Standards, reactions and film criticism.

I'll be honest: this is going to be one of those absolutely painfully self-indulgent posts about the nature of film criticism from somebody who doesn't even do this for a living. Does the world need another pensive post from a blogger about what they occasionally do to fill the hours of the day? Probably not. And yet, I am writing it.

Look at Rani Mukherji smiling. At least this post has that going for it.

The reason I'm writing about the subject is not even because an Indian film inspired it in me. Post-Oscars, I got the sudden inspiration to actually watch some nominated and awarded films (which I rarely do, as so few Oscar contenders interest me). One of the films I went to see was Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, which I found, simply put, brilliant. The film has some excellent performances, a simple narrative that seems to hide a lot from the viewer, beautiful cinematography and interesting subtextual themes. It made me pause a bit, reflect on what I'd just seen, recall certain scenes and then try to piece together their significance as a whole. It's that kind of film, and some people will find it difficult to understand, frustrating even, and some fans of the film will dismiss these criticisms as people just not "getting it" or not taking the time to rewatch the film and allow it to sink in properly.

These discussions caused one film writer to ask: Should some films be taken more seriously than others?

My first reaction is to say no, but then to immediately say yes. Arguably, all films should be judged by their own standards - a comedy has to make you laugh, or it's not a very successful comedy, and a romantic film ideally has you rooting for the leads to get together. A documentary provides you with new information, or portrays old information in an interesting manner, and hopefully makes you think, to boot. On the other hand, all films will be judged by your own  standards as a viewer. The best thing a film critic can do is write about a film in such descriptive terms that you can take away two things from their writing: what their standards for this film were, and how that film met those standards. More simply put - whether they liked it, in relation to what kinds of films they typically like.

So if a film makes you to pause and reflect at length on what you just saw, perhaps even rewatch, it's only fair to that reaction that you do so. If a film goes down without much pondering, regardless of how you feel about it, I don't think it's strictly necessary to over-ponder a film that doesn't inspire such a thing naturally.

This is not necessarily a split between films from interesting, respected film makers who make thoughtful cinema, and potboiler mass-entertainment films. The problems come in when people's prejudices make it so - when a critic thinks an arthouse film is worth pondering over, but an action film could never be, even if it touches on interesting themes. But film criticism is a fairly simple sport, as all it really has to contain is a certain honesty about your own reactions when it comes to a particular film.

I like to think that I can analyse films as I see fit, regardless of whether they are "meant" to be taken seriously or not. I've discussed each Upendra-directed film I've seen like it was an academic thesis, with points and arguments and explanations - while realising that these are still films made for the masses in mind. I thought a lot about Laal Patthar, even though the film was not particularly deep or even nuanced. Once I vented about my frustrations regarding a Malayalam art film - I could see it was good, but it wasn't for me in terms of the story or the characters, and I didn't catch the significance of the director's choices, nor did I think I would upon a second viewing.

To me, it doesn't really matter if you "get" a film or not, what matters if whether you like it or not. I don't know if I understood The Master, but I knew I liked it a lot. I liked it as I as watching it, I liked the performances and found the characters fascinating, I liked the soundscape and the visuals, and I loved pondering my own interpretations of the film. That's my honest reaction - whether my take on the film is wrong or right, doesn't really factor into my enjoyment of the film as a film.

Road, Movie (2010, directed by Dev Benegal and starring Abhay Deol) comes to mind. This was a small film that I remember a lot of people reacting to in a pretty negative way, finding it beautifully shot, but ultimately rather pointless. I liked it fine, but it wasn't a passionate, enthusiastic sort of like, but the lukewarm type - I didn't feel like I'd wasted my time with with it, but neither did I walk away from it feeling like I'd witnessed something magnificent. At times I do feel like I need to rewatch it, but other times I don't really think there was that much there to miss out on, so perhaps my reaction to it would be the same as last time. I don't think anybody absolutely has to give a film another chance, if it fails to impress the first time. If a reaction is not intrigue or a desire to look into it deeper, then why force it?

It's the strange nature of film-watching. Films can have enormous personal significance, or inspire a person to do something they normally wouldn't have. Films can say things about nations and cultures and points in time, or they can say not much at all. I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way to react to cinema - perhaps Jism 2 really does provide some commentary on the sexual politics of modern India, or perhaps it's just a flick with tons of skin shown. What you see in it, is what's there for you.

I remember being called out on liking a certain, "trashy", entertainment-geared fare in Indian cinema but not the same thing, coming from Hollywood. I admit to this criticism, but I would also counter - isn't this what everybody does? You can't have the same standard to every film, unless that standard is your own enjoyment of a film. So Avatar didn't inspire much thrills in me, but Dabangg did. That's my truth - feel free to share yours. 

This old chestnut: SRK on Hollywood.

I was reading SRK's reflections (see that picture? Get it? I'm too clever, honestly) on the state of Hindi cinema and the discussions it brought out in people on GetFilmy's excellent post about it, and decided to make my own post, as I have a lot of thoughts on the topic. Here's a link to the Forbes article, but I wanted to give credit to GetFilmy for bringing it to my attention.

In a way, I honestly believe that these comments have more to do with where Shahrukh Khan is at, than where Indian film is at right now. His films as of late have been successes, but they haven't been the kind of successes he probably hoped they'd be, and they certainly haven't punched through as films people would love to re-visit time and time again. His name brings people to the theater, but hardly anybody is going back for a second viewing, much less a third.

But, as more people flock to cinemas, Hollywood’s finesse will eventually win them over. India may make the most movies in the world, but “With all due respect, the production values are s***. Why will my kids watch that kind of crap when Hollywood offers something slicker?”

As far as arguments go, this is not precisely the strongest. Anecdotal evidence based on your kids? Look, dude, I get it. You're a self-made guy who made their career and fortunes through Hindi films, and now you see that your kids are growing up in a different world than you, so they'll prefer different things - and this is a new discovery for you, perhaps. But you just cannot extrapolate all that to include every child in India, every adult in India or every Indian abroad.

Here's what I've learned about Indian audiences and their love for Hollywood films - people like spectacle. People everywhere like spectacle. Finnish people will go see Avatar in huge numbers, as will Americans, as will Brits, Germans, Koreans and people all over the world. Spectacle is one of those things that no other format than film can provide quite like film, so of course flashy, big budget entertainers will draw in people, just for the novelty of it all.

Like GetFilmy pointed out, Bollywood is not suffering. Content is becoming better, genres are getting more diverse, we get tons of films breaking the 100 crore mark, which used to be a fanciful dream for producers, we have new stars and old stars having the kind of success they've never enjoyed before.

Even more importantly, films aren't just entertainment - entertainment forms a part of people's lived experience, and through that, shapes identities and in some ways, a national and cultural identity. This is why DDLJ spoke to NRI's, and people still listen to HAHK songs, or quote Sholay, or whatever have you. And because Indian films are intrinsically Indian, they will never cease to have that sort of significance in some people's lives. This is not to say that if you are an Indian person who prefers American or French or Iranian films to those of your own country, you're somehow less Indian - that's not what I mean at all (after all, I'm not less Finnish for not liking Finnish films much). It's just that to some people, this part of the culture is very important.

A bad Hindi film might not entertain anybody better just because they have a cultural connection to it, but I don't think people who are as passionate about their own films as Indian audiences can be will ever just abandon it because the visual special effects aren't as flashy as something Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan can conjure up. That's pretty simplistic thinking on Shahrukh's part. Production value is not the only thing people go see in films - it's certainly what some people look for, perhaps even to the detriment of their own enjoyment of less flashy films (be it indie, arthouse, low budget).

They spend more on pop corn, samosas and fizzy drinks than on the tickets.

Newsflash - this has been the case in the West forever. Even before the advent of illegal digital downloads and all the things driving up ticket prices in North America and Europe. This also seems to mostly look at multiplexes. People see films in other sorts of film theatres as well, don't they?

I'm not a businesswoman, so I'm not one to criticize Shahrukh's moves in the business world - it's his company, he can run it as he likes. But I also think it's shortsighted of him to just think about visual effects, flashy spectacles and all this other stuff that Hollywood will probably make better than Hindi films do, most of the time, simply because of the fact that Hollywood has been doing this stuff for aeons. Indian films should push themselves technically, for sure, and I'm all for that - Eega was a good example. But no film would be anything without actually being good - good acting, good music, good stories. To say Hollywood is going to take over is based on almost no evidence at all - in fact, Hollywood is itself in crisis because its age-old business formula is losing in the world of online streaming and targeted marketing. Bollywood is going through changes as well, but it's not failing.

I don't mean to harp on the man's personal career graph too much, but I do strongly feel that had his latest film been his Dabangg or Three Idiots, he wouldn't be saying stuff like this. Come back to us, Shahrukh - make a damn good movie that rides on both the content (a good story, solid direction, great songs) and your star power. Jab Tak Hai Jaan probably should've been just that, but wasn't. Nevermind.

Come back to us.

The Catfight Myth, and about female friendship in general.

Why hasn't there been a female Dil Chahta Hai? An all-girls' version of Dostana?

For that matter, can you name two actresses who are friends within the Hindi film industry?

These are just some of the questions that popped into my head as result of watching the magnificent duo of Rani Mukherjii and Vidya Balan on an old episode of Koffee with Karan, the appallingly shallow chat show, where Karan Johar does the duplicitous tango by making it out like he's everybody's best friend, and then actively stirring up drama between anybody who will take the bait, and giggling gleefully when they do so. In the episode, both Rani and Vidya show excellent camaraderie while promoting their joint venture, No One Killed Jessica. They giggle, share inside jokes, and then talk about working on the film and being professionally influenced by one another.

Karan politely takes all in this and comes back with an observation that female friendship unravels "when the make-up comes off" (or goes on, I do not remember the exact wording), because at the end of the day, women just don't do friendship, and it all ends in catfights over men or popularity or fashion, right?

This really set me off, because it's a vicious narrative constantly told by the media surrounding the film industry. There's a tendency to pit actresses against each other for "the top spot", even on top of all the criticisms they can garner for their fashion sense, or movie choices or weight fluctuations (the last one is a rant for another day). There'll always be rumours of affairs and such, but the often faked stories of cat fights always push this idea that two actresses cannot, absolutely cannot, have a functional friendship - or even just a professional relationship, when working on a film together.

Of course, it'd be ridiculous to claim this was all media-made, but consider about the ease of stirring up controversy by just making up things. If somebody you know tells you a friend has said awful things about you, even once your friend says it's not true, the suspicion that they're lying to cover it up will remain in your head. Now consider if this is a friend you're not particularly close to, but have some links through mutual friends and work connections, and of course there's all this gossip around - maybe there are rumours that this friend has flirted with the person you're romantically involved with, or said even more horrible things about somebody you do consider a close friend.. The sheer level of mean-spirited cattiness in the film industry circles must be through the roof, so who do you trust, at the end of the day?

Rani is sometimes criticized as being too diplomatic in her answers. In Koffee with Karan, she refuses to align herself with this, that or the other. She's friends with Salman, Shahrukh and Aamir. She likes all the new up-and-comer actresses. In an industry so full of camps and alliances, you could argue she's being dishonest for the sake of continuing to get work, but could it be more than that? Maybe she's decided it's better not to play these media games, and say catty things about people you barely now, just to get a laugh out of a talk show host who loves his "film fraternity" gossip (note how it's "fraternity", not "sorority" or even the gender-neutral "community"). That it's more professional to say nice things about everybody, and keep any negativity you might have silent, because it is essentially a work environment - and there's nothing more poisonous to a work environment than idle gossip.

It's not like the men of Bollywood are immune to these sorts of bust-ups. In fact, you could argue that the media machine is often just as horrible about male friendship (or lack thereof). It is a business, and at the end of the day, people are competing against each other, despite any personal fondness towards one another. Still, I've always sensed that there is this general myth about actresses and friendship - that all of their friendships are fake, all the ladies are catty towards one another and fighting it out, over men or over films or over fame. Some of the stars play their own part in manufacturing these rivalries, because if you're not making headlines, you're not a star. How much have Kareena and Priyanka gained over their well-documented rivalry ..but you could also ask, how much have they lost?

It's a cycle; the idea that there is no female friendship among actresses perpetuates the idea that female friendship overall is a phony concept, and therefore why would you make films about it (or female-centric films overall), and even if such a film was being made, no two actresses would sign up to do it because they are always in such strong competition with one another, without any chance of friendship, or solidarity, or even just professional politeness. And of course, female-centric films do not fare well at the box office, or so the common belief goes, and thus a lot of top actresses are reluctant to sign up to do such films in the first place.

What gives? I hope for some people to be brave enough to break this cycle. Producers, directors, actresses themselves.. We've seen steps in the right direction, No One Killed Jessica being one example. Now let's race towards that direction.

Is not-kissing (or kissing) a thing anymore?

Most things are just reactions, and reactions to reactions. A person who hasn't seen Indian films at all might be puzzled as to why there isn't the ubiquitous kiss you find in American films whenever there is even just a thread of romance in there somewhere. Another person who has seen and likes Indian films might defend the "no kissing" trend by talking about the benefits of not-kissing; the flirtation through looks, gestures and dialogue. In fact, a filmi fan might even get overly defensive about this sort of thing: "why should there be kissing? it's called acting!"

I recognise this sort of defensiveness in myself when I was really getting into Indian films and everywhere I turned, it seemed, I found something new to love and gush about. Then there was the flipside of not-kissing: the gratuitous almost B-film style full-tongued make-out sessions that were rather a turn-off. Due to actors like Emraan Hashmi gaining reputation not as good actors but as "serial kissers", it's no wonder some people will actually claim a preference to non-kissing. Perhaps not quite coincidentally, some of the most popular actors, like Shahrukh Khan, still refuse to kiss on-screen.



But times change, and it's not 2005 anymore. While some people shed tears over the fact that it seemed that the "no-kissing" trend was petering out to give way for more on-screen macking, perhaps it wasn't so much a surge of the kissing trend as it was just moving to a period where neither option was the prevailing one. At times there would be kissing, at times there wouldn't be.

So I wonder - is not-kissing a thing anymore? Is it still a distinct trend, a phenomenon that's mostly observed?

In my own personal experience, I've noticed a definite shift from paying attention to nonchalance. I no longer notice that a film has kissing, or has fake-kissing, or hasn't got any kissing at all. A romantic pair bumping foreheads instead of lips can have the same emotional impact of a happy ending, but if there is kissing, I'm not usually taking notes as to whether this kissing is awkward, gross or perfectly executed. It no longer feels like a necessary or an unnecessary feature in mainstream Indian films. It's just another choice made by the director or by the actors in a way to convey a romantic relationship on-screen.


But of course, I may be alone in this. There may be some people who feel like not-kissing should remain a feature integral to romantic Indian films, that it gives them a unique emotional flare, where subtext is there, but lip-on-lip action just isn't, and doesn't have to be. Perhaps to some, there is still a relevant debate to be had about this subject.

What do you think?

I recently rewatched The Dirty Picture, and noticed that for such a raunchy, honestly sexual film with brazenly sexual characters, nearly all the kisses seemed to be the kind where actors just turn away from the camera. I'm sure that says something on this subject, but I'm not quite sure what..

Ek main aur ek tu hai.. Random thoughts about hiphop.

This post is just some thoughts inspired by Switty Tera Pyar Chaida, a promotional video for Delhi Belly, and Filmi Girl's brief thoughts on it that inspired debate in the comments of this post, as well as Twitter debate that touched on the same topic (I don't know how to link to this so I won't).


I think when it comes to the intersection of hiphop and Bollywood, there are numerous points to consider.

1) Globalness of goth genres. It's clear that these two would not intersect if it were not for the global popularity of hiphop, or the popularity of Bollywood films outside India. But the fact that they are global, brings up a question that problematizes the 'globalness' of them. So we understand hiphop and Bollywood as "things" or as "genres"?

If we classify them as "things", then they can be more clearly defined and located. Hiphop music and culture becomes something that stemmed from the experiences of black Americans in the late 1970's and onwards. It's not just a genre of music with certain characteristics - it's a thing with a certain, definite history. Bollywood as "a thing" would be mainstream Hindi films produced in Bombay/Mumbai.

As genres, I think the boundaries somewhat disappear. A musical dance number in an American sitcom can be considered in the "Bollywood genre", despite it not being in Hindi or produced in Mumbai. Yet there's something "Bollywoodish" about it, so it can be understood to fit the genre. Hiphop as a "thing" isn't produced by two Indian guys, with the son of India's biggest film star providing the vocals, but as a genre, it can accommodate a hiphop song like "Right Here Right Now" from the 2005 film Bluffmaster.

I think it's good to keep in mind both hiphop and Bollywood as 'things', because those I feel like are their "truest nature". It's where the genres stemmed from, and it's where you can still find a lot of variation (so it's not as if its a very purist view). But at the same time, you have to consider the global aspect.

2) Mockery. What's the parody of "Switty", regardless of how funny or poignant it is, aimed at? I would argue the same as those defending it in the FG post - at the endless appropriation of hiphop as a genre by Bollywood film makers because of the idea that hiphop is glamorous, current and cool. But of course, what they really ape is only some aspects of hiphop as a genre - the musical style and the materialistic flair of the music videos (not to mention the objectification of women). So there's bling, cars and girls, not well-crafted lyrical output about the racism of the police or such issues.

I don't think Switty's a fantastic parody - it runs the risk of becoming the thing it mocks to the casual viewer, who will just see as another hiphop-inspired Bollywood promotional video and react accordingly. But I also don't think it's saying, "this is how silly hiphop is". To do that, it would just be ignorant, the same way in which some "Bollywood-inspired" things made in the West come off as insulting because even if they come from a place of love, they boil "Bollywood" as a thing or as a genre down to rather shallow "essentials", which can upset those fans of Indian films who find meaning in the lengthy dance numbers or other factors which these "inspired" thing contain.

3) Who gets to perform, and on whose terms? In hiphop, this is a much more pertinent question than it is for Bollywood, but applies to Bollywood as well, to a certain extent. It's obvious that hiphop's roots are not in the materially rich living portrayed in numerous music videos. At the same time, there are middle class rappers, too. I don't think it's my place to really chip in on this debate; while I do think that hiphop has become a global form of expression and I think a lot of respected, ground-breaking MC's have voiced similar opinions, it's really difficult to draw the lines of what 'feels' appropriate and what doesn't. And a whole other issue is just what is good music and what isn't.

Is Imran Khan performing a mockery of hiphop? In this case I feel like I can confidently say no. He is mocking a 'wannabe' who idolises certain aspects of the hiphop "culture", and the fact that most aspects are rather superficial. But what about white people performing Bollywood style dances and sequences?

Well, it might not be completely insulting, but it can be cringeworthy. I've been thinking about the Finnish bhangra-group, for example. Bhangra is global, but in the sense that desi people make it and perform it and dig it in Punjab, London, Toronto, wherever they may be in the world, and the audiences can be composed of various ethnicities. What are pasty Finns doing declaring their own sub-sect of this genre? I am biased, of course, and one of the things that bothers me is that I understand the lyrics to the song, whose title translates "leaders/commanders are invicible", which hardly gives off the vibe of a respectful tribute, but more of a boast. If you're going to borrow the musical stylings of another culture, at least be respectful. Or maybe I'm just easily irritated...

In terms of "Right Here Right Now", which I reference in the title of the post, it has to be said that this song only takes in aspects of hiphop, and while done in love, can be rather goofy in the way that Abhishek lives out his "rapstar" fantasy in the video. But for all its "trying too hard", it comes out as rather sympathetic to me, as does "Switty" in the end, even though it's more the bits of the movie that they show that make me want to see Delhi Belly, not the promotional video as a whole.

Or am I just a Bollywood apologist, easy to find fault in everything else but it? I don't know. I recognise that there are issues surrounding the problems and I do wish that certain Bollywood film makers would also think twice before making the "hiphop style" music videos for promotion of their films.

Until they do, hiphop producers outside India will rake in good money from the global success of their genre.. Has Bollywood gone down that path as well? Will it? That's probably a topic for another post.

What I know, what I've learned, and what I've yet to find out.

I learned English as a second language, and it took a while for me to figure out that ignorant and the verb "ignore" didn't share meaning. You're ignorant if you don't know something, but that doesn't mean you ignore information out there. Or does it?

As a non-desi fan of Indian films I often have to admit ignorance on topics that the movies deal with. I've never been to India (yet!), I'm obviously not Indian and even though I know people of Indian descent, some who've lived there all their lives, I'm not a part of that culture. I'm an outsider to it. My information comes from books, news, discussions with people, and yes, even movies, but not any actual experiences.

Lately I've been thinking about this sort of cultural/historical/religious ignorance that I have as a non-Indian viewer, and how much I should make the effort to mend the gaps. I mean, I'm obviously beyond asking questions like, "Why do they touch their parents' feet?" or "Why does that bearded man wear a turban?", and I know a thing or two about history and religions and customs and the variety that is Indian culture. But when it comes to a country so complex, you can never know enough. Should I make more of an effort to find out, though?

I am avoiding using the pronoun "we" even though I feel like a lot of non-Indian fans of these films probably have moments when they feel the same. It's always weird to learn through movies. Not in the sense that you think whatever a movie portrays is reality, but to be inspired to find out what actually happened and what the movie did differently, or what circumstances made the movie as it is. I learnt about Tamil Nadu politics because Mani Ratnam made Iruvar. I learnt about the 90's riots through Black Friday. This kind of thing.

On the other hand, I know information rarely sinks in unless it has a framework to work into. It's very hard to take in new information unless you have existing information. I remember reading a big book on Indian culture and I honestly don't remember a thing about it, because when I read it, I had very little knowledge of India in general, and the framework to connect all of that new information wasn't there. I think when the active interest is there, whether it's built by interest in culture or interest in films or whatever, then you can build the framework, and little by little adding to it, whether it's information about cultural traditions, religion, different regions, language..

It goes without saying education in most "Western" countries does not spare many thoughts on the history of India, or Asia in general. I've never been a history buff, either, even though I got good grades in it. My interest was always in how people lived, not leaders and wars and dates. It took an interest in movies to figure out blindingly basic facts about the country; it's really quite embarrassing.

But still, you might point out, we don't learn the entire of French history to watch Amelie. We don't need to understand how the US Senate works to enjoy Star Wars. Sure, true enough. But I think it adds something, if only a lessened possibility of misunderstanding, or a sense of better understanding, or a more critical viewpoint, or whatever you like. I don't think we should stay wholly ignorant, even if the films are "just" entertainment. Because once you have that fledgling interest, it's easier to build on that than somebody who doesn't necessarily give a damn, but learns something just to learn it. They might remember those facts they've picked up, might even connect it to some other information they have, but it's different from somebody who not only wants to learn, but has a goal attached: better understanding, even if ultimate understanding always escapes us (because one can never really learn everything there is to know about a culture, any culture).

What do you guys think (whether you're desi or not)? Am I once again over-analyzing this? :)

Why another (Finnish) white girl watches Bollywood...

Katrina Kaif - whitest girl in Bollywood?

This post is basically a response and thoughts inspired by this brilliant post by Filmi Girl titled "Why a white girl watched Bollywood movies". Instead of simply answering the question by listing things she likes about Hindi cinema, FG takes it deeper and further and I love that - basically picking apart our status as foreign viewers to a cinema that draws from a cultural background we don't belong to, while also acknowledging Bollywood's current status of worldwide popularity.

Exoticism

Like Filmi Girl, I have to admit to early exoticism. When I first 'discovered' Hindi films (like Columbus 'discovered' the Americas - generally I am not this careful with implications of language but in this post, the topic requires it), they were many things to me but mostly they were "something different". They were colours and romance and melodrama, and told stories of a culture I'd never really looked into that deeply. But I like to think I got over that.

There are problems with exoticism, especially in the way it ties to Orientalism. I'm not too familiar with Orientalism but what I do know if it is that it's a Western-constructed view of the "Orient" as a place of mystique and spirituality as opposed to the "Western" rationality and secularity, of course setting aside the rational, scientific and non-spiritual pasts and realities of cultures that the West regards as the Orient (I believe Amartya Sen wrote about this in The Argumentative Indian). You see this kind of thing among some Western Bollywood fans, and I always want to believe it's a passing phase; this idea that Indian people are so much more spiritual and their exotic amazing religion(s) are so much better than our own drab sects of Christianity. I won't deny the importance of religion to an Indian Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian or Jain - but it's not like people from the so-called "West" don't carry crosses, say "oh god!" or say prayers at church. So how come doing a puja, wearing a turban or saying "inshallah" make people more spiritual?

I also really dislike elevating Indian culture to a weird, high status and alongside such beliefs, making a personal hierarchy of cultures in your head, usually placing your own at the bottom, disregarded as "boring". There's nothing wrong with respecting and being fascinated by another culture - many people make careers out of engaging in different cultures, translating cultural symbols or living and working in a culture that's not their own - but to see it as better than anything? It doesn't feel right. Your culture is what in part made you who you are. Your surroundings, your first language, your religion (or lack thereof), all of these things matter. I just feel sad for people who want to be Japanese because they enjoy Japanese culture, or desire to be South Asian because they love Bollywood. Nobody needs to feel proud of their own country in nationalistic fervor or think their culture is perfect, but at least recognize what made you who you are, instead of abandoning it in order to become a 'wannabe' of another culture.

Othering and Objectifying

Tough topic. I used to worry a lot, back when I was really Bollywood-crazed, whether I was fetishizing Indian people. Nowadays, the worry seems a little silly to me. I think a part of fetishizing a portion of people, like a certain race or ethnicity, is to not see the individuals in that group as individuals. To a guy who fetishizes (East-)Asian girls, every Asian girl is just that .. Asian. His ideas about what she might be like are not fueled by desire to get to know her personality or thoughts, but simple, often racist stereotypes about Asian women. I don't recognize this line of thinking in myself. In my experience, I am attracted to some people, and not to others. The only difference from pre-Bollywood me and current-me and our tastes in men is exposure - I couldn't name 3 hottest Indian guys in 2003 because I quite frankly hadn't been exposed to many ..or any for that matter.

I could write an essay on the increasing level of objectification of both males and females in pop culture all over the globe but I don't have the brainpower or the time right now. Let's just say I'm not fully embracing it, but sometimes I just sit back and go, "Yes, X looked great in this movie. And I loved it for that."

Cultural appropriation

I think my approach to this is a little different from Filmi Girl's, simply because she's from a culture whose symbols and language has become a global phenomenon. I on the other hand, am from a small country with a culture that's not too well-known internationally. You know, you go to any semi-industrialized country and ask them if they know where Coca-Cola is from, they'll probably know. You do the same for even the most global Finnish brand names and they might blink and then say "Japan?". So I understand culture as a sort of personal commodity, something one feels protective over. You don't want people to misunderstand or misrepresent your culture, steal something you feel is a part of it and claim it as as their own. You don't want people to watch a movie you've loved since childhood and go "This is weird!" or mock it.

(By the way, I'm not saying Americans can't feel this over their own culture, but in some ways, the way their popular culture is marketed worldwide and their movies watched, it's a very different business.)

I think the key word is respect. I don't include a disclaimer to each of my posts about how I claim ignorance on knowing Indian culture and how it is completely possible that being a member of the culture would radically change both my view and my understanding of a movie - but that's a part of why I usually emphasize how personal my views are on any topic. Even if I use terms like "worst movie ever", the subtext is "worst movie that I've seen so far, in my personal opinion" - I'm not stating a fact there. I never want to claim expertise over somebody else's culture because I'd never want anybody who isn't Finnish (or hasn't lived in Finland for a really long time, and gotten to know the land and its language and people) to claim expertise over my culture.

Filmi Girl has a good point that Bollywood has hardly been a purely regional cinema, which is a fair point. On the other hand, it has to be noted how large a part these films play in Indian people's own identity sometimes, whether they live in India or are NRI, even whether they watch the films or are just living in the culture that watches those films. I recall reading a story of somebody who grew up in 1970's Bombay, and remembers quoting Sholay with his friends .. without having actually ever seen the movie. You can take Bollywood out of India, but you can't take India out of Bollywood.

I'm lucky enough not to have gotten hatemail from people who feel like I'm enroaching on their cultural turf in some way. More often people of South Asian descent are just curious; how did you get into Indian movies, do you know so-and-so actor/film? Or then they're weirded out ("But those films are crap!") or happy, or nonchalant.

So why does a white girl watch Bollywood? Hopefully not because it's exotic and Other, not because she wants to become Hindu or Indian, or learned "Namaste" from a yoga class but because it's interesting, and it's what she likes. And as she consumes this now increasingly global form of entertainment, she remains respectful of the culture it stemmed from, willing to admit ignorant mistakes she might make, and most importantly, interested to learn more.

And hopefully she will stop writing posts where she refers to herself in the third person, because voi hyvä Jumala ("oh good God!" in Finnish), that's just a show of bad writing acumen.

PS. University swallowed up my life. Post on Kanthasamy ...later!

Geetas, Basantis and Hasinis: thoughts on women and feminism in Indian films.

Or: Am I a bad feminist for liking Indian films so much?

For those of us who aren't Indian and haven't grown up watching Indian films, especially those of us who're women and claim to be feminist, some people may wonder, why do we enjoy movies where a woman is more often a housewife than a lawyer? Films where the hero might slap the heroine and everybody, including the heroine, thinks it's okay? How can this be? Or is this really a question at all? I mean, not every feminist in the world picks apart representations of women in movies and books and song lyrics. At the same time, I think everybody has those lines that can and will be crossed. Some feminist theories emphasize the need not to make women feel guilty about enjoying this or that, but rather focus on why they enjoy what they do, and how they interpret it themselves.

One example I remember reading a semi-academic article on, was the "morning after" scene in DDLJ and how British South-Asian youths interpreted the scene. I can't link to the article now, but nevertheless, the interpretations of the scene brought up thoughts in me about how I personally saw the scene. As a huge fan of the movie, but not a very conservative person, I saw the part where Raj tells Simran he knows what honour means to an Indian woman, rather a statement about a fact (that honour/virginity is the most important a woman can have, as I certainly don't believe that's true), but rather as a show that despite his earlier, assy behavior, he respects Simran's values. Of course, you could argue it's a fair bit of assumption on his part to assume she subscribes to the "Indian" set of values despite being NRI, but perhaps through their time spent together, he knows her enough to know this much.

But I guess at the end of the day, it comes down to just that: interpretation and varying viewpoints. What offends one may be okay to another. I myself try not to get too deep into feminist issues, representations of women etc when watching Indian films, or any films for that matter. I find if I start to make things that are fiction hold up a certain standard of how this or that character should be, should do, should behave, I just end up disappointment. So I tend to go with my initial reactions: if a heroine is kickass and interesting, I'll go with it. If they're bland, annoying or boring, I'll shrug and try not to dwell on it. If they're interesting but make peculiar choices thanks to the conservative ideology the film is trying to send me (see also: Laal Patthar review), I might dwell on it but I rarely get very upset by these things.

There's a lot of bad things happening to women in Hindi/Tamil/Telugu films. I'll say that now, but I'd rather not dwell on it. At the end of the day, not even Hollywood films meet certain feminists' standards, so you know, it's all rather relative. What a fantastically original conclusion, is it not? I know, I know. This is a post I feel like I need to write, even though writing it is a struggle, as I cannot avoid generalizations.

Some facts speak for themselves: heroines are still secondary to heroes. They draw less audiences, get paid less and rarely get first billing. Especially after the cotton candy family melodrama became popular in the 90s, heroines, it seemed, had less and less to do on-screen. Women-centered films rarely achieve box office success. I'm not trying to argue this is always the case, there will be exceptions, I suppose, but in general, the rule seems to apply.

But in an attempt to focus on the positives, let's look at this way; things are constantly in motion and there's no way to predict what the future will bring. There was once a day when heroines did get first billing, and were the main draw of a film (I believe this was in the 1950's). In the 1970's plenty of heroines had jobs and distinct careers of their own. Perhaps we will see roles for women with more substance one day. Perhaps we don't need to have every movie pass the Bechdel Test (by the way, having taught about the films that would pass it, I can only really think of Chak De India and ..holy crap, is that it?). Though not that I think of it, perhaps it'd be better if more did..

I titled this post with mentions of famous "spunky" characters played in famous films (Geeta from Seeta aur Geeta & Geet of Jab We Met, Hasini from Bommarillu, Basanti from Sholay). But at the end of the day, I don't really want to inspect the characters through this lense; it's unfair to desire all representations of women to be like this. Just like the heroes, the heroines can be roughly divided into archetypes. In some ways, the treatment is equal regardless of gender; if you want to accuse characterizations of heroines in Indian films of being shallow, take a look at the heroes - they are not much less shallow, when it comes down to it.

This is a crappy thinky post because it's one where I hardly run into any conclusions. The matter is difficult and I don't really want to settle on one perspective to filter through all my various thoughts on the matter. As often, there's a fear of overanalysis somewhere in the back of my head: if I think about this too much, will I stop liking it?

So as usual, my approach is more instinctive; if it works for me when I watch it, it works. If it rubs me the wrong way, annoys me, or makes me want to critisize it, then I accept that. What I feel like I need to work on is to learn how to make judgments and stick by them; I mean, it's only a movie. While I will no doubt try to wrap my head around the cultural background of said film (as to understand its context), I can't just excuse whatever message the film might be sending that feels unacceptable to me simply because I'm not from the culture the film is from. It's not to say I disapprove or judge the culture, because as I said, I always try to put it into context and see why somebody from that culture might be more okay with it. But if a movie upsets me, on some feminist standpoint, or any point for that matter, I'll try not to put those feelings aside.

This isn't some kind of manifesto to say you'll be seeing critical feminist readings of Indian films from now on in this blog. No way, I still watch Indian films because I love them to death and wish to see more of them, not because I want to pick them apart from a particular prism. But as it's International Women's Day, and I've been trying to finish this damn post for months, I figured this is a good enough note to end it on.

Bollywood, Slumdog & "the West".

I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire because I intended to see it in theaters and the Finnish release date has been postponed time after time. Right now we're looking at a March release date, and I'm not sure if I can wait until then.

But even without seeing the film itself, it's impossible not to witness the impact its making in English-speaking countries, and other countries where English films typically reign supreme. I've had American friends tell me, "I just saw a Bollywood movie!" (which leads me to react, "Good for you! But technically Slumdog isn't Bollywood..."). There's quite a lot of buzz, and a lot of media coverage and even if Slumdog isn't technically Bollywood (if we define Bollywood as Hindi-language, Bombay-produced, mainstream films), it's certainly getting the genuine Bollywood some attention in the eyes of the so-called West.

Having spent nearly five years in the Bollywood fandom, there seems to be this constant question of when Bollywood will finally break out and become cool and popular among the Western mainstream, in the way that Chinese martial arts once did (leading Jet Li and Jackie Chan to become recognized household names), or in the way that Japanese films and comic books became when you began to find manga books and anime DVD's in nearly every store. People predicted it would happen with Lagaan and now with Slumdog, and rather than to ask, should it happen (in other words, does Hindi cinema need the approval of the Western mainstream somehow, why should it ever break out into the consciousness when just the NRI's and the few non-Indian fans seem to bring in quite a nice amount of abroad box office money?), I'd rather ask, will it ever?

I somehow doubt it.

I can't speak about the histories of Japanese popculture or Chinese/Hong Kong films with expertise, so I suppose it could be exaggeration to say they're somehow more open for the eyes of people outside those cultures, whereas Bollywood films can be such a different ballgame from European or Hollywood movies, and the culture they portray so alien to the Western viewer that they take a little while to become more accessible. When I saw my first Hindi film, Kabhie Khushi Kabhi Gham, I loved it, don't get me wrong, but I didn't get it. I was confused by the less structured story-telling (it was not a 90-minute Hollywood script in three acts!) and couldn't read all the cultural customs and references that they loaded the screen with.

Of course, that's not to say I'm now fully versed in Indian culture and know everything and get everything; that just wouldn't be possible. But I've become more understanding of this form of cinema, its traditions, history, values, tropes and style. Getting into Indian films has in some ways become an exercise in open-mindedness; it's different from everything you're used to seeing, but now you accept that, and appreciate it on (what I hope are) its own terms.

This doesn't mean I love every film or don't find objectionable things in films or the industry itself. But along with my love for Bollywood, comes a definite attitude re-adjustment. Films are films. If you watch Hindi/Tamil/Telugu/whatever Indian language films and continue to carry the notion that films from the US/France or wherever in the so-called "West" are somehow magically superior, you might as well stop watching.

But if only it were that simple that all films are created equal and a bad film's bad, although in different ways, despite the country or culture it comes from. But the ideas of Western film-making's superiority is sadly prevalent even in the minds of some Indians themselves. But I suppose that's a different issue altogether.

The point I'm trying to come to is that I'm not sure the audiences at large in the "West" would be so accepting of the Indian manner of making films and telling stories. Some people occasionally might get into, thanks to an Indian friend, a visit to the country itself or pushing efforts by us non-Indian filmi fans, and that's wonderful, but for it to become something more popular in the mainstream, for people to know stars beyond the few who've been in the limelight outside India, I just don't see it happening.

And to risk sounding elitist, I don't mind it.

Starting out with ___? Newbie indoctrination philosophies.

The way it looks to some film fanatics of Indian cinema, the world only has two kinds of people; those who love Indian films, and those don't. The former type is more varied than the latter type believes - ranging from the Russian girl who grew up in USSR watching Raj Kapoor films to the NRI living in London whose mother is big on Dharmendra, from the Delhi housewife who catches most films on TV to the German university professor whose friend showed her a Shahrukh Khan film and who's been in love ever since. On the Bollywhat Forums people came up with the term NIF - Non-Indian Film (person), referring to a person who doesn't love Indian cinema and doesn't understand it. At the same time, there is a widespread belief that in every NIF there is a seedling, a potential to become a filmi fanatic as big as any.

It's probably a huge generalization to say that Indian people themselves rarely try to get non-Indians into their own country's films. Of course, there are undoubtedly exceptions to this rule, but in general the biggest fans of introducing the world of Hindi (and Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam) films to NIFs are former NIFs themselves - people who through some odd path in life stumbled upon Indian films and enjoyed them immensely. These fans are typically not Indian as most Indians, even NRIs, more or less already know Indian films (though I think it's fair to argue that a NIF could also be an Indian person who dislikes their own country's films and largely prefers foreign cinema).

Some people don't stress introducing Bollywood to strangers. They sit their friend down with one of their own favourite Hindi films and come what may, hope their friend likes it enough for another one (and another one, and another .. that's how an obsession starts, hai na?). Other fans worry about their friends' opinions so much they have a hard time choosing from their Bollywood library - a new film, an oldie, something glitzy and masala or something from the multiplex side of things? Hrithik or Shahrukh, Rani or Madhuri, Karan Johar or Ram Gopal Varma, historical or contemporary, annoyingly catchy Pritam soundtrack or classy A.R. Rahman? Even from a small DVD library one may find a confusing lot of choices. And the philosophies on what best suits a newbie, on exactly just what will make them go "ooh, I like this, I want to see more!", are many and varied. The following are just a few lines of thought I've seen people swear by in their Bollywood-pushing attempts.

1. Taking It Slow - The believers of this method want to soften the entry into the dramatically different cinematic world of Hindi films for their NIF friends. The idea is that instead of showing a three hour melodramatic masala feast, you break the viewer in with something a little closer to what they've seen before - something more in style with Hollywood or European cinemas. A film with a more serious topic, a songless film, or a film for the multiplexes (such as Dor for example) will show the NIF how Indian films aren't all that different but are a little different all the same, and if they like the film enough, it can be easy to show them more, something a little closer to the louder mainstream of Hindi films. Another example might be Rang De Basanti or Pyaar Ke Side Effects.

Pro's:
A show of variety right off the bat - Indian films can be anything from politically motivating to fantastically entertaining. A non-alienating film experience for your average NIF - they'll probably like the film and won't be judgmental Indian films anymore.

Con's:
"Indian films are just like Hollywood films in a different language!" - or, not recognizing the uniqueness of this form of cinema. A non-encouraging watch - a NIF may possibly not be intrigued to see more, hearing that this was just one corner of the large field.

2. Throw Them to the Thick of It - The direct opposite of the former method. The idea is that a NIF is best caught off-guard; show them a three hour long film with all the whacky plot twists, melodrama, song-and-dance like you wouldn't believe. All the works, basically. This way they see Hindi films in all their glory, for better or worse - or as the believers in this method think, usually for the better. The idea generally isn't to make the NIF love everything about a film, but for some aspect or several of them to catch their interest. They like the dancing, or some actor, or some goofball aspect of the plot and want to see more. They're fish that caught the bait. Examples of this could be just about anything from Sholay to DDLJ, from Fanaa to Kal Ho Naa Ho.

Pro's:
Realistic view of what the indoctrinator usually loves about this cinema as they typically pick one of their favourite masala films. A lasting impression if nothing else!

Con's:
Too much for some NIFs. May re-enforce stereotypes of Bollywood in the NIF's mind.

3. If You Like That, You'll Love This / Know Your Audience - These are technically the same method, though with some key differences. The first term is the correlation theory - the idea that if a NIF for example likes action films from Hollywood and Hong Kong, they might enjoy something like the Don remake in Bollywood. If they like romantic comedies, Jab We Met. Or something less specific, if your NIF is a fan of very visual cinema and historical storylines, anything from Jodha-Akbar to Asoka might be their thing. Strong heroines? Seeta aur Geeta. Cheese and eyecandy? Dhoom 2. Taste for the black-and-white? Shree 420 or some Guru Dutt classic.

KYA (pun unintended) or Know Your Audience method on the other hand also relates to knowing what your NIF expects or wants out of Indian films. Are they looking for laughs, a good cry or a thought-provoking story? Do they just want to get to know the music and dance styles in the films, or do they already have a star in mind they'd love to see in a film ("I like that guy who's in your laptop desktop pic!")? With this sort of knowledge you're guaranteeing they will enjoy the film, or at least heighten the chances of that happening.

Pro's:
A familiar but new experience for the NIF at the same time. A chance to show them a different way to make a film from a genre they thought they knew through and through. Generally better success rate.

Con's:
Knowing your friend's movie taste may prove more difficult than you think. To say they like comedy, you may have to probe and think back to what styles of comedy they have enjoyed in the past. People's tastes can be illogical, too: in Hollywood somebody might dislike musicals but in Bollywood adore them.

4. Starting Modestly - This view was expressed by a friend last night, who told me I should not show one of my absolute favourites, the films I think of as nearly-perfect to a NIF. "Better start with something that's just okay, so they get the hang of it but don't think of every movie will be great," she said, adding, "Your taste is different from theirs, fundamentally, because you've seen more movies."

Come to think of it, a lot of people got into Bollywood through films that aren't all that. My first, K3G, is not among my favourites, though I have a certain fondness towards it. Not everybody's first film wow'ed them but they still liked it enough to continue watching. For example, Dil Chahta Hai I saw much later, and it's among my favourites. I was a newbie when watching it the first time, but had seen around 13 Bollywood films by this point. There's a huge difference in that first film and those first films that solidify (is that a word? it is now!) the love for this particular cinema.

Pro's - as argued above.

Con's - "It was okay, sure, but I don't want to see more.." so in other words, a completely non-thrilling film experience, leaving no desire to explore Hindi films further.

5. Running Commentary vs Whenever, Wherever - These opposing views relate to the actual situation where the NIF sits down to watch whichever film has been decided for them by the existing filmi buff. The former option is for them to watch it in the company of the more knowledged Bollywood fan, who may share trivia, answer questions, comment on the movie and offer explanation to the (possibly) confused NIF. The latter option is to borrow your DVD's to a NIF, perhaps even several one's, and allow them to check them out on their own in whatever circumstances they choose to. Running Commentary is preferred because for one, you can watch the film again, and see your NIF's reactions in actuality and also make some things clear for them so they get more insight into this sort of cinema. The former allows the NIF to decide for themselves how they want their first dose of Bollywood, which may lessen their worry of "will my Bolly-fan friend hate me if I don't like this movie?" and increase the likelihood of them enjoying the film.

Con's for Running Commentary - Not for everybody, as some people simply want to watch films alone for the first time, and find conversation during a film, no matter how sparse, very distracting.

Con's for Whenever, Wherever - The NIF may start watching a film too late in the evening and fall asleep not realizing the movie is longer than two hours, or they may watch it while doing something else and miss half of it. A NIF may misunderstand something thanks to faulty subtitling, not being accustomed to subtitling or something similar. All of these add up to a not-so-great film experience.

6. Watch What You Want - Occasionally it might not be possible to lend a film to a NIF or watch it with them, thanks to distance or other circumstances. Some people also want to throw the ball in the NIF's court. The method is simple: the NIF browses some Bollywood films, perhaps based on the Bollywood-pusher's recommendations, and picks whatever really catches their eye (buys it or rents it from Netflix or downloads it from the internet or similar). This way it's not up to us, the existing fans, to fret whether they will end up liking it or not. It's also a question of motivation: they might not be so motivated to watch a film that a friend just dumps on their lap, but a film that they themselves picked, they will be more interested in watching.

Pro's - as argued above.

Con's - The NIF's pick may go terribly, terribly wrong. They may end up watching one of those mind-numbingly bad films because "the girl on the cover was pretty" or "the plot sounded interesting". Even recommendations may go wrong; they might see a friend mention a film in a positive manner and assume this film is great and worth seeing. For example, I loved Ek Duuje Ke Liye recently but it's not the film I would sit all of my NIF friends down to watch.

7. Snack-sized Viewing - Bollywood fans should be known for picking a film apart. You know what I mean. The music was good, but the dancing wasn't, the male lead did a great job but the villain was lacking, first half okay, second half spectacular etc. The films are jam-packed and usually in that package, there is content of largely varying quality. This method requires putting together a visual mixtape of Bollywood's best bits - songs, scenes, music videos, comedy scenes. Youtube is a great tool if you don't have the technology to rip scenes from DVD's and burn them onto a new DVD. Of course one way is also just to watch songs from one film, some scenes from another film, going picking and mixing like this. Song DVD's can also be utilized in this.

Pro's:
Seeing songs off one film may increase interest in watching that film whole. Seeing an actor/actress in one of the clips may pique a NIF's interest. Also the opportunity to show variety; a song from the 50's, one from the 60's, some contemporary ones and an action scene from the 70's to spice up the mix may give a NIF an amazing view into the vastness of Hindi cinema, better than any one movie.

Con's:
Overload of visuals and variety may not appeal to a viewer not from the MTV generation - they might prefer a whole film, and to see the whole story. Another problem may be that the NIF starts to see Indian cinema as just a selection of funny Youtube clips - "I can watch the songs and laugh but a whole movie? No way!".

7. Aware and Prepared - The simple view that in the end, it doesn't matter whether you pick masala or artsy, mainstream or multiplex, modern or oldie, what really matters is how you prep your NIF. Explanation of the film's genre, plot, stars, music before watching helps guide the NIF's own experience of the film - when they know what to expect, they won't be left disappointed.

Pro's - as argued above.

Con's - Too much information may kill a film. Often Bollywood films take a turn to something completely different half-way through the film, and a simple description may make the NIF expect something that they only get in some scenes in the film. Masala is both a blessing and a curse at times.


Who says Bollywood fans are shallow? As far as the philosophies of newbie introduction films, our views are complex and more in-depth than those of any regular Hollywood film viewer's. This is just the thoughts I've come across with and discussed with people. Feel free to add to the list, or perhaps argue why you prefer Running Commentary or Snack-sized Viewing above anything else.