Marginalised communities

My recent posts on this blog are not about any specific prejudice against Muslims in India or the African Americans (please read my previous posts for reference) by their government or the people around them. These examples are used to illustrate the point that, while the Muslims in India and the African Americans constitute a homogenous group – in fact, a substantially large community in numbers – social inequities exist against them despite their size.

In India, minority groups are far too many in number to be considered as a single homogeneous group. Matters are made worse as the ‘minority’ population is fragmented into many Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) groups and Other Backward Classes (OBC). These groups form a huge number of communities classified on religious, economic, social, linguistic, ethnic, regional and caste divisions. This classification may have been made formal now, but these divisions have existed for thousands of years.

Today, people from these communities, typically, make up the peasants, the landless labourers, the ‘untouchables’, the artisans and others belonging to many old-economy trades. With the advent of globalisation, new technologies, the changing economic scene and the corresponding liberal economic policies adopted by the government, these communities are further marginalised as their contribution is no longer perceived to be important to the economy.

Maybe they should be rehabilitated, setting aside reservations and quotas to create opportunities for them. Even then there is trouble. While seeking government relief, there are severe inequalities in the allocation and distribution of resources (most of which is consumed by the elite and the urban population), with the marginalised communities falling prey to, and succumbing at the feet of, our political leaders.

But who’s worried? India continues to forge ahead in the new economy, leaving its marginalised communities more and more demoralised.

Minority report

[This is not about Steven Spielberg’s film starring Tom Cruise]

The African Americans are not the only minorities in the world with problems. In fact, they may be the lucky ones. There are many others – really, many many others – about whom the world does not know much, nor have heard about. In my country, India, there are so many minority groups that I’ve lost count. Most of them are classified as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the census report. And, it takes no great brains to realise that this nomenclature automatically puts these minority groups in a less-privileged position.

The conditions of these minority groups are made more difficult by India’s own problems of a huge population, poverty, illiteracy, access to healthcare and education, lack of infrastructure and several other economic factors. But, most importantly, historically, there have been two aspects of the Indian social stratification which have created problems for these minority groups: religion and the caste system. It’s tough enough managing a population of almost 1.3 billion people; with religion and the caste system as points of social and cultural distinction, matters become worse.

Consider, for instance, the position of Muslims in India. They make up close to 12% of the population in India (similar to the African Americans in the US). That adds up to almost 150 million people (almost four times the population of African Americans), making up the second largest Muslim population in the world and the largest Muslim population outside an Islamic country. Yet, in India, they form a minority group. And, as is the fate of most minority groups in India, and in the world, they face the censure of social, political and economic discrimination. However, unlike the African Americans, the segregation of Muslims in India is based on religion, not race.

Compared to other religious minority groups in India – e.g. the Sikhs, the Christians, the Parsis – the Muslims, as a community, do lag behind economically. In terms of income distribution, employment, ownership of assets, access to education, healthcare or other public services, the Muslim minority seems to enjoy fewer achievements than other religious minority groups in India. This is damaging to the Muslim community – to the extent of developing severe economic backwardness, and perhaps social stagnation, in a country which is actually on an economic upswing. This is indeed a serious matter for the Muslim community in India.

Is the size of the Muslim population a deterring factor in their growth? Does Islam, or as it is interpreted and lived in India, contribute to this Muslim economic backwardness? Is the Indian government biased in their management of minority groups like the Muslims? Is the rising support for the Hindutva doctrine blocking economic progress for Muslims in India? These, and many more, questions need to be addressed.

Catch-22 situation

“More than any other country, America defines itself by a collective dream: the dream of economic opportunity and upward mobility. Its proudest boast is that it offers a chance of the good life to everybody who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. This ideal has made the United States the world’s strongest magnet for immigrants; it has also reconciled ordinary Americans to the rough side of a dynamic economy, with all its inequalities and insecurities…”
[The Economist, June 2006, ‘The rights and wrongs of the American model’]

I wonder what percentage of ordinary African Americans would share this sentiment wholeheartedly, even though they may have to reconcile themselves to it. For, even in the land of plenty, choice and opportunities are not always on the side of the African American. A quick example of this is the Black film industry. If you’ve read my previous post, ‘Black indie film… still in the red’, you would’ve realised that, for the African-American film director, notions of inequality and lack of opportunity are still major concerns.

Of course, there’s more to life than cinema, although cinema does reflect and represent life and culture. And, the goals of Black film directors are no different from those of the entire African-American population: That is, to find meaningful opportunities to achieve success – not just in industry talent awards and recognition, but in the business and economic sense. Not only should their be funds available to make films, their should be an audience large enough and a distribution network robust enough to bring in returns on investment.

Looks like a perfect Catch-22 situation.

But, let’s leave African-American cinema for a while and look at the African-American people. It’s a minority group, making up close to 13% of the US population. Although they share the same American Dream of equal opportunity, of achieving a life of prosperity based on effort and ability (as opposed to chance or birth), the history of the African-American people has been fraught with trouble. Their journey has been a continuous one, from slavery to freedom. And, even after 350 years, equal opportunity and a life of prosperity still seem to be illusory dreams.

African Americans still find it difficult to get ahead in life despite their hard work and talent. Of course, over generations, life has improved for the African American. They are no longer slaves and there is a greater acceptance of the African American by society. But, equal opportunity in the economic sense of distribution of income, health-care, housing, education, employment… is still not in their favour. What’s most disturbing about this status-quo is the fact that the future of the African-American people is being determined today.

According to a recent report, ‘Understanding Mobility in America’, by Tom Hertz of American University, “Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.” And, when it comes to “the question of intergenerational mobility, or the degree to which the economic success of children is independent of the economic status of their parents…” it doesn’t look all that good for the African American.

Here are a few key findings from that report:

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

The report goes on to say, “A higher level of intergenerational mobility is often interpreted as a sign of greater fairness, or equality of opportunity, in a society… By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults.”

Another Catch-22 situation? May not be. I’m sure something can be done about this.

Black cinema, black identity

“One of the reasons I originally wanted to make films was that I got tired of what they [Hollywood filmmakers] were doing… I knew I could do better. At least, I knew it wouldn’t be hard to do better than that… It took me ten years to get a chance to do it their way, and what I discovered at Columbia Pictures is that their way gets in my way… I just did my best and got on with my own independent career.”
[Melvin Van Peebles, African-American filmmaker]

What does Black cinema stand for anyway?

A portrait of African-American life and history: The hardships of the black man; the inequality between the blacks and the whites; the black man defying the system that incarcerates him; the narrow, racist thinking that affects – even destroys – both the black and white communities; the larger racial and cultural stories of African Americans. Black cinema is the voice of the African American whose spirit cannot be destroyed or taken away by white people or white power.

In creating this portrait, Black cinema also creates black stereotypes. The black man escaping slavery and fighting for freedom; the black man being punished for the colour of his skin; the black man as the cause of fear and suspicion (with or without a gun); the black man as the criminal and fugitive; the black man displaying extraordinary physical fitness, particularly in sports; the black man endowed with exceptional sexual powers; the black man in the service of the white.

Of course, there are strong messages of black unity, pride, determinism, attitude and challenge in Black films which are lessons for us all. In fact, there is one aspect of Black cinema which has always fascinated me. It’s the repeated theme of black identity. No matter how sophisticated or action-packed or romantic or humorous or sexual Black films tend to be, this aspect of reducing everything down to one single theme of race – race as the identity of a huge population – is an enormous strength historically and politically… as well as a masterful technique in communication.

Fascinating this may be, loaded with great historical, cultural and political meaning in the US, but how much of this affects the international film audience is perhaps a long argument.

Some questions come to my mind: Are Black American films accepted well by the international audience? How important are Black American film directors to the international film community? Do Black American actors play a special role in films which is not otherwise found in films produced by America? Should the international audience perceive – or even expect – a significant difference in a Black American film from its white counterpart?

And most important of all, outside the US, is there a large enough audience for Black cinema?

Indians not too keen on Black cinema

As an Indian residing in India, I have very little exposure to films made by African-American directors. In fact, I believe, most Indians (and I include myself in this lot) look at American films as ‘films from Hollywood’ – without differentiating and/or classifying American films as independent or Black or a combination of these categories. What I mean is, the Indian cinema-going audience does not view a film differently because of the colour of the director’s skin.

However, there is a point of distinction that Indians make. Indians find it difficult to relate to African-American culture: their lifestyle, mannerisms, language, and violent crime in particular. Black emotions, Black relationships… somehow don’t gel too well with the Indian audience. For instance, a film like ‘Waiting To Exhale’ by Forest Whitaker, which was a great hit in the United States, hardly made a dent in India.

For a Black film to become a big hit in India, the story has to step outside the deeper aspects/idiosyncrasies of pure Black culture. Like John Singleton’s 2003 film ‘2 Fast 2 Furious’ which dealt with underground car racing. It was an instant hit with the Indian audience, particularly the teen crowd. Yet, his earlier film ‘Boyz N the Hood’ – a masterpiece and one of my favourites – was appreciated by a tiny portion of the English-film-viewing audience in India.

Would a Black film like ‘How Stella Got Her Groove Back’ (by Kevin Rodney Sullivan) appeal to Indian women? Not likely. It just won’t work. Indians are not keen on Black cinema with an all-Black cast. But strangely, a film with white characters by a Black director is quite acceptable by Indians. Take Carl Franklin’s wonderful film ‘One True Thing’. I’m not sure if the film would have had as much appeal to Indians if the story was about a Black family instead of a white one.

Mind you, this viewing behaviour is true not just for films, but for TV programmes as well. All-Black TV shows on the Indian cable have a much lower level of acceptance (if any at all) by Indians compared to shows with white actors depicting white lifestyles. I’m sure ‘Friends’ or ‘Home Improvement’ would not have been as successful in India if they had only Black actors as characters.

Why is this so? Why do Indians not relate to, nor accept, Black films and culture as eagerly as they accept the white? Who knows? Maybe we are plain old racists.

Black indie cinema... still in the red

How many African-American, i.e. Black American, film directors do you know of? Can you quickly list out their names and their films? How many of these films would you have seen, enjoyed, and added to your collection?

This is no easy task. For, in India, there is hardly a market for Black cinema. Indians cannot easily identify themselves with Black culture… and/or Black sentiments. No, don’t get me wrong. It’s not racism. Indians – at least those urban Indians who watch English-language films – are neither exposed to, nor appreciative of, Black cinema. But, we aren’t alone here. There’s hardly a market for Black cinema internationally. And, that includes the United States.

According to the US census bureau, as of July 2004, the estimated population of black residents in the United States (including those of more than one race) makes up 13.4% of the total US population. Black residents of a single race, i.e. the African American, are likely to make up 12.4% of the US population. That would make it a little under 40 million Black people. Yet, filmmakers of African-American origin are unhappy about the state of Black cinema… and what the future might bring for them.

The biggest hurdle in the system seems to be a lack of finance. African-American directors find it difficult to get financing for independent Black films. Investors and studios are just not willing to accept that Black films can gross big earnings. Who wants to see Black films? Are Black films made with an African-American audience in mind? Or, can they attract white and coloured audiences too? What about the international market? In a January 2004 Christian Science Monitor article by Reed Martin, ‘The new voices of Black film’, director (of Eve’s Bayou) Kasi Lemmons says, “That’s the constant struggle, explaining who is the audience.”

Obtaining theatrical distribution is an even greater challenge. In the same Christian Science Monitor article, producer (of Boomerang and House Party – along with his brother Reginald) Warrington Hudlin acknowledges, “The process is complicated by race in America… Often, the people evaluating the merits of your project are from outside your community – outside your culture – and can’t recognize its merit. The lack of an even playing field makes it more difficult, since the people I have to appeal to over and over never look like me.” Perhaps this might explain why Spike Lee is often accused of showing whites and Jews in his films as evil, money-grabbing guys.

Of course, film festivals like Sundance and Tribeca have begun to give Black filmmakers a leg-up in the business by creating special forums for them. “But,” reports Reed Martin in the Christian Science Monitor article, “that doesn’t always mean money will be forthcoming or that studios will see completed movies.” Someone needs to genuinely assess talent and broker introductions to sources of financing. Thankfully, there are some agencies on this job. Among them, ‘The Black Film Foundation’ founded by the Hudlin brothers, and ‘Film Life, Inc.’ set up by Jeff Friday.

Not the usual Spike we see

I first heard of Spike Lee when I saw ‘Malcolm X’. That was many years ago. Although I must confess that I chose to see the film because of Denzel Washington’s acting and not for Spike Lee’s direction. Of course, I had heard of the African American leader Malcolm X from reading bits and pieces of Black American history – particularly James Baldwin’s book, ‘The Fire Next Time’ – but, as an Indian, I had never been influenced by any of it.

In fact, this ignorance of Black American history has always come in the way of my appreciation of much of Spike Lee’s films – not to mention the African American struggle and Black American literature. Hence, I probably have missed out a great deal of the essence of Spike Lee’s work, which deal with race, racism, class and power struggles, and media manipulation. One of these days, I hope to catch up on all this.

My re-introduction to Spike Lee happened a couple of years ago when I saw – and added to my collection – Spike Lee’s ‘25th Hour’. Once again, it was Edward Norton who drew me to the film, rather than Spike Lee. But I wasn’t disappointed. On the contrary, ‘25th Hour’ was an engaging film and, by the end of it, it had me in awe of Spike Lee’s masterful direction.

‘25th Hour’ was sombre and full of emotion – rightfully so, as it dealt with the last 24 hours of a man, Monty Brogan (played by Edward Norton), about to serve a seven-year prison sentence for drug trafficking. Regret had overwhelmed him as he said his goodbyes – and I must confess that its impact had got to me too. Monty’s ‘fuck you’ diatribe in the bathroom, where he expressed how he hated and blamed the city he lived in (New York with its multi-ethnic way of life) and everybody in it, and the fact that it was he who was leaving New York while the others stayed, was outstanding.

However, Spike Lee’s recent film, ‘Inside Man’, is another story. It deals with a bank robbery turned inside out as Mr Lee succeeds in giving it a unique twist and flavour. Of course, some of the usual Spike Lee touches are there: multi-ethnic New York City with its hustle and bustle, racism, corruption and political power-plays. But it’s all dealt with subtlety, without the usual Spike Lee outrage. In fact, the media has been kept out of it altogether.

‘Inside Man’ is a good story and an enjoyable film. It should attract the mainstream audience by the millions (well, maybe not in India). I think Spike Lee has finally got himself a commercial hit.

An intellectual treat

I’m critical of Hindi films and the Indian cinema-going audience. Formula plots bore me. Artificial love scenes through song-and-dance routines embarrass me. Bad copies of scenes taken from foreign films frustrate me. I feel insulted… because life, as I know it, is not like that. And, films are supposed to be reflections of life.

I can’t understand how a film as outstanding as ‘Crash’ can be wiped out of the Box Office in India within weeks of launch, when idiocies like ‘Pyare Mohan’ or bland entertainers like ‘Being Cyrus’ can run for months. Most Hindi films fail to deliver intellectual value – which is what I look for in a film, apart from the entertainment.

So, at the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I’ll tell you how disappointed I was last night when I went to see Spike Lee’s ‘Inside Man’. There were only nine of us in the cinema hall and there was a brief talk of cancelling the show. However, somewhere, wisdom prevailed and the nine of us were treated to one of the best films of this year.

‘Inside Man’ seems to be a typical bank robbery which turns into a hostage situation. The police and the hostage negotiators are called in. The bank’s owner volunteers, eager to speed up the negotiation process. When that fails, he solicits the services of a beautiful power-broker in order to protect something mysterious, and important to him, which lies in the bank’s vaults. The city Mayor gets involved too, by default. The detective in charge of the hostage negotiation takes advantage of all this to get a jump-up in his career. That’s on the outside.

But inside? Inside, something else is happening. The bank robbers don’t seem to be too interested in robbing the bank or making demands or killing the hostages or, for that matter, in any specific hurry to leave the bank. On the contrary, the chief bank robber not only seems to be an educated man, but a man with a heart. What’s going on? Have the bank robbers outsmarted everyone in the game?

If you want to know what’s going on or what happens finally in the film, go see ‘Inside Man’ and you’ll never regret your decision. It’s a real treat, intellectually. You’ll also enjoy a very famous Bollywood (Hindi) film song which is used in the film.

‘Inside Man’ stars British actor Clive Owen as the chief bank robber, Denzel Washington as the hostage-negotiating detective, Jodie Foster as the beautiful power-broker, Christopher Plummer as the bank’s owner with a past, and Willem Dafoe as the police chief in charge of staking out the bank.

Not just 1, but 100

While celebrating the first 100 years of cinema, the American Film Institute (AFI) has nominated its best 100 film heroes and villains (i.e. 50 heroes & 50 villains). The best from this lot will be announced this month on the CBS Television Network.

Among known pure-American film heroes, you’ll find Indiana Jones (‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’), Rocky Balboa (‘Rocky’), General George Patton (‘Patton’), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (‘Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid’), Superman (‘Superman’), Batman (‘Batman’), and Atticus Finch (‘To Kill A Mocking Bird’).

You’ll also find a host of foreigners like James Bond (‘Dr No’), Mahatma Gandhi (‘Gandhi’), T E Lawrence (‘Lawrence of Arabia’), Robin Hood (‘The Adventures of Robin Hood’), and General Maximus Decimus Meridus (‘Gladiator’).

These, and many more, male heroes will compete with their female counterparts: Clarice Starling (‘Silence of the Lambs’), Erin Brockovich (‘Erin Brockovich’), Thelma Dickerson and Louise Sawyer (‘Thelma & Louise’), Norma Rae Webster (‘Norma Rae’), Ellen Ripley (‘Aliens’), Karen Silkwood (‘Silkwood’), and Marge Gunderson (‘Fargo’).

There’s, of course, Lassie the dog (‘Lassie Come Home’).

You’ll also find The Tramp (‘City Lights’), Moses (‘The Ten Commandments’), Tarzan (‘Tarzan the Ape Man’), Zorro (‘The Mark of Zorro’), Terminator (‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day), and Obi-Wan Kenobi (‘Star Wars’).

These are some of the 400 film “characters who have a made a mark on American society in matters of style and substance.”

For voting purposes, a ‘hero’ has been “defined as a character(s) who prevails in extreme circumstances and dramatizes a sense of morality, courage and purpose. Though they may be ambiguous or flawed, they often sacrifice themselves to show humanity at its best.”

The list of villains includes another 50 names: Dr Hannibal Lecter (‘Silence of the Lambs’), Norman Bates (‘Psycho’), Darth Vader (‘The Empire Strikes Back’), Nurse Ratched (‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’), Michael Corleone (‘Godfather: Part II’), Count Dracula (‘Dracula’), The Alien (‘Alien’), and The Shark (‘Jaws’) among others.

For voting purposes, a ‘villain’ has been “defined as a character(s) whose wickedness of mind, selfishness of character and will to power are sometimes masked by beauty and nobility, while others may rage unmasked. They can be horribly evil or grandiosely funny, but are ultimately tragic.”

And, there you have it. Go here for the full list.

Aamir Khan: hero or villain?

Did you love Aamir Khan as the hero in Fanaa? Which part of the hero’s story did you identify with most? Did you love him in the first half of the film? Or, the second? Or, did you think he was extraordinary through the entire film?

These questions may sound simple, even stupid, but the answers can be revealing. Because, in Fanaa, Aamir Khan plays a dual role: that of a hero (first half) and a villain (second half). Yes I know, stories and films have to have heroes as well as villains, and that this hero-villain concept is non-exclusive (you can’t have one without the other), but for a plot to have the same character as a hero and a villain is rather unique. Especially so, since our good-looking song-and-dance Hindi film hero in Fanaa turns out to be a villain of the highest order: a ruthless treacherous murderous chameleon-like Pakistani agent – a terrorist – out to destroy our beloved country.

What if Fanaa’s story was true? Where would that leave us?

In a film, as in a story, a hero is supposed to embody the collective hopes and ideals of the entire audience – and not leave them feeling terrified. For, a hero, with all his bravery and charm and good nature, is supposed to be a symbol of civilised society – a symbol of life. Anything outside this perimeter can be unsafe. Yet, in Fanaa, Aamir Khan is as romantic as risky.

It’s not easy for an actor to present a hero-villain dual role to his audience with any semblance of believability. But, Aamir Khan does so, admirably.

Fanaa: formula fit super-hit

Young blind drop-dead-gorgeous Kashmiri woman, Zooni (played by Kajol), travels to Delhi (from Kashmir) with her dance troupe to perform at a Republic Day function. There, she meets, is attracted to, and falls in love with an unknown machiavellian city tour guide, Rehan (played by Aamir Khan) belonging to a much lower social class. They spend time together. They make love. Zooni is heartbroken when it’s time to return to Kashmir, but Rehan rescues her from the train, cavalier-style, and they settle in Delhi.

All this happens in a matter of a few days.

Zooni informs her parents, who are overjoyed with her actions and her decision as they had always feared that their blind daughter might never find a suitable husband and settle down to a happy married life. The parents leave for Delhi to meet their daughter and future son-in-law. Meanwhile, Rehan and Zooni discover that medical science has progressed substantially in recent years and, after an appropriate operation, Zooni will be able to see. The operation is conducted immediately and Zooni is able to see.

This preposterous plot, with the formula song-and-dance routine thrown in, takes one and a half hours to unfold. But the audience is glued to the screen. For Fanaa is a fabulous Hindi film. The plot, of course, changes after that; but not the audience. The audience remains mesmerised for another hour and a half to the very end… which is amazingly similar to the 1981 Donald Sutherland and Kate Nelligan starring film, ‘Eye of the Needle’, of Ken Follett’s famous WWII book.

But this hardly matters. The formula Hindi-film seduction is now complete. Fanaa has become a super-hit.

The way young lovers do

We strolled through fields all wet with rain
And back along the lane again
There in the sunshine
In the sweet summertime
The way that young lovers do.

I kissed you on the lips once more
And we said goodbye just adoring the nighttime
Yeah, that's the right time
To feel the way that young lovers do.

Then we sat on our own star and dreamed of the way
that we were and the way that we were meant to be
Then we sat on our own star and dreamed of the way
that I was for you and you were for me
And then we danced the night away
And turned to each other, and say, 'I love you, I love you'
The way that young lovers do.

Do, do, do, do...

These words are one-half of a song, ‘The way young lovers do’, by Van Morrison from his 1968 ‘Astral Weeks’ album. Although the song is one of my favourites, somehow it doesn’t quite express the desires of love that the rains bring with them in India. Not, at least, from the Hindi film point of view. Or, so say over 10 million Indian cinema-goers everyday.

What I find fascinating about Hindi films is their formulaic treatment of sexuality – i.e. the love scenes – through song and dance. You will hardly ever find overt or clear depiction of sex or sexuality in Hindi films. The film censor board in India doesn’t approve of such nonsense and adopts a hard line against the inclusion of love scenes in Indian cinema. Even kissing is not allowed to be shown on screen. So, you can forget about any display of sex.

What does this say about us Indians? That we don’t indulge in kissing and/or sex. That, we don’t want to see kissing and/or sex in films. That, it’s okay for us not to express ourselves so openly on film, no matter what we do in real life. For, in real life, we do kiss and have sex. And, as human beings, we do have sexual desires, however unconscious or absent we pretend these desires to be.

That’s where the rain-song comes in: the dramatisation of sex in Hindi, and most Indian, films. It’s a simple formula for satisfying the sexual desires of Indians... at least on the screen. Whether you consider Zeenat Aman’s scantily-clad soaking-wet voluptuous scene in Satyam Shivam Sundaram, or Amitabh Bachchan’s masculine overtures in the ‘Rang Bar Se’ Holi scene in Silsila, or the Aamir Khan-Kajol 12-precious-hours-promise love scene in Fanaa, there is something tremendously sexual and dramatic about the rain-song in Hindi films. The rain-song is the ultimate fulfillment of on-screen sexual desire.

The lyrics, the music, the playback singing, the dance movements, the backdrops, the colours are all part of the seduction process. And, it’s not just the hero and/or the heroine who is being seduced here, but the entire viewing audience. But, nobody’s complaining. The films are box-office hits. The music CDs and cassettes carrying the film soundtracks (released just before the films are launched) are selling by the millions. And, the good news is, the film censor board approves of it.

What about Van Morrison and his beautiful song about young lovers? How does it matter to us Indians anyway? What does Van Morrison know about the ways of young Indian lovers!

Rain-song

The rains are life-givers in many ways. For those suffering from summer heat or drought or simply a shortage of water, the rains bring relief and hope. For others too, the rains bring relief and hope – and, sometimes, something even more. For, the rains are mood-enhancers as well, and have their own sensory appeal.

Gene Kelly has sung and danced about it. Madonna has added her erotic touch to it. And the Beatles have done their unique version (recording the song backwards, some tell me), although not quite successfully. For someone like me, growing up in India, the rains as song (and dance) have a great deal more meaning and appeal.

For instance, we have our classical ragas, which are known to magically bring downpours under the spell of gifted musicians. And if not that, then at least create the mood for such a feeling. However, should we find classical ragas too esoteric, we can switch to our very own Hindi film ‘rain-song’ – that perfect mix of song and dance and eroticism that Bollywood films are made of.

For, for millions of people in India, the ‘rain-song’ brings relief and hope and meaning. It brings its own magic; its own appeal.

Ready For The Rain

[Artist: Foreigner; Album: Unusual Heat]

Early in the morning, before the daylight
I hear the sound of thunder, comin’ through in the night
I lie awake and I wonder, where my life is goin’
Am I on a road leadin’ nowhere, there’s no way of knowin’
’Cause I’ve seen the lightning
And I’m ready for the rain to fall.

Now I'm standin’ on a mountain, lookin’ into the sky
I see the clouds come rollin’ in, water fills my eyes
I don’t know what’s in the future, no one can say
Don’t wanna think about the past, I’ve gotta live for today
’Cause I’ve seen the lightnin’ now
I need to find my own way, while I’ve still got time.

And I’m ready for the rain to fall
’Cause I’ve heard the thunder
And I’m ready for the rain to fall
I’m ready, ready for the rain
I’ve got to rise above it all
And get ready for the rain to fall.

Did you ever know someone, who had lost their way
Built their own little kingdom, and just blew it all away
I’m not ashamed to admit it, that someone was me
I’m gonna look to the future now, ’cause I’ve set myself free
And I’ve seen the lightnin’
I’m gonna set myself free, while I’ve still got time.

Get ready for the rain to fall
’Cause I’ve heard the thunder
And I’m ready for the rain to fall
I’m ready, ready for the rain
I’ve got to rise above it all
And get ready for the rain to fall, while I’ve still got time...

Google: simply genius

Many marketers, advertising agencies (as the greatest advocates of brand-building) and brand strategists will espouse the concept of owning and building a brand, but few will practise what they preach – and make it simple for everyone to understand. That’s what I like most about Google, my favourite brand and one of the greatest brands on this planet.

What’s so special about Google is its simplicity – from its home page to its corporate philosophy. It’s this philosophy which drives Google’s genius as a brand, as stated on their ‘Our Philosophy’ page simply as a list of ‘Ten things Google has found to be true’. Here are the first two:
1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.

These are humble confessions; confessions that have led Google’s phenomenal growth from September 1998 to date: revenues of over $6 billion, profits of $1.5 billion, market capitalisation of over $117 billion. Google is the world’s most popular (touted as ‘the best’) Internet search engine today; ahead of Yahoo!, MSN and Ask. According to industry reports, Google handles half the searches in the world.

What belies this simplicity is the enormous amount of mathematics and sophisticated algorithm that Google uses in its search technology – and to convert the search results into money through its unique ‘pay-per-click’ advertising model. Google places little text advertisements on search pages selected by its advertisers. But these advertisers pay only once an Internet user clicks on these links, thereby expressing an interest in buying.

Can it get any simpler than this?

The burden of being a brand

It’s not easy being a brand. A brand carries a lot of responsibility. Since so much of branding is about creating emotions in the hearts and minds of consumers, being a brand can really become a burden. Particularly so, if the brand happens to be a person.

That’s right, brands are not always goods or services. Or even ideas. Brands can be people too. Like, for instance, a Madonna or a Britney Spears. Whereas Madonna had to create and re-create herself over the years to remain the brand she is – a pop icon and a diva, in spite of being a 47-year-old material-girl mom – to steal the hearts of teenagers as well as adults, Britney Spears seems to be having trouble managing her brand. Sales of her albums have fallen drastically and her songs are no longer on the top of the charts.

But it has not always been like this for Britney. Her debut album ‘Hit Me Baby One More Time’ went straight to number one position in 1998 and sold 27 million copies worldwide. Her next album ‘Oops!... I Did It Again’, released in 2000, did just as well, selling another 20 million. She has many music awards to her name, and nominations galore. She has written many of her songs, co-written two books along with her mother, starred in movies, become a restaurateur. In 2003, Forbes magazine called her ‘the most powerful celebrity in the world’. VH1 named her ‘Woman of the Century’.

In 2002, Britney’s name was the most-searched-for of all the entertainers on the Internet. And on 19 February 2001, Encyclopaedia Britannica was forced to shut down its website when more than 17 million people logged on to see the first picture of Britney Spears’ pierced bellybutton which Britiannica.com had published. I had received a news commentary on this the next day, and have reproduced it here as it makes interesting reading. Sorry I can’t remember the source of the article now, but I used to be a subscriber of Britannica.com, so perhaps...


A navel idea

The naked midriff of pop princess Britney Spears managed to cause a major web jam for a whole month after record numbers of users attempted to download an image of the singer’s pierced belly button.

In a bid to make itself more attractive to the young and trendy generation, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online ran a feature on “the semiotics of Britney Spears’s belly button” which was meant to “explore how the cultural significance of belly buttons has changed over time by focusing on Britney as a cultural icon.”

But once news got round that the article was accompanied by a picture of the star’s navel, more than 17 million people attempted to log on to the site over the last month to download a copy of the photo, eventually locking up the site’s web servers.

The Britannica article described Britney’s belly button as “not strictly sexual, but, like Spears herself, not that innocent either.” It added later that the pierced navel is “a heated boundary between baby and babe.”

Duh? And you thought…..


Britney Spears had a fair amount of success thereafter with the release of several albums, tours and performances, brand sponsorships and endorsements (Tommy Hilfiger, Pepsi, Mattel and AOL to name a few), launch of fragrances (‘Curious’, ‘Fantasy’ and ‘In Control’ from Elizabeth Arden), affairs, engagements, marriages and motherhood. And, of course, through her official website www.britneyspears.com. But nothing topped the charts like it did before. She no longer sold millions of copies of music.

Once a teen pop idol (according to MTV, Britney Spears was the driving force behind the return of teen pop music), a sex symbol (a unique combination of teen, sex and virginity), and a media star (regardless of what she was or wasn’t doing), Britney Spears is now suspended in her career at the age of 25 – around the same age that Madonna achieved her fame in the early eighties. Can she re-create herself as Madonna did?

The brand idea

A couple of days ago, I presented a narrow perspective of marketing history in India (see ‘A narrow version’). The highlights of the post were rather startling: The brands I grew up with 25-30 years ago no longer exist today. And the most-talked-about brands today didn’t exist 25-30 years ago in India. Yet, when I researched this aspect of marketing history – and the brands individually – I came up with a big zero. There was no worthwhile data documenting marketing history in India. And the global brands? Well, that story unfolds here.

As you know, brands evolve over the years and represent an important aspect of our marketing history and our culture. A brand’s evolution is a reflection and representation of our cultural evolution – perhaps, not at a macroeconomic level, but definitely for specific consumer segments and subcultures. The impact brands have on consumers and cultures, or how they evolve to keep pace with behavioral and cultural changes, in an iterative process, are complex subjects. But, what makes these subjects refreshing is advertising.

Advertising connects brands with people. It communicates brand messages to its intended consumers and evolves with consumer responses to these messages as well as the brand’s performance in its ability to deliver on its promise. A record of brand advertising, therefore, should be a fairly accurate documentation of the brand in its evolution. However, when I researched this aspect of marketing history, not just with Indian brands but also with those which are internationally acclaimed, I came up with very little evidence of well-documented brand advertising.

As far as the brand’s ability to present its evolution from its corporate website went, its performance was appalling. Where was the brand idea leading with all this?

Some of the biggest brands didn’t even bother documenting their brand history or heritage or evolution. In most cases, companies documented the evolution of their brands as milestones in chronological lists. Many actually used the terms ‘milestones’ or ‘timeline’ – with little or no imagination in displaying their brand advertising. And, I’m talking about leading global brands like Cadbury’s, Nokia, Nike, Pepsi, MTV, FedEx and AT&T. Don’t believe me? Take a look at Cadbury Schweppes, FedEx and AT&T.

Only on rare occasions did I experience a refreshing change from this prosaic banter. And, was glad of it. So, without ado, let me present FCUK, Levi’s [you need to choose About LS&Co, History from the main menu and a new window will pop up], Absolut Vodka, Coca-Cola [also at Library of Congress here and here], and JELL-O.

What's a poor Indian teen to do?

Marketing to Indian teens mustn’t be easy. Neither do we have skate-boarding youths, nor those who’re crazy for hip-hop music... the two most-prominent icons of the US teen market. Indian teen icons rest on Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Sachin Tendulkar and a few other film and cricket stars. It’s a person, not a culture. Even then, female icons are hard to come by.

If you consider Indian urban teen culture, in terms of habits, you’ll come up with hanging out in coffeehouses, video gaming (for the boys) and chatting on the Internet (for the girls). As far as appearances go, jeans, tees and tote bags are what you’ll see. Some branded sneakers too. A Nokia mobilephone, perhaps. Beyond that, it’s difficult to tell what the teen segment is all about.

Then, teenagers, as a category, lack loyalty. One day they’ll swear by Nike; the next, they’ve switched to Reebok or adidas. They may be on the Internet a lot longer than the average adult, but they don’t respond to online advertising messages. They watch a lot of TV as well, but they find it boring. One of their common complaints is that Indian TV channels don’t have enough programming to engage them. Some teenagers have even confessed to me that Indian media doesn’t even understand them.

At least, on cable TV, teenagers can find some release thanks to foreign programming. The print medium is worse. What’s disheartening is that there are hardly any teen magazines in India. Mumbai has its own JAM – Just Another Magazine – which sells some 30,000 copies, indeed covering a small portion of the huge teen audience. So, the rest turn to tabloids like Mid-day and Mumbai Mirror eagerly. My guess is that 30% of Mid-day’s readership is teen. For Mumbai Mirror, it’s likely to be double that. Other cities in India draw a complete blank.

Online teen communities, like MySpace.com in the US, are also non-existent in India. Somehow, India has just not been able to engage its teenagers – either through traditional channels of media or the new. In such circumstances, what’s a poor Indian teen to do?

Three of the obvious

The urban teen segment is attractive to brands and marketers for several reasons. Here are three of the obvious:

The first, of course, is the fact that this segment possesses huge disposable income. No Indian figures are available here, but according to a CSM article from February this year, the US urban teen market is supposed to be worth $170 billion a year. Globally this should be... well, you figure it out.

Second, teens set trends which others follow. This segment (defined as 13-19 years of age) can actually influence the behaviour of the entire youth consumer group, ostensibly the 10-29 years of age bracket. That’s approximately one-third of the total world population of 6.6 billion. A huge consumer market indeed!

Third, all marketing and communication efforts and spends to attract this consumer segment lasts much longer. Teen consumers come into the brand’s fold earlier in their lives and, therefore, grow with the brand for years and years. Smart marketers can take advantage of this and offer products and services, and variants, to the same consumers at various stages in their lives. It’s a perfect recipe for building long-term relationships and CRM.

Shouldn’t you be doing something about this instead of reading this blog?

A narrow version

While trying to understand the teen consumer market, I couldn’t help but make a trip down memory lane. Questions swam inside my head; and, since I wasn’t quite sure about the answers, I decided to write this post as a kind of record of my version of marketing history in India. A narrow version perhaps, just a sliver, but definitely an account to put on record.

What was it like to be a teenage consumer 25-30 years ago? Which brands were our favourites? How did we behave as teenage consumers – choosing one brand over another?

Before all that, let me come back to the present. A quick survey of brands from urban teenagers brought up names like Nokia, Reebok, Nike, adidas, Pepsi, Café Coffee Day, Sony, Microsoft, Levi’s, MTV, Coca-Cola, L’Oreal, Shoppers’ Stop and McDonald’s. I sighed sadly. Two of my favourites were missing: Google and Yahoo! But what I found most fascinating was that this top-of-mind list of 14 brands featured only two Indian names: Café Coffee Day and Shoppers’ Stop. Hats off to you! The rest, as you know, are top-of-the-line multinational brands.

When I go back 25-30 years, the startling discovery is that none of these 16 brands (14 + 2 of mine) existed then in India. Barring Coca-Cola perhaps, which was rooted out of the country, along with IBM, in 1977 by the Morarji Desai government. There were no mobilephones then, no personal computers, no Internet, no sneakers, no branded apparel, no branded retail chain stores, and hardly any TV to speak of.

TV transmission was in B&W, only for a few hours a day, from the Government-owned Doordarshan. TV sets were all local brands like Weston, Crown and Televista. Instead of sneakers, we had white canvas shoes called Keds, from Bata, which we had to wash with soap and water and colour it with white chalk. Pond’s led the show for personal care products for women – a queen among hundreds of small local brands. Soft drinks included nationally-distributed brands like ThumsUp, Campa-Cola, Limca, Gold Spot and Campa Orange. And, fast food typically meant idlis and dosas, bhel puris and pani puris, or kathi rolls and vada pavs – with a lot of regional preferences for taste.

Sounds funny, doesn’t it? I doubt if any teenagers will believe this today. But that apart, we may not have been too different from the teenagers of today in terms of consumer behaviour. That is, of course, speaking at a broad level. From my point of view, the way a teenager thinks today is quite similar to the way we teens did 25-30 years ago. It’s just that we didn’t have the pressure of too many consumer brands influencing our decisions. However, advertising and sales promotions were great motivators.

To make a small comparison, I picked up a few statements at random from marketing articles and papers describing the contemporary teen – going back a year and a half at the most – and reviewed them from my 25-30-year-old perspective. For simplicity, I’ve put these statements into a single paragraph as follows:

“Teenagers are very fickle and very averse to being marketed to… They see brands more as a means of defining themselves… They believe brands should allow people to make their own decisions… They buy into brands they can appreciate, a value system they have in common, an authenticity… Reaching today’s teens means meandering through more individual tastes and preferences… Homogeneity and old group stereotypes are out, individualism and authenticity are in…”

We, too, were individualistic in our choices. We, too, believed in authenticity – perhaps a lot more than the teenagers today. We, too, used whatever we possessed to define ourselves. This included our immediate environment and, therefore, we were less cosmopolitan than the teens today. Anybody trying to sell us anything had to automatically cater to individual tastes and preferences. We, too, disliked being marketed to and believed we were intelligent enough to make our own decisions. We, too, abhorred stereotypes and generalisations.

So, what has changed for teenagers today? What is new today which was not there 25-30 years ago?

Many things have changed, as they are bound to, including perspectives to teen life and marketing to teenagers. Here’s a list of four:

The omnipresence of the brand. Brands are everywhere today, increasing the number of options for teen consumers. They are in every product and service category, competing amongst themselves to capture a share of the teenager’s mind. Brands have even created new teen social castes with unique cultural differences.

The omnipresence of technology. There is some aspect of technology in every aspect of a teen’s life. First and foremost, technology has speeded up life for the teenager. It has given birth to many new products and services. It has created many new methods of product and service delivery. It has shaped news methods of information dissemination and evaluation. It has made many products, services and applications obsolescent.

The teen lifestyle. A lifestyle which is totally dependent on ownership of gadgets and tools, with accompanying software, is what the teen thrives on. A lifestyle, of an insatiable need for content to explore the world which these gadgets and tools allow. A lifestyle, dependent on the virtual world rather than the physical one we oldies lived in.

The emergence of barefaced marketing greed. A huge appetite that marketers and brands have today – to prey upon and feed off the needs of the growing teen consumer segment.

The 'third place'

Teens today no longer think of brands as a sign of quality. Rather, they take quality for granted, something that is built into the product. If the brand fails in quality, or underperforms in any way, don’t even expect that brand to survive in the teen domain. The bad news will spread like wildfire through the peer-to-peer channels and kill the brand instantly.

That’s because teens thrive on interpersonal communications. It’s what they trust. Much of their information gathering and dissemination is done through interpersonal communications. They are on the phone (an hour a day, some researchers say more); they are on the Internet (e-mailing, messaging, chatting, blogging); they are hanging out at cybercafes, coffeehouses and malls. Networking all the time. Their information flows back and forth – and gets enriched in the process.

I find this ‘syndrome’ quite fascinating. For teenagers today, the information space has changed radically. They no longer rely on the traditional media for news and information, thereby killing all opportunities for newspapers, magazines, TV and radio to reach them. They congregate and thrive on this ‘third place’ – a virtual world of information and friendships – exchanging information, images, music, video clips... and opinion.

In a way, the social behaviour of teenagers today is not all that different from what we – the oldies – used to do, say, 25 years ago. We also looked for the ‘third place’ – a place other than home or college – to kill time. It’s just that we had no options then as teens do today. So, we used to hang around in our colleges – perhaps in the college canteens – till it was time to go home. Of course, we’d catch a film now and then, but so do teens today.

The universal fact is, teenagers have free time – lots of free time – and they look for appealing options to hangout in to spend this time. The Internet does offer a virtual place to do this, but there’s no taking away the need for a physical place. Hence, the obvious options of coffeehouses and malls. What teens typically look for are people of their own age, music, films, fast food, video games, and clothing and fashion accessories stores. But most important of all, they look for a place where they can sit and relax for a while.

When we were teens, didn’t we oldies want exactly that?

Marketing to teens

I actually believe ‘Rang De Basanti’ has done an excellent job of reaching out to Indian teens. Yes, the ending is a bit controversial, but the film has been able to connect with teens in India – some of whom have seen the film several times and have memorised the dialogues. Sadly, Indian advertising is way behind when it comes to understanding the Indian teen and creating communication that reaches out to these teens and delivering messages the way ‘Rang De Basanti’ has done.

How do Indian teenagers perceive themselves? Do they see themselves as smart, good-looking, well-groomed, fair-complexioned winners who are instantly found attractive by their opposite sex? Or, do they take stock of their actual lives and, perhaps sigh and say, “That’s not me in that ad. But, I’d like to be?” Or, do they ignore the advertising altogether in preference for the company of their friends and their opinions when it comes to choosing brands they should buy?

Maybe there’s something to learn from what’s happening around the world. After all, advertising is a reflection of contemporary culture and, internationally, advertisers are paying heavily to create images that today’s teen will identify with and help sell their brands.

Why is marketing to teens so important today? Simply because teens have become heavy consumers. Not only are they buying things with their own money, they are influencing purchases made by their parents – some of which are, again, for teen consumption. And, if they have younger siblings who are emulating teen behaviour, then it’s an even bigger market than what advertisers have experienced before.

What’s more, because teens are becoming consumers at an early age, they are also going to remain consumers for a longer time. So, if brand marketers can win them over and get them to spend money on their brands now, it’s likely that teens – as they grow up and provided the brand experience is outstanding – will remain loyal to those brands longer.

So, is there a formula for marketing to teens that works across all brands? Perhaps there is, but I don’t know it yet. I’m a great believer of the philosophy recommended by Josh Shipp (see my 3 May post) – entertain, inspire, empower – which I believe works across nations, languages, lifestyles and ethnic backgrounds. I believe it works just as well in advertising and media as much as in education and counselling. And, it doesn’t have to be confined to teens – whether as people or consumers.

The essence of this philosophy is ‘freedom’ – free speech, allowing freedom to the consumer – which really isn’t a new discovery. It’s just that advertisers have always sidestepped this concept to beat their own chests and shout about how great their brands are over other brands. Today’s teen doesn’t want to be told which brand is great for him or her and, therefore, has very little confidence in brand advertising. They tend to meet advertising with cynicism.

Teens have more confidence in each other and value the opinions of their peer groups. To them, their social networks carry more trust than brand advertising, and they actively seek information and participate in peer-to-peer dialogue. Teens are constantly connecting with their friends (thanks to mobilephones, emails and internet messengers) and hanging out together. Believe me, a lot of brand decisions are taken during those dialogues.

Those brands which have understood this philosophy and have applied it to their brand marketing are the ones who are getting along well with teenagers today. Sony, Nokia, Apple, Pepsi, Nike and adidas are the best examples of this kind of marketing. Teen online communities such as MySpace, Friendster, Tremor (P&G’s teen site) and, of course, blogging have made it all possible.

Did 'Rang De Basanti' fail us?

“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty, and truth, and compassion against injustice, and lying, and greed. If people all over the world, in thousands of rooms like this one would do this, it would change the Earth.”
[William Faulkner, 1951, commencement speech when his daughter Jill graduated from high school in Oxford, Mississippi]

Our parents, teachers and elders are a bag of mixed messages. They tell us to be honest, but not hurt anyone’s feelings. They tell us to speak frankly, but be polite at the same time. They tell us to help others in trouble, but not get into trouble ourselves while helping them. They tell us to fight for justice, but not at the cost of damaging our (and their) reputation.

So, which one is it going to be? Which precept should we follow? Which standard should we adopt for ourselves in order to be good human beings?

We know we should applaud positive thoughts, images and actions. We know we should protest those that are damaging. We know we should get involved and change what’s corrupting our society. We know we should live freely and not be swayed by fear or anger or oppression. But sometimes, in doing so, we lose sight of the laws that govern us and break the codes of normal social conduct. Just as our group of heroes – and one heroine – did in the film ‘Rang De Basanti’. They were swayed by anger and oppression (not fear, mind you). They took the path of the lawless and murdered people.

What kind of an example is this film setting for our teenagers? Is this how we respond to oppression today?

Over the past few months, I’ve been speaking to teenagers, some youths in their mid-twenties and some adults too, about ‘Rang De Basanti’. Curiously, I’ve received a very passive response from most people. They all found the film fascinating – except the end. They all said that that’s not what happens in real life. That, we are non-violent people. That, we are not freedom fighters any longer, rising up against British oppression. That, murder is not in our DNA.

Curiously, again, when I asked them, “In that case, what would you do? How would you script the ending to ‘Rang De Basanti’?,” these teenagers didn’t have a concrete answer. After some ho-hum they said that they would petition, start an agitation, etc. When I reminded them that these steps were already taken in ‘Rang De Basanti’ and the actions of our heroes were crushed by the establishment, the teenagers seemed to lose interest in the topic and sauntered off.

What does this say about Indian teenagers today? Did ‘Rang De Basanti’ fail us altogether?

What if we empowered teenagers?

We all have our own reasons for doing what we do.

We live in an ever-changing world. For us, the world adopts new principles every day and this enables us to grow. Things evolve and branch out from what they once were to take on new meanings. Whether these meanings describe socio-cultural or religious traditions, or self-image enhancements, is another story. It is likely that, in the hustle and bustle of a world that stresses the importance of self-image and expression (and that it does!), many traditional meanings and behaviour will be lost.

In this milieu, we have our teenagers – shaping their world, making sense of it all – bravely facing the options we present to them.

Teenagers are not too different from the rest of us. They also want to connect with people – interact with others. They want to be recognised for who they are and what they do. They want to be entertained like we do. Be inspired like we do. We just have to invest the time to meet them where they are. Teenagers, or anyone for that matter, are empowered by knowing that they are valued, that they contribute.

These words are not entirely mine; they are borrowed from Josh Shipp’s philosophy of entertaining, inspiring and empowering teenagers.

Josh Shipp, no longer a teenager, is a motivational speaker for the youth. He writes books on teen development, and has recently started an inspirational film company called Empower Films™ whose mission is to create relevant short films that entertain, inspire, and empower teenagers. Josh’s personal story of triumph over tragedy (abandoned, neglected and abused as a child) inspires youth to overcome life’s struggles and live life to the fullest.

[Citation: http://www.joshshipp.com/]

Teenage angst and acceptance

It’s wonderful to be loved for who you truly are. But, what if you’re not?

What if you were a young and able college-going girl without a boy-friend? What if the guys you liked so much admired your intelligence and knowledge, but happily went out to the movies and lunches with dumb good-looking girls in pretty clothes? What if they came back and told you what a great time they had? What if all you ever did was hang out with your parents at home, watching their favourite TV programmes – those yucky serials that made you throw up most of the time?

You tell yourself, you’re doing the right thing. Your loyalty is to your parents. Your parents want you to discover who you truly are. Your parents want to help you develop fully into the person that you should be. They lay down wonderful plans for you. They wish you well. They want you to study, study, study. They encourage you to study so you could excel later in life. While all the dumb good-looking girls go out and have fun with the guys you should be out with.

“IT’S ONLY AN EXCUSE TO STOP ME FROM ENJOYING LIFE!!!” you feel like screaming. Your parents keep you under their wings – almost like a hostage. You’re never allowed to do the things every other person of your age is doing now.


Teenage angst is a concern for many parents. If I am to believe what I hear and see around me, it’s a growing problem in urban India. It leads to teens hating their parents and rebelling… sometimes, depression. In the western world, there are also cases of teenagers with eating disorders (girls mainly), drug addiction, cutting themselves and suicide attempts. Many Indian urban teenagers feel frustrated. They fall prey to anger, depression and drugs (boys mainly). Even to stealing money from home, or applying pressure to their parents, to buy them the things they normally can’t afford.

And why not? All around them, the big wide world is asking teens to be attractive, to be sexual, to be popular. The media is saturated with messages luring them into consuming brands (check out the latest issue of INDIA TODAY for ‘What’s Hot and Cool’) in order to look attractive and popular... To be somebody, standing out in the crowd. To be admired and accepted. Teenagers today simply want: clothes¸ shoes, food, friends, mobilephones, iPods, cigarettes, alcohol, members of the opposite sex, and sex. All, in order to get social acceptance.

For teens, everywhere, acceptance by their peer groups takes precedence over family. They live by the expectations of their peer groups, not their parents’. It’s no big deal, they say. They are quite familiar with this concept. Growing up, they lived by their parents’ expectations; now they are replacing their parents with their immediate social groups. Only this time, the numbers outweigh the parents.

Is this your idea of glamour?

“The Sun’s Page 3 [with photos of topless women] has been going 35 years. And no one even bats an eyelid these days,” says Kira Cochrane.

While reading up and blogging about women, sex and glamour (it all started with my post on photographer Robert Carlos Clarke a few weeks back), I came across a story by Kira Cochrane in Guardian Unlimited, 'Is this your idea of glamour?', going back to November 2005. The title of my post is borrowed from her story and I’ve reproduced some portions of her story in this post [as the Guardian link requires registration]. Of course, her story was on the British tabloid The Sun and the debate over Page 3.

Does the concept of a 'Page 3' work? Ms Cochrane says that it does: “Page 3 had proved its worth by boosting sales of the Sun a full 40%, establishing the newspaper as the most popular in Britain.” How do women in Britain feel about this? Here are some excerpts from her story to provide a point of view:

“Was our acceptance of Page 3 a way of compromising with male culture, saying we’d accept women’s bodies being used daily to sell and to titillate, as long as we could get ahead in the workplace?

But by accepting Page 3, we seemed to open the floodgates for ever more explicit images to be stocked on the newsstands, often accompanied by incredibly misogynist language… the culture was changing. The cover of the Daily Sport now features so-called ‘up-skirt’ shots, their photographers literally lying in wait for celebrities… And then there are Nuts, Zoo, FHM and Arena, all of which now feature naked women on their covers (why confine it to the inside of the magazine?).

Now young women tend to label the topless photos ‘empowering’ and ‘liberating’. A recent survey of 1,000 15-19-year-old girls found that 63% considered ‘glamour model’ their ideal profession. Faced daily with the evidence that women have to be sexually attractive to be considered successful why wouldn't young women choose to make a profession of it? When I was a teenager, and Page 3 was really one of the only examples of ‘glamour’ shots, it already seemed daunting to oppose it. With the proliferation of these images, is it any surprise that young women have further embraced it?

Interestingly, a growing number of women are now starting to speak out about objectification, beginning a debate on how the mainstreaming of porn imagery affects women and indeed men, socially and personally. Groups that campaign specifically against sexism and objectification are growing at a huge rate. Page 3 has been around for 35 years, and it’s likely to be here to stay, but that’s no reason to accept it. Speak to teachers and they will often tell you their students never even seem to have considered whether there might be an issue with the images of women to be found in mags such as Nuts and Zoo. And that lack of debate - and its effects - is very far from ironic.”

Ironically, soon after the appearance (15 Nov 2005) of this story in Guardian Unlimited, Mumbai’s Bachi Karkaria posted (18 Nov 2005) her account of Mumbai’s own Page 3 on www.editorsweblog.org:

“A country that managed to ‘Indianise’ McDonalds, forcing it to create the all-vegetarian potato pattie, McAloo Tikki, can be relied upon to give its own spin to the hoary tradition of Page 3. The term here describes an entirely different, but as seminal, a social revolution. Page Three People or P3P has become shorthand for the hedonistic party crowd, the fliterati, if you like. It’s a breed you love to hate, or unabashedly aspire to. The concept springs from the Page Three introduced by the Bombay Times, with its header ‘Boomtown Rap’, when it launched in 1994. It featured the city’s swishiest social events. It created the ‘celebrity’ guests. Bombay Times attracted young and women first-time newspaper readers, largely on the strength of this flashy segment, driving the circulation of the parent Times of India for much of that decade. Page Three reflected, and later propelled, the economic reforms which released urban India at least from its socialistic straitjacket. Suddenly making money and spending it were no longer clandestine; ‘lifestyle’ became legit. Soon every paper, and then TV channel, had a P3 equivalent. Indeed, a couple of years ago a feature film was made on this phenomenon, capturing its froth, its bitchiness and its hard realities. It was called simply Page Three, indicating how firmly this concept is now rooted in the urban consciousness.”

Why do women need so much sex?

Sex is important to everyone – and you’d be a liar to deny it. Everyone knows sex sells – everything from ideas to news to merchandise, even itself, and we can see it glaring at us from advertisements to headlines in tabloids and women’s magazines. In fact, the last of these facts – sex in women’s magazines – never stops to amaze me. Not that the topic of sex should not be covered by women’s magazines; but the sheer omnipresence of it.

Here’s a sampler from our very own Femina:

“Not tonight darling... how to get your man in the mood.”

“Keep the other men in your life.”

It’s a universal concept. Check out foreign magazines like Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Elle and others, and you’ll be sure to find similar stories on sexual lessons that women need to learn about men.

Why is it that women, who always complain that sex is what’s on a man’s mind (and presumably, not on theirs), have to be constantly reminded of sex? Why do women need so many lessons on how to please the men in their lives? Why is there so much readership – even enthusiasm, perhaps – of sex in women’s magazines when all the obsessions and anxieties about sex are supposed to be with the men?

Are women really so preoccupied with sex these days? Is the amount of sex in their lives inadequate? Or, are women so callous about their sex life that they have to be reminded – albeit tutored – by these magazines and their lessons on sex?

Any thoughts, anyone?

[Another fact that amazes me is the blatant bias these women’s magazines have – when talking about sex – in favour of heterosexual women. Lesbians and bisexuals don’t seem to fall in their readership. Yet no-one complains.]

Fear of the feminine

The woman’s ability to reproduce – the maternal body – is unique indeed. It is one thing the male has not been able to conquer.

I wonder if this thought has ever created fear in men.

That, no matter how much of the world men dominate, there will still be the aspect of reproduction that men would have to concede to women.

That, men will never be able to exert masculine dominance over the biological process of creation. That, men will never be free from this feminine supremacy.

Masculine intelligence

Since I’m a man, my views are likely to be male-gender-friendly and invite criticism from women. But I’ll express myself anyway. [So, send in your hate mail when you’re through reading this post.]

I do appreciate the women’s movement’s efforts in seeking and legitimising equality for all women on this planet, but there is one aspect of this equality and freedom-seeking that bothers me. It’s about this ‘thing’ women have about their body. Somehow, many women feel the concept of freedom equals body exposure. Give women freedom and their clothes start getting scantier and/or start coming off.

Would a woman showing a lot of skin have more rights than a woman in a sari? Would she obtain a higher social status compared to other women on this planet? Would she be perceived by men to be of equal intelligence and capability? Would she be considered by men to be equal to them socially, psychologically, financially? Would she be victimised less by men because of her scanty attire and show of skin? I think not.

Then there’s this new ‘raunch culture’ I’ve been writing about: Women, not just in scanty attire, but making out with other women in discos, bars, pubs and parties. Even on videos (though not in India, yet). What is this exhibition, this show of sexual desperation, for? Is it to attract men and gain popularity? Does this kind of behaviour actually elevate women socially or psychologically? Does it make them equal to men? Does it make them more intelligent than men? Once again, I think not.

You don’t see men making out with other men to be sexually, socially, psychologically or financially more attractive to women, do you? In this respect, thank God, men have more intelligence than women.

Tricky business

So, what’s wrong with raunch behaviour? If women want to show off their body, if they want to make out with each other in front of men, why should men object? Don’t men get turned on by scantily-dressed women and their perfect bodies? Don’t men fantasise about women-on-women action? Don’t men desire women who invite them over for sex? Heterosexual men don’t require great intelligence to see and enjoy the benefits of the ‘raunch culture’. It’s a bonus for them.

So, there’s no sympathy for women there. Unless, of course, the man happens to be the parent – or perhaps the brother – of a young woman displaying, or participating in, raunch. Everything changes then. Our cultural and moral values come to the fore. Even liberal-minded and tolerant parents, who normally allow their daughters to choose whom they want to be with, have active superegos; they know when and where to draw the line. They are not keen on seeing their daughters behave raunchily in public, nor permit them to act in amateur porn videos.

So, what should a parent do? Lock up the daughter in her room? Don’t think so. Set down rules of behaviour and discipline the daughter? May backfire. Since raunch has the signs of anti-authority, rebellious behaviour, challenging the daughter on the subject may have a negative effect. To add to the trouble, more and more girls are growing up watching music videos and films with provocative scenes, or reading ‘Page 3’-type material in the media, thinking and believing raunch is an acceptable code of conduct. Managing this is indeed a tricky business for a parent.

So, what’s the solution to this hyper-sexualised, hyper-commercialised situation?

According to Ariel Levy, author of ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’, and quoted in www.macleans.ca by Judith Timson in a September 2005 article called ‘Girls gone raunch’, it’s “Making the young women in our lives aware that this is the culture they live in, but they don’t have to take part in it, they will still be attractive to men, because people have managed to recreate the species for some time now.” It’s nurturing in them the sense, she says, “that you’re a real person, you’re not here to put on a performance, the main focus of your energy does not have to be how do I get a guy. You will find a partner. But the main project is you. What do you want to be? What do you want to think about? What makes you happy? What turns you on?”

Ultimately it is, Levy says, “…instilling in young women a sense of the value of their humanity.”

Is raunch counterproductive?

If raunch means sexual freedom through a perfect body, then it automatically rules out half the women in this world. It discriminates against those who do not have a perfect body. It shames these women into thinking – and believing – that they have missed their chance in life. If I were a woman with a not-so-perfect body, I wouldn’t be too happy about this situation.

No matter how confident women feel about this phenomenon, the ‘raunch culture’ is likely to impact women more than men. Yes, of course, men will continue to ogle at scantily-dressed women and think of sex, but of greater importance is how women will feel about being left out or about the ‘raunch culture’ not meeting their expectations.

I mean, can this ‘raunch culture’ really empower women? Can it give them the sexual freedom they desire? Can it make women more successful in their professions? Can it give them control over their lives? Can it propel women onto positions of leadership?

Or, is the ‘raunch culture’ just another way of living out male fantasies? Playing into the male sexual freedom? If that is so, isn’t it counterproductive to the women’s movement?

Female chauvinist pigs

These days, the urban way of life in India is quick to follow the American mass culture. It’s apparent in the way the youth has picked up the signals, the customs and the fashion from America; and, within this group, it’s the teen female universe that is most visible in aping the latest trends. Teen girls, wearing low-riding jeans with short, tight tops accentuating their body, are now a common sight in Indian metros like Mumbai and Bangalore – giving the ‘Page 3’ crowd a run for their money and the urban male a substantial pep in his voyeuristic pleasures.

From high-school girls to even some women in their mid-forties, women in urban India have begun to embrace a certain sexuality which was not there before. They are more free with their bodies and their voices, spelling out to the rest of India how far they have come from the days of their mothers. They feel empowered and ready to take on the world. Particularly the world of men – men with their voyeurism, their appetite for sex and their obsession for dominance. Urban Indian women are now ready to meet men on equal terms, fuelled by the new fillip they get from advertising and the media.

But, what if this sexual freedom, this raunchy display of fashion, this demonstration of woman power, this meeting of male sleaze with a show of more female skin, further stimulates the male ego and appetite? What if this new feminism encourages a new pornographic culture in India? What if this overt behaviour actually jeopardises the lives of many more women and increases crimes against them? Would these sexually-liberated women at the forefront of this ‘raunch culture’ then turn around and stoically say, “We have only ourselves to blame?” Or, would they still blame the men?

If you’re looking for answers to these questions, or ways to challenge them, then maybe Ariel Levy can help. In her recently-released book, ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’, New York magazine writer and editor Ariel Levy discusses this very topic from an American perspective. She believes there is a rise of a ‘raunch culture’ – a porn-drenched female sexuality – in America which has popped up all over TV, music videos, fashion, advertising and publishing. She feels the dominance of this new ‘raunch culture’ has superseded all other sexualised behaviour in women in America and has created a ‘female chauvinist pig’ who mimics men, wanting power in a misogynist kind of way.

Is this a new mantra for feminism and the sexually-liberated woman in America? And, how is it affecting the American mass culture? Are women actually colluding to create a more pornographic world for us all? Ariel Levy discusses all these questions in ‘Female Chauvinist Pigs’ – but I’m not sure if she adequately answers them all. Or, answers them convincingly enough for us to believe her. To know more about Ariel Levy’s ‘raunch culture’ why not read these reviews on salon.com and Guardian Unlimited? And then go feast yourself on the book? It might offer a window to our own urban cultural evolution.

Hooked and relieved

Women should be sexually attractive – and active.

That’s the kind of message we get in the media. Newspapers, magazines, TV, hoardings, posters, the Internet, video games… you name it and you’ll find images of scantily-clad women everywhere. Cleavage, midriffs, thighs, behinds. All in a day’s exposure. ‘Sexual attractiveness’ messages are all around us. And you know something, nobody’s complaining! Looks like, we’re all hooked to it.

Sex is no longer a taboo subject – at least not with teenagers in urban India. They are talking about it openly, gathering information from the media and from each other, doing away with the age-old necessity of parental guidance. On talking to a group of teenagers in Mumbai, I learnt that they got most of their ideas on sex from media portrayals and the novels they read, apart from discussing the matter amongst themselves. They felt the media was talking about sex and dating all the time – as if encouraging them. Although some girls also mentioned (reluctantly, I felt) that they sought advice from their mothers and older sisters, according to them, this was considered an old-fashioned thing.

The boys didn’t seem to worry too much about being (or not being) physically attractive to the opposite sex; but the girls did, quite a lot. What was common in their talks – the girls, that is – was the fact that looking physically and sexually attractive meant looking and staying thin, wearing attractive clothes (the words ‘western’ and ‘tight-fitting’ came up a couple of times), showing off your body. They didn’t see this as sinful or indecent or being promiscuous. That’s how things were today, they said.

The teenagers didn’t feel that there was anything wrong in the way sex was displayed or promoted in the media. Or that, there was too much of it. In fact, they looked out for such media coverage. Media stories, TV serials and novels talked openly about pre-marital sex or sex between unmarried couples, and that was ‘cool’ with them. However, they all agreed – and here, both boys and girls joined in – that, finding actual sexual experience was a lot tougher than what or how it was portrayed in the media. I guess many parents will be relieved to hear this.

Sex and censorship

It’s silly of me to write about censorship of sex. If sex had been censored long ago, I may not have been here writing this blog.

Jokes aside, it’s not sex per se – not even the sexual themes in literature, art, film and photography – that I connect with censorship, but it’s the display and expression of the degradation of human sexuality which I feel needs monitoring. Not because I’m a moral high priest, but because I feel young minds are sensitive and can be severely influenced by pornography without proper guidance.

Arzan, a fellow blogger and whose views I respect, cautioned me on taking this moral stance (please read his comment on my previous post), pointing out that self-governance is better than adopting the role of moral police. I agree with him, but with a small condition: that there should be guidance for children; because, young sensitive minds may not have the maturity to understand the ‘severity’ of pornography.

By ‘severity’ I go beyond the normal expression of sexually-explicit images (I know, why allow this also?) and into the domain of material that eroticises violence, humiliation, degradation and other explicit forms of abuse. Some aspects of pornography not only presents their subjects (particularly women) as sex objects, but goes further to show them as being physically harmed, as enjoying pain, humiliation, torture and rape. Some material even depicts the actual killing and dismembering of their subjects during explicit sexual scenes.

The Nicolas Cage film, ‘8 MM’, directed by Joel Schumacher and written by Andrew Kevin Walker, gives us a window to such pornography, although the film itself does not discuss the issue in any detail. Is this kind of sexually-explicit material objectionable? To me, it is. Particularly, if it is easily accessible to children. It simply sends wrong signals. Ask yourself: what would an adolescent or a teenager, with access to such material on the Internet or on his mobilephone, make of it? Is it ok to humiliate your partner during sex? Is rape a normal expression of sex? Does satisfying sex mean leaving your partner battered, bruised and bleeding?

Should we censor this kind of pornography? That’s the moral question.

Yes, I feel we should; but I’m not sure how to or how much of it to. No, I cannot prove that pornography causes violence. Nor can I prove that such pornography poses overt physical threats to women in our society. Nor can I prove that a teenager growing up watching BDSM videos will grow up to be a rapist or a misogynist. So, Arzan, you’ve got me there. Perhaps, self-governance is the right path to follow. But I do believe that pornography that links sex with violence is unlikely to bring in great benefits to our society and culture. Then again, who am I to take this moral stance?

Erotic imagery and the social question

How clear are we in the depiction of human sexuality in our culture?

Sex in fashion photography – as rendered by photographers such as Bob Carlos Clarke and Bob Richardson (about whom I’ve post-ed recently) – is really the tip of the iceberg. The bigger market is in pornography – touted as a $50-billion-a-year industry internationally, give or take ten billion dollars. Even then, some say this is a conservative estimate. God only knows how large this industry is in my own country.

The fact is, erotic imagery is no longer restricted to magazines like Playboy or Penthouse, not to mention art galleries which add a slightly different flavour, but is now available on cable TV and the Internet right in our homes and our offices. Add to that devices such as PDAs and mobilephones which allow exchange of pictures, and the reach for such imagery becomes phenomenal. Obviously there’s a large market for this, whether you and I like it or not.

As a full-blooded heterosexual male, I am aroused by the kind of sexually explicit images of women that are accessible to me, say on the Internet, and I understand why there is such a huge market for such images. However, the matter worsens to an extent when I consider the networked life we all lead. For instance, consider this:

Every time I receive an erotic image from a friend over email or on my mobilephone – even as a joke – and forward it to another friend, my participation in this matter becomes more than that of a viewer. I become a trader of erotic images, even though I do not spend a penny on it to be included in the $50-billion-a-year industry. So, what gives? What gives is a social issue which is larger, wider and more dangerous than what we may believe it to be.

Of course, there are laws against pornography – specifically for the creation and production of it. But what laws are there to stop me from visiting a website of erotic images by a famous photographer? Or, for viewing and forward-ing a sex ’toon, a sexually explicit photo or video clip over email or mobilephone?

No-one seems to know much about this. No clear directions – whether from legislative bodies, courts of justice or from religious and social groups – seem to be available either. And, considering the fact that many children have easy access to cable TV, mobilephones and the Internet, this issue of erotic imagery in our culture is really a serious one. Yet, neither parents nor heads of schools and colleges have spoken up against it.

Can we continue to be ambivalent on such serious issues?

Goodbye Prince of Darkness

“Sex…happened to fashion photography in the 1960’s.”
– Bob Richardson, photographer

Bob Carlos Clarke’s death (my previous post) late last month is not the only loss to the world of fashion and celebrity photography in recent times. In early December last year, another icon of fashion and celebrity photography, Bob Richardson, had passed away. Unlike Clarke, aged 56, who committed suicide by jumping under a passing train in Britain, Richardson, battling schizophrenia, died of natural causes in his home in New York at the age of 77.

In a PDN newswire, Daryl Lang writes, “Bob Richardson brought drama and sexuality to fashion photography in the 1960s... He incorporated sex, drugs and violence into his photos, reflecting a turbulent period in history and creating images that were more about people than about fashion. He was one of a generation of photographers who changed the look of fashion photography in the 1960s...”

According to Anita Hunter from the New Millennium, in her perspective on the history of fashion photography, Richardson played an important part in fashion and celebrity photography:

The 1960’s were years of major change in fashion and fashion photography. As Bob Richardson observed “Sex…happened to fashion photography in the 1960’s”. Women’s roles in society were being questioned and the youth quake was having an enormous cultural influence. Fashion trends were not just flowing down from Paris but were coming up from street culture. In Britain the terrible three David Bailey, Terence Donovan and Bob Richardson were instrumental in introducing spontaneity and sex into fashion photography.

Taking Richardson’s work further, Peter Marshall of About.com says:

The sixties are often seen as the decade when fashion photography discovered sex (notably through the eroticism of Helmut Newton and Jeanloup Sieff), but Richardson’s great contribution was mainly angst. His models acted out love affairs that were falling apart, and doing so with scenes of great emotional intensity - women deserted in cafes waiting, waiting for lovers who would not appear, even women desolate at the graveside. Much of his visual language came from the world of the movies, in particular the work of Antonioni. However, although his pictures could show women in tears, they could also depict the lighter moments, for example with models giggling together.

In Richardson, boundaries were blurred between life and work, between fiction and fact, between photographer and photographed. The photographer became a celebrity of sorts, in particular through his long relationship with his favourite model, Anjelica Houston, daughter of actor, director and screenwriter John Huston. Through his life and work Richardson set an agenda for fashion photography of later decades, one that still has a great influence today.

Photographer Bob Richardson had a reputation for being difficult to work with which was earned though long battles with editors as well as often erratic behaviour elsewhere which was echoed in the moody intensity of his work. He has been called ‘the William Burroughs of fashion photography.’

Lang of PDN agrees: 'Richardson, who suffered from mental illness throughout his life, developed a reputation as a rebellious artist who fought with editors and stylists. In a 1997 interview with PDN, Richardson said, “I don’t know why you’d want to be labeled anything else but a rebel. The opposite of a rebel is a coward, and believe me, I’ve worked with a lot of cowards.”'

John Eder’s personal account of meeting Bob Richardson can be found in The Brink. It’s called ‘Goodbye Prince of Darkness’.

"It's an addiction"

It’s not just ‘Crash’, which took away the best picture of the year award, among others, in this year’s Oscars, that toys with our imagination and our guilt. All of photographer Robert Carlos Clarke’s books do the same. And, with titles such as Obsession, The Dark Summer, White Heat, Insatiable, and Shooting Sex, who would disbelieve it. Clarke’s work has always been difficult to understand and controversial in terms of acceptability, but he has definitely created a name for himself as one of Britain’s, and the world’s, greatest photographers.

Born in Ireland, Clarke studied art and design in London before embarking on his career in photography. He is known to have become a photographer while chasing a part-time model who became his wife, but left him later because of his infidelities. Clarke had always been obsessed with sex and the female body. “With an obsessive compulsion I’ve taken more or less the same photographs over and over again during the past three decades,” Clarke has written in a passage published on the web site of his book Shooting Sex. “It’s not a job – it’s an addiction.” He wanted his pictures to make us aware that sexual desire is not something that we need feel guilty about or disturbed by.

But many were disturbed. And Robert Carlos Clarke’s work was not readily accepted by the media and the critics. His pictures, with titles such as ‘Unexploded Female’ or ‘Adult Females Attack Without Provocation’, showing sexually-charged rubber-clad women, not only shocked the world, they did not endear him to the feminist movement either. Some of his models included Rachel Weisz, Jerry Hall, Caprice, but he preferred to photograph women he met on the streets or in night clubs. According to Clarke, they were more natural as models. But he successfully combined his fetishistic photography with commercial work (for Levi’s, Volkswagen and Smirnoff), real life images (his collection of still-life is pensive, even emotional), and celebrity portraits.

Once, when quizzed about his unexpected propensity for photographing still-life, Clarke had observed casually, “I shoot celebrities for a living, but photographing rocks is more peaceable than photographing rock stars.” A sample of Clarke’s work, as a slideshow, can be found on his website (you should be above 18 years of age to view this). And, you can read an interview he did with Eyestorm here.

Robert Carlos Clarke, photographer. Born 24 June 1950. Died 25 March 2006, aged 56.

[Citation: www.bobcarlosclarke.com, Photo District News, British Journal of Photography, The Guardian, The Independent, Sunday Independent Ireland, Telegraph, The Times.]

Crash: masterful storytelling

There is tension in our lives. Deep inside us lies our outrage against society; our bigotry, our intolerance. Yet, it’s not an oft-visited place, and sometimes we never do, for we live in civilised societies with our families and friends, in our self-assured comfort zones. But sometimes we are driven to it through sheer carelessness... or by accident. And then we find, hidden from plain sight, another world; a world of anger, fear, prejudice and resentment.

These are difficult feelings to discuss in an open forum such as this blog. Even more difficult to express in a film. But Paul Haggis does so admirably in ‘Crash’. He brings together a cross-section of people from different ethnic backgrounds and social class, all victims of a racist society, living out their own sense of alienation. Haggis tells us who these characters are, but not what will become of them by the time the film ends. So, we are stuck in this fascinating situation.

The storytelling, the dialogue, the acting are all incredible. The characters say what they feel, yet they feel impotent when it comes to managing their own lives as the plot suddenly turns upon them. In the end, they come out as humans... something I had hoped for all along. 'Crash’ is a storyteller’s delight and Haggis does a masterful job.