Ram Gopal Varma has dismissed the suggestion that violent films are to blame for real-world violence, after a chainsaw attack on two Class 10 students in Andhra Pradesh’s Anantapur district reignited the debate over on-screen brutality.
Social media users had shared clips from recent A-rated releases, including Animal and KGF, to argue that gore and bloodshed are often shown without consequence. Varma responded on X: “Blaming films for rise in violence is like , blaming Ramayana for rise in kidnappings.”
The pushback was immediate
Several users rejected the comparison. One wrote that cinema has social responsibility and that gruesome murders are sometimes made to look “chill and heroic” in movies, shaping how young audiences grow up. Another said nobody claims films directly cause crime, but pretending cinema has zero influence on society is “equally stupid.”
One response explained the argument through a “third-person effect”—the belief that other people are easily persuaded by media while we stay immune. It is a useful frame for this debate: the disagreement is not really whether one film triggers one crime, but how repeated images shape what audiences consider normal or worth celebrating.
The incident behind the debate
The attack took place at a government high school in Raptadu, Anantapur district. A man allegedly barged into a classroom and attacked the students with a chainsaw. One girl lost her right hand and remains critical; the other was injured while trying to protect her classmate.
The critically injured student was first treated at Anantapur Government General Hospital and later shifted to a private hospital in Bengaluru through a green corridor for advanced care. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu said he was “deeply shaken and enraged” by the attack and is personally tracking the student’s recovery.
Another X user put it bluntly: in India, where cinema has an enormous influence on mindsets, attitudes and perceptions, denying that films can shape social behaviour is “intellectual dishonesty.”
Why the debate keeps returning
- The claim: Violent A-rated films normalise brutality, especially for younger viewers.
- The defence: RGV argues that art and scripture cannot be held responsible for individual actions.
- The counter: Users say cinema shapes perception and behaviour even when it does not directly cause a crime.
For Hindi cinema audiences, the exchange touches an old tension between creative freedom and social responsibility. Real-world horror makes that tension immediate, but the argument itself is unlikely to end with one statement or one attack.
Source: Hindustan Times