Film Critics Reflect on Their Evolving Role at IFFI 56

By Pickle November 26, 2025

Film critics at the 56th IFFI debate their shifting role in a digital world—where authenticity, independence, and passion for cinema remain more vital than ever.

As the spotlight shone on the 56th International Film Festival of India (IFFI), the usual chatter about premieres and red carpets was punctuated by a thoughtful, passionate debate: What is the true role of a film critic in today’s fast-evolving cinematic landscape? In a roundtable discussion titled “Beyond the Thumb – The Role of a Film Critic: A Gatekeeper, an Influencer or Something Else?”, prominent critics from across the globe gathered to probe this very question, offering insights that reflect both nostalgia for tradition and hope for transformation.

A Changing Landscape: From Print to Pixels

Moderated by Davide Abbatescianni, the conversation opened with a frank assessment of the seismic shifts rocking the field. While big-budget blockbusters may now bypass critical approval, Abbatescianni stressed that independent and first-time filmmakers continue to depend on credible reviews to find their audience. Yet, the proliferation of over 150,000 online publications and the dawn of AI-generated content have left the world of criticism fragmented and, at times, on uncertain ground. “There’s a slippery slope ahead,” Abbatescianni warned, referencing the potential loss of editorial oversight and the challenge of maintaining meaningful discourse in a digital deluge.

Raising Curiosity in a Crowded Marketplace

Barbara Lorey de Lacharrière, with her extensive experience chronicling everything from Indian regional gems to Turkish New Wave discoveries, underscored the mediator role that critics must play—guiding audiences toward films that might otherwise remain unseen. She lamented the shrinking space for critical writing in print and the struggle to make a living solely from film criticism, citing French research that revealed 80% of cinema writers can’t depend on it for their livelihoods. “Critics must raise curiosity,” she said, while also reflecting on the age of personal branding, where the critic sometimes becomes as much a product as the films they review.

Fandom vs. Criticism: A Fine Line

For Deepa Gahlot, the democratization of criticism through digital platforms is a double-edged sword. The abundance of voices online, she observed, has fueled more fandom and less nuanced analysis. “Much of today’s ‘criticism’ is shaped by personal allegiance and even paid influence,” she cautioned, bemoaning a growing trend toward shallow, access-driven reviews. As audiences turn to OTT platforms, Gahlot fears a dilution of appreciation for cinema’s true craft.

Digital Democracy and the Thousand Little Voices

Sudhir Srinivasan, who has navigated the transition from print columns to video reviews, described the shift to digital as the most dramatic change in the critic’s toolkit. Yet, he sees a silver lining: “The ecosystem is more democratic now,” he asserted, noting that the once-dominant media houses have been replaced by “a thousand little voices.” Srinivasan remains confident that audiences can tell the difference between genuine critique and sponsored fluff.

Building a Culture, Not Just a Conversation

Representing FIPRESCI, Meghachandra Kongbam made a case for cultivating a deeper film culture. While confusion may be the cost of democratization, he highlighted the crucial bridge critics provide for independent filmmakers seeking an audience. With India officially recognizing film as part of the creative economy, Kongbam advocated for formal conclaves to foster thoughtful criticism and public understanding.

Finding One’s Voice in a Noisy World

Elizabeth Kerr, a writer with bylines in multiple publications, focused on the importance of personal voice. In a world where critics juggle different editorial priorities, she urged her peers to develop a distinct style that resonates with their audience. Kerr also raised concerns about the rise of Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs)—often paid to offer favorable reviews—calling it an ethical minefield. “Critics must evaluate films on their own terms,” she emphasized, reminding her colleagues not to dismiss a film entirely for a single flaw.

The Participatory Era: Instant Feedback, New Pressures

Veteran critic Baradwaj Rangan reflected on his journey from print to blogging and digital reviews, recalling an era when critics had the luxury of time to shape cultural conversations. Now, with instant feedback and the pressure to react immediately, critics must balance depth with speed. Rangan pointed to the “gaming aspect” of modern criticism, as writers try to anticipate and ride the wave of public opinion—especially among younger, social media-savvy audiences.

The Essence Endures

Despite the contrasting perspectives, the roundtable ultimately converged on a shared truth: while formats, platforms, and audiences may change, the core of film criticism—thoughtful engagement with the art of cinema—remains as vital as ever. Authenticity, independence, and a genuine love for the medium are still the guiding lights for critics old and new.

As the curtains fell on this spirited debate at IFFI 56, it was clear that the future of film criticism will be shaped by resilience, adaptability, and a continued passion for cinema’s power to move, challenge, and unite us.