My last column was on the essential quality that defines the nature of the cinematic medium. It was also a critical response to Baahubali 2 (B2 henceforth), which was used as an example to illustrate this point.
There was predictably a strong response to this piece from many readers. Many of them were upset at the criticism of B2. Not surprisingly, most of them also drew upon the worn out cliché about mainstream Indian films—the claim that films are only for entertainment. Expectedly, many of these responses also asked me to not take life so seriously, to realise that this is all fun and so on.
I think it is time to call this cliché for what it is: merely a way to legitimise a particular form of laziness and ethical irresponsibility. The responses illustrate clearly that these individuals do not question what they mean by entertainment but use this word for other purposes. Almost all the angry responses focussed on everything else other than the nature of entertainment. They spoke about the technical quality of the film, how B2 made them proud of being Indian, or the importance of showing Indian mythology.
Open to criticism
So, although they claimed that a film is only pure entertainment, they nevertheless invoked other values—technical, national, aesthetic, social, narrative. Once they invoke these qualities to justify the film, they become open to criticism of the film on all these fronts. One can, for example, then critique the fake sense of religion in the film or the regressive visual semiotics of feudalism.
I am almost sure that those who keep invoking this argument about films would also be the first ones to demand the censorship of films that deal with subjects they don’t like or ‘enjoy’!
For those who invoke the idea of ‘pure’ entertainment as the goal of a film, we can ask them the following: what is entertainment? In what sense does a film entertain the viewer? By ‘entertainment’, do they mean that they do not have to think or struggle to understand? Does a film entertain only through comedy? Through the ‘item’ numbers? If a film makes somebody cry or feel intensely sad, is it also entertainment?
The idea of entertainment has changed enormously and continues to change. When I watch sports I get really involved and agitated. My friend, who dislikes cricket, used to tell me: ‘Relax, sports is just entertainment’. Sports is not just entertainment, although the IPL is desperately trying to make it so. Sports is about nationhood, power, speed, effort, discipline and so on. For those who are seriously invested in sports, it is blasphemous to hear that sports is just entertainment, and to be told not to get worked up over some sports event.
What does it mean to say that a film is only entertainment? To entertain is to mean many different things. To be entertained is to be amused, to have pleasure, to relax, to have fun, to be carefree, to be distracted and so on. For some, to be entertained is to ‘escape’, for some others it means to ‘enjoy’ watching something or to fantasise about a different world.
But nothing is so simple. Is a Pakistan-India cricket match mere entertainment? Is a film that shows violence against women or has sexist jokes mere entertainment? Is a pornographic film mere entertainment? Isn’t raucous drinking in the public fun and entertainment for many? Isn’t cracking jokes at passing girls entertainment for countless men? Many of these acts, for many people, are fun, relaxing, amusing, distracting. Why are these not justified by saying, ‘Oh, this is just entertainment, don’t take them too seriously’?
A simple lesson
This is indeed what one hears when somebody challenges the idea that teasing girls in the street or making sexist jokes is harmless fun. There is one simple lesson in all this: Nothing is harmless in the public domain. Nothing is fun without a cost in the public domain. Someone might claim it is fine to show pornographic films in public by saying it is mere entertainment. If someone protests, they might say, ‘Chill yaar, films are only meant to entertain.’ A very large number will surely be entertained by these films. However, showing a pornographic film in public is different from watching it in private. The moment it is part of the public space, the film has to answer public concerns.
The point is, there is nothing that is ‘mere entertainment’ when it is part of public viewing. A film is a product of a system that is indebted to the demands of the larger society. It arises from the support of the larger society. In many societies, it would even be difficult to make a film. The fact that our filmmakers can make any film they want in our society is only because our society allows them to do it. This means that they are always answerable to ethical questions from the larger society although it does not mean that the outside society can censor or control the films.
Mere entertainment is not a tangible excuse for a film to show what it wants. The claim that films are only entertainment is nothing more than a cynical attempt to bypass any notion of responsibility in creating a public product. The fact that so many viewers buy into this myth without thinking about it is of far greater worry than the production of countless worthless films, whether in India or elsewhere.
Sundar Sarukkai is a professor of philosophy at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.
