| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« No Time for Wisdom | Main | Monday Poem »

January 24, 2011

Watching Star Plus in Lahore

by Hasan Altaf

Saath Nibhaana Saathiya Several years ago now, in one of those brown-meets-white movies whose titles are as impossible to keep straight as their plots are predictable, the brown girl attempted to explain Bollywood movies to her white boyfriend. He asked, “So they’re like soap operas?” and she replied, “Basically… just with bigger bubbles.” I’ve forgotten all the other details of that particular movie, but the line stuck with me as an apt description of the genre. No one watches Bollywood movies for “reality” – we watch for an escape: More than anything else, the movies, offering a little something for everyone, are fantasy.

I readily admit to a deep and abiding fondness for Bollywood; my experience with soap operas, on the other hand, began this past summer, when I spent two weeks in Lahore visiting my grandmother, who had been bedridden for a few months and spent her time watching Indian soaps. The TV in her room was always on, and it was soaps, soaps around the clock, Star Plus and Colors, sometimes the same episode repeated innumerable times in a day. Only when the power went out was there a brief hour of silence.

The soap operas were, to put it mildly, an education – and a shock; for some reason I had expected them to be more or less like the movies, and I was surprised at how different they were. In many ways, the first issue I had is still the one that bothers me the most: Why do the women all sleep in full makeup, wearing pounds of jewelry, wrapped in fabulous saris? This happened on every single show, without fail, and it seemed neither practical nor comfortable. I might have been willing to let this one thing go, but the more I watched, the more questions I had. Why do the women never seem to work? Why are men essentially absent? Why are all the characters, always, without fail, Hindus – and Hindus, at that, of the same caste, culture, and language? How many small towns exist in the world in such a state of homogeneity?

Most of the time, watching these shows, I felt like I was looking into a different world, and a world that I’m not sure I believe can still exist, at least not in the way it’s depicted. I’ve had similar feelings about Indian movies, though, so the conclusion was perhaps fairly obvious: Bollywood and the soap industry are selling what is basically the same product, fantasy – it’s just that the fantasies are different. Neither industry depicts the “real world” or “real life”; both present something that is closer to an idealization, an essentialization – and almost, it seems, an aspiration. While this is true of most similar industries – even the most down-to-earth sitcoms or gritty independent films have something of this quality – it seems much more extreme in India.

The Bollywood movies of the last ten or fifteen years are hugely different from earlier films, as if the industry had gone into warp speed. In the majority of its fare, the world envisioned is ultra-modern, full of blowouts and full-body waxes, a world where people date and women work, where characters can wear Western clothes and leave their hometowns, where the languages are mixed and cultures can come into contact and, sometimes, conflict. (Although South Indians do seem to usually end up as villains, and Punjabis as bhangra-mad party animals...) They create an exaggeration, a caricature of modernity, and set it to a catchy soundtrack.

The soaps, barring the occasional appearance of a cell phone, could be taking place decades ago; they have, actually, a great deal in common with older movies. The world they depict is incredibly traditional. Here the women (men are always minor characters at best) spend their days fabulously be-saried, dealing with the age-old conflicts of saas and bahoo (mother- and daughter-in-law). Like the characters, the focus hardly ever leaves the home – things like race, religion, class, culture and language, the fault lines of modern India, are made non-issues. Watching a show like Saath Nibhaana Saathiya, I felt like I was watching a period piece – it had a very strong air of nostalgia.

There is a huge overlap between the viewers of these two products, so while the inherent natures of cinema and TV can account for some of their difference, I don’t think one can call them simply different products for different buyers. Still, what both offer is a vision of India, and it was hard to reconcile such different visions, especially as they seem more different than their counterparts in places like the US or Latin America. American soaps have little in common, formally, with American movies, be they Hollywood or indie, but one never has the feeling that they are taking place in an entirely different world. (My knowledge of Latin American telenovelas is quite limited, but I would be interested to learn how they compare to Mexican, Argentinean, or Brazilian movies.) Watching shows like Pratigya or that one with Leher and her evil in-laws and cruel uncle, I did have that feeling. I couldn’t reconcile their India with the one I knew from my own experience or from movies.

The difference between India and a country like Brazil or Argentina, though, is important. More than many countries, India is thought of in dichotomies: It is a mystical land of yoga and ashrams and naked sadhus, or a high-tech wonderland of computer innovation; it is megacities and tiny villages, grinding poverty and incredible wealth, secular democracy and deep communal conflicts. India is everything, but India is also its opposite, both object and shadow. While the same could be said of most “developing” countries – all of them have modernizing and traditionalist impulses; even “developed” countries do – in India the strength of each is greater, and the pull between them seems more fierce.

Arundhati Roy once compared her country to two caravans, one tiny and moving towards the light, the other, immense, disappearing into darkness. She used the metaphor in the context of economics and development, but it could apply equally well to the cultural sphere. For India, the present moment is one of constant flux and change, an inexorable pull towards a future that will be as complicated as any modernity is. No one knows exactly what that future will look like, no one really knows what to expect or how things will end up. So it is natural that there is an opposite force, too, a glance backwards, a longing for a past when things made sense and everyone knew their place. You were the bahoo until you were the saas, after all.

Posted by Hasan Altaf at 12:15 AM | Permalink

Comments

I would say American soaps really are like watching a different world to the majority of their collective audience, in many of the same ways that Indian soaps are.

Posted by: builder | Jan 24, 2011 4:40:54 AM

You need to look at the profile of these viewers. The soaps are watched mostly by housewives middle aged and older, while movies have a larger, universal appeal across all ages.

The so called "longing for the past", if there is one, is only by the older female generation. This is the same generation that would happily watch a 70s or a 80s movie based on "family values".

Posted by: Ajay | Jan 24, 2011 10:52:38 AM

"Why are all the characters, always, without fail, Hindus – and Hindus, at that, of the same caste, culture, and language?" Altaf bhai, this is a cheap shot you are welcome to if it were not also ill-informed and myopic. Here's one I constructed so that you may gauge my reaction to yours: I could never watch Hindi movies growing up because all the dialogue was Muslim and the characters all Punjabi.
Your otherwise interesting article betrays your bi-cultural limitations and prejudices. I surmise you live in the West, perhaps in the US, where there is sufficient access to telenovelas and foreign films for you not to claim ignorance. A little compassion and curiosity in your research would have helped make your article even better.

Posted by: narayan | Jan 24, 2011 3:14:04 PM

Hi Narayan,

I think I probably didn't articulate this very well in the post. I didn't have any problem with the Hindu-ness or ethnic-ness or class-ness of the characters on the soaps I saw; what disturbed was the fact that on each soap, all the people were of the same group. I hope I'm saying this well now - it would have been equally disturbing if they were all upper-class Kashmiri Muslims, Irish-American nurses, Mexican doctors, Italian soldiers... etc. etc. The general homogeneity of the world was what I couldn't get around, not the particular type of homogeneity.

I don't think anyone really has a problem with reading or watching the stories of people who are not "like them" - Bollywood movies are popular in America, American movies in India, French movies in Latin America; people all over the world read Tolstoy and Rushdie and listen to the Beatles. So, again, my issue with the soap operas was just the fact that I couldn't reconcile such a homogeneous world with my own perception of reality. I hope I'm saying this a bit better now.

Posted by: Hasan | Jan 24, 2011 10:40:32 PM

Narayan, I didn't see Hasan's observation as a cheap shot. He did not say that the soaps are unwatchable because the characters are Hindus. His objection seems to be the homogeneity, even within the Hindu milieu, and unreality that don't reflect the real modern India. I think I would have the same problem myself if I cared to watch the monotonous Indian soaps. I never do when I go to India although the TV is always on in the back bedroom where my sister's housekeeper watches them non-stop in the evening. Except, she watches Bengali soaps and from what I have glimpsed for a few minutes and can't help overhearing from other parts of the house, the Bengali fare is exactly as the Hindi ones Hasan describes. The same story line, the same be-saaried (love the word), bejewelled female dominated cast emoting endlessly, the same disconnect with reality... and BORING.

I hardly watch Bollywood movies any more, except when some come heavily recommended by my sister. Actually, I do have a problem with Bollywood showing only Hindu characters in their movies. The majority of popular Indian leading men since the Big Bachchan became a senior citizen, happen to be Muslim. (Some of the leading ladies are too, although in far fewer numbers than the days when Madhubala, Waheeda Rehman and Meena Kumari charmed the entire country.) And they all play Hindu characters in films. Why can't Bollywood make movies with modern Muslim leading characters? Why are Muslim themed stories only relegated to historical or period pieces like Mughal-e-Azam, Taj Mahal, Pakeeza in the past and Jodha-Akbar recently? Garam Hawaa is one of the best Hindi-Urdu movies made... ever. The story involved a middle class Muslim family (some characters played by Hindu actors) in post independence India and the director was Hindu. Why can't they have more such movies?

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 24, 2011 11:20:20 PM

Hasan, thoroughly enjoyed the article, the same has amused me for years as to how the same plot, outfits, expressions, exclamations can appeal endlessly....but it does, maybe because the issues are so universal, and so typical of India/ Pakistan,,,loved it, can I post the article to Facebook?

Posted by: Shadabi davar | Jan 25, 2011 12:01:01 AM

Social realism (such as Hum Log in the 80's), on TV and in films, pretty much vanished once the 90's set in - we are seeing some manner of change now. Hindi soaps, the kind you allude to, began in 2000. While it is interesting to read your perspective, it is plagued by many limitations, particularly in its absence of context. Both as an observer and a TV professional, the homogeneous nature is not just unsurprising but is a surface phenomenon. The sociological undertones, modes of production, aesthetics,etc, are very complex indeed but a simple survey of large soaps commissioned since 2000 (when Star Plus launched Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi) will reveal a standard practice - to stick to a formula with fierce tenacity. Business compulsions dictate content. Perchance tomorrow, hypothetically, a series with a Muslim lead were to make it, you would see a host of others in the same vein. Since 2000, commissioning posts in TV stations are generally held not by those with hands on, creative experience, but mostly by those with a sales/marketing background. While TV is generally 'Hindu' in nature, there are no two ways about that, it has to be understood in the general decline of Islamic/syncretic influences across board (language included), the ideological pre-dispositions of the entertainment industry, their linkages to popular politics, the rise of Hindu nationalism, amongst many, many other factors. While you make a fair observation, it unfortunately, is too broad.

Posted by: Gautam | Jan 25, 2011 2:04:44 AM

That was a good read. Just an input on the 'characters... of the same caste, culture and language'..The main viewer demographic was found to be Gujarati and Marwari, hence the themes. So much so that Star Plus actually started a serial with a Punjabi family but couldn't do well. They finally introduced Gujarati neighbours, a lady in particular who was a popular character which caused the TRPs to increase.

Posted by: sumam | Jan 25, 2011 3:18:45 PM

I'm surprised (and gratified) that there have been so many comments on this, especially ones that add to my limited knowledge. I was wondering if, given that the main audience for these shows is Gujarati and Marwari, whether other areas (Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc.) have equivalent industries producing programming in those languages?

Gautam, thank you for your comment. I do think looking into the programming structure and decision-making processes at the TV channels would be interesting, and looking at the broader context. It'll be interesting to see how these shows change in the future. I also just learned that because these shows are so popular in Pakistan, Pakistani channels have started making basically equivalents.

Shadabi I'm glad you enjoyed the article and of course you can post it to Facebook.

About viewership - I think the two big differences with movies are that movies are, theoretically at least, watched in a group, and are aimed for mass appeal. Soaps I think are middle-of-the-day things that people watch at home. On age, though, I'm not sure - I think it definitely skews older, but I know plenty of younger people who watch them religiously. The only definite I can see is that men seem to watch them almost not at all, which would account to some extent for the absence of male characters.

Posted by: Hasan | Jan 25, 2011 4:03:51 PM

Hasan, One essential difference is that the soap is a small canvas drama (the world revolves around the family) while the movie is a large canvas drama (the individual or family exists in the world). This explains the much greater homogeneity of the former. Just recall how you begin your essay referring to one of those 'brown-meets-white' movies. The characterization of the movie as a soap with a bigger bubble is misleading.

Other differences follow for structural reasons. The mid-day slot for soaps rules out male viewership; hence the marginal place of men. The same fact accounts for the very different types of violence in the two genres. And it can also provide a rationale for the lack of (relative) realism of soaps. The female viewers fit the entertainment around all the household chores, a situation that calls for maximum redundancy and minimal thought.

Posted by: South Asian | Jan 25, 2011 5:14:33 PM

"I was wondering if, given that the main audience for these shows is Gujarati and Marwari, whether other areas (Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc.) have equivalent industries producing programming in those languages?"


Regarding S.Indian soaps, those tend to follow similar Saas-bahu plot lines as the Star TV ones, with changes of language, scenery, costumes. Yes, they do have the same groomed-to-the-eyebrows, overly melodramatic actresses and actors aplenty. All of them last 30 minutes of which 20 minutes is advertising/catchy title song and 10 minutes of actual drama.
The demographics for these is primarily all family members above 30 years in age, whether female or male.

Posted by: Sujatha | Jan 25, 2011 5:39:37 PM

The female viewers fit the entertainment around all the household chores, a situation that calls for maximum redundancy and minimal thought.

Substitute "sex and violence" for "household chores" and you have just defined male escapism. That too sells - during midday or midnight.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 25, 2011 7:25:32 PM

Great op-ed piece. I would tend to agree with you in nearly all accounts. Just to add, this is much more prolific in Hindi language dominanted movies and tv. As an American raised south indian descent lived in Delhi man, I have to say that bollywood culture is very much tailored to middle class western oriented Indians. The south indian movie culture is much wider in its scope. There are numerous movies dealing with village problems, or urban lower class existence or women centric. The muslims characters are there but not nearly as prevelant as hindus and christians. The key to remember is that India is a contradictory and complex nation. Bollywood is in many ways the Indian attempt to gain worldwide acceptable according to "international" or western standards and audience. South India, as bad as it is for me to generalize, tends to skew more towards lower income and caste people, I'd surmise it has to do with a mixture of the DMK movement and the dominance of the Hindi movement over local linguistic groups since the debate has been framed in the language that Hindi=Brahmanical culture and local languages are native. Just my thoughts.
- Mukunda

Posted by: Mukunda | Jan 25, 2011 8:18:16 PM

Ruchira: The common factor is the escapism. It seems plausible to argue though that the structure of the narrative varies because men tend to sit uninterrupted before the TV while women have to intersperse their viewing with breaks for household chores. Hence the male narrative is much more explicit and linear in its depiction while the female content is involved and circuitous. The male content is not really in the 'soap' genre.

Mukunda: At one point I was intrigued by the difference between the culture of North and South Indian movies but did not have a good answer. I put the question on the blog for reader input and at the end of the exercise, there was a much better understanding of the differences. You might find the discussion of interest and perhaps add to it:

http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/what’s-with-movie-stars-in-south-india/

Posted by: South Asian | Jan 26, 2011 9:39:53 AM

As a big fan of hindi soaps (a guilty pleasure I admit), I share some of Hasan's concerns but I have been able to ignore some of the more unrealistic elements. It's absolutely absurd that all the women sleep in their fancy saris and jewelry--something which no Indian or Pakistani woman actually does. Also, as Hasan states, it does seem strange that in such a multicultural country like India, the characters never have friends from other communities. For example, Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai is set in Udaipur, so why can't Naitik (the male lead) have any friends from college or co-workers who happen to be Muslim? This homogeneity would not be so unrealistic if the soaps were Pakistani, where 97% of the population is of the same religion, but I highly doubt that people living in Udaipur or Simla have zero contact with members of minority groups.

However, asides from these issues, the stories themselves are real and universally applicable. The clash between old and new values, the lead couple's way of doing things clashing with the older generation... all of this happens all over the world, and this is the main dramatic tension of the soaps.

Posted by: kabir | Feb 2, 2011 11:30:23 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Raza Husain on Think About Nature

Raza Husain on Getting Smarter

johnnyred on Getting Smarter

Lou on Throwing away ancient wisdom, painting with sound and staying awake: a conversation with radio dramatist and ZBS Foundation president Thomas Lopez

Sundar on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

flowers rainbows on Lift up your voices: The century-long battle for women's freedom

mr.ed on wagner in new york?

mirel on Here’s how to change the world

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

X on Getting Smarter

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed