Introduction to the Hindi Cinema Homage
“Bombay Talkies” begins with a young man declaring to his father that he is a homosexual, and not a eunuch that his father has envisioned him being. After such an intense coming-out scene, it becomes clear that the 2013 anthology production sets out to be different from most Bollywood projects. “Bombay Talkies” is a celebration of the Indian cinema centenary, claiming to be an overview of Bombay film history. The anthology includes four short films, but the focus of this essay is going to be the piece directed by Karan Johar, who comes from Chopra-Johar family clan, a dynasty of actors, directors, and film producers. Johar established himself as a commercial Bollywood personality, his stardom helping to publicize “Bombay Talkies.” Meheli Sen criticized the movie for ‘misplaced narcissism’ and I agree with her. Other authors, including Ravi Vasudevan and Manishita Dass, partially agreed with Sen regarding the disregard of Indian movie history. The movie was originally promoted as an homage to the Hindi film industry but ended up being a distinct representation of commercialized mass production associated with Bollywood.
Sentimental Look on Homosexuality by Karan Johar
The short movie directed by Johar begins the anthology but does so in a controversial manner. Traditional Bombay films explored the concepts of social identity and individual liberation. The combination of poor editing choices and overacting make Johar’s segment appear disorganized and shallow. The short movie often takes itself too seriously and relies on linear storytelling instead of experimenting with the form like the 1950s classics. Lingering and dissolved shots mixed with an abundance of abrupt cuts make the piece unfinished. The content presented is overly dramatic and unrealistic, which belittles the struggles of gay men. The main character deliberately pursuing his colleague’s husband proves to be a poor representation of the community as a whole. Physical abuse demonstrated in the film is concealed under the mask of ‘coming-out struggles’ of Gayatri’s husband. Johar makes a plot device out of the scene, where Dev beats up Avinash at his apartment, instead of exploring the mental and emotional consequences of such toxicity.
Even though Bombay’s pictures of the 1950s were sometimes excessively sentimental and over-emotive, Johar fails to recognize the broader mission of traditional Hindi films. They played a crucial role in exploring the anxieties and aspirations of the masses, becoming an effective weapon for social change and national liberation (Dass). “Bombay Talkies” lacks any thematic unity between the short films taking away the enjoyment the audience is seeking from the celebration of the Indian cinema.
The Issue of Excluding Parts of the Hindi Cinema History
“Bombay Talkies” proves to be a quite stereotypical tribute to Hindi film history. Meheli Sen argues that the film is not an official homage as it is produced by a corporate entity and therefore lacks government involvement to make it more authentic and historically accurate. The industry chooses “to celebrate and memorialize its past” but fails to include essential parts of the Indian cinema history such as silent films and regional cinemas (Sen 77). The film manages to disregard the narratives of the past and remain “an exercise of willful forgetting” (Sen 79). While being innovative in its location choices and the deliberate absence of orchestrated dance and music sequences (with the exclusion of a little girl singing “Ajeeb Dastan Hain Ye” in Johar’s film), “Bombay Talkies” remains a celebration of a commercial industry, rather than an authentic art form.
The New Era of Brand Value in Bollywood
Apart from failing to demonstrate the role Hindi cinema plays in the life of India, “Bombay Talkies” erases the long history of contests between commercial and independent cinemas. The film combines ‘indie’ directors such as Anurag Kashyap and Dibakar Banerjee, who like experimenting with film language and strategies, with Zoya Akhtar and Karan Johar, who are keen on creating mainstream products (Sen 78). The latter pair tries to engage audiences with modern issues (cross-dressing, homosexuality) and musings on identity discovery. Johar opens his film with Avinash bursting into his home to declare his homosexuality, while Akhtar includes scenes of Vicky dressing up as Sheila and being caught by his parents. Both directors utilize current social problems without modern execution, which makes their short films lack substance.
Despite the criticism, “Bombay Talkies” is not overly reliant on celebrity actors like many other Bollywood productions. The film, however, is an example of a new marketing strategy used by movie companies. Popular filmmakers add brand value to the work and publicize it capitalizing on their own fame (Sen 79). “Bombay Talkies” became another commercialized project that decided to use the veil of ‘celebration’ and ‘homage’ to attract larger audiences easily.
The Complexity of Melodramas
Melodramas’ stylistic features and over-emotive narratives are associated with realism. Sentimentality and naive plot mechanics disregard the authentic, innovative experiments Hindi directors of the past century have been known for (Sen). Ravi Vasudevan, on the other hand, presents a new perspective by stating that “along with stereotypical, morally bipolar characters, melodramatic narratives have been known to deploy narration through awareness” (114). Whatever the degree of fabrication, melodramas manage to keep integral aspects of real life with its struggles, chaos, and constant movement. Vasudevan, however, agrees with Sen on the importance of addressing pressing issues in the Bombay cinema. Modern Bollywood movies seem to attract the masses by sacrificing authenticity and quality. Kohar and Akhtar are an example of using coming-of-age themes as a plot device rather than exploring identity in a social setting like old Hindi pictures.
Social Realism in the Bombay Cinema
Bombay Cinema of the 1950s was realistic in terms of the social settings that characters inhabited. The city street became an effective instrument for exploring the lives of displaced people (Dass). Manishita Dass emphasizes that Bombay films of the past included a key element of an ‘unintended city,’ which would have been nice to see in “Bombay Talkies.” Instead of a linear narrative focused only on the main characters, the short film could have included the city landscapes of Bombay through the eyes of a little beggar girl. The absence of family dynamics (except the opening scene and one flashback) in the segment does not represent the symbolic value a family has in a character’s life in any early Bombay classic. Static features of the Bombay cinema of the 1950s were naive and simple. Still, they exceeded the expectations of audiences when it came to their ability to portray realistic and relatable characters and locations. “Bombay Talkies,” on the other hand, tries to appeal to everyone losing its social substance along the way.
Conclusion
“Bombay Talkies” is an attempt to remember Hindi cinematic history and celebrate the centenary of its existence. Lacking state involvement and appropriate research, the movie appears to be representative of the industry’s present rather than the past. The film chooses to erase parts of Hindi cinema history as well as exclude the essential elements of Bombay classics. The segment directed by Karan Johar presents a melodramatic narrative that includes naive plot devices, overacting, and stereotypical portrayal of closeted gay men. It seems overly reliant on the themes of homosexuality and music to enhance the story but fails to reintroduce audiences to social filmmaking that characterized the Indian film industry in the middle of the twentieth century. “Bombay Talkies” is an example of the unnecessary narcissism of film executives focusing exclusively on the commercial side of Bollywood. The film could celebrate the centenary of Hindi cinema by putting an end to Bollywood-style exaggerated storylines and introducing a fresh perspective of the film progression over the years of Indian cinema history.
References
Dass, Manishita. “Cinetopia: Leftist Street Theatre and the Musical Production of the Metropolis in 1950s Bombay Cinema.” Positions, vol. 25, no. 1, 2017, pp. 101-124. doi: 10.1215/10679847-3710353.
Sen, Meheli. “Bombay Talkies and the Indian Cinema Centenary.” South Asian Popular Culture, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 77-80, doi: 10.1080/14746689.2015.1026654.
Vasudevan, Ravi, editor. Making Meaning in Indian Cinema. Oxford UP, 2000.