What’s common between a famous Bollywood actor and a panda?
Both refuse to leave their comfort zone.
Whether it be Shahrukh Khan with his romantic scenes, Ranbir Kapoor with his ‘I need to have a walking out of a wedding scene in order to have a successful film’ ideology, or John Abraham refusing to do anything except fighting roles, the recent development in the industry, however, has been quite fascinating. The exploitation of patriotism to bag FilmFare awards, national awards, and high box office numbers has become quite a trend recently. And while we all enjoyed the role of Sidharth Malhotra as Abhimanyu Singh in Student of the Year, unfortunately, we’ve lost him to the patriotic film fever as well.
With Shershaah, Mission Majnu, and Aiyaary already under his belt, it can be seen how comfortable Malhotra has become with playing a patriotic role. And to think that he has had no difficulty in capitalizing on the fervor surrounding patriotism in India. This choice can be seen as a calculated move to gain popularity and secure a dedicated fanbase, rather than a genuine commitment to meaningful storytelling. Now with “Indian Police Force” and “Yodha” planning on joining his list of military movies, it can be clearly seen that Malhotra is not giving up on these roles any time soon.
While patriotism is an important aspect of any society, the problem lies in the superficial representation of this sentiment that is portrayed through Malhotra’s films. These movies often rely on clichéd and jingoistic narratives, with little focus on nuanced storytelling or critical analysis of the subject matter. By perpetuating stereotypes and shallow portrayals in the name of ‘patriotism’, these roles ultimately reinforce existing biases and fail to contribute to a meaningful dialogue on the complex issues that actually tend to surround nationalism.
Moreover, the consistent reliance on these roles by Malhotra also hinders the potential for social commentary in his films. By sticking to a tried-and-tested formula, he misses opportunities to explore and shed light on the pressing issues that are in fact, faced by society. Rather than using his platform to address important topics like social inequality, religious intolerance, or political corruption, Malhotra often resorts to generic narratives that lack depth and substance.
In addition, the repeated portrayal of an army or a police officer by Malhotra contributes to the perpetuation of nationalistic jingoism in Indian cinema. This type of cinema tends to glorify an unquestioning love for the nation without engaging in critical introspection or addressing the complexities of patriotism. It fosters a binary and exclusionary understanding of national identity, disregarding the diverse perspectives and lived experiences of individuals.
While Sidharth Malhotra’s fame and success in the Indian film industry cannot be denied, it is important to critically analyze the content and impact of his choice of roles. By continuously taking up patriotic roles, considering it as a safety net, which one knows will help profit in one way or another, unfortunately, also helps perpetuate superficial representations, misses opportunities for social commentary, and contributes to the propagation of nationalistic jingoism. As audiences, we should also be demanding more meaningful and thought-provoking narratives that go beyond tokenistic patriotism, allowing for a deeper exploration of the issues that affect our society. Eventually, the audience capacity to watch another Vikram Batra and Dimple love story, will run out. What then, Sid?
Very well-written post! I think it raises important questions about the impact of superficial representations of patriotism. While I feel that actors have a responsibility to engage in meaningful social commentary, I do believe that ultimately it's films such as this that get the funding to be produced, so they're sometimes between a rock and a hard place. I think delving deeper into the market demand and audience reception of films that exploit patriotism to achieve awards and high box office numbers would be really insightful and provide a broader context for understanding Malhotra's career choices. Films have the potential to contribute to broader social discourse, especially on subjects such as this that are especially relevant to our culture; it'…
I believe artists in today's world are at a very tough crossroads between passion projects and what earns them the most money. Instead of focusing on the individual's choice to pick a role for themselves, I believe a major point of analysis should be why these "patriotic" films make so much money, are churned out with alarming regularity, and are guaranteed hits for an individual's portfolio. Media has long been a tool for nation building, and one can see this phenomenon clearly in India and Pakistan too.
This blog post raises important points about Sidharth Malhotra's choice of roles and the problematic portrayal of patriotism in his films. The repeated portrayal of army or police officers by Malhotra contributes to the propagation of nationalistic jingoism in Indian cinema. This type of cinema tends to glorify blind love for the nation without critically examining the diverse perspectives and lived experiences of individuals. It reinforces a binary understanding of national identity and neglects the complexities that come with it. This binary understanding usually includes seeing Pakistanis as a whole nation of aliens. This starts to become problematic when such ideas are repeatedly reinforced like we discussed in the " female teacher entering the classroom" lecture and then these themes…
Enjoyed the read! Indian cinema is primarily driven by market demand and profitability. Nationalistic films, with their patriotic themes, have proven to be commercially successful in recent years. Another example of such a film that amassed all the Filmfare awards is Uri: The Surgical Strike. The audience's desire for stories that evoke a sense of national pride and honor contributes significantly to the popularity of such movies, specially if they feature Pakistan's representation under negative light. It appears that current filmmakers and producers are catering to this demand, aiming to capture the imagination of viewers and achieve financial success, while catering no thought over the problematic mindsets they're feeding.
Loved the post! There is much deeper that is happening in India with such patriotic representations. With the BJP government and the increasing Hindutva policies, patriotism and Hinduism have been seen to come to the forefront. And a lot of the film content has had patriotic Indian elements that invoke such problems that you highlight.
I think one of the major problem that comes with such patriotic representations is that they give a very limited view of the actual situation. The minorities, those on the margins, and those covertly being excluded from the state and it's policies are often not present in such representations. And they raise this question of who's country, who's patriotism, and who has the right to…