WHY THIS ‘POGAVERI’?

That's the modified song in the same 'Kolaveri' tune I'd like to record for the health policing department in its constant pressure cooker monitoring of the movie industry over depicting smoking scenes in films. Take it as a request from a common citizen who has her Right to Information or treat it as a naive member belonging to the film fraternity humbly seeking a convincing rationale on behalf of many others having the same question mark. Why is the movie industry being targeted so deeply to issue health warnings of smoking and forced to convey anti-smoking messages amidst a scene that involves the film's character with a smoking habit?

Movie content and character depictions being a great influencer among the young minds, health warnings can always be issued in the beginning of the movie along with the standard CYA line of 'All characters depicted are only fictitious and resemblance to any person is only co-incidental' clause. TV channels issue messages for films to be watched only under parental guidance or not suitable for those below 16 years of age and all that. So can this health warning be stated, as part of various others disclaimers without causing any creative injury to a scene. But, hey no, subtlety does not suffice and will have to be shouted in your face, interrupted when you're engrossed in the emotions of the character and the viewer needs to be taken back to his primary education classes of how Smoking kills besides those horrendous pictorial skull warning pictures already incorporated on the pack design.

A lot of people are wondering how murder scenes, drug abuse and other substance portrayal, possession and usage of harmful weapons get away without such warnings right in the middle of an ongoing scene. These can equally influence the minds of millions and have repercussions in one way or the other in real life too. The answer, to my mind, lies in the fact that all these acts are punishable offences and crimes that can be tried in the court of law in real life. Smoking, on the other hand, is largely self-injurious and not a punishable offence unless used in a prohibited public space with a small amount of fine. So why can’t the government ban the production of cigarettes and nix the problem at the source instead of restricting the consumer and irritating the non-consumer with messages interrupting his movie watching experience and stripping the directors of their creative liberty? I got an answer for that as well from one of my good friends working at the decision-making level in the country’s major conglomerate involved in production and distribution of tobacco products with allied businesses in hotels, packaged foods, agri-business and apparels. Making of cigarettes, beedis and cigars provides employment for millions of workers supporting their families besides the billions generated from the domestic consumption, tax revenue and exports. Now for the government to ban the production completely, these tobacco farming and beedi workers need to be shown an alternate means of employment that will earn their daily bread. In a country where even educated graduates and double degree professionals are unemployed and struggling to find a suitable job, it will lead to mass mayhem when millions of rural laborers will be rendered jobless with no other alternate skill to pursue. So the most convenient way of covering the health ministry’s responsibility is to issue substantial health warnings that redeem the state of any guilt. And the most powerful medium to do that is none other than cinema - the medium that cuts across barriers of education, religion, language, accessibility and economic status in reaching the message to the nation at large.

As an ardent follower of Rajini Sir's films, am I so glad that such heavy-duty restrictions weren't posed during his younger days when the cigarette was almost like his eleventh finger in every other film emanating a whole new style of tossing it in his mouth in a split second. People have tried it at home, behind locked doors attempting to ape the superstar's style with half used pencils for practice but only met with half a success. That flawless shift from the fingers to the lips in a nano second was like a non-patented body language of a charming actor whose act was impossible to replicate with the same degree of panache. While the chewing gum did replace his tobacco finger in an equally great flair later, it's hard to not give more marks for the latter in style / cool quotient.

Health hazards abound in consumption of tobacco products besides adding to second hand smoke concerns. It raises the health care costs for the government, makes people lose their dear ones to cancer and emphysema and increased consumption paves way for tobacco lobbyists smoking all the way to their banks. But here’s some factual trivia for the uninitiated. Cigarette consumption makes up a small portion of the tobacco market in India where only 14% of tobacco products sold are cigarettes, 38 % from chewing tobacco (Gutka being the most popular) in the smokeless industry segment and the major lion’s share of 48% from hand rolled beedis. My bewilderment is therefore on the singular attention that the smallest segment among the three sectors is garnering when the other two major sectors are given a longer rope. When restrictions are being imposed, let it be universal across sectors in the tobacco industry and let the warnings be restricted to the beginning or end of the title credits in a film. Cinema can and will rise to the occasion provided it is not strangled with creative impositions especially when the script in question demands the character to smoke on-screen. When we can have a film like ‘Unnaal Mudiyum Thambi’ with Kamal Sir fighting against alcoholism, when we can have a director like Shankar making profitable movies like ‘Indhiyan’ addressing the problem of corruption, the health ministry can give entertainment incentives for making commercially viable movies with the underlying social message of anti-smoking.

The larger solution however lies in creating and advocating strong tobacco control policies and preventing consumers from getting into the addiction through anti-smoking publicity campaigns rather than constantly making the films carry the burden of passing on the message in an interrupted fashion. Actors with credible off-screen image can also be brand ambassadors of such propaganda. Look at it this way. Corporate majors who keep polishing their image through CSR activities and compensating local communities through various facilities and incentives are not going to give up on their share of billions by stopping the production unless made mandatory. As per the Euromonitor 2010 report, the Indian government has a stake in the country’s cigarette manufacturing leader where it does not have any direct shares but the company does report that a large number of their shares are held by financial institutions which are majority state owned. So beyond the jumbo imposition of taxes on unfiltered cigarettes that eventually led to a production halt, the government is not going to ban the filtered cigarettes production which leaves the consumers to make a discreet choice between good health and perceived pleasure of smoking and its resultant ill-effects. So go ahead and make your choice today for a better tomorrow while we lobby for the creative freedom that cinema has enjoyed all these years. When the buying stops, the production will.

 

Respond to
Behindwoods is not responsible for the views of columnists.