Spectacle? Allure? Mystic? SOULFUL
I came across this article that has been trending since the teasers of ‘Dhadak’ were out and that got me thinking of what true representation means (coz Sairat forever). I have written about how movies need to have a lot more inclusive approach towards forecasting a more desirable & collective future. That being one aspect, educating the masses through entertainment needs to shift from being a genre to being hygiene. On trying to find a middle way, the fact that most movies falsely represent a given story line got me thinking.
I happened to attend a session on Civic Entertainment by Godrej India Culture Lab a couple of days back and that helped me draw a clear line between what entertain is supposed to be & what it has come to. Like we all know, movies are very much capable of moulding one’s identity but the same movies are also capable of limiting one’s identity while resulting in a delusional state of existence. A specific genre has it’s own limits of not letting one think beyond the obvious parameters leading to a narrowed point of view. To add to this, pop culture shapes the category which in itself is a trap for creativity driven content. With only specific order of movies being produced, how can a diverse population thrive?
There’s an over powering social pressure of being on the same page as the rest which dictates one’s social boundaries but there is also a mellow inner voice which demands to be heard. This constant battle between individualism and communitarianism leads to identity concoction but to seek worldly validation, we end up disregarding the inner voice. As self revealing as movies might seem, it leaves people feeling temporarily empowered yet continually enslaved.
Now all this being said, lets look at the significance of entertainment as a broad category. Entertainment addresses various needs (basic to evolved; sub conscious to ultra conscious) in an individual’s life. From being an escape from monotony to being a mode to discover newer cultures and perspectives, entertainment is quite the guiding light. The category must be given due credits for enhancing human life but whether or not it is responsible for the generation to fair well is a debate. The masses most certainly pick certain actions from the produced content unknowingly but does it really lend a new identity? When we watch a particular genre of movies, we start defining ourselves under the light of only those specific movies. The plot, leads, cast and location become our temporary fancy. The situation gets tricky when the plot is mis-represented, while Ishaan Khattar (Madhukar) belongs to a super fancy Bollywood family, Akash Thosar (Prashant) debuted in Sairat. Prashant is a Dalit whose reality is far worse than Madhukar’s. Nagraj Manjule went scouting for talent in the interiors of Maharashtra as he wanted his characters Archi and Parshya to speak in an unpolished & rustic accent while Ishaan & Jahanavi marched with the flaring flag of nepotism.
We have seen misrepresentations of characters but Dhadak has misrepresented an entire concept- poverty, the kind of reality that Bollywood has never witnessed neither has managed to convey aptly. Poverty defined under the shimmering lights of Bollywood only leads to misguiding the crowd. Someone who owns and runs a restaurant doesn’t really fall under the lower strata of the society but someone whose family runs on daily wages does. Its a shame to feel the need to glamorise every piece of content, to appeal to a certain section of the society who hasn’t even walked barefoot in their own homes. I wonder what kind of an identity conundrum must viewers be going through post watching this 2.5 hrs romantic drama.
Hope you had a good read :)
