The "biopic" GURU was a very well directed film and excellent performances came from all quarters. But the director claims it wasn't a biopic. So it means he need not have portrayed the wrong things in the reel life which people tend to emulate in real. There were few controversial Incidents in the movie which can pass the wrong meaning to its viewers. There were 2 things which the censor board didn't take into account, the glorification of Dowry and the wrong portrayal of the judiciary.
The movie portrayed the lead actor marrying the lead actress only because of dowry and without any other reason. Isn't this a direct example of what the audiences with the wrong motive may take and claim when the educated can practice this why can't we?
It also portrayed that the lead actor has committed a lot of financial crimes and he gets away with an emotional speech which the judiciary feels is right and acquits him. The lead actor is portrayed as a hero for performing financial scams.
I personally feel it's the directors' responsibility to convey the story (when not a biopic) in a manner which does not promote anti-social and anti-nationalistic incidents and the public mapping their crimes to the "hero's" of yester years.
No comments:
Post a Comment