Secret Agent watches a movie, gets into his car, switches on his camera phone and records his impressions of the film. Sometimes, his friends join in and they talk about what worked for them in the film and what didn’t. He doesn’t need a mic, a written script, lights or a studio for him to make his videos – and for his 719k subscribers who tune in to get a “raw” and unfiltered review of a film in Malayalam, that’s his appeal.
Love them or hate them, you can’t ignore YouTube vloggers who review Indian films, particularly those in Tamil and Malayalam, where fandom for cinema spills into impassioned discussions on social media. Some in the film industry point to vloggers as a reason for the audience rejecting a certain film. YouTubers like ‘Blue Sattai’ Maran of Tamil Talkies (1.67 million subscribers), with his trademark blue shirt and acerbic language, or Aswanth Kok (315k subscribers), with his sarcastic mimicry and costumes, have often drawn the ire of people from the film industry even as their fans hail them as the real deal for their “frank” and entertaining reviews.
Back in 2017, Tamil actor Vishal, who was then the Secretary of the Nadigar Sangam and President of the Producers’ Council, requested film reviewers hold off on reviewing films for the first three days after a film’s release. Rajinikanth, who was present at the event where Vishal was speaking, agreed with him and added that reviewers should not “hurt” the feelings of filmmakers. Currently, the Kerala High Court is hearing a petition filed by Mubeen Rauf, a Malayalam director, who wants an embargo on film reviews by vloggers for the first 48 hours after a release. There has also been a lot of grumbling from film industries and a section of cinephiles about how vloggers aren’t “qualified” to review a film, and don’t really understand the craft of cinema. What then explains their appeal to the audience?
Karthick Krishna, a former journalist who runs Kaki’s Talkies (66k subscribers), began reviewing on YouTube initially through Tamil The Hindu where he was working. “That was back in 2014 and there were only four to five people reviewing Tamil films on YouTube. I couldn’t quite connect with how they were doing it. I wanted to do matter-of-fact reviews, as if I were discussing the film with a friend, and even now, that’s what appeals to my followers,” said Krishna, who also did a stint as a writer with the production company Dream Warrior Pictures.
According to Krishna, giving an honest opinion about a film is the most desired quality in a film review. “I also don’t think a reviewer should bring in their personal bias or ideological leaning into their discussion of a film. For example, Mohan G makes films of a certain ideology in Tamil and there’s a lot of opposition to that, but I don’t think a reviewer should say nobody should watch his films and outright reject it because it doesn’t agree with what they personally believe,” said Krishna. Mohan G’s films are viewed as a counter to the anti-caste wave in Tamil cinema, with narratives that fan caste pride and propound conspiracy theories about “nadaga kadhal” (a term used to suggest that there are devious intentions in intercaste relationships) and honour killings.
Not all vloggers are on the same page when it comes to what constitutes film criticism. The Mallu Analyst, a YouTube channel (449k subscribers) run by Vrinda and Vivek, a Malayali couple in Germany, grew from the need to dissect films from a political and ideological lens. “We set up our channel in 2019. We did this because we felt a lot of issues we wanted to talk about weren’t being addressed by anyone in this space – feminism, caste, politically correct representations, and other social issues,” they said in a joint interview. “We love watching films, and talking about cinema from such perspectives struck a chord with viewers.”
While Vivek is the presenter, Vrinda co-writes the script with him. The couple believes that a reviewer should attempt to understand the space in which a film locates itself. “For example, if it’s a mass film, it will have its own mood. Art films, experimental films…they all have their own style. We need to understand this while reviewing a film. We often find that people watch films with certain expectations and give negative reviews if the film is different in its mood. We are welcoming of experimental films and even if they are flawed, we’re not harsh in our criticism,” Vrinda and Vivek said.
Sai Krishnan – the real name of Secret Agent – was a TikToker and also ran a popular Instagram handle before he shifted to YouTube. He tried his hand at a few small business venturesm before arriving on the reviewer scene. “As a kid, I used to go for a lot of movies with older boys in my circle. I loved discussing movies with them after we were done watching. That’s what I had in mind when I started doing film review vlogs,” said Krishnan, who hails from Malappuram. “When I started out, I didn’t think about how I was presenting my views. If I liked a film, I lavished praise on it, but if I didn’t like it, I’d really tear it to bits. Later, I realised that I should be more mature and that I have a responsibility towards my viewers, too. Just as I’m spending my time doing this, filmmakers too have invested a lot of effort in making a film.”
Sai Krishnan was in the news a year ago after actor Unni Mukundan abused him over a phone call for his review of the devotional film Malikappuram (2022). In the video, the reviewer had said that the film oversold bhakti (religious devotion) and that it would increase the reach of the actor among Ayyappa devotees. “There have been instances when actors have called and asked me why I said something negative about their film, and I’ve had discussions with them about my views. I’ve found it to be a healthy relationship,” he said. “Unni Mukundan took objection to some things I said which weren’t about the film per se. I’ve let it go.”
The Mallu Analyst and Secret Agent also weigh in on current affairs, including politics and other controversies. Their viewers are interested in knowing their opinions about various issues, and the engagement isn’t limited to cinema.
Anyone can start a YouTube channel and post movie reviews – this democratisation through technology is viewed by many as a great equaliser, even as others bemoan the dilution in the quality of reviews. However, building a viewership on YouTube isn’t easy and each vlogger needs to have a distinctive voice or character to do so. Melanie Greenberg from Chicago runs Pardesi (44.5k subscribers), a YouTube channel where she reviews Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Hindi films. She does not know any Indian language and is dependent on the English subtitles to help her understand the film. Among the few women in this space, Greenberg said she was hesitant to get into vlogging because she’s aware of the trolling and abuse that a middle-aged woman could attract online. But, barring a few bad experiences, she’s been pleasantly surprised by the reception she has got from her largely Indian, male audience.
A homemaker who fell in love with Indian movies, thanks to Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) and Shah Rukh Khan’s charisma, Greenberg set up Pardesi after she watched Baahubali 2 (2017). For her, it’s the relationship with her viewers that matters the most. “They recommend movies for me to watch, and sometimes point it out when I’ve got something wrong – for example, I didn’t know that Indian surnames are often caste names, and I have, in the past, misidentified someone as belonging to a lower caste because they looked poor, but that wasn’t the case,” she said.
As an American who didn’t grow up watching Indian films, Melanie doesn’t always immediately get the pop culture references in the films she watches. “Sometimes, a song plays on the radio in a scene and everyone around me bursts into laughter…and I’m wondering what that was all about,” she admitted. But she sees reviewing as a process of discovery and as a means for her to share her enthusiasm for cinema with others – something that’s very visible in her reviews. “There have been times when some have accused me of doing this for the money. Well, the revenue I make from YouTube is hardly enough for the price of the ticket I have to pay in dollars,” she added with a laugh.
Considering the diversity within the vlogging community, it is difficult to gauge their impact on box office revenues. Vrinda and Vivek said that vloggers certainly influence viewers but that they don’t think anything can or should be done about it. “Everyone is entitled to their freedom of expression. Someone’s opinion may or may not hurt a film, but filmmakers also promote a film irrespective of its quality,” they noted. They haven’t received any backlash from the film industry as such though there are filmmakers who have discussed their reviews with them further to understand their perspectives. “It’s mainly fans who have left hate comments on our videos. For example, our analysis of Suriya’s Tamil film Soorarai Pottru (2020) triggered a lot of abuse,” they said.
Karthick Krishna strongly believes that there is no connection between film reviews and the film’s fate at the box office. “No bad film has ever run just because of good reviews. It is people’s word of mouth that matters the most. There are also good films that get praised in press shows but somehow don’t work with the audience. It’s hard to pin down the reason. Filmmakers blame everything from the weather to not getting enough screens and reviewers when a film flops,” said Krishna. “When they want the audience to buy a ticket to watch a film, how can they stop people from giving their opinion about it?”
However, he also acknowledged that there are social media influencers and vloggers who may put out paid reviews. “This isn’t new though. Earlier, when television reviews were popular, producers used to sponsor such reviews on TV channels. So yes, you will find people tweeting that this film is going to win an Oscar even before it is released. I too have been approached by producers and asked to give a ‘soft’ review, ” said Krishna. “But people who have followed a vlogger for a long time will know when the review they’re giving isn’t an honest one. You’ll see them questioning such reviews in the comments section.” So, on the one hand, a section of the film industry wants to shut down vloggers, but on the other hand, they also feed a culture of manipulated film reviews.
Sai Krishnan, for whom his YouTube channel is the primary source of income, doesn’t think the Kerala HC will impose an embargo on vloggers despite the amicus curiae report that supports the producer’s petition. “If I’m expressing my opinion about a film without abusing anyone, how can anyone say I shouldn’t do so? The court will look at the issue from all sides and nobody can prove that it’s because of a certain review that a film flopped, so I don’t think vloggers will be affected,” he said.
Filmmakers are testy when anyone infringes upon their freedom of expression, no matter how offensive or problematic a depiction might be. The consensus in the vlogging community is that perhaps they should extend this courtesy to others too?