Hotel Mumbai Shouldn’t Be Pulled from U.S. Theaters [EDITORIAL]

By Ali Shana

Cinema is one of the few mediums that does not shy away from the gritty and horrible realities of our history. Movies such as ‘12 Years A Slave’ are rewarded for their accuracy in capturing the past. The movie ‘Hotel Mumbai,’ which is based on the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, is another film that will be praised or critiqued for its bloody, violent accuracy. Unfortunately, the movie happened to be released weeks after a terrorist attack in New Zealand, making the film’s plot a sore subject.

Rightfully so, New Zealand pulled the movie from their country’s theaters. While this is an admirable decision in the interest of their recently traumatized citizens, the burden of that decision lies with New Zealand and New Zealand only. ‘Hotel Mumbai’ was not pulled from theaters in the U.S., but that does not exempt Americans from their own ethical dilemmas in historic cinema. What tragedies, if any, have no place on the big screen? How should producers go about covering such sensitive topics? How long should filmmakers wait before covering these horrific events?

For the United States, a nation that has been fearful of censorship since it’s formation, it is absolutely essential that artists of all mediums be able to cover whatever they want. With our fair share of domestic tragedies, such as Columbine and 9/11, we remind ourselves to “never forget” the victims involved. Just as it would be wrong to forget about these victims, it would be wrong to forget the social and political impacts that came with these tragedies. Making movies about these events gives citizens an opportunity to think critically about the past, and filmmakers are aware of that. They tackle these movies with the upmost respect, again, prioritizing accuracy. In a way, these movies serve more as a textbook chapter than a familiar or safe storyline guaranteed to sell tickets.

Furthermore, we should admire this risk that filmmakers take. It goes without saying that equal to their right to cover these events is the people’s right to be offended. Translating real-life events to the big screen in a distasteful light will cause an uproar from critics, damage the filmmaker’s reputation, and possibly result in a box office failure. In a way, this is the “social law” that is already regulating what topics get covered and how they ought to be depicted. Topics that are clearly offensive are likely to never get picked up by big-budget production companies. Even in indie cinema, critics are able to sabotage a filmmaker’s career if they depict a tragic event in the wrong light. Since movies are not mandatory to watch or enjoy, there is no reason to limit what can and can’t be made into a movie.

Using similar logic, there ought to be no “waiting period” before an event can be made into a movie. If a topic is deemed “too soon” for an American audience, it will likely never see the light of day, at least not in mainstream cinema. But there is an inherent waiting period already in place – films usually take a year or so to create, and some of the best films take much longer. While this can’t prevent the unfortunate timing of unpredictable events, such New Zealand’s terrorist attack, it does give time for wounds to heal.

A last thing to consider on the topic of censorship is the voices outside of Hollywood that may be suppressed. For example, students who survived the Columbine shooting may want to tell their story. A movie based on the event might illustrate the importance of bullying, gun availability, or any other factor that resulted in such a horrific moment. While it is not mandatory to consult the victims of an event, and in many cases not possible, it could further ensure the movie’s accuracy and strengthen its overarching message.