Opinion | Sector 36 : How Far Is Too Far For 'Content'?

The discovery of the Nithari killings in Noida in 2006 sent shockwaves across India, instilling fear and horror in many. The recent Netflix film, Sector 36, is unofficially inspired by this tragic event, which involved the kidnapping and murder of numerous children and women. 

An Obsession With Gory Details

It is not uncommon for filmmakers to draw from real-life tragedies. But debutant director Aditya Nimbalkar and writer Bodhayan Raychaudhuri's film, released on September 13, perhaps seem to forget how profound a human tragedy the Nithari killings were. The film trivialises the case through its poorly developed characters and overtly graphic depictions of murder, sexual abuse, necrophilia, and cannibalism. Sensational and brutal, it presents nauseatingly grotesque portrayals of its victims.  As the story unfolds, it becomes evident that the filmmakers, lacking any social consciousness, appear more obsessed with shocking viewers with dismembered and decaying body parts on-screen rather than with exploring the human aspects of the story. Featuring Vikrant Massey as the psychopathic butcher Prem, Akash Khurana as his wealthy employer Bassi, and Deepak Boriyal as SI Ram Charan Pandey, the investigator, the film betrays a severe lack of thoughtful examination of the case.

From the outset, Sector 36's narrative is centred around disturbing scenes, including ones where Prem is seen butchering a schoolgirl in a restroom. The treatment raises a few critical questions: what was the intention behind creating Sector 36? How can a real-life horror story be reduced to a mere spectacle? And in what way does this film qualify as entertainment?

Should OTT Face Regulation Too?

Streaming platforms have long had an affinity towards true crime stories and films based on unsolved murders, sensational cases, and freak accidents. Millions are invested in such productions solely because they captivate and fascinate audiences and drive profits. The entertainment industry banks on this very fascination and curiosity. True, many true crime filmmakers do make an effort to present a well-crafted and thought-provoking narrative. But that can't be said for Sector 36, whose lack of depth and research almost borders on disregard for the victims in the Nithari killings.

There has been heavy debate over censorship on digital platforms in recent years. While the government has cracked down on content deemed vulgar, OTT platforms are expected to self-regulate their offerings in the realm of general entertainment. In the case of Sector 36, that self-regulation - and reflection - seem absent, both on the filmmakers' end as well as the streaming platform's. If shock value was the intention of the makers, then they have indeed succeeded, but on the back of a horrific tragedy, and by exploiting it for fame and profit.

Writers and directors working with real events must consider the ordeal of the victims and their families. Exploiting the trauma of others and inadvertently glorifying killers is a tragedy in itself. In the case of Sector 36, neither the intention is justifiable, nor the execution. 

(The author is a senior entertainment journalist and film critic)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author