I have never
liked popular cinema in India, it gets on my nerves to be quite honest. I am
not fond of all art cinema either. Both genres have a purpose for their
existence.
Both genres have
one thing in common they are eroticised. Here in the UK most people I talk to
speak of the popular Bollywood films they have seen – man and woman dancing
around a tree. A few people might have watched some of the nicer films – I can
have intellectual conversations with those people.
Popular Indian
cinema isn’t made to be meaningful, it plays on easy stereotypes to get its
point across, and in short it is misrepresentative and offensive to many
marginalised groups. However art cinema is expected to be more realistic and in
touch with common people and their everyday struggles. I was reading this
article by Madhu Kishwar on ‘Bandit Queen’. Kishwar for those of you who don’t
know is an Indian feminist who has a popular magazine called Manushi. Bandit
Queen is a film that is supposedly based on the life of Phoolan Devi. The film
ran into controversy when it was released in 1994. I was in school at that
time, I had heard about this ‘adult film in hushed tones. The film is graphic
in its depiction of violence against women. In some quarters it was the film
men would watch for titillation, this is nothing new men watch films like this
India often. Cinema halls cater to the sexual needs of men who often learn
about sexuality through films, the nature of the film does not matter as long
as it is portraying women sexually.
There was talk
of the film being criticised by Phoolan herself which I remembered were
dismissed by people on the grounds that she was being greedy and asking for the
director for more money. However this article by Kishwar highlights another
aspect of the film – it is a distorted and even eroticised narrative of
violence against women in rural India. Being an art film it was to have a
limited audience in India but a wider one around the world. Kishwar argues that
liberties have been taken in narrating this story on screen, narratives which
weren’t part of the book by Mala Sen on the subject of Phoolan’s life. It is
understandable why this film was upsetting for Phoolan and why it could have
sparked violence across the region.
My issue with
the film and Indian films in general is how rape is commonly depicted and how
it is a deliberate addition by the filmmakers to either entertain (in popular
cinema) or to empathise (in art cinema). Both these reasons are insensitive to
this issue or rape and sexual violence against women, which is easily dismissed
in India. Phoolan was a poor illiterate woman, her story made the director lots
of money. There are two issues here, Phoolan does not mention the rape in her
interviews or in the book written by Mala Sen. The other issue is legal – one is
not allowed to disclose the identity of a rape victim in India. However the
spectacle of a naked woman exploited on screen is emotive and plays on our
sense of right and wrong. It made audiences feel bad about the condition of
women in rural India, however it played on a popular sentiment – India as a
backward and horrible place for women. None of those accusations are false,
however that is the only narrative one sees of India. The story presented in
the film is not completely false it is a reality in India- except it is not
Phoolan’s reality. It is made to sell a very disturbing idea of female
sexuality that we have come to normalise.
Can Indian
cinema ever portray women without offending them? Can any other cinema do that?
bell hooks would argue otherwise as would Laura Mulvey. Sexualisation of women
on screen is so common it is hard to realise it is there. Sexualised images of
women are so common that they rarely get criticised. Indian women’s bodies are
exploited on screen and off, this hardly gets anyone’s attention the exploitation
that is. hooks contends that the makers of popular entertainment are not naïve
but are guided by profit and popularity when constructing this misogyny. These
stories are sold as compelling truths about Indian women. Again these cinematic
liberties to portray a certain reality are carefully constructed image of
women. both hooks and Kishwar point out how these stories gain credibility
through depictions of violence
against women.
I remember while
talking about 12 years a slave a friend pointed out how the violence presented
in the film was made for titillation rather than raise the issue of slavery.
The argument he presented was that it was easy to portray slavery from the past
but modern day slavery would implicate us all as consumers of slavery which is
a very disturbing idea and not something that would sell. Similarly the image
of a certain kind of Indian woman being exploited in remote central India is
not disturbing for most of us. The violence is exoticised, it is presented as
alien to urban masses, who feel secure in knowing this is not their reality.
Should stories
on such issues be made – yes, however they need to made with sensitivity with accuracy and not for titillation.
This is a link
to the article by Madhu Kishwar –
No comments:
Post a Comment