Looking Through the Lens: Films and Society

The Mirror ran a story in 2017 about a five-year boy who jumped from a 40 feet high
window with an umbrella, because in his own words, he was “playing Spider-Man.”
Fortunately the young boy survived but the incident points to a larger malaise- about the
magnitude of influence that films have on impressionable minds.
F. R. Leavis describes the watching of cinema as dangerous: “[films] involve surrender,
under conditions of hypnotic receptivity, to the cheapest emotional appeals”. In our country,
cinema is one of the most loved forms of entertainment with roots going centuries back.
Around 500 BCE, Bharat Muni’s Natyashastra became the first treatise on the art of
dramaturgy. In it, Brahma created Natya Veda for the pastime of Gods, combining elements
of the four Vedas. Over time, classical Sanskrit theatre evolved into modern theatre which
further evolved into cinema as we see today, with the addendums of technology and
innovation.
Films, though like other creative mediums also tell stories- both fictional/fantasy and real
(documentary), but they are generally considered to have a somewhat larger economic scale
as compared to other forms of expression. Also, the audio-visual aspect of the same make it
more palatable to the audience that has less time, less inclination to read or is perhaps
illiterate. Regional films in vernacular languages cater to the vast audience of the country that
perhaps doesn’t understand the colonizer’s language or the trappings of western values. Often
a fixed formula suited to their sensibility is displayed to tempt the audience.

It is often said that Bollywood masala films have no story, they are not logical but dil-
logical(meant to make sense to the emotions). The purpose of such films is to repurpose what
sells, even if it means objectification of women, gruesome violence, breakdown of morality
and other means of reinforcing stereotypes. One reason why the Oscar winning Slumdog
Millionaire was criticized was for its one-sided portrayal of India, as a third world country
steeped in superstition, crime and poverty. At a time when Indian films have provided a sense
of belongingness to the diasporic population and united people across borders, filmmakers
who don’t know India well enough, should be vigilant lest they present a distorted version of
a country, thereby denting our soft power.

However there are filmmakers who would remind critics about creative liberties and how
films are a mirror to society. But the larger question is: what is real as per one, might be
unfamiliar for the other. As such, the director’s realism only depends on her/ his vantage
point and should not be mistaken for the Truth.
Suraj Barjatya, the creator of yesterday classics such as Hum Aapke Hain Kaun and Hum
Saath Saath Hain, has for long been considered the bastion of the ideal Indian family values.
His films not only cause the cash registers ringing at the box-office, but are also seen as a
powerful tool of preservation of our rich value system. However, in an interview about his
latest, Uunchai, he claimed that the ‘type’ of films he once made might not work in the
present milieu because society has changed. With time, values and consciousness has
changed.
As we grapple with the repercussions of the world becoming a global village, we find the
identities of young people becoming more and more fluid. A lot has to do with the type of
content they are exposed to. Indian films account for the maximum number of movies made
per year- we are indeed a movie loving nation!

However, with the rise of OTT platforms, newer forms of entertainment have also branched
out for consumers. These platforms offer a wide range of films and series on topics spanning
violence, sex and taboo. One can, with a monthly subscription, watch a plethora of content
from all over the world.
In the recent case of barbarism that shrouded the Capital act, the accused mentioned that he
was “inspired” by the American crime drama Dexter, to cut his live-in partner into pieces,
burn her face and then dispose off her body.

Studies have claimed that an overexposure to films showcasing violence, ultimately makes
the consumer desensitized to violence.

It is interesting to note that sometimes it is not only the consumers that are impacted but also
those involved in the process of creation. The erstwhile “rape specialist” of Bollywood was a
name given to Ranjeet Sethi because of his infamous choice of similar types of villainous
roles. He was once kicked out of his house after Sharmeelee released and he was seen pulling
the heroine Rakhi’s hair. More recently, Deepika Padukone, heroine of Chhapaak, where she
played an acid attack victim, was so terrified of the makeup that she had to burn it after
shooting was over.

Hero worshipping, cult creation, celebrity obsession are other repercussions. Many young
boys adorn the signature turquoise bracelet of Salman Khan in obeisance of his larger-than-
life heroic persona. Sadhna-cut or the western counterpart Rachel-cut are other examples of
the spectators’ desire to emulate those they see on screen. Newest to the list are star kids
hounded by paparazzi and obsessed over by the masses, one example: ‘Taimur dolls’.

When a classic like DDLJ normalizes harassing a woman in the name of flirting or films talk
about “hansee toh phansee” (if she smiles, means it’s a yes), it negates the idea of woman’s
consent. When heroines are made to dance in skimpy clothes in freezing locations to attract
sleazy audience and reinforce the idea of female objectification, it creates far reaching ripples
in society.

On top of this, cases of body dysmorphia, psychotic tendencies and feelings of lack, are on
the rise because impressionable minds don’t realize that what they see on screen is courtesy
props, artificial endowments, manipulated lighting and script.

You are what you consume- be it food or films in the form of subconscious utterings,
subliminal messages facilitating socialization of child’s mind- such as conspicuous
consumption of drugs or glorification of aberrant attitudes. American neuroscientist Dr
Andrew Huberman propounds that perhaps we are so exposed to forms of content, that we
need a simulation detox every day for better efficiency.

In a way that means we need to be careful about the films we consume. Yes, the Indian
audience has evolved and is demanding better from the directors, but we still have a long way
to go.

This is not to say we don’t have films can embalm the soul and provide solace, company,
entertainment. Laksh or Rockstar showed youth’s rite of passage; Kal Ho Na Ho talked about
transience of life ; Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi and Sardar Uddham infused
revolutionary fervour; Chakde! India and Bhaag Milkha Bhaag – focused on athletic
temperament; the delicate treatment of autistic Jhilmil in Barfi and dyslexic Darsheel Safari
in Taare Zameen Par all are amazing films with profound messaging.

But an element of responsibility is crucial on both sides of the continuum - the producer and
consumer of art need to be aware of the larger implications of films.

If school going children see Student Of The Year or Ishq Vishq, they would find it difficult to
find accept that peppy dance sequences don’t erupt between classes and that even if they start
dancing, their classmates wouldn’t ‘automatically’ know all the steps.

Life is not just films. Films are a part of life and yet, they can’t be taken as templates to live
life by. Films can mirror life but never capture the magnitude of the essence of living. They
are primarily an expression of the subjectivity of the writer/ director’s mind and should be
viewed with a sense of detachment. Instead of being passively ‘influenced; by films, let us
pledge to actively choose the films that help us grow and be ourselves become instruments of
change and influence.

To conclude, Sadguru was asked about the depiction of crimes in films, he said something
simple yet earnest- “Show rape, show violence but don’t glorify it. After watching it, the
viewer should not be motivated to do it.”