Indian cinema

On the subject of the arts...

There's some "Bollywood Star" show on SBS today that looks terrible, and I just came across the most condescending review of a film I really like in the NY Times. My love for Indian films borders on reverence so in the face of a pile of uni work that needs to be done, I'm going to write this post.  For that reason it's not going to be very exhaustive. Just going to clear up a few of the skewed perceptions many people have...

Firstly, don't call it Bollywood. The term was coined by some British journalist who meant it as a term of derision.

Putting Indian and American films on the same platform is like comparing apples and (no not even oranges,) nail polish. The fools that call it "kitsch"or "hammy" do so,  from a vantage point that gives them no real perspective and all they can see is an exoticised caricature. They misrepresent the most fundamental aspects of what constitutes an Indian film, of what an audience expects when they enter the movie theatre. We are perfectly aware of the fact that they do not actually mirror real life, thank you very much. And why should they? Many of the differences are a projection of the fact that Indians are a different, probably more emotionally unrestrained people. An outsider cannot see beyond the singing, glitter and louder acting, but there are subtleties that underlie all of this. Someone who has seen enough of the glitter and colour is kind of numbed to it and can appreciate what is worthy of apreciation. And they are amazing!

In short: just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's no good. If that were the case, Indian films would not have the highest viewership in the world. The Western-centricity of the Western world is unsurprising but soooo irritating. Then again to be fair, I have to admit that most white people in Indian movies are cast as sluts/stupid/cunning... which is not nice. 

Another important fact that needs to be acknowledged is that Indian films are not monolithic. There are several industries within the country, each producing movies in different languages. The kinds of films mentioned above only form one of many genres. Here are some trailers (with subs) to some awesome and diverse Hindi films from the last year. Not really the best ones but I couldn't find subtitles on my favourites.

Kahaani: my favourite this year. Surprising, because I don't usually like thrillers but I loved its feminisim and Vidya Balan is awesome. No subs, but it's basically about a pregnant woman looking for her missing husband

Dhobi Ghat: all arthouse-ish and all

7 Khoon Maaf: a really, really dark film about Susanna and how/why she kills her 7 husbands

Priyanka Chopra: I dislike, but she's amazing in this!

 

  No One Killed Jessica. More Vidya Balan! :) but honestly I didn't like it much 

Based on a true story

P.S. Slumdog sucked.

edit: so I watched 2 minutes of that SBS show just then. vomit. VILE!

Tolstoy and art

I just clicked on something strange and now the whole layout of blogger seems to have changed. I'm confused.

5 days, 5 posts failed. Not surprising is it.
 ***
I think this will be an interesting post for most of the people who I know read my blog. Art here is referring to all creative pursuits of expression: literature, dance, etc.

I stumbled on an essay on Tolstoy's What Is Art? (1896) a long time ago and have since been trying to get my hands on a copy of the book. It's so fascinating! Tolstoy's views mirror my own in so many ways, though obviously (because I'm not a genius that wrote the greatest book in history) mine are much less sophisticated.

exhibit A: a goddamn stuffed shark (R.I.P.), valued at $8-12 million

I started deliberating on this question when I was seriously introduced to the world of post-modern art in high school. I really did not understand what I saw, and was pretty confused by some of the gushing praise extolled. In spite of friends' and the internet's attempts to justify it, I remained unconvinced and dismissed post-modern art as mostly bs... especially where there is such a fanatical emphasis on originality, and being "interesting"/confronting is so highly valued. That doesn't make sense to me. Today, my position has loosened in some ways; even if it won't ever leave me wonderstruck, I can form a mild appreciation for contemporary art.

Back to Tolstoy: bullet points are stuff I copy-pasted from the internet.

First of all:

• "Art is not a pleasure, a solace, or an amusement; art is a great matter. Art is an organ of human life transmitting man's reasonable perception into feeling" 
•  "Art is a microscope which the artist fixes on the secrets of his soul, and shows to people these secrets which are common to all."

I think this an excellent definition. I used to believe that art was intrinsically linked to beauty on some level but I have since changed my opinion on this. Art expresses universal emotional realities and its most important quality is its sincerity... I don't like art for art's sake or art that is too self-aware.

•  Art is the uniting of the subjective with the objective, of nature with reason, of the unconscious with the conscious, and therefore art is the highest means of knowledge.

I'm not so sure about this part...I don't see what objectivity has to do with anything. But of the "unconsious with the conscious" etc. etc., yes. Tolstoy was a moralist, and I would identify myself as such also. His belief that art and spirituality were intrinsically connected resonates with me, but I don't think all art has to be spiritual, and I won't necessarily demean what he would consider more "base" art. However I do agree that spirituality (in the broadest sense of the term) is its loftiest goal.

Exhibit B:Onement 1
hmmmmm...

• According to Tolstoy, good art is intelligible and comprehensible. Bad art is unintelligible and incomprehensible. If any incomprehensible form of personal expression may be called "art," then the definition of art gradually loses its meaning, until it has no meaning at all. Art does not belong to any particular class of society, it must be accessible to all

I mentioned to somebody once that I don't like deconstructing art and rationalising it. This led to an argument which I definitely lost, because I couldn't properly express my feelings on the matter. When I see a piece of art its impact should wash over me like a wave. I don't think I should have to work for it, as if I am being held up to some standard, and not it.Simply, if I don't get it, I can't like it! I hate taking things apart to bits and trying to analyse it scientifically (as if that's possible). It kills the magic and I don't believe that art is an intellectual pursuit in that way.

nb: Don't take it to mean here that I am demeaning subtlety or sophistication. It's just that after a certain point (though it's difficult to delineate exactly where that might be) subtlety turns into mush. Read the above bullet point again.

That leads me to another point: we should get rid of the distinction between high and low art. Everything can be enriching and valuable in its own way. My bookshelf for example: it has random Filmfare magazines, a few fashion magazines, comic books, Harry Potter, lots of classics (but not the silly orange penguin ones), poetry, picture books (I reeeeeally like picture books) and a few of the bestseller types.

One of mine: I did this in bed one night in yr 10, mostly with fingers and a paddlepop stick. I can't find it now :(

 I entered this in a small exhibition a few years ago...

flushing modesty down the toilet, I like this a lot :p

PS: I know that most people in the 21st century won't agree with me, including the specific 4-5 people that I wrote this for. I hope you don't take it that I pooh-pooh your version of the story After all, if art is subjective, why can't our definition of it also be?