Objectivity is seen as the bedrock of criticism. But every opinion is influenced—by taste, politics, experience, or even the prevailing mood. The discerning critic must find a way to rise above inherent biases, likes, dislikes, and more. Sadly, in today's times, this objectivity, or the lack of it, has been weaponised. And one of the ugliest battles we have seen on this front is in the aftermath of Aditya Dhar's latest film, Dhurandhar.
Make no mistake, Dhurandhar is a highly political film. But while reading/viewing reviews of it, it should have been acknowledged that the voices of critics will be varied, just like the political spectrum is.
The pushback against film criticism post Dhurandhar is neither new nor unwarranted. The new form of distrust is fuelled by rising influencer culture, paid marketing strategies, and the exposé of the rate cards prevalent in various industries. All rotten apples, for sure. But threatening to raze the entire apple tree because of them isn't the solution.
Critics who reviewed Dhurandhar are being threatened with physical harassment, psychological intimidation, and sexual abuse. When online rage blows up into such real-world intimidation, safety becomes a more pressing issue than objectivity.
Words like propaganda and agenda are now deliberately being used to stifle the critical thinking of the collective. While there are pockets where healthy debate continues to happen, even these are completely overshadowed by the dark cloud of weaponised words.
Yes, critics and criticism should absolutely be challenged, debated, accepted, or outrightly ignored. But abusive campaigns cannot be normalised. If the criticism against Dhurandhar is dismissed as mere 'agenda', then it can be argued that such criticisms against the critics are a 'coordinated attack'.
What the Dhurandhar fiasco truly reflects is how many strong voices didn't really want the film to have any artistic evaluation at all. It also reflects that another cross-section of strong voices didn't think Dhurandhar has any moral standing to have a nuanced artistic evaluation.
In the middle lies a cultural space that craves such nuance, but is forced to make do with binaries. After all, the fight these days isn't against opinions, but against the people making them. Who said what matters more than what is said, and credibility that took years to build is trampled upon with ease by digital fury.
This is a global phenomenon that has been happening over the years. Across the world and its seemingly varied political systems, we have seen books banned, filmmakers banished, films distorted, articles and cartoons taken down because they were 'too critical' of the prevailing system. Unfortunately, no 'power' can actually take a moral high ground on this front, and that is why the cinema ecosystem has to remain in constant vigilance.
Some might argue that a film critic should speak only about the craft, and others might believe it is the content that signals intent. Some point out that criticism should reflect public opinion, and others argue that personal judgment is more important than collective responses. Now, there are many schools of film criticism, but the problem is these days all film critics are expected to attend just one—that approved by the majority.
It isn't that criticism has lost relevance, but the place for good-faith disagreement is fast shrinking. It is almost impossible to overlook the words that are being used to counter the critics, especially women, and, in some cases, freelancers who might neither have an institution backing them nor the privilege of anonymity. Not catering to the loudest or the largest clique is enough to completely shred a critic.
Film criticism is still a cultural necessity. It holds filmmakers accountable and has the power to shape public understanding. But when sections of the public are turning their back on the critics, denying their cultural impact, and holding them accountable for distorting public understanding, then we have reached an impasse. One built on online mobs that do not want to understand the complex nature of this conversation, and on some critics' belief that cheerleading puts them in a better position.
In this new world, where negativity sells more than film tickets, these threats cannot be brushed aside as par for the course.
The Dhurandhar backlash is the culmination of an unchecked ecosystem that didn't just fester hostility but rewarded it. Film criticism, in some form, will continue to survive even after this, but the real question is whether the critic will be allowed to if this continues as it threatens to…