About the Author

Satyam

See All Posts by This Author

There Are 6 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by satyam on 8 May 2008:

   1. Satyam Says:
   May 9th, 2008 at 3:24 am

   I dislike, much like yourself, the ‘Bollywood’ label but it strangely seems appropriate for an industry that’s increasingly ‘colonized’ in the worst ways. Half a century ago we had Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt who seemed to be informed by ‘noir’ and Italian neo-realism at one and the same time. These were directors genuinely influenced by cinematic trends around the globe. Decades later we witnessed Ramesh Sippy paying homage to so much of the Hollywood Western (perhaps also Kurosawa even if Hollywood had already appropriated the latter in many ways) in Sholay. One could multiply the examples. What is certain however is the fact that for the most part Hindi cinema upto the early 80s or so used these cinematic strands from elsewhere to fashion credible and authentic Indian fictions.

   What we have today however is simply cheap imitation of everything American’ from the music — though one must also account for the Persian and South Korean ripoffs I suppose — to the plot-lines. The 80s were a kind of impasse for Hindi cinema when the richness of the 70s faded (one could examine the institutional reasons for this at length) and then when the 90s truly emerged by way of Yashraj saccharine romances ‘Bollywood’ was truly invented. In essence, an industry economically sustained by major urban centers and diaspora audiences. Later on of course the multiplex phenomenon empowered this cinema even more. But the box office results here were achieved by a shrinking of the Indian ‘market’. The smaller centers became essentially a casualty of this new system (and have not recovered to this day though there have been some hopeful signs of late). As absent from ‘upscale’ urban consciousness as the politics of the heartland and if at all present only so as a reminder of the supposedly ‘regressive’ in Indian life.

   For the upwardly mobile bourgeois classes of the ‘new India’ cinema became the perfect consumption ‘item’. Cinema today is far more about corporate boxes and amusement centers for ‘families’ and in such an environment it is only the plastic that truly succeeds because only this can be easily consumed. It is not at all surprising therefore to see truly authentic films yield diminishing returns and very superficial cinema celebrated as cutting edge. But India is also a country without a proper film culture in terms of a critical apparatus that might educate and enlighten audiences. There is therefore a near perfect symmetry between audiences and critics in terms of their respective ‘bankruptcy’ when it comes to judging what really defines ‘worthwhile’ entertainment.

   Of course there are interesting films being made today, directorial talents on display that give one some hope for the future. But the truly ‘engaging’ is not often married to the truly ‘rooted’. In other words there are works that have much to recommend them but which often seem like ‘American’ films shot in Bombay or wherever. I am hardly a ‘nativist’ in any disagreeable sense of the term but I strongly believe that art must be linked to a specific environment or it risks being ‘mute’ from its very inception. This, in any case, is the lesson all global cinemas that are vibrant in any sense offer. The problem is not ‘influence’ but lazy copies. Even ignoring this caveat for a while ‘Bollywood’ (for all the reasons I’ve just laid out it is not the ‘Hindi film industry’ today the way it was through the early 90s) rarely produces anything exceptional in any calendar year or very little of it. In 2007 I could not list more than half a dozen films of merit among countless mainstream efforts. Two of these, Nishabd and Saawariya, were reviled by critics and audiences alike! Even what passes of as ‘alternative’ cinema often follows such a ‘colonized’ trajectory. Where major films imitate major Hollywood productions (in this regard I should add that Hollywood itself relative to its resources is in many ways an even poorer industry than ‘Bollywood’!) ‘alternative’ ones copy smaller Hollywood films! These are then fed to fawning multiplex audiences who are happy to celebrate films that they can minimally identify with one Hollywood genre or another. ‘Modernization’ often has a hegemonic or imperialist coding to it and in our own age ‘America’ is the proper name for such cultural hegemony. ‘Bollywood’ is not alone. Around the world various industries have simply become more or less defunct faced with the Hollywood onslaught. What one should sardonically cheer in Bombay today are the Rajshris with their cheerful ‘fantasias’ of small town India!

   All of this is not unrelated to your rather moving final paragraph in this post. Gone are the days when ‘character actors’ truly mattered in Bombay. Vanished are those when ‘litterateurs’ fashioned scripts and dialog. Extinct is the time when cinema could truly be ‘political’ in the best sense of the word.

   In this absence of the richest aspects of Bombay film tradition there are only a few names like Dilip Kumar or Amitabh Bachchan or Lata Mangeshkar or Asha Bhosle or a few others not as fortunate to be in the limelight that remind one of a history. ‘Amitabh Bachchan’ remains however the exemplary name even here. The proper connecting link between an older tradition and a newer metamorphosis. The last of the true superstars (but perhaps there were only ever two — the first, Rajesh Khanna, and the the last, Amitabh Bachchan), the bridge between what was the exemplary site of mass resistance in Hindi cinema and what is currently the space of ultimate consumption. Your career in this context is an astonishing testament to your gifts and your powers of re-invention but somewhere along this path ‘Vijay’ too disappears and I am still haunted by his ghost…

   But let us not complement our respective nostalgias with each other’s. Let us ‘listen’ to the irony of Yeats (I shall grieve for that ‘Vijay’ was killed and you should take heart in that I remember…):

   THE SONG OF THE HAPPY SHEPHERD

   THE woods of Arcady are dead,
   And over is their antique joy;
   Of old the world on dreaming fed;
   Grey Truth is now her painted toy;
   Yet still she turns her restless head:
   But O, sick children of the world,
   Of all the many changing things
   In dreary dancing past us whirled,
   To the cracked tune that Chronos sings,
   Words alone are certain good.
   Where are now the warring kings,
   Word be-mockers?–By the Rood,
   Where are now the watring kings?
   An idle word is now their glory,
   By the stammering schoolboy said,
   Reading some entangled story:
   The kings of the old time are dead;
   The wandering earth herself may be
   Only a sudden flaming word,
   In clanging space a moment heard,
   Troubling the endless reverie.
   Then nowise worship dusty deeds,
   Nor seek, for this is also sooth,
   To hunger fiercely after truth,
   Lest all thy toiling only breeds
   New dreams, new dreams; there is no truth
   Saving in thine own heart. Seek, then,
   No learning from the starry men,
   Who follow with the optic glass
   The whirling ways of stars that pass–
   Seek, then, for this is also sooth,
   No word of theirs–the cold star-bane
   Has cloven and rent their hearts in twain,
   And dead is all their human truth.
   Go gather by the humming sea
   Some twisted, echo-harbouring shell.
   And to its lips thy story tell,
   And they thy comforters will be.
   Rewording in melodious guile
   Thy fretful words a little while,
   Till they shall singing fade in ruth
   And die a pearly brotherhood;
   For words alone are certain good:
   Sing, then, for this is also sooth.
   I must be gone: there is a grave
   Where daffodil and lily wave,
   And I would please the hapless faun,
   Buried under the sleepy ground,
   With mirthful songs before the dawn.
   His shouting days with mirth were crowned;
   And still I dream he treads the lawn,
   Walking ghostly in the dew,
   Pierced by my glad singing through,
   My songs of old earth’s dreamy youth:
   But ah! she dreams not now; dream thou!
   For fair are poppies on the brow:
   Dream, dream, for this is also sooth.
2. 

   Comment by Qalandar on 8 May 2008:

   I haven’t read this Yeats poem in years, but it is impossible not to be moved by it, be moved, that is, by a loss that is not merely nostalgia.

   Despite having known for you so long, and liking you better than I do most others, I continue to be astounded by your stamina (especially because it’s always been apparent to me that you are very much Archilarchus’ fox, not a hedghog). [Aside: at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I was somewhat underwhelmed by your most recent IBOS piece which was somewhat ‘descriptive’ — this comment is more like it IMO, ‘analytical’, superb and passionate.]

   Amitabh’s post also moved me, especially when he spoke about actors with smaller roles who often get “rushed” on set. When terms like “Bachchan fanatic” are bandied about, people often forget WHY certain icons are able to secure such “allegiance” (while others may be said to merely reap the benefit of incessant propaganda): in Amitabh Bachchan’s case, I submit it is in part because he feels this quasi-mystical connection with “the people”, and solicitude for “the little guy” is almost a reflex with him…
3. 

   Comment by satyam on 8 May 2008:

   Thanks for a very fine comment Qalandar..

   I myself don’t rate the IBOS piece very highly nor the Aamir one. Unfortunately when one tries to ‘publish’ one often compromises on the very qualities that make one (hopefully) an authentic voice. All this for reasons of ‘editorial consideration’!

   Your last paragraph is one I am also in complete agreement with..
4. 

   Comment by ILG on 8 May 2008:

   Re:I myself don’t rate the IBOS piece very highly nor the Aamir one. Unfortunately when one tries to ‘publish’ one often compromises on the very qualities that make one (hopefully) an authentic voice. All this for reasons of ‘editorial consideration’

   Thank God, you mentioned it Satyam, as I felt that the Aamir piece, even tho nicely written didn’t have soul. And I rightly assumed that it was watered down since it was for mass consumption.
5. 

   Comment by satyam on 8 May 2008:

   ILG: Guilty as charged.. I’ve made the same points with far more ’soul’ on NG.. unfortunately who’s going to print a 2000 word piece as opposed to 600?! Not every thing can be expressed concisely! Now having said that I do not disagree that there might have been more of the ’signature’ even in this concise piece. Think of it as my SRK moment. A nice attempt, ultimately insipid!
6. 

   Comment by Ravi on 8 May 2008:

   Just found out from my friend who is the distributor for Florida, that they were able to get a deal done for Bhoothnath and I will be going to the 10 pm show tomorrow night.

   I am excited now , but will see whether it disappoints me or not.

Post a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.