An insensitive move

Bengali filmmaker Srijit Mukherji posted a picture on Instagram of the ongoing protests over the rape and murder of a 31-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor in Kolkata alongside a poster of his latest film Padatik, based on the life and times of the brilliant filmmaker Mrinal Sen. It seemed to mix the film’s promotion with the protests, blurring the line between activism and opportunism. Isn’t this a particularly insensitive aberration?

Srijit later deleted the post. But a screenshot of the post has been shared by Bengalis Of Late Capitalism (BOLC), another page on Instagram that documents the sentiments of the Bengali folk. “Mrinal Sen would be so disappointed,” was one comment to the post on the BOLC page.

Members of the public analyse whether Srijit’s move was a rare misstep or indicative of a broader, more troubling pattern in how social maladies are co-opted in contemporary culture.

‘Not just another post’

“To the naked eye, it might have seemed that it’s just a post. But the aesthetics suggest a curation of commerce and solidarity, which is insensitive of any person of art to do,” begins Prodosh Bhattacharya, a research scholar. Noting that he [Srijit] didn’t mention anything about his film in the post, Prodosh adds, “he would say that he was only highlighting people’s presence. One has to look beyond the director.”

‘A dilution of focus’

Rajashree Bhattacharyya, an academic who runs a start-up on critical theory writing, has consistently spoken out against injustice — whether it’s a small-scale issue or a larger cause. She was involved in the ‘Reclaim the Night’movement, and notes the character of different gatherings across the city. In North Calcutta, the solidarity of women was overwhelming. But at the Academy of Fine Arts, a cultural space of importance in Kolkata, she says, “the atmosphere was dominated by the glitz of Page 3, sensational media coverage, and flashy public stunts. This focus on spectacle and media visibility overshadowed the more pressing issue at hand: Authority-sponsored violence. While the space should have been a platform for meaningful dialogue and protest, it instead became a stage for superficial entertainment, leaving the serious concerns about violence largely unaddressed.”

So, was Srijit Mukherji’s post an echo of the motivation behind the display at the Academy? Has art become subservient to ‘image’ and commercialism, where it once was the voice of the people and a vehicle to bring about change?

‘An innocent mistake’

Filmmaker Ranjan Ghosh says he’d like to see the issue of Mukherji’s post as a momentary lapse, suggesting it was a misjudged action driven by the heat of the moment — ‘an innocent mistake.’

“The film should be able to stand on its own merits, without relying on such heinous incidents of crime for validation. I would separate the incident that abysmally disturbs us. A work of art needs no crutch,” he says.

At Academy, the atmosphere was dominated by the glitz of Page 3, sensational media coverage, and flashy public stunts. This focus on spectacle and media visibility overshadowed the more pressing issue at hand: Authority-sponsored violence.” — Rajashree Bhattacharyya, academic.

The film should be able to stand on its own merits, without relying on such heinous incidents of crime for validation. I would separate the incident that abysmally disturbs us. A work of art needs no crutch.” — ranjan ghosh, filmmaker.