The moral compass involved in filmmaking

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 😆

I have an absolutely non philosophical and almost detatched answer for this. 😆

I almost knew what your answer would be 😆 I guess perception changes with age and maturity. So long as we can differentiate between reel and real and don't let any of this cloud our judgment, its alright. The question though is how many of them look at cinema only as a tool of entertainment? People do look up to these actors know? They do get influenced by cinema to an extent right? May be not the good things but definitely the bad stuff 😆 Its partly why there is so much outrage over the misogyny perpetrated in films. But then again, like you said, its business at the end of the day. Its not their problem if you get influenced by it. I don't know. Am going around in circles 😆

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 😆

Disclaimer se kya jaata hai. No one cares 😆 Tomorrow they can make a biopic on Sasikala and make her out to be a tyaag ki murat who sacrificed her life for her bestie Jayalalitha. Get a good director on board and cast a good actress and your job is half done. Some might still lap it up and she will contest the elections once she is out of jail 😆

Ideally, cinema is a projection of an artist's view of things. It is. Therefore, the moral compass is for the artist to set, and the audience has the choice.

The sense of social responsibility lies on both the artist and the audience.

It's that simple.

I think this whole, moral and social responsibility of an artist while true, considering the realities, I also think we largely ignore the fact that we as audience have a choice, and have an almost unrealistic sense of entitlement to get "entertained".

While basically, not everyone has same definition of what 'entertainment' is.

No, it's a two way trade - art. The artist makes what he wants - whether for art's sake or money or to connect with us - that is upto to the artist.

If an artist is showing something in a movie - it does not mean he is always 'promoting' it, or teaching or taking a side. Not always. And even if he does - I think we all have freedom of expression? And, audience always has a choice what to like or not like or whether to buy what the artist is selling to you..

And audience consume based on the sea of choices they have, they always have a choice. And audience have a responsibility to view cinema as cinema, the audience should also have a social responsibility to be aware of what cinema and real life is. And not everyone is the same, we have different personal outlooks, different tastes, different things we look for in cinema, different expectations, but we aren't all on the same plane w.r.t where the line can be drawn.

The 'sensitivity' depends on the artist. I think it's as basic as everyone has differing levels of sensitivity, not all have same standard of it. If a particular movie shows less sensitivity, then we, as audience always have a choice to look elsewhere.

If a historical film is portraying something that is far away from factual information, it's not like we are being forced to learn facts from the movie. I mean, one can always put forth an argument against it - but in the end, the artist only shows what he chooses to believes in, what his perception of a historical story is, or how he wishes it could've been... In this era of information available, no artist can actually cheat you into believing something untrue. I think we're lucky in this generation where artist can have the freedom whatever the hell they want without being accused to distorting 'truth'...

Actually, IDK since when cinema has become a platform for making stories with factual precision.

Cinematic art is a very subjective, personal affair(I'd rather not talk about what a trade it has become today, I'm just talking along the basic, idealistic lines, or how it ought to be)... an artist comes from a place that is deeply influenced by his own personal outlook of the world. And it is hard to confine anything that he makes into some rules or expectations. Like I've been repeating, audience has the choice.

If a person watches movie, it is bound to be from a subjective POV, atleast partly - so, it's hard to say - "it must be entertaining/funny", while - each person has his own feeling of what entails entertainment depending on their own moods.

We as audience have limitless choice.

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.