Lethargic IITian
Musings of a 20-something lethargic IITian on India and Catholicism.

Sunday, May 12, 2002  

Also from the TOI pages - an interview with Sushma Swaraj.

But why is 'mainstream' equated with Mumbai which produces only a third of the 800-plus films made in India every year? What about Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam or Bengali films?

On the contrary, 'art films' imply only cinema in the languages! I wouldn't call it regional cinema, we've a better description in the term 'Indian diversity'. This term embraces different languages, different audiences, different ethos. It's true that Hindi films have a much larger audience and a wider reach. But, to take one instance, Rama Naidu's films are all mainstream. So it'd be wrong to equate mainstream with Bollywood.

Of course, Ms Swaraj's reply has no relation whatsoever to the question (except for the last sentence). The question was why mainstream cinema meant Bollywood alone (and not regional commercial films). Ms Swaraj's reply seems to indicate that art films are considered equivalent to regional films! (And what's wrong with the term regional cinema? Indian diversity cannot even vaguely be used as a substitute!)

Except for the occasional Mani Rathnam movie and Kandukondein Kandukondein, mainstream cinema has largely meant Bollywood in India. Even a look at the National Awards indicate a bias towards Bollywood. How else could one explain Amitabh Bachan's award for Agnipath in the face of Thilakan's masterful performance in Peruntachan? Or Anil Kapoor's award for Pukar?

posted by Kensy | 12:43 PM
Comments: Post a Comment
past blogs of interest
Hinduism as a religion
Pederasty and the American Church
Caste in Indian Christianity
Syro-Malabar engagements
Syro-Malabar weddings
Divine Retreat Centre
Varsha Bhosle and Ideological Relativism
Anti-Conversion Ordinance and the Church stance
Self-Righteous Rightism
The Hindutva Attack on St. Francis Xavier
Varsha Bhosle and the Church (U-turn)
Mail me! (replace the [AT] with an @)