On 26 November, Goa's International Film Festival of India (20-28 November) hosted a lively round-table titled “Beyond the Thumb – The Role of a Film Critic: A Gate Keeper, an Influencer or Something Else?” Gathering critics from Europe and Asia – Barbara Lorey de Lacharrière, Deepa Gahlot, Meghachandra Kongbam, Elizabeth Kerr, Sudhir Srinivasan and Baradwaj Rangan – the session, moderated by Cineuropa’s Davide Abbatescianni, examined how criticism is adapting to a rapidly transforming audiovisual ecosystem.

(L'article continue plus bas - Inf. publicitaire)

First, the panellists briefly acknowledged the eclectic pathways that shaped their critical perspectives – a pattern common in the profession. Kerr described herself as “a lifelong film nerd” who gradually shifted from production to writing, whilst Lorey de Lacharrière, formerly a clinical psychologist, emphasised that she has “never defined myself strictly as a critic in the French sense”, positioning herself instead as “a mediator between cinema and the audience”. Srinivasan added that writing began as a way to articulate emotional responses to cinema after a career outside the arts.

With the context set, the panel moved directly into structural questions affecting the industry. The first theme was format and audience consumption. Srinivasan identified the core shift succinctly: “Fewer people read; more people watch.” While many equate this with shorter attention spans, he argued that depth can still exist – but increasingly through long-form audiovisual criticism, rather than text.

Rangan expanded this observation into two systemic transformations. First, the disappearance of exclusivity: “Criticism used to be the domain of a handful of voices in newspapers or on TV. Then blogs – and later social media – opened the gates.” Second, the acceleration of reaction culture: “Opinion now triggers reaction instantly – sometimes discourse, sometimes chaos.”

Kerr agreed that greater accessibility has turned into a double-edged sword, pointing out that influencers are now often granted priority treatment. She stressed that modern practice requires critics to switch tone, register and focus depending on whether they are writing for platforms aimed at industry monitoring, festival curation, streaming audiences or cinephiles.

From the Indian context, Kongbam noted that influencers increasingly dominate where critics once operated, especially in emerging or decentralised film ecosystems. “Academic criticism doesn’t always reach the public,” he said, arguing that institutions and festivals must actively protect spaces where criticism can perform its cultural function, rather than become promotional content. Kongbam also underscored the need for policies aimed at backing India's independent and regional cinema.

Gahlot described another pressure point: the shrinking theatrical window. “Films disappear within days. Where is the time to respond thoughtfully?” She also noted that coverage is increasingly driven by access and personality, rather than analysis: “Influencers prioritise access to celebrities over depth.”

Lorey de Lacharrière connected this shift to the erosion of print culture in Europe: “I could once publish long cultural dispatches introducing readers to Turkish cinema or regional Indian work. That space is shrinking.” Structural changes in funding, editorial priorities and platform strategy have led to the disappearance of mid-length cultural analysis, she added.

The conversation then addressed the pressing question: if critics no longer serve as gatekeepers, what role remains? Kerr rejected the gatekeeping narrative outright: “I prefer ‘advocate’. I’m not here to block access – I’m here to help people discover films that would otherwise be invisible.” Her view reflects a growing industry sentiment that critics are part of a discovery pipeline, rather than arbiters of legitimacy.

Srinivasan defended the rise of critics with personal brands: “For decades, institutions were the brand. Now, individuals can be recognised. I see that as a gain, rather than a loss.” He argued that visibility and personality are not inherently negative – unless they overshadow rigour.

This point triggered a final caution from Lorey de Lacharrière: “Self-promotion now sometimes replaces substance. Some critics highlight credentials and selfies with filmmakers more than their writing.” Abbatescianni pointed out that personal branding becomes problematic only when the critic eclipses the film itself.

Rangan made a concise diagnosis of the broader media climate: “Increasingly, people ignore nuance and scroll immediately to the verdict. Sensationalism dominates thumbnails and titles.” This, he argued, has recalibrated audience expectations of criticism, compressing complexity into reaction-driven formats. Later, Abbatescianni warned that with AI-generated and hybrid content increasingly flooding the market, the future of criticism may face a “slippery slope”, making the whole scenario even more complex.

Despite concerns, the tone of the session was not pessimistic. Rather, it reflected a profession in the process of redefining itself in relation to platforms, algorithms and shifting viewer behaviour. The panel agreed that criticism is not disappearing; it is being reframed. Its function now lies less in gatekeeping, and more in contextualising, filtering and advocating for works that risk being drowned out in a globalised attention economy.

As Abbatescianni summarised while closing the event, the emerging role for critics – whether writing, speaking or creating video essays – may be summed up in a simple equation: “More substance, less show.”

The event was rounded off by a Q&A session.