Changing morality of humour

Saw this movie- 3 Idiots the other day. Its an interesting movie and can be discussed on a number of lines. For example- What makes it a hit, The use of emotional moments, The actual issue on education that it deals with, Super performance of the artists, Average music scores etc etc.

I feel like expressing my thoughts on the changing morality of humour over a period of time. In the years to come i will try to keep pace with changes and how they stand on the axis of time.

What struck me in the movie was the fact that it didn't have any bounds on what can be laughed at. For one, funny teachers (or masterji) with a chari in his hand has been a subject of humour since b/w movie days.

• A paralytic father being shown in a humorous way
• Friends poking fun at each others parents
• Poverty in the home of one of the characters has been depicted humorously though actually speaking there is really nothing humorous about poverty or else people would have loved to experience it regularly
• Middle class norms have been very blatantly laughed at e.g. daughter waiting to get married for want of dowry
• A speech where the word 'balatkar' (meaning rape) has been inserted in the wrong place excites huge laughter in the crowd
• Ritual of immersion of the last remains of one's life
• Certain social beliefs like wearing rings for a safer tomorrow

The acceptability of humour in aspects which actually are not fundamentally humourous can mean the following:

• Increasing acceptability of humour in 'holy cow' areas indicates mark of a more broad minded and liberal society. Assuming that society is equally broadminded when something it holds dear also gets scoffed at publicly
• Mark of a society that needs to just let-go when it comes to entertainment

We are talking about shift of times of mid 50s when there would be a seperate comedian in the movie accompanying the hero. The hero would always be wise and responsible like Guru Dutt (how can he be a subject of laughter? :))  to gradual shifts where the key protagonist becomes comical like in Chupke Chupke, Andaz Apna Apna, Golmaal or Namak Halaal to raw below the belt humour which is quite common these days to broad based humour that we see in a movie like this one- where anything can suddenly inspire laughter.

If this movie is just an indicator of the two factors stated then probably it seems innocuous. But does it also somewhere serve as an indicator of a society which is gradually losing its sensitivity. In a metropolis, witnessing insensitivity is a norm. In fact seeing display of sensitivity becomes an event especially in public places. Can we imagine the impact of such humour on kids?

Or does it somewhere imply mocking of the shells that have enveloped and defined our identity since several years of hollow unchallenged practices like women should not be financially independent, an economy growing at 2.4% for decades hence majority remained poor etc.  Does this humour somewhere echo with the changing mood of the economic growth of the country and the upwardly mobile youth of today who wants to laugh at his own past and just come out of it? Is that the right way to do. Is there a moral question that we can't skip answering?

As someone expressed in an article that i read, are we also, in the process somewhere becoming part of the larger joke or probably it just means that the author of this blog has a weird sense of humour.

Anything can be true :)