The run up to the 61st Independence day has been quite grim and gory except for the gold that India won at the Olympics.
The serial blasts that shook the nation have cast a pall of terror and have led to suspicion and surveillance of our cityscapes as well as mindscapes.
Doubt your neighbor, doubt your friends, doubt your fellow traveler...and more recently doubt the film you watch.
With Bangalore and Ahmedabad blasts sending terror tremors across the country, suddenly Bollywood and its films depicting terrorism became the talking points.
People and media started looking at fiction with misgivings for inspiring fact. A classic case of trying to establish that reel life inspires real life.
A recent Ram Gopal Verma release, Contract became the focus of this reel-dictating-real debate. The film showed acts of terrorism which had modus operandi similar to what was used in Ahmedabad during the time of the blasts.
These similarities sent the rumor mills running overtime, and the believers in the archaic bullet theories of mass media went motor mouthing about how Bollywood is to be blamed for the recent escalation in terrorism.
This blame game went to the extent that Ram Gopal Verma, the director of Contract had to go public saying "I didn't inspire terrorists," to pro-actively absolve himself of any charges of encouraging terrorism!
While, to lot of us such an apology sounded uncalled for, it perhaps reflected the power that a medium like cinema is invested with, in populist belief.
The power to make things happen in real world, power to influence minds and above all, in this case, power to create terrorists of all things!
Can films make terrorists out of us? Well that's surely an extreme way of putting it. But can films inspire terrorism?
As we celebrate another Independence Day under the shadow of terrorism, in our red alerted cities, it s a question worth asking.
Rahul Dholakia, director of award winning film Parzania based on the Gujarat riots doesn t seem to subscribe to this view.
He opines that films like Contract and Mission Istanbul have nothing to do with acts of terrorism in real life. In an interview to NDTV, Dholakia says, "Terrorists don't wait for films to help them plan and strategize. They have an inner cause to fulfill and that s what guides them."
Mahesh Bhatt, producer of Dhoka, a film that tells the story of suicide bomber, is more vociferous, "Terror is a reflection of our times, and since cinema reflects life, filmmakers are bound to gravitate towards the subject of terrorism. But to conclude that movies contribute to terrorism in the country is to trivialize the whole issue."
Bhatt surely has a point there but filmmaker Sudhir Mishra makes a larger comment about contemporary Indian cinema that adds a whole new perspective to the debate.
Mishra believes that our contemporary formulaic films are simply incapable of investigating a sensitive issue like terrorism in depth since they present a very vigilante notion of justice.
He says that our films end up either demonizing or romanticizing a terrorist. There's never a sane representation. We are always swinging between extremes where as real life doesn't offer any easy heroes or villains.
Guess, Mishra has a point for sure.While we can dismiss a hardliner s view of cinema inspiring terrorism, but it might be tough to contest the charge of Bollywood romanticizing a terrorist if not terrorism.
Except few films like Maachis or Terrorist, most other films like Mission Kashmir, Fiza and Fanaa present a highly romanticized view of a terrorist.
One wonders if this is any different from the larger than life image of an anti-hero that our gangster films have specialized in creating onscreen.
Think of Company, D, Shootout At Lokhandwala or even Sarkar, the gun- toting, dashing killing machine somehow makes being bad look so cool!
The law breaking, weapon-wielding protagonist has all the trappings of a larger than life character. He walks with a swagger, talks in a baritone, is surrounded by sexy women, and has his own code of conduct.
Not just this, he also has a menacing yet very seductive nonchalance about disposing of those who don t fall in line with his code
Hrithik Roshan, Sanjay Dutt, Ajay Devgan and other mainstream stars like Vivek Oberoi have been some of the most popular actors who have essayed the roles of these cool bad guys in recent times.
And if it s not a mainstream superstar playing a terrorist or a gangster, the character takes on completely demonic proportions and becomes a fiend unleashing mindless terror on the world.
As Mishra says there s no sane representation . Our films seem to be mired in superlatives. They don t seem to talk, they only scream.
But to call this scream a clarion call to rouse the terrorists of a country is as much of a hyperbole as our films themselves are guilty of.
Source-ndtv.com
The serial blasts that shook the nation have cast a pall of terror and have led to suspicion and surveillance of our cityscapes as well as mindscapes.
Doubt your neighbor, doubt your friends, doubt your fellow traveler...and more recently doubt the film you watch.
With Bangalore and Ahmedabad blasts sending terror tremors across the country, suddenly Bollywood and its films depicting terrorism became the talking points.
People and media started looking at fiction with misgivings for inspiring fact. A classic case of trying to establish that reel life inspires real life.
A recent Ram Gopal Verma release, Contract became the focus of this reel-dictating-real debate. The film showed acts of terrorism which had modus operandi similar to what was used in Ahmedabad during the time of the blasts.
These similarities sent the rumor mills running overtime, and the believers in the archaic bullet theories of mass media went motor mouthing about how Bollywood is to be blamed for the recent escalation in terrorism.
This blame game went to the extent that Ram Gopal Verma, the director of Contract had to go public saying "I didn't inspire terrorists," to pro-actively absolve himself of any charges of encouraging terrorism!
While, to lot of us such an apology sounded uncalled for, it perhaps reflected the power that a medium like cinema is invested with, in populist belief.
The power to make things happen in real world, power to influence minds and above all, in this case, power to create terrorists of all things!
Can films make terrorists out of us? Well that's surely an extreme way of putting it. But can films inspire terrorism?
As we celebrate another Independence Day under the shadow of terrorism, in our red alerted cities, it s a question worth asking.
Rahul Dholakia, director of award winning film Parzania based on the Gujarat riots doesn t seem to subscribe to this view.
He opines that films like Contract and Mission Istanbul have nothing to do with acts of terrorism in real life. In an interview to NDTV, Dholakia says, "Terrorists don't wait for films to help them plan and strategize. They have an inner cause to fulfill and that s what guides them."
Mahesh Bhatt, producer of Dhoka, a film that tells the story of suicide bomber, is more vociferous, "Terror is a reflection of our times, and since cinema reflects life, filmmakers are bound to gravitate towards the subject of terrorism. But to conclude that movies contribute to terrorism in the country is to trivialize the whole issue."
Bhatt surely has a point there but filmmaker Sudhir Mishra makes a larger comment about contemporary Indian cinema that adds a whole new perspective to the debate.
Mishra believes that our contemporary formulaic films are simply incapable of investigating a sensitive issue like terrorism in depth since they present a very vigilante notion of justice.
He says that our films end up either demonizing or romanticizing a terrorist. There's never a sane representation. We are always swinging between extremes where as real life doesn't offer any easy heroes or villains.
Guess, Mishra has a point for sure.While we can dismiss a hardliner s view of cinema inspiring terrorism, but it might be tough to contest the charge of Bollywood romanticizing a terrorist if not terrorism.
Except few films like Maachis or Terrorist, most other films like Mission Kashmir, Fiza and Fanaa present a highly romanticized view of a terrorist.
One wonders if this is any different from the larger than life image of an anti-hero that our gangster films have specialized in creating onscreen.
Think of Company, D, Shootout At Lokhandwala or even Sarkar, the gun- toting, dashing killing machine somehow makes being bad look so cool!
The law breaking, weapon-wielding protagonist has all the trappings of a larger than life character. He walks with a swagger, talks in a baritone, is surrounded by sexy women, and has his own code of conduct.
Not just this, he also has a menacing yet very seductive nonchalance about disposing of those who don t fall in line with his code
Hrithik Roshan, Sanjay Dutt, Ajay Devgan and other mainstream stars like Vivek Oberoi have been some of the most popular actors who have essayed the roles of these cool bad guys in recent times.
And if it s not a mainstream superstar playing a terrorist or a gangster, the character takes on completely demonic proportions and becomes a fiend unleashing mindless terror on the world.
As Mishra says there s no sane representation . Our films seem to be mired in superlatives. They don t seem to talk, they only scream.
But to call this scream a clarion call to rouse the terrorists of a country is as much of a hyperbole as our films themselves are guilty of.
Source-ndtv.com
Comments