Key highlights
- “Realism” can be honest—or an aesthetic excuse for brutality.
- Glorification happens when violence is rewarded with worship, not consequences.
- The audience’s fatigue is real: shock loses power when used as default.
Myth vs fact
- Myth: If it is realistic, it is justified.
Fact: Realism is not morality; it’s a style choice. - Myth: Showing violence causes violence.
Fact: The bigger risk in mainstream storytelling is normalization and hero-worship, not direct imitation.
Indian cinema has shown violence across eras—from stylised moral battles to gritty street crime. The recurring danger is not depiction. The danger isdesign: camera angles that worship, background scores that crown, and narrative outcomes that reward brutality with status.
You can sense glorification through three signs:
- violence becomes the hero’s primary problem-solving method
- consequences are cosmetic (a bandage, a sad song, then victory)
- victims become props rather than people
“Realism” becomes an excuse when the film uses brutality to create instant seriousness—because seriousness is harder to write than it is to stage.
Reader checklist
- After violence, does the story change the character’s life, relationships, and moral standing.
- Are victims given dignity and aftermath, not just screams.
- Does the film invite reflection, or invite applause.
In 2026, violence will remain a powerful ingredient. The myth-buster truth is simple: realism is not measured by blood. It is measured by consequence.
