Information today, in the outburst of media content worth 10 seconds of every new patch of dopamine release, is diluted. Yeah, I must be looking like a boomer talking about reels or shorts this way, but let’s just focus on how you are being persuaded with information without context and prior warnings. And not like I am being a messiah of some sort — I consume reels or shorts on a heavy note.
A few months ago, the re-release of Interstellar was cancelled in India because Pushpa 2 was releasing at the same time and it might harm the business of theatres in a negative way. So amidst that, a reel went pretty much viral and could be seen posted by many Interstellar lovers. The reel consisted of Satyajit Ray speaking about how the large amount of Indian audience is backward and unsophisticated. He added, “An unsophisticated audience, exposed to the commercial Hindi cinema are than anything else. And so you face this problem, but you make the kind of films (you want to) and I make the kind of films that I want to make. I make the kind of films I enjoy making… that engages my attention, my creativity, that’s all I can do.” A harsh yet confident statement that came in the context of his own film, Devi. He talks about how Devi tackled religious dogmatism and the exaggerated form of religion, but some critics and people accused Ray of not being Hindu and influenced by western culture. And I couldn’t agree more with Ray — it surely dealt with dogmatism and the exaggerated form of following religion and living the livelihood, and becomes very relevant in the present contemporary context.
“The large amount of Indian audience is backward and unsophisticated — exposed to commercial Hindi cinema more than anything else. And so you face this problem, but you make the kind of films you want to, and I make the kind of films I want to make — the ones that engage my attention and creativity. That’s all I can do.”
Netizens on the internet went on attacking the mass films with statements on a go and calling a mass audience unsophisticated. And I got frustrated with people overusing the same template and same piece of information multiple times. And I get it — it is what new media is and how it works. But using information out of context, without people even thinking more than once, shows how we don’t practice the art of thinking, especially in this media. And just because someone great has said something, it doesn’t mean we have to follow that without even thinking once. So how ironic it is that one sharing this without context, especially in the wrong one, shows the dogmatic nature of that person. Let me put some points in front of you and let you decide whether it is appropriate to state the audience of India as sophisticated and backward. And if anyone of you is reading this article up to this point, don’t make any conclusion earlier to the reading.
These specific lines from Satyajit Ray happen to encounter the “context collapse.” It is originally used to describe how online platforms flatten multiple audiences into one, removing the social cues and the context that would normally guide interpretations. So, in the reel of Satyajit Ray, his specific comment about audiences of Devi or in a general sense gets collapsed into a timeless, universal insult towards “the Indian audience” because the medium strips away the surrounding conditions. Something similar is also discussed in Neil Postman’s idea in Amusing Ourselves to Death, that when media prioritizes entertainment over depth, serious discourse is reduced to punchlines and slogans.
Cinema is the most recent art form that does not even have the history of 200 years, yet it has shown a different arc. Now, if you would know the cinema movements and their stages, cinema as a form had different functions and one criticised the other. Let me roam you through the history and give you examples just to make the point. Cinema’s earliest style was formed by Classical Hollywood cinema. The term “Classical” does not come as a romanticisation, admiration, or as praise. It refers to the dominant style of filmmaking in the American film industry from the silent era (or transitional period) to the 1960s. It is characterised by linear storytelling, a cause-and-effect logic, spatial-temporal (space and time) continuity, and invisible editing techniques.
A new generation of filmmakers in France, who used to run and write in Cahiers du Cinéma (Influential French Film journal and magazine) and other cinema journals, started a new wave criticising this kind of film and stylisation. Who were they? Jean-Luc Godard, François Truffaut, Jacques Rivette, Agnès Varda, Alain Resnais, and more. They made films with techniques opposing those used in Classical Hollywood cinema. Filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov, and more, who were involved in Soviet filmmaking ethics, undermined and rejected the genre and even the way of filmmaking. In the manifesto they made, they criticised the American way of filmmaking, especially Hollywood cinema and its hardboiled detective genre. So, if you love The Shawshank Redemption, Die Hard, Se7en, or even Interstellar like me, they might have called you unsophisticated and useless.
Click here for the Dziga Vertov’s manifesto.
We all love watching cinema, and calling ourselves cinephiles feels like calling ourselves intellectuals. But this term “cinephile” has been so popular amongst film lovers that it is misused most of the time. Cinephilia means the passion for cinema at its core, which leads to involvement in its history, appreciation, theory, and of course criticism. It simply arches above mere entertainment. And because I don’t want to be in that argument, and also because I truly believe it, I don’t consider myself a cinephile. And well, it might come as a very rude statement, but most of them are not. I am not judging anyone or disrespecting per se, but if someone feels like it, think of when they do that to someone else. Well, for me, cinema is entertainment, passion, love of my life, and the elixir to survive on the planet Earth. But it might not be the same for someone else, who thinks of cinema as just a mode of entertainment. Why do we always think that people need to watch or consume it for the sake of criticism and reflection of society in itself, or something so-called masterpiece for which I have to watch more than once just to understand it?
A person tired and exhausted from work, who just wants to relax and enjoy, might not watch a slow, disoriented narrative film. In this case, Interstellar, a film about a far-fetched future where a scientist travels through a black hole or wormhole, time-travels, and so on. Believe me, I love Nolan, and I was just as disappointed when its release in India got postponed. When it finally came out, I watched it and enjoyed it thoroughly. But why should I demean someone just because I believe I might have a better taste?
Let me give you a situation to think about. A hardworking man, looking forward to his weekend, wants to watch Pushpa 2. Now imagine someone who loves Interstellar calling Pushpa 2’s audience unsophisticated and backward because of their taste or because of their supposed ignorance of “good art.” On the other hand, another kind of snob might dismiss Nolan as overrated and claim his work is not even cinema. Shocking as it may sound, such people exist, and I’ve met quite a few lately. They might consider Godard, Billy Wilder, or Wim Wenders the true masters of cinema. Meanwhile, someone with an even more so-called “redefined” taste might regard Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Lav Diaz, or Béla Tarr as the greatest filmmakers, and look down upon those who prefer others. So, sophistication has become a matter of perspective, class, and status division. And what feels sophisticated to you might not feel the same to someone else.
Let me share a real-life anecdote/story related to this.
I always look forward to attending the film festival that’s held in Kolkata every year from the last three years, just to watch international films on the big screen. The festival also showcases contemporary Indian films, with sections for competitions, tributes to centenaries, and homages to legendary filmmakers. Some theatres screen films for free, during the festival.
One day, I went to one such theatre. There was a tea stall in front of it, and since I had arrived early, I ordered two cups of tea — one for me and one for my friend who accompanied me throughout the film festival. While we were discussing the day’s shows, the tea stall owner overheard us and asked which film we were going to watch and what it was about. We told her the name, the story, and its country of origin. She smiled and said, “My husband and I love watching films in theatres. Because of our financial condition and daily work, we can’t watch many, but we save up for two tickets every month. During this festival, we watch as many films as possible, every day if we can. Mostly Bengali and Hindi films — we don’t understand English.”
The delight on her face while stating the fact was more than about watching cinema. It was about escaping the rude, unempathetic world. For her, cinema was not for criticism or a mode of consumption of art, neither was it only for entertainment — it was a brief freedom from the weight of everyday struggles and a way to forget reality for a while. Audiences consume media for different needs, whether it is for escapism, entertainment, social connection, identity affirmation, aesthetic pleasure, or, well, information. The tea-seller couple are consuming for escapism and entertainment, which is equally valid as someone seeking intellectual stimulation from Tarkovsky. Ray states in the same interview that he made films that he liked and suited his artistic exploration, and did not care about anything else. So at last, it becomes a matter of choice and everyone has the right to choose. So someone posting to justify the taste of others might portray yourself as a hypocrite.
So, demeaning others seems logical only in the sense of taste. While your taste is a result of class division and your social circle’s connection to your ambition, theorist Pierre Bourdieu argues that “taste” is not an innate personal quality but a social weapon used to signal class, education, and cultural capital. “Sophisticated” taste is socially constructed — what counts as refined in one group might be meaningless in another.
You might find yourself on the lower rungs of the ladder of cinephile snobbery with which you judge others, where each rung sees itself as more “authentic” than the one below.
