How far its appropriate to show unpleasant things in a movie?
How far is it appropriate to show unpleasant things in a film?
Talking about "Dangal", this movie is not only loved by the audience but also crossed all the benchmarks of box office collections.
But in "Dangal", Mahavir Singh Phogat has been shown torturing his little daughters for making them what he wanted them to become. What if Geeta and Babita wanted to become something else in their lives? Say a singer or a dancer? Would Mahavir Singh Phogat accepted his daughters as dancers then? It's totally unjustified from the point of view of the daughters.
Continuing with the example of Dangal, it was very unpleasant to watch how Phogat treats his own daughters. Then, what has made us to accept the injustice towards them and not only accepting, we appreciated his treatment as well.
First thing first, Mahavir Singh Phogat, was the main protagonist of the film and the film goes according to his point of view. And even if this was not justified for society, we accepted it as it was justified for him. Therefore, we watch any film only after wearing the shoes of the protagonist, not as per the social norms.
Secondly, in Dangal, our patriotic feelings were triggered very smartly as Phogat wanted to win gold for the country. Therefore, it became more easy for us to accept it.
Definitely Dangal is a good example of neatly knit scripts.
Talking about other movies, say "Badrinath ki dulhaniya", the first half an hour of the movie was neither entertaining nor pleasant. We, as audience, didn't accept it. Although the movie was a commercial hit. But, keeping star value aside, we won't find much motivation to watch the movie after watching it for half an hour. So why we haven't accepted protagonist's point of view this time like we did in Dangal?
Here comes the role of script writers, In any story, if they are showing unpleasant things, they need to give the audience a reason to accept that thing. The biggest mistake made by Shashank Khaitan was to add the element of humour to such a social evil (Talking about first half and hour) And this was the point, which audience didn't like.
Humour is an excellent tool if used wisely but it's not at all easy to create sensible humour for such situations. In "Bandrinath ki Dulhaniya" the humour was used in a very insensitive manner. Only cornfed set of audience could laugh at it. Moreover, it was offensive as well.
Although as the story goes, the writer has tried best to give the required meat to justify the point of view of Badri (main protagonist)
And by the end of the movie, somehow he (Shashank Khaitan) gets successful when you get convinced when main protagonist (Badrinath) changes his mindset.
But in "Dangal", Mahavir Singh Phogat has been shown torturing his little daughters for making them what he wanted them to become. What if Geeta and Babita wanted to become something else in their lives? Say a singer or a dancer? Would Mahavir Singh Phogat accepted his daughters as dancers then? It's totally unjustified from the point of view of the daughters.
Continuing with the example of Dangal, it was very unpleasant to watch how Phogat treats his own daughters. Then, what has made us to accept the injustice towards them and not only accepting, we appreciated his treatment as well.
First thing first, Mahavir Singh Phogat, was the main protagonist of the film and the film goes according to his point of view. And even if this was not justified for society, we accepted it as it was justified for him. Therefore, we watch any film only after wearing the shoes of the protagonist, not as per the social norms.
Secondly, in Dangal, our patriotic feelings were triggered very smartly as Phogat wanted to win gold for the country. Therefore, it became more easy for us to accept it.
Definitely Dangal is a good example of neatly knit scripts.
Talking about other movies, say "Badrinath ki dulhaniya", the first half an hour of the movie was neither entertaining nor pleasant. We, as audience, didn't accept it. Although the movie was a commercial hit. But, keeping star value aside, we won't find much motivation to watch the movie after watching it for half an hour. So why we haven't accepted protagonist's point of view this time like we did in Dangal?
Here comes the role of script writers, In any story, if they are showing unpleasant things, they need to give the audience a reason to accept that thing. The biggest mistake made by Shashank Khaitan was to add the element of humour to such a social evil (Talking about first half and hour) And this was the point, which audience didn't like.
Humour is an excellent tool if used wisely but it's not at all easy to create sensible humour for such situations. In "Bandrinath ki Dulhaniya" the humour was used in a very insensitive manner. Only cornfed set of audience could laugh at it. Moreover, it was offensive as well.
Although as the story goes, the writer has tried best to give the required meat to justify the point of view of Badri (main protagonist)
And by the end of the movie, somehow he (Shashank Khaitan) gets successful when you get convinced when main protagonist (Badrinath) changes his mindset.
Coming to "Parched", the unpleasant elements of a patriarchal society are shown very finely. We have emotionally related ourselves with the protagonists. Even after a very bold screenplay, we have accepted it. Why? Because there were reasons. Main reason was the protagonists themselves weren't happy with the treatment they were getting.
In above three examples, unpleasant things are shown but in a totally different manner from each other.
So First thing that comes in the picture is the role of a writer. If the writer feels justified with the protagonist's character, then it would come more naturally on the screen and audience would relate to the unpleasant things as well. Like we saw in Dangal and Parched.
But if the writer himself is not convienced with the character he is giving life to. Then it becomes a problem.
For example, in "Dangal", even they showed unpleasant things but we accepted it because we were provided with many reasons to accept that like:
1. This torture was for the Kids's own good.
2. Very Smartly, the feeling to patriotism was implanted in the hearts of viewers.
3. Unfulfilled wishes of a man, who was stuck in between the feelings of playing the role of a teacher or a father.
Those were the reasons we have accepted such unpleasant things in the movie.
And if we talk about "Badrinath ki Dulhaniya", the most unpleasant things were dowry and Eve teasing. And why the audience could not connect to it is because there is no way you can justify eve teasing and dowry. Unlike Dangal, we were not given any possible reason to believe or accept such unpleasant things. However in the end of the movie, you got the reasons to accept the movie but still you haven't accepted that starting half an hour part.
This is the difference between casual scripts and well worked script.
In "Parched", we have accepted the unpleasant things in the form of gender inequality. Why? Because even when we step in the shoes of protagonists, that thing is shown wrong. They never ever supported this. They wanted to get out such hells. And they did as well in the climax.
A writer is the wizard that plays with the hearts of both the characters of his scripts as well as the audience.
It is appropriate to use unpleasant things in a movie as far as you can give reasons to the audience to accept that thing. Without a reason, audience would never accept any unpleasant things.
Hitesh Malik
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment