Wednesday, March 16, 2016

3-16-16 Bombay


The film Bombay handles the often rocky relationship between two religions and how volatile traditional values are while using Shekhar and Shaila as a microcosm, as Professor Ghosh notes in the blog for this week, for modern Indians and how they are beginning to feel in regards to religion and humanity but also for how Indians are greatly damaged by the fires of conflict that burn on between Muslim and Hindu faiths.

Early on the viewer is shown how uninterested in the religious traditions both Shaila and Shekhar are when we see Shaila constantly becoming unveiled from her niqab either by the wind or of her own design which suggests that it's natural and also willful how Shaila is not particularly constrained by the traditions of her religion. Shaila loses her niqab not long after becoming openly intimate with Shekhar which is one of many indicators for the willingness to relax traditional religious effects and requirements.

Shekhar has a more direct relationship with this natural and willfulness to treat his religion as he feels makes sense to him, namely for the sake of love. He goes as far as wearing a niqab to disguise himself as a classmate of Shaila's in order to get close to her on a rowboat. The act seems to be arguably sacrilegious to which Shekhar's friend tells him "they'll cut off your hand if you're caught!" (Raynam 19:10). Both characters openly deny the standard boundaries set up by their respective religious affiliations so that they may find love and peace within one another. This then becomes the narrative as the two marry and begin living with each other in the city of Bombay, the only place that the two can be together as their families outwardly refuse the prospect of marriage between the two due to religious purposes. The actions of the couple are constantly poking holes at the inane logic behind those that oppose their relationship.

When Shekhar tells his father that he plans to marry Shaila, his father gets upset with what seems to him to be a selfish and irrational decision. Shekhar retorts by asking if Muslim people are the enemy to which his father neglects to address altogether. The fact that during this scene it is raining is important for the character Shekhar and by extension Shaila as it symbolizes the birth of life into a new generation of social acceptance between two major religions. There is even mention at the beginning of the film how crops are doing so well and were saved by the rain. The rain has literally brought life to the village and beyond, through the union between Shekhar and Shaila. Typically with heavy rain, old sediment will be washed away for new soils and earth to take its place, much like how this union will usher in new thought regarding religious and cultural unification and acceptance.

The score also reflects a similar revitalization as the musical numbers harken back to traditional sounds and also to Guru Dutt's camera shots that move up close to our main characters and afar frequently as though "the gaze of the camera, for the most part, presents" different points of view (Ghosh). At the same time, the songs also offer up a more modern element like in "Tu Hi Re" as the singing is paired with various synthesizer effects and a steady bouncy drum beat that repeats steadily, all things that seem to be different from typical musical numbers in films thus far (before the 1990s) which do not feature synthesizers, of course, and also are seldom as simplistic with few instruments incorporated at any given time. 

In the song "Tu Hi Re," we see an important reflection of our microcosmic couple and the village in the castle that is constantly being battered by the choppy waters. Despite the tumultuous ocean waves that crash against the coast and the castle, the fortress still stands as a symbol of the stalwart love Shekhar and Shaila have for each other but also the strength that the youth that will succeed their parents. Their passions, interests, and desire for change are ironclad and strong against the weathering from the traditional values of their elders that wish to maintain the status quo rather than find a middle ground that promotes happiness, love, and peace like what Shekhar and Shaila are able to represent. 

The other point of the film that then suggests the rapid and powerful force of progression is after Shekhar and Shaila have their children and as Ghosh mentions, the children occupy a hybrid territory between two previously seemingly incompatible religions. Their confusion over the importance of being either Hindu or Muslim serves as a soft reminder of what Shekhar hints at with his father and the question over whether Muslims are to be enemies. The two boys who grew up accepting both Hindu and Muslim ideals and practices don't understand the divisive nature that instigated the riots let alone that the two were supposedly mutually exclusive. 
As a side note, the NYTimes article suggests that during the religious riots in Bombay at the time, there were supposedly more deaths of Muslims than Hindus and yet the director depicts the film with more of a shared damage on both sides. This decisions serves to strengthen the narrative of taking neither religious affiliation and instead suggesting that one can simply be Indian, first and foremost, and also that religion can be open to all and should not, and typically do not, preach the exclusion of others anyway.

In the end, the film is able to create a strong call for equality and acceptance as societal norms, particularly in the criticism and interest in the removal of "feudal religious and caste identities" that only seem to cause pain and anguish among the average Indian and instead people should focus on being Indian, accepting and appreciating one another first and foremost (Ghosh). Shekhar and Shaila's children act as living testaments to the possibility of becoming inter-religious and inter-cultural.

On a personal note, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie from the music to the characterizations and the cute humor despite the ultimately solemn historical violent background of the true events of the riots which was also dramatic and suspenseful, making for a wonderful film altogether. I feel as though I am partial to this film because the pacing and music more closely matches with what I grew up and am used to and find it easier to resonate with. 

Also, the actress that plays Shaila is almost obnoxiously cute in the film and I absolutely love it and for the first 20 minutes I thought Shekhar looked like the biggest dork of all but by the end of the film I came to love his character as well, mustache and all.  


2 comments:

  1. Nathan,
    First of all, I have to agree with you about initially thinking that Shekhar looked a bit like a dork. When I first saw him, I thought "No way is this the hero!" but I came to love him through the rest of the film because of his charming personality. On a bit of a side note from this, I have my presentation on DDLJ coming up, so I watched the movie in advance, and I found it a little bit distracting that the heroine has a unibrow! But, like with Shekhar, you find her so endearing that you eventually do not notice.
    Now, on to actual commenting...
    I thought it was really interesting that you commented about the portrayal of the violence coming from both sides of the conflict equally. That is essentially what my blog post was about, so it was very interesting to see your take on it. I think, like you said, that it does help the movie get its message of nonviolence and Indian identity above all across better. If it had been more accurate, it might just come across as trying to communicate the atrocities that Hindus commit against Muslims, which was not the point of the film. Yet, at the same time, I felt somewhat betrayed by the film when I discovered that it was not presenting an accurate representation of the violence. Instead of showing Muslims largely as victims, it seemed to portray them as much more aggressive and prone to anger. For Indian audiences who are aware of the actual events, it may have been a non-issue (except for the fact that some Muslims were trying to get the movie banned), but for me, I was a little frustrated that this movie had forced me to view what was in reality more like aggressors and victims who tried to fight back as equally at fault and equally violent. For the purpose of the film, though, it would have been difficult to tell the same story if it had been more accurate, and I agree with you that it communicates its intended message better. I think it is a complicated issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wonderful post, Nathan. I love your attention to the use of synthesizer in the songs of this film. The 1990s film music definitely sounded different from the decades that preceded it. I also like your reading of the fortress and the ocean in the song 'Tu hi re,' although I actually read it the other way around. For me Shekhar and Shaila are connected to the ocean (also, represented in Shaila's blue dress and Shekhar's blue striped t-shirt) that lashes against old traditions symbolized here by the fort. This is why they are often shown against the backdrop of the ocean after marriage or with their children in Bombay, symbolizing freedom and modernity.

    Feedback: Well-written post that displays a close engagement with the film. I would have liked to see critical scholarship also used productively in your post.

    ReplyDelete