Print & Email
THIS YEAR was supposedly a good year for women in cinema. There has been much fuss about the emergence of the ‘new woman’ in Hindi movies. She is the woman who settles scores like a hero and avenges her man while bearing the weight of her pregnancy in Kahaani; she is the middle-class girl who unabashedly expresses her sexual fantasies in Aiyyaa; she is the mother of two who reclaims her identity in English Vinglish, she is the hurt and lashing superstar of Heroine.
And then, as if to counter this new woman, to put her back in her place, Bollywood reverted to a favoured stereotype with the return of the retro woman. She is non-threatening and non-demanding — a purely male construct, this throwback to the ’70s and ’80s is the perfect foil to the masculine hero, simultaneously modern and traditional, coy and inviting, sensual and virtuous. Sonakshi Sinha with her old-world voluptuousness and vows of ‘no kissing, no stripping’ has embraced the role, which in her own words, sets her apart from other actresses.
Only four films old, she is assured of a blockbuster with Dabangg 2. Her last film Son of Sardaar broke a few box office records and so did Rowdy Rathore earlier this year, making her the female mascot for the all-boys Rs 100 crore rarefied stratosphere. Next year she’ll attempt to repeat the feat in Prabhu Deva’s action thriller Namak, in Ghajini director AR Murugadoss’ remake of Tamil hit Thuppakki with Akshay Kumar, and the sequel to Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai.
Her dedication to playing the part of “bharatiya nari” (Akshay Kumar’s moniker for her), who’ll save us from corrupt western culture, is matched by the gusto with which her heroes objectify her in films; Ajay Devgn calls her “bhaari piece” in Son of Sardaar and Akshay Kumar pinches her waist and calls her “mera maal” in Rowdy Rathore. There is a feeling of déjà vu — the same actor serenaded Raveena Tandon 18 years ago with Tu cheez badi hai mast mast, the years in between are nullified, the woman remains the object simultaneously looked at and displayed by a patriarchal subconscious of society, as British film theorist Laura Mulvey argues in her essay ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’.
Since her debut in Dabangg, Sinha, 25, has played the same character in every movie, with the same social background, the same story arc, the same facial expressions, even the same wardrobe — traditional Indian wear in gratingly bright colours. “She brings back the Bhojpuri element to Hindi cinema, playing the nubile village girl, someone who allows access but restricts entry,” says sociologist Shiv Visvanathan, “In every film, she compliments the hero who’s good at pawing rather than talking, but do we know what her story is? Who is she?”
She plays a girl from Patna in Rowdy Rathore, in Joker she is an NRI who must pretend to be a village belle, and in Son of Sardaar she hails from rural Punjab. Her character is always introduced as the hapless damsel in need of rescue. The hero leers at her and she swivels her eyes coyly, he falls in love and in the name of wooing, harasses her; she says no, but we are made to believe she means yes. Five songs and four scenes later, she accedes to his nasty stalker-like behaviour.
Traditionally, our cinema has legitimised a certain degree of licentiousness, all sorts of behaviour being permissible in the name of love. As Rachel Dwyer, professor of Indian cultures and cinema at the University of London, points out, “Films often stray into dangerous territory where the hero makes unwanted advances, ending in harassment. When Shammi Kapoor’s character teased women, people said it was like Krishna and the gopis. Although Shammi would be a gentleman in his interactions with women, it was still a kind of eve-teasing, challenging women in the public space. I found the role of Shah Rukh Khan in Darr and Dil Se… also quite threatening.”
The success of action potboilers has ensured what were stray instances become character graphs cast in stone. They’ve brought back a certain form of cinematic wooing which spells danger in a society like ours. Zoya Akhtar and Reema Kagti, two young women directors, have repeatedly spoken about the influence of cinema on society and the responsibility of filmmakers. “Popular films have a huge impact on society and we as filmmakers are putting out a lot of nonsense about women to a society that does not understand the new Indian woman. Our films have repeatedly legitimised the harassment of women and there is a co-relation there with the spate of crimes against women,” Kagti said recently.
Sinha cannot be held responsible for prejudices against women, but she does stand for a certain kind of cinema that spells regressive misogyny. In a recent TV interview, when she was asked if it offends her sensibility to be called “maal” and to portray the roles she has been doing, Sinha said that she sees it as harmless fun, as part of the job. “It’s part of a film that I like to watch, it’s funny for me and it works for the film, it’s what the masses catch on to,” she said.
Feminist filmmaker Paromita Vohra says, “She harks back to a time when women were women and men were men, someone who belongs to another age. Heroines now have a little more clout, are less unrewarded, and there are more films where the female character matters.” She draws a fascinating parallel between Vidya Balan and Sonakshi Sinha, who are similar in terms of body type and the desi girl image, but the crucial difference is that Balan has agency over her body and Sinha is the obverse of that. “She perhaps allays the fears and represents a response to the anxiety that must arise with someone like Vidya Balan, who is not westernised, is completely Indian, but in control in every way.”
In an irony of sorts, Sinha’s idea of what behoves the modern woman seems out of whack. She has cried herself hoarse saying she will never bare skin, never kiss, and always listen to her parents, setting herself up as a role model for good behaviour, never once realising how she let us down.
Sunaina Kumar is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.
sunaina@tehelka.com
Sonakshi is no different from countless other heroines who accept the role of eye candy and secondary status. A few like Vidya might stand apart, but they are hardly the norm. As a woman, I like that Sonakshi brings back into vogue the “traditional” charm of the Indian woman. Girls like Katrina in Bollywood have been advocating the size zero look and that too adds to the pressures on the modern woman. I like that in India an average girl can wear flowing desi drapes and make herself “hot” and find a few admirers. Indian men are actually far more forgiving of disparate body types than men in the west. The male gaze is not always bad thing as new wave feminists will tell you!!!
Which century do you belong to? Not all women can handle the male-gaze and not all men just gaze. Don’t you read the papers? Being hot in Indian clothes doesn’t mean you should be meek and allow a man to pinch your waist or harass. I suppose you wouldn’t mind being treated like an object but there are millions of women who suffer silently due to this unwarranted male machismo that our movie projects. To portray a women to be a door mat is not right. Not when women are finally coming out. This just allows the men to blame the women for instigating his sexual desires, when he the man has no control over his disgusting thoughts. This is the real reason why purdah’s came into being.I would rather see a starved heroine than a door mat any day and i’m sure many women will agree with me.
Agree with your points. However, Bollywood is a male dominated place catering to male fantasy (mostly). Blaming the newest starlet rather than the male directors, script writers and stars is akin to blaming the harassed girl for eve teasing. Wishing no one agrees to be a Salman Khan(or whoever) heroine for the implicit misogyny is wishful thinking. Blame should lie with the makers and takers – you do realise that eve teasing in Bollywood movies has cultural roots that go back to krishna leela with the gopis? When seeling cultural change, it helps to not attack the easiest target (who will also give you eyeballs on page)!
Actually in her first film, Sonakshi played a self sufficient daughter who handles her drunk father by herself, and doesn’t want to get into a relationship with a man. Ofcourse, she eventually succumbs, like the author of the article mentions, but the fact is she can encorporate her no kissing-no stripping-good girl pact without being regressive as well.
Sonakshi’s intention of resurrecting a Bharatiya Nari on screen and having a no-kissing, no-stripping attitude, if genuine, are good and admirable but she needs to back them up by opting for substantive roles too. Otherwise it would be just empty talk.
Bollywood presents Indian women as BWOBs (Bimbos WithOut Benefits)
Yet, there are women (not just girls) who are completely crazy for “heroes” who would otherwise be considered eve teasers and sexual harassers if they pulled any of their onscreen stunts in real life.
As the article points out correctly, movies do have a certain impact on the behavior of the society. When a heroine, who is harassed by a hero in the name of love eventually falls for the hero, it sends out the message that if a guy harasses any girl like that, she will fall for him. The impact this kind of behavior has on women can be described as torture. Filmmakers should realize that their portrayal of women in a certain way does affect the society.
I think very often critics have state things in articles like this. YOU conveniently forget that in ENGLISH VINGLISH Sridevi is not accepted by her family as she is. She is NOT accepted because she can deliver a speech in HINDI. But her acceptance comes with SPEAKING ENGLISH and hence elevating her status .
At the end of the day her one slip is punished by her son having an accident and like good Bharatia Nari is goes back to her moronic husband.
The most regressive film this yesr is ISHAKZAADE , a girl is molested, literally raped in a fake marriage, blackmailed and yet its her duty to “reform” the animal in her husband and dedicate her life to the moron!!!! why single out Sonakshi… she is just one of the many actresses who acts in roles that fit the male fantasy nad are overall constantly objectified. Its imp that the male stars become conscious of how dangerous n regressive their stand is and they are the ones calling the shots n they can make a difference
For substantive roles you should have some idea about acting.It is easy to be a well clothed well fed heroine against men twice her age.Anyway kissing and stripping require skill.
If the recent gang- rape has taught India anything, it should be that for the average non-filmi Indian woman, eve teasing and filmi-style harassment of the desired object does not stop at simple physical contact. More often then not, it ends in molestation and some time as in the recent case, unimaginable harm to a young life.
As I understand, the gang-rape started with lewd gestures and words, and unlike our filmi scenes the men turned into beasts because the lady objected.
Personally, I would feel highly offended if someone called me “maal”. It reduces me to a sexual object. Isn’t that how rape starts in the mind of the rapist?.
Isn’t “Item” out of a bollywood dictionary? There objectification in it true self. And Bollywood has to take responsibility of what the films are doing to the masses.
I know few kids in my neighborhood who think Salman is god. Literally. And when he says “Aaj pehli baar ek aurat ne samajdaari ki baat kahi hai!!” in Ready I can imagine how these kids would have cheered and probably they are waiting for their chance to use that dialog somewhere!