All in all, Indian cinema and print media have always had an uneasy relationship right from the beginning. Print technology never received that importance in India’s primary oral society that was achieved by cinema, telephone, radio, TV. Etc. As a result, Indian cinema has always been treated unfairly by the English-speaking media critics. For example, Rajshri’s Vivah (2006) did not get media support. The film was not released with popular fanfare and it did not get initial success at the box office. However, it was gradually loved by people and became popular and established its influence among the audience. Its success proved that, despite the silence and non-cooperation of the media, events do happen and the importance of those events is accepted in public life. The popular notion held by the middle class that nowadays most important events happen for the media and in the media, is not entirely correct. The truth is that there is a gigantic world outside the media, where the media has failed to reach due to its incompetence. If a media-hyped film like Om Shanti Om (2007) is a trend of Indian cinema, then Vivah (2006) and Chak De India (2007) represent the other and more natural trend.
It is an Indian belief that real events happen in the universe. An event that happens in the universe can also happen with the will of an anonymous human being. It can happen due to the extraordinary power of the sanctity of the normal family relationship found between an ordinary orphaned girl and her ordinary uncle, through simple rituals like engagement and through simple rites like marriage or Griha-Puja; it can also happen because of the ordinary will power of an ordinary man like Dadasaheb Phalke. Media can kill or keep alive the mediocre films through its news, but despite the neglect of the media, excellent films and compositions eventually get their rightful place. Every creator, every seeker has to cross a threshold of Sadhana, Riyaz (rehearsal) or Japa-Tapas. The cooperation and non-cooperation of mass media, capital and technology make a difference only up to an optimum or a threshold level. But after crossing that threshold, the indirect relation gets established with the world of ideas and Nature; then, the process of establishing a fan-club, cults and movement begins.
Media runs after the ‘event’, and not after the idea (consciousness). Indian people understand this element of social reality. A festival is also an event. One should not forget that a festival involves a lot of hard work, enthusiasm and expenditure on making idols. Thereafter, the festival is celebrated by worshipping that idol; but the special feature of Indian culture is exhibited in the final order in the celebration of a festival. The idol is immersed (in the river) with the same enthusiasm with which it was made and worshipped. This whole process implies that the festival is not just an event, it is basically the consciousness; the Indian audience understands it, the English critics don’t.
If we go back to the contemporary text of the film Vivah (2006), then our attention goes towards 1. Naya Daur (1957)2. Mother India (1957) 3. Seema (1955) 4. Jhanak Jhanak Payal Baje (1955) 5. Teesri Kasam (1966) 6. Jagte Raho (1956) 7. Guide (1965) 8. Upkar (1967) 9. Prakh (2005) 10. Diksha (1991) 11. Anokhi Raat (1968) 12. Aradhana (1969) 13. Anand (1971) 14. Abhimaan (1973) 15. Godan (1963) 16. Sholay (1975) 17. Aandhi (1975) 18. Mirch Masala (1987) 19. Maine Pyar Kiya (1989) 20. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995)and 21. Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam (1999). Semitic or Marxist canon (basic establishments) may be seen in the characterization of the villain in these films, but the establishment of Sanatan (perennial) truth can be seen in the portrayal of common characters or common events described in them. Marxists have compared Yash Chopra’s Deewar (1975) with films like Godan (1963) and Diksha (1991) or Nishant (1975) or Mother India (1957). Though they may have some similarities, the purpose of writing or production of these films is very different and distinct.
Deewar (1975) is a commercial-formula film with some elements from both Mother India and Ganga Jamuna (1961), but the original story is inspired by the life of a smuggler from Mumbai, Haji Mastan. The smuggler’s point of view is sympathetically portrayed in the story. The agility of the script and the directorial prowess has infused the quality of advertisement films into this feature film. For some gullible critics, this film, advertising the Glory of a smugglers’ saga, based on craft and scale of efficiency, even comes out as a timeless film. But one should not forget that it took a lot of money, hard work and intellect to make this happen. Despite this, it could not achieve the status of Sholay (1975) or Jai Santoshi Maa (1975) which were released in the same year. The hype garnered by Deewar can be compared to the hype for the film Om Shanti Om (2007), whereas the success of Jai Santoshi Maa (1975) can be compared with Chak De India (2007) or Vivah (2006).
There is such a vast diversity of taste and viewership in our country of 140 crore populations that people even flock to watch the artistic insanity of Dev Anand, and horror comedy films by Ramsay Brothers also find some audience. The way films of Mahesh Bhatt and Aditya Chopra have been consistently appreciated in bulk by a certain section of audience, similarly, in the decade of 1970s, Amitabh Bachchan’s films have been appreciated. No objective scale has been developed to measure their popularity. A reviewer-critic in Indian cinema plays very much the same role as was played by the landlord in Nishant (1975) and the moneylender in Mother India (1957); they all do as they please.
There is a lack of critical tradition, academic justice and institutionalised criticism in India. Critics fabricate myths at their own convenience. There is a lack of transparency, democracy and multicultural orientation in the composition of the critics or the media. The British Raj has done more harm, in the field of literature, cinema, art, culture and religion than in the field of political economy. The British Raj created a new section of moneylenders, landlords, abbots, critics and scholars among Indians who, despite being Indian, hated the Indian people, worked against Indian culture, art, policy, morality, but being the supporters of the British Raj, they used to the trample the common man with their hooliganism in the society.
This trend continued even after 1947 as state and university-funded institutions have been blaming the general public. However, Indian cinema gave the status of heroism to the public and presented the tribe of black British (Indian anglophiles born out of the thinking in the interests of the Britishers) as villains who always favoured the interests of the British rule over governance and society. This started at least in Hindi with the works of Premchand, Prasad and Nirala. After 1936, this basic tone of Hindi literature was expressed in Hindi cinema. Until 1936, Hindi was basically the local vernacular. Hindi was made the national language by Hindi cinema when Gujarati-speaking Mehboob, Marathi-speaking Shantaram, Bengali-speaking Bimal Roy, Punjabi-speaking Chetan Anand, Raj Kapoor and Baldevraj Chopra made a conscious decision not to make their films in their mother tongues but in Hindi and that too in a Marathi region like Mumbai, then Hindi got a wider national coverage.
