The report suggested that police must create a separate portal to complain about review bombings and allow posting of reviews only after 48 hours of theatrical release of films.
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
At a time when Malayalam filmmakers are divided on whether film reviews should be published soon after the release, the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Kerala High Court has favoured the filmmakers.
In a report filed before the High Court, the amicus curiae suggested that vloggers and critics need not review films within 48 hours of their theatrical release.
Amicus Curiae Shyam Padman opined that implementing a 48-hour window for film reviews would enable individuals to shape their opinions without being swayed by “biased” reviews.
The report further suggested that reviews uploaded within 48 hours should not include spoilers or major plot points.
A writ petition by Malayalam filmmaker Mubeen Rauf and the Kerala Film Producers’ Association asked the Kerala High Court to restrain negative reviews of films on social media.
A set of guidelines was also put forward in the Amicus Curiae report to regulate reviews on social media. The report suggested that the police must create a separate portal to complain about review bombings and allow posting of reviews only after 48 hours of theatrical release of films.
The portal will make the investigation easy by registering FIRs quickly.
The report also appealed to cyber cells to use new technologies and tools to take down fake IDs involved in reviewing bombings.
In a stern message, the Amicus Curiae report also stated that the vloggers must provide constructive criticism and avoid disrespectful language, personal attacks, or derogatory remarks.
Reminding the vloggers that they have a responsibility to use their platforms ethically and responsibly, the amicus curiae asked them to avoid sensationalising reviews for the sake of clickbait or generating controversy.
The reviews should mainly provide insights to audiences and should be able to engage in meaningful discussions within the film community.
The report also said that any digital media film reviewer engaging in paid promotion of films is required to comply with the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, as issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media.
Hearing the case, Justice Devan Ramachandran sought the stand of the concerned including the Central Government on the issue. The petition was adjourned for consideration.
Meanwhile, the court said it doesn’t know how much the public believes the negative comments, as the judge observed that some of the new movies fared extremely well at the theatres despite such negative comments.
The court added that people must have realised that negative comments are concocted and serve certain vested interests.
Earlier in October last year, the Kerala High Court considered the petition of director Mubeen Rauf, who stated that vloggers were uploading negative reviews without watching movies, thus affecting the film business.
Mubeen, director of Aaromalinte Adyathe Pranayam (2023) sought a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film-reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of films for at least seven days after the release.
A case was registered in October by Kochi city police against the film review bombing. This was in response to the complaint filed by Ubaini, director of Rahel Makan Kora (2023), where he said deliberate attempts were made to degrade his film on social media.
Earlier this month, the Thiruvananthapuram District First Class Magistrate Court issued a probe against the YouTube vloggers who posted negative reviews against Dileep’s Bandra (2023) after a complaint filed by the production company.
Apr 27, 2024
Apr 27, 2024
Apr 27, 2024
Apr 27, 2024
Apr 27, 2024
Apr 27, 2024
