The issue gained fresh momentum after political leaders, youth associations, and even the Kerala Assembly linked the recent rise in violent crimes to the aggressive themes portrayed in movies.
Published Mar 09, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 09, 2025 | 9:04 AM
A poster of the film Aavesham, which was recently mentioned by the Kerala chief minister in the Assembly.
Synopsis: Political and social circles are debating over whether violent films are influencing the minds of youngsters in Kerala. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan revealed that a police report highlighted the dangerous influence of the Fahadh Faasil-starrer Aavesham on certain youth. While excessive violence in films may indeed have an impact, especially on young minds, blaming movies alone for societal problems may be an oversimplification of a much deeper issue.
Following the rising number of crimes involving teenagers and youngsters, a debate is raging in Kerala over whether the increasing depiction of violence in Malayalam cinema is influencing young minds.
The issue gained fresh momentum after political leaders, youth associations, and even the Kerala Assembly linked the recent rise in violent crimes to the aggressive themes portrayed in movies.
However, cinema organisations like the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA) have strongly pushed back, dismissing these claims as a weak interpretation of the “reflection theory” that suggests films shape societal behavior.
In a strongly worded statement on social media, FEFKA countered the argument that cinema is the root cause of increasing violence among Kerala’s youth.
The association pointed out that countries like Japan, which produce some of the most violent movies, have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
“With the explosion of digital content and access to the internet, young people in Kerala can consume unlimited information through search engines like Google. In such a space, what specific role do films play in shaping their violent tendencies?” FEFKA asked.
The federation also criticised calls for stricter censorship, arguing that such demands amount to fascism.
“Those who advocate for tight controls over artistic expression should then also justify banning Salman Rushdie’s books or blaming M Mukundan’s novels for drug addiction in society,” FEFKA said.
The statement further pointed out that popular Malayalam films have also delivered strong anti-drug messages.
“In Lucifer, one of the biggest hits in Malayalam cinema, the lead character (Mohanlal) explicitly states, ‘Narcotics is a dirty business.’ If such scenes did not encourage drug abuse, why are other films selectively blamed for negative influence?” it stated.
The discussion took a serious turn in the Kerala Assembly on 4 March, where Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan revealed that a police report highlighted the dangerous influence of the Fahadh Faasil-starrer Aavesham on certain youth.
While the chief minister did not directly name the film, he hinted at how it had inspired young people to seek out gang leaders.
“Films should not glorify violence or depict it in a celebratory manner. The bad effects of violent films and serials are significant. The Censor Board must take this issue seriously,” Vijayan remarked.
Congress MLA Roji M John echoed this sentiment, questioning how some violent films had passed the Censor Board’s scrutiny.
Meanwhile, Muslim League MLA MK Muneer raised concerns over a disturbing crime in Thamarassery, where a boy allegedly used a nunchuck to break his friend’s skull.
Muneer pointed out that after committing the crime, the boy and his friends posted self-congratulatory messages on Instagram, even using the profile picture of Young-hee, a doll from the South Korean web series Squid Game.
“What is pushing them towards this mindset?” Muneer asked.
CPM MLA Linto Joseph criticised the growing trend of hyper-violent films, citing a controversial scene from Marco that was later deleted, in which a small child is crushed under a gas cylinder.
“This is the level of grotesque violence being glorified in our cinema today,” he warned.
The film fraternity remains divided on the issue. While some, like director Aashiq Abu, agree that violence should be portrayed responsibly, others believe films should not be scapegoated for societal problems.
Kerala State Chalachithra Academy Chairman Prem Kumar emphasised the need for regulation, while veteran filmmakers Kamal and Sibi Malayil argued that violence in cinema must have a justified cause rather than being included simply to attract audiences.
“Films like Marco were marketed as violent films just to lure people into theaters. This is a dangerous trend,” Sibi Malayil noted.
However, he also maintained that blaming cinema alone was an oversimplification.
Union Minister and actor Suresh Gopi acknowledged that movies can influence people but argued that they cannot be held solely responsible for rising violence.
“It is important for viewers to understand the difference between right and wrong. One should not enjoy violent scenes blindly but must have the maturity to differentiate between reel and real life,” he said.
Meanwhile, actor Jagadish, who also played a role in the film Marco, questioned the claims that violence in films influences people and asked the media, “If violence in movies can influence people, why not goodness too?”
However, filmmaker MA Nishad expressed disagreement to the statement in a Facebook post.
“With all due respect, I cannot accept that statement. If someone questions whether this is a form of opportunism — justifying violence in cinema — they cannot be blamed,” Nishad said.
He argued that society, as it stands today, is not a fertile ground for goodness. “Addiction to evil is what we commonly see. If our world were inclined toward goodness, it would flourish like a lush forest filled with trees of virtue.”
Pointing to recent events as undeniable proof of cinema’s influence on society, Nishad challenges Jagadish’s viewpoint with a counter-question: “Isn’t this exactly what’s happening around us?”
He urged Jagadish to approach the issue with greater seriousness, emphasising the undeniable role of drugs and intoxicants in rising societal unrest. “The surge of violence and substance abuse in films cannot be ignored. What must be opposed should be opposed in that very sense,” Nishad asserted.
Ending on a compelling note, he appealed to Jagadish, a former professor: “Let the educator in you awaken, Professor. Social responsibility is not just advice — it’s a call to action.”
Cinema, being a visual medium, has a powerful impact on audiences. As the saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” and intense visuals can leave a lasting impression on young minds. The risk of imitation is high, especially among teenagers who may idolise film protagonists.
Many violent films present their lead characters as stylish anti-heroes, making it easier for impressionable viewers to blur the lines between fiction and reality.
“The influence of films on real-life behavior is not a new debate. Around the world, cases have been reported where individuals have attempted to replicate violent acts seen in movies. In Kerala, the rise of social media has amplified this issue, with teenagers mimicking action sequences and posting them online,” said a police officer.
At the same time, many experts argue that societal factors such as family environment, mental health issues, and peer influence play a far more significant role in shaping a person’s actions than cinema alone.
“If violent films alone were responsible for increasing crime, then every person who watches them should turn into a criminal. But that is not the case,” FEFKA pointed out in its statement.
Law enforcement officials also believe that films can act as a catalyst for violent tendencies.
A senior police officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity, revealed: “We have encountered cases where criminals admitted that they were inspired by specific scenes from movies. The idea of committing the act may already be present in their minds, but a film can give it wings, making it a triggering factor.”
The Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce has distanced itself from the controversy, stating that the responsibility of censorship lies with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
“We cannot refuse screening a film that has already received certification from the CBFC,” chamber representatives said.
As the debate continues, the question remains: Should filmmakers take more responsibility in depicting violence, or is the issue being blown out of proportion?
While excessive violence in films may indeed have an impact, especially on young minds, blaming movies alone for societal problems may be an oversimplification of a much deeper issue.
Ultimately, the solution may not lie in censorship alone but in fostering a culture where viewers — especially the youth — are educated to critically analyse what they see on screen rather than blindly imitating it.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
