To start off, there is hierarchical distribution and access to art and expression. Hierarchical in the sense that there is one expression per one social class. This holds true in light of restrained access to most, if not all, forms of art including theatre, plays and cinemas.
While other forms may face other reasons for their non-mainstream airing, cinema, is one medium which is sometimes limited because of language, but other times when it is not, it lacks the basic element of coherence between its form and its function.
In an already highly stratified society, a further division of access to expression creates, on a macro level, that sense of mis-identity; which, rather to unite us, further divides us. It takes away from us, what makes us, that is, this division rather than giving us a cohesive narration, makes us vulnerable to any sub-narration, and
in-turn leaves our collective identities distorted.
This is not to say that we should aspire for a single voice to narrate us collectively, but rather to express in meaningful ways that aspire us to strengthen and understand rationality and identity.
Purpose of theatre has been more or less, to give an expression through acts and to perpetrate kind of thoughts that may be intended; thus, the liaison between form and function.
And one may say that if there is to be a voice for collective representations, then why must it not used for social taboos, to counter-voice them and since it is art, it can do so without offending either the watcher or the non-watcher.
Truthfully, most of ‘local’ intellect in our society comes from one form of cinema or another. That again, depending the kind of movies we can watch, the English or nonEnglish, Hindi, or even Punjabi or Siraiki.
There is this divisional access to a crucial thing in our society: a source of narration. Modern day world, cinemas are much more than a film, they are trends. Recently, there had been a ban on the movie “Maalik”, while I had been among the few early ones to have watched the movie while it was still on, I am still unable to
grasp why had it been banned. While one may say the narration was partial to particular group, but that does not
suffice for blocking cinema. Let us take it this way, Given all the “Un-blocked” content we have access to on a
mass scale (in the sense that whenever masses turn on the tv they can get access to that), What is that content? A multitude of news channels all fancying the people with animal-standard content, where on one hand we might be encouraged to dance on screen to get ‘presents’ or on other hand they ask us to give our adolescent opinion on certain ‘Problems’.
This is dumbing us down and numbing our heads and robbing us of rationality, sense and thought. My point in current context is this: We do interact with cinemas and tv on mass scale, then we must also remove narration barriers among our own people. While there is a rise in our cinema productions, we must, artistically and
intellectually, get important points across, and rather than falling and being intimidated by other narrations and mere appearances, we must strengthen our culture through creating cohesion among ourselves and by understanding and
highlighting the real sources of thought and action, rather than propagating further the already existing culture of non-sense appearance and intimidation.
We need more voices, more cinema, more representation, and most of all, to use all these to fight taboo and to re-cerate our identities.