Reconsider depiction of violence on screens

Kerala has witnessed yet another copycat crime inspired by films.

Key points

• That is the sort of responsibility filmmaking in India may call for today.
• Scenes of blood and gore are being increasingly imprinted on impressionable minds through movies, online games and social media videos.
• As should be its solution, the difficulty is multi-layered.

Kerala has witnessed yet another copycat crime inspired by films. This time, four teenagers including a 13-year-old girl killed the girl's grandfather. According to the police, the adolescents admitted that their modus operandi was planned according to scenes they had watched in a slew of Malayalam and Tamil movies on OTT platforms. The crime occurred at a time ' Drishyam -inspired murders' has become a regular term in police stories nationwide in which culprits imitate the movie's hero, played by Mohanlal in the Malayalam original.

Scenes of blood and gore are being increasingly imprinted on impressionable minds through movies, online games and social media videos. Psychologists warn that watching too much violence can create a child lose his or her sense of empathy, making harmful acts seem more acceptable. Such normalisation of violence may lead to self-destructive or imitative behaviour. Though violence has been depicted on screen from the beginning of movie-making, the recent commercial success of features billed as "the most violent film" underlines the problem's magnitude. In practice, the explosion of violence in video games has even led to movements to create gore-free games.

As should be its solution, the difficulty is multi-layered. Movie makers insist that their art merely imitates life, and that their works alone cannot be held responsible for crimes. There is an abiding truth in the observation. Legally, artistic depiction devoid of direct intent or abetment is usually treated as protected expression. Well-recognised psychologists' associations have additionally put significant caveats in causally linking on-screen violence to long-term behavioural change, despite noting its short-term effects. Yet, caution on the front is more essential a country like India, where film stars are often treated as gods and reel often informs the real.

Even a maverick maestro like Stanley Kubrick withdrew his 1971 film, A Clockwork Orange, from British cinema halls two years after its release since of the copycat violence and threats it had triggered; it remained unavailable to the British public till after the filmmaker's passing. That is the sort of responsibility filmmaking in India may call for today. It is time for policy makers, film personalities, educationists and mental health experts to sit together and bring out a realistic and accountable framework without compromising artistic freedom.

Taken together, the developments around reconsider depiction of violence on screens point to a situation that is still moving, and the coming days should bring more clarity.