“Intellectuals” in TV studios argued for artistic freedom of the makers of the movie Padmavati. Let’s take a look at some of their arguments.
1. You cannot limit artistic freedom
If I decided to make a film on some prophet and show whatever my take on that person is, will you support me? Could you guarantee that I won’t be in jail? Could you guarantee that I would be alive?
Freedom of expression is not equal to all, right? Hypocrisy?
2. What if somebody makes a movie that offends you? Make another one which you think is true.
This is the one that annoys me the most. How can I do that idiots? I am not a creative or established filmmaker and I am not rich enough to pay somebody else to do this. What should I do?
How dumb can you be, to come up with this argument? If Mike Tyson comes to me and beats me up. You expect me to beat him up in return? Well guess what I am weak and I am incapable of doing that. Do you get it?
If you understand Malayalam, watch this video.
TG Mohandas about a book written by Perumal Murugan on a particular community –
Next two points are different versions of the first one.
3. There are different versions and interpretations of history.
Now if you are claiming something to be history, do not hide behind artistic freedom when you are asked for proof. Prove your claims and everything is fine. Also this standard should be applicable to all. I should be free to talk, write or do any kind of creative work about some “prophet” or some “mother” if I have the proof.
4. Nooo, Noooo… there can be artistic imaginary versions of history that may not be fact based.
OK fine, but be consistent. Do not deny my freedom to create imaginary stuff about some prophet or mother or father or anyone I want.