The Hindu : A rash of protests against `Boys'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Sep 30, 2003

National

National

A rash of protests against `Boys'

By Suresh Nambath

Chennai Sept. 29. The Tamil film, `Boys', a story of teenagers, is provoking opposition from political parties, social organisations and woman activists on several counts. Nudity, sexually explicit language, eve-teasing, have all attracted criticism. Indeed, there is a petition before the Madras High Court praying for the revocation of the censor board certificate for the film.

What is really objectionable about the film? Surely, there have been films, including those in Indian languages, which had more of nudity, sexually explicit language, and eve-teasing.

What makes `Boys' different is the very ordinariness of the characters. Circumstances and social situations do not mark the `boys' out as different from the `regular guys'. Actually, at the very start of the film, there is an attempt to portray them as the guys-next-door. The storyteller's voice, an alienation device that does not extend beyond the beginning, describes the characters as boys who can be seen everywhere, at street-corners and bus stops and near women's colleges.

Quite deliberately, the boys are de-contextualised. They are the same across class and circumstances. They are the same because they are of the same age and of the same gender. They are the typical teenagers. There is a rich kid, a middle-class youth, and a poor boy. But the class types are shown to prove they do not matter. No extenuating circumstances, no broken homes, no unhappy childhood or corrupting peer influence explain the behaviour of the boys. To add to the authenticity-building, real-life colleges, real-life streets, real-life work places are mentioned to flesh out the characters.

But, then again, such stereotyping, even if unusual, is not a first-first. `Boys' goes further. Socially unacceptable behaviour is played down as teenage mischief. The perverse is passed off as the normal. Some of the acts portrayed as `routine fun' in the movie qualify as sexual harassment and could be booked under existing laws against eve teasing.

The rationale for such behaviour is articulated by a grown-up friend of the teenagers: when the lewd is very much part of daily life in the form of television shows and popular magazines, youngsters cannot but behave in ways conventionally seen as unacceptable.

The socially irresponsible is just this: The context for the misbehaviour, when it is shown, is generalised to such an extent as to make it meaningless. The context is of an entire generation that grew up on television.

`Boys' seeks to establish criminal behaviour as innocent fun. That is easily said, but just not done.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National