Mumbaikers, rich or poor, are so, well, self-conscious of their place on the globe, and so aware of the fact that their city has such an international profile, that you get slowly into thinking – yes, this is indeed an International City.
After all, the English-language papers more often that not feature world news on the front page, the big poster hoardings are more often than not featuring global brands such as Levis etc, and the huge new skyscrapers make the place resemble Chicago (on a hot day!).
And then suddenly, something happens to bring you up short and make you reconsider that view… And then you realise that Mumbai is not just like other places. In Mumbai they do their things their own way (sometimes). It is unique.
The incident that made me think this is quite trivial really – but telling.
The Hindustan Times was carrying a piece on racism against black people in the city, and quoted theatre director Alyque Padamsee as saying “I blame Hollywood films – they portray black men as uncultured cannibals living in trees.” This was such a bizarrely wrong-headed statement that I thought I had misread it. While Hollywood definitely has issues, this was the statement of a man who surely has not seen a Hollywood film in fifty years! What recent film do you know that portrays black people that way?
Now, how could this be? Padamsee is not only a cultured man, he is also media-savvy too, with a background in advertising. How could he have come up with such a skewed idea of American films? I now prefer to think he must have been quoted “out of context”; but then arises the thought – how could the paper have allowed such a muddle-headed remark to be printed anyway?
We talked about this in a bar, and, after much talk, we think we may have solved the conundrum.
And here’s our answer: Indians, generally, and unlike the rest of the world, don’t really count Hollywood large on their horizons. So their image of its films might well indeed be vague.
After all, it is interesting to reflect that India might well be the only country left in the world where Hollywood does not rule in local cinema halls. Across the country, Hollywood plays a poor second to India’s own film industry, aka Bollywood.(Of course, Hollywood is making certain inroads, particularly here in Mumbai where multiplexes are springing up; American blockbusters are beautifully suited to the multiplex environment with its sensurround experience. However Bollywood too is now turning out some beautifully crafted and tense films that can beat Hollywood in that multiplex strategy.)
You see, what I thought was that, because Mumbai has the reputation of being an international city, that then you’d get to see here all the world films that you’d get in say Manchester, or Berlin or Tokyo. But I’ve often been astonished at how hard it is to see a “decent” or important international film here. For example, even “Borat”, which I was much looking forward to, has not got a release here, while the chances of seeing a foreign-language film are virtually nil.
In fact, Bollywood rules, because the cinema mangers know that that is what audiences want to see.
And, in this area, film going, Mumbaikers rarely look very much outside their own indigenous movies.
Please don’t think that I am making a value judgement. In fact, I think it is rather pleasing that Mumbai’s filmgoers are bucking the globalisation trend. They prefer homegrown movies, and that’s fine (if unexpected).
So, to go back to the point.
How could a reputable commentator like Padamsee be so wrong about Hollywood?
"Well, because in this city" – said my friends in the bar – "Hollywood is the outsider. Bollywood is what matters! Hollywood is an interesting diversion, but it's not the main interest for Mumbai film-goers, not by a long shot."
And that - probably - explains it.
**
Links: Hollywood and Bollywood Compared (Blog)
Commenting is open on this blog. You can even leave anonymous comments. Click on the word "comments" just below, or at the bottom of the page
3 comments:
Well the perception of the West is somewhat warped amongst even the educated classes of India.
I recall seeing an interview of Aishwarya's on Oprah and David Letterman and she had far greater misconceptions of America then you would expect of someone as well-travelled as her. One particular one was when David Letterman made a point that in the West they found it weird that grown successful children still lived with their parents to which she responded, 'That kind of works well for us because we don't have to make appointments to see our parents.' Highly inaccurate as someone who lived in America. Most of middle class America is very much about family. Hell! You don't need to live there to know that given the God, family and freedom is in the speech of every political candidate in America (we don't get much of that in Britain anymore).
I think the issue with India is that it is very inward because despite globalisation, only certain members of society in certain areas of the country have had exposure. There is also the attitude that nearly everything Western is corrupt and evil (of course turning young widows into prostitutes isn't corrupt nor the burning of widows on their husband's funeral pyre) so going towards that ideal makes you a relative persona non-grata.
Look at the industry and all the people in it. Most of them are married or if they are girls, they are living with their parents. Very few are away from their family or guardians. You have the obvious bad boys of Bollywood but they are ridiculously tame in comparison (Salman Khan may do illegal hunting and have had an array of girlfriends, but he lives with his family and Sanjay Dutt while having been in jail for a supposed terrorist plot, is also a family man who protects his family). Getting divorced in this world is highly irregular and unpopular.
So I think India is very much country of double values. Not so much hypocritical but different rules for different society members.
I don't think it's a case of 'who cares about Hollywood' - they definitely do (otherwise there wouldn't be such fanfare everytime one of their stars gets an international offer) but more a case of misconception and the comfort of black and white. Make it technicolour and people will ask questions.
Black Hawk Down - Traffic - Indiana Jones - King Kong. To name a few....
Keep up the self-serving crap and try and write something original
___
MARK replies
Well, Traffic was set in Mexico, Black Hawk Down saw Africans as urban gang-members (not "living in trees" at all), and in King Kong (2005 version), it was the American Army which was made to look stupid, not anyone else. So I don't think you are right in general about the roles given to Africans in modern Hollywood.
However, I think you may have a half-point on Indiana Jones. Some roles for Africans in that series were patronising, true.
India’s own film industry, aka Bollywood.
er, I shall have to disagree with that statement. Bollywood is NOT India's film industry - it might be touted as such but there are the Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Bhojpuri etc fim industries that do roaring biz, thanks very much! In fact, India's sole win at Cannes festival was a MALAYALAM movie - not a Bollywood one!
Post a Comment