Realism in International Relations denotes that the
world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. In media, ethical
representation governs that it should never be driven by self-interest. What
you do for the self is a biased adaptation of reality, and reality on camera is
fiction, not a fact.
“The camera’s
rendering of reality must always hide more than it discloses…only what which
narrates can make us understand”, said internationally acclaimed ace
photographer, Susan Sontag.
The camera when
it must have come into the hands of the elite few would have been used to
capture the truth. Realism in arts refers to the depiction of truth. But
depiction is not real and truth, not universal. The constant upgradation of
camera and evolution of technology has led to the portrayal of a glossy fact, what
may be a ‘fiction’ in reality. Why what is not shown is not shown, justifies
for selective transparency. This reminds me how half truth is more dangerous
than a lie.
Your everyday
reality, your truth of being, dilutes when it is on camera. Like a pen is for a
writer, a camera is for a cinematographer. You read the page he opens for you,
but did you know what the previous chapter talked about? The wholeness of truth
comes from detached ethnographic participation.
Indie
film-makers and documentary film-makers delve on celebration of reality and its
truth. But what is on camera is the fiction influenced from the fact. The
fiction, performed through correct repetition of reality is after all an act;
reality need never be correct. And that is universal for fiction and
non-fiction elements of media. You derive from fact, an interesting, thrilling,
romanticized fiction. When it goes the other way round, it becomes dangerous.
More realistically put, this happens when a con scene from Bond 007 movie leads
to a real bankruptcy or a murder scene in the Sherlock Holmes leads to a real
criminal conviction in the courts of law.
It is now a
well-known fact that representation of women in cinema and other fiction
formats is objectified. Narcissism is a subset of voyeurism which comes from a
gaze that matriarchy celebrates on the grounds of valour of chivalry. How women
expect to be protected from the male counterparts is disguised acceptance and
further celebration of a deep-rooted patriarchy. How the server hands over the
bill to the man on the table presuming that he would pay for the meal the
family consumed is another instance to validate my argument.
Toned bodies,
flawless skin, right height is rarely real, assembling the rare and
demonstrating that as a given -- real -- should ideally be an exceptional
event unlike how the movies driven by successful formulae show them to be,
ordinary. And then come women wearing corsets in their sleep and make-up in
their shower! This, here, is that dangerous situation where the fact is
influenced by fiction. This wouldn't have been if heroines in cinema wouldn't
have always, without infrequent exception, been attractive and pretty.
Generalization, stereotyping and homogenisation are the rounding-off of real
facts. A more
healthy approach to depict facts would be one
which is more heterogeneous
and random, even if it’s at the expense of not coming
up with a consensus. Exceptions are interesting only when are shown like that.
In the TOI vs.
Deepika Padukone case, TOI fabricated the actress’s style of dressing to favour
its argument of Deepika being a hypocrite as opposed to fairly printing on
newspaper how she is. If this bias wasn't inherent, they wouldn't have felt the
need to tag her cleavage as ‘The Famous Cleavage’.
The staged
recreation of women in cinema made to look real is always taken from an
extra-ordinary characteristic; a part of reality is not the whole fact, is then
the fiction.
If both fiction
and non-fiction narratives could find a common place in media will be an
interesting study, what I'm afraid for is whether it can happen in an
individual’s life span.
वंडरफुल
ReplyDelete