FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bangladesh’s Seduction by Celluloid

by BINOY KAMPMARK

Since 1972, Bangladesh has been firm about the films of the monster that we all know as Bollywood, a beast so prolific it disgorges some thousand films a year.  No viewings of Bollywood films have been permitted in Bangladesh’s cinemas – till now.

The power of money has spoken without reserve.  The decision was first made in 2010, when the Bangladesh ministry of commerce gazetted the notification.   ‘The new order,’ explained Film Censor Board chief Surat Kumar Sarker, ‘scraps the ban and allows the screening of Indian and other South Asian films in local cinemas provided they have English subtitles’.  Bangladesh’s Commerce Minister Faruk Khan offers a rationale for the decision.  ‘We lifted the bank to boost the cinema industry.’

Owners of cinema theatres expressed similar enthusiasm – although they are lessening in number.  From a figure of 1,600 in 2000, the country has lost almost a thousand.  To capture revenue, the Indians, claim the owners, must be allowed a presence.  Hollywood films are proving too expensive to import, and the local industry is beset by a stale flavour.  Besides, Bollywood stars such as Shah Rukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor are better known than the locals, living illicitly in the local imagination through pirated DVDs and CDs.

A rearguard action was fought in 2010 by local actors and directors that saw a reinstatement of the ban.  The calamity for the Bangladeshi film industry, they argued, would be enormous – the loss of 25,000 jobs, the gutting of an industry.  Their Cassandra-like refrain won the support of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.  This was only temporary, and the Indian intrusion is now imminent.  Last month, the Bangladeshi High Court lifted the ban.  Producer Mukesh Bhatt greeted the decision with enthusiasm, seeing a vision of cooperation between little Bangladesh and mammoth India he terms ‘mutual coordination’.  Three Indian Bangla movies – Jour, Badla and Sangram – are in the hands of the Bangladesh Film Censor Board.  Nine others have also been added to the list.

The battle against the monopolisers, be it in culture or economics, doesn’t stop or start at Bollywood. For decades, European countries have been attempting to adjust to the dominance of Hollywood, a beast of production that might be said to have seduced Europe, (though Alexander Cockburn’s account highlights strongarm US tactics that scarcely had much of “seduction” in them.)  The French film publication Cine-Journal in September 1911 wrote of American cinema’s ‘photogenic perfection – absolute fixity – sensational scenarios – natural acting – interpretation of performers of the first rank’.  With the end of World War I, European film production shrank dramatically.  With the victory of the United States in World War II came such sweeteners as the Marshall Plan (otherwise termed the European Recovery Program), and with that, the triumph of celluloid.

Such cinematic hegemony comes at a cost – the mass producer, the prolific giant, lumbers, ceases to be supple, aware.  Taylorist principles of mass production end up being assimilated in the making of film.  Variety, paradoxically, shrinks before mass opportunity.  From exploited economies of scale come economies of kitsch.  Even if it can be good kitsch, bright with the trimmings, it never loses its identity.

Europe, observed the New York critic William Philips in his essay ‘The Portrait of an Artist as an American’ (Horizon, Oct 1947), was open to both economic dominance and cultural seduction by the US, but the price to pay was, at least in the cultural department, high.  In beating back and insulating Western Europe from Stalinism, ‘the United States might well become the greatest exporter of kitsch the world has ever seen.’

There is much to be said for the view that the US would have been the first empire to have been won by cinema.  But the weapons and a craving for military domination had to come out eventually.  Culture remains one of the key battle grounds, and it is now up to the Bangladeshi film industry to strike back, to seek a means where they can tackle the Bollywood monster, possibly even tame its sheer enormity.  It is time for them to embrace the policy of seduction by celluloid.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 23, 2016
Diana Johnstone
Hillary and the Glass Ceilings Illusion
Bill Quigley
Race and Class Gap Widening: Katrina Pain Index 2016 by the Numbers
Ted Rall
Trump vs. Clinton: It’s All About the Debates
Eoin Higgins
Will Progressive Democrats Ever Support a Third Party Candidate?
Kenneth J. Saltman
Wall Street’s Latest Public Sector Rip-Off: Five Myths About Pay for Success
Binoy Kampmark
Labouring Hours: Sweden’s Six-Hour Working Day
John Feffer
The Globalization of Trump
Gwendolyn Mink – Felicia Kornbluh
Time to End “Welfare as We Know It”
Medea Benjamin
Congress Must Take Action to Block Weapon Sales to Saudi Arabia
Halyna Mokrushyna
Political Writer, Daughter of Ukrainian Dissident, Detained and Charged in Ukraine
Manuel E. Yepe
Tourism and Religion Go Hand-in-Hand in the Caribbean
ED ADELMAN
Belted by Trump
Thomas Knapp
War: The Islamic State and Western Politicians Against the Rest of Us
Nauman Sadiq
Shifting Alliances: Turkey, Russia and the Kurds
Rivera Sun
Active Peace: Restoring Relationships While Making Change
August 22, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary Clinton: The Anti-Woman ‘Feminist’
Robert Hunziker
Arctic Death Rattle
Norman Solomon
Clinton’s Transition Team: a Corporate Presidency Foretold
Ralph Nader
Hillary’s Hubris: Only Tell the Rich for $5000 a Minute!
Russell Mokhiber
Save the Patients, Cut Off the Dick!
Steven M. Druker
The Deceptions of the GE Food Venture
Elliot Sperber
Clean, Green, Class War: Bill McKibben’s Shortsighted ‘War on Climate Change’
Binoy Kampmark
Claims of Exoneration: The Case of Slobodan Milošević
Walter Brasch
The Contradictions of Donald Trump
Michael Donnelly
Body Shaming Trump: Statue of Limitations
Weekend Edition
August 19, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Hillary and the War Party
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Prime Time Green
Andrew Levine
Hillary Goes With the Flow
Dave Lindorff
New York Times Shames Itself by Attacking Wikileaks’ Assange
Gary Leupp
Could a Russian-Led Coalition Defeat Hillary’s War Plans?
Conn Hallinan
Dangerous Seas: China and the USA
Joshua Frank
Richard Holbrooke and the Obama Doctrine
Margaret Kimberley
Liberal Hate for the Green Party
John Davis
Lost Peoples of the Lake
Alex Richardson-Price
The Fight for a Six Hour Workday
John Wight
Why Palestine Matters, Even on the Pitch
Brian Cloughley
Hillary Clinton’s War Policy
Patrick Cockburn
A Battle to the Death in Syria
David Rosen
The Great Fear: Miscegenation, Race “Pollution” and the 2016 Election
Ben Debney
Worthy and Unworthy Victims of Child Abuse
David Barouh
Liberal Myths: Would Al Gore Have Invaded Iraq?
Graham Peebles
Democratic Revolution Sweeps Ethiopia
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
How Parasitic Finance Capital Has Turned Iran’s Economy Into a Case of Casino Capitalism
David Swanson
The Unbearable Awesomeness of the U.S. Military
Robert Fantina
The Olympics: Nationalism at its Worst
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail