From the Statesman--Rage Worship

by Shoma A. Chatterji
11/2004

I took the following statement from Chatterji's article "Rage Worship":

"the random use, abuse and misuse of violence by the average hero of the average mainstream film have reduced him to a marketable commodity devoid of human values. He mirrors the terrorist in Punjab and Kashmir, the fascist in Gujarat, the regional facist of Assam, the legitimised army killer and rapist in Manipur much more than he is in any way close to our mythological heroes Ram, Ravana, or Yudisthira..."

to heart as I watch the increase in the acceptance of violence as a means of governing world-wide.

There is no more perfect slave culture than a population that had been oppressed by fear, violence, and poverty.

Chatterji's statement applies to Western films and culture, too, and to my mind, as a westerner, much more so, because Western films have reduced violence to an entertainment value without any social context. Western films portray acceptance of violence as a way of life. Just as Bollywood and India have fought corruption in their industry and in their culture, the United States seems to be run by the mafia. Our government and our industries are run by thugs and thieves who enjoy robbing and killing their own people. They are destroying their own economic engine--the middle class--for short-term personal gain. Our government has a history of genocide starting with the Native Americans, African Americans, and Mexicans. We took their land, we enslaved their people, we throw their governments into turmoil by supporting civil war, and it seems that our government wants to continue this policy in the Midddle East.

If the United States was instrumental in saving Europe from Nazi domination, who will save the world now from the United States?

Ram Jaane

1995, Hindustani, color, 172 minutes, Eagle Films
Director: Rajiv Mehra; Producer: Parvesh Mehra; Cinematography: S. Pappu; Story/Screenplay/Dialogue: Vinay Shukla; Audiography: Karnall Singh
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi; Art Direction: Nitish Roy; Music: Anu Malik; Action: Mohan Baggad; Choregraphy: Nimesh Bhatt; Playback Singers: Udit Narayan, Abhijett, Alka Yagnik, Sadhana Sargam, Anuradha Shriram

Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Vivek Mushran, Juhi Chawla, Pankaj Kapoor, Punit Issar, Tinnu Anand, Deven Varma, Gulshan Grover

I thought I’d seen most of the film highlights of SRK’s career to date. On a visit to a local Indian video store, I picked up Ram Jaane, a film made early in SRK’s career that I hadn’t seen.

I watch Bollywood films more than once because there is so much to take in. The first time I watched Ram Jaane, I found little to like.

Coincidently, the gangster motif in the film juxtaposed in my mind with a recent interview I heard on NPR about the influence of the underworld on Bollywood films. It was like a visual presentation of the underworld lifestyle.

But when I watched it again, I saw much more to like. I was able to get past the violent nature of many of the characters and scenes.

Ram Jaane is a story that questions society. Two boys are orphans and friends. One, Ram Jaane (Shah Rukh Khan), is street smart and fearless, the other, Murli (Vivek Mushran), is gentle and kind. The first becomes an accomplished underworld operative, the other grows up to run a home for orphans. As adults their paths cross again when a childhood friend, a girl, Bela (Juhi Chawla), returns to the neighborhood. Both have a romantic interest in her but Murli does not express his desires because he knows Ram Janne is interested in Bela, too. Murli feels he owes Ram Jaane his life because when they were young and running the streets together, Ram Janne had saved his life.

But Bela loves Murli and tells him so. All of this occurs against a background of criminal and political corruption. Ram Jaane has scores to settle and in the process kills several people. To catch Ram Jaane, the police and thugs clash with Murli and his orphans. By threatening Murli’s home for orphans Ram Jaane attempts to intervene and is caught.

In an eloquent courtroom presentation, Ram Jaane points to society and the legal system as participants in his crimes, the crimes of the underworld, and corruption of public officials like the police. By turning a blind eye to corruption, the legal system has created an environment where orphans turn to crime.

Beautiful Juhi Chawla is wonderful as Bela. She has many moving scenes and also quite a few energetic dance numbers that show off her talents as an actress and dancer.

Vivek Mushran as Murli gave an understated, muted performance, perfect for his role as a quiet, gentle man whose mission was to help orphans.

One surprise in this film was SRK’s acting style. While I caught glimpses of his trademark style, in this film his style has not been perfected. His style is rough in places but consistent with his character. SRK’s character is often crude, fearless, loyal, violent, honest, and naive.

Elements of the storyline overrode any objections I had about SRK’s acting style, as with many Bollywood films, the social statements are an important part of the story.

Postscript--After watching Ram Jaane again, I felt SRK's final prison scene is one of his best.

I Vote Yes to Keep the Dance and Song Routines

I want to counter those who criticize Bollywood films. Some say they are less polished than "western" films. But, Bolllywood has it's own style and that style is valuable. Many Bollywood films are layered with various stories and themes. They are also realistic, so if emotional scenes seem raw, this is because in real life emotional scenes are raw. I enjoy the multi- layered and -themed characteristic.

Several critics claim the dance and song routines are unecessary especially in dramas. But, show me any other film industry that invests in musical talent as much as Bollywood. I love the fact that Bollywood films support all the arts by showcasing choreography that reflects national dance styles, and singers, musicians, and lyirists.

My vote is that Bollywood keep that which it has made unique and wonderful.

Shah Rukh Khan and the Temptations Show 9/4/2004

Shah Rukh Khan came and I saw him live at the MCI Center in Washington, DC.

Since becoming immersed in Indian films in 2002 and becoming a fan of Shah Rukh Khan, I made it a goal to see SRK in person.

I read Indian news and use the Internet to keep up with SRK's doings. When I heard he was going to lead the India Independence Day Parade in New York in 2003, I caught a train to New York. Unfortunately, he was running late, and I had to catch a return train home, so I missed him. But, I did make friends with an Indian woman who stood next to me along the parade route. We still communicate.

Then, I found out SRK was going to do a variety show tour that included a night at the MCI center. I knew where I would be on 9/4/2004.

I wore an beautiful dark green Indian outfit with silver Indian jewelry bought especially for the show. My niece came with me. It was great to be among a crowd of women in Indian fashions. I love saris and other Indian fashions. They are beautiful. My family and friends really liked my outfit.

I was not disappointed in any way. Everything that is said about SRK is true. He has enormous energy and is very personable. The show ran for over three hours and SRK was on stage alot. Towards the end the stars did a medley of songs from SRK's movies and I was dancing in the aisle. I was so comfortable with the music, I knew all the songs.

SRK interacts with the audience. He invited people on stage and danced with them.

The audience roared and cheered SRK and the other stars throughout the show. There was no shortage of enthusiasm.

While our seats were in the upper level and SRK, Rani Mukerji, Preity Zinta, Priyanhia Chopra, Saif Ali Khan, and Arjun Rampal looked tiny down on the stage, I still enjoyed the show. A troupe of dancers backed up the stars in the musical numbers.

While I like all the other stars in the show, I came to see SRK.

An odd yet true reaction I had seeing SRK in person was that it was like seeing him in film that is how much his personality comes across in film. I had to remind myself this is live, he's really here on stage talking, dancing, and singing.

He thanked the audience, the convention organizers and many others for supporting him and the tour many times. He let the audience know he wanted them to have a good time.

While many of the dance numbers were modern, Rani and Priety performed a traditional dance routine towards the end of the evening. It was beautiful.

I like the fact that Bollywood stars reach out to their fans. To my mind, Bollywood stars work harder than other film stars. I also like the fact that in Bollywood the music is an integral part of the films.

Another thing I love about many Bollywood movies and this show is that they are geared toward multi-generational audiences.

I am still thinking about the show, letting it sink in that I really got to see SRK. Probably the sign of a real fan. I realized that SRK is so real, you can count on him to be honest, kind, professional, positive, energetic, generous, and hardworking.

I hope my pictures come out.

Here's another thing I like about Bollywood

I just got finished reading some news of Bollywood on various internet sites and it struck me that one of the things I love about Bollywood is because they make so many films, everyone can find one they like. Everyone can find actors, actresses, backup singers, directors etc. that they like.

I began to realize that those who criticize SRKs for his "feel good" movies were people who preferred stories with more "realistic" aspects. They seem to qualify "feel good" movies as being less appealing intellectually, or creatively. But, in the world of artistic expression there are a variety of styles, as it should be.

SRK is India's "Disney." Pardon my comparison to Hollywood.

Shah Rukh Khan is Coming to the MCI Center 9/4/04

The minute I wrote that headline, I panicked.

The United States is in a terrible place right now. Our government is considering postponing our national elections due to threats of terrorism. September is close to November when elections are held. Fear and concern ran through my mind. I pray SRK and his troupe come to the USA without any hassles or harm.

Anyway, SRK and a troupe of Bollywood stars are coming to the MCI Center in Washington, DC on Saturday, 9/4/2004. For more information, call 1 800 551 7328, 703 658 3171, or email: bollywoodc@aol.com.

Disappointed

A quick note, I am disappointed that three of Shah Rukh Khan's films were not fully appreciated. They are Asoka, Dil Se, and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani.

Asoka was my introduction to Indian film. After watching the movie, I knew it was unique. I read various comments about Asoka. It was viewed as a risk because it was a semi-historical film. Critics found fault with its facts. Sometimes films are meant to convey an impression not to enact an exact reality. Because of Asoka, I did a lot of reading about India's history and about the career of SRK. I found both absorbing.

By the time I saw Dil Se, I had watched many of SRK's early films. I found Dil Se beautiful. A sad film can be beautiful. The story treated the subject of terrorism with realism and compassion. There was something about SRK's performance I had never seen before, to say he was more natural isn't quite right; I think it was his most emotional role. The choreography was more than striking; it was inspired.

Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, a SRK production, to my mind was a love letter to the Indian people. The story is about a father who kills his daughter's rapist, a government employee shielded by influence. It is also a story of how the corruption is uncovered and how the Indian public comes to support the father. Plus, I think it is SRK's funniest role. He likes comedy and I think his parody of himself and others as media idols is a stitch. Juli Chawla is also wonderful in this movie. As with many Indian movies, humor, tragedy, romance, and drama are woven into the story.

All this does is remind me I need to catch up on so many stars like Juli, Ash, Manisha, Maduri, Kajol, Anil, Chandrachur, Jackie, Sanjay, and so many more. For each time I branch out, I find more to love about Indian films.

(c) 2004 Canary Press Co.

Main Hoon Na--It's also about having fun

Almost everyone knows about "Main Hoon Na", the Shah Rukh Khan backed film debut by director, Farah Khan.

I am sensitive to violence and try to avoid it but with Indian movies that has proven hard to do. The underlying theme of Main Hoon Na is the tense relations between India and Pakistan. There are several scenes with violence. While I could cover my eyes, I couldn't block out the sound.

I appreciated the underlying story of attempts to make peace with Pakistan and to illustrate the horrors of past conflicts. This is another thing I appreciate about Indian films. Most call them escapist but they are hardly that when many feature subplots regarding corruption, deception, abandoned children, abused women and, of course, violence. These elements are not far from the reality of many Indians. Most Indian movies try to end by solving the plot conflicts, by having the bad guy get captured, jailed, killed, or in some way punished. Indian films raise many social issues and attempt to correct injustices.

In the film, terrorists threaten to disrupt a fragile peace process by threatening the life of the Army General's daughter. Major Ram (SRK) is sent to her college town to act as a student and serve as a bodyguard. At the same time, he is on a personal mission to find his half-brother Lakshman (Zayed Khan) and heal old wounds.

Other reviews have dealt with the various subplots and pivotal scenes, suffice it to say that the General's daughter; Sanjana (Amrita Rao) and Lakshman are used by Raghavan (Suniel Shetty), the terrorist, in an attempt to derail the exchange of Pakistan and Indian prisoners of war.

Luckily, most of the movie focuses on the college antics of Sanjana, Lakshman, and their classmates which spells out lots of songs, dances, and fun as Ram gets to know Lakshman, his mother, Sanjana, and the college chemistry teacher.

I loved so many scenes, the opening dance number, Ram’s comic fashion changes, the fantastic song and dance dream sequences, and the humor.

I did appreciate the special effects in the confrontation scenes with Ram and Raghavan. I have to say though, I hated to see SRK take the body blows and falls. I winced because I was aware of his back problems.

Zayed Khan (Lakshman), who stepped in to replace Hrithrik Roshan, did a great job; some reviewers dissed his dancing skills. But, I say hey, the guy dances, for me that's more than enough plus he has his own sweet style. I love men who dance.

Sushmita Sen as the chemistry teacher was elegant. Amrita Rao has a lot of style. Her acting was very convincing and her dancing was charming. I don't know how tall she is but she looks like a sprite, so tiny and delicate. The supporting cast was great, too.

I loved the ending of the film when they introduced the credits. The various scenes make me laugh and I dance to the music. The only disappointment was Gauri Khan, the producer and SRK's wife, did not put in a personal appearance. My guess is that Main Hoon Na credits may be the only film credits that are read in their entirety.

I also appreciate the fact that SRK is so open in his interviews; I have learned a lot about film making from him. I appreciate the fact that he wants all his films to succeed on many levels and he is willing to go the extra mile to achieve that. After months of hard work, the filmgoer is transported for a few hours.

For me, Main Hoon Na is like the end of a long pleasant trip. I have followed SRK’s career since 2002, purposefully going back to his early films in an attempt to watch him grow as an actor. I think I achieved that. Khan has grown as an actor. While watching Main Hoon Na, it was hard to remember him in Deewana as the young man in love, who shook with the realization that he now wanted something in his life, a woman, a wife, and who cried bitterly as he pounded a brick wall. He jumped with energy, had a baby face and flying, black hair.

Khan has grown into a handsome man with chiseled cheeks, his hair trimmed and slicked back. His acting is polished. His emotional expressions while forceful are more tightly controlled. He's the adult now mingling with youth. A role reversal. But, his energy and joy of life still shine through. Now that I am watching SRK in real time, it's interesting to see the various mature roles he is taking on in films like Montabbein, Devdas, Chalte Chalte, and Ka Ho Na Ha. This is another thing I like about Indian movies, Indian movie stars really work hard their whole career and since Indian movies are multi-generational, stars can play a variety of characters their whole lives. To my mind, western movies focus almost entirely on youth.

In human relations, Shah Rukh Khan's generosity to others is paid back like some law of physics that says the more you give the more you get.

There are many reasons why Shah Rukh Khan is a star. One basic reason is the camera loves him. He looks good from any angle.

What will Farah Khan do next?

I think Ms. Khan has the right approach to her work and it's a similar one for SRK, do what you love. Farah loves to dance and now she loves to direct. But, she says she has no new project in the works because nothing interests her. Boy, wouldn't I love to take a break from work and only do the jobs I liked. It's really not a bad idea, because when you love something you give it your best.

(c) 2004 Canary Press Co.

Devdas 1955 vs Devdas 2002

After seeing the 2002 remake of Devdas, I wanted to see the 1955 black and white version.

I have a lot to say about Devdas, the 1955 version and the 2002 remake.

To gain a better understanding, it's always better to watch a film more than once. Contrary to Dilip Kumar’s adversity to making comparisons, I find sometimes comparisons can add a depth of understanding to a story. Comparisons can also enhance appreciation of an art form.

The 1955 Version


http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/DEVDAS.htm

The 1955 Devdas was in black and white starring Dilip Kumar, Suchitra Sen, and Vaija Yantimala. The 2002 remake was in color starring Shah Rukh Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Madhuri Dixit.

Most of the Indian movies I had watched previously were shot in the 1990s or 2000s with the exception of the 1970s Bobby, and Mother India, so I was surprised at the rural setting and the bare staging of the 1955 version. The remake was considered the most lavish Indian film to date.

The 1955 movie spent more time desccribing the youthful relationship between Devdas and his childhood friend, Paro. You get more of a sense of separation. The two families, Devdas's and Paro's are neighbors but come from different castes. So, early on it is established that the relationship is fated for failure.

In the 1955 version, you see Devdas and Paro as young children. Devdas is a rascal. He is always getting into trouble. Paro is his faithful playmate. Eventually, his parents send him to Kolkata to stay with an Uncle hoping he will settle down and study.

When Devdas returns home after his long absence, he assumes he can resume his relationship with Paro but the politics of his family intrude. A battle over money is one source of the conflicts.

The expression of emotions in Indian films is both constrained and bold. So, the meetings between Paro and Devdas are brief. While little is said enough is conveyed to communicate that Devdas and Paro are in love.

At first, they thought their parents would agree to their marriage, but both fathers had reasons to object. Devdas’s father objected because Paro’s family was of a lower caste. Paro’s father objected because he felt dishonor in approaching Devdas’s family regarding Paro’s marriage and felt he could find her a richer husband.

When Devdas returns, he seems more subdued, more introspective. Yet, when he is confronted with the conflicts that arise from the prospect of marrying Paro, he is torn. He wants to please his parents, but he also wants to marry Paro. When he cannot resolve the conflict, he returns to Kolkata with the idea he will forget Paro and she him.

In the meantime, Paro is betrothed to another man. The rest of the movie deals with Devdas’s inability to forget Paro and Paro’s acceptance of her fate.

A friend, Chunni, introduces Devdas to Chandramukhi (Vaija Yantimala), a courtesan in a brothel. Devdas expresses distain for her. But, she falls in love with him. Eventually, he begins to drink.

Even though Paro has married, she carries Devdas in her heart. Her approach is more practical and more accepting of her fate. But, her plight illustrates that she yearns for a life with her love.

Chandramukhi seeks to find out where Devdas is and how he is. He visits her now and then and sometimes when he is under the weather. Under the influence of her love for Devdas, Chandramukhi changes her lifestyle and gives up prostitution. In contrast, Devdas adopts self-destructive behaviors.

While there were songs dispersed throughout, only Chandramukhi’s character dances.

Eventually Devdas ruins his health. Chandramukhi has found him in the streets, drunk. She brings him home to care for him. After Devdas recovers he professes a love for Chandramukhi. But, he also feels a need to travel, to find himself. During the trip, a friend encourages him to drink. He becomes ill. He feels close to death, so he finds a carriage and driver to take him to Paro’s home one last time. He had promised Paro he would come to her door when he was in need.

In the 1955 version, the other characters, family and friends, are not well-developed. Their relationships are hinted at—such as Devdas’s conflicts with his brother and sister-in-law.

When I watched the 1955 version again, I enjoyed the movie much more; I was able to focus on the emotional struggles of Paro and Devdas. I felt many could identify with Devdas’s predicament. Also, I felt that the emotional struggle was heroic in some ways.

The movie explores in my mind how a person is affected by the web of relationships in their life and how many aspects of one’s life are decided by others, which is what makes the movie universal.

Dilip Kumar won “Best Actor” and Vyjayanthimala won “Best Supporting Actress” for the 1955 version. The character Devdas and his story have had a wide effect on Indian cinema and culture. The 1917 story of Devdas has been made into film nine times. “Every Indian grew up sensitized to the saga of Devdas.” (Barrow and Krishnaswamy, Indian Cinema) Many Hindi film characters have been modeled after Devdas.

Dilip Kumar distances himself from the Devdas character, for him it was just another role. He did not always agree with the characterization of Devdas especially when Devdas struck Paro. (http://www.rediff.com/entertai/2002/jul/03dilip.htm)

The 2002 Remake

In the 2002 remake, Shah Rukh Khan plays Devdas and Aishwarya Rai plays Paro. The remake is considered the most lavish Indian film to date. Here the neighboring families of Devdas and Paro live in elaborate mansions filled with stain glass windows, painted floors, and works of art. The costumes are colorful and rich.

The movie opens with Devdas’s family preparing to celebrate Devdas’s return; references are made to childhood events throughout the movie.

In interviews about Devdas, Shah Rukh Khan explains that he saw the Devdas character as weak and played him as such.

Many of the characters and their relationships are well developed. Devdas’s and Paro’s mothers play a big role in the story. Devdas’s brother and sister-in-law are seen as weak and scheming, respectively.

There are songs and dances in the remake featuring many lavish numbers. Maduri Dixit shines in her role of Chandramukhi. Her dancing is superb.

The remake stays true to the story in many ways keeping most key scenes such as:

Paro hides from Devdas upon his arrival
Paro and Devdas meeting at the water’s edge
The conflicts over caste and money
Paro and Devdas believe they would be able to marry
Devdas striking Paro
The meeting of Pavarti and her new step-daughter and gift of jewelry
The ending

In the movie, all three characters, Devdas, Paro, and Chandramukhi love and believe in a love that transcends self.

Most scenes are more elaborate than the 1995 version, such as

--when Devdas visits Paro after his return. She has run away into her room. He follows. She hears his steps and lights a wall lamp. He enters as the light casts a glow on Paro’s face. In the remake, the lamp has come to represent Paro’s undying love as she has kept a lamp lit for Devdas since he left.



http://www.revistacinefagia.com/cineditos019.htm

--Paro’s nighttime venture to Devdas to see if he is committed to their relationship. In both the 1955 version and the remake, Paro and Devdas discuss her possible dishonor and how to view their parent’s objections. In the 1955 version, it is a simple scene. In the remake, the language is more frank. Plus, Devdas’s father confronts Paro and calls her and her mother indelicate names. Paro’s mother lectures Paro on family honor.

Both films have Devdas back in Kolkata after the conflict has driven him away. He writes to Paro to persuade her that they should consider themselves friends.

In both films, Paro is engaged and Devdas returns during the ceremonies. When he and Paro meet, he tells Paro that he was wrong to send the letter and that he loves Paro. Paro by this time has accepted the fact that Devdas will not take any action to bring about their marriage, so they have cross words. Devdas responds by striking Paro, leaving a wound on her forehead.

For me this was the turning point in the film, it is Devdas’s admission of failure and his weaknesses.

In the remake, the scene is more poignant because after striking Paro, Devdas leads her to her wedding procession and later carries her bridal litter as she heads towards her new home. After her marriage ceremony, Paro goes to meet Devdas once more. Both Shah Rukh Khan and Dilip Kumar play these scenes with a mixture of pain, meanness, and sadness expressing the unbearableness of the situation.

The wound becomes a symbol of ownership which Paro takes pride in.


http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020610-257165,00.html

In the 1955 version, Paro and Chandramukhi are aware of each other, but they only pass on the road. In the remake, they befriend each other.

In both films, a friend of Devdas’s leads him to a local brothel to help him forget his troubles. Jackie Shroff in the remake gives an excellent performance as the friend, Chunni.

The dialogue in the remake is fuller with more illusionary references.

The difference in brothel settings is striking. In the 1955 version, Chandramukhi’s outfits are simple and she dances alone in a small room in a boarding house. In the remake, Chandramukhi lives in a lavish temple-like dwelling and dances with over eight other dancers. Her outfits are embroidered with gold and jewels and she wears a wealth of bracelets, necklaces, earrings and anklets.

In the remake, Devdas’ gradual deterioration is played out in many painful scenes. Whereas in the 1955 version a few scenes illustrate his decline but leave the viewer to imagine the details.

In the remake, many enjoy Devdas’s predicament, as if he got his comeuppance. But, the characters that take pleasure in bringing Devdas pain are not happy either and while their plans succeed in eliminating Devdas, their goal was power and resources not happiness.

In a sense, Devdas’s life questioned the concept of happiness. What makes one happy?

Within the confines of social conventions, Paro and others still try to save Devdas. Anyone who has had a family member or friend struggle with alcohol the scenes are realistic and the feeling of helplessness is true.

Devdas was a lucky man to be loved by two women. As Chandramukhi says, “Loving isn’t always about receiving. Love is a mirror in the soul. Amour god’s gift to life’s design”


http://www.filmfestivals.com/filmweb/devdas/02.jpg

What is also portrayed in the movie is the idea that Devdas has character, that he is worthy of love even though he has no direction in life and he is indecisive. For some it may seem odd that women would love a man like Devdas but again, I think the scenario is realistic in that few of us are heroic 100% of the time, some struggle with indecision often, and often we find ourselves in situations that are restrictive, where we are asked to subjugate our needs and wants for the sake of family or society. Family and society are not always right when it comes to determining what is good for each human being. It raises the questions, when is sacrifice good, when is it bad?

In another sense, the movie is about spirit and soul, which are not fed by wealth or position but by compassion, love, forgiveness, joy, humility, and charity. But the film implies that those who seek a soulful happiness don’t stand much of a chance. The movie also implies that those in power will seek to cast out those who do not abide by their rules or those whom they deem imperfect. In essence, those in power have the power of life and death. Yet, those cast out have the power to love.

I could identify with Devdas and his relationships with his family and his society. His mother, who claimed to love him, was blind to his true feelings and character. She allowed others to influence her perspectives. This is so true, it seems that many people are easily influenced by others to believe the worst about someone they know or barely know without question. The film also portrays to my mind that the struggle to be a good person is made more difficult by examples of those who are rewarded for bad behavior and evil deeds. When the sister-in-law does not suffer for her lies and schemes, it communicates that being evil is ok. Devdas and Paro are punished for their love.

Because Devdas does not take the route others take when faced with conflict or loss of a love, he is labeled weak. But, in one sense he is honoring his love by choosing to dwell on his situation. His father chooses people by their place in the caste system. His mother sees mercenary goals in others but is blind to her daugher-in-law's schemes and lies. Paro's mother is the only character who is fully aware of Paro and Devdas's feelings. She is sympathetic but when she is scorned by Devdas's family, she arranges a marriage for Paro because honor is more important than love. Chunni is casual about all relationships. Devdas' brother and sister-in-law are too shallow to exhibit any noble feelings, having money is their only value. Chandramukhi whose life has made her almost immune to love falls deeply in love and makes many scarifices to help Devdas. While Devdas loves Paro, in his confusion and conflict he sinks into a depression that curtails any useful decision-making that could help him. None of these scenarios bode well for love.

The underlying feudal power structure of Indian society is reflected in the film. Marriages are arranged to enhance familial power bases and wealth. Households while inter-generational also require a lot of servants drawn from surrounding villages illustrating a divide between the rich and the poor. Emotions are then defined along caste lines. Love and sympathy are given miserly and usually only to their own. For me the scene where Devdas is lying outside Paro’s new home dying and no one from the manor comes to help him expresses a power structure that says we only help our own, the rest are left to their own devices. This does not mean Indian society is unique in this way; all societies practice some kind of hierarchy.

When Chandramukhi stands up to the selfish aristocrat’s son claiming that brothels exist because of aristocrats’ behavior and values, her assessment was a clear indictment of any society that creates a pool of citizens who are deemed less than human or less worthy of respect for the benefit of those in power.

We all must make judgements on many levels when we choose to befriend or love someone, but that does not give license to disrespect those we don't choose.


(c) 2004 CanaryPress Co.

Bollywood Critics

What I had wanted to capture in this Blog was the joy and wonder I experienced as I watched and learned about Indian films.

I do not hold Western films as the gold standard of filmmaking, so I get irritated when comparisons are made between "American" films and Indian films.

I also wonder at some of those who criticize Indian films, especially SRK's films.

When I was young, I used to avoid criticizing others, I thought there was a better way, but in my late 30s and 40s, I felt I was living in a sea of critical people, so I felt I had to be critical in order to survive. That's not how I want to live. SRK inspired me to avoid criticizing others, so I will try not to be critical.

A common criticism of SRK is that he has a limited range of emotional expressions. SRK admits this himself. SRK says he is an entertainer. While I can see what the critics say, I can also see how he tries to give each character their own personality. What more can you ask? No person is the same as another, no actor is the same as another. What comes across in SRK's movies is his energy and his joy of life. You feel you are seeing the real person.

One of the reasons I enjoy Indian films is that they are different from American films. I especially love the song and dance routines. For example, I love the songs, dances, and music from "Main Hoon Na." Farah Khan's choreography is pure joy. I love the ending especially; I am usually jumping right along with them.

While I am definitely a SRK fan, SRK's movies introduced me to many other fine actors and actresses and one in particular, Anil Kapoor is drop dead gorgeous. I am now collecting his movies. So, when people want to compare actors, I realize I like them for their differences. Take dancing for example, I would characterize SRK's dancing as athletic, Anil's as classical, and Hrithik's as balletic, but I love all the dancing in the Indian movies.

Also, the more I watch, I pick up on underlying jokes. I'd be hard pressed to pick a moment to illustrate, but one comes to mind. In "Calcutta Mail," when Rani's character, Bulbul, convinces Anil's character, Avinash, to go with her to a bridge to meet a fictitious lover, they travel by bus and during the ride Bulbul dreams of love with Avinash but another woman walks off the bus with him in the start of the song and dance routine. I think the woman is Anil's real wife. If you watch enough movies you can see little bits from other movies, or little jokes.

Many western movies offered lately have been about violence, sex, or silly, raunchy humor. While often the movie's dialogue is crisp and literate, it does not sound like everyday language. While the cinematography may be good, often I can't relate to the story because the characters are so young, or rich, or violent.

In Indian movies, while I am at a disadvantage since I only have the captions to go by for the dialogue, the body language is universal. The stories are multi-layered with many subplots, which I find interesting. Indian movies usually feature a wide variety of ages and lifestyles; I can always find someone to relate to. Plus, the women look real, not the skinny, perennial 20-somethings in Western films.

I don't go to many western movies. When I went with a friend to see "Monsters Ball," after 15 minutes, I went and sat in the lobby, I couldn't take the mindless violence. But, when "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" came out, I saw it four times. It was hopeful. t was fun. It was joyful. It was also an independent film.

That is not to say that Indian movies don't have violence, in fact, violence figures in most of the films I have seen so far. For example, in Karan Arjun, the bad guys were so bad I couldn't sit still, I could hardly bear it. But, I stuck it out because I felt that the purpose of the violence in these characters was meant to illustrate that they were really cruel people, without a doubt. Plus, at the end, I practically shot Amrish Puri's character myself, that's how evil his character was.

But, what Indian films say with this violence is that the Indian populace lives daily with acts of violence and corruption, which I find sad. It seems that the whole world is descending into violence and corruption including the US.

Whereas in western films, I get the sense that the violence is shown to titillate the audience, to inspire a kind of pleasure in the violence. This is not unheard of and people can be desensitized to violence.

If we stay with the SRK theme, his movie, "Baazigar" had a very bloody climax. I marvel at how the heroes are portrayed in Indian films, the heroes seem to be able to take blow after blow, bullets, knife thrusts, and much body throwing. I have gotten used to these scenes because I keep in mind it is staged and I still don't feel the violence is there for pure entertainment; it seems a measure of the hero's resolve and endurance.

Until recently, you could expect certain standards in Indian films. For one, there were no explicit sex scenes. Female stars did not kiss or disrobe.

After watching over thirty films with themes about orphans and illegitimate births, corruption, love triangles, revenge, feuding families and power struggles, separated lovers, political intrigue and unrest, faith, lost love, and criminals, plus some of India’s classic films such as Mother India, Barsaat, Bobby, Laagan, Monsoon Wedding, and the 1955 Devdas, I follow the careers of Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai, Jackie Shroff, Juhi Chawla, Rani Mukherji, Chandrachur Singh, Salman Khan, Kajol, Manisha Koirala, Johnny Lever, Sunjay Dutt, Ajay Devgan, Madhuri Dixit, Dilip Kamar, Rishi Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Karisma Kapoor, Kareen Kapoor, Mr. B., and others, plus directors, producers, choreographers, lyric and music writers, playback singers, and the business of filmmaking.

What I like about many Indian films is that they are created for the whole family and going to the movies for Indians is a family event.

Music is a big part of Indian films. Many of SRK's films have been popular partially for the music, such as Kuch Kuch Hota Ha. Indian stars lipsing playback singer's recorded lyrics.

One of the interesting aspects of many of the song and dance routines in Indian movies is that they revolve around a man and woman falling love. The dance is meant to represent the stages of love. Most of the dances are fantasies in the minds of the man and woman. I like a balance. While I like realism, I don't need every aspect of the sex act portrayed, it is much more enjoyable to let the viewer's imaginaton make up their own version of the story.

I found an excellent comeback for Bollywood critics at www.livinginIndia.com titled “World Cinema" and Bollywood by Priya Lal. She said what I have wanted to say but she said it much better.

I know that SRK has responded in interviews to the question of why he has not done a Hollywood picture. Hollywood hasn't asked him and he will not go begging. He should be proud of his career. Hollywood is not led by the brightest minds. It's their loss. What Bollywood filmmakers should remember is that they reach a much larger audience than Hollywood. There are a billion Indians compared to about 200 million Americans (which includes immigrants). So, India should not bow to Hollywood for anything.

As for the notion that Bollywood copies Hollywood. Hollywood copies everybody. For example, “West Side Story” was based on Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet." There is little that is original in the world of storytelling. Every generation builds upon the stories of past generations. It is hoped that the best ideas will be carried forward. Bollywood has a tradition of fine filmmaking.

Another thing, Indian movies should be Indian. While modernization is inevitable, that should not translate to a capitulation to Western methods of filmmaking or the expression of Western culture.

It would be tragic if Indian films lost their cultural identity.

Any topic can lead to universals

It's not hard to see a leap in subject matter when you go from Indian films to the Iraq war because India's history is littered with conflict between Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups.

I wanted to keep this Blog in the realm of personal perspectives, yet also factual and balanced but it's hard because I have strong feelings about war. The real reasons for this war are lost in a fog of propaganda from all sides. Every day innocent people are dying.

The United States had no business attacking Iraq.

I had hoped as a people we had grown beyond using violence as a means to get what we wanted.

When I watch Indian films, the recent (1948) Indian war of independence from Britain is reflected in the subtext or is even the topic of many films.

For the U.S. we seem to forget that when we came here as colonists we were welcomed by the native population. What did they get in return? We took their land; we killed them or transported them to uninhabitable lands. We took away their language and their culture. It seems that every country has a history of genocide of a targeted population; even India has a poor history with many native tribes.

But this behavior wasn't new, Europe had been exterminating or relocating various ethnic or religious groups for centuries. What the Germans did to Gypsies, the "imperfect", and the Jewish population was not new.

While I respect Muslims for wanting to keep their culture from being westernized, I deplore the violent means by which they attempt to achieve it. Yet, from their perspective, they are defending themselves from violence. Just as the Irish have tried to expel the British, the Palestinians-- the Israelis.

Even in recent US history, "American" militiaman, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a government building, killing hundreds as an act of revolution against the U.S. government. Why didn't the government gather up all the young white Caucasian males as terrorists?

I seek a logical application of justice but often it is just an illusion.

I get the impression that if males were left to their own devices we would all live in fear of violent gangs who thrive on disruption of civil life. You see it in Russia, South America, Central America, Mexico. We saw it in Bosnia and Slovenia, and even in the United States. We are becoming a world of thugs rather than a world of statesmen and stateswomen.

Will the next generation be able to bring us out of the "Dark Ages?"

Welcome to Bollywood Talk

This Blog was created in an attempt to capture the pleasure I found in watching Indian films. Immersing myself in one form of artistic expression affected me in many ways and I wanted more information. Questions developed.