A Film Doesn’t Feel Like Propaganda If You Never Pause to Notice - Page 3

Originally posted by: PunnyPotato

@Bold: Where is the proof that India did anything under US pressure? ...

It is just in blind Modi hate; you just saw what you wanted to see.

Trump more or less ordered the Indian government to stop a military operation that became a risk for the own nuclear depots in Pakistan.

The last line could get easily inversed into "It is just blind Modi admiration; one just sees what one wants to see." ... one even doesn't need to mention the Modi part... the second one is what has the main importance

So let me clarify it (even though I don't need to but still to avoid misunderstanding),

I am not a Dhurandhar hater....I saw it as a movie and there are certain things I liked and certain things I didn't like.... I found D1 really entertaining and intersting though.

So One of my biggest discomfort was the way they handled 26/11..

See, I feel fortunate that neither I nor anyone close to me was directly affected by the horror of 26/11. But that does not distance me from what it represents. For countless people, it was not just a headline or a date, it was loss, fear, helplessness. People lost their lives,lost their near and dear ones.Survivors saw death up close. Many of them likely carry that trauma even today in ways we cannot fully comprehend.

And that is exactly why the use of such a tragedy in cinema demands a certain responsibility.

When a film brings in real footage, real transcripts, real echoes of that night of 26/11, it is no longer operating purely in the space of fiction. It borrows the weight of reality...the kind of weight that comes from lived suffering. That weight is powerful. It makes the narrative feel authentic, immediate, unquestionable. But it also means that the emotions being evoked are not entirely earned by the story itself.They are inherited from a real, collective wound.

This is where it began to feel like manipulation to me.

Because the audience is not just responding to the film; they are responding to memory. A shared, deeply emotional memory that most people already associate with grief, anger, and fear. By invoking that memory so directly, the film doesn’t just tell us what to feel,it ensures that we feel it. The line between storytelling and emotional conditioning starts to blur.

For viewers who are not politically or cinematically inclined to question what they are watching(and India is filled with such people because not all are as privileged as us, survival is a struggle for so many people), for them, this effect can be even stronger. When real elements are embedded within fiction, the entire narrative can begin to feel real. Not just emotionally true, but factually true. And that is a powerful and potentially dangerous space for any film to occupy.

But beyond questions of perception and ideology, there is a more human concern.

For those who lived through that night, or lost someone in it, these are not “powerful cinematic moments.” They are fragments of trauma. Revisiting them especially in a heightened, dramatized form...can reopen wounds that never fully healed. It can trigger memories they have spent years trying to contain. And all of this happens in service of a narrative payoff that ultimately belongs to the film, not to them.

So my discomfort is not about Aditya Dhar as a filmmaker having a point of view. Cinema has always carried perspective, and it always will. The discomfort lies in how that perspective is delivered.

When real suffering becomes a tool to amplify fiction, when grief becomes a shortcut to intensity, when a national tragedy is used to steer emotion in a predetermined direction..it raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:

At what point does storytelling stop being expression and start becoming exploitation? At what point does “poetic cinematic justice” become a polished way of packaging someone else’s suffering for dramatic effect?

I’m genuinely happy for the entire cast and crew specially Ranveer, Akshay Khanna and Rakesh Bedi for the kind of response the film is receiving. Any piece of cinema finding connection with people is, in itself, something to acknowledge.

But at the same time, I find myself conflicted.

Because I’m not entirely sure what exactly the audience is responding to.Is it the storytelling? the craft, the writing, the performances, the way the narrative is built and earned?

Or is it the emotional weight of what the film draws from,the real trauma, the collective memory, the pain,the anger that already exists in people? Time will tell.

This is not just about this one film for me. It’s something I find myself grappling with across many political or patriotic films.So I hope noone tells me that "ohh this movie did that" as two wrongs doesn't make one of them right.

And please if anyone has to say anything to me on this subject tell me....i would love to listen to different pov...

When real suffering becomes a tool to amplify fiction, when grief becomes a shortcut to intensity, when a national tragedy is used to steer emotion in a predetermined direction..it raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:

At what point does storytelling stop being expression and start becoming exploitation? At what point does “poetic cinematic justice” become a polished way of packaging someone else’s suffering for dramatic effect?

This is where you are wrong.

Everyone knows what happened on 26/11 and everyone knows it was terrorists who were responsible for it and we were fortunate enough to catch one of them alive so he has name Ajmal Kasab and that he came from POK. Otherwise it would be nameless foreign country responsible

What Aditya Dhar has shown is how he landed at Mumbai who gave him the weapons (ISI) how did the weapons reach the man who gave them to Kasab (gangsters of Pakistan) and how was the money arranged to finance those weapons as well on ground support for those terrorists in India (Khanani brothers) who helped them locally in India (Atiq Ahmed) How did Khanani get Indian currency plates and paper. All of it is true. Only fictional part in that is Hamza whose presence is looking glass through which we see the events unfolding

Aditya Dhar hasn't steered anyone in any direction.

Machis shows trauma of victims of police brutality and government apathy taking up arms. Parzania Dev, Haider shows the same thing and that is ok for polished dramatic effect. Why aren't you questioning these filmmakers for dramatising trauma of victims and trying to profit from it.

Rather show a female pakistan ISI agent Romancing a rogue RAW agent with song and dance and that would be ok for a polished dramatic effect

Or maybe IKkis is ok to show polished dramatic effect of war on father of a martyred Indian soldier and one honorable Pakistani officer when the Indian soldier was martyred in war caused due to plunder and genocide by the honorable Pakistani officers Army

There is no whataboutism in my answer. I am simply calling out hypocrisy of people who are who are criticising a movie makers freedom of expression because it doesn't match their ideologies.

Originally posted by: PunnyPotato

@Bold: Where is the proof that India did anything under US pressure?

We didn't even stop taking oil from Russia, even when the US claimed it, so what makes you think we did anything under pressure from the US?

Also, the movie started with Kandahar, which happened in the BJP Govt.

It literally showed Major Iqbal insulting his father for losing to India under Indira Gandhi, and Jameel in Pakistan, before the BJP was in power.

It only showed Manmohan Govt in a not-so-good light, and that was true, with the way they did shit in our Country. Heck, they didn't even show them badly with the way they handled 26/11 and the nonsense they did at that time.

It is just in blind Modi hate; you just saw what you wanted to see.

U don't read news😂 India had to do ceasefire because Pakistan is close to USA and India is taking permission from USA to buy Russian oil because of tariff fear.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/india-gets-30-day-waiver-from-us-to-buy-russian-oil-amid-iran-war-11175087

India was never so weak being a sovereign nation it has to seek permission from USA.

U talk about 26/11 but what about so many terrorist attacks after 2014. What has current government done for Manipur situation and China's aggression, government favouritism towards capitalists is leading to noida worker protests.

A party with 70 years of rule has around 150 crore n a party with 10 years old rule has 10k crore. Who is more corrupted than. Whose money is this.

India is democracy n i will criticize any government in power for its wrong doings as I'm not in blind love for a particular leader.

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

So the timeline of Hamza going to Pakistan is around 2003-2004.

Also nowhere have they mentioned that names r real..movie even says its a work of fiction. Now what can we do if viewers from Pak itself r corroborating the happenings? Like someone came out saying Jameel’s character is inspired by him. Someone comes n tells football scene is real. whatever is public news in India that we know is real.
Now we have no way to know if Yalina, Pinda etc r real or not. Won’t comment on that. Anyways they haven’t used real names

Characters in movie r based on real life ppl. Movie is based on Aditya Raj kaul's research. Hamza is not one person but many RAW agents who r working since formation of RAW. Reportedly football scene really happened n body was cut into pieces. They were gangsters so it's not a Big deal for them. Jameel jamali is Altaf Hussain a Pakistani politician who was alleged to be RAW agent n had one daughter. Pinda is rinda aka Harwinder Singh Sandhu.

Only timeline is distorted n real PM was shown n many other things like "hamarey log jeetenge" terms were used. This is mockery of democracy.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

When real suffering becomes a tool to amplify fiction, when grief becomes a shortcut to intensity, when a national tragedy is used to steer emotion in a predetermined direction..it raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:

At what point does storytelling stop being expression and start becoming exploitation? At what point does “poetic cinematic justice” become a polished way of packaging someone else’s suffering for dramatic effect?

This is where you are wrong.

Everyone knows what happened on 26/11 and everyone knows it was terrorists who were responsible for it and we were fortunate enough to catch one of them alive so he has name Ajmal Kasab and that he came from POK. Otherwise it would be nameless foreign country responsible

What Aditya Dhar has shown is how he landed at Mumbai who gave him the weapons (ISI) how did the weapons reach the man who gave them to Kasab (gangsters of Pakistan) and how was the money arranged to finance those weapons as well on ground support for those terrorists in India (Khanani brothers) who helped them locally in India (Atiq Ahmed) How did Khanani get Indian currency plates and paper. All of it is true. Only fictional part in that is Hamza whose presence is looking glass through which we see the events unfolding

Aditya Dhar hasn't steered anyone in any direction.

Machis shows trauma of victims of police brutality and government apathy taking up arms. Parzania Dev, Haider shows the same thing and that is ok for polished dramatic effect. Why aren't you questioning these filmmakers for dramatising trauma of victims and trying to profit from it.

Rather show a female pakistan ISI agent Romancing a rogue RAW agent with song and dance and that would be ok for a polished dramatic effect

Or maybe IKkis is ok to show polished dramatic effect of war on father of a martyred Indian soldier and one honorable Pakistani officer when the Indian soldier was martyred in war caused due to plunder and genocide by the honorable Pakistani officers Army

There is no whataboutism in my answer. I am simply calling out hypocrisy of people who are who are criticising a movie makers freedom of expression because it doesn't match their ideologies.

Hey thank you for the response...

But may be you did not get me or probably I couldn't explain myself properly..

That is not the point I am making.I am not questioning anyone’s right to tell this story, nor am I denying the factual basis of the larger chain of events as that doesn't matter to me.As i said i saw it as a gangster movie and D1 was really engaging and entertaining to me. My objection is much narrower and more specific: why use real 26/11 footage and transcripts at all?

If the story is strong, then dramatization should be enough. The same events could have been recreated cinematically without borrowing the actual images and audio of a national trauma that many people still carry in their bodies and memory. That is my issue.

Real footage does something different from fiction. It does not just inform the audience; it reopens collective memory. It brings in the weight of a wound that already exists outside the film. And once that weight is imported, the film is no longer relying only on storytelling. It is relying on trauma recognition.

So my criticism is not “you should never show this.” It is if the dramatic purpose can be achieved without using the actual wound, then why reach for the real wound at all? The answer seems obvious to me i.e. because real trauma carries an emotional authority that fiction has to earn.

That is where it feels manipulative. Not in the sense of being illegal or even necessarily false, but in the sense of deliberately steering emotion through something too painful to be merely aesthetic...

D1 is a technically solid movie...but i looked at it as "Historical fiction" but the story weaved by Dhar by involving real life incidences like Kandhar hijack, Parliament attack, 26/11 was so moving that it made people believe that operation Dhurandhar was real...That blurred line would not have happened if there was no real footages may be....

Meh. All movies are propaganda. Always have been. People only notice when they disagree.

Originally posted by: PunnyPotato

@Bold: Where is the proof that India did anything under US pressure?

We didn't even stop taking oil from Russia, even when the US claimed it, so what makes you think we did anything under pressure from the US?

Also, the movie started with Kandahar, which happened in the BJP Govt.

It literally showed Major Iqbal insulting his father for losing to India under Indira Gandhi, and Jameel in Pakistan, before the BJP was in power.

It only showed Manmohan Govt in a not-so-good light, and that was true, with the way they did shit in our Country. Heck, they didn't even show them badly with the way they handled 26/11 and the nonsense they did at that time.

It is just in blind Modi hate; you just saw what you wanted to see.

We even avoided mediating inspite of all the tactics to drag us into this mess