I find the theory of cathartic effect quite interesting to explore. Catharsis is the sense of purging of one's emotions and inner held feelings. I first learnt this term when I was studying about classical literature and Aristotle. The term catharsis had first made an appearance in Aristotle Poetics, the term literally means ‘purging or cleansing of one’s emotion’. Aristotle taught that viewing tragic plays gave people emotional release (katharsis) from negative feelings such as pity, fear, and anger. By watching the characters in the play experience tragic events, the negative feelings of the viewer were presumably purged and cleansed. This emotional cleansing was believed to be beneficial to both the individual and society.
For example, in the most layman terms I will put it as I understand it, say if you are currently facing a problem such as say Corruption or price rise or legal injustice, etc; and then you see a film where this topic is taken up, explored and then it all ends with a happy note where everyone who were at fault were punished and greater good triumphs, so you would leave the theater feeling a sense of personal let go. You will feel as if you have just seen your problems being solved and your inner emotions are all cleansed with that feeling of personal content in the end.
That is what Aristotle said about theatre. Theatre, the only medium of mass entertainment and communication back then, was used as a medium by the government to induce the sort of catharsis’ amongst the people at that time, so that once people are purged out of their inner feelings such as dissatisfaction, violence, hatred, etc then a status quo is again established back where no one questions anyone or anything.
The most recent example where I found a society effectively using this theory to purge the emotions of its people, rather than letting them free to explore a subject or issue was when I saw Pakistani director Shoaib Mansoor's acclaimed film 'Bol'. Bol is very good film, it is sensitive portrayal of plight of women in a Pakistani society. It is feminist in its issues and it is contemporary in its age. Such a film that criticizes a society while being very much a part of a conservative society such as the one in Pakistan is an uplifting and brave attempt not just for its director but also for the Pakistan's film industry. But one thing that didn't quite please me while I was watching this film was its end. The film ended in, well how to put it, somewhat utopian state of being, where in the end everything is perfect, hope and good rejoice and government and society understand not just their faults but also their true responsibilities.
This sort of semi-utopian ending was also a part of Shoaib Mansoor's directorial debut, Khuda Ke Liye (KKL). KKL was another bold and heartfelt attempt to cleanse a society from inside. It was based on the backdrop of 9/11 attack on world trade center and its aftereffects as in the racial profiling, and the American-Afghan war, etc. I personally loved that film as well, it came way before Bol and was being a well circulated and talked about film in film festivals and all. It was a great social drama.
But in that too the end of the film doesn't leave more to be demanded as in the end, as the film ends with everything getting solved in the end. I don't know that where I find both the lack a bit when it comes towards an end the film, the society and people portrayed in the film do change for a betterment but it is too much of betterment too soon, so that's why I call it a semi- utopian state.
I'm a sucker for open endings in film, personally speaking. But not like that any film and every film with opening ending, the film needs to be good and strong script and good direction and all. I feel a strong social sensitive script supported by a good direction and good actors go a long way to stay in your mind and perplex you with the issues it throws up at you. And an open ending makes it just a sort of icing on the cake, for me on a personal level.
So yes, coming to films and cathartic effect they induce in the viewers. I feel that in movies like Wanted and Bodyguard, when people see violence on screen it relieves them of their own inner feeling and emotions of violence and anger and rage. Catharsis Theory suggests that rather than being harmful, the violence portrayed in Mass Media, may actually have positive effects as well on a society. The central assumption of the Catharsis Theory is that people in the course of daily life, often build up a lot of frustrations and inner feelings of anger, that often fall short of getting any positive vent to release it self. In such a situation being vicarious participants in others’ aggression often helps in releasing those personal inner feelings of tension and rage.
Films often induce emotions in people that led them to vent their own internal tensions and trapped feelings. It is like crying, crying is said often said to be good for a person both in physical and psychological ways. Crying is good for eyes (or so I’ve heard) and it leads you to purge yourself of your pent up feelings as well, that otherwise might have found some other negative ways to be vented, who knows, may be something like rage, aggression, or even a nervous breakdown.
So even though I believe crying is good at times, and so is the purging of one’s emotions by being passively involved in the actions of social media, but still there is a part of me that believes that not all purging of emotions is a good thing on the whole. I remember this research paper that I came across, during the semester when I had Film Studies as a part of my Master’s course. This one was about the films of Amitabh Bachhan and his image of angry young man in the 80s and early 90s. (Sorry can’t remember anything about the exact names of the topic or the author, right now, will certainly look it up again). This particular writer pointed out how the society of 80s was going through a sense of personal and social dissatisfaction, most of which was directed towards the Government and its other wings. So Amitabh’s angry young man character portrayed general emotions of anger and discontent with present social systems and all. But this was a careful plot, keeping in mind the theory of Catharsis. The Angry Young Man did expose the emotions, but then it provided a definitive ending of all the troubles and dissatisfaction within itself. Simply put, problems where taken up, exposed, fought over and very conveniently solved with the victory of good over evil. So when someone left the theater after watching such a film they left with a feeling of satisfaction that even in their lives everything will come back to essential betterment, thus leaving behind all their emotions of discontent with the present system back at their seats itself.
So well yes it seems like a clever plan, general public discontent, watches film, releases it’s pent up emotions in a passive manner and everything goes back to a status quo as all the emotions are purged so nothing left to now work on or build up on. Seems and sounds too simple to believe, but well power of visual medium and in particular the power of films is something I truly believe in, on a personal front.
So well if Catharsis Theory is infact true, then I would say that there is a time when we should not let it to numb our senses in a negative way, as in my most laymen used language we shouldn’t let it dumb us back into a state of contentment in status quo in the personal and social front. If Films are a mirror of our society and are meant to be an effective medium of communication and a toll of positive social change, then why use it to make people purge of their emotions that can actually induce a positive effect. Yes, rage anger and violence are few emotions that when released or cleansed through being a passive witness to a violent act is a good thing; but one should not turn so passive in their actual social scenario as well. When the hero is thrashing up the villain in a film and the audience viewing it is clapping and feeling as if a part of the action and themselves relieving their anger; this doesn’t go on to mean that if you see someone thrashing up someone in real life (no matter how wrong or right that must be) you take the passive stance of an audience there as well, and let someone else take law in their hands.
Movies are supposed to be an empowering tool, as it has a far more reach and wider connect to a whole lot of common audience. It is something that should take up people’s issues, problems and general life woes and transform it into something entertaining, yet something so helpful as it induces a solution that makes people empowered enough to tackle these issues in real life as well, instead of just believing that like in the movies, come what may, in the end everything will end up being Happy positive and all evil will be punished. That is Hope for sure one should work towards, and I mean Work Towards.
