Until a few years ago, I liked only art movies. I greatly enjoyed the films of Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen and a few other versatile directors. All of them were grist to my cinematic mill. I pooh-poohed the action ones and thrillers.
Now it is the other way around. Though not a cinephile, I occasionally watch movies and whenever I do it would be nothing but such movies as were repulsive to me once. I watch them now for the obvious reason of their having copious scenes of fierce fights between heroes and villains, resulting invariably and inevitably in the victory of the former! Victory of good over evil, so to speak!
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Unlike the non-commercial films which were intended to be serious artistic work, the action movies have enough paraphernalia for mass appeal and commercial profit. It looks the general rule of thumb that the hero in such movies is handsome and strong with ample muscle power to match even the well-built villain and his henchmen with formidable looks. The hero always bests them singlehanded but not before a fierce fight.
In some movies, the protagonists always have a great hallowed mission – to save the womenfolk from the villains’ clutches. It could be mother in one, heroine in another and a complete stranger in yet another. Until he accomplishes that onerous task, he wouldn’t rest. Watching such movies affords me immense pleasure.
There are some movies portraying the villain armed to the teeth but the hero remains unarmed as if he were a true follower of Gandhiji. If Gandhiji were alive today and in the remotest event of seeing such movies, the apostle of non-violence would have in all probability expressed his pleasure. He would be overwhelmed on seeing the heroes follow his own principles in which he had unwavering faith.
I have often wondered why the fight scenes in most movies take place in the markets – fruit, vegetable grain etc. – as if there are no suitable locales. And so much so all the essentials are decimated in the brawls.
Someone countered me in a rebuffing tone, ‘You know, these destructions are mere camera tricks.’ But the accuracy of his argument did not stand up to my checking the fact with a relative of mine associated with movies. He corroborated me. ‘This sort of destruction is carried out for maximum impact, even though they are rotten stuff. At times a semblance of market scenes is created in the studio itself,’ he clarified.
In one movie, I have recently seen the hero after picking up the villain, held him high above his head and swirled him a few times the way Bhima in Mahabharat did his opponents in the Kurukshetra War before flinging him down on a vegetable cart which yielded to his great strength and ended up in smithereens. All the vegetables on it strewed all over the place irrecoverably. Two more carts – nay, three – had the same fate.
All these movies make me wonder: Are not movie makers playing on spectators’ penchant for violence? And we have Sigmund Freud telling Albert Einstein in a letter that violence is endemic to human existence.
