Leo e cece cecil any err 16 INDIAN CINEMA: PLEASURES AND POPULARITY AN INTRODUCTION BY ROSIE THOMAS mn The preudo-inelectuats here try to copy Westerners. We think we're beter "The than Westerners~they can't make films for the Indian audience, ining DG ~ Bombay film-maker con es DISCUSSION OF INDIAN popular cinemas ‘other’ cinema is immediately problematic. There is no disputing that, within the context of First World culture and society, this cinema has always been margin alised, if not ignored completely. It has been defined primarily through its ‘otherness’ or ‘difference’ from First World cinema, and consump tion of tin the West, whether by Asians or non-Asians, is something of an assertion: one has chosen to view an ‘alternative’ type of cinema However, this is a cinema which, in the Indian context, is an over, ridingly dominant, mainstream form, and is itself opposed by an ‘Other’ the ‘new’, ‘paralle’, ‘a (or often simply ‘other’) cinema which ranges {from the work of Satyajit Ray, Shyam Benegal and various regional film ‘makers, to Mani Kaul’s ‘avant-garde’ or Anand Patwardhan's ‘agitational’ political practice. In these terms Indian popular cinema is neither alternative nor a minority form. Moreover, in a global context, by virtue ofits sheer volume of output, the Indian entertainment cinems Sill dominates world film production, and its films are distributed throughout large areas of the Third World (including non-Hindustani- speaking areas and even parts of the Soviet Union), where they are frequently consumed more avidly than both Hollywood and indigenous ‘alternative’ or political cinemas. Such preference suggests that these films are seen to be offering something positively different from Holly. wood, and in fact, largely because it has always had its own vast dlstribution markets, Indian cinema has, throughout its long history', evolved asa form which has resisted the cultural imperialism of Holly wood. This is not, of course, co say that it has been ‘uninfluenced’ by Hollywood: the form has undergone continual change and there has ‘been both inspiration and assimilation from Hollywood and elsewhere, bbut thematically and structurally, Indian cinema has remained remarkably distinctive Corresponding to this diversi of contexts, each constructing Indien SATII at Sette bt hl ek hh sh deena tid ben odd,AS ink we're better dience, snbay film-maker ‘other’ cinema is ithin the context ys been margin- ‘marily through 1 and consump: vis something of ‘ype of cinema. sd by an ‘Other’ nna which ranges us regional film- 1 Parwardhan’s >pular cinema is ¥ global context, are distributed ron-Hindustani where they are and indigenous gests that these ent from Holly. d its ow 5 long history!, ialism of Holly ainfluenced’ by and there has and elsewhere, has remained ‘ructing Indian $ I popular cinema as a different object, has been considerable confusion of critical and evaluative perspectives, This article will examine the waysin which this cinema has been discussed by critics in India and abroad, and will suggest that, a5 a first step, the terms of reference of the Indian ‘popular cinema itself should be brought into the picture. It attempts to do this, using material from discussions with Bombay film-makers about what, for them, constitutes 'good” and “bad” Hindi cinema in the 1970s and '80s.’ Points will be illustrated through the example of one very popular, and at the time of release generally lauded, film, Naseeb (1981 Destiny)’, whose produceridirector, Manmohan Desai, is Bombay's most consistently commercially successful film-maker. It will bbe suggested that, while First World critical evaluation outside these terms of reference is, at best, irrelevant and also often racist, to impose a theoretical framework developed in the West~particularly one concerned with examining textual operations and the mechanisms of pleasure ~ docs allow useful questions to be asked, as well as opening up the ethnocentrism of these debates. The most striking aspect of First World discourse on Indian popular cinema must be its arrogant silence. Until home video killed the market in the '80s, the films had been in regular distribution in Britain for over 30 years, yer ghettoised in immigrant areas, unseen and unspoken by most non-Asians. Even in 1980, when the first Bombay film (dmar Akbar Anthony) was shown on British television, it passed more or less ‘unnoticed: the BBC not only programmed it early one Sunday morning, ‘without even troubling to list it with other films on the Radio Times film preview page, but pruned it of all its songs and much narrative, including most of the first two reels, which are, not surprisingly, crucial to making any sense of the film. Although the situation has begun to change over the past two years, largely through the initiative of Channel Four's two seasons of Indian entertainment cinema, the traditional attitude remains one of complacent ignorance. Clichés abound: the films are regularly said to be nightmarishly lengthy, second-rate copies of Hollywood trash, to be dismissed with patronising amusement ot facetious quips. British television documentaries have along tradition in perpetuating these attitudes, for the baroque surface of the Hindi film, particularly if taken out of context, makes for automatic comedy. Even Time Out's TV section recently announced Gunga Jumna (a classic of Indian cinema, but obviously unpreviewed) with the smug throwaway: "Sounds turgid, bur who knows?” ‘Where popular Indian films have been taken at all seriously, it has either been to subject them to impertinent criticism according to the canons of dominant Western film-making: Mother India is a rambling ral of personal woe, narrated eptsodically in unsuitably pretay Technicolour fF to congratulate them patronisingly Allltold a disarmingly enthusiastic piece of Eastern spectacle, exaggerated in * Bins proce ne Bntayy sect fr tes an 20% fp Tada rhc, However, ‘Sinda Gautouton ek do ee re man | © James Gree in heDAR SRRDODERERERERERERELELEEESEOSLSLOSORECTLAELURELEREE us De Scr J ge James ‘Stpotuna, Vase F Raapewal, ‘resentation and acting, exotic, and yet charmingly naive. ‘They have generally been looked at as ‘a stupendous curiosity’—even, in the '50s, as an ethnographic lesson, a way to: set 10 close grips with a handful of (India's) inhabitant ‘make the same faces as we do when they fall in love astounds me beyond But the most general theme since the 1960s has been unfavourable ‘comparison with the Indian art cinema: Ic all goes 10 prove once again that Satyajit Ray is the exception oho proves the rule of Indian film-making.* As Indian art cinema is comparatively well known and enthusiastically received in the West, and much conforms to conventions made familiar ‘within European art cinema, Western audience assumptions about film form can remain unchallenged. In fact, the art films serve mostly to confirm the ‘inadequacy’ of popular cinema to match what are presumed to be universal standards of ‘good’ cinema~and even of ‘art. Western critics are perhaps not completely o blame, for they take their cues from the Indian upper-middle class intelligentsia and government cultural bodies, who have a long tradition of conniving at this denunciation and, somewhat ironically, themselves insist on evaluating the popular films according to the canons of European and Hollywood film-making. One ‘commonly hears complaints about the' films’ ‘lack of realism’, about the preposterous ‘singing and dancing and running round trees’, and that the films are ‘all the same’ and simply ‘copy Hollywood. To dislike such films is, of course, their privilege. What is disturbing is the tone of defensive apology to the West and the shamefaced disavowal of what is undoubtedly 2 central feature of modem Indian culture. Thus, for example, Satish Bahadur, comparing popular cinema unfavourably with Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali (which ‘was a work of art...an organic form’), refers to its ‘immaturity’ and asserts The heavily painted men and women with exaggerated theatrical gestures and specch, the artifcial-looking housee and huts and the painted tees and skies inthe films ofthis eradivion are less truthful statements of the reality of India...” Even Rangoonwalla, who has devoted considerable energy to compiling much of the published material available on Indian cinema, dismisses the work of the 1970s as ‘a very dark period, with a silly absurd kind of ‘escapism rearing its head," and he is tolerant of popular cinema only if i attempts ‘sensible themes’ (One of the central platforms for this kind of criticism is the English language ‘quality’ press, Week afier week, the Indian Sunday Times and ‘Sunday Express produce jokey review colurans which score easy points"hat Indians 5 me Beyond favourable 1 oho proves vusiastically ade familiar about film 2 mostly to presumed ¢. Western reves from a cultural ‘ation and, pular films aking. One ‘about the ’, and that lislike such be tone of of what is Thus, for urably with an organic al gestures Herees and. ereality of compiling dismisses, ‘dkind of 2a only if : English “mer and sy points off the apparent inanities of Hindi cinema. Typical is a Sunday Times feature entitled ‘Not Only Vulgar but Imitative', which skims through all the critical clichés: absurd stories, poor imitations of Holly wood, lack of originality, and finally the myth of a golden age-of the 1960s (ic) when commercial films were ‘gentle, warm-hearted, innocent ‘Most significant is the fact that the article appeared—by no coin: cidence ~in precisely the week that Bombay was full of Western dele- gates (0 the annual film festival, It makes no bones about its intended audience, to whom it defers: rot surprisingly the West cares litle for these films. All that they stand for is ‘exotica, oulgarity and absurdity... 2 Naseeb was, of course, received within this tradition, The Sunday Express review was captioned: ‘Mindless Boring Melange’, and, for example, described a central scene in fact one that was spectacularly self:parodic, in which many top stars and film-makers make ‘Guest Appearances” ata party ~as 4a ‘homage’ 10... all those who have, in the past thirty years, Brought the Hindi film dow to its present state of total garish medioerity. In fact, the film encapsulates the entire history of our sub-standard ‘entertainment’ ~ elephantine capers... the mamufactured emotion, the brutalism in talk and acting, the utterly ‘gauche’ dances... The tone is echoed throughout the popular English-language (hence ‘middle-class) press, and even among regular (middle-class) film-goers there appears to be huge resistance to admitting to finding pleasure in the form. Thus letters to film gossip magazines ran Want to make Naseeb? Don’t bother about a story or screenplay. You can do without both. Instead rope in almoxt the entire industry... Throds in the entire works: revolving restaurant, London locales, and outfits which even a {five year old would be embarrassed to wear to a fancy dress competition Noni, sit back, relax, and watch the cash pour in. Manmohan Desai’s concept of entertainment still evolves around the lost land found theme, with a lot of improbabilities and inanities thrown in... But how fong can such films continue to click at the box-office? Soon audiences are bound to come to their senses.” There are also, of course, more serious and considered critical Positions within India, notably of the politically conscious who argue, quite cogently, that Hindi cinema is capitalist, sexist, exploitative, ‘escapist’ mystification, politically and aesthetically reactionary, and ‘moreover that its control of distribution networks blocks opportunities for more radical practitioners. It should, of course, be remembered that what may be pertinent criticism within India may be izrelevant~or racist —in the West, and apparently similar criticisms may have different ‘mesnings, uses and effects in different contexts. However, two central Sanday Esra, May Ble Jay 181 * surntS,0 Stephes Nel Gore "Trade Gut, wary heuhetetrenthe Satopia ony (port oft Boring rep on Nena Bi oy, Minty Bronccaing, ay objections to ll the criticisms do stand out. One is the insistence on evaluating Hindi cinema in terms of film-making practices which it has itself rejected, a blanket refusal to allow its own terms of reference to ba heard. The second is the reluctance to acknowledge end deal with the fact that Hindi cinema clearly gives enormous pleasure to vast pan {ndian (and Third World) audiences. In view of this, such superciious SHticism does no more than wish the films away. Dismissing them as {scaPism’ neither explains them in any uefa way, nor offers any basis for political strategy, for it allows no space for questions about the ‘ecifies of the audiences’ relationship to their so-called ‘escapist’ fare What seems to be needed is an analysis which takes seiously both the films and the pleasures they offer, and which attempts to untavel theie ‘mode of operation Clearly, « body of film theory’ developed inthe West may mislead if is used to squash Hindi cinema into Western filuvmaking categories, Particularly ift brutalise or denies the meanings and understandings of Participants. Thus, for example, Hollywood genre classification is qui inappropriate to Hindi cinema and, although almost every Hindi ile contains elements of the ‘musica’, comedy" and ‘melodrama’, to refer to {he films in any ofthese ways imposes a significant distortion, Certainly no Indian film-maker would normally use such classifications. Impor. fant distinctions are marked instead by terms such a¢ ‘social’, “fail social, “devorional’ ‘stunt’ or even ‘mult-starre’ (terms hard to glose (uickly for a Western readership). However, the concep of genre, nits broadest sense as structuring principles of expectation and convention, around which individual films mack repetitions and differences! - doce appear to be potentially useful in opening up questions about Hind; {itema’s distinctive form. In the first place, it moves immediately beyond the tired rantings about Hindi cinema's repetitiveness'and ‘ck, oF originality ~although, on this point, some ofthe Bombey flor makers are in fact many steps ahead of ther so-called ‘intellectual’ critics, People seem to lke the same thing again and again, so Irepeat it... but you altways have to give them something different oo... There can be mo nuk hing a0 Jorma fibm’~i there wes, everybody ould be making nothing but hits... Secondly, it points to questions about narrative structure, modes of Saidress and conventions of versimilitude that, tthe least, help organise description which can take Indian cinema's own terms of reference inte account and from which further questions about spectatorship and Pleasure become possible. The rest of this article attempts to illustrate such an approach. Contrary to common “intellectual” assumptions within India, the Indian mass audience is ruthlessly discriminating: over 85 per ceat of films released in the last two years have not made profits" and these ‘ave included films with the biggest budgets and most publicity “hype” ‘There is a clear sense among audiences of ‘good? and ‘ba films and the film-makers, committed as they ae to ‘pleasing’ audiences, make it the be ‘a te lar fl, file the filo Th cul of ope clo des oft the asy spthe insistence on tices which it has of reference to be ind deal with the sure to vast pam: such supercilious smissing them as vr offers any basis sstions about the ed ‘escapist’ fare. criously both the sto unravel their {may mislead if it vaking categories, inderstandings of sification is quite every Hindi file frama’, to refer to conion. Certainly fications. Impor- 5 ‘social’, ‘family ‘ms hard to gloss prof gence, in its and convention, ferences!*—does fons about Hindi ves immediately iveness’ and ack bay film-makers ual” critics peat it... but you vre can be no such be making nothing scture, modes of 1st, help organise of reference into >ectatorship and pts to illustrate ithin India, the 2 85 per cent of ofits, and these publicity ‘hype’ 2d films, and the ces, make it their i i i business fo understand, and internlise, these assessments. While the yardstick of commercial succes is of course central ~for film-makers a good’ film is ultimately one that makes money-they do also have a working model of (what they believe o be) the essential ingredients ofa ‘good’ film and the ‘right’ way to put these together. This model evolves largely through the informal, bt obsessive, post mortems which fellow films whose box ofice careers confound expectations, and is undergoing continua, i gradual, redefinition and refinement Bombay film-makers repeatedly sess that they are aiming to make films which difer in both format and content from Western films, that there is a definite skill making films forthe Indian audience, that this audience has specific needs and expectaionsjand that to compare Hindi films to those of the West, or of the Indian “art” cinema, is irrelevant. ‘Their statements imply both sense ofthe tyranny ofthis audience and a recognition of the importance of a clase link between film-maker and audience. The example ofthe barely educated Mehboob Khan, whose cult classic Mocher India (1957) sil draws fall houses today, is often cited proudly = buttressed by assertions that his film is ‘of our sol’, fall of real Indian emotions’~and by that roken inaccessible to the emotionally retarded, if ot rotlly cold-blooded, West.” Whatever the critics clichés may suggest, no succesfil Bombay film- taker ever simply ‘copies’ Western films. Of course, most borrow apenly both story ideas and sometimes compete sequences from foreign cinemas, but borcowings must always be integrated with Indian film. making conventions ifthe film isto work withthe Indian audience: 20 close copy of Hollywood has ever been a hit Film-makers say that the essence of “Indianisation’ les in: (I) the way that the storyline is developed; (2) the crucial necessity for “emotion” (Westera films are often refered tas ‘old’ and (3) the skilful blending and integration of songs, dances fight and other ‘entertainment values’ within the body of the film, There is aso the more obvious ‘Indianisation’ of values and other conten, including reference to aspects of Indian life with which audiences will identify, particularly religion and patriotism, It is, for example, generally believed that science fiction would be outside the cultural reference of the Indian audience, and censorship restrictions ‘mean that films about war, o overly about national or international politics, rsk being banned. ‘The film-makers’ terms of reference often emerge most clearly when diseusing afm which is judged a ‘ure’ A trade press review?! of Desh Premee (1982 Parr), one of Manmohan Desais few unsuccessful films, particulary revealing. Desh Premee has all the ingredients that make a film a hit, yet every aspect is markedly defective. Firstly, che story has a plot and incidents but ‘the narration isso unskilled that it does not sustain intrest. There is no grip ‘othe story. The situations are neither melodramatic, nor do they occur sponcancously, but look forced and contrived. Secondly, the musie side is not a5 strong as the film demands. All songs are good average, but not one song «an be declared a superhit. Thirdly, emotional appeal is lacking. Although edie oly nan "38a tery ia or the tye Hitches ipo om Fi von Meroe ra my hoped tela a Trae Gs Bie format Te have ud aed in eormaeeoster tor Dek Promee al he Ingredients tha make aye mig ine there are a few scenes which try 10 arouse feelings, they fail to hit their objective. Fourthly, production values are average, considering the producer The tradicional grandeur of Manmohan Desai is missing, as are technical values. Desh Premee has no sex appeal. The romantic part is too short Comedy scenes and melodramatic scenes are missing. ...[My precis: the stars” roles are not property justified... several appear for too short a ‘ime... action, thrills and background music are only average... ] Several of the scenes look like repeccions from many old hits and there is no dose of originality in the film.....Aithough every formula film is basically unrealistic and far from the truths of life, everything can still be presented with acceptable realm and logic. But inthis film there are several ‘unbeliceables’ even with normal cinematic licence granted. This is not ‘expected from any seasoned film-maker.2 Particularly interesting is the order in which defects are listed: the screenplay is recognised to be crucial the music (,e. the songs) of almost equal importance, ‘emotional appeal’ a significant third, and fourth are production values, or expensive spectacle. A ‘dose of originality’ and “acceptable realism and logic’ are additional points of general importance. Big stars are a decided advantage (viz, ‘the ingredients that ‘make a film a hit’) but cannot in themselves save a film —particularly if ot exploited adequately, and in contrast, Naseeb on its release had been particularly praised for ‘Assembling the biggest starcast ever (and). justifying each and all of them,’ ‘Two themes emerge from this review: firstly that of the expected narrative movement and mode of address, and secondly, the question of verisimilitude1 fail t0 hit their ring the producer. 1 as are technical art is 100 short (My precs: the ‘for 100 short @ rage... J "hits and there is Jormula film is ‘thing can still be here are several ted, This is not are listed: the songs) of almost and fourth are originality’ and fis of general ingredients that ~ particularly if lease had been t ever (and). of the expected the question of Narrative Indian film-makers often insist that screenplay and direction are crucial and the storyline only the crudest vehicle from which to wring ‘emotion and onto which to append spectacle. Ics much more diffcule o writea screenplay for Naseeb than for a Western or ‘art’ film, ohere you have a straight storyline. A commercial Hindi film has to have subplots and gags, and keep its audience involved with no story or lopi.* ‘The assertion that Hindi films have ‘no story’ is sometimes confusing to those unfamiliar with the genre. ‘Who cares who gets the story credits? Everyone knows our films have no stories’, an, in fact, the story credits are often farmed out to accommodating friends or relatives for ‘tax adjustment’ purposes. However, Hindi cinema has by no means broken the hallowed bounds of narrative convention, and the most immediately striking thing about Naseeb is the fiendishly complex convolutions of this multi-stranded and very long succession of events, which neverth- less culminate in an exemplarily neat resolution. What is meant by ‘no story’ i, frst, that the storyline will be almost totally predictable to the Indian audience, being a repetition, or rather, an unmistakable trans- formation, of many other Hindi films, and second, that it will be recog nised by them as a ‘ridiculous’ pretext for spectacle and emotion. Films which really have ‘no story” (i.e. non-narrative), or are ‘justaslice of ite’, or have the comparatively single-stranded narratives of many contemp- corary Western films, ae considered unlikely to be successfal The difference between Hindi and Western films is like that betteen an epic. ‘and a shore story. Not only isa film expected to be two-and-a-half to three hours long, but itis usual for the plot to span atleast two generations, beginning with the ‘main protagonists’ births or childhoods and jumping twenty of so years (often in a single shot) to the action of the present. There is of course ‘good evidence that Hindi films have evolved from village traditions of epic narration, and the dramas and the characters, as well as the structure, of the mythological epics are regularly and openly drawn upon. Film-makers often insist that: ‘Every film can be traced back to these stories’, and even that “There are only two stories in the world, the ‘Ramayana and the Mahabharat.’ In fat, itis the form and movement of the narrative that tends to distinguish the Hindi film, the crux of this being that the balance between narrative development and spectacular or ‘emotional excess is rather different As the Trade Guide review implies, audiences expect to be addressed in an ordered succession of modes. Desk Premee had failed allegedly because, among other reasons, there was no comedy, no melodrama, too little ‘romance’ and no ‘emotion’, while Naseeb had earlier been ‘commended because ‘everything’ was there: 5 jr A meTT alancing tect ® Frat Guin, My 3, dramarie situation iy the sors the ples, the rreenplay, the dialogue amd i... (and) providi bay's ling properly the thrill, the action Boxing, chasing and other modes, 2” baroqu is weak sys D ment (¢ Laer pees Film-makers about ‘blending the masalas2 ‘one might discuss cookery, and (defensive st Westemers or ‘intellectuals notwithstanding), tion that these elements, ineludin dances, are an important part of an overall balance of “favours ‘motivation is at work here (one put is also considered very important things in’ for, ic is said, “the andie Naseeb’s narrative movement is scenes. of spectacular or development of drama. Clea in prope proportions as tances forthe bene of they havea cea percep the inecusbly aigned songs ana | SE eworkof tefl whichisivachene | #8 Gey, something ofa commecat | in something foreeybody but | 8! that on doe not shove te fa nce always knows ifyou den Bee! family ieee convel ¥ way of swift juxtaposition of cameo hhumorous~impact, rather than steady ly, a5 in all mainstream cinema, Hind; is buil popu (paren revelat love w pening love~ ‘ot to mention the eroticism (cillait spectacle itself: While many Hindi films Analy I drama (although with spectacle always are th imarily about sj spectacle-with song and idiom’ locations, costumes, ight and ‘thrills (or stuns), mest ot Ban physic Nose song and dance sequent affective involvement in the hapy excitement, thrill, fear, envy, wonder, ‘which lies behind the desire for depend essentially on emotional of importance), Naseeb is. pri dance,‘reenplay, the dialogue and vy the thrill, the action, "in proper proportions’ as stances for the benefit of Jy they have a clear percep- asably maligned songs and te film, which is to achieve mething of a commercial sing for everybody’), but it loes not ‘ust shove these knows if you do", "ft juxtaposition of cameo Yet, rather than steady ainstream cinema, Hindi verence and mastery, both 3 focus for identification > with, as will be argued ent phantasy). However, "be privileged over linear ‘cted to be involved not 4ppen next, but through vent in the happening: mention the eroticism While many Hindi films 2h with spectacle always ‘ectacle—with song and oF stunts), most of Bom- bay's top stars, and sets which range from a luxury glass mansion to 2 baroque revolving restaurant and 2 fanciful ‘London’ casino. “Ifthe story is weak, you have to be a showman and show the public everything,” says Desai. But unregulated, uncontained spectacle, however novel, interesting and pleasurable, always risks losing its audience's involve- ment (eg. Trade Guide's: “The narration is so unskilled that it does not sustain interest’). Naseeb depends on two strategies to avoid this. One is its skill at swift transition between well balanced ‘modes’ of spectacle, the other the strength and reassuring familiarity of the narrative, which is, in fact, structured by discourses which are deeply rooted in Indian social life and in the unconscious (and in this its relationship with Indian mythological and folk narrative becomes particularly apparent). Briefly, the story of Naseeb concerns the friendships, love affairs, amily reunions and fights between the (adult) children of four men who ‘won a lotery ticket together and fell out over division of the spoils. Any attempt at succinct summary of the intricacies of this extraordinarily convoluted plot and its characters’ relationships is doomed to failure ~ nor is it strictly relevant. Itis probably enough to point our that the story is built around three chestnuts of Hindi cinema which were particularly popular in the late "705/"80s, the themes being: (1) ‘lost and found” (parents and children are separated and reunited years later following revelation of mistaken identities); (2) ‘dostana’ (two male friends fall in love with the same woman and the one who discovers this sacrifices his love and often life~for the male friendship or do:tana); and (3) revenge (villains get cheir just deserts at the hands of the heroes they wronged). Analysis of the narrative suggests that the discourses which structure it are those of kinship (the blood relationship and bonds expressed in its idiom), ‘duty’ and social obligation, solidarity, trust, and also a meta- physical discourse of ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’ and human impotence in the face Nave: ihe sequence. 125126 2K x stain, of this. Orde, or equilibrium, is presented asa state in which humans tive in harmony with fae, respecting social obligations and ties op Fendship or family. Disruption of this order isthe result of selfish srced, fate (or human meddling in fate) and (hetero) sexu desire a narrative js bik upon a simple opposition between good/morality and eviliecadence, and connotations of ‘waditional” and “Indian” an) appended to morality, which isan idea of socal relations which includes respect for kinship and ftiendship obligations destiny, patriotism and) religion (and religious tolerance) as well as controlled sexuality. Evil es dstadence is broadly categorised as “non-traditional” and “Western” although the West is not so much a place, or even a culture, 2s ar emblem of exotic, decadent otherness, signified by whisky, bikinis, a, controlled sexuality and what is seen as lack of ‘respect’ for elders and betters, and (from men) towards womanhood. Film makers are quite aware of building their narratives around terme ‘of an opposition so basic that audiences cannot easly avoid immersion Kinship emotion in India is very strone—t0 this element aleays works that’s what ‘ost and found” is about. It doesn’t work 10 well ooh educaced audiences tho go several days without secing their famitlen, bor ‘works with B and C grade audiences who get worried if they don't met Lamily member by 6:30 p.m, ehase family members are an important poe of themselves and their experience of the world, ™ However, the films also appear to deal with these basic family relation, ‘Ships at a much deeper level, and what appears to be highly charged imagery, which is not organised into conscious narrative coherence, regularly erupts in these films. Thus, for example, Naseeb boasts 1 scene whose parallels with the Oedipal scenario are hard to ignore, in which the father and ‘good’ son/hero, unaware oftheir blood relationship, are locked in moral combat ~the father wielding a knife above his prosvate son. Just as one is about to kill the other, the hero's foster mother, whe had fallen and lost consciousness, revives, appears at the top of the caine ith a bleeding wound on her head prominently bandaged, and shricks, The action frees, mistaken identities are explained, and the son agrees to follow his father into combat with the villains. For this encounter the father hands over to him a special ring, bearing the mark of Hinds religion (the sacred symbol OM), which protects him in a succession of Fiehts and later becomes the mechanism by which he escapes, ona rope, fom a burning tower in which the villains (tha which isnot socialised) meet gory deaths. In fact, somewhat bizarrely, the film can be read as 4 parrative of masculine psychic development (the emergence of the sexed Subject within the social order), with the early scenes of anarchic Sexuality followed by an Oedipal crisis and a subsequent draima of sons following the Father into the Symbolic Order To point to the kind of reading that a very literal psychoanalysis produces is not to advocate reducing Naseeb— or psychoanalysis to this, However, it does raise interesting questions about the relevance of Psychoanalysis in the Indian context and, in fat, the greatest problem isa state in which humans 1 obligations and ties of ler is the result of selfish setero} sexual desire. ion between good/morality ditional’ and ‘Indian’ are al relations which includes s, destiny, patriotism and trolled sexuality. Evil or aditional’ and. ‘Western’, or even a culture, as an xd by whisky, bikinis, an of respect’ for elders and s narratives around terms ‘easily avoid immersion: 40 this element altsays doesn’t work so well with seeing their families, but it corried if they don’t se a bers are an important part sse basic family relation urs to be highly charged us narrative coherence, Mle, Naseeb boasts a scene tard to ignore, in which + blood relationship, are knife above his prostrate 210's foster mother, who us atthe top of the stairs 1 bandaged, and shrieks. ined, and the son agrees 5. For this encounter the ing the mark of Hindu shim in a succession of th he escapes, on a rope, which is not socialise) he film can be read as 2 emergence of the sexed rly scenes of anarchic bsequent drama of sons * literal psychoanalysis aychoanalysis ~to this, ‘bout the relevance of the greatest problem is rot how to apply such concepts, but whether one can ignore patternings which obtrude in so implausibly striking a manner. Although few films order their imagery in so fortuitously neat a diachrony, its potency and. overtness is not unusual, and what 2 letter-writer can dismiss as nothing. but ‘the fast and found theme with a lot of improbabilities and inaniies thrown in’ can be very far from inane in the context of the spectator’s ‘own phantasy, Verisimilitude Beyond the basic suspension of disbelief on which cinema depends, any gene evolves and insttutionalises its own conventions, which allow Credibility to become unproblematic within certain parameters.” Com pared with the conventions of much Western cinema, Hindi films appear to have patently preposterous narratives, overblown dialogue (Gequently evaluated by film-makers on whether or not it is ‘lap worthy’), exaggeratedly stylised acting, and to show disregard for psychological characterisation, history, geography, and even, some times, camera placement rules.” Tolerance of overt phantasy has always been high in Hindi cinem, with litle need to anchor the material in what Western conventions might recognise as a discourse of ‘realism’, and slippage between registers does not have to be marked or rationalised. The most obvious example isthe song sequences, which are much less commonly ‘ust- fied’ within the story (for example, introduced as stage performances by the fictional characters) than in Hollywood musicals. Hindi film songs ae usually tightly integrated, through words and mood, within the flow of the film="In my films, if you miss a song, you have missed an important link between one part of the narration and the next” —and risguided antempts to doctor Hindi films for Western audiences by cutting out the songs are always fatal. However, the song sequences (often also dream sequences) do permit excesses of phantasy which are more problematic elsewhere in the film, for they specifically allow that continuities of time and place be disregarded, that heroines may change saris between shots and the scenery skip continents between verses, whenever the interests of spectacle or mood require it ‘Although Hindi film phantasy needs comparatively slight euthentica ting strategies, Naseb does negotiate the terrain with care, and this is undoubtedly one of its strengths. In fict the viewer is immersed sradually, as the film moves through three phases: an initial mode bordering on ‘social realism’, a second period of selfeflexivity and parody, and a final phase in which dream imagery and logic are unprob- lematic. Paniculatly interesting are the middle scenes, which make self- conscious and sophisticated play with the ambiguity between registers Thus, for example, in the party song mentioned above ‘real’ Bombay film stars appear, 25 themselves, ata film party located firmly within Naseet’s fiction, and, throughout, the central hero's romance is presented largely as a parody of Hindi cinema clichés, with him actually 2 Septen Nee 0° setcteaiored ‘Sehig a enon 2 a Kage fl Four Febtany 18)“realise signific as appr sores films. overlay happer ‘moral On the James impact the dex astari Naseet Nave: se parody in ‘he impart The $ Sommenting, after a dazzling display of kung-fu skills to resc on singer girlfriend from rapacious thugs: ‘It's uther Later, when he finds her modelling for a throat the me fon the beach, he ‘mistakes’ the film scenario, 5 aaa director yells ‘Start camera’ and a crew member Famili ‘microphone, the hero (speaking to camera in tion ot within the film) begins a owery proposal o laugh Hindi film dialogue. Naseeb is undoubtedly unus arodic elements inherent in mm ue his pop- just like a Hindi fila" runs into frame with a both the film and the film f marriage in the style of ual in taking the self-reflexive and self. wach Hindi cinema so far, but the fact that — ‘example, ideal ki inship behaviour are ineptly transgressed (.c. a son kills his mother; or a father knowingly and callousy causes his on to suffer), 1s & superman who singlehandedly knocks out a dozen and then bursts into song, than if the hero burly henchmen Any rigorous discussion of the conv ventions of verisimilitude and the lise" in Hindi cinema would have to including concepts and conventions of apparent tolerance of ‘non-real consider much wider issues, is