Dilwale
Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (DDLJ) directed by Aditya Chopra is a film that
seems to soften the edges around the ever present Westernization of
the world, particularly India. As a country that has frequently
created strong feelings of national and cultural identity in film,
India has always felt the friction between Western culture and values
against Indian culture and values and DDLJ is one film that has done
well to cater to both ends of the spectrum, despite featuring two
protagonists that are Non-resident
Indians (NRIs).
Having
two characters that are NRIs is actually an integral part to at least
part of the narrative of the film which is that by having two main
characters that are born in England but are still very much
Hindustani, they are able to represent a blending of cultural
identities and interests while maintaining their already strong
Hindustani values and identities. We can see this happen when
noticing early in the film Simran and Chutki are relaxing at home
with some likely techno-style genre of music in their high-waisted
jeans, vest and T-shirt, or British school uniform after enjoying a
sugary bowl of cereal with an ad for Sonic the hedgehog on it. The
scenes following this show the whole family dressed in more
traditional Indian garb and the girls immediately
“switch
to a melancholy song from 1946 Hindi film,
Shahjehan”
(Ghosh).
While this switch between cultures in context seems to suggest the
patriarchal control that Baldev, Simran and Chutki's father, has on
the family and the expectation to cater to his cultural preferences.
Baldev
comes as an interesting character in this Indian diaspora which was
pointed out humorously but aptly in the youtube review of DDLJ by
Kanan Gill, in that Baldev left for England to accrue wealth and
start a family and yet he is supposed to be the largest proponent for
Hindustani culture, nostalgic to the point that he projects
his nostalgia onto his family to the point that their children feel
the need to appeal to him by pretending to be listening to music from
traditionally Hindi films. The youtubers then point out when dealing
with NRI nostalgia, the most aggravating thing to them is that if you
complain and compare everything to India, then why not move back to
India? The very same dynamic is played out in Baldev who ironically
as the family's NRI nostalgic constant has not apparently seen his
family in 20 years despite his supposed wealth and well-being in
England.
This
juxtaposition between the father and Simran and Raj then bolsters the
effectiveness that the two have as characters that show just how safe
their culture and heritage are whilst taking in Western elements as
well. According to Uberoi, DDLJ was also one of the “new series of
popular movies in which the NRI is positioned as hero,” which is
interesting as it allows for the space to create a social trend or
norm that NRIs can be characters that are not inherently corrupted by
the Western world (Uberoi 325).
As
a film that gives favor to NRI nostalgia particularly, the musical
score and dances also strike an interesting balance in that the
beginning of film where we're in Europe, the general sound,
particularly the musical number during the French banquet event,
gives off a sort of blend between traditional Hindi style and a sort
of flamenco flare. The dances also feel more full-body-animated and
free-flowing during the European section of the film. The most
notable musical difference when we reach Punjab is the immediate
front-runner instrument that rules over much of the traditional Hindi
sound: the sitar. Previously, the most we hear the sitar is when Raj
idly plucks at it save for a few times he genuinely
plays some progressions. Suggesting once more the safety of the
youthful NRIs traditional culture.
In
the end, with all the service DDLJ does for the Indian diaspora, the
film is still able to become as much a commercial success abroad as
it does at home, even being dubbed by many as being a film that
“inaugurated
the new type of Hindi cinema known as Bollywood” (Dwyer).
The success of the film is handily explained in one short quote from
chapter six of Virdi's book
The Cinematic ImagiNation, “In Hindi
cinema the figure of the diasporic Indian is metonymic of this
anxiety of the invasion of the west and disappearance of an “Indian
identity,” which it cleverly manipulates to reimagine the nation in
response to changing conditions” (Virdi 197). The film is able to
create a norm of acceptance and integration of Western culture with
Indian culture without a sense of invasion or loss of identity.
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that you mentioned was pointed out in the review of the film was that Baldev, despite loving India so much, had not returned to it for 20 years. When I noticed that in the movie, I was astounded, because while it is incredibly expensive to travel from England to India, he clearly has money. If he has money to send his daughter on a tour of Europe on short notice, he probably has the money to go and visit his family in India. Twenty years is a very long time to go without visiting his mother at least. Personally, I don't think the film established a very good reason to have him not visit his mother once in 20 years. It seems like the only reason he was kept from India for so long is so that he could have an emotional reunion with his mother. It also forces him to be more concerned about his family losing touch with their Indian roots. If he and his family had visited India every once in a while, he probably would have felt more secure in their Indianness. However, he has no excuse, or at least none that we see in the movie, for why he couldn't have gone to visit India every once in a while.
Clarification: The instrument that Raj plays throughout the film is a mandolin, which is Italian in origin. The sitar, in fact, is not used in the film at all.
ReplyDeleteResponding to both your and Shelby's observations about Baldev not visiting India in twenty years: while the film shows his family as reasonably well-to-do, symbolically it encompasses the figure of the immigrant who cannot travel back due to financial reasons. Baldev, despite his middle-class location, seems to represent the first wave of emigrants from India who took up more working-class jobs due to lack of opportunities in India, but felt alienated from the U.K. society due to overt racism.
Feedback: pertinent observations, but some more careful reading is required. Attempt to engage with the text in a way that explores its complexity rather than trying to force a certain interpretation on it even as you forward a claim-based reading.
There is but one scene in which the movie specifically points out any racism towards the Indian characters and that was during the police check scene. Otherwise everyone was remarkably accepting, helpful, or non-existent as the film largely excluded many white European characters from most interactions despite being on their visit through Europe. I am in no way arguing that there was not any racism towards Indian immigrants because Western countries have a history of racism against anyone that doesn't look like they have Anglo-Saxon descent or more blatantly, just look "white".
ReplyDeleteMy point being that my interpretation of Baldev wasn't forced in my opinion. Based on the actions he made in the film, he comes off as somewhat ironically hypocritical. Certainly leaving to return to India permanently would be different but his 20 year absence seemed plausible to have been remedied with week long trips to visit back home. But yet he is able to send Simran with enough money to travel Europe for a month (which realistically may not have cost that much money at the time especially since his money is likely in British pounds but the statement still stands). My assumption is that the money used for this eurotrip was cumulative for most of those 20 years to some extent but its hard to tell.
So, while I definitely understand and can see where Baldev represents the symbolic immigrant that cannot return home, I feel as though that symbolic image is at least rather fragile based on what evidence we see from the film.
I'm not trying to lash out for your criticism of my post but just defending the reasons why I came to the conclusions I did about Baldev.
And also, I mix up sitar and mandolin all the time. Thank you for the correction. Surprisingly I never confuse the sitar with the shamisen despite looking more similar than the mandolin. If anything I have the most trouble with finding appropriate diction for describing or discussing properties of music in films which makes it hard to dig into.
I like that you're defending your reading of Baldev, but you really don't need to because your observations are pretty logical. The film does not show overt racism and it also represents his family as fairly prosperous. My explanation is an attempt to provide more social context for the why the Baldev's character would hold an appeal for audiences who migrated to UK between the 50s and 70s and faced massive amounts of racism. See British MP Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech on YouTube as an example of the kind of anti-immigrant diatribe targeted at the Indian and Caribbean diaspora. There is a reason that the film opens with Baldev's monologue where he clearly states that he feels like an alien in London even after 22 years, that the streets still ask him why he is there every day. As a viewer, I find it an effective representation of an immigrant's alienation from the dominant culture without bringing in the usual bogeyman of overt racism.
ReplyDelete