Worked for 1m 31s

Cut & Snip: Docs’ Surgical Move On A Movie

IMA wants a movie reviewed that shows hospital corruption & docs under attack. But, censorship won’t address patients’ grievances. Plus, claims that screen violence impacts real-life violence are contested.

Chandrakant Lahariya

Bollywood films have an ability to upset governments, and quasi-political, social or professional bodies and outfits, even before reaching cinemas. The latest controversy is Sunny Deol’s forthcoming movie. It has upset IMA (Indian Medical Association) that represents a substantial section of the country’s medical professionals. IMA wants an official scrutiny of Deol’s movie, and, if warranted, a ban.

Its concern stems from a teaser reportedly depicting medical corruption, and violence against healthcare workers. Such a depiction actually raises a larger question: does screen violence encourage real violence? Is cinema merely society’s mirror, or does it shape behaviour? Answer lies somewhere between artistic freedom and social responsibility, not in the comforting certainties of either side of the divide.

The teaser presents Deol as a grieving father probing his daughter’s death and alleged medical malpractice. IMA requested an impartial review and corrective action. Its Haryana branch demanded removal of ‘objectionable scenes’ before release.

Doctors have reason to feel vulnerable. Assaults inside hospitals are not fictional. A 2026 study published in National Medical Journal of India found 80% of 439 responding doctors had experienced/witnessed workplace violence. Although this ‘voluntary sample’ was not nationally representative, the findings are what they are. A film presenting attacks on doctors as heroic justice could aggravate hostility.

IMA worries about portraying medical corruption as universal, and glorifying violence, while accepting that genuine misconduct warrants punishment. That distinction deserves respect, especially when overstretched hospital staff must manage anger, grief and unrealistic expectations, while providing emergency care. Exposing unethical treatment is legitimate, but suggesting an entire profession deserves retribution is not. But, professional dignity cannot confer immunity from criticism.

Hindi cinema has never portrayed doctors as uniformly virtuous. Gabbar Is Back depicted hospital profiteering through an outrageous billing episode. Kabir Singh portrayed a deeply troubled surgeon, whose conduct invited ethical questions. Conversely, Anand, Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani and Munna Bhai MBBS celebrated compassion, sacrifice and unconventional healing. Audiences have seen both admirable physicians and deeply flawed practitioners.

Portrayals, as in Deol’s movie, do not emerge in a vacuum. Inflated hospital bills, unnecessary investigations, alleged negligence and unequal access to treatment, have generated public resentment. Cinema magnifies what society already whispers, sometimes crudely, sometimes with uncomfortable accuracy. Banning fictional criticism cannot erase the grievance behind it.

Psychology offers grounds for caution. Albert Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments showed children can imitate observed aggression. George Gerbner’s cultivation theory proposed prolonged exposure to threatening TV worlds may distort perceptions of everyday danger, producing what became known as mean world syndrome. Desensitisation research suggests repeated exposure sometimes dulls emotional reactions to violence.

But copying aggression in a laboratory isn’t the same as attacking someone in a hospital. Evidence connecting violent entertainment with crime remains contested. A 2009 American study found fewer assaults when violent films drew bigger cinema audiences, partly because moviegoing displaced riskier activities. This does not establish catharsis, the idea that watching violence safely releases aggression. It simply shows effects depend on circumstances.

Cinema’s influence on perceptions is clearer than its impact on criminal conduct. Spielberg’s Jaws intensified popular fears of sharks, although its precise effect on shark hunting remains disputed. The supposed CSI effect, in which television crime dramas shape jurors’ expectations of forensic evidence, has limited empirical support. Surveys suggest medical dramas influence some students’ career aspirations. Claims that courtroom films boost law school applications need stronger evidence. Fear, inspiration and violence are different outcomes.

Consider lawyers. Jolly LLB and Jolly LLB 2 feature flawed advocates who ultimately pursue justice. Akshay Kumar stars in the sequel. Dunki and Pink expose uncomfortable failures within the legal system. Likewise, lawyers too have protested Jolly LLB 2 faced litigation and four court-directed cuts in 2017. Doctors aren’t alone in taking offence, or in seeking legal remedies.

There is, however, a difference in vulnerability. A lawyer mocked on screen might suffer reputational damage; a doctor facing distressed relatives in an emergency might face physical assault. Neither concern warrants censorship. Satire exposing misconduct, and sensationalism celebrating violence, require different responses.

Audiences aren’t passive vessels. Cultural theorist Stuart Hall explained that viewers interpret messages differently from filmmakers’ intentions. Uses and gratifications theory recognises that people seek entertainment for varied purposes. Selective perception means we notice what confirms our beliefs. One viewer finds righteous rebellion, where another sees dangerous vigilantism.

Context matters. An aggrieved relative, an excited theatre crowd and an online mob may interpret the same scene differently. Social media amplifies outrage. Cinema is both mirror and lamp: reflecting social anxieties while illuminating, exaggerating and sometimes reinforcing them.

Banning Deol’s movie would be a blunt answer to a genuine concern. Yes, filmmakers could avoid gratuitous glorification of attacks. Consultation and disclaimers can help, without handing professional associations a veto. Governments must improve hospital security, for all, healthcare workers and patients, and punish assaults and medical misconduct.

The greatest danger may lie not inside the cinema, but in the mistrust, weak institutions and unpunished aggression waiting outside its doors.

The writer is a physician.