Hubris, Ignorance or Just Plain Don't Care?

I have been a news addict since I was a child.

My father's job required him to monitor all media very closely, so we all grew up with obscene amounts of newspapers, reports, clippings, and then finally television news around us. Dinner conversations in my parents house often feel like policy debates - and there have been instances when a dinner debate has formed the nucleus of the country's major policy document.

A not so pleasant aspect of this news addiction is of course the constant awareness of bias and ignorance regarding India (and a lot of other countries) in "western" press. Some how media based in USA, UK and Europe has greater credibility, partly due to history and partly due to the economic, military and political clout of these countries. It also helps that the same countries come up with increasingly unbelievable rankings and reports on "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press."

Just think back to the WMDs in Iraq hysteria before that nation was attacked and you get the picture. Think back to the self-censorship of the western press regarding Iraqi and Afghan casualties. Or just think back to the level of attention paid to Mumbai simply because some of the victims were Western.

Yet its not just the "big" stories that get reported with glaring errors and free editorialising. The western media spends a lot of time and energy embedding value judgements into what appear to be "news stories." The result - and perhaps the motivation - is to subtly perpetuate a narrative, a stereotype, an idea that is more pleasing and acceptable to western powers, press and bulk of the readers/viewers. And in doing so, they choose to jettison the most basic qualities of reporting and the simplest of journalistic standards!

This morning brought home that realisation rather starkly. In the Times was a story about film-makers attempting to cash in on the Mumbai attacks and the public revulsion that such actions have unleashed. So far so good.

Except the story had serious factual bloopers: Filmmaker Ram Gopal Verma did tour the Taj, but not with his actor son, but rather with the now thankfully resigned Maharashtra CM Vilasrao Deshmukh's son.

And we won't even go into the overly generalised, condescending bit of editorialising that declares: "There are, however, indications that Indian audiences who are more used to lavish musicals will watch films that examine terrorism from fresh perspectives." Really? Like we did back in 1996? Or should we go further back to Roja and Bombay?

As the cherry on top, the story also cites unnamed critics who say: "Indian cinema has a history of films that address current affairs but most dealing with terrorism have used real-life events as springboards for crudely nationalistic action movies, critics say."

Ahem: I guess the critics missed films like the Mani Rathnam trilogy? Or Gulzar's Maachis? Or Mission Kashmir, which not only linked terrorism in Kashmir to bin Laden well before 9/11, but included the acclaimed novelist Vikram Chandra as one of its scriptwriters? We won't even go into the range of politically complex, ideologically sophisticated and well researched films, including Sarfarosh, 16 December: All Forces Alert, Fiza, Fanaa, Rang de Basanti that have taken on terrorism in the past decade.

Sure the western press trots out the handful of Indian writers/novelists on its op-ed pages to provide the illusion of objectivity. But beyond all that, a little painful truth I learned as a child remains: the western press will print what it likes about India, especially if it feeds their own illusions about the country. Anything actually based in facts is a little too politically, ideologically, possibly even morally, inconvenient!

Update from Sunny: By Popular Demand

I am rather touched to receive emails from readers of this blog - frankly I didn't know I had any who were not family and friends - asking for an update. So first of all apologies; I have indeed been remiss. Secondly an explanation: I have been travelling partly to promote translations of my novel, With Krishna's Eyes, and partly for pleasure. And you will all recognise, for me that means limited access to the net.

For the moment however, I am posting a photograph of the French cover of the novel. I am not quite sure if I like Aishwarya on the cover (would personally have preferred Sush if they really wanted a Bollywood babe!). But it did make me remember a curious little fact about writing the novel. I had been working in film production when I began writing the novel, mostly for friends. And then began my doctorate in cinema towards the end of it. Somehow all that cinema leaked into the book so much so that at one point I found myself fantasizing who would play the characters if I turned the novel into a movie. So by the time I finished the manuscript I had a wish list of sorts in my head.

There was really no option for Baba. Had to be the great AB - and yes! I grew up in the 1970s and he is the towering old man of Hindi cinema! Just as Chachaji had to be a slighly roughed edged SRK - mad, romantic, affectionate but with a bitter edge, in a guest appearance of course.

Dadiji was a tough one because in my head I can't imagine the actress who could play her but Deepti Naval seemed to pop up a lot as an option. Alongside, oddly enough Tanuja - who, personally I think, has been the single most under-rated actress in Indian cinema.

Krishna had to be someone new - fresh faced and unknown, not someone hugely glamorous but also not behenji-ish. Some actress who could do contemporary urban Indian; someone sligtly vulnerable but tough. An early Rani Mukherjee or even a Preity Zinta in her Dil Se moment. Or a Vidya Balan today.

Not surprisingly, my favourite character of all is Damayanti. In a way, the story grew out of her character. She is also the most difficult one to visualise. I suppose Waheeda Rehman in her Kabhie Kabhie days would have been perfect: with the same grace and glamour that I visualised for Damayanti. But for logistical reasons, I would have loved Madhuri before she got the frozen, wind-tunnel look (WHAT A SHAME!). And weirdly enough, coming back to where we started: I think Sush - given a director like Gulzar - could pull off a brilliant Damayanti. She has that sort of uber-cool, urban-but-trad look while also projecting an inner steel.

Oh well, kisi din paisa hoga...ya, at least interest hoga. And a director who would love to make the film. On the condition of course that while the cast and crew is totally negotiable, Santosh Sivan shoots the film! I can just visualise my favourite bits of the novel rendered by Sivan's lens. In fact, another secret: in my head the novel rolled out like a Sivan-shot film for a private showing.

So there you go...but for the moment, just the uber-glam French cover! Meanwhile, I truly wish I could some day grow up to be as cool as my French disembodied self.

Chaiyya Chaiyya and The Inside Man

The other day a friend basically forced me to watch Spike Lee’s 2006 venture, The Inside Man.

That sentence needs explanation: given my current location in the throes of writing over fifty thousand words analysing cinematic practises, watching movies has slipped from its prime position as entertainment. Movies are work at the current time and I don’t need to do any more work than is absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, the aforementioned friend felt that I needed to watch Lee “bookend” his film with one of my all time Gulzar-A.R. Rahman favourite songs: Chaiyya Chaiyya. And so I did!

And have been confused ever since. Admittedly I am not alone in this state.

Question is: Why? Assuming that Spike Lee plans his movies and their effects carefully, what does Chaiyya Chaiyya contribute to the flick? Other than of course another attempt to cash in on the growing “Bollywood” craze. Oh how I hate that unavoidable tag!

I was disappointed, I have to confess. I did have visions of Denzel and Jodie doing a train-top routine a la Shahrukh-Malaika. Or given the racial politics of Hollywood, at least an Owen-Jodie two-step shuffle. But no such luck! The song just shows up during credits, with no real contribution to the movie it bookends.

Of course Western critics are equally baffled – which I suppose is a good thing! My favourite response came from TimeDispatch.com that explained: “The end credits and the opening titles, incidentally, are enlivened by the peppy Bollywood hit song "Chal Chaiyya Chaiyya" from the movie "Dil Se." The song does not seem to have anything to do with this movie -- no one dances on top of a train -- but it is a hip way to reassure the audience that nothing too bad is going to happen.”

Really? That is where globalization meets Lost In Translation! Or rather when any form of “manageable models” of making meaning are nonexistent. Poor TimeDispatch.com reviewer of course has no clue of the original movie, Dil Se.

Obsessed lover-boy chasing sulky suicide bomber until they can blow themselves to bits in picturesque Old Fort setting is definitely my definition of something "too bad” has happened!

Sigh….the joys of globalization!