Dileep and Bill Cosby.

It's hard for people to separate the artist from the crime. One of the prominent topics of discussion that came up in my circle, during the Dileep fiasco, was regarding the acceptability of his films. Will it be possible to watch Dileep's films if he is proven guilty?More importantly, should we watch his films in such an event? Would we feel guilty if we laugh with the comedy films? In what cases can we separate the person from the artist and the body of art. The release of Ramaleela also has sparked the debate of whether the movies's success is a measure of Dileep's public acceptance.

As if on cue, Stephen Colbert had an interview with Jerry Seinfeld on The Late Show last week. They were discussing Seinfeld's career as a stand up comedian when Colbert asked him who his childhood inspiration in comedy was, to which he promptly replied "Bill Cosby". Colbert then stated that its difficult for him to watch Bill Cosby's old albums due to the recent sexual assault allegations against him. Seinfeld was of the opinion that one should separate the person from the body of art, to which Colbert gave a very significant argument. Bill Cosby's personal charm as a loving father figure is an integral part of his work. It is this lovable goofy quality, which is a part of his personality, that makes his material unique. This made a lot of sense to me. For a comedian like Bill Cosby, enjoying his work involves enjoying a part of his personality. Once you realize that, it will be difficult to appreciate his work as you did before. Seinfeld upon hearing this argument and some thoughts, changed his opinion after the commercial break.

I think this conversation is very much relevant in the case of the divided Malayali opinion and the Dileep controversy. A lot of parallels can be drawn between the two celebrities. Bill Cosby, a legendary comedian with hit TV shows spanning four decades, multiple Emmy and Grammy wins, has influenced generations and most of the contemporary comedians. His contributions to the entertainment industry and American pop culture is undeniable. He was everyone's favorite sitcom dad. The blow came when a number of drug assisted sexual assault allegations surfaced against him. More than sixty women came forward with allegations spanning decades, even though most of them had exceeded the statute of limitations. There are currently about eight civil cases pending against him, and a criminal case that ended in mistrial in June 2017. It was quite a shock for the public to see a beloved celebrity fall from grace.

The similarities are obvious here. Two successful comedians who are household names facing career ending sexual assault charges. While Bill Cosby's career has ended with his court deposition tapes detailing his confession to drug use, the public in Kerala is still hung on Dileep's verdict. Nothing damning has yet come out to the public in Dileep's case, even though a lot of people believe he is guilty. Things got more complicated when a number of celebrities expressed their support to Dileep and his newly released movie Ramaleela. While they might have their own vested interest in this, it is worthwhile to examine if one should show your anger towards the movie. After all its not just a single actor's effort that results in a film. This is where Colbert's argument is relevant. I think one can use that to analyse this situation.

I feel Dileep's charm (when I say that I mean the charm of the product Dileep or the characters that are portrayed by him) is a derivative of his personality. Rising from humble beginnings as a mimicry artist he became a force to be reckoned with. He had no superstar father or godfathers in the industry. Even at the height of his popularity, he had a public image of being down to earth. Dileep was the friendly neighborhood guy from Aluva. This is his charm. He infuses this to each of his characters (be it a bad performance or a good one). No matter how over the top heroic they are, they will always be connected to the middle class audience. This is the image around which he has built his career. Hence Dileep's body of work is and will always be connected to the person who is Dileep. This brings us back to the question of acceptability of Dileep's films. In Dileep's case, one  cannot separate the person (based on what he has projected publicly) from the actor. The question of whether a person can watch his previous films depends on the person. There might be people who can enjoy his films without much thought in to his actions if proven guilty. They might not mean it as an endorsement of the person that is Dileep. They are just falling back to the films they have grown up watching as a means of entertainment. But personally it would definitely be difficult to see his films like Punjabi House and Sallaapam, for I find it difficult to separate the actor from the person.

A reason for the success of Ramaleela is the average malayali's need to be a part of the popular conversation. With all the recent media circus surrounding Dileep's arrest and his recent bail it was inevitable that the curiosity of the audience will win over their so called 'moral stance'. I doubt if this movie would have performed poorly in the box office even if Dileep was found guilty of the charges against him. The movie itself is watchable yet unremarkable. Even though the plot starts gradually and steadily gains interest, it takes a quick turn into an over the top murder mystery. What could have been a good political satire is suddenly mutated into a crime thriller with the compulsory 'twist' in the end. Its like when you start a warm comfortable shower and suddenly the soap slips out of your hand and falls in the toilet.