The trouble with Bollywood
-
Unlike most of the other posters who have criticised 'Bollywood', it is not my belief that 'Bollywood' should be criticised on teh ground that it is 'low-class' (at least in the sense that these critics would maintain) or that it is only liked by Indians (supposing this to be true).
In the first place, if a form of art is 'low-class' on a ground other than that of its being morally objectionable, then I don't see why it cannot be adapted for use in promoting even those themes that I would regard as being the most sacred of all; after all, a song like 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam', is terribly 'low-class' (in the sense of its being aesthetically vulgar), but that would not mean that it would be impossible for such a song to be deployed morally so that it is instrumental in achieving what is arguably the loftiest purpose of all.
By the same token, many of the 'paegant plays' staged during mediaeval times, were gaudy, overwrought, and shamelessly theatrical; but that does not mean that their artistic depiction of the Day of Doom was in itself immoral, or that this depiction could not have been morally adapted to the performance of a function loftier than any other: namely, the saving of souls.
Secondly, I don't believe that the fact that a form of art should be liked only by one race of people to the exclusion of other races, could ever be a ground for deeming that form of art to be (objectively, from an aesthetic standpoint) 'low-class'; Christianity itself (though not a form of art but rather a religion) initially arose as a sect within Judaism, and yet this did not prevent Christianity from appealing to all men, across cultures.
The trouble with 'Bollywood' as I see it, is its exhibition and endorsement of values that are universally destructive of human beings; but this sort of trouble afflicts Hollywood and other sorts of cinema (such as Chinese cinema).
Ben -
I think Bollywood has changed very much since the 80s. If u see a movie of those times, it will be 99% of the time stories about family conflict, rape, violence and couple of actors in traditional clothes and amtuerish songs thrown in.
But as u can see at present, Bollywood had become a commercial entity very much following western values and cultures.The actors have changed and their dressing is kinda different. The songs are taken in a music video style and now u can find modern day themes in their movies.
The singaporeans who think that Boyllwood is about dancing in trees are just in an illusion themselves and are pretty much ignorant as most of the time Mediacrop used to shows crappy films. -
In fact i am pretty tired of the ingnorance many forumners here. Why is that Bollywood needs to be dancing around trees? I seldom see Banyan trees or gardens nowadays. But more pretty babes and male stars.
It is like what V_C posted , the dance videos shot in indoor studios.
Feel it is better than watching the local nonsense shown on Tv -
There is nothing wrong with 'dancing around trees'; but there is everything wrong with the way this is typically presented in so-called 'Bollywood flicks'.Originally posted by About A GaL:In fact i am pretty tired of the ingnorance many forumners here. Why is that Bollywood needs to be dancing around trees? I seldom see Banyan trees or gardens nowadays. But more pretty babes and male stars.
It is like what V_C posted , the dance videos shot in indoor studios.
Feel it is better than watching the local nonsense shown on Tv
I haven't watched any of these films myself; but from what I have been told by one or two of my Indian friends, and from the few scenes from these films that I have witnessed myself, I think that it would be safe to say that this entire business of 'dancing around trees' is rather unsavoury.
Why should a woman be presented as running away from a man whom she is interested in and who, in turn, is interested in her? Why is this done almost perpetually (or so I am given to understand)?
I understand that lovers sometimes 'frolick' and that part of what this can involve, might include the man of the pair pursuing his partner playfully; but when a culture (or rather a 'pop culture') sets this sort of incident up as a kind of icon signifying the sort of dynamics that ought to inform romantic relationships between the sexes, and when this incident is accordingly presented as a sort of achetype exemplifying the pattern to which these sorts of relationships ought to be trying to conform, then I think that something has gone seriously amiss.
Why should the man be presented archetypally as the predator, and the woman as equally archetypally the prey?
I don't deny that many men are predatory; but I do deny that this is what they were intended to be by God.
Moreover, why do the women in these films or 'heroines' (as I am informed) regard the men by whom they are smitten, as veritable 'gods'?
I think that this sort of presentation will have a negative impact on impressionable persons who are exposed to it.
Ben -
Well u find ccould find that trend in old Indian movies. I knew tha by vatching Central shows where they air one new movie at 2PM and the older ones other at 4PM on Sundays. I could see a big difference..........
Many old Chinese shows are just as worst in the 80s.
I think many of your philosphies are agreeable upoun. Women should not be show in such light. But as u guessed, old Indian movies where such asian cultural notions have taken root. I believe these things had been done away with now.
Ashwarya and some others have a strong portrayal women on screen. -
whoa wait a second there, I'm not gonna read all that Shit!
-
I'm not a feminist; and I do not at all mean to suggest that in the ordinary course of things, the wife ought not to submit to the will of the husband.Originally posted by About A GaL:Well u find ccould find that trend in old Indian movies. I knew tha by vatching Central shows where they air one new movie at 2PM and the older ones other at 4PM on Sundays. I could see a big difference..........
Many old Chinese shows are just as worst in the 80s.
I think many of your philosphies are agreeable upoun. Women should not be show in such light. But as u guessed, old Indian movies where such asian cultural notions have taken root. I believe these things had been done away with now.
Ashwarya and some others have a strong portrayal women on screen.
As a Christian, I believe that it is the duty of the wife to submit to her husband, where this would not involve her in sinning.
I also find the portrayal of 'strong women' in most movies to be ridiculous and exaggerated; in fact the greatest woman who ever lived (Mary, the Mother of Christ) showed her strength most magnificiently by submitting to God's will for her.
My point was that most of these movies are fixated upon romance; and they portray romance in an unhealthy light.
I have yet to hear of a Bollywood movie that isn't fundamentally a film about a romance; it seems as if every Bollywood film has to be a romantic film.
Frankly, I find this disturbing as I don't think that Indians in general are very good at conducting romances, and that their passion for these films will instil all sorts of longings in them which they will then find themselves unable to fulfil in healthy ways.
Indians are not a romantic people; unlike the Chinese or Malays or the Westerners; and that is probably why I find that while Malay and Chinese couples are always comfortable with themselves (that is, with their identity as couples, and with being seen by others as couples), Indian couples, however, are always very uneasy about their identity as such, and therefore tend to behave in an ungainly and awkward fashion, when in public.
In fact, it seems to me that it is precisely their strength that they should be so inept at conducting romantic relationships; their very ineptitude on this score to my mind is a kind of strength that deserves to be portrayed as such.
Some of the men I admire the most have been inept at romance - for instance, St Thomas More.
Why doesn't Bollywood portray Indians realistically (and in a complimentary fashion) by presenting them as a people who are indifferent to romance and are incapable of executing romantic relationships with adroitness?
Ben -
Please dont stereotype and compare movies with real life.One is movie , the other is not. it is quite offensive
Indians arent akward in public. The epitome of Love - Taj Mahal is in India.
They have lots of literature on love and romances. One of them was Devdas which was made into a movie.So please refrain from posting ignorant replies which in the last few days have been high.Originally posted by MrBach:I'm not a feminist; and I do not at all mean to suggest that in the ordinary course of things, the wife ought not to submit to the will of the husband.
As a Christian, I believe that it is the duty of the wife to submit to her husband, where this would not involve her in sinning.
I also find the portrayal of 'strong women' in most movies to be ridiculous and exaggerated; in fact the greatest woman who ever lived (Mary, the Mother of Christ) showed her strength most magnificiently by submitting to God's will for her.
My point was that most of these movies are fixated upon romance; and they portray romance in an unhealthy light.
I have yet to hear of a Bollywood movie that isn't fundamentally a film about a romance; it seems as if every Bollywood film has to be a romantic film.
Frankly, I find this disturbing as I don't think that Indians in general are very good at conducting romances, and that their passion for these films will instil all sorts of longings in them which they will then find themselves unable to fulfil in healthy ways.
Indians are not a romantic people; unlike the Chinese or Malays or the Westerners; and that is probably why I find that while Malay and Chinese couples are always comfortable with themselves (that is, with their identity as couples, and with being seen by others as couples), Indian couples, however, are always very uneasy about their identity as such, and therefore tend to behave in an ungainly and awkward fashion, when in public.
In fact, it seems to me that it is precisely their strength that they should be so inept at conducting romantic relationships; their very ineptitude on this score to my mind is a kind of strength that deserves to be portrayed as such.
Some of the men I admire the most have been inept at romance - for instance, St Thomas More.
Why doesn't Bollywood portray Indians realistically (and in a complimentary fashion) by presenting them as a people who are indifferent to romance and are incapable of executing romantic relationships with adroitness?
Ben -
I find this line a bit disturbing. It seems to suggest that women are the property of their husbands or fathers.Originally posted by MrBach:As a Christian, I believe that it is the duty of the wife to submit to her husband, where this would not involve her in sinning.
-
both submit to each other
-
The Taj Mahal is one of the world's most beautiful buildings; but the fact that it is 'the epitome of love' (as you have put it) doesn't undermine the point that I have made about Indians (in general).Originally posted by GaLtwenty:Please dont stereotype and compare movies with real life.One is movie , the other is not. it is quite offensive
Indians arent akward in public. The epitome of Love - Taj Mahal is in India.
They have lots of literature on love and romances. One of them was Devdas which was made into a movie.So please refrain from posting ignorant replies which in the last few days have been high.
The person who conceived the Taj Mahal did so not because he was in love with the person who had asked him to conceive it, but because he was given a commission to conceive it (and then to arrange to have it built) by the latter; the latter, for his part, was certainly in love with a woman and certainly intended the Taj Mahal to serve as an expression of his love for her, but the point to be made here is that the Taj Mahal's design wasn't a conception that (so to speak) sprang from his love for her.
The design of the Taj Mahal is an architectural feat and wasn't something that 'romantic love' ever executed (though 'romantic love' did indeed provide someone with the occasion for executing this feat, who, however, didn't happen to be in love with anyone himself).
I think that the poetry and literature you are referring to, might have been intended to deploy romantic love as a sort of allegory or symbol for something else; in any case, the Indians, even if they are able to produce such literature and poetry, might yet be inept at behaving romantically in the way that the Chinese and the Malays are naturally given to doing.
I think it's fair to say (from my own observations) that Indian girls are highly withdrawn, timid, emotionally inexpressive (at least when it comes to their feelings of affection), and are highly self-conscious, although I'm not sure whether this is the result of cultural conditioning or of the experience of being an ethnic minority in a country like ours; while Indian guys (for their part) are obviously awkward when they are seen in public with their (Indian) girlfriends and invariably try to overcompensate for this by behaving in a needlessly dramatic way towards their girlfriends.
I'm not sure whether the exposure of such people to 'Bollywood' doesn't exarcebate their own peculiar problems, such as the problem that they may have of relating to one another in the context of a society like ours.
Please don't misunderstand me, for it is my conviction that every culture has its share of defects, and I am therefore in no way a cultural supremacist.
For me, the greatest expression of love (of the greatest possible kind) is to be had in the image of a man dying slowly by torture, on a stake of wood.
That image to me is at once as universal as it is personal; freed from the shackles of any culture, it appeals to all men, across cultures, because it is not itself a cultural product; for it is nothing other than an image of the love that One Person has for the whole human race.
Ben