‘You’re the fool’: Amaal Mallik on violence in films after Andhra chainsaw attack
Source Entity
The Indian Express
Composer Amaal Mallik has defended filmmakers against claims that cinema triggers real-world violence. He argues that individual behavior is shaped by complex factors like upbringing and trauma rather than film content.
The Intersection of Cinema and Social Responsibility
The recent debate surrounding the impact of violent cinema has gained momentum, with music composer Amaal Mallik emerging as a prominent voice in defense of artistic freedom. Following a high-profile incident in Andhra Pradesh involving a chainsaw attack, critics have intensified their scrutiny of films like Animal and Kabir Singh. Mallik, however, has pushed back against the narrative that links cinematic violence directly to criminal behavior, siding with filmmaker Sandeep Reddy Vanga in arguing that cinema is unfairly positioned as a scapegoat for societal issues.
Challenging the Causality Narrative
Mallik’s position is rooted in the belief that blaming media for individual actions is a gross oversimplification of human psychology. By pointing to iconic songs such as Beedi Jalaile, Chikni Chameli, and Munni Badnaam, he highlights a double standard in how popular culture is audited. He argues that if one were to follow the logic that art dictates behavior, then these high-energy, provocative musical numbers would logically require the same level of censorship and moral condemnation as violent film sequences.
The Multifaceted Nature of Human Behavior
Beyond just defending specific directors, Mallik emphasizes that human conduct is a product of a vast ecosystem of influences. He identifies family values, personal trauma, political climates, and individual upbringing as the primary drivers of an individual's moral compass. According to the composer, the assumption that a viewer lacks the agency to distinguish between a fictional narrative and reality is patronizing. His blunt assessment—that if a person is easily influenced to commit violence by a film, the fault lies with the individual—serves as a core pillar of his argument against cinematic censorship.
The Responsibility of the Filmmaker
While Mallik defends the industry, he acknowledges that there is a place for nuance. He admits that he has personally had issues with certain scenes in films like Animal and KGF, and he recognizes that filmmakers should be mindful of how they portray violence. This creates a balance between protecting artistic expression and acknowledging the potential influence on younger, more impressionable audiences. He suggests that while concern is valid, it should not translate into the demonization of the medium itself.
Future Trends and Cultural Discourse
This discourse suggests a growing tension between the consumption of increasingly gritty content and the societal desire for regulation. As cinema continues to push boundaries in terms of realism and intensity, the debate over 'the copycat effect' is likely to intensify. Mallik’s intervention signals a pushback from creative professionals who feel that their work is being unfairly blamed for the failures of broader social structures. Moving forward, the industry may face increased pressure to self-regulate, while simultaneously fighting to maintain the creative liberty to explore darker themes without being held liable for the actions of a few.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Amaal Mallik’s perspective serves as a reminder that art is a reflection of society, not necessarily its architect. While the tragic events in Andhra Pradesh demand serious reflection and discourse, Mallik asserts that we must look beyond the screen to find the root causes of violence. By shifting the focus toward upbringing and personal experience, he challenges the public to hold individuals, rather than the entertainment industry, accountable for their actions.