Shoot at sight

The great divide In “A Wednesday” (left) and “Khuda Kay Liye” we find a very different use of the symbols of a community and terrorism.

After 9/11 a new figure has appeared in international movies – he is young, Asian, speaks fluent Urdu and is willing to give up his life for a cause. Until then, brown skin in a Hollywood film was a rarity – though you occasionally saw the odd black skin. The Asians were usually caricatures – the most memorable being Peter Sellers in “The Party”.

Therefore, the sight of a brown man post 9/11, and very occasionally woman, in TV and film should have been welcomed – and we should have been happy that at last the South Asian actor has arrived on the global scene. But of course, our happiness died soon enough because the usual, though pivotal role given to these actors (so far, and especially if he plays a Pakistani) is that either of a terrorist or a corrupt cop. Before the cold war officially ended, these villainous, shadowy roles were played by the Russians, and before that by the German, Japanese and Chinese. Much of the distrust we still feel about these nationalities on this side of the Iron Curtain is thanks to the movies we saw in the ‘60s and ‘70s – almost all emanating out of Hollywood.

These images have a long lasting impact. Which is why the ‘terror films’ should be frequently re-evaluated and questions should be asked whether these are actually promoting more hate and stereotypes – and further stigmatising an already demonised community. It is this inability to empathise with the ‘other’ community which creates a wall of misunderstanding and in a vicious cycle leads to further alienation. From there it is but a small step towards a violent encounter of some kind. Though I do not advocate censorship of any kind, I do think that cinema and film makers must be more conscious of the (often unintentional) message.

The line between television reporting and cinema is also getting increasingly blurred. Due to intrusive, 24-hour television we are often subject to hourly haranguing about the activities of suspected ‘terrorists’. In the UK, recently, with the arrest of around 10 suspects of Pakistani origin we were delivered instant analysis before we were even aware of what they were charged with – and instant reactions were gathered from the areas from which they had been arrested. The fact these suspects were students – meant that the numbers immediately produced (over 42000 Pakistani students in all in UK) sending a wave of fresh panic and recriminations. Were the visa conditions too lax – how had these boys got past the scanner? And of course, the 42000 figure would have been hugely damaging for other students who had entered the UK genuinely to study. Would they too come under the scanner if they moved around taking photographs of Manchester and Liverpool tourist spots – as a few of the suspects had allegedly done?

This constant desire for ‘breaking news’ has also led to another character becoming quite popular in the movies – that of the journalist caught in the middle of a terrorist attack. Recent films being made in India and which deal with these terror attacks have frequently used the growing number of real life TV channels and their staff. And that, in fact, has become confusing, the film is no longer fictional, it appears ‘factional’ a mixture of fact and fiction; and there is no need for a suspension of disbelief – because the audience believes the drama unfolding in front of them. Well known faces and names of journalists form part of the story – so that whatever happens on screen gets a peculiar credibility. If we examine two films “Khuda Kay Liye” (In the name of God) made by Pakistani director Shoaib Mansoor and “A Wednesday” written and directed by Neeraj Pandey, we will find a very different use of the symbols of a community and terrorism. In one, the story construct diminishes the fear and loathing, whilst in the other the symbols of fear are played up. Both deal with terrorism – but in two completely different ways. “Khuda Kay Liye” is the explanatory film, which explores why educated young Pakistanis turn to terrorism, become jihadis and even part of the Al Qaeda.

However, “A Wednesday”, takes a totally hard line view of the so-called ‘Islamist’ terrorism. It refuses to be sympathetic to the terrorists, because this is the story of a victim who decides to take revenge. It makes no effort to learn the back story of the four jail birds.All the four terrorists in the film have Muslim names, clearly spelt out, but the common man remains nameless. Even in a country where there are over 150 million Muslims, and where the film industry has a large Muslim population – the stereotypes are not forgotten primarily, perhaps, because most of them are seen to have been exported to India from Pakistan. The only good Muslim is the Indian born and bred police officer.

Both the films were well receivedbut both send out different messages. The Pakistani film is an apology of what has happened, portraying the fundamentalists as victims themselves. On the other hand the Indian film is unapologetically savage – and the brutality is directed towards the terrorists.It is fine to massacre them the way they have massacred the innocents.

This kind of mob justice, as advocated in the film, is exactly what civil society should resist as it leads to vigilantism of the worst kind. However, till our filmmakers understand that the film is a political tool and can be completely misunderstood, there will be no reversal of this trend. Unlike Pakistan which has a huge stake in this process – for the rest of the world the discovery of the Pakistani terrorist is just another element they can build into a crackling good tale, feeding off the collective hatred of the audience.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu