The problem with our cinema does not end with the endless retelling of epics. It goes much deeper than that. It sits in the way our audience reacts when a filmmaker chooses to speak about caste, religion, oppression or anything, that shows the uncomfortable truths of our society. The same people who are willing to watch the Ramayana and Mahabharata a thousand times suddenly become restless when a film talks about the lives of the marginalised. They say it is overdone. They say it is boring. They say it is unnecessary. They ask why these directors cannot make something else.
This contradiction shows the strange mindset that Indian cinema has grown under. People are absolutely fine with a hero fighting a hundred men in a market street. They are fine with item songs that have no meaning. They are fine with intimate scenes that exist only to sell tickets. They are fine with punch dialogues and exaggerated masculinity. They are fine with commercial cinema that repeats the same formula year after year, because it does not question anything inside them. It does not make them uncomfortable. It does not ask them to think.
But the moment a film talks about caste discrimination or suffering of marginalized or the religious issues on someone’s life, suddenly the audience becomes impatient. They say it is forced. They say it is too political. They say it is propaganda. They say it is unnecessary negativity. The same audience that can tolerate the same mythological story for centuries cannot tolerate a social truth for two and a half hours.
This discomfort comes from years of conditioning. Indian commercial cinema has taught its audience that films exist only for entertainment. Films exist to escape reality not face it. Films exist to glorify the hero. We have grown up watching movies that supported fantasy and suppressed reality. So naturally when a filmmaker finally chooses to speak the truth the audience rejects it. Not because the truth is wrong but because the truth threatens their comfort zone.
Who is responsible for this. Is it the directors who kept feeding the audience the same commercial formula until they forgot what meaningful cinema looks like. Or is it the audience that demanded the same kind of films again and again until the industry surrendered completely. It is impossible to separate the two. One shaped the other. One encouraged the other. One lowered the bar and the other accepted it.
In this cycle there is very little space for films that challenge society. When a director talks about caste he is accused of provoking. When he shows religious manipulation he is accused of disrespect. When he portrays oppression he is accused of exaggeration. People are ready to worship epics but not ready to watch their own reflection. They are ready to celebrate gods but not ready to acknowledge humans.
The tragedy is that cinema could have been the strongest tool for change. It could have been the mirror this country desperately needs. It could have been a place where people confront the truth they ignore every day. But that cannot happen in a culture where epics are considered entertainment and social issues are considered burden. That cannot happen when commercial films define the imagination of a whole generation. That cannot happen when comfort is valued more than awareness.
We keep asking why our films do not evolve. The answer is simple. We do not evolve. The industry is only a reflection of its audience. And as long as we reject realism and worship repetition we will continue to live inside the same cycle.
There is a cost to choosing comfort over truth. And someday that cost will be brutal than any epic we put on a screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment