Media and Cultural Studies Term

¶ … Media and Cultural Studies

Term

Shaoli Rudra

Course Code: 15PMSC002

MA Critical Media and Cultural Studies

Bride and Prejudice is a 2004 film directed by Gurinder Chada and founded on the plotline established by the literary classic, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Bride and Prejudice captivates audiences by putting a modern and cultural spin on the classic, by transforming the settings and genre into a Bollywood style film. By mixing old world England with the modern India, the film attracted an audience ranging from Ludhiana to London to Los Angeles. The film claimed to remain true to Austen's novel by representing most of the original characters in their Indian avatars. The film garnered much media attention and there have been various commentaries concerning the film across different sectors of media based in UK, America and India itself. While there are many different interpretations of the film that have been put forth, this essay seeks to critically examine the reviews from newspapers and review websites based in the United Kingdom, United States and India and will delve into the interpretations offered by them. By doing this, the essay will be in a position of expanding on the idea that interpretations are contextual, interpretations differ are just that because they differ due to individual perspectives and cultural backgrounds that mold viewers. Newspapers and movie production company reviews are being used to illuminate different interpretations of the same subject matter, in this case Bride and Prejudice. Also, the scope of the analysis made in this essay is not restricted to just newspapers to ensure a variety of sources.

Before being able to adequately dissect the reviews of this film, it is important to explore the characters and underlying plot structure of the movie, so analysis and interpretations is understood. The story concentrates on the Bakshi family who live in a run-down mansion in Amritsar in India. The domineering Mrs. Bakshi wants nothing other than to see her four daughters married off, starting with Jaya the eldest. When the wealthy Balraj arrives from the United Kingdom with the aim of attending the wedding of his friend, he ends up falling in love with Jaya. Meanwhile, the second Bakshi daughter, the confident Lalita, catches the eye of American Hotelier and Balraj's friend Will Darcy. However, she considers him too proud and his views on India unpalatable. Instead she ends up being charmed by Johnny Wickham, who appears to love everything about India. But as anyone who has read Austen's classic will tell you, Wickham is not the man of honor he appears to be. Lalita also has her hands full avoiding the overtures of the NRI Mr. Kohli, whose thoughts on marriage, wealth and success as well as complete lack of self-awareness adds humor to the story. The film sticks to Austen's original plot and the end sees Lalita and Darcy as well as Balraj and Jaya get married.

Understanding the characters and plot will be in imperative when exploring the reviews on this matter.

Reviews

Set 1: American Media

About.com:

About.com is a website where people from the country can provide commentary about a specific topic. Commentaries are an integral part of understanding how individuals are interpreting the subject matter. In their interpretation, the reader is possibly able to identify and appreciate the commentary by realizing its context in both a cultural and social manner.

This review on About.com's World Film site, dated 27th February 2005, intensely evaluates what makes the components of the movie entertaining. While the dialogue is referred to as 'crackling and laugh-out loud funny', the piece is critical of the film's leading heroine, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. While she is described as the film's greatest draw, her ability to aptly portray the Indian Elizabeth Bennet is strongly questioned. The review touches upon the fact that as Lalita Bakshi, Rai is more 'demure' than independent and free-thinking aura exuded by her original character, Elizabeth Bennett. In addition to focusing on the actress, the commentator was also critical of the director, Gurinder Chadha's attempt at crossing 'traditional' boundaries and merging cultural elements in the film.

"When the story takes the Bakshis to sunny California, Chadha once again plays with tradition, staging a comical Bollywood production on the beach, casting an entire Gospel choir, enthusiastic surfers, and singing lifeguards." (About.com, 2005)

Though the cultures seem very much unrelated, the commentary approves of the way that Chadha has merged these two seemingly differently cultures. As a byproduct, the feedback also alludes to the idea that India has been romanticized in the process.

"She transplants the traditional tale of manners to colourful India, infusing the tired story with the energy of some rousing dance numbers, bright saris, orange marigolds, magnificent elephants, and the stunning Bollywood star, Aishwarya Rai herself." (About.com, 2005)

Overall, the review portrays the film as one purely meant for entertainment, meant to expose the world to Bollywood style cinema and the plot line was meant to be familiar but not exactly accurate. The author goes on to commentate that:

"Patrons of Hollywood films, not used to Bollywood cinema, will also get a spirited education to the popular genre." (About.com, 2005)

The above excerpt is a macrocosm of something bigger- that this particular commentator sees and appreciates the beauty in educating the viewers on immersing two vastly different cultures together, which is telling of the global and cultural context that the commentator is from.

The SAWF or South Asian Women's Forum:

Contrary to the About.com review which focused more on what worked for the film, the South Asian Women's Forum (SAWF) review, dated 15th February 2005, looked to evaluate what components of film did not work as well. This particular review captured comparisons between the director and his earlier work, and also between the plot and the original Austen novel. Foremost, the author asserted that:

"Gurinder Chadha's Bride & Prejudice, after the much acclaimed Bend it like Beckham, has come as a huge disappointment." (South Asian Women's Forum, 2005)

In this particular review, the film was being compared to another movie that Chadha had directed; but, it is important to note that the above excerpt captures a specific interpretation as some may argue the SAWF conclusion.

In addition to the review's disappointment of the director's work in Bride and Prejudice, the review is also critical when comparing the original work of Jane Austen and the flow of the film:

"Bride and Prejudice is a faithful version of Austen's novel as so far as adhering to the story line of the source material is concerned but Chadha fails to retain the essence of the original work. The film is a flippant interpretation of a masterpiece as the characters are changed into shadowy figures." (South Asian Women's Forum, 2005)

When reviewing the comments that the South Asian Women's Forum makes of the film, it is important to realize that it is a forum made up of South Asian women, some of whom may be of Indian origin. When watching a movie from this South Asian perspective and having and being knowledgeable at a deep cultural context of what an Indian character in an authentic Bollywood movie would be, it would be difficult to suspend one's disbelief and see the connection between the original Austen classic and this modern Indian twist. The perspective that this particular source has may differ from the previous review for those cultural contextual reasons. The previous author, Marcy Dermanksy, believed that the modern and cultural adaptation worked well and found it to be a non-issue- but it begs the question: what is Marcy Dermansky's background? What is her global and cultural context that makes her see and appreciate the movie differently from Deepa Nair of the South Asian Women's forum?

Despite Nair's perspective that the movie does not retain the essence of the original Austen work, Nair does acknowledge the apparent at remaking Pride and Prejudice in an Indian setting.

"Austen's world is not much different from the middle class Indian homes. Like the 18th century England of Austen's novel, the world in Chadha's film is primarily concerned with the question of matrimony. Marriage for Bakshi sisters and their friends offer the sole mode of escape from the small town they were born in. The craze of getting NRI grooms for daughters is also something quite real in India." (South Asian Women's Forum, 2005)

Nair's acknowledgement that there are ties between old world England and modern India do help build the movie back up in light of her previous remarks. Despite some flaws in the movie, after delving into the details, even Nair, a woman of the South Asian perspective, can see the similarities between these two seemingly different mediums. Though Nair was critical at the onset, she shed light on some of the positive things that the movie has accomplished as well. By merging these two perspectives, the negative and the positive, from Nair, the reader is given a more comprehensive understanding of what a woman of South Asian background thinks about the movie.

Set 2: United Kingdom Media

The Guardian

Across the ocean, Phillip French wrote a review in the United Kingdom-based newspaper, The Guardian on the 10th of October, 2004. The review did not flatter this particular movie in the least. French categorized the film as popular fare, keeping in vein with Chadha's earlier works, and still having nothing clever to offer.

"Chadha, as she has shown in her previous pictures - Bhaji on the Beach, What's Cooking? Bend It Like Beckham - is a crowd-pleaser, and the chief characteristics of her new film are populist cheek and cosmopolitan chic rather than subtle social observation." (The Guardian, 2004)

French's scathing review seems to almost call the film cheesy and overdone, it's overly geared to be popular and cosmopolitan that it completely misses the mark on being a film that can comment on social circumstances in a subtle manner and instead throws itself into the cultural mix in an overly over and ostentatious manner. French further comments on other reasons that the movie did not work well, as characters like Rai and Henderson had no on-camera chemistry.

"There is, however, so little chemistry between the two that this encounter between East and West fulfills Kipling's claim that never the twain shall meet." (The Guardian, 2004).

In the director's haste to make this a cultural mix of characters, the characters themselves were not cast properly leading to an unenjoyable and awkward watching experience for the viewer, according to French.

Another, major feature of the review is the discussion of transposition in the film. French particularly chooses to mention Hertfordshire becoming Amritsar, and Wickham the soldier turning into Wickham, the India-loving backpacker. But what really stands out in the review are the questions posed by French about the inherent nature of the film director. While Gurinder Chadha is seen as 'celebrating Bombay cinema' (French, 2004) through Bride and Prejudice, that very fact is mentioned as its downfall.

"The movie is ultimately trite and banal rather than poised, and this comes from its chosen form." (The Guardian, 2004)

According to French, Chadha tried too hard to merge these two seemingly different worlds- Austen era England and modern Bollywood India. This forced merging contributed to the downfall of the movie as it was just of common quality, rather than being a film that a celebrated Bombay cinema director should be proud of.

French poses the question many Indian viewers later had about the film- are we supposed to be watching a take-off on a typical Bollywood movie? According to French's review, the answer would be no. There are far too many components that are wrong with the movie that make it almost impossible to see the connection between these two worlds. Much like Nair and her cultural context of being an Indian woman, it maybe that French is also so deeply embedded in his English culture that he cannot see the connection between the two places, characters or cultures.

BBC

Different from the English newspaper, the English media conglomerate, the BBC wrote a rather appreciative view and gave the film its general endorsement. The review was date 07 of October 2004 and commented quite positively on Chadha's film.

"For the most part, Bride & Prejudice is a romantic comedy that amply delivers on its Eastern promise." (BBC, 2004)

This 'eastern promise' that the BBC refers to are the colorful saris or traditional Indian dress for women, bhangra music and general flamboyance that are associated with India. The 'Bollywoodisation' of Jane Austen is embraced wholeheartedly here.

"Bride & Prejudice marries a quintessentially English romance with classic Bollywood bombast - different in style yet both trading in the discord of love across borders." (BBC, 2004)

It also focuses attention on songs and lyrics in the film, and how they have enhanced the point of entertainment in the film. The lavish musical sets are mentioned as adding to the Bollywood propensity for melodrama. On the whole, according to the BBC, despite minor hiccups, garnered general approval and appeal for the film with credit being given to Gurinder Chadha for a great execution in merging the two cultures in a unique way.

"What Chadha loses in the sly subtext that made Austen's novel so compelling, she makes up for with wit and mischief." (BBC, 2004)

Compared to French's review in The Guardian, this English source offers a very different perspective on the matter- a more global one than country one. The BBC is a source that has more global presence that the Guardian, so it is possible that the reviewer in this article was watching the film differently and evaluating it in a more global context, where cultures are harmonious and not that different from each other. The perspective that the BBC article offers is one of appreciate and beauty of the 'Eastern promise' and also the ability for the director to fill in the gaps of an antiquated literary classic.

Set 3: Indian Media

The Hindu

The Hindu, a prominent newspaper outlet in India, came out with it's own review of Bride and Prejudice on the 15th of October, 2004. The newspaper labeled the film "…all about marriage mania, Gurinder Chadha's "Bride and Prejudice," as the title itself gives an unmistakable indication." (The Hindu, 2004) Similar too many reviews already examined, this particular one also draws up the conclusion that, like Austen's book, the film lacks subtlety about the topic of marriage.

The idea of being 'Indian' in today's world has also been explored. The review points out that Lalita's conflict with Darcy was not a class equation but rather "… a clash between so-called Indian idealism and perceived American arrogance" (The Hindu, 2004) This notion of an "Indian identity" is looked at further with Chadha being held responsible for an outdated representation of Indians, especially women, in the film. Chadha chooses to portray women in the Indian women in this film as marriage crazy and obsessed, trying to find suitable men with financial means to support them. This portrayal is not progressive or in tune with how Indians would like to perceive themselves in modern society and the film is seen as regressing the Indian culture in an international forum.

"What one fails to comprehend is this kind of desperation among Chadha's girls to walk down the aisle: the director is quite out of sync with modern Indian women, who no longer bet their lives on bells, at least a vast number of them. Chadha's "Bride and Prejudice" is indifferent to not only current social trends, but also to Austen's subtlety of documenting the undercurrents of loneliness and helplessness." (The Hindu, 2004)

Despite giving credit to imaginative cinematography, the review ends up considering the film typical Bollywood 'Masala' fare as somewhat negative and unhelpful to Indian women in the modern society.

The Hindu is considered a rather progressive newspaper that appeals to well-educated Indian people, both men and women. Women in India are becoming increasingly educated and rising through the ranks in the professional and social world. Watching a movie that back pedals on the progress, makes The Hindu have a different perspective than others.

Rediff.com

Rediff.com, a popular Indian cultural news website, wrote its review of Bridge and Prejudice on the 8th of October, 2004, describing the movie as 'feel good', while being "reassuringly funny and cleverly scripted, Gurinder helms a magnificent ride, the feel-good-est of recent Indian fare." (Rediff.com, 2004)

Focusing on everything that makes the film watchable, the review makes special mention about all the characters in the film specifically mentioning supporting roles, including Mr. Kohli, Mrs. Bakshi and Balraj's sister Kiran. These characters, in the author's opinion, are the best part of the film as they capture the essence of both the old world English original characters and join it with the new modern Indian twist. With the exception of Aishwarya Rai, every other element of the film is applauded here. Unlike the Austen purists, this piece actually goes on to say that the adaptation is better than the original.

"Gurinder succeeds, and how. She has taken Austen's dreary work and infused it, lovingly, with life, showing the Brits just what they've been missing, adding the curry to their chips." (Rediff.com, 2004)

Rediff.com being a pop culture website for India may embrace the very new and modern and applaud the evolution of a classic into a modern day classic. The background of this website and the context of this website provides a foundation for a review like the one above as it is progressive in thinking and applauds taking chances and moving away from tradition and into a new era of India.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

In this section, the essay concentrates upon interpretational patterns as seen from the American, U.K and Indian reviews that are cited above. The aim is to determine the differences that every context offers to the review, which in turn expands on different approaches and perspectives which is essential to understanding the film. In this section, I will try to examine if there can be any incorrect or, for that matter, better interpretation in any of the pieces reviewed, or if the chances are that all interpretations in their own contexts are correct.

But before we can talk about interpretation, it is interesting to look at the presuppositions involved in the different reviews. Upon initial review of the articles, the ideas that the reviewers have about the director, films or India prior to watching the movie seem to shed light on how the reviewers would possibly respond to a movie, like Bride and Prejudice. These presuppositions are often subtly woven into the fabric that makes up the reviewer's perspective in their article.

Foremost, in the About.com review, it comes across that the reviewer associates India with color, song and dance- an almost jaded and romantic view of what Indian culture embodies. The movie provides plenty of culture allowing for a review that romanticizes India and Bollywood in particular. The writer of this particular article may like the allure of something different from traditional American culture, as this review appeals to the more exotic facets of Indian culture. The context in which the reviewer watched this movie was likely one of fascination of Indian culture, and appreciation for differing cultures.

"She transplants the traditional tale of manners to colorful India, infusing the tired story with the energy of some rousing dance numbers, bright saris, orange marigolds, magnificent elephants, and the stunning Bollywood star, Aishwarya Rai herself." (About.com, 2005)

The use of the term 'eastern promise' in the BBC review suggests a sense of exoticism still associated with India. This term of 'eastern promise' is antiquated, to say the least, and it seems that the reviewer may be more aware of the past relationship with India instead of the modern one, which most would consider not one of 'eastern promises' but rather one where the economy and social structure is becoming par with those of the United States and Europe. This very dated reference is likely indicative of the reviewer's lack of knowledge on the modern relationship with India that the United Kingdom has. It does seem surprising given there is a large Indian population that currently resides in the United Kingdom. Again like the U.S. review, it seems the reviewer was expecting melodrama, elaborate costumes, large sets, bright colours and upbeat music- all of which apparently fulfill the 'eastern promise'. What is crucial to note here is that much of what is understood as Indian culture in the West is what is seen in Bollywood films- the songs, the costumes, the colours have all come to serve as a macrocosm of what India embodies, so those who are unfamiliar with the country have come to expect these elements.

Contrary to other views, the views of Indian reviewers is different in that many of them did not get the expected sensitivity to the culture as Chadha had exhibited in her earlier works. 'Bride and Prejudice' was branded a very 'film' like movie, which warranted it being generally panned when it was released in India. The reviewer from The Hindu alluded to the idea that he was expecting a delicate and well-nuanced film that captured the aura that was exuded in earlier Chadha works- but this film clearly was not able to do that. The Hindu says that,

"Chadha, who gave us sheer novelty with her earlier, "Bhaji on the Beach" and splendid cinema in "Bend It Like Beckham," seems so shockingly naive with her latest, "Bride and Prejudice." (The Hindu, 2004)

A critical examination of the film is likely because of disappointment of Chadha's knowledge of the Indian culture- her lack of knowledge has made it impossible to portray the Indian culture accurately and subtly, and instead it comes out as tacky.

Another major critique of the film by the same author of The Hindu review was that it did not represent the modern Indian woman well. At this point, it is important to consider that there is a pre-supposed image of the 'modern Indian woman' in the mind of The Hindu reviewer, which different from Gurinder Chadha's perspective; Chadha still believe they are driven by marriage, specially to those who are financially secure while the reviewer from The Hindu is a more progressive and believes that Indian women are not driven by marriage. To further build on that foundational differentiation between Chada and The Hindu, another point of contention includes that because Chadha is a woman of Indian descent then she would portray the women in this film in a positive way to further her own personal progressive attitude. The merging of the pre-suppositions that The Hindu has led to the rather negative review and perspective on the film- this review is a macrocosm of the importance of pre-suppositions and ultimately, the influence that it has over perspectives.

Similar to the review from The Hindu, the South Asian Women's Forum review was expecting more depth from the film and wanted the movie to follow the plotline of Austen's book more authentically. On finding a film resembling a musical, the author was scathing in her responses, considering the film too over-the-top. For example: "The initial wedding dance is too chaotic even for the Indian taste" (South Asian Women's Forum, 2007). Deepa Nair's disdain for the certain scenes in the movie captures the general attitude and disappointment that the movie portrays of the Indian culture- certain things, like the wedding dance are grossly misrepresented and though she acknowledges that the wedding dance is sometimes chaotic, it is not something that Chada's displayed tastefully.

In absolute contrast is the reviewer for Rediff.com as he appears to have gone to the movies with no such assumption. He seems to take the movie tagline 'When Bollywood meets Hollywood' at face value and simply enjoys the ride, as is evident from his article. Thus, through examining the pre-suppositions that some authors may have, it helps shed light on how they may shape the feedback and ultimately, the review. The cultural and global context that the reviewer is in has an influence on what they will say.

Many mediums, including films, are open to interpretation, as all types of art are. As a film, Bride and Prejudice, can be debated and interpreted differently by different people. One can apply the explanations that debating and interpreting texts to the film as well in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the film. From this, let's hypothetically consider that a film is considered a text; therefore, a text, or in this case a movie, "complex of interrelated meanings which its readers tend to interpret as a discrete, unified whole" (Couldry 2000:70-71).

The different ways of understanding Bride and Prejudice can be seen through Ricoeur's interpretation theory. Ricoeur refers to interpretation as the kind of understanding that shares the same meaning. Ricoeur's hermeneutics are more concerned with the different perspectives of the text rather than what the author, in this case director of the film Gurinder Chadha, intended it to be. As Ricoeur asserts, "It is part of the meaning of the text to be open to an indefinite number of readers and, therefore, of interpretations"(Ricoeur, 1976:31-32). He states that the author's intention is unavailable, making text open to several interpretations. Thus, unaware of what Gurinder Chadha wishes to convey, the audience and the reviewers are free to interpret the film as they choose, in a context that is relevant to them.

Ricoeur adds that "text, rather, the sense of a text, is not something hidden, but something disclosed….to understand a text is to follow its movement from sense to reference: from what it says to, to what it talks about" (Ricoeur, 1976:87-8). As the presuppositions of the reviews show us, no reviewer can be isolated from his or her past or experiences. Hence, while talking of the movie, they delve deeper into what the movie signifies, relating to incidents in the movie with their own experiences or understanding the events in the movie against the experiences they've had up until then. If such is the case, there are bound to be different interpretations of the same text, which in this case, is the movie.

Ricoeur makes another interesting observation, stating "it is always possible to argue for or against an interpretation, to confront interpretations, to arbitrate between them and to seek agreement" (Ricoeur, 1976:79). However, as seen by the approaches that each of these reviews have made in understanding the film, it would be impossible to speak in favour of or against a review. Since different people taking away different things away from a movie, which is to say which of these interpretations or reviews is more accurate? All six reviews point out a cross-cultural theme, and at the same time, all six relate to this theme differently.

Another way of looking at the differences in the reviews is evaluating the material through the lens of Laclau and his foundation in Marxist tradition. Laclau explores two different approaches when it comes to ideology- that of social totality and false consciousness (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). According to Laclau, the "ambition of all holistic approaches had been to fix the meaning of any element or social process outside itself, that is, in a system of relations with other elements," which is helpful in realizing how the reviews came to be (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). The different elements that have come together to build that social process of interpretation is what made the reviews different; for instance, the review from The Hindu was the relationship of certain elements, like what modern Indian women are portrayed like, and the author of the reviews internal social process.

Due to different backgrounds and contexts, the field of discussion is characterized as being infinitude. This character prevents any attempt made with the aim of fixing meanings, as there is the probability of being put in a different circumstance, which might result to a different meaning. As a result, every discussion is termed as "a semi-stable fixation of the field of discursively and there is always something outside every discursive formation -- structure in Saussure's terminology" (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). It must be understood that films are a form of media in which viewers are mainly unaware of the director's or script writer's intentions. As a result, in this film, Bride and Prejudice, Chadha's intentions for the film are unknown, as she did not make any conclusion concerning the movie- she was simply the director of the movie. As such reviewers are free to discuss the movie in the context that best suits them.

Laclau and Mouffe assert that "no discourse can be a complete entity" and that "social constructions that would be independent from all other constructions" because that would mean that the construction is at its essence, resistant to change (Laclaud & Mouffe, 2001). Furthermore, the scholars use that foundational framework to develop the concept of an emptiness signifier which is when the "outside" enables discourses into a "non-complete entity" which allows people to theorize and think outside the box to enable structural change (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001). Though this concept about empty signifiers is often times applied power and government, the underlying principles can also be applied to the media and the structures within it.

The media constructions, in this case the different articles from the newspapers and online from the United States, the United Kingdom and India, are influenced by the outside which has allowed differently people who watched the same film so that they are able to change and influence the way that others think about this specific movie. By applying the concepts of Laclau and Mouffe to the media construction of this movie, the importance of perspective is further reinforced.