Filmmaker Anubhav Sinha is smiling, but also thinking hard. His latest film ‘Assi’ has landed on ZEE5, and the reactions have been loud, emotional, and sometimes even confusing. Messages, DMs, reels, and reviews, everything is pouring in. And somewhere between applause and hesitation, Sinha is trying to decode what really happened.
The filmmaker in a recent India Today interview opened up about love, the mixed theatre turnout, the impact of reviews, and why he still wants to keep making such films, even when the road is tough.
Also Read: Assi OTT release: Here is when and where you can watch Taapsee Pannu, Kani Kusruti’s courtroom drama by Anubhav Sinha
A flood of love… and unexpected intensity
Sinha revealed that he has been overwhelmed by the response since the film premiered on April 17. But the way people express appreciation has changed. Instead of letters or phone calls, he is now receiving Instagram reels, direct messages, and social media reactions. He joked that “the mode of message transport has changed,” but said the medium does not matter as long as the sentiment is positive.
He admitted that he expected the film to spark conversations, much like his earlier film ‘Thappad’. According to him, the purpose of making such films is not to give answers but to raise questions.
He believes society often understands issues better than filmmakers, and when people talk about them, they eventually discover both questions and solutions.
Still, the intensity of reactions surprised him. Sinha said he wanted the film to affect viewers, but the emotional impact went far beyond his expectations. The discussions became deeper, more personal, and more widespread than he had imagined.
He also addressed the idea that audiences may not be ready for layered storytelling. Sinha strongly disagreed, saying viewers are often underestimated. He pointed out that Indian cinema has always supported diverse storytelling. He cited filmmakers like Prakash Mehra, Manmohan Desai, Govind Nihalani, Shyam Benegal, and Basu Chatterjee, all of whom thrived at the same time despite making very different kinds of cinema.
Theatre footfalls: hope, reality, and a little disappointment
While the appreciation was strong, Sinha admitted that he had hoped for better turnout in theatres. He described commercial success as very important, especially for films like this that are difficult to make and consume. Such films, he said, are harder to execute financially, but that is a choice he willingly makes.
He used a poetic analogy to explain his expectations. You aim for the moon, he said, even while knowing you might not reach it. But in this case, the film did not even achieve what he considered “adequate” footfalls. It did not become luxurious in terms of audience numbers, and it also fell short of what he thought was sufficient.
However, he did highlight a positive figure. More than 1.2 million people watched the film in theatres. He called that encouraging, even if it did not match his initial hopes.
Sinha also reflected on changing habits. According to him, theatre-going itself has reduced because it has become less convenient. He compared it to changing retail patterns, noting that people now have easier options at home. Streaming, comfort, and convenience are all influencing how audiences choose what to watch and where.
Reviews: praise that helped… and words that scared viewers
One of the most interesting points Sinha made was about reviews. He believes they played a big role in shaping the film’s theatrical performance. Many critics praised the film but used words like “disturbing” or “a punch in the gut.” While these were meant as compliments, Sinha feels they may have discouraged some viewers.
He also noted that audience reactions had a similar effect. People came out of theatres saying things like “it’s not for everyone” or advising sensitive viewers to avoid it. These comments, he said, unintentionally worked against the film by making it seem intimidating.
At the same time, not all buzz was negative. Positive phrases like “important watch,” “important story,” and strong praise for performances did attract viewers. So the film experienced a push-and-pull effect. Appreciation drew people in, while warnings made others stay away.
Sinha explained that reviews matter more for films like this than for mainstream entertainers. Big commercial films often survive mixed reviews, but for content-driven cinema, audiences rely heavily on critics and early reactions before deciding to buy a ticket.
