The Mad Media

Sometimes I consider the Media as "Mad". You think it's an exaggeration? Not really. How is the idea of creating a side story of Abraham Lincoln as a secret vampire hunter- not mad? How is dressing up medieval women in contemporary gowns, altering their ages, inserting love triangles (Reign)- not mad? How is showing Mary Shelley actually witnessing the re-animation of life herself (Frankenstine chronicles)- not mad? Or how is creating preposterously outrageous stories around real historical characters- not mad?

And here in India we show outrage over the exposed midriff of a Rajput queen- fictitious or real. I don't necessarily believe in "Art for art's sake". And I don't necessarily consider the outrage shown by Rajput associations as unreasonable- although here I'm not supporting vandalism or death threats issued by these groups. What I'm saying is I understand their outrage. But in reality there's nothing we can do about resolving this outrage. But certainly it can generate dialogues around it. Dialogues that doesn't justify calling the outrage ridiculous by saying that the character in question is a fictitious and not a real historical character. It doesn't matter if the character is fictitious or not- what matters is that the film has outraged a symbol of the Rajput community.

For the Rajput communtiy- Padmini is a symbol of Rajput pride. Her characteristics define even in the present day the identity of Rajput women. And there's nothing wrong with that. Don't apply your sense of feminism in defining what is empowering and what is not when viewing a historical or fictitious character set in Medieval India. Do you really criticize the actions of women of the Games of Thrones? When someone from a community decides how to represent on screen another community's symbol- well then there's the problem.

Pseudo-intellectuals- do you really not understand that the primary purpose of a film is to entertain (aimed at those of you who said that the premise of the film appears to be the "vagina")? All over the world- films and series have taken liberties in portraying historical times or historical characters. Same way Disney took the creative liberty to convert a mouse into Mickey Mouse- which doesn't really look like a mouse. Have the creators of those media faced the outrage that Indian creators occasionally face?

India is a country of diverse social groups- hence the probability of the groups conflicting with each other is more. Besides in-group solidarity tends to be higher in India. And when a symbol of a community is believed by the members of that community to be wrongly portrayed on screen, their collective conscience as Durkheim would have said is under attack, so they do have the right to criticize and protest, but of course not take it to the violent level as it often tends to happen in India. When that symbol is believed to be portrayed inaccurately by the members of that community- it's justified to feel the need to reclaim their symbol.

"Art for Art's Sake" is not the stick with which I want to beat up only the intellectuals, but also those groups who take their protests to a violent level. The maximum that they can do is to create awareness of the existence of an alternate narrative- their own narrative. They can let people know how their symbol ought to be portrayed but that isn't really facilitated by pressuring the censor board. Rather the only way out is to create a dialogue around their grievance- get people thinking and talking about the matter.

However the issue always arises that should the creators have some responsibility when depicting historical times or characters or other issues? Should they be held responsible to portray factually accurate things? Should they also be held morally responsible when showing sensitive issues on screen? As visual media is getting more accessible to a greater mass of people and as visual media is gradually overtaking the more conventional sources of information and entertainment (like books), so should the creators be held responsible to show contents which is factually and morally correct? The movie Troy (2004) is probably how many people came to know in more detail about Homer's Illiad. Probably most didn't know about the existence of the great duel between Achilles and Hector until that movie made it popular. But Homer's Illiad didn't have the happy ending the film had. Yet most people would think Homer's Illiad ended happily, because of the film. Here "Art for art's sake" creates misinformation, but people have the right to expression in however manner they see fit- unless it's violating someone else's rights. If visual media is to be held responsible, then what about the porn industry? Why is the porn industry not regulated? Why do people have uninhibited access to porn which might cause people to have misconceptions about sexuality, sexual prowess and body image. Some might even blame porn for increased sexual violence when watched by teenagers or under educated viewers as might be the case in India. Should we then blame the creators or should we blame the viewers who would seek out only these media contents without ever seeking the same information or cross checking from other more valid sources?