Published Mar 27, 2025 | 12:17 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 27, 2025 | 1:40 PM
While some believe that violence in movies and drug abuse are the primary causes of Crimes, Dr. Thomas Rahel Mathai presents a different, more scientific perspective that challenges these allegations.
Synopsis: Cinema has become an easy scapegoat for those seeking answers to Kerala’s recent surge in violent crime, particularly among the youth. Psychiatrist Thomas Rahel Mathai argues that there is no scientific evidence to support this claim, pointing instead to discrimination, mental health issues and systemic inequality as the true causes. In an exclusive interview with South First, he criticises the moral policing of films and punitive anti-drug campaigns, calling for a more scientific and humane approach focused on rehabilitation and support.
Kerala is in the midst of a fierce debate over whether violence in cinema incites real-world aggression.
Critics, including legislator Ramesh Chennithala, have argued that films such as RDX, Kothu, and Marco stoke youth aggression. The movie Marco has faced setbacks, including delays in its OTT release, because of this narrative.
While psychologists have offered different interpretations of recent crimes in the state, particularly the shocking mass murders, the Kerala High Court recently questioned whether cinema incites real-life violence or simply mirrors societal realities during a case on violent behaviour.
In an exclusive interview with South First, Dr Thomas Rahel Mathai, consultant psychiatrist at Mibo Health and Happiness Care, Kochi, provided a measured perspective.
He explained that while violence in cinema is often blamed for influencing behaviour, scientific evidence does not conclusively support this claim. Instead, Mathai pointed to deeper issues—such as discrimination, systemic inequality, and neglected mental health—as the true roots of societal violence.
Edited excerpts follow.
Q: There is a common argument that violence in cinema influences people, especially children. Do you believe this claim is scientifically justified?
A: Violence in cinema is often blamed for influencing people, but science does not provide conclusive evidence to support this claim. The issue is multilayered, involving various social, psychological and environmental factors. Senior psychiatrists have differing opinions on the matter. Some argue that violence affects children, but their conclusions are drawn from controlled experimental setups, which do not always reflect real-world complexities.
We grew up watching violence in films, yet we did not all turn into violent individuals. Cinema has an entertainment value, and its portrayal of violence is not a recent phenomenon.
Historically, even brutal crimes like rape were explicitly depicted in older films. The argument that media violence has increased today is incorrect. What has changed is media coverage—now, every incident is reported, whereas, in the past, many crimes went unreported.
Ultimately, violence in society stems from deeper issues such as extreme discrimination, not from movies.
Having studied in North India, I have seen firsthand how caste and financial discrimination in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar contribute to societal aggression.
Q: Do you believe the younger generation today is more violent compared to the past?
A: No, I do not agree with the claim that today’s youth are more violent. In fact, they are more sensitive and socially aware than previous generations.
For instance, body shaming was common in schools in the past, but today, children are more conscious of the harm it causes and actively avoid such behaviour. They have a heightened awareness of personal boundaries and are more empathetic.
Aggression stems from various sources. Mental health conditions, vulnerabilities and family background play crucial roles. If a child is raised in a highly discriminatory environment, they are more likely to exhibit violent tendencies.
Similarly, substance abuse can amplify aggression, but it is not the root cause.
Q: Some argue that violent video games like PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG) contribute to increased violence. What is your opinion on this?
A: This argument lacks factual support. If video games directly influence violent behaviour, then urban youth, who play games like PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG) more frequently, should be the primary perpetrators of violent crimes.
However, crime statistics show that most violent incidents occur in marginalised rural communities where caste and financial discrimination are extreme.
Blaming video games or movies is an oversimplification. The real issue is discrimination and systemic inequalities, which breed frustration and aggression. Instead of focusing on these core problems, authorities target surface-level issues, leading to unnecessary moral policing of entertainment.
Q: Do you think censoring violence in movies is a solution to reducing real-world violence?
A: No, censoring violence in movies would be a misguided approach. If we sanitise cinema to only depict morally ‘good’ content, we will end up creating propaganda films, similar to what happened in Nazi Germany.
Those films painted an idealised picture of society while ignoring the atrocities that were actually taking place.
Even today, South Korean films depict more violence than North Korean films. However, where do we see more real-life violence? In North Korea, not South Korea. This proves that cinema does not create violence, rather, it reflects society.
If cinema is to be censored, should music and other art forms be restricted as well? This kind of selective outrage is hypocritical.
Q: The government has been taking strict action against drug users, including teenagers. Do you think this is the right approach?
A: The way the state is handling drug abuse is deeply flawed. Authorities often portray all drug users as criminals, which is misleading. Many teenagers caught with substances are labelled as ‘peddlers’ and publicly shamed.
But are they really the masterminds behind drug distribution? No. They are vulnerable individuals who may have been exploited by powerful drug networks.
Instead of targeting small-time users, the state should focus on dismantling the large-scale drug trade. Many teenagers resort to drugs as a coping mechanism for anxiety, depression and other mental health struggles.
However, mental health remains a low priority in our society. Instead of providing these young individuals with support systems, we are further alienating them by treating them as criminals.
Jailing and publicly humiliating young users only pushes them further into isolation, making it harder for them to reintegrate into society. A more scientific and humane approach is needed—one that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Q: Some have suggested conducting mandatory drug tests in hostels and regularly raiding student accommodations. Do you support such measures?
A: Absolutely not. This kind of policing is an invasion of personal space and an overreach of authority. College students, including girls, have the right to move freely, travel and enjoy life like anyone else.
By subjecting them to constant surveillance, we are cultivating a culture of mistrust and oppression.
If someone were to impose such restrictions on an adult, the reaction would be outrage. Why should students be treated any differently?
Such actions will only create resentment and rebellion among young people. Instead of building a system based on fear and punishment, the focus should be on awareness, education and support.
Q: Many believe that increasing crime rates are linked to the influence of violent cinema. Do you agree?
A: No, there is no concrete scientific evidence proving that cinema directly encourages violence. Cinema is an art form, and people engage with it with a sense of realism. A rational person understands that a movie is fictional and does not attempt to replicate it in real life.
Even legendary actor-director Kamal Haasan once said, “I portray extreme violence in my films so that people develop a sense of aversion toward it.” Cinema has always included violent themes, whether in contemporary films or in ancient mythological stories where demons are brutally slain.
If movies truly influenced violence, then why have we not all turned into warriors after watching such tales?
The reality is that violence has deeper roots. While cinema may act as a trigger for certain vulnerable individuals—such as those with a history of drug use, mental illness or trauma—it is not a direct cause.
Social media plays a far greater role in exposing people to real-life violence than movies ever could.
Q: If cinema is not responsible for violence, then what are the real factors behind rising aggression in society?
A: The real causes of violence lie in social structures, mental health issues and systemic inequalities. In the past, people primarily consumed alcohol and cigarettes. Now, synthetic drugs are on the rise, particularly among teenagers.
Unlike alcohol, which visibly alters behaviour, synthetic drugs allow users to function normally in public, making their use harder to detect.
When under the influence, individuals experience an uncontrollable surge of energy. If provoked, they may react aggressively. I recall a case where a young man, after a minor dispute at a party, returned home, took synthetic drugs and then went back to the party armed with a knife.
This kind of behaviour is a result of drug-induced aggression, not cinematic influence.
Cinema is a commercial industry, and violence has a high market value. People enjoy watching violent films, and filmmakers will continue to create them.
However, removing violence from cinema will not remove it from the real world. Instead of blaming movies, we should focus on mental health awareness, education and addressing discrimination—the real roots of violence in our society.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
