SOCIETY
Deconstructing the plot line
Are we a nation which is rule bound with walls not written in law but with walls in the head?
Kudrat Kahlon

Kamal Haasan speaks to the media at his office premises in Chennai, after his movie Vishwaroopam was forced out of cinemas in January this year. The state government had banned the film after Muslim groups protested against the community’s portrayal. Hasan threatened to live outside the state, even the country, in exile. Reuters

Katherine Bigelow’s letter to Los Angeles Times in defence of justifying torture methods in Zero Dark Thirty wrote: "Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time." Prompting further criticism of ignorance and indifference, a claim Bigelow could not shake off as put by Slavoj Zizek’s "normalisation of torture". But how does one understand the ubiquitous influence of the cinematic trance that’s accused of creating and controlling cultures?

Chilean dictator Pinochet’s regime was brought down by an uprising, credited to the film NO. Paul Haggis, the director of Crash, Million Dollar Baby and In the Valley of Elah, which deal with racism, mental health issues, cynically dismissed the influence his movies had on political thought. Closer home, the impact of a film is much easier to measure.

Romanticise the powerful

A curious predicament ensued the panel of the Censor Board while reviewing the critically acclaimed film by Rahul Dholakia, Parzania, set in 2002. Based on true events, the film recounted the anguished search for a missing Parsi boy in the Gujarat riots, but the dilemma the Board was facing was not of the depiction of violence amongst Hindu and Muslims but a curious scene involving a toast. The toast was made to Gandhi. Surely, prohibitionists would take offence to a toast "in whiskey" to Gandhi, inciting protests and potential violence. The scene never made it for viewing by the "modest masses". Are such censors made for viewing of the so-called "modest masses" or is it to ensure that the "Indian modesty" does not transform into a liberal populace that might spark a domino-effect of progressivism? A pandora’s box, which might question the essentialist nature of taboos and myths that encapsulates and governs the unwritten laws of Indian culture.

Every now and then an artist or a filmmaker causes a stir, this stir is nothing but an initiation of a new dialogue. Rushdie to M.F Husain,Deepa Mehta or the latest edition Kamal Hassan, they make the leaders of the status quo uncomfortable, by depicting a new perspective challenging the existing narrative. While it’s true some great filmmakers reside in India and enjoy no controversies, they follow the golden rule of stroking the lion’s mane. Whether its portrayal of Sarkar, which eliminates inciting communalism of the protagonist it was based on, or V S Naipul’s glorification of the Hindu nation, romanticising the powerful is the basic film rule not to be broken.The rules of filmmaking, art or literature are simple, to glorify and perpetuate existing myths, never initiate new dialogues unless endorsed by a politician and pay your tributes to your local godfather.

Defined by hatred

Salman Rushdie, a classic target of the culture patrol, is correct when he says, "The strange form of identity politics has developed in which people don’t define themselves with things they love but by the things they hate. So to attack a book about the Ramayana, book about Shivaji or painting about Saraswati... these things are easy to do. That somehow galvanises the sense of identity of these extremist forces". This perversion can be blamed on politicians who don’t rely on constructive legislation to secure re-election, but politicians who are actually part of theatrics, storytellers in their own rights, who won’t let the film industry or the literary realm deconstruct a social or political issue but will reserve that right for themselves.

Initiating a new dialogue in India in any political or social issue is considered an inherent right for leaders to secure their own vote bank, or to create new ones.

Films are the source of education for many, a three-hour indoctrination that can be exploited for the good or bad, our leaders know it’s value and will not let be a tool to undermine their own stronghold.

Women’s right activists across the nation critiqued how ‘modesty’ in rape terminology perpetuates the rape culture. Our films are a manifestation of such a culture, which will not describe in so many words what rape is because it is inappropriate but will never ban an item song; never on the issue vulgarity maybe on the pretense of ‘hurt sentiments’. We are a nation which has been conditioned to know where to say what, and if an artist, writer or filmmaker steps out of those confines, the politicians might make a new vote bank as described by Rushdie. See how sentiments were apparently "endangered" by Kamal Hassan’s Vishwaroopam.

Critical matter vs hateful content

Our politicians and religious leaders are the ultimate storytellers of India, when given competition, their vote banks are jeopardised they would rather have the writers to stick to romanticising mythology and the filmmakers churning out item songs, pretending there’s a Swiss meadow in the heroine’s backyard, instead of Dharavi.

Culture is dynamic, ever-changing, but there is a crisis. The crisis is the manipulation of cultural forces in the hands of the political. India’s depiction in foreign channels might have you more hooked than what’s seen in India, not because Indians don’t have an appetite for good films and literature but because the political honchos set the agenda and only they have the right to deconstruct reality. We are a nation which is rule bound with walls not written in law but as the Germans say Mauerim Kopf or with walls in the head. The ban on Sadda Haq epitomises the relationship between art and politics in India. Distinction must be made between critical matter and hateful content. When the powerful manipulate "hurting sentiments" to subjugate people, they hide behind the veil of hateful content. In fact, they are simply intolerant of criticism. The only antidote to the tyranny of the politically corrupt is to question our current definition of tolerance, which rides on the curtailment of freedom of speech, and, most importantly, to recognise who gains from ignorance. We must recognise that we are being played, an unfortunate plight for a country with a rich intellectual culture diverse in its views and perennial in its spirit. Filmmaker Deepa Mehta summed it best when she said, "India gives me stories, but Canada gives me the freedom to express them".

Does the plot matter?

The script is inconsequential for moneyed producers who can spearhead change. They dish out Rs 100 crore to make a film with a star and no script. No one will spare Rs 5 crore to make a meaningful script without a star. Those who decide which films will get made are from a corporate background and have no knowledge of films at all.

— Amira Bhargava, Assistant Director

Any morally ‘incorrect’ action on screen is supplemented by mandir bells, loud dhol beats and blowing of a conch to put viewers through waves of societal guilt. Our censorship rulings are governed by anticipatory laws that try to predict public unrest created by the incitement of objectionable content. If art is being used to push hateful propaganda, by all means sentence/censor him/her as our courts deem fit.

— Prithvideep Singh , Marketing Manager

For a majority of Indians living below the poverty line and another chunk barely getting by, movies are an escape not another forum to learn and discuss. The smaller the town, the lesser the social issue sells. Personally speaking the scope for experimentation that the filmmakers have is little.

— Minna Joshi, Lawyer

HOME