Posted on 06/18/2004 8:52:52 AM PDT by NYer
A hundred Hindu fundamentalists have attacked and vandalized cinemas in several Indian towns, tearing down posters of the recently released film Girlfriend. The film deals with lesbianism and related themes. The fundamentalists see this as an affront to Indian culture.
The most censorious critics, however, have been India’s gay and lesbian activists. They say the film is a 'homophobic, hetero-patriarchal' portrayal of lesbianism in India. They charge director Karan Razdan of creating a "conscious, articulated homophobia" for mass consumption.
Girlfriend is a candyfloss drama about two close women friends who sleep in the same bed and share—explicitly, on screen—a single sexual encounter. When one of them later falls in love with a man, the other becomes consumed by a psychopathic jealousy that leads to a sexual obsession.
In its first week several screenings of the film were disrupted by the fringe Hindu protestors, some of whom also burned effigies of the film’s director. A dozen of them were arrested for breaking windows and ransacking a cinema in the central Indian town of Indore. One protestor even threatened immolation if the film continued to be screened. Police officers, fearing similar attacks, are now guarding other cinemas across the country.
Lesbianism is a rare theme for Bollywood, the Hindi-language film industry based in Mumbai, India. Girlfriend, starring Isha Koppikar and Amrita Arora, has set anger aflame by situating what is often regarded as decadent Western sexual morals on the Bollywood silver screen.
Indian actresses typically don't want to lose their conservative fans, nor do they want to endure salacious flak from journalists. So they're not too keen on even kissing on-screen, and many proudly trumpet their refusal to do it.
Bollywood starlet Ish Koppikar (left)
Bollywood starlet Isha Koppikar, who plays the traumatized lesbian Tanya, doesn’t mind being known as a sexually-liberated shocker. "It was just another role for me…nothing more, nothing less," she told the Hindustan Times. "I’ve already moved on. Girlfriend is history. If others want to hold on to it and create controversies because it suits their purpose, they are welcome to their moment of glory. I’ll have none of it."
Razdan, who also has a reputation in India as a shocker, notes that his film passed the federal censor board and pointed out that Girlfriend "hardly has any bare skin."
"The next time I make a movie I will not take it to the censor board," the Times of India quoted Razdan as saying. "I’ll try to get approval from these custodians of morality." He added that it is not up to protestors to decide whether a film should be shown.
"We’re going to push the government to order the deletion of objectionable scenes in the film," Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, the vice-president of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya party, told the Associated Press. "Shots which are against Indian culture should be removed."
Shiv Sena, a Hindu fringe group often referred to as India’s morals brigade, have long charged that western TV shows and films are corrupting Indian minds. They believe Razdan has imported decadent Western morals with his Girlfriend.
"What one does in the bedroom and the bathroom should not be displayed publicly," Arun Pathak, a Shiv Sena leader declared publicly during the protests.
Despite the physical attacks from fringe Hindus, the more vitriolic attacks have come from gay and lesbian groups who say Girlfriend is a warped and negative portrayal of lesbianism.
Koppikar begs to differ. "Though some of my close friends are gay," she admitted to the Hindustan Times, "I knew nothing about how they think or behave. So I had to work very hard on getting the body language and attitude right. Which I did… I’ve worked so hard on being convincing as a butch that now I’m afraid men will be scared away."
Mumbai’s Humjinsi thinks not. In an hysterical denunciation published in Outlook India magazine, the lesbian activist group characterizes Koppikar’s role as a "sexually abused, violent, obsessive killer, psychopath lesbian," and scores the film as "homophobic" and "hetero-patriarchal."
"The movie tears away the anonymity of lesbian existence," the denunciation goes on to say. "The word lesbian is actually used in the film and the image created is a ghastly and revolting one."
Chatura, head of the Pune-based Organized Lesbian Alliance for Visibility and Action (OLAVA), called Girlfriend "a cheap and titillation-oriented film masquerading as one that’s liberal." The single-name lesbian activist claims that the film "reinforces all the negative stereotypes about lesbian and bisexual women."
Gay activist Ashok Row Kavi went one step further. He accused Razdan of "demonizing" lesbians. "The film takes our sexual identities and makes a joke of them," he said.
In an open letter to the director, activist Tejal Shah wrote that he feared the "homophobic" film would be a major setback for the decades-long campaign by gay rights activists in India.
In sum, these critics object to Razdan’s film for portraying lesbianism as "unnatural"—as "abnormal…people who must die at the end of the film, so that they are aptly punished for their unnatural existence."
What bothers Shah and other gay and lesbian activists is that (in Shah’s words) "values of heterosexual love, marriage and normal families" are upheld in the end.
It is highly ironic that while Shah criticizes Razdan’s depiction of Koppikar’s character as an obsessive psychopath, his own language could be construed as "obsessive":
"Every time I hear of another lesbian suicide, another girl who hanged herself for being teased…I will think of this film and I will be reminded of the power that Bollywood wields in creating a mass consciousness of one sort or the other. In this case, it will be a conscious, articulated, homophobia."
Shah concludes with a memorable and censorious remark: "It’s time that we stopped separating the issues that films address and their impact on the audience/citizen within a given socio-political context/environment. It is also high time that we stand in protest against any film that causes damage to the rights of any minority group."
Ironically, the activist protestors also condemn the Hindu fundamentalists for their own protestations, seemingly unable to recognize that they too believe that it’s time to stop separating the issues addressed in films and their impact on viewing audiences. While the gay and lesbian activists are concerned with the film’s effects on the lesbian subculture in India, the fringe Hindus are concerned with the film’s effect on public morals in traditional Indian culture.
Despite Razdan’s obvious contempt for the fundamentalist protestors and shock at the lesbian activists’ shrill objections, the director Razdan has said the debate his film has provoked is ‘healthy’ for India. In an interview with BBC Radio, Razdan said he is pleased. "Now obviously it’s all out in the open, and people are talking about it. I think that is healthy."
It’s healthy at least for Razdan’s pocketbook. The film’s popularity has skyrocketed since the protests. Indians are reportedly thronging the cinemas before the film gets yanked. It is instructive to note that prior to the protests film critics panned Girlfriend as a C-grade movie "redolent with cliches." Given the unrest provoked by the film, Razdan believes that Girlfriend will now finds its way into cinemas in the United States and Britain.
Michael S. Rose is the author a several books including the New York Times bestseller Goodbye, Good Men. He is Executive Editor of Cruxnews.com.
Heh, heh -- keep reading...I already conceded that good point.
What an honor to have one's film hated by everyone.
I don't see it that way, though. If the assertion is that it's okay for people to vandalize cinemas for a good cause, but not okay for people to vandalize them for a bad cause, there has to be some authority who decides whether someone was justified in vandalizing a cinema, or whether they should be arrested for it. In the case of the colonists, they knew they would get in trouble with the authorities, but they did it anyway.
So, to clarify: are you saying that people who vandalize cinemas in what you see as a good cause should be arrested, but given moral support by those who agree with their cause? Or are you saying that if people vandalize in a good cause, they should not be arrested for it?
Yeah, I was a little fast on the Send key......
Well, I refuse to comment further until I see the scene in question. In the interest of engaging in good public discourse, of course.
I should know better than to use words like "always" and "never." :)
Amrita Arora
Amrita Arora
They should be allowed to protest if they want, I just think they're foolish to do so, since it's none of their business if someone wants to watch a film about lesbians or not.
Why?
I'm no fan of the gay-lesbian lifestyle but if someone wants to make or view a film about it, that's their right.
God gives us the right to do evil?
Anyone want to join me in "redecorating" some movie theaters this weekend?
We're so lucky in my town we have a female porn star making a special appearance tonight.
The dark side will continue to make inroads until the problem elements are dealt with, legally or otherwise (the legal attempts have failed).
For those who don't know about Indian lesbian flicks, I can say that Fire was okay.
God forbid people form groups to lobby government for change.
There is no difference. Unless you own the theatre, you have no right to vandalize it. If you don't like what's showing at the theatre, open your own theatre.
Ah, the tactics of the left. You have soulmates in ELF and A.N.S.W.E.R.
A movie about two chicks getting it on is an excuse for vandalism and destruction of property? Hey, I have an idea, if a movie offends you: DON'T WATCH IT.
Whether you believe in him or not, Satan is proud to have people with your leanings as members.
One thing that goes without saying, those girls are gorgeous. And lesbian. Oh my...
Yawn. Yes, those of us who believe that you should not vandalize other peoples' property are the pawns of satan.
Anyway, I don't fear some silly supernatural being invented by people barely out of the stone age.
And the chicks in this movie are hot.
Enough said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.