Women of the silver screen

BOLLYWOOD speedily turns out "the woman's film" or films with a female protagonist. The "new-wave" cinema of the 1960s, 1970s and the 1980s are now "history" or "classic". But people have forgotten how relevant those new-wave films are even today. In comparison, many of today's Bollywood's "feminist" films are pale shadows of those earlier creations on similar themes. Most of those films were introspective, imaginative experiments that went along with maturity of vision.

Some of the recent "woman's films" are not only alarming in their naive, banal story-line with unsophisticated cinematographic quality but also have an appalling sense of "social modernism" or ethical rationalisation. It is time we question some of the more talked about "women's roles". This is especially because many of them are passed off, or seen by an undiscriminating audience, as "modern female" portraits.

"Daman" got Raveena Tandon the National Award this year and "Astitva" got Tabu the Critics Award last year. "Virasat", "Sathya", "Shool" and "Maachis" were commendable films with women portraying moving, realistic virtuosity. Maybe it was a combination of all three: directional quality, story and acting prowess. "Astitva" is more sophisticated than "Daman", but the scripts in both films suffer from jerks obliterating the growth of a woman's identity. For there are significant issues and queries about a woman's self-hood that these films don't address. They gloss over crucial dilemmas that lead to decision-making and the development of a person.

In "Daman" the protagonist named Durga, becomes in the end the hackneyed symbol of Durga Mai wielding her sword or trishul to kill the monster asura, her husband. Do women have no other option to assert their identity? Must they become Durga images killing male asuras or villains of society or remain dumbly docile and frightened of convention until a sudden personality change takes place, when the anger and fear are uncontainable? Except for a female playing the same role, how is "Daman" any different from Amitabh Bachchan's "Angry Young Man" image, in the 1970s and the 1980s? And what about all those women who do not have an obvious monster to deal with, but the petty cruelties of everyday social conventions that tie them down? Would the message of the film be that they all pick up axes for retribution?

Double standards for men and women are definitely worthy of condemnation. To that extent Mahesh Manjrekar's "Astitva" is a good film. But the vacuum in Aditi's relationship with Shrikant, her husband, is not articulated enough through filmic imagery. Where is her emotional or moral courage during all those years, to share the truth upon which their whole life together depended, if she really loved him as she claims? Suppose she wasn't exposed and didn't receive an inheritance, would she still have walked out or conveniently kept quiet? Did she only need her son's fiancee for this important decision of "independence"? If she were a sensitive person, not just a "woman" how fair was she to Kamath? Can a woman really never think with care about a basically good man whose child she bears, because it is out of wedlock? No crisis of conscience is etched out in film language before the blossoming of self-hood. When she unleashes her anger at Shrikant, Aditi rightly accuses him of not bothering about those "one-night-stand" women. But did Aditi direct herself at Kamath's kindness or possible despair all his life?

When women film makers like Kalpana Laajmi and Tanuja Chandra make films like "Daman" and "Dushman" what do they want to express? "Dushman," despite Kajol's good acting finally has a negative comment on a woman's failing spirit. In a murder thriller with a psychopath at large, the masala that makes for popular suspense, what does the heroine do? She tries to catch the villain but ultimately she is left helpless. Her petrified condition is redeemed by a male, never mind that he's a blind hero. And this, despite the heroine having learnt karate and judo to protect herself and her family. So what does the film say? That women are weak or helpless despite mastering martial arts and are vulnerable targets of crime just because they are women?

Entertainment or time-pass are convenient terms for Bollywood's productions. But what is really conveyed by these precious productions of an all-important industry? And what do the Indian middle classes, from the poor to the rich, who eat, sleep and dream films want? For these films cater to them. True, in art, a lot must be left to the imagination of the onlooker and to the interpretation of the reader. However, if the essential themes or gaps in them are left entirely to the fancy of the audience, why give value at all the creation in art/popular/mainstream cinema?

Feminism in the widest sense as a quest for equal self-hood and emotional empowerment for a woman, involves the pain of self- questioning and constant evolving before attaining freedom as a person. Will Indians craving for film entertainment never question contradictions and indifference to moral issues in what are called woman-based films? Humour, spoofs and fantasies are genres apart. These films are not supposed to be even partly funny. They actually present themselves as realistic feminine portrayals.

The better woman-based films today, are a legacy of the bold, powerful heritage of the so-called new-wave films begun more than three decades ago. In fact, refreshing exceptions have always been there right from the inception of Indian cinema, like "Duniya Na Maane". Shyam Benegal followed by Mahesh Bhatt, Shekhar Kapur and some others made path-breaking films about women's identity.

These earlier films are, for instance "Ankur", "Nishant", "Bhumika", "Mandi" to "Yeh Nazdeekian", "Akhir Kyon", "Ek Bar Phir", "Arth", "Masoom", "Subah", "Kora Kagaz" as well as "Bazaar" and "Nikah" with other similarly relevant films. Each of these had a reference point. They dealt with women who could step outside into the world or stand alone to honestly make choices, and pay the price if need be.

The labels new-wave or art film did not devalue the quality of those films. They were in fact made as popular cinema though they may not always have been box-office hits. They were not elitist, nor were they intellectual to the point of being incomprehensible to the masses.

Despite the general hybrid trash, there has been a laudable effort with some substantial, thought-provoking popular cinema on women, "Fiza", "Fire", "Godmother", "Rudaali", "Khaamoshi" as well as "Mrityudand" with far more depth than "Daman" or "Astitva" come to mind. "Vaastav", a remake in a way of "Mother India", is deeply empathetic to a mother's conflict between humanism and rationality.

"Mission Kashmir" promoted positively the concept of motherhood and adoption. It's a welcome appeal in today's devastated, disaster-hit world where in contrast only obsessions with biological progeny seem trite. Bollywood's dream of presenting strong women's identity through popular cinema still has some way to go. For, it must match the authenticity and experiential swings of life itself to invite critical appreciation.

DEEPA NAG HAKSAR

The writer is a Reader with the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Entertainment
Next     : Kutiyattam as world heritage