Friday, October 12, 2007

Chuck This...India!

A friend recently suggested I watch "ChakDe India" . The idea was tempting because we had a Mary Ralte and a Molly Zimik (Tangkhul Naga, i think) on the cast and I was curious to see how they'd be scripted alongside Shah Rukh Khan. This also would probably be the first time a Mizo has been a sustained part of the script in a Bollywood movie (there have been the odd Mizos popping up on screen).
Here's the plot: X misses a crucial penalty stroke-labelled a traitor-'exiled'-comes back to coach the women's team-teaches them a few lessons in life along the way-win the championship-restored. This was how I replied to my friend:

"First, it was a pirated screen print so the viewing wasnt a great experience. Then again, the movie just failed to capture my imagination, too many holes in the plot and as many have already noticed, too many simplistic reductions riddling the screenplay. I had read some previews and so was relishing the possibility of something commendably different. A bollywood production without song and dance sequences, a non-glamorous topos, no item-number (what!!), a cast with the majority being first-timers; elements that seemed to infuse freshness. And yet all these novel potentials got subscripted under a glamorized male narrative. The uneasy dynamics of a multi-regional team getting to live and play together is always underscored by the 'disgraced' coach's attempt to see his present in light of his past failure. That his penalty was for missing a crucial penalty stroke etches the performative angst only to be rectified decades later and vicariously by his team. Hence, even the fantastic euphoria of a championship victory is eventually a subscript of the male coach's road to redemption while his team members are back to the harsh mundanity of haggling with an autorickshaw driver. This grand narrative seems to be unable to function without the metonymic assistance of trite reductions: the Pakistani other (how else does one rouse patriotism in the subcontinent?), the easy 'chinky', the silently compliant to-be-bahu, the incomprehensibility/barbaricity of the 'tribal',--all which serve to etch out the indispensable brilliance of the coach.

I thought the text could be done without Mary, Molly and the 'others' serving as mere props...who though not running around trees were just running around on astro-turf at the command of the coach's whistle. The most problematic scene however would be when they go for lunch to McDonalds (really, which sports team goes to gorge on junk...or was it a MacDonalds, im a little confused) and again, my NE sisters are singled out for harrasment. The team gets together to thrash the eve-teasers while the coach smiles with an epiphanic nod. The women have spoken through their collaborative thrashing and yet as the scene fades, one wonders if they were heard? Like all the subscripts in the movie, one really wonders how subjectivities are contructed to perpetuate a marginalisation that eerily over time becomes 'acceptable'...Bollywood being one such pervasive media. Mary gets no lines, Molly has three forgetable ones but both immediately, and for no fault of theirs, feed the repressed fetish for gori/fair-chinky flesh!! Het Saaalaa! Sorry.

As you see, i doubt whether my views are going to be helpful for a write up cause they are so partisan. Cinematically, it just pushed my patience and then the subscripts were rather apalling. "

Postscript: Nehru's vision of 'unity in diversity,' that has become a free-for-all site, will be flattened by such reductionist projects like ChakDe India. U-i-D as a process serves us better than U-i-D as an event because differences will perpetuate and should. As a process, U-i-D would serve better in setting up negotiations across the diversity while being open to shifts as differences are nuanced and mulitplied. Sadly, Shah Rukh's moment of victory and redemption set us back a few steps; and maybe one needs to emphasize that at the completion of a game or in packaging a bollywood productions, "winning isn't everything" because the winners seemingly always need the losers.
http://www.yashrajfilms.com/microsites/cdi/cdi.html

5 comments:

Mizohican said...

But overall, it was a good attempt on Bollywood to promote NE people to this level. Most people stereotype us, not because they are racists, but simply because they are not educated or there is a lack of interaction. This movie does give a fair attempt to display our typical complains and angst about the attitude of Mainland Indians.

Philo said...

Illusionaire,
Could it be that most stereotypes are because we are, in fact, 'educated' to think that way by using simplistic reductions to package 'difference'? I dont doubt the screenplay writer had his/her best intentions but my only contention was the obvious inability to break beyond those limitations of 'education'.
SRK opines, "I think intellect and logic should be left at the doorstep of filmmaking." (http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071022&fname=Shahrukh+Khan+%28F%29&sid=2&pn=7). At the risk of becoming a belligerent killjoy, why would someone want to dumb down entertainment? WHat's at stake in anaesthetizing humor so that laughter is mandatory on the part of the butts of the joke? Who makes the jokes/entertains?
Hey thanks for your appreciative take on CHakDe and levelling my bile.

Anonymous said...

…there are many things the movie can be pilloried for but I think the multi-cultural dimension was a first for Bollywood, which I thought was quite innovative (usually monochrome except perhaps for the addition of a cultural "other" used as a prop, or scapegoat to introduce an otherwise non-existent humour). In a way, it showed (I thought) in a not-too-subtle form, (but then again who said Indians were subtle) present day cultural dynamics and was a good commentary on social reality and the movie could therefore be used to critique this reality...(on the other hand what it also does is reify stereotypes!)
One could ask why the girls from the NE have only a token presence? Just as their role was scripted for silence, are there silent structures in place in society that make them silent in the context of their interactions with society at large. Moreover, are they only objects to be acted upon, (as in the eve-teasing scene, where they are 'rescued') to be rescued and saved, without the need for the expression of agency in their problems; are they to be thus merely the objects for somebody's cause... are they to remain silent and avoid altercations (the scene showing the fight for bed space), perhaps silently justifying it by saying this is not our land anyway, or are they to speak up for themselves in the midst of aggressive behaviour? On the other hand is the rhetoric of exclusion/inclusion in the nation state merely to be based on non-recognition by the majority??

well ... that by the way was the gist of the public talk... not sure how well it was received, but i thoroughly enjoyed it!

Philo said...

jayeniu...
Inspired i must say and even more cogently packaged. Im sure the actual presentation would have been more nuanced than just your script so...batao yaar, kya hua? It seemed to be livid topic so Im guessing the setting and your presentation would have been too! WHat's your take on the production of subjectivities that throws agency into a spin (Lacan, etc) and I could do well with your perceptive breaking downs!

Anonymous said...

Casino Money tyuueooru
Casino Free Game
In fact, there is no risk at all.
[url=http://www.nhgaa.org/]Top Online Casinos[/url]
Most significantly, it's necessary for you to conduct a thorough search regarding the best gambling websites out there.
http://www.nhgaa.org/ - Best Casino
Ensure that the one you're interested in prefer using a trustable and ideal software that you can rely on.