The Hindu : The politics of art

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Dec 28, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

The politics of art

As the reach of the media has extended beyond the elites to the masses, the stakes of political paries and social organisation have also increased, writes Suresh Nambath.

ART IS political. All the more so in Tamil Nadu where theatre and cinema have been used as channels for social change and political power. Not surprisingly, political parties and social organisations now view every form of art, particularly films, in terms of their likely impact on the collective psyche. Problems arise when the impact is perceived as negative to their interests. In recent years, court cases aside, there have been agitations against shooting and screening of particular films. Objections have been on various counts, but the most common are those relating to some perceived insult to a caste or community.

The most striking case in recent months was the furore over the shooting of "Sandiyar" (since renamed "Virumandi"), a film by Kamal Hassan. The title, with its connotations of heroism of the Thevar clan, prompted protests by Dalit organisations. Kamal Hassan sought, but did not get, the necessary police protection to go ahead with the shooting in Theni, a southern district where Thevar-Dalit caste clashes have been frequent.

The State Government did not want to take risks on the law and order front, and Kamal Hassan was forced to stop shooting. Only after he announced a change of title, following a meeting with Chief Minister Jayalalithaa could he revive the shooting of his film. By doing nothing, the establishment aided those who wanted to decide what others should see.

The Puthiya Thamizhagam president, K. Krishnasamy, who was in the forefront of the opposition to the shooting, is not at all apologetic. "Sandiyar" evoked images of heroism of an oppressive caste, and could have triggered caste violence, he said. In his view, agitations against the shooting of a film, far from being a form of pre-censorship, were better than protests against the screening of a film as the producer stood to lose more by the non-screening of a completed film.

In the caste cauldron of Tamil Nadu, this was certainly not the first instance of violent protests against a film. "Maayi", with Sarath Kumar in the lead, ran into difficulties with the caste politics of south Tamil Nadu. The screening of "Bharati Kannamma", a film in which a Thevar girl falls in love with a Dalit youth, led to widespread protests in the southern districts. "Thevar Magan", another Kamal Hassan-starrer, was another film that generated controversy for identifying the Thevar community with glorified violence.

Songs from such films, linking heroism with a caste culture, continue to be played loud during public functions by way of evoking caste affinity. These then become a source of continual tension.

However, the issue is whether a ban or censorship is the answer to provocative and controversial films. Often, a small but vocal group sets the agenda.

Authorities see censorship as the safest option. Obviously, it is far more dangerous to antagonise outfits that use caste and community labels than it is to offend filmmakers and artists.

Besides such violent protests against caste-based films, there have been court cases against films such as "Boys" on the grounds of obscenity. Although several scenes in the film were commonly recognised as distasteful, a ban on screening was clearly no solution to falling standards in filmmaking. The court cases did little more than win additional publicity for a film that was doomed to failure.

There have also been instances of directors allowing their controversial films to be seen by politicians before their release. "Iruvar", a story loosely based on the lives of former Chief Ministers, M.G. Ramachandran and M. Karunanidhi, which was released during the DMK regime, was specially screened for Mr. Karunanidhi by the director, Mani Rathnam.

In the early phase of the Dravidian political movement, plays and films served as an important propaganda tool. People attended or boycotted such plays and films. They agreed or disagreed with the theme and the message. But agitations and public protests were not the way of those who boycotted and disagreed.

However, as the power of the media became demonstrably high, and the reach extended beyond the elites to the masses, the stakes of political parties and social organisations also increased. From political battles being the subject of films, Tamil Nadu is witnessing films becoming the subject of political battles.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Where do we draw the line?

To cut or not to cut

The stamp of (dis)approval

Creative or crass?

The politics of art

Fighting `jehadis' at home