[Reader-list] Mythologicals - the problem of form

Tue Mar 29 16:51:06 IST 2005

Hi, this is my third posting.  In the last posting I have presented an 
argument based on three mythological films and complementing it was the 
field work I did.  Sorry I could not send you the visuals which I mentioned 
in the post.  Probably I need to spend some time learning these technical 
things.  And I am doing so.  Also excuse me for not translating the 
dialogues I mentioned.

During the last month I have done more field work and I do not want to bore 
you with how I did it.  Yes I would like to show you them, but again I have 
problems dealing with images.  Further, I will be interviewing some yester 
year stars, technicians and others who were involved in the making of 
mythological films (especially in Telugu cinema).

In this post I am trying to raise a theoretical question based on the field 
work I did and also after reading some of the academic writings on the 
subject.
The important question I am at present thinking about is: Is there A 
Mythological?  The problem of Form

Mythologicals, devotionals, socials, historicals and folklore films are 
often mentioned as major film types in Indian cinema.  These terms are 
used both in industry and in writings on film.  Though one uses these terms 
with certain familiarity to mean particular kind of film/genre, it is 
difficult to conceive of them as genres beyond a point. Psychoanalyst 
Sudhir Kakar formulates film genres in India based on caste system.  Thus 
according to him the mythological is brahman, the historical film is 
kshatriya and the action-packed stunt film is shudra  (Kakar 1989). 
Briefly stating the difficulty of the genre question in Indian cinema, 
Prasad writes:
         The question of genre has been a notoriously difficult one for 
critics of Indian cinema.  Some critics  evade the difficulties by simply 
identifying the mythological and the social as the principal 
Indian    genres.  Others recognize that generic differentiation in the 
Hollywood sense is not evident in Bombay  cinema, although in the early 
studio era similar distinctions were prevalent.
He further argues, incipient generic distinctions are undermined by the 
expansive identity of the social which serves simply as a label for a 
large quantity of films which resist more accurate differentiation. In 
addition he cautions to the fact that it is necessary to free ourselves 
from the spontaneous association of genre formation with the specific form 
it has taken in the case of Hollywood cinema.  Moreover, he also claims in 
the early part of his book that the absence of genres in Hindi cinema is a 
result of the heterogeneous mode of producing films.  Keeping this in view 
I will trace the possible ways in which mythological is defined or in what 
terms it is talked about and problems with it, with an intention to put 
forth some ideas on film form for further scrutiny.

Though people write about mythological as a distinct film form few writers 
give adequate description/definition of what they mean by mythological.  In 
this context it is useful to get a sense of what is being classified as a 
mythological. For instance Veena Das (1980) and Philip Lutgendorf (2002) 
writing on Jai Santoshi Maa, (Dir. Vijay Sharma, 1975) classify the film as 
a mythological. In analyzing the film based on devotion and religiosity Das 
seems to completely ignore of the category called devotional by the film 
industry as well as film critics. Lutgendorf on the other hand 
unproblematically clubs the two forms (mythologicals and devotionals) 
together and describes Jai Santoshi Maa as the resurgence of the early 
mythological.  Chidananda Das Gupta trying to account for the popularity of 
Ramayana and Mahabharatha serials on television reads them as 
mythologicals.  He further, sees no difference in the old Sanskritic texts 
of Ramayana and Mahabharatha and their interpretation, early mythological 
films, and the television serials. For him mythologicals are Ramayana and 
Mahabharatha in any form. (Das Gupta 1991,165-190). Talking about Sant 
Tukaram (Dir. Damle and Fattelal, Marathi, 1936), Kapur states that it 
belongs more correctly to a sub-genre of special significance but 
classifies it as a mythological (1987).

We can trace certain commonalties in the above identifications of the 
mythological. Mythological has its roots in the epics of Ramayana and 
Mahabharatha and is usually associated with film but some do use it to 
describe epics in any form, i.e. text, theatre, film, television, cartoons 
and comics. Characterizing the stories from the epics in any form as 
mythological, I would say is a problematic assertion which ignores the 
specificity of the medium.  Though dealing with the same narratives, one 
should note that the different formats or mediums give a new meaning to 
narratives.  This should be kept in mind in studying the transition of 
theatre to   film that has increasingly borrowed actors, writers and themes 
(i.e. mythologicals).  Thus there is difference between puranalu (the 
epics) and pouranica chitralu (the mythological).   Thus one could define 
mythological as any film which is based on a story drawn from the epics and 
the puranas of ancient India.

Further, it is evident that there is a tendency among some scholars to mix 
up mythological and devotional films to create a category called the 
religious film.  In contrasting the mythological from the devotional 
Madhava Prasad writes:
         Mythologicals do not necessarily have a religious dimension in the 
sense of content or technique that   inspires religious feeling
 The pure 
mythological film text confines itself to the world of the 
puranas       and is impervious to events and actions in historical 
time.  By contrast, the devotional usually        incorporates, at the very 
least as a framing device, references to the present, or to a specific 
historical     time.(nd)
He also cautions us to fact that there are films which cannot neatly be 
fitted into one or other of these sub-genres, since they combine the 
promise of a devotional with the iconography and narrative devices of a 
mythological.  I see a need to probe further into the aspect of synonymous 
use of the terms mythological and devotional, probably I will not be able 
to do this as part of my project, but it is a question worth debating.

The definition of mythological as any film based on the mythic material, 
I propose, problematically assumes that it is a unitary film form. In other 
words, I am drawing attention to the fact that the mythological of the 
silent period, the early Telugu mythological, 1940s Hindi mythological and 
the 1970s mythological film, though dealing with similar themes are 
distinct from each. This distinctiveness has to do with a number of factors 
such as not only context but also form. I am critical of the writings on 
film, which ignore the importance of the film form. At this juncture, I 
further suggest, that though similar themes are filmed their form changes 
because of : the development of a star system, the introduction of glamour, 
colour, and general improvement in the camera use, all of which occur in 
the industry as a whole, and because of the changing socio-political 
situations.  In this context I propose that though we often talk of 
different film forms (like that of Classical Hollywood form, Hong Kong 
form, Indian cinema form) none of these forms is ever stable and thus the 
description of the film form should be made bearing this in mind.  I 
further argue that these changes in the film form are incumbent as form 
itself is dependent on and constituted by certain variables. The formal 
modifications are a result of and can be located either in variables of 
technological advancements or political and cultural demands on the film or 
both of them.  The reverse can also happen, by which I mean technological 
modifications or political and cultural changes can be traced back to a 
particular set of developments in the film form. While this may be more 
difficult to demonstrate, it is worth exploring in the future.

What do you think about these remarks of mine on the issue of ' 
Mythological Form'?  Take the time to write to me.
More in the next post.  Probably I will do more than one post this time.

Vishnu

T. Vishnu Vardhan
Centre for the Study of Culture and Society,
466, 9th Cross, 1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560011.
e-mail: vishnu at cscsban.org
         thvishnu_viva at yahoo.com
Tel. no. 080-26562986
mobile no. +919845207308
fax no. 080-26562991  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20050329/99dcfe9b/attachment.html 