With These Restrictions on Cinema, I’d Rather Be a Critic Than a Filmmaker

When we enjoy a film, criticism of it can feel like criticism of our own judgment. What separates the pleasure of watching from an assessment of a work’s quality? In Fuse 42, Arash Nalchegar speaks with Khashayar Sepehri about film criticism and the relationship between critic, filmmaker and audience. Taste, knowledge of cinema, reputation and expectations of art all enter the conversation.

The question of who qualifies as a critic goes beyond a professional title. Must a critic have made films? What distinguishes a recommendation, an expression of personal taste and cinematic analysis? For viewers encountering film commentary every day, these distinctions clarify what they are seeking: a viewing suggestion, another interpretation or insight into how a film is made.

Framing, sound, acting and colour grading bring cinematic form into the discussion. If criticism depends on criteria, where does a viewer’s personal experience belong? How can a work be assessed when it departs from familiar conventions? These questions connect knowledge of cinema and a film’s cultural and social context with the experience of watching, even for someone who has no plans to become a filmmaker.

A director’s or actor’s name can shape expectations before a film begins. How willing are we to reassess a new work by someone we admire? The same question applies to critics: when does trust in a person replace examination of their reasoning? Film criticism opens a wider discussion of critical thinking and the responsibility of forming a judgment while learning from someone else’s analysis.

The relationship between viewers and series is complicated too. Why do we sometimes keep watching a show that disappoints us? What does audience size tell us about quality, and how do viewing choices affect further production? Iranian streaming series, including Zakhm Kari and Vahshi, provide a setting for these questions. The stakes include expectations of storytelling, images and respect for the viewer’s time.

YouTube and social media allow more people to discuss cinema publicly. How can viewers distinguish recommendations, promotion and independent criticism? A sharp tone, provocative headline, view count or relationship with filmmakers each raises questions about credibility. A critic’s independence matters to audiences whose viewing choices are shaped by online commentary.

The episode’s title, “With These Restrictions on Cinema, I’d Rather Be a Critic Than a Filmmaker”, connects criticism with the conditions of filmmaking in Iran. What space for artistic choice remains amid censorship, restrictions on portraying human relationships, financing and streaming-platform practices? Questions about audience rights, subscriptions, advertising and creators’ rights also enter the discussion. Understanding these conditions matters when considering the relationship between criticism and making films.

This conversation is for viewers interested in film and television criticism, cinema students and anyone who wants to think more carefully about their viewing choices. Watch the full Persian-language conversation on this page, or follow the audio link to listen to Fuse 42, for Sepehri’s views, Nalchegar’s follow-up questions and the examples behind the discussion.