Cultural interpretations of Bride and Prejudice across British, American, and Indian reviews

¶ … 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 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.

These underlying concepts that define ultimately what an emptiness signifier is what helps ground the basis and explanation for the different perspectives and views- that the outside views help change the feedback on the movie. Using this type of framework with thinking about the movie allows the gathering different ideas, and bids them together by the use of discursive formulation. There will always be different opinions and perspectives on a give topic because the meaning is only given by certain elements that are related to it.

To further build on the idea that a certain topic is only given meaning by certain elements related to it, it means that through openness that a discussion becomes successful, but there should be some conditions governing the discussion. This explains the importance of the ever changing structure and the need to exhibit to different perspectives because it not only helps in the discussion process, but also in the struggle of forming a discussion.

Alluding to Laclau's thinking, the character of emptiness in every discussion is the driving force behind movie reviews. Reviews looked upon from such an angle, becomes a struggle provides the room of filling the emptiness with a certain content. As an effect, film reviewing is a struggle of identifying essential meaning. Movie reviewing should aim at getting the meaning and towards the end of contingency "the realization of a society fully reconciled with itself" (Laclau, 1996: 69).

The very notion of movie reviewing according to Laclau is the filling of emptiness through a discussion. However, this notion produces antagonism, since the notion of reviewing determines that emptiness which ought to be filled with a given content. In other terms, the inherent emptiness can also be portrayed on other terms that still address a discussion as an issue that has no identity, but does not concentrate on need of filling any emptiness, mastered by reviewers. In other words, it has not identified any reason of carrying it out a discussion, hence avoiding any sign that will lead to any failure in a discussion. In such a circumstance, instead of concentrating on a priori on a certain relationship, the concentration ends up having lots of relations, all targeting the identification as well as individuation moments. Such a formation has the ability of widening social space.

From the six reviews considered here, two points need to be looked at a bit more in an attempt to understand the differences in interpretation. Firstly, the sheer flamboyance of the film including massive sets, elaborate costumes, the colour and the song & dance. While the first American review we looked at loved precisely these elements, the same opinion was not held by the other American reviewer. Again this split is maintained in the Indian and British reviews with one person stating that the grandiose added to the film, while the other pans it as sheer Bollywood spectacle. Here the important point to note is that while we have split the reviews into 3 categories, the responses within each are not identical. Take for instance the reviews from India. The all these elements in the movie are annoying to the Hindu reviewer and he calls the film 'Bollywood masala.' From his point-of-view, masala is not what the film required or should aspire to have. In stark contrast is the reviewer from Rediff. He is Indian as well and yet for him, the masala is what makes the film appealing. This dichotomy simply adds to the argument that not only interpretations are individually reached at, but even the same geographical region or cultural context are not factors enough to elicit the same understanding of a text.

The other issue is the potentially unanswerable question of what it means to be Indian? In the case of the majority of non-Indian reviews, the idea of India and Indians seems to be derived mainly from films. This cannot be pointed out as wrong because films might be their cultural context and exposure to India. As a result the possibility that Bride and Prejudice could be over-the-top does not occur to them. There are however exceptions to this such as The Guardian review, but these seem few and far between. These reviews also tend to speak of dual identities-between being Indian and American/British. For example referring the NRI Kohli as a 'coconut' (BBC, 2004); brown on the outside but white within. The Indian reviews, and I include the NRI SAWF review here, also focus on this issue but the focus is singularly trained on the notion of the Indian identity. In the case of Bride & Prejudice, the representation of the 'modern Indian women' seems an area of conflict. Here is where presupposition again rears its head. Every Indian reviewer has their own idea of what this woman is about. To top it all love and marriage are the major theme in the film. Thus questions about the 'modern Indian woman' and arranged marriages emerged when these reviews were written. This conflict between an imagined Indian identity and its representation does not seem to have a solution in sight purely because there are as many Indias as there are Indians.

From the above we can clearly say, that of the various conclusions arrived at concerning the film, there is none that can be considered right or wrong as compared to the other. Each of these interpretations are correct in their own frame of reference and each author has viewed the film against his/her own experiences. Hence, there are guaranteed to be differences in their approach and understanding. When viewing a film that works around a certain cultural framework, in this case Indian, it is impossible that every interpretation is fully aware of the cultural context of the film. This is especially true of films like Bride and Prejudice that cut across cultures and where different sections of society can relate to the movie. It naturally puts forth different cultural interpretations, each seen from its own viewpoint.

Conclusion

Bride and Prejudice has been reviewed with different interpretations by three main audiences in the United States, India and the United Kingdom. Laclau's thoughts about how the 'outside' helps change the structure and has influence, has been used in the backdrop of various reviews that Bride and Prejudice garnered, to highlight the possibility of various interpretations and discussions, and that there has been no single interpretation that can said to be more or less correct or wrong as compared to the other.

The essay also tries to bring out the subtle differences in the various approaches to understanding the movie. It seeks to highlight the fact that different interpretations are not right or wrong but rather work within their own frames of cultural reference. In addition, these interpretations are informative about the background of the commentator allowing us to understand what presuppositions they bring with them. It would also be of interest to note the effect that the discussions in the reviews could have on the interpretations of different audiences who read them after or before watching the film. While this paper deals with only some of the themes of Bride and Prejudice as seen through six reviews, it might be useful to examine cross-cultural films further, especially looking at the cultural contexts of the people who make them as this would allow us to understand them a bit better.