I don’t know if you have seen the Ides of March, George Clooney’s movie about an American
primary campaign. But if you have any interest in politics, you should do yourself a favour and either see it in the cinema or get hold of the
DVD.
Clooney is not the star – Ryan Gosling is --- but his direction is so stylish and assured that I found myself thinking: is there a single Hollywood star (with the possible exception of Clint Eastwood) who is as accomplished a director? (For that matter, is the actor-director phase dead in Bollywood in the aftermath of the Raj Kapoor-Dev Anand-Feroz Khan era?)
But once I’d got over how well Clooney had directed the movie, I began to ask myself: why is it that Hindi cinema rarely makes good political movies?
The tradition of the political movie goes back a long time in Hollywood, from the days of the Oscar-winning All The King’s Men about Huey Long, to such Sixties successes as Seven Days in May and Advice and Consent to The Candidate, one the most epochal films of the Seventies.
Over the last decade and a half, we’ve seen great political movies come out of America. There’s the Oliver Stone obsession with presidents (JFK, Nixon, W etc.) but there have also been such terrific pictures as Mike Nichols’ Primary Colours (about Bill Clinton) and the eerily prescient Wag The Dog (with Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro). And there have been lighter movies such as The Adjustment Bureau which are not really about politics but use politicians as their lead characters. And on TV, there has been The West Wing, possibly one of the greatest shows ever and one that is better than most political movies.
On the other hand, what does Hindi cinema have to show for itself? I’ve been racking my brains to think of good Hindi political movies. Gulzar’s Aandhi, which came out in 1975, is one example. Perhaps Main Azaad Hoon, Javed Akhtar’s reworking of Meet John Doe in which Amitabh Bachchan gives one of his most arresting performances, is another?
And that, I think, is about it, till we get to the recent past and to Rajneeti, a good solid political film that not only got good reviews but also made money and cemented Ranbir Kapoor’s star status.
There may well be others but, for the life of me, I can’t think of them. And what is certainly indisputable is that Bollywood lacks the Hollywood tradition of the political picture.
| "India has two obsessions: Bollywood and politics. And sadly, it looks as though never the twain shall meet." |
I’m told that regional Indian cinema is different. In Tamilnadu, for instance, it is hard to tell where the film industry ends and political parties begin. But Hindi cinema steers clear of politics for the most part.
Why should this be so?
One reason is the obvious one: film-makers are scared of how the political establishment would react to something that portrays India’s politicians in a less than flattering light. After all, consider the fate of Gulzar’s Aandhi which had to be pulled out of cinemas when the Emergency was declared.
But this is only partly true. Many Hindi movies now portray politicians as being venal and corrupt. Not only does no political party protest but even the Censor Board has no hesitation in clearing movies that lampoon politicians. So why should film-makers be so scared?
Another possible reason is lack of familiarity. The worlds of Hindi cinema and Indian politics are far apart (despite such stars as Shatrughan Sinha and Vinod Khanna who have become ministers.) Most Hindi film directors have no understanding of how Indian politicians function or even of what their daily lives are like. Consequently, film-makers stick to subjects they are familiar with and given politics a miss.
When directors do understand politics, then they end up making good movies. You can argue about the plausibility of the plot of Rajneeti but it is hard to deny that Prakash Jha captured the ethos of cow-belt politics. Anyone who has covered Indian politics will recognize the types of characters portrayed in Rajneeti just as in such previous films as Gangajal, the kind of Bihar policemen and gangsters Jha featured, also had a ring of authenticity about them.
But Prakash Jha is an exception. So perhaps is Javed Akhtar who has enough experience of Indian politics to know what it is that makes Indian politicians tick. Most other Bombay film people are content to stick to the safe middle ground and to make slick films that copy Hollywood conventions: the road picture, the gangster thriller, the coming-of-age movie, the romantic comedy etc. A political film is just too difficult for them to try.
Which is a shame. Because India has two obsessions: Bollywood and politics. And sadly, it looks as though never the twain shall meet.
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Friend's Name:
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Additional Text:
Security code:
Other Articles
-
Only five years ago I would have been stuck with Akasaka in Def Col. or Moti Mahal Deluxe in South Ex. Now I have amazing options to choose from.
-
In the pursuit of vegetarianism and vegetarian guests lies the future. And great profit.
-
I think that Indians have less desire to ‘belong’ than Brits do. We don’t need social approval. And this is a good thing.
-
And ask yourself: have I really been enjoying the taste of vodka all these years or just enjoyed the alcoholic kick it gives my cocktails?
-
There is a growing curiosity about modern Asian food, more young people are baking and the principles of European cuisine are finally being understood
See All