Talk:Hindi cinema/Archive 1

Uncategorised comments
The article is seriously flawed. I suggest that all the movies have there personal page - if they are worth that. Artists and directors too should be moved out. There should rather be separate a page for notable film actors etc. My Fingers are twitching and I will do this as soon as this christmas. The movies listed are recent ones - which are hopeless. -- Ankur December 1, 2003.

Is 'Bollywood' used as a name for the entire Indian film industry or just the one around Bombay? There are many other centers of film in India, especially due to the variety of languages.

And as long as i'm here, may i say that Hey, Ram was an absolutely fantastic film! --JohnAbbe

The distinction between "Indian film industry" and "Bombay film industry" may not be crucial here. We could probably make the case that "Hollywood" is a shorthand for "U.S. film industry".


 * Actually, with regards to India, Bollywood does not necessarily equal the Indian Film Industry. Movies made in the South in Tamil or Malayalam are decidedly not Bollywood movies. This distinction might be lost to the outsider, since predominantly the Indian movies one gets to see in the US --are-- Hindi/Bollywood movies. Gyam 21:52 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

The article claim Bollywood as the world's largest film industry. Can someone quote some statistics? Is it largest by the number of films produced or number of film studios or by the total budget of these films?
 * I don't have the numbers on me, but I know the claim rests on the number of films produced.

-- A quick ref on this: http://www.the-week.com/20sep24/cover.htm (I have no idea who these guys are.)

Another: http://www.bollywhat.com/Firsttime_index.html

Here we go! From BBC News; I trust them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_262000/262486.stm

This article is seriously biased in so far as the celebrities/movies it claims are the most acclaimed. While these are necessarily subjective opinions, they don't jive with the commonly accepted ones. My Wild Guess is this article is written by an author who hasn't watched a lot of Hindi movies made before 1995 or doesn't like them a whole lot. Will come back later and rewrite these sections by creating period-specific lists rather than an all-encompassing list. -- Gyan

Hi, I'm Zora (aka Karen Lofstrom), and fairly new to Wikipedia. I was infected with the virus by Cimon Avaro, who's on my team at Distributed Proofreaders. I've made major revisions to the Bollywood page and I'm still not finished. There are now lots of stubs that need to be filled out. I also want to finish writing a history of Bollywood and do an article on Indian cinema as a whole.

The original article was typical fan writing and focussed on recent popular movies and actors. I've added a few names and given it a *little* historical depth, but I haven't pruned the list -- much. I did cut down many of the film summaries. I'm thinking that anything over one line long should be dumped, however. I don't think the whole list should go. IMHO, a movie list would be useful for a firangi who wandered into an Indian video store and wanted to know which films might be considered significant. Which is not necessarily the same thing as great works of cinematic art.

I thought of organizing actors by the decades in which they were popular, but that opens a whole can of worms as to what popular might mean, and furthermore fails to classify actors like Dilip Kumar or Amitabh who had long-lasting success. Perhaps a timeline organization? From first film to last film? I wouldn't know how to do that.

--

Markets
Where are Bollywood movies usually distributed? I guess India and Pakistan. I've heard about post-Taliban Afghanistan and something about Africa. What about Central Asia? China? Middle East? Bangla Desh? Sri Lanka?
 * I work at a U.S. theater chain that shows Bollywood movies. Roughly, this is the distribution of prints: Given 100 prints of a new release, 90 are used in India and Pakistan; 5 go to the Persian Gulf; 3 to the U.K., and 2 to the United States.  This is changing because the desi market in the U.S. and U.K. provide hard currency box office returns, and the U.S. and U.K. markets get more prints.  The prints also circulate in the Caribbean and Guyana/

The distributor in the U.S. is Eros International.

However, the most certain means of reaching American audiences are through (often-counterfeit) DVDs. GABaker

Pakistan does not allow Bollywood movies to be shown on its screens. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Recent movies, actors, linked URLs
Someone recently edited the Bollywood article to remove a self-promoting link. Then someone added a new link. I haven't tried any of the links, but I suspect that they're all rather run-of-the-mill sites. The only web-site I ever consult for movie info is Rediff. I hate to just delete all the links, but I can't help suspecting that some of the links are there in the interests of the posters rather than the general public.

Someone (I only see IP addresses, not names) also added a couple of recent movies to the movie list. I deleted one and after some dithering, left the other. The movie list is intended, as far as I know, to orient someone exploring an Indian video store for the first time, not to promote recent releases. It's just a list of films that are watchable (if not necessarily great) and of historical intestest. You can't make that decision about a just released movie. Maybe all the movies listed ought to be at least two years old, to allow time for the hoopla to die down?

The actors/actresses list is also way too big, swollen by Indian fans, I think. It should be half the size and probably organized by decade. And if there's only five actors/actresses for the 1950s, then there should be only five for the 2000s--regardless of someone's solitary passion for Preity Zinta or Gracy Singh. But I'm a bit afraid to wade in and piss off Indian fans by deleting favorites.

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and would appreciate some advice from oldbies.

-- Zora

response to Zora
Zora, I added Main Hoon Na and Kal Ho Naa Ho to the list because it claims to be a list of popular movies, not movies of historical interest. Popular can be fairly quickly judged by how a movie does at the box office. I agree with your removal of Yuva (someone else added that) because it has flopped at the box office.

Also, if you are referring to the link to BollyWHAT, it is not a self-promoting link. I do not run that site, although I do visit it. BollyWHAT is a site specifically designed to introduce Bollywood to new fans, and it also translates film song lyrics into English. If you check it out, you will see that it is very informative.

Lord Surya's edits
Surya,

You seem to be claiming some regional bias in the article. It's not clear to me that it's biased in any way against Punjabis or Bengalis. Since I'm a foreigner and I wrote a lot of it, it doesn't seem to me that I'd have any REASON to be biased.

You also added a few things, like a slur against Lollywood, comments on Pakistani film piracy, and comments about Muslim mafia, that are potentially inflammatory. I'm going to take them out. I do hope that we can refrain from refighting Partition/Indo-Pak wars/communal riots in Wikipedia.

Some of the changes you made make sense. Let's keep the mention of Kishore Kumar, but cut it down a bit. None of the other singers are described in such detail, not even Lata or Asha. If you want to elaborate the Kishore Kumar article, please do. I think he's a stellar performer.

Zora 23:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I claim plenty of bias in this article. What's more, I'm extremely frustrated at your essential reversing of all my changes. The tone and inflammatory remarks are primarily a series of snyde comments about Bollywood film and broad generalizations bout the movies. For instance, you removed my two sentence section on Art Films. Why? It's a well-known appelation and is important to describe the two-fold dynamic of the industry. Also, your outsider remarks make it seem like Bollywood movies constantly plagiarize Western films, like a major disease, when in general most major films do no such thing. Sure there are plenty of examples, but it's not ubiquitous. Lastly, it is well-known that Lollywood does not produce nearly the same number of films as Bollywood and that it is a major importer of Bollywood films, which are illegal primarily because Pakistan bans import of Indian cinema. You need to learn a lot more about Bollywood, especially since it is well known that Muslim mafia is largely in charge of Bollywood funding. I am not fighting an anti-Muslim war. For instance, Mughl-azam, you removed my mention of its use of chaste Urdu. Why? Do you understand the difference between Urdu and Hindi? The movie was celebrated for its Arabo-Persian dialect. I am putting most of my changes back in, though I will be sure to take heed of your objections. Please do not simply REVERT everything, but discuss sections as they seem inappropriate. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Surya, art films are not part of Bollywood. They are covered in Cinema of India, if you'd take a look there. If you want to elaborate on them, please do. They are much less apt to come out on DVD here in the US so I know much less about them than I do about Bollywood films. If you're an expert on Ritwik Ghatak (sp?), expand!

I took the mention of Urdu OUT of the main page (which is already too big) and added it to the article on Mughal-e-Azam. If I've got something wrong there, fix it there.

As for the plagiarization issue -- you can't say it isn't BIG when you can say "remake of [Hollywood hit]" about too many plots, or "stolen tune" about too many songs. I hang out in the Usenet group for Indian movies and the guys there (Indians, all but me and Muffy) are absolutely forthright about the plagiarizing. Someone even has a hall-of-shame website that lists stolen plots and stolen tunes, if I can find it. It's getting much less blatant. It's starting to approach normal Hollywood levels, where one big hit inspires ten imitations :)

It's an article about Bollywood, not Lollywood. I haven't looked at the Lollywood page, but surely that's where comments about Lollywood belong.

As for the Muslim mafia -- the place to discuss it is NOT the Bollywood article, but an article about Mumbai gangsters. If you're going to make comments that sound like "dire Muslim conspiracy", then there has to be room for other points of view -- which there is NOT in an article about the movie industry.

I have to leave for a meeting, so I don't have time to check for an article on Mumbai gangsters, but if there isn't one, we should create one and link the Bollywood article to it. Then your POV is there, and easily available. Of course, if you write about Muslim conspiracies I'll talk about discrimination against Muslims :)

Zora 03:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) (a Buddhist)


 * You seem to have a very childish view of what is being written here. This is not about balancing every single possible viewpoint on the planet, but to write what is relevant and factual without placing undue emphasis on any one thing, especially when unproven.


 * Undue emphasis? Pointing out that various performers or directors are Bengalis -- ignoring the origins of other performers -- strikes me as a trivial "glorifying Bengalis" ploy. You may be Bengali, but that really doesn't justify the insertion of such material into the article. I think it's relevant that Satyajit Ray was Bengali, because he represents a trend in Bengali cinema. If you want to write about Bengalis, please visit the Bengali cinema page, which is just a stub, and fill it out. More info about Ritwik Ghatak please! But as for Kishore Kumar ... well, I'd suggest you watch his movie "New Delhi" and absorb the message about regionalism. Zora 03:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * It is well-known among Indians that there are several instances of Bollywood plagiarisms, however its frequency is not nearly that which the article's wording implied, as if it were rampant and ubiquitous and the majority of movies do it.


 * You know, I already toned down the article ONCE, and tried to make it very clear that the practice seems to be waning. So the only question is "frequent" or "seldom". The kind of thing that people can argue about endlessly. I think I may see MORE of it than you do because I'm older (56, nearly 57) and I've seen a lot of Western movies and listened to a fair bit of Western music. So when I see Akele Hum Akele Tum, I'll say, "It's a remake of Kramer vs. Kramer, and they even copied the scrambled eggs scene." If you haven't seen the Western film, you won't see the copying. I'll look for the website my Usenet friends mentioned, the hall of shame re plagiarism, try to summarize our dispute, and link to the website. Zora 03:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Secondly, Mumbai mafia is known to be run by a Muslim majority, which is more prominent due to the demographics of India and Bombay in general, and this has nothing to do with persecution but data. I'm not making dire Muslim conspiracy points, and you seem to know very little about the subject if you insist that mafia isn't central to Bombay film industry.


 * Saying that the mafia is involved is not controversial. Stressing the Muslim part of it is somewhat incendiary. Again, I'll try to summarize the dispute and link to the Mumbai underworld web page. There will be room there to spread out. Zora 03:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Lastly, art films are very much a part of Bollywood, in that they are conceived of, produced by and released by Bollywood filmmakers. Art Films are a broad category envisioned as anything out of the norm, usually more tastefully made than the average flick, and not neccessarily lacking song-and-dance numbers.


 * I think you have a mistaken idea of what an art film is. It's one end of a continuum from "art for art's sake" to "let's give the masses what they want and reap big profits". Kenneth Anger versus Cecil B. DeMille. Or Satyajit Ray versus Yash Chopra. Then there's the folks in the middle who want to do something interesting but ALSO make enough money to keep making movies. I think Guru Dutt hangs out there -- and when he went over the art end of things, he flopped at the box office.


 * It's hard for me to talk about Indian art films because they often don't make it out of the country! They have a limited run in urban theatres in India and then just disappear. I've never SEEN any Ritwik Ghatak. But so far as I know, he isn't a Bollywood film-maker. Nor is Satyagit Ray. Nor is the guy -- forget name -- who did Mr. and Mrs. Iyer, which I think is brilliant.


 * So you tell me: which Bollywood films do you regard as art films? Zora 03:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't care about religion, and frankly there are plenty of Hindus doing corrupt things all over India, given that they're the majority. It really is, however, a germane issue, and I think there's, lastly, plenty of room on a big article for an 8 word mention of Mughal-e-azam's unique place among Bollywood films.--LordSuryaofShropshire 23:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * So it doesn't matter to you that I put the Urdu language bit in the webpage for the movie, because it's YOUR contribution and therefore deserves frontpage billing? There are many other things to be said about Mughal-e-Azam, it does deserve its own web page, so lets be prolix there. If every movie entry grows to five lines, the list will be endless. Particularily as it's truncated now, and heavily biased towards recent movies. (I just haven't taken the time to add more old ones.)


 * You're also going to have to accept some editing, because your English is frequently incorrect. Zora 03:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Since you're the self-professed writer of this article, I think you need to worry more about your own English; I may make typos, so try to avoid oblique and snyde remarks; my grammar is better than that of most college professors. I'm sorry that in the rush of trying to balance your woefully lopsided reading of Bollywood that I made some errors. Secondly, I have no pride of authorship here; it merely seems that things that uniquely distinguish a movie, if movies are to be listed at all, should be made explicit. For instance, your movie descriptions ring as hollow as Hollywood catchphrases and are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Rather, the key aspects of a film that, as is aforementioned, distinguish the film should be seen. Otherwise, you should just wipe out all the movies from this page and create a new article, something akin to Major Bollywood films. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:03, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Aside from supplying the article with numerous instances of bad style, bordering on incorrect grammar, you write gems like this: "Pirated films are sold in Indian bazaars, broadcast without compensation by the countless small cable TV companies, rampant in Pakistan, Fiji, and the Middle East." (emphasis added) Heard of a comma splice? Don't talk about mistakes in English. Be civil and real and recognize typos. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:46, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Surya, you're a real challenge. I'm trying to keep my temper and it's sometimes very hard :) Indeed, I've failed a few times. I've been busy with other things, but I'm going to do a major reorg in the next couple of days. It would help if you were interesting in cooperating instead of winning.


 * BTW, that's NOT a comma splice. It's a grammatically correct triple parallelism (are sold, are broadcast, are rampant). It probably isn't the best sentence in the world; it's too long and apparently confusing. I'll rewrite it. An online acquaintance of mine writes like that; tremendously gnomic and complex sentences, which always parse correctly, if you look at them for a few minutes. Given that I find reading Graydon's work taxing, I shouldn't complain if someone spots the same tendency in me. Zora 10:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again, Surya
A portmanteau is a suitcase (carry-coat, in French). I think you were trying to say that Bollywood is a portmanteau word. But is it necessary to add that, when conflation adequately describes what happened? I don't think so.

You again put Bengali in front of Kishore Kumar and I again took it out. It's completely gratuitous. We don't describe every singer/director/actor/actress in terms of regional origin. If you only point out Bengalis, it's an attempt to make your own region look good and diss others. Restraint would be more admirable than boasting.

What I don't understand is why you haven't realized that Guru Dutt was Bengali and tried trumpeting that all over the encyclopedia entry. Hmmph! I will put it in the Guru Dutt article when I get around to writing it. I have Nasreen Kabir's book on Guru Dutt.

She links him explicitly to the whole Kolkata art scene -- which sounds fascinating and which you might describe in another article, if you know about it. I have the strong impression that Kolkata used to be the center of Indian culture, when it was the headquarters of the Raj, and that Independence and the Partition, plus the political struggles convulsing the city government, really damped what used to be a lively scene. But this is just an impression and I don't know ENOUGH to argue for it convincingly.

I took out the mention of Rakesh Roshan after I tried googling for the date and couldn't find enough info to date it. If you can dig up some more info on the post-1997 gangland shooting spree, we can put it back. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put up anything undated.

I'm amused that you took out my weasel-wording re skin-color-prejudice (or racism) in India and scolded me for it. I put that in there because I was sure that someone would object that I was criticizing India too harshly.

Instead, you put back your own weasel-wording in the plagiarism section, which I again pulled out. I think that section is extremely even-handed now. It says NOTHING about the extent of plagiarism, just that it happens and it's debated how much. The section also gives links to other Internet sources that let people make up their own minds. The section does not give the impression that plagiarism is rampant -- even though many of my Usenet Indian friends would say it is!

I'm starting to think that you have some good sense in picking up things that need to be expanded, or changed, or whatever -- the article's stronger for our struggles -- but you don't know how to fix what you feel is wrong. I'm willing to rewrite things if you can tell me what's wrong, but I'm not willing to keep hands-off your not-quite-native English. It's a HECK of a lot better than my ten words of Hindi, but still ...

Zora 06:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You know, because I'm Bengali I happen to know about the origin of certain people. I write about it because it shows the diversity of the country and its industries. Punjabis are free to come and add tidbits about people. You've no right to excise, willy-nilly, information because you don't like it. We emphasize, here in Wikipedia, a policy of neutral-point-of-view, and factual accuracy does not compromise it. I am re-adding Kumar's background. Also, the reason I did not speak about Guru Dutt's being Bengali is because he isn't. He was born in Karnataka and is from a Saraswat family. Kolkata was very much the hub of Indian culture for many years, and thus it attracted large numbers of people who were often non-Bengali. This continued until about three decades ago, in my opinion largely due to the advent of Communist state-government.


 * It seems odd that you keep harping about my supposedly non-native English, since you don't present any evidence of faulty grammar or bad style. I think it's hard for you to swallow the fact that you've been the one making the largest amount of errors and that your English doesn't match up to mine. I'll have you know that I scored an 800 in the SAT Verbal, the SAT II Writing test, and 5's sans study on the AP Lit and Language tests. I am very much a native English speaker, and your intractable and rather childish insistence that I am not is surprising. If you feel like changing my edits, change them. Don't come up with nonsense about my English, because my Bengali, Hindi, and English are better than your English.


 * As for the pirating and skin-color issue, I am the first to criticize, only I believe in some measure of objectivity. You are curiously against my speaking of the number of people pirating which by any count or 'andaaz' (estimate) is very much a minority. An encyclopaedia aims to be objective and give information in as explicit a manner as possible, not by inference or vague implication. As for skin-color, I know all about it. My family members were dismayed to see my tan (after a beach trip) and hoped it would quickly peel to reveal my 'fairness.' However, all I did with the skin issue was to mention that there have been successful Indians who would be deemed 'darker.'


 * I believe that your fixation on seeing my English as foreign is strange, since one of my strengths entering college was English. Try to worry about your own mistakes, which have appeared with far greater frequency than any of mine. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:55, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. Attack of Rakesh Roshan You're too full of yourself. Your knowledge about Bollywood is sparse and your criticism of my English is laughable. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:06, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

And I will take out the Bengali in front of Kishore Kumar again. It's not necessary and it's odious regionalism. You haven't made any case that it's necessary, only said that any region can claim famous people for boasting points. Isn't that very far indeed from the point of the article?

I will also take out the assertion that only a minority of Bollywood directors copy. Do you have any proof for this? A listing of movies, year by year, with stats on how many are xeroxes? Any correlation between film budget and copied script? That's exactly why I used weasel words like "some" and said the amount was debatable. We can't have a sensible argument when we have no figures and no way to back up our assertions.

Your English perfect? With constructions like "was broadcasted"?

Zora 21:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * My dear fellow: this is not about bragging. It is simply information. I will revert your change as it seems unwarranted. You fail to realize that Bollywood's diversity is not a negative. I guess I can see your point about the majority/minority issue and will lay off that edit. However, regarding English, 'broadcasted' is an acceptable alternative 'past participle' to 'broadcast,' though perhaps it is not popular among some; look up your Merriam-Webster. It's often a matter of stylistic preference, though it seems you wouldn't know anything about style. The irony is that you're criticizing my English when yours is more liable to error. I've corrected more of your poor English than you have mine. You constantly harp about my supposed flaws in English prose and how you need to correct them when in actuality the only thing you're peeved about is the subject matter of my edits. Just try to accept the fact that you're wrong about a lot of things, least of all my English. You're wrong about the "art film" phrase, you're totally wrong about Guru Dutt, and you're pompous to boot. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Rakesh Roshan, etc.
The material I was able to find on the spate of Bollywood shootings suggested that if the gangsters had wanted to KILL, they would have done so, as they did with wossiname, Gulshan Kumar. However, I suppose it's better to leave the question of intent open, so the current edit is fine. However, you had turned my semi-colon connected two sentences into one LOOOOONG sentence. Too long. If you don't like the semi-colon, turn it into two sentences, not one long one.

I've taken out the Bengali again. If you want to stress diversity in Bollywood, it might be a good idea to say so directly. That's pointed out in the Cinema of India page, but not in the Bollywood page. So perhaps a para added to the Cast and Crew section pointing out that it's not just Hindi-speakers who contribute.

Oh, and as to Guru Dutt -- I checked Kabir's book and found out that we're both right. Guru Dutt's family was from Mangalore, but they moved to Calcutta -- sorry, Kolkata, I've gotten used to Mumbai but not Kolkata -- when he was four years old. He had an uncle, an artist, who painted advertisements for the Bengali cinema, and eventually got him into the film industry. Kabir says:

"Film production in Bombay was largely controlled by Hindi-Urdu speaking Punjabis and a few Bengali groups in which Guru Dutt seemed to fit quite naturally because of his own Calcutta background. He no longer used his family name, Shivshankar Padukone, and became known as simply Guru Dutt (although all legal documents and agreements carry his full name). Many assumed that he was a Bengali as 'Dutt' is a common Bengali surname."

Shyam Benegal was his cousin! Small world.

Zora 22:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we're beginning to find some common ground. Your baseless view of my not being native to English should have been dispelled by now.


 * Anyway, I wonder why you're so against my mentioning that Kumar is Bengali. The page is full of references to regions and there is nothing biased about calling him Bengali. Your reductive ideology, though couched in fallacious claims of your fighting provincial chauvinism, doesn't fit within the scope of encyclopaedic accuracy and neutrality. These articles aren't supposed to excise information just because one of the contributors doesn't like a particular fact. You're being prejudiced and dogmatically sticking to a POV (point-of-view). A common rule of thumb is that documented information should not be excised from an article unless it takes too much space. Two words do not meet this criterion. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:41, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Regional origin should be mentioned when it matters. References to light-skinned, Hindi-Punjabi-Urdu-Bengali speaking Northerners make sense. Reference to Satyajit Ray as a Bengali make sense because he's one of a number of Bengali art film directors. There's a TREND there. Saying that A.R. Rahman or Mani Ratnam are Tamil makes sense in pointing out Bollywood diversity. But there's no particular reason for saying Kishore Kumar is Bengali -- at least that you've shown. Is his singing style particularily Bengali? As far as most filmi fans are concerned, he's a great singer, like Mukesh or Asha or Lata, and his origins don't matter in the slightest. In fact, I didn't know he was Bengali and I don't have the slightest idea of where the rest of them come from, and I don't care.


 * Now Krishmurthy and Balsubramaniam I can guess :) Not that it makes any difference to me.


 * I'm thinking that just as I spun off the film list into a separate page, the director, singer, music director, and actor lists should be spun off into their own pages. With more room, it might make sense to discuss regional origins. We could take such lists off the Cinema of India page too, and merge the lists. They overlap to a certain extent. Zora 00:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * By the way, I know what a portmanteau is. In written and spoken English it is not neccessary to constantly say portmanteau word.


 * Really? I read lots of Victorian novels and they do use portmanteau for the physical object. "Word" must be added to avoid confusion. But if you insist, I'll ask on the copy-editors mailing list. They would know if anyone. Zora 00:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Try opening a dictionary before you start to lecture. I don't think it matters whether or not one mentions that Bollywood is a portmanteau (word) or not, so I won't oppose your change. Lastly, I was wondering if we should just remove the introductory sentence on India's cinematic output being the largest in the world. First of all, for some reason I'm led to believe that Bollywood, on its own, produces a huge number of movies; it's enough, perhaps, to give it the highest per annum production rate of all film industries. Secondly, the sentence would be more appropriate, as is, for the Cinema of India article. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:02, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * That seems like a reasonable edit. Zora 00:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Look at a dictionary for portmanteau. You don't seem to believe any way's right but yours. Anyway, this is a stupid argument, and like a child, you constantly yelp about it without cease. As for your comments: Saying that A.R. Rahman or Mani Ratnam are Tamil makes sense in pointing out Bollywood diversity. But there's no particular reason for saying Kishore Kumar is Bengali -- at least that you've shown. Is his singing style particularily Bengali? As far as most filmi fans are concerned, he's a great singer, like Mukesh or Asha or Lata, and his origins don't matter in the slightest. In fact, I didn't know he was Bengali and I don't have the slightest idea of where the rest of them come from, and I don't care.
 * Just because your narrow compass doesn't include Kumar's background as an interesting bit of information doesn't mean you have the right to censor it. Rahman and Ratnam's Tamil background hasn't changed their composition style either, and so your tangential argument about Kumar's singing style has no bearing on this issue. Diversity is very much brought out by mention of his background. AT THE VERY WORST, it is an innocuous addition!!! You've simply become entrenched in one position which has no relevance to the article and are sticking your course. You're violating every idea of trying to retain a NPOV. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:33, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Portmanteau
Input from the copyeditors' list: while at least two dictionaries say that it can be used alone, without 'word', to mean portmanteau word, one editor says that she has never seen or heard anyone use portmanteau alone, witout 'word', to mean a blended word. Another editor cites Fowler as saying that blended is a better term to use than portmanteau. Another editor quoted the original Lewis Carroll verse and then they were off on Lewis Carroll :)

Just going by the dictionary, you're right. In practice, it would seem that using the word in a way that might confuse readers (whaddaya mean, Bollywood is a piece of luggage?) is not the best choice.

You will perhaps recall pointing out one of my sentences that seemed incorrect to you. It was correct, but long and confusing -- so I changed it.

If I were writing poetry or a stream-of-consciousness novel, I might well choose to disregard readers who thought my writing too dense or elliptical. "Style" is not synonymous with Strunk and White (the message of an interesting article in the latest New Yorker? New York Review of Books?). Some people like that sort of thing. But if we're writing for an encyclopedia, surely we should try to be plain and direct.

I won't say that I always am. I sometimes use an obscure word where a plain one would do, use antique constructions, or veer into gnomic density. You don't need to label that as "wrong". You can just say that it's not clear, or it's not the best choice of words, explain what bothers you, and I'll try to fix it.

So, trying to use that approach, I'll just point out that "I am native to English" is not the usual construction. The meaning is clear, but the phrase is just ... off. A native English speaker would say, "I'm a native English speaker" or "English is my native language" or "English is one of my native tongues; I'm bi-lingual." "Native to" is used for plants and animals, I think. "The wozziglop is native to the Eereer hills." For people, I think you'd use "a native of". "I'm a native of the Eereer hills." "Native to" implies place, then, not a language.

I'm stumbling over the explanation because preposition use is NOT one of the things explicitly considered in writing and grammar classes. There are few explicit guides to this VERY complex and nuanced aspect of English -- so far as I know. It's hard to articulate.

Zora 11:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the tangential dialectic. I believe in fact that it was I who first pointed out the idiomatic nature of the language and that it's futile to attempt to straightjacket words and phrases to conform to one defined set of rules. As for portmanteau, it is eminently clear in the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it appears which of the two meanings is being referred to. Oh, on that note, should I have ended a sentence on a preposition? I don't know. I often try to avoid them, though I've thought about how arbitrary the rule is. It's much like the split-infinitive problem, a carry-over from Latin grammar. As for your occasional use of atavisms, you are not alone. However, I try to keep those words out of encyclopaedic writing. I'm not here to be told I speak poor English, because frankly, my English stands up to anyone's I've met. If you decide you want to be casuist and ferret out mistakes or slips I make and hail them as sigils of more systematic defects, that's fine. But I could do the same for you. I don't need instruction in a language I know this well. Instead of trying to find some excuse to criticize the form of my edits just stick to their content, which seems so inexplicably to rile you. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Moved out directors
I've moved Bollywood directors to a new Indian film directors page. It makes the article shorter and it allows proper consideration of the fact that some directors (some of the best!) have made films in several languages.

I intend to move music directors, singers, actors and actresses to their own pages too.

Then I'll note that Kishore Kumar is Bengali and remove it from the main Bollywood page. Deal? Surya, if you want to do the research on the regional backgrounds of the other famous playback singers, it would be appreciated. Also, if there is anything to be said about musical styles within filmi, links to regional styles in classical music, whatever, I would appreciate the help. I like filmi music, but I well know that I am NOT any kind of music critic or expert. I can tell that Naushad is influenced by classical and North Indian music, and that S.D. Burman does Indian lounge music, but that's about it.

Zora 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Very well. A note about this "separated at birth" motif that you seem to feel is a regular occurence in Bollywood film... it isn't. Sure there might be a few movies like that, but it doesn't qualify as a typical Bollywood theme. Kidnappings? Yes. Courtesans? Yes. Pissed off parents and the bridging of socio-economic divides through love? Oh yes. But the separated twins thing does not enjoy nearly as much frequency as the foregoing themes. As for the backgrounds of filmi singers I will surely try to work on them. I'm actually leaving for college in a couple of weeks (freshman year), so I'll not have the leisure to work at great length on any particular project. I will probably begin work on them in a few weeks. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:59, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Separated at birth. Amar, Akbar, Anthony, of course. Kashmir ni Kali. One Sri Devi movie, on whose name I'm blanking. I think there are others, but I can't come up with titles. I'll ask my Usenet buds. They're an encyclopedia in themselves. If they think I'm off-base, I'll gladly drop it.


 * It's a common motif in plays and films from many periods and cultures. Plautus, the Roman playwright, uses it extensively. Shakespeare too, I think. Actors and actresses love it, because it allows them to play two characters in one production and show off their acting talents. As do the many "masquerade" themes. Highlighting the motif puts Bollywood in a grand tradition of popular entertainment. Zora 23:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally understand (and am aware) of the major instances of twins separated at birth. Heck, one has 'twin-effects' used in Baazigar and Kaho Na Pyaar Hai. But all I'm saying is that while the use of such a motif is well-known, one wouldn't call the separated twin thing a common Shakesperean motif, only one (among many) used to great effect by him. However, to continue my Shakespeare analogy, the use of portentous magic, hallucinations and terrific psychological landscapes to augur evil times (such as in Macbeth, Hamlet or Julius Caesar) may indeed count as a generic Shakespearean theme. That's all I'm saying. I feel like things like kidnappings and parents' objecting to love marriages figure much more centrally and frequently in Bollywood film than does twins-separated-at-birth. In fact, the list you gave is humorous and rather accurate, save for the 'item which does not fit:' namely, the twins 'thing.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:57, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * My Usenet gurus said that "siblings separated by fate" was the commonest theme. (Lost at mela, kidnappers, accident, etc.) They thought that the twin motif was a subset of that. So I added "long-lost relatives and siblings separated by fate" as an item in the list. That covers LOTS of movies. Zora 21:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That's more general and certainly more accurate. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome Neej
Neej, it's nice to have another person working on this. When it's just two people it can turn into mere head-butting (as Surya and I have been doing :) ) and a third point of view helps keep things on track. I like the edits you did in the plagiarism section, makes it cleaner and simpler.

If you notice anything MISSING from the main page (as I recently noticed that the Filmfare awards were) add it. If you have time, any work on the various list pages I spun off would be of use! Zora 20:56, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Zora

Thank you. You are very kind I must confess I know very little about Bollywood. Have watched Bollywood movies on and off - the ones with subtitles as I don't understand Hindi!

Well back to me and my fascinaton for Bollywood. I really started to like Bollywood movies in the 90's - there was a sort of childish innocence in them back then.. Simple charming movies that had a bit of romance, intrigue, laughs, etc...

Well I haven't watched a Bollywood movie in a few years, because I think they have started to lack quality. Bollywood has become very mass produced.. creativity has suffered for the sake of commercial success. Same could be said for Hollywood come to think of it.

The pity is, Bollywood celebs are talented capable people - (in my opinion) some are in the same league (and probably more famous than) Hollywood celebs. By more famous, I mean take Amitabh Bachchan - 95% of India's billion odd population know and revere him. Now thats a lot of people!

I think it's time Bollywood came up with creative directors who werent afraid to try something new, innovative and original. India does have brilliant authors (e.g. Arundathy Roy) (SP?) so there is material for movie makers. Pity they have to resort to.. ahem.. borrowing ideas from others.. (of course this is a generalization, doesnt apply to everyone). But we have to be honest here - Bollywood has deteroriated of late.

It's time Bollywood took advantage of its resources and took moviemaking to the next level, and began to make truly great movies which everyone, not just "Bollywood" viewers would love.

Ironically, Indian audiences dictate what the movies are, so until they get tired of the current run of the mill stuff, things will go on as is. However Indian viewers home and abroad are beginning to ask for more. Eventually the Bollywood industry should realize that it's time to get creative, original and innovative.

Neej

Neej, Bollywood is like Hollywood: a lot of dreck, but always some good stuff too. Have you seen Mr. and Mrs. Iyer? A good, non-formula recent movie. Plus I liked Dil Chahta Hai a fair bit. Formulaic elements in the plot, and Aamir is too old to be playing a college student, but still some very witty, lively parts. Zora 20:26, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The #@$%@#$% Bengali
Surya, it wasn't ME who deleted the regional ident on Kishore Kumar the last time; it was someone else. He sent me an email telling me so.

If it's two to one that the regional ident is not necessary in this context, why do you insist on it? Some macho thing? You like fights?

I did move the list of playback singers out onto their own page and you are FREE to list everyone's regional origins, as I believe we originally agreed. Zora 03:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see it wasn't you. As for the regionalism, I understand that you've moved the main figures to a separate page where ethnicities are sort of superfluous to a non-specific listing. But there's no reason to excise it here. That's POV and an unfair singling out of someone. In that sense, extremely few people are known for their cultural backgrounds and therefore (by that logic) their ethnic identities are utterly worthless and should be hidden away in the back. I'm not being chauvinist here. I'm half Rajasthaani, but I'm not freaking over the fact that there aren't representative Rajasthaanis on the page, frantically digging them out. But major stars often merit greater mention, and interesting and factually accurate details about them are in no way negative additions to an overview page. Am I stopping you from mentioning Mangeshkar's ethnicity, or Amitabh's and Amir Khan's? No! Anyway, this is moot. I'm currently involved in a transition to college, but I will get to the pages when I have more time. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:33, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Surya, please give up on this issue of Kishore Kumar being Bengali. Does it matter that much? Isn't it good enough to know him as a great Indian? If we keep having to add ethnicity to peoples names we'd end up calling W 'the Texan George Bush' .. Just calling him President is good enough..;-) If Kishore's ethnicity is such an issue why not create a page about him, where you can talk about his ethnicity, origin, and more. I'm sure lots of people would like to learn more about him. As for Ms. Mangeshkar's ethnicity, I frankly don't know nor do I think it's important - I think it's good enough to know her as a great singer (you are referring to the singer.. right?) - I have never heard these people (Kishore.. Lata) menthion their ethnicity (Oh hey before you give me this award please note I'm an XYZ, all XYZ's rock) etc..

Even in India when people present them awards do they quote their ethnicity? When is the last time you heard someone giving an award to "The Bengali Kishore Kumar?"

I can't help thinking you could use your intellect in better ways than insisting on adding ethnic tags to peoples names... Neej --202.21.44.159 19:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Stop preaching and start writing. No one's tagging ethnicities. This is about disseminating information. You're one of those people who likes everything to be ideal and faceless, without diversity. Neutrality, peace, tolerance and harmony comes from acceptance of diversity, not suppression. No one's being parochial or chauvinist. As for Bush, people call him Texan and remark on his background all the time! Live in the now.--LordSuryaofShropshire 22:34, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Surya, I'm puzzled that a guy who kept changing Kishore's name to "the Bengali Kishore Kumar" now claims he isn't tagging ethnicities. What gives? Was it someone else using your login?

I may disagree with you on this issue of Kishore's name, but I don't think its polite of you to start attacking me on a personal level. Quote: "You're one of those people who likes everything to be ideal and faceless, without diversity."

I can't really change your opinion regarding this issue, since you believe that you are right, however if that illusion gives you satisfaction, then so be it. As for writing, I will try to do that, thank you. - Neej

Thanks for point re language
Dear Fariq -- did I get your name right? Thanks for adding sentence re language of Bollywood films. Big d'oh forgetting to specify that. I re-worked style a little but don't think I changed the point you made. Zora 11:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dialogues and lyrics
Some kind soul added a few sentences re Bollywood's use of Hindustani. After a bit of dithering, I took out the sentence re Hindi and Urdu literature. It's just too detailed for the opening sentences.

But it might be a good idea to have a section entitled Dialogues and lyrics and expand a little more on the role of poets and literature in Bollywood screenwriting and songwriting. I don't really feel that I should tackle it, since I don't speak Hindi or Urdu, or know all that much about the relevant literature and poetic traditions. Is there anyone who will step forward and give us a draft of such a section? Zora 06:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will add something when I get a chance. [I am the one that had added the literature reference]--iFaqeer 11:27, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I added the section, and a little filler text. You can FIX it :) Zora 18:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Though looking at the way that intro stands right now, the definition of Hindustani on this page doesn't even agree with the entry on Hindustani in Wikipedia--which IMHO is one of the most balanced descriptions of the whole Urdu-Hindi-Hindustani issue I have seen. Changing it a little right now.--iFaqeer 11:31, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's misleading to call Bollywood a "Hindustani cinema," not because that isn't, in absolute terms, the case, but because practically 99% of people who like or study Bollywood call it Hindi cinema. In a sidenote I have mentioned that in reality the most of the films' language is Hindustani though practically all people refer to it as Hindi cinema. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:37, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the phrase "hindi cinema" has become pretty pervasive. But I could turn your own comment (from another discussion) around and say that it is only Indians that call it that. In either case, I like your latest change about language.--iFaqeer 23:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, you couldn't turn my comment around at all. Americans and British people newly acquainted with Bollywood also call it Hindi cinema. People who don't speak either Urdu or Hindi and who are neither Indian nor Pakistani, perhaps (I can admit) through convention, know Bollywood as being a center for Hindi cinema. The reference you're making is to the "Indian subcontinent" being called "Indo-Pak subcontinent." Honestly, please, suspending all national and religious affiliations, let's look at the facts. The vast majority, indeed very close to all books printed outside of India, before and after Independence, refer to the subcontinent as the "Indian subcontinent." If you run a search on Google for "Indo-Pak subcontinent" you'll come up with only 639 hits, and practically 8 or 9 out of 10 of all the results are headed by Pakistani or Muslim websites. This is clearly a nationalist-cultural bias pushing this name. A search for "Indian subcontinent"? It yields about 155,000 results, the majority of which have nothing to do with Indian or Hindu websites. Last time I checked 639 was around only .4% of 155,000. As for "Hindi cinema" and "Hindustani cinema," the situation is in some ways even more lopsided. There are 13,000 hits for "Hindi cinema" and only 14 for "Hindustani cinema." That's around .1%! If you want to speak about equating Hindi cinema with Bollywood, then one can run a restricted search for ["Hindi cinema" Bollywood] and come up with 7,750 hits and a similarly restricted search for ["Hindustani cinema" Bollywood] and find 5 pages, a ratio-percentage of .06%. I think it's safe to say that "Indo-Pak subcontinent" and "Hindustani cinema" are, at best, minority terms, the former a nationalist usage and the other more appropriate as a descriptive appositive and not an appellation.--LordSuryaofShropshire 23:17, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Urdu, Hindi, Hindustani ... and Bollywood [continued]
Comments:

"Americans and British people newly acquainted with Bollywood also call it Hindi cinema. "

Uh...that's exactly the point. There's a whole new population engaging with this and I don't think we should encourage misunderstandings to grow and prosper.

"very close to all books printed outside of India, before and after Independence, refer to the subcontinent as the "Indian subcontinent.""

Ummm...again, that's a word that is either a) the Euro-centric characterization of the whole subcontinent or b) the name of the nation-state that came into existence in the middle of the last century. Neither strikes this humble observer as something I would like to accept as a universally appropriate way to characterize the whole (South Asian) Subcontinent.

And I agree with you that the phrase "Hindustani Cinema" is a non-starter. But then, neither I nor anyone else recommends it. I prefer the way you have edited the intro to Bollywood right now.--iFaqeer 23:29, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried another formulation in the intro para and moved the controversy to Dialogues and Lyrics. Zora 18:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Size of Indian Film Industry
Just noticed this: isn't just Bollywood's output supposed to be the largest in the world--even leaving aside the other local industries in India?--iFaqeer 23:33, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hey! No one's answered this. I know we've discussed the right answer above--and, it seems, come to the conclusion that it is the largest without adding in other regional industries. The article still seems to imply that Bollywood alone does not fit the bill of largest.--iFaqeer 08:52, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)