Read Online Producing Bollywood: Inside the Contemporary Hindi Film Industry by Tejaswini Ganti - Free Book Online
Authors: Tejaswini Ganti
Tags: Ebook
Ads: Link
as being centrally involved in the creation of a modern “Indian” culture; such efforts span a history, from the specifically cultural articulations of nationalism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Chatterjee 1993), to Nehru’s post-Independence initiatives, which established the vast cultural bureaucracy still in place today. The expectations of and claims made upon the state, as expressed in the Report —to homogenize a field as diverse as Indian cinema, change audiences’ tastes in film, and use film to advance national interests—all point to the significance of cinema in constructing a certain state-sponsored modernity.
Since Independence, cinema has had multiple significations, representing varying regimes of value within state discourses: as vice; as art form; as tool for development; and as index of modernity. The 1950s witnessed debates centered around whether film could ever be an authentic indigenous cultural form (Chakravarty 1993), which were attitudes still expressed in the 1980s, as evident from the Working Group Report .
The primary regime of value for cinema was developmentalist, until the time of my initial fieldwork in the mid-1990s, when new regimes of value began to be articulated around cinema, namely those of cultural heritage and economic ascendancy. In the next section, I detail the shift in attitudes toward mainstream cinema and filmmaking, from being a heavily criticized and maligned form of media, to one which the state actually celebrated, touting as an example of India’s success in the international arena. This transformation is located in the altered media landscape produced by economic liberalization and the subsequent cultural nationalism engendered by these processes.
THE PREHISTORY OF COOL: 1994–2002
Box-Office Bonanza
In January 1996, when I arrived in Bombay to start my fieldwork, the dominant mood within the film industry was of optimism: that audiences were “coming back” to theaters because the quality of films and of movie theaters was improving immensely. The optimism was connected to the unanticipated and astounding box-office success of two films, Hum Aapke Hain Koun! (HAHK; What Do I Mean to You!) and Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (DDLJ; The Braveheart Will Take the Bride). When HAHK was released in 1994, the Hindi film industry was absolutely stunned by its phenomenal success, for it had been written off after preview screenings as one of the biggest flops waiting to happen. It was initially dismissed by the industry as a long, boring “wedding video,” due to its 14 songs, 195-minute running time—lengthy even by Indian standards 17 — elaborate depictions of North Indian Hindu wedding rituals, and the absence of a villain or violence 18 ( Figures 2 – 3 ). With its portrayal of excessively wealthy but harmonious families, traditionally dressed heroines,and young lovers who were willing to sacrifice their love out of a sense of duty to their families, the film challenged the dominant norms of filmmaking at the time. Its relatively linear and episodic narrative structure, very minimal plot, and lack of a villain were also not typical of mainstream Hindi films at the time.
FIGURE 2 Scene from Hum Aapke Hain Koun! Courtesy and copyright of Rajshri Productions.
FIGURE 3 Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan in Hum Aapke Hain Koun! Courtesy and copyright of Rajshri Productions.
FIGURE 4 Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge . Courtesy and copyright of Yash Raj Films, www.yashrajfilms.com .
The industry was again taken by surprise the following year with the release of DDLJ, a love story involving two Indians born and raised in Britain, which appeared as if it would surpass HAHK’s box-office success ( Figure 4 ). While DDLJ had a more familiar theme of young lovers who have to battle against parental opposition to their union (an unyielding father), its most unusual element—widely commented upon by the press—was that the
Since Independence, cinema has had multiple significations, representing varying regimes of value within state discourses: as vice; as art form; as tool for development; and as index of modernity. The 1950s witnessed debates centered around whether film could ever be an authentic indigenous cultural form (Chakravarty 1993), which were attitudes still expressed in the 1980s, as evident from the Working Group Report .
The primary regime of value for cinema was developmentalist, until the time of my initial fieldwork in the mid-1990s, when new regimes of value began to be articulated around cinema, namely those of cultural heritage and economic ascendancy. In the next section, I detail the shift in attitudes toward mainstream cinema and filmmaking, from being a heavily criticized and maligned form of media, to one which the state actually celebrated, touting as an example of India’s success in the international arena. This transformation is located in the altered media landscape produced by economic liberalization and the subsequent cultural nationalism engendered by these processes.
THE PREHISTORY OF COOL: 1994–2002
Box-Office Bonanza
In January 1996, when I arrived in Bombay to start my fieldwork, the dominant mood within the film industry was of optimism: that audiences were “coming back” to theaters because the quality of films and of movie theaters was improving immensely. The optimism was connected to the unanticipated and astounding box-office success of two films, Hum Aapke Hain Koun! (HAHK; What Do I Mean to You!) and Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (DDLJ; The Braveheart Will Take the Bride). When HAHK was released in 1994, the Hindi film industry was absolutely stunned by its phenomenal success, for it had been written off after preview screenings as one of the biggest flops waiting to happen. It was initially dismissed by the industry as a long, boring “wedding video,” due to its 14 songs, 195-minute running time—lengthy even by Indian standards 17 — elaborate depictions of North Indian Hindu wedding rituals, and the absence of a villain or violence 18 ( Figures 2 – 3 ). With its portrayal of excessively wealthy but harmonious families, traditionally dressed heroines,and young lovers who were willing to sacrifice their love out of a sense of duty to their families, the film challenged the dominant norms of filmmaking at the time. Its relatively linear and episodic narrative structure, very minimal plot, and lack of a villain were also not typical of mainstream Hindi films at the time.
FIGURE 2 Scene from Hum Aapke Hain Koun! Courtesy and copyright of Rajshri Productions.
FIGURE 3 Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan in Hum Aapke Hain Koun! Courtesy and copyright of Rajshri Productions.
FIGURE 4 Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge . Courtesy and copyright of Yash Raj Films, www.yashrajfilms.com .
The industry was again taken by surprise the following year with the release of DDLJ, a love story involving two Indians born and raised in Britain, which appeared as if it would surpass HAHK’s box-office success ( Figure 4 ). While DDLJ had a more familiar theme of young lovers who have to battle against parental opposition to their union (an unyielding father), its most unusual element—widely commented upon by the press—was that the
Similar Books
