Let’s be talky talky! It’s a super cloudy overcast just plain BLECH day in Chicago which is a great time to cozy up and exercise our brain muscles.
Let’s talk pre-popular culture world, in India. Before there were movies, there were stories. The stories that make up the Ramayana and Mahabharata are found through out South Asia with various twists and turns although the essentials are the same. And it’s the twists and turns that make the difference, that give the message.
Ram gave up his throne and lived in the forest for years, then his wife was kidnapped, he rescued her, and returned home to his palace. The Pandavas lost their kingdom in a dice match and similarly went into exile for years. They fought a great battle with their cousins and won their kingdom back. These two basic stories, they are EVERYWHERE in South Asia. The point where (similar to the Trojan War stories in Europe), it is likely they are based on some actual historical event which had such large repercussions it was discussed through out the region.
But within those basic frameworks, you have so many different “messages” that can be told. The Ramayana is a simple one, it has 3 protagonists, but who is the “hero”? Is it Raavan, who was so devout and good and powerful that the Gods feared him? Is it Sita, magically born of the earth and defeating Evil through her virtue? Or is it Ram, obedient to authority and replicating that authority as a husband/older brother? There are oral traditions that set each of them in turn at the center. But the version that was widely printed and spread is the one that makes Ram the Be All End All.
In Europe, the birth of pop culture is usually set with Gutenberg and the printing press. That started an era of mass printing, books and newspapers and pamphlets and all kinds of things. It caused a revolution in every area of life as all of a sudden the masses were able to share knowledge. But that relies on literacy. India didn’t have literacy, still doesn’t in many places. Knowledge was spread in two different paths, the stories that were told among the workers, the travelers, the same kind of folks as have always created and shared stories to make sense of their life. And the Brahmin’s, the priestly class that painstakingly memorized word for word the exact ancient texts.
And then there’s the British (boooooo, British!). They came from the land of Gutenberg, to their mind the printed word can tell you everything about the classes AND the masses. So they talked to people and they tried to take all these many many divergent strands of meaning and turn it into one clear story. And then they printed that story and handed it back to the people and said “here you go! This is your country, all neatly done up in a book!”
Again, most people in India are not literate. So the folks with the power of education are the ones who are able to read that book, and then turn around and tell everyone else “this is what is, and I know it is true because I read it in a Book”. From knowledge and authority being trapped with the classes who had memorized Vedas, now it was trapped with classes who were able to read books.
Which brings me to movies. Movies are not the place to get Authoritative Knowledge, that’s in Books. But they are the place to spread common knowledge, the things “everyone knows”. It’s a return to the folk stories that spread and, occasionally, contradicted the “official” Vedas.
So here’s some things to think about:
What does it mean for the written language to relate to the oral tradition of films? Is it maybe a bad thing that now we have reviewers and wikipedia entries and the formality and stability of language defining a film as this or that, good or bad, hero or villain, instead of allowing for the flow of interpretation?
Expanding that, what does it mean to have an “authoritative” version of a film? The one that is, or isn’t, missing any reels, that has (or hasn’t) certain subtitles, being the same thing everyone sees?
Following this line of thinking, is it maybe in some ways a good thing that Indian films are becoming increasingly temporary art? Playing in theaters and then never available to be seen again, just relying on memories of them? Were they never intended to be set in stone, is it an art work that should exist in reality just for a time and then change and be reinterpreted, as folk tales used to be?
dontcallitbollywood 
I don’t know. In the context of reviews it feels like the film is the text and the reviews are the interpretation. They don’t really have the “I read it in a book” authority.
LikeLike
That’s how I’ve always looked at reviews, but then I read online discussion (even here I get the occasional visitor commenting) that say a certain film is definitely good, or bad, or feminist, or anti-feminist, or “realistic”, or whatever, because that is how the reviews describe it. The reviews have become the accepted “right” answer and if you say something else, you are “wrong”. I guess this is a general internet phenomenon? The conversation moves so fast that the “right conclusion” is in place before folks have a chance to see the original data for themselves.
LikeLike
What does it mean for the written language to relate to the oral tradition of films? Is it maybe a bad thing that now we have reviewers and wikipedia entries and the formality and stability of language defining a film as this or that, good or bad, hero or villain, instead of allowing for the flow of interpretation?
I don’t know whether it’s really a bad thing but rather I dislike (this is a universal problem for me ) that critics are immediately looked at as a higher authority/supreme entity. The biggest problem with Indian reviewers is that they analyse foreign films but don’t look deeper into the specific technical jargon that relates to indian films. Like the word ‘masala’ is there but in Indian films it is less about the story and more the character. This is common even in Indian books and poems. When reviewers are just trying to merely transit jargon that doesn’t work in Indian films. The culture is different so is the mechanisms of the traditions. Also I don’t feel that Oral traditions and films directly transit.
Expanding that, what does it mean to have an “authoritative” version of a film? The one that is, or isn’t, missing any reels, that has (or hasn’t) certain subtitles, being the same thing everyone sees?
I am not really sure what this means. Does it relate to a one version of a film that is watched across borders. I feel that is just a way to look at it from a upper/middle class view. However at least in India many small towns operate under theatres that have the same problems in films which would’ve occurred in the 70’s so there is no real ‘authoritative version’.
Following this line of thinking, is it maybe in some ways a good thing that Indian films are becoming increasingly temporary art? Playing in theaters and then never available to be seen again, just relying on memories of them? Were they never intended to be set in stone, is it an artwork that should exist in reality just for a time and then change and be reinterpreted, as folktales used to be?
I think it’s the opposite right with the onstream of streaming services and DVD’s. Most performance art has always been temporary and has always just evolved with the ages. Like in Bharatanatyam while the music may be old, the steps aren’t. However even with opera and piano; there is no way to judge whether this was exactly the way things were played so art always evolves.
LikeLike
Yes! That is what I was thinking about with the reviews. Any printed review with big English words has this air of authority. But the majority of reviewers have little sense of Indian film, versus Western film traditions. And don’t seem particularly interested in learning, like it is lowering themselves. Not all reviewers, in fact in some ways I feel like reviews had their golden age in the early 2000s. The internet was around which allowed people who took these films seriously to find an audience. But those early writers (Original Anupama chopra, Raja Sen, Baradwaj Rajan, etc.) created an audience and now there are so many others who are just leaping on the bandwagon without any real passion for the topic.
Yes, the one version of a film! But to your point, I guess that is my blindness as an international viewer. I only see the films when they are streaming or international releases, so I think of it as a given that the version IS the version, that I can analyze a film based on one line of dialogue or one scene. I’m blind to the fact that for a lot of the audience, they are getting the broad sweep of the film but may be missing a line here or a scene there. Which means the film should be interpreted based on Big Things, not small things that may end up lost on the audience and the filmmakers know it may be lost.
I’m increasingly noticing, at least for me as an international audience, that these movies just aren’t available to me if I miss them in theaters. Some of the biggest streaming services don’t have a good international presence, or just don’t bother with subtitles. So I have to rely on my memory of a film I saw once in theaters, instead of watching it over and over for analysis. But maybe that’s okay? It means I’m always hunting out new movies, and I’m only remembering the Big Things of a movie instead of looking for all the little things.
LikeLike
That is 100% true that people naturally run towards those with ‘so-called’ more authority. I do think this is also happening with Indian film where the films are made by people who do not understand Indian films/oral-traditions which is intrinsically linked to the local culture. Instead these are made by films who are inspired by western traditions but don’t necessarily grow up among it. I don’t know whether that makes sense.
Yes, films should not be necessarily focused on small details and big ideas. It’s this interesting idea that goes on in books as well. The books that have the universal themes that connect will always last beyond time. Rather than books that have very specific time related feedback. Same with movies, which is why movies before which seemed interesting and fresh at the time can seem dated. While a movie like Sholay or Chak De India or Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge will always be fresh.
I think einthusan is still pretty good with keeping up with the movies but the biggest problems are films like Bhediya which enter the ott space too late for audiences to remember. I still miss the DVD era and hope once I get a bigger house; I can get a beautiful DVD player.
LikeLike
Since i missed the 2023 year-end posts, I wanted to recommend Dono. Stars Sunny Deol’s son and Poonam Dhillon’s daughter. I watched it with zero expectations and was pleasantly surprised when i finished the movie. A nice breezy romcom with great character moments.
LikeLike
I also wrote about Dono in Wednesday Watching post. Have you seen my comment?
LikeLike
just read it and I agree. It was just a nice movie with nice characters. I was surprised how much I ended up rooting for all of them. It felt great to watch a tension free movie where everyone was helping everyone as opposed to the toxic characters in most moviesAnd the soundtrack was great, it’s become a regular listen for me now
LikeLike
just read it and I agree. It was just a nice movie with nice characters. I was surprised how much I ended up rooting for all of them. It felt great to watch a tension free movie where everyone was helping everyone as opposed to the toxic characters in most movies
And the soundtrack was great, it’s become a regular listen for me now
LikeLike
I look forward to re-reading this post when my braincells are functioning again. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for tomorrow but it might be a couple of days.
LikeLike
I’m the same! Notice I posted this thing and then ran out of energy to comment.
LikeLike