“We used to begin with Saare Jahan se Accha, Hindustan Hamara and end with Vande Mataram… When the newspapers did not dare touch upon these subjects, it was only the Congress Radio which could defy the orders and tell the people what was happening, most crucially not to lose hope and keep up the struggle.”

– Usha Mehta

The movie ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, directed by Kannan Iyer and produced by Karan Johar, was released on Amazon Prime Video on March 21, 2024. This Sara Ali Khan-led movie is based on the life on Usha Mehta, a 20-year -old freedom fighter[1] who believed in Gandhi’s way of non-violence and peace and played a crucial role in re-igniting the ‘Quit India Movement’ in the year 1942 after the British government had arrested all the leaders of the Congress party and banned the party. The film carries a powerful message on the crucial role that both technology and communication plays, in bringing change. While in the film we see the power of such communication in positive change, a post truth world, especially in New India has lived through a decade of the denial of information, communication and the transmission of pervasive propaganda. That is why this powerful depiction, set in the Bombay of the early 1940s portrays the ingenuous use of recently introduced radio technology by these intrepid young freedom fighters and how their simple and courageous idea was tumultuously effective in communicating, and arousing, Indians from Kandahar to Kanyakumari.

The movie shows us the birth of an underground ‘Congress Radio’, also known as ‘Azad Radio’. The idea comes to Mehta and her two young colleagues and friends after they experience the violent crackdown on the Gowalia Tank Quit India Rally of April 8, 1942 and are concerned with the agitation dissipating with a leaderless population, worried and fearful after the crackdown.

The cost of the choice made by these three young persons, who jostle personal revolts within the family and risk their lives is matched by the raw courage that such a project demanded—radio was banned by the British government! The challenge in collecting funds for the almost unattainable project (the Rs 4,000 in gold is gifted by Usha Mehta’s ‘bua’ (aunt) when she observes her niece’s fledgling project floundering) and running it night after night at 8.30 p.m., often changing locations to avoid detection, is the stuff of your gripping, favourite thriller, except more haunting.

Historically, this radio station, ran for three months from August 27, 1942 through November 1942, before being shut down after a brutal and violent crackdown and the operators being arrested. Usha Mehta served five years rigorous imprisonment and on her release from the Yeravada prison found a passionate throng of 20,000 waiting to greet her!

This movie comes as a breath of fresh air in the current environment, where history is being continuously distorted, from manipulating facts and events to releasing propaganda movies, all undertaken with the single-minded objective—furthering the ideology of the present regime, that of the Hindutva right wing that has played a peripheral role, in India’s struggle for independence.

The movie serves then as a reminder, besides opening welcome channels of information for a generation less familiar to the enduring legacies and roles of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Maulana Azad and Jawaharlal Nehru, Ram Manohar Lohia among so many others, in obtaining freedom.

Gandhi, who has been target of most vicious attack by the ultra-right wing, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and its octopus like fraternal organisations is depicted as the mesmerising leader he was. Gandhi not only inspired millions like Mehta and her idealistic colleagues to join the battle for ‘Azaadi’ but also –often at deep personal cost—adopt the vows of abstinence (Brahmacharya!). The movie has poignant moments depicting this. Not just leaders, but ordinary Indians, from all walks of life, gave of their selves, from Dargahs to temples, Indians and their places of work and worship contributed to the cause, for freedom. ‘Karo or Maro’ was the sentiment that vibrated on India’s streets, in towns and farflung villages.

This article is not a typical film review in which we dissect or examine the performances by the actors, which include Sara Ali Khan, Sachin Khedekar, Emraan Hashmi, Anand Tiwari, Sparsh Shrivastava, Madhu Raj, and Abhay Verma. It is about the era and the message that the film brings us today.

Today, there is almost a sense of hopelessness, many of us silently watching (and bemoaning) the crass erosion of Constitutional values and fundamental freedoms. Deeply rooted values of co-existence, sharing, fraternity and tolerance are slowly being replaced by an ideologically imposed intolerance, religious fanaticism and majoritarianism. To ground this malevolent project begun in 1925 when the RSS was founded, the legacy of revered freedom fighters, such as Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru, is also being twisted and manipulated. To replace these icons, a manufactured, non-existent history is also being politically promoted. In this version of distorted history, Muslims, communists and socialists have no role or part in the freedom struggle of India. With ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, one gets to see and hear young freedom fighters, including Mehta, rise and live by Mahatma Gandhi’s slogan of ‘Do or die’ and see the unveiling of a revolution under the nose of a tyrannical government.

The plot:

The storyline of ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’ is rooted in a true life account of the Congress (Azad) Radio run by, among others Usha Mehta. Revolving around the courageous actions of Usha Mehta, which is played by Sara Ali Khan. Since the start of the movie, a minor Usha Mehta  is shown as someone who is willing to stand up against the oppressive acts of the Britishers. The same was depicted through a scene where Mehta is seen protecting her teacher, a supporter of Gandhi, from the state police’s brutal beatings when he is found sharing with the young, stories of Gandhi’s Dandi March, Salt Satyagraha (Surat, 1930).  The film then transitions to Mumbai in 1942, where Usha, now a masters student at Wilson College, can be seen enthusiastically participating in protests led by the Congress party, albeit without the knowledge of her father, a Judge under the British. Her benevolent aunt (bua) appears to silently observe the transition in Usha. After attending several meetings, eventually, Usha becomes a member of the Congress party.

Mehta’s resilience, grit, and valour is not limited to battling against the Britishers, but also family ties, especially her doting father. Usha’s father (played by Sachin Khedekar), a judge in British India, expresses disdain for those Indian fighting the rule of the Britishers, deeming Indians to be incapable of ruling a country. Mehta’s ideals are really challenged when her own father, a Winston Churchill fan, asks her to stay away from a Congress protest against Britishers. The few scenes of clash between the father-daughter, are poignant and beautifully scripted (Darab Faruqui is the dialogue and script writer) especially the lines when Usha says that her father’s love is a shackle and burden for her larger, more passionate goal, her country’s freedom. The poignant depiction of the personal cost of a larger political battle.

After the brutal crackdown on the August 6, Quit India Rally where the resounding cry of “Karo or Maro” (Do or Die) rent the air, all major leaders of the Congress are arrested and Indians are left rudderless. Mehta and her young colleagues observe the growing dissipation of the fervour among the people and after intense discussions, identify the cause. Spot on. Communication and binding of people to a common cause through such communication is what is missing. Radio had been recently introduced to the elite echelons in India and her Judge father listens to broadcasts from then prime minister, Great Britain, Winston Churchill on this contraption. Radio it has to be. But how? Usha Mehta and her friends have also observed a Parsi couple (the Engineers) using music on the radio for dance classes and thereafter persuade Firdaus Engineer (for a cost) to design the transmitter for their underground radio broadcast. Congress Radio is set for transmission.

So, it is after the arrest of leaders such as Gandhi and Azad, that Mehta and her companions – Kaushik (Abhay Verma) and Fahad (Sparsh Shrivastava) sets out to revive the dissipating, Quit India movement. The trio chooses the medium of radio to spread Gandhi’s message of non-violence and self-dependence as they recognise that the newspapers fall under the control of rulers and are only catering to the agenda of the ruling regime. It becomes important for them to get access to a medium that is independent, out of control of an oppressive regime. Armed with Engineer’s (played by Anand Tiwari) designed transmitter, Usha establishes an underground radio station, for vibrant, everyday method of mass communication.

Soon enough, the underground radio starts connecting those who had gone underground and receives support from the likes of Ram Manohar Lohia (played by Emraan Hashmi). As the radio starts gaining audience and momentum, with Lohia’s speeches also being transmitted, the British intensify a high-stakes game of cat and mouse to ‘destroy’ the Congress Radio and discover those behind this radio show. John Lyre (played by Alexx O’Nell), portrayed as the antagonist, is tasked with apprehending Usha and shutting down the radio station.

The content transmitted on Congress Radio?

“Recorded speeches” of the Congress leadership, other broadcast messages linked to freedom, secularism, and internationalism. Congress Radio regularly spoke up on the atrocities committed by British soldiers and administrators. In one broadcast, the broadcast addressed the topic of mass rapes by British soldiers, calling them the “most bestial thing that one could imagine” and asking for citizens to stand up to rape; other broadcasts discussed the plights of one woman raped in a police van and another who had been carrying food to political prisoners before being sexually assaulted, both in the Central Provinces. Another broadcast touted the values of secularism and spoke about the need for unity between the Hindu and Muslim communities.[2] The station also carried messages to workers and peasants, Indian soldiers, and students, directing their participation in the Quit India Movement. The station also took the message of the Indian movement beyond the country and preached internationalism.

Crucial for us to remember that independent radios had been banned by the Britishers during World War II. The film then shows Mehta taking multiple risks to keep the Congress Radio running. Towards the end, when it is certain that the Britishers will be able to locate the radio and arrest those running it, Mehta makes a conscious choice to still run the radio and its final telecast. For her, getting Lohia’s message to the Indian people for a mass uprising and acts of civil disobedience was more important than her own life and liberty. By the last minute of the transmission, when Lohia’s message and call is finally delivered, it has an electrifying impact, Countrywide attacks and protests against offices of the British empire are unleashed. Mehta gets discovered and is arrested. Even facing arrest, she does not let the British officers stop the song ‘Vande Mataram’ from playing on her radio. Enduring violence and assault while she is arrested, slogans of ‘Bharat chhodo’ and ‘Karo ya Maro’ never leave her lips. Usha Mehta does not divulge the whereabouts of Ram Manohar Lohia to her oppressors.

Behind great leaders and movements are the footsoldiers, creative and courageous as Usha Mehta and her real life colleagues, Vithalbhai Jhaveri, Vithaldas Khakar, Chandrakant Jhaveri and Babubhai Thakkar.

Takeaways from this movie:

While watching this movie, one cannot stop ourselves from drawing certain parallels to the current political scenario of India. To watch a group of young people challenge the oppressive British regime, which had supressed all “mainstream media”, by countering the misinformation and false narrative being spread amongst the citizens, the very act of conception and running of Congress Radio was and is a emancipatory act. It is acts such as these, courageous and many that a mass revolutionary movement make. The film brings alive to us today, the harsh realities that India and Indians lived through in their fight for Independence and democracy. The simple objective that Mehta and her companions had was to motivate Indians to unite in their contribution to the freedom struggle. To act and raise their voices against atrocities by the British.

Alongside the themes of expansive and inclusive nationalism, other messages resonate. At a point when young Fahad praises Ram Manohar Lohia, a founder of the Congress Socialist Party, to the point of idolatory,  Mehta calls him out for indulging in ‘andh bhakti’. She also cites Lohia’s own example of criticising Jawaharlal Nehru even while he looks up to him by stating “He (Lohia) idolises Nehru but wouldn’t hesitate to criticise him if the need arises”. The film consistently promotes the message of questioning everything and everyone, especially those that we hold in high regard.

This movie also reminds us of the importance and power of dissent. Today, the right to express dissenting opinions has come under increasing pressure due to governmental reactions to criticism, non-violent activities and opposition. In addition to direct suppression by the state, a concerning trend has arisen whereby individuals and groups may choose to self-censor rather than risk the consequences of speaking out. The movie also shows the importance of unifying strength and solidarity to fight against oppressive forces.

The main task that faced the Congress Party, including Mehta and Lohia, was to bring people together in uncertain times and re-ignite their trust into the freedom struggle and the Congress Party. Mehta and her colleagues’ broadcasts through the ‘Congress Radio’ helped boost the morale of the Indian populace and freedom fighters by informing them about the movement’s progress and encouraging continued resistance against British rule.

Mehta realised that it was only when resistance resonated in unison and mass participation of people transcending boundaries of class, caste, and creed, took place, could the pursuit of freedom be realised. The freedom of India was a result of collective rebellion.

One particular scene from the movie, where Fahad explains his reason for joining the Congress Party after having left the Muslim League is enduring. In that scene, Fahad, who suffers from polio, reveals that he does not resonate with the objective of the Muslim league anymore (he was once a member) as his goal is independence of India and not the division of India into two parts. Today, when certain people claim to selectively blame sections and communities, they do so out of ignorance, even malice. People of all traditions, faiths Adivasis, Dalits and farmers gave their life for the struggle for India’s independence. Today there are also consistent attempts to erase the role that Muslims and Muslim leaders played in attaining India’s independence. With its unbiased depiction of the times of Gandhi and the Indian freedom struggle, this movie sets the record straight.

Usha Mehta’s underground radio remains a poignant reminder of the struggle for Indian independence, highlighting the innovative methods adopted by freedom fighters to challenge colonial rule and inspire their fellow citizens. Mehta, an ‘unsung hero’ remains a beacon of hope for Indians struggling against colonial oppression, and her legacy lives on as a reminder of the power of courage, determination, and dedication. Her life story provides an inspiration to all who are, even today, fight for justice and freedom in the face of adversity.

By bringing in this precious vignette of a long drawn out struggle for freedom from colonial yoke, that too through such a powerful narrative, this film very tells us of myriad roles (here it is the three-month long transmission of Congress Radio) that make change happen. Behind the actions (and successes) of towering leaders are actions of hundreds of thousands of unsung heroes.

Towards the end of the movie, there is a message that is particularly poignant: One doesn’t fight a tyrant to win; one fights them because they are tyrants.

As Mehta says in the film, not every fight will result in victory, but that should not stop one from fighting the (right) fight.

(This piece was written by Tanya Arora and then contributed to by the Sabrangindia Team)

[1] Usha Mehta was actually 22 years old when she ran this operation with her colleagues

[2] http://www.wr6wr.com/newSite/articles/features/mahatmashams.html, The Mahatma’s Hams

Related:

Films building up  a majoritarian narrative: Swatantraveer Savarkar

“Ae Watan Mere Watan” – A Brief Introduction to the film by Yogendra Yadav

Déjà vu, a film that depicts the chilling effects of corporate-contract farming, resonates with Indian farmer’s protests

Farmers protest: Documentary ‘Kisan Satyagraha’ barred from Bengaluru film fest

The post Congress Radio, the power of revolutionary change: Lessons from ‘Ae Watan Mere Watan’, the film appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Kashmir Files , a communally polarising movie, has made a lot of money since it was released, breaking records of sorts, as a lot of people paid to see it in cinema halls across the country.

Many rich people bought hundreds of tickets each, so many more could see the film for free. There were calls to make it tax free across the country. The film was mentioned by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Parliament, and continues to be promoted by other politicians and the cash registers have not stopped ringing for the filmmakers. It is not yet known if they have donated a portion of these massive profits to help rehabilitate the displaced Kashmiri Pandits back in the Valley, as the film’s story is based on the exodus of the community from their homes following militant attacks.

However, there is another lesser known impact of The Kashmir Files. It seems to have inspired a series of wannabe films, which have also hit the market. These films however, do not have any political patronage so far, and therefore, have not had the hype to help them market their hate agendas. Unlike The Kashmir Files, these films have a cast and crew who are unknown so far, and need all the help from right-wing social media influencers to promote themselves along with the film.  

The latest release is a titled The Conversion which  is made on the bogey of Love Jihad, a concept the right-wing has created to criminalise and attack marriages and relationships between Muslim men and Hindu women. The makers of this film are now using the tagline that it is “Dedicated to India’s Daughters”.

Video clips are now being released on social media to promote it, and encourage young girls to see it. This itself is a hate campaign that is using children to promote communal hate towards Muslims. The film is being promoted using hashtags #SaveOurDaughters #TheConversion, with videos of young children asking people to go see it.

Tomorrow releasing this movie the conversion please support this movie? ? loveJihad #saveourdaughter pic.twitter.com/Sg7mwdrfwN

— Gotlathirupathigotlayadav (@Gotlathirupathi) May 5, 2022

There are also videos doing the rounds of WhatsApp, where a woman is trying to convince young students to ask their teachers and parents to make arrangements for them to see the film, saying, “This film is for girls.” The video is marked BJYM, that stands for Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha. The woman says it is important to see the film as it talks about the “crime of Love Jihad” and how “girls as little as 6 months, 10 year etc…. Are being made victims of Love Jihad.” The woman volunteers to make arrangements if the girl’s parents cannot afford to take them for the film which was released in theatres across the country on May 6.

The Conversion is set in Varanasi, and its cast includes Vindhya Tiwari, Prateek Shukla and Ravi Bhatia. It has been directed  by Vinod Tiwari, written by Vandana Tiwari, and produced by Raj Patel, Raj Nostrum, Vipul Patel. The screenplay and dialogues are by Rakesh Tripathi. It is not known if all the Tiwaris mentioned in the credit rolls are related.  

They have of course been busy, some since 2021, to promote the film on various right-wing platforms, and are giving interviews to various right-wing social media ‘influencers’.

According to a review by Times of India, the film only deserves two stars. Though looking at the trailer it is apparent to any movie viewer that it is two stars too many. Though the lead does try very hard to act, and even the better performers are sunk by the bad cliches that make up for dialogues in the movie which starts with Sakshi and Babloo college students who fall in love. Babloo is Muslim and yet Sakshi decides to marry him. 

As the trailer shows, there is violence etc., but the ‘performances’ made the drama seem more like an ridiculous comedic attempt at acting. “This film with its below-par production values and average performances, turns out to be a dreary affair,” reviewed TOI.

The film’s mood seems set in the 80s and 90s and is as stale as leftover bread from the era. Sakshi played by Vindhya Tiwari and Babloo played by Prateek Shukla, seem as interesting as last month’s film magazine. Even veteran actors like Manoj Joshi and Amit Behl cannot help keep it afloat due to the cliched dialogues they have to mouth and the direction which perhaps should not be called that.

However, what is dangerous is not how boring the film is likely to be, it is the fact that the filmmakers are hoping to find the same political favour like the makers of The Kashmir Files. It is aimed at pleasing, and earning rewards, from the so called ‘Hindutva nationalist’ crowds which have proven how cinema halls are now added to their venues of spreading hate. 

Related:

Hate meme touting questionable statistics – worrying or laughable?
Sheath the swords, while there is still time!
This is what we feared: Sanjay Tickoo on the rising attacks in Kashmir since March
Hate Watch: ‘Swami’ Sanjay Prabhakaranand twists patriotic song into hate noise 
Pandits are being used by people, some of whom look down upon Kashmiris: Kashmiri IAS officer
Kejriwal’s scathing speech against BJP promoting The Kashmir Files
Kashmir Files hate project: Radicalising people, one show at a time?
Kashmiri Pandit organisation files curative petition in SC

The post Poisoning young minds, one film at a time appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Deepika’s presence at JNU’s protest meet came as a pleasant surprise for scores of students and other people protesting the violence unleashed by right-wing masked goons on unarmed students and teachers.

Reportedly, Deepika was present in Delhi for promotional events for her upcoming movie titled “Chhapaak” which is based on the life of an acid attack survivor. She went to JNU to stand in solidarity with the students who were attacked. She did not make a public speech, however she hugged Aishe Ghosh, the JNUSU president who suffered injuries in the attack and said that she was proud of her and asked her to “take care”.

She is known to have told India Today TV earlier, on JNU violence specifically, “I feel angry that this is happening. But, at the same time, the fact that action is not being taken, this is something to think about.”

Her brief visit at the protest meet started some trends on Twitter that seemingly threaten the commercial returns of her upcoming movie. Hashtags like #BoycottChhapaak started trending on twitter and continues to remain the top 5 trends today. Clearly, Bollywood actors refrain from commenting on socio-political issues as it could affect the commercial returns of their films but Deepika was lauded by many for having the courage unlike her “superstar” counterparts.

After her visit criticism started coming in for her and her movie:

https://twitter.com/mvmeet/status/1214820570539282432

Deepika Padukone made a film based on a social issue!

Now to gain publicity and to please Bollywood bigwigs
she is supporting anti nationals!

Out of 789 universities and hundreds of issue to be addressed in India,
she chose JNU!

Hypocrisy at its best#boycottchhapaak

— Mahesh Vikram Hegde (@mvmeet) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/vishnuguptuvach/status/1214803306306048001

In reality, the scum who threw acid on Laxmi Agarwal was Nadeem Khan, a peaceful guy who was only following his faith.

In the movie, miraculously, his name is “Rajesh”

Deliberately maligning Hindus for 70yrs.
THAT’S the profession of Dawood funded Bollywood.#boycottchhapaak

— Vishnugupt उवाचः (@vishnuguptuvach) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/PanditJiVishal1/status/1214818115990589440

Who is Nationalist??
Whom do you support??
Choice is yours . #boycottchhapaak @iSinghApurva Di pic.twitter.com/SVtU8bd2Es

— Vishal Pati BJYM (@PanditJiVishal1) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/iamNIK8544/status/1214834131344846849

#boycottchhapaak@meghnagulzar showed Pakistani characters as most innocent creatures in #Raazi.
Nw @deepikapadukone is standing wit #TukdeTukdeGang.
If u ve guts then ask people to not watch ur movie.
Why to earn crores from Indians who r against ur stand?

— iamNik (@iamNIK8544) January 8, 2020

on the other hand, she also received a lot of support

https://twitter.com/ShekharGupta/status/1214820895052533760

It is simplistic to dismiss Deepika Padukone’s support at JNU as ‘movie promotion.’ She’s a mega star & knows the risks of boycotts/demonisation. Which is what the mighty Khans faced & retreated. Or why the great AB won’t speak. The fact is that Deepika simply has more courage

— Shekhar Gupta (@ShekharGupta) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/sonakshisinha/status/1214829725262106624

It is simplistic to dismiss Deepika Padukone’s support at JNU as ‘movie promotion.’ She’s a mega star & knows the risks of boycotts/demonisation. Which is what the mighty Khans faced & retreated. Or why the great AB won’t speak. The fact is that Deepika simply has more courage

— Shekhar Gupta (@ShekharGupta) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/DeShobhaa/status/1214836583490129920

What a huge compliment!!!! Congrats @deepikapadukone . The BJP has decided to ” boycott ” you! Take a bow! Bigger than any Film Award. The ultimate tribute! Fight on #JNUSTUDENTS. You have supporters across India and the world.

— Shobhaa De (@DeShobhaa) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1214827832104255488

DMK MP Kanimozhi on a social media campaign to boycott Deepika Padukone’s movie after she joined students at Jawaharlal Nehru University,during protest over #JNUViolence y’day: I don’t watch many hindi movies, they’re actually making people like me go&watch her movies&support her https://t.co/vlHJt42Idq pic.twitter.com/liqf2TGCs1

— ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/SethShruti/status/1214635570187702273

You’re a ROCKSTAR @deepikapadukone https://t.co/iFdBofCZ94

— Shruti Seth (@SethShruti) January 7, 2020

When public figures like her, make appearances at such events, even if it is just to stand in solidarity with students who have been mindlessly inflicted with violence for expressing dissent, it has a huge impact on the gravity of the protest and takes the dissent forward.

Related:

JNU‘s fee hike fight an eyesore for the admin and Govt.?
Bollywood’s clarion call against the CAA and police brutality on students
Bollywood appeals against police excesses in UP
Terror has been repeatedly unleashed on JNU, lest we forget the disappearance of young Najeeb, and several times before
Eerie calm at JNU, women students leave hostel
MP Elamaran Kareem urges President to probe JNU violence
JNU alumni calls for solidarity march to condemn January 5 attack

The post Deepika goes for JNU protest meet; bhakts furious, call for her film’s boycott appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: IMDb

A First World War veteran begins life as a postman in Kuttanad, a small village by the backwaters of Kerala. The Second War is about to begin. Young men from the village, like others across the country, are enlisting in the colonial army. Many have already joined and gone to their postings. He paddles around in his little boat delivering money orders sent by the soldiers to their poor tenant-farmer families. For those who live by the whims of rich landlords, the money is a godsend and the postman a good omen. Maimed from the war and supporting himself on a crutch, gently dismissing the blessings gushed on him, he is the only person who has actually lived through a war. Small children talk excitedly of killing unknown enemies, the young are desperate to compensate their families’ meagre finances, the old are just grateful to not be entirely at the mercy of landowners and the weather. The postman watches all this worriedly.

Director Jayaraj’s Malayalam film Bhayanakam fills a gap in the grand chronicles about the Second World War that are painfully incomplete – the histories of those who fought, served and died at the behest of their colonisers, unthanked and largely forgotten. Similar omissions occur of the role that African-American men and women played in the War. In her article, “African-American GIs of WWII: Fighting for Democracy abroad and at Home,” Maria Höhn writes: “Until the 21st century, the contributions of African-American soldiers in World War II barely registered in America’s collective memory of that war. The ‘tan soldiers,’ as the black press affectionately called them, were also for the most part left out of the triumphant narrative of America’s ‘Greatest Generation’.”

Films like Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk use visually stunning cinematography to peddle a false narrative about the “plucky little country defying the massed ranks of fascists and Nazis”. As a review of Yasmin Khan’s book The Raj at War highlights: “The British always liked to believe they stood alone in 1940 … Britain did not fight the Second World War, the British Empire did.” That this empire’s colonies were a steady supply source of impoverished men fighting for a living is conveniently left out from big-budget Hollywood takes on the War. What could Europe and America’s war have possibly meant to those soldiers? What could “fighting for freedom” mean to those living under the multiple oppressions of colonialism, caste and race? Dunkirk ended with an archival recording of Churchill’s speech in Parliament (that alone is a sign of its exclusionary politics): A British hero, Bengal’s oppressor and a racist. A man responsible for the Bengal Famine (1943) that killed close to four million, because food grains were diverted to British soldiers instead — genocide.

Telling a fragment of this history, through the people of a small village in British India, Jayaraj brings together the consequences of war and the stories of the colonised. As the film proceeds, the money orders dwindle and the death notices increase. The goodwill that the superstitious villagers had towards him turn to fear and loathing. To them, he is a grim reaper— a sign of death in the family. They flee his presence, curse him, even beat him, seeing in him a corporal cause for their confusion, grief, rage and terrible loss, rather than the distant war they don’t understand. Their son is dead; so says a brusque telegram they can’t read, on which a name and the word “expired” are printed. He must read it to them. It’s his voice delivering an irreversible truth, if he didn’t speak those words, their son would still be alive. But the postman must do his job, so he plods on, grieving each death with them.

Image Courtesy: IMDb

The sweeping rain and the lush landscape of Kerala’s gorgeous backwaters, bleed colour as the death notices pile up, until everything is dull and lifeless. Renji Panicker who plays the postman is at first soft-spoken and mild, but becomes increasingly broken and tormented. Asha Sharath’s character rents him a room in her small house. She has both sons in the army. She saves up all the money they send her, hoping that they will be comfortably off when they return. She and the postman grow to care for each other and she confides her fear of their deaths in him. Each day, he in turn fears that a fresh batch of letters would also mean informing someone he loves, that she has lost her sons. Sick with anxiety, he becomes trapped in his own world of past trauma from the war, nightmares and a terror of the death notices that arrive with almost daily frequency.

Bhayanakam is the sixth film in Jayaraj’s “Navarasa” series. This film, as its title suggests, centres on fear. The previous films from the series are Karunam, Shantam and Bheebhats (made in Hindi), Adbhutham and Veeram. He hopes to finish the series with films on the remaining rasas – sringaram, roudram and hasyam. The story is adapted from two chapters of Malayalam novelist, Thakazhi Sivasankara Pillai’s book, Kayar. The novelist carried the place of his birth in his name. As a nod to the film’s resource material, when the postman is asked where he’s from, he replies that he’s from Thakazhi. Bhayanakam has won the National Film Awards for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, the Vijay Award for Best Music Director and the Kerala State Film Award for Best Processing Lab/Colourist. It was screened recently at the India International Centre, New Delhi as part of the Malayalam Film Festival (03-06 July) curated by film editor and artistic director of International Film Festival of Kerala, Bina Paul.

Image Courtesy: IMDb

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Bhayanakam: Unfortunate Sons appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The film centres on its maker, Aube Giroux, who resides in Nova Scotia, Canada. Her interest in food and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was inspired by her mother, Jali, who also appears throughout. Aube says that when her parents bought their first house her mother immediately got rid of the lawn and planted a huge garden where she grew all kinds of heirloom vegetables, berries, flowers, legumes and garlic.

“She wanted me and my sister to grow up knowing the story behind the food that we ate, so our backyard was basically our grocery store,” says Aube.

During the film, we are treated not only to various outdoor scenes of the Giroux’s food garden (their ‘grocery store’) but also to Aube and her mother’s passion for preparing homemade culinary delights. The ‘backyard’ is the grocery store and much of Giroux family life revolves around the kitchen and the joy of healthy, nutritious food.

When GMOs first began appearing in food, Aube says that what bothered her mother was that some of the world’s largest chemical companies were patenting these new genetically engineered seeds and controlling the seed market.

In the film, Aube explains, “Farmers who grow GMOs have to sign technology license agreements promising never to save or replant the patented seeds. My mom didn’t think it was a good idea to allow corporations to engineer and then patent the seeds that we rely on for food. She believed that seeds belong in the hands of people.”

As the GMO issue became prominent, Aube became more interested in the subject. It took her 10 years to complete the film, which is about her personal journey of discovery into the world of GMOs. The film depicts a world that is familiar to many of us; a place where agritech industry science and money talk, politicians and officials are all too eager to listen and the public interest becomes a secondary concern.

In 2001, Canada’s top scientific body, The Royal Society, released a scathing report that found major problems with the way GMOs were being regulated. The report made 53 recommendations to the government for fixing the regulatory system and bringing it in line with peer reviewed science and the precautionary principle, which says new technologies should not be approved when there is uncertainty about their long-term safety. To date, only three of these recommendations have been implemented.

Throughout the film, we see Aube making numerous phone calls, unsuccessfully trying to arrange an interview to discuss these issues with Health Canada, the department of the government of Canada that is responsible for national public health.

Meanwhile, various people are interviewed as the story unfolds. We are told about the subverting of regulatory agencies in the US when GMOs first appeared on the scene in the early 1990s: the Food and Drug Administration ignored the warnings of its own scientists, while Monsanto flexed its political muscle to compromise the agency by manoeuvring its own people into positions of influence.

One respondent says, “We’ve had a number of people from Monsanto, many from Dupont, who have actually been in top positions at the USDA and the FDA over the last 20 years, making darn sure that when those agencies did come out with any pseudo-regulation, that it was what these industries wanted. The industry will often say these are the most regulated crops in history… I’m not an expert on the law in many other countries. But I am an expert on the laws in the United States and I can tell you… they are virtually unregulated.”

Aube takes time to find out about genetic engineering and talks to molecular biologists. She is shown how the process of genetic modification in the lab works. One scientist says, “In genetics, we have a phrase called pleiotropic effects. It means that there are other effects in the plant that are unintended but are a consequence of what you’ve done. I wouldn’t be surprised if something came up somewhere along the line that we hadn’t anticipated that’s going to be a problem.”

And that’s very revealing: if you are altering the genetic core of the national (and global) food supply in a way that would not have occurred without human intervention, you had better be pretty sure about the consequences. Many illnesses can take decades to show up in a population.

This is one reason why Aube Giroux focuses on the need for the mandatory labelling of GM food in Canada. Some 64 countries have already implemented such a policy and most Canadians want GM food to be labelled too. However, across North America labelling has been fiercely resisted by the industry. As the film highlights, it’s an industry that has key politicians in its back pocket and has spent millions resisting effective labelling.

In the film, we hear from someone from the agri/biotech industry say that labelling would send out the wrong message; it would amount to fearmongering; it would confuse the public; it would raise food prices; and you can eat organic if you don’t want GMOs. To those involved in the GMO debate and the food movement, these industry talking points are all too familiar.

Signalling the presence of GMOs in food through labelling is about the public’s right to know what they are eating. But the film makes clear there are other reasons for labelling too. To ensure that these products are environmentally safe and safe for human health, you need to monitor them in the marketplace. If you have new allergic responses emerging is it a consequence of GMOs? There’s no way of telling if there is no labelling. Moreover, the industry knows many would not purchase GM food if people were given any choice on the matter. That’s why it has spent so much money and invested so much effort to prevent it.

During the film, we also hear from an Iowa farmer, who says GM is all about patented seeds and money. He says there’s incredible wealth and power to be had from gaining ownership of the plants that feed humanity. And it has become a sorry tale for those at the sharp end: farmers are now on a financially lucrative (for industry) chemical-biotech treadmill as problems with the technology and its associated chemicals mount: industry rolls out even stronger chemicals and newer GM traits to overcome the failures of previous roll outs.

But to divert attention from the fact that GM has ‘failed to yield’ and deliver on industry promises, the film notes that the industry churns out rhetoric, appealing to emotion rather than fact, about saving the world and feeding the hungry to help legitimize the need for GM seeds and associated (health- and environment-damaging) chemical inputs.

In an interview posted on the film’s website, Aube says that genetic engineering is an important technology but “should only take place if the benefits truly outweigh the risks, if rigorous adequate regulatory systems are in place and if full transparency, full disclosure and the precautionary principle are the pillars on which our food policies are based.”

Health Canada has always claimed to have had a science-based GMO regulatory system. But the Royal Society’s report showed that GMO approvals are based on industry studies that have little scientific merit since they aren’t peer reviewed.

For all her attempts, Aube failed to get an interview with Health Canada. Near the end of the film, we see her on the phone to the agency once again. She says, “Well I guess I find it extremely concerning and puzzling that Health Canada is not willing to speak with me… you guys are our public taxpayer funded agency in this country that regulates GMOs, and so you’re accountable to Canadians, and you have a responsibility to answer questions.”

Given this lack of response and the agency’s overall track record on GMOs, it is pertinent to ask just whose interests does Health Canada ultimately serve.

When Aube Giroux started this project, it was meant to be a film about food. But she notes that it gradually became a film about democracy: who gets to decide our food policies; is it the people we elect to represent us, or is it corporations and their heavily financed lobbyists?

Aube is a skilful filmmaker and storyteller. She draws the viewer into her life and introduces us to some inspiring characters, especially her mother, Jali, who passed away during the making of the film. Jali has a key part in the documentary, which had started out as a joint venture between Aube and her mother. By interweaving personal lives with broader political issues, Modified becomes a compelling documentary. On one level, it’s deeply personal. On another, it is deeply disturbing given what corporations are doing to food without our consent – and often – without our knowledge.

For those who watch the film, especially those coming to the issue for the first time, it should at the very least raise concerns about what is happening to food, why it is happening and what can be done about it. The film might be set in Canada, but the genetic engineering of our food supply by conglomerates with global reach transcends borders and affects us all.

Whether we reside in North America, Europe, India or elsewhere, the push in on to co-opt governments and subvert regulatory bodies by an industry which regards GM as a multi-billion cash cow  – regardless of the consequences.

Modified won the 2019 James Beard Foundation award for best documentary and is currently available on DVD at .modifiedthefilm.com/dvd. It is due to be released on digital streaming platforms this summer.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer. Join him on Twitter.

Countery: Counter Current

The post ‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of the Food Supply for Profit appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In his review of RS Rosenstone’s History on Film/Film on History, Professor James Chapman, University of Leicester, writes, “The historical film has been analysed for its mobilisation of the past for propaganda, for its role in the emergence of national cinemas, and for its contested place in ‘taste wars’ between the views of middle-brow critics on the one hand and the popular preferences of cinema audiences on the other. Another tradition, arising initially from France and subsequently taken up by US scholars in the 1990s, has focused less on context and more on the structural and ideological features of film.”

Sadly, there has been little historical research available on Indian cinema or film studies done on historical films. The rate of illiteracy and the degree of complete ignorance of the people who create a ruckus on the basis of fictionalised history on cinema, therefore, have no logical reason to vent their anger against this or that film just on the basis of the said film being a corruption of history and for casting a smear on historical characters that are said to have been rooted in their ethnic and cultural history. Yet, there has been no dearth of costume dramas filled with colour, glamour, chutzpah, and magical music within Indian cinema, which the filmmakers pass off as “historical films.”

Till date, there have been only a few honest attempts at creating the genre of historical films. That is, if we don’t take into account the kind of films that are steeped in controversy even before their release—with the media going completely crazy in an attempt to grab both eyeballs and space—much to the secret joy of the filmmaker concerned, who is then confident that his film will bring in the money, and more, within the first week of its release. Among the former are films like Pukar (1939), Sikdandar (1941), Prithivi Vallabh (1943), all of which have been made by Sohrab Modi, who had single-handedly created a new demand for historical films. All these films were box office hits. But the same director’s Jhansi Ki Rani (1952) turned out to be a dismal failure, though it was officially the first Technicolor film to be shot in India. Historical films or romantic fantasies—dripping with glamour, grand sets, costumes, and song and dance—have been a special genre in Indian mainstream cinema.

The history of the “historical” film, or the romantic stories draped in, so-called history (or pegged to mythical stories woven around history), began much earlier. Before sound stepped into cinema, Mughal historical films like Kalyan Khajina (1924), or heroic tales from Rajasthan about Rani Padmini called Sati Padmini (1924), were hits not only in India but also in England. This was evidenced by the fact that Sati Padmini won a certificate at the Wembley Exhibition the same year, as pointed out by Andrew Grant in his work on the historical genre in Bollywood cinema.

                                                                                                                                                    Abdur Rahman Chughtai’s paiting of Anarkali / Image Courtesy: Pinterest

The two most famous films based on the same historical romance between Salim (who would later go by the name of Jehangir) and Anarkali, namely Anarkali (1953) and Mughal-e-Azam (1960), are considered fictions because Anarkali was a fictional character and did not exist. Noted art historian R Nath has argued that Jehangir had no wife called Anarkali for whom he would have built a tomb. There is no evidence that Prince Salim ever fell in love with a courtesan, and there is no reference to her in Salim’s autobiography. Regardless of whether Anarkali is purely fictional or based on historical fact, her legend has continued to mesmerise the people of South Asia for ages. She has caught the eye of nearly every big name in the arts in South Asia for the past 100 years. Anarkali and Mughal-e-Azam were major hits in both Pakistan and India. Playwright Syed Imitaz Ali Taj’s version for the stage is considered a masterpiece. Abdur Rehman Chughtai’s depiction of Anarkali—incidentally, this was also used as cover art for Taj’s play—is one of the most famous paintings of the courtesan. But, according to historians and historical fact, she did not exist, ever.

Filmmaker Ketan Mehta did not think twice before putting in entirely fictionalised love stories in his film Mangal Pandey: The Rising (2005).  Mangal Pandey, the eponymous protagonist of the movie, was a Sepoy in a regiment of the British East India Company. His actions helped spark the Indian rebellion of 1857. But the two romantic sub plots—the first is between the British Commanding Officer William Gordon and Jwala, a teenaged widow he saves from being burnt as Sati; the second is the romance between Mangal Pandey and Hira, whom he marries before being executed— were pure fiction. The film made decent business but faced controversy. The Bharatiya Janata Party demanded a ban on the film, accusing it of showing falsehood and of “character assassination” of Mangal Pandey. Samajwadi Party leader Uday Pratap Singh called on the Rajya Sabha to ban the film for its “inaccurate portrayal” of Pandey. Protestors in Ballia district, where Pandey had lived, damaged a shop selling cassettes and CDs of the film, stalled a goods train on its way to Chapra (Bihar), and staged a sit-in on the Ballia-Barriya highway. But the film continued to run and made reasonable business.

Santosh Sivan’s Asoka (2001) flopped because, halfway through, Shahrukh Khan (who was playing Samrat Asoka) seemed to forget that he was playing a king and went back to being Shahrukh Khan, mannerisms and all. Besides, all the characters (from the Mauryan Empire and Kalinga) spoke modern Hindi, as opposed to the ancient Prakrit dialects spoken in the 3rd century BC. The names of the historical figures in the film were also changed in accordance with modern Hindi. There is no historical evidence of a queen ruling Kalinga at the time of Asoka’s invasion. Plus, the whole Pawan/Kaurwaki episode was pure fantasy. Asked how much liberty he took with history, Sivan said, “We had to dramatise to show the magnitude of the change (in Asoka) and also to create an impact. We basically followed his life but we added characters and created dramatic moments.”  If that be so, why call it a historical film and not a feature film adapted from history?

A descendant of Peshwa Bajirao-I alleged that historical facts were “altered” while portraying the late king and his wives, Kashibai and Mastani, in Bajirao Mastaani.  A petition was filed stating that the song ‘Pinga’ is offensive to Marathi culture. A descendant of queen Kashibai Peshwa, who wished not to be named, claimed that Kashibai suffered from an arthritis-like ailment at a very young age and was bed-ridden for most of her life. She also suffered from asthma, and hence it was impossible that she danced with Mastani.

Bajirao Mastaani raises questions on whether historical romances are based on truth or are they a form of romanticising history. The commercial risks are underscored by their box office success. The question is not so much about the commercial success or failure of historical romances but more about the extent to which such films, one, reflect the historical conditions and contexts of these romances; two, how much they are based on authentic sources; and, three, whether they are a part of what has come to be termed “contextual film history.”

The overarching question that arises is that if one were to go deeper into so-called historical films within Indian cinema, one would only uncover the falsity that hides under the glamour and chutzpah of so-called “history.” Eminent historian, professor emeritus in Aligarh Muslim University, and former chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research, S. Irfan Habib claims that Rami Padmavati was not a historical figure and there is no record of her before 1540. According to Habib, the queen was a fictional character created in the poem Padmavat, written by Malik Mohd Jayasi in 1540. The poem traces the story of Padmini, Alauddin Khilji, and Rawal Ratan Singh, and has no basis in fact. Some believe that Amir Khusrao referred to a beautiful queen of the Padmini class in his epic work Khazain-ul-Futuh, but there is no proof. The words he uses in the story about Allauddin Khilji being the “Solomon of this Age” are, however, taken from this work.

Habib further insists that there was no historical character named Jodha Bai, as shown in Jodha-Akbar, directed by Ashutosh Gowarikar. It is true that Akbar married Amber king Raja Bharmal’s eldest daughter, but her name is not mentioned anywhere. There is no mention of her even in Jehangir’s hmemoirs, Tuzuk-i-Jahangir. According to N R Farooqi, Head of the Department of History at Allahabad University, “Jodha was not Akbar’s wife but Jahangir’s and she was Shahjahan’s mother!” It is said that Gowarikar hired a research team of historians and scholars from New Delhi, Lucknow, Agra, and Jaipur to guide him and help keep the film historically accurate. However, how can any accuracy, historical or otherwise, be sought in a love story rooted in fiction?

We had never heard of the Karni Sena till they decided to destroy everything to do with the film Padmavati in a misguided attempt to protect their “culture” and “history,” in ways that were extremely anti-cultural and ahistorical. One wishes that people of the Karni Sena would have read up on authentic history, so as to be able to justify their keenness “to protect the lineage of their ancestors from any misrepresentation”, before they wreaked violence. Threatening to cut off the actress’ nose or kill the director are more violent and aggressive than the violence Khilji is reported to have been notorious for!

If at least one among them had gone through historical documents, or consulted a history teacher, they would have discovered that Rani Padmini or Padmavati is not mentioned in any Rajput or Sultanate annals, and there is absolutely no historical evidence that she existed. Here are some historical facts that reduce all the violence by the Karni Sena, and their ‘brothers-in-arms”, to a rude joke: Allauddin Khilji lived between 1296 and 1316, whereas Padmini is mentioned in Malik’s poem in 1540 and wonder of wonders, the legendary mirror that the Padmini-Allaudin Khilji story so famously describes, couldn’t have existed because mirrors, as we know them now, were invented in Germany in 1835 by German chemist Justus von Liebig.

So, what “history” is one talking about?
 

The post The Padmavati Story: Romanticising History or Historicising Romance? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

( Our Gauri: 67 mnts/English sub/2017)

Gauri Lankesh was one of the Karnataka’s most prominent and fearless journalists. She was shot dead outside her house in Bengaluru on the night of September 5, 2017.
Gauri spoke out against communal forces in the Country and represented dissent and freedom of speech.
 
The  film is more than a personal tribute and follows her political journey, envisaging what she stood for and her struggle for communal harmony until her last breath.
And her life story has become the history of Karnataka’s fight against right-wing communal forces.

The post Our Gauri: A Passionate & Moving Tribute by Deepu (67 Minutes) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

"We are shocked and angered by the recent Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) demand that certain words be excised from a film based on the work of the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen. The movie is titled after Sen’s 2005 work, The Argumentative Indian, which was widely acknowledged for its deep and authentic explorations of India’s traditions of public debate.
 
The CBFC has reportedly demanded that certain words used by Sen and other scholars and public intellectuals interviewed in the film should be bleeped out if it is to be granted certification for public exhibition. These words include “cow”, “Hindutva view of India”, “Hindu India” and “Gujarat”.

The CBFC’s exertions under its current chair have long crossed the line from farce to tragedy. Occasional efforts to bring it to its senses, such as the stern judicial reprimand handed down in the Udta Punjab case, seem to have no more than transient effect. With its diktat on The Argumentative Indian, the CBFC shows yet again that its anxiety to protect the sensitivities of the political regime, overwhelm any manner of commitment to the Constitution and the law. At risk in this plunge into absurdity, are our most valuable traditions of free speech and debate."

Other Signatories include: Irfan Habib Ashok Mitra, Romila Thapar, Shyam Benegal, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Saeed Mirza, Anand Patwardhan, Prabhat Patnaik, Mihir Bhattacharya
Ram Rahman, Parthiv Shah, Madangopal Singh, Vivan Sundaram, Nilima Sheikh, Sohail Hashmi, Geeta Kapur, Anil Chandra, Kumi Chandra, M.K.Raina, Rajni Arora, Jahar Kanungo
Rajinder Arora, D. N. Jha, Sashi Kumar, Shireen Moosvi, K.M.Shrimali, Arjun Dev, Anil Bhatti, M.M.P. Singh, Rekha Awasthi, Amir Rizvi, P.K.Shukla, Lata Singh, Dinesh Abrol, Archana Prasad, Githa Hariharan, Kumkum Sangari, Rakhshanda Jalil, Kasim Sait, Virendra Saini, Mridula Mukherjee, Zoya Hasan, C.P.Chandrasekhar, Aditya Mukherjee, Ashok Nath Basu
Indira Chandrasekhar, Vishwa Mohan Jha, Sukumar Muralidharan, Sadanand Menon, A.J.Jawad, Ananya Vajpeyi, Malini Bhattacharya, Atlury Murali, Vikas Rawal, JavedAnand, Teesta Setalvad, K.L.Tuteja, Gopinath Ravindran, Sania Hashmi, Mohan Kumawat, IqtidarAlam Khan, Ishrat Alam, Tani Bhargav, Rajeev Bhargav, Ramesh Rawat, Nadeem Rezavi, Shamim Akhtar, Indira Arjun Dev, Mohan Rao, Jayati Ghosh, Nancy Adajania, Veer Munshi, Abhilasha Kumari, Romi Khosla, Neeraj Malik, Javed Malick, Zafar Agha, Madhu Prasad, KalpanaSahni, Amar Farooqui, B.P.Sahu, R.P.Bahuguna, Shakti Kak, Sarah Hashmi, Moggallan Bharti, Rahul Verma, N.K.Sharma
 

The post Censor Board’s Actions Have Moved From Farce to Tragedy: Intellectuals Condemn Censorship of Amartya Sen’s Film appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nusraat Faria

“Allah Meherbaan,” an item number, was supposed to be the flagship promotional act for the film Boss 2: Back to Rule, sequel to the critically acclaimed 2013 film Boss.

Upon the video’s release, severe backlash from some groups resulted in actor Nusraat Faria attacked vociferously on social media and calls for boycotting the film’s distributor Jaaz Multimedia.

The situation took a turn for the worse when two Supreme Court lawyers sent the producer a legal notice to remove the video from all social media platforms for “hurting religious sentiments.”

Sources close to Jaaz Multimedia confided to the Dhaka Tribune that the owners had seen the legal notice and removed the video from YouTube, Facebook and other social media. However, the video is still online from the channel of the Indian distributor Grassroot Entertainment.

One of the complainants, Supreme Court lawyer Md Hujjatul Islam Khan, said Jaaz Multimedia removed the song from their Youtube channel on Tuesday.

He said: “We pitched two issues in the legal notice. The first was to remove the song from Youtube and the second was to cut that item song out from the film.”

“We will track of their progress. If the song is not removed, my client may file a writ petition with the High Court,” said Hujjatul, who was also a counsel to condemned war criminal and BNP leader Salauddin Quader Chowdhury.

Talking to Nusraat
The Dhaka Tribune reached out to Nusraat Faria, an emerging star in the media industry of Bangladesh and West Bengal, who gracefully shared her thoughts on the ongoing attack against the film and her person.

“It was just an item song for a commercial film and commercial films require imagination and entertainment. There are no subversive intentions behind entertainment. But the film and I have received much vitriol over it.

“As an artist, I get to enjoy the fame I receive from the audience. Similarly, I also need to accept the ignominy and criticism that comes with it. It is part of my profession which will always be susceptible to public criticism.”

Faria requested her viewers to understand that making a film is never about one single person.

“As I’m the female lead in the film, the criticism veered towards me. But there is so much that goes into making a movie – like a director’s plan, choreographer’s plan, cinematography, screenplay, costume designs, music, producer’s investment. Everyone has a vision in mind, everyone has something they want to put in the film,” she said.

While Faria received the brunt of the criticism, with distributor Jaaz Multimedia facing legal threats, little no criticism was directed towards the film director, music director, or lyricist who composed the track.

Over the past two years, Faria has received high praises for her work and is considered by many to be one of several artists who are changing the industry for the better.

“During the shoot, I never thought about the costumes and the song. I never meant to hurt religious sentiments with Allah Meherbaan. The director wanted to introduce me in the film with a bang and the team worked to manifest his vision.”

Faria said the reception of the song may have turned bitter because the timing coincided with Ramadan.

“Films these days are highly promoted on social media prior to their release. Since the film is scheduled for release this Eid, the promotional activity will continue throughout Ramadan. It is unfortunate that so many people were hurt by the video,” Faria ended.

Courtesy: Dhakha Tribune
 

The post Bangladesh: Facing Vitreol Over Item Number, Allah Meherbaan, Nusraat Faria Defends Herself appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hidden Figures // Twentieth Century Fox

There is nowhere that this is more apparent than in one of America’s greatest institutions, the cinema. The lack of diversity within the industry has dominated the conversation the past few years. It has even tarnished its glittering annual event, the Oscars, with #OscarsSoWhite going viral last year after there were no actors of colour nominated in the four acting categories for the second year in a row.

Diversity has become almost a buzzword for Hollywood’s indifference to difference, and meanwhile articles continue to be published decrying the industry, and their awards, for their uniformity. As David Cox wrote on the Guardian film blog in 2016: “The Oscars may not be anti-black, but they are hideously white.”

The 89th Academy Awards, taking place on February 26, by no means illustrate a colossal change in the industry, but there is more recognition bestowed on films starring, directed and about black individuals. Of the five nominees for best documentary, three are directed by African Americans, while a fourth is by a Haitian filmmaker. In the acting categories, Denzel Washington (Fences), Ruth Negga (Loving), Mahershala Ali (Moonlight), Viola Davis (Fences), Naomi Harris (Moonlight) and Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures) are all nominated, in addition to British-Indian Dev Patel (Lion).
 

Pick of the bunch

These examples can be used to argue that the Oscars are embracing diversity. But of course, this may all just display an aberration – one year where the stars aligned and variety befell the ceremony. Both  arguments have been made, but what is often lost in the debates is the simple fact that diversity is not solely an awards issue. It is an industry-wide problem.

The films that are awarded by the academy are chosen as the best of that particular year, but with less choice overlooked films can easily be dismissed as not up to the standards of the award votes instead of ignored due to their focus on non-white subjects. Take DuVernay’s Selma. Each year, the Hollywood Reporter publishes anonymous academy members discussing their votes. In 2015, a female academy member commented of Selma’s two paltry nominations (best picture and best original song): “But if the movie isn’t that good, am I supposed to vote for it just because it has black people in it?”

Selma was just one example of a film about the black experience in America, but being directed, produced and starring black individuals, it became a lightening rod for debates about diversity. A positively reviewed film about Martin Luther King’s fight for voting rights in Selma, Alabama, the film was included in many critics’ end of year top ten lists. Awards are always subjective, but when films with less diverse casts and significantly less positive reviews receive more nominations (such as The Theory of Everything), it becomes more difficult to separate voting from politics.

And herein lies the central issue for the academy. While they are able to pick through countless films by white male filmmakers about white male individuals, there are generally only a handful of quality films produced each year with diverse casts and filmmakers. Snubs can be more easily accepted when there is a plethora of films to choose from, but when there are only one or two, all the hopes for a diverse industry get unfairly pinned on to one film (as happened with Selma).

Lives deserve to be told

When Viola Davis accepted her supporting actress award at the BAFTAs in London recently, she mentioned her father, who died of cancer in a McDonalds, asking if his life mattered. She went on to say that playwright August Wilson (Fences is an adaptation of his play) illustrated that “our lives matter as African Americans” and the stories of African Americans “deserve to be told”, echoing Cobb’s comment in The 13th.

The desire to be understood and represented as “full complicated human beings” is shared by women, LGBT individuals, Asian, African, and Hispanic individuals – anyone who doesn’t not fall into the category of the white straight male. Stories have of course been told about these groups, but their real entrance into the mainstream is further hampered by the film industry’s themes, narratives and characters. Too often, Hollywood produces films that rely on stereotypes, such as the prevalence of black characters as servants, slaves, drug addicts, musicians, athletes or criminals.

This year’s nominations may represent a changing tide. Stories in 2017 include that of the African American female scientists who worked at NASA during the space race (Hidden Figures) and a tale of black masculinity that focuses on sexuality and emotion more than societal pressures and systematic racism (Moonlight).

Institutional racism should certainly never be ignored, but defining the experience of an individual by only their race is to misrepresent the complexity of their lives. The white male dominance of Hollywood is so difficult to overcome because it has long been presented as a universal experience by Hollywood. The black experience, to take one example, is not universal, nor should it be presented as such. Only films that expose the socio-historical context of a variety of individuals’ lives and focus on their complexities without resorting to the stereotypes that have persisted in the cinema since its earliest days will truly promote the diversity of human life.

Until La La Land can star two actors of colour, or two women, as its leads, incorporating their particular life experience into the traditional “boy meets girl” romantic narrative, Hollywood will continue to struggle with diversity and the academy will be limited by their award options.

Julie Lobalzo Wright, Teaching Fellow in Film Studies, University of Warwick

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post How can we get to the bottom of Hollywood’s diversity problem? appeared first on SabrangIndia.