Your User Name:
Your Password:	Forget your password? \| Register
Subject:
Message: Emoticon Listing HTML Help	[quote]jfung, Thank you for letting me know where the BollyWhat mention was. :) You ask me to point out some of his cultural misunderstandings and gaffes. I wasn't planning on doing so, because I am going to come across as angry, and what I write is going to come across as tearing Mr. Corliss and his ten FAQs to pieces...However, you have asked, and I will respond. Moreover, I have read your posts, and almost all the posts on this forum, and I know that the people who write here are coming here and writing here because they want to understand and learn. We are earnest and sincere in our wanting to learn more about Bollywood, India, and the world at large. So, I do not mind complying with your request to point out some of Mr. Corliss' cultural misunderstandings and gaffes, even though I might not come across as a very nice person in this post. First, let me say that I have been reading Richard Corliss' reviews since the mid-'80's. I feel that he sometimes writes in a cavalier and careless manner. Yes, in this FAQ piece, he does ask readers to help him answer his FAQs as he doesn't know all the answers. However, having been a reader of his writing for almost 20 years, I feel that he might not be as sincere and earnest as he sounds. Also, he is a film critic. That is his job, his bread and butter. This is what he has been doing for at least twenty years. It's part of his job to research these things and the fact that he has made such basic errors bugs me. He wants us to point out his errors and help him find the answers to his questions. But why should I do his leg work for him? You say that he has written several columns about Bollywood, and I do see many links in this FAQ piece. However, this is the first one that I am reading, and at this late hour, I don't feel like going to all his links in the FAQ article to read what he has written in the past. Here are what I feel to be cultural misundertandings, gaffes, factual errors, and evidence of his lack of knowledge and research, written more or less in the sequential order that he wrote them: 1) In his attempt to be cute/humorous/witty when writing about the length of Indian films, he says, "by Vishnu," instead of "by God," I suppose. Well, I don't find this cute. I chalk this up to cultural differences. 2) Why are Indian films so long? As mentioned in a Bollywhat post, made by Meredith I believe, Indians want their money's worth when they go to a film. They are spending their hard earned rupees to be entertained and as Richard Corliss says, "When Indians go out for an evening's entertainment, by Vishnu, they want an evening's entertainment--in scope as well as length." Mr. Corliss should include the fact that hard earned rupees are being spent on this evening of entertainment. Again, this is something cultural that he might not know. Also, referring to the Mahabharat (aka "The Mahabaratha" ) merely as "an Indian myth" shows further lack of knowledge of Indian culture. The Mahabharat is one of the two Hindu/Indian epic stories (the Ramayan aka Ramayana is the other epic story). Anyone who has read the Mahabharat or merely looked at a printed copy of it in book form would instantly understand why a stage version of it could easily run eight hours and a film version of it five and a half hours. Huge chunks of the epic must have been condensed and/or omitted to make it fit within those time constraints. 3) In all fairness, I would not have honed in on what he said about Jism if I hadn't read imaginarysan's post earlier in this thread. I had to do a fair bit of investigating to figure out what imaginarysan was referring to when she asked if he was joking or not. (Sania, I think that he is being serious.) Part of the reason why I couldn't understand what Sania was talking about is the fact that I couldn't remember what jism meant in Hindi, and I didn't know what jism meant in English. So, thanks to Sania's comment, instead of passing over Mr. Corliss' Jism comment, I did a little research on the web and learned that in Hindi, "jism" means "body" and in American English, "jism" means "semen." (It took me about a half hour to do this leg work.) From http://members.tripod.co.uk/sporadic/JismFoundation/History.html [quote]History of Jism In the mid 19th century, the world bore witness to the creation of what became, if you'll excuse the wildly inventive play on words, the seeds for this very foundation. However the word JISM when first used in America, its country of origin, it had quite a different meaning: energy! Theoretically one would be filled with jism following a hearty meal, or a lime cordial! However by the turn of the century the meaning had shifted, albeit in an intriguing way. There does seem to be a certain logic in the leap from jism as energy to jism as semen, the idea, perhaps, that jism is the very energy that producses life, or that it is in some way a concentration of carnal energy, an almost tantric possibility![/quote] According to that website, jism was used by Beat poets to mean semen and it is obvious from what Mr. Corliss writes that he thinks that Jism (the movie) refers to semen, else he would not have written "(that's right, American readers, and the word means the same in Hindi)." Uh, no, Sir, the word does not mean semen in Hindi. If he had bothered to go to any website dedicated to Jism the movie, he would have realized his error. Heck, if he had gone to the official website for Jism the movie, he would have instantly realized his error upon reading the synopsis, which talks about Bipasha's jism. Even if you don't know what jism means in Hindi, it is evident that it cannot mean semen! Like I said, I shouldn't have to do his legwork for him. 4) Mr. Corliss says "Virtually every Bollywood film is a musical. Why do the characters have to sing and dance?" This shows lack of cultural knowledge/understanding. Could it be because Indians like to see song and dance numbers, and Bollywood producers have realized that this is the ticket to getting people to come and see their films? Anybody who knows anything about Bollywood-- and Mr. Corliss, being a long time film critic for Time Magazine should know this--knows that the music for the movies comes out [b]before[/b] the movies. It is the music, the songs that make or break a Bollywood film. If they don't like the music, they're not going to see the film. Mr. Corliss says that he is not complaining. But then why does he say that ShahRukh Khan dances like a "spasmic Stallone" in the very next sentence? Sounds like a complaint to me. 5) I liked what Aviance wrote about Mr. Corliss needing to wise up. I agree with almost everything in Aviance's post, and I'd like to offer additional insight: in my 20 or so years of reading Mr. Corliss' reviews, it is obvious to me that Mr. Corliss is homophobic; he frequently pans films with covert and overt homosexual themes. Thus, I feel that Aviance is right on the mark when she says that "to criticize the male dancers and praise the females, shows that he is uncomfortable w/ anything but the macho American male." "To say that there are no good male dancers or no actors that started their career w/their dancing skills shows he didn't review his topic enough" (Aviance) Ah-ha! I am not the only one who feels that he did not review his topic enough. 6) Unlike Aviance, I don't mind Mr. and Mrs. Corliss' opinions of Amitabh's dancing. I don't like Amitabh's dancing either. But I wouldn't call ShahRukh's dancing in [/i]Chaiyya Chaiyya[/i] "dancing like a spasmic Stallone." But, okay, that's Mr. Corliss' opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that. But to make a blanket statement that "The men's movements especially look raw: vigorous but clumsy" is wrong. Mr. Corliss: please see the 1955(?) film Jhanak Jhanak Payal Baje and then defend your comment that the men's movements are especially raw, vigorous, but clumsy. Also, as Aviance and Sania point out, Hrithik's dancing cannot be labelled clumsy. 7) "The movies are musicals, but the actors don't sing; they lip-synch to songs previously recorded by playback singers. How come?" Mr. Corliss, please do your own leg work and find out the answer to this question for yourself. You don't understand why stars don't sing? Well, how come Hollywood stars don't sing anymore when musicals are done? Very few Hollywood stars in recent memory have sung to their own songs--Michelle Pfeiffer and Nicole Kidman are the only names that come to my mind. Oh, wait, maybe some of the Chicago stars did, but I don't know off hand who did and who didn't. Bollywood has a tradition of using playback singers. Hollywood doesn't, in Mr. Corliss' opinion; he feels that Marni Nixon is the only well-known playback singer and then he lists a series of names of who she sang for. Mr. Corliss, you are listing the names of actors and actresses from Hollywood's musical heyday! In other words, when musicals were big in Hollywood. The actors and actresses [b]had to know how to sing and dance in order to get a job in Hollywood back in those days![/b] Nowadays, that is no longer the case, and Mr. Corliss, please inform us of exactly who has provided their own singing voices to recent Hollywood musicals. My guess is that it would be a small percentage. 8) Mr. Corliss asks why are there so few playback singers. I think that if we were to do a websearch of Bollywood playback singers, we'd pull up an extensive list. I can list many, many more names than Lata, Asha, Mohd. Rafi, and Amitabh. How about Alka, Udit, Sonu, Sukwinder, Kavita, Shreya, KK, Geeta Dutt(a)? These are names that I wrote down without thinking, without referring to any of my Bollywood CDs. Let's reflect on what happened to Anuradha Paudwal for a moment. She was becoming as popular as Lata at one point in her career, and as a result her husband was killed. She got the message and promptly stopped singing. (Only very recently has she started playback singing again. Good for her.) (And thanks, Sam, for your help way back when regarding Anuradha Paudwal. I just referred back to that post of yours to get the correct spelling of her name. :) ) Yes, Mr. Corliss, there are actors who can sing as well as dance, but due to the Bollywood Underground, they don't dare challenge The Dragon Lady's hold on the industry. There's good reason not to. 9) Mr. Corliss asks "Why are the actors usually light-skinned even in films from Southern India?" Again, Mr. Corliss, do your own leg work. Look at pictures of these same stars when they are posing for filmi magazines. Do a websearch on any star that you think is dark skinned and look at their images. Do you now realize that they are temporarily artifically lightened for the purpose of the film? Yes, Bollywood is "shade-ist" as Mr. Corliss says. Yes, Bollywood should showcase its darker skinned actors. Actually, in the Tamil and Telegu films that I have seen, the men are dark skinned, and the women that are fair skinned are fair skinned because they are fair skinned--Aishwarya, Simran, and Tabu are all fair skinned. The darker skinned actresses in South Indian films come across as darker skinned to me. It's the Bollywood films that lighten its actors and actresses. Why is Bollywood shade-ist? It's a cultural thing. Lighter skinned people are favored. I know people who actively seek light skinned brides for their sons. It's a cultural thing. I don't like this mindset. I don't agree with it. Mr. Corliss is right when he says that "Indian films would be even more glorious if they displayed the rainbow of handsome, powerful talent available." And isn't it interesting that this is [b]the one place[/b] that he says "If I'm sadly benighted on this subject, please enlighten me." The one place where he knows that he's right is where he actively seeks our enlightenment, except for his requests to hear from his readers that are made once at the beginning of his post, and once at the end of his post. In light of this, please excuse me for feeling that he is less than sincere in wishing to be enlightened (said a little bit sarcastically). [b]Okay, everything that I've criticized thus far can be chalked up to cultural ignorance. Now I criticize his errors.[/b] 10) Mehboob's hammer and sickle insigna has nothing to do with Communism. When I saw Mother India, my dad explained to me what the hammer and sickle symbol is, but I don't remember what he told me. As it is now 2:40 A.M., I can't call him to ask him about this, and I am going to have to update this later. 11) In his attempt to be cute/witty/humourous when talking about regional cinema in India, Mr. Corliss shows his extreme lack of research, his lack of cultural understanding, and commits some serious cultural gaffes. "With the T-word having been taken, Tamil film folks called their industry Kollywood. (Shouldn't it be Tamalewood?)" Har-har, Mr. Corliss. Not funny. Tamale is a Mexican dish. Why on earth would Indians name a regional film industry after a Mexican dish? Also, I wonder how many Indians in India would be familiar with tamales?? His attempt to be cute falls fails big time in my book. Bollywood. Tollywood. Kollywood. Mollywood. Does he not see the pattern? And yet he wants the Malayalam film center to be known as Keraliwood? Totally breaks the linguistic pattern. Also, to answer his question about why the Tamil film industry is known as Kollywood; I don't know but there must be a good reason. "I guess Bengali films--Calcutta--must be made in Bengaliwood." Factual error. If he had bothered to look at bollywhat.com's section on the regional film industries, he would have learned that Bengal's film industry is known as Tollygunge or Tollywood. But now I am confused, he says that the Telugu industry is known as Tollywood. I am going to have to look up this information myself! I am 99 44/100% sure of Tollygunge, though. And you know what, Mr. Corliss, it is going to take me less than two minutes to find out the correct terms for these film industries. Couldn't you have bothered to do a little research yourself before publishing this section on India's regional film industries? Also, I don't understand why Mr. Corliss has equated Bengali [b]films[/b] with the city of Calcutta (which, to be 99 44/100% accurate, should now be written Kolkata) but that's what he did in his sentence "Bengali films--Calcutta--must be made in Bengaliwood." I wonder why he didn't choose to call it Calcuttaiwood, by the way. That would make as much sense as the other nicknames that he came up with. Another attempt at humour that fails: "I'm not sure what the adjective is for the movie biz in Kannada, a region that produces more feature films per year than Canada. Canadian?" Mr. Corliss, "canadian" is an adjective and a noun that refers to a "Commonwealth nation occupying the N half of North America" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). How on earth can "canadian" refer to the Kannadian film industry? This attempt at humour is a gaffe. And I do sincerely hope that you were going for humour when you wrote "Canadian?" and I do think you were trying to be humorous because you write about spreading "this fun formation" to other countries. Whatever. *Update: Okay, I spent 6 minutes at the "Beyond Bombay" section of bollywhat.com trying to make heads and tails out of the nicknames used for India's regional film industries. According to the information there, Tollygunge = the headquarters of Bengali's filmdom and the root of its occassional nickname Tollywood. If I recall correctly, Tollygunge is an actual physical place in West Bengal, and is situated somewhat near Kolkata. I then went to the section on the Malalayam industry, and could not find any nickname for its industry. I next went to the section on Tamil's film industry and could not find any nickname except Tollywood, which conflicts with Tollygunge's occassional Tollywood nickname. I spent one minute trying to go to www.tollywoodhq.com but that site does not exist at the current time. I did not find reference to Kollywood or Mollywood at bollywhat.com and did not do a websearch trying to solve this mystery because I think that there'll be someone here who'll be able to clarify this matter. :) I just re-read what I posted earlier and picked up on something else that now confuses me: Mr. Corliss says that the Telugu film industry is known as Tollywood. But from the bollywhat.com information, it seems that it is the Tamil/Tamil Nadu industry that is known as Tollywood. I am confused! End of update. 12)Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham's current shorthand is not KKKG, as Mr. Corliss states, but rather K3G. Factual error. 13) "First would come the star actors, often listed in order not of their star power or importance in the film, but by age....Indians, or Indian credit-deciders, must respect their elders." This demonstrates a clear cultural lack of knowledge on Mr. Corliss' part. Anyone who knows anything about Indian culture would know the importance placed on the elders, the respect shown towards elders. But let's give Mr. Corliss the benefit of the doubt and say that he somehow couldn't figure that out from all the Bollywood and Indian films that he has seen. Let's go to another source that surely Mr. Corliss must have referred to in some manner: Bollywood filmi magazines, interviews, or websites. Anyone who reads any filmi article, listens to or reads any interview given by any actor/actress will pick up on how people are respectfully called ___ ji, ____ saab, ___ didi, or ___ Uncle. To not be able to understand the fact that Indians respect their elders after having watched so many Bollywood film is a grevious gaffe. 14) Mr. Corliss lists some mono-monikers that he feels that would "sound goofy to a Western ear." Has he ever considered the fact that some Western monikers might sound goofy to the Indian ear? "Some with mono-monikers that sound goofy to a Western ear: Cuckoo, Nimmi, Dyke, just to name three players in a movie by...Mehboob." Does he realize who he's insulting??? I don't know who Cuckoo and Dyke are, but I do know who Nimmi and Mehboob are. And in case you don't know who Mehboob was, he is the one who directed [/i]Mother India[/i]. You know what? He hasn't even mentioned [/i]Mother India[/i]. How could he have missed this classic Bollywood movie? Or maybe his mention of "Mother Earth" really should have been a reference to "Mother India?" If so, another factual error. 15) "Tezaab" is spelled wrong; he spelled it "Teezab." Yet another factual error. 16) "I hope I haven't numbed those new to Bollywood, or shocked the savants." No, Mr. Corliss, you haven't. For what you have written is merely another example of the Western media's lack of understanding of India/Indian culture. You wish us to let you know of the answers to your ten FAQs, but I feel no need to enlighten you, for I do not feel that you are earnest in your pleas. Maybe I am not giving you a fair shake, maybe I should forget the things that you have written in the past, but I cannot. Hey, maybe you'll come back to this very website and find this thread dedicated to your ten FAQs and become enlightened. :)[/quote]
Options:	Check here to include your profile signature. Check here to stay logged in. Convert smiles. Preview your post. (This feature will still post your message, but you can edit it from there if you need to make changes)

Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership!

Author

Message / Information

MeenaKumari

Avatar

This message was updated on 7/31/2003 9:56:53 AM by MeenaKumari

BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 7/31/2003 6:29:14 AM

jfung,

Thank you for letting me know where the BollyWhat mention was.

You ask me to point out some of his cultural misunderstandings and gaffes. I wasn't planning on doing so, because I am going to come across as angry, and what I write is going to come across as tearing Mr. Corliss and his ten FAQs to pieces...However, you have asked, and I will respond. Moreover, I have read your posts, and almost all the posts on this forum, and I know that the people who write here are coming here and writing here because they want to understand and learn. We are earnest and sincere in our wanting to learn more about Bollywood, India, and the world at large. So, I do not mind complying with your request to point out some of Mr. Corliss' cultural misunderstandings and gaffes, even though I might not come across as a very nice person in this post.

First, let me say that I have been reading Richard Corliss' reviews since the mid-'80's. I feel that he sometimes writes in a cavalier and careless manner. Yes, in this FAQ piece, he does ask readers to help him answer his FAQs as he doesn't know all the answers. However, having been a reader of his writing for almost 20 years, I feel that he might not be as sincere and earnest as he sounds.

Also, he is a film critic. That is his job, his bread and butter. This is what he has been doing for at least twenty years. It's part of his job to research these things and the fact that he has made such basic errors bugs me. He wants us to point out his errors and help him find the answers to his questions. But why should I do his leg work for him?

You say that he has written several columns about Bollywood, and I do see many links in this FAQ piece. However, this is the first one that I am reading, and at this late hour, I don't feel like going to all his links in the FAQ article to read what he has written in the past.

Here are what I feel to be cultural misundertandings, gaffes, factual errors, and evidence of his lack of knowledge and research, written more or less in the sequential order that he wrote them:

1) In his attempt to be cute/humorous/witty when writing about the length of Indian films, he says, "by Vishnu," instead of "by God," I suppose. Well, I don't find this cute. I chalk this up to cultural differences.

2) Why are Indian films so long? As mentioned in a Bollywhat post, made by Meredith I believe, Indians want their money's worth when they go to a film. They are spending their hard earned rupees to be entertained and as Richard Corliss says, "When Indians go out for an evening's entertainment, by Vishnu, they want an evening's entertainment--in scope as well as length." Mr. Corliss should include the fact that hard earned rupees are being spent on this evening of entertainment. Again, this is something cultural that he might not know.

Also, referring to the Mahabharat (aka "The Mahabaratha" ) merely as "an Indian myth" shows further lack of knowledge of Indian culture. The Mahabharat is one of the two Hindu/Indian epic stories (the Ramayan aka Ramayana is the other epic story). Anyone who has read the Mahabharat or merely looked at a printed copy of it in book form would instantly understand why a stage version of it could easily run eight hours and a film version of it five and a half hours. Huge chunks of the epic must have been condensed and/or omitted to make it fit within those time constraints.

3) In all fairness, I would not have honed in on what he said about Jism if I hadn't read imaginarysan's post earlier in this thread. I had to do a fair bit of investigating to figure out what imaginarysan was referring to when she asked if he was joking or not. (Sania, I think that he is being serious.)

Part of the reason why I couldn't understand what Sania was talking about is the fact that I couldn't remember what jism meant in Hindi, and I didn't know what jism meant in English. So, thanks to Sania's comment, instead of passing over Mr. Corliss' Jism comment, I did a little research on the web and learned that in Hindi, "jism" means "body" and in American English, "jism" means "semen." (It took me about a half hour to do this leg work.)

From http://members.tripod.co.uk/sporadic/JismFoundation/History.html

quote:
History of Jism

In the mid 19th century, the world bore witness to the creation of what became, if you'll excuse the wildly inventive play on words, the seeds for this very foundation. However the word JISM when first used in America, its country of origin, it had quite a different meaning: energy! Theoretically one would be filled with jism following a hearty meal, or a lime cordial! However by the turn of the century the meaning had shifted, albeit in an intriguing way. There does seem to be a certain logic in the leap from jism as energy to jism as semen, the idea, perhaps, that jism is the very energy that producses life, or that it is in some way a concentration of carnal energy, an almost tantric possibility!

According to that website, jism was used by Beat poets to mean semen and it is obvious from what Mr. Corliss writes that he thinks that Jism (the movie) refers to semen, else he would not have written "(that's right, American readers, and the word means the same in Hindi)."

Uh, no, Sir, the word does not mean semen in Hindi. If he had bothered to go to any website dedicated to Jism the movie, he would have realized his error. Heck, if he had gone to the official website for Jism the movie, he would have instantly realized his error upon reading the synopsis, which talks about Bipasha's jism. Even if you don't know what jism means in Hindi, it is evident that it cannot mean semen!

Like I said, I shouldn't have to do his legwork for him.

4) Mr. Corliss says "Virtually every Bollywood film is a musical. Why do the characters have to sing and dance?" This shows lack of cultural knowledge/understanding. Could it be because Indians *like* to see song and dance numbers, and Bollywood producers have realized that this is the ticket to getting people to come and see their films?

Anybody who knows anything about Bollywood-- and Mr. Corliss, being a long time film critic for Time Magazine should know this--knows that the music for the movies comes out before the movies. It is the music, the songs that make or break a Bollywood film. If they don't like the music, they're not going to see the film.

Mr. Corliss says that he is not complaining. But then why does he say that ShahRukh Khan dances like a "spasmic Stallone" in the very next sentence? Sounds like a complaint to me.

5) I liked what Aviance wrote about Mr. Corliss needing to wise up. I agree with almost everything in Aviance's post, and I'd like to offer additional insight: in my 20 or so years of reading Mr. Corliss' reviews, it is obvious to me that Mr. Corliss is homophobic; he frequently pans films with covert and overt homosexual themes. Thus, I feel that Aviance is right on the mark when she says that "to criticize the male dancers and praise the females, shows that he is uncomfortable w/ anything but the macho American male."

"To say that there are no good male dancers or no actors that started their career w/their dancing skills shows he didn't review his topic enough" (Aviance)

Ah-ha! I am not the only one who feels that he did not review his topic enough.

6) Unlike Aviance, I don't mind Mr. and Mrs. Corliss' opinions of Amitabh's dancing. I don't like Amitabh's dancing either. But I wouldn't call ShahRukh's dancing in Chaiyya Chaiyya "dancing like a spasmic Stallone." But, okay, that's Mr. Corliss' opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that. But to make a blanket statement that "The men's movements especially look raw: vigorous but clumsy" is wrong.

Mr. Corliss: please see the 1955(?) film Jhanak Jhanak Payal Baje and then defend your comment that the men's movements are especially raw, vigorous, but clumsy.

Also, as Aviance and Sania point out, Hrithik's dancing cannot be labelled clumsy.

7) "The movies are musicals, but the actors don't sing; they lip-synch to songs previously recorded by playback singers. How come?"

Mr. Corliss, please do your own leg work and find out the answer to this question for yourself.

You don't understand why stars don't sing? Well, how come Hollywood stars don't sing anymore when musicals are done? Very few Hollywood stars in recent memory have sung to their own songs--Michelle Pfeiffer and Nicole Kidman are the only names that come to my mind. Oh, wait, maybe some of the Chicago stars did, but I don't know off hand who did and who didn't.

Bollywood has a tradition of using playback singers. Hollywood doesn't, in Mr. Corliss' opinion; he feels that Marni Nixon is the only well-known playback singer and then he lists a series of names of who she sang for. Mr. Corliss, you are listing the names of actors and actresses from Hollywood's musical heyday! In other words, when musicals were big in Hollywood. The actors and actresses had to know how to sing and dance in order to get a job in Hollywood back in those days! Nowadays, that is no longer the case, and Mr. Corliss, please inform us of exactly who has provided their own singing voices to recent Hollywood musicals. My guess is that it would be a small percentage.

8) Mr. Corliss asks why are there so few playback singers. I think that if we were to do a websearch of Bollywood playback singers, we'd pull up an extensive list. I can list many, many more names than Lata, Asha, Mohd. Rafi, and Amitabh. How about Alka, Udit, Sonu, Sukwinder, Kavita, Shreya, KK, Geeta Dutt(a)? These are names that I wrote down without thinking, without referring to any of my Bollywood CDs.

Let's reflect on what happened to Anuradha Paudwal for a moment. She was becoming as popular as Lata at one point in her career, and as a result her husband was killed. She got the message and promptly stopped singing. (Only very recently has she started playback singing again. Good for her.) (And thanks, Sam, for your help way back when regarding Anuradha Paudwal. I just referred back to that post of yours to get the correct spelling of her name.

)

Yes, Mr. Corliss, there are actors who can sing as well as dance, but due to the Bollywood Underground, they don't dare challenge The Dragon Lady's hold on the industry. There's good reason not to.

9) Mr. Corliss asks "Why are the actors usually light-skinned even in films from Southern India?"

Again, Mr. Corliss, do your own leg work. Look at pictures of these same stars when they are posing for filmi magazines. Do a websearch on any star that you think is dark skinned and look at their images. Do you now realize that they are temporarily artifically lightened for the purpose of the film?

Yes, Bollywood is "shade-ist" as Mr. Corliss says. Yes, Bollywood should showcase its darker skinned actors. Actually, in the Tamil and Telegu films that I have seen, the men *are* dark skinned, and the women that are fair skinned are fair skinned because they *are* fair skinned--Aishwarya, Simran, and Tabu are all fair skinned. The darker skinned actresses in South Indian films come across as darker skinned to me. It's the Bollywood films that lighten its actors and actresses.

Why is Bollywood shade-ist? It's a cultural thing. Lighter skinned people are favored. I know people who actively seek light skinned brides for their sons. It's a cultural thing. I don't like this mindset. I don't agree with it.

Mr. Corliss is right when he says that "Indian films would be even more glorious if they displayed the rainbow of handsome, powerful talent available."

And isn't it interesting that this is the one place that he says "If I'm sadly benighted on this subject, please enlighten me."

The one place where he knows that he's right is where he actively seeks our enlightenment, except for his requests to hear from his readers that are made once at the beginning of his post, and once at the end of his post. In light of this, please excuse me for feeling that he is less than sincere in wishing to be enlightened (said a little bit sarcastically).

Okay, everything that I've criticized thus far can be chalked up to cultural ignorance. Now I criticize his errors.

10) Mehboob's hammer and sickle insigna has nothing to do with Communism. When I saw Mother India, my dad explained to me what the hammer and sickle symbol is, but I don't remember what he told me. As it is now 2:40 A.M., I can't call him to ask him about this, and I am going to have to update this later.

11) In his attempt to be cute/witty/humourous when talking about regional cinema in India, Mr. Corliss shows his extreme lack of research, his lack of cultural understanding, and commits some serious cultural gaffes.

"With the T-word having been taken, Tamil film folks called their industry Kollywood. (Shouldn't it be Tamalewood?)"

Har-har, Mr. Corliss. Not funny. Tamale is a Mexican dish. Why on earth would Indians name a regional film industry after a Mexican dish? Also, I wonder how many Indians in India would be familiar with tamales?? His attempt to be cute falls fails big time in my book.

Bollywood. Tollywood. Kollywood. Mollywood.

Does he not see the pattern? And yet he wants the Malayalam film center to be known as Keraliwood? Totally breaks the linguistic pattern.

Also, to answer his question about why the Tamil film industry is known as Kollywood; I don't know but there must be a good reason.

"I guess Bengali films--Calcutta--must be made in Bengaliwood."

Factual error. If he had bothered to look at bollywhat.com's section on the regional film industries, he would have learned that Bengal's film industry is known as Tollygunge or Tollywood. But now I am confused, he says that the Telugu industry is known as Tollywood. I am going to have to look up this information myself! I am 99 44/100% sure of Tollygunge, though.

And you know what, Mr. Corliss, it is going to take me less than two minutes to find out the correct terms for these film industries. Couldn't you have bothered to do a little research yourself before publishing this section on India's regional film industries?

Also, I don't understand why Mr. Corliss has equated Bengali films with the city of Calcutta (which, to be 99 44/100% accurate, should now be written Kolkata) but that's what he did in his sentence "Bengali films--Calcutta--must be made in Bengaliwood." I wonder why he didn't choose to call it Calcuttaiwood, by the way. That would make as much sense as the other nicknames that he came up with.

Another attempt at humour that fails:
"I'm not sure what the adjective is for the movie biz in Kannada, a region that produces more feature films per year than Canada. Canadian?"

Mr. Corliss, "canadian" is an adjective and a noun that refers to a "Commonwealth nation occupying the N half of North America" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). How on earth can "canadian" refer to the Kannadian film industry? This attempt at humour is a gaffe. And I do sincerely hope that you were going for humour when you wrote "Canadian?" and I do think you were trying to be humorous because you write about spreading "this fun formation" to other countries. Whatever.

*Update: Okay, I spent 6 minutes at the "Beyond Bombay" section of bollywhat.com trying to make heads and tails out of the nicknames used for India's regional film industries. According to the information there, Tollygunge = the headquarters of Bengali's filmdom and the root of its occassional nickname Tollywood. If I recall correctly, Tollygunge is an actual physical place in West Bengal, and is situated somewhat near Kolkata.

I then went to the section on the Malalayam industry, and could not find any nickname for its industry. I next went to the section on Tamil's film industry and could not find any nickname except Tollywood, which conflicts with Tollygunge's occassional Tollywood nickname. I spent one minute trying to go to www.tollywoodhq.com but that site does not exist at the current time. I did not find reference to Kollywood or Mollywood at bollywhat.com and did not do a websearch trying to solve this mystery because I think that there'll be someone here who'll be able to clarify this matter.

I just re-read what I posted earlier and picked up on something else that now confuses me: Mr. Corliss says that the Telugu film industry is known as Tollywood. But from the bollywhat.com information, it seems that it is the Tamil/Tamil Nadu industry that is known as Tollywood. I am confused!
End of update.

12)Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham's current shorthand is not KKKG, as Mr. Corliss states, but rather K3G. Factual error.

13) "First would come the star actors, often listed in order not of their star power or importance in the film, but by age....Indians, or Indian credit-deciders, must respect their elders."

This demonstrates a clear cultural lack of knowledge on Mr. Corliss' part.

Anyone who knows anything about Indian culture would know the importance placed on the elders, the respect shown towards elders. But let's give Mr. Corliss the benefit of the doubt and say that he somehow couldn't figure that out from all the Bollywood and Indian films that he has seen.

Let's go to another source that surely Mr. Corliss must have referred to in some manner: Bollywood filmi magazines, interviews, or websites.

Anyone who reads any filmi article, listens to or reads any interview given by any actor/actress will pick up on how people are respectfully called ___ ji, ____ saab, ___ didi, or ___ Uncle.

To not be able to understand the fact that Indians respect their elders after having watched so many Bollywood film is a grevious gaffe.

14) Mr. Corliss lists some mono-monikers that he feels that would "sound goofy to a Western ear." Has he ever considered the fact that some Western monikers might sound goofy to the Indian ear?

"Some with mono-monikers that sound goofy to a Western ear: Cuckoo, Nimmi, Dyke, just to name three players in a movie by...Mehboob."

Does he realize who he's insulting???

I don't know who Cuckoo and Dyke are, but I do know who Nimmi and Mehboob are. And in case you don't know who Mehboob was, he is the one who directed Mother India.

You know what? He hasn't even mentioned Mother India. How could he have missed this classic Bollywood movie? Or maybe his mention of "Mother Earth" really should have been a reference to "Mother India?" If so, another factual error.

15) "Tezaab" is spelled wrong; he spelled it "Teezab." Yet another factual error.

16) "I hope I haven't numbed those new to Bollywood, or shocked the savants."

No, Mr. Corliss, you haven't. For what you have written is merely another example of the Western media's lack of understanding of India/Indian culture.

You wish us to let you know of the answers to your ten FAQs, but I feel no need to enlighten you, for I do not feel that you are earnest in your pleas. Maybe I am not giving you a fair shake, maybe I should forget the things that you have written in the past, but I cannot.

Hey, maybe you'll come back to this very website and find this thread dedicated to your ten FAQs and become enlightened.

Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership!

ChatArea.com Help & News Forums | Terms of Use | Contact ChatArea.com | Advertising