Hindi cinema has been struggling for quite some time now, facing a downturn that is hard to ignore. Quality films often fail to get the recognition they deserve, while subpar productions occasionally succeed but mostly flounder. This has led to what can be described as an existential crisis for Bollywood—India’s second-greatest obsession after cricket.
Several factors have contributed to this crisis, but beyond the excessive greed of multiplex owners, which has alienated core audiences, and the shifting perspectives of moviegoers, another key culprit is the media. Rather than serving as a stabilizing force or at least offering some support, the media has been largely irresponsible, immature, and, at times, even malicious. From social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube to print and online publications, the role played by the press in shaping public perception of Hindi cinema has been overwhelmingly negative.
The Decline in the Quality of Film Journalism
A significant issue with modern film journalism is the lack of deep understanding among those covering the industry. Many of today’s journalists are young and lack substantial knowledge or independent analysis of how Hindi cinema evolved into what it is today. Rather than developing informed perspectives, they often rely on one another, so-called “experts,” or personal biases shaped by their admiration for specific filmmakers, stars, or genres. Very few have a genuine passion for cinema or approach their critiques with objectivity.
Many of these individuals aspire to be filmmakers or screenwriters themselves, which often makes them critical of mainstream Bollywood storytelling. They scoff at elements that have been part of Hindi cinema’s DNA for over eight decades simply because these tropes do not align with the aesthetics of world cinema, particularly its critically acclaimed segments.
There is also a faction of critics who blindly idolize South Indian cinema, which, in itself, is not problematic. However, their excessive praise of regional films often comes at the expense of Hindi movies, leading to unnecessary comparisons and an unfair dismissal of Bollywood’s contributions.
Focusing on Non-Issues
Another distraction in the discourse surrounding Hindi cinema is the undue attention given to so-called “nepotism” and “nepo-kids.” While these terms have lost their significance in Bollywood, they still dominate discussions—despite nepotism thriving even more prominently in South Indian film industries. Critics paradoxically celebrate South cinema as being “grounded” while dismissing Hindi films that tell similar stories as being disconnected from reality.
Moreover, Hindi cinema’s biggest stars, both seasoned and emerging, are frequently criticized for their supposed lack of talent. The line between personal and professional criticism is blurred, leading to unwarranted attacks on actors.
Ignorance and the Abuse of Influence
The biases of film journalists extend to their preferences for certain filmmakers and actors, often disregarding public sentiment. Directors like Anurag Kashyap, Hansal Mehta, and Vishal Bhardwaj, to name a few, receive disproportionate praise, while many truly talented artists go unnoticed. The industry’s fixation on international recognition further exacerbates this trend—global accolades take precedence over domestic achievements, even when Indian audiences fail to connect with these celebrated filmmakers.
There is a growing pattern of outright dismissal of Hindi cinema. While film reviews were once secondary to audience decisions, today, they have an outsized influence. With ticket prices at an all-time high, moviegoers increasingly rely on reviews to decide whether a film is worth watching. Unfortunately, many critics appear more interested in tearing down Bollywood than offering constructive feedback.
Another problem lies in the inconsistent reporting of box office figures. While some journalists inflate earnings to make a film appear more successful than it is, others take a contrarian approach, prematurely labeling movies as flops. Often, films are declared failures even before their release, and post-launch, every effort is made to justify these predetermined verdicts. This creates confusion among audiences, leaving them unsure about a movie’s actual performance.
Of course, box office numbers should not be the sole measure of a film’s worth. A good film does not lose its artistic merit simply because it underperforms commercially. However, exaggerated earnings reports contribute to the growing distrust in media, reinforcing the perception that journalism is tainted by bias and monetary incentives.
The term “paid media” has become increasingly relevant, as even honest journalists are painted with the same brush as those who distort facts for personal gain. Conversely, individuals who peddle negativity under the guise of “telling it like it is” are lauded as voices of integrity.
One senior critic in the industry, who once enjoyed great reverence, was notorious for his inconsistent opinions. He would harshly critique a film, then later praise one aspect of it while condemning the director’s next project. In another instance, he would criticize one movie but later use it as a benchmark to deride another film from the same filmmaker. Audiences began to notice these contradictions, exposing his lack of credibility.
Yet, that was an era when such behavior was still limited. Today, the dominant trend among critics is outright hostility. The tools of their trade—keyboards, microphones, and cameras—are wielded not as instruments of fair critique but as weapons of destruction.
The Rise of Agenda-Driven Journalism
A troubling development in recent years is the increasing number of journalists launching their own platforms, using them to fabricate, amplify, and sustain controversies. They manipulate narratives, cite unverifiable “sources,” and enlist supposed “authorities” to lend credence to their claims. Their primary motivation is not truth but digital engagement—views, likes, and revenue. The impact of their misinformation is growing, influencing public perception in dangerous ways.
One recent example involves a passionate cinephile named Vikram, who happens to be related to a legendary film personality. Vikram had long been influenced by a biased film columnist, often adopting the same views without independent thought. However, when he engaged with me in a private conversation regarding a particular film, I suggested he watch it himself rather than rely on second-hand opinions. Filmmaking, after all, is an arduous process, and while the results may vary from awful to brilliant, every film deserves a fair assessment. To his credit, Vikram acknowledged the validity of my argument.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as willing to challenge their preconceptions. Many simply accept media narratives without question, which is why responsible, honest journalism is more crucial than ever.
What the Media Should Be
A true champion of Hindi cinema should not impose conditions on their appreciation of the industry. Just as a parent or teacher supports a child through challenges, journalists should stand by Bollywood during its rough patches. Constructive criticism is vital, but it should be offered with the intent to improve, not to destroy.
The absence of such support has left a void. Instead of acting as a guiding force, today’s media is complicit in Bollywood’s struggles. If Hindi cinema is to regain its strength, it needs a press that values integrity over sensationalism, fairness over favoritism, and encouragement over perpetual condemnation.
Ultimately, Bollywood’s fate does not rest solely in the hands of filmmakers, actors, or audiences. The media wields significant influence in shaping narratives, and if it continues on its current path, it may contribute to the very downfall it claims to lament.