As “Dhurandhar” wallows in the box office applause in India and endures ban across all of the core Gulf nations, it also steers the debate back to propaganda and cinema. Only, the debate is a lot more intense, far more divisive, with fans and critics exchanging whistles and boos. Propaganda is a subjective term and what constitutes one has no definite answers, only shades of grey and contextual complications.
In the recent past, films have frequently been marred by allegations of agenda while filmmakers still haven’t been saddled with the idea of accountability.
“Dhurandhar” for instance, has prompted the Film Critics Guild of India (FCG) to call out the attacks on those reviewing the film. “Liking or disliking a film is your right, but expecting critics to fall in line is not,” read the statement from the body following vilification of the reviewers who did not cheer brazenly for the content and the storyline.
Calling out the attacks, the targeting and social media bullying, FCG observed that, “in recent days, several of our members have faced intimidation, including direct threats and vicious online campaigns aimed at silencing their perspectives, simply for expressing their professional assessment of a film.”
The tampering of existing reviews and attempts to influence editorial positions and persuade publications to remove or soften the existing reviews also prompted the body to issue the statement condemning the attacks by right-wing masses.
Actor Hrithik Roshan stepped on the wrong side of the right-wing masses after sharing his unfiltered take on the movie. “I may disagree with the politics of it, and argue about the responsibilities us filmmakers should bear as citizens of the world. Nevertheless, I can't ignore how much I loved and learnt from this one as a student of cinema. Amazing.”
The backlash that followed was nothing new but was merely outrage on loop. A couple of years ago, a very similar scene played out post the release of “The Kashmir Files”. Israeli director and IFFI international jury chair Nadav Lapid received immense backlash, including the one from Israel’s envoy to India, for calling the film “a propaganda.” Reacting to the snowballed responses, Lapid stood his ground. “Making bad films is not a crime, but the Vivek Agnihotri directorial is crude, manipulative and violent… I know how to recognise propaganda disguised as a movie.”
Also read: Bollywood: Still shy of handling the trauma of Partition
However, propaganda is easier alleged than defined, as very few incidents in history and politics can be painted all black or white and have unvaried interpretations. Those from the film fraternity have increasingly shared concerns over how propaganda in cinema is getting too subtle to be called out. Although hyper-nationalist movies hitting the Friday counters are still an exception.
Propaganda, cinema and everything in between
However, a 1935 film “Triumph of The Will” is cited as one of the glaring and foremost examples of propaganda in cinema. Made to promote the Nazi regime, the film was made to encourage and convince the masses to promote Adolf Hitler and his ideology. The film used fragments of truth, selective images chosen to influence the viewers and is widely considered by film fraternity as one of the most effective propaganda films ever made.
“The Kashmir Files”, depicting the circumstances that led to the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley was called out by the critics on its anti-Muslim message and communalism and demonisation of the entire community. The film, endorsed by the Bharatiya Janata Party and its government, brought the conversation and allegations of propaganda and cinema into the foreground. As did “The Bengal Files”, “The Kerala Story”, “The Taj Story”, “Article 370”, “The Vaccine War”, “Swatantarya Veer Savarkar” and “Jahangir National University”. Many of them tanked without a trace at the box office.
The threat arises when mainstream films, starring acknowledged actors of the industry, come wrapped, sponsored and cleverly masked with agenda, blending storytelling with ideology, political messages with selective truths.
Similar concerns and allegations were voiced with “Uri: The Surgical Strike”, “Tejas” and “Fighter”. It is then that the test ‘I know when I see it’ used in 1964 by US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart as a threshold for obscenity, becomes even more relevant.
At one time, typically associated with autocracies like North Korea, Russia and Nazi-era Germany, propaganda-laced movies have found a home in several democracies across the world. Every effort must be made to keep the politics away from film reviewers, independent cinema bodies, festival jury and every organisation promoting the craft of storytelling. Circling back to the point, what constitutes a propaganda film? While the answers may not be clear, the tell-tale signs are always there.
By Manpriya Singh
Follow us
