Thread by @pramitheus

In the first two weeks of January I've seen the return of two of the most ass-hat arguments around film and film criticism. One is "anybody can be a film critic" and two is "film critics are privileged bitches whining about early access to films".
Here are my conclusive thoughts.

First, lemme talk about the "anybody can be a film critic" part. Yes, anybody can be a film critic. Everybody should be a film critic. The playing ground is still dominated by upper class White people in USA & upper class people from Delhi, Mumbai, & Bengaluru in India.

If you don't fall into either of these categories, please come & talk about films. If your is under-represented in film & film criticism, please come. We need more diversity because that's the only way the general discourse around films and even the quality of films will improve.

So how will you get into film criticism? You'll look to the big websites to get your voice heard. You'll email em (if you get their email id). If (which is a big "if" & I'll explain why next), you get a response, you'll pitch your shit. IFFFFFFF it gets approved, you'll critique.

Firstly you won't get a response because, assuming you're not famous or from the majority community or don't have a degree in journalism, you don't make the cut. And also because most of the spots for film criticism have been taken up by people who fall in those parameters.

When you say "film critics shouldn't get access", you're basically allowing websites to avoid diversification & sticking to their UC writers. Elite websites don't need diversity to get clicks. You'll go to them anyway. So that brings up the topic of smaller websites.

Most smaller websites depend on clicks or patreon to pay their writers. Most of em are paying out of their pockets. So, you either will get paid a small amount of money or you won't get paid anything. Which isn't the website's fault. It's the way things are as of now.

So when you say "critics shouldn't get access", you're not damaging the elites who'll continue with their reviews because they can and because you're allowing em to. You're damaging these smaller websites by harming their chance to even arrive at the playing field.

A big website can write a review a month after the movie's release & they'll earn its worth. Small websites need early access to do the same. Now if you don't come with said early access you're making the smaller website pay you for nothing cuz they ain't getting the clicks.

So, you've been rejected by the big website cuz you ain't making the cut. The small website can't afford you cuz you don't have early access. That leaves you with two other options. Start your own blog/website from which you can earn enough to watch movies. Or turn to YouTube.

The problem with those two options are the same. The market is already saturated. You need early access to get any kinda views. If you don't, you'll get buried. As for YT, you need camera presence, editing skills, vocal skills, early access, audience & the mercy of the algo gods.

If it's still ain't clear, the way this profession works, if you ain't big, & you put out your opinion after watching the movie/show on the day of the release, you ain't earning anything from it, nobody's gonna read and you're not gonna earn any money. You need money to survive.

Now let's come to getting early access. You'd think that "hey, you just shoot an email to the studio & you get an invite to a physical screening or a screener". Firstly, good luck finding a contact to the studio cuz they ain't readily available. Secondly, you ain't getting it.

Because studios, distributors are classist as fuck too. If you ain't big, get out. If you ain't associated with a big website, get out. If you live in a small city or town where physical screenings don't happen (cuz they're limited to metro cities, oh definitely get out.

So when you say "stick to screenings, don't give screeners", you're only helping the elite few who tick those checkboxes and trampling our chance to earn a livelihood. Screeners is the easiest form of early access which diversifies the playing field & helps you earn SOMEthing.

But here's the thing. You ask the studio (if you get its contact & if they respond). If it's not in your country, they delegate it to someone in your country. That someone in your country does that whole process of judgement all over again & decides if you should get a screener.

So, you're anyone (LIKE. ME). You've decided to be a film critic. You don't wanna just watch a movie/show & be done with it. You wanna talk about it. You wanna talk beyond box-office numbers. This is what you gotta do to be someone talking about entertainment & earning money.

Now, I can already hear your counter-arguments to all this.
"If it's such a task, why do it?" "Why don't you stop whining & just make films?" "If you can't make films why don't you just switch jobs?" "Entertainment is a bond between artists & the audience, why do you exist?"

If I don't have the money to get any equipment or the confidence to be in front of a camera or have people to stand in front of the camera for free cuz I don't have the money to pay em while having certain responsibilities towards my fam, how'd you expect me to make a movie?

Also, if you ain't a film maker or a film critic, who the fuck are you to ask that question? But let's say you're a film maker, what right do you have to ask the question? Is a movie/show made, a teaser and a trailer is releases & then it's sent out to the audience? No press?

Stop all access to your films. Stop giving interviews. Make your movies & put it out on the day of the release. Then you've all the right to ask that question. But you don't do that, do you? You do interviews. You use pull quotes to promote your films. You need us. We need you.

Martin fucking Scorsese has highlighted the need for film curation so that y'all can watch more than mainstream films. Who the fuck do you think can do that? Critics!
When you say your movie is "for the fans" & only wanna engage with em, guess who is a fucking fan? Critics!

Y'all fucking saw the Bo Burnham special & came away with the inference that anyone can make specials like that, while COMPLETELY ignoring his privilege, his access, his talent, his fame. Whereas the message probably was "do what you do with all you've to survive".

So I do what I do because I am good at it. It gives me purpose. And I'm doing it despite all the bullshit around it. And I cannot explain how infuriating it is when privileged, talent-less fucks like the ones in the pics push stupid stigmas which cause further problems IN MY JOB!

Get some perspective before you type away some bullshit. I challenge either of these assholes to survive in this profession from where I am physically. Come, exchange places. Let me go to the US of fucking A, you come to my hometown. See how quickly PRs forget you.

Then we'll see who's talking about not getting early access & switching jobs & whatnot. It's not a miracle why I'm still here. It really isn't. It's by design. I've worked for companies who haven't let me do what I wanted to do. I could've shut up & done their bidding. I did.

But despite that, they chose to undermine me even further cuz I didn't check a bunch of classist checkboxes. That's why I chose to not be undermined & try to correct things that ain't right with this profession, which exists because films exist & films depend on us as we on them.

If you're wondering why I've written all this in a Twitter thread & not an article, it's cuz I know big website won't respond & I don't wanna burden small websites cuz I'm not sure it'll get clicks. If you think this thread is worth something, Paypal me. Link's in the bio.

I'm gonna pin this thread to my profile unless something more important that needs to be pinned comes along. I don't wanna hear anything about films or film criticism if you haven't read this thread. Add to it if you wanna. But don't bullshit me. I am done for this year.

There are more nuanced stuff to be talked about like how big websites are pushing out legacy writers (instead of giving em a hike) & replacing em with newer less experienced writers for lesser money. Which is degrading the quality of criticism. Which is furthering said stigmas.