2-23-16 Bhumika (The Role) - Identity

Benegal's Bhumika makes tactful use of color of clothing choices and frequency of change, camera shots, as well as flashback throughout the film in order to create a strong sense of uncertainty surrounding Usha, the protagonist, as she struggles to find an identity that best suits how she wishes to live her life. The film bounces around at different times of Usha's life, starting when in the present day shifting for a large portion of what could be considered the first half of the movie to Usha's past as a young girl up into her late teens or early twenties approximately. The last scene before the viewer moves entirely to the present features Usha rushing to her co-star, Rajan's home after she was accosted by her husband.

The transition to present from this point is through the incessant ringing of a phone with Rajan on the other line, which serves as another strong tie between the black and white flashback and the color film current time. Benegal's decision to add in this extra tie also depicts the extent to which Usha is plagued by her past as it and those she has chosen to cohort with, are continually involved and influencing her life. This pocked delivery of flashbacks throughout Bhumika does two things, it shows the sources for the identities that Usha attempts to engage with and also how ungrounded Usha feels with never being in one place very long.

Since Usha was a child she “is drawn to the classical music, which she learns from her grandmother, but rebels against her mother’s insistence that she learns household chores and demure behavior that would make her marriage material” and this desire at odds with the cultural construction of what is expected of those in feminine roles is the beginning for Usha in her struggle with how she wants and chooses to identify herself. In part as a rebellious act, Usha becomes a successful actress and is able to frequently pass through different identities within her roles in the films she plays in and then furthermore she becomes a parent herself and attempts to navigate between being a mother, a wife, and also a free and individualized person.

Another element to display this uncertainty and lack of full, wholesome identity is with the camera shots that typically portray Usha within either mostly medium shots, showing her from the waist up, or close-up shots wherein just Usha's head is visible. The effect of this decision to constantly minimize how much we see of Usha is to push this lack of identity because of the lack of being whole.

The scene in which Usha is helping Kale's wife and then they begin talking to each other is an important turning point for Usha as she realizes after his wife says "The beds change, the kitchens change. Men's masks change, but men don't change” to Usha while being a bedridden woman. Kale is an oppressive patriarchal figure all the same as every other man Usha has been involved with and the fact that Kale's wife is bedridden may be perceived as a result of his oppression over her and in her telling Usha that no matter how many times she moves from different lives with different men, the men never change and thus neither will she (Bhumika 2:01:58).

Towards the end of the film, Usha is seen wearing four vastly different colored outfits at different instances in quick succession. From vibrant red clothes during her talk with Kale's wife, to orange and subdued green when she speaks with Kale, to then green and yellow as she speaks with Kale's young son outside, and then all variants of blue whilst she gives a leg and foot massage to the grandmother living in Kale's estate. This rapid shift between colors and clothes represents Usha's attempt to shift between multiple roles for everyone involved in her life. It isn't until the final scene where Usha speaks with her now grown daughter after having left Kale's estate that she remains in her largely more dulled color clothes and tells herself that she must get used to her loneliness which is to say she must return to how she used to live with her husband. As mentioned in professor Ghosh's blog “the clothing change may be an attempt to transition from the public to the private, domestic space” showing another example of how Usha's change in garb is a literal attempt to change her identity.

As mentioned in the Smita Patil photo tribute page, “these cinematic worlds of harsh truths, injustice, exploitation and the occasional triumph of individual rebellion” are ever present in Bhumika as Benegal shines light on the the serious societal pressures that fall on women in India and how problematic it can be to navigate one's life amidst a constant wave of hetero- and gender-normative societal expectations whilst trying to live a life for oneself. The stress of finding individual identity is amplified greatly by these pressures and expectations and Benegal's Usha is a fantastic catalyst to depict such a tumultuous life that many women were and likely still are facing in India. The unfortunate but sobering reality of this socio-cultural conundrum is materialized when Usha returns with her husband and in a medium long shot scene, she receives a phone call from Rajan who brings up the prospect of another film to her despite her making no indication to anyone other than her husband that she was returning. Usha, like so many other women, is not able to escape the roles of which she is seen in and now officially recognized.

2-16-16 Sholay - Anti-hero and Interesting Storytelling

Sholay was the underdog of Bollywood films that was apparently expected to be a complete flop, only to be India's highest grossing film of all time and many factors play into the success of the film but the largest draw is without a doubt due to the antihero dynamic duo of Veeru (Dharmendra) and Jai (Amitabh Bachchan). Sholay was a vessel that carried part of a growing character archetype further cementing the anti-hero as a lovable and usable character. This style of character was quickly gaining popularity in Western film as well with characters like Max Rockatansky from Mad Max or Harry Callahan from Dirty Harry and it was no exception that India would also see and want to share similar narratives for films. 

The reason for the success of anti-hero characters is simple in that it makes for interesting story telling as characters suddenly become more accessible to viewers because anti-hero characters face challenges and react to them outside of the traditional good versus evil paradigm. It takes on a realistic approach to conflict in storytelling as characters are met with situations that are not entirely black and white but instead facilitate a large grey area much like real life consequences. Veeru and Jai are two criminals because that is how they survive. When these two are introduced, handcuffed and speaking to Thakur on the train, the audience sees these two men sporting Western fashion and arrested -- two things that are typically associated with villainy, especially in Bollywood where Western fashion usually connotes negative qualities of corruption or oppression. Despite this, the characters are exceedingly engaging, cool, and amiable. From saving the cop that has detained the two from, ironically, other bandits, to saving an entire village from genuine oppression and villainy from that of Gabbar Singh, the anti-hero character proves itself as capable of good when necessary and shows emotional investments unlike the typical antagonist roles in most films.

As mentioned in the blog postings by professor Ghosh, Amitabh Bachchan's character Jai, the moody, quiet, yet loyal character is a representation of the "growing angst and disillusionment of the Indian youth who felt let down by the government's inefficacy in combating corruption, poverty, and unemployment." This is a large component to the success of many anti-hero characters as characters like Jai are likely products of the very same concerns by the Indian youth's of the time. As a result, the character acts in ways that may seem unjust traditionally but in reality they act as one would out of genuine struggle and are not reprimanded for their actions in the film and demonized by being portrayed as characters that are evil. We see this in Sholay often as Veeru and Jai decide to be hired as mercenaries and attempt to steal from their employer but stop out of a sense of honor to the woman that catches them in the act and Thakur, saying that it will never happen again. Similarly, when Veeru and Jai hear Thakur's reason behind wanting to capture Gabbar Singh, the two willingly choose not to accept money for capturing this villain because they have sense of justice that they would still wish to defend despite being criminals themselves. They're criminals, but they're not "bad guys." 

The wonder of the anti-hero is in the complexity that the characters are allowed to have. They are allowed to be imperfect and only part-time selfless people as Jai and Veeru never once apologize for their way of life and what they believe to be just and unjust. Other than the capacity to relate to the characters as being more realistic, the anti-hero is able to do what the viewers are thinking. When we see the gnarly-toothed criminal Gabbar and see what he has done and continues to do to the villagers, we are relieved to see Veeru and Jai gunning down Gabbar's lackeys so that we might finally get to see Gabbar get what he deserves. True evil, which is what Gabbar seems to represent in the film, should be punished and the fact that Gabbar was able to get out of prison, murder Singh's entire family fuels the fire of those that doubt the efficacy of governmental institutions and their capacity for public safety, making characters like Jai and Veeru all the more necessary because stopping Gabbar with traditional means of justice do not always work and these characters are able to vent the frustrations of those that see the shortcomings of the institutes that are supposed to aim to protect and maintain justice

The film's setting also reflects the nature of the anti-hero as we see areas of bright flora to represent good amidst a very dry and barren landscape to represent the bad. Veeru and Jai are typically in a rocky, barren, or generally plant-life vacant location when they are fighting: on a train surrounded by an arid landscape and fighting off bandits or surrounded by a mountainous, rocky scene and defeating Gabbar's men and later Gabbar himself. Conversely, in times of peace and relationship building, both characters are seen relaxing under the shade of a tree at different occasions throughout the film or at Thakur's estate which is surrounded by crops and in many areas, grass. Thakur, the general proponent for justice is often surrounded by flora and fauna whereas the most evil character, Gabbar, is literally living in the rocky, barren hillside of a mountain. The two characters that are constantly navigating between these two distinct areas would be Veeru and Jai, the anti-heroes. The anti-hero harnesses both problematic traits of good and bad, which is what makes them so human, interesting and relatable.

Sholay is without a doubt, a massive success that more than likely influenced many changes in film for both Bollywood and the world at large as it pushes a budding new character archetype that is now a staple in modern Western media. The creation of the anti-heroes in Sholay is only one of many successful challenges to tradition that are seen throughout the film and the result was a record-breaking highest grossing Indian film. But the film owes much of its success still, to the unique anti-hero dynamic that shows off the exciting, intriguing and accessible characterization as well as a strong and intricate narrative. 

2-09-16 Pakeezah

Pakeezah is a rather dramatic film that tells a story about a young woman born into the life of a courtesan from a young age despite being the daughter of a wealthy nobleman, Shabbudin, and a courtesan, Nargis whose relationship was forsaken by Shabbudin's father thus compelling Nargis to slowly kill herself alone in a graveyard. The rest of the story follows the life of their daughter, now young woman, Sahibjan and her life within the kotha or brothel. Sahibjan represents an archetypal role to that of the courtesan in distress that can soon escape the confines of the kotha in which she lives and works at the aid of Salim and also his and technically her familial ties to Shabbudin. Despite what Veena Talwar Oldenburg says in her essay “Lifestyle as Resistance: The Case of the Courtesans of Lucknow.” the reputable courtesans being the “influential female elite” they were, they were still essentially property rather than employees as the birdcage given to Sahibjan symbolizes and also what the scene where Sahibjan is returned to the palace after crashing on the houseboat insinuates as her owners go searching for her not necessarily out of fear for her safety but fear for their loss in a trained and sought after financial prospect.

These courtesans are largely still trapped under the thumb of the patriarchy but the very existence of the kotha run solely by women and the presumable amount of the wealth they sustain in this field of work shows the power that these women have that combats the traditional views of women as being subservient That said, examples like these are repeatedly contested or qualified by patriarchal figures, showing how simplistic and irreverent the men are towards women in the film.

The element of these women's lives that speaks the loudest to the impinging growth of female presence to become a steadfast act against the waves of a normative patriarchal society is that these women in the koth have reached a level of notoriety and status as their own business owners, exercising their entrepreneurial spirits. The problem with this victory is that it can only be made by objectifying women further and also by perpetuating roles of dominance between men and women as men are the ones keeping these women in business because they are selling themselves. This is problematic for feminist struggles toward independence and equality to men as they are still set back in a place with limited power. In the very beginning of the film, Shabbudin's father denounces Nargis, a courtesan of high caliber simply because of her job title. Her death is then a literal representation of the patriarchy's squelching of this feminine transgressivity in society.

Oldenburg states that these women “celebrate womanhood in the privacy of their apartments by resisting and inverting the rules of gender of the larger society of which they are part” and this is a genuine resistance to patriarchal values but this traditional patriarchy demands such control over women that the only way in which women can express themselves as they see fit and not as the normative societal values mandate is to do so within their own microcosm of women.

Again, within this microcosm Oldenburg suggests in her essay, “Lifestyle as Resistance: The Case of the Courtesans of Lucknow,” “female sexuality has the chance of being more fairly and fearlessly constructed by women.”

A strong critique against the traditional patriarchy is also the character Salim as well and the existence of color symbolism. Salim is seen numerous times in mostly colorful clothing or the black that we seem him initially in the train car. Conversely, the vast majority of male oppressors or people that are seen shouting “whore” to Sahibjan towards the end of the movie, wear white clothes to symbolize their “purity” ironically. The only time that Salim is seen wearing all or mostly white clothing is when he is with Sahibjan and simultaneously Sahibjan is then also seen wearing white rather than her usual colorful and embroidered garb. This is a critique against men as they traditionally view themselves as being pure and ultimately the ideal sex, whereas the male protagonist Salim, one of the few men with any redeeming qualities, wears these many colors from time to time and courts Sahibjan. His existence in this regard is a critique of traditional patriarchy.

The last two scenes that show this critique begins where Salim brings Sahibjan atop a large plateau to get married and where Sahibjan can run away from her complicated yet oppressive life within the koth to be viewed as an object for sexual entertainment. Sahibjan panics and runs away from the marriage back to the koth where she at first expresses her acceptance of her position but performs one last miraculous dance to purify herself because she knows that Salim can't do that for her just through marriage. She must save herself in this way. Wearing all white, Sahibjan dances over broken glass, her feet bleeding. This scene shows, as professor Ghosh mentions in her blogpost, that “her feet are cleansed if you will by her own blood that replaces the alta.”

By the end of the film, we're then left with a woman free from this objectifying and oppressive profession, again wearing white, standing along side a pillar looking outward on her old home with the narrator referring to her, saying “only then comes the one, truly worthy of praise” one last testament against the looming influence of patriarchy as we hear that Sahibjan, a woman, is the only one worthy of any praise. 

2-4-16 Mother India

Mother India the epic drama film that it is, showcases a plethora of social commentaries about India as the nation makes waves of societal upheaval in a post-colonial world wherein the lead role, Radha, a woman raising two children in a rural Indian village which is to act as a microcosm for India as a whole in the events that take place. The scope that I will choose to focus on is based off of the sub-heading with insights and claims from a Rosie Thomas on the normative and transgressive representations of femininity in the film.

Radha is the largest component to the message of evolving ideals regarding femininity and the social expectations put on women in the post-colonial Indian culture as she undergoes many changes to her character at different milestones that separates the film into three stages of evolution as a woman: from youth and ascribed gender roles, to emerging female empowerment through struggle, to actualized woman willing to combat patriarchy directly.
Allowing first for the first few minutes from the film's present day Radha wherein she is an older woman to be grouped with the final stage, we first start with Radha as a young woman, recently married and working with her husband on the land where they live and trying to feed their family of five including their grandmother. The characters struggle underneath the corrupt and greedy Sukhilal, the landowner, who represents the general oppression of the lower classes as well as part of patriarchy. In one of the songs the lyrics express how hard they toil on the land and that "the fruit of our hardwork is swindled away" signifying that these people recognize the oppression put on them by Sukhilal and yet because it is the status quo it is accepted, though not without proper complaint. Radha in this section of her growth may or may not exactly recognize the way in which Sukhilal has his grips on the people but regardless, she, like the others in the village, accept this fact and try to live their life the best way they can and live content with the social dynamics at play. Only Radha begins to question this.

The beginning moment for Radha's ascension to becoming a the strong and empowered woman that she is at the end of the film and her life is when she convinces her husband to work some neighboring land -- land that is riddled with boulders and hard soil -- making it near impossible the effectively clear the land for use. And yet, Radha and her husband work the lands. They sweat profusely, day in and out, the camera shots show their toiling faces covered in sweat underneath heavy farming equipment for tilling and moving the large boulders, showing Radha and her husband as equal. For once, a woman's appearance here is not their only merit. Women can be strong and work hard in all the same ways a man can. Then begins a long and arduous test of both Radha's faith and mettle after her husband loses his arms whilst they were working the land together. Radha, without so much as a thought, full-heartedly intends to care for her husband in his state and it isn't until Sukhilal makes another appearance to convince Radha's husband that he is shameful and should not need a woman to look after him as though it were somehow a sign that he was a weak man (despite having no arms). As a result, he runs away from his family, the musical score switching to a shrill and somber tune to reflect his exact emotions about himself and the situation he was left in. Unable to face his wife or children and accept any further pity, he runs towards what viewers can only presume was his death. His running away at the jest and mockery from Sukhilal could be viewed as an example of just how fragile masculinity can be. The very thought of having to live a life wherein a man must rely on a woman is so threatening that he would sooner run away and die. Whereas Radha stays, pregnant, with two toddlers and her grandmother. But she soon faces even strong forms of adversity than she could have ever expected. Her grandmother passes away, she sells back her oxen to Sukhilal, and begins to work the land on her own. Trudging with this large plough, she assumes both typical male and female roles.

To make matters worse for her, a massive flood takes over the entire village and the agricultural land. She then loses her newborn baby in the flood as it passes away, her son Birju nearly dies of starvation, and in a moment of weakness out of necessity for hers and her son's survival, she sees Sukhilal to receive aid. Sukhilal, being the idol of patriarchy that he is, makes attempts to sexually coerce her only to fail as, Professor Ghosh mentions in her counter argument to Thomas' point, Radha recognizes through her concept of marriage and that loyalty allows her to muster the courage to refute his advances and maintain her integrity and avoid being degraded further by this man.

Years pass by and we're shown a sunny, vibrant Radha with her healthy two boys, now men, Birju and Ramu amidst scenes of Radha standing proudly with a hoe over her shoulder looking outward while the camera looks up at her. We're witnessing the strength of a woman as well as the strength of India itself when we see Radha like this. She was determined to not be held back by the weight of societal nor patriarchal pressures. In the shot where Radha is standing with the hoe draped over one of her shoulders, the angle also makes sure to leave only a backdrop of sky to create the illusion of Radha's intensity and size. She is big, strong, and hardworking. Three particular traits that would typically not be representative of a woman in India for the time let alone most of the world. Radha begins changing what it means to be feminine without necessarily incorporating masculinity. The testament to this is how Birju, her son becomes the embodiment of masculinity and the ways in which he makes attempts to remedy the plight of the village under the hands of Sukhilal. Birju resorts to violence in nearly every way whereas Radha still maintains a non-violent approach to conflict mediation. Birju fighting for the well-being of himself, his mother, and everyone in the village resorts to the necessity of a gun to solve his problems. A gun becoming the only method of removing the oppressive patriarchal figure that presides over the village. The gun then becomes a symbol of male aggression in a sense and Radha knows this and takes the weapon from Birju with the help from Ramu he other son and begins to break the gun. This scene where Radha is smashing the gun against the well while her son tries to break his way inside the home shows a symbolic attempt to break this aggressive and problematic masculinity that causes people nothing but trouble. Her attempts to stop this warpath that Birju is on were in vein. It isn't until Birju returns to the village with a small militia to take down Sukhilal and subsequently his daughter Rupa that Radha takes up a gun herself and shoots her son Birju for the sake of saving Rupa. The camera looks again up at the disgruntled and powerful domineering Radha amidst a bright background thus making her even darker looking as she wields the gun we are left with a person that has broken the gender binary after she utilizes this symbol for masculine aggression to kill a proponent for masculine aggression while saving someone that is an example of typical femininity. Radha evolves in this moment into an actualized character that is multidimensional as a person. She is merely Radha a woman that has all the capabilities that a man has and has exhibited them throughout the film.

We're then left with the final scene with Radha hugging a piece of earth from the land she's lived on for years and it isn't until everyone has her consent to work the land through more modernized means. Despite being a woman, at the end she becomes the one in power as the mother of the land or the Mother of India in a broader sense. Radha has evolved over time from the normative example of an Indian woman the lives to serve her husband and care for their children to a woman capable of anything, working through many of the hardest toils, and assuming a role of authority over a previous male domination. These motions that Radha goes through are reflective of what India was navigating in terms of where women stand in a modernizing and adjusting post-colonial nation and how they will over time no longer be bound by the restrictive gender normative values and traditions of an old and oppressive patriarchy and instead work together to forge a strong nation for themselves.

1-26-16 Viewing Bollywood's Pyaasa

A movie shrouded in darkness, the viewer is presented with Guru Dutt's misfortunate, educated poet Vijay that endlessly struggles to be recognized for the talents of his craft that he went to school for.The general theme of sorrow and misfortune permeate the story as the vast majority of the scenes before Vijay wakes up from his coma. The same can generally be said of the score the audience hears. Vijay is featured in a majority of slow and somber musical scores and the only moments that ever become upbeat or positive are when Vijay is day-dreaming or when he runs into Gulab as she is reciting his poetry. The film attempts to capture the importance of artistry and poetry despite society not allotting any value or credence to such a craft and in many ways it does a good job of making this depiction but what caught my attention was the ways in which the romantic interests, Meena and Gulab are represented, the roles they play and what Dutt does to progress the narrative of these two characters and how Vijay is perhaps not a character to be whole-heartedly lauded or empathized with.

Vijay is nothing like Kapoor’s tramp character from Shree 420 in that he is not exactly a good protagonist. The earliest invitation to the character we learn that he is a struggling poet that, while indisputably talented, refuses to compromise his poetry by writing run-of-the-mill sentimental poems. As a result, he struggles. Vijay can’t get published, often can’t afford to eat, has no permanent home and often relies on others. One of the few isolated instances of Vijay attempting to help himself was when he acted as a coolie to (presumably) a taxi drive for some money to pay for that nights meal. Unfortunately, his efforts were fruitless in the sense that his payment turned out to be fake tender which nearly cost him his shirt only that he had his meal paid for him by Gulab which Vijay took as a form of pity for him. Gulab being a sex worker that has her own struggles to deal with, still offers to help someone in need despite her own situation in life.

Afterwards Vijay is left feeling as dejected as he was before. Even his friend and his friend’s female companion call Vijay a child. albeit jokingly, but the sentiment is true. Vijay clings to maintaining the integrity of his art and his pride as a poet but refuses to make any attempts at helping himself out in any way other than through his art. He is borderline narcissistic especially when early in the film, Vijay is shown haplessly trailing after a seductive singing Gulab wherein this scene it is interpreted a romantic gesture between Gulab and Vijay, following the many zoomed in shots of Gulab giving off sultry looks to Vijay, but also as a representation of Vijay chasing after his own art, his poetry, that Gulab happens to be singing. But then we have Gulab.

Gulab is an extremely hard-working mother that works as a sex-worker whom still is able to appreciate the arts by going out of her way to purchase some of Vijay’s works. She seems to be a common trope character for bollywood films who embodies all the Indian nationalistic values and morals as she is a very spirited, hard-working, open-hearted, selfless individual. She’s depicted as wearing what appears to be more traditional Indian clothing similar to the romantic interest in Shree 420, often the only illuminated element in most scenes, especially with Vijay as he is usually off-center or shadowed in some way. Gulab also exhibits a strong passion for Vijay though, wishing for him to succeed as she supports him even in his “death” which according to the one of the viewpoints from viewingbollywood.blogspot.com is part of what traditional Indian femininity looks like. This character being the powerful visage of what it means to be Indian comes as an impressively progressive one, particularly for the time, as among all of her outstanding qualities Gulab is in fact a sex-worker which typically is viewed with intense disdain and pity but Dutt makes a strong effort to remind the viewer of just how great she is through her actions that we forget she is a sex-worker until we’re faced with the jarring scene that features her performing for a client where her child is crying in the background.

It comes as no surprise then that the cover art for the film has Gulab front and center, taking up over half of the image next to Vijay. Gulab is the character that deserves to be appraised. Vijay is without a doubt talented, intelligent, and makes considerably apt and poignant commentary about society of the day in his poems, but he falls short in the other aforementioned ways whereas Gulab is the character that is a single mother, works a job and still has the kindness in her to aid the floundering yet talented artist that is Vijay. Gulab goes as far as using all her assets available to her just to have Vijay’s works published. Actions of a true protagonist to which has a foil meant to enhance her image -- through Meena.

Meena, however is a misjudged character in this series because we’re given a lot of reason as viewers to dislike her for her “materialism” and lack of morals when it comes to selling her love for wealth as Vijay puts it. Her interaction with Vijay at Mr. Ghosh’s party shows both the absurdity of Vijay’s expectations he put on Meena in the past and also how strong-willed Meena actually is. Dutt makes it quite apparent during Vijay’s song at the party that there was still residual love between Vijay and Meena as multiple times the camera fixates and zooms past party-goers to an isolated Meena standing in an empty hallway, or where we see Meena leaning against a doorway looking almost longingly at a singing Vijay, holding her hand over her mouth to mask her true emotions for Vijay.

After Vijay finishes reciting his poetry, he meets with Meena and they argue about why Meena left him. Vijay poises his argument in a fashion that shows Meena as being selfish for leaving him to marry into wealth with Mr. Ghosh when she apparently should have stayed with him and support him in his artistic endeavours. In an attempt to reinforce Vijay’s importance, he is depicted in his all white robes against a generally darker backdrop where he is often in direct lighting to set him apart from everything and everyone else, Meena included in her dark garb. Meena barely defends herself from Vijay’s accusations of abandonment and selfishness but in her saying she no longer wanted to be poor with Vijay, a stubborn man that refuses to work to support neither himself nor her, she doesn’t truly need to defend her decision to leave him. Whether or not Meena believed that Vijay’s artistic talents would ever amount to anything is not important -- symbolically, it may be -- but realistically, to the character, her well-being is arguably more paramount.

In the end, Guru Dutt produces a film that does wonders to bring to light the hypocrisy and corruption in society through a relatively dark and somber visual and musical experience as well as create what may be hailed as two strong female roles to contrast one another and yet show both ways that they thrive in the environment they find themselves in.

1-19-16 Viewing Bollywood

In Shri 420, the post-colonial world that Raj finds himself in a place where no longer does personal integrity and honesty suffice for leading a profitable or comfortable life. As a result of India being politically and economically vacated by their colonial suppressors, India is challenged by the world's influences and to support itself after losing a large fraction of its structural integrity at the loss of Great Britain's previous hold. The problem that they're left with is the struggle between whether or not to accept Western values and economics. Maya acts as the catalyst to show the corruption of Westernizing from her garb to her manipulation of Raj and desire for money.

The film depicts a man who works his entrepreneurial spirit in Bombay where money is all that matters. An entrepreneurial spirit however is merely a mirror of a 420, a liar or cheat. Raj talks with some of his mates outside of Mr Dharmanand where his mate expresses his disappointment with honest work because it is no longer enough. Raj is a hyper optimist that believes in honesty and finding work but despite his degree, he still struggles. With influence from Maya, Raj essentially begins operating as a wolf of wall street in a sense, selling bogus bonds to people for pure profit.

The movie shows how the nation is in somewhat of turmoil as this Western culture and set of values bleeds into the more traditional lifestyle of people living in India. The very reason for Raj leaving the countryside to Bombay is also a reflection of the times changing in that urbanization and cities have become the space for profit and success. Just as the rural and suburban forms of profit become strained, so do the feelings of National identity as more traditional values, clothing, etc are slowly lost or merged with global influences – namely that of the West.

Interesting that Seth Dharmanand, the epitome of Western profiteering drives a vehicle with a license plate that reads 840 which is two times that of 420, the number that signifies a liar and a cheat, suggesting that in order to achieve his level of opulence, one must be two times as conniving.

At the end it would seem as though Raj realizes the corruption and problem that comes with acting in a purely profiteering manner such as Western economics permits and suggests is the ideal regardless of moral complications. As Raj realizes what he has become, he recants it entirely only to return to Vidya, what it means to be a hard-worker, honest, and good person.

As for the article by Sahai, he chronicles the similarities between Raj Kapoor and Charlie Chaplin in their scope of film and also the achievements they made in their respective circles. Sahai makes sure not to claim Chaplin is better or worse than Kapoor but refers to the the individual merits of both. The idea is that Kapoor made strong motions to "Indianize" Chaplin as Sahai says in his paper. This representation of Indian socio-economic and cultural struggles was imported into Kapoor's tramp characters to create a more relatable protagonist for Indian film than the Chaplin tramp character. In doing so, Kapoor is able to comment on the ever increasing influence of the Western world on Indian society at large while adopting similar elements from the critically acclaimed Charlie Chaplin, creating a Raj Kapoor special character that can stand alone and act as not just the Indian version of Chaplin's tramp but as Raj Kapoor's tramp.