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. 

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?