top of page

By:

Rupak Bardhan Roy

17 March 2026 at 8:04:57 pm

The Market of Fear

Alfred Hitchcock made fear a sophisticated form of entertainment. Above, James Stewart in Rear Window (1954) and Cary Grant in North by Northwest (1959). Let us begin where discussions of this kind usually begin, the market. Leaving thriller novels and short stories aside, market analyses of audiovisual thrillers suggest that the global OTT and theatrical market was projected to reach $10 billion by 2026. Although the United States remains its largest consumer, the vast Asia-Pacific...

The Market of Fear

Alfred Hitchcock made fear a sophisticated form of entertainment. Above, James Stewart in Rear Window (1954) and Cary Grant in North by Northwest (1959). Let us begin where discussions of this kind usually begin, the market. Leaving thriller novels and short stories aside, market analyses of audiovisual thrillers suggest that the global OTT and theatrical market was projected to reach $10 billion by 2026. Although the United States remains its largest consumer, the vast Asia-Pacific region—including China and the Indian subcontinent—is not far behind in terms of compounded annual growth. India’s audiovisual thriller market has reportedly been expanding by more than 9 per cent annually, with an audience of nearly 60 million viewers a year. The reasons for this rapid growth are not difficult to comprehend: provocative subject matter, polished presentation and, as an additional post-pandemic stimulus, the increasingly common habit of spending substantial portions of the day at home. But is this at all a problem? If I choose to spend my days and nights watching thrillers in a free country, whose concern is it anyway? What I am trying to convey is: there are humanist and psychological burdens of too much thriller consumption. To make this thesis of mine more accessible let's start with the psychology upon which this enormous market has been built. The Market Psyche Nearly eight decades ago, the relationship between the consumer’s fascination with thrillers and the industry built around it was mapped with remarkable precision by none other than the maestro of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock himself. It’s that obvious right? Who better than Hitchcock - one of the principal architects of the modern thriller market and the director of such celebrated classics as Shadow of a Doubt, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds among other gems - to have understood its psychological machinery better? According to Hitchcock, when we watch a crime or psychological thriller, we observe an intensely personal horror from an impersonal distance. We temporarily project ourselves into the consciousness of the terrified victim or the frightening situation. Yet, beneath that identification, we remain aware of our own security. In his own words: “In our subconscious, we are aware that we are safe, sitting in a comfortable armchair, watching a screen.” The master also identified an indispensable method for manufacturing suspense: “Suspense can be created by allowing the audience to play God.” The audience may know who the murderer is, while the characters do not. Suspense then emerges from a different question: will the characters discover what the audience already knows, or will they be mutilated before the narrative culminates? The spectator can therefore sit safely with a bucket of popcorn and think, “Poor creature—dead before realizing what was happening.” The audience possesses privileged knowledge and is allowed to observe the characters from an almost divine vantage point. The market recognizes this latent God complex, stimulates it and converts the spectator’s detached, sometimes disturbing pleasure into a saleable experience. In his essay The Enjoyment of Fear, Hitchcock offered another formulation combining identification with safety: “They identify themselves with fictitious characters who are experiencing fear … but … the price need not be paid … is the important factor.” To explain this, he referred to an analogy with roller coasters. For a few moments, the rider’s body, mind and senses might be thoroughly unsettled. Subconsciously, however, the consumer knows that an invisible structure of protection remains in place and that their life is not genuinely in danger. Do you see Hitchcock playing Frankenstein and we, his psychological creatures? The thriller market therefore rests upon two fundamental psychological conditions: An impersonal, almost God-like sympathy for characters in danger, a detached indulgence in their fear and psychological disturbance. Secondly, the temporary projection of oneself into uncertainty, accompanied by the subconscious assurance that one remains completely safe. A Cleveland Clinic discussion of media consumption and psychology suggests that women consume thriller content more frequently than men. Many women reportedly say that such content makes them more conscious of the dangers they may encounter within contemporary patriarchal societies and consequently encourages greater caution. Nor does the research claim that prolonged exposure to thrillers necessarily makes a person criminally inclined. The more credible concern is that the thriller market may reinforce existing prejudices and intensify social insecurity. In the United States, popular thriller narratives involving Black characters have often perpetuated racist stereotypes associating Black communities with criminality, addiction or sexual misconduct. In many Asia-Pacific societies, excessive consumption of thrillers may similarly contribute to an atmosphere of suspicion, insecurity and distrust. The possible consequences include greater instability in personal relationships and a broader culture of social intolerance. In a country like ours where intolerance has already become a serious feature of civic life, the concern is that thriller mania may add further fuel to it. The problem, therefore, is not the existence of thrillers or the experience of fear as entertainment. It is the transformation of that experience into habitual consumption. An endlessly expanding market repeatedly invites us to encounter other people’s fear, pain and vulnerability without paying any corresponding emotional or material price. From the security of our armchairs—the invisible shelter described by Hitchcock—we consume dramatized versions of other people’s struggles, anxieties and everyday suffering. Their danger becomes spectacle; their vulnerability content; and our psychological distance from their reality becomes the commodity being sold. This does not mean that watching thrillers automatically turns either you or me into criminals or morally corrupt individuals. The more relevant question concerns psychological well-being and social responsibility: how much is too much? (The writer is a Lead Process Engineer with GE HealthCare in France and a columnist with four books to his credit. Views personal.)

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Writer: Romita Datta
Romita Datta
Aug 27, 2024
4 min read

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Why is Mamata Seeing Ghost of Bangladesh?

Mamata is seeing a ghost of Bangladesh behind the massive outrage and waves of protest over rape and murder of the trainee doctor. And the reasons are many.

It’s been over a fortnight. Yet with each passing day the voice of protest is getting louder and stronger. From the streets of Kolkata it’s pouring into roads of hinterland. The cry for justice for a rape victim has consolidated into a wail of demands to set a lot of wrongdoings right. Here in lies the fear and trepidation. Wasn’t the issue that brought the youth of Bangladesh out on the thoroughfares a simple, innocent one of quota reform?

The chief minister of Bengal, known for understanding the pulse of people better than many, was quick to read the signages floating in the political horizon.

The most obvious reason for her to be tensed is that both the regime change in Bangladesh and the mass protest in Bengal, were student-driven to begin with. The two incidents---end of 15 year old Sheikh Hasina government and turbulence in West Bengal, over the heinous crime, falling back to back, the first on August 5th and the latter from August 9th onwards, give natural scope for comparisons. More so, because in both the cases the movement strayed beyond an affected constituency to include aggrieved people at large, cutting across socio-economic demography. If the quota reform protest started by students in Bangladesh became a mass uprising against an autocratic regime, the campaign demanding justice for the rape victim and overall safety and security of women in Mamata Banerjee’s Bengal soon snowballed into a movement of no-confidence against the government. Slogans--”Mamata must resign” also got floated in social media much in line with the call for ouster of Sheikh Hasina. In fact “Resignation of Hasina” became the single point agenda into which all other fringe demands coalesced.

Incidentally, even before people started drawing parallels, that there could be a thread of commonality in the way the upheaval in Bangladesh and Bengal played out, Mamata was quick to point out that the Opposition were trying to pull off a Bangladesh by politicizing the tragic incident: “A coordinated approach has been executed by the BJP and the CPIM with support from the Centre to defame Bengal and exploit the situation....They want to make a Bangladesh here. They are taking cues from student unrest in Bangladesh and are attempting to capture similarly. I have no longing for the chair. I came here to serve people.”

Not only Mamata, her political lieutenants are consistently equating the turmoil in Bengal with the mayhem in Bangladesh. Cabinet minister for North Bengal development Udayan Guha threatened to take stern action against those, who would be trying to exploit the situation by emulating a Bangladesh like movement. “ Even after the hospital was vandalised, the police did not open fire on anyone. The police will not allow a Bangladesh type situation. We will not allow Bengal to turn into Bangladesh, Guha thundered.

Is the government’s fear unfounded?

Apart from the similarities on ground zero, as to how and where the future course of events are heading to, there are ample reasons for Bengal to mull on-- as to what led to a Bangladesh like boiling point. To begin with, it’ll be appropriate to talk of Bangladesh and the prevailing situation, that made the students’ protest become big in magnitude. The students were out on the streets because of a high reservation in public jobs. Unemployment and stagnant job market in private sector coupled with a high rate of inflation drove the educated youth to rebel against the government.

But soon the students found enormous number of sympathisers, who were equally at the receiving end. According to Bangladesh citizens, the last two terms of the Sheikh Hasina government were a mockery of democracy. Even elections would be compromised. As Hasina grew from strength to strength, she politicized institutions. The rank and file of police owed allegiance to the ruling dispensation. Extortion, harrassment and raids by police and people in power became rampant. An atmosphere of fear and repression reigned and people got restless to overthrow the government.

Politicization of institutions has been happening in Mamata government too. Allegations are quite strong that police in Bengal functions at the beck and call of political bosses. The lapses and alleged loopholes on the part of police in handling the rape and murder of the young doctor have yet again revealed a sense of confused or misplaced loyalty.

But above everything else both Hasina and Mamata governments allegedly seem to have twined in accepting corruption as a way of life. In Bangladesh jobs of primary and secondary teachers got sold at premium, Rs 10-12 lakh in the Hasina regime. Even police had to pay up for prized postings and transfers. In Bengal busting of the teacher’s recruitment scam has revealed how unsuccessful and ineligible candidates got government jobs in schools in exchange of bribes.

Similarities are multiple and inescapable. Mamata has good reasons to be apprehensive. It’s not only she, who can see and connect the dots. People, out on the streets, clamoring for justice, can see a providential pattern somewhere in the unfolding of future events in these two places-- Bangladesh and Bengal. True, they share more than 2,217 odd km of border. They share the same umbilical cord, other than language, culture, ethos, icons. Even emotions are the same. So she cannot take any risk.

(The writer is a senior jounalist based in Kolkata. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page