Tag

films

Browsing

Should the historically skewed representation of women in pop culture stemming from male dominance in media suggest the need for their alienation from the field, or does the solution lie in battling the age-old perpetuated stereotypes? Do men make insanely horrible movies on women’s stories? Is it intentional or is it a byproduct of our flawed socialization? How do we combat this?

There is no denying that Men have historically been the gender with the upper hand in every avenue known to humans. This historical gendered privilege has not hesitated to trickle down into contemporary scenarios which have resulted in men still assuming control and leadership in both public and private spheres. Mansplaining is a product of this skewed social construct. Many men have, and even today, continue to believe in the superiority of their gender. Even if this complex has been watered down, the mere assumption that their perspective and decisions matter more still thrives.

It is irrefutable, to say the least, that plenty of mass media, since its inception, owing to the lack of female perspective and the obvious dominance of men in filmmaking have repeatedly objectified women. Such media largely caters to the male gaze and is deeply patronizing. Women’s bodies have been commodified and capitalized upon since times immemorial in advertisements – be it selling Maaza, bikes, or the angels falling for a macho man in axe deodorant ads. The narrative of a “good woman” and a “bad woman” also largely stems from the historically perpetuated male-dictated ideals of an ideal woman. Be it our soap operas or the big screen media, a good woman is always shown fully covered from head to toe, draped in a saree, adhering to all customary norms. Whereas the villainess is always shown to be wearing promiscuous attires with a “pick-me-girl” demeanor. The latter is also the women who generally are independent, shamelessly unapologetic, and break away from the shackles of stereotypes. But does this historical defect justify the absolute abstention of men from making movies on women?

Let us first talk about what these women-centric films look like. These definitely as the name suggests are films with female protagonists, aimed at breaking the age-old gender stereotypes. They move away from the conventional ancient media which has largely portrayed a cis-male as the hero. Such media become channels for marginalized women whose stories have long remained unknown. Witnessing the long-due representation has been nothing short of empowering for all women.

The primary argument presented by proponents of those who believe men shouldn’t make women-centric movies is that men being the historical oppressor will fail to understand the nuances of the struggles of being a woman. They barely share common experiences, and any man attempting to recreate their story on the big screen is bound to trivialize their hardships. Also, men have a greater propensity of projecting women in a way that sexualizes them, thereby creating something appealing to the male gaze and patronizing women in general. But, one also needs to realize that media as an entity is itself vulnerable to being scrutinized or called out for anything problematic being exhibited. The onus then falls upon the general audience to hold the troublemakers accountable. This is a struggle against gendered stereotypes and not gender. Mere exclusion of men from a particular domain will not solve the problem.

Also, the sheer assumption that everyone belonging to a particular gender identity will have shared experiences is flawed. A rich upper-class woman will never be able to actualize the harsh realities of the life of a poor Dalit woman. Intersectional identities cut across and shape the experiences of people from the same gender in very diverse ways. The thriving misconception that a woman will always be empathetic to the oppressive experiences of another woman is broken when one looks at how in many parts of the world, it is women who have kept age-old patriarchal misogynistic traditions alive. Be it child marriage, dowry, sati, or female foeticide – women often emerge as the biggest perpetrators in these crimes against girls.

Additionally, the exclusion of nearly half the population from indulging in making films on a particular subject does more harm than good. The number of people indulging in unraveling the stories of these women immediately gets reduced to half. Secondly, when one propagates the narrative that – only women should be allowed to direct women’s movies because of their shared gendered experiences, all women’s issues get reduced to being only “women’s problems” and not the “society’s problem”. Combating deeply entrenched patriarchal norms requires society to take a stake. Such issues cannot be solved in isolation by one gender alone. Be it the feminist movement, LGBTQ movement, Dalit rights movement or Black lives matter; no battle can be won by a single identity alone. Collective action is critical for a successful outcome.

It is also important to note that many of the strong female characters that we celebrate were either written or directed by men. Be it Kangana’s character in Vikas Bahl’s Queen, Katarina Stratford in Gil Junger’s 10 Things I hate about you, Elle Woods’ in Robert Luketic’s Legally Blonde or Mark Andrew’s Brave – the female leads in these movies are known to be headstrong, unapologetic and at every step assert their autonomy thereby breaking stereotypes.

Furthermore, when men who take up the initiative to make such movies gain accolades and appreciation for their work, the resultant domino effect leads to a greater number of people now pedestalizing sensitive feminist men, as opposed to idolizing a patronizing Macho man. Come on, who doesn’t love Imtiaz Ali for giving us characters like Geet from Jab We Met or Veera from Highway? Such movies with strong female leads often have a caring, sensitive, and extremely lovable side male character. Be it Shah in Dear Zindagi, Irrfan Khan in Piku, Vikrant Massey in Chapaak, or Pankaj Tripathi in Mimi – all these male characters are very hard to not fall in love with. Writing, and directing such roles becomes a cathartic and liberating experience for the scriptwriters, movie makers, and in general everyone involved in the movie-making process. The amount of sensitization delivered through such experiences is unmatchable.

Ergo despite conceding to the fact that to date, even though some men continue to be the biggest flag bearers of male chauvinism, others willing to change should be given a chance for redemption. Our battle lies in fighting the stereotypes, and not the gender. Simply denying men such experiences only based on their gender would be nothing short of criminal.

Feature Image Source: Pinterest

Rubani Sandhu

[email protected]

A brief outlay of what goes into perceiving film criticism as one of the most misunderstood and least credited forms of entertainment journalism

 Entertainment journalism is probably the least taken seriously category of journalism in most mainstream discourses on the same. People diss it off in terms of it being something that works primarily on exercising unsolicited opinions. Film critics specifically are called people whose failure at being professionals of cinema led to them choosing lives as critics who find it inherently impossible to break upon the scene as real artists. To warrant a ‘positive’ review the film itself needs to emerge from a certain generic space – preferably indie – whereas those belonging to genres more mainstream will always remain sidelined in terms of the adulaton they receive from critics (clearly people don’t read reviews coming out of film festivals).

In a post-paparazzi world, the act of recording itself has been essentially reduced to its barest levels whereby entire film reviews are just sent out through character limited tweets are limited to a string of adjectives which are incoherently strung together to create what could only be possibly labelled as a mood piece gone horribly wrong. There is much less consideration of film criticism as an evolved form of journalism that requires an in-depth understanding of the material at hand – not only on a narrative level but also in terms of technicalities such as editing, cinematography and sound – to name a few. The dilution of entertainment criticism is also largely owing to the social media boom where every person not only has an opinion but also a space to offer that opinion at; and hence opinions – mostly under-researched and unfounded, start masquerading as ‘reviews’ with no credibility.

Over the years a variety of outstanding critics (sadly mostly Western) have made their mark in the field by developing styles unique to themselves such as the balanced, seemingly objective outlook of someone like Roger Ebert, displaying a child-like joy and enjoyment of the medium as opposed to someone like Pauline Kael who took a much personal, feisty and passionate look at every film she reviewed turning her reviews of the films into as deeply personal experiences as the film itself.

Another massive negating point of film criticism is the lack of appreciating subjective standpoints. While on grounds of technicality one can take an objective stance and comment on badly edited sequences of out-of-sync sound sequences – the final response to film as a piece of art is something that is deeply individual and subjective. 2001: A Space Odyssey termed by Ebert as one of the greatest films ever made is undoubtedly two hours of technical brilliance but I am allowed to espouse my opinion with regard to how deeply boring I found the film.

Which brings us to the question of rating films. It is very easy to end an opinion piece on any film we see with a string of stars lying at the end like a discarded appendage without an universal metric system to ensure that star ratings are uniform. While people reduce the reviews to their final star ratings to have an essential understanding of the critic’s viewpoint they fail to realise that the existence of the star rating is perhaps the most subjective derivative of the act of film criticism. As Shah Rukh Khan had famously said in the first edition of the FCCA, why must our film experiences be akin to five star hotels? Can’t we do better than this?

Anwesh Banerjee

[email protected]

A brief outlay of what goes into perceiving film criticism as one of the most misunderstood and least credited forms of entertainment journalism

 Entertainment journalism is probably the least taken seriously category of journalism in most mainstream discourses on the same. People diss it off in terms of it being something that works primarily on exercising unsolicited opinions. Film critics specifically are called people whose failure at being professionals of cinema led to them choosing lives as critics who find it inherently impossible to break upon the scene as real artists. To warrant a ‘positive’ review the film itself needs to emerge from a certain generic space – preferably indie – whereas those belonging to genres more mainstream will always remain sidelined in terms of the adulaton they receive from critics (clearly people don’t read reviews coming out of film festivals).

In a post-paparazzi world, the act of recording itself has been essentially reduced to its barest levels whereby entire film reviews are just sent out through character limited tweets are limited to a string of adjectives which are incoherently strung together to create what could only be possibly labelled as a mood piece gone horribly wrong. There is much less consideration of film criticism as an evolved form of journalism that requires an in-depth understanding of the material at hand – not only on a narrative level but also in terms of technicalities such as editing, cinematography and sound – to name a few. The dilution of entertainment criticism is also largely owing to the social media boom where every person not only has an opinion but also a space to offer that opinion at; and hence opinions – mostly under-researched and unfounded, start masquerading as ‘reviews’ with no credibility.

Over the years a variety of outstanding critics (sadly mostly Western) have made their mark in the field by developing styles unique to themselves such as the balanced, seemingly objective outlook of someone like Roger Ebert, displaying a child-like joy and enjoyment of the medium as opposed to someone like Pauline Kael who took a much personal, feisty and passionate look at every film she reviewed turning her reviews of the films into as deeply personal experiences as the film itself.

Another massive negating point of film criticism is the lack of appreciating subjective standpoints. While on grounds of technicality one can take an objective stance and comment on badly edited sequences of out-of-sync sound sequences – the final response to film as a piece of art is something that is deeply individual and subjective. 2001: A Space Odyssey termed by Ebert as one of the greatest films ever made is undoubtedly two hours of technical brilliance but I am allowed to espouse my opinion with regard to how deeply boring I found the film.

Which brings us to the question of rating films. It is very easy to end an opinion piece on any film we see with a string of stars lying at the end like a discarded appendage without an universal metric system to ensure that star ratings are uniform. While people reduce the reviews to their final star ratings to have an essential understanding of the critic’s viewpoint they fail to realise that the existence of the star rating is perhaps the most subjective derivative of the act of film criticism. As Shah Rukh Khan had famously said in the first edition of the FCCA, why must our film experiences be akin to five star hotels? Can’t we do better than this?

Anwesh Banerjee

[email protected]

Owing to the Constitutional Amendment where Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was decriminalised  Bollywood is trying to be inclusive of the LGBTQIA+ community. However, have they really been able to?

The LGBTQIA+ community has been ridiculed in Bollywood for decades. Bollywood has been minting money by its dehumanizing depiction of the community. In a broader sense, the entire queer community in Bollywood is misinterpreted because of an actor or director’s notion of the community.

Bollywood movies based on LGBTQIA+ theme were released as early as the 1970s. The film, Badnam Basti, portrays a love triangle between a woman and two men. However, the film disappeared into oblivion shortly after it was released in the theatres. In 1996, Fire was condemned because of the movie’s ‘alien’ depiction of lesbianism that led to protests in many parts of the country.

The LGBTQIA+  representation in Bollywood has peculiar similarities in all its characters. All gay characters have been added to movies for comic relief. For instance, Suresh Menon’s gay character in Partner cracked double meaning jokes, was feminised to match every other gay character in Bollywood films. The Indian society has stigmatized the queer community, and by portraying LGBTQIA+ characters without substance, the chances of the community being ridiculed increase exponentially along with heightened homophobia in the society.

All gay characters are either dance instructors or fashion designers. Many professions have been gendered and this internalized gendering is clearly depicted in Bollywood films. Boman Irani’s character in Dostana is a fashion editor. These stereotypes are affirmed by society which leads to people forming wrong notions about several professions and the community as well.

Apart from a handful of movies, a gay couple in films consists of one partner being extremely feminine and the other partner plays a tough, macho character. The ‘feminine’ partner is seen dressed in ‘colours for women’ such as pink, purple or floral shirts.

Tejasvi, a student of Lady Shri Ram College opined, “Many people in the society refuse to accept the fact that same-sex relationships can be real and due to internalised homophobia, the movies that portray LGBTQIA+  characters having healthy relationships are often condemned. Bollywood has come a long way in terms of representation of the queer community, but it completely depends on the viewers and whether they are ready to accept the relevance of same-sex relationships.”

The coming-of-age web series and movies have taken into account the faulty depiction and stereotypical nature LGBTQ characters and have made an effort to correct these practices. These peculiarities have significantly reduced since the decriminalization of Section 377. Television shows such as Made in Heaven and Four More Shots Please have carefully addressed how the queer community in a country like India faces multiple issues. These shows did not portray its characters in the usual ways that the LGBTQIA+ community is portrayed. They made efforts to apprise the viewers about how bisexuality and homosexuality are absolutely normal and not unnatural unlike how they were portrayed in films earlier.

Ayushmann Khurana’s Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan is being considered a milestone as it is Bollywood’s first gay romantic-comedy film. For many years, homosexuality has been denounced as a disease by many people in the country. The director Hitesh Kewalya made use of comedy to send out an extremely powerful message of societal acceptance of the community. The LGBTQIA+  community has been discriminated against for many years and with the Supreme Court’s ruling on decriminalization of Section 377, the director ensured that the viewers understand that same-sex relationships are as relevant as heterosexual relationships.

Feature Image Credits: Pinkvilla

Suhani Malhotra

[email protected]

 

Having been let down by women, two egoist and patriarchal characters go down the path of self-destruction, although one is heroic the other is not.

In a contemporary urban location, there is a rich egoist male who falls in love- this is a very common heroic pursuit in mainstream Bollywood, and the 2009 Anurag Kashyap (who has a certain Samuel Fuller and Aronofsky vibe to him) directed the movie Dev.D, and took on this trait to reveal very ironically how flawed a hero can be.

Image Credits: Film Week
Image Credits: Film Companion 

Adapted from Sarat Chandra’s Devdas, this movie is a romantic black comedy musical, with more preference to music than dialogues. Music by Amit Trivedi  fits perfectly with the scenes in the movie.

Dev is a chauvinist who took his childhood love Paro for granted, at one time slapped and embarrassed her, and thought that he actually loved her. He also once believed that she would be the only woman he’d ever love- again a common narrative that there’s just ‘the one’ and no one else.

Dev later realises that his love was flawed, he was flawed, and Paro never returns back to him. It’s not just the utter vulnerability in Dev’s character, but a fresh empowering effervescence of strong female characters which makes the film stand out.

Image Credits: Film Companion
Image Credits: Film Companion

A decade later, comes the movie that proves we are back to square one. Sandeep Vanga directed Kabir Singh which is a remake of Telugu film Arjun Reddy is a story about an egoist, entitled, chauvinist with anger issues who falls in love. The sound track went popular and so did the problematic aspects wrapped up nicely as the charisma of Kabir Singh. As a promoter of independent cinema, and appraiser of a film like Dev.D, I would never object to the portrayal of a problematic character like Kabir Singh who is after all, inspired from our society. An added bonus with Kabir Singh was that it was made with intention to appropriate his flaws and was received largely in the same horizon.

In my personal opinion, I feel that Kabir Singh did teach us a thing or two. It validated that the popular opinion still is to plaudit the hero with underlying misogyny and the success of such a film is representative in the profits it made. Also for all the wrong reasons, it did start a big discussion on male chauvinism. There’s a parallel in the society itself which is depictive of the two kinds of films discussed above, and the popularity and financial success of such movies will always reflect the popular status quo of us as a society.

Feature Image Credits: Filmistaan

Umaima Khanam

[email protected]

 

From Dharavi to Oscars, read how Gully Boy’s nomination and how “apna time aa gaya”.

Zoya Akhtar’s Gully Boy, which created a stir and started a lyrical revolution for the underdogs of Indian music, has been selected as India’s official entry in the International Feature Film category at the Academy Awards, more popularly referred to as the Oscars. This film, featuring Ranveer Singh and Alia Bhatt, has been inspired by the lives of two Indian rappers, Divine and Naezy. The story of an aspiring rapper rising from the slums of Dharavi in Mumbai, fighting against the odds and obstacles was tied together with brilliant music and lyrics that touched upon the realities of life. Singh’s character, Murad, represents a myriad of ideas in the film. He is a young boy who finally finds meaning, and a voice in the songs that he writes. The struggles in his life take the centre stage in his songs, and authenticity becomes his uniqueness.

A dominant part of these struggles was the stark difference between the “haves” and “have-nots”. It draws out these visual contrasts when unaffluent Murad passes tall towers in his boss’ fancy car. Gully Boy also talks about the issues over authority between the protagonist and his father; it shows the plight of his mother when her husband remarries, and the persistent desire to be emancipated from the endless struggles that the “common man” faces. When this nomination was announced, it was met with appreciation, except several people also voiced out the other side to this decision. The Indian Film Federation unanimously selected Gully Boy over 27 other films, including Article 15, Super Deluxe, and Pahuna. Critics have argued that a Bollywood film of this scale and star-cast has certain factors playing in its favour, and while smaller films from other regions, languages, and demographics are also strong contenders in terms of the quality of cinema, they will not be given the recognition they deserve. Netizens are tweeting about other such critically acclaimed films such as Andhadhun, And the Oscar Goes To, Tumbbad, Uyare, among several others. Over the years, the films that have been nominated have been in the mainstream domain of the Hindi language. Till date, only two Malayalam films have been selected, along with one Telugu film, and no Kannada film has ever made it to the nominations. A common narrative that exists is that the Indian cinema is synonymous with Bollywood. There is a prevalent lack of awareness about other important industries, and those domains of Indian cinema are seen as the “others”. It is forgotten, almost always, that the Indian cinemascape goes beyond the dominance of Bollywood, to the diverse regions, languages, and identities that our land comprises of.

This film was lauded for its social and political undertones, except many also argue how it addressed these issues in a very ambiguous manner. The scene where Singh’s character goes around the city with Kalki Koechlin’s character and they spray-paint billboards all over the town and write “Feed Me” next to a model, “Brown and Beautiful” on a fairness cream advertisement are some of the ambiguities in the message it attempts to put forth. Even the ideas of majoritarianism, politics, and corruption are subtly hinted at. Many people also called out Bhatt’s character, Safeena, to be problematic after the Kabir Singh debates. For some, these mixed ideas of politics added to the layers in the film as they did not overpower the story, while leaving an impact. They further argue that this film opened doors to the discourse on these issues, except some others emphasise on how the film shrugs off its burdens by using subtlety as a tool. It is said that the jury which was responsible for the selection believed that a “feel-good factor” was essential for an Oscars nomination. While these are the many sides to this debate, apna time aa gaya (our time is here) and Gully Boy is now heading towards a much-awaited Oscars. It is a film which gave us a reality check, Siddhant Chaturvedi, catchy dialogues, and a seat at the Oscars.

Feature Image Credits: India Today

Shivani Dadhwal

[email protected]

The theatre collective that started 76 years ago has left an indispensable mark on Indian theatre art and Bollywood.

“If you are doing something on IPTA, there’s a chance you will get lost? Because which chapter do you pick up?” said Jagan Shah, a writer and a theatre director who has been putting together Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA)  story from its inception till date. For starters, Indian People’s Theatre Association or IPTA is a theatre collective which brings together theatre artists from across India to illustrate political and social issues through dramas, street plays, and theatres. It closely adheres to the ideology of Communist  Party of India and seeks to inform and educate people about a plethora of issues concerning the common man by means of art.

IPTA’s history can be traced back to 1943 when two major historical incidents were gaining momentum. The struggle for India’s independence had reached its peak and World War II had galloped the world in a deadly conflict. The Bengal famine of 1943 along with Nazi force’s intrusion over Soviet Russia evoked intellectuals in India to initiate an organization which could inform the masses about these problems. Artists too felt the need to contribute in India’s freedom struggle through their art and thus the group was born at a conference in Mumbai in 1943. Subsequently, a lot of committees of IPTA were created all across India.

Despite its unabashed left leaning stance, IPTA had members who were staunch leftists as well as those who had no or naïve  political views. Along with politically charged individuals like Bijon Bhattachary and Mulk Raj Anand, it has prolific Bollywood personalities like Prithviraj Kapoor, Balraj Sahni, and Utpal Dutt as its members too.

One of the most important plays made by IPTA member Bijoy Bhattachary was Nabanna (New Harvest) in Bengali which depicted the plight of the Bengal famine. Another play called Nava Jiboner Gaan by Jyotirindra Moitra and the film Dharti Ke Laal  reciprocated the conscience of people of that time.

IPTA had a firm presence in the University of Delhi during the pre-independence era. Indraprastha College for Women had a dedicated IPTA group that performed anti-government plays. Even when government did not give them space and mikes to perform, they arranged their own materials and venues. When they were not allowed to publicise their plays in newspaper, they would write the name of venue on papers with pen and stick them on walls.

IPTA has substantial influence on the Bollywood movies of 1950s and 1960s as many directors, actors, scriptwriters, lyricists, music directors, and choreographers who came together to make a film were previous members or contributors of IPTA. Among the renounced actors who had alliance with IPTA were A.K Hangal, Balraj Sahni, and Utpal Dutt. Song writers like Majrooh Sultanpuri, Sahir Ludhianvi, Shailendra, and Kaifi Azmi along with music directors Hemant Kumar and Salil Chaudhary were associated with the theatre group.

 

At the time of partition, when the entire country was burning with Hindu Muslim divide, IPTA (along with other cultural organisations like Progressive Writer’s Association) made its best efforts to extinguish the fire from places like Mumbai, where it had substantial presence. Stalwart Prithviraj Kapoor along with young sons Raj Kapoor and Shammi Kapoor sought out on a truck procession to ease out the tension between native Hindus and Muslims of Mumbai.

Post independence, IPTA began to face clamp downs and repression by government. The organisation which once enjoyed the support of nationalist leaders, now started to face their resistance as the onus of power now lied on these nationalist leaders. Gradually members of IPTA started to drift away from the main organisation and led new factions in various parts of the country. Bahurupee, IPTA Mumbai, and the Delhi based theatre company Jana Natya Manch started by Late Safdar Hashmi are successful offshoots of IPTA that still continue to produce political dramas to express dissent through art on contemporary issues. IPTA in its original essence might not exist today but it certainly is kept alive by common thoughts like idea of rebellion and struggle for equality espoused by like minded artists.

Feature Image Credits: IPTA Facebook


Priyanshu

[email protected]

Disney – our whole childhood and present too. It’s hard not to love Disney movies and shows, for they completely engage us in their stories and charms. Now Disney is evolving too, let’s see how:

Disney – a word that hits nostalgia deeply. Takes you back to the time when we’d just get back from school, and plop up in front of the TV with the Disney channel on. Shows like ‘The Suite Life of Zack and Cody ‘, Wizards of the Waverly Place, Lizzie McGuire, Backyard Science, Kim Possible and movies including High School Musical and Camp Rock shaped up our childhood. As we have grown and matured, Disney has too. And in a wonderful way.

The themes in the early days of Disney animated movies were simplistic and  cliché – good is better than evil, pretty people are always the nice ones, ugly people are always the mean ones and more. But lately, Disney movies have found themes that are a lot more mature, like Zootopia’s focus on a kid’s film that is explicit about casual racism.  

Most of the movies earlier – from Cinderella to Snow White to Sleeping Beauty – have the title character end up totally helpless and completely dependent on a blandly handsome prince coming to save the day and being the actual hero of the story. Disney’s recently-released Moana doesn’t have any love interest, period. It’s about a young woman discovering herself and her place in the world, and a love interest would have just gotten in the way of that. An even better example might be Frozen, where the trope of the nice handsome prince is completely subverted by having him be the villain of the film (and while there is a love interest, it’s not a huge deal in the film and takes up a pretty minor amount of screen time).

Disney is now reshaping its stories. From Rapunzel to Tangled, the story lines have evolved giving Disney the new fresh boost in today’s world. The very Disney that introduced us to the princess world, challenged all princess stereotypes in the trailer of ‘Wreck it Ralph 2’. The Beauty and the Beast, though mostly based on the original tale also portrayed Belle as a powerful opinionated lady, fearless of the beast, rather than just being the damsel in distress. Disney has also donned on the creative hat now, and combining two stories. The recent Christopher Robin with Pooh starring is the perfect example for that. Pooh from the enchanted jungle, lost in the city searching for his friends, meets the family man Christopher and they embark on a journey together. Who else, other than Disney could have thought of such an idea.

Inside Out addressed the issue of mental health and emotions and in no way was just a kids’ movie. Everybody loves Baymax- who with his six friends (all from different cultures and with unique personalities) saved the world in his own way. Disney has brought out varying characters and themes all, with one good message at the end. Though we have grown up, Disney can never go out of our hearts as it has grown too along with us leaving us anticipating for all its new releases and re-watching the old ones.

Feature Image Credits: Pinterest

Gurleen Kaur

[email protected]

 

The Hindi film industry, right from its very inception has been misogynistic and has sexualised women. Bollywood glorifies homely or ‘sanskaari’. Women deserve better portrayal and it is time Bollywood shunned these stereotypes.

Gal Gadot’s character, Diana in Wonder Woman made me feel so powerful, that my words wouldn’t be able to do justice to describe the feeling. I cried while watching ‘Wonder Woman’, with tears of joy rolling down my cheeks. No, Diana wasn’t the hero’s love interest. She was the female lead in a film directed by Patty Jenkins, a woman. She fought for herself and for others and defended her values and principles. Men around her didn’t feel intimidated. The film got over 50% female audiences in movie theatres, an achievement for the superhero world, which generally appeals to the young and male audience.

Let’s talk about the Hindi film industry where women through the ages have been shown as weak and passive. They are made to have an identity by virtue of their association with male characters. The directors show women wearing skimpy clothes in the dance numbers and use derogatory language against women. Women’s bodies are reduced to tools for control and domination. Women are given significantly shorter, less relevant roles and speak fewer words in films.  It is quite obvious that women, even in the leading roles are replaceable; their presence on the screen doesn’t leave much of an impact or doesn’t take the story forward.

Bollywood has also been successful in normalizing stalking. Men in real life get inspired and keep on pestering and harassing women who reject them. They do not understand the word ‘No’ and believe that a woman who has rejected them is actually just playing hard to get. When they are unable to deal with said rejection, they decide to teach her ‘a lesson’, something that contributes to the revenge centric mentality that is on the rise.  One might also notice how young women are always paired with much older men. Aged women are never given substantial roles to play in films. All women characters talk about in the films are about their boyfriends, husbands and how their lives revolve around them.  Bollywood has also set absurdly high, unrealistic standards for women in terms of having an ideal body which is desirable to men. How a woman should look, dress and behave is also dictated by them.

This does not mean that film or art needs to curtain or portray women unrealistically. However, the portrayal of “real women” is extremely important. We need women who are architects, engineers and doctors, women who have careers and a life outside nurturing other men and doing emotional labour for them. We need women who defy the stereotypes and do exactly the same things as men do, except for harassing others. We need women who are in charge of their own lives and do not let others define their life choices for them. The Dirty Picture, Anarkali of Aarah, Lipstick under my Burkha and Pink changed the perception that women-centric films do not perform well at the box office. They brought the spotlight on women and how powerful and courageous they can be. It’s time that the rest of Bollywood follows suit.

Disha Saxena

[email protected]

Feature Image Credits – Forbes

Sri Venkateswara College conducted a Film Making competition as part of their on-going fest, Nexus’14. The event saw a participation of 11 teams from colleges like Gargi, Zakhir Hussain, Maitreyi and Sri Guru Gobind College of Commerce.

film1

The teams had to make a short film on any of the three topics given to them. ‘Voiceless Echo’ received the maximum entries, with ‘Through the Looking Glass’ and ‘I Wish I Was Where I Was When I Was Wishing I Was Here’ being the other two. Each team had to make a film of 5-10 minutes. They were permitted to use techniques such as animation.

Ambedkar University bagged the first prize for their film Third, and the host college, Sri Venkateswara took away the second spot for Helping Hand. Their films were judged by Mr. Ankit and Mr. Debashish, alumni of London Film School.

Image Credit: Geetika Varshney for DU Beat