I heard people saying, “cinema is the medium for an entertainment.” Absolutely correct, but what does it mean ‘an entertainment’ – (it is something that amuses, pleases, or diverts especially performance or show – American Heritage Dictionary), apart from the dictionary meaning, I used see the term ‘entertainment’ can even make you cry / hurt / influence / change. But in this particular era, most of us forced to believe that, an entertainment is something, which make us to escape from the social reality. Is it so? Do you really think you will get rid of all your personal or social problems by just watching a show / film in the given 2–3 hours? Wouldn’t it await you outside the cinema hall? Sure, it will. As a person who committed to his society and constantly notices its improper functioning, you must learn to accept the truth. If you do so, you can build society better, of sure. At the same time, a silver-screen media product offers you a kind of social realistic entertainment, why would you smash it away from you rather hesitate to take it. It can always be an entertainment. For eg.,.The popular Malayalam film ‘Neelakkuyil’, a social realistic movie jointly done by P Bhaskaran and Ramu Karyatt in 1954 (Re-released in 1970’s) based on the story of Uroob (PC Kuttikrishnan). Another one was Chemmeen, the most popular romantic drama movie (Directed by Ramu Karyatt) in the same Malayalam film industry, released on 1965 based on the story of a renowned writer ‘Thakazhi Sivasankarappillai.’
When I read the history of Malayalam Cinema, I could not deny the social importance of these two special works. You know the viewers especially women used to cry like anything while watching the movie and still they rushed to the theatres to watch (Writes Kalpeta Narayanan, a film critic). The social conditions of the The state was completely grabbed into such films and that was the entertainment for the viewers even though no fun enrolled into it. Do they ever felt irritated from such a sentimental melodrama? No they didn’t. Much better works came to hit the industry later on, but the population became more and more in-sensitive, the same sentimentalism and melodrama encouraged by the viewers till Padmarajan-Bharatan era strikes. John Abraham, G Aravindan and so many film makers tried to work differently, but many of them did not noticed and accepted due to the in-sensitiveness of society. Padmarajan and Bharatan films received loads of criticism when they attempted for a revolution by denies the worshipped ‘Social Morality’, but they could clutch the attention with different treatments of romance and human-politics – it was far-far better than our so called ‘New generation cinemas’. Somewhere this in-sensitivity crawled and stick on the hearts of the audience (I told only about Malayalam cinemas but this approach stands with every cinema audience). Many film makers exposed themselves in this era and become the fertilisers for in-sensitivity. I believe people scared watching social realities inside the cinema hall and outside as well.