Raj Thackeray objects to the word ‘Bombay’ in Wake Up Sid, Johar apologizes
this mob continues to hold a gun to everyone’s head! This is where Kaminey’s critique is so humorous and yet so chilling..
Going by the buzz and the hype that was created over the last few weeks around the film Wake Up Sid, its quite obvious, that its makers left no stone unturned, when it came to the film’s promotions. But the makers of the film surely must’ve not expected the film create controversy on day one itself.
Today, MNS (Maharashtra Navnirman Sena) party activists disrupted the screening of the Ranbir-Konkona starrer in some cinema halls in Mumbai and Pune. The reason? Well, they were objecting use of word ‘Bombay’ instead of ‘Mumbai’ in the film. Latest reports have it that the film’s producer Karan Johar had gone to meet MNS chief Raj Thackeray to sort out the matter and has also apologized for referring ‘Mumbai’ city as ‘Bombay’ in the film. He further said that a disclaimer will now be carried in the beginning of the film.
Wake Up Sid stars Ranbir Kapoor, Konkona Sen Sharma, Anupam Kher and Supriya Pathak and is directed by Ayan Mukerji.
October 2, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Taran’s review:
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/review/13966/index.html
Sukanya Varma:
http://movies.rediff.com/review/2009/oct/02/review-wake-up-sid.htm
October 2, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Seems to be garnering very positive reviews in the early going.
October 2, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Looks like a winner! Some people have said it’s like LBC as well..
October 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM
more on the story here:
IBN:
New Delhi: Karan Johar’s Ranbir Kapoor starrer, Wake Up Sid, scheduled to hit theatres on Friday, October 2, had a nightmarish start in Maharashtra.
The Mahrashtra Navnirman Sena or the MNS stopped the film’s screening in Pune.
MNS activists didn’t permit the film’s screening across cinema halls in Pune because in the film, the city of Mumbai has been referred to as ‘Bombay’.
Meanwhile, producer of the film, Karan Johar met MNS chief Raj Thackeray and apologised for their mistake.
While talking to the press after meeting Raj Thackeray Johar said, “We are creative people, we make mistakes. We came here to apologies to Raj Thackeray. We will put a disclaimer in the beginning of the film. We shall be putting a disclaimer in the beginning of the film. We are confident and have got support from Raj Thackeray that there will be no protests.”
Meanwhile Raj Thackeray said, “I have told them that it should be ‘Mumbai’ not ‘Bombay’. I have told them to have apology in first frame of the all 700 prints of the film released worldwide. Karan told me that because of the logistical issues it will take 2-3 days and I have agreed to that I will speak to the producers association to ensure that this will not happen again
Wake up Sid stars Ranbir Kapoor and Konkona Sen Sharma and is directed by Ayan Mukherji.
Wake up Sid stars Ranbir Kapoor as Sidharth Mehra, a super rich slacker while Konkana sen Sharma plays Aisha Banerjee, an ambitious girl who moves to Mumbai to become a writer. The two go on to become friends and as days go by, lazy Sid gets the wake up call of his life.
October 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Kaminey has this great line where all the new city names are rattled off at one point — Mumbai, Chennai, Bengalooru, Kolkatta, Thiruvananthapuram (the list is a ‘universal’ one for India!).
October 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I don’t know how this kind of behavior can be permitted in a democracy. This is mob rule.
October 2, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I’m actually surprised they didn’t object to Kaminey..
October 2, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Absolutely…that was the most overt “assault” on this kind of move…
October 5, 2009 at 4:35 AM
i feel Raj and MNS members are not intellectual enough to understand the spoof in kaminey !! That’s why they miss the bus!!
October 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM
i agree and worse is KJo is apologizing for it……if RT is a mob-ruler…it is because of cowards like KJo…..wake up Karan
October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
well you can’t completely blame them.. if the law cannot or will not protect them they have crores on the line with each film release.. it’s easiest to blackmail them.. not just this.. even beyond the screening disruptions there might have been other consequences in a city like Bombay..
I do believe that Amitabh Bachchan should have stood up to this far more forcefully when this happened with him.
October 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Anupama Chopra:
http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_Review.aspx?id=438&showid=303
here’s an interesting blog piece suggesting this is part of the ‘multiplex formula’ wave:
http://blogs.reuters.com/indiamasala/2009/10/02/wake-up-sid-a-whole-new-formula-film/
October 2, 2009 at 1:01 PM
That latter review is a thoughtful one. Thanks.
October 2, 2009 at 1:07 PM
that blog was interesting..
October 2, 2009 at 10:23 AM
http://buzz18.in.com/reviews/movies/review-wake-up-sid/158892/1
October 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Idiotic and mindless
October 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM
You seen the movie already!? lol
October 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I think it’s very useful to bring this masterful piece back. One of my favorites from Satyam:
http://www.ibosnetwork.com/newsmanager/templates/template1.aspx?articleid=21520&zoneid=1
October 2, 2009 at 12:04 PM
thanks for re-introducing this piece GF. I’d forgotten about it.
October 2, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Hang your head in shame.
The sentence that still gives me goosebumps:
“Change all the names, the names of fountains and the names of cities, change all the names, change history.”
October 2, 2009 at 12:51 PM
if they have so much problem let them destroy everything that Britishers have made in mumbai or bombay.
ask them to destroy everything and make their own again.
i dont mind the name being changed but it’s not such a big issue. atleast in a democratic country like this where anything legal should be free.
October 2, 2009 at 12:52 PM
everytime its either movies or sm book. i’ve hardly heard them being against some corruption or other important issues.
October 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM
has Raj thakrey has nothing better to do!
October 2, 2009 at 1:53 PM
This is height of absurdity. Some day they will object to use of common names or names of political leaders.
Though the CM has disapproved but merely saying won’t desist these hooligans from doing in future.
CM disapproves of Johar apology to Raj Thackeray
October 2, 2009 at 5:37 PM
What a loser and what a pity he is tolerated in India!
October 3, 2009 at 4:56 AM
and he is making “My name is Khan” – height of hypocrisy!
October 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Sometimes the wrong messenger kills the right message.
One does not need to support Raj Thackeray’s silliness to recognize that the systematic eradication of identity is one of the first and most potent weapons of any colonizers, or that the process of regaining self-respect begins with the reclamation of one’s identity.
When I was growing up in India, all these cities were known by their Indian names — Benguluru, Thiruvananthapuram, Chennai. Heck, we used to regularly go to Madras, as it was known then, but the name board at the railway station always said “Chennapuri” in Telugu, and “Madras” in English. I think the linguistic imperialism cannot be missed or minimized.
As for mob rule, I think that is dignifying it too much. It is a mob all right, but I don’t think they have any idea of “rule.” More importantly, they (NS) are not the only or even the first such mob. When people see what succeeds in getting them time in the public attention span, they will unhesitatingly adopt those tactics. There are plenty of such mobs of every political and religious persuasion in India, and I don’t see why one deserves more condemnation than another.
As for Karan Johar apologizing, it is what I expect of him. Or even of SRK, for that matter. The Amitabh apology is more interesting. You can’t talk about his apology without talking about Jaya’s deliberate provocation. He might have been forced into making this as damage control for her ill-considered remarks. In any case, since nobody is making sincere apologies or actually thinking about the issue at hand, I don’t think we need to get too concerned about these apologies, either.
October 3, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Raj Thackeray should first start spelling his name as Thakre (and not after William Makepeace Thackeray!) before taking up the cause of Mumbai/Bombay! If this isn’t colonial hangover then I don’t know what is!
October 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM
LOL! Good one.
October 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM
BINGO ! The Thackeray’s used to own and run a restaurant called DRUMBEAT, i believe in Tardeo(i could be wrong), can you believe that? He was once quizzed how come he chose to name a restaurant of his using an English word and the old man pointed out, the title(board) was in Devnagri!!!!!
Such is the illogic of these guys. Its licensed gundagardi! I am a Mumbaiker, and have no issues not referring to it as Bombay. Absolutely we should get over with colonial hangups. But what I hate is when people insist on shoving it down others’ throats. And with apologies to the bard, a rose would not have smelt different if it had been called by any other name. So Mumbai does not become more or less when referred to as Bombay!
Its sad that the politics of this gets to the common man. think of the people in theater affected when they had perhaps been watching a show and were evicted because of these thugs. Its the law enforcement’s duty to ensure safety of its citizen which it does not and that is truly the sad thing today.
October 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM
The anecdote about DRUMBEAT is priceless!
It’s not hard to understand the logic behind the timing of such attacks. With the assembly elections round the corner, we could expect a few more Raj-isms in the days to come. The last time he created a fuss, the LS polls were about to begin.
The worst part about this whole sordid affair is that this guy gets an audience! And that too among the educated class. No wonder the state of politics is so rotten in India.
October 3, 2009 at 9:24 AM
LOL, Saket. Bang on.
I wish I could meet some of these pussies in a dark alley
I will teach them a few spellings they will never forget.
October 3, 2009 at 9:20 AM
SM, but the politics of the colonizer cannot be substituted with the chauvinism of the native especially when it is founded on extremely shaky history. Some of these cities are essentially British creations. Arguing in the case of Bombay for example that it was called Maha Amba or Mumba Devi or whatever and that there was a fishing community there is plain nonsense. There was no recognizable city there till the British arrived. Any sign of human activity does not a city make! One could make a very similar argument for Madras. Calcutta was also a village or something. Now obviously things are different when it comes to Vishakapatnam or Thiruvananthapuram. So I’m not denying colonialism here. But when every name is ‘Indianized’ there is a problem. Beyond this the fact that colonialism sought to impose its hierarchies and its ‘names’ on India (as with many other places elsewhere around the globe) can be critiqued without losing sight of another fact — these names are now part of the history of India, whether one likes this or not. Britain is part of Indian history. The right in India dislikes Muslim rule in India, that too is a part of the Indian fabric as are the changes wrought. Ultimately it is of course a question of ‘names’ and hence it is not surprising that these would become the sites of greatest contestation. We know from history that the impulse towards changing names is a universal one in every era and culture of human history. But some are less justifiable than others. Not just this I consider it dangerous when the aim involves a certain erasure of history. Leaving this aside one should not only be bothered about the name imposed by colonialism. There are others. ‘Trivandrum’ is a very ancient town. How many name changes might this have gone through?!
October 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Does anyone here know where Peking is?
Or Ceylon?
Or Burma?
When the whole world has no problems changing over to Beijing, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, or even St. Petersburg, why is it only in India that we get this resistance and arguments about what is and is not part of Indian history? The biggest proponents of the colonial mindset in India are the Indians themselves.
And why single out “the right” in India? “Satanic Verses” was banned in India, and Salman Rushdie barred from entry; “The Da Vinci Code” was barred from being shown. “Meenaxi” was taken out of theaters after a few days to comply with (or knuckle under to) the demands of a different “mob.” Similarly with “Jo Bole So Nihaal.” Heck, the Congress Youth Party in UP even burned Obama in effigy over SRK’s “detention” in Newark! In such a climate and a society of hair trigger emotions, why be surprised at the MNS’s tactics? That is what I am asking.
And, secondarily, why let oneself be distracted by their tactics from understanding the important issue that is the basis for whatever support such parties get? The fact that no one is offering meaningful solutions doesn’t mean that there are not real problems that need to be addressed.
Yes, some places go through many name changes (the aforementioned St. Petersburg, for example — though why Peter is considered any less of a tyrant than Lenin is something I don’t understand), and some places retain their identities and names no matter how many “official” changes are imposed — like Kasi/Varanasi or Prayaga.
As for names being “imposed” on the populace, that is the way all social policies are implemented in India — from the top down, as we have seen with the recent “austerity” measures. It is a systemic problem that needs to be corrected, and is not limited to the name issue.
October 3, 2009 at 9:53 AM
I actually find other name changes objectionable as well! Depending on what the politics behind each name change is.
The rest here is a different matter. One can accept that the left can behave excessively and cynically without give free chits to the right! I always find this ‘both are at fault’ oppositional structure (the American cable news syndrome if you will) a little banal. But yeah it’s a scandal that the Satanic Verses continues to be banned much as it was the pandering to Muslim votes in the first place that enabled India to be the first country to institute the ban (it’s saying something if you’re beating Iran to it!).
St Petersburg was found by Peter I! So it’s not about degrees of tyranny here! Much as Constantinople was founded by Constantine and I would have preferred this name to Istanbul. I do make a distinction between names of countries and names of cities. The former could be justified more inasmuch as a new political order takes place but to change names of cities and streets and buildings and what not is to try and erase history.
October 3, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Well, if I recall my high school history correctly, St. Petersburg had a previous name, as did Constantinople.
As for “erasing history”, I leave you with this thought:
“What is history but a set of lies agreed upon?” — Napolean
Anyway, I am going to see Magadheera tonight. Perhaps we can think of some appropriate name changes when it is renamed in Hindi.
October 3, 2009 at 10:04 AM
And to be equated to American cable news shows is a more effective way of shutting me up than invoking Hitler or the Nazis. Ouch!
October 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Re: “Does anyone here know where Peking is?”
Random aside: for some reason, in French, Beijing continues to be referred as “Pekin”. I believe, but am not 100% sure, that “Bombay” continues to be used in French.
October 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM
SM: You’re lucky with magadheera. I foolishly missed it when it came out.
Constantinople was again the site of a settlement called Byzantium (hence the empire) but it was nothing like the formal city Constantine made out of it. So he was really the ‘founder’ here. With St Petersburg I doubt there was even as much there. Of course the communists first secularized the name to Petrograd before eventually moving onto Leningrad.
October 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM
SM: I didn’t mean any insult there. I just think it’s philosophically problematic to always insist on the ‘two sides to every story’ equation. I’m not saying that you’re doing this, just that one is sometimes susceptible to this sort of thing. In many ways this is really a bland liberal position. Let’s here all sides and so on kind of thing.
Incidentally I’m a great consumer of Hardball and Good Morning Joe!
October 4, 2009 at 5:25 AM
Oh, I didn’t think you were insulting me, so nothing for you to worry about. I don’t think, even philosophically, that there is anything wrong with “two sides” or many sides, to every story. I don’t think you do, either. I suspect your problem (and sometimes mine) comes when both sides are given equal weight, as in the current Roman Polanski uproar. Anyway, the point I was making here was along the “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” lines, rather than trying to point out the “other side.”
Quick note on Magadheera: I just got back, and, while it was certainly very entertaining and spectacular, I was disappointed with the effects. I don’t know how it’ll fly in Hindi, frankly. It’ll require some changes. But Hrithik is definitely better suited than Aamir, and even about him I have some misgivings.
October 4, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Thanks for your views SM. The problem is that Hindi cinema does not have the right masala hero for this sort of deal. Hrithik is too clean to do this. Not the right fit for this world. Abhishek would be the best bet but he probably wouldn’t be interested. But you can see the Drona connections here. A few scenes seemed similar unless there’s a common source. But in any case this is the sort of film Drona ought to have been. I certainly don’t see anyone as a good fit for the role. It could be big in Hindi though toned down a bit presumably.
Wanted has proven one thing, if Salman whose best days are assuredly behind him, and with really a non-star in the female lead, a rather mediocre soundtrack can get big success in this sort of film there are real opportunities here, again as long as a star can fit into that universe (Abhishek is the only one with the genealogy, thought he was effective in Run too but that film released at the wrong stage in his career, again should have been tweaked a bit in some ways).
Unfortunately he too doesn’t quite believe in this stuff. He’s not even willing to invest capital on more intelligent thrillers like say a Kaakka Kaakka in terms of enabling these projects. And this remains Bombay’s tragedy from my perspective. All the major actors and directors really belong to a different sociological universe and have very little if any investment in resuscitating masala. Again no one should be interested in such a project for its own sake but for the possibilities offered by this world.
October 4, 2009 at 5:38 AM
its perfectly right for Raj Thackeray to demand the change in the name. What i dont understand is what do all the idiotic people who say its unneccessary to change the name know about its history. the name mumbai was given after mumbadevi n its the official name so whats wrong in emphasizing the correct name of the city. Dont u people call calcutta kolkatta now, dont u call banglore bengaluru now. All these “cool” “wannabees” who try n put forth a secular faces need to go get a life. Wake up guys n try to increase ur intellect n IQ….
October 4, 2009 at 10:33 AM
You haven’t read the above discussion. The only ‘correct’ name for the city as a matter of history is ‘Bombay’ because this was a city more or less ‘made’ by the British. You can’t say there was a fishing community there which was the original ‘city’! These were just a collection if islands that had been passed around from ruler to ruler since ancient times. These became a proper city only with the British. The same applies to those other cities you mention though with Bangalore there is a still a much stronger history that predates the British. But again it’s a question of what influences a city exhibits in its current form. The entire planning and architecture of Bombay betrays the history of British rule. Just adding Shivaji’s name to everything from Marine Drive to VT won’t change this history.
But hey I’m all for renaming Delhi Indraprastha!
October 4, 2009 at 9:12 PM
I would love for Delhi to be named Indraprastha.
October 4, 2009 at 9:44 PM
me too! I love mythological connections!
October 4, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Actually, the reason why I said I would love to see that name is so we can put this “mythological” BS behind us, by acknowledging it as history.
October 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM
TOI:
Bombay’s Box Office stake behind Karan Johar’s sorry?
Bharati Dubey, TNN 4 October 2009, 04:29am IST
MUMBAI: The film industry is not surprised at Karan Johar’s eagerness to kowtow before Raj Thackeray’s “hurt Marathi pride” on the eve of the release of Wake Up Sid.
About Rs 35 crore is riding on the film and rough estimates by trade experts say a third of a film’s business usually comes from the “Bombay territory” alone. This zone comprises, besides Mumbai, large chunks of Maharashtra and Gujarat. “So it is not surprising that Johar thought it prudent not to get into any debate and apologised straightaway,” a trade expert said.
And the effect his “apology” had was immediate. Only a couple of shows were “disrupted” in Pune and Mumbai, distributors said, adding that they were happy at the way the situation was handled.
Cinemax Cinemas senior vice-president Devang Sampat said: “A film like Wake Up Sid would get between 35% and 40% of its total business from the Bombay territory alone as it is a multiplex film.” UTV CEO Sidharth Roy Kapur said: “We did not lose anything because of the quick action taken by Johar.”
Trade analyst Amod Mehra said the film might have lost Rs 5 crore-Rs 7 crore had it missed the first weekend. “The pre-Diwali weekend (the coming weekend in this case) is generally not good for films,” he explained.
The film industry is also seething with anger but still does not know if it will be wise to take a stand on the issue. Director Mahesh Bhatt feels the industry should come together and approach the chief minister to find a solution to the issue. “A familiar nightmare is playing itself out for the nth time right under our gaze and we like are watching it without raising our voices. The tragedy of Bollywood is that we talk a lot of about freedom but do nothing to fight for it when it is in jeopardy,” he said.
But there are many in the industry who feel the fraternity is not united and that is the reason they cannot take a stand on the issue. Producer N R Paschicia, who lost nearly Rs 3 crore at the time of the release of Joh Bole So Nihal, said: “It is sad that these political parties are trying to curb our creativity each time a film releases even after it has been cleared by the Censor Board. The industry needs to take a stand but, to take a stand, the industry needs to come together which is difficult because we are jealous of each other’s success.”
Producers say films have always been soft targets for politicians. “Every second film is put under the scanner. Jodha Akbar was not allowed to release in a major part of Rajasthan. The word ‘mochi’ had to be deleted from a song in the Madhuri Dixit-starrer Aaja Nach Le. Then someone objected to the word, ‘teli’, in a song from Kaminay,” a producer said.
Producer Pritish Nandy, too, feels it is becoming a pattern. “Every time a film is about to release, there is some issue. The day is not far when actors and writers will be targeted as well,” he said.
October 4, 2009 at 9:50 PM
“Actually, the reason why I said I would love to see that name is so we can put this “mythological” BS behind us, by acknowledging it as history.”
Must be my imagination but the left is rather under-represented on the blogosphere!
Mythology is ‘other’ than history. The former should never be reduced to ‘mere’ history!
October 4, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I object to only one religion’s traditions being classified as “mythology”, and all others as “history” and “fact.” If all were classed as “mythology”, I would have no problem.
October 4, 2009 at 11:24 PM
If one wants to be absolutely precise in a theoretical sense one should classify only Biblical faiths as ‘religion’. Because the latter word has a certain history. Using it indiscriminately for every belief system is perhaps not useful.
Certainly I would not classify any belief system as ‘fact’. The question of history is a different one. If by this term one means history in the scientific sense no belief system can be classified as such though clearly some religious histories are more verifiable in that same scientific sense than others. One should not elide this distinction if one operates with that sense of history.
On the other hand if history is taken in a different and somewhat more expansive sense as an enframing field of human experience or that which gives us our modes of thought many belief systems could be so classified.
Mythology again is not a negative term in my book. At the same time I would not classify every belief system as such because it means again something precise. I am a great fan of mythological cultures. I love wordviews where gods and humans operate on the same plane or where their lives at least intersect. There are certain metaphors and ways of decoding the world and human experience that to my mind are far more richly supplied by mythological tropes than those of monotheistic religions (to name an alternative).
I do agree that the received sense of ‘mythology’ in a Christian culture (which is also another name for the ‘West’ though we keep forgetting this) is not usually so neutral outside an academic environment. And yet it is history even for this culture in that more expansive sense. What would the West be without the heritage and legacy of Greco-Roman civilization? Even as we deny these histories these continue to inform us in profound ways.
All of this connects with the earlier Raj Thackeray discussion. One cannot wish away history.
October 4, 2009 at 11:38 PM
I knew you were using “mythological” in this sense. That is, in the sense in which one can speak of the “mythology of Amitabh Bachchan”, as well as the “history of Amitabh Bachchan.”
However, the use of this word in India is not in such an intellectual sense, and is very much in the Christian sense of “myth=lie” when it comes to other religious systems. In my experience in India, I have always encountered this word exclusively applied to the “Hindu religion” (both words being problematic, as per your above discussion), by Hindus themselves, and it was always apparent from the context that they thought “mythology” synonymous with “religion.” And yet they would look quite blank if you spoke of the “myth” of the Garden of Eden, for instance, or the “myth” of the angel speaking to Mohammed. Unfortunately in India, where everything gets conflated with political implications, and especially religion and “secularism” (another highly misused word), the sociopolitical implications of such usages cannot be ignored.
Even here, I have found you yourself, along with others, using this term in such a way, and it troubles me, as you are quite precise in your word choices otherwise. You cannot be unaware that “the west” refers to Greek and Roman (and Norse) “mythology” precisely to underline the idea that these are “false” religions, which have been vanquished by the “true” religion of Christianity.
I think the Joseph Campbell sense of “mythic” is not so well known to the general public, certainly not in India.
When films based on the Mahabharata or the Ramayana or routinely described as “mythologicals” (to the extent of coining a whole new genre for them) and the Biblical films of Cecil de Mille are not so described, there is an obvious prejudice at work that needs to be pointed out.
I understand your point about made up histories, but the renaming of Delhi to Indraprastha would be an affirmation of verifiable history, too.
But I’m not holding my breath for that one (nor do I think there is any purpose to be served by it, when most Indians of the present day are completely ignorant of their own history, even of a few centuries, or few decades, ago.)
October 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM
I’d agree almost completely on your first long paragraph. But note how in battling what you rightly perceive to be a bias you are confirming the prejudice. Because your suggestion is that either everything should be called myth or all should equally be considered ‘history’. In a very general sense I recognize the democratic nature of such a move but the problem is that this runs the danger of obscuring the notion of the ‘mythos’ in its authentic sense. If everything is equally religion or myth we have in effect obfuscated both. Because the world view of each belief system is very different and a common term always does violence to one or the other. My own preference in this matter is to insist on the original term and try to ‘re-charge’ it or wear it as a badge of honor. There is no reason to be apologetic for believing in what a Christian modernity always classifies as ‘myth’ in a less than dignifying sense. Why accept the discourse of the other and throw the word back?
As an aside I would add here that every religious story that includes let us say the ‘fantastic’ cannot necessarily be called ‘myth’. But I understood the general import of your point which is why I agreed with it.
I am not sure what reference you have in mind when you suggest that I am guilty of a certain usage of the word ‘myth’. I can only say that I always intend it in flattering fashion unless of course one uses the common English expression of debunking a ‘myth’. I have always been devoted to the mythic mode. As a lover of masala it would be odd if I wasn’t or didn’t understand this! To my mind Amitabh Bachchan is such a modern Indian myth. Or at least his principal characters were.
On the ‘West’ well as I’ve been repeating it is indeed founded on a denial of the classical heritage which is to say a repression of part of its own history. And yes this is where the bias against ‘myth’ comes about. Again I use it in a completely positive sense and believe this is the best way to counter than prejudicial history.
I do think that the ‘Biblical film’ term is used quite commonly in the West.
There is no verifiable history for Indraprastha that I am aware of..
October 5, 2009 at 1:51 AM
The physical structure, the monuments, everything that is recognizably Delhi is either “Old Delhi” (i.e. the Mughal city of Shahjahanabad), or the British imperial capital. The remains of several other capitals (e.g. Firozabad) can also be found. But Indraprastha only exists in Delhi as a site (i.e. the common academic consent that Indraprastha was probably located somewhere where modern Delhi is). i.e. unlike in the case of Kolkata, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, renaming Delhi Indraprastha would involve considerable symbolic violence to the reality of Delhi and the heritage, that has made Delhi what it is (and is not).
On some of the other points raised here, I couldn’t agree more:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame.html
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-sequel.html
October 5, 2009 at 1:54 AM
PS– the other thing with the MNS protest is that in this instance, it is out of touch with reality. Posh Bombayites continue to refer to the city as “Bombay” — everyone I know who is from South Bombay, or Juhu or Bandra, refers to it thus. Non-Mumbaikars are I think in the habit of saying Mumbai now. I do not justify this or condemn it, but given the sort of character Ranbir looks like he is playing in this film, “Mumbai” wouldn’t ring true from his mouth…
October 5, 2009 at 2:49 AM
sm,burma is stil burma to the west.Can’t undrerstand name change of bombay.It is the original name.Maharashrians wanted locla name.
And only spelling of calcutta is changed.Anycase there shouldn’t be any objection if someine uses old name of any city.
October 5, 2009 at 3:20 AM
Actually, Burma is regularly referred to as Myanmar in western news reports.
But along the same lines, some time in the 1980′s, a relative of mine in the insurance industry in the U.S., pointed out to the powers that be that their maps of India still showed it as “India (Br.)”, i.e., as a British colony. They were very surprised when he pointed out that this wasn’t the case, and hadn’t been the case since 1947. Should he have kept quiet and said, “what’s in a name?” Or should India have changed over all its textbooks, to be in conformity with “western” usage?
October 5, 2009 at 3:42 AM
But the other thing is that, as I mentioned earlier, TONS of people from Mumbai still say “Bombay” — especially the demographic represented in Wake Up Sid. What’s wrong in having the film reflect that? Next thing you know Raj Thackeray will protest if someone plays the old song from “Don” in public…
News reports are different: all the mainstream outlets in the USA say “Mumbai”, not “Bombay”, they do try and stay current with this sort of thing. Ditto the BBC etc. too, although I do not think the French are on board for either Mumbai or Beijing…
October 5, 2009 at 8:02 AM
I’m not defending or agreeing with the MNS position. I hope that’s clear. All my discussion has been on the position that some people here seem to have taken, that, because Raj Thackeray is being foolish and hypocritical, this proves that all name changes are foolish and hypocritical, or that all people who support reverting to Indian names for places are by definition “right wing fundamentalists.”
October 5, 2009 at 5:48 AM
That is completely different sm.There history is altered.I think bombay is a better name.And saket is right.Asembly elections are round the corner and raj thakre needs an agenda.The congress may be using him to divide shivsena votes.
October 5, 2009 at 6:18 AM
I dont understand why the big fuss is made by Rak Thakrey…(Quite expected though considering election is round the corner)
In 1980′s,i still remember Doordrshans’ Hindi news bulletin “”Samachar”" referred it as Mumbai and English news refered it as Bombay…
I dont mind the changes in the names either..but definitely Raj should concentrate on better things than this trivial issue..
October 5, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Don’t know about doordarshan but at least in Hindi cinema it was always ‘Bambai’.
October 5, 2009 at 7:59 AM
I thought I had made it clear in my first comment that I do not agree with Raj Thackeray or the MNS’s activities. As for why he focuses on this issue, it’s a lot easier to get into the news by making these kinds of fusses than by doing anything constructive for Marathis, isn’t it. Sort of like the Congress focusing on their “austerity drive.”
October 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM
well state elections are coming up in Maharashtra, Dec!
October 5, 2009 at 9:05 AM
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/oct/051009-Gateway-of-India-Shiv-sena-Shivaji-memorial-Rs-350-cr.htm
October 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Munna supplied this link:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bollywood-or-mollywood/524665/0
December 15, 2009 at 11:55 PM
I just saw WUS. As much as I hate the kind of move displayed by the Sena here, and completely denounce their standard bullshit, after seeing this movie, I felt that it was appropriate that the filmmakers began with an apology, considering what followed.
I don’t mean to be too hard on a film that’s clearly harmless, llght fun and even has some warm moments. But it’s also a film that has nothing to say, or, more precisely, has nothing to say that can’t be gleaned from an average American sitcom. I can hardly believe that this film was as long as it was! I just found it interminable. Absolutely interminable.
The only thing that comes close to making this film good is Anil Mehta’s excellent camerawork. He really shoots this city very picturesquely, although even here there’s no “interrogation” or newness displayed. TZP in the “Mera Jahaan” sequence alone had far more insight – and maturity. But then WUS rebels against maturity so I suppose, again, it’s all very appropriate.
December 16, 2009 at 12:10 AM
LOL, good one GF. I too felt this film was wretched. Really nothing to add to your dismantling of this — I want to say “turdfest”, because the film doesn’t even register enough of an impact to be offensive, and is only thus offensive by omission — god’s gift to all those who love to stereotype “multiplex cinema”.
December 16, 2009 at 12:31 AM
“god’s gift to all those who love to stereotype “multiplex cinema”.
Perfectly put. This is really what this thing is.
And I’ll say this to add some more fuel to the fire, especially now that I have some company. I never thought I could be uninterested in a Konkona Sensharma performance. The greatest fault of this film is that it broke that otherwise rather unbreakable rule.
Also, while multiplex cinema seems to have done away with the concept of screen villainy, (something Rangan touches on in this recent, important piece) they seem to have solved the problem of excluding villains by having Rahul Khanna play a douchebag instead.
December 16, 2009 at 12:42 AM
wonderfully summed up! I didn’t mind sitting through it once but I do share all your sentiments here.