The concept of Indian film is a real challenge for Western film lovers. The huge volume of production of India's film industry and the local popularity of the Bollywood blockbusters have caused festival and cinematheque programmers, film writers and fans throughout the world to try to discover this distant branch of film-making, especially in the past five to ten years. Yet the spirit of this interest is often one of amazement at the exotic extremity of Bollywood rather than cinematic enjoyment on equal terms as with Western films. After seeing "Kal Ho Naa Ho" at this year's NatFilm Festival in Denmark thoughts about this particular East-West meeting seem more pressing than usual, particularly because this film seems to approach Westerners by setting its story in New York City and tying into familiar elements of American pop culture, starting with an adapted version of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman".
"Kal Ho Naa Ho" basically deals with the same main topics that most other successful Bollypics do: Love, marriage, friendship, family. It does so in the most high-strung way imaginable, mixing melodrama with comedy and musical, and adds the melancholic but lively plot line of an unselfish man who, as though sent from heaven, helps his fellow beings while having only a short time left to live.
My own reaction to the flamboyant style and emotional subject matter is mixed; it's certainly an experience, and there is laughter and entertainment, but I also react negatively to what I comprehend as kitsch and camp, to the plot holes and implausibilities, to acting that I am used to categorizing as over-acting, and to what I think is a dull and overdone final half hour. In addition, I realize that some of the things I laugh about in this and other similar productions are involuntarily funny and not a laughing matter for Hindustan audiences.
Beholding the melodramatic proportions of the plot and the general bombardment of the senses presented here, it is convenient for the Western crowd to conclude that this is simply so bombastic, so unrealistic, so cliché-driven that we should simply dismiss it as anything but a quick laugh. However, that would be a partly incorrect conclusion. While it is true that "good taste" in a European and American context has to do, to some extent, with moderation in style and social relevance in content, it is apparent that we have our own Western examples of every of those aspects that feel different in a Bollywood blockbuster. Examples include the classic Hollywood melodramas from "Gone with the Wind" to "Magnificent Obsession", musicals from "Singin' in the Rain" to "Moulin Rouge!", American soap opera like "The Bold and the Beautiful" and a multitude of American and European comedies and romances with more or less implausible plots and reluctance to deal with any social issues whatsoever. The more exact description is perhaps that the Bollywood approach simply seems to try to unite all these aspects into the same multi-hour film, which ultimately, when all the elements are joined together, forms a barrier for the Westerner's enjoyment of the film. Entertainment overload you might call it, or, alternatively, emotional manipulation.
This, however, is not to say that Western audiences necessarily react to the Bollywood experience without regard to the qualities of the individual film. Bollywood and Indian film in general is certainly more diverse than one can sometimes get the impression of, and even among the blockbusters there are notable differences in approaches and qualities. For instance, I personally have greater esteem for "Devdas" and particularly "Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham" than for "Kal Ho Naa Ho". There are two central reasons for this. First, that they both have an Indian setting, which means that we viewers feel we are learning a story about a place from people who know that place, and which also gives way for a more local, more inspirational choreography and production design. Second, that these two films more effectively tell a story of something that seems to matter, something true, even something social-minded, with the quarrel over arranged marriages in "K3G" as the leading example.
I don't like "Kal Ho Naa Ho" much, but I respect it and its predecessors for their ambition, for their difference from what I usually know and like, and for their occasional ability to combine their entertainment with something real and poignant
"Kal Ho Naa Ho" basically deals with the same main topics that most other successful Bollypics do: Love, marriage, friendship, family. It does so in the most high-strung way imaginable, mixing melodrama with comedy and musical, and adds the melancholic but lively plot line of an unselfish man who, as though sent from heaven, helps his fellow beings while having only a short time left to live.
My own reaction to the flamboyant style and emotional subject matter is mixed; it's certainly an experience, and there is laughter and entertainment, but I also react negatively to what I comprehend as kitsch and camp, to the plot holes and implausibilities, to acting that I am used to categorizing as over-acting, and to what I think is a dull and overdone final half hour. In addition, I realize that some of the things I laugh about in this and other similar productions are involuntarily funny and not a laughing matter for Hindustan audiences.
Beholding the melodramatic proportions of the plot and the general bombardment of the senses presented here, it is convenient for the Western crowd to conclude that this is simply so bombastic, so unrealistic, so cliché-driven that we should simply dismiss it as anything but a quick laugh. However, that would be a partly incorrect conclusion. While it is true that "good taste" in a European and American context has to do, to some extent, with moderation in style and social relevance in content, it is apparent that we have our own Western examples of every of those aspects that feel different in a Bollywood blockbuster. Examples include the classic Hollywood melodramas from "Gone with the Wind" to "Magnificent Obsession", musicals from "Singin' in the Rain" to "Moulin Rouge!", American soap opera like "The Bold and the Beautiful" and a multitude of American and European comedies and romances with more or less implausible plots and reluctance to deal with any social issues whatsoever. The more exact description is perhaps that the Bollywood approach simply seems to try to unite all these aspects into the same multi-hour film, which ultimately, when all the elements are joined together, forms a barrier for the Westerner's enjoyment of the film. Entertainment overload you might call it, or, alternatively, emotional manipulation.
This, however, is not to say that Western audiences necessarily react to the Bollywood experience without regard to the qualities of the individual film. Bollywood and Indian film in general is certainly more diverse than one can sometimes get the impression of, and even among the blockbusters there are notable differences in approaches and qualities. For instance, I personally have greater esteem for "Devdas" and particularly "Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham" than for "Kal Ho Naa Ho". There are two central reasons for this. First, that they both have an Indian setting, which means that we viewers feel we are learning a story about a place from people who know that place, and which also gives way for a more local, more inspirational choreography and production design. Second, that these two films more effectively tell a story of something that seems to matter, something true, even something social-minded, with the quarrel over arranged marriages in "K3G" as the leading example.
I don't like "Kal Ho Naa Ho" much, but I respect it and its predecessors for their ambition, for their difference from what I usually know and like, and for their occasional ability to combine their entertainment with something real and poignant
