KAL HO NAA HO
A Bollywood Film as a Vehicle for and Production of Globalization
Anubhav Gupta
03/07/06
CLS 383: Globalization and Culture
Brian T. Edwards
In today’s globalized world, media is both a medium for cultural flows within and between societies, and itself a production of specific cultures situated in the global network. Movies, as one type of media, are vehicles for globalization, as well as, symbols or cultural representations of specific locales existing in and shaped by the globalized world. Benjamin Barber’s theory of Jihad vs. McWorld presents a dichotomous opposition between the two forces in which third world local cultures react against the homogenizing cultural flows from the first world. A view of cinema utilizing this philosophy would be “structured in terms of a basic opposition between Western commercial cinema and culturally imperialist cinema, and third world non-commercial, indigenous, politicized cinema.”[1] Bollywood, the Indian film industry, would be painted as third world cinema or would be subsumed by the cultural center of Hollywood. Conversely, Heather Tyrell’s essay, “Hollywood vs. Bollywood: Battle of the Dream Factories,” claims that Bollywood does not fit either the narrative of an oppositional third world cinema or the cultural domination by western cultural forces. Kal Ho Naa Ho (Tomorrow May Never Come), a recent Bollywood film about Indians living in New York, negates Barber’s theory of globalization by dismissing the commercial first world versus the nonconformist third world dichotomy and the center-periphery hierarchy of cultural flows.
Barber’s Bollywood & Kal Ho Na Ho
Benjamin Barber believes that the contemporary world is shaped entirely by the dialectic of Jihad and McWorld. McWorld represents the hegemonic diffusion of Western popular culture into the developing world made possible by “expansionist commerce”.[2] Jihad arises as a counter force against these homogenizing Western cultural flows. Barber argues that “the tendencies of both Jihad and McWorld are at work, both visible sometimes in the same country at the very same instant,”[3] yet they “operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets.”[4] Hence, particular agents or objects may utilize or reinforce both phenomenon but they must align themselves with one or the other. For example, an Al-Qaeda operative may make use of the internet and cell phones to further his ends, but he belongs firmly on the side of Jihad. McWorld and Jihad are often coexisting and intermingling, but in the end, they represent two diverging ends and ideologies. Barber’s theory of globalization is largely dependent on this diametric opposition.
Despite this opposition, Barber argues that globalization is homogenizing the world because the interaction between the first world and the developing world is asymmetrical. His examples of McDonalds, Nike, and MTV, are all creations of the west infiltrating and destroying indigenous cultures elsewhere. Jihad is a reaction to this “homogenous global theme park,”[5] which he argues will make noise in the short term but will dissipate over time. “The forces of McWorld are the forces underlying the slow certain thrust of Western civilization and as such may be unstoppable…McWorld’s homogenization is likely to establish a macropeace that favors the triumph of commerce.”[6] This idea of standardization spurs from the view that there is an asymmetrical relationship between agents in the globalized world. The reason that McWorld has been so successful in spreading and will continue to spread is that culture flows from the first world to the third world. Barber’s theory utilizes a center-periphery relationship to argue that cultural forces from the developing world are not as influential as Western ones, because they are not accompanied by the same magnitude of economic, political or military support or protection. This center-periphery model of cultural flows is the reason that the dialectical opposition of Jihad vs. McWorld results in homogenization.
Mainstream theories of globalization and cinema adopt a similar dichotomy as Barber. Here there is a clash between mainstream first world commercial cinema and a third world oppositional, anti-imperialist, non-commercial, political cinema. The Third World Cinema theory argues that films in the developing world are “ideologically loaded” to be nationalist, anti-colonialist or protectionist as a way of guarding against the cultural influence of escapist commercial Western cinema.[7] Thus, third world cinema is geared towards protecting local culture and customs through nationalistic, anti-Western narratives in a way resembling Jihad. Hollywood and its commercial films, full of sex and violence, being distributed all over the world are spreading McWorld. Bollywood, Barber may argue, is thus an example of third world cinema that will have to endure and try to repel the hegemonic, homogenizing influences of the economically and technologically superior Hollywood.
As Barber argued, however, Jihad and McWorld influence and often reinforce one another. Jihad especially struggles if local mediums of cultural transmission are co-opted by McWorld. In a globalized world, therefore, a movie created in the third world does not mean that it is third world cinema. “A cinema does not automatically qualify for the title because it is produced in and for the Third World.”[8] “Any big spectacle cinema financed by big monopoly capital” would actually be considered first world cinema.[9] Thus, if one follows Barber’s logic of homogenization and the center-periphery relationship, then one possibility is that Bollywood could be co-opted or hijacked by Hollywood. This can be done indirectly through Hollywood’s stylistic and cultural influences or through gaining economic control over Bollywood. Finally, improvements in technology and increasingly porous borders open up the world to Bollywood, providing foreign markets but also shooting grounds, thereby making it ever easier to incorporate Bollywood into McWorld.
Benjamin Barber would point to Kal Ho Naa Ho as a great example of McWorld co-opting and commodifing a local medium and using it to spread Western, in this case, American culture. Kal Ho Naa Ho is a Bollywood movie about Indians living in New York. In this case, NRI’s (Non Resident Indians) who exemplify globalization have led an Indian film industry to ship a production team and actors to shoot in New York. Thus, globalization has led a third world cinema to come to America and tell the story of Indians who are also Americans. By displaying American cultural influences on the NRI community, the film subjects Indian audiences to American culture as well. NRI movies like Kal Ho Naa Ho are part of a third world cinema, yet they are inherently agents of American cultural transmission into India.
The movie proves Barber’s point because it deliberately tries to be American. The biggest example of this is the centrality of New York in the movie and in the movie’s marketing campaign. All promotional posters include some image of New York, many times as a backdrop behind the movie’s characters but also completely on their own. One of the movie's promotional posters features the title Kal Ho Naa Ho alongside one of the bridges in New York and nothing else. It is thus clear that the idea and image of New York is being used not only to attract NRI and American audiences to the film, but also to draw Indians living in India who are the biggest market for any Bollywood movie. In the movie, there are many grand sprawling shots of the New York skyline, famous landmarks and buildings that do not in any way contribute to the story or flow of the movie. In many ways, the movie often feels like a commercial for New York. The opening credits of the movie involve the female lead (actress Priety Zinta) jogging through New York City. Within the span of one morning, she somehow jogs through several different places in New York – we see Times Square, Central Park, in fact, we see all five Burroughs. It is clear that the movie is not interested in New York’s geography or in any genuine version of the city. The myriad images of New York would suggest that the city bears some significance to the film’s story or characters; however, the city does not contribute to the movie or elucidate the story or themes. The selective images of New York are clearly meant to tease the Indian audience, designed not to impart any genuine understanding of New York’s geography or landscape but to evoke marvel and provide an escape.
The movie was made with an eye on wide commercial success. Aside from the teasing images of New York that target India and Indians’ fascination with the West’s grandeur and wealth, the movie consists of three beautiful, famous and well liked actors. Shahrukh Khan is easily the most famous Bollywood actor of the past decade. Preity Zinta and Saif Ali Khan are also commonly recognized names in India. The three main characters, Aman, Rohit and Naina, fit in easily into the streets of New York with their hip demeanor and clothing. They speak perfect English, go to strip clubs and nightclubs. Their fair skin makes it easy for them to disappear into an American crowd. Again, the idea is to create an escape; therefore, the problems usually associated with a Diaspora are never considered. Each character fits into American society quite snuggly, facing no challenges socially or otherwise. There is no identity struggle, no feeling of alienation, and no need for adjustment. The relationship between America /New York and the characters is left untouched. All of these things show that the movie is an entirely commercial venture.
Furthermore, the movie deliberately tries to adopt or exhibit stereotypically American values in order to present an American package to the audience. Many of the song sequences celebrate American culture and values like patriotism, equality, diversity, tolerance and so forth. There are several references to American movies likes Grease and the very first song in the movie, “Pretty Woman”, is an obvious cultural reference to the famous Julia Roberts movie. What is more interesting about the song is that it takes place in a neighborhood street with all the other supposed residents. The song tries to convey racial diversity and harmony as people of all different shades sing and dance in symphony to a half English, half Hindi song. The final moments of the video greatly resemble a patriotic music video with the diverse neighborhood residents dancing in front of a huge American flag. American flags are present throughout the movie, constantly evoking a sense of deep American patriotism. During the love song “Kuch to Hua Hai,” there is a montage of different American couples kissing. We are shown a wide variety of people: a mixed race couple, an elderly couple, children, teenagers, African Americans, two gay men and many more pairings. What is significant about this is that while kissing has now been incorporated into Bollywood movies, it is still not casually shown. Even more important is the image of the two men kissing, an image rarely if ever before shown in a mainstream Bollywood film. The image would have raised many eyebrows in India had it been two Indian men kissing. However, because the movie sets itself up to be a window into America, the scene did not create any controversy. A Bollywood movie that pitches itself to the entire Indian family would never have a scene of a strip club. Yet Kal Ho Naa Ho has a well to do father and son (one of the lead characters) casually enjoying themselves at a strip club. In all of these ways, the movie is a barrage of American images, pop culture and values meant for Indian consumption. There is thus an immense amount of cultural transmission taking place. American culture is being carried into India by an Indian film! Benjamin Barber’s argument that McWorld often subsumes local mediums and uses them as a tool for cultural diffusion is greatly corroborated.
Barber’s view of globalization suggests that the first world culture of Hollywood would either cause Bollywood to collapse or would co-opt Bollywood and turn it into another device for spreading McWorld. It seems that Kal Ho Naa Ho fits Barber’s scheme perfectly. Firstly, despite being from a third world cinema the movie is completely commercial and escapist as proven by the images of New York. It gives into commercialism and actively celebrates and panders to American culture. It thus serves as the channel through which Western culture enters India. The movie was a hit in India and won six awards at the Film Fare Awards (known as India’s Oscars). The fact that a commercial movie that celebrates American culture as openly as Kal Ho Naa Ho can be successful in India corroborates Benjamin Barber’s theory of globalization, which emphasizes homogenization and the center-periphery relationship through the dichotomous opposition between McWorld and Jihad. The movie proves, as Barber argues, that McWorld is much stronger.
Heather Tyrell and Kal Ho Naa Ho
Heather Tyrell makes it clear that Bollywood does not fit the third world cinema theory, arguing that Bollywood maintains a unique space in world cinema because it has been able to negotiate between first world and third world tendencies or so called Jihad vs. McWorld. Tyrell argues that Bollywood is an example of world cinema in which seemingly irreconcilable ideas like commercialism, nationalism, escapism, anti-imperialism, and nonconformity are all adopted and showcased side by side. Therefore, while Benjamin Barber may be correct in pointing out the influx of Western culture through Bollywood, this trend is only part of the story. “Bollywood can be read both as defending itself and Indian values against the West, and as a dangerous courier of Western values to the Indian audiences…A constant process of negotiation between East and West takes place in Bollywood films, operation both in terms of style and in terms of content.” [10] Bollywood, Tyrrell argues, rejects the dichotomy that Barber sets up. Instead of choosing between two supposedly diverging ideologies, Bollywood films tend to situate both next to each other. Bollywood movies are often representative of third world cinema in their overt nationalism and anti-Western attitude, but they often also openly embrace commercialism, which is a distinctly first world characteristic. Similarly, the movie Kal Ho Naa Ho is openly commercial and celebrates American culture, but it simultaneously also cherishes Indian culture and retains its opposition to Hollywood through its form.
Kal Ho Naa Ho openly adopts many American culture and values; however, the movie tends to fall back on Indian culture in the end. The clearest example of this is the form and style of the movie. The story of the love triangle is a staple of Indian cinema, having been reproduced several times. One of Kal Ho Naa Ho’s promotional posters dubs it an “Indian Love Story.” Thus, all of the makings of a commercial Bollywood film are present in a movie that is trying to be decidedly American. The movie comprises in no way when it comes to form. Its duration of approximately three hours is completely representative of Indian cinema. Despite the movie’s attempts to garner non-Indian audiences, it chose not to reduce its running time, which surely must have deterred American audiences used to movies half as long. The song and dance sequences, while not lacking Western influences, still present an opposition to classic Hollywood just by their presence. The songs often interrupt the narrative of the movie and do not serve to further the plot. Therefore, while Kal Ho Naa Ho adopts many Western cultural influences, the movie does not leave behind its Indian background. The colorful and nonsensical song and dance sequences are one of the most defining characteristics of a Bollywood movie, and Kal Ho Naa Ho chooses to preserve this.
Next, while Kal Ho Naa Ho does try to assume American culture and values, it counteracts this with strong Indian nationalism and cultural pride. With any movie about NRI’s, it will be impossible to ignore the culture of the foreign country because its portrayal is necessary in order to better understand the lives of NRI’s in their new homes. The movie has several images of the American flag, possibly reflecting the post 9/11 desire of New York Indians to seem patriotic due to fear or a feeling of solidarity. On the other hand, an Indian flag is also proudly brandished during a song and dance sequence. Despite the celebration of diversity, the movie also features a comedic section that relies on nationalism and stereotyping of Chinese people to resonate with its audience. Here, Indian nationalism is not only used to unite family and friends in a common cause of saving the family restaurant, but also as a way of belittling the competing restaurant which is owned by a Chinese family. The film juxtaposes ideas about American diversity and Indian nationalism and ethnic stereotyping. The value of tolerance for homosexuals is also toyed with. The image of the two men kissing is counteracted by repeated jokes in which an Indian woman thinks the two lead male characters are gay. Here the butt of the joke is the homophobia of the female character, but the movie is also playing on the homophobia of the greater Indian audience to generate a laugh at the expense of American culture.