Tags:
Journalism of Courage
While altogether banning smoking on the Indian screen, as recently demanded by the Health Ministry, does seem excessive, fully exempting filmmakers from their social responsibility on the grounds of respecting artistic sensibilities and creative freedom is also fallacious, because equating support for the cause against smoking on screen with support for the control of ideas on serious matters including political dissent is a false analogy. While the latter is about strangulating democracy the former is about strengthening democracy, saving money on healthcare and, most importantly, saving Indian lives. For precisely this reason, the film industry8217;s cries for creative freedom sound hollow, if not self-contradictory, when on the one hand they say that nothing less than a cigarette is realistic enough on screen and, on the other, insist that films are not really about 8220;reality8221; and audiences are not influenced by what they already know is make-believe.
If that is indeed the case, how come filmmakers actively court advertisers to covertly insert in-film commercials? It is more than conventional wisdom that Hindi film personalities loom large over the psyche of the average Amar, Akbar and Anthony long after they leave the theatre or the multiplex. Of course, knowing well that it is the junta8217;s opinion that ultimately makes or breaks them, actors are also complicit in building their image of choice and then peddling it to advertisers. Besides, it is common knowledge that many of them not only hire consultants to enhance their public stature but sometimes even reject roles that run counter to their chosen off-screen image. Cashing in on their sway over the common man some go on to campaign for political parties if not enter full-blown politics themselves. This is not to say that all actors fail to utilise their celebrity status for the greater common good. It is only to say that the film fraternity is fully aware of the power and authority that comes with mass popularity.
