Yi-Ray Wu

1

Word Count- 1913 /PIN-10442

Subtopic 2: Bliss or Misery? — Contemplating the Engagement of Cultural Forms and Economic Progress

The model that I would like to introduce to all of you is Global Bollywood as an ambassador of India – as India’s cultural representative to the world. Long popular in Indian communities around the world, Bollywood offers an alternative to mainstream western cinema, especially in developing countries. But how did Bollywood come to embody India? And how does it compare to major cinema industries in other countries? And, most of all, how does Bollywood manage to remain true to its roots and keep it real as a crossover cinema? How does Bollywood reload, redefine, and reinvent the Indian wheel of doctrine? How does it remain persuasive to the locals and become compelling to foreign audiences?

For decades, moviegoers around the world, when thinking about cinema, instantly referred to Hollywood, a district of the Los Angeles metropolis, to the northwest of this sprawling city, and in the west of God’s own Country. This “Tinseltown”, as it came to be known, with its name in iconic white capital letters perched on a hill, a real estate advertisement originally, epitomized moving pictures in all corners of the globe. Nowadays, long after the so-called “Golden Age” and the big studio system of the 1920s to 1950s, almost all production companies are based outside Hollywood. Still, Hollywood has remained a synonym for America’s multi-billion dollar movie industry that creates dreams for a worldwide audience and for those in front and behind the cameras alike. Hollywood is a potent force that spreads American contemporary culture abroad. With almost ten million square kilometers and more than 300 million inhabitants, America is, after all, the third largest and the third most populous country in the world. And it has the world’s strongest economy. It should come as no surprise that such a country would have both a demand and a capacity for movies. But what about the other two countries that are even more populous than the United States? What about India, a country of some 1.1 billion people, and mainland China, a country of some staggering 1.3 billion people? Do they all watch Hollywood movies? Yes and no. They do, yes, but of course they have their own productions too.

In China, movie-making started at the beginning of the 20th century as well, but it was mostly done by foreign companies. During the First World War, China’s domestic film industry began to take off, headquartered in and around Shanghai, East Asia’s biggest city at that time. Nevertheless, foreign, i.e. U.S. influence was strong during the next few decades, as Chinese film crews received American assistance and training through technical cooperation programs. In the early 1980s, a new generation of filmmakers had completed their training, among them such notable artists as Chen Kaige (陳凱歌), Tian Zhuangzhuang (田壯壯), and Zhang Yimou (張藝謀). “Yellow Earth” (黃土地) and “Farewell My Concubine” (霸王別姬), produced in 1984 and 1993, both by Chen Kaige, are just two examples of outstanding Chinese films that became known world-wide. 1996 saw the creation of the Hengdian World Studios, the largest movie studio in the world, in Hengdian Village, Dongyang County, Zhejiang Province. It has hosted the production teams of such blockbusters as “Hero” (2002) and “The Forbidden Kingdom” (2008). “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000) and “House of Flying Daggers” (2004) have also contributed to the worldwide fame of mainland Chinese cinema.

Yi-Ray Wu

Global Initiatives Symposium in Taiwan 2009

Yi-Ray Wu

2

However, is mainland China actually within the very first tier of world cinema, just as its impressive movie industry would suggest? Yes, quality-wise, definitely, it could be argued. What about quantity? There the answer would be negative, surprisingly. If the statistics of the International Movie Database can be trusted, there are ten countries that have produced more than 10,000 movies and China is not among them. The ten countries are: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, India, Japan, Spain, and Mexico. India plays a special role as it is, by the number of cinema admissions, the biggest market in the world. It should be noted that, based on output, India has sustained a comfortable lead over the United States and all other cinematic nations for at least three decades – for as long as or even longer than most moviegoers have been around.1

What kind of cinema would India produce – a country with more than 1,600 mother tongues, 22 official languages, home of four of the world’s ten largest religions? Almost from the start, Indian cinema has been mass cinema for a simple reason. Prices were low enough that most could afford to watch a movie. When technology was advanced enough, by the 1930s, the first Indian musicals appeared. This was the start of archetypical and hugely successful song-and-dance element of Indian cinema. Add to this the Masala film that emerged after the Second World War. Just like the mixture of Indian spices where the name of this film genre comes from, Masala movies are a blend of different styles. They combine action, comedy, dance, (melo-) drama, musical,2 romance, and exotic locations. The picturization of Indian movies is characterized by “splash of color and charm”. It is “glamorous, surreal, and breathtakingly beautiful”, with “mind-boggling mammoth proportions, scores of unbelievable sets and fantastic landscapes”, and offer an “out of the world experience”.3

In the 1930s, the first studios were established, in several major Indian cities. Most prominently, this took place in Calcutta (Kolkata), West Bengal, in the east of India, Bombay (Mumbai), Maharashtra, in the west of the country, and Madras (Chennai), Tamil Nadu, in the south. Over the years and decades, Indian cinema has diversified to a degree that, today, a host of regional industries exist. These are: the Bengali or Bangla cinema, Bojpuri/Purvanchal cinema, Hindi cinema, Kannada cinema, Kashmiri cinema, Malayalam cinema, Marathi cinema, Oriya cinema, Punjab cinema, Tamil cinema, and Telugu cinema.

Out of all these, Bollywood (or Hindi cinema) is the most famous, as it produces the greatest number of films in India and even ranks among the top film producers worldwide. Its influence is such that, oftentimes, it is used to epitomize Indian cinema as a whole (as shall be done in this article). Bollywood is recognized with its own proper entries both in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Encyclopædia Britannica, 4 even though the name evokes the image of a poorer and cheaper copy of a big brother looming large – Hollywood. Bollywood is said to be shaped by six ingredients: Indian epics, Sanskrit drama, Indian folk theater, Parsi theater, Hollywood, and MTV. In the 21st century, Bollywood has entered the world stage.

1 The Screen Digest gives the following figures: 432 vs. 242 in 1974, 829 vs. 266 in 1984, 754 vs. 635 in 1994, and 946 vs. 611 in 2004. Cf. Kumar, Shanti. 2008 Hollywood, Bollywood, Tollywood. Redefining the Global in Indian Cinema. In Global Bollywood, ed. Anandam P. Kavoori and Aswin Panathambekar, 99. New York: New York University Press 2 So important is the musical element that movie soundtracks alone make up 48 percent of the total revenue of music sales in India. Cf. Potts, Michel W. 2006. "Film Industry", Encyclopedia of India (vol. 2), p. 75, Thomson Gale 3 Ibid., p. 81. 4 The Encyclopædia Britannica describes Bollywood movies as having “formulaic story lines, expertly choreographed fight scenes, spectacular song-and-dance routines, emotion-charged melodrama, and larger-than-life heroes”. Cf. Cinema of India, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cinema. Retrieved 31 March 2009

Bliss or Misery? Contemplating the Engagement of Cultural Forms and Economic Progress

3

Aishwarya Rai, the 1994 Miss India World and Miss World, went on to become an actress in Indian and western movies and to make it to the cover page of Time magazine. Shekhar Kapur in 1998 and 2007 directed two western productions, “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”. The American cartoon TV series family “The Simpsons” took a trip to India in one of their episodes. Bollywood films create more revenue in the United Kingdom than local movies.5 A 2008 British film “Slumdog Millionaire”,6 the “feel-good film of the decade” according to the News of the World,7 was set entirely in India, with an Indian cast, and won four Golden Globes and eight Oscars.

But not all were happy. “Slumdog Millionaire” has been labeled non-Indian, i.e. inauthentic, improbable, superficial, and insensitive. It was said that the choice of actors or the acting itself was poor – “middle-class anglophones” trying to portray poor immigrant underdogs from Mumbai’s slums.8 Admittedly, parts of the film are in Hindi, parts of it are in English. But this is not uncommon in Bollywood movies. Some found fault with the fact that there is a happy end, when in reality, slum dwellers do not, or never, even, find a way out of their misery, out of that cage that keeps them locked in, unable to move about freely. “No one wants to watch a movie about that”.9 “Deception”, cries the critic. Ironically, others say that “Slumdog Millionaire” is too harsh, even insulting – it paints a very unflattering picture of India. But is the mission, as it were, of cinema to be all glossy and nice and pretty, like an expensive coffee table book for an afternoon get-together?

Is “Slumdog Millionaire” really that bad – is modern-day Bollywood that reaches out and tries to bridge gaps really unacceptable? Not necessarily. By and large, Indian experts are satisfied with the new direction, which they see as realistic and uplifting, as a breath of fresh air. Quite probably, “Slumdog Millionaire”, Bollywood, and India find themselves caught, but not trapped between tradition and modernity where they seek redefinition and reorientation. That is not a bad thing. And it is not an end. It is a start. Maybe “Slumdog Millionaire” is no masterpiece. But it does not have to be. The criticism largely misses the point. “Slumdog Millionaire”, like other Bollywood movies, tells a story as a Brothers Grimm fairy tale would tell a story. It weaves fact and fiction. If one were to expect educational cinema from Bollywood throughout, that would be wrong. It is entertainment after all.

As India evolves, so does Indian cinema. Certainly this will not be to everybody’s liking, but then again, that would be impossible to achieve. The basic ingredients of the Masala cinema are all still there. As it has been a potpourri for a long time, it has just gained a component or two. Truth be told, it has moved on to nothing short of a new dimension, and compromise is

5 Punathambekar, Aswin and Anandam Kavoori. 2008. Global Bollywood. New York: New York University Press. p. 1 6 It was based on the 2005 novel “Q & A” by Indian diplomat. After the release of the movie, the book was republished as “Slumdog Millionaire”. 7 This quote was later used on the British posters for the promotion of the movie. 8 “‘Slumdog’ no hit with Rushdie”. http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/02/23/rushdie0223.html%3Fcxntlid%3Dinform_sr; Kesavan, Muku (5 February 2009). “Lost in translation –Slumdog Millionaire uses Hindi as authenticating décor”, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090205/jsp/opinion/story_10485740.jsp. Retrieved 31 March 2009. Cf. Radhakrishnan, Smitha (28 November 2008). "Slumdog Sincerity". UCLA Asian Institute.http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/081128/article.asp?parentID=101268. Retrieved on 31 March 2009 9 Mazumdar, Sudid (21 February 2009). “Man Bites Slumdog”, http://www.newsweek.com/id/185798. Retrieved 31 March 2009. This very critic recounts his own story of upward mobility in India. This is a story that really happened and could actually be turned into a movie as well – with a few adaptions. Honi soit qui mal y pense.

Global Initiatives Symposium in Taiwan 2009

Yi-Ray Wu

4

difficult indeed. But were there no alteration, then the productions might have merely historical or documentary value. Hence, Bollywood is introducing change we can believe in.