"Cinematic freedom appears to be a costly shield for creative mediocrity”
Cinema remains one of the most potent mediums for mass communication. Despite the proliferation of diverse digital platforms over the past four decades, including television, DTH, OTT, and social media, it has retained its profound cultural influence and unique ability to forge emotional connections with a global audience.
However, a disconcerting trend has emerged in contemporary filmmaking. Rather than conveying constructive messages, several productions propagate distorted values through questionable symbolism.
The primary concern is not the availability of adult-oriented content, which is already accessible via digital channels, but rather the derogatory portrayal of prestigious national institutions responsible for maintaining public order and national security.
The satirical trend of portraying law enforcement and national security agencies as incompetent, originally a hallmark of Western cinema, has now expanded into the Tollywood industry, where it actively subverts the image of state authority.
Once confined to the parodies of Hollywood, the trope of the "clumsy operative" and "inept officer" has officially crossed borders, infected Tollywood and reshaped its depiction of authoritative institutions.
While critiquing systemic flaws is a vital component of a healthy democracy, the deliberate trivialization and mockery of these institutions for entertainment purposes is deeply problematic.
Recent cinematic depictions of these agencies in Tollywood have crossed acceptable boundaries:
In one film (Pushpa 2: The Rule), a confrontation unfolds where the hero, himself a gangster, is depicted urinating into a puddle where the villain, a police officer portrayed as corrupt, has fallen. This scene goes beyond character conflict; it serves as a gross insult to the uniform and the very institution of law enforcement it represents.
In another high-octane thriller, the hero recklessly enters Parliament and guns down the antagonist right in the presence of the Prime Minister. This grossly disrespects the sanctity of constitutional institutions and their security protocols.
Furthermore, in a biopic about a thief (Tiger Nageshwar Rao), the protagonist is shown infiltrating the Prime Minister’s residence to commit a robbery. Such depictions grievously insult the Special Protection Group, the nation’s highest security system.
When filmmakers craft logically flawed roles, like a "Chief Security Advisor" using a legendary actor like Chiranjeevi, flanked by caricatured assistants, solely to lampoon VIP protocols and intelligence operations, it reveals a profound lack of institutional awareness and a disregard for professional realism.
Such caricatures of national security roles undermine the gravity of actual intelligence frameworks and reduce complex state functions to mere punchlines.
The trend of surrounding high-level officials with inept aides to ridicule state protocols highlights a disconnect between cinematic satire and the reality of institutional operations, often exposing a "blatant lack" of research by scriptwriters and the creative bankruptcy.
The frequent depiction of these agencies as incompetent or farcical in mainstream media and web series serves to erode public trust and institutional authority.
Even in big-budget films featuring superstars (Waltair Veerayya), national security agents and international drug enforcement units are often portrayed with questionable logic to ensure the "mass" hero remains the only competent figure on screen, while the law enforcing agencies are logically inconsistent.
In the rush to weaponize humor against state institutions, filmmakers often ignore the reality that cinema carries a profound social responsibility due to its unmatched ability to mould public opinion.
While creative expression is vital, it shouldn't become a convenient excuse for the reckless trivialization of the very agencies tasked with maintaining national security and social order.
Because cinema acts as a powerful mirror for society, the trend of mocking law enforcement isn't just "comedy", it is an irresponsible distortion of reality that risks eroding public trust in essential national safeguards.
Beyond the typical glorification of the anti-hero, modern Telugu cinema is increasingly overdosing satire to strip agencies of their authority, turning professional ineptitude into a critique of how the state fails to handle crime.
As Telugu cinema continues to grow in global influence, the shift toward portraying "Chief Security Advisors" and intelligence officers as slapstick tropes highlights a growing disconnect between cinematic liberty and the duty to respect institutional dignity.
It is one matter to romanticize the outlaw, but it is another entirely to lampoon state institutions, using their bumbling incompetence as a comedic lens to expose deep-seated systemic issues in crime management.
