Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  BOLLYWOOD CINEMA
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The artistic works of Sanjay Leela Bhansali seem typical for the Bollywood cinema, because they are consistently interwoven with its tradition — the director observes the censorship rules, keeps to the binding standards of film visualization, skillfully uses various film genres, casts famous movie stars, wins awards at Indian festivals and fame abroad. However, when watching in chronological order his five movies shot so far — Khamoshi: The Musical (1996), Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam (Straight from the Heart, 1999), Devdas (2002), Black (2005), Saawariya (Eternal Soulmate, 2007) — one gets an impression that it is not some Bollywood workhorse’s output, but a real movie author’s oeuvre. Since his debut in 1996 Bhansali has been aware of his creative abilities, he has wanted to develop and manifest his individual artistic style, but at the same time he has seemed bound by the Bollywood film industry rules which he has tried to circumvent or bend in an intelligent way. There is even more to that, as there is a growing suspicion that Bhansali, polishing up his own style, intentionally emphasizes and escalates in his works the features of the Bollywood style, displaying his distance and irony. Naïve viewers perceive Bhansali’s films as exceptionally striking masala movies in which they find everything they expect and like. However, for the connoisseurs they become the evidence that no system of production can fully tame and control a talented artist, because — as Goethe claimed — “A true master proves himself when his means are limited.”
2
Content available remote

Bollywood i polityka

75%
EN
The article focusing on the relations between Bollywood cinema and politics in India provides the analysis of Ram Gopal Varma’s films Sarkar (2004) and Sarkar Raj (2008). The films indirectly portraying the right-wing Hindu political group Shiv Sena and its leader Bal Thackeray show the violent reality of Indian politics as well as various universal political mechanisms: legitimacy of power through charismatic leadership, political control over media, information and other resources. Despite media rumours the filmmaker denies support for any political party and claims to be intrested in the power itself. Indeed, the hero Subhash Narge (Amitabh Bachchan) is an ideal example of the leader deriving from the ancient hindu script Bhagavadgita or described in modern times by a German sociologist Max Weber. In-depth analysis of the Ram Gopal Varma’s films as well as others of that gender, i.e. Vishal Bhardwaj’s Omkara and Maqbool, allows to see such phenomenon as political propaganda through cinema, censorship and auto-censorship and finally the universal relation between political power and art.
EN
The initial part of the essay outlines the ambiguous position of the popular Hindi cinema within the frame of what might be called the global film system or within global structures of cultural imperialism. The author uses the dialectical tools of the First, Second and Third Cinema as seen by the Third Cinema theory. From this point of view, Bollywood would be the major First Cinema of the Third World — as such it comprises a powerful force opposing the cultural imperialism of the West but at the same time, in general, supports ideologically the status quo of social, economical and political injustice relevant to the periphery of the capitalist world-system (India being part of such peripheries). The surprising feature of the Ketan Mehta’s film is that it employs the formulaic aesthetics of Bollywood Cinema and fits into all of its requirements as a genre but in order not to sustain and persuade ideologies of the existing power relations but to express through them a critical analysis of imperialism (this permanent stage of capitalism) and the multidimensional impact of the imperialism on the conquered and exploited societies. Using the analytic tools of Marxist theory the author tries to present in what ways the film takes for its subject a mythologized and somewhat legendary version of historical events (nowadays, historians do not consider Mangal Pandey crucial, nor even really significant to the outburst of the Sipoy Mutiny), events whose main social and political actors were clearly expressing their motivations in strictly religious terms (war against infidel conquerors in defence of Indian religions). The film does it, however, in order to transform the interpretation of the events so as they (re)gain a revolutionary, deeply politicized (thus avoiding the traps of religious culturalist illusions) dimension of the fight of the oppressed against their oppression, exploited people against the logics of the capital, for the sake of truly universal values. According to the author, the film does so building also a bridge between the presented historical developments and the world we still live in. This is still the same world, constantly governed by the very same totalitarian rule of accumulation of capital. Through the strategies analysed in the essay, Mehta’s film seems opposing both: reactionary use of religion and religiously defined divisions in contemporary conflicts, a problem that affects so many of the Third World societies, including India, as well as the absence of larger historical perspective and deeper structural understanding of global power relations in postmodern culture.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.