A schoolteacher turned YouTube reviewer called Aswanth Kok seems to be the current nemesis of the Malayalam film industry. With over 209k followers on YouTube, he regularly uploads 10-25 minute video reviews and has an enviable fan following among youngsters. Of late, while a section of the film industry is up in arms against Kok’s reviews, they are also using his “positive” reviews to promote their films. What makes this young man, who used to write reviews on social media under a different pseudonym, so popular? After all, just one video is enough to understand that when it comes to language, he isn’t exactly nuanced.
Kok is often seen in the costumes or props of the main characters of the film he is reviewing. While reviewing the Ajith starrer Thunivu for instance, he dyed his hair and beard white, donned a white shirt over a white t-shirt, and wore the star’s signature sunglasses to emulate his look in the film. For Nivin Pauly’s Ramachandra Boss & Co, he went to the extent of shaving off his beard and trimming his moustache all too short, to replicate Vinay Forrt’s much-memed getup during the film’s promotions.
Before starting his review of Ramachandra Boss & Co, Kok also issued a warning to viewers to take this film as “an opportunity to wash away your sins” or to “screen it in jail to chasten the jailbirds”, before proceeding to trash it. Many viewers feel that his reviews are “more entertaining than the films themselves.” His popularity can be attributed to his no-holds-barred language as well as an irreverence he projects, that perhaps connects with many youth.
For the film industry, which has always been intolerant of any form of criticism, this is a bitter pill to swallow. During a recent interview, actor Aju Varghese recalled Kok terming his performance in Rosshan Andrrews’s Saturday Night as, “so annoying and that he should be stoned to death.” He was also inadvertently pointing towards the growing popularity of YouTube film reviewers that has taken the internet by storm. While actors and filmmakers may want to ignore people like Kok, it is becoming increasingly impossible to do so because of the reach these reviewers have.
The internet has no doubt made film reviewing more accessible, and film critics who have been long writing for various publications are now being taken over by this new crop of YouTube film reviewers – most of them regular moviegoers who leverage social media to platform their opinions. With the boundaries blurring between all kinds of critics, the deal is to often follow the opinions of someone who aligns with your views, what is the word? Validation? Echo chamber?
Film academician CS Venkiteswaran, who recently won the Kerala State Award for his book on cinema, says that the language of these online reviewers is not analytical, but very connectable, like talking to a friend. “These reviews are very performative, and over time they develop a sort of style that is admired. Their responses are also very immediate. There is not much to disturb or reflect upon. And look at their references which will be only 5 years old. Their history ends there and that is problematic. They appear authentic about everything and that is what the contemporary internet world is all about,” he adds.
Considering we live in a social media age where mockery and negativity sell like hotcakes, Kok’s ability to feed on it makes him popular. He is the face of an ordinary moviegoer, and he is venting it out for them — the good, the bad, and the ugly, even though there is perceptual bias, hasty opinions, poor critiquing, and crass language. Perhaps that is enough for an audience to gauge if they will commercially enjoy a film.
But not every YouTube reviewer on top of the popularity list is following that pattern. Each offers something distinctive – it can be their presentation, language, or reviewing style, but not necessarily insights. Filmmaker Don Palathara says that the emergence of Instagram and YouTube reviewers has made things too chaotic. “There are only a bunch of reviewers who are equipped with the knowledge and openness to study various aspects of a new film and understand it in the cultural and historical contexts,” he points out.
What sets apart YouTuber Shazzam with over 789k followers, from Kok, is his wit and vernacular Malayalam dialect. Take his review of Voice of Sathyanathan for instance. Though the film clearly didn’t appeal to him, he cleverly deflects and says it works big time for the “family, television serial-consuming audience.” While reviewing Adipurush, he struggled to keep a straight face, trying his best to explain what didn’t work for him. All the points were made — be it calling out Prabhas as the worst possible choice, to a hilariously caricaturish Saif Ali Khan as Ravan, the hysterical action sequences, and the tacky VFX – he presented it without peddling hate. “The only way I understood that it was Ramayana was because of Hanuman,” he pointed out. Of course, the message wasn’t missed — watch Adipurush at your own risk. In under two minutes and with minimum fuss, he also explains why it took him three days to finish watching Veera Simha Reddy. Maybe the fact that the guy gained popularity previously as a standup comic helped.
Arjyoulive, with over 652k subscribers, is more popular as a social media critic who passes an opinion on every trending topic. When it comes to films, he takes a very inoffensive, casual stand, perceiving it as an ordinary viewer without going deeper into the craft. That doesn’t mean he sugarcoats them; he just adds quirky little stickers to get his points across in a 5-minute video. So, though he picks all the issues in a film, even conceding it to be disappointing, there are efforts to acknowledge the redeeming factors as well. What perhaps works in Arjyou’s favour is his deadpan humour. He talks about watching Jawan twice, as the first watch didn’t have subtitles. “I saw Jawan without subs till the first half, loved it till then, and then entered another theatre to watch it again with subs. I shouldn’t have done that.” Simple and effective review.
Among them, Unni Vlogs Cinephile (350k subscribers) is someone who perhaps takes himself rather too seriously, but that doesn’t always land well. His reviews are an attempt to dissect a film through the political lens, rather than as a casual viewer, often coming across as what many call ‘too preachy’. He antagonised a large section of the audience when he said Jailer didn’t tap the stardom of Rajinikanth. The difference between Unni and Shazzam is in their presentation — their intent is not to hurt anyone but somehow works differently for both. At the end of the day, all these reviewers are echoing what a large section of the audience feels about a film. No one is expecting a different view from any of them because they are speaking on behalf of them.
Mallu Analyst (442k), who is one of the earliest entrants in this space, is more about spilling insights, and serious analysis (though it can come across as know-it-all at times) and less about catering to a mass audience. His reviews are about the politics and less about the craft of the film, and he seems to have a sizable audience who find his perception rather refreshing. He follows a more educational, textbook narrative style.
If you take the comments under their videos, it will be mostly a blend of positive and hate comments. Some might agree with his views, some add their own reviews, or just spew hatred, fire a volley of abuses, and still come back for more.
But having said that, what does this new trend suggest? Are professional film critics who do straight reviews of new films in the traditional sense becoming redundant? Or is it just that social media has democratised the space, making it easier for everyone?
Don Palathara observes that the recent popularity that most of today’s reviewers are getting is a phenomenon that unfortunately has less to do with the cinematic art and more with the business aspect of it. “Filmmakers or producers who utilise them are merely exploiting the lack of intelligence of the followers and in an ideal or more individualistic world, that should not be the case,” he says.
But even then, shouldn’t film reviewers who are using the video narration format also follow certain ground rules while putting out their opinions on the public platform? Language, tone, showing grace, respect, and communicating from a truthful space, to begin with? Something to consider.
Neelima Menon has worked in the newspaper industry for more than a decade. She has covered Hindi and Malayalam cinema for The New Indian Express and has worked briefly with Silverscreen.in. She now writes exclusively about Malayalam cinema, contributing to Fullpicture.in and thenewsminute.com. She is known for her detailed and insightful features on misogyny and the lack of representation of women in Malayalam cinema.
Views expressed are the author's own.
