Gender Issues in Popular Indian Cinema

[prahajess]

I agree, Maru, especially with your nod to Dil Bert. 
Also, while we all know that women have it harder in just about every industry, that doesn't really make everything "sexist."
Finally, though I consider myself on the left side of liberal, and don't even like Katrina, I frankly thought her Sheela number was HOT.  Sometimes I want my thought-provoking, modern, world-changing cinema and sometimes I want my item numbers and explosions. Boom.

[Dil Bert]

Are there characters in Indian movies which meet the full definition of MPDG?  I've not seen the Hollywood movies referenced.  This line in particular seems problematic: "MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up, thus their men never grow up."  Most of the quirky, bubbly female characters seem innately happy; i.e. their happiness comes from within and they don't need to pursue anything to be happy.  The part about growing up seems to mean becoming dull and serious.

[tabula rasa]

I notice the MPDG thing as an emerging trend in BW. I think Kareena in JWM is a prime example, and now probably Ek Main Aur Ek Tu. I think in the Indian context it's being mixed with the idea of a liberal, modern girl who is a free agent, and I can see how that might be hugely appealing to millions of young studying/working Indian women who're trying to navigate all their various roles within their families. I don't think it will have the same critical context as in Hollywood.

Didn't the guys used to do this role earlier in BW? SRK in DDLJ first half is an example, and I can think as far back as Rajesh Khanna in Anand, and of course the reason why he was like that was because he was actually dying.

[tabula rasa]

Ekta Kapoor has been accused of making regressive TV shows and now is being heralded for her bold vision in backing "different" sexually liberating stories in her movies. So is she a scourge to feminists becuase of her TV record or a flag bearer because of her films? I'd argue that Ekta is backing projects in TV and in the films that she thinks spell box office success. Having conquererd the mass TV audience with the most obvious Sati-Savitri-Chudail tales she's backing small budget films for the multiplex audience that aren't shy about portrayals of sexuality or power. So far it's worked - I don't think it says much about her principles or her personal values, but it does point to her keen business sense.

That's a really great point. I remember Ekta being bashed around because of her serials. I suppose she's being very astute about her audience. It looks like there's a great divide in India with regards to television and film demographics, esply with the multiplexes, and I can understand that, given the massive class divides in the society.

PW - I know where you're coming from, and I agree that item numbers and bikinis are all there because sex sells etc, but I always get a bit iffy when the male skin show, buffness, shirtlessness and item numbers, too, get discussed/defended as a kind of gender equaliser in selling sex. Mind you, there have been times when I *have* gone 'oooh' at Hrithik's shirtlessness, but I don't know if I do that, or need to do that, as often as men do at women. I don't think women are AS visual as men are. I do think that with the overwhelming pervasiveness of visual culture in this time in history, women are probably MORE visual than they USED to be, but I don't see how that's reason enough to feel that throwing the same kind of sexual objectification at female audiences is some kind of rectification for objectifying women for male audiences.

Mind you, all this talk of 'objectification' comes about mainly because the male audience is seen as the typical 'subject'. A lot of these item numbers have heaps of male backup dancers openly leering at the female body, shot at risque angles. When it's the guy who's in the middle, though, surrounded by a bevy of beauties, somehow HE becomes the subject, rather than object, because he's always mostly clothed, and looking around at a bunch of scantily clad women sinuously attaching themselves to his limbs, bending to show cleavage, and batting their eyelashes, and looking pleased to have his attention (Bluffmaster's Ek Main Aur Ek Tu Hai, no relation to the upcoming release).

If anyone can come up with a song (other than Choli Ke Peeche where the woman was the subject, and see how the nation reacted to THAT) where the woman is the sexual subject and the man is the sexual object, I'd be interested in taking a look.

[Honeycomb]

Are there characters in Indian movies which meet the full definition of MPDG?  I've not seen the Hollywood movies referenced.  This line in particular seems problematic: "MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up, thus their men never grow up."  Most of the quirky, bubbly female characters seem innately happy; i.e. their happiness comes from within and they don't need to pursue anything to be happy.  The part about growing up seems to mean becoming dull and serious.

This awful MPDG term has just got to be eradicated somehow from the cinematic lexicon.  It makes no sense, not to mention that it's a completely made up term that is trying to fit a wider range of lightly-written female characters into one box. This is all part and parcel of the categorization that women's roles are placed under - If a character is not clinically depressed or a power-crazed bitch, then she must be a MPDG..
Some of the HW movies that are mentioned(including a few of the most iconic roles ever created for women) are incredibly well written, layered and complex women,  and I'm not sure how this critic who coined this phrase can still look us in the eye - because clearly, he has no clue what they're about.

[LinKarish]

Subject

Khallas, Company
Parda, Once Upon a Time in Mumbai (I think this qualifies)

Many Southern Item numbers

Thee Pikdikka, Arindhum Ariyamalum
Ah Ente Amalapuram, Arya

There are other examples in my mind where I believe the women are just as much involved, but it would still be considered as objectification by some. 

[MinaS]

Discuss: are actress auditions today better or worse than they were ~60 years ago?
http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2011/04/girls-auditioning-screen-test-for-hindi.html

Those pix are outrageous. The answer is probably The Same....

I don't know that a lot of people will disagree with me on the basic notions that 1. BW is male dominated and often women get short shrift, 2)Women are often objectified in the movies esp. in item numbers 3) none of this is likely to change anytime soon

I agree. One of the distinctive features of BW is the bias toward the male gaze, ie that it is almost exclusively a view of the world from a male persepective. Yes there are always exceptions, but by and large it is the story of a man's experience of life, with the females fitting in the main supporting roles (mother, sister, love interest).  That itself, you could argue, has become a defining feature of the genre.

MPDG -- I agree the term is a nonsense and could include too many characters so as to render it meaningless. The stock character I get annoyed with is the Convenient Best Friend (CBF) who pops up to be a sounding board for the main character to blather on about what they are thinking and move the plot along, but has no personality or life beyond that role. Wonderfully satirised in the Truman Show. Can't think of any Hindi Film examples offhand. Rather off topic anyway...

[Parallel_Worlds]

PW - I know where you're coming from, and I agree that item numbers and bikinis are all there because sex sells etc, but I always get a bit iffy when the male skin show, buffness, shirtlessness and item numbers, too, get discussed/defended as a kind of gender equaliser in selling sex. Mind you, there have been times when I *have* gone 'oooh' at Hrithik's shirtlessness, but I don't know if I do that, or need to do that, as often as men do at women. I don't think women are AS visual as men are. I do think that with the overwhelming pervasiveness of visual culture in this time in history, women are probably MORE visual than they USED to be, but I don't see how that's reason enough to feel that throwing the same kind of sexual objectification at female audiences is some kind of rectification for objectifying women for male  is seen as the typical 'subject'.

I think i agree that the majority of movies are made catering to male sensibilities, especially the item songs. Its also true that women have adopted these sensibilities as well. I  quite enjoyed the munni and sheila songs.

I recently watched humko deewna kar gaye and in the movie the two guys decided on the fate of the female lead. They decided with whom she'd end up, while she just stood by teary faced.
This is the kind of subtle sexism that we get spoonfed in so many movies and that should change. Its why i loved the wedding scene in lajja, it was quite novel to have a woman participate in her fate.

[Dancelover]

[snip]
If anyone can come up with a song (other than Choli Ke Peeche where the woman was the subject, and see how the nation reacted to THAT) where the woman is the sexual subject and the man is the sexual object, I'd be interested in taking a look.

InMyOpinion Kareena is Subject, not Object, in all songs she does. (Maybe that's just me.)

I find Kajra Re to be a perfect example of Ash not letting herself be Objectivied. Remember the candle blowouts?
I further find that to be typical of Aishwarya.

Dancelover

[tabula rasa]

Yeah, not sure I want to bother formulating a response.


Discuss: are actress auditions today better or worse than they were ~60 years ago?
http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2011/04/girls-auditioning-screen-test-for-hindi.html

Dil Bert, before reading the rest of the thread - that's a gorgeous, gorgeous website! Esply the Heer Ranjha passionate kissing, with the non-Indian actress with the Indian name. Looks like Katrina is not a new phenomenon!

Thanks for the site, am tempted to print out some of those pics.

Okay, back to the thread...

[tabula rasa]

Subject

Khallas, Company
Parda, Once Upon a Time in Mumbai (I think this qualifies)

Many Southern Item numbers

Thee Pikdikka, Arindhum Ariyamalum
Ah Ente Amalapuram, Arya

There are other examples in my mind where I believe the women are just as much involved, but it would still be considered as objectification by some. 

LK, my comments on Choli Ke Peeche having sexual subjectivity was based on this article:

The song reappears in the film after intermission. Curiously, its second rendition did not attract public attention. By this time, both Ganga and the audience find out that Ballu discovered Ganga's true identity at their first meeting, soon after she finished singing the song. This discovery not only unveils Ganga's identity as a sub-inspector, but more importantly reveals that her display of sexuality was a masquerade and that behind this masquerade is a pure Ganga. When Ganga realizes that she is actually being held hostage, she wants to leave and protests against her imprisonment by not eating. Ballu and his gang sing the song to coax her to eat. In a sequence composed of twenty-eight shots, Ballu and his gang don appropriate dancing attire and attempt to entertain Ganga. Interestingly, the editing processes and camera angles do not sexualize the men's bodies as they imitate Ganga's performance. They fail miserably at being either sexy or alluring. In contrast to the depiction of Ballu and his gang as voyeurs during the first picturization of the song, the camera technology does not construct Ganga as a voyeur because she refuses to watch the men's performance. By the same token, the camera does not extend this position to the spectators in the audience. What is then behind the men's failure to perform as 'good' lures and Ganga's failure to act as a 'good' voyeur? Behind these failures, I think, is a social convention, one that supports a patriarchal status quo. It is only women -- especially 'bad' women -- who can be 'good' lures; men are obviously the subjects of desire, not sexual objects.

Although the song appeared twice in the film and on the audio cassettes, it was its first rendition which became the focus of public controversy. Why didn't the song's second rendition attract the attention of the public or the censors? Was it the representation of sexy female bodies which made the song controversial? This answer doesn't seem satisfactory because camera shots focusing on female breasts litter Bollywood screens. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine why such a representation would incite debate. The controversy was not only about the representation of sexy female bodies, but also the refrain 'Choli ke peeche kya hai.' Did this refrain simply loose its 'oomph' when Ballu and his gang sang the song? Was the refrain inoffensive without the camera shot focusing on Ganga's blouse? Why were the words more obscene and vulgar when sung by female singers and female characters? I believe that the first rendition of the song was disruptive because the visual and verbal representation combined to produce female sexual desire. It was the articulation of this desire that was the problem -- it posited that women were not only sexual objects, but also sexual subjects.

(Mods - it's a VERY long article, and I'm only posting two paras)

The element of voyeurism is intrinsic to positing ideas of sexual subjectivity and objectification, as well as the lyrics and visuals. I do have problems with this article because the song is still inviting the male observer to view the woman's desire as part of the voyeurism - Ballu nearly gets up at one point of the song to go after her.

I suppose what I was wondering earlier was if there were songs where the guy was showing skin AND desire while inviting the woman to be the voyeur.

[Prem Rogue]

I suppose what I was wondering earlier was if there were songs where the guy was showing skin AND desire while inviting the woman to be the voyeur.

Where does Dard-e-Disco from Om Shanti Om fall? Sure, its filled with sexy female backup dancers, but SRK is front and center as an object of desire.

[tabula rasa]

Where does Dard-e-Disco from Om Shanti Om fall? Sure, its filled with sexy female backup dancers, but SRK is front and center as an object of desire.

True. And my was it marketed as such, too!

Perhaps parts of Dhoom 2 was also voyeuristic with Hrithik - but it also had the scantily clad pouting backup dancers.

Actually the closest to this that I can think of is that portion of ZNMD where Hrithik stretches during a song in the car. However we now know that Zoya didn't really get involved in that shoot because she didn't know how to film a lip-sync song and it was Farhan and Hrithik who got together and did it. So that might be unintentional.

[newbiefan]

I suppose what I was wondering earlier was if there were songs where the guy was showing skin AND desire while inviting the woman to be the voyeur.

Not a song, but the sword practice routine in Jodhaa Akbar fits perfectly.

[Dariya]

The MPDG (my first time hearing the term btw) is a very real character type.  Maybe I'm more aware of it because I watch Korean dramas, where such characters are pervasive.  I don't think the definition is meant to be expanded to include any female character that is cheerful, as some of you are thinking.  Like the wiki page says, it's when the character appears as a heal-all for the male who's suffering from "issues".  It's insulting (or just annoying) because such characters are rarely fully-formed, but serve only as foils and fantasies for the male.   Sometimes they're mentally unstable and/or selfish (ZD in 500 Days, the woman in Jules et Jim), but in a "cute" and "charming" way, and are hence irresistible to the male lead(s).

I like the emergence of the outgoing, cheerful girl in BW.  I don't think they are at all falling victim to the "MPDG" trend.  Unlike in Hollywood, in a country where women have long been asserting themselves, it feels like a welcome change in India to see women characters that aren't as coy or submissive as their predecessors, but also aren't self-centered like many women in American and French films of the 60's and 70's. 

[Dariya]

Are there characters in Indian movies which meet the full definition of MPDG?  I've not seen the Hollywood movies referenced.  This line in particular seems problematic: "MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up, thus their men never grow up."  Most of the quirky, bubbly female characters seem innately happy; i.e. their happiness comes from within and they don't need to pursue anything to be happy.  The part about growing up seems to mean becoming dull and serious.

I think it's the handling of such a character that determines whether the cheerfulness is an asset or an annoyance.  My best example of a badly portrayed bubbly girl is Kajol in K3G -- very, very annoying.  I could see her joy but I couldn't feel it.  OTOH, the character of Hasini in Bommarillu is a favorite with many people.  She is exactly the type of character that could be called MPDG -- always cheerful, slightly one-dimensional, and really just there to help the guy deal with his issues.  But unlike Kajol in K3G she's also believable and sincere, and very loveable -- like you say, innately happy.

Dil Bert, the fact that you don't agree with the use of the term might have to do with the fact that you haven't seen the films mentioned on the wiki page.  The kinds of "quirkiness" found in some of those films might not be something you'd want to defend -- it's not just cheerfulness, but mental instability and self-centerdness that are portrayed as charming qualities.  I'm not an expert on the term but it would seem that it's meant to include such characteristics.  In which case it's not even relevant (yet) to Bollywood.  For which I am very happy.

[Dil Bert]

Two things with the MPDG as described which bothers me: 1) if it was an older male who platonically helped the lead appreciate life without seeking cash money, everyone would see that character as a teacher/mentor and be OK with it (and be fine with him not changing). 2) some have listed the title character from My Sassy Girl as an MPDG; that character in the Korean original is a damaged soul who gets help from the boyfriend (who was OK before meeting her other than being a little boring).

Dil Bert, the fact that you don't agree with the use of the term might have to do with the fact that you haven't seen the films mentioned on the wiki page.

That's possible, though it seems others have problems with the term as well.  I do reject that every main character in a movie has to grow during the course of a film.  Why can't someone who is happy/satisfied at the beginning of a film stay that way throughout?  Insisting that someone happy has to grow up seems to me a very stunted worldview where everyone has to become dull and humorless to be considered an adult.


Just saw the Telugu film Devdas and it has some interesting twists on gender/skin color/background dancers:

- There is a female member of both rival school gangs
- The female lead/female gang members are darker than the hero/male romantic rival
- In a song, the white backup 'dancers' appear with the female lead in America, but Indian dancers appear with the male lead in India: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0xGntI_634
- Women are instrumental in helping the hero
- Don't think I've seen this male/female behavior before in a song: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0DFgyJ_nKA

The film is not a case study of feminist screenwriting, but to say more would spoil some of the story.

[tabula rasa]

I do reject that every main character in a movie has to grow during the course of a film.  Why can't someone who is happy/satisfied at the beginning of a film stay that way throughout? 

Because that is a very basic aspect of storytelling. No character change, no conflict, and therefore no narrative, at least in the Western sense. And especially so in film.

http://www.storypros.com/Article_1108.html

An arc represents character change -- literary evolution in action. By the end of the movie, your hero or heroine should not be the same person he/she was when the story began. The journey the character goes through has had such an impact that they are forever altered…for better or worse.

Does every character need to change?  No. Minor characters and bit roles provide comic relief, serve a necessary function (cab driver, doorman, etc.), or represent obstacles (someone who stands in the way of whatever the hero wants). Villains can also change but sometimes the best villains are just pure evil from beginning to end…and pure evil must be destroyed at all costs!

But the hero must evolve and change!  Can you write a story without the hero being transformed by the experience? Sure. You can also bake bread without yeast -- but don't expect a fluffy loaf...expect a matzoh.


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

I don't know enough about the MPDG to say if it is a negative stereotype. I do know that when done badly it can be annoying, like Charlize Theron in Sweet November, although the main archetype, Natalie Portman in Garden State, was enjoyable, but that might be because it fit the tone of the movie maybe? I don't know. But whenever the trope gets repetitive, and gets used for it own sake, I can see how it seem reductive, and the character doesn't seem fully realised.

And I agree, Dariya, I think the MPDG in Indian film might be a more positive development - it allows, in the quirkiness, for an individuality, rather than stock archetypes, and that's probably very appealing. Perhaps Nargis Fakhri in Rockstar was a semblance of that too.

[Dil Bert]

Because that is a very basic aspect of storytelling. No character change, no conflict, and therefore no narrative, at least in the Western sense. And especially so in film.

http://www.storypros.com/Article_1108.html
[...]
Does every character need to change?  No.
[...]
But the hero must evolve and change!
[...]

I don't see a problem with a film where the hero grows and the heroine does not.  Or vice versa.

I'll just go ahead and agree to disagree on what constitutes growth.    I would define it as a character's personality/ethics changing in a significant way.  A character falling in love is not growth if they were ready to do so.  Konkona's personality/ethical changes in Mr and Mrs Iyer to get to the point where she could fall in love, abandon the world she knew, etc. is growth.  Not going to debate my view.

I don't know enough about the MPDG to say if it is a negative stereotype.

It is a defined one, though, and shouldn't be applied to quirky lead women who don't meet the rest of the definition.  "MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up, thus their men never grow up."  To me that says the MPDG is sacrificing for the lead man, which I don't think is the case every time a lead woman is quirky and helps the lead man realize life can be fun.  If a quirky female lead really wanted to go study abroad, but stays in India because the jerk lead man doesn't want her to go, sure, she's probably a MPDG.

I think the concept of MPDG is flawed, but it is not the same as "bubbly, quirky female lead."

[Amba]

Because that is a very basic aspect of storytelling. No character change, no conflict, and therefore no narrative, at least in the Western sense. And especially so in film.

Character growth of this sort might be integral to Western storytelling, but I think Indian storytelling tends to run along different lines. In popular Indian cinema, characters are more often like fairy-tale characters than they are like the characters one might encounter in a literary novel. They tend to be archetypal - the Noble Hero, the Virtuous Heroine, the Evil Villain, etc. Honestly, in the sorts of movies where the female lead isn't complex or fully-realized, there's a good chance that the male lead is similarly flat.

When it comes to item numbers, I've noticed that, in the ones that become really famous and iconic (Kajra Re, Beedi, Choli ke Peeche, etc.), there's usually some meaningful interaction between the woman and someone else. It might not disrupt the desiring subject/desired object binary completely, but it does give the woman some agency. 

[prahajess]

This awful MPDG term has just got to be eradicated somehow from the cinematic lexicon.  It makes no sense, not to mention that it's a completely made up term that is trying to fit a wider range of lightly-written female characters into one box. This is all part and parcel of the categorization that women's roles are placed under - If a character is not clinically depressed or a power-crazed bitch, then she must be a MPDG..
Some of the HW movies that are mentioned(including a few of the most iconic roles ever created for women) are incredibly well written, layered and complex women,  and I'm not sure how this critic who coined this phrase can still look us in the eye - because clearly, he has no clue what they're about.

SO TRUE. What absolute laziness. 

[Dancelover]

Perhaps the audience is watching the *dancing,* and ignoring the singing except as support for the dance.
(That's me!)

Madhuri, as Ganga, is a Transendental Genius at dance!
Perhaps Sanjay (as Ballu) is not.
Therefore we watch her, and ignore him.

Dancelover, who finds this expaination sufficient

LK, my comments on Choli Ke Peeche having sexual subjectivity was based on this article:

The song reappears in the film after intermission. Curiously, its second rendition did not attract public attention.
By this time, both Ganga and the audience find out that Ballu discovered Ganga's true identity at their first meeting, soon after she finished singing the song. This discovery not only unveils Ganga's identity as a sub-inspector, but more importantly reveals that her display of sexuality was a masquerade and that behind this masquerade is a pure Ganga. When Ganga realizes that she is actually being held hostage, she wants to leave and protests against her imprisonment by not eating. Ballu and his gang sing the song to coax her to eat. In a sequence composed of twenty-eight shots, Ballu and his gang don appropriate dancing attire and attempt to entertain Ganga. Interestingly, the editing processes and camera angles do not sexualize the men's bodies as they imitate Ganga's performance. They fail miserably at being either sexy or alluring.
[snip - dancelover]
Although the song appeared twice in the film and on the audio cassettes, it was its first rendition which became the focus of public controversy. Why didn't the song's second rendition attract the attention of the public or the censors?
[snip]

[snip]
[/quote=tr]

[LinKarish]

LK, my comments on Choli Ke Peeche having sexual subjectivity was based on this article:

The song reappears in the film after intermission. Curiously, its second rendition did not attract public attention. By this time, both Ganga and the audience find out that Ballu discovered Ganga's true identity at their first meeting, soon after she finished singing the song. This discovery not only unveils Ganga's identity as a sub-inspector, but more importantly reveals that her display of sexuality was a masquerade and that behind this masquerade is a pure Ganga. When Ganga realizes that she is actually being held hostage, she wants to leave and protests against her imprisonment by not eating. Ballu and his gang sing the song to coax her to eat. In a sequence composed of twenty-eight shots, Ballu and his gang don appropriate dancing attire and attempt to entertain Ganga. Interestingly, the editing processes and camera angles do not sexualize the men's bodies as they imitate Ganga's performance. They fail miserably at being either sexy or alluring. In contrast to the depiction of Ballu and his gang as voyeurs during the first picturization of the song, the camera technology does not construct Ganga as a voyeur because she refuses to watch the men's performance. By the same token, the camera does not extend this position to the spectators in the audience. What is then behind the men's failure to perform as 'good' lures and Ganga's failure to act as a 'good' voyeur? Behind these failures, I think, is a social convention, one that supports a patriarchal status quo. It is only women -- especially 'bad' women -- who can be 'good' lures; men are obviously the subjects of desire, not sexual objects.

@bold, I'm sure old an old member, LolaRuns, would disagree. I would disagree too. I think there was something very appealing about Sanjay Dutt in that sequence.

[los angeles]

One of the writers on one of my favourite American websites posted this link awhile back and I found it interesting, it's a trailer for a movie that examines gender issues in western film/television/internet content:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5pM1fW6hNs

Would be cool to see India make a similar movie about the effect of its media on women as well.
Though, things move quickly, I bet there's some smart desi girl in film school in Mumbai already taping interviews for it now:p

[tabula rasa]

That's a seriously awesome trailer. I'd watch that. Any idea when it will be out?