Time To Stop Putting Bollywood On A Pedestal And Then Complaining About It

In a country obsessed with political battles, an attempt is being made online to carve out a new election cycle; from Friday to Thursday.

Somehow, movies, across India, with their mediocre writing, disregard for logic and Newtonian physics, and lack of depth are being presumed as commentaries on where the society and country are heading at large. 

Certain disclaimers are in order, to begin with.

Bollywood, the elephant in the room, is obsolete, struggling to compete with cinema of other Indian languages and movies from Hollywood that are far more accessible to the audience than they were ten years ago.

The industry is also infamous for furthering stories that demean Hindu sensibilities and sentiments. 

Two, in an age where the free market is the best litmus test, people have all the right to call out a creation for being naive, poorly made, and logically flawed. While social media movements are the flavour of the season, rejection or blockades against any movie must be consistent with the law of the land. 

This is where Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur’s comments come across as timely and important. Boycotts aside, if people are indeed able to see something problematic with a movie, something the censor board may have missed, they must take it up with the relevant officials in the government. 

The larger problem, however, is that some elements online are not looking for solutions.

Thriving on their creation of an election cycle that begins each Friday, they want to put the film industry on a pedestal themselves, then scrutinise and hold them accountable for their choice of expression because of them being on that pedestal, and then complain as well.

At best, the industry must be seen as an ecosystem of artists, available for hire to the highest bidder (the producer).

Even with their rare social commentaries through movies, they must not be seen as experts on policy or polity, or as a reflection of the country’s past, present, or future.

Imperative to note, that in the civilisational scheme of things, Bollywood is insignificant.

Thus, when some of the artists raise placards against crimes within the society, it must not be confused for awareness or fundamental duty, but to grab eyeballs for movie promotion.

When some of them complain about CAA or NRC, it is not out of concern, but to be in the limelight in the hope of giving their failed careers some thrust. 

Today, social media movements have put those celebrities on a pedestal that cannot count the first twenty elements on the periodic table yet offer commentaries on global warming, climate change, firecrackers, metro infrastructure, and everything else under the sun, as long as it gets them their Instagram numbers, newspaper coverage, and podcast invites. 

Forget the facts, these are the same people who could not get the map of India right while citing the CAA protests, assumed that NRC was a real document, and in their own words, were proudly sitting in a protest because 'people were there so something must have been wrong'. Bottomline: why give their meaningless utterances such publicity?

Then, there is the problem of frivolous protests. A recently released movie was hyped by one such social media movement for the colour of an actress’ clothes. To colour-code what an actor or actress can wear in a movie or in public appearances, depending on where one’s political inclination is not the smartest thing to do. 

Frivolous protesting also dents the credibility of the other social media movements, with a legitimate cause.

Take for instance the plot of the same movie. While Bollywood’s soft spot for Pakistani culture and artists is as old as Pakistan itself, it is also one of the outcomes of the market the industry catered for long, and not unique to India. 

Nothing right about it, just how the economics of convenience played out.

Movies produced in Hollywood today, are aligning their scripts and plots to suit the Chinese sentiments, even when the two countries are engaged in a trade war.

Since forever, one of the most overdone cliches in espionage movies is a home-grown agent turning against their country, or an enemy-nation agent shifting their loyalties. 

Some examples of this are Mission Impossible: 2, where it is a former American agent looking to unleash a virus in collaboration with a Russian scientist. A couple of other installments of the same franchise have CIA agents turning against America, a British agent turning against the British, and so forth, and this is a multi-billion dollar franchise. 

Even Disney, running the Marvel Cinematic Universe, has a character called Black Widow, who was a former Russian agent but then shifted her loyalties towards the Americans, and became an Avenger. Her comic book debut was in 1964, and her cinematic debut was in 2009. Another multi-billion dollar franchise. 

Several other examples come to mind. Angel Has Fallen, White House Down, Salt, Knight And Day, James Bond, Allied, and so many more. Bottomline; none of these movies are interpreted as a commentary on the politics, policy, or socio-economic realities of the land. They are celebrated for what they are—popcorn entertainers. 

For an industry already on ventilator, too much importance is attached to their creations and utterances. 

Therefore, the lesson for social media movements is quite simple. Do not put an industry that doesn’t even have the pulse of the audience on a pedestal and then complain about it.

Do not give them that power and then complain about them being powerful.