A Film Doesn’t Feel Like Propaganda If You Never Pause to Notice - Page 9

Originally posted by: Clochette

Ideally it should be like this (not mixing faith and politics), but this is what happens in India with Hinduism and the ruling party.

In USA it's christianism mixed with politics (started in Europe and brought by the Europeans to the American continent).

In Israel the mix is prominent...in every country ruled by Islamists it's the case...

Politics that defines itself through a belief system, the belief system will get affected, I think, because politics will ab-/misuse it for agendas that most probably will betray the very foundation of the respective faith.

That's why I don't believe in religions but in spirituality as - to me - latter is independent of man-made systems.

Hmm…

To begin with, the whole Hinduism and the ruling party thing. Congress did it too - just you know with the second largest majority that ended up dividing the country and then decided they’d park themselves here despite causing displacement of millions and the death of as many in one of the bloodiest events in modern human history.

Manmohan Singh famously said that Muslims have a first right to the resources of this nation. Congress was about to introduce a bill that would declare us Hindus as the perpetrators of any civil unrest in our country regardless of what the root cause of the conflict and unrest was. If that’s supposed to be the way that things are then no wonder BJP came to power and is here to stay because why should we let people who would declare us terrorists in our own homeland rule over us? After all, just because we are the majority doesn’t mean the onus of every evil thing that happens is on us.

Westerners or western raised folks of the subcontinent have this thing where they have an aversion to patriotism and particularly Hindu patriotism, because they conveniently forget we are a nation that has been colonised, invaded, plundered and left partitioned by outsiders. We gained our independence for the first time from barbaric Muslim invaders and monstrous Christians who both forced their religion on our people one way or another less than a century ago. We who are still alive as our ancestors were are here because we are aware of what our history was and have taken lessons from it. For the rest of the world, being patriotic may mean something else - for us it’s about being free and never allowing any invaders in our land again.

Christians as well as Muslims aka all the Abrahamic religions have always believed in weaponising their religion, it’s why they don’t allow questioning. I mean look at it - we Hindus never went colonising other countries or people forcing our religious beliefs on them neither did the sub-sects of Hindus - Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. But Christians and Muslims from Europe and Middle East went around causing bloodshed and violence wherever they went and used religion as an excuse and justification for their loot and plunder. The Christians called it saving pagans from their false gods while the church and the monarchs associated with them got richer, the Muslims used Kaafirs to do the same thing. So politics was always a part of these religions - because if only looting was the point, why convert? If only conversion was the point - why loot? The Churches and the Mosques were used as fronts to justify the invasions and the barbaric treatment meted out to the people whose lands were invaded. I don’t even need to go beyond India to correlate the history here. Goa had inquisitions where women had their breasts chopped off for refusing to convert - the device is still in Goa btw. Muslims wouldn’t even spare corpses which is why Jauhars happened. Please don’t try to make it seem like this was the tradition yada yada. Mahabharata and Ramayana had plenty of widows from the main families and not one of them was asked to go jump in a fire to kill herself as her husband died.

But due credit to Christians, at least they don’t threaten people with death for apostasy.

Lastly, I have never quite understood the point of spiritual but not religious. The analogy here is lost on me. It’s as if someone’s telling me I wish to experience what living is but do so without breathing. I mean.. what exactly are you seeking with spirituality if not the Supreme Divine - regardless of what form or name you seek it as. We Hindus believe in the concept of the divine being everywhere and yet also being Nirgun and Nirakar - aka one beyond attributes and without a form. But the end goal is still some higher power that’s manifested all of us. I don’t think religions have any idea how to find or even connect with that power…. but Dharma certainly does. Dharma which is defined as beyond religion but also as duty - one may find the divine in their duty as a child, a doctor, a teacher, a musician, a painter or even just a parent raising children or since this is a thread about Dhurandhar - in serving a cause higher than your own self - in this case, one’s motherland - that selflessly serves countless people without hesitation.

Originally posted by: iamrebelheart

He is Hindu thats why he spoke about Sanatan dharma only. for other religions, its upto their believers. He is only speaking on his own religion.

he normally only makes spiritual content. this is the first political reel of him I came across.

Edited- In the comments he explained, spirituality does not mean separating everything worldly from oneself. it is running away from responsibilities. one should take active part in the worldly matters and play their part. thats what he said about mixing politics with devotion.

I don’t know him, and yes, being spiritual doesn’t mean one should forsake everything else that matters in life. But… using religious or spiritual terms to express political views and opinions is like mixing oil and water as I stated before. When you speak on spiritual issues the idea is to merge with the Divine and find that state of transcendence… politics is a worldly matter which involves all kinds of filth and scum.

When you use terms like Andhbhakt for political purposes, you are actually being obtuse. Bhakti itself is the highest power but.. even Bhakts are tested. Take Prahlad for example or Hanuman - two of the most popular and powerful examples of what a Bhakt is. Prahlad was almost killed numerous times and yet his faith in Narayan never shook which is why we know even Narayan came to rescue him. Take Hanuman, we know that when Narayan has to leave earth, his greatest challenge is in letting Hanuman know it’s time for him to go. Ultimately, Hanuman’s Bhakti doesn’t bind him either but, Hanuman is the immortal who is waiting for his incarnations time and again until the new cycle of creation begins. Bhagwan too tests the Bhakt and then comes to their aid in a moment. Are we really saying that we share a similar relationship with a political party or a leader? We allow them to test us and then come to rescue us as they reward our faith in them? Really?

A leftist or someone who doesn’t even understand what Bhakti is uses the term Andhbhakt as an insult and displays their ignorance on the subject of Bhakti. But when a person is a content creator whose entire career is about speaking on Bhakti and spiritual issues, how do they not understand this basic concept? A person who genuinely knows what Bhakti is would never use the term Andhbhakt loosely and especially when connected to politics.

In todays world anything tht is trending will work, the movie just needs to be hyped and pick up momentum and watch everyone jump on the bandwagon. One viral clip and everyone and thr dog is making reels on it. Half the ppl i know watched Dhurandhar so they could “ show” the world they watched Dhurandhar and Akshays dance lol .

It is a pleasure and also interesting to read you

In a conversation face-to-face, this subject could result in a better conversation than here, I think/feel. Anyways, I not only respect your view and argumentation but I also think that you would be a precious conversation-partner. We may have slightly different approaches to some things (I don't live in India although I lived there from time to time and still have close connections), but your way to express your thinking is quite relatable to me.

Thanks for your comment

Originally posted by: mz.gigglez

In todays world anything tht is trending will work, the movie just needs to be hyped and pick up momentum and watch everyone jump on the bandwagon. One viral clip and everyone and thr dog is making reels on it. Half the ppl i know watched Dhurandhar so they could “ show” the world they watched Dhurandhar and Akshays dance lol .

bold: That's something I also got to know from my Indian friends...this so-called FOMO (fear of missing out)... it was - among others - the kind of discussions one could read in forums and other social media tools that brought people into the theatres...fine for the movies and the makers

Originally posted by: EkPaheli

Hmm…

To begin with, the whole Hinduism and the ruling party thing. Congress did it too - just you know with the second largest majority that ended up dividing the country and then decided they’d park themselves here despite causing displacement of millions and the death of as many in one of the bloodiest events in modern human history.

Manmohan Singh famously said that Muslims have a first right to the resources of this nation. Congress was about to introduce a bill that would declare us Hindus as the perpetrators of any civil unrest in our country regardless of what the root cause of the conflict and unrest was. If that’s supposed to be the way that things are then no wonder BJP came to power and is here to stay because why should we let people who would declare us terrorists in our own homeland rule over us? After all, just because we are the majority doesn’t mean the onus of every evil thing that happens is on us.

Westerners or western raised folks of the subcontinent have this thing where they have an aversion to patriotism and particularly Hindu patriotism, because they conveniently forget we are a nation that has been colonised, invaded, plundered and left partitioned by outsiders. We gained our independence for the first time from barbaric Muslim invaders and monstrous Christians who both forced their religion on our people one way or another less than a century ago. We who are still alive as our ancestors were are here because we are aware of what our history was and have taken lessons from it. For the rest of the world, being patriotic may mean something else - for us it’s about being free and never allowing any invaders in our land again.

Christians as well as Muslims aka all the Abrahamic religions have always believed in weaponising their religion, it’s why they don’t allow questioning. I mean look at it - we Hindus never went colonising other countries or people forcing our religious beliefs on them neither did the sub-sects of Hindus - Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. But Christians and Muslims from Europe and Middle East went around causing bloodshed and violence wherever they went and used religion as an excuse and justification for their loot and plunder. The Christians called it saving pagans from their false gods while the church and the monarchs associated with them got richer, the Muslims used Kaafirs to do the same thing. So politics was always a part of these religions - because if only looting was the point, why convert? If only conversion was the point - why loot? The Churches and the Mosques were used as fronts to justify the invasions and the barbaric treatment meted out to the people whose lands were invaded. I don’t even need to go beyond India to correlate the history here. Goa had inquisitions where women had their breasts chopped off for refusing to convert - the device is still in Goa btw. Muslims wouldn’t even spare corpses which is why Jauhars happened. Please don’t try to make it seem like this was the tradition yada yada. Mahabharata and Ramayana had plenty of widows from the main families and not one of them was asked to go jump in a fire to kill herself as her husband died.

But due credit to Christians, at least they don’t threaten people with death for apostasy.

Lastly, I have never quite understood the point of spiritual but not religious. The analogy here is lost on me. It’s as if someone’s telling me I wish to experience what living is but do so without breathing. I mean.. what exactly are you seeking with spirituality if not the Supreme Divine - regardless of what form or name you seek it as. We Hindus believe in the concept of the divine being everywhere and yet also being Nirgun and Nirakar - aka one beyond attributes and without a form. But the end goal is still some higher power that’s manifested all of us. I don’t think religions have any idea how to find or even connect with that power…. but Dharma certainly does. Dharma which is defined as beyond religion but also as duty - one may find the divine in their duty as a child, a doctor, a teacher, a musician, a painter or even just a parent raising children or since this is a thread about Dhurandhar - in serving a cause higher than your own self - in this case, one’s motherland - that selflessly serves countless people without hesitation.

Such clarity of thoughts I absolutely love reading your posts

Please visit CA forum too,... If you get time... Would be interesting to read your inputs there...

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/current-affairs

Originally posted by: Clochette

It is a pleasure and also interesting to read you

In a conversation face-to-face, this subject could result in a better conversation than here, I think/feel. Anyways, I not only respect your view and argumentation but I also think that you would be a precious conversation-partner. We may have slightly different approaches to some things (I don't live in India although I lived there from time to time and still have close connections), but your way to express your thinking is quite relatable to me.

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for being open to a discussion that has a different perspective.

I appreciate it when people engage in a way where the conversation can have differing opinions but is conducted with respect and a willingness to engage to expand one’s own understanding and knowledge. Interestingly, this is what ancients in India had a term called Shastrarth aka discourse in Sanskrit. The idea was to have a debate or a discussion on a subject where basic rules of engagement were as one expects - be civil, don’t shout or insult, wait for your turn, don’t interrupt, ask questions only when the person is done. No one had to agree with each other but they were expected to conduct themselves with respect and grace.

As someone who enjoys discussions when people can talk and listen without taking offence, it brings me joy too even if they don’t agree with me as I find myself enriched by the experience and the conversation.

So thank you for being so kind and open too.

I am sure if we could meet in person, we would definitely need a round of dinner after snacks with tea to continue the conversation I admit, I tend to lose objectivity when I’m hungry.

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

Such clarity of thoughts I absolutely love reading your posts

Please visit CA forum too,... If you get time... Would be interesting to read your inputs there...

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/current-affairs

Thank you, will try to drop by when I am free 😊

Originally posted by: EkPaheli

Hi,

I hope it’s alright if I answer something here which I hope can explain why the use of real footage.

To begin with, I am a resident of Mumbai. I have been born and raised in Mumbai, lived all my life here - most of my family, friends are from here. There are so many things that would always be a part of my memories no matter where I go in life when I think about Mumbai. The 26/11 attacks, the 26/07 floods, the numerous bomb blasts in Mumbai since late 90s are things I’ve lived through. I don’t have to rely on anyone else’s accounts to tell you what they felt like… I just need to think about the event and the memories come flooding back instantly as if I am back in time.

You asked 2 questions - what appeals to people when it comes to this movie and why the real footage.

I will tell you 2 incidents related to my own family. I am a Hindu, my dad was a self made man who ran his own business and had purchased an office with his hard earned money with a lot of pride and happiness. Less than 6 years later he had to sell the place because men associated with Dawood had taken a shine to the locality and wanted to purchase the buildings in it. You had 2 options - sell at whatever price they pay you or take a bullet to the head. My dad obviously made the decision to sell the property. This is the first incident.

Remember those bomb blasts I mentioned earlier? My mom was a simple homemaker, one evening she was simply out getting groceries from the nearby market when a bomb blast happened in the vicinity at the railway station which was adjoining the market. Those were some of the worst hours of my life and that of my younger brother and dad’s. There was a stampede like situation where my mom was caught and she didn’t own a mobile back then. My dad was on his way home already and I called him as soon as I saw the news on TV, my brother was very young - about 12 years old and he was a mess and crying for mom. Thankfully, she was unharmed and was home later at night. My dad had went looking for her and got her home. The next morning my mom was a mess because it was for the first time ever that my brother and I had went to bed on an empty stomach; something she realised only when she woke up next morning. My whole family had exhausted themselves to sleep that night.In all those years, I saw no government do anything substantial to Pakistan or any of the terrorists that would hurt us.

People who lived anywhere knew that 26/11 happened, I know my fellow countrymen were in shock too and they were mourning with us. But you had to have been a resident of the city to know how unsafe we felt in the wake of that attack and were afraid of stepping out of our homes just to do mundane things like going to college, going out with friends, buying groceries or shopping or just stepping out for a walk or a drive because you were bored. We had previously seen bomb blasts happen everywhere in the country and knew that one could happen anywhere, anytime… but the idea of armed gunmen opening fire at us in random places where we were just going about with our lives was a new threat that had been unleashed on us. We were scared but more than that we were furious and loathing the people who were running our country at the time. I remember thinking that Vilasrao Deshmukh deserves to be slapped around publicly by as many of people as possible when he shamelessly escorted his son and Ram Gopal Verma to Taj, as if it were a picnic spot and he had booked some VIP spots in it for them.

But worse than him was the government in Centre, an absolutely impotent, pathetic, incompetent, useless and shameless man who was supposed to be PM was making it sound like not going after Pakistan was some kind of high moral ground that he deserved a medal for being on.

I swear to god, I had no idea until then what hating someone was like …

All this was mentioned so I could probably answer your questions and hopefully you understand why my answers are what they are.

1) I enjoyed watching Dhurandhar 1 & 2 and would watch them as often as possible because I have never seen a movie be so unapologetic about naming Pakistan as the terror of hub that it is, about showing that it deserves to be destroyed without any remorse, regret or guilt. I absolutely loved that Dawood was shown as a dying, pathetic man wasting away who doesn’t even deserve the luxury of a quick and easy death because that swine burning for a 1000 years in hell wouldn’t be enough for a punishment. I make no apologies about hating Dawood and Pakistan and hoping to see them pay and rot in the hell they deserve. I hope that answers number one - what do people get. People like me got satisfaction and we won’t pretend we didn’t enjoy it. I would have gone for a Dhurandhar 3 as well if there was one.

2) Why real footage you ask…

The events of 26/11 are fresh in the minds of those like me who lived through them. We don’t need to be asked to recall Barkha Dutt on our screens practically giving away the movements of our forces to everyone including the terrorists. We saw that by ourselves. I was almost an adult by the time and remember thinking that if I can see a commando entering the building on live TV, so would the terrorists inside the hotel even if one TV was on anywhere and getting an exact idea of where to go to attack our forces. They would use hostages to shield themselves against any attack by our forces.

Dhar showed a brief glimpse of what kind of an absolute disaster and self sabotaging move that was by our media. But more than that he used the real footage to provide an idea that these attacks were not just random but well thought out attacks, they had not been executed by poor men lured to terrorism in a bid to ensure their families survived even if they didn’t… but that these were indoctrinated terrorists whose sole motive was hatred towards us for simply being who we are - Hindus or Jews - for existing.

You have to remember, the movie is made in India but is not limited to Indian audiences alone. It was going to go global even if it was banned in Middle East regardless by means of OTT platforms like Netflix.

Not everyone will understand the gravity of 26/11, the sheer hatred and the kind of atrocities committed on that day necessarily. When you add footage that’s real… and this is barely a few minutes long… it makes even those who had no idea grasp somewhat… what the experience was like for real people. The cast was made to hear 45 minutes of real footage before they shot that scene as confirmed by many in podcasts now. Dhar gave us barely 2 minutes of the same.. he had them sit for 45 minutes so they knew what they were expected to perform like.. who were they playing and what those people were talking like, behaving like.

If Dhar wanted to show real propaganda, he could have included scenes about Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife Rivka who was 6 months pregnant at the time. Only their 2 year old son miraculously survived. There’s no official confirmation of this but there have been rumours that she was assaulted and tortured before being killed.

Adding real footage is to ensure that the generation who was too young to grasp what happened back then gets to realise the horror they may have only a passing knowledge of as well as for the international audiences and community to grasp what monsters we have been dealing with since ages.

In today’s world, we have movies where US shows their forces as the good guys regardless of how far that maybe from the truth and for a long time people believed that. That’s narrative and propaganda, that’s whitewashing the reality but ironically until recently no one called it that.

When Jews make movies on the holocaust, they do so unapologetically even despite the hate and other negative comments that may come their way. They do so to tell the world what happened to them and while there are people who will claim this is propaganda and brainwashing blah blah… no one can deny that the holocaust really did happen. When a Jew makes a movie about the same it’s not just to show the atrocities their people have faced and survived, it’s also to show that nothing has been able to keep them down regardless of what they faced and endured.

With Dhurandhar we are finally stepping into the same territory where we aren’t apologetic about the actions we do now that hurt those who have provoked us by their actions. We are trying to make the world understand the reality that has ironically been ignored and worse buried by our own industry who would rather make movies showing RAW and ISI are on the same page and fighting against the same kind of people who are our common enemies when nothing can be further from the truth and facts.

If you want to break the narrative that has been built for decades, unfortunately by traitors amidst your own people - you can’t be subtle about it. To shatter it once and for all you need to go at it with the force of a sledgehammer on steroids - it’s why the real footage - after all it’s the raw and brutal truth. The idea was to make people think, to question, to make them uncomfortable… because Dhar wants you to wonder what kind of a response is warranted in the face of such an event and then look at history to see what was actually done.

The fact that Dhar has you asking questions tells me he succeeded. You are trying to understand why would he do such a thing.

Maybe eventually you will even ask - why would we need an Aditya Dhar to make 2 damn movies to tell us something that was abundantly clear from the beginning. We were being governed by people who had a duty and a responsibility to not just protect us but also avenge us when they failed. But, not only did they fail to protect us, worse, they failed to avenge our people to redeem for their mistakes and had the audacity to claim some kind of a moral duty towards humanity or whatever nonsense to justify their own traitorous acts against the citizens of the nation they had vowed to serve.

I hope you have your answers.

Hii... First toh sorry for the late reply...i got busy in some personal crisis..

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I genuinely mean that. A message like this is not written casually, and I deeply appreciate the thought, honesty, and personal experience you brought into it.❤️❤️

And before anything else, a big hug to you.🤗 I cannot even begin to imagine what it must have been like to live through 26/11 directly, in the city, with those memories still so vivid and so close. The fear, the anger, the helplessness, the lasting unease after such an attack .. all of that is real, and I respect the fact that you are speaking from lived experience, not from secondhand opinion. That matters.

I also want to say clearly that I am not questioning your right to feel the way you do about the film, or about the events it draws from. In fact, that is exactly why I take your reply seriously. When someone has lived through a trauma, their reading of a film is not academic for them , it is personal. It is memory. It is emotion. It is history that still breathes.

Where I think we still differ is not on the reality of 26/11, or on the horror of it, or even on the fact that a filmmaker can choose to tell this story from a deeply unapologetic perspective. My question has always been much narrower: why use the actual footage, the actual transcripts, the actual raw material of that trauma, when a dramatized reconstruction could have conveyed the same point?

That is where my discomfort began.

Because for me, real footage changed the nature of what the film was doing. It no longer simply told a story inspired by history .. it started borrowing the emotional authority of history itself. And that is powerful, yes. But power is not automatically the same thing as necessity, and necessity is not the same thing as artistic justification.

But I understood your point that the film may be trying to make people uncomfortable, to make them think, to ensure the reality is not softened or buried. I understand that completely. And I also understand why, especially for someone who lived through those days, any attempt to sanitize or blur the brutality would feel offensive or dishonest.

But my concern is not about sanitizing the truth. It is about whether the same truth could have been expressed without directly reopening a wound through actual footage. That is where I feel the ethical tension lies. Not in the existence of the film. Not in its point of view. Not even in its anger. We must be angry..I would have been disappointed if there was no anger..But in the decision to take a real national trauma and use it as a cinematic device to intensify reaction.

And yes, I will admit this too: your reply does help me understand why some people see the use of real footage not as manipulation, but as confrontation. For someone who lived through the events, it may feel like the film is refusing to let the memory be diluted, and that can absolutely feel meaningful. I respect that interpretation, even if I do not fully share it.

I also appreciate that you took the time to explain not just your opinion, but your context....your city, your family, your memories, and the emotional weight this carries for you. That makes your view more than just a disagreement; it makes it a testimony. And I do not take that lightly.

So my position is more informed now: I respect the film’s force, I respect the lived reality behind the reaction to it, and I respect that for some people it may feel like truth being spoken plainly.

At the same time, I still believe it is fair to question whether invoking real footage was necessary, or whether it was the most powerful way to make an already powerful point.

And I hope you understand that my issue is not ideological but technical...I am trying to understand a technical choice Aditya Dhar made in this movie...and your words did help me..

Thank you again for such a thoughtful reply.❤️

Originally posted by: asmitamohanty

Hii... First toh sorry for the late reply...i got busy in some personal crisis..

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I genuinely mean that. A message like this is not written casually, and I deeply appreciate the thought, honesty, and personal experience you brought into it.❤️❤️

And before anything else, a big hug to you.🤗 I cannot even begin to imagine what it must have been like to live through 26/11 directly, in the city, with those memories still so vivid and so close. The fear, the anger, the helplessness, the lasting unease after such an attack .. all of that is real, and I respect the fact that you are speaking from lived experience, not from secondhand opinion. That matters.

I also want to say clearly that I am not questioning your right to feel the way you do about the film, or about the events it draws from. In fact, that is exactly why I take your reply seriously. When someone has lived through a trauma, their reading of a film is not academic for them , it is personal. It is memory. It is emotion. It is history that still breathes.

Where I think we still differ is not on the reality of 26/11, or on the horror of it, or even on the fact that a filmmaker can choose to tell this story from a deeply unapologetic perspective. My question has always been much narrower: why use the actual footage, the actual transcripts, the actual raw material of that trauma, when a dramatized reconstruction could have conveyed the same point?

That is where my discomfort began.

Because for me, real footage changed the nature of what the film was doing. It no longer simply told a story inspired by history .. it started borrowing the emotional authority of history itself. And that is powerful, yes. But power is not automatically the same thing as necessity, and necessity is not the same thing as artistic justification.

But I understood your point that the film may be trying to make people uncomfortable, to make them think, to ensure the reality is not softened or buried. I understand that completely. And I also understand why, especially for someone who lived through those days, any attempt to sanitize or blur the brutality would feel offensive or dishonest.

But my concern is not about sanitizing the truth. It is about whether the same truth could have been expressed without directly reopening a wound through actual footage. That is where I feel the ethical tension lies. Not in the existence of the film. Not in its point of view. Not even in its anger. We must be angry..I would have been disappointed if there was no anger..But in the decision to take a real national trauma and use it as a cinematic device to intensify reaction.

And yes, I will admit this too: your reply does help me understand why some people see the use of real footage not as manipulation, but as confrontation. For someone who lived through the events, it may feel like the film is refusing to let the memory be diluted, and that can absolutely feel meaningful. I respect that interpretation, even if I do not fully share it.

I also appreciate that you took the time to explain not just your opinion, but your context....your city, your family, your memories, and the emotional weight this carries for you. That makes your view more than just a disagreement; it makes it a testimony. And I do not take that lightly.

So my position is more informed now: I respect the film’s force, I respect the lived reality behind the reaction to it, and I respect that for some people it may feel like truth being spoken plainly.

At the same time, I still believe it is fair to question whether invoking real footage was necessary, or whether it was the most powerful way to make an already powerful point.

And I hope you understand that my issue is not ideological but technical...I am trying to understand a technical choice Aditya Dhar made in this movie...and your words did help me..

Thank you again for such a thoughtful reply.❤️

No need to be sorry. I understand life gets in the way.

I’m glad you read my really long post and understood where I am coming from. I’m glad that the time and effort put into the post were worth it if my point got across like I intended.

I believe like you know a bit about me now, you try to read about Dhar. He’s a Kashmiri Pandit whose family had to flee their home and escape literal genocide. What’s difficult for us to see is a fraction of the reality that his family and community have lived through.

To someone what he showed might come across as excessive though exceptional. I believe though to him it was the tip of the iceberg. The horrors that were unleashed on his community where he’s heard first hand experiences narrated to him from those near and dear to him would have impacted him.

He knew he could have shown a recreation of the actual attack in any of the locations or used real footage. He still chose to go with the audio when video was an option because he understands trauma too. He spared us what he could while delivering what he wanted - this was the middle ground. It gave enough while not using the tragedy of real victims as a voyeuristic experience of a travesty. He didn’t pry like a vulture on the dead; he honoured them the best way he could by sharing their stories without crossing a line because they deserve that.