In the early 1990s, when I was in charge of Media Education at the Centre for Culture and Communication (C&C), Loyola College, I conducted media education workshops for teachers and students in schools. Film appreciation and criticism formed an integral part of these workshops, and interactions with participants provided valuable insights into how young students perceive films and the influence movies have on them. Although the term critical thinking was not widely used three decades ago, fostering participants’ ability to think critically was a central objective of these media education initiatives.
Critical absence
Today, critical thinking is a widely emphasised educational goal, and the National Education Policy (NEP) highlights its importance. However, media education remains largely absent from the curricula of most educational institutions. This omission is significant, given the pervasive influence of films and other media on students’ perceptions, attitudes, and values. For instance, in Tamil Nadu, several chief ministers and politicians have emerged from the film industry and the popularity of film stars often helps them win the admiration of young people and, ultimately, their votes in democratic elections.
As early as 1910, in How We Think, John Dewey used the term reflective thought interchangeably with critical thinking. He described it as a conscious and deliberate effort to establish sound reasons for one’s beliefs, contrasting it with uncritical thinking, which involves minimal reflection. For Dewey, critical thinking was a fundamental educational goal. He argued that education should prepare learners to become active, reflective participants in a democratic society, capable of assessing knowledge, analysing issues, and questioning assumptions rather than passively absorbing information.
Today, visual media is extremely powerful, and filmmakers, politicians, marketers, and others often use it to promote ideologies, disseminate misinformation/disinformation, and market products and services, frequently without encouraging critical reflection. While several well-made films highlight important historical events that the younger generation should understand and respond to critically, some propaganda films are produced solely to rewrite or distort history. Unfortunately, many young people remain passive consumers of media, unable to distinguish between information and misinformation, or between misinformation and disinformation. The influence of such films is clearly visible in the views young people express across various social media platforms.
Polarising views
Students and educators should be encouraged to view films critically by deconstructing narratives, identifying historical bias, assessing accuracy, substantiating interpretations with evidence, and presenting views in an objective and balanced manner. Films such as The Kashmir Files (2022), The Kerala Story (2023), Article 370 (2024), and Parasakthi (2026) have generated intense polarisation: supporters praise them for revealing “untold stories” while critics describe them as divisive, inaccurate, and potentially harmful for perpetuating communal stereotypes.
If viewers engage with such films by asking critical questions such as why certain political parties support a particular film, how different sections of society respond to it, whether these responses are justified, what impact the film has on individuals and society, and whether history is presented in a balanced manner, they can deconstruct narratives better and distinguish between propaganda and truth, as well as between information and misinformation or disinformation.
The Tamil film Parasakthi is based on the protests in Tamil Nadu against Hindi imposition in 1965 and the police firing at Pollachi, which the film claims led to 200 deaths. Critics have accused the makers of distorting history and exaggerating the toll of the firing. A former lieutenant in the Madras Regiment who was posted in the Coimbatore region during the agitation has, in an interview with The Hindu, stated that the Madras Regiment comprised entirely South Indians, mostly Tamils, and not the “Hindi army” as depicted in the film.
This raises important questions: Who is right and who is wrong? Has history been distorted, and if so, to what extent? What impact might such portrayals have on viewers who watch the film without engaging in critical thinking?
Analysing several reviews, social media posts, and comments on the film and discussing them with young people, I observed that many young viewers are easily influenced by certain aspects of the film and often remain uncritical in their viewing. Questioning the claims of filmmakers who spread misinformation or pursue hidden agendas is possible only when students are trained to view films critically. Researching, reading, rereading, and discussing are the strongest antidotes to misinformation: they sharpen critical thinking, expose readers to multiple perspectives, and help distinguish evidence from opinion. A critical reader learns to question sources, recognise bias, and resist emotional manipulation. In an age when half-truths travel faster than facts, reading deeply and widely is not merely a habit but a civic responsibility.
French writer Georges Duhamel was right when he said, “I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.” To reduce the negative impact of moving images on students’ thinking, they need to become media-literate. Media education plays a key role in training students to become critical viewers of historical films by helping them differentiate between drama and documentary, deconstruct messages, identify bias, compare cinematic portrayals with historical facts, and question the purpose of narratives and the dominant perspectives they promote.
The writer is an ELT resource person and education columnist. Email rayanal@yahoo.co.uk
Published - January 25, 2026 12:00 pm IST
