The moral compass involved in filmmaking - Page 2

TL and ALD- You guys have presented an idealistic scenario where everyone involved makes an informed choice and have complete freedom of expression. While I agree with some of the points, am not quite sure if it will work in its entirety. Yes a filmmaker cannot pass off something apparently wrong as right. But the visual medium subconsciously has a lot of influence on our perception. It's worse when you have so many news channels and newspapers and there is social media and half the people don't care for the truth or credibility. Then there is also the absolute sad state of the judiciary. The result is that you have no idea what exactly happened in a lot of cases. Sanjay Dutt, Salman Khan, Arushi Talvar or even the Gujarat riots (don't want to politicise it so I won't elaborate). The result is that a compelling narrative can definitely influence the common folk. May not convince but will at least plant the seed of doubt if you know what I mean. Of course it boils down to perception which is subjective and it is not the maker's fault if people believe whatever they say but am still not sure if I can subscribe to this perspective that they can show whatever they want so long as they are not violating human rights or animal laws and we should be smart enough to differentiate. Cos let's face it. Perception sells more than truth.

@Angel-likeDevil you are assuming that every artist has noble cinematic intentions or only wants to present his view of what happened...I think in bollywood's case these assumptions are mostly false...even if there is no propaganda or PR agenda involved it definitely could be about minting money...not noble cinematic or artistic intentions...bhansali knows showing a bed ridden kashi bai would mint less money than kashi bai doing pinga with mastaani...jodha akbar's love story(if they indeed had one) could probably not be sold if all the women of his harem were mentioned or if the important ones were given importance in the movie.And in raju hirani-sanjay dutt situation propaganda could be involved too...

The audience get what they deserve. They have no problems with whitewashing and glorification of criminals, be it cinema, or on a grander scale, politics.. so of course filmmakers fudge and manipulate reprehensible behaviour into a an entertaining sob story - as long as the money-spenders lap it up hungrily, no point in expecting to see a moral compass in the the film industry.

Originally posted by: --L--

Me personally have no moral compass when it comes to art and cinema , and the creator is free to do and show whatever his vision is.

That said , I think it's still a debating point in country like ours.

Since the realase of sanju i have seen many fb and tweet comments, favouring terrrorist dutt and taking the movie on face value.

Originally posted by: Sarath_Pandey

The audience get what they deserve. They have no problems with whitewashing and glorification of criminals, be it cinema, or on a grander scale, politics.. so of course filmmakers fudge and manipulate reprehensible behaviour into a an entertaining sob story - as long as the money-spenders lap it up hungrily, no point in expecting to see a moral compass in the the film industry.

It might be considered politically incorrect in today's time, but I do believe that the filmmaker's primary allegiance should be towards his/her craft only. However, when a film is based on real people/true events, then any distortion of facts would be unacceptable to me. By distortion, I do not mean the liberties taken for fictionalizing or the interpretation of the facts, or the filmmaker having a definite opinion about the facts (as in the case of Talvar). I have problem with the sort of blatant lies shown in Dangal, for example, mainly in the latter half to make a film more 'interesting'. That is unethical for me.

Originally posted by: rogerrocks

I think I agree that it is demand and supply at the end of the day. But then do people actually think so much before watching a film? Audience don't seem to care so long as the film is entertaining. Unless it's glorifying someone on the scale of say a Kasab or defending the accused in the Nirbhaya cae (just an example). I don't know if I can completely blame the audience here. Am part of that audience too 😆 I watched it for Ranbir and Hirani and have no qualms in admitting that I found it pretty entertaining 😆 Yet from a larger perspective, I disliked the glorification and the message it tried to perpetuate about media being the sole cause of all the problems. Which again brings me back to my first question- how much of a social responsibility should these people display while making films? Or are we placing unfair expectations on these people cos it's up-to to us to make informed choices and not get blindly influenced by what is shown? This seems like a never ending debate 😆

Originally posted by: rogerrocks

Haha 😆 I haven't seen Padmavat so can't comment but I personally disliked the blatant glorification of Sanju and implication that he was an out and out victim of yellow journalism. I still enjoyed the film and found it entertaining enough as a piece of fiction (which is why am torn about this) so you can go ahead and call me a hypocrite 😆

Originally posted by: Sarath_Pandey

You are one of the rare ones. Most don't care, it's not just that they don't think, they don't care. And that sense of apathy is easy turn into "Oh maybe I had a wrong impression, the media really villainised him, he really must not have known anything about the blasts!" and it's a major success on Hirani's part to mix the right amount of comedy and drama to make it entertaining. As you said, a hard-hitting truthful movie would not have made half the money. This really reflects on your society - just look at the news channels with the highest TRPs - truth doesn't sell, in fact blatant lies, if entertaining enough are eagerly believed and lapped up. Film makers are also simply taking advantage of this and in the process, getting fame, adulation and money. Why will they take any social responsibility if no one (I mean, majority public) is interested in progress in the first place.

Originally posted by: SrideviFan4ever

I have so many things to say but I feel I've said all that I wanted to and written so many long essays before about this in every film review thread that I'm now just tired. I'll porbably just read the comments this time.😆

Only thing I can pobably say is that we are a country of more than a billion people, coming from such diverse backgrounds culture wise and wealth wise so a movie is interpreted very differently by people across all social stratas. Something that can be mere entertainment for me can be an inspirational tale for someone else. Let me take the example of a film like Sairat. Universaly loved by those who have watched it, it can be seen as a mere love story of two people by someone of an upper caste person or anyone who has no knowledge about caste atrocities in the country. But for a a young dalit boy, he will see the film as a representation of him or his friends on screen and probably will also realize by the end that the fate of him is probably sealed by the soceity at large, thanks to the thriving caste issues we have in the country. So I think more than being being socially responsible, I think it's high time Bollywood becomes sensitive. A film can never show two sides of the same coin. It is always the director's point of view which will be biased. But atleast stay true to your bias and present a sensitive version of that onscreen.