Seems like the controversy around the film Padmavati refuses to die down any time soon with politicians from either side of political spectrum using it for their own political gains. And if politicians are busy scoring brownie points, can journalists be far behind?
Mirror Now editor Faye D’souza, who is known for peddling lies, tried to compare controversial movie Padmavati, based on historic character Queen Padmavati of Chittor, with film Gandhi, a biopic on Gandhi.
When Richard Attenborough made ‘Gandhi’ in 1982, we didn’t demand a screening or threaten to chop off heads and he was dealing with the most respected individual in Indian history. What changed in our country? #PadmavatiRow
— Faye DSouza (@fayedsouza) November 20, 2017
Her point was why didn’t Congress government, which formed the Central government at the time, demand a screening of the film on Gandhi to ensure there was no distorting of facts or disrespecting the ‘most respected individual in Indian history’. Twitter users soon began to correct her on why the Centre would not quite interfere in this movie since the movie and script had blessings of Nehru and Indira Gandhi themselves.
Hilariously ridiculous example, “Gandhi” was majorly financed by “Govt of Indira” via NFDC, its script was ‘approved’ by Congress (I) – Why the hell they would demand a screening then? https://t.co/kQrDaqshVy
— Vikrant (@vikrantkumar) November 20, 2017
The project was first approved by Nehru in 1963, which was then followed up by Indira Gandhi, who not only approved of the script, but also got National Film Development Corporation, a central agency which functions under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, to finance it. According to Attenborough, Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, read the screenplay and found it ‘remarkably successful in containing so succinctly the vital elements necessary to tell such a story. She had one or two pertinent criticisms, particularly with regard to the early relationship between Gandhi and Kasturba.’ Goes out to show the paragon of censorship Indira Gandhi never ‘interfered’ in creative freedom of artists?
Some pointed out how it was ridiculous to compare the two films which are as different as chalk and cheese.
That’s because Richard Attenborough did not show Gandhi sleeping naked with young girls or Edwina doing item numbers for Nehru https://t.co/6N6scQmmae
— ex-secular (@ExSecular) November 20, 2017
And how, films on ‘national heroes’ almost always show them and their ‘experiments’ in good light.
When RA made Gandhi, he left out Gandhi sleeping naked with girls and denying his dying wife antibiotics. Who objects to needless glorification anyway? https://t.co/8dcxDzANTY
— दिव्या (@divya_16_) November 20, 2017
Possibly because it didn’t cover his son’s conversion to Islam and his own weird experiments with celibacy. https://t.co/AzwneTw3OQ
— saket suryesh (@saket71) November 20, 2017
Some even reminded her about the other fiction inspired from another former Prime Minister which faced the wrath of the central government.
Oh I read Aandhi not Gandhi and was about to get Frozen https://t.co/ucXbGsViGn
— OpenSecret (@drive_fst) November 21, 2017
Perhaps now would be a good time for mainstream media journalists to fact check before peddling propaganda, since social media is a dynamic medium and the sense of entitlement they have developed for years will be shot down within minutes by commoners.
