1 views
A short critic of Bollywood
I have been a movie fan - and I do enjoy movies with craft and its direction - not forgeting the character roles that actors portray.
Not all actors can portray characters out of their persona. As an example, Shah Rukhu Khan is a very bad character actor - yet, he plays with admiration of himself as ‘SRK’.
To my point if you study his characterization of ‘Devdas’ you would wonder what did he enact (and I am saying this not being biased of the Guru Dutt characterization). He was too loft and did not pay attention to emotions - it did not come out - nor for his demeanour nor of the pitiness.
Movies in India is a hard yakkka - even as a critic I am just as perplexed how movies are made in India. True, Bollywood is one of the many other woods around the country.
Then there are independents and art movie directors who really do well with subjects that are ‘indianism’ and some may not require much funding or require major studio investment. The craftsmenship is their ‘oscar’ . Great in their craft (in all aspects - production, script, direction and the efforts the actors out in) . Most of these actors rarely make it in the big Bollywood league . In Bollywood there is politics , nepotism and bribery at the highest level .
That's what I want discuss next. I think it's not the Neo or modern actors are to be blamed - for that matter the creators of
Movies.
The cause is from two fold :
One the movies are heavily dramatised - often missing the plot - and of course luring in the gap with dance sequences that has nothing to do with the subject matter - except ‘boy meets girl ‘!
Two the indian audience in the earlier years (from 1960 to 1980) were deprived of many aspects of what we call today ‘globalised’ Western culture. This free or liberal Western prone culture was not grown in India. It was an import of ideas and sensation of the West. For those who can recall : Hare Krishna Hare Rama - a movie based on the psychedelic hippie world - there was no hippie movement in India - and if there were - it may have been underground or perhaps seemingly educated with the Western outlook. To my point, the movie was made as if India also had a hippie pop culture.
Indian mainstream cinema copied whatever hollywood trended. At times it was simply copy cat with a twist to indian setting - and often was dressed with music that reflected the genre. Now days with availability of advance cinematic platform ( camera, Fx and other enhanced technologies ) the movie are not only copy cats but competing with subjects that rival the western idioms.
I stopped watching the 1990s plus movies for three reasons :
1. I would have seen a better version in other world cinema
2. The story is not realistic - and verges on fantasy - with unbelievable Subplots
3. The actors of the mainstream are judged for their brand of image (body, dance and dialogue delivery ) but are not playing the character
Apart from the above - I cannot understand why indians don't want to believe in indian stories - why do they want to indulge in visions that is not of India but of other cultures. We will all agree there are heaps of stories that Indian cinema can showcase the world (and at the same time educate the audiences what it indian art and culture).
Guess I am too indian and I have not noticed times have changed. Well, bad luck because India is beginning (if not already) losing its identity.
India is no longer the great ‘bharata’ stories - but an assimilation of the West. A few more years India will be a Westernised country.
Not all actors can portray characters out of their persona. As an example, Shah Rukhu Khan is a very bad character actor - yet, he plays with admiration of himself as ‘SRK’.
To my point if you study his characterization of ‘Devdas’ you would wonder what did he enact (and I am saying this not being biased of the Guru Dutt characterization). He was too loft and did not pay attention to emotions - it did not come out - nor for his demeanour nor of the pitiness.
Movies in India is a hard yakkka - even as a critic I am just as perplexed how movies are made in India. True, Bollywood is one of the many other woods around the country.
Then there are independents and art movie directors who really do well with subjects that are ‘indianism’ and some may not require much funding or require major studio investment. The craftsmenship is their ‘oscar’ . Great in their craft (in all aspects - production, script, direction and the efforts the actors out in) . Most of these actors rarely make it in the big Bollywood league . In Bollywood there is politics , nepotism and bribery at the highest level .
That's what I want discuss next. I think it's not the Neo or modern actors are to be blamed - for that matter the creators of
Movies.
The cause is from two fold :
One the movies are heavily dramatised - often missing the plot - and of course luring in the gap with dance sequences that has nothing to do with the subject matter - except ‘boy meets girl ‘!
Two the indian audience in the earlier years (from 1960 to 1980) were deprived of many aspects of what we call today ‘globalised’ Western culture. This free or liberal Western prone culture was not grown in India. It was an import of ideas and sensation of the West. For those who can recall : Hare Krishna Hare Rama - a movie based on the psychedelic hippie world - there was no hippie movement in India - and if there were - it may have been underground or perhaps seemingly educated with the Western outlook. To my point, the movie was made as if India also had a hippie pop culture.
Indian mainstream cinema copied whatever hollywood trended. At times it was simply copy cat with a twist to indian setting - and often was dressed with music that reflected the genre. Now days with availability of advance cinematic platform ( camera, Fx and other enhanced technologies ) the movie are not only copy cats but competing with subjects that rival the western idioms.
I stopped watching the 1990s plus movies for three reasons :
1. I would have seen a better version in other world cinema
2. The story is not realistic - and verges on fantasy - with unbelievable Subplots
3. The actors of the mainstream are judged for their brand of image (body, dance and dialogue delivery ) but are not playing the character
Apart from the above - I cannot understand why indians don't want to believe in indian stories - why do they want to indulge in visions that is not of India but of other cultures. We will all agree there are heaps of stories that Indian cinema can showcase the world (and at the same time educate the audiences what it indian art and culture).
Guess I am too indian and I have not noticed times have changed. Well, bad luck because India is beginning (if not already) losing its identity.
India is no longer the great ‘bharata’ stories - but an assimilation of the West. A few more years India will be a Westernised country.
