Being an avid follower of Indian cinema and world cinema (Hollywood in particular) to some extent. I have always been intrigued by the way the different cultures tend to have different ethos for story telling. While Indian cinema believes in fantasy-in-real-world, the west believes either in a total realism or to some extent reality-in-a-fantastic world. Is there the usual eastern vs. western philosophy at loggerheads, I thought. But deeper I thought, the more clearer it was that to a very large extent, the affluence in a culture was directly proportional to the amount of realism in the movies churned out in the culture - especially quoting the oft-repeated argument - Life imitates art and art imitates life.
With this basic paradigm, I believe that I can see why we (Indians) make movies, the way we do. Till now, during our independent existence, we have mostly been an under-developed nation (developing nation, by critics would argue) - with marching strides towards a developed country since the turn of the millennium.
Think about a normal guy in India from a lower middle class and his expectations, when he goes for a movie. All throughout his life, he has been thrown around, thanks to the government, the affluent class among many others. So, when he goes for a movie, all that he asks for - is a three hour escape from his daily world. A world where good always triumphs evil. And if the hero can bash up 50 goons, he is all the more happy. He does not want a world where he sees poverty and corruption ( something that the west loves to see in Indian movies). He has seen too much of that in his life. Thus, anything that can help him forget his worries is good. So, when a hero breaks into a song in Switzerland/Kashmir, nobody questions - because they have already submitted themselves to the fact that cinema is fantasy - and to large extent demanded it. It is this submission to the world of fantasy that makes Indian movies escapist - which is something that intrigues the west.
However, over the decades, rather than a country of have-nots, we have become a country of some people being the haves and the majority being the have-nots. This interesting mix has given rise to the so-called multiplex-real cinema. Though it does retain some amount of escapism - like breaking into songs - there has been a shift in the way stories have been told. More and more directors are adopting the more realistic approach - and there is an affluent audience to encourage it.
Even though I know, that this argument may not be foolproof, I believe that over a larger canvas, it does hold true. Let us try Bollywood for instance. Right throughout the fifties and sixties, having been through the fight for independence, fights and quarrels were the last things, people wanted. So, Bollywood rightly served them with mushy romance and melodrama - over the top quite often. But nonetheless, they served their purpose. Along with melodrama, this was also the era of patriotism and allegiance to government. Makes sense, I think.
But having seen the ugly side of Indian politics for about a decade or two, it was time to switch sides. The protagonist now was an anti-establishment guy. Someone who was critical of everything in the society - government, rich class, etc. The hero was most often - portrayed as a member of the working class, a do-gooder and ultimate hope of society. And it was here that - hero bashing up goons became mainstay. And no one questioned - because given a chance, every person would have have loved to do that. Simply put, it just portrayed out aspirations for a leader who could pull us out the crap that we had got ourselves into. The British had been worse, but we did not do well either!! - was the subtext I believe.
But stories in movies, remain in movies. And the ultimate do-gooder never came along. The politicians were in complete control of the policies by now, and the public just at the receiving end of the baton. So, was it with cinema. it was the time of misdirected eighties and nineties - and the time for the worst crap from Bollywood stable. Cheesy songs, corny dialogues were the norm - and the hapless audience just took whatever they got.
But the turn of the millennium did something special. There was a under-current within the audience thanks to the exposure to foreign movies (especially Hollywood), where content was seen as the king - and actors mere props to pull off the stunt. Though such a realization takes time, it is on the go nevertheless. And more directors came up stories which were realistic and were saleable at the same time. There is no point in making idealistic movies (like the parallel cinema wave in 70’s and 80’s ) which only an intellectual audience is going to watch. This fact I believe has been the ultimate triumph of this new generation of film makers - they not only made good cinema but also ensured that there was an audience to see such movies. And a bit of new found affluence in the middle class does not hurt anybody.
But amidst all this, there has been this small village guy who has been left behind. Bollywood does not make movies for him any more. He does not seem to fit in the new wave of realistic cinema nor does in he fit in NRI-audience targeted film world. So, he sticks to the 80’s Bollywood kind-of cinema repeated through Bhojpuri and some of the other regional films. He is not be blamed, nor are those film-makers. Change takes time - especially so in India.
I may seem a little short sighted in extrapolating the history of Bollywood over the whole of Indian cinema. While the details might not match exactly, the overall movement still is the same. But there is something that escapes my analysis of Indian cinema - constant realism in Malayalam and Bengali cinema. Does communism have anything to do with it, I think sometimes.
But as far as rest of the mainstream cinema is concerned, we all wait for the time when content and business can work together. But all along, film-makers must understand that it is best to stick to our roots but still make meaningful cinema. 3 Idiots just proves the point !!!!
