Times of India
 
 
 
Why is Bollywood anti-social ?
_Shaikh Ayaz_ (http://www.timescrest.com/reporters/Shaikh-Ayaz)  |  January 
19,  2013 
 
 
'Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola', which dealt with land-grabbing, is an  
exception to the full-on-entertainment rule of the 100-crore club. Why don't we 
 
make more films with a message? 
It is not clear how much Amitabh Bachchan liked Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola  
(MKBKM) but it seems the superstar enjoyed the film's sweeping diversity. 
'A  land issue much like Singur, rich and poor divide, communism of takes,  
anti-alcohol, love story (DDLJ style), politics, ' he tweeted on January 11.  
Some, like the young filmmaker Vasan Bala, hail MKBKM as the new Jaane Bhi 
Do  Yaaro, for its "zany humour, irreverence and satirical look at 
contemporary  society. " 
But like every Vishal Bhardwaj film, MKBKM - addressing the issues of  
landgrabbing and economic development set in Haryana - is not without its  
critics. Many found it 'confusing', 'shallow' and 'indulgent'. Yet, few can 
deny  
the film's social message that resonates with contemporary India. More  
crucially, it begs the question - why doesn't Bollywood deal with social issues 
 more often? 
"It's unfortunate that Hindi cinema has slipped into the entertainment 
mode,  " says Bhavna Talwar, director of Dharm (2007), a brave film about 
communal  harmony. "Somewhere, the real issues that need our attention are 
getting 
lost, "  she adds. For all the talk about Hindi cinema's maturity in the 
last decade, and  the ushering of a new form of social realism, "our films do 
not reflect our  society. 1940-50 s were better, when Raj Kapoor, V 
Shantaram, Guru Dutt and  Bimal Roy were making films with a social bent of 
mind, " 
says Talwar, who feels  the real issues are those faced by the common Indian 
every day that do not get  heard. "Let's first see the issues that affect 
us today: the condition of women,  corruption, consumerism and poverty. How 
many films are made on or around these  themes? If the number of films that 
deal with social issues is minuscule, those  that manage to make a point is 
even less, " she says. 
An obvious and overused counter-point is why confront people with harsh  
realities that envelop so much of their lives otherwise? After all, Bollywood 
is  a much-needed escape for millions who live in poverty and deprivation. 
"The  truth is that the Indian audience is not ready for social realism, " 
says Rauf  Ahmed, a senior film journalist. "That's why only a handful of 
filmmakers are  depicting reality. Don't forget, reality is often unpleasant in 
a country like  ours, he adds. 
Among the handful is Prakash Jha. You may accuse him for compromising on 
his  vision by accommodating big stars (as opposed to his earlier work which 
critics  feel was purer) but he sure doesn't sugar-coat the message. Whether 
it was  Aarakshan, based on castebased reservations or Raajneeti, an 
indictment of  politics as a ruthless game of power or Chakravyuh, about 
Naxalites, 
Jha is not  afraid to voice his angst against social ills. His films are 
mostly rooted in  dusty landscapes;regions which are perpetually on the boil. 
"When we talk about  Shining India or enormous growth, we forget that 75 per 
cent of the population  lives below Rs 20 in a day, " he told a magazine 
last year. "Two kilometers down  any national highway - seven lanes as they 
are called these days or four lanes  or expressways - you start experiencing 
real India. " 
Even Dibakar Banerjee who made the much-acclaimed Shanghai on development 
and  displacement juxtaposed with dreams of Shining India, said at the time, 
"It's my  personal take on my life, my country and what I see around me. " 
The most  socially conscious of contemporary Indian filmmakers, Shyam Benegal 
says films  are a form of communication and should be viewed in that 
context. "It's about  how interesting and persuasive your communication is. 
Every 
filmmaker tries to  be as persuasive as he can - whether he is entertaining 
you, making you aware of  something or making you move in a particular 
direction. In the end, film is an  entertainment product. Its primary value is 
as 
a commodity - to be sold and  consumed. " 
Entertainment is the main vehicle for Bollywood and commerce, its driving  
engine. Films, then, are not like public service commercials, issued in 
national  interest. "Big money is involved, you cannot deny that, " says 
Benegal 
whose  last two films, Welcome to Sajjanpur and Well Done Abba, drove the 
point home  through humour and satire. "Well Done Abba was about ordinary, 
everyday  corruption. Welcome to Sajjanpur questioned many things - rights for 
transgender  people, widow remarriage, superstition, honour killing, all of 
this was embedded  in it, " he says, adding, "You can mix entertainment 
with a message, but there  has to be a moral core. All great Greek theatre has 
at its base a social  morality. " 
Talwar says Aamir Khan's Satyamev Jayate, the popular talk show, brought 
into  public consciousness social issues that are otherwise ignored. "It is 
the  collective responsibility of big stars to do meaningful cinema once in a 
while,  " she says. Benegal admits that a star can make a big difference. 
"Whether you  like it or not, there is a tendency to listen to what the star 
has to say. If a  lesser known actor had done Satyamev Jayate, it wouldn't 
have had the same  impact. " 
However, the debate between the function of films as art and films as  
business is an old one. Dibakar Banerjee touched upon this aspect in a recent  
interview to The Caravan magazine. Outlining the craft-art divide, he 
observed,  "Pure art is where there is a minimum distance between what is in 
the 
artist's  head and what is expressed - between Van Gogh's brain and his 
canvas, for  example. There is more distance between an advertising painter's 
brain or heart,  and the billboard he makes - he has to go through many other 
processes, he's  removed from the final product. I'm trying to reduce that 
distance, to put as  much of myself in my films as possible. " 
In the age of the 100-crore club, most filmmakers obsessed with the 
'numbers  game' find their responsibility gravitating more towards the producer 
than the  audience. Tigmanshu Dhulia says, "I am first responsible to myself. 
It is not my  job to change society. It is the job of politicians. I can only 
reflect the  conditions around me. " 
So, should filmmakers strive towards refining public taste? What are, then, 
 the objectives of a filmmaker? "The problems of India are far complex to 
be  contained and resolved in a three-hour format, " says Vasan Bala who is 
awaiting  his debut film Peddlers, which takes on the pressing urban issues. 
"MKBKM worked  for the same reasons as Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro did - it doesn't 
preach or give  readymade solutions. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro was made by a bunch 
of passionate people  who thought they were doing the right thing. That 
should be the attitude of a  filmmaker - that you should only put forth the 
problem and stay away from  solutions. " 
In Talwar's view, cinema exerts great influence over people and over time 
can  change the society's mindset. "This is a country where a man's notion of 
what a  woman finds exciting comes from films, where the idea of romance 
comes from  films and where you have a song like Munni Badnaam Hui - some 
illiterate truck  driver's impression of what a woman wants - that is, to get 
badnaam. We have to  make sure every line, every character and everything we 
put into our films makes  an impact on people. We cannot afford to be lax. We 
need to be more  responsible."

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to