The Hindi Cinema has a long distance to cover when it comes to the poignant or nuanced portrayal of sexual minorities. Sexual minorities have always been at the margins in terms of their representation in the Hindi film industry. The issue of homosexuality has always been mocked upon or treated in the most insensitive way one can imagine in Hindi films. Ruth Vanita argues that though there is history of same sex male bonding in Hindi films but issue related to homosexuality have not been treated explicitly and properly in the films. Recently, many parallel film makers have tried to portray the realist aspects of Queer sexuality but the mainstream Hindi cinema still lags behind. The mainstream cinema seems to side line queer sexuality by making fun of it or making it an object of disgust. Ruth Vanita’s queer reading of Hindi cinema shows that same-sex male bonding has evidently existed in Hindi films. Mainstream actors singing songs like, “yeh dosti hum nhi chhodenge. Todenge dum magar tera saath na chhodenge” and “yaari hai imaan mera yaar meri zindagi” are explicitly hinting at the same-sex bond that seems unbreakable. For a long time Bollywood has believed in creating a picture of relationships that exist only in black or white, the concept of grey has either been absent or misrepresented.
This paper probes in the popular Hindi cinema and looks at the misrepresentation of homosexuals and also examines the popular stereotypes of homosexuals in Hindi cinema. The deliberate attempt to portray homosexuals with certain assigned behaviour leads to the augmentation of homophobia among the masses. Such misrepresentation also raises questions regarding the equality of queer in society. The paper looks at the popular stereotypes of hom...
... middle of paper ...
...hant through which the film “pathologises the so called sexual deviancy of its character Tanya and queer sexualities is conceptualised as essentially being ‘abnormal’ and mentally unstable”. In the end, Tanya has to die because the only the heterosexual couple could meet. She is not only lesbian but she is also abnormal and evil. Many critics criticized the film for its portrayal of lesbianism as “‘unnatural’—as ‘abnormal’…people who must die at the end of the film, so that they are aptly punished for their unnatural existence."
Having said so there have been sensitive portrayals of queer sexuality in Hindi Cinema such as; Onir’s My Brother…Nikhil (2005) and I am (2010), Karan Johar’s Bombay Talkies (2013) etc. which deal explicitly with same sex. Moreover, there are films like Rules: Pyaar ka Superhit Formula (2005) which talks sensitively about gay relationships.
...ome to us at an interesting time, before the Revolution, 40 percent of Tehran movie theaters were showing pornography. The function of this office is purification as well as promotion for the arts.” The first part notions the Western stereotype of the Orient since the same as the time when it was discovered, but now the people of the Orient realize the stereotypes and are changing the way they see themselves because of these stereotypes. It is only by correcting these assumptions, stereotypes, and misconceptions of the Orient at the heart of society today, the media can Orientalism be fixed. The Eastern people must be allowed to sympathize in movies and films to humanize them and have intimate interactions. Otherwise, the Orient will be continued to be known incorrectly as a place with people who are without reason, screaming, protesting, and in swarming mobs.
“Queer Cinema is Back” – headlines the front page of the 2005 issue of the Advocate, signifying to a new flood of movies making way into theatres. Five years prior to this news release B. Ruby Rich, who coined the art as New Queer Cinema almost a decade earlier, declared that the cinema had co-opted into “just another niche market” dominated by popular culture (Morrison 135 & Rich 24). What had seemed to be a movement, turned out to be only a moment in the brief years between the late 1980s and early 1990s when the energies of queer theory, the furies of AIDS activism, the legacies of independent and avant-garde filmmaking, and the schisms of postmodern identity politics came together in a bluster of cultural production to form a cinema of its own (Morrison 136). In many ways Rich’s criticism of the cinema is correct, the queer aspect that so brightly shone in films like Poison, Swoon, Paris Is Burning, Tongues Untied, The Living End and Head On, was shifting as the new millennium was approaching and making more difficult for queer films to stay queer against the forces of Hollywood. However, Rich lacks in her analysis on New Queer Cinema because she does not consider the breadth to which queer operates as a concept within the cinema. For Harry Benshoff and Sean Griffin, the editors of Queer Cinema, queer is an umbrella term encompassing dissident sexualities through history and, indeed, nominating them more productively than they were ever named in their own time (Morrison 137). For Michele Aaron, queer is a specific product of exigencies of social activism of the late 1980s and early 1990s, “with AIDS accelerating its urgency” and New Queer Cinema arising as an “art-full manifestation” of i...
In the post-independence era of Indian cinema, nothing was discussed and/or debated about more than the prohibition of kissing in films. Although there was no formal ban of kissing that existed, it was based mostly on an “unwritten rule” that since kissing was seen as a sign of westerness (i.e. Hollywood films) to allow it in Bollywood films would dissolve Indian culture. However, author Madhava Prasad argues that kissing was banned not because of a presumed censorship of western codes, but instead because of a need to shore up the ideologies of the extended family and/or clan. In other words, Prasad believes that the ban on kissing is about securing the extended family and that the “preserve Indian culture” reasoning was just invented to justify the ban. I personally argue that Prasad’s argument is correct and plan to elaborate on it through the use of the Bollywood film Waqt.
The topic of homosexuality elicits many reactions. It is forever played upon in pop culture for it's shock value if nothing else. Some demonize it, holding things like religion as proving, "alternative lifestyles," to be wrong. Some have erotisied homosexuality as in many of Anne Rice's vampire novels. Some laugh at homosexuality or people who are homosexual, calling it, "weird". Some react violently, as in the case of Matthew Shepard. And yet others have gradually turned towards acceptance shown (debatably) in such movies as, " To Wong-Fu Love Julie Newmar" and " In and Out".
In this age of liberation and relative morality it is no surprise that homosexuals have tried very hard to gain ground in the way of civil rights. Homosexuals say they want equal rights, and they want homosexual-marriages to be legalized. However, what they are asking for is not reasonable. They are humans; and therefore they already have the same rights as every other human living in America. What homosexuals want are special privileges and the acceptance of homosexuality as a natural alternative lifestyle, second, marriage is already clearly defined, and third because homosexuals already have the same rights, they want special privileges, and since homosexuality is not an innate quality they don’t deserve them. People who have been misinformed about what the homosexual agenda is think that homosexual marriage is natural and that it should be legalized. I however, am opposed to this because homosexuality is not a natural alternative lifestyle. First let’s define homosexuality. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, homosexuality is “having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.” Men and women are obviously biologically different. “People of the same sex having intercourse goes against what is biologically natural” (Baird 114). Part of the homosexual agenda is to make people believe that homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals when it comes to engaging in sexual behavior. This is absolutely not true. In Michelangelo Signorile’s book Cassel’s Rawlings 2 Queer Companion, a dictionary of lesbian and gay life and culture, he describes some of the sexual activities that homosexuals practice. These includes “fisting, when one partner shoves his whole hand up the anus of the other partner” (Signorile 96). In the essay Homosexual Rights: What’s Wrong, written by Brad Hayton and John Eldrege, they stated that “The U.S. taxpayer-funded Mapplethorpe photos. . . portraying typical homosexual behavior: fisting, urinating into anothers mouth, and andomasochism. The average homosexual has 10-106 different partners per year--300-500 in a life time” (Hayton 2). How can this be compared to heterosexual intercourse? How is this natural? It isn’t; this type of sexual behavior- even if it were practiced by heterosexuals- cannot be considered natural, in fact there are many states that have anti-sodomy laws though not enforced. As part of their agenda homosexuals not only want these things to be accepted and protected by the government, they also want them to be taught in public school as part of the sex education curriculum.
Nowlan, Bob. “Queer Theory, Queer Cinema”. In Coming Out to the Mainstream: New Queer Cinema in the 21st Century. JoAnne C. Juett and David M. Jones (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publisher, 2010, 2-20.
“The unprecedented growth of the gay community in recent history has transformed our culture and consciousness, creating radically new possibilities for people to ‘come out’ and live more openly as homosexuals”(Herdt 2). Before the 1969 Stonewall riot in New York, homosexuality was a taboo subject. Research concerning homosexuality emphasized the etiology, treatment, and psychological adjustment of homosexuals. Times have changed since 1969. Homosexuals have gained great attention in arts, entertainment, media, and politics. Yesterday’s research on homosexuality has expanded to include trying to understand the different experiences and situations of homosexuals (Ben-Ari 89-90).
I am the kind of person who enjoys movies; however, this does not apply to all genres. Interestingly, despite being a girl who is still interested in boys, my favourite genre of movie is gay movies. In general, I make a decision whether or not I will watch a movie by reading its review, and I have yet to be disappointed from this. This corresponds to Scott and Yalch’s (1980) claim that a favourable review would intensify a consumer’s expectation, if her previous experience indicated that the pleasure she got from watching movies is same as her prediction from a review. I think the basic reason why I selected “Transamerica” is precisely because its review was so interesting. Nonetheless, apart from that particular reason, there are other reasons which influence my continuing to watch gay movies – a feeling of sameness and a relief of tension arising from internal conflicts.
Queerness, no pun intended, but what an “odd, strange, unusual, funny and peculiar” term”. People justify its usage because it supposedly takes away the power from those who would use it in a derogatory manner. Which is to say or equate a person’s sexuality as “peculiar or odd”. Why is gay equal to queer? Or why is queerness considered to be gay. Some would argue that the word “Queer” by definition sets up those associated with the word to be labeled in a manner that sets them aside from “normal”, if such a thing exist. Queer is often associated with sexual lifestyle and ultimately used by many as an insult. The clash of gender, sexuality and race collide with queerness in such a way that creates the illusion of interrogation.
...d the globe. On the other hand, certain movies could be used to bring about social change. Movies that show equality between the sexes, or respect towards gay/lesbian couples could be used to break down social barriers by changing the values of its viewers. Therefore, identifying racism, sexism, classism, and heteronormativity in movies is important in bringing attention to the way in which movies control and affect these values in our society.
Throughout history homosexuality has been considered vulgar, perverse and immoral. What is truly immoral is homophobia and that it still prevails today. Firstly, homophobia derived from prejudice and escalated to panic. Secondly, homophobic attitudes are endorsed and practiced by many places of worship, which are hypocritical to God’s concept of the Golden Rule. Thirdly, the severity of homophobia has reached a point of no return, where the lives of many innocent have been viciously taken away. Lastly, many individuals choose to practice homophobia, whether it is a personal choice or not. Homophobia is the result of fear, ignorance and intolerance.
“Mom, I am gay. I’ve felt this way about women for a long time. I was very afraid to tell you. I’m scared. Maybe it’s a phase. Will I go to hell for it? I’m not sure right now but I choose to be with the same sex.” said I. This day changed my life. I remember it like it was yesterday. I felt very confused for a couple of months then it all came clear. I had a few friends and family member who came out to me. A lot of us homosexuals were scared just like me because of the religious aspect of it. Most of homosexuals thought we were going to hell. I had a lot of friends who felt that way from birth. It just really made me wonder could I go to hell for liking the same sex. Have I been this way since birth? Can I change it?
Naisargi Dave’s paper on Queer Politics in Cotemporary India focuses on the importance that activism and agency has on the power and influence that the LGBTQ community has in India. Overall, the paper attempted to illustrate
Anything justifiable by logic, and that which derives from the nature of the word is a Natural law ( or a law in nature). In “Is homosexuality Unnatural” written by Bruton M. Leisure, he argues against the natural law opposition to homosexuality by recognizing the word “natural” itself as ambiguous, meaning that the work natural can have different meaning within different context. Well, in what meaning do people intend to use unnatural to describe homosexuality? Leisure gives possible meanings for the word unnatural, but then turns them down by applying a similar example that deviate them from the definition of natural.
middle of paper ... ... Works Cited Adam Sharpiro, Megan Schultz, Christina Roush, Cassandra Schofar, Emily Shilling, Tawnia Simpson, Natalie Sampiller. Portrayal of Homosexuality in Media. 26 March 2014 http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom103fall2004/gp16.pdf>. Huegel, Kelly.