Is there a new section of audience which values ‘logic’ more than ’emotional depth’ in today’s films?

In the past few years, a common thread has emerged in the films which have been either highly successful at the box office or critically acclaimed. These films either lack emotional depth or have low emotional depth. Audiences which appreciate emotional depth and represent the idea of willing suspension of disbelief are unable to emotionally connect with these films. Their situation can be summed up by re-phrasing a journal entry of writer and critic Susan Sontag in her book Reborn: Journals and Notebooks 1947-1963. In the journal, Susan Sontag writes: “Emotionally I wanted to stay. Intellectually I wanted to leave…As always, I seemed to enjoy punishing myself.” The audience, which values emotional depth in films, wants to stay intellectually but leave emotionally (from theatres) and they do not enjoy punishing themselves this way.

There are three questions which linger in their minds. Firstly: Is there a new section of audience which values ‘logic’ more than ’emotional depth’ in today’s films? Secondly: What has led to the emergence of this new section of audience? And, Thirdly: Why are film-makers making such films which appeal to such a specific section of audience and not a large section of audience?

De-humanising logic
The English poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the expression ‘Willing Suspension of Disbelief’ in his biography Biographia Literaria. The basic idea behind this expression is audience accepts the fictional world created by an author and like an innocent child transports itself in that world. This idea works in films also. Films which achieve right balance of logic and emotional depth appeal to willing suspension of disbelief audience.

Before we understand and verify the emergence of this new section of audience, it is important to understand whether films which have been either successful at the box office or acclaimed critically lack emotional depth or have low emotional depth. Only then, it will support the argument of the emergence of a new section of audience.

Among the releases in recent years, Animal (2023) is a key example of a film which lacks emotional depth and in which logic reigns supreme. The very name “Animal” is being used as a convincing basis for the film’s protagonist’s actions.

There are two parallel love stories in the film. There is a journey of a romantic love story between the son and his wife which runs parallel to the filial love story between the father and the son.

An important interaction which serves as the foundation of the union of the son and his future wife is clever logic. The son explains to her the idea of alpha male. He convinces her that men who belong to arts or similar fields which require the supreme gift of emotional intelligence are not real men. And this logic is enough for her to fall for him. There are no emotional moments which establish a deep connection between them. He does not even prove his worth or capability to her. Juxtapose this with the film Maine Pyaar Kiya (1989). In this, the hero (Salman Khan), also, belongs to a rich family. He proves his worth and capability by showing the heroine (Bhagyashree) and her father (Alok Nath) that he can earn and shoulder her responsibility. And in this journey, there are several moments which establish deep emotional connection with the audience and enhance the film’s emotional depth. This important factor made Maine Pyaar Kiya (1989) an able precursor to Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995).

Even the father-son filial love story in Animal (2023) is problematic as it lacks relatable emotional moments. A paramount question which comes to a viewer’s mind is: What is that one thing which has created such a deep-seated conflict in the son’s mind against his father? Even later in the film the son merely enacts a scene which shows how the father has treated him. This again is a mere enactment which has very little emotional value to it. One wonders: Why did not the makers show the scene the way it is supposed to have happened in the beginning of the film itself?

Raveena Sachdev, assistant professor of English Literature at a college in Mumbai, shares, “I did not feel the hero’s pain at all. I think his actions were directed more towards seeking validation than protecting his pack out of love. Where is the bond between the father and the son? Also, where is the strong reason for such a deep-seated conflict between them?” She says, “The son chooses to put everything and everyone at stake for his father. It doesn’t make sense. And believing that it is selfless would be too good to be true.” This lack of a clear conflict between the father and the son is a missing link which could have lent emotional depth to the film. This is a key reason why Animal (2023) pales in comparison with Hindi films which explore father-son conflict.

In Hindi cinema, one of the prominent films which centres on father-son relationship is legendary director Ramesh Sippy’s Shakti (1982). Right in the film’s beginning the seeds of resentment are sown in the son’s mind when his father who is an honest cop tells abductors that he is willing to sacrifice his son’s life but not release the henchman of the gangster J K Verma. This scene not only provides a strong foundation for a sustained conflict between the father and the son but also necessary emotional depth in the film.

Another film which emerged highly successful at the box office and lacked the necessary emotional depth is Oppenheimer (2023). The film showed that a story told in detail does not necessarily have depth. A key aspect which is not adequately explored in the film is the nagging ‘guilt’ of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Swapnil Rawal, a communications manager with a leading firm, shares, “The story of Oppenheimer is largely about how the atomic bomb was used as a weapon of aggression. This created a life-long guilt in him because he was part of the team which created the atomic bomb. But there is hardly any emotional moment which explores his guilt and vulnerability.” He adds, “The film unfolds like an audio-visual representation of the Wikipedia page of J. Robert Oppenheimer with all events transpiring swiftly. But this approach leads to just skimming through several emotional aspects of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life.”

In a similar context, this very aspect of exploring certain emotional and intimate details of a scientist’s life is achieved well in the film A Beautiful Mind (2001). Based on the life of scientist and mathematician John Nash, thefilm not only touches upon the peaks of his intellectual quests and achievements but also presents him in his most intimate and vulnerable moments. A case in the point is the scene in the film in which Nash realises that the kids are not growing up and that it is his own fatal imagination which troubles him and affects his relationships with his near and dear ones.

To a great degree, a film acquires emotional depth when it presents a story holistically. Increasingly, too much messaging in films has resulted in one-sided or one-dimensional presentation of its characters and relegated the role of emotional depth in films. Consequently, logic is stretched to such an extent that filmmakers have failed to realise that dialogues can not compensate for effective emotional moments and performances. A suitable example of these ideas is the film Anatomy of a Fall (2023).

Generally, a well-made relationship film contains a right balance of all moments. A prominent example of this is director Sam Mendes’s film Revolutionary Road (2008). There are highly emotional and happy moments in the way both spouses share each other’s dreams. And their respective failures in the pursuit of those dreams give a distinct emotional edge to the film. Unfortunately, this does not happen in Anatomy of a Fall (2023). There is no right balance of happy and unpleasant moments between the couple in the film. The film focusses intensely only on unpleasant moments between the couple and the consequent acrimony in their relationship. This one-dimensional storytelling obstructs the blossoming of the film into a highly emotional drama. Besides this, the film does not even emerge as an effective courtroom drama as arguments presented in the case amount to nothing but nitpicking.

Ameya Naik, founder-Fantasy Films, an event management company, shares, “Anatomy of a Fall is such a dull storytelling. There are no proofs that the wife has killed the husband. Even the bases of arguments of the case are trivial. After a long session of cross examination, she is proved innocent. A viewer is left wanting. There are no unexpected twists, cliffhanger or even a revelation.” He points out, “Even the portrayal of the visually impaired kid is incredible. How believable it is for a kid to rationalise complex things and feed aspirin to a dog to check whether the dog ate his father’s vomit? Also, it is a bit far-fetched how the kid’s testimony plays such a critical role in the wife’s acquittal.”

Logic becomes a problematic tool when it is used to understand emotional aspects of a film. In this way, audiences do not connect with the emotional aspects of a film’s story. The Hindi film Merry Christmas (2023) is one such film. In the film, the makers have not invested enough in building organically the chemistry between the two characters. It is easy and convenient to indulge in a meaning-making exercise and assume that if a man (Vijay Sethupati) and a woman (Katrina Kaif) are together then there is romantic love between them. But a delicate emotion like love must emerge from soft, tender and emotional moments and not from a scientific logic. A viewer must feel chemistry between two people. There is not a single emotional moment in Merry Christmas which establishes chemistry between these characters of different backgrounds through exchange of experiences and memories. This is a big lacuna in the film. Tejas Nirbhavane, a clinical psychologist, explains, “Did Merry Christmas show the journey of formation of a deep bond between the man and the woman to justify the man’s decision to take the blame of her husband’s murder? I found it very superficial. The film looks like a murder mystery. But it unfolds like a simple story of three lines. Two people from different backgrounds meet. There is a murder. And the man takes the blame. The film’s script is a letdown.”

Another film which has been appreciated well by the new section of audience and critics alike but did not resonate emotionally well with a certain section of audience is Amar Singh Chamkila (2024). The film does not establish the sensitivity and vulnerability of Chamkila in the most unambiguous and touching manner. Chamkila is attacked and criticised by almost all sections of society for vulgarity in his songs. But there is not a scene in the film which shows him reflecting on his creations. Also, there is not a scene in the film which shows that he is experiencing inner turmoil or dilemma regarding his works. For a sensitive viewer, two important questions regarding the film’s story remain unaddressed. One is: Is he fighting a cause or a goal like most great artists? And the other is: Is he using ‘vulgarity’ as a weapon to expose the hypocrisy in the society? The film does not provide clear answers to these questions. There is no organic build-up in the film to show that Chamkila takes stock of his growth as an artist. In fact, Chamkila convinces his second wife that they must make the most of the time and not get discouraged by constant criticism and insults of the people around them. This shows that the motivation behind creating those songs in the film is driven more by commercial considerations rather than providing an outlet to his pent-up experiences of growing up in a hypocritical and utterly moralistic society through ‘seething’ expressions. One gets an impression that the makers made a weak attempt at trying to fit in the story of Amar Singh Chamkila in the 27 Club. Jaidev Hemmady, a scriptwriter, shares, “In the film, Chamkila is doing shows for money. He tells his wife that they should continue working till the going is smooth. This is an attitude of a mercenary and not an artist. He is neither shown in an unambiguous manner fighting the cause of censorship or hypocrisy in the society nor is it established clearly that he believes in his art and is willing to die for it. It is difficult to root for such a character. In the film, he looked more like a businessman rather than a singer or an artist.”

The multi-lingual blockbuster Kalki 2898 AD is the most recent example of a film in which logic overpowers the storytelling so much that it erodes its entertaining value. The film like most recent films raises an important question: Can a film which merely engages be entertaining also? A distinguishing factor which makes a film entertaining is the audience’s emotional connection with its story and characters. But Kalki 2898 AD unfolds like a ‘video game’ where ‘actions’ and ‘thrills’ have more prominent roles than ‘emotions’. It is so intensely focussed on action sequences that one gets an impression that ‘dialogues’ are just a vehicle for another action sequence rather than furthering the film’s story.

The film is an emotional story of a totalitarian king who seeks immortality through the serum of foetus of fertile women. He desires the powerful serum contained in the foetus of the mother of Kalki. The Mahabharata’s character Ashwatthama protects Kalki’s mother because in saving her from the totalitarian king he will find redemption for killing the unborn child of the Mahabharata’s character Uttara. This shows that there is immense scope for emotional moments in the film. But the film utterly fails in creating emotional scenes which would have done justice to the premise of a great fantastical story based on Indian mythology. Yogesh Parkar, a banking professional, explains, “Neitherthescenes in which fertile women are tortured for serum nor the helplessness of Ashwatthama’s character in being cursed to live for eternity to see the evil acts of Kalyug people is explored in a moving or emotionally engaging way. Almost every scene is mechanically enacted just to arrive at high-octane action scenes.”

In a similar universe, almost a decade ago, a large audience across India had accepted the multi-lingual film Baahubali: The Beginning (2015). Baahubali: The Beginning (2015) succeeded in creating a captivating and fairytale kind of a universe based on highly dramatic and emotional elements of Indian epics. It was made in the Indian mould. The weapons, the battle fights, the look of army of soldiers and the whole universe of a fictional world contained in Baahubali: The Beginning were so familiar and appealing that theyresonatedwith the pan-India audience. Kalki 2898 AD, on the other hand, seems to be an attempt to fit in a story inspired by elements of Indian mythology in the templates of highly successful dystopian action or superhero films of the west.

The missing links in the films discussed above and their success at the box office to a certain extent show that a new section of audience has emerged which is comfortable with ‘understanding’ a film logically as opposed to ‘feeling’ or ‘connecting’ with it.

The change
There are a variety of factors behind the emergence of this new section of audience. Among these, three prominent factors provide a convincing basis. They are: generational shift, the all-pervaded impact of the pandemic and a societal shift.

In the past decade or more, this new section of audience frequents theatres more than the willing suspension of disbelief audience. The willing suspension of disbelief audience is more discerning and selective than the new section of audience in watching films in theatres. Media scholars point out that constant engagement on phones is a hurdle for the new section of audience in appreciating emotional depth in films. There are not many in this section of audience who are motivated to be in theatres to ‘just’ watch a film.

In this context, Dr Sanjay Ranade, Associate Professor at the Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Mumbai explains, “This new section of audience does not leave the world outside even when they enter a theatre. Where is the dark room today? This audience is almost constantly interacting on mobiles phones in theatres. Even in intermissions of films they are constantly communicating with the world. So, where is the time to appreciate depth in films? They are not even jarred when continuity in films is broken. They seemed to figure out things. If you think continuity in films is broken, then you are an old audience.” Given these tendencies, one is reminded of a line of a Hindi poet, which captures the irony of this situation. It goes: Mujhe Gehraai Chahiye Lekin Sataah Par Chahiye (I want depth but on the surface).

This trait is a mark of a generation for whom the social media platforms are a big reference point for most things in their lives. Media scholars share that this section of audience is more interested in performing the act of watching a film instead of watching a film out of keen curiosity or intense desire. These scholars observe that this audience watches films to elicit reactions, seek validation and earn approval of their peers. Dr. Faiz Ullah, an assistant professor at the School of Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, explains, “Today, we are more focused on aesthetics. We see good photos of cafes on social media platforms. These photos do not inform a user whether one cafe is serving better food than the other cafe. It is just about posting photos. These photos drive people to those cafes. This is happening with films also. But one needs to understand that aesthetics cannot compensate for feeling or experience.”

Ranade of University of Mumbai shares similar thoughts. He shares, “The young generation wants to be ‘seen’ watching a film. They write reviews and if people like it then the film is good. This is the answer for crowd in theatres.” He adds, “If a person from this new section of audience is told that she will get a cake and will be appreciated if she reads a book, then getting the cake and appreciation becomes more important than reading the book. So, watching a film is just a means to seek approval, appreciation or attention of people. Due to this, the idea of emotional engagement becomes unimportant.”

There are psychological reasons also behind the emergence of this new section of audience. Psychologists point out the impact of the pandemic triggered by the widespread of the Corona virus on the way audiences respond to highly emotional content. They point out that the new section of audience is not looking for cathartic experiences—a hallmark of the willing suspension of disbelief audience—through films. This new section of audience is looking for an emotional bypass. Deepti Khandelwal, a counselling psychologist, points out, “People have not processed the pandemic, yet. They do not have the emotional bandwidth for highly emotional films as these films may open a Pandora’s box or force them to confront certain skeleton in their closet. Today, increasingly, people are not looking for substance in films. They want an emotional bypass. They want to land at something without actually feeling it.”

Priyanka Shah Dattani, another counselling psychologist, points out that social media platforms have been instrumental in providing cathartic experiences to this new section of audience. She says, “Today, the new section of audience does not need cathartic experience through films. They are expressing themselves well on social media platforms and these platforms provide them cathartic experiences.”

The wide acceptance of technology, social media platforms and other applications of communications has also contributed to the emergence of this new section of audience which values logic more than emotional depth in films. Today, there is a surge of a ‘sense of competence’ among people thanks to their access to a vast reservoir of knowledge and information on the internet. They have gained a certain capacity to analyse things. They are familiar with the essential stylistic grammar of Hindi films to a reasonable extent. In the backdrop of these facts, today, people do not watch films like an audience. This new section of audience thinks and watches films like directors or creators.

Often, this audience intersperses conversations about films with statements such as: the film was shot well or the film was edited well. This sense of competence comes from the fact that they have tools and power to create content. And they are using those tools to create their own stuff. A prime example of this is reels on Instagram. So, while watching films, it seems, one creator is judging another creator. The humility with which the old audience submitted wholeheartedly and without prejudice to a film’s story is nearly absent today. As a result of this, ‘understanding’ a film has become paramount than ‘experiencing’ or ‘feeling’ a film. Therefore, this new section of audience is fine with ‘logic’ rather than ‘emotional depth’ in films.

To a great extent, even as technology is inventing new ways of communication, the emotional bond or connection between people has not materially improved. We live in a society where we are connected digitally but not emotionally and intimately. These elements are reflected in our films also. It seems that the potential pleasures which technology may provide us are more tempting, certain and easier-to-deal-with than the demands and expectations entailed in a human company. Today, a key question which sensitive souls engage in is: Who pines for whom? There are many things with which people fill their lives. There is so much content to watch on streaming platforms and YouTube. Then, there are social media platforms. In such a backdrop, the intensity of emotional connection among people is not that high. Due to this, the tendency to ‘feel’ and ‘experience’ things is not observed in a pronounced manner. Scriptwriter Jaidev Hemmady shares, “I think modernisation is actually preventing people from connecting with each other. There is a restaurant which runs a chain of pubs in Mumbai. I have stopped going there. You can only order food and drinks through an app. You can’t even ask a waiter to get you a drink. This is what technology has done to us.”

Unfortunately, the creative environment in the Hindi film industry has also become unemotional in a similar manner. Today, almost every key interaction between creative people happens on e-mails, zoom calls and other applications. Unlike this, earlier, artists would meet in person to narrate stories, discuss, and have long musical sessions. Corporate or studio culture has almost dominated the industry. In this culture, there is no childlike enthusiasm to make something wonderful among film-makers. There is a pie chart for everything. Most actors don’t take narrations. They ask a writer to mail a script which is read by their managers. In essence, this culture does not value ‘emotions’ at all. This makes the almost the entire process of filmmaking unemotional.

Scholars also opine that the diminishing role of songs in today’s Hindi films has considerably reduced the possibility of emotional connection with films. There are umpteen films which have struck a deep emotional chord with audience merely on the strength of their songs. Aashiqui (1990) is one such film. Dr. Faiz Ullah of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai observes, “I think the element of Marma or emotional core is missing in our society to a certain extent. Our films were never about understanding a story. They are about ‘feeling’ a story. This is the rasa in the Indian arts. Our great film-makers understood this. So, they introduced songs and music and took a viewer back and forth in films. In this way, they created emotional depth in films. But today, songs have almost lost relevance in storytelling.”

Illusion and Magic
Even though the new section of audience has shown a clear preference for films which lack or have low emotional depth, they are not completely unresponsive or averse to films which have right balance of emotional depth and logic. In fact, this audience has also appreciated such films. A prominent example is the Hindi film 12^th Fail (2023). The film brought not only the willing suspension of disbelief audience to theatres, but it also appealed to this new section of audience. It is reflected in the film’s stupendous success. The film made a business of more than Rs70 crore on a modest budget of less than Rs20 crore. Also, Gadar 2: The Katha Continues (2023), which had exceptional success at the box office worked purely on the strength of its emotional connection and conviction. The film followed the aesthetics of the 1990s which values the importance of stirring emotions in audience rather than just impressing them with ingenuity of structure and aesthetics. It generated an all-pervaded frenzy, which was seen after a long time for a Hindi film. The film collected Rs 625.5 crore at the box office in India alone on a budget of Rs60 crore.

So, the key hurdle is filmmakers are not making ‘enough’ films which have right balance of emotional depth and logic. At present, the number of films, which give more prominence to logic than emotional depth does not outnumber films which have right balance of emotional depth and logic. So, the responsibility lies with filmmakers to make ‘more’ films which have right balance of logic and emotional depth since these films appeal to a wider audience and not a section of audience.

In the coming years, film-makers will have to focus on three key elements which distinguish ‘cinema’ from the plethora of audio-visual content available in the form of Instagram reels, TikTok videos, documentaries and other videos on social media platforms. These three key elements are: aesthetics, logic and emotional depth. Superior aesthetics, emotional depth and logic in films will be the three key weapons which will help filmmakers win over the onslaught of audio-visual content around them and bring a wide audience to theatres. And these three key strengths can only be achieved in films through conviction and sincerity of vision. Laapata Ladies (2024) is an example of such a film, which has cut across audiences and appealed emotionally to a larger base of audience.

In fact, 12^th Fail (2023) and Laapata Ladies (2024) are more likely to be remembered as ‘fine’ films in the next one decade. They will not be remembered just for their box office collections. These films represent the two basic principles of cinema mentioned by legendary American actor John Wayne in an interview to Playboy magazine. These principles are: Illusion and Magic. The logic and aesthetics in these films create a certain credible ‘illusion’ of a believable world and the emotional depth in them provides a spell of ‘magic’ which lingers in a viewer’s mind even after watching these films. In fact, there is no cinema without its illusion and magic. In the coming years, only these two elements will save cinema from becoming too niche as actress Natalie Portman stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine. After all, ‘magic’ and ‘illusion’ make cinema an endearing gift which helps forget everything that is superfluous in us and makes us realise that circumstances or challenges in our lives are not completely ‘unique’ or ‘exceptional’.