Several tipsters sent us this NYTimes article about a new Indian film that surprisingly has not stirred up much controversy as of yet:
Late last month, a low-budget drama called “My Brother Nikhil” opened in movie theaters across India, telling the story of a gay man’s struggle with his family and his country after contracting the virus that causes AIDS.
Quietly, gently, “My Brother Nikhil” has tested the limits of the Indian cinemagoer’s sensibility.
Commercially, it is no runaway Bollywood blockbuster; nor is it meant to be. Rather, its impact lies in having served up a story about love and loss – sentimental staples of contemporary Indian cinema – with a gay man at its center, and having done so without kicking up the slightest fuss from India’s cultural conservatives. As one review published in the latest issue of Outlook, a mainstream newsweekly, put it, “The two lovers seem just like any other couple.”
Playing here in Mumbai, formerly called Bombay, and in about a dozen other major cities in India, “My Brother Nikhil” is part of a new breed of Bollywood pictures known here as the “multiplex movie” – appealing to an urban middle-class audience, peppered with English phrases, and easy on the song-and-dance numbers and potboiler story lines usually associated with Indian commercial cinema.
The Indian Supreme Court is currently reviewing the ban on homosexuality in India.
“My Brother Nikhil” has faced none of the protests that six years ago greeted “Fire,” Deepa Mehta’s film about two women in love. Actors and athletes have been plugging “My Brother Nikhil” in television spots, an extraordinary marketing ploy in an industry where few people plug movies that are not their own. “I care about my brother Nikhil. Do you?” is the punch line. “This film has shown it’s possible to show a committed gay couple,” said Vikram Doctor, a journalist here who is active with a support group called the Gay Bombay Group. “It’s passed the Censor Board without any comment. Theaters have not been attacked. There’s no catcalling. It’s treated respectfully by the audience and the filmmaker. I’m happily surprised.”
View movie trailers and listen to the soundtrack here.
I thought the article drew and interesting contrast between the reception for this movie and the controversy that surrounded Deepa Mehta’s “Fire” in 1996 (which centered around two women who became lovers.)
Why the difference? Ten years have passed? “Nikhil” deals with AIDS? Doesn’t hit the “Indian family” concept as closely? Doesn’t involve women? None of the above?
-D
I am quite sure in this movie the couple isnt named Rama and Krishna. In Fire they intentionally named the two heroines Radha and Sita(two very important and respected characters of Indian mythology). Also couple of year back a producer/director of one such movies (Raja Bundela) was caught for hiring supposedly right wing trouble makers for cheap publicity. Attacks on cinema halls/actors makes these small movies instantly famous.
You are making a mistake if you think Indian society is prepared to accept gays because there is no fuss from cultural conservatives. I would guess it’s because this is a ‘multiplex’ film and nobody outside of the ‘multiplex crowd’ has heard about this movie.
Fascinating. Thanks for the info, Abhi. I haven’t heard anything else about the movie, but I definitely share Deepa’s thoughts about why this may be perceived as more accepted than “Fire”. I personally think the fact that two women who were married and later fell in love has something to do with it — it probably scares the traditional family structure more than two men who are “already” gay. Just a thought, but i’m eager to find out more about this.
Another movie where queer characters were abundant was Page 3 starring Konkona Sen Sharma. One of her best friends is a gay make up artist (yeah, sounds stereotypical, but he wasn’t), whom she protects from 2 homophobic guys who were beating him up at a Mumbai train station. There are 2 other gay male characters including her bi-sexual boyfriend who bring up different shades of sexuality. I guess my issue is that apart from “Fire” and the horrendous “Girlfriends”, there hasn’t really been that many mainstream bollywood flicks with queer female characters..the ones that exist, are subject to interpretation, rather than the queer male ones who are “out”. For more info on “My Brother Nikhil” check out an interview with Onir, the director, at http://us.rediff.com/movies/2005/mar/23onir.htm
I think there could be a few reasons why there wasnt so much controversy with this movie as compared to Fire.
I think with this movie the homosexual element was not projected in the earlier promotions. It was primarily projected as a movie on an AIDS patient. As compared to Fire, where the makers I think intentionally sought negative publicity.
The other reason I believe is that the last 10 years have seen the trend of these “multiplex movies” as mentioned above with a target audience of young people in the metros. These movies have limited audience and little influence (and hence I think the right wingers probably dont consider them a threat).
And I agree with Eswaran, the audience may be more visible but is a small number and in no way represents the general view on such topics in India.
It may have to do with the all of the above reasons plus the fact that a feminist woman directed Fire. It’s funny because the loudest critics of Fire weren’t men, they were women believing that the movie aired the gender’s dirty secrets.
I agree with Eswaran, there is no way we should sit back and think that India and the diaspora in America are tolerant to gay/lesbian persons. It’s a damn shame, but we can only hope that movies depicting AIDS/gays won’t continue the stereotype that the disease is ONLY carried by “those people.”
Most arguments made so far are valid, especially the passing of time. but most importantly, As I remember it, Deepa Mehta’s Fire was less about questioning traditional thinking and more about exploiting controversial topics. The director,producers and distributors actively sought out controversy with their script, character names, remarks and actions. And the motives were clearly( atleast as felt by most people) purely to make some easy dough by exploiting the furor created. The movie made a lot of money for purely these reasons, for in normal circumstances it would have been in and out of theaters in less than a week. Also, the movie Fire though ok on production values, issue rising etc… was no great movie. Most people would rate it pretty ordinary and the message intended to be sent across to be very contrived.
Saw the movie, its pretty amazing. There is a touching portrayal of a homosexual relationship (including a nice song that expresses some of it), but even more pronounced is the central character’s amazing relationship with his sister (Juhi Chawla). It highlights the universality of AIDS, human suffering, and human relationships, without any of the gratuitous pseudo-sex scenes which are all over Bollywood (e.g. Girlfriend)
There is nothing offensive about the film, and it is hardly exploitative or vulgarly exhibitionist (e.g. Girlfriend).
By the end of the movie, I think even ardent homophobes would probably think “ok so he had sex with guys…who cares…there is so much more to a person’s identity and meaning than just that fact.” Its easy to vilify categories, not so much human beings.
Has anyone else seen this? It’s playing tomorrow at the Castro (in SF), and I’m debating whether to go.
it is time that Indians, as a culture, open up the arms of acceptance to all likes — straight, gay, steak eaters, those with disease and poor caste fortune, and sufferers of nose sweat conditions, as well. until we do, we will never get the benefit of asian love interests.