सौ साल के बाद भारतीय सिनेमा अपने बारे में क्या कहता है?

फिल्म का जादू यह भी है कि बहुत लोग मानते हैं कि पर्दे पर देखी हुई कहानी सच होती है, और अगर नहीं मानते हैं तो देखते समय इसके बारे में अचेत हो जाते हैं क्योंकि फिल्म बहुत अच्छी तरह वास्तविकता को धोखा दे सकती है। फ्रांस के फिल्म सिद्धांतकार, आंद्रे बाजें (Andre Bazin) ने लिखा कि अपने दर्शकों के लिए फिल्म एक खिड़की की तरह होती है, ऐसी खिड़की जिसे खोलने के बाद बाहर की दुनिया दिखाई जा रही हो। इसलिए दर्शकों को लगता है कि फिल्म की कहानी सच है और इसलिए भी आंद्रे बाजें के लिए सबसे अच्छी फिल्में वही थीं जिनकी दुनिया वास्तव से उतनी अलग नहीं थी। लेकिन यह दुनिया कभी कुछ और भी है जो वास्तविकता से अलग होती है। फिर भी दर्शकों के लिए इसमें और यथार्थ में कोई अंतर नहीं है और स्वप्न-चित्र देखने के समय वह उसी तरह प्रतिक्रिया दर्शाता है जैसी यथार्थवादी फिल्म देखने के समय। एक अन्य फिल्म सिद्धांतकार एडगर मोरें (Edgar Morin) ने इसके बारे में लिखा। उसके विचार में ऐसी प्रतिक्रिया इसलिए होती है कि कोई भी फिल्म देखने के समय लोग उसके नायक को अपना परिवर्तित रूप समझते हैं। तथापि इसके लिए एक चीज की जरूरत है – खिड़की पर देखी हुई दुनिया में रहने वालों को पता चलना नहीं चाहिए कि उनको कोई देख रहा है। और यह बात सिनेमा और उसके दर्शकों के लिए भी बहुत महत्त्वपूर्ण है।
फिल्म के दर्शकों को सबसे अधिक मजा झाँकने में आता है। सिनेमा घर के अँधेरे में बैठे हुए लोग एक-दूसरे को नहीं देख सकते हैं, लेकिन वास्तविक दुनिया के लोगों से अदृश्य होकर फिल्म के नायकों की जीवन में घुस जाते हैं। फिल्मों के दर्शक खुद से देखे हुए लोगों के सारे रहस्यों के बारे में जानते हैं, और फिल्म देखते समय यह सब जान लेना सबसे मजेदार क्षण होता है। इसलिए हर सामान्य सिनेमा में सबसे पहले एक नियम की बहुत बड़ी जरूरत है। फिल्म की कहानी के नायकों को ऐसा व्यवहार करना चाहिए जैसे उनको मालूम नहीं था कि उनको कोई देख रहा है। हर फिल्म के अभिनेता-अभिनेत्री को मालूम है कि उनकी फिल्में लोगों के मनोरंजन के लिए बनाई जाती हैं, लेकिन इस जानकरी को पर्दे पर दिखाना फिल्म का सबसे बड़ा पाप है। साथ ही, जब कोई फिल्म अपने बारे में कुछ बताना चाहती है, तब भी यह नियम महत्त्वपूर्ण है, इसलिए ऐसी स्थिति वहाँ ज्यादा प्रचलित है जहाँ फिल्म की दुनिया यथार्थ से दूर नहीं है और दर्शकों को वास्तविक लगती है। ऐसे ही एक पाप का बहुत अच्छा उदाहरण मनोज कुमार की फिल्म ‘पूरब और पश्चिम’ है। फिल्म के शुरू के दृश्य में जब फिल्म का नायक भारत लंदन जाता है तो वह ऑर्फन नाम के हिप्पी से मिलता है, और यह लड़का जब अपने अजीब नाम के बारे में बोलता है तब सीधे कैमरा की तरफ देखता है। उसकी इस भंगिमा को देखकर ऐसा लगता है जैसे वह भारत से नहीं, दर्शकों से बात करना चाहता है। और अगर वह दर्शकों से बात कर सकता है तो इसका मतलब यह भी है कि उसको पता है कि कोई उसे देख रहा है और सारे दृश्य का मतलब यह है कि पर्दे पर चल रही कहानी सच नहीं है। सब भ्रम बर्बाद हो जाता है। कोई निर्देशक अवश्य ही इस भंगिमा का बहुत अच्छा इस्तेमाल कर सकता है, और कभी-कभी इसकी जरूरत भी होती है, जैसे कि डरावनी फिल्मों में। वहाँ जब कोई राक्षस या किसी तरह का विरूप प्राणी सीधे दर्शक की ओर देखता है तो डर से मिलने वाले मनोरंजन में इजाफा हो जाता है क्योंकि इस भंगिमा का मतलब कोई चेतावनी है और दर्शक को लगता है कि अगला बलि-पशु वह हो सकता है।

झाँकने से मजा लेने (दर्शनरति) के बारे में मनोविश्लेषण का सिद्धांत, जिसका जिक्र लउरा मल्वे (Laura Mulvey) ने किया है, डर्टी पिक्चर में अच्छी तरह दिखाई दिया। फिल्म की नायिका, जिसका नाम रेशमा है, अभिनेत्री बनना चाहती है और इसके लिए सब कुछ करने को तैयार है। अभिनेत्री होने के बदले में रेशमा, जिसका नया नाम सिल्क है, नाचती हुई ऐसी लड़की बन जाती है जिसके नृत्य में बहुत ही साहसिक रत्यात्मक मुद्राओं की जरूरत होती है। वह अपनी ख्याति से बहुत खुश है लेकिन इस तरह की ख्याति वास्तव में बहुत कड़वी होती है। अफसोस की बात यह है कि सिल्क और उस प्रकार की सारी औरतों की ऐसी ख्याति सच्ची ख्याति न होकर भी सिनेमा के लिए कोई नई चीज नहीं है। मनोविश्लेषण के आधार पर लउरा मल्वे ने न सिर्फ देखने से आने वाले मजे के बारे में लिखा बल्कि उस शक्ति के बारे में भी लिखा जो देखने से पैदा होती है। कैमरे की आँखें पुरुष की आँखें होती हैं इसलिए औरत का शरीर सिनेमा में महज देखने की वस्तु है। औरत को कुछ करना नहीं चाहिए, सिर्फ अच्छी तरह दिखाई देना चाहिए। भारतीय सिनेमा यह रत्यात्मक मजा भी अपने दर्शकों को देता है, अपनी नायिकाओं को देखने की अनुमाति देता है। यहाँ भी सिनेमाघर के अँधेरे में बैठे हुए आदमी को लगता है कि उसे कुछ ऐसा देखना है जो सभी लोगों के लिए नहीं है, जिसे सामान्य जीवन में देखना अनैतिक है। और कोई नाचती हुई औरत अगर कभी सीधे कैमरे की ओर देखेगी तो इस बार यह कोई फिल्म का पाप नहीं होगा क्योंकि सिनेमाघर में बैठा हुआ हर आदमी सोचेगा कि पर्दे पर दिख रही लड़की सिर्फ उसके लिए नाच रही है। झाँकने से मिलने वाले मनोरंजन का स्थानांतरण हो जाएगा और हर आदमी यह सोच सकेगा कि वह शो का एक हिस्सा है और उसमें भी कामविषयक शक्ति है।

स्त्री-शरीर को दिखाने का उपक्रम सबसे अच्छी तरह गानों में संभव है। पश्चिम के लोगों को ज्यादातर भारतीय फिल्मों में मौजूद गानों की इतनी उपस्थिति बड़ी अजीब लगती है क्योंकि खास तौर से यूरोप में सांगीतिक फिल्में कभी इतनी लोकप्रिय नहीं थीं, और जो सांगीतिक फिल्में थीं भी, उनकी दुनिया भारतीय फिल्मों से अलग होती थी। यूरोप की अधिकांश सांगीतिक फिल्में किसी न किसी संगीत-नाट्य प्रदर्शन के बारे में होती हैं, संगीत की उपस्थिति ‘तार्किक’ होती हैं, इसलिए फिल्मों का ऐसा नुस्खा, जहाँ हर कहानी में गानों की जरूरत है, पश्चिमी दर्शकों के लिए अस्वीकार्य है। वे लोग नहीं जानते हैं कि कामविषयक मजे के लिए गानों की कितनी बड़ी जरूरत है! पुराने जमाने से ही फिल्मों की अलग, कभी-कभी बहुत दिलचस्प योजनाएँ होती थीं औरतों के शरीर दिखाने के लिए। भारतीय सिनेमा के इतिहास में कभी-कभी ऐसे निर्देशक भी हुए जो नायिकाओं के शरीर को दिखाने के मामले में गानों के मुहताज नहीं थे – और उनमें सबसे प्रसिद्ध नाम शायद राज कपूर का था। उसकी ‘बॉबी’ एक नई और चुस्त कहानी थी लेकिन कुछ दर्शकों को वह सिर्फ डिंपल कपाडिया की बिकनी के कारण अच्छी लगती थी। तथापि कभी औरत का शरीर दिखाना फिल्म को कुछ नुकसान भी पहुँचा सकता है। शेखर कपूर की बैंडिट क्वीन एक बहुत महत्त्वपूर्ण फिल्म थी जो स्त्री-हिंसा को सबको दिखाना चाहती थी। अफ्सोस की बात यह है कि ज्यादा दर्शक सिर्फ सीमा बिस्वास के नंगे शरीर को देखने के लिए सिनेमाघर आ जाते थे और फिल्म जिसका विरोध करना चाहती थी उसने यही सब दर्शकों को दिया। ज्यादा फिल्में सतर्कतापूर्वक अलग-अलग तरीके ढूँढ़ती हैं जो शरीर दिखाने के लिए सबसे उचित हों। सबसे आसान तरीका है वेश्या को नायिका बनाना क्योंकि वेश्याओं के साथ सब कुछ करना उचित है। निस्सन्देह सभी नायिकाएँ वेश्या नहीं हो सकती हैं इसलिए कई फिल्मों में मोहिनी आ गई जोकि बहुत अच्छी योजना थी। इस तरह फिल्म की नायिका बहुत भोली, अच्छी लड़की हो सकती थी लेकिन नायक दूसरी औरत को भी पसंद था जो अच्छी थी पर सुंदर और खतरनाक थी, शराब और सिगरेट पीती थी और नाइट क्लबों में नाचती थी। इस योजना से आइटम नंबर पैदा हुआ जो कामविषयक मजे के लिए भारतीय फिल्मों का शायद सबसे अच्छा आविष्कार भी था। आइटम नंबर वाली औरतें सिर्फ देखने के लिए होती हैं और फिल्म की कहानी से उनका कोई संबंध नहीं होता है। वे शुद्ध मजे के लिए उतारी जाती हैं। नायिका का इस तरह नाचना हमेशा अनुचित था, पर कभी-कभी इसकी जरूरत भी थी इसलिए ड्रीम सिक्वेंस बन गया। इसकी मदद से दर्शक वह सब कुछ देख पाता है जो सिनेमाघर में आकर देखना चाहता है, और नायिका की इज्जत भी सुरक्षित रहती है क्योंकि हर ऐसा दृश्य सिर्फ सपना होता है।

पूरा लेख यहाँ पढिए -

http://bargad.org/2013/01/22/indian-cinema-after-hundred-years/

How a one-man crew made a feature film?

                                                           
Bangalore based software engineer P.V. Krishnan operated as a one-man crew to make his first feature film “August 2” that releases online on January 21.
For full story,please visit;-

http://dearcinema.com/article/how-a-one-man-crew-made-a-feature-film/1831

The Filmfare Awards(58 th) list is out...

                                                                               

Popular Choice

Award for the Best Debut (Male): Ayushmann Khurrana 

Award for the Best Debut (Female): Ileana D’cruz 

Award for the Best Film: Barfi! 

Award for the Best Director: Sujoy Ghosh 

Award for the Best Actor (Male): Ranbir Kapoor ( Barfi! ) 

Award for the Best Actor (Female): Vidya Balan (Kahaani) 

Award for the Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Female): Anushka Sharma( JTHJ) 

Award for the Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Male): Annu Kapoor (Vicky Donor) 

Award for the Best Music Director: Pritam (Barfi!) 

Award for the Best Lyrics: Gulzar ( Challa): Jab Tak Hai Jaan 

Award for the Best Playback Singer (Male): Ayushmann Khurrana (Paani Da Rang) (Vicky Donor) 

Award for the Best Playback Singer (Female): Shalmali Kholgade( Pareshaan) ( Ishaqzaade) 

Award for the Best Debut Director: Gauri Shinde (English Vinglish) 

R.D Burman Award: Neeti Mohan 

Lifetime Achievement Award: Yash Chopra 

शहीद भगत सिंह के लेख एवं दस्तावेज

                                                  

शहीद भगत सिंह साम्राज्यवाद के खिलाफ भारतीय जनता के संघर्ष के सबसे उज्जवल नायकों में से एक रहे हैं. तेईस वर्ष की छोटी उम्र में शहीद होने वाले इस नौजवान को भारतीय जनता एक ऐसे उत्साही देशप्रेमी नौजवान के रूप में याद करती है जिसने ब्रिटिश साम्राज्यवाद से समझौताविहीन लड़ाई लड़ी और अंत में अपने ध्येय के लिए शहीद हुआ. लेकिन अपेक्षाकृत कम ही लोग भगत सिंह एवं उनके क्रांतिकारी साथियों के विचारों से सही मायनों में परिचित हैं. भगत सिंह एवं उनके साथियों के लेख एवं दस्तावेजों का व्यापक रूप से उपलब्ध न होना इसकी एक बड़ी वजह रहा है और हमारे आज के शासकों के लिए भी यही मुफीद है कि भगत सिंह के क्रांतिकारी विचारों को जनता के सामने न आने दिया जाये. क्योंकि भगत सिंह के लेख एवं दस्तावेज मनुष्य द्वारा मनुष्य के शोषण की व्यवस्था के बारें में सही और वैज्ञानिक समझ विकसित करते हैं और इसके खिलाफ जनता की लड़ाई को सही दिशा देते हैं. भगत सिंह उन विरले विचारकों में से थे जो उस समय ही यह बात जोर देकर कह रहे थे कि केवल अंग्रेजों के भारत से चले जाने से ही आम जनता की स्थिति में कोई बदलाव नहीं आएगा जब तक की इस शोषणकारी व्यवस्था को न बदला जाय. हम यहाँ भगत सिंह द्वारा लिखित लेखों एवं दस्तावेजों के लिंक पीडीएफ फॉर्मेट में प्रस्तुत कर रहे हैं.

http://parisar.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A6-%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%A4-%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B9-%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%96-%E0%A4%8F%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%82-%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%B8/

Let’s call it hate speech/ Arundhati Katju

The debate over whether to ban Honey Singh’s music has been wrongly characterised in terms of obscenity and censorship. The real issue is of recognising hate speech, and addressing a legal framework that does not view women as full citizens.

Both Anurag Kashyap (‘All atwitter’, IE, January 4) and Pratik Kanjilal (‘Just bad taste’, IE, January 5) have defended Singh’s work, but neither can bring themselves to quote his lyrics: In “C***t”, the protagonist sings of assaulting a woman after intercourse and subjecting her to genital mutilation (is that what Kanjilal calls “a little provocative”?). Honey Singh has, of course, denied any connection with this song, but interestingly, both Kashyap and Kanjilal proceed on the assumption that it is his work.

Similar misogynistic trends run through much of Singh’s music. My objection here is not to songs which may be classified as merely obscene (what Kanjilal might describe as having “bad language or lousy ideas”), or even those which draw on troublesome tropes of women as gold-diggers or prostitutes. Unfortunately, Singh’s music goes beyond this. “Yaar Bathere” (Many lovers) describes a woman who has multiple partners after having taken expensive gifts from the protagonist. In the accompanying video, Singh and singer Alfaaz stand among 10 men outside an apartment building. An overturned car is burning. Singh jumps onto the car and proceeds to smash its windows with a baseball bat. A group of women on a balcony look down at this scene, our vision of them obscured by thick smoke.

If the women in this video were replaced by members of a religious community, there would be no question that this music incites violence against that community. In fact, such incidents happen to women in real life. Acid attack survivors frequently describe scenarios where men, believing themselves to be scorned, take recourse to violence and mutilation. Kashyap himself, in an interview about Gangs of Wasseypur, acknowledges Bollywood’s influence in small towns: “The real fan base of Bollywood is in Wasseypur. I have not seen this kind of confluence of Bollywood and crime elsewhere. The dialogues they have memorised from films become their constant punch lines.” Why is Kashyap so reluctant to make similar connections about women and violence when it comes to Honey Singh?

Speech about women is judged within a matrix of obscenity and censorship rather than being recognised as hate speech. Under Article 19 of the Constitution, the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to incitement to commit an offence. Hate speech — any form of communication which vilifies a person or group based on their identity, and incites violence or prejudice against them — ought to be outside the protection of Article 19.

The law does not meet this standard when it comes to women. Gender-based hate speech is not an offence under the Indian Penal Code. At most, Section 505 punishes statements or rumours that are likely to incite any class or community of people to commit an offence against any other class or community of persons. Similarly, making statements or spreading rumours which cause fear or alarm in any section of the public is an offence.

Section 153-A, which directly addresses hate speech, criminalises speech that promotes feelings of hatred, enmity or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. The section also recognises drills, exercises and movements where the participants are likely to use criminal force or violence against any religious, racial, language or regional group, or caste or community, and where this drill/ exercise/ movement would, for any reason whatsoever, cause or be likely to cause fear, alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of this group, caste or community.

Section 153-B speaks directly to citizenship. It criminalises speech that propagates that any class of persons, because they belong to a particular religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India.

Gender is conspicuous here by its absence. The law on hate speech does not recognise gender among the categories of identity that affect citizenship. Speech that suggests women are not full citizens, or causes fear in the mind of women as a group, is not punished. Yet citizenship is more than merely the right to vote every five years. It is the right to live in your country without fear. In the absence of this right, Kashyap and Kanjilal’s solutions — to refuse to consume Singh’s music, or to criticise and disparage those who consume it — make a mockery of the violence that women face every day. Kashyap may dismiss Honey Singh’s song as “the lament of a boy who has been rejected by a girl and is expressing his feelings musically”, but to women watching Singh’s video, the message is clear: the men we reject may show up outside our homes, armed not with music but with acid.

The writer is an advocate practicing in New Delhi

Courtesy-The Indian Express

All atwitter/Anurag Kashyap

 ''People need to understand that there is diversity, intellectual as well as moral. This diversity makes up society and every society has its share of the tragic and the unfair. If you want to change something, become that change yourself. Begin at home. Stop buying the content that offends you. But you can’t stop others from making that content. We live in a world where all kinds of pornographic material is freely available on the internet. The internet even teaches you how to make a bomb! How much will you ban?''



The issue is sexual repression. You can’t ban it away. Or solve it on Twitter

 
We have become a nation of angry people. In the last one year, we have witnessed how the common man, overcome with rage, has taken to the streets, to protest, to react and to say “no”. Rage is good when it gets you to go out and deal with what you have a problem with. But I do think that, somewhere, our collective rage is going out of control. We have stopped thinking rationally.
In the guise of rage and outrage — Twitter’s favourite currency — we are in danger of becoming a nation of lynch mobs. We are on the lookout for a soft target and once we spot it, we take out all our pent up rage on him/her. This is what I feel has happened with the recent case of Punjabi bhangra rapper Yo Yo Honey Singh.
Let’s be real — nobody was aware of his songs until this controversy about the lyrics flared up. These songs have been on the net for years and they were dying a quiet death. Even I wasn’t aware of them, or of Honey Singh.
I’m defending him because I have a problem with this irrational behaviour that we as a nation seem to be now showing. We are getting caught up in a kind of elitism — intellectual, moral and even at the level of individual conscience — where some people, mostly on Twitter, deem themselves intellectually or morally superior to decide what is good or bad for a majority of us.
Certainly, you can have a problem with what Honey Singh is singing (just for the record, the song “Balatkari” was written not by him but by the Pakistani band Zeest and I absolutely agree that those are horrendous lyrics). But that doesn’t mean you ban him. He has a right to exist and sing about what he wants to. We have the choice not to listen to the song or go to his concert. Singers like Honey Singh exist because there is a market for them — there are consumers who consume his content. He is the symptom of the problem, not its root.
The issue we need to address is that of mindset. The issue is repression. Where does the song “C***t” come from? It comes from repression. It’s the lament of a boy who has been rejected by a girl and is expressing his feelings musically. It might be a crass song but crass also has the right to exist. If we don’t want the lyricist to write songs like these, we need to enter into a dialogue with him. We need to shame him. But we can’t ban him by saying that his lyrics are causing rapes. If you do that, then how are you different from the khap panchayats who insist that girls who wear skirts invite rape?
As a country, repression is one of our biggest problems. You can’t tackle repression with suppression. The fact is that boys and girls in our country don’t know how to interact with each other. When I was 16-17 years-old, I went to college in Varanasi and I remember I was so stunned to see girls in skirts that I couldn’t stop staring at a girl’s legs. A girl came up to me and completely shamed me by asking why I was behaving in that manner. The fact was that I had never seen girls in skirts. I came from a small town where girls were always covered up. Those three years that I spent in college, interacting with girls, changed my mindset.
I made Gangs of Wasseypur and people were laughing at all the wrong places. Mostly at the gaalis. Where did that laughter come from? While watching a horror film, people laugh out of fear but in this case they were laughing out of repression. Saying the unspeakable got them laughing. That’s what happens with songs like “Balatkari”.
There is so much comment on the objectification of women in item songs. These songs exist because people flock to the theatres to watch them. Filmmaking is a business that needs consumers to survive. If people go to the theatres and endorse these films and these songs, Friday after Friday, then what are we supposed to do? A film like I Am comes and disappears, a film like Chittagong is released and nobody goes to see it. You talk of filmmakers and pop culture taking a firm stand on social responsibility. Well, then I think it’s the individual’s prerogative whether or not he or she takes the responsibility. Each and every one of us should take this responsibility. But we can’t force it on anyone.
Howsoever offensive something is, you are not going to solve it by banning it. You can boycott it, but you can’t stop it from existing. If there is a poisonous creeper on a tree, we need to nurture it differently. We can’t cut down the tree and expect the problem will be solved.
I’ve gone through this grind for 20 years. I made Paanch and people said the same things about me that they are saying about Honey Singh. I’ve also been banned but I still make the films I want to. I have suffered it.
People need to understand that there is diversity, intellectual as well as moral. This diversity makes up society and every society has its share of the tragic and the unfair. If you want to change something, become that change yourself. Begin at home. Stop buying the content that offends you. But you can’t stop others from making that content. We live in a world where all kinds of pornographic material is freely available on the internet. The internet even teaches you how to make a bomb! How much will you ban?
Agreed, we have archaic rape laws and the government has been ineffectual at handling the issue of women’s safety, but this is a social problem. A single individual is not responsible for it. You can’t put a finger on a single person or a single film and say this is what is causing rapes in the country. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and bring about change.
And let’s not fool ourselves — Twitter won’t bring the change.
The writer is a filmmaker
express@expressindia.com

How much is too much?

                               

 On my way back home one day, I took an auto rickshaw that had Punjabi songs blaring. Curious, I asked who the singer was. “Honey Singh,” he said, his head swinging to the beats. Considering we were in Ghaziabad and the driver sounded like an inhabitant of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, I asked if he understood Punjabi. He said only a bit but the songs give him a kick because they have words that describe female anatomy in great detail and some of them extol rape. Surprised, I asked him how he got them and how he played them when female passengers were in the auto. “I play them at night when they have no other option but to behave as if they are either not listening or can’t understand. The CDs are available on footpaths in MP3 (format). You just have to ask, ‘Honey Singh ka gande (dirty) song wala CD de do.’”

He is referring to the same Yo Yo Honey Singh who is being eulogised as the next big thing in Bollywood music.. His numbers were on YouTube’s top 10 list last year, and Anurag Kashyap has said he wants to make a biopic on him. Though Honey Singh has denied singing such offensive songs, the impression on the ground tells a different story.

In the aftermath of the Delhi gang rape case, the role of mass media in manufacturing perceptions about women is once again being questioned. While there is no scholarly study to prove a direct link between cinema and insensitive male behaviour towards women, long-term exposure to regressive images and stereotypes does play a crucial role in a country where a large number of people still don’t know how to consume the images generated by the media. Cinema is already a pre-censored medium and freedom of speech is sacrosanct, but there is a greater need to look within and self-regulate.

There is a school of thought that believes that cinema is a reflection of society and draws selectively from mythology. So Duryodhan’s action of disrobing Draupadi — fuelled by Draupadi’s taunt linking his slipping into a water pond in the palace with the blindness of his father — finds a reflection in our filmy characterisations time and again. Some are layered, others lewd. And the ‘realistic’ approach could also get numbers because somebody somewhere is watching it for the ‘scene’ and not the bigger picture. We have seen it happening with “Bandit Queen” and “Fire”. Our films have definitely evolved, and a scene that has gone out of the narrative structure is the rape episode. There was a time in the 1970s and ’80s where certain female characters could be picked out from a distance as the ones to be assaulted at some point in the movie, to give our young man a chance to get angry. Some villains were anointed as rape experts. And when a heroine-oriented film was attempted, rape became an obstacle the character should cross to become a champion. Remember “Zakhmi Aurat”? The phool had to be masticated by a man to become an angaara. Thank god we have moved on from those sadistic portrayals. Or have we? Haven’t rape experts been replaced by serial kissers and shirtless wonders? Mind you, they are not placed as the villain of the piece.

Till a few years ago, many male journalists who covered the film beat had a staple question for female actors. How much will you expose? The heroine used to have a staple answer: “According to the demands of the script.” Still, some scribes apparently got a perverse pleasure out of this question. But when the portrayal of the Hindi film heroine changed, skin exposure no longer remained limited to one scene or song and explicit expression of sexual desire became a metaphor for female liberation rather than vampish behaviour, the question became ‘out-of-syllabus’. Top heroines of the industry acquiesced to this change. There is nothing wrong with finding a middle ground for the heroine between the goddess and whore extremes that existed for years, but there is a very thin line between celebration of sensuality and commoditisation of woman.

There is a difference between being a centre of desire and a means of titillation. And this line is frequently being crossed, particularly in item songs where through lyrics and dance movements the girl almost beseeches to be pounced upon — and since the song has no connection with the story, the director has no compulsion to justify its presence. The fact that celebrated faces of the film industry are gyrating to these racy tunes gives them a sort of legitimacy in the minds of an impressionable audience. The independence of woman is being seen largely in sexual terms. After years, Deepa Sahi is still looking for a producer to fund a biopic on Rani Laxmibai but the biopic of Silk Smitha got made in a jiffy. (see box) Rani Mukerji is struggling to find good scripts, but ‘adult’ film star Sunny Leone, who self admittedly can’t act or dance, has four films in her kitty and performed on New Year’s Eve at a Central Delhi hotel. But can we question her when we are allowing Katrina Kaif to learn on the job for a decade? Also, it seems those who protested against Honey Singh’s performance in a Gurgaon hotel missed Sunny’s jig.

One of the faces of the new female protagonist is of someone who enjoys her drink, scoffs at the institution of marriage and shows an inclination towards the physical side of love. At least till the intermission. Recently, we saw it in “Cocktail”. Strangely, after the intermission, Veronica tries to conform to traditional mores but still doesn’t get the guy, who is equally ‘liberal’ but ultimately marries a prototype of the Sati Savitri. It gives an impression that so-called outgoing girls are meant to be used and the ultimate aim of every girl is marriage. Somehow our films generated the notion that in a woman’s refusal of a man’s advances there is an implicit ‘yes’ hiding somewhere. This led to the birth of the stalking hero. The recent example was the monstrous hit “Rowdy Rathore” (granted a U/A certificate, it was the second highest grosser of 2012) where the hero describes his girl as maal and turns her ‘no’ into ‘yes’ within minutes. Impressionable minds might like to copy his style if they are so predisposed.

If Akshay Kumar were to take a stand that he won’t play a stalking hero, “rowdies” would not be able see the light of day because our mainstream cinema is still star-driven.

Herein comes the question of tyranny of taste. Mahesh Bhatt says the keys of the treasure of creativity should not be in the hands of the intellectual elite. But creativity should not be allowed to propagate depravity either.

Then again, why don’t we respect the ‘A’ certificate? One has seen families going to watch films like “Murder 2” where a psychopath stalks women and then cuts them into pieces. Groups espousing women’s rights say that assault on women in real life has nothing to do with what they wear, but on the other hand they criticise filmmakers for objectifying women. Isn’t there a link between the two? Why is it that young mothers take their three-year-olds to learn to dance to a “Chikni Chameli” and why does a “Fevicol” play at family functions? Isn’t there a complicit consent? The questions are many and the answers are not easy but a little introspection holds the key…

What's entertainment

That an actress of the calibre of Vidya Balan played the lead in “The Dirty Picture” turned it from a B-grade affair to A-class.

In fact, producer Ekta Kapoor said the title and subject gave an impression that somebody like Bipasha Basu would be cast but that would have limited the appeal of the film. One is not running down Ekta or Vidya, one is talking about the choices producers, performers and the public are making.

...If “Cocktail” was set in London, “Ishaqzaade” unfolded near Lucknow. Here we had a girl who prefers guns over jewellery and wants to become a politician but ends up falling in love with a naughty guy who lures her into a physical relationship for political gain. We were expected to support the girl’s choice because the guy was really sorry.

Director Habib Faisal said he didn’t set out to make a feminist film and both his characters had strengths and flaws. Are our audiences mature enough to understand this nuance which many film critics missed?

...In “Kismat Love Paisa Dilli”, where a group of goons kidnap a girl from the road to celebrate their gang leader’s birthday in a moving van. Isn’t the plot similar to what happened with the victim of the gang rape?

The film failed in the metros and we heaved a sigh of relief that the crass was cut short. But what if the film is still playing in Dadri or Sikanderabad, towns within a few kilometres from the Capital? The film starred Vivek Oberoi, considered an actor conscious of his duties towards society. 

-Anuj Kumar

Courtesy-The Hindu 

Let’s ask how we contribute to rape/Urvashi Butalia

                         

As I write this, there are protests going on all over Delhi, and in other parts of the country, against the gang-rape of a young woman on a moving bus a few days ago in the city. People are out there in large numbers — young, old, male, female, rich, poor — and they’re angry. They want the rapists to be caught, they want them to be taught a lesson, many are suggesting they should be hanged, or castrated, but also that the State should act, bring in effective laws, fast track courts, police procedures and more. Not since the Mathura rape case have there been such widespread protests. The difference is that then, it was mainly women’s groups who were protesting; today’s protests are more diverse. Sometimes, tragically, it takes a case like this to awaken public consciousness, to make people realise that rape and sexual assault are not merely ‘women’s issues,’ they’re a symbol of the deep-seated violence that women — and other marginalised people — experience every day in our society.

At a time when every politician, no matter what colour, is crying foul, every judge and lawyer, no matter what their loyalties, is joining the chorus, every policeperson, no matter from where, is adding his/her voice, it is worth remembering some key things. First, more than 90 per cent of rapes are committed by people known to the victim/survivor, a staggering number of rapists are family members. When we demand the death penalty, do we mean therefore that we should kill large numbers of uncles, fathers, brothers, husbands, neighbours? How many of us would even report cases of rape then? What we’re seeing now — the slow, painful increase in even reports being filed — will all disappear. Second, the death penalty has never been a deterrent against anything — where, for example, is the evidence that death penalties have reduced the incidence of murders? Quite apart from the fact that the State should never be given the right to take life, there is an argument to be made that imposing the death penalty will further reduce the rate of conviction, as no judge will award it.

Then, and this is something that women’s groups grasped long ago: a large number of rapes are committed in custody, many of these by the police. Mathura was raped by two policemen, Rameezabee was raped inside a police station by police personnel, Suman Rani was raped by policemen. There are countless other cases: will we hang all police rapists? Put together, that’s a lot of people to hang.

Police action is, in fact, one of the demands. Yet, the police’s record, whether in recording cases or in conducting investigations, is nothing to write home about. On a recent television show, a police officer put his finger on it when he said: how can we expect that police personnel, who are, after all, made of the same stuff as the men who gang-raped the young woman last week, to suddenly and miraculously behave differently? I was reminded of a study done by a local newsmagazine not so long ago of the attitudes of high ranking police officers in Delhi about rape. Roughly 90 per cent of them felt the woman deserved it, that she asked for it, that she should not have been out alone, or should not have been dressed in a particular fashion. Strange that women’s bodies should invite such reactions — could it be that the problem is in the eye of the beholder? Why, for example, does it seem to be more ‘legitimate’ for women to be out during daylight hours, but not at night?

Lawyers and judges too have joined the protests — and this is all to the good for the more diverse the protests, the more impact they will have. But it’s lawyers who use every ruse in the book to allow rapists to get away, judges who make concessions because the rapists are ‘young men who have their whole lives in front of them’ and so on. Do women’s lives not have a value then?

And then there are our politicians. Perhaps we need to ask how many politicians have rape cases, or allegations of rape pending against them. Perhaps we need to ask why no one is asking this question: that here you have an elected politician, your next prime ministerial candidate, someone under whose rule Muslim women in Gujarat were not only subjected to horrendous rape but also to equally dreadful violence. How can we, how can the media, how can journalists — all of whom are lauding the success of this politician, how can they not raise, and particularly at this time, the question of his sanctioning, encouraging the use of rape as a weapon of war? And more, we need to ask: if the politicians are indeed serious about this issue, why are they not out there with the protestors? When Anna Hazare was fasting, there wasn’t a day that went by when one or other politician did not go to see him. Where are they now?

Rape happens everywhere: it happens inside homes, in families, in neighbourhoods, in police stations, in towns and cities, in villages, and its incidence increases, as is happening in India, as society goes through change, as women’s roles begin to change, as economies slow down and the slice of the pie becomes smaller — and it is connected to all these things. Just as it is integrally and fundamentally connected to the disregard, and indeed the hatred, for females that is so evident in the killing of female foetuses. For so widespread a crime, band aid solutions are not the answer.

Protest is important, it shakes the conscience of society, it brings people close to change, it makes them feel part of the change. And there is a good chance that the current wave of protests will lead to at least some results — perhaps even just fast track courts. But perspective is also important: we need to ask ourselves: if it had been the army in Manipur or Kashmir who had been the rapists, would we have protested in quite the same way? Very likely not, for there nationalism enters the picture. Remember Kunan Posphpora in the late nineties when the Rajasthan Rifles raped over 30 women? Even our liberal journalists found it difficult to credit that this could have happened, that the army could have been capable of this, and yet, the people of Kunan Poshpora know. Even today, women from this area find it difficult to marry — stigma has a long life. Would we have been as angry if the rape had taken place in a small town near Delhi and the victim had been Dalit? Remember Khairlanji? Why did that rape, of a mother and her daughter, gruesome, violent, heinous, and their subsequent murder not touch our consciences in quite the same way.

It is important to raise our collective voice against rape. But rape is not something that occurs by itself. It is part of the continuing and embedded violence in society that targets women on a daily basis. Let’s raise our voices against such violence and let’s ask ourselves how we, in our daily actions, in our thoughts, contribute to this, rather than assume that the solution lies with someone else. Let’s ask ourselves how we, our society, we as people, create and sustain the mindset that leads to rape, how we make our men so violent, how we insult our women so regularly, let’s ask ourselves how privilege creates violence.

It is important we raise our collective voice for women, but let’s raise it for all women, let’s raise it so that no woman, no matter that she be poor, rich, urban, rural, Dalit, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, ever, in the future, has to face sexual violence, and no man assumes that because of the system and people’s mindsets, he can simply get away with it. And let’s raise it also for men, for transgenders, for the poor — all those who become targets of violence. Let’s not forget that the young rape survivor in Delhi was accompanied by a friend who too was subjected to violence and nearly killed. Let’s talk about him too.

(Urvashi Butalia is a feminist writer and founder of Zubaan, an independent non-profit publishing house.)

Courtesy-The Hindu 

कथाकार गुंजेश की कवितायें

कविता के वर्जित प्रदेश से                                                             


मैं लौट आया हूँ

इससे पहले कि

वे बांध लेते, मुझे कर्ता कारण संबंध में

उसूल सारे तोड़ आया व्याकरण के

हालांकि जनता हूँ बिना व्याकरण के

शब्द भी साथ नहीं देंगे

कविता नहीं होगी,बिना व्याकरण के

लेकिन कवियों तुम्हारा यह व्याकरण वह अर्थ नहीं देता

जिसके लिए मैं लिखना चाहता था कविता

-----------------------------------------------

एक दिन

कविता की कक्षा में

धूमिल को बोर्ड पर चिपका कर

वह, धर्मशाला हो चुकी

लड़की की तलाश में जुट गया

-------------------------------------------------

एक और दिन कक्षा में

पढ़ाया गया

“सचमुच मज़बूरी है

मगर ज़िंदा रहने के लिए

पालतू होना ज़रूरी है”

उस दिन और उसके बाद जिन-जिन लोगों ने

मज़बूरी पर सवाल खड़े किये

उन्हें जंगली करार दे दिया गया।

---------------------------------------------------

मैं लौट आया हूँ, उस प्रदेश से

जहां आज भी

‘मोची’ को ‘मोची’ और ‘राम’ को ‘राम’ कहा जाता है

धूमिल तो बहाना है

स्त्री और जाँघ और बिस्तर और गोश्त

के ज़िक्र का।


यह जानते हुए कि/ इतिहास बोध, युद्ध बोध में/ और समय बोध, संबंध बोध में
बदल गया है/ कक्षाओं में बैठे कुछ अबोध/ अब भी कर रहे हैं पाठ/ मुक्तिबोध
का/ अब भी उसका यकीन है/ कि/ लौट आना विकल्प नहीं है.......

(2)
इस शहर में
जहां अब हूँ
तुम्हारे साथ से- ज्यादा- तुम्हारे बिना,
जिसके लिए कहा करता था
'तुम हो तो शहर है, वरना क्या है'
'नहीं, शहर है तो हम हैं
हम, हम नहीं रहेंगे तो भी शहर रहेगा'- तुम्हारी हिदायत होती थी
अपनी रखी हुई कोई चीज़ भूल जाने, और रसोई में एक छिपकली से डर कर चाय
बिखेर देने के बावजूद,
तुमने बेहतर समझा था इस शहर को
कैसे झूम कर बरसता था यह शहर, उन दिनों में
जिनको अब कोई याद नहीं करता
तुमने ही तो कहा था - 'जब बहुत उमड़-घुमड़ कर शोर मचाते हैं बादल, और बरसते
हैं  दो एक बूंद ही,
तो लगता है जैसे, खूब ठहाकों के बाद दो बूंद पानी निकली हो किसी के आँखों
से'..........
(3)
हमने कुछ नहीं किया था
बस ढूंढा था
मैंने
तुम्हारी हंसी को, अपने चेहरे पर
तुमने
मेरे आंसुओं को अपनी आँखों में
......................
अब भी कुछ नहीं हुआ
हमने
पेंसिल और कलम की तरह
एक दूसरे की चीज़ें
एक दूसरे को लौटा दी है .....
(5)
इन दिनों
कुछ गुनगुनाते हुए
अचानक ही
आ जाता है
तुम्हारा नाम
जैसे धुल भरे इलाकों से गुजरने पर
आती है छींक
और फिर मन
हो जाता है
बहुत हल्का .........

(6)
लो गिर गए
धम्म की आवाज़ से बिखर गए
मेरे ही पैरों के आस-पास
बहुत तेज़ रफ़्तार से आती किसी याद ने झकझोरा होगा शायद
वरना मैंने तो कभी तुम्हारा नाम नहीं लिया
"संभाल कर रखना, संभल कर रहना"
कहाँ हो पता है
सारी समझाइशों का
हासिल यही हुआ
संभल कर रहा मैं
जान बुझ छः की जगह
तीन, पाँच, सात कुछ भी डायल करता रहा
नज़रों पर दूर का चश्मा लगा लिया
गई हो तो वापस लौटोगी एक दिन ज़रूर
एक तुम्हीं थीं
एक बार बुद्धू कहती
और मैं सब समझ जाता........

-कथाकार एवं कवि गुंजेश कुमार मिश्रा से मिलिये 

https://www.facebook.com/gunjeshk