January
29, 2018
On the Tales of Two Movies
You’d
think they would know better by now. Last week, Russian police descended upon
Moscow’s Pioneer Cinema, a theater whose only crime appears to have been their decision
to screen the UK comedy The Death of
Stalin, a film which has been condemned by Russian officials as insulting.
Soon after, the theater announced that “for reasons beyond [their] control” all
future showings had been cancelled. To its credit, Pioneer Cinema had been the
only theater willing to play the film, and there is already talk of it being prosecuted
for doing so without a license.
Meanwhile,
in India the film Padmaavat has
finally opened in cinema, although in not nearly as many as was originally hoped
for. The film has been awash with controversy for more than a year. In January
of 2017, acts of vandalism delayed production. Two months later, rumors began
to circulate of a “romantic dream sequence” involving the film’s lead
characters, a Hindu queen named Padmavati and Allauddin Khilji, a 14th-century
Muslim leader, and no amount of denials could persuade protesters that no such
scene actually existed. In the eyes of protesters, such a scene would be
scandalous, as legend has it, Padmavati set herself on fire to protect herself
from Khilji. The protests didn’t stop there. Posters for the movie have been
burned, its director slapped in public, and its lead actress threatened with
disfigurement and – even worse - beheading.
Fortunately,
common sense won out. On January 18, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Dipak
Misra declared “Cinemas are an inseparable part of [the] right to free speech
and expression. States… cannot issue notifications prohibiting the screening of
a film.” In Russia, there is less optimism regarding the fate of The Death of Stalin. It is entirely
likely that the film will disappear completely from theaters.
Here’s
the thing, though. This kind of censorship is never successful. India
experienced this years ago with Fire,
another film that angered a number of people. The more you protest something,
the more you try to block people’s ability to assess it for themselves or to
decide whether to watch it in the first place, the more attention you draw to
it. This was the case with the early films of Yimou Zhang, Seth Rogen’s film The Interview, or even something like Salt of the Earth, a 1954 film banned
during the chaotic years of McCarthyism.
Even
today, the phrase “banned in” remains an effective selling point for both distributors
and audience members. Movies we would never have heard of and may never have
cared to see become cause-celebres because of the overzealous reactions of some
governments to anything that could be interpreted as critical or threatening to
their long-term stability. Standing up for such films becomes a vital test of
people’s values, and the films are sought out and watched in small art-house
cinemas, large local theaters, and people’s living rooms through DVD, Blu-ray,
or services like MUBI. In other words, they acquire an importance that they
might not have otherwise. As proof of this, look at the most recent box office
numbers in the United States. Padmaavat
made more than $4.5 million in its opening weekend.
As
for me, I would probably have seen The
Death of Stalin even if it had not been banned in Russia. The subject seems
interesting, and I generally like political satire. However, I’m not sure I
would have had much interest in Padmaavat.
After all, a historical, song-and-dance-filled film about a character whom many
historians doubt existed does not necessarily interest me, but now my curiosity
has been piqued. As I said, they should have known better.
No comments:
Post a Comment