The fate of cinema in a polarized world

Mumbai gay rights activist Vivek Anand went to see The Kashmir Files Because he is interested in history. Like many others across the country, he was curious to know the story of Kashmiri Pandits.

Growing up in nice neighborhoods in the city of dreams and caring for the marginalized, a film is about entertainment with a social responsibility. But more than the effect of the film, Anand was gripped by restlessness because the reaction of the people inside the auditorium, he says, was “an evolution in the audience’s reaction.”

After watching controversial movies in the past, Anand says he was shocked by the frenzy generated by them k files, “People got up to give hate speeches, shouting Bharat Mata ki Jai and Vande Mataram,” he says.

Should art be reactive?

The audience’s anguish and anger at the arts often makes the daily challenge of keeping our secular fabric intact. Actor Adil Hussain’s tweet in a general context that “art should not be reactive” is important because people want the movie watching experience to be meaningful and not harm.

It’s one thing to see the naked truth on screen, but it’s quite another to witness the roller-coaster of public sentiment after a screening. when joy says The Kashmir Files The screening reminded him of the Bombay riots following the Babri Masjid demolition as it “divided people’s lives into the pre and post 1992 phase”, confirming how polarization occurs in films and through films. . Returning from the theater that evening, he told his friends that he felt scared inside an auditorium for the first time since the film was over. “I saw a generalization of the politics of hate,” he wrote.

Glorification in a film usually ends with applause whereas a tragedy makes you tear up and we leave it there. “But when people resonate and mingle like a crowd, it incites violence and makes it ambiguous,” says Delhi-based psychologist Shraddha Kapoor, who teaches at Lady Irwin College. “When a film’s story inspires us, we should be sad, not to lift a finger,” she notes.

Good movies shape our mind but do movies decide our behaviour? Given today’s environment in the country, if films run political narratives, they will divide the audience into groups. The anti-Muslim agenda is now a polarizing national issue and when the ruling party throws its weight behind a film, it is a self-propagation of an agenda. This can really put off half of the people they are trying to convince as well as help reduce any controversy with the hype.

Filmmakers try to keep their political leanings subtle but their commitment to a political agenda isn’t always endorsed. same with the director of The Kashmir FilesVivek Agnihotri, who also made Tashkent Files (2019), as an investigative cinema attempt to solve the mystery of the death of India’s second prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri. The film turned out to be a scandalous majority theory; How a strong leader alone can win a military defeat over the enemy.

In the last few years, many language films running on nationalist fervor have been released. Threat from a known enemy (read Pakistan) and dictatorship in the country using a powerful set of nationalist sentiments Uri: The Surgical Strike Lend to erode normal rational thinking. Instead of just positive cheerleading, the film’s most famous one-liner — How’s the Josh — also lingers in a collective distorted mindset.

Trauma and violence movies

strict opinion and increased appreciation for films such as Manikarnika: Queen of Jhansi, tanhajik And saffron Can take the audience out of their comfort zone. “in The Kashmir Files, I saw a collection of narratives that are true; Pearl Fotedar, a life-skills consultant related to former Congress leader ML Fotedar, says, “I grew up hearing such stories. Everyone has a different perception of the film; it opens up a theme that has been around for three decades.” But, if the welfare of Kashmiri Pandits is a genuine cause at heart, then the sentiments emanating from the film need to be channeled positively and not politically.”

The films chronicle and depict the state of the nation.

For example, Nandita Das’s directorial debut Firaaq A 24-hour period and a month after the Godhra massacre, captures the fear and unrest that dominated Gujarat. This 2009 film does not bow down while examining the trauma of those affected in the Gujarat riots, in which over 1,000 people were killed.

Rahul Dholakia’s parzania It was based on the true story of a Parsi boy who went missing after the 2002 Gulberg Society massacre. It traces the struggles of the family in search of their boy. The 2007 film was not released in Gujarat as cinema owners cited it as a sensitive film.

2005 release, amu Shonali Bose explored the dynamics of religious intolerance against Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. It gives a glimpse into how the massacre was supported, encouraged and executed. Haider (2014) questioned the tyrannical power of the controversial AFSPA law. But the kind of outrage, a section of the audience The Kashmir Files This was not the case with earlier films.

We need hard-hitting films about real issues, but not distorting expectations that treat citizens like mobs and contribute to polarization.

We need films that will heal wounds and not inspire citizens to be a part of the process of ‘othering’ the minority, when the environment in the country is already communally intolerant.