of goods and services are a business risk that cannot be wished away. Therefore, clamour for banning film reviews is based on shaky foundations of reasoning.