It seems that the days when Bollywood movies used to be
harbingers of fantasy are coming to an end. The burgeoning middle class, which
has been made economically stronger by the fruits of the
Liberalization-Globalization-Privatization (LPG) era, seems to be developing an
appetite for movies that project reality. The "silver screen" isn't
expected to portray demi-gods and demi-goddesses romantically dancing around
trees and in grasslands anymore. If there is an element of entertainment in the
movies, it has to be invariably interlaced with information—to give rise to
"infotainment".
Movies and Reality
The current climate in the Indian movies seems to be veering
towards a projection of the hard facts of the society. Take the case of the
movie 'Oh My God'. The movie brilliantly conveyed to the audience how certain
sections of the society indulge in commodification of religion, spiritual
beliefs, talismans and in propagation of idolatry by deifying material objects
to serve their own vested interests. It is no wonder that the movie had drawn
sharp criticism from the intolerant sections of our country—sections that
consider it their birth-right to get offended at every possible work of art,
even if the bona fide intent of the work is to bring positive social reform.
Another positive role played by the movies has been to
portray systemic failures, i.e., failure, for various reasons, in the working
of the institutions of the State. The movies Khakee, Yahaan, Shaurya are
some of the stalwarts in this area. Then, the movie Swades had tried to bring
out the development deficit in the rural areas of India and had tried to link
it with the phenomenon of "brain drain". It is a pity that though
such movies receive huge critical acclaim, they do not perform so well at
the box-office! Movies have an educational role too. They try to enliven in
the memories of the people important historical events, e.g., Richard
Attenborough's English movie Gandhi. Movies try to spread awareness about art
and culture; they also help in the promotion of tourism.
The ushering of a "new age" in the movies has seen
various filmmakers (actors and producers), prominent among them being Anurag
Kashyap, Prakash Jha, Shoojit Sircar, Farhan Akhtar, trying to rope in new
themes for their creations. Farhan Akhtar displayed this in the movie Zindagi
Na Milegi Dobara, in which he tried to portray the need of Work-Life Balance
and the negatives of an excessive desire for materialistic success. In the movie Chakravyuh, Prakash Jha
tried to bring out a fictionalized story set in the backdrop of Left-Wing Extremism, which has (in the words of
former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) emerged as the biggest internal security
challenge to India. Shoojit Sircar tried to bring out the fictionalized
versions of terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir in his movie Yahaan and the
Indian intelligence operations in the civil war between the Sri Lankan
government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in his movie Madras
Cafe. He also subtly-yet-boldly projected the theme of sperm donation and
related societal mindsets in his movie Vicky Donor. Then, filmmakers have
also tried to bring widespread popularity to sportspersons through their
movies—Milkha Singh ("Flying Sikh") in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag and MC
Mary Kom in the movie Mary Kom.
Movies on a different pedestal?
Why are movies treated at a different pedestal when it comes
to setting the standards for their content? The main reason seems to be the
widespread grasp of movies on the minds of the people as compared to other
forms of mass media. This is, perhaps, because of the combined effect of the
literary content and dialogue delivery interlaced with background score and
powerful visuals. Also, watching a movie doesn't require reading skills
(necessary for print media), access to television sets (necessary for
electronic media) or access to smartphones/computers (necessary for social
media). Thus, it is no wonder that movies seem to grab the headlines much
before they are released—when they apply for a certification from the Central
Board of Film Certification (CBFC). What is a cause of concern, though, is the
fine line between censorship and editorship. Many-a-time (e.g., in the recent
case of CBFC Chairman Pahlaj Nihalani's issuance of a list of "cuss
words" that were to be prohibited to be used in movies and the subsequent
withdrawal of the list after it was vociferously objected to by various
filmmakers as an attempt to bring in totalitarianism by stifling creative
freedom), this fine line has been disregarded. Another scenario is when certain
state governments issue diktats to ban the screening of a particular movie on
the pretext that it may otherwise inflame public sentiment and may thus create
law and order problems. A case in point is that of the English movie Dam 999 whose screening was banned by Tamil Nadu government. The movie was perceived to
be loosely based on the issue of the Mullaperiyar Dam, a contentious issue
between Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The 'star' culture
A noteworthy phenomenon of the Indian movies has been the
creation of "celebrity-culture" or a "star-culture". The
audience, especially the people belonging to the lower social-economic strata
and the youth, elevate the actors to the level of demi-gods and demi-goddesses.
This is further compounded by the other forms of mass media, whose journalists
and the paparazzi clamour and fight hard to capture every small event of the
actors' lives. Important airtime of the electronic media may be devoted to the
changed hairstyles of the "celebrities" even at the cost of social
issues such as poverty and hunger, because such "trivial issues" do
not seem to generate enough Television Rating Points (TRPs) for the news
channels. Sometimes, this hunger for celebrity news assumes the proportion of
encroachment upon the private lives of these "stars". Some of the
best examples in this category are those of the late M.G. Ramachandran
("MGR"), the late N.T. Rama Rao ("NTR") and Rajinikanth
(born Shivaji Rao Gaekwad).
Movie celebrities are paid to perform or are present as
chief guests at various functions organized by corporate entities and state
governments, and even at private functions of politicians and wealthy
individuals of the corporate world. They are also employed by various national
and multinational companies as 'brand endorsers' (a phenomenon that
cannot be overlooked due to the necessity of advertising and 'marketing' in the
market economy). An observation, that I recently made in this regard, is of
movie actors endorsing 'pan masala' products. Perhaps the companies, which
hitherto used to make chewing tobacco and snuff, have been so remorseful after
being chided by various Supreme Court and High Court judgments for gifting
leukoplakia (precancerous white-coloured lesions in the mouth) and oral, esophageal, pancreatic cancers to the people of India that they have resorted to
the employment of movie "stars" as brand-endorsers of pan masala,
etc., to bring home the point to Indians that they need to freshen-up their mouths
by savouring new attractively-packaged aromatic vitriolic products. What is
funny is that I remember one of these very actors uttering in a dialogue in
some movie that film "stars" who endorse some products in television
commercials do not even sniff those products in real life!
"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"
Given the large level of trust that is placed on the movie
actors, who are treated as idols, there should be a sense of responsibility
among the film actors towards the society. I quote a dialogue from the movie
'Lakshya' (even though taken out of context)—"...ye vishwaas bahut badi
izzat hai aur bahut badi zimmedaari bhi"—this belief is a large honour as
well as a large responsibility. Some of the positive work done by movie actors
are the social initiative 'Men Against Rape and Discrimination' (MARD) by
Farhan Akhtar and the positive work done by Celina Jaitley for the rights of
the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) community, to mention a few.
But then, there are bad apples too. Salman Khan's positive
initiatives through his NGO 'Being Human' may be grounds for, at the maximum,
getting a remission of his prison sentence for crushing pavement dwellers under
the wheels of his Sports Utility Vehicle. But his positive work carried out
later does not absolve him of all the guilt. And then there was another
"celebrity" singer Abhijeet Bhattacharya who compared pavement
dwellers with dogs in his tweet; luckily for him, he apologized for his
irresponsible comments. Sadly, wealthy actors rope in rich lawyers to bail them
out of jail even as a large number of undertrials languish in the Indian
prisons, sometimes for time periods crossing even the maximum sentence
proscribed under law for the crime for which they were accused.
Another issue to be considered is the one of brand
endorsements by celebrities, especially after the current nationwide ban on
Nestle Maggi by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Movie
actors do have every right to endorse products as this fundamental right is
covered under the Article 19 of the Constitution of India—freedom of speech and
expression (for commercial purposes) and well as freedom of occupation (because
the endorsement provides them with earnings). While it may be argued that the
brand endorsers of the product couldn't have possibly known about the
nutritional value of the product given that it is a thing of technical nature,
that the product had already been cleared as safe by the food regulators, and
that the actors cannot (in any manner) be held accountable for mens rea or for
having mala fide intentions, there certainly has to be some degree of
accountability. This is because the endorsers have a hegemonic stronghold on
the minds of the vulnerable sections of the consumers. If movie actors are
qualified to be awarded with Padma awards for excellence in their fields as
well as for benefiting the society by their acts, they should be accountable to
the society for an endorsed product that has been found unsuitable, more so if
it is a food product. The least they could do is to issue public statements to
forbid people from using any product if it is found unfit for use and to
express that they had endorsed the product when they had no knowledge of any
harm caused by it.
Then, there should be a certain dignified conduct by actors.
There was widespread condemnation of the performance of Madhuri Dixit, Salman
Khan, etc., on the concluding day of the Saifai Mahotsav in Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) even as many victims of the Muzaffarnagar Riots were suffering in makeshift camps and weren't
even fully rehabilitated. While the "celebrities" might have promoted
tourism and culture in the eyes of the U.P. state government, the
function was widely criticized by various quarters among the civil society and the political parties for the huge
fanfare amidst penury of the communal riot victims.
To conclude, it can be said that though the paparazzi
shouldn't encroach upon the lives of the movie actors, the movie actors too
must realize their responsibility towards the same society that has aggrandized
them to the level of "stars" of the "silver screen".
