Top Gun, Fighter and the politics of aerial drama

The action drama Top Gun was the highest-grossing movie in the US in 1986. It portrayed the US Navy so gloriously that it reportedly boosted recruitment across the US military by 500 per cent that year. Such is the power of a well-crafted military film.

In the wake of a superhit sequel 32 years later, Top Gun: Maverick, China attempted a version of its own, coming out with Born to Fly in 2023. The film did not resonate with Chinese audiences. But it is noteworthy that the country had produced something spectacular along the lines of Hollywood.

Exceptionally well-crafted films are an asset for any nation because they captivate global audiences while also promoting the national cause. Film analysts believe that commercial military films are cleverly embedded with elements of propaganda within the storytelling.

Just a year later, on the eve of India’s 75th Republic Day, the aerial thriller Fighter was released here. Starring Hrithik Roshan and Deepika Padukone, it is now showing in cinemas across the country. Fighter has, to an extent, set a benchmark for Indian aerial combat films. Its stunts are impressive, but it fails to accurately depict the nuances of aerial combat. Granted, the intent is profit and propaganda, and not authenticity. In the second half, the film strays from the war film template, turning the narrative into a battle of religions, pitting “us” (Hindus, Indians) against “them” (Muslims and Pakistan).

In India, the bar for the aerial combat genre has been low, with such films as Tejas (2023) and ‘Bhuj’ (2021) creating a poor image of the Indian film industry with their video-game-like aesthetics and unimaginative scripts.

Geopolitical impact

Fighter reportedly collected Rs 225 crore globally in its first week and Rs 118 crore in the opening weekend in India. But it was banned in a major market for Indian films, in Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and “suspended” in the UAE, on grounds of “objectionable content”. The large South Asian diaspora in the region includes Indians. While there have been no reports about why the film was banned in parts of West Asia, cultural, economic, and military ties with Pakistan are a plausible explanation, with the country being portrayed negatively in the film.

Double-edged sword

Military propaganda films are double-edged, as they may resonate with domestic filmgoers and at the same time alienate audiences abroad. As of today, 30 Indian films are banned in Pakistan and six in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) because of negative portrayals of Islamic nations.

While China’s Born to Fly is not an out-and-out propaganda film, it subtly promotes the PLA Air Force. Similarly, the Top Gun series captivates movie buffs with its compelling narratives and action sequences. But the Indian audiences are mostly fed stories about how we can conclusively defeat our enemies.

While it is unfair to make sweeping generalisations, auteurs like Satyajit Ray have questioned Indian filmgoers’ lack of exposure and sophistication. Modern-day directors like Anurag Kashyap haven’t shed away from criticising our audiences, suggesting that they often do not support good cinema.

However, the poor box office performance of Tejas, which lost about Rs 50 crore, suggests that Indian audiences are becoming more discerning, and are not always swayed by patriotic rhetoric.

Global community

Because of the interconnected nature of the global community, no nation can claim true autonomy in the world today. The Indian government has long used films and actors as diplomatic instruments — recently, stars from the Hindi and south Indian film industries campaigned against the Maldives following a flare-up between the politicians of the two countries.

A major step forward for India and China has been their ability to pause their consumption of Western cinema by producing their own versions of hit films from that part of the world. In contrast to India, which has had its latest war film (Fighter) banned in several countries, China has achieved its objective with subtlety.

China is a master of subtle aggression; it has reportedly seized vast swathes of land without going to war. Its cinematic approach is similar. India is still finding its feet when it comes to crafting universally appealing stories that showcase its might and find appeal beyond its borders.

In the last decade, Indian films have performed well at the box office overseas, but those dealing with themes of religion or the military tend to fail. In 2017, Dangal and Secret Superstar pulled in a whopping $233 million and $126 million, respectively, from international markets. In 2023, Pathaan also became a blockbuster abroad, raking in a whopping $48 million. Particularly important for Indian filmmakers is the question of how to use soft power effectively without jeopardising with audience and accuracy.

With the world becoming increasingly interconnected, Indian cinema will continue to play a significant role in shaping both its national image and international relations. It remains to be seen whether we, as a nation, will only continue to produce blatant propaganda or tell more sophisticated stories.