Sunday 29 January 2012

Ra.One's decolonial moment

What does one say about Ra.One that hasn’t been said already? The script is banal, and all its flaws have been summed up well by the vigil idiot here. There is one flaw that particularly irks me. A character with the name of Shekhar Subramanium dies, and first gets a Christian burial, after which his family is shown releasing his ashes in an unspecified English river, probably the Thames considering that the movie is set in London. But if you bury someone, there are no ashes!!! Ashes come from the cremation of a dead body. There are other flaws/loopholes/'what were they thinking' moments in the movie, but this one irritated me the most. In this post, however, I do not want to enumerate the faults of the film further. Instead, I want to explore the question: Is Ra.One decolonial?
My nephew, who turned 4 last week, loves Spiderman. He regularly ‘convinced’ his parents to buy every piece of Spiderman merchandise, including the Colgate Spiderman toothpaste. Then he saw Ra.One, and now he has the Ra.One and G.One toys. And we are only allowed to listen to “Sarrati sarrati raftarein hai” in the car. He has not forgotten Spiderman, but Ra.One is high in his list of superhero favourites.
I am not making the argument that replacing Hollywood corporate franchisee filmmaking with Bollywood corporate franchisee filmmaking is a grand decolonial step. I am trying to tease out the idea of the physical location of cultural imagination. As a child, I remember reading Enid Blyton and desperately wanting to go to Malory towers and drink ginger beer. It wasn’t just about the boarding school or the food – it was a longing to be a part of a world that I found in the books I was reading, a world that had no place for my world within it. I did read some Gujarati or Hindi books now and then, of which I remember Bakor Patel and Chako Mako most clearly, but they did not inspire longing.
For my generation, it was Enid Blyton. When I left India children were reading Goosebumps and Harry Potter instead. A few children read Indian books; most often slick retellings of Indian mythology as graphic novels. The key difference was not only availability, in that more and different books were available, but also merchandising: most of the products mentioned in children’s literature are available in the Indian market. Here longing, then, is training in being the ideal future consumer.
My first grown-up memory of this feeling came when I read Rohinton Mistry’s Family Matters, in which the children retreat into the world of Enid Blyton.
Muffins, porridge, kippers, scones, steak and kidney pie, potted meat, dumplings. Their father said if they ever tasted this insipid foreign stuff instead of merely reading about it in those blighted Blyton books, they would realize how amazing was their mother's curry-rice and khichri-saas and pumpkin buryani and dhansak. What they needed was an Indian Blyton, to fascinate them with their own reality.
-- Family Matters, quote found on the blog onehotstove

That feeling was not just restricted to India either, as I discovered, to my surprise but not joy, when I heard the delightful talk “The Danger of a Single Story” by Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie. Incidentally, other things in the talk resonate too. I am often asked which language I spoke in Delhi, and people are disconcerted when the reply is English.



Ra.One’s decolonial moment is the moment when a train is speeding towards CST station in Mumbai, unable to stop and putting thousands of lives at risk. The superhero saves the day, albeit with the help of some divine intervention. What is interesting is that this is happening at CST, in Mumbai, rather than in New York or in London, the “centres of the civilized world as we know it”. In other words, the most familiar trope of a superhero movie is sundered from its always inevitably Western location and shifted to Mumbai, setting up a new cultural landmark. This geographical-cultural landscape is still thinly populated, and its features are not as familiar to us as Notting Hill or Manhattan, courtesy numerous books and movies. This imaginative landscape may eventually be left barren or become densely populated, though this moment in Ra.One does gesture towards a potential decolonial way of being.
There is another potential argument: that Ra.One is decolonial because they used Akon and apparently only Indian SFX experts and so on. I am not very enthusiastic about this, because in the interviews that I have seen, the point of reference has still been Hollywood/the West: “We can hire Akon too”, or “We did not use their technology”. The people who made the film must have been passionate in their belief and desire to do this as an assertion of identity and pride, and that is a different discussion. Ra.One’s decoloniality lies elsewhere.

2 comments:

  1. Nice post, Shvetal!

    To start with, I haven't seen Ra.One (does that make me ineligible to comment?!)

    Assuming not, I carry on! Firstly, thanks to my strong Tam-Bram roots, I refuse to accept SRK as Shekhar Subramaniam. For all the roles he has played so far, I don't think he has ever portrayed the character. On the contrary he has always been SRK as so-and-so. I mean, Devdas was SRK and not vice-versa! So am glad he was buried and somehow his ashes got immersed in Thames!!

    And speaking of your point reg. decolonization, it's actually linked to the last point that you said was a different topic of discussion. I think the two are inter-related. It's because the makers wanted to create an 'Indian' superhero, who could do the jazz that kids these days want to see, whom the so-called 'normal Indian' kids could idolize, that they located SRK (and not raavan or jeevan or whatever-van) in Mumbai. I guess the deeper and grander idea was to replace the good-ol' Blyton, Spiderman and Archie with an Indian figure. Therefore, it could not have been at New York or London. Has it really got the Hindi film industry decolonized in that regard, I'm not sure...?

    And personally speaking, no SRK figure can work up the magic created so beautifully, and seemingly effortlessly, by my all-time favourite Enid Blyton!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anu, thank you so much for writing :) I love getting comments on the blog, as I started it precisely to have more conversations with friends.
      I agree with the fact that SRK always plays SRK, and I was not irritated by the fact that they buried him. My irritation was this: how can you bury and scatter the ashes of the same body? When you burn a dead body, the ashes come after the body has been burnt completely. Then you can keep them, flow them in the river, scatter them over the loved one's fav place or do whatever your preference. But when you bury a dead body, there are no ashes because you place the dead body in a hole in the ground, and then cover it up again. Hence, my frustration :)
      I totally agree that the makers consciously wanted to create an "Indian" superhero, and I agree too with your question about whether that makes them decolonized. I think not. Just looking at Superman and saying "Let's do an Indian version of that" is not decolonial according to me. One by-product, however, of this process is that the location also changed, and it is this by-product that I would argue is a decolonial moment.
      As for Enid Blyton, I loved her as a kid, but when I re-read them as a grown-up, I became aware of the racist and patriarchal aspects of her work.
      Did you like the Adichie talk?

      Delete