The Oscars are over for this year but the accompanying
cacophany of applause, brickbats, jibes, jokes, gags, memes, opinion pieces and
editorials seem to go on. So while everybody couldn’t stop chuckling at the last
minute fuss over PwC’s mix up in announcing Best Film, you have had everything
analysed from how social-media struck the PwC guy handing over the envelope
backstage might be to how typography of the printed card can actually have a
lot to do with the goof-up.
Among the regular reactionary pieces about the after party
shenanigans and the most fashionably turned up lot at the event apart from how
anti-Trump the mood of the evening actually was, emerged a strong voice with
people in unison condemning Casey
Affleck’s winning Best Actor for ‘Manchester by the Sea’. Reason being the man
has a history of abusing women behind him. The argument is if we are applauding
people like him who are so low on morality and respect for the opposite sex, we
are giving women lesser power to stand up for the wrong meted out to them. While
this may sound fair enough if seen in isolation, unfortunately, there seems to
be too many of such men doing the rounds in Hollywood who have let’s just say,
a murky past but have shone through the walls of fame based on the might of
their talent and stardom. This brings us to the question of whether the fame
that these guys enjoy is in fact well-deserved. Sturdy stalwarts of good cinema
like Woody Allen, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp among several others have been
alarmingly brought under the spotlight for their wayward and socially abominable
acts against women. Does this mean their personally inflicted crimes should mar
the compelling worth of their artistic prowess? Is it fair to deride their
on-screen work that makes them literally heroic, to compensate for their
off-screen profanity and misconduct? So forget acknowledging them with awards,
should we stop watching their films to let them know we publicly chastise such
men?
Closer home, we have had our awry band of men who have had a
mean brush with the law be it Sanjay Dutt, Salman Khan and so on. These guys
have other kinds of grave illegal crimes attributed to their name with Sanjay
Dutt accused of even abetting terrorists while Salman has been termed a
murderer for causing a road accident which led to the loss of life. They have
not only faced the court but also coped with massive criticism, abhorrence and
even rejection from Indians time and again for their alleged crimes for which
each of them has had to serve jail term. However, this hasn’t stopped their
films from becoming box-office blockbusters be it Munnabhai MBBS and Lage Raho
Munnabhai for the former or Bodyguard, Dabangg, Sultan for the latter. What
does this mean? Is the audience in any country more forgiving when the crimes
committed happen to be perpetrated by a star or a sought-after celebrity? Have
we blinded ourselves so much to their inner flaws so as to be seduced by the
outwardly charismatic persona? Does this put a question mark on our sense of
judgment, balance and the idea of redemption?
Let us firstly look at who exactly is a star? There are a
series of people involved here that create the stardom around a given personality.
The people who work with the star, those who see his film and then those who
reward him for his efforts. And a whole lot of people will want to work with these
men irrespective of their personal character because they are simply saleable.
A lot of money goes in to making a film and if the producer doesn’t recover his
share, it means he goes in to losses. People who put their sweat and blood in
to any film backstage need to be compensated and that usually means one has to
envision making profits even after the cost of the film is recovered. People
who go to see a film care about what the character in the lead role will do in
the film that will make them believe in him. They are not going to rue about
the fact that he could have been a better guy in person because hell, they don’t
care! These are not guys they need to sit and have lunch with everyday. All
they want are three hours of entertainment and their cash’s worth. As for the
jury of an awards ceremony usually made up of veterans who understand the craft
better than most of us, all they are trying to do is exalt the artist who puts
his best foot forward and who is able to essay a role that manages to become
immemorial in the minds of the viewer.
Without many of these good artists, our films would have
been hollow and we would have lost out on the richness and grandeur of their
mettle. Many of these artists have worked in films that have become textbooks
for younger generations, inspiring to do better with their work. So I don’t
think it is as simple as merely boycotting artists when they prove to be
fallible. If they fail us as men, we ought to let law takes its course. Let
them be punished as per their crime and as per the gravity and intensity of
what these men think they can get away with. But no awards ceremony, no die-hard
fan or a work colleague can be expected to be the adjudicator of what is right
and what is wrong. They are all involved with an artist for their own selfish
interest and can be hardly blamed for being so. What we can do of course, is
stop deifying them. Learn to look at them beyond those shiny tuxedos, with
warts and all. A renowned painter may be a habitual wife-beater but that does
not undermine his craftsmanship and mean we should snatch away his tools or his
medals. Let us not forget that they are all humans and must face the consequences
of their actions, iconic stature notwithstanding. So let us not fear pointing a
finger at them when they do wrong and not look away when they err. But if they
are noteworthy artists, we cannot deny them that honour either.
So yes, I will still hail Roman Polanski’s The Pianist as
one of the greatest films made in the history of cinema no matter what kind of
man he might be in reality. If good cinema was the consequence of being noble men,
saints would stop preaching and start working on a script in all the leading
studios of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment