Your User Name:
Your Password:	Forget your password? \| Register
Subject:
Message: Emoticon Listing HTML Help	[quote]This update is being written on August 12, 2003, after reading Mr. Corliss' article "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answers," which can be found at http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss/article/0,9565,475407,00.html. If you are reading Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answers" article and have clicked on his <u>Chat area at bollyWhat.com</u> link, you will find that this link brings you to this page, page TWO of our discussion of Mr. Corliss' first article, "Bollywood FAQs." I highly suggest that you start reading this thread from page ONE. Just click on the 1 at the top of this page, and you will be taken to the beginning of the discussion. I feel that it is very unfair that Mr. Corliss has linked the SECOND page of our discussion, since the reader really does need to start from the beginning of this thread to understand our discussions in this thread. Also, the first two posts on this page--the posts made by Anika and Kalpana--directly refer to my posts on page one, especially a post in which I outlined the factual errors, cultural misunderstandings, or cultural gaffes that Mr. Corliss makes in his "Bollywood FAQs" article. And if you read the the posts on page one, you will see that I was originally not intending to point out what I objected to in Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood FAQs" article, but that I did so because a member of the BollyWHAT forum requested me to do so. I did not send a letter or an e-mail to Mr. Corliss or to Time.com because when I learned that he was going to write a follow up article in which he would address his responses to the some 60 or so letters that he received regarding his "Bollywood FAQs" article, I decided to wait until I read his follow-up article to decide what to do, as I saw no need to be the 61st person to point out his error regarding "Jism" et cetera, and I said so in this forum. Again, I feel that it is unfair that Mr. Corliss has linked the second page of our thread in his "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answers" article. By the way, in his article, Mr. Corliss segued into his <u>Chat area on bollyWHAT.com</u> link with this statement: [quote]I know [/i]nothing[/i] about Indian films. How did I finally figure that out? By glancing at a Chat area on bollyWHAT.com. Quite a few correspondents were annoyed by my mostly complimentary remarks about their national cinema. (What if I'd hated it? Would they have noticed the difference?)[/quote] I never said that Mr. Corliss knows nothing about Indian films. Instead, I pointed out the many errors that Mr. Corliss made in his "Bollywood FAQs" article. A journalist and film critic of Mr. Corliss' credentials and international reputation should not have made so many mistakes. Never have I found so many errors and cultural misunderstandings in an article of Indian cinema/Bollywood cinema, and I am disappointed that a journalist of Mr. Corliss' CV has seemingly failed to do his homework before writing his "Bollywood FAQs" article. Satyajit Ray, the highly esteemed Bengali filmmaker, talked about Western critics his 1983 [/i]Introspections[/i] interview. Here is what Mr. Ray said about Western critics, from the beginning to the end of his comments. I rented the videotape from a public library, and it was distributed by kulture video, and seems to be part of a series made in cooperation with the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I transcribed what Mr. Ray said about Western critics when I watched this videotape, and nothing has been omitted from Mr. Ray's comments in this segment of the interview, but there were two unintelligible parts to his commentary, which I indicated. From the videotape [/i]Satyajit Ray: Introspections[/i]: "Actually, to be quite honest, the most perceptive reviews of my films have come from the West. One of the reasons, the leve of sophistication there is much higher and the understanding of film media is more acute. So that even when judging a film like [/i]Devi[/i] they [b]do[/b] miss out on certain cultural aspects. There is no question of that. They wouldn't know about (unintelligible) but they do understand the moral aspect and the aspects that deal with the craft of filmmaking. That they understand very, very well. There are certain things, specific, that they can never be expected to understand. For example, if you show a woman in white, how many foreigners will know that it's a widow, or if you show a Bengali woman with red sindoor (pantomiming motion of putting red vermillion in hair part) in her parting, how many would know that she's a married woman? They think that red [b]here[/b] (tapping forehead) is the sign of marriage, which is not true, of course. But apart from that, there is some stumbling block there, but gradually, gradually, they are learning. They are being exposed more and more to Indian cinema and I think the critics have started doing a bit of homework also before they see a film; maybe they read the original novel for one thing, and they read a bit of Indian culture. So [b]that[/b] combined with the fact that they really know the cinema (phone rings. "Hello. Ektu pore phone korben." ) Umm. Ummm. Perhaps the general feeling that I get from reading reviews is that they are getting deeper into the films than our own critics. Certainly from the aspect of (unintelligible), they [b]do[/b] understand much more. And they do understand much more than in the early days, in the days of [/i]Pather Panchali[/i]. In the time of [/i]Pather Panchali[/i], I've even heard that people were so put off at the sight of Indians eating with their fingers that they reacted very very strongly. There is an account of a woman that walked out of a New York cinema or something like that. She just couldn't stand the sight of Indians eating with their fingers. But those days are gone, I think. I think that with more exposure to Indian film, they are understanding even more now. In any case, their sophistication, their understanding of the medium helps a lot." What nice words Mr. Ray said! And how disappointing it is to feel that a critic of Mr. Corliss' reputation didn't do his homework before writing his "Bollywood FAQs" article. I will now cut and paste my posts where I point out what I found objectionable about Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood FAQs" article, since he chose to direct his link to this page of the thread. Mr. Corliss, if you read this post, you will find that I have made edits to this post. I do so because I feel that my rights have been violated--if you had linked readers to page one of this thread, I would not feel violated, since the proper frame of reference would have been established. Mr. Corliss, earlier I quoted something that you wrote in your "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answered" article. I again refer to that quote: [quote]I know [/i]nothing[/i] about Indian films. How did I finally figure that out? By glancing at a Chat area on bollyWHAT.com. Quite a few correspondents were annoyed by my mostly complimentary remarks about their national cinema. (What if I'd hated it? Would they have noticed the difference?)[/quote] I do not know who you were referring to in this statement, but if you are referring to me, you have incorrectly assumed that Indian cinema is my national cinema. I was born and raised in the United States. Forum members, I think at this point, after making what I deem to be necessary changes to my posts in this thread, I will stop posting to this forum. It has been a pleasure getting to know you, and I have valued the opportunity to share my ideas with you. If you wish to continue corresponding with me, you may do so through e-mail. ~Meena Please note that I will come back to this post in order to update this post to include all the points that I made regarding Mr. Corliss's "Bollywood FAQs" article in one concise post. Other than the changes that I have made to this post, I have not made any recent changes to my original posts that I made on this five paged thread. (The last edit that I made to a post on this thread, with the exception of this post, was on August 8, 2003.) These posts (which I have cut and pasted here) can be found in their original spots in this thread. Also, I inadvertently erased a part that was originally in this post, and I can't get it back! I apologize for this mistake. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. My first post regarding Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood FAQs" article, which is found on page 1 of this thread: BollyWHAT mentioned :-) replied on: 7/31/2003 3:42:28 AM I've never cared for Richard Corliss' opinions on films. His FAQ on Bollywood is grating because of the factual errors; cultural gaffes; cultural misunderstandings; and general lack of knowledge and lack of effort to educate himself before writing these FAQs. The sum total of what he's written becomes insulting in light of all these missteps in his 2 paged FAQ piece. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. My third post, which is also found on page 1 of this thread, is the post to which Anika and Kalpana refer at the beginning of page 2: 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 [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 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 [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. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 2 of this thread: More thoughts replied on: 7/31/2003 4:23:22 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Corliss' mispelling of "Tezaab" as "Teezab" makes it sound an awful lot like "Tease-ab." Say "Teezab" out loud and see what you hear... * Couple this with the quote that he uses when describing Madhuri-ji: "A star is porn." If I were Mrs. Madhuri Dixit Nene, I'd be suing Mr. Corliss for libel. Or at least threatening lawsuit; she's lived in the United States long enough to see how sue happy we are! LOL I'd really like to know which critic said "A star is porn" and in what context. I highly doubt that it was an Indian critic commenting on Madhuri Dixit. (And thank God Corliss doesn't realize how Bengalis pronounce "Dixit," or he would have had some comment to make about that, too!) * I'm not sure, but it sounds like Mr. Corliss is implying that Nair's "Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love" was a Bollywood film. If so, factual error. * I just re-read the last FAQ and I cannot believe that I missed so many things to tear apart. I think that by that time I was no longer focusing on his words as closely as I should have been. From FAQ 10: a) "Chat up the clerks; they're usually helpful, and chances are they speak EDnlgish (sic) as well as you do." How _____ is that? And I love the fact that he misspelled "English!!" b) "some of the prime ones: 'Aware,' 'Do Bigha Zameen,' 'Mother Earth,' 'Jism' (gotcha!)" First of all, he has an extremely erroneous idea of what Jism means. I've already discussed that. This is further proof of his erroneous understanding of jism. Second, did he mean "Awara" when he wrote "Aware?" And why not use the more well known title "Mother India" instead of "Mother Earth?" Third, the correct title of the film is "Awara," not "Awaara." Yet another factual error. * I've heard of Westerners (my mother included, and she plays the cello) needing time to get used to Indian music, especially when listening to the sitar and/or sarod, but I've never heard of anyone complaining so vehemently to the dancing in Bollywood films. * Why does Corliss equate ShahRukh Khan with Sylvester Stallone? ShahRukh is no where near as muscular as Stallone is. Maybe he was thinking of their facial features when he made this comparison? * Mehboob's use of the hammer and sickle. I still haven't talked with my dad about this, but it has nothing to do with communism, something that I think I said earlier, and something that I confirmed when I went to www.upperstall.com's <a href=http://www.upperstall.com/people/mehboob.html target=_blank>biography of Mehboob Khan</a>. Interestingly, Mr. Corliss himself mentions upperstall.com. I wonder why he didn't do a little legwork to find out about Mehboob's use of the hammer and sickle logo? That upperstall.com bio on Mehboob was one of the first hits listed when I did a search using the word "Mehboob." Granted, I still haven't found the definitive answer as to why Mehboob chose to use the hammer and sickle logo when it has absolutely no reference to Communism. Dad, come home from your walk so that I can talk to you! LOL I have a very strong feeling that he's going to say the same thing that upperstall.com said, so does anyone know why Mehboob used this as his logo? ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. What Mr. Corliss' obsession with the need to get horizontal? When critiquing his FAQs, I didn't even bother to comment on his lamenting over the fact that characters don't kiss on the mouth because he answered his own lament very well with a quote from a Bollywhat poster's "reason for osculatory obfuscation." But allow me to make this comment: Mr. Corliss, kissing "is not the visual metaphor for passion the world over." Don't believe me? Read the posts on the "Most Romantic Moments" thread here on this ever-helpful bollywhat.com website. :) "Closer....closer....closer" (from [/i]Dil To Pagal Hai[/i]) is for me one of the most romantic moments I've seen on celluloid, and Rani's reaction to ShahRukh's implied reaction to her pulling off the towel in [/i]Chalte Chalte[/i] is probably one of the sexiest celluloid moments in my memory bank. Of course, sexiest moment/romantic moments is a purely subjective thing, but not all cultures find lip-locking/face sucking to be [b]the[/b] visual metaphor for passion. By the way, when was the last time that Mr. Corliss actually visited the bollywhat forum? That quote that he gave is from wayyyyyy back. Without doing a search, I'd hazard to guess that that quote was made when this forum first came to chatarea.com Heck, it might even be from a voyforum forum post! I'm now going to go back and re-read Christina's post, because there was something else that I wanted to say about that other Richard Corliss article... ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 4 of this thread: BollyWHAT mentioned :-) replied on: 8/1/2003 3:40:30 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JK, It's good to hear your perspective, because you are coming from a place completely different than I am. This is not the first time I've read an article about Bollywood filled with mistakes, both factual and cultural, and I know it won't be the last. This is also not the first time that I've ripped into a critic. It's not the first time that people on the forum have critiqued a movie reviewer's review on Bollywood movies. Did you read my letter to Bay Times movie critic who critiqued KKHH in such a way that I felt the need to enlighten her? Wait a sec...did all that come up during the voyforum forum days? Yup, it did! Oh, boy. So you missed all that. Okay, here's what happened in a nutshell: the movie critic wrote a review of KKHH. In that review, she made a comment that was quite confusing, and I asked voyforum members if they could make heads or tails out of what she was trying to say. Many people offered their opinions, but nobody could figure out exactly what she was trying to say. Someone suggested that I write to her, asking her what she meant. I followed that person's suggestion, and sent an e-mail addressed to that person. I didn't receive any response but, much to my surprise, my e-mail to the critic and the critic's response was published in the paper's Letter to the Editor section. While I appreciated her response, I was very upset that my e-mail to the critic became a "Letter to the Editor" without my knowledge and I was upset by the fact that the paper did not follow their published policy regarding how "Letters to the Editor" are accepted and published. (There's a little more to this than what I am saying here, but I'd prefer to keep this in the closet, so to speak.) This set off a series of e-mails directly with the editor of the newspaper, and we eventually resolved the issue. I reported everything that happened to the forum--well, I can't remember if I reported every single detail, but I did type up my "Letter to the Editor" and the movie critic's responses to the questions that I/we posed to her. I don't remember exactly what I wrote to the critic, but I think that I did point out some of her factual and cultural mistakes in a gentle, non-threatening way. I think that after I posted her response on voyforum, we talked about her response, talking positively about what she wrote and also pointing out the errors in her logic, just as we are pointing out the parts of Mr. Corliss' articles that we do and don't like here. I think it would be fair to say that we are being nastier to Mr. Corliss than we were to that woman, but I can't remember what we said anymore, so I don't know if we "trounced" her or not. I don't think so, because it was clear from what she wrote initially and what she wrote in her response to me that her heart was in the right place, and that her errors were due to her total(?) lack of exposure to Indian culture prior to seeing KKHH. What is shocking to me about Mr. Corliss' FAQs is the fact that although Mr. Corliss has seen so many Bollywood films, both new and old, he hasn't picked up basic facts about Indian culture. I could understand his gaffes if he were seeing his very first Indian film, or if he'd only two or three Indian films, but in the 9 paged article that I picked apart, he gives the title to some 36 different Indian films, and writes about them in such a way that it seems that he has seen all of them from begining to end. (There was that theatre critic who wrote a glowing review to a play that was cancelled...) I am not critiquing him because he writes for a publication that has national readership. I am criticizing him because he is like so many other non-enlightened movie critics that write about a Bollywood/Indian movie in such a way that it is clear that they have very little understanding of India and Indian culture. Unlike you, I have not read all of Mr. Corliss' articles on Bollywood. (By the way, how many articles on Bollywood has he written? It sounds like quite a few, and he still does not know the answers to the questions that he has posed in his FAQ article??) I have only read and printed out the article that Holden gave us the URL for, and the excerpt that Christina posted. I did not read the entire article that Christina gave the URL for and I did not follow Mr. Corliss' links to his other articles because I didn't care to read anything more from him at that time. I don't know that I will end up reading his articles on Bollywood on time.com because I have read his comments in Time magazine for so long now that based on what I've read previously, I don't see someone who is asking these questions genuinely, with his heart in the right place. From what I've read of Mr. Corliss' work, I don't see a man who senses the need to enlighten himself about the culture that he's critiquing through that culture's films. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 4 of this thread: further comments replied on: 8/1/2003 1:04:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are additional reasons why I am criticizing Robert Corliss' FAQ article. (I am making a new post instead of editing the old post because the other post is rather long.) I am not criticizing Mr. Corliss because he writes for a nationally seen publication but because he is an established film critic/journalist who has not done his homework. Brian says, "he is a very respected and well-known film critic and he is listened to by many." Correct. And as such, I shouldn't have found so many things to criticize. I have criticized other articles about Bollywood and Indian movies before, both here and with friends, but never have I found one article with so many problems. Generally speaking, if I find a fault with what a movie critic has written about Bollywood, Indian cinema, or India in general in their article, usually there aren't very many things to criticize. Usually, I might find one or two things to pick on, things that might be factual errors or the general overall tone of the article or whatever. The fact that I found over 20 things to criticize in Mr. Corliss' FAQs is astounding. I didn't set out to find a set number of things to criticize. I just started at the top of FAQ article and worked my way to the end, making my observations as I went along. I didn't expect to find so many things to write about. I wasn't trying to hammer him on every point. But why was I able to find so many things to criticize? This shouldn't be the case with a movie critic with his credentials and CV. Oh, some of these article that I have read are as long or longer than Mr. Corliss' FAQs; just thought that I'd better mention that, in case someone thinks that the length of his article might be a reason/excuse for having so many errors. Earlier, I said that I wasn't going to send him an e-mail. Well, there is one thing in his article that bugs me enough to e-mail him a correction--I want him to know that jism in Hindi means body, not semen. I really resent the tone of his "gotcha!" comment about Jism at the end of his FAQ article, especially considering the fact that he's got the wrong definition of jism and the fact that he is spreading this wrong definition to countless of other people. Let me extend that by saying that all his errors are compounded by the fact that these errors are being accepted and internalized by countless readers, readers who may not realize that he doesn't take the time to get to know the cultures that he critiques in his movie reviews. Remember, I have read Mr. Corliss' work for almost 20 years, so I'm thinking of several different cultures when I make that criticism of his journalistic style (the criticism that he doesn't take the time to get to know cultures other than his own). Mr. Corliss is an established and credentialed film critic and journalist. As such, one should not be surprised if people take issue with his (error filled) FAQs article. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 4 of this thread: BollyWHAT mentioned :-) replied on: 8/1/2003 1:45:23 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm. I wrote my previous post before jk's second post went up and before rahel's post went up. (The last post that I saw when I started writing my post was kat's.) Considering what JK writes in her second post, maybe I should tone down what I said? I'll think about that and consider how I can change that post... Yeah, JK, I agree-what we've written here can be overwhelming, especially if all four pages are read in one sitting. Also, your point that his tone in other articles is different is helpful. For example, the article that jfung posts that compares Hong Kong cinema with Bollywood cinema has a significantly different tone that his FAQs article, in my opinion. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 5 of this thread: Satyajit Ray's comments on Western Critics replied on: 8/1/2003 10:35:56 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today, I watched a 55 minute videotape on Satyajit Ray titled Satyajit Ray: Introspections. It's a really nice "interview" with Mr. Ray, and in it among the things that he talks about are his childhood, the difficulties of putting literary work on film, the Bengali influence in his work, and Western film critics. In light of our discussion here, it was really neat to hear what he had to say about Western film critics, and I copied all his words down so that I could write them here. However, my computer got a virus before I could write my post, and I don't know when I'll next be using a computer. So, hang tight, because I do want you all to know what he said. I don't want to talk about what he said now, because I want his words to be read with the correct context, which means reading what he said about film critics from beginning to end. By the way, in case you don't know who Satyajit Ray is, he is a Bengali filmmaker that is internationally known and reknown. International critics were writing about his movies long before this current trend of writing about Bollywood films. He won a special Oscar for his work, which he received from his hospital bed. (He suffered a massive heart attack less than 2 hours after the filming of the Introspections interview was recorded.) Some of his films are * Pather Panchali (The Song of the Road); * The World of Apu; * Sonar Kella (the Golden Fortress); * Shantraj Ke Khiladi (Chess Players); * Teen Kanya (Three Daughters) aka Two Daughters; * Devi * Charulata * Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (Goopy and Bagha)--a wonderful children's movie that was his most successful movie to date at the time of the 1983 interview * Hirok Rajar Desh --the sequel to Goopy and Bhagha * Joi Babu Felunath and others that either I can't remember the full title or the correct spellings, so I'm not going to put them there. By the way, I would recommend viewing of this video. I rented the tape from my local library. This interview is part of the Museum of Modern Art's (MOMA) collection of interviews. The video was distributed by kulture videos, and I think that its website is www.kulture.com ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 5 of this thread: further comments replied on: 8/2/2003 11:46:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that I must pay for my computer use, I have no desire to utilize my time and money writing a letter to Mr. Corliss. If anyone actually does, please let us know that you did so, and let us know if you get a response! Brian, don't worry; if I were actually writing a letter to him, I would be very polite and courteous, and I'd most likely only mention the Jism thing. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 5 of this thread: further comments replied on: 8/8/2003 2:04:25 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, I think that this is now point number 25 in my criticism of Mr. Corliss' article if we combine my initial post and my "further comments" post. However, I am going to write about something that I've mentioned before--Mehboob's logo--so I see no reason to nit-pick as to whether this is actually point number 25 or part of another point that I've previously made. (Also, I may not have counted right; I didn't do a careful counting of all the points that I have previously made.) Here is a part of what Mr. Corliss said in FAQ 7: What's with those kooky credits? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mehboob Khan's films ("Andaaz," "Mother Earth" ) began with the image of the hammer-and-sickle monument--odd, since Mehboob wsn't Communist--logo and a voice intoning an Urdu saying, which can loosely be translated as "Don't let those bastards grind you down; God will do that for you." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, when I saw Mother India--the more correct title for Mother Earth, in my opinion--I knew that I had seen that saying SUBTITLED!!!! So, if it was subtitled, why on earth did Mr. Corliss translate it loosely?? However, at the time that I made my initial posts, I did not have any Mehboob's films on hand to justify my rant. Well, now I do. And here's what is SUBTITLED while the Urdu saying is being spoken. "Even if someone wants you to suffer It's God who will make happen, what He wants to." I copied this exactly as it appears, word for word, in the movie Amar. The first part, "Even if someone wants you to suffer" appears on screen first and then the next shot has "It's God who will make happen, what He wants to." There is absolutely NO NEED for Mr. Corliss to translate this Urdu saying loosely--it's written for him right there in black and white. And, I'm sorry, but to me Mr. Corliss' translation comes across as a crass and disrespectful statement to me, something that the subtitled statment does not convey. The subtitled statement comes across as somewhat mysterious to me, actually, especially when coupled with the speaker's deep and profound voice. I don't speak Urdu, but the saying is said slowly enough and dramatically enough for me to understand some words, and I'd say that the subtitled version is much, much closer to what's being said than Mr. Corliss' loose translation. <--another sign of his unprofessionalism in this FAQ piece, in my opinion. P.S. If people feel that I'm beating a dead topic to death, I'm sorry but this loose translation has bugged me ever since I first read it because I KNEW that the words "bastards" and "grind" and "God will do that for you" were NOT in the subtitles that I read when I saw Mother India in the theatre. P.S.S. Mehboob's logo doesn't have a star, but rather has the letter M in the middle. The hammer runs through the M and underneath the sickle, it says "Mehboob Productions." I've tried to find a picture of the logo on line, but so far I haven't found one. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. This post is on page 5 of this thread: further comments replied on: 8/8/2003 2:19:46 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, has anyone read his subsequent Bollywood related article yet? Is it available for reading on line yet? I'm most curious to find out if anyone actually corrected his errors/if he's acknowledged any corrections. I just went to the time.com website and looked at Mr. Corliss' recent columns. His next BW column has not yet been posted. I am sort of tempted to write a letter pointing out the jism error and the unprofessionalism regarding the loose translation of the Urdu saying. Has anybody on the forum sent him any type of letter (whether it be a positive or negative letter)? I don't want to know what you wrote, just if you wrote. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. The following two posts were written much later, on a different thread. Time.com Bollywood FAQs replied on: 8/8/2003 4:05:05 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for sharing your e-mail correspondence. His response regarding the e-mails that he has received is nice and courteous. As is his recollection of his Devdas experience. But I wish that he hadn't ended his letter with a poke in the back. ::sigh:: (To be fair, I've heard that the Cannes screening was without intermission, with one school of thought being that perhaps they did that because they feared that people wouldn't come back post-interval.) ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:.. Time.com Bollywood FAQs replied on: 8/8/2003 4:38:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your second post here explicitly explains why I won't accept Mr. Corliss' account of the critics disappearing--I wasn't there to see it with my own eyes. ;) After reflecting on his response to (edited out name), I've decided that I am not going to send Mr. Corliss a letter until after I see what he says in response to his 60 odd letters. There's no point in repeating what others might have already told him 60 times. If I see that there are some points missing in his follow up article, I'll write a courteous letter to him pointing out these things, if I deem it necessary. ..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..[/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 8/13/2003 10:38:28 AM by MeenaKumari

BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 7/31/2003 1:46:21 PM

This update is being written on August 12, 2003, after reading Mr. Corliss' article "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answers," which can be found at http://www.time.com/time/columnist/corliss/article/0,9565,475407,00.html.

If you are reading Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answers" article and have clicked on his Chat area at bollyWhat.com link, you will find that this link brings you to this page, page TWO of our discussion of Mr. Corliss' first article, "Bollywood FAQs."

I highly suggest that you start reading this thread from page ONE. Just click on the 1 at the top of this page, and you will be taken to the beginning of the discussion. I feel that it is very unfair that Mr. Corliss has linked the SECOND page of our discussion, since the reader really does need to start from the beginning of this thread to understand our discussions in this thread. Also, the first two posts on this page--the posts made by Anika and Kalpana--directly refer to my posts on page one, especially a post in which I outlined the factual errors, cultural misunderstandings, or cultural gaffes that Mr. Corliss makes in his "Bollywood FAQs" article. And if you read the the posts on page one, you will see that I was originally not intending to point out what I objected to in Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood FAQs" article, but that I did so because a member of the BollyWHAT forum requested me to do so.

I did not send a letter or an e-mail to Mr. Corliss or to Time.com because when I learned that he was going to write a follow up article in which he would address his responses to the some 60 or so letters that he received regarding his "Bollywood FAQs" article, I decided to wait until I read his follow-up article to decide what to do, as I saw no need to be the 61st person to point out his error regarding "Jism" et cetera, and I said so in this forum.

Again, I feel that it is unfair that Mr. Corliss has linked the second page of our thread in his "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answers" article. By the way, in his article, Mr. Corliss segued into his Chat area on bollyWHAT.com link with this statement:

quote:
I know nothing about Indian films. How did I finally figure that out? By glancing at a Chat area on bollyWHAT.com. Quite a few correspondents were annoyed by my mostly complimentary remarks about their national cinema. (What if I'd hated it? Would they have noticed the difference?)

I never said that Mr. Corliss knows nothing about Indian films. Instead, I pointed out the many errors that Mr. Corliss made in his "Bollywood FAQs" article. A journalist and film critic of Mr. Corliss' credentials and international reputation should not have made so many mistakes. Never have I found so many errors and cultural misunderstandings in an article of Indian cinema/Bollywood cinema, and I am disappointed that a journalist of Mr. Corliss' CV has seemingly failed to do his homework before writing his "Bollywood FAQs" article.

Satyajit Ray, the highly esteemed Bengali filmmaker, talked about Western critics his 1983 Introspections interview. Here is what Mr. Ray said about Western critics, from the beginning to the end of his comments. I rented the videotape from a public library, and it was distributed by kulture video, and seems to be part of a series made in cooperation with the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I transcribed what Mr. Ray said about Western critics when I watched this videotape, and nothing has been omitted from Mr. Ray's comments in this segment of the interview, but there were two unintelligible parts to his commentary, which I indicated.

From the videotape Satyajit Ray: Introspections:

"Actually, to be quite honest, the most perceptive reviews of my films have come from the West. One of the reasons, the leve of sophistication there is much higher and the understanding of film media is more acute. So that even when judging a film like Devi they do miss out on certain cultural aspects. There is no question of that. They wouldn't know about (unintelligible) but they do understand the moral aspect and the aspects that deal with the craft of filmmaking. That they understand very, very well. There are certain things, specific, that they can never be expected to understand. For example, if you show a woman in white, how many foreigners will know that it's a widow, or if you show a Bengali woman with red sindoor (pantomiming motion of putting red vermillion in hair part) in her parting, how many would know that she's a married woman? They think that red here (tapping forehead) is the sign of marriage, which is not true, of course. But apart from that, there is some stumbling block there, but gradually, gradually, they are learning. They are being exposed more and more to Indian cinema and I think the critics have started doing a bit of homework also before they see a film; maybe they read the original novel for one thing, and they read a bit of Indian culture. So that combined with the fact that they really know the cinema (phone rings. "Hello. Ektu pore phone korben." ) Umm. Ummm. Perhaps the general feeling that I get from reading reviews is that they are getting deeper into the films than our own critics. Certainly from the aspect of (unintelligible), they do understand much more. And they do understand much more than in the early days, in the days of Pather Panchali. In the time of Pather Panchali, I've even heard that people were so put off at the sight of Indians eating with their fingers that they reacted very very strongly. There is an account of a woman that walked out of a New York cinema or something like that. She just couldn't stand the sight of Indians eating with their fingers. But those days are gone, I think. I think that with more exposure to Indian film, they are understanding even more now. In any case, their sophistication, their understanding of the medium helps a lot."

What nice words Mr. Ray said! And how disappointing it is to feel that a critic of Mr. Corliss' reputation didn't do his homework before writing his "Bollywood FAQs" article.

I will now cut and paste my posts where I point out what I found objectionable about Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood FAQs" article, since he chose to direct his link to this page of the thread.

Mr. Corliss, if you read this post, you will find that I have made edits to this post. I do so because I feel that my rights have been violated--if you had linked readers to page one of this thread, I would not feel violated, since the proper frame of reference would have been established.

Mr. Corliss, earlier I quoted something that you wrote in your "Bollywood: Frequently Questioned Answered" article. I again refer to that quote:

quote:
I know nothing about Indian films. How did I finally figure that out? By glancing at a Chat area on bollyWHAT.com. Quite a few correspondents were annoyed by my mostly complimentary remarks about their national cinema. (What if I'd hated it? Would they have noticed the difference?)

I do not know who you were referring to in this statement, but if you are referring to me, you have incorrectly assumed that Indian cinema is my national cinema. I was born and raised in the United States.

Forum members, I think at this point, after making what I deem to be necessary changes to my posts in this thread, I will stop posting to this forum. It has been a pleasure getting to know you, and I have valued the opportunity to share my ideas with you. If you wish to continue corresponding with me, you may do so through e-mail.

~Meena

Please note that I will come back to this post in order to update this post to include all the points that I made regarding Mr. Corliss's "Bollywood FAQs" article in one concise post.

Other than the changes that I have made to this post, I have not made any recent changes to my original posts that I made on this five paged thread. (The last edit that I made to a post on this thread, with the exception of this post, was on August 8, 2003.) These posts (which I have cut and pasted here) can be found in their original spots in this thread. Also, I inadvertently erased a part that was originally in this post, and I can't get it back! I apologize for this mistake.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

My first post regarding Mr. Corliss' "Bollywood FAQs" article, which is found on page 1 of this thread:

BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 7/31/2003 3:42:28 AM

I've never cared for Richard Corliss' opinions on films.

His FAQ on Bollywood is grating because of the factual errors; cultural gaffes; cultural misunderstandings; and general lack of knowledge and lack of effort to educate himself before writing these FAQs. The sum total of what he's written becomes insulting in light of all these missteps in his 2 paged FAQ piece.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

My third post, which is also found on page 1 of this thread, is the post to which Anika and Kalpana refer at the beginning of page 2:

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.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 2 of this thread:

More thoughts
replied on: 7/31/2003 4:23:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Richard Corliss' mispelling of "Tezaab" as "Teezab" makes it sound an awful lot like "Tease-ab." Say "Teezab" out loud and see what you hear...

* Couple this with the quote that he uses when describing Madhuri-ji: "A star is porn."

If I were Mrs. Madhuri Dixit Nene, I'd be suing Mr. Corliss for libel. Or at least threatening lawsuit; she's lived in the United States long enough to see how sue happy we are! LOL

I'd really like to know which critic said "A star is porn" and in what context. I highly doubt that it was an Indian critic commenting on Madhuri Dixit.

(And thank God Corliss doesn't realize how Bengalis pronounce "Dixit," or he would have had some comment to make about that, too!)

* I'm not sure, but it sounds like Mr. Corliss is implying that Nair's "Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love" was a Bollywood film. If so, factual error.

* I just re-read the last FAQ and I cannot believe that I missed so many things to tear apart. I think that by that time I was no longer focusing on his words as closely as I should have been.

From FAQ 10:
a) "Chat up the clerks; they're usually helpful, and chances are they speak EDnlgish (sic) as well as you do."

How _____ is that? And I love the fact that he misspelled "English!!"

b) "some of the prime ones: 'Aware,' 'Do Bigha Zameen,' 'Mother Earth,' 'Jism' (gotcha!)"

First of all, he has an extremely erroneous idea of what Jism means. I've already discussed that. This is further proof of his erroneous understanding of jism.

Second, did he mean "Awara" when he wrote "Aware?" And why not use the more well known title "Mother India" instead of "Mother Earth?"

Third, the correct title of the film is "Awara," not "Awaara." Yet another factual error.

* I've heard of Westerners (my mother included, and she plays the cello) needing time to get used to Indian music, especially when listening to the sitar and/or sarod, but I've never heard of anyone complaining so vehemently to the dancing in Bollywood films.

* Why does Corliss equate ShahRukh Khan with Sylvester Stallone? ShahRukh is no where near as muscular as Stallone is. Maybe he was thinking of their facial features when he made this comparison?

* Mehboob's use of the hammer and sickle. I still haven't talked with my dad about this, but it has nothing to do with communism, something that I think I said earlier, and something that I confirmed when I went to www.upperstall.com's biography of Mehboob Khan. Interestingly, Mr. Corliss himself mentions upperstall.com. I wonder why he didn't do a little legwork to find out about Mehboob's use of the hammer and sickle logo? That upperstall.com bio on Mehboob was one of the first hits listed when I did a search using the word "Mehboob." Granted, I still haven't found the definitive answer as to why Mehboob chose to use the hammer and sickle logo when it has absolutely no reference to Communism. Dad, come home from your walk so that I can talk to you! LOL I have a very strong feeling that he's going to say the same thing that upperstall.com said, so does anyone know why Mehboob used this as his logo?

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

What Mr. Corliss' obsession with the need to get horizontal?

When critiquing his FAQs, I didn't even bother to comment on his lamenting over the fact that characters don't kiss on the mouth because he answered his own lament very well with a quote from a Bollywhat poster's "reason for osculatory obfuscation." But allow me to make this comment: Mr. Corliss, kissing "is not the visual metaphor for passion the world over." Don't believe me? Read the posts on the "Most Romantic Moments" thread here on this ever-helpful bollywhat.com website.

"Closer....closer....closer" (from Dil To Pagal Hai) is for me one of the most romantic moments I've seen on celluloid, and Rani's reaction to ShahRukh's implied reaction to her pulling off the towel in Chalte Chalte is probably one of the sexiest celluloid moments in my memory bank. Of course, sexiest moment/romantic moments is a purely subjective thing, but not all cultures find lip-locking/face sucking to be the visual metaphor for passion.

By the way, when was the last time that Mr. Corliss actually visited the bollywhat forum? That quote that he gave is from wayyyyyy back. Without doing a search, I'd hazard to guess that that quote was made when this forum first came to chatarea.com Heck, it might even be from a voyforum forum post!

I'm now going to go back and re-read Christina's post, because there was something else that I wanted to say about that other Richard Corliss article...

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 4 of this thread:

BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 3:40:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JK,
It's good to hear your perspective, because you are coming from a place completely different than I am.

This is not the first time I've read an article about Bollywood filled with mistakes, both factual and cultural, and I know it won't be the last.

This is also not the first time that I've ripped into a critic. It's not the first time that people on the forum have critiqued a movie reviewer's review on Bollywood movies. Did you read my letter to Bay Times movie critic who critiqued KKHH in such a way that I felt the need to enlighten her? Wait a sec...did all that come up during the voyforum forum days? Yup, it did! Oh, boy. So you missed all that.

Okay, here's what happened in a nutshell: the movie critic wrote a review of KKHH. In that review, she made a comment that was quite confusing, and I asked voyforum members if they could make heads or tails out of what she was trying to say. Many people offered their opinions, but nobody could figure out exactly what she was trying to say. Someone suggested that I write to her, asking her what she meant. I followed that person's suggestion, and sent an e-mail addressed to that person. I didn't receive any response but, much to my surprise, my e-mail to the critic and the critic's response was published in the paper's Letter to the Editor section. While I appreciated her response, I was very upset that my e-mail to the critic became a "Letter to the Editor" without my knowledge and I was upset by the fact that the paper did not follow their published policy regarding how "Letters to the Editor" are accepted and published. (There's a little more to this than what I am saying here, but I'd prefer to keep this in the closet, so to speak.) This set off a series of e-mails directly with the editor of the newspaper, and we eventually resolved the issue. I reported everything that happened to the forum--well, I can't remember if I reported every single detail, but I did type up my "Letter to the Editor" and the movie critic's responses to the questions that I/we posed to her. I don't remember exactly what I wrote to the critic, but I think that I did point out some of her factual and cultural mistakes in a gentle, non-threatening way. I think that after I posted her response on voyforum, we talked about her response, talking positively about what she wrote and also pointing out the errors in her logic, just as we are pointing out the parts of Mr. Corliss' articles that we do and don't like here. I think it would be fair to say that we are being nastier to Mr. Corliss than we were to that woman, but I can't remember what we said anymore, so I don't know if we "trounced" her or not. I don't think so, because it was clear from what she wrote initially and what she wrote in her response to me that her heart was in the right place, and that her errors were due to her total(?) lack of exposure to Indian culture prior to seeing KKHH.

What is shocking to me about Mr. Corliss' FAQs is the fact that although Mr. Corliss has seen so many Bollywood films, both new and old, he hasn't picked up basic facts about Indian culture. I could understand his gaffes if he were seeing his very first Indian film, or if he'd only two or three Indian films, but in the 9 paged article that I picked apart, he gives the title to some 36 different Indian films, and writes about them in such a way that it seems that he has seen all of them from begining to end. (There was that theatre critic who wrote a glowing review to a play that was cancelled...)

I am not critiquing him because he writes for a publication that has national readership. I am criticizing him because he is like so many other non-enlightened movie critics that write about a Bollywood/Indian movie in such a way that it is clear that they have very little understanding of India and Indian culture.

Unlike you, I have not read all of Mr. Corliss' articles on Bollywood. (By the way, how many articles on Bollywood *has* he written? It sounds like quite a few, and he *still* does not know the answers to the questions that he has posed in his FAQ article??) I have only read and printed out the article that Holden gave us the URL for, and the excerpt that Christina posted. I did not read the entire article that Christina gave the URL for and I did not follow Mr. Corliss' links to his other articles because I didn't care to read anything more from him at that time. I don't know that I will end up reading his articles on Bollywood on time.com because I have read his comments in Time magazine for so long now that based on what I've read previously, I don't see someone who is asking these questions genuinely, with his heart in the right place.

From what I've read of Mr. Corliss' work, I don't see a man who senses the need to enlighten himself about the culture that he's critiquing through that culture's films.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 4 of this thread:

further comments
replied on: 8/1/2003 1:04:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are additional reasons why I am criticizing Robert Corliss' FAQ article. (I am making a new post instead of editing the old post because the other post is rather long.)

I am not criticizing Mr. Corliss because he writes for a nationally seen publication but because he is an established film critic/journalist who has not done his homework.

Brian says, "he is a very respected and well-known film critic and he is listened to by many." Correct. And as such, I shouldn't have found so many things to criticize.

I have criticized other articles about Bollywood and Indian movies before, both here and with friends, but never have I found *one* article with so many problems.

Generally speaking, if I find a fault with what a movie critic has written about Bollywood, Indian cinema, or India in general in their article, usually there aren't very many things to criticize. Usually, I might find one or two things to pick on, things that might be factual errors or the general overall tone of the article or whatever. The fact that I found over 20 things to criticize in Mr. Corliss' FAQs is astounding.

I didn't set out to find a set number of things to criticize. I just started at the top of FAQ article and worked my way to the end, making my observations as I went along. I didn't expect to find so many things to write about. I wasn't trying to hammer him on every point. But why was I able to find so many things to criticize? This shouldn't be the case with a movie critic with his credentials and CV.

Oh, some of these article that I have read are as long or longer than Mr. Corliss' FAQs; just thought that I'd better mention that, in case someone thinks that the length of his article might be a reason/excuse for having so many errors.

Earlier, I said that I wasn't going to send him an e-mail. Well, there *is* one thing in his article that bugs me enough to e-mail him a correction--I want him to know that jism in Hindi means body, not semen. I really resent the tone of his "gotcha!" comment about Jism at the end of his FAQ article, especially considering the fact that he's got the wrong definition of jism and the fact that he is spreading this wrong definition to countless of other people. Let me extend that by saying that all his errors are compounded by the fact that these errors are being accepted and internalized by countless readers, readers who may not realize that he doesn't take the time to get to know the cultures that he critiques in his movie reviews.

Remember, I have read Mr. Corliss' work for almost 20 years, so I'm thinking of several different cultures when I make that criticism of his journalistic style (the criticism that he doesn't take the time to get to know cultures other than his own). Mr. Corliss *is* an established and credentialed film critic and journalist. As such, one should not be surprised if people take issue with his (error filled) FAQs article.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 4 of this thread:

BollyWHAT mentioned :-)
replied on: 8/1/2003 1:45:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. I wrote my previous post before jk's second post went up and before rahel's post went up. (The last post that I saw when I started writing my post was kat's.)

Considering what JK writes in her second post, maybe I should tone down what I said? I'll think about that and consider how I can change that post...

Yeah, JK, I agree-what we've written here can be overwhelming, especially if all four pages are read in one sitting.

Also, your point that his tone in other articles is different is helpful. For example, the article that jfung posts that compares Hong Kong cinema with Bollywood cinema has a significantly different tone that his FAQs article, in my opinion.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 5 of this thread:

Satyajit Ray's comments on Western Critics
replied on: 8/1/2003 10:35:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, I watched a 55 minute videotape on Satyajit Ray titled Satyajit Ray: Introspections. It's a really nice "interview" with Mr. Ray, and in it among the things that he talks about are his childhood, the difficulties of putting literary work on film, the Bengali influence in his work, and Western film critics.

In light of our discussion here, it was really neat to hear what he had to say about Western film critics, and I copied all his words down so that I could write them here. However, my computer got a virus before I could write my post, and I don't know when I'll next be using a computer. So, hang tight, because I do want you all to know what he said. I don't want to talk about what he said now, because I want his words to be read with the correct context, which means reading what he said about film critics from beginning to end.

By the way, in case you don't know who Satyajit Ray is, he is a Bengali filmmaker that is internationally known and reknown. International critics were writing about his movies long before this current trend of writing about Bollywood films. He won a special Oscar for his work, which he received from his hospital bed. (He suffered a massive heart attack less than 2 hours after the filming of the Introspections interview was recorded.)

Some of his films are
* Pather Panchali (The Song of the Road);
* The World of Apu;
* Sonar Kella (the Golden Fortress);
* Shantraj Ke Khiladi (Chess Players);
* Teen Kanya (Three Daughters) aka Two Daughters;
* Devi
* Charulata
* Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (Goopy and Bagha)--a wonderful children's movie that was his most successful movie to date at the time of the 1983 interview
* Hirok Rajar Desh --the sequel to Goopy and Bhagha
* Joi Babu Felunath
and others that either I can't remember the full title or the correct spellings, so I'm not going to put them there.

By the way, I would recommend viewing of this video. I rented the tape from my local library. This interview is part of the Museum of Modern Art's (MOMA) collection of interviews. The video was distributed by kulture videos, and I think that its website is www.kulture.com

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 5 of this thread:

further comments
replied on: 8/2/2003 11:46:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I must pay for my computer use, I have no desire to utilize my time and money writing a letter to Mr. Corliss.

If anyone actually does, please let us know that you did so, and let us know if you get a response!

Brian, don't worry; if I were actually writing a letter to him, I would be very polite and courteous, and I'd most likely only mention the Jism thing.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 5 of this thread:

further comments
replied on: 8/8/2003 2:04:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I think that this is now point number 25 in my criticism of Mr. Corliss' article if we combine my initial post and my "further comments" post. However, I am going to write about something that I've mentioned before--Mehboob's logo--so I see no reason to nit-pick as to whether this is actually point number 25 or part of another point that I've previously made. (Also, I may not have counted right; I didn't do a careful counting of all the points that I have previously made.)

Here is a part of what Mr. Corliss said in FAQ 7: What's with those kooky credits?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mehboob Khan's films ("Andaaz," "Mother Earth" ) began with the image of the hammer-and-sickle monument--odd, since Mehboob wsn't Communist--logo and a voice intoning an Urdu saying, which can loosely be translated as "Don't let those bastards grind you down; God will do that for you."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, when I saw Mother India--the more correct title for Mother Earth, in my opinion--I knew that I had seen that saying SUBTITLED!!!! So, if it was subtitled, why on earth did Mr. Corliss translate it loosely?? However, at the time that I made my initial posts, I did not have any Mehboob's films on hand to justify my rant. Well, now I do. And here's what is SUBTITLED while the Urdu saying is being spoken.

"Even if someone wants you to suffer
It's God who will make happen, what He wants to."

I copied this exactly as it appears, word for word, in the movie Amar. The first part, "Even if someone wants you to suffer" appears on screen first and then the next shot has "It's God who will make happen, what He wants to."

There is absolutely NO NEED for Mr. Corliss to translate this Urdu saying loosely--it's written for him right there in black and white.

And, I'm sorry, but to me Mr. Corliss' translation comes across as a crass and disrespectful statement to me, something that the subtitled statment does not convey. The subtitled statement comes across as somewhat mysterious to me, actually, especially when coupled with the speaker's deep and profound voice.

I don't speak Urdu, but the saying is said slowly enough and dramatically enough for me to understand some words, and I'd say that the subtitled version is much, much closer to what's being said than Mr. Corliss' loose translation. <--another sign of his unprofessionalism in this FAQ piece, in my opinion.

P.S. If people feel that I'm beating a dead topic to death, I'm sorry but this loose translation has bugged me ever since I first read it because I KNEW that the words "bastards" and "grind" and "God will do that for you" were NOT in the subtitles that I read when I saw Mother India in the theatre.

P.S.S. Mehboob's logo doesn't have a star, but rather has the letter M in the middle. The hammer runs through the M and underneath the sickle, it says "Mehboob Productions." I've tried to find a picture of the logo on line, but so far I haven't found one.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

This post is on page 5 of this thread:

further comments
replied on: 8/8/2003 2:19:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, has anyone read his subsequent Bollywood related article yet? Is it available for reading on line yet? I'm most curious to find out if anyone actually corrected his errors/if he's acknowledged any corrections.

I just went to the time.com website and looked at Mr. Corliss' recent columns. His next BW column has not yet been posted.

I *am* sort of tempted to write a letter pointing out the jism error and the unprofessionalism regarding the loose translation of the Urdu saying. Has anybody on the forum sent him any type of letter (whether it be a positive or negative letter)? I don't want to know what you wrote, just if you wrote.

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

The following two posts were written much later, on a different thread.

Time.com Bollywood FAQs
replied on: 8/8/2003 4:05:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for sharing your e-mail correspondence.

His response regarding the e-mails that he has received is nice and courteous. As is his recollection of his Devdas experience. But I wish that he hadn't ended his letter with a poke in the back. ::sigh:: (To be fair, I've heard that the Cannes screening was without intermission, with one school of thought being that perhaps they did that because they feared that people wouldn't come back post-interval.)

..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

Time.com Bollywood FAQs
replied on: 8/8/2003 4:38:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your second post here explicitly explains why I won't accept Mr. Corliss' account of the critics disappearing--I wasn't there to see it with my own eyes.

After reflecting on his response to (edited out name), I've decided that I am not going to send Mr. Corliss a letter until after I see what he says in response to his 60 odd letters. There's no point in repeating what others might have already told him 60 times. If I see that there are some points missing in his follow up article, I'll write a courteous letter to him pointing out these things, if I deem it necessary.
..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..::..:..

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

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