Social activism is easy these days. All you have to do is watch serious cinema or dark cinema. That’s all you have to do — just be a couch potato who watches “good” films and you will become an intellectual. Movie buffs have become like that character in the 1980s’ Twilight Zone series (“The Curious Case of Edgar Witherspoon”) who has to keep running an extremely complex contraption to keep the earth spinning smoothly in its orbit. Movie fanatics do the same by watching “serious” movies to save the world from moral degradation and endemics.
Cinema was a medium of art and entertainment but now it is a medium of propaganda and guilt politics. Misplaced austerity has replaced art and propaganda (guilt politics) has replaced entertainment. Filmmakers like Anurag Kashyap and his crony Youtube channels use guilt politics to sell their movies. They guilt-trip or even intimidate people who prefer feel-good cinema. They have turned optimism and happiness into pure guilt. Now the darker a film is, the better it is considered than a feel-good movie; the sadder the ending, the more stars it gets from critics. Every time people prefer larger-than-life entertainment, they are reminded of the dark realities of “real” world and held responsible for everything wrong with the society. Those who watch dark movies are considered intellectually superior to those who prefer entertainment. This is pure politics of guilt to manipulate people. Why is only entertainment in cinema singled out? If entertainment is evil, then should’t all forms of entertainment be banned? Shouldn’t people be guilt-tripped for watching cricket or football? If escapist cinema is a sin, then they should also stop partying and drinking alcohol. It is another thing that these arbitrary bastards will die if they cannot go to a disco every Saturday night. For education there are books. Reading expands one’s horizons and broadens one’s vocabulary. But of course, these Philistine bastards have probably never read a book in their lives and their rickety attention spans cannot handle anything more than a few tweets.
Whenever they run out of excuses, they use the soldier analogy to attack whoever isn’t on the same page: “Our soldiers make sacrifices for us. Can’t you watch dark movies?” The entire argument ends whenever they use the solider analogy. So, enduring dark or austere cinema is similar to serving in the army.
Anurag Kashyap is a like the government school teachers of India — sour, dour, austere and grumpy. They inculcate them with their dour values: thou shall not laugh, thou shall not be happy, thou shall study for eighteen hours a day, though shall not wear a perfume, thou shall not party etc. They deflate others so they can feel better about their own frustrations. These scrooges make happiness look like a sin.
I have nothing against austere cinema or tragic endings. I admire the Shakespearean tragedies of Vishal Bharadwaj. I likes movies of Dibakar Banarjee, Govind Nihlani and older movies of Anurag Kashyap. But why should cinema only be restricted to certain sensibilities? There is nothing wrong with sad endings. But the trouble brews when such people are considered smarter than others, simply on their preference of depression over happiness. The question is, what do viewers of dark cinema or serious cinema contribute to society by watching such movies? Watching movies, whether comedies or tragedies, doesn’t make any difference. It is as constructive an activity as watching a game of cricket. No one becomes a great thinker or a great patriot by watching Gangs of Wasseypur or by bullying those don’t like it.
Alfred Hitchcock made entertaining films. His weren’t feel-good films: they were dark but very thrilling, suspenseful and entertaining at the same time. His cinema was a work of art with great usage of expressionism, symbolisms and so forth. Each scene in his each film had more art than the entire oeuvres of these ascetic bores. In India, however, art cinema is considered a movie with realism and austerity. The parameters are blinkered like the outlook of the ascetic manipulators. Where are enterprising filmmakers like Hitchcock, Fellini, Bunuel etc.?
Cinema is creating more divisions in society than caste or colour. What does watching dark movies do? Does it book you a spot in heaven? Will Salman Khan’s fans go to hell? Does it guarantee lifelong riches? Does it get one a seat in the best universities in the world? Does the cure of cancer lie in those movies? Does it resolve the Kashmir issue?
Radicalised movie buffs keep lying to their disciples. Watching serious cinema doesn’t make one a social activist. Those who want to make a difference, actually go out and do something meaningful like my cousin H’Ji.
Cinema was a medium of art and entertainment but now it is a medium of propaganda and guilt politics. Misplaced austerity has replaced art and propaganda (guilt politics) has replaced entertainment. Filmmakers like Anurag Kashyap and his crony Youtube channels use guilt politics to sell their movies. They guilt-trip or even intimidate people who prefer feel-good cinema. They have turned optimism and happiness into pure guilt. Now the darker a film is, the better it is considered than a feel-good movie; the sadder the ending, the more stars it gets from critics. Every time people prefer larger-than-life entertainment, they are reminded of the dark realities of “real” world and held responsible for everything wrong with the society. Those who watch dark movies are considered intellectually superior to those who prefer entertainment. This is pure politics of guilt to manipulate people. Why is only entertainment in cinema singled out? If entertainment is evil, then should’t all forms of entertainment be banned? Shouldn’t people be guilt-tripped for watching cricket or football? If escapist cinema is a sin, then they should also stop partying and drinking alcohol. It is another thing that these arbitrary bastards will die if they cannot go to a disco every Saturday night. For education there are books. Reading expands one’s horizons and broadens one’s vocabulary. But of course, these Philistine bastards have probably never read a book in their lives and their rickety attention spans cannot handle anything more than a few tweets.
Whenever they run out of excuses, they use the soldier analogy to attack whoever isn’t on the same page: “Our soldiers make sacrifices for us. Can’t you watch dark movies?” The entire argument ends whenever they use the solider analogy. So, enduring dark or austere cinema is similar to serving in the army.
Anurag Kashyap is a like the government school teachers of India — sour, dour, austere and grumpy. They inculcate them with their dour values: thou shall not laugh, thou shall not be happy, thou shall study for eighteen hours a day, though shall not wear a perfume, thou shall not party etc. They deflate others so they can feel better about their own frustrations. These scrooges make happiness look like a sin.
I have nothing against austere cinema or tragic endings. I admire the Shakespearean tragedies of Vishal Bharadwaj. I likes movies of Dibakar Banarjee, Govind Nihlani and older movies of Anurag Kashyap. But why should cinema only be restricted to certain sensibilities? There is nothing wrong with sad endings. But the trouble brews when such people are considered smarter than others, simply on their preference of depression over happiness. The question is, what do viewers of dark cinema or serious cinema contribute to society by watching such movies? Watching movies, whether comedies or tragedies, doesn’t make any difference. It is as constructive an activity as watching a game of cricket. No one becomes a great thinker or a great patriot by watching Gangs of Wasseypur or by bullying those don’t like it.
Alfred Hitchcock made entertaining films. His weren’t feel-good films: they were dark but very thrilling, suspenseful and entertaining at the same time. His cinema was a work of art with great usage of expressionism, symbolisms and so forth. Each scene in his each film had more art than the entire oeuvres of these ascetic bores. In India, however, art cinema is considered a movie with realism and austerity. The parameters are blinkered like the outlook of the ascetic manipulators. Where are enterprising filmmakers like Hitchcock, Fellini, Bunuel etc.?
Cinema is creating more divisions in society than caste or colour. What does watching dark movies do? Does it book you a spot in heaven? Will Salman Khan’s fans go to hell? Does it guarantee lifelong riches? Does it get one a seat in the best universities in the world? Does the cure of cancer lie in those movies? Does it resolve the Kashmir issue?
Radicalised movie buffs keep lying to their disciples. Watching serious cinema doesn’t make one a social activist. Those who want to make a difference, actually go out and do something meaningful like my cousin H’Ji.
François Truffaut said, “Film lovers are sick people.” Who would have thought the hyperbole would become a reality one day? Earlier people reviewed movies, now movies review people.O’ movie buff, cut your ego, not movies.
Learn to think for yourself, instead of blindly following reviewers.
Stop policing people’s taste in cinema.
Don’t make cinema your religion.
Let your daughters fall in love.
No comments
Post a Comment