February 26, 2007
Wallflower once moreFilm
Oscar season has come and gone, and Indian film came nowhere close to being honored with Rang de Basanti failing to even make the foreign films shortlist and Water getting passed over. Reacting to RDB’s poor showing in the BAFTAs (the British Oscars), actor Naseeruddin Shah had this to say:
“We just don’t make films of an international standard… I really don’t think we make films that can match those from other parts of the world. And I am not referring to Hollywood - we make copies of Hollywood,” [Link]
Criticisms of Bollywood’s lack of originality and quality are nothing new, but coming from Shah they carry more weight. When I make similar statements, my Bollydefending friends justly point out that as an ABD I just don’t get the genre-specific joys, but it’s harder to rebut somebody who has acted in both mainstream Bollywood film and alternative cinema in India, appearing in over 130 films with 3 Filmfare magazine awards to his name. Furthermore, his statements appear to be more than an indictment against Bollywood; as quoted they are a criticism of the entire Indian film industry.
This is not to hold Hollywood up as an exemplar of good taste and originality. M.Night won worst director at this year’s Razzies and this year’s Best Film, The Departed, is a less exciting copy of Hong Kong’s Infernal Affairs. [Granted it really won as a deferred reward for Scorcese, but still …]
What makes Shah’s criticism interesting is that he’s not saying India should be like Hollywood, instead he’s comparing India to other third world countries, saying that they produce better movies:
“We can’t match the types of films made in Iran for example, Poland, Japan, Mexico or Brazil, Vietnam or Korea… These countries are producing the most incredible movies and we are still plodding on with our boy-meets-girl safe, old formula. That is the reason I think our films aren’t taken seriously”. [Link]
Others point not to quality but to the lack of an adequate marketing budget (thanks Anil). The producer of The Departed had this advice:
… the financers who fund Bollywood movies must spend double or triple of the production costs they are currently spending just in marketing efforts and use it to promote the beauty of Indian cinema to a mainstream audience. As far as ‘The Departed’ is concerned, the promotion budget exceeded the costs of the production of the movie [Link]
And unnamed “Hollywood Executives” in the same article pointed to market structure as an additional problem:
According to Hollywood executives, another problem is that Indian filmmakers don’t distribute their movies in mainstream theatres in key US markets. Instead, these are distributed among independent theatres in South Asian areas.
‘Hollywood is a business. Once Hollywood understands the business and the huge fan base of the Indian film industry and how much money can be made, the Indian film industry will definitely be taken more seriously in Hollywood,’ said one studio executive. [Link]
Lastly, as a counterpoint to this gnashing of teeth and rending of hair, Manish argues that this was no great loss for India:
The Oscars were a joke this year… Who in their right minds wants an Oscar when these are the films they anoint? It’s a race to the bland bottom… And Bolly denizens are sitting here crying into their chai when a Canadian flick loses the affirmative action Oscar. Bollyflicks are about as foreign to most of the world as the World Series are international. It would’ve tarnished their reputation to have won in a year that’s a monument to flavorless parochialism. [Link]
Maybe the problem isn’t India’s film industry, or meager production budgets, it’s the Oscars themselves. What do you think? Should India stop looking to the golden statue for validation and do its own thing? Or was this year’s loss another “learning experience” for Indian cinema.
ennis on February 26, 2007 03:27 PM in Film · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
The quote from the unnamed H'wood executives is interesting. I interviewed Karan Johar one week ago when he was in NY and he lamented the issue of distribution in mainstream theaters too, but as he spoke about it, it was something he did want but that the big multiplexes were playing coy.
On the marketing side, I don't have the exact quote handy right now, but I interviewed someone at UTV this weekend who talked about how expensive it is to get the the words on films out there where non-Indian audiences will be aware of them too (e.g. full page ad in the NY Times).
On the Oscar question, leaving aside whether it matters as some sort of stamp of approval from white America or not, I guess the initial economic bounce and caché associated with the awards is still something desireable.
Funny thing, you know how the ads here trumpet "winner of 4 Academy Awards" for X or Y film as soon as the Oscars are over (and even the nominations before the event takes place)? I don't think you ever see mention in Indian media of "Rang De Basanti" winner of _____ Filmfare Awards...
Interesting questions Ennis. The real measure of Oscar (or of the Nobel, or Booker) is not the reaction of those who lose. It's the reaction of those who win. And those who win exult.
Let's say Vishal Bharadwaj had carted off best director last night (and, given what else was on offer, I don't see why he shouldn't have), and Seema Biswas had gotten best supporting actress for her role in "Water," the conversation we would be having right now would be different. We would be talking about the excellence of Indian film, not the flaws of Oscar. Heck, some would be talking about the innate superiority of Indian film or some such nonsense.
The psychology of big prizes is interesting. Sure, they're tainted, not only by their parochial origins (Oscar is American, the Nobel is Swedish), but also by the accusations (whether true or false) made by those who are not given the prize: the voting is rigged, the standards are low, the politics are wrong, blah blah blah.
But, at the end of the day, those who win are honored to win, and those who don't (no matter what they say) want to be similarly honored. Because, for good or ill, regardless of their origins, indeed regardless of certain still-parochial tendencies, those prizes belong to the world now. This is the West's real genius. An inclusiveness that serves to, predictably, shore up their dominance.
This inclusiveness, this assumption that the world should be part of the whole thing, is precisely what's lacking in those who would try to storm the center of empire or alter the balance of power. (A very simple example of this is the fact that "Water" could be a Canadian film, but "The Barbarian Invasions" could conceivably not be an Indian one). Power is inclusive.
I wouldn't take Naseeruddin Shah seriously, after he made this crap, full of plot holes and weak script.
How is it that Iran, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan and Mexico can all make brilliant movies and India, with a mass cinematic culture and strong technical infrastructure just produces so much.....blegh? Could Oldboy, Amores Peros, Infernal Affairs, Taste of Cherry come out of India? Enough ass shaking. Death to Bollywood!
Western Hegemony Alert!
I'm with Naseeruddin Shah -- not because I think present-day Bollywood needs to change, but because a strong enough alternative doesn't exist alongside it. When I speak of strength, I mean alternative cinema whose essence is a raw and bold and challenging artistry (and I think that's what Shah means when he refers to the more "serious" films from other countries). Strength also means the consistency in production that would encourage the growth of a formidable [counter]culture, and that will require a major shift in the way that films are marketed in India and overseas. If all of the above comes together, then the international recognition will come (and I'm not talking about the Oscars, per se).
Well said, Kobayashi-san. Bravo.
Snapper, while it's hard to imagine either a Pan's Labyrinth or an Y Tu Mama coming out of India, I'll bet we'll see bollycopies at some point in the future ...
Indianoguy,
I was just gonna comment about his directorial debut, Yun hota to kya hota, utter crap with a mishmash of everything 'masala'. He acted in another one-of-a-kind movie Krrish. He sounds arrogant and bitter in every interview
Oh God.....Pan's Labyrinth starring Sunny Deol....
Ennis #8
Although I agree with you in principle about blatant plagiarism in Indian Cinema, I don't think there will be copies of Pan's and Y tu mama, if you said Internal Affairs, that would be another discussion.
Red Snapper,
Once again, it would be Sunjay Dutt, Sunil Shetty, Amitabh Bachchan starring in the remake of Internal Affairs
Can't think of a single Korean film that's equal to Mr and Mrs Iyer. Innaritu's Amores Perros was excellent, but it was no City of God. Hong Kong films lack the subtlety of their Taiwanese counterparts. Iranian films are either works of genius or soporific allegories. Sometimes both at once. It's very much a mixed bag.
For places with a good money-making mechanism in place, there is a higher chance that the films will be technically impressive (good production values a la Kabhi Kushi Kabhi Gham) and artistically crap. When that much money is involved, there are certain artistic risks you can't take, e.g., leaving out the song and dance sequences.
In places where film isn't the way to make a killing, far fewer films get made, but what does get made can be remarkable. Bollywood, in other words, is the victim of its own success. For every critical winner like Dil Chahta Hai, there are dozens of other big-budget snoozers which rake in the rupees.
There's something special about a flick that a director struggles for years to make--a story that matures over the years, a budget that compels true creativity, actors who aren't sleepwalking through the role, a production that isn't keeping one eye firmly on the box office. Something that is close to lived experience. Pather Panchali is the classic example. The kind of film that might be beautiful but isn't so much fun to watch. Yet it leaves you feeling humbled, feeling human, and with the desire to live your life more nobly. With luck, such work might even command the world's respect.
I would love to see a copy of Crash in Indian context
Ennis, a Hindi "Y Tu Mamá Tambien"..... oh, that's a good one!
In "Aur Tumhari Mummy Bhi", the leading lady would have to be punished for her illicit behavior with the boys and be killed off.
Oh, wait, that was in the original too...
Btw, did anyone else think Gael Garcia Bernal looked, hmmm, not great? I think it was the hair (too much forehead) and the quasi-YSL specs...
You want to see Indian diversity in a patronizing light?
Bottom line: Rang de Basanti was a terrible movie. India's film board, who nominates ONE movie every year as the country's entry into the Oscars, usually manages to choose a Bollywood movie that leans toward seriousness, instead of frivolity. The subtext is that Bollywood itself needs to be validated. The film board doesn't bother with the art-house or indie stuff. Partly as a result of the general lack of support, there isn't very much art-house stuff. Where is India's "City of God"? Maybe India will get lucky and something like Lagaan (nominated) or Swades (not nominated) will win--a thinking person's Bollywood movie. But in the meantime, how many serious Indian (non-diaspora) directors can you name, who are not part of Bollywood? The center of gravity of India's independent film industry is in Britain, Canada, and the US, which is fine, but Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, and Gurinder Chadha aren't going to be India's entrants.
Why is that even a question?
Seriously? You want to watch movies that make you want to live nobly? That's the last thing I want in art.
Anyway....my point about Iran, South Korea, Mexico etc is that each of these countries has had something of a creative flowering over the last 15 years and produced a series of significant, original, exciting movies by talented directors often under conditions even more censorious than India (eg Iran) ---- and yet with all that cinematic culture, tradition (not just Satyajit Ray but the grammar of popular Hindi cinema), technical infrastructure, blah blah blah, India hasnt seemed to punch at her true cinematic weight artistically since whenever.
Rituparno Ghosh.
But your point's well taken, Preston.
Last year an Indian guy got nominated in the short category for his movie "Little Terrorist." Its a cute film, now available for $1.99 on Itunes. Check it!
Oh God....that just makes it seem even more dire....
That difference, O Snapper, is why you're the man you are and I'm the man I am. :)
But then again, you have no idea how I define nobility.
Around then he quit the farce alternative cinema had become, jumped headlong into mainstream cinema with Jalwa, showed off his physique, and athelticism, and arguably made fitness for male leads and not just the villains and extras.
Jalwa is an excellent movie.
That is true, even though Nasser sahib has worked with excellent directors, and owns a theater company, he at one point was sick and tired of parallel cinema.
All of them - Smita, Shahbana started doing mix. But then Sharmilla, Aparna Sen have always done that - between Ray films and Bollywood masala movies.
Preston, India board has its own politics, and sometimes they nominate regional movies too for Oscars. It depends on the make up of the Indian Board committee members at that particular year, and their internal politics.
Am I the only one who didn't like Y Tu Mama? The rich kid characters were so stereotypical I couldn't tell them apart from one another, and the poor woman to be sympathetic did not only have to be cheated by her husband, but dying of cancer to boot. And I found the commentary trying to lend a third-world perspective to their story extremely patronizing. I honestly learnt more about Mexico from Man on Fire than Y Tu Mama.
A very ignoble man indeed --- I feel ashamed.
OK someone reccommend me a movie that I can get on DVD tommorow something that will slap me out of my cinematic stupor and depression over the whackness of everything at the moment. And nothing that will make me feel noble!
There is also every reason to assume that the film board is as rife with corruption, patronage, and mob money as everything else in Bollywood. How could it not be? Why also are independent directors unable to work easily in India? Deepa Mehta's struggles will dissuade any sane director from trying to shoot in India. What's the overhead added to a film budget in terms of bribes and other payouts just to get the basic work done on the set? Why bother with India at that point?
The center of gravity of India's independent film industry is in Britain, Canada, and the US, which is fine, but Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, and Gurinder Chadha aren't going to be India's entrants.
What happened to Aparna Sen, Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihilani, Ketan Mehta, Mrinal Sen - They all predate Deepa Mehtas, and make much more powerful fare.
Aparna Sen is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, Gurinder Chadha combined.
slightly old but interesting story on foreign films
"Am I the only one who didn't like Y Tu Mama? "
no. i didn't like it.
Sen, I think, is indeed the best of the bunch. They're all very good though.
But why is Chadha even in this list? She's not in the same league with these other filmmakers.
She was on Sreenivasan Jain's show on NDTV Saturday and told him that back when trying to film, one of the local politicos in Varanasi approached her about the rights to the film for UP and she rebuffed him.
But why is Chadha even in this list? She's not in the same league with these other filmmakers.
Preston put her in the list, not me. I would not do that.
I just wanted to make a point independent cinema in India is well and alive, has always been. Satyajit Ray used to fund his own movies, sometimes.
Three words : Bride and Prejudice
It was reported that Orson Welles' bones were heard rattling from their coffin when that movie was released with fear that Citizen Kane had at last been eclipsed.
I think the Mani Ratnam films could possibly be more compelling choices for India's future submissions. The new wave of art cinema that is coming from South Asia could also be excellent choices. The Patwardhan documentary films are incredibly thought-provoking and should be submitted for that category. However, Hollywood is still very polarized and it will take some time before the Academy recognizes and accepts film styles from South Asia.
As for actors and actresses, I hope they can branch out and include other races sometime soon in the actual 'have won an oscar' category...
did anyone see the striking LACK of ANY type of asians in the montage of America through film that ended with the flag? ugh.
It is all Shakespeare's fault.
Show me one indian movie, not based on the bard's tales and I will show you an oscar winner.....
Like the S.O. said, what if all of India had voted for Sanjaya via Skype? It is possible, no?
"did anyone see the striking LACK of ANY type of asians in the montage of America through film that ended with the flag? ugh."
to be honest i don't think michael mann was celebrating american film so much as providing a tongue-in-cheek montage of what he thinks some of the essences of america are (dominated by race and religion basically)
Not a big Bollywood fan, but as for "good", alternative cinema in the last year, or so: "Dor", "Eklavya", "Omakara", "Main, meri Patni aur Woh", "Lage Raho Munnabhai"...the news about the death of a quality Hindi movie industry are greatly exaggerated!
Really ?
Here are some of the serious independent film makers just from south India...
Girish Kasaravalli
Shaji N. Karun
Adoor Gopalakrishnan
Govind Nihalani
Some of the mainstream serious film makers from south India
K Viswanath
K. Balachander
Mani Ratnam
Ram Gopal Varma
Sorry, Govind Nihalani is not from South
That such statements are accepted at face value just goes on to show how much out of touch with India the diaspora is.
Except when you go to Iran, South Korea, Benin, South Africa, Russia, etc., Indian films are significantly more popular with the people than any of the local product.
That's because you probably don't live in India and are probably exposed to a purely diasporic perspective that accepts mediocrity in the name of cultural authenticity. Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta and Gurinder Chadha (particularly Chadha) are weaklings relative to Shyam Benegal, Jabbar Patel, Dev Benegal, Shekhar Kapur, etc.
Jeet #9, i completely agree with you.
Am i supposed to take his views seriously when his directorial debut was a painful, terrible movie. It dealt with the most sensitive things in the utmost casual fashion possible! i really wish he would just stick to acting.
He is a very good actor, agreed-but i guess he's too bitter about not having been able to do what he really intended to, and the demise of so called parallel cinema in India. One never notices such bitterness when Shabana Azmi, Om Puri, Raj Babbar, Aparna Sen et al. talk.....
To notice film directors you have to be embedded in the local culture. Not many directors know the nuts and bolts of the movie business like the diaspora. I remember seeing posters of La Boda del Monzón all over Barcelona. Well, I may be expecting too much from a movie, but Mira Nair is only average - gives instant gratification though.
Ray is the best, but Ghatak comes close, followed by Mrinal Sen, Aparna Sen, Gautam Ghosh, Rituparno Ghosh, Buddhadeb Dasgupta. Sadly, many of the talented directors do not know marketing, and how to create the hype. Nair, Mehta and Chadha are panderers of the diasporic experience. That's the truth. While that experience is a reality, the portrayal of it has the benefit of dollars. So, no, you are plain wrong.
Look outside your coterie, and you will discover diamonds in the rough. A lot goes on that's not beamed into the living room. Also, know about Adoor Gopalakrishnan, and the darling of Indian middle class - Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Bollywood badshah Amitabh Bachchan has made a substantial number of third grade movies. It was for a reason Hitchcock had said: Actors are cattle. The Oscars are not the gold standard (did Truffaut win any Oscar? or The Cranes are flying? Or Ridicule?), they never were, and never will be.
Deepa Mehta's struggles are hers. When an outsider (yessir, when you come in from a distant land to shoot distress and pain, and runaway with the booty, that's how you are seen) eavesdropped on the natives' exploits, they got a bit angry. And the natives didn't have any training of political correctness and the luxury of positive reinforcement. But if you see closely, both the RSS agitators and the suffering widows are fools. Cunningness lies elsewhere. Methinks, that's not art at all. I know I am not alone. The paradox is exotica peddlers think others cannot see through the motivation of it all. Although, I must confess that the scenery of Ceylon and Rahman's music can cloak the underlying mediocrity of the movie. That again is the beauty of teamwork.
I think Bollywood films should be nominated for the Tony Awards.
South Korea? Are you sure? I don't think Bollywood's that popular over there. It is definitely famous in places like Benin, but that doesnt really change the point.
Ah yes The panderers. The dread 'P' word appears at last.
Please explain. I hold no brief for any of those film makers (especially not Chadha), but this accusation of 'pandering' needs to be understood. So what do you mean by it? Because the way I see it, coming out with that line about any artist should automatically set off alarm bells because it is thrown about so lazily and without explanation to stigmatise without thought these days.
Lack of budget is the main reason why Indian films don't get nominated? Bollywood films have budgets that are as large or usually larger than most indie international films..
If indie films from Palestine and Bosnia can get nominated for an oscar, I doubt the problem has little to do with the 'lack of budget'.
"Bottom line: Rang de Basanti was a terrible movie. India's film board, who nominates ONE movie every year as the country's entry into the Oscars, usually manages to choose a Bollywood movie that leans toward seriousness, instead of frivolity. The subtext is that Bollywood itself needs to be validated. The film board doesn't bother with the art-house or indie stuff. Partly as a result of the general lack of support, there isn't very much art-house stuff. Where is India's "City of God"? Maybe India will get lucky and something like Lagaan (nominated) or Swades (not nominated) will win--a thinking person's Bollywood movie. But in the meantime, how many serious Indian (non-diaspora) directors can you name, who are not part of Bollywood? The center of gravity of India's independent film industry is in Britain, Canada, and the US, which is fine, but Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta, and Gurinder Chadha aren't going to be India's entrants."
Why do they have to be Bollywood films? Bollywood is not synonymous to Indian cinema and there's a whole lot of non-hindi cinema out there. Most of the better indian films I've seen have not been in Hindi. If India's film board is limiting it's candidates to Bollywood, maybe that's one of the reasons?
Korea dominates the Far East media market--especially in terms of TV shows and popular music. I'm not certain about film. Chinese and Japanese people are more likely to be watching Korean soap operas than any other kind.
Naiverealist, you make many good points. I do think it's unkind and inaccurate to describe Nair and Mehta as panderers. It's not as if they get up in the morning and say, "Alright, I'm going to pander today." They tell the stories that matter to them, from where they are, with the resources they have. And, on average, the result is more interesting and watchable than your average Bollywood noisemaker.
It's possible to celebrate good indie work in the Desh without denigrating good indie work in the diaspora.
Wow --- I wonder what Satyajit Ray, who you eulogise so much on your blog, would have to say about such an analysis about a lynch mob formed to intimidate, bully, vandalise and make death threats to a film maker.
The mainstream Indian cinema, and I do stress "mainstream," has remained mediocre because it is a product designed and marketed to the entire spectrum of society. No automobile, food, software, clothes or entertainment product will be worth a darn if it must sell to every segment of society. It is a manufacturing and marketing impossibility.
In a country with very few entertainment choices, at least until recently, the movies have been the staple for the masses. How can you create a worthwhile movie if your job is to make it appealing to the professional elite, college students, housewives, illiterate rickshaw wallahs and shopkeepers all at once? But Bollywood has done it superbly by fabricating an artistic idiom that I can only compare to a similar, counterfeited and highly manufactured genre like the American western. Any problems with that?
Bollywood's best years are yet to come and the reasons have less to do with the improved technical virtuosity of Indian filmmakers and more to do with the changing distribution and consumption patterns of entertainment products in India. As the number of TV channels in India mutiply, the increased disposable income makes travel, eating out and other forms of entertainment more available at least for the burgeoning middle class and the already wealthy, movies will no longer be the mass staple that it is in India. There will be, actually there are, different types of movies for different target groups, as there are here. The multiplexes in India are the market's response to the niches forming in the Indian market. As an analogy, imagine an America without multiplexes. Instead there are still those huge movie palaces, and very few of them. Will that distribution model support a genius like Woody Allen who appeals to a very narrow demographics?
It is ironic, but also quite understandable, that Naseeruddin Shah gives Bollywood its worst grades. It is ironic because he has given us the best of Indian cinema and understandable because his work, along with the fantastic work of a few dozen others, many of them named in the preceding posts, have not been considered mainstream Bollywood.
But mainstream versus alternate is a statistical debate, not a qualitative one. Let me offer an analogy. Savvy travelers consider food in Europe vastly superior to food in America because European cuisine is not as dominated by fast food. Yet in America, there are many great French and Italian restaurants, but in statistical terms, they are overshadowed by the much broader output of fast food. Indian cinema, likewise, has a quality segment which is totally drowned by the vast outpouring of mediocrity. The problem is not the mediocrity but its immense volume.
I would not lock horns with my favorite actor, Naseeruddin Shah, over the quality of movies from Iran, Poland, Brazil and Mexico. I have seen many of them, and Mr. Shah, yours are infinitely superior.
Hari
As a bit of a tangent on this thread, but otherwise a very interesting issue - how come all the diasporic directors one can think of seem to be female, and all the India-based directors one thinks of seem to be male? Ok, Night Shyamalan may be an exception - though he's rather mainstream now and doesn't interpret the diasporic experience to the natives much, does he? I don't disagree with the basic premise here - Nair, Mehta, Chadha - don't - can't ? - stand up to Benegal et al. I've only seen Bhaji on the Beach by Chadha, and that was quite enough for a long while. Should I really bother with Bride and Prejudice? Has she matured any?
I tried to watch Rang de Basanti, but fell asleep within the first ten minutes. What happened?
*The Oscars are an American thing, after all, so why cry about it? I suppose the reason is that up until now, the American film industry was dominant in many markets, and in terms of making money. As these things change (and they will, nothing is forever), the need for approbation will change. Everyone likes a winner.
**Even the non-Bollywood, arthouse offerings seem very boring these days. Is there any film-maker out there who can straddle the life and sheer and utter presentness of Bollywood with more serious narratives and themes? Must it be either candy or spinach, only?
***Also, if I have to see one more 'dysfunctional white family as movie art' independent film, I will barf. You know what would be really independent? A film about happy people that wasn't Disneyfied or Bollywooded. Artistes, you are failing me......
One of the most insightful comments I've read on this site. Well said, brother.
It's sad to see how much this power affects desis in desh who indulge in the why-aren't-indian-films-good-enough kind of collective breast beating every year at Oscar time. This outpuring of the collective need for validation from the whitey is just sickening. My biggest dread yesterday was "OMFG - if, God forbid, that crapola of "fuckin'-misogynist-Hindoos" porn aka Water won the Oscar then that'd be unending topic of screaming headlines in desh for the next year or so".
Here are some quotes from Deepa Mehta about her dress.
Sorry, the previous comment was meant for the sari post!
Apologies.
oh, please don't ring alarm bells. a little discomfort will suffice. I called a spade a 'bloody shovel', instead of a 'manual earth remover'. No hard feelings, the word was thrown about lazily. But here's why: For Nair (Salaam Bombay) and Mehta (Water) - the villains are so easily understandable, without any nuance and shown in such black and white shades that the causes of misery and suffering are easily identified, and of course immediately understood by foreigners. That format is what I called pandering. Chadha's film, i admit, is not in this genre, although I have only seen bend it like beckham.
.so please neglect the word panderers. but i hope you understand what i meant. and you are right - these films are only comparable to the average bollywood noisemaker.
'eulogize so much'? i haven't. although i am passionate about Ray's movies, i refrain from too much praise, from behaving like a drunkard who is afraid of the sober intervals.
well, the lynch mob is a law and order problem. Mehta can only bask at the reflected glory of that controversy, that's all. and I don't know what Ray would have had to say about it. Probably he would have complained about the increasing problem of shooting in public places in India. He faced that difficulty himself. Probably he would have ignored the 'cops and robbers' kind of mediocre portrayal. btw, if you have noticed, villains are almost absent in Ray's movies - even in Ashani Sanket which was about the 1943 Bengal Famine.
The crux of the matter is: as an outsider, when you have the audacity of taking a normative stance, and preaching to the audience the lack of humanity in society, there are chances that you lose authenticity. (It does. I am an example. n=1).
On the contrary, if you are plain descriptive, you can convey the complexity of society in greater depth. but doing that requires you to work much harder, noticing the nuances, the daily habits, the small objects, the detail; btw, i think one scene in Water that manages to show some detail - where Mehta shows the wall paintings of Varanasi - bears an uncanny resemblance to Ray's Aparajito, where Apu and his friends play hide and seek. Watch that portion. But I am stopping here, partly because of the inherent stupidity in the comparison, as if they are of the same league.
From description the audience can make its own judgment of the good and the bad.
i agree wholeheartedly.
Excellent, excellent points, Naiverealist. I humbly doff my cap to you.
The point about the absence of villains is particularly sharp.
Indians are very hard working and good at studying. That being said, Indian's are talentless piece's of shiznitt.
Indian artist's in general just suck at everything. Painting, singing, dancing, acting, writing, and everything else you can think of. I mean how can you not make a good movie in India with all that crazy stuff happening around you.
I said this before. There is no competition in India in the arts department. A poor person with talent will never make it in India because some rich brat will hire someone to set the poor guys mother on fire and he will spend the rest of his life taking care of her and thus making the compeition go away. Can anyone give me an example of a bollywood actor that does not some from a rich family?
Have you seen indian movie and thought it was well done? There is always lazy elements to every movie that make you want to scream out loud. The other day I glanced at a Indian movie my sister was watching and in the scene there was a cow in the back ground that had explosive diarrhea and is shitting all over the place. You would think the director would yell "cut", but the scene just kept on going. The budget's are so low for these movies that they dont even close down street's in public places when they are filming. They just put the fucking camera on and start dancing around with all these white people looking at them with this "what the fuck" look.
If you are going to call your self a dancer then for God sake put the fucking samosa's down and get your flabby ass in shape. None of the dancers in Bollywood have a dancer's physique or a dancer's grace when they move. My sister told me that they just sent this Indian woman back to London, who was a classically trained ballerina, because she wasnt beautiful enough. I mean who the hell tell's a trained ballerina that she cant make it in bollywood? A business built on mediocre dancing should be happy someone with talent wants to be in there business.
I truly am disappointed with the lack of success of Indian's in the world's events. The movies suck, the athlete's suck, the everything else sucks. At least they have great call center's.
Probably he would have ignored the 'cops and robbers' kind of mediocre portrayal. btw, if you have noticed, villains are almost absent in Ray's movies - even in Ashani Sanket which was about the 1943 Bengal Famine.
Didn't Ray's Sonar Kella had a villian. Agreed, it was a comic triller.
thanks, Kobayashi. in college (undergrad) days, that was a common metric with which we used to critic movies.
that was right on. In the same vein, the focus should be on India's own awards. They need to be accorded more prestige, highlighted more, the prize money increased, and so on - simply because the awards are tailored to suit India's diversity. Wouldn't it be nice if Hollywood makes a movie in Tamil or in Assamese or in Telugu? It took a Gandhi for a move in that direction.
Kush - yes, you are right. :) even Hirak Rajar Deshe and Gupi Gyne Bagha Byne had.
Great comment NaiveRealist (#58). Its good to see some real insight here instead of the usual knee-jerk reactions (of which I too am guilty).
That is very true, and that is why I don't agree with the equation serious theme = good movie. Anyone can pile on the misery, but to take any situation, happy or sad, and provide some insight into it, is much harder.
BTW, I was wondering if you (or anyone else here) have read Sunil Gangopadhyay's Sei Samay (Those Days). Deepa Mehta was accused of lifting the story from the book without crediting the author. I read it a long while ago (a translation into hindi), and while I remember situations vaguely similar to the movie, I do not remember if the exact story was part of the book.
Yeah, I did find it amusing that the Best Picture in Hollywood for 2006 was essentially a knock-off of some hard-boiled Chinese cop film. Granted, an extremely high quality knock-off-- they don't generally have $200 million of play money in the Hong Kong studios after all-- but clearly molded around an original idea that coalesced in a foreign film. And yeah, poor Scorsese had to get the recog at some point.
Funny in fact how foreign or foreign-ish films got the top nods this year, w/ Babel, Pan's Labyrinth in there among others. It's still good news for Desi filmmaking overall, after all for once, the Academy is looking outside of the Sunset Boulevard radius, even to S/E Asia for inspiration and for quality films themselves. And besides whatever they like to claim at the Academy, Bollywood films and stars have the global buzz thing going. Everybody knows Amitabh and Aishwarya. Except in the States I guess.
BTW, and totally absolutely unrelated-- anyone with tips on learning how to speak really good, at least subfluent Spanish, within 2 years or so? Starting from, uh, knowing how to say "Yo quiero una gordita mas, por favor?" (And it took me a while to learn even that.) For a variety of reasons I'm relocating to Arizona for my business pretty soon, and just like in Cali, TX and the sunny side of Florida, Spanish in AZ is like survival gear for businesses to get up and running, I guess for a whole gazillion other jobs for that matter. (I grew up in heavily 'burban New Jersey, so my most intensive Spanish exposure outside of school came from Taco Bell commercials.) I'm not terribly gifted in this department in general, as anyone hearing my rather inventive versions of Kannada and Hindi could attest to.
I've had some people tell me to get a book to start with and then swallow my pride while embarrassing myself in conversation practice with amused native speakers, supposedly slowly getting better. Others say to settle down after work by browsing Spanish magazines/newspapers or by watching some telenovelas and other shows on the Spanish TV stations, although the last time I channel-surfed to one of those shows, I was so distracted by all the scantily-clad Latina beauties around swimming pools-- they always seem to work those scenes into the telenovelas, don't they-- that I wasn't paying all that close attention to the nuances of their spoken Spanish. Still others tell me to find some sneaky excuse ("business prospects investigation") to spend a few months at a time in one of the nice modern Lat-Am countries like Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica or Uruguay, or in Spain. Apparently it's so pleasant, while decently modern in those places that many visiting Desis decide to stay, they're already getting little Desi-towns springing up around locales like Santiago and Barcelona, the way we've been taking over blocks of Marseilles, Berlin and Milan here and there. (So nice to be able to read Boccaccio and Immanuel Kant in the original Hindi...)
Anyone have experience on this, and any starter language-learning software/tapes better than the rest of the pack? Thanks a bunch.
"Funny in fact how foreign or foreign-ish films got the top nods this year, w/ Babel, Pan's Labyrinth in there among others. It's still good news for Desi filmmaking overall, after all for once, the Academy is looking outside of the Sunset Boulevard radius, even to S/E Asia for inspiration and for quality films themselves. And besides whatever they like to claim at the Academy, Bollywood films and stars have the global buzz thing going. Everybody knows Amitabh and Aishwarya. Except in the States I guess."
an LA Times article advocates doing away with the oscar foreign language category altogether because foreign language movies are increasingly snagging nominations in so many categories, including best picture.
i have become a machine, a web 2.0 crawler. i have stopped reading. i only comment :)
but here's another, probably not-so-well-known, example. Sanjay Leela 'Haveli' Bhansali's movie 'Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam' is a straight lift from Maitreyi Devi's 'Nahanyate' - which was about her and Mircea Eliad's brief love affair, when Eliad had come to study Indian Philosophy from her father, Surendranath Das Gupta. One of my favorite novels. The book was a response to Eliad's La Nuit Bengali.
Bhansali can be accused of petty theft. Even Aishwarya Rai's chilli eating session in the movie is copied.
While quite a few of the top billed actors and actresses come from affluent backgrounds, most of the others - the technicians and artistes have come up the very hard way. Dammit, make up artistes I have met live in conditions not very different from what you see in Salaam Bombay. So it is not as if Bollywood lives in a cocoon while the 'diasporic' geniuses swoop in from far beyond and make 'touching epics' about the lives of the less fortunate. Well for 9/10 Indian movie professionals cinema is the only craft they know and ever will know. So they tend to be a little cautious about being 'creative'. There's no social security, no health insurance, no PF, gratuity etc. So the producer who has pledged his wife's jewellry and home for the nth time knows that if his movie flops he is taking himself and a few 100 less fortunate people down with him. Yet every now and then the most commercial minded film makers will produce something that stands out. Amitabh rightly resents the tag Bollywood, as if Indian movie making is simply a faux imitation of a suburb of LA. And some day when Hollywood and the 'diasporic' geniuses decide to make a movie that really understands people rather than caricatures them - for even excessive sympathy toward one facet of the issue caricatures in the end - we will have a not only a polished film 'good enough for Hollywood' but also something that captures the essence of the popular mood. But then again if Hollywood can't understand an Indian film, too bad. But no sweat. Last month I saw 'Shree 420'. Now why didn't someone screen it for Andrew Lloyd Weber? Now there's a grest theme for a Bollywood inspired musical.
I remember the time when I used to rue how Bollywood never quite made "quality" films. This feeling, however, has been changing over the last few years. Recently, I was speaking to some collegues who come for some of the Eastern European countries. They said something that struck a chord. When they grew up, they really never had the freedom to choose what they wanted to watch or wanted to do. All of this was decided for them by the state. For eg. chick flicks were a strict no-no. They watched artsy types of movies all the time. These guys felt gratitude that they came out "refined" from this forced exercise. However, I realized, it is precisely this presence of choice in our society that gives us the movies that we get from the Indian Industry. And there's nothing really wrong with it. If people want masala flicks, or light hearted entertainment, and they are the market, then it is only prudent that the Industry produces such movies. I don't think there's really any need to wait for Hollywood's stamp of approval. There is a strong difference in cultures and a difference in priorities and sensibilities. I don't see what winning an Oscar or a BAFTA really says about an Indian movie. People compete in ample number of film festivals. Why is an award at any one of those any less?
There are some excellent movies being made in regional languages (esp. Tamil and Malayalam). And I do not think there is a dreath of good movies in other languages either. The Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences reflects the opinions of a bunch of white folks. I am not sure we desis ought to give them more 'bhaav' than they deserve.
And Naseer bhai is Indian Cinema's, Bishen Singh Bedi. Fine actor, bitter man. Let him rant. :)
Great posts and a very entertaining thread. Kabayashi(#2) and NaiveRealist especially. And as always excellent point Floridian regarding the coming of the multiplex culture and how with the audience specific specialization of Indian cinema, the best might soon be round the corner.
So much hand wringing over the state of Indian cinema. B’wood sucks. No big revelations there. What’s American Desis’ excuse? Go beyond the wildly inconsistent Nights, Nairs, Mehtas and it looks pretty grim.
If people w/ access to the best education, film archives and technology can come up w/ such uninspiring stuff why beat up on friendly unit shifters from desh?
Ri-fi-fi. Screw every 90's hipster heist garbage. This is the real thing.
None of these other countries mentioned have a film industry worth speaking of. They make films purely with award shows and film festivals in mind. In contract, the Indian movie industry makes movies for a mass audience. To me, that's our strength.
Oscars are not a benchmark to judge our films by given that the jury is culturally-alien. I'd prefer an RDB to King Kong any day.
I don't get it. "And I am not referring to Hollywood - we make copies of Hollywood"
Naseer of all people should know that this is not true. At least not as the blanket statement he intended it to be. How many Hindi movies in the 1960s, 70s, 80, even early 90s were copies of Hollywood? Even in contemporary Hindi cinema, the number of films that are outright copies of Hollywood films are a minor proportion of the films produced in Bombay.
If anything, the trend post Devdas has been towards period epics drawing on works by Indian authors, or episodes in Indian history (however kitschified and embellished). Very similar to the trends in Hong Kong and mainland China with all the period TV dramas and movies. Check the major blockbuster Hindi movies in the last few years -
Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam (inspired by Na Hanyate as per an earlier commenter)
Kal Ho Na Ho (inspired by an earlier Hindi film Anand)
Devdas (based on a story by a 19th century Bengali writer)
Dil Chahta Hai (Farhan Akhtar's script)
Rang De Basanti (Raykesh Mehra's script)
Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna (Karan Johar's script)
Don2 (based on Amitabh's earlier film)
Umrao Jaan (Hadi Ruswa's novel)
Guru (based on the life of Dhirubhai Ambani)
The latest release - "Eklavya", AFAIK, not Hollywood inspired
In the pipeline - Jodha-Akbar (did Hollywood make a movie on Akbar I didn't know of?)
I'm not saying these blatant copies don't get made. But to dismiss the creativity of an entire industry because of such films is absurd.
Also, I do acknowledge that many of the criticisms expressed here are very valid, but may I also request that people who didn't have access to a wide variety of Hindi movies when growing up at least try to see some representative films before coming to such sweeping conclusions about the merits of Hindi cinema?
Actually... um... moderators, please delete the above. After having every YouTube video I linked to -- or even mentioned -- on my blog get immediately removed from the internet (within 24 hours -- incredible!), I'd hate for whoever scans the 'net looking for copyright violations to come after these people, particularly since they may be perfectly legal. Thanks.
Being Swedish, I have very limited knowledge of Indian cinema.
The very few Indian films I have seen were either the "commercial" type like Koi... Mil Gaya (2003), Lagaan (2001), or "social realist" movies like Bandit Queen (1994), of course .
Now, that such different films co-exist is at least a positive sign. Nobody wants a Soviet system where "art-house" movies are forced on the public, or sappy boy-meets-girl musicals and nothing else.
I'm optimistic: Cheaper and better digital cameras will surely make it easier for alternative filmmakers to get their projects realized.
Having said that... Personally, I don't mind that Koi... Mil Gaya ripped off many elements from E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Nor do I mind the unintentionally hilarious moment where the plot stops dead while the hero praises a soft-drink to the camera (lots of American movies have ridiculous product-placements!).
Heck, I can even forgive the censorship which bans kissing from Indian movies.
But the only thing I can't stand is the overload of singing and dancing. It's a cultural divide no matter how you turn and twist it: the great majority of Western movie-going audiences (and award judges) do not like much singing and dancing in movies.
(Quick: name the only musical film which Clint Eastwod and Lee Marvin starred and sung in, and which flopped badly.)
Authenticity as defined by you and the RSS goons? That is the authenticity of the garbage dump and the insance asylum.
'Authenticity' is the club with which the cavemen of the 'Authenticity Stasi' hit any man or woman who steps out of line with as a writer or film maker. The lynch mob that wrecked Deepa Mehta's set is not so much a law and order issue as a bunch of blockheads and bigots outraged that the lady who made a movie about lesbians was making a movie about Hindu widows. All the rest of the 'authenticity' spiel is so much cant. You could at least have worked a funny punch line into it though, something like when Naipaul said about Rushdies fatwa that he thought it was simply an extreme form of literary criticism.
Lol! funny bollywood movie like example. but seriously there are many talented actors, who arent born rich but come up through the film institutes and national school of drama, etc. some of them do make it to films and get a good career. Quality movies get made and these actors do their stuff alongside the mainstream bollywood masala stuff, just that its like an order of magnitude less in number. hence difficult to notice.
Which recent movies do you count as high quality? Not being snarky, just looking for opinions.
Now please don't set up a straw man. I don't know how RSS defines authenticity. For me, authenticity is quite similar to a US Supreme Court Justice's remark on pornography: "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it." I was commenting on the movie. You like blue, I like green. It is a matter of taste, and I have a jaundiced eye. What can be done?
Yes, it is a law and order issue. That's a crucial category, treating all those who are drunk on religion as equal.
Vikram Chandra's "Cult of Authenticity" essay is an excellent argument against, well, authenticity arguments. But I have to say I'm not completely convinced of his position (note that even in that essay he essentially tries to show his credentials, his knowledge of mythology and literature, that he then uses to support his creative use of it). And much as I wanted to love Fire (great story, my favourite actors, sticking it to the Bajrang Dal goons), it really did not ring true, and the English-speaking was particularly jarring and artificial. I had to turn it off after about twenty minutes because I just couldn't believe in the situation enough to get immersed in the story. Playing with or taking creative license with a real historical place and time is tricky, and even Rushdie sometimes gets it horribly wrong.
"To understand the soul of Indian Cinema, the masses need Sense, Sensibility, and Sensitivity", thus spake Padmashree Mammootty many moons ago; sadly, you lot seem to have none of those qualities. If only you bigoted Northies would send a Mallu movie to the Oscars, we'd show you how it's won. Our actors will enthrall the white west with their overall hirsuteness, superhuman stunts, and their ability to woo women less than half their age. Northie actors are hairless dandies who are at best cheap parodies of the western protagonist. There is nothing Indian or exotic about them. If only the judges got to see glimpses of Mohanlal's hairy thighs as he deftly leapt over a horde of goons in a Mundu, justice would be served.
A movie is just like any other product in a free-market. How do other Indian made products fare when compared to their Non-Indian counterparts?
How do Indian-made calculators fare when compared to Japanese calculators? Is there any Indian-made software that can be compared with Microsoft or Norton's products? Are Indian-made cars as good as its European or American counterparts? Don't Indian-made T-shirts lose color and/or shrink within a shorter period of time when compared to Taiwanese T-shirts? How does Indian coffee fare when compared to Colombian or Peruvian coffee? Haven't any of you nearly thrown up after sipping Indian-made wine? Is there a single Indian freeway that can compete with a county-road in any developed country?
Is there a single product that India excels at? If there was a product-Oscars, would India even get an entry?
Of course not.
All the countries you see represented/winning at the Oscars are fairly comfortable financially and have some other products that they compete successfully in a globalised market. Rarely have they been colonised for centuries, and most of them are rich in natural resources. In none of those countries it is considered to be cool or superior to be able to converse in English - their mother tongue has primary importance in all walks of life.
India needs to re-discover herself (after eight hundred years), and the process barely began about a decade ago. The progress since the late-90's has been phenomenal, be it in precision machine tools, roads (Golden Quad), software outsourcing, shrimp farming etc etc. Higher education is improving. The middle-class has nutrition that paralells the developed world. Even movies are technically better.
What needs to change in the obsequisness towards English, a better understanding of their own identity, a resurgence in colloquial thinking and communication and a return to a tradition of taking risks.
Success will follow.
M. Nam
PS: Naiverealist - excellent comments.
Thank you Preston (comments 17 and 28) for summarily dismissing the work of all the incredibly talented and insightful native born filmmakers mentioned on this thread. It just proves once again that the real problem isn't a lack of talent in India or the Indian film industry; it is the condescending attitudes of westerners like yourself and your fawning diasporic compatriots that require a "White-approved" stamp such as the Oscars, Booker or Novel in order to admit something has value. Thankfully, people like you and filmiholic are not the be-all end all of Indian film criticism, and your opinion is as inaccurate as it is borderline racist.
Always a pleasure, BidiSmoker. It's well known that I hate all things Indian and am engaged in a nefarious campaign to degrade, disparage, and otherwise slander the culture of the subcontinent and its diaspora. You and I should really have coffee some time. You say such smart things!
Preston-
So you didn't write the following:
The implication of which is that a director making films in India rather than the diaspora is inherently incapable of "serious" filmmaking, despite the countless regional and individual examples cited above to contradict your statement. So what is it? Would you like to address you gross mischaraterization of the Indian film scene, or simply avoid it with another attack on me?
Always a pleasure, BidiSmoker. It's well known that I hate all things Indian and am engaged in a nefarious campaign to degrade, disparage, and otherwise slander the culture of the subcontinent and its diaspora. You and I should really have coffee some time. You say such smart things!
Preston and Siddhartha are obviously two big India haters and they along with that Hindu hating Ennis are out to destroy everything Vedic and pure.
Also, I never said you hated India. I'm sure taking pictures of relatively mund