I am not making films like "Chhaava" or "The Kashmir Files" because I find it concerning when movies made to strongly influence people in a very political time become popular. I believe in making films that are true to my own ideas rather than just following what's popular.

"Chhaava," which stars Vicky Kaushal, tells the story of Sambhaji Maharaj, a Maratha ruler. "The Kashmir Files," about the departure of Kashmiri Pandits, also gained a lot of attention. Both films have been praised by some for their patriotic themes but have also faced criticism for being overly nationalistic and, in the case of "Chhaava," for changing historical facts.

My upcoming film, "Tehran," is about the attacks on Israeli diplomats in 2012. It is set to be released on ZEE5 on August 15, 2025.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information in this input. It does not provide any steps, plans, or tips that a person can implement in their daily life.

Educational Depth: The input offers minimal educational depth. It briefly mentions two films, "Chhaava" and "The Kashmir Files," and their general subject matter, along with some criticisms they have faced. It also states the subject and release date of an upcoming film. However, it does not delve into the historical context, the reasons behind the criticisms, or the complexities of the events depicted.

Personal Relevance: The topic has very low personal relevance for a general reader. While it discusses films and a filmmaker's perspective, it does not offer information that directly impacts a person's life, finances, health, or safety.

Public Service Function: This input does not serve a public service function. It does not provide warnings, safety advice, emergency contacts, or useful tools for the public. It is a statement of a filmmaker's personal philosophy and information about their upcoming project.

Practicality of Advice: There is no advice given in this input, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: This input has no discernible long-term impact on a reader's life. It is a commentary on filmmaking choices and a preview of a film, neither of which offers lasting benefits or guidance.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The input is unlikely to have a significant emotional or psychological impact on a reader. It is a neutral statement of opinion and fact about films.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used is not clickbait or ad-driven. It is a straightforward statement of personal views and film information.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The input missed opportunities to provide more value. For instance, it could have offered more historical context for the films mentioned, explained the nature of the criticisms in more detail, or provided resources for readers interested in learning more about the historical events or filmmaking ethics. A person seeking to understand the controversies surrounding these films could look up reputable historical sources or film analysis websites.

The stated intention to avoid making films that "strongly influence people in a very political time" and instead focus on personal ideas, while seemingly prioritizing individual artistic integrity, can weaken community bonds. When individuals or creators disengage from narratives that shape collective understanding, especially those concerning historical events or figures that form the bedrock of shared identity and ancestral memory, it can lead to a void. This void can be filled by external narratives or a general apathy towards the preservation of local history and the lessons it holds for future generations.

The emphasis on personal ideas over popular or historically resonant themes can inadvertently diminish the sense of shared responsibility for remembering and transmitting cultural heritage. This can erode the trust between generations, as elders may feel their lived experiences and the stories of their ancestors are not being valued or preserved. Children, in turn, may not receive the foundational narratives that foster a sense of belonging and duty to their kin and community.

Furthermore, a focus on individual artistic expression that shies away from potentially influential, even if controversial, historical narratives can lead to a neglect of the land and its stewardship. The stories of a people are often intrinsically linked to the land they inhabit, detailing its history, its resources, and the duties owed to it. By sidestepping these narratives, there is a risk of weakening the connection between the people and their ancestral lands, diminishing the sense of responsibility for their care and preservation.

The consequence of this approach, if widespread, is a fracturing of communal memory and a weakening of the intergenerational transmission of values and duties. Families may find themselves less anchored to their shared past, leading to a diminished sense of collective purpose. This can result in a decline in the natural duties of care for elders and the nurturing of children, as the guiding principles for these responsibilities become diluted. Without strong, shared narratives that reinforce the importance of kin, community, and land, the very survival of the people, measured by their ability to procreate, raise children, and care for their resources, is jeopardized. The land, lacking the watchful eyes and dedicated hands of a people deeply connected to its history and their duties towards it, will suffer.

The speaker says they don't make films like "Chhaava" or "The Kashmir Files" because they are concerned about movies that "strongly influence people in a very political time." This suggests the speaker sees these films as manipulative. By contrasting this with their own belief in making films "true to my own ideas," the speaker presents themselves as an independent thinker. This framing makes the speaker seem more principled than filmmakers of the other movies.

The text mentions that "Chhaava" and "The Kashmir Files" have been "praised by some for their patriotic themes but have also faced criticism for being overly nationalistic." This presents both positive and negative views of these films. However, the speaker's initial statement implies a stronger negative view of such films. This selective presentation of criticism and praise might downplay the positive reception of the films the speaker is distancing themselves from.

The speaker states they believe in making films that are "true to my own ideas rather than just following what's popular." This statement positions the speaker as an artist with integrity. It implies that films that become popular in political times might not be true to the filmmaker's own ideas. This creates a contrast that elevates the speaker's approach.

The text states that "Chhaava" is criticized for "changing historical facts." This is presented as a factual criticism of the film. It supports the speaker's implied concern about films that might distort reality for influence. This detail helps to justify the speaker's decision not to make similar films.

The writer expresses a sense of concern regarding films that become popular by strongly influencing people during political times, as seen in the statement, "I find it concerning when movies made to strongly influence people in a very political time become popular." This concern is moderately strong and serves to explain the writer's decision not to make films like "Chhaava" or "The Kashmir Files." It aims to guide the reader's reaction by suggesting a cautious approach to politically charged cinema, potentially changing their opinion about such films by highlighting potential negative influences. The writer also conveys a sense of conviction or integrity through the belief, "I believe in making films that are true to my own ideas rather than just following what's popular." This conviction is clear and moderately strong, reinforcing the writer's personal artistic values and building trust by presenting them as principled. This helps shape the message by positioning the writer as an independent thinker, distinct from those who might prioritize popularity or political messaging.

The writer uses the contrast between their own approach and the mentioned films to persuade. By describing "Chhaava" and "The Kashmir Files" as films that "strongly influence people in a very political time" and noting their praise for "patriotic themes" alongside criticism for being "overly nationalistic" and altering facts, the writer subtly positions these films as potentially manipulative or historically inaccurate. This comparison is a tool to highlight the writer's own commitment to authenticity and personal ideas, making their approach seem more trustworthy and thoughtful. The phrase "strongly influence people in a very political time" carries a slightly negative emotional weight, suggesting a potential for undue sway or even manipulation, which serves to distance the writer from such filmmaking practices. The mention of "patriotic themes" followed by "overly nationalistic" and "changing historical facts" creates a nuanced picture, implying that while patriotism can be positive, it can also be taken too far, leading to factual distortions. This careful wording aims to avoid outright condemnation while still raising a red flag for the reader, encouraging them to view the writer's preference for "true to my own ideas" as a more responsible choice. The announcement of the upcoming film, "Tehran," with its factual description of its subject matter, serves to reinforce this commitment to a different kind of filmmaking, presenting it as grounded and perhaps less politically charged, thereby building anticipation and trust for their own work.