The moral compass involved in filmmaking - Page 4

Originally posted by: rogerrocks

😆

Originally posted by: SrideviFan4ever

Just too add to the topic a bit, I don't generally enjoy his reviews much but I agree with what he said about Sanju here.

Suprateek Chatterjee @SupraMario

FollowFollow @SupraMario

More

Broad brush-strokes in mass-media such as films have a detrimental effect on our society. The oversimplification of emotions, events, characters, and relationships as depicted in commercial cinema is not harmless. It is time to accept this.

Suprateek Chatterjee @SupraMario

FollowFollow @SupraMario

More

I haven't watched SANJU. I don't really want to, but might have to, to stay on top of things. But going by every trustworthy opinion I have heard, whether or not it is intended as a hagiography, it definitely seems like it'll be unsubtle and simplistic at the very least.

Suprateek Chatterjee @SupraMario

FollowFollow @SupraMario

More

This is a film that's playing in more than a third of all screens in the country. It is supported by star power and seemingly unlimited marketing money. There's no way it isn't going to reach crores of people, many of whom are likely to be impressionable and uncritical.

Suprateek Chatterjee @SupraMario

FollowFollow @SupraMario

More

People think criticising commercial cinema is elitist, because it is "meant for a different audience". But something that reaches so many people is an ideal medium to propagate dangerous ideas, especially when it's done without nuance and ambiguity.

I didn't agree with the rest of the thread so didn't post them. 😆

Originally posted by: anjs

I was thinking of this same thing yesterday while watching 3 idiots..infact was planning to open a thread about this scene... Not only that scene uses that word insensitively... but no-one, not even the great Rancho gives a second to the humiliation faced by Chatur in-front of the entire college... was he so bad that he deserved that much humiliation...

Just like Rape, Ragging is another monster in India, lots of youngsters have committed suicide due to horrible ragging which made them feel humiliated... so how right was it of Hirani to show that kind of humiliation just for few laughs...

Originally posted by: rogerrocks

Honestly though to give Hirani the benefit of doubt, rape wasn't this sensitive an issue when 3 Idiots released. Not saying it was any less of a crime back then but it seems to have become such a huge sensitive issue post Nirbhaya and the series of incidents that have followed post that. I doubt Hirani and Abhijat would insert a similar scene in any of their films at this point. That apart, it's not about whether Chatur deserved it though. It's more about conveying a certain point to the audience. That the education system is incredibly flawed and you become a dumb idiot after years of ratta marna. A lot of characters in films or stories don't deserve what they go through but its necessary for story and character development. If we go by this logic, we will probably have to nitpick and have issues with majority of the scenes 😆 Even the ragging sequences were more to show how smart Rancho was and how the three of them became friends. Of course you could still argue that he made light of a serious issue which seems to happen in a lot of films.That said, I think most of us only expect some bare minimum sensitivity from these filmmakers because it does seem to have an impact on popular perception.

Originally posted by: rogerrocks

I have been wanting to make this topic over the weekend so I can rant in peace so here you go 😆How much of a social responsibility should film makers have while making a film? How do you define moral compass and sensitivity while making a film where the ultimate objective is to make an entertaining film which makes money? Its impossible to make a biopic or a historical or a film inspired by some real incident which sticks 100% to reality or facts. There is cinematic liberty and perception involved but where exactly do you draw the line?

For instance, I personally found Jodha Akbar to be a decent entertaining film but it had an extremely skewed version of history. Ditto with say a Sanju which was a quintessential Hirani film but had a skewed version of the reality in a lot of ways. I'd go as far as saying I had similar issues with Talvar. A compelling film from the perspective of fiction yet it was too biased towards one perspective (don't want to elaborate on this but you get the drift). Then there is the question of sensitivity. Hirani for instance has this habit of making a joke out of extremely serious issues. It is probably an asset in a way cos he has this knack of making important points in a light hearted way without sounding preachy. Yet when you look at the scene from a different perspective, you feel it was below the belt. The 'balatkar' scene for instance was hilarious back in the day. 9 out of 10 people who watched the film found it a laugh riot (I confess I did too). The point he intended to convey was good which is ratta marna takes you no where. Yet given everything thats happened post that, you find the callous use of the term extremely insensitive. I'd say the same for the entire Pinky sequence in Sanju. I found it funny when I first watched it and everyone around in the theater chuckled yet when I thought back to it, i could see how pathetic and misogynistic it was. And the worst part is the film does not make a big deal out of it and even the friend who is at the receiving end acts like Sanju just stole his pizza when he dozed off 😆 I must confess that all of us as an audience moved on from it too and just viewed it as a random funny sequence inserted for comic relief 😆

So here is my question. How much of sensitivity should be displayed by a film maker? Since BO is the be all and end all of all things Bollywood, should we just ignore things so long as we find it funny and entertaining? I mean a hard-hitting version of Sanju which dwells into the psychological aspects of his persona would have probably made half the money. A realistic version of a Jodha Akbar or a Bajirao Mastani wouldn't have been half as appreciated from a BO perspective. Am not being judgmental here because despite all the essays above, I have watched and enjoyed a lot of these films myself and most of this analysis is only retrospective 😆 And films are just meant for entertainment and actors/directors are not here to save the world. Yet the insensitivity pricks at times. Am sorta torn here so I'd like to know what everyone else thinks 😆

Originally posted by: gilmores

Filmmaking is a creative effort for sure and a director should have the right to make the film he wants to, just like the audience has the right to reject or accept that film.

That being said, I think filmmakers should show a certain sensitivity and responsibility keeping the socio-political climate in mind. It is one thing to show different sides and start a debate, and another to completely show your bias and present only one view. For example, it would be absolutely wrong to make a film about rape and blame the victim given the world we live in. I think Hirani's point about yellow journalism was in the wrong film entirely. He needed to make a different film about that...one more neutral and without a problem child like Sanjay Dutt at its core, but Hirani is anything but neutral. His feelings are obvious from a mile away in all his films.

Like Raazi both shows the greatness of Sehmat as a spy, but also leaves you disturbed with how she in her actions, but war to be more precise, completely destroyed families..and also her, spiraling her into a depression. Sairat shows a horrific end to a couple whose only "mistake" was falling in love outside of their caste.

The audience is ultimately only looking for a good time, but at the end of the day, cinema is a huge influencer and BW shouldn't undermine that. It is very much possible to make good, fun commercial films while still being sensitive and responsible.