Settling the Dhurandhar debate for once and all
It's more than just good or bad
The trailer for Dhurandhar 2 just dropped. Proponents have already declared it a masterpiece, and critics are panning its four-hour runtime and the message.
I know you probably have picked a side already: Leftist or Rightist, Patriot or Anti-national, and so on. And now, after reading the title, you want to categorize me as well. Am I going to call it a “good” or “bad” movie, or is my answer going to be diplomatic? In other words, “Meri fielding set hai.”
I’m a physics student. I don’t believe in religion or in any man-made boundaries. I don’t care about politics. My only tools are rationality and logic. So my sole aim is to understand human psychology and get closer to the truth. I’ll be presenting two perspectives to look at this debate around Dhurandhar (or Animal, or any such film).
Filmmaker’s perspective: Money is God
I will cut to the chase. For Aditya Dhar, it’s all about money. Whether or not you believe in a divine creator is a personal choice, but money is the only real-life God I know. Everyone works for it, and every decision is made to attain it.
From a filmmaker’s perspective, the “India vs. Pakistan” debate doesn’t actually matter. They aren’t motivated by ideology but by the bottom line. If one religion forms the majority of the population, you make movies that cater to the majority because that’s where the tickets are sold.
If, by some miracle, the religious demographics of the country flipped tomorrow, the “propaganda” would flip with it. If Dhar were born in Pakistan, Dhurandhar would be promoting Pakistani patriotism. Why? Because the majority wins elections in a democracy and fills theaters in a market. It’s a business model.
This is even true for the critics. Dhruv Rathee was heavily trolled for his video slamming Dhurandhar. But if the filmmakers only care about the money, why can’t Rathee? He knows the controversy will garner massive views, which translates to revenue. Both Dhar’s and Rathee’s actions are justified. Who you support doesn’t matter because your outrage is just part of their marketing. And I’m sure Rathee will make a video on the 2nd part as well.
In this light, I don’t believe in good or bad. It’s more about profit or loss.
Audience’s perspective: It’s all about education
If a filmmaker is motivated by money, the audience’s response is decided by their education. Now, what kind of education have we been given?
We are raised in a binary world: Good vs. Evil, Hero vs. Villain, Truth vs. Lie, Leftist vs Rightist. This worldview asserts that people are either perfectly holy or perfectly demonic. It’s a matter of common sense to realize that this is total bullshit. The real world is grey. We all have flaws. As the saying goes, “We are all villains in someone’s story.”
However, because we are taught to see life as a competition, we view every interaction as win vs. lose. This is the root of the ‘revenge’ philosophy. When someone loses to us, we feel a surge of power. This is why audiences love watching a “perfect hero” brutally murder a “perfect villain” in a “perfect ending”. Their blood is the fuel for our emotional catharsis.
There’s also a technical divide
Some assert that Dhurandhar is a product and not necessarily a film. Let’s compare it’s commercial and critical performance with a movie that is considered “technically well-made”. I will use the example of Tumbbad.
Dhurandhar earned around 1400 crore, and Tumbbad earned around 50 crore.
Dhurandhar has 39% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while Tumbbad has 87%.
Why is there such a massive gap? Because India’s technical audience, those who understand the ins and outs of filmmaking taught in film schools, is a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population. Also, a vast majority Indianns watch movies on 6-inch mobile screens or poor quality theatres. You cannot appreciate the Atmos sound or the visual brilliance of a movie like Tumbbad on that hardware. Furthermore, a mass consumer spending ₹500 on a ticket demands quantity over quality. They are fine with 3+ hours of relentless action, romance, songs, masala, etc. A 104-minute technical masterpiece like Tumbbad feels incomplete to them.
Critics hated Dhurandhar (39%) because they saw the bloated runtime, black-and-white characters, and lack of technical quality. The audience loved it (95% Popcornmeter) because it gave them the binary win they crave for.
Movies like Dhurandhar are products designed for a market with low technical literacy, whereas movies like Tumbbad are designed for an audience that understands the language of cinema.
So what’s the answer?
Is Dhurandhar good or bad?
From the filmmaker’s side, it is a triumph of capitalism. A perfectly engineered product for a specific market.
From the audience’s side, it is a symptom of a lack of education, both in terms of film literacy and the ability to see the world as grey.
I won’t tell you how to feel about the movie. I’ve just given you the two ways to look at the debate. The choice, as always, is yours.
Read Next:
Solution to Rape Problem is in Your Living Room
Taapsee Pannu starrer Assi (‘Eighty’ in English) is currently playing in the theatres. It is being described as “A gripping courtroom drama centers on unexplained sexual assault cases.” I haven’t watched it yet, but I am compelled to write about the root cause of its theme.
You bring forward some very interesting points.
On a (different) note: don't you think it is time to retire "I don’t care about politics." What you go on to explain is exactly politics. Whether we like it or not, Arts and Entertainment shape our worldview shapes worldview and in turn who we hand power. Capitalism as you accurately declare the winner, is dictating the policies that in turn affect the very people paying to watch the movie. We could use eloquent people like you to demystify politics for the common people.
Thanks for writing this!
I wonder how such ideas come in your mind. Well written.