Ravi S. Vasudevan, Rosie Thomas, S. Srinivas, S. Siddique, Debashree Mukherjee, K. Nair, L. Hoek
{"title":"Idols and Ideologies","authors":"Ravi S. Vasudevan, Rosie Thomas, S. Srinivas, S. Siddique, Debashree Mukherjee, K. Nair, L. Hoek","doi":"10.1177/09749276231186721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The contributions to the latest issue of BioScope place Indian cinema in the field of moral, reformist and democratic ideals, suggesting an enduring hold of a notion of the political on film journalism, spectatorship and star phenomenon. A deceased actor, who has long been celebrated as Hindi cinema’s first superstar and a heartthrob, is placed at the confluence of two differing ideologies that once sustained the Indian National Congress. An ever-green singing idol’s claim to a secular style is re-evaluated in the light of multiple marginalities that he has managed to dispense with. A genre, referred to as the ‘mass hero film’, is scrutinised for its troubling gender ideology in a region where cinema has been pivotal to mass politics. Finally, the neglected history of Urdu film journalism is recovered with an eye to vernacular print media’s insistence on its corrective role and moral vision for both filmgoers and filmmakers in colonial India. In this issue, the terms of critique have shifted—we are not reading about the political significance of cinema (Prasad, 2014; Rajadhyaksha, 2009; Srinivas, 2018), but rather the cinematic co-optation of politics in India. Among the earlier modalities of the relationship between cinema and politics is a long-standing, though not uncontested, view working through aspects of identity and focussed on the ideological links between Indian cinema and the state (Chakravarty, 1994, on national identity; also see Nisha, 2020, for mapping an oppositional ‘Bahujan gaze’). Another register in which the said relationship has been explored is through subaltern fan bhakti, which potentially partakes in collective sovereignty through star adulation (Prasad, 2009). While retaining the emphasis on idols and ideology, the featured articles suggest an altered modality involving sacrifice, reform and empowerment through which the political is promised. What is suggested here is a deliberate, imperfect yet powerful harnessing of political drives by cinema and its ancillary bodies. The issue is","PeriodicalId":51959,"journal":{"name":"Bioscope-South Asian Screen Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"7 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioscope-South Asian Screen Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09749276231186721","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The contributions to the latest issue of BioScope place Indian cinema in the field of moral, reformist and democratic ideals, suggesting an enduring hold of a notion of the political on film journalism, spectatorship and star phenomenon. A deceased actor, who has long been celebrated as Hindi cinema’s first superstar and a heartthrob, is placed at the confluence of two differing ideologies that once sustained the Indian National Congress. An ever-green singing idol’s claim to a secular style is re-evaluated in the light of multiple marginalities that he has managed to dispense with. A genre, referred to as the ‘mass hero film’, is scrutinised for its troubling gender ideology in a region where cinema has been pivotal to mass politics. Finally, the neglected history of Urdu film journalism is recovered with an eye to vernacular print media’s insistence on its corrective role and moral vision for both filmgoers and filmmakers in colonial India. In this issue, the terms of critique have shifted—we are not reading about the political significance of cinema (Prasad, 2014; Rajadhyaksha, 2009; Srinivas, 2018), but rather the cinematic co-optation of politics in India. Among the earlier modalities of the relationship between cinema and politics is a long-standing, though not uncontested, view working through aspects of identity and focussed on the ideological links between Indian cinema and the state (Chakravarty, 1994, on national identity; also see Nisha, 2020, for mapping an oppositional ‘Bahujan gaze’). Another register in which the said relationship has been explored is through subaltern fan bhakti, which potentially partakes in collective sovereignty through star adulation (Prasad, 2009). While retaining the emphasis on idols and ideology, the featured articles suggest an altered modality involving sacrifice, reform and empowerment through which the political is promised. What is suggested here is a deliberate, imperfect yet powerful harnessing of political drives by cinema and its ancillary bodies. The issue is
最新一期《BioScope》的文章将印度电影置于道德、改革主义和民主理想的领域,表明了对电影新闻、观众和明星现象的政治观念的持久坚持。一位已故的演员,长期以来一直被誉为印度电影界的第一个超级巨星和万人迷,被置于两种不同意识形态的交汇处,这两种意识形态曾经支撑着印度国民大会党。在他设法摆脱了多重边缘的情况下,这位永青的歌唱偶像对世俗风格的主张被重新评估。在一个电影对大众政治至关重要的地区,有一种类型被称为“大众英雄电影”,因其令人不安的性别意识形态而受到审视。最后,我们回顾了被忽视的乌尔都语电影新闻的历史,着眼于本土印刷媒体对其纠正作用的坚持,以及对殖民地印度电影观众和电影人的道德愿景。在这个问题上,批评的条件已经发生了变化——我们不是在阅读关于电影的政治意义(Prasad, 2014;拉扎,2009;Srinivas, 2018),而是印度政治的电影合作。电影与政治之间关系的早期模式是一个长期存在的,尽管不是没有争议的,通过身份的各个方面工作的观点,并关注印度电影与国家之间的意识形态联系(Chakravarty, 1994, on national identity;另见Nisha, 2020年,描绘了一种对立的“巴胡扬凝视”)。所述关系的另一个被探索的记录是通过下级粉丝巴克蒂,他们通过明星崇拜潜在地参与集体主权(Prasad, 2009)。在保留对偶像和意识形态的强调的同时,专题文章提出了一种涉及牺牲、改革和赋权的改变模式,通过这种模式,政治得以实现。这里所暗示的是,电影及其附属机构有意、不完美但有力地利用了政治驱动力。问题是