Naseeruddin Shah Critiques Bollywood’s Reflection of Society at Kerala Literature Festival 2025

Featured & Cover Naseeruddin Shah Critiques Bollywood's Reflection of Society at Kerala Literature Festival 2025

Veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah shared candid thoughts about the state of Bollywood during his appearance at the Kerala Literature Festival 2025. His reflections painted a rather critical picture of the industry’s role in representing contemporary Indian society. Expressing concern about the lasting impact of Bollywood films, Shah remarked, “It would be a big tragedy if 100 years later, people look at Bollywood films to understand India of 2025.”

Shah’s critique centered on the idea that cinema should serve as a meaningful record of its time. He argued that while films can raise questions, they often fall short of creating genuine shifts in societal thinking. “I don’t think anybody’s thinking is changed after seeing a film, no matter how wonderful it may be. Yes, it may help you raise a few questions, but the most important function of cinema is to act as a record of its times,” he said.

Delving deeper into the content produced by the film industry, Shah criticized how certain films reinforce outdated and harmful gender stereotypes. According to him, many movies cater to male fantasies, often reflecting and perpetuating regressive attitudes toward women. He did not mince words, stating, “These films feed into the secret fantasies of men who, in their hearts, look down on women.” He added that this dynamic is troubling and sheds light on the persistent issues of gender-based violence and discrimination in society. “It is very terrifying and does explain the horrendous things that happen to women in our society,” Shah observed.

Reflecting on the concept of originality in filmmaking, Shah shared an interesting anecdote from a conversation he had with renowned screenwriter Javed Akhtar. The discussion revolved around Akhtar’s 1975 classic Sholay, a film widely regarded as one of the most iconic and influential works in Indian cinema history. Shah recounted challenging Akhtar’s view of originality, pointing out the visible influences from Western cinema in Sholay. “I remember Javed Akhtar had once said to me, ‘Something can be called original when you can’t find its source.’ I was talking to him about Sholay, and I said, ‘You have copied every scene, you didn’t leave any of Charlie Chaplin’s films, besides Clint Eastwood is felt in every frame,’” Shah recalled.

Despite his blunt critique, Shah acknowledged that defining originality in art and cinema is complex. Akhtar’s response highlighted that originality doesn’t solely depend on whether an idea is entirely new but rather on how it is executed and transformed. “But he said, ‘The question is not about where you have lifted a reference from, it’s about how far you have taken it,’” Shah noted. This perspective underscores the idea that creative works often draw from existing influences, but their uniqueness lies in the way these inspirations are reimagined.

Shah further elaborated on this point by drawing parallels with literary greats like William Shakespeare. Widely celebrated as one of the most original playwrights in history, Shakespeare himself adapted stories from older works. “William Shakespeare, who is considered a great playwright, apparently was also copying stuff from old plays. But originality was there in the way they presented,” Shah said, emphasizing that the essence of originality lies in the presentation rather than the source material.

His remarks at the festival were a mix of sharp critique and thoughtful reflection, challenging the audience to reconsider the role of cinema in shaping and reflecting society. Shah’s comments are particularly relevant in an era where Bollywood continues to grapple with balancing commercial success and meaningful storytelling. His concerns highlight the need for introspection within the industry about the messages films convey and the values they promote.

While Bollywood has produced films that challenge societal norms and provoke thought, Shah’s critique suggests that these are exceptions rather than the rule. He seemed to imply that mainstream cinema often prioritizes entertainment and profit over artistic integrity and social responsibility. His observation that films “feed into the secret fantasies of men who, in their hearts, look down on women” points to a broader issue of gender representation in Indian cinema. Many mainstream films continue to depict women in stereotypical roles, reinforcing traditional power dynamics rather than challenging them.

Shah’s reflections also resonate with ongoing conversations about the influence of popular culture on societal attitudes. While he acknowledged that films might not drastically change people’s thinking, he implied that they still play a significant role in normalizing certain behaviors and beliefs. The connection he drew between cinematic content and real-world violence against women suggests that the portrayal of gender roles in films can have far-reaching consequences beyond the screen.

In discussing Sholay and its influences, Shah raised important questions about the nature of creativity and the fine line between inspiration and imitation. His anecdote with Javed Akhtar offers insight into how even celebrated works of art are often part of a larger cultural dialogue, drawing from existing stories and ideas to create something new. The debate over what constitutes originality is not new, but Shah’s reflections add a nuanced perspective, especially in the context of Indian cinema’s evolution.

His comparison to Shakespeare further reinforces the idea that originality is often a matter of perspective. While Shakespeare borrowed heavily from earlier works, his genius lay in his ability to transform those stories into timeless masterpieces. Similarly, Shah seemed to suggest that Indian filmmakers should focus less on avoiding influences and more on how they can reinterpret and reframe those influences in meaningful ways.

Shah’s comments at the Kerala Literature Festival were both a critique of Bollywood’s current trajectory and a call to action for filmmakers to be more conscious of their work’s cultural impact. His belief that cinema should serve as a historical record challenges filmmakers to think beyond box office numbers and consider the legacy they are creating. His assertion that it would be tragic if future generations looked to Bollywood films to understand India in 2025 reflects his concern that the industry is not fully capturing the complexities of contemporary Indian life.

Ultimately, Shah’s candid remarks highlight the power of cinema—not just as entertainment but as a mirror to society. His critique of Bollywood’s portrayal of women, the influence of Western cinema on Indian films, and the elusive nature of originality offer valuable insights for both filmmakers and audiences. As Indian cinema continues to evolve, voices like Shah’s serve as important reminders of the responsibilities that come with storytelling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More Related Stories

-+=