The Cinema!

To start with lets get this clear once and for all, there is no space for censorship of artistic expression in a free society. And I will not entertain any stupid arguments like, 'oh! but what if art incites crime.' Thats like saying we need to ban religion because religion does in fact incite crime (in case you didn't notice, the worst genocides in human history have had religious motivations! Art has had a far better track record.)

Uber Homme in his most recent blog raises an interesting question that I have on many occasions discussed in various friend circles. What is the role of cinema in society? I will take the liberty of adressing the question in the context of cinema as a medium of artistic expression.

Professionally I am an engineer... and at the risk of making a sweeping generalization, it is fair to say that engineers usually tend to be very conservative. So most people I have/continue to work with, often don't see the distinction between art and entertainment and the typical response from such quarters is: Well, cinema and the performing arts, is part of the entertainment industry. This attitude is, strangely, quite prevalent in the "main stream" and big "industries" like Bollywood and Hollywood, which more often than not dish out productions that are mostly lame narratives with no vision, aimed at pandering to the conservative mainstream (CM). Thus "sex and violence" in a movie is treated as a selling point. The CM love it and don't complain about it as long as the movies are philosophically vacuous (plain fun!!) and they can walk away "feeling good"!! That is a major chunk of the market and it mostly drives commercial and mainstream (uggh! how i hate that word) cinema.

Now of course there is the parallel stream of avant garde cinema that is often referred to as "art films" or "art house cinema"... just to remind you that they make an attempt at art and you may not walk away "feeling good". So while the plastic Aishwarya Rais and the lips-pressed-agianst-a-glass-pane Angelina Jolies make glamorous guest appearances in every other staright man's fantasy, the Shabana Azmies of the world need to go and shave their heads to attract attention to burning social issues... most of the time only being successful in attracting ridicule and insult. Such movies are rarely viewed by the CM, partly also because they are rarely marketed to them. However, on the rare occasion that they do get attention it is usually because someone's sensibilities have been offended and politicians (especially in the sub-continent) ride high on such situations in proving their high moral fiber and their ability to protect the people from such corruption. Usually it brings about censorship, or in America (where thankfully censorship is absent) new labels like "family friendly" or simple social censorship (Sponge Bob square pants is gay and a no-no from the the Family some-council or the other!). While I make no claims about the quality of all such productions, I underscore that this is the cinema space that we need to look at to understand the role of cinema in society.

Today cinema is the most commonly consumed artistic medium. Everybody watches movies, though everybody may or may not go to the opera, theater or art exhibitions. Therefore the purpose of art in society is best fulfilled through the medium of cinema. And that brings us to the purpose of cinema in society: Cinema like any other art needs to provoke. It needs to challenge the individual to examine their lives and be an agent of change. Why? because otherwise we tend to too often fall into comfort zones and not only resist change but also breed intolerance to new ideas and methods.

This is not new. For centuries artists all over the world have served this purpose. To creatively think beyond the boundaries of the norm and to redefine it. Clearly all their ideas are not practical or feasible, but then how can we know if they aren't allowed to express. Besides, if I may point out, most revolutionary ideas that have indeed changed the world, have often started off by not being well received and in fact being very unpopular.

The fool in the King's court, immortalized in so many of Shakespeare's plays, has in his folly spoken wisely and dared to point out that which no other could... all behind the mask of theater, of playful banter. They have simulated 'what-if' scenarios in the King's court and provoked thought... using their liscence for folly to explore realms that any other courtier would not dare suggest. Fools were able to envision and express freely with scant regard to existing hierarchies. Hence, the artistic liscence, the need for art to go beyond the established, not reinforce it. Hence, the open-minded, liberal and often nebulous thinking patterns among artists.

In today's world where the predominant culture is extremely anti-intellectual and the emphasis is consistently more on form than function, its critical that cinema, be allowed to freely capture nuanced views of life today, nuanced representations and interpretations of history (note, not revise history or assult its factual integrity) and freely explore "what-if" scenarios, however unpopular. There in lies the promise of change.

ps: while I foul mouth both Bollywood and Hollywood all the time, its important to point out that all the movies about inter-caste/inter-community/inter-race romance in the 60s and 70s went a long way to liberalize the way people think. Any form of censorship, no matter how trivial, can only do harm. I hope that even as I speak, there is change afoot, the results of which we will see many years hence.