4 Billion Tickets Sold and 1000 Movies Each Year - It's Bollywood, Not Hollywood

Before someone bites my head off, want to clarify that this was written for a western audience and is a cross post here. Hence the "Have you heard of Bollywood" and it's ilk..

1000 movies a year? the indian hindi movie industry doesnt produce that many im sure, that close to 20 movies every friday. if ur includin the entire indian film industry as bollywood, then ur making ahuge mistake. the tamil/telegu/ mallu film industry is not a part of bollywood. they are distinct industries. and as Mammoty says bollywood is not representative of indian film industry.

this post reflects the myopic vision of everyone in bollywood who bask in their own self absorbed world and think that their industry, ie hindi film is indian film industry.

bollywood is much smaller than the statistics uve reported im sure.

"When combined with the rest of the Indian film industries, it is considered to be the largest film industry in the world in terms of number of films produced.. "

So not just tamil,telegu,mallu, but Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi as well to name a major few and a ton of minor ones. Yes, in India it's Kollywood, Tollywood and what not. Bollywood is still what the world goes by. It's akin to saying not all movies are made in Hollywood. True. But US film industry goes by Hollywood...

thts the small print, but ur post implies that bollywood is that big, and indian cinema is bollywood. indian cinema is bigger than bollywood, and bollywood is a subset of indian cinema. thts what ur post shud imply.

if bollywood represented indian cinema, IFFI should have a wider panaroma from other langauges too, and IFFA should honour other langauges too. as of now both just stick to hindi cinema, therefore making a claim that bollywood is indian cinema is blasphemous. its myopic.

"Bollywood, Bombay's Hollywood, is the Indian film industry. "

this is blasphemous, the myopic vision of every hindi speaking individual in india, thinking bollywood is indian cinema. this post reflects that myopic vision. why don u just stop equating bollywood to indian cinema? just call it hindi cinema.

since u wont let me call u an idiot on desicritics, ive used another forum :) and ur logic for calling bollywood indian cinema is roftl!!!


http://www.putvote.com/article/show/41750/DesiCritic_Bollywood_is_Indian_Cinema

LOL! Hilarious article. Shows how much you know about Indian cinema.

Thanks for the article Chanakya and sorry if you're getting your head bitten off.

Btw, the 1000 films a year figure is a bit bloated - its closer to about 700-800 feature length films according to figures available from the censor boards and I&B department. Its something Anupama Chopra, Rachel Dwyer and other "Bollywood" scholars have qualified and explained.

Also, both Time and National Geographic gave the audience figures in 2004 and 2005 as 2.5 billion for Hollywood and 3.5 billion for "Bollywood" - assuming that the one billion difference is made up of Indian, the two industries are on par in world wide market term despite Bollywood not having the financial clout or the vertical supply lines (production to theatre chains) that Hollywood does worldwide.

Again - sorry that your article got such negative responses replete with linguistic chauvinisms by other posters.

For those who quibble, "Bollywood" is a generic short hand film term for COMMERCIAL films made in India in over 15 languages. The biggest hits that go out ARE the ones in Hindi, however cinema in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali and Assamese ALL have specific international markets they do good business in.

What "Bollywood" doesn't include is art house and "international festival circuit" cinema that have no mass audience appeal back home. And that kind of cinema doesn't have much appeal anywhere else either.

Dude,
if people outside India have such unfounded notions about Bollywood, then its our responsibility to correct it or atleast not propogate the myth any further.

Bollywood = Indian cinema is like saying all South Indians are Madrasis.

Chiranjeevi's and Rajinikanth's remuneration is almost double that of any Hindi movie star.

Kamal Haasan and Mohanlal are one of the best actors this country has ever produced and you think bollywood is the sole representative of Indian Cinema??

Grow up!

Sigh - why can't we grow up? Just as ALL commercial cinema made in the USA gets placed under the big umbrella of Hollywood, even when its made in NYC, Florida, or even by indies that are shown at Sundance and then BOUGHT by a studio for release, ALL commecial cinema from India is considered under the shorthand of "Bollywood." This INCLUDES ALL the regional industries - AND works by Kamal Hasan, Rajnikanth, Mohanlal and Chiranjeevi.

Why is it so difficult for you guys to look beyond the regional chauvinism to realise that as a brand Bollywood is a very strong export one, and BETTER because it includes all the linguistic and regional variations?

For those who complain about Hindi cinema's predominance, ever notice that more "South" cinema gets sent to the Oscars for the foreign film category than Hindi ones? Even when there have been better Hindi films that year? Kamal Hasan's Indian was a good example of this.
So quit complaining already!

>>"Bollywood" is a generic short hand film term for COMMERCIAL films made in India in over 15 languages.

Anamika, contrary to what you claim, the writer has not bothered to list even one non-hindi language film in this article.

When magazine as "phoren" as TIME could list non-hindi films in their all-time great movies to watch, its funny that some people cannot and will not open their eyes to anything other than what comes from Mumbai.

It does not take a genius to figure out who is parochial and chauvinistic here.

amanika, the point IB and Censor board censor films of all languages, and if ur claim of 700-800 movies is true, then it translates into roughly 14 movies from the hindi film industry alone per week. is that happening? this friday the releases were no where close to that. only time that figure is met is during diwali, one weekend in a year. and movies release only on fridays to cash in on weekend crowds. No industry, even hollywood releases that many movies in a year.

now the figures ur quoting as chankya has pointed out is for the entire indian film industry. get ur facts right.

bollywood is hindi industry. ask any scholar from india, the ones uve quoted and they will say bollywood is hindi industry.

bollywood is not indian cinema, u have to accept that fact. just because its most noticed doesnt make it indian cinema.

and get ur facts right again, no star in bollywood makes as much money per movie as chiranjeevi and rajini, clearly their market value is greater, otherwise producers wouldnot pay so much for them to act, this is business 101.

commercial cinema in india is not bollywood.

chanakya if ur caling commercial cinema in india as bollywood, how come u have not listed a single non hindi movie in ur list? does this mean there are no good non hindi movies? thts bullshit for some hindi movies are ripped off other langauge, like Door, which was based on a mallu movie, i don know the name though.

and amanika none of the hindi movies made over the last 35 years, even the so called great movie sholay made it into times list of 100 greatest movies of all time. while a tamil movie called nayakan made by a small time director did.

the point is its not regional chauvinism as u claim. i will accept bollywood is for commercial cinema, if IFFA awards, also start recognising regional cinema. Mamotty has gone on record saying IFFA is only hindi cinema, unless the hindi cine industry starts recognise regional cinema, and incorporated regional cinema under the name bollywood, those who follow regional cinema will associate the term bolywood with hindi cinema. its two way.

a first step can be to open up IFFA to include people from regional cinema, as of now it inlcudes only hindi industry.
until then all u people screaming ur lungs out saying that bollywood is commercial cinema in india is bullshit.

sorry, typo, it should read hollywood releases 14 movies on a single day, even during the holiday season

Add up the figures yourself, 700-800 feature films average is for ALL India, not just Hindi cinema. For the past few years, the Kerala cine industry has been producing far more feature films annually than the Hindi one. Which is why you dont need to have 14 HINDI films released every week but ALL feature length films around the country get counted!

IFFA is not only problematic as regards to nonHindi films but also internally within Hindi cinema. It is a clique of specific filmmakers and is only acceptable for a very small minority of journos, filmmakers etc.

Moreover in your eagerness to pick a fight, you seem to have not read my post. I NEVER DENIED that South actors make more money. What is different is their audience share cutting across regional/linguisitc lines and the export focus they have acquired. The reality is that Hindi film producers are actively marketing abroad in ways that regional producers haven't tried yet. This is one reason "Bollywood" films make more money in Britain that the British productions. And this is the market "south" cinema should be tapping but hasn't yet.

Furthermore, the figures I am quoting is FOR ALL India - that translates to only about 200-300 Hindi films on average per year for the past 10 years. Do you maths - average 250 Hindi films opening over 52 weeks. Doesn't result in 14 per week does it? On the other hand, ALL openings in ALL languages would give you those figures.

Also may I point out that to rely on Time magazine as the ultimate voice on ANY cinema is a bit daft. I am NOT saying that Nayakan isn't a great film btw. I am just saying that Time magazine IS NOT a film journal or written by people who know cinema. May I suggest you look at Screen, BFi or ANY of the few hundred film journals that exist for more knowledgeable views.

Finally, "lists" in magazines mean nothing. Haven't you figured that out yet? Have you seen the bilge that IT and Outlook publish every year in their cinema issues? Or how "Aishwarya" is the greatest "Bollywood" star over ALL South actresses? Or the TIME article that listed Rahul Bose as one of the "most influential people" in Bollywood and left out people like Rajnikanth, Cheeranjivi and Shahrukh Khan? You really think anyone who takes Indian cinema seriously would look at Time as its great source of information?

I agree that Chanakya's article listed only Hindi films. But then I dont agree even with the choices of Hindi cinema he has listed in his article. I do recognise though that is his personal opinion and NOT a definitive or representative list.

But to turn that list into an indication of his regional chauvinism or turn it into a "Tamil, Telugu, Mallu" cinema vs the Hindi one seems more about trying to deliberately pick a fight than any kind of constructive debate.

a list is only as good as its complier agreed, the time list seems to be made by people who do know the the movies. like wise with roger ebert of chicago sun times.

with regards to Outlook, ur argument of aishwarya being the greatest bollywood star is accepted, since the defination of bollywood is hindi cinema.
nd ur logic that just because bollywood has a brand it represents indian cinema is bullshit. so far bollywood even globally is equated to hindi cinema. if a tamil movie is released in USA, as a bollywood product, the first question will be why is it not in hindi? there is an entry barrier to what is called bollywood, ie should be in hindi, therefore bollywood is hindi cinema. tamil telegu mallu movies will be under the classification of indian cinema. the authors first few paragraphs that imply bollywood is indian cinema is misleading, and the author should make the changes.

the point is simple, the author has equated bollywood with indian cinema, but bollywood is hindi cinema.

the author should have discussed indian cinema and then narrowed down to bollywood in his post, but the author gave an introduction to bollywood, and then stated bollywood represented indian cinema, which is blasphemous. it indicates his myopic vision. read the first few paragraphs of the post. it might not be what he wanted to say, but it stil conveys that, the author should have paid more attention to what he is writing.

if the author did wish to make a post on indian cinema, he should have included films of other langauges too. this post, assuming ur logic of bollywood representing indian cinema holds good, seems to indicate that the only good movies made in india are in hindi langauge, which is bullshit, the post seems to convey that.

for a fan of non hindi movies, the first few paragraphs give the idea that the writer is a pompous north indian, who does not look beyond bollywood, and thinks bollywood is indian cinema.

which is precisely what i have a problem with more importantly than his choice of movies per say

Vatsan,
Thanks for taking all the pains and posting so often. Really appreciate it. Anamika, thanks to you as well. Vatsan I'm very much a south Indian. So your assumption of me being a pompous north Indian are untrue. You are getting hung up in regional one upmanship & chavunism. Lighten up. The spirit of the article was to get desi movies it's light in the day in the western world. Be it Kannada,Hindi,Tamil or whatever..

the article shud convey the spirit, which inthis case it didnt.

its because the article din convey the spirit that im here arguing with you, if it did i wouldnt be. doesnt that seem simple to u?

chanakya

your article's content was not in synch with the so called spirit you claim.

anamika,
we never claimed TIME is the ultimate yardstick for judging films. The point implied was if a foreign non-filmi magazine can make a clear distinction between Hindi and non-hindi content, why not an indian writer when writing on Indian cinema?

You can't write about human beings by leaving out either men or women, who constitute this species under the pretext of keeping it simple Can you?.

Thats not simple, thats simplisitic..

The same way one does not write about Indian cinema without writing about atleast the major constituents, if not all.

Thanks for agreeing that the writer has left out non-hindi content and stars. That was precisely the point. All arguments ended there.

"The spirit of the article was to get desi movies it's light in the day in the western world. "

if this was ur spirit, u should have included movies of various languages, not just hindi. ur post does not live upto even its spirit. next time put more effort into posts, and don write bullshit

desi i assume stands for indian, unless u choose to interpret it as meaning north indian.

The term, as Desicritics applies it, not in the context of this article alone, is all things South Asian, including the diaspora.

@ Author
The Wiki article you've linked to has a much better description of Bollywood movies (and Indian movies). In fact the very first paragrah reads,
"Bollywood is the informal name given to the popular Mumbai-based Hindi language film industry in India. The term is sometimes used incorrectly to refer to the whole of Indian cinema."
It's funny that you don't get your information from the sources you cite.

@ Anamika - It's not about chauvinism, it's about the truth. It's about reality. A stereotype (that B'wood is Indian Cinema) cannot be recinforced just because it's popular among the so called Westerners. What's next? All Indians go to work in elephant-backs?
I can cite several articles (including those from academic journals) to crush some of your ludacris claims. I will quote from one,
--Quote--
Let us keep aside for a moment the gross misrepresentations in Newsweek: that the Indian film
industry is not solely based in Mumbai, that 'foreign money' is still hardly available for film
productions even though it would like to cream off non-local distribution profits;..
.....
The main contention of this paper seeks to separate out the Bollywood industry from the Indian
cinema. It suggests that while the cinema has been in existence as a national industry of sorts
for the past 50 years (the Indian cinema, of course, has celebrated its centenary, but the
industry, in the current sense of the term, might be most usefully traced to the post-Second
World War boom in production), Bollywood has been around for only about a decade now.
......
The term itself, Bollywood, has
been around most notably in film trade journals -- it was probably invented in a slightly jokey
self-deprecating way by the journal Screen in Bombay and by its page 'Bollywood Beat', with
the companion words Tollywood for the Calcutta film industry based in Tollygunge and even,
for a while, Mollywood for the Madras industry, neither of which are of course used these days.
--Unquote--
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/np330r1arncxqn9cwr8x/contributions/0/r/0/q/0r0q6yv49j610757.pdf
(university access required)

Just as an addendum
http://passionforcinema.com/bollywood-is-not-indian-cinema/

Anamika, Thanks to you insights and circumspect comments. Those apart, little here is sane. I was tied up with work and could not devote much to check the comments as often as I would have liked to. Sorry for that. You seemed to have got where I am coming from and answered a lot of them for me. Greatly appreciate it.

"Two monologues do not constitute a dialogue".

Unfortunately here not many want to have any semblance of a dialogue. As is with the article wying for screen real estate, to justify the inclusion and apt representation of all major regional film industries would be a mini novel. Even then, there would be questions on why a certain actor was not given more limelight.

The spirit was not to compare and contrast Bollywood vs Mollywood vs Tollywood. It was to get a primarily western audience interested in the Indian film industry. An article that nudges them to take a second look and give it a chance. Bickering about what's different when they are not even initiated has pushed the western audience away and denied desi movies' day in the sun. If we are talking of true greats we should be talking of Sathyajit Ray's movies as well. But imagine what that will do to a Indian movie illiterate audience. Add to that the need for these being readily available for rent in most markets. Good luck going to a desi store in Madison,WI for a Devadasu Malli Puttadu. While Devdas(Hindi) is readily available.. Add to that, the need to digress and explain about the region-diaspora before you start out on the film industry. You need to crawl before you walk and this was a walker of sorts to help them get hooked onto desi cinema. Once they do like the genre, they will come back for more and for the flavors/languages they like. A restaurant does not enlist ALL of it's menu in their ads. It features it's prime candidate. Hindi film industry is that start dish. I'm from south myself, so hold off your North-South rants. It is calling it the way it is.

If the other languages can hold their own, they will have their accolades. No one can deny it. Same if they cannot. This piece does not talk to that.

@Chanakya: Your writeup was great. Your last comment was absolutely bang on! It was hilarious reading those immature comments baring Anamika.

S

Am surprised at the venom from some posters here.

However, here go some specific rebuttals - Suresh, Bollywood as a term originated from some US critics in the 1970s as derogatory reference to what it considered a cheap version of Hollywood. That terms has grown since the 1970s -because terms DO grow (Hollywood has grown to encompass various industries too). The term Bollywood has been both appropriated and rejected by critics, scholars, and members of the Indian films industry. It has also grown to include ALL commercial cinema and not just the Mumbai based one.

This is linked to various parallel phenomena including the internal movement of populations which have changed regional demographics, greater exchange of actors, directors, ideas between the industries, as well as the pan-Indianization of Indian cinema. This is why Roja became a hit in north India even BEFORE it was dubbed into Hindi.

Same goes for classification of directors like Mani Ratnam - is he only a "south" director, or is he a Bollywood director (ie commercial Indian cinema)? I have seen retrospectives of his that include his films in nonHindi languages too. And all under the category of Bollywood. Or how about Santosh Sivan when he directs Shahrukh Khan - does he stop being "Bollywood"?

I am not sure who you quote when you speak of the post-war boom but the "glory days" of Hindi cinema in the post-WW2 years was a unfounded myth created by a handful of critics in the 1980s and early 1990s.

By 1930s, indigenous film production had already displaced foreign films in India (a direct result of sound). The various film industries were closely involved in the nationalist movements and this too was not limited to the Hindi industry.

In fact, during the WW2 and immediately after, the film industry in India suffered because there wasn't enough film stock available. Moreover the Nehruvian controls on importing stock as well as foreign exchange availability seriously hampered film production. Colour film which was expensive and terribly unsuited for Indian skin tones were also a major problem. In short technical, political and economic factors argue against any such "blooming" of the industry.

If you really care to go into history, well Indian cinema dates back to 1903! And to Tagore back in 1906 who recommended using film as a medium for the nationalist movement. From the beginning the production was primarily commercial, which contributed to "Bollywood" becoming the biggest industry in the world rather than the regulated, government controlled industries!

Vatsan - why should a Tamil movie face problems in the US if it is marketed as a "Bollywood" movie? As long as it has subtitles, the average non-Indian audience member has no quibble about the language. And the "desi" audience can decide if they want to see it with subtitles or they would have regional loyalties that would keep them away. So slightly spurious logic there.

Roger Ebert is a good critic of Hollywood, but his credibility even for European cinema runs thin. So his standing on nonWestern cinema is less than zero. May I suggest you look at critics like Nasreen Munni Kabir, Ravi Vasudevan, Jyotika Virdi and the like instead?

Or is something good enough for you only when
the goras approve for it? Try Rachel Dwyer or Philip Lutgendorf in that case.

I think there may be personal animosity at play here because I don't think the article was offensive. Given the fact it was intended as a "beginner's guide" it tried to lay out basic facts. If some posters have taken offense, it seems more a case of willfully seeking an argument and not really holding a dialogue.

Chanakya - once again - thanks for trying! And for talking about Bollywood.

@Anamika

I can cook better anecdotes than the ones you've given. I rely on factual references. I've cited a shcolarly article (and most of what is said in my previous comment is direct quotes). Why don't you give me somr reliable sources that support your claims?

Really Suresh did you just pull something off the net in your direct quotes? So here go - and believe on this topic, I can give you a fifty page bibliography.

Chakravorty, Sumita S. 1993. National Identity in Popular Indian Cinema, 1947 - 1987. Austin: University of Texas Press.

_____________. (2000) "Fragmenting the Nation: Images of Terrorism in Indian Popular Cinema," in M.Hjort and S. MacKenzie (eds) Cinema and Nation, London, Routledge.

Chatterjee, Gayatri. 2002. Mother India. London: BFI Classic Series..

Cooper, Darius. 2005. In Black and White: Hollywood and the Melodrama of Guru Dutt. Calcutta: Seagull Books.

Dissanayake, Wimal, and Sahai, Malti. 1992. Sholay, A Cultural Reading. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited.

Dwyer, R. and Pinney, C. (eds) (2001) Pleasure and the Nation: The History, Politics and
Consumption of Popular Culture in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gokulsing, K. Moti and Dissanayake, Wimal. 1998. Indian Popular Cinema: A Narrative of Cultural Change. London: Trentham Books Limited.

Kabir, Nasreen Munni. 2001. Bollywood, The Indian Cinema Story. London: Channel 4 Books.

Kazmi, Fareed. 1999. The Politics of India's Conventional Cinema: Imaging a Universe, Subverting a Multiverse. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Kaul, G. (1998) Cinema and the Indian Freedom Struggle, New Delhi: Sterling.

Kaur, Raminder and Sinha, Ajay J (eds). 2005. Bollywood: Popular Indian Cinema Through a Transnational Lens. New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd.

Nandy, A. (ed) (1998) The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Nazir, Asjad (ed). 2002. Bollywood: The Greatest Bollywood Films of All Time. London: Ethnic Media Group.

Prasad, M. Madhava. 1998. Ideology of the Hindi Film: A Historical Construction. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ray, Satyajit. 1976. Our Films, Their Films. Bombay: Orient Longman

Virdi, Jyotika. 2003. The Cinematic ImagiNation: Indian Popular Cinema as Social History. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

You see some of us actually do our reading from sources other than the wikipedia.

Those are just beginner's guides but I will be happy to provide more references should you really care to read up on Bollywood.

Suyog, Thanks for the comments. Appreciate it.

Anamika,

Thanks again. I will make it a point to check out your recent articles. Not beacause you were supportive, but because your comments were pragmatic and real as opposed to Valsan and co who to reuse your (aptly described) phrase " seems like a case of willfully seeking an argument and not really holding a dialogue."" Constructive citicism is always welcome. It's sparring like 2nd graders with little substance that is futile. I maybe guilty of not including or not caveating this article enough wrt the non-hindi film industries, but just a glance at the amount of material in the comments will more than justify my decision not to write an epic. Good writing is to know when to shut up.

Hindi movies are watched by majority of Indians while say a Telegu/Kannada fare is just that subset. So, if a westerner has a question or a doubt about a movie while on this "Bollywood/Desi-Movies for Dummies" series, he/she is more likely to get a decent pointer for a Hindi movie. A good movie no matter the language will be appreciated.
You should let the product do the talking and not resort to shouting repeatedly from rooftops.

On a second thought and taking an objective stance, Anamika you should probably pick your thoughts from these posts and make it an article about Bollywood's history. It has rich insights that would be a good read. Just being in the comments, it is likely to get lost in the din. Add to that the need for "separating the wheat from the chaff" for a reader interested in Bollywood history.

Peace,

@ Anamika

Isn't that the problem here? Giving mile long bibliographies without actually reading anything? The fact that I cited a journal article's internet link doesn't make it any less worthwhile.

In my first post (by quoting relevant passages) I had made few direct claims

Point 1: Indian Cinema has existed long before the term Bollywood was even invented
Point 2: The nature of 'Bollywood' movies doesn't quite encompass all other regional language movies (as claimed by Chanakya) as they themselves have mutually independent styles.

You have dragged the discussion to a different direction in a deliberate attempt to showcase your pseudo-erudition in this topic. The point of contention, mooring up on which you sneak in irrelevant history, was made by the author with careful qualification of words. Let me quote it again "the Indian cinema, of course, has celebrated its centenary, but the industry, in the current sense of the term, might be most usefully traced to the post-Second World War boom in production." (The word 'blooming' or others you've so meticulously put in quotations were not even used in my previous comment. Were you responding my post or you made up an imaginary adversary who says stupid things just so that you can give him/her strong blows in reply?)


{{The term Bollywood has been both appropriated and rejected by critics, scholars, and members of the Indian films industry.}} - Now how about you making some direct quotes from a your "bibliography" that support your arguments quite directly? I'll be glad to see if any of the scholars, Indians particularly, who has referred to Bollywood in place of 'Indian Cinema' or vice versa. Please quote some scholars who do it - scholars who have published something in an academic journal.

Meanwhile I'll run through some of the articles that you provided and quote lines from them that don't support your cause (that 'Indian movies' and 'Bollywood movies' are interchangeable).

PS. Wikipedia articles, at least in this case, are very reliable in terms of factual accuracy because they are refined over and over again with the help of academic sources. Why don't you quote something from any wiki article on this topic (Indian Cinema and Bollywood) that isn't true? I'll then be willing to devalue its usage in this discussion. (I hope you don't vandalize existing articles just to prove your point, though.)

@ Anamika

I'm sorry; I didn't realize that there was not even a single journal article in that entire list. Isn't that all too convenient? That's ok, if any of them is a scholar; it's very likely that they wrote a paper or two that briefly outlines what their book deals with. I'll pull those articles and quote from them.

PS. (Hmm, alphabetically arranged bibliography - it starts with C and ends with V) Did you a write a paper on this topic? or just Ctrl+C & Ctrl+V from a different paper? Either way, would you mind sharing it with us? Thanks. And yeah, for my part let me paste some bibliography. Just so that I can make a presumptuous claim - "You see some of us actually do our reading from sources other than the wikipedia." Touché.
_____________________
Appadurai, Arjun (1997) Modernity At Large: Cultural dimensions of Globalization, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Banker, Ashok (2001) Bollywood, New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Burch, Noel (1990) Life to those Shadows, Ben Brewster (trans.), Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chakravarty, Sumita (1993) National Identity in Indian Popular Cinema 1947-87, Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Chatterjee, Partha (1997) 'Beyond the Nation? Or Within?', Economic & Political Weekly, xxxii, nos 1-2.
Cormack, Mike (1994) Ideology and Cinematography in Hollywood, 1930-39, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Das Gupta, Chidananda (1968) 'The Cultural Basis of Indian Cinema', Talking About Films, New Delhi:
Orient Longman.
Diawara, Manthia (1992) African Cinema: Politics & Culture, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Larkin, Brian (2001) 'Indian films, Nigerian lovers: media and the creation of parallel modernities', Africa
67(3): 406-440.
Kabir, Nasreen Munni (2001) Bollywood: The Indian Cinema Story, London: Channel 4 Books.
Metz, Christian (1982) The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema, Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Niranjana, Tejaswini (1994) 'Integrating whose nation? Tourists and terrorists in Roja', Economic & Political
Weekly 29(3): 79-81.
Prasad, Madhava (1998) Ideology of the Hindi Film: a Historical Construction, New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Rajadhyaksha, Ashish (1993) 'The epic melodrama: themes of nationality in Indian cinema', Journal of Arts
& Ideas 25-26: 55-70.
Ray, Manas (2000) 'Bollywood down under: Fiji Indian cultural history and popular assertion'. In Stuart
Cunningham and John Sinclair (eds.) Floating Lives: The Media and Asian Diaspora, University of
Queensland Press, 136-184.
Sivathamby, K. (1981) The Tamil Film as a Medium of Political Communication, Madras: New Century Book
House.
Srinivas, S. V. (1996) 'Devotion and defiance in fan activity', Journal of Arts & Ideas 29 (January): 67-83.
Shukla, Sandhya (1997) 'Building diaspora and nation: the 1991 "Cultural Festival of India", Cultural Studies
11(2) (July): 296-315.

Your scholarship is so rigorous Suresh that you have been unable to provide a name and title for the "scholarly" article you quote. But then wikipedia doesn't need any further scholarly basis, does it?

As far as my bibliography is concerned, yes, Bollywood happens to be an area of interest. And no, its not because I wrote an essay - I happen to maintain a meticulous bibliography for subjects that interest me. Btw, that list isn't complete by any means. That would need 53 A4 sheets at single spacing - something that DC moderators will not necessarily be happy with.

Not sure what your bizarre bibliography is supposed to prove other than your ability to cut and paste.

Do take a closer look at it - while some names are repeated from mine which is logical since they are some of the biggest names in the discipline, others have little to do with Bollywood or even film studies.

Most of the articles on your biblio (cutting and pasting is really easy, isn't it?) are on cultural production, others on cultural studies, and diaspora studies. Do explain for example why is Brian Larkin's work is relevant - especially since his interest is Hausa cinema and Nollywood, only tangentially linked to Bollywood? And why is Mike Cormack on a Bollywood list or a Diawara Mantha?

Btw going back to your infallible single source for your "scholarly" article - do you realise that the quote you have repeated completely ignores the "studios" era that developed in the 1930s and fell apart in the 1950s. So yes, post-WW2 cinema saw the power shift from studios to stars, to more independent production and the development of criminal links (thanks to fortunes made bootlegging during WW2 shortages). But that doesn't mean that the commercial film industries were not well established by the early 1920s.

So to say the "industry as we know it" is not very useful as an indicator. Bit like saying the "auto industry as we know" has only existed since the Japanese expansion into the market. Nice sounding statement but means zero in historical terms.

Moreover, IF you bothered reading anything, you would realise that no one denies that Indian cinema existed BEFORE the Bollywood tag, or that it existed in various languages. Or indeed that specialised industries developed in different centres all over India.

On the other hand, AS A DISCIPLINE, commercial and popular cinemas are studied within the national boundaries in opposition to art house/auteur and fewer scholars each day are abiding by the limiting boundaries established by linguistic chauvinist politics, especially since those do not account for or explain the overlaps, interlinkages or connections between the various commercial cinema industries of India. Thus "Bollywood" is an increasingly popular shorthand for Indian commercial cinema (Hindi AND other languages) as opposed to art house or parallel cinema.

As for your comment: "I didn't realize that there was not even a single journal article in that entire list. Isn't that all too convenient? That's ok, if any of them is a scholar; it's very likely that they wrote a paper or two that briefly outlines what their book deals with."

Well Suresh since you are so able at wikipedia, why not just google the names. They are primarily scholars in academic circles although a few of them count themselves as primarily as critics rather than academics. Surely your "scholarly" skills can manage that? Or is it just to easy to rely on wikipedia instead of reading a book? Or short outlines instead of actual essays or books?

chanakya,

i have no issues with u listing hindi films, or showing how good hindi movies are. perfectly fine.
but my point is simple, when you use the term bollywood, it refers to the hindi movie industry only and not the indian film industry. that is what ur post should have conveyed.

and bollywood is commonly accepted to refer to the hindi industry.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought it was easier if I could just provide the link (or just google a line from the quote to pull the original article). I'll give the article anyway, for the author makes a compressive argument himself.

Ashish Rajadhyaksha, 'The "Bollywoodisation" of the Indian Cinema: Cultural Nationalism in a Global Arena', in Preben Karsholm (ed.), City Flicks: Cinema, Urban Worlds and Modernities in India and Beyond. International Development Studies, Roskilde University Occasional Paper # 22, 2002

Interestingly enough Madhav Prasad has this to say about Rajadhyaksha (check the footnote for his direct reference),
--quote--
Contrary to what we might expect, it does not, for instance, explicitly exclude the middle/art genres from its field. It belongs to an order of signifiers that seems to want to 'capture a mood or style', rather than designate a piece of reality. I too, like Ashish Rajadhyaksha in his thoughtful piece on the topic,1 not to mention Ajay Devgan in a recent interview, have felt resentment and indignation at what seems to be a callous act of symbolic abduction. Here, however, I want to take a deep breath and take another look at the matter.
--unquote--
Full article: http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/525/525%20madhava%20prasad.htm

{{Not sure what your bizarre bibliography is supposed to prove other than your ability to cut and paste. }} - And in your case the ability for selective cut and paste? I'm sorry I didn't spend the 40 seconds to remove the "irrelevant" entries that you've mentioned.

{{Btw, that list isn't complete by any means. That would need 53 A4 sheets at single spacing - something that DC moderators will not necessarily be happy with.}} - Yeah right! Just that it starts with a C and ends with V. I'm sure the authors in W,X,Y and Z would amount to another 49 pages. Or did you randomly (and painstakingly) remove authors who were creating an imbalance in alphabetical representation? (Doesn't look like it, there are too many Cs and Ks)


{{So to say the "industry as we know it" is not very useful as an indicator.}} - You're criticism with the terms lack of accuracy isn't consistent with your own usage when you say, "[t]hus "Bollywood" is an increasingly popular shorthand for Indian commercial cinema." Increasingly popular? Very useful indicator indeed.

What you call "linguistic chauvinism" is the extreme opposite of homogenization of regional identities. Bollywood, for one, isn't accepted by all Hindi movie makers and scholars. Two, the functioning of the industry and the nature of its products are both specific to a region that does not, except in a very wide sense, reflect other regional movies. So I restate my claim
To call 'Indian movies' as 'Bollywood' or vice versa is a "gross misrepresentation". To support this claim I have given a scholarly article published in an academic journal.

Question: Do you claim the opposite? If so, please provide a direct source from a scholarly article (or a direct quote from one of the books you've listed with the page number) instead of empty bibliographies.

Status: I have quoted one, you quoted none.

{{Well Suresh since you are so able at wikipedia, why not just google the names. }}- I have started to and I'm yet to come across any journal article by anyone listed in your short biblio. It's ironic because you should be the one doing it. For my part I have cited several passages from a scholar but you have not.

Please excuse the following typos in the post above:

"author makes a compressive* argument himself." - comprehensive
"You're* criticism with the terms* lack of accuracy" - your; term's

Dear Resident Ghost of DC: Will you let this comment go through?

Anamika: Would you please stop fudging around the issue and respond to Suresh's, Vatsan's and Prabhu's points with valid answers?

Chanakya makes a point in his post about Bollywood being Indian cinema. The rest have an issue with it, and provide reasonable justification for that. Now, it is upto Chanakya to defend his claim. I don't see him doing it. You come in and claim we are hung up about linguistic and regional issues. I'd say, you are the one who needs to grow up. Please do answer the questions they raise.

Being linguistically or otherwise hung up doesn't reflect on arguments that have some valid points. You seems to be indulging in name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

Chanakya: I have no issue in you equating bollywood with Indian films, or vice versa. Your cup of tea. But, your 1000 movies a year from Bollywood is much too big a point to swallow whole.

If you'd like to present to the 'western readers' ('Why do that?' is not a question I will ask now, nor will I say that your 'western reader' actually knows enough by now what Indian film is) an overall picture of Indian movies, spending a minute summing up the other languages and other film industries should be par for the course, non?

Er, typo in the previous comment (if it goes through)

"You seem", and not "You seems".

And, here's a post that has some points Chanakya might want to consider: Three things South Indian films can teach Bollywood

"Amitabh Bachchan is an over 60 actor with more than a billion fans."

Amitabh has over a billion fans? How? Do the numbers add up? What is India's population at last count? Wait, let me dig up -

The population in India as at 0:00 hours on 1st March 2001 stood at 1,027,015,247 persons

Anamika/Suresh, please consider being Desicritics and writing articles here - I know we've invited Anamika enough, and if she put in only half the effort she puts in writing a comment into an article we'd have a fine piece to discuss.

Since I am jobless right now, plus it's been long since I indulged in a blog-battle, here goes.

Chanakya: You said "A restaurant does not enlist ALL of it's menu in their ads. It features it's prime candidate."

Right! Good point. But, your post comes across as the 'Indian Film' restaurant serves only the prime candidate. Now, what kind of ad is that? (Believe me, I do know a thing or two about advertising.)

@amanika,
bollywood has been marketed as hindi cinema. tamil movies are still sold outside india and viewers do watch them. movies are sold. but then the hindi speaking audience stays away because it is tamil movie :), the consumers themselves impose a linguistic barrier. in case u don know tamil movies are released in singapore with english subtitles, but only the tamil speaking audience watches them, because it is not hindi, and therefore not bollywood. bollywood in common jargon refers to hind cinema, in popular culture. it makes no sense to extend the term to include other language industries. that is the basic problem i have with ur view, as well as the post. the author has chosen not to respond to that.
IT WOULD be better if he choose to make changes in his post, and accept his mistake of including all other langauge movie industries under the umbrella of bollywood, when it does not include that.

the author either should make changes or provide convincing explanation as to why he has used bollywood as a umbrella term, which he hasnt beyond that the west knows bollywood. but even in the west bollywood is known as a subset of the indian film industry.

how many regional films have you watched? why dont they show it on tv instead of silly soaps

LET ME DEBUNK THIS STUPID NUMBER GAME. Should have nipped it in the bud. My main source was National Geographic among a couple of other reliable sources. It states 1000 movies, 14 million viewers / day.

BBC lists 14 million viewers a day as does the National Geographic.

14 million x 365 = ...??

As is evident these two pretty reliable sources differ on one statistic(1000 vs. 800 movies) and agree on one(14 million/day). So lets not get hung up on the numbers. Please note that neither of these articles mention regionals ! Interesting don't you think ? Damn those two sources lets go with what suits Vatsan & co ? No Thanks.

If it's not 1000 and it is 981. So be it. If this was a poster child for helping get attention to desi movies a little bit of flab as reported by a very reliable source is fine. Rather optimism, but is fine and all well within the ad glib rules. The 1000 does include ALL of Indian feature films excluding short films and documentaries.

Ravage : No offence but rather than post a comment a minute you are better off collecting your thoughts and presenting it better. I'm left wondering what the heck you mean many a times.

Same with Vatsan.

Ravage,
Why am I not defending ? I am unless you are blind. But unlike your self stated I am jobless right now, plus it's been long since I indulged in a blog-battle I am tied up tight with my job and end of day is the best I can do. Guess all are not as lucky as you :). Me or Anamika or whoever that shares my viewpoint is free to chime in. Why do you have issues with her posts ? Maybe because she is driving home hard points and you are left grappling. In the same vein why are you batting for Vatsan & Suresh then ? Maybe you do not follow what you preach?

It is stupid to explain the same thing over and over when it is evident that logic is lost on people. It is a sad state of affairs. But thanks to a select few here, here I go on a futile exercise again.

My restaurant analogy meant this article as the restaurant ad and hence deals with the main fare. The patrons get interested via this and then come in and try the other offerings(Kolly,Tolly whatever). Hence me not dealing with ALL of the offerings is valid. My job was to try and get people thru the door. From there on the dishes will be on their own merit. Suits me. You can do a different campaign when you pen something. You should spend a minute going over what is written than just get trigger-happy.

"..overall picture of Indian movies, spending a minute summing up the other languages and other film industries should be " you said is frustrating. Read my post that explained at length why it could not be done without writing a mini novel. No offence but it's just not about your Tamil movies if I delve into regionals .., Tamil,Telegu,Kannada,Malayalam,Marathi,Bengali,Oriya,Punjabi are all big player. 5-10 lines each would swell and that digression is uncalled for. Sorry if it hurts your sensibilities. In my honest opinion, not needed. It was unwanted information at this juncture for my article. I still maintain that.

Many in Hindi cinema till not so long ago(some even today) were averse to the Bollywood tag. They seem to be slowly getting used to the name. Like it or not unless we have any other regional fare take over and get the kind of media frenzy in the west as Bollywood has, you will have to be content with Bollywood for any generic reference to INDIAN cinema. It's not me talking, it's the current state of affairs. You can bury your head like an ostrich and ignore it or face the reality.

Given Hindi IS our nation language and the common denominator for us INDIANS, what is the issue in various regionals being child nodes of Bollywood? Come to think of it, it may even help. But that needs an open mind...

Vatsan wrote : the author either should make changesC: I'm sticking to my guns.So expect NO changes whatsoever or provide convincing explanationC: If you do read the explanation you will find answers & my stand is pretty clear. as to why he has used bollywood as a umbrella term, which he hasnt beyond that the west knows bollywood. but even in the west bollywood is known as a subset of the indian film industry and I need to take your word for it ? What's your basis ?

You are entitled to your views. The last time I checked we were a free country. My views are firm as a rock. I have my justification. You will find them in my replies if you take a moment to read thru.

Big-B on news week says it's 1000 as well !.

It's Ravages, firstly. Not Ravage. Please!

Secondly, where did I use the term 'many a time' and why should I use it?

Thirdly, I am not blind. Not often, at least. And I don't see you defending your claims. You are at best saying "Hey, this is the example I used. And I am sticking to it"

"Ravage,
Why am I not defending ? I am unless you are blind. But unlike your self stated I am jobless right now, plus it's been long since I indulged in a blog-battle I am tied up tight with my job and end of day is the best I can do. Guess all are not as lucky as you :). Me or Anamika or whoever that shares my viewpoint is free to chime in. Why do you have issues with her posts ? Maybe because she is driving home hard points and you are left grappling. In the same vein why are you batting for Vatsan & Suresh then ? Maybe you do not follow what you preach?"

Because, Anamika has said very little - quoted some book names, (and not the content) and said "Hey, I agree with Chanakya)

Vatsan, Suresh and co have a point which has been unanswered. I would definitely like answers for it. If the answer is convincing, I will wash my hands off the debate and in fact, say "Hey, I agree with Chanakya".


Your restaurant analogy is faulty at best. If you'd said "Bollywood is the best dish we serve here" cool, that's your opinion. But you say "Bollywood is the entire range of dishes we serve here"
Kollywood, Tollywood, Crappywood - however bad they are, add up to what you are offering. State that, and then make your judgement on what is good, what is not.

Respected Ravages(honestly sorry for the missed 's'),

Seems like we are talking the same tongue and you have not read thru my latest post as well."this article as the restaurant ad and hence deals with the main fare. The patrons get interested via this and then come in and try the other offerings"

That has always been my position. It is the same as your "Bollywood is the best dish we serve here". And that I decide to use the best dish in my ad campaign. So my analogy is NOT faulty, your
take on it is.

I still have not answered Vatsan & Co's points ? You must be kidding me. Did you honestly read thru the last few posts ? Unless you mean I have not AGREED or MADE CHANGES per his comments (which I do not intend to do), it is pretty well explained.

Inability to read seems to mar so many discussions.

Am glad Suresh that you managed to find Rajadhyaksha's article. And thank you finally for that reference. May I point out that it is considered appropriate to provide the author's name when you are quoting directly?

That is ONE view out of many although a well argued one. Btw, Madhav Prasad's leftist economic view of the film economy has taken heavy fire for its narrow view of media economies. May I suggest Aruna Vasudev's writings on cinema - she is one of the earliest critics and scholars of "Bollywood."

I see that you have been unable to explain why the SOAS scholar Rachel Dwyer or academics like Tejaswini Ganti are unacceptable to your view of cinema. May I point out that a lot of scholars will not put their work freely on the net so your instant searches yield limited results.

Also I have explained my point enough and needs no reiteration. You on the other hand have chosen to ignore the simplest question I posed above. Am still waiting to hear re: Larkin for example.

Vatsan, you seem to assume that only the diaspora Indians go to see Indian cinema (there goes another word that GREW over time just like "Bollywood" - diaspora). Tamil films have a huge audience in Japan, a place with a fairly insignificant Indian community for example.

The biggest misconception is that it is the NRIs that make Bollywood happen abroad. Yes, they are key to finding screen space and marketing support especially since Hollywood corporations have locked theatre screens by vertical ownership (one reason for that fake one and half hour format). But its not just the NRIs that make up Bollywood audience.

In all this linguistic chauvinism, what seems to have been missed is that we are talking about COMMERCIAL cinema. That means films do as well or as poorly based on market decisions. To quibble that no one will go see South films ignores the basic tenet of commercial cinema. People will go watch a film if it caters to their tastes, there is enough buzz, its been marketed properly etc. Once again - Roja is a good example of it. So if South films are made for international audiences and marketed, there is no reason they won't do as well as Hindi ones.

Thanks Chanakya for the invite. But I like my role as a quibbler on DC. :-)
Aaman, thanks again, for the invite. But its more fun this way. Call me a commitment-phobe.
;-) Besides, all fora need a rabble rouser.

Okay all, since its Monday again, back to work.

@ Anamika

More mumbo jumbo from you. Do you have any direct quotes? It's a very simple question I've been asking you.

{{Am glad Suresh that you managed to find Rajadhyaksha's article.}} - I read it long back and I quoted it in first comment. It wasn't a 'let me put this up' escapist article (you haven't even done that yet).
{{That is ONE view out of many although a well argued one.}} - Again, isn't that a convenient stance now? If there are other 'scholars' who have different view on this matter please point at least. That's all I've been asking you, right from the beginning. I trust the scholars' discretion so much that no one can possibly have a view similar to yours (that in Bollywood encompasses the whole Indian Cinema; whatever the level be - 'commercial', 'non-commercial' etc.)

{{May I point out that a lot of scholars will not put their work freely on the net so your instant searches yield limited results.}} - Unlike you, probably, I have university access to all major journals. So it's not "free" though I get in the internet. But here's my question: why should I do your job? I have already put up an academic article which rips apart the notion that 'Bollywood movies' and 'Indian movies' are interchangeable. You on the other hand have not provided anything concrete yet.

{{I see that you have been unable to explain why the SOAS scholar Rachel Dwyer or academics like Tejaswini Ganti are unacceptable to your view of cinema.}} - Fine, you say these people shcolars? I'll take your word and spend the time find their articles (if they've published any). I'll quote (which you should be doing) what they have to say.

Status: I have quoted one, you have quoted none.

@ Chanakya

The 'National Geographic' article is just as misleading as the 'Newsweek' article critiqued in Rajadhyaksha's article. The same applies to the BBC article. They, as outsiders, try to give a short and rather simplistic view of the Indian movies (what you claim to do). It's not a well researched article (neither of the articles provides any source for their information as one would in a scholarly article). That's why I'm stressing right from beginning - get academic articles or articles that cite their sources. Now, had we not posted these opposing comments, your article (which is just as misleading) would eventually become a reference for other 'small-time bloggers'. This is how you perpetuate misconceptions.


PS. "Ok all since it's Monday again I reserve the right to duck my way out this mire I got myself in to. Who'se going to remember about this article or the unanswered comments after a week."

@ Chanakya - about Big B

The authenticity of what an individual says in a an interview apart, he's rather clear in his statement,
"I'm happy to be here to give some idea of what Indian films are about, how big they are. We make 1,000 films a year for 3.8 billion viewers."

And as if to snub you further, he goes on to say, "'Bollywood' is a demeaning term for a respectable industry. It was coined by a journalist but now it's in the Oxford Dictionary for eternity ..."

And here you are reinforcing that "demeaning term" to include a wider industry (which is factually and ideologically problematic). Did you even read the interview before citing it? What's the matter with you people? You're shooting on your feet own quite consistently.

One of my comments with the quote from Ganti's book has been deleted. Care to explain?
(The following is the 'comment' that has been deleted. So much to save someone's face)

@Anamika
I found Ganti's book 'Bollywood : a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema' in Google books. Here's what the summary at the back cover reads (actually, the title of the book is very clear in itself).
-quote-
'Bollywood' is the dominant global term to refer to the prolific Hindi language film industry in Bombay (renamed Mumbai in 1995). Characterized by music, dance routines, melodrama, lavish production values and an emphasis on stars and spectacle, Bollywood films have met with box-office success and enthusiastic audiences from India to West Africa to Russia, and throughout the English-speaking world.
-unquote-
Huh, see, scholars cannot get away with misinformation or misrepresentation. They are always careful with their choice of words. One of your own sources contradicts what you are claiming. Seriously, have you read anything written by the big names you keep uttering?

I've uploaded the screen shot here

PS. All sources are available for public viewing, no copyrights have been infringed.

Suresh, there was probably some collateral damage while battling with spam.

@ Deepti - cool ;)

Great Suresh. Hopefully along with the journals, you can get access to the university library and read some of the books mentioned above?

You state: "I trust the scholars' discretion so much that no one can possibly have a view similar to yours (that in Bollywood encompasses the whole Indian Cinema; whatever the level be - 'commercial', 'non-commercial' etc.)"

I have CLEARLY differentiated art house and parallel cinema from non-commercial cinema. I have ALSO repeatedly stated that commercial cinema despite linguistic variations is increasingly being listed as Bollywood for purposes of study and analysis. Which part didn't you understand?

Bollywood DID start off as referring to Mumbai based Hindi cinema in the 1970s and its daft adjuncts of Mollywood and Tollywood thanks to the English language fan-press but the term has grown AS terms do (read earlier post) to encompass commercial cinema production in India. This in turn has been a direct outgrowth of the interlinking between regional industries and which is WHAT makes Bollywood a handy tag.

Since you are clamouring for quotes:

"Until recently, when we talked about Indian popular cinema we meant Hindi films produced in Bombay, and called them "Bombay Films" or even "Bollywood." But this is no longer accurate. A substantial number of popular films are now being produced in the South and in languages such as Tamil and Telugu. Despite the diversity of origin, Indian popular films display readily identifiable characteristics in terms of theme, narrative, style and technique." (Gokulsingh & Dissanayake, 1998, pp 29).

IMPLICIT eliding of ALL Indian popular cinema REGARDLESS of language of production! The above happened to be one of the first comprehensive discussion of commercial Indian cinema. The idea of expanding Bollywood to mean Indian commercial cinema and NOT ONLY Hindi cinema has developed from this point onwards as a means of STUDYING the industry. .

Furthermore, according to early scholars (these include Prasad and Rajadhyaksha) the Hindi film cater to "the all-Indian market and are understood by the majority of the Indian population (an achievement In India' polylingual society for which the Bombay film itself has claimed its fair share of credit)" (Chakravorty, 1996, pp 9)

"It (Hindi cinema) is the dominant cultural institution and product in India, providing affordable entertainment to audiences drawn primarily (though not exclusively) from the working class in urban centres. Though Hindi is a regional northern language, Hindi cinema's audience transcends lingual-regional boundaries within the nation, making it fit the national cinema billing like no other." (Virdi, 2003, pp 1-2)

You then state: "The 'National Geographic' article is just as misleading as the 'Newsweek' article critiqued in Rajadhyaksha's article. The same applies to the BBC article. They, as outsiders, try to give a short and rather simplistic view of the Indian movies (what you claim to do)."

So now we rely only on the sources you approve of? There is a fair amount of misinformation even in moderated journal articles. For better or worse, Bollywood is the short-hand for Indian movies. You may not LIKE that fact but hardly enough to dismiss it out of hand. And to conveniently dismiss BBC, National Geographic etc as "bloggers" is a bit fatuous.

Btw, I do think that much of Western mainstream media simplifies Indian cinema, or India as well. On the other hand, Lutz and Pfleiderer wrote back in 1982 that Indian cinema was "the most powerful contemporary non-Western cultural product." Yet their entire book was about Hindi cinema.

I DONT agree with the classification of Indian cinema as Hindi cinema which is obviously ridiculous. However, popular Indian cinema HAS a major brand value as Bollywood. To lose that for ridiculous linguistic chauvinist reasons is daft.

You state: "Huh, see, scholars cannot get away with misinformation or misrepresentation. They are always careful with their choice of words. One of your own sources contradicts what you are claiming."

Scholars are not infallible. And guess what - it took the Anupama Chopra book on DDLJ by Bfi that goes into industry details about how many of the 800-1000 commercial Indian films are in Hindi vs Tamil, Kannada, Telugu etc. And yet, many scholars continue to misuse the conflated number.

As far as your "post WW2 boom", read up on Gayatri Chatterjee's book on Mother India about the economic, political and technology (colour) problems Mehboob Khan faced. It MIGHT enlighten you and get you to actually READ stuff for research rather than finding quick quotes.

Oh, if you bothered to read up more, you would realise that Amitabh Bachchan has ALWAYS contested the term Bollywood as "demeaning". Others in the industry however have taken it on. It has been a process of appropriating a derogatory term and turning it around (similar process as "black is beautiful" back in 1970s USA or "nigger" by African and African-Americans). And as in other such exercises, the term is still a highly contested.

And as for your "PS "Ok all since it's Monday again I reserve the right to duck my way out this mire I got myself in to. Who'se going to remember about this article or the unanswered comments after a week."

Some of actually pay our own rents hence cant post frequently during the week. But don't worry, no one is ducking out. You just go back to the library and find some more reading...

Am still waiting to hear WHY Larkin, Cormack, or Mantha were on your "scholarly" list?

Suresh,
Firstly, thank you for the amount of time you have invested in substantiating your view point and for your participation in this discussion. We disagreeing apart, it is appreciated.

I have the same question for you. Did you even bother to read my posts from yesterday ? Some excerpts here ...

Many in Hindi cinema till not so long ago(some even today) were averse to the Bollywood tag. They seem to be slowly getting used to the name. ..... It's not me talking, it's the current state of affairs. You can bury your head like an ostrich and ignore it or face the reality.


So yes Mr. Bachchan is still not on board. But in the same vein he mentions Oxford dictionary and the inevitability of the tag sticking on for good, which your selective analysis wants to ignore and I have been trying so hard to drive home. In the same vein since you take his words to substantiate your theory why ignore the 1000 movies a year ? If 4-5 sources talk of the same and they are reliable sources, people do assume cetain level of veracity.

BBC,NatGeo & Bachchan ae those sources for me. They are not homogenous in their views. If you read my posts from yesterday I was tryig to underline the same point about reliable sources differing !. So is the nature of the web/media. Given that I need to go with someone . NatGeo and BBC were my choices. I can list my secondary sources as well that allude to these numbers. But that's besides the point. It will differ in some aspect or another. That's what is preventing me from coming up with a list of conradictions for your professed articles.

I DO NOT not consider academic based articles on this rather grey area that trustworthy either. And we do not wait for an academic to opine on everything ? Do we ? We do trust news houses to provide us reliable daily news. Admittedly some are biased. But for most parts, it is good.To assume news houses would not do their due diligence and your sources would is foolish. I cannot underline that more or muse at your naivette if you truly believe it. One can argue which source is better than the other. But that is futile. You can stick with what suits you and I will with mine. It's the 70-30 rule. Do 70% of my readers go with what BBC & NatGeo says ? You betcha. So that's what I go with. You are in the 30%. You need to draw a line somewhere.



Add to that neither BBC nor NatGeo separate the regionals from the Bollywood umbrella. It is a sign of things to come. Bollywood as a generic reference to Indian movies. I see that happen here in USA every day. You need to get your head out of the sand...


Thanks for your concern about me shooting my foot. You seem hell bent upon shooting your brains out and we are trying to stop you from it ! BBC,Time,Newsweek & NatGeo are bad. Outsiders do not portray us fine. My take on it : Get used to the world being flat and people having their view points. It is sometimes populistic and not purist. So what ? Maybe we should be open to new perspectives from outsiders, maybe we are wrong, maybe we overtly complicate issues ?

For a potential reader who may sample an Indian movie getting him/her to do just that is a good start. You seem to be hell bent on scaring them with fluff. Unnecessary as well.

Vatsan, Suresh, Ravages, et al, will you please shut up? India is Hindia, in which H is silent.

Oh man! Let me quote some of what I had said here earlier,
--quote--
And yeah, for my part let me paste some bibliography. Just so that I can make a presumptuous claim - "You see some of us actually do our reading from sources other than the wikipedia." Touché.
--unquote--
You see? It was a direct and sarcastic remark by which I hinted that you lifted the bibliography from an article (and for my part I posted one just to mock you). You responded by asking "Most of the articles on your biblio (cutting and pasting is really easy, isn't it?) are on cultural production, others on cultural studies, and diaspora studies. Do explain for example why is Brian Larkin's work is relevant - especially since his interest is Hausa cinema and Nollywood, only tangentially linked to Bollywood? And why is Mike Cormack on a Bollywood list or a Diawara Mantha?" I replied, again to mock your question, with the following comment (for which you said nothing in reply yet, ironically, said, "Inability to read seems to mar so many discussions")
--quote--
{{Not sure what your bizarre bibliography is supposed to prove other than your ability to cut and paste. }} - And in your case the ability for selective cut and paste? I'm sorry I didn't spend the 40 seconds to remove the "irrelevant" entries that you've mentioned.
{{Btw, that list isn't complete by any means. That would need 53 A4 sheets at single spacing - something that DC moderators will not necessarily be happy with.}} - Yeah right! Just that it starts with a C and ends with V. I'm sure the authors in W,X,Y and Z would amount to another 49 pages. Or did you randomly (and painstakingly) remove authors who were creating an imbalance in alphabetical representation? (Doesn't look like it, there are too many Cs and Ks)
--unquote--

Now that I clarified it further (after making it obvious already) that the biblio' was lifted from Rajadhyaksha's article, I think he would be in a better position to answer your question - "Am still waiting to hear WHY Larkin, Cormack, or Mantha were on your "scholarly" list?" - as to why he had them in his article titled 'The "Bollywoodisation" of the Indian Cinema: Cultural Nationalism in a Global Arena' (Perhaps he didn't think they were all too irrelevant).

Now, let me quote some your earlier assertions,
---
For those who quibble, "Bollywood" is a generic short hand film term for COMMERCIAL films made in India in over 15 languages.

What "Bollywood" doesn't include is art house and "international festival circuit" cinema that have no mass audience appeal back home. And that kind of cinema doesn't have much appeal anywhere else either.
---
ALL commecial cinema from India is considered under the shorthand of "Bollywood." This INCLUDES ALL the regional industries - AND works by Kamal Hasan, Rajnikanth, Mohanlal and Chiranjeevi.
---
The term Bollywood has been both appropriated and rejected by critics, scholars, and members of the Indian films industry. It has also grown to include ALL commercial cinema and not just the Mumbai based one.
---

Because of these assertions I made the following claim and raised a question:
--quote--
To call 'Indian movies' as 'Bollywood' or vice versa is a "gross misrepresentation". To support this claim I have given a scholarly article published in an academic journal.

Question: Do you claim the opposite? If so, please provide a direct source from a scholarly article (or a direct quote from one of the books you've listed with the page number) instead of empty bibliographies.
--unquote--

Since you gave no direct answer to the question and going by what you had earlier I think it's fair to assume your stance is 'Bollywood movies = Indian movies'. To support this claim, finally, you've provided a few quotes and let me deconstruct them.
First:
{{Until recently, when we talked about Indian popular cinema we meant Hindi films produced in Bombay, and called them "Bombay Films" or even "Bollywood. But this is no longer accurate. " }} - The book is written in 1998, but even back then he's claiming that associating Hindi movies (or whatever represents them - "Bombay films" or "Bollywood") with Indian popular cinema is inaccurate. So this quote doesn't help your case, thanks for citing it, though.

Second:
Your other two quotes (from Chakravorty and Virdi) don't say anything about Bollywood. The only point they are making is that the Hindi films are viewed by Indians all over (which I agree with). But that doesn't relate to 'Bollywood being a representative of Indian cinema' (commercial or otherwise). There are several things that transcend linguistic and regional boundaries (food habits, religion etc.) but they don't become national representatives.

{{So now we rely only on the sources you approve of? There is a fair amount of misinformation even in moderated journal articles.}} - Isn't that the point of contention here? Weighing your sources by critiquing? Sure even journal articles, though not very often, tend to carry misinformation. But they are the most reliable.

{{And to conveniently dismiss BBC, National Geographic etc as "bloggers" is a bit fatuous.}} - I did not read what I had said, again.
--quote--
The 'National Geographic' article is just as misleading as the 'Newsweek' article critiqued in Rajadhyaksha's article. The same applies to the BBC article. They, as outsiders, try to give a short and rather simplistic view of the Indian movies (what you claim to do). It's not a well researched article (neither of the articles provides any source for their information as one would in a scholarly article). That's why I'm stressing right from beginning - get academic articles or articles that cite their sources. Now, had we not posted these opposing comments, your article (which is just as misleading) would eventually become a reference for other 'small-time bloggers'. This is how you perpetuate misconceptions.
--unquote--

Status: I quoted one relevant article that makes a comprehensive argument on that topic in hand
You've quoted 3 passages from different books, none which support your claim that "[f]or better or worse, Bollywood is the short-hand for Indian movies. You may not LIKE that fact but hardly enough to dismiss it out of hand"

{{However, popular Indian cinema HAS a major brand value as Bollywood. To lose that for ridiculous linguistic chauvinist reasons is daft.}} - I don't know if the so called "brand value" of Bollywood has any effect on Indian cinema but linguistic identities are subjective and there's nothing "daft" about it. Your assessment in this regard is both baseless (for there is no direct evidence that proves that the tag 'Bollywood' has proven beneficial for all Indian movies) and judgmental (even if there is a benefit, it comes with the cost of losing an identity. It's not our business to assume what is "daft" or "ridiculous").

Get the statistics from the horse's mouth. Not some "international" media, who until yesterday could hardly locate India on a map.
http://www.cbfcindia.tn.nic.in/statistics.htm
(Do not jump to the "Total" column. Just look at the feature film row.)

It does not matter for a westerner if it is Hindi, Tamil, Telugu or whatever language it might be. All are Greek and Latin to them. I find it hilarious to read that "it's a starter dish."

It is very simple. Indian Cinema comprises of many languages. If it is so hard to put this single sentence, but will argue to death defending why the sentence should not be there, it shows sheer arrogance. To accuse others of linguistic chauvinism is, well, linguistic chauvinism by itself.

A desi store in No-name-Placeville in WI may have 10 Hindi VHS tape (a pirated one at that), but I'm sure it might as well have atleast a single non-Hindi VHS tape.

If a blonde happens to pick that single(I know probability), then the "tour guide" has to say,
"Oh, it is from the other language people speak elsewhere in India. Didn't I mention that? If not, sorry about that. I have no clue what that language is. You better stick to the other 10 here."

Go ahead and say Hindi Cinema=Indian Cinema, by all means and of course, defend it to death.

Sure will get it from the horse's mouth. If it were alive ! Your horse stopped trotting at 2003. And this restates what I have been stating all along. Accounting for these many markets is a digression better avoided in an introductory article. I stand by it. Add to that this site is so friggin user friendly. Try asking anyone in India as to what they trust better. BBC-NatGeo or a government site. No offence but not much of effort goes into maintaining govenment sites. It's a sad reality.

Stop loathing in unfound pessimism about the west. India is not Tajikistan that people around the globe do not know of it. They may not know Thirunelveli or Tyamgondalu. But they do know India. Donno which galaxy you live in. While you were trapezing there, the world as we know, has gotten flatter.

It's sad to see people who graze thru and jump to opine. I did not say there would not be a non-hindi tape in a store here in the US. I just said if I reviewed a classic from an erstwhile era or a non-hindi movie and the person who reads it wants to rent-buy that very exact movie, the chances of that being as readily available are lesser.

Unless you are literarily challenged or want to be a bull head you should see I am not saying Hindi Cinema = Indian Cinema. I am just saying that Bollywood is often used to refer to ALL Indian cinema. It is perceived as an umbrella and that's the state of affairs. Those are not my words. Look at the NatGeo & BBC links where they talk of numbers and attribute it to Bollywood, the matriarch. Historically US has been a major force in UN(not digressing into it's recent dislike for Annan),US is not UN. Get it ? Now apply the same analogy...

I see little substance and a lot of raw chavunistic emotion in many of these posts. I am lost as to why reason darts when a view point is not per your taste. Don't agree. But to state if it's not my way then it is no way is what you, Valsan & Suresh are implying. Doesn't hold water for me.

These things ultimately turn out to be a North-South debate and I have a couple of older posts on this and I suggest everyone read both my articles and see my logic before replying to my comment: http://chennaicentral.blogspot.com/2006/01/when-will-we-let-go-of-word-regional.html and http://chennaicentral.blogspot.com/2005/10/there-is-nothing-called-regional.html

And Chanakya, while I admire your overall efforts in putting together a comprehensive article on "Hindi cinema" (equatable to the term "Bollywood") and was watching these passionate comments from the sidelines, I just could not help jumping in to clarify when you mentioned Hindi as the "national language". This is erroneous and gets repeated ad nauseum erroneously by many people. Hindi as per the Constitution of India only enjoys the status of an "official language" of the Union and is no more (or less) "National" as Telugu, Thamizh, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Bengali, Gujarati and so on. The more people come to realise the folly of perpetuating this myth, the better it is for all of us to live as equals and not have to raise slogans about "Hindi domination".

I wonder if all the ppl above who are ranting on and on and on against Chanakya also have this fetish against "Indian food".

Considering the article was targeted at western readers as Chanakya has pointed out, maybe one should also ponder about a similar analogy: When someone (not from India) says he loves Indian Food, he usually goes on to say Butter chicken and Nan, which really is "Punjabi" food.... and while we get into it, actually is "Mughlai" cuisine, which may or may not have originated from India at all. I have rarely (well, none) come across people who say they love "South Indian Food" or that "Gujarathi Thali" or "Bengali Cuisine".

So what do people like Suresh, Vatsan and company do in such a situation?

Try to take the article in the spirit it was written instead of converting it into a regionalistic debate. (Which btw, I must point out that *only* ppl from certain states have this huge problem against Bollywood not meaning Indian cinema hehe)

S

thennavan,
Read it as lingua franca of India if it pleases you. But it is the common denominator for us Indians. That's my opinion. I'm a south Indian as well.

Suyog,
That's a damn good point about Indian food. Just the other day I was having issues explaining South Indian food to a bunch of Naan starved westerners. The did take a liking to the masala dosa after the visit but were not aware of it prior to it. They however did know about the Mughlai dishes.

@ Suyog

Yours is an empty point, it has no argumentative value. We are not "ranting" about anything here; we are trying to have a civilized and critically analyzed debate (at least, from our side). I have even cited a scholarly article that is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal (unlike those in BBC or NG) arguing our case. What more do you want?

Analogical arguments are always easy to put down using the same strategy. That's exactly what I'll do now.
'Indian Food', at least in very wide context, means food that is historically been consumed by a lot of Indians (regardless of where it actually originated). So sure, South Indian, Guajarati, Bengali and Mughlai (although introduced by Mughals, it acquired new cooking methods because of certain ingredients that were available only in India) are all 'Indian food'. But to write something like "Gujarati cuisine has a wide range of dishes, from crispy dosas to spicy fishes. It is estimated to have at least 5000* different dishes" is preposterous (* - by accounting all possible dishes from all other cuisines).
While 'Indian cuisine' is comprised of different cuisines, ranging from North-South to Veg-Non'Veg, no single of one of them can represent all of Indian food (unless you're utterly ignorant). That's why I said the following earlier.
--quote--
There are several things that transcend linguistic and regional boundaries (food habits, religion etc.) but they don't become national representatives.
--unquote--
While Jainism is an Indian religion, Jainism is not the only Indian religion. It's factually incorrect to say that "Jainism is the largest religion in India with 800 million followers in India alone"

That's exactly what you do with Bollywood. Bollywood is a part of Indian cinema, not all of it. Why should "Bombay+Hollywood" represent Tamil movies? Would you accept, assuming that a lot of Japanese and Malaysians know and use the term, if 'Kollywood' is claimed to produce 1000 movies (and all the broken "facts" provided in the original article)? If 'Bombay+Hollywood = Indian movies' then 'Bombay = India'. Do we have a problem with that? Yes, we do.

We see your magnanimity to include the poor helpless South-Indian cinema in your thriving and rich 'Bombay film fraternity'. Thanks, but no thanks. We are happy being identified as a part of Indian cinema for that's the truth. And we take it as our responsibility to inform those who don't know this (Americans, Germans, whoever) and not reinforce their misconception.

People here (in America, Canada, Europe or wherever you are) aren't as dumb as you portray them to be. Stop patronizing already. Indians, *especially* those from certain states, always blame the 'Americans' ability (or the lack of it) to comprehend geography while they (few Indians) are unwilling to educate anyone anything against their false sense of superiority.
They are just happy with "Bollywood = Indian Cinema"; "Hindi = National language"; heck, if you are a right winger "Hinduism = National religion". But I, on the other hand, spend that 2 extra minutes to explain how it's different and why they should know it. What good is having an "Indian friend" who doesn't demystify their wrong notions about India?
But you know what's interesting? An American would have probably understood our contention instantly. But a few Indians here, just to have their egos intact, are hell bent on sticking to falsehoods.

I'll finish with the following syllogism (syllogistic fallacy, rather) that underpins your side of the argument

If someone is human, then he/she is mortal.
'Fluffy' is mortal.
Therefore, Fluffy is human.

If it's a Bollywood movie, then it's Indian
Tamil movies are Indian
Therefore, Tamil movies are Bollywood

PS. I don't think this argument needs any further extension. Our (My) points of disagreement have been clearly established and any rational reader would be able comprehend the truth. Cheers

Why should desis frame a debate in the terms of the colonizers? Why not use more native expressions? Is it a need to be accepted?

Agree this discussion is not producing any more value than it has already. At the heart of it is Hindi phoebia. Who the hell is suggesting India = Bombay (Mumbai mind you..). If syllogism is all that took to infer India=Mumbai, Belgaum and Kashmir will be in a million of em. The fact that you do not trust major news houses many as much Indian now as they are foreign is foolish. We need to go by scholarly articles only? Sure, wait for the friggin scholarly article the next time Tsunami hits before you vacate !

chanakya, are you always this retarded or just making an extra effort today? seriously, how do you manage to be so shamelessly idiotic?

Jay guy, Considering what the grey matter in your upper echelons could come up with. A stolen quote and a personal attack. I would be blessed to be a retard any day of the week than be you ! LOL. Jay guy here's a saying for you. If you cannot come up with anything intelligent, it is better to keep your mouth shut and be considered ignorant rather than open it and dispel any doubts that you are an imbecile.

Chanakya:
Good effort. You have compiled many movies, pictures, etc, to weave your story.

Coming to the comments that you received. Its unfortunate that we should call our cinema 'Bollywood' to rhyme with Hollywood. I would have liked it if it was called Indian cinema or Mumbai, or Chennai, etc. Many of the songs are copied from western world, and many stories too. Using 'Bollywood' for Indian cinema only shows how ready we are to copy something western.

Anyway, I am not sure when we starting calling other Indian cinema (other than Mumbai) Tollywood, Kollywood, etc.

Our movies sell more but I am not sure if they really match up to Hollywood. Most movies are inane, except some exceptions!

Sujai,
Thanks for the post. I agree with you on the quality of most of our films and the Bollywood tag. My only viewpoint is, like it or not looks like we will be stuck with it (It has made it's way into the Oxford dictionary and the popular media). Bollywood is not my preference as well.

Having said the above irrespective of what I/we feel, if Indian films are known by west as Bollywood and this article was a take a look and give it a chance piece, it suited my usage of the word. There is nothing like bad publicity :).

PS : A glance at E=MC^2 was interesting. Scent of a woman is my all time fav as well.

How can one watch so many movies. It is likely that one does not have enough time to watch all the movies even if one wanted to. How about online
Here is a list of 500 Bollywood movies that can be seen online

http://www.meradreamhouse.com