Why we love vigilante justice and ‘Mcidealism’?
For a generation brought up on sms poll as the ultimate tool of democracy (there’s an Abhishek Bachchan ad for a mobile service provider which reinforces this notion), politics is a distant spectacle. An arena littered with trivial television debates, occasional scandals, cronyism and ideological bankruptcy at its basest forms. On the entertainment countdown for this generation, political debates would possibly feature among the also-rans. Except when you make a movie where shooting politicians down is a favorite sport. The coolness quotient shoots up dramatically then.
Vigilante justice is, after all, the favorite middle-class youth wet dream.
That explains the unique hold that some ‘political’ films have on our audiences. I am talking about the kind of ‘Mcidealism’ peddled by movies like Rang De Basanti, A Wednesday or, going back in time, in Arjun or Ankush. These are convenient, almost simplistic, films. The disgruntlement is individual; the sense of injustice personal and the solution is a one-off act of redressing balance. Make no mistake; the questions asked about the Indian polity are quite diverse in these films – corruption, apathy of the officialdom, helplessness of ‘aam aadmi’, marginalization et al. But, paradoxically, the answer, often, eschews any greater design to raise consciousness, question status quo or shape constructive resistance. It is always ‘goli maaro bheje mein’ thus reinforcing the notion that politics can never be a force of change or of redemption. Apparently, the only answer to bad politics is no politics.
It is not that there haven’t been attempts at something different. Films as diverse as New Delhi Times, Hu Tu Tu and Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi have exposed the venality of political class or the snuffing out of idealism in the quicksands of realpolitik without resorting to a solution at the end. However, the box office reception to such efforts have been consistently disappointing. Mani Ratnam’s Yuva which co-opts the disillusioned youth into the ‘system’ and shows a path towards mass mobilization as the answer met with the same fate despite the trappings of ‘masala’ – killer score, bankable stars and some fine balancing acts between vigilantism and genuine search for a solution.
All of this seems like heavy lifting to the audience and disturbingly (for them) places the onus on them to act. Very inconvenient when the alternative is to see how the Defence Minister is shot with minimum of fuss while you munch on the caramel popcorn and slurp the remaining cola out of the enmeshed ice cubes.
Is there a way to make a political film with or without a ‘solution’ that rouses the youth into action through engagement with the polity around them without vigilantism and still be a commercial winner? Or, are we destined to seeking vicarious pleasure in watching the run-of-the-mill revenge fare masquerading as a politically aware film and raking in the moolah?
Tags: Idealism, politics, Vigilantism
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Well said, Subrat. What I liked about Yuva was this very aspect – it provided a more practical approach. I enjoyed A Wednesday and RDB as well, but as fantasy films, without subscribing to their solutions.
McIdealism is a fantastic and very apt term.
The only way to mak'© it work is let the audience have their cake and choke on it too.
.
Have the villain pol'ticiangrt gunned Down or the More gratifying mob justice along with having the Hero join the pol'ty. And become an engine of change through the system.
.
For example, nayak. Except that movie flopped but was a big hit in tamizh and telugu. I don’t know if it was a cas'© '³d shankar not understanding the hindi idiom (if there is any auch collective thing) or maybe such movies. Don’t find favor with that secti'³n of the audience.
McIdealism!! Superb!
I imagine there’s a deep seated impulse towards the instant catharsis that vigilante justice brings. Working the system is just too much work, yaar.
We always identify with the other side of fence when it comes to Politics. We identify it with grime and corruption. We do not want to be a part of it. We have a good term for it – Apathy. But, we also have to vote for these people knowing they will do no good. This is anger that allows us to rejoice vicariously when vigilante justice is meted out on screen. A lot of anger!!
@Subrat,
[going back in time, in Arjun or Aakrosh. These are convenient, almost simplistic, films].
Did you really mean Govind Nihalani’s Aakrosh? or its some other Aakrosh?
If its same, it adds an odd element to the list.
People like having a hope.. those simplistics films give a hope and those complex films don’t give a hope. Majority of people are optimistic rather than pessmistic….
i would not classify hazaron khawisie aisi a politic film… it was just background – like army/war was background of lakshay. anyway..
What do you think of janaagraha?
Subrat
Didn’t RDB inspire the kids of AIIMS to go on strike?
RK – good catch. I thought of N Chandra’s Ankush and typed Aakrosh. Mistake. I have edited it. Thanks
Dabba: I can never sit past the ‘rukhi sukhi roti’ song of Nayak without engendering a deep desire to hurl a sharp-edged projectile at the screen. So Nayak went by me. Pray, elaborate on your first sentence.
Mainak the kids in AIIMS would have any way gone on strike, RDB or no RDB, because of a lot of issues. Just because it happened to be there, people found it convenient to join the dots.
Navdeep – I know it’s too much of work; that’s why I write about it
Kenny – ‘Mcidealism’ pe copyright daal doon?
I guess McIdealism is easy and convenient, and thats how a vast majority of our middle class thinks. Do away with democracy, look at China, they r progressing so well, because of dictatorship. Never mind that the Chinese model is pretty much fucked up within. So i guess these kinda movies work well. An RDB will work better than a Swades, because the middle class finds it more convenient to shoot the guys, than actually trying to make the system work.
Mainak – Ratnakar has my answer to your question.
HG: Agree with you on hope and optimism funda. I think Janaagraha is doing a great job esp with their One Billion votes campaign
so don’t you think Rakeysh Mehra with all his film world wisdom (may or may not be synonymous with cinematic wisdom) wherein he knows the inside stuff, the trappings, the works knows better than you and me and all doing this armchair stuff? May be the time he made the movie in, it was not possible to make a non-vigilante non-boom non-dhadaka movie, and yet rake in moolah! Yes I know it was around 2005, but it is still 2005. Around this time imagine an influential person like Karan Johar (whose thinking at times I think is the representative of all the distributors, exhibitors, the trade guys) saying the film was “cerebral” for all its simplistic, straightforward tale. So may be if he were to do an RDB ten years from now it wouldn’t be this kill the defence minister, clean up the system act.
By the way not questioning you, but wondering and thinking aloud, what exactly is wrong with vigilantism? I know the solutions are impractical, but to weave fantasies (Jai Kenny!) like these filmmakers have to resort to them.
while I hvnt seen Aakrosh,New Delhi Times & Hazaron Khwaishein Aisi(i hv its DVD but for some reason or the other hvnt been able to watch it)..I hv seen Gulzar’s Hu Tu Tu – while I think it was more of a personal story with a strong political backdrop but still, what happens in the end?..Tabu & Sunil Shetty blow themselves up at a political rally with Tabu killing her mother & Sunil Shetty avenging his father..acc to me Nana Patekar in the film symbolises the active citizen who does what he has to do inspite of knowing the political reality…anyway I liked the film coz of its characterisation & performances…If u mean Sunny Deol’s Arjun, I never saw it as a political drama..its more of a Sunny Deol film where emphasis is more on the heroism of the lead actor than on any political or social issue..I think A Wednesday was a very average film – it was a very calculated attempt..it worked coz of its topicality,performances & treatment..it had some stereotypical bias against Muslims..I understand the purpose of showing vigilante justice as a ‘warning’ in the film but the film wud hv worked for me if the writer/director, along with Naseeruddin Shah’s character, wud also hv kept the terrorists anonymous coz at the end Naseeruddin Shah’s character says that he wudnt like to disclose his name coz “ppl see ur faith in ur name”…same point can very relevantly be applied to terrorists but instead the makers decided to cash on that very same point by not only showing all the terrorists as Muslims but also inherently evil like in Chuck Norris & Van Damme films…so for me A Wednesday was not a well-intended socio-political film but was a regular Bollywood film that ws well-packaged…it not only made me uncomfortable as a Muslim(no, Jimmy Shergill’s character ws nt of any help) but also conscious of my religious identity in an embarassing way…as for RDB – though calculated I think it was well-intended, I think it wsnt as simplistic as many ppl make it out to be..the struggle for social justice in the film doesnt start with the plan of killing the Defense Minister & doesnt end with the murder of the Defense Minister either..it goes ahead with the characters & show what happens with them…it ends raising questions & not necessarily providing any solution..while Naseeruddin Shah in A Wednesday justifies his actions, in RDB, DJ & Co. decide to surrender themselves as they realise that what they hv done is eventually not only unlawful, but has made their situation worse…I really dont believe when ppl say that killing the Defense Minister in RDB was a solution..like A Wednesday it shows the killing as a ‘warning’ to what cud happen but, unlike A Wednesday it doesnt end there,nor does it justify its violence…good luck
wait..I hv seen N.Chandra’s ANKUSH if u meant that..I saw it while i ws still a teenager..in fact it ws quite similar to RDB in some ways..i never saw it as a ’serious’ film..I enjoyed it coz of its actors & its moments…though I confess that when Nana Patekar & Co. go on a killing spree I ws guilty of feeling “maaro b%$#*!do ko..maaro!”..it ws a very filmy reaction and of course I wont react or feel like that now…if I remember correctly it also ended with Nana Patekar & Co. remaining unapologetic abt what they hv done..in fact Nana goes onto deliver his typically styled bhaashan justifying their violence..anyway ANKUSH is a memorable film fr me more for the moments before the film gets ’serious’ like Nana Patekar’s story of what happened to him in college, for the masti the group indulges in while wasting their time in the mohalla,for the mother-daughter duo who come into their lives & for the constructive transformation that starts takin place hence, for the song the group breaks into while building their printing press etc etc..anyway good luck
I have always wondered whether vigilantism finds as much acceptance in the west as it does in India.
and I have come to think and accept that it finds more sympathy in India not only because our system is fucked up but also because it’s what our scriptures and epics teach ,our gods and goddesses take janam every 100 decades or so to vanquish the bad guys ,which I think is just another form of instant justice or vigilantism and instead of cleaning up the system our gods bring temporary peace and then go back to their heavenly abodes so that the bhakt gan again suffer the plight of the scum of the society and the gods take janam again to engage in the vicious cycle.
Secondly there is also the concept of martyrdom associated with such vigilantes ,instead of thinking of them as fools we tend to glorify them ,and then we peacefully go back to our own world.
Great post…as always
“Is there a way to make a political film with or without a ‘solution’ that rouses the youth into action through engagement with the polity around them without vigilantism and still be a commercial winner?”
To inspire a large group of people to do something would require the film to have a ’solution’ and vigilantism seems to be the easiest way.
It would be nice to see something different, a new approach. If only it was so easy to find a ‘good solution’!
By the way, is this your reaction after watching Gulaal? Felt so when you said “disgruntlement is individual; the sense of injustice personal”
@subrat: nayak was a bad movie, a good idea executed badly. it may have done well in tamil, but it was always filmy and very imaginative
@ratnakar: tat was sweeping generalisation tat our middle class want to do away with democracy. vast majority dont even support the vigilantism of RDB types. once in a while, they make appreciate such a movie but they dont subscribe to it. best example being the clamping of emergency
@no rocket science : i do agree with u abt the religious connotation in ‘a wednesday’. in fact, naseer shud have made demands for a few hindu fundamentalists as well, a few underground khalistan supporters and a few few ppl arrested for propagatig naxalism and maoism; and executed them all.
@ crazyrals: the premise of A Wednesday worked on the assumption that audiences wud believe Naseer’s character to b working for the terrorists. if the hindu & khalistan & naxal & maoist extremists wud also have been asked alon with the muslim fundamentalists, as u hv suggested, the movie might not hv worked, since it wud hv been easier for audience to see thru the initial charade and realise wht naseer was after.
yes, i agree with u that the religious connotation in A Wednesday was a convenient tool for the director to show it for someone, and ignore it for the others.
Nayak was a sensationalised take on Mcidealism, IMO. readymade justice meted out by the CM in a single day was more like ordering for potato wedges without worrying abt the cost, time taken to prepare it, nutritional value thereof, and wht it might do to ur system. u eat it, u forget it, and if someone reminds u of ur guilty-pleasure, u do not like it. but u dont try to mend it either.
Sorry Rals, that was not a sweeping generalization, it was the bitter truth. Talk to any average middle class guy, and the tone is “see China achieved so much, and they dont have democracy”. They may not appreciate the vigilantism of RDB but many in present day are not really enthused about democracy, and that is a fact.
“I have always wondered whether vigilantism finds as much acceptance in the west as it does in India.”
Well the success of Dirty Harry series, Death Wish series, shows that Vigilantism strikes a chord in the West. If we dont really hear much of it,its coz the media in West, is overwhelmingly liberal, but there are many Average americans who feel that civil rights and all is plain humbug.
To see the politician whom in real you cant even touch, infact you’d want to be related to in some or the other way so that you too could join the milking, get bashed up on screen is a high in itself.
as for solution based practical films..
“hamare desh mein public ko development nahi entertainment chahiye”
(Sarkar Raj)
To add my two penny worth to this debate, the ‘mcidealism’ as seen in RDB and A Wednesday is very different from that seen in films like Ankush and Arjun. Though these film were very much in the mainstream idiom of the time there was an attempt at least to explore the socio-psychological underpinnings of the characters when they do what they do, even though handled i rather crassly. Films like A Wednesday and RDB inspite of being better at ‘versimilitude’ do not really place their characters in a context. Even in RDB it seems to be very Delhi specific but really the characters are very broadly etched. The vigilantism in these two films is really about easy options that the middleclass seems to be looking for. The older two films I think worked at level of ‘escapist fare’ a kind of catharsis for its angst ridden audience.
I find films like A wednesday and RDB mich more troubling because they also pass off as ‘thinking’ people’s cinema when it is not.
Sorry for digressing from the post but it disturbs me a lot when people club religious fundamentalists, separatists and naxalites/maoists together….under the ‘terrorist’ tag. Naxalites are not terrorists.
To provide a regional perspective,
among thamizh movies that did not succumb to your term ‘McIdealism’ there were movies like ‘Aer munai’ and ‘Kann sivandhaal Mann sivakkum’ where angst of depressed society meets with failure in the end for all their democratic means of fight and violence did bring in a meaning – a result whether acceptable or not.
As a viewer the depression of watching a struggle – noble one end in a failure is too terrible to watch and a hopeful solution even if it means father of the nation will turn 30 degree in his hypothetical grave is not an unacceptable one.
It is the universal beauty of providing a ‘fictious’ solutions to real problems outlined.
Leaving out overtly communist naxalbari movies of telugu and thamizh, one film where the ‘rebellious’ voices save a symbol of the system instead of destroying it was Cheran’s failed ‘Dhesiya Geetham’ (National Anthem), where a group of revolutionaries from a village that has become a symbol of failure and administrative neglect, abduct Chief minister and his family and make them go through the daily ordeals of a normal Indian citizen – thereby transforming them to be more responsible. In the end when the reformed pillar of the system gets back to his throne, vile and corrupt forces of his own party deny his legitimacy and attempt to finish his life. Veering boldly away from the usual formula of killing the villains, the revolutionaries sacrifice their life in a symbolic manner protecting democracy and a symbol of system – a poignant moment that reinforces the fact that condemned and vilified the system maybe, but is essential for continuity and progress.
The film was derailed by the then political rulers who made sure that significant portions of the dialogues were ‘bleeped’ out and important scenes cut out.
Cheran never ventured to make a ‘message’ movie after that and is safely making romantic and family movies.
Apt case of a film that was shunned both by the ’system’ and the masses who wanted a more violent damning ending that could have easily taken them to the gratifying feeling ‘ah it is only a film’ .
And to add a point, there have been atrocities on the lower caste in this country that even british oppressors have not thought of doing to the ‘congress freedom fighters’. Incidents of women made to walk naked in daylight, gang rape of a dalit family, a dalit man forced to eat feces – samples of how oppressors have subverted the system and played a macabre drama in real life – If one gets to hear this and chooses to take the path of Gun – I would not call his thoughts ‘vigilante justice’ or ‘McIdealism’. I would say it is a rather natural tendency of a human soul tormented at the sight of ‘injustice’ Very few of us act on that thought while most of us find a ‘pressure valve’ type of release in seeing it the protagonists of movies like ‘Shool’.
In the west – the system subversion that drives a protagonist to the Gun is ‘Fiction’ , whereas the things that make an RDB or the character with no name in Wednesday act are far too real to be brushed aside as ‘McIdealism’ or any other funny term
@no rocket science
“in RDB, DJ & Co. decide to surrender themselves as they realise that what they hv done is eventually not only unlawful, but has made their situation worse”
really?
Why didn’t they go to a police station if they wanted to “surrender” for doing an “unlawful” act?
Of course they know what what they have done is unlawful,even a six year old would know that.They wanted to make sure the person whom they killed did not become a martyr and they did not want to be perceived as terrorists by the people.
while your grouse against A Wednesday is justifiable,would showing Hindu bombers make the movie better for you?By the same token would the reformation of a Muslim Fundamentalist in RDB as opposed to Atul Kulkarni’s character make the movie better for you.Sometimes you can’t show two sides of a section of society when the story does not require it.It is implied nevertheless.
@crazyrals
NO…acc. to me keeping the identity of the terrorists anonymous just as Naseer’s character wud hv been a more sensible & powerful statement..the makers shudnt hv got much political anyway coz acc to me the film was not in the same league as RDB or Hu Tu Tu..it ws meant to be a ‘edge-of-the-seat thriller’..but the makers only picked out Muslim Fundamentalis(I use the word Muslim & not Islam consciously)..and that put me off..I wud hv enjoyed the film more if the film hadnt indulged in labelling anywhich way…good luck:)
@bala
going to the AIR station was as good as surrendering..of course they wanted to put their point of view across & they knew that wudnt be possible if they go to police station..the climax at the AIR station also symbolises the power of media in our country today & how much it cud b influential & we saw its(& the movie’s) influence just few months after RDB, during the ‘media trial’ of the Jessica Lal murder case..also, the filmmaker took the chance of raising questions at the best possible point in the film & yes of course it made fr a compelling climax..acc to me unlike A Wednesday, RDB was a well-intentioned & a smart film & it cared to talk to each section of the society & I think thats why it connected so hugely.
I hv already answered abt my view of how the terrorists in A Wednesday shud hv been projected(refer to my comment no.29)..I neither find any pleasure nor am I fond of bashing ppl of other faiths..that was not my point..Im nt saying that the film shud hv been pro-any one faith/commnity…but if a film is raising a social or a political issue, as a viewer & as a citizen I want to feel included & not excluded.
I really dint get ur “when the story does not require it” point… if the story is original, its created frm scratch(if not copied,inspired,adapted or remade)..I believe wht does the story require & wht it doesnt cud b decided at the writing stage itself & thats where the intention of the makers come in..Im nt saying that the makers of A Wednesday r necessarily biased against a particular group…they may well hv gone ahead with showing all terrorists as Muslims & inherently evil fr commercial purposes & to cash on the emotions but, at least to me, thats irresponsible.
“By the same token would the reformation of a Muslim Fundamentalist in RDB as opposed to Atul Kulkarni’s character make the movie better for you” – I really dont know brother…I think ROPM’s story was very well-balanced & reached out to every section of the society INTENTIONALLY..so I dnt see the same point in RDB..again in Delhi 6,ROPM tried to engage with all sections of the society INTENTIONALLY (i.e. ‘the story required it’) & I loved the way he points fingers towards ALL irrespective of their religion & at the same time celebrates the cultural bonding to which every character in the film contributes..when u r making a film with poilitical,social or religious connotations u need to b more careful as a filmmaker but even if u r not, u can still not only make ur film talked abt but also a box office success – A Wednesday proves that…its a democracy & making films is one of the most democratic platforms..so everybody has the right to say/do what they want to,in the way they want to as long as they remain in the limits of our constitution & our law…man this is gettin heavy..anyway good luck brother
To Vineet’s interesting questions – 1. I would say that stories about people who seek vengeance will always have some appeal in movies, but I would also say that in the US a basic acceptance of, and belief in, rule by law can also be taken for granted. And that there at least as many movie stories about police and justice systems going after people as there are about personal “revenge.” And — in reality, people who take justice into their own hands are almost always punished.
2. Topic interests me a lot and here is a link to an article about shift from revenge societies to law-based societies, with comments on what’s gained and lost, if you can find a way to register to read more than the abstract: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/21/080421fa_fact_diamond
is PFC having some technical problems again regarding comments??
@ no rocket science
Your point is taken bro and I can see that you too are “well intentioned”.But where you see balance I see shades of double speak.Even in Delhi 6, it is the majority community which starts making ridiculous assumptions and starts the duel.Nevertheless, I can still understand that it is politically incorrect to show the minorities in bad light compared to the majority community.And it doesn’t bother me one bit, being agnostic and anti-religion.Just wanted to put across my point of view.Peace.
@bala
i dnt know abt “well intentioned” but ya i ws tryin to get ur point & put across mine as sincerely as possible…& I agree with ur point that most of the times in such films its the majority community that is shown to hv started the feud & personally I wudnt hv mind if Haji Suleiman(role played by KK Raina) wud hv started the duel coz actually soon after Akhilendra Misra’s character(who btw is shown to be an external influencing factor bt a saffron person nonetheless) makes those assumptions, Haji Suleiman retorts with “ye musalmaano ko dabaane ki saazish” which shows how most of the Muslim politicians/leaders take convenient positions without taking any pain to deal with it sensibly…so acc to me at the end it ws handled well & I see no “double speak” there as such(as u suggested maybe ROPM thot of being politically correct)..most of the times its the Hindus & other Non-Muslims who speak up for Muslims & other minorities whether its in the media,in cinema,in politics or elsewhere while most of the Muslim politicians r busy protecting their own territory..I wud like to see a Muslim person in politics who will not play upon the card of victimisation & makes efforts to be a pan-Indian leader working towards every aspect of nation building instead of being narrow minded & foolish…but coming back to films Delhi 6’s case is nt as outrageous A Wednesday in my view though as I hv suggested earlier I hv no problems ppl lapping up A Wednesday..if ppl can vote back Narendra Modi in power, A Wednesay is a non-issue coz I dnt think its a film with an agenda its just been handled irresponsibly mainly due to commercial reasons.
Also being agnostic,anti-religion,pro-religion,religious,spiritual etc. has nothing to do with lookin at things ‘objectively’ if that is what u r suggesting..IMO an all inclusive approach to things & engaging with everyone in order to find solutions cud help…thats all the point I hv been tryin to make since my first comment..movies mean a lot to me like to everyone of us at PFC & thats why sometimes i get carried away & hv strong opinions abt them esp. when the film is in some political/social context…good luck bro..Peace