India can change cinema, with a little help from Hollywood

Five decad­es ago, the late legendary actress Nargis bemoaned the glorified portrayal of poverty by Satyajit Ray’s films to win international acclaim, easily forgetting a similar portrayal in her magnum opus Mother India.

For long, the famous maxim that East is East and West is West and the twain shall never meet was also considered equally applicable for two film industries - namely Hollywood and Bollywood - but box-office bonanzas were generated by films such as Jungle Book, serial films like Iron Man, Batman, Spiderman et al.

The massive money collection on account of these films has reignited latent fear of impending all encompassing "invasion" of foreign culture propagated "undercover" through Hollywood films and eventual reduction, if not elimination, of Indian culture so strongly buttressed by Bollywood films since inception.

But this debate is as old as Indian cinema when, before independence, Fearless Nadia and on-screen kissing caused a similar fear of dilution of "glorious" Indian culture. Raising this bogey again, of course, does indicate certain uneasy relationships. Why?

1. The opening of Indian economy in '90s is almost synchronous with opening of Bollywood as releases of Hollywood films became  nearly simultaneous with worldwide "premiering" and bridged the time lag experienced by common viewers and connoisseurs alike.

2. The bestowing of "industry" status to films allowed availing of finance through formal financial institutions and relatively freed the film industry from the clutches and controls of "black money" allowing serious filming efforts.

3. The  superior technological interventions/innovations remarkably reduced the scourge of piracy and allowed improvements in cinema infrastructure through introduction of world class audio and visual equipments thereby enhancing movie going experience leading to increased footfalls (which had fallen in '80s).

4. The simultaneous releases of huge number of prints  all across India changed the economics of Bollywood films along with the freedom allowed to fix rates of tickets and show timings to adjust to the urban market.

5. The era of films becoming superhits all across India came to virtual closure allowing  differential segmentation of  films and viewers (separation of rural and urban market).

6. Allowing the foreign studios to market Indian films also changed the Bollywood landscape forever, facilitating a synergistic relationship between Hollywood and Bollywood.

7. The application of latest cinematic technology  has permanently altered the art of cinema in India with as Hollywood technicians have actively contributed in making of films such as Krrish(s), Fan, Dhoom(s), Robot, Race(s), Bang Bang et al, and this has whetted appetite of Indian cine-goers.

As stated, the influence of Hollywood on Bollywood strengthened with India opening its economy in the '90s of previous century and after two decades one can only say that this partnering process, like liberalisation, can’t be reversed. Of course, so far the impact is rather one sided as Hollywood is making inroads into Bollywood with minor exceptions of incorporation of the Bollywood idiom in films Chicago and Moulin Rouge.

But one must understand that the process will only grow and not before long the Bollywood films will  become to internationally accepted  and beginnings have been made though  films like Lovely, Titli, Lunchbox, Ship of Thesus, et al have created a ripple and aroused interest due to portrayal of universal themes and thoughts.

We must also remember that the Indian film industry is not a monolith and referring to Bollywood (derives from erstwhile Bombay) ignores the other film centres of Chennai, Hyderabad and Trivandrum unlike Hollywood which is based in Los Angeles.

Moreover, India produces nearly 1300 films in contrast to the one third produced by Hollywood. However, 90 percent of international film revenues are cornered by the Hollywood films. In fact, Hollywood domination of international cinema is so complete that the success of Four Weddings and a Funeral of Guy Ritchie revived the memory of old British film industry, but that run didn’t last long.

The reality is masked and easy to accept in Bollywood films and Hollywood.

The Bollywood and Hollywood film establishments share a lot of similarities as well as dissimilarities: similarities indicate that the majority of films are made to primarily entertain and are basically escapists fare driven to make profits and as a natural corollary can be commonly benchmarked themes of lowest common denominator of love, sex, violence.

Secondly, both are dominated by the "star system" (as remnants of studio and star system of the yore) as superstars’ involvement decides the extent of possible funding; thirdly, the Hollywood films of yesteryears heavily influenced Bollywood films like emphasis on "period" films seen through Ben Hur, Ten Commandments and their influences in Mughal-e-Azam and other films of Sohrab Modi films besides emphasising strong family values seen in movies like Sound of Music, et al.

As regards dissimilarities, Hollywood, unlike Bollywood, is virtually free of state controls like censorship (though it has seen its share of controls and witch-hunting during McCarthy era) and can decide to make films on wide variety of subjects, fictional or real, which can raise difficult questions; secondly, the funding is relatively easier to arrange in Hollywood; thirdly, the technical finesse is way superior in Hollywood, but Bollywood is learning fast; thirdly, the Hollywood cinema portrays the role of individual hero or heroism overcoming all impossible odds (originating individual enterprise behind conquest of American continent).

Or in other words, the overriding theme of individual effort leading to the complete vanquishing of the enemy is almost indispensable; fourthly, one sees that Hollywood films are beginning to be dominated by wars or conquests driven by so called superior technology (a la computer games of a computer console or play station) - examples can be seen in the successes of Iron Man, Transformers, Batman, Star War films.

One view holds that the western audience's day-to-day real experience is distant from the actual reality, and war and destruction is experienced on computer or television screens without any direct experience of the blood and gore.

This portrayal ignores the human suffering in war and that’s why when body bags come from Iraq or Afghanistan, there is adverse public criticism and outcry against direct participation through boots on grounds. Perhaps, Hollywood's portrayal of technological warfare always highlights superiority and victory.

So far, Bollywood has not been able to make these types of movies as India does not have such superiority. However, it has found an ingenious way of making such films by referring to history as done in recent super hit Baahubali; fifthly, one main difference one sees is that "realistic" cinema is showing less coverage in Hollywood films whereas in Bollywood films realistic coverage is on the ascendant as seen in success of Bajrangi Bhaijaan (though fictional), Airlift, Gangs of Wasseypur, Sarabjit (under production ) et al.

One must remember that Bollywood, unlike Hollywood, still has a long way to travel to make films on subjects of political connotations. Hollywood has made certain classic films like All the President’s Men (including recent one of Osama Bin Laden capture - Zero Dark Thirty). Contrastingly, one sees how in India making such films is a challenging proposition and recalling experiences of filmmakers of Aandhi, Kissa Kursi Ka would indicate the difficulties.

Anurag Kashyap film's on the Mumbai blasts - also had to wait for several years before  getting released. Nevertheless, some positive signs can be seen in  making of  political thriller like Madras Café.

One only hopes that Bollywood will pick up the challenge of making films of similar themes. As for the films based on technology, Bollywood has recently made movies like Ra-One and Krishh, but the half of Bollywood market (rural) couldn’t connect with these films.

The famed Indian middle class, which can possibly enjoy these types of films, has ready access through internet to best Hollywood films is beginning to demand  better quality and this will  help close gaps in technical aspects  between the two in next decades.

The breakthrough of Deepika Padukone, Priayanka Chopra, Naseeruddin Shah, Irrfan Khan, Om Puri, Anupam Kher, AR Rahman and others in mainstream Hollywood production augurs well in quick bridging the gap between Bollywood and Hollywood - at least in acting acumen. In the directorial sphere, Satyajit Ray, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Shekhar Kapur, Ritwik Ghatak, Mrinal Sen et al are known worldwide.

The process of partnership and further widening of the relationship between Hollywood and Bollywood is irreversible - much in the same way as process of India’s integration in the world’s economy is.

And remember that the perceived threat of cultural invasion from outside or foreign influence is as old as debate on Swadeshi clothes and continuation of English language – majority of India, at least men folk now wear shirts and trousers and English language like Bollywood is the main unifying cultural  element in India.

India, despite tallest claims of tolerance and freedom, still is sensitive to foreigners’ portrayal of harsh and brutal reality (the rare exception being Slumdog Millionaire, though the plot was penned by an Indian diplomat).

Though films on several cultural dilemmas have been made - like Om Puri’s East is East and Mira Nair’s Namesake - challenging themes of tribals, Dalits and Muslims experiences in India are best left untouched due to the post-production nightmare of releasing such films.

For example, though a recent film namely Masaan touched a tabooed subject but it resolved the intractable question through tragic intervention (a la parallel meeting or intersection displayed in film Crash).

The tragic stories of Punjab Dalits reaching England and still facing the similar social discrimination and their fight to declare that unacceptable are never touched upon by Bollywood and if these subjects are taken up by Hollywood, one can only imagine the worst – recall the controversy when a westerner wrote a book on Hinduism or made a film about Nirbhaya rape - the whole country reacted adversely.

In conclusion, one can say, that the impact of Hollywood on Bollywood would hold India in good stead in the long run and the initial reaction to its entry is similar to India's corporate sector's outcry against liberalisation in the '90s, but those reservations have simply disappeared after these 25 years.

Similarly, there is a fair chance that Bollywood would make inroads into not Hollywood, but into world cinema.

ADAG group has made active partnership to finance films under Steven Speilberg, George Clooney banners. India can only benefit in the long run.