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.
The Bible does not tell us we should forcefully prevent other people from doing evil if that's what they want to do. If they sin, they will answer to God, not us.
"there has to be some authority who decides whether someone was justified in vandalizing a cinema, or whether they should be arrested for it."
Come on, let's limber up the old thinking muscles, here. Ready? One-two, one-two, one-two. Okay, now, take one step deeper into the process from "there has to be some authority."
What is the one thing that trumps property rights? The right of other people not to be harmed by exercise of those property rights.
That's why you can't just build a swimming pool in your front yard with no fence around it. Sooner or later somebody's two year old is going to toddle over and drown in it. It's called a "public nuisance."
So--we have a right not to be harmed by the cinema owner's use of his private property. Who says so? God says so. Government says differently? Then **to hell with** the government. The government is wrong. When the government is wrong, then measures up to and including overthrowing it through force of arms are justified. That's why we have a Second Amendment to the Constitution: so that the people would be armed in case they needed to replace the government.
"In the case of the colonists, they knew they would get in trouble with the authorities, but they did it anyway."
Yes, based on the thinking I outlined above.
You seem to be thinking in terms of government being the solution instead of the problem.
"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?"
You mean from a moral standpoint? Of course they should not be arrested. What should happen is that the government and the theater owner should take it as a warning and temper their abuses.
And what are photographs like that if not advertisements for and inducements to fornication?
"Women make both the manners and the morals of a people. Neither rises higher than the gauge which women set in a community...Where a woman has bad manners, it always has in it an element of vulgarity which is more painful than it could be in a man. The result will be a society hopelessly vulgarized...with no end but to sink in an ever deeper abyss of vulgarity." -- Thomas Nelson Page, 1911
Bears repeating.
I'm putting it in my glossary of quotations.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More from the Culture War. This is a more detailed article about the female homosexual film causing a ruckus in India.
Note how every time the objecting Hindu groups are mentioned, the use of the obligatory word "fringe". I don't think it's because of few numbers, it's just that world wide those who adhere or promote moral absolutes are being sidelined and painted as extremists.
Also noteworthy is that the "gay" activists in India don't like the movie since it doesn't pander to the normalization of homosexuality - one of the women goes mad and apparently dies, the other one gets married. Can't have that! I hope the "gay rights" movement dies a sudden death in India. It's the last thing Asia needs.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Hinduism - or more accurately, followers of the Vedic religion - teaches very strict morals regarding sexual behavior.
I agree with your comments. For some reason, a segment of the population (at large, and here on FR) don't [want to] see that evil actually exists and it does and will harm people irrevocably. Futhermore, their argument is that "if you don't like homosexual porn films, don't watch them". It's the same argument as "If you're against abortion, don't have one". To carry it further: "If your're against arson, don't burn up buildings or forests". Etc.
The problem with promotion or tolerance of sexual immorality, is that it creates a society of broken people. Even if you or I or someone else tries to live moral lives, the atmosphere affects everyone, especially children. So we are all affected. It's like living in a landfill - if you live right in the middle of a garbage dump, even if you keep your own house clean, the stench, flies and rats will get into your house too.
You're right. Asia doesn't need this crap to be sure.
"God forbid people form groups to lobby government for change."
Yes, God forbid that people who suffer from a mental disorder should be taken seriously when lobbying to have that mental disorder declared mental health.
There are two things at work in same-sex attraction disorder: one, of course, is mundane mental illness. The other is supernatural evil.
These people are "lobbying" for the proposition that our laws should declare a thing that is a composite of mental illness and evil be declared good, by law, and that we all be required to act as though it were good, even in the disposition of our private property and private lives.
It is astounding that any sane person should consider that a reasonable thing to "lobby" for.
And no, I don't want laws against lobbying for it. I don't think we should need them. I think people should be sane enough, and have sufficiently well-formed consciences, that no such "lobbying" would be taken seriously.
In fact, frequently the more you insist otherwise, the more vulgar some people seem to become.
It's Lady Eileen's.
And I myself am sometimes vulgar. Sometimes I even think it's called for. But then, I'm a guy.
You really have LOTS, and LOTS of growing up to do. I am not at all surprised by your response to this thread.
Though it sounds worse coming from the mouths of women, I think vulgarity is uncalled for, for both sexes. Maybe that's because I'm not a guy.
Emotional perversion exhibited through sex knows no racial or gender boundaries. It's a universal life style CHOICE!
Only Ghandi is revered who secretly had a thing for little boys.
"Though it sounds worse coming from the mouths of women, I think vulgarity is uncalled for, for both sexes. Maybe that's because I'm not a guy."
Well, after all, one of the things women have to do is civilize men. Without women, we're just a pack of beer swilling barbarians.
Aquinas ... to characterize homosexual desire and love as a cancer leads you off track.
There is not anything at all sensually superior in one form of sex over another. It all pretty much comes down to the burden we all have to bear, the hormonal combined with the tactile.
The bigger picture when contrasting homsexuality with heterosexuality is procreation. That is a significant consideration.
But the other bigger picture is affection ... who stimulates our basic selves.
Some people are just as naturally attracted to the same sex, as others are to the opposite. There is zero advantage to desiring a person of the same sex, and probably a risk of huge disadvantage.
For homosexuality to be condemned, even the act to be condememned (beyond the condemnation of non-marital sex itself) requires you to identify some harm to the act itself.
Heterosexual sex can be condemned on the grounds that a child might be reproduced, irresponsibly.
What is the essence of the sin committed by homosexual sex?
Maybe there is truth to what you say, but I always thought the basic nature of men was better than that, especially when they believe in God and have religious convictions. However, there are some on this forum who certainly have proven me wrong.
I hope it dies a sudden death across the world. I used to be so tolerant of it - but now since the "in your face" agenda, I want them to go back to the closet so I can nail the door shut.
Oh - an accurate portrayal! No wonder everyone (especially the GLT types) hate it! I have known (and liked) people of this "persuasion" many times in my life. They would have us think their way is better or normal. It is not, it is sad.
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.