Such is the state of representation of eastern cultures, that while western world may admire typical aesthetics of these films, the native audience often wonders if their own culture is being represented in a fair way.
While Globalization, in the cultural sphere has been accused of destroying native identities in favour of a new homogenized, western consumer culture, Cinema, on the other hand, has often struggled between finding ground between claims of it being either a representative or a creative medium. There have been times when the screen has been used to represent/ depict cultural changes, and there have been times when cinema has itself brought about this change in a society. While Yasujiro Ozu and Satyajit Ray aimed at representing the rural working class in Japan and India respectively, accurately, Humphrey Bogart, Katherine Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe can be accused of shaping lifestyles and cultures after them. Whatever the ramifications, the power the celluloid wields over the masses remains indisputable.
It is, firstly, rather forceful and unfair to divide the world on the lines of ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ cultures. However, the evolution of cinema has thus far ignored the minor details in cultures that cinema depicts. And we find ourselves caught between the celluloid binaries of East and West, repeatedly. And so we continue.
In the modern world, the representation of the ‘East’ has largely revolved, arguably between two ends. On one hand is the Hollywood-influenced, ultra-chic, guns-and-shades motifs of Hong Kong cinema; on the other hand, is the type of cinema that tries to win laurels by feeding the already created stereotypes about the east, to a world audience that is largely only fascinated by the mystical ‘East’. In the former, the homogenization between east and west is highlighted, where the characters dress, act, and speak like their American or European counterparts. In the latter, the stark differences between the two cultures is at the fore: dire poverty, slums, hunger, absence or inadequacy of law and order enforcement et al.
Let us contrast Infernal Affairs (2002), with the just released Slumdog Millionaire (2009). Both films did well at the box office; they were equally successful with the audience and critics. However, while Infernal Affairs forced the western viewer to shed aside the stereotypical image of the east, and screened the landscape in a new light, Slumdog Millionaire feeds on feeding the western audience with the same old styles, backdrops, and mise-en-scène.
Such is the state of representation of eastern cultures, that while western world may admire typical aesthetics of these films, the native audience often wonders if their own culture is being represented in a fair way.
When Yasujiro Ozu released his masterpiece ‘Tokyo Story’ (1953), the audience was exposed, for the first time, to the then domestic life of the Japanese people. The story dealt with an old couple coming to terms with a new, urban lifestyle that their children had adopted. A new type of work culture had surfaced in urban Japan, a culture much influenced by the west. The film dealt with this change and its acceptance in a society thus far seeped in myth for the western audience. It would contrast starkly with the image of Japan that had been created in the minds of non-native viewers, by filmmakers like Kurosawa.
Scopophilic devices used by these masters created the first images of Japan for European and American audiences. Again, in 1953, Bimal Roy’s classic Do Bigha Zameen, brought freshness in terms of its depiction of the peasants and their fear of the city, and the accuracy of the representation.
That was India of 1953. But in 2009, Slumdog Millionaire fails to add that credibility in its depiction of urban India. A more accurate film on these lines would be Rang De Basanti (2006), which does reflect the psyche of the urban Indian youth in a globalized world. Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna (2006), although glamorizing infidelity, was at least accurate in depicting the lifestyles of working Indian couples in the modern world.
The polarization between cultures of East and West, and the subsequent loss of identity as a result of the imminent homogenization has been explored in a number of films like East is East, The Namesake, etc. However, little known, yet quite direct in its depiction of the effects of globalization in a local environment is Kurush Canteenwala’s 30-minute documentary called ‘New Empire’. The film revolves around an old Iranian restaurant in southern Mumbai, that gave way to a McDonald’s outlet, in the late 1990’s. Among the first changes that the city noticed, and first in a string of such events that followed, it was only ironic that the old restaurant had been called ‘New Empire’. Yes, with the advent of McDonald’s, a new era had arrived in a country that was still only coming to terms with liberalization. Yet, change was imminent. Even today, numerous old movie theatres shut down every month, and in their place multiplexes are built. The converse is also true. If in India, China, Thailand ‘native’ restaurants are shut down to make way for multinational giants, in the western world, their native food joints are shut down to make way for Indian, Chinese, Thai restaurants. Little hope, then, for an entity to stick with a single age-old identity, in today’s world.
And cinema is no different. The aesthetics that long guided the cinematography of Indian and Chinese cinema, have given way to more Hollywood-influenced stylistic devices. The quaint, melodramatic moments in a peasant household in rural China has evolved into flashy car chases, and shiny pistols, coupled with racy visual and sound effects. Compare Mother India (1957) with Zinda (2006); compare Tokyo Story with Infernal Affairs, or Old Boy (2003). The urban culture has always been at the forefront of this movement. And globalization has always directly influenced urban culture across all nations.
Opponents of this change often reject the western influences on grounds of a holier-than-thou morality. Modern day India is seeing fundamentalist groups of unemployed men brutally molest women under the garb of activism against what they call ‘the pub culture’. But the fact is, in the 21st century, it is almost impossible for any culture to remain unaffected by the oncoming globalization. And ostracizing is no solution. There are countries, where the lack of economic development has thus far kept global homogenization at bay, but with improved trade and better inter-cultural interactions, even the boundaries of cultural identity will be overcome. Films are only a medium of representation of this change. Or are they?