n a famous article on art and mechanical reproduction, Walter Benjamin cited theebullient 1927 prophecy of Abel Gance that the advent of cinema would lead to theavid re-presentation of all significant cultural stories: "All legends, all mythologiesand all myths...await their celluloid resurrection, and the heroes are pressing at thegates" (2002: 104). While studying the popular culture of premodern India?asociety that prized the tactile act of "seeing" as a medium of communication,delighted in episodic, nonlinear tales that were elaborately and self-consciouslyframed, and regarded operatic dance-drama as the ultimate art form?it has oftenstruck me that its heroes and heroines were indeed eagerly awaiting cinematicreincarnation. Within their profuse intertextual world, premodern Indian storytellerswere already fond of flashbacks, lyrical interludes, surreal landscapes, and vast andcrowded Cinemascopic tableaux; their language was visually intense, almosthallucinatory: screenplays awaiting the screen.

et, to my view, many of the most popular Hindi films of recent yearscontinue to exemplify the ideologies and practices I have described, and theircharacteristic intertextuality now delights an audience that, because of "classicmovie" cable channels as well as video and DVD rental shops, is even more keenlyaware of Indian cinema's distinctive genealogy and of its visual, aesthetic, andnarratological conventions

n the aftermath of the conquest of much of northern and central India by Muslimrulers at the close of the twelfth century, S?fi orders greatly expanded theiractivities, establishing kh?nq?hs, or "hospices" (usually built around the tomb of arevered S?fi preceptor), that attracted a diverse clientele by no means restricted toMuslims. Sufis were particularly interested in indigenous mystical traditions and alively interaction?at times adversarial, at times dialogic?developed betweenfak?rs and yog?s. The older form of the mathnaw? had been developed primarily inPersian cultural areas as an elaborate love story, generally involving a heroic quest,which could be enjoyed as poetic narrative but also savored as mystical allegory.Beginning in the late fourteenth century, a group of S?fi authors in northeasternIndia used these conventions to craft epic-length romances in the local lingua francathat they called Hindav? ("the language of Hind"). They fused the intense romanticism and quest themes of Persian literature with characters, legends, and a generalcultural ambience that was entirely Indie and indeed Hindu?thus after a prologuethat invoked Allah and Muhammad, the works slipped into the pattern of Indiantales involving princes who became yog?s and featuring miraculous interventions bygods such as Siva. Four such prem?khy?ns, or epic-length "love stories," survive,the last composed in 1545, but there is evidence of others that have been lost (Behland Weightman 2000; de Bruijn

ese tales often feature heroes who are wily merchants, disenfranchised princes, or poor (but not especially pious) Br?hmanas and whose aim is lessthe pursuit of dharma than the acquisition of wealth and worldly power; they alsoenjoy love affairs with glamorous women along the way. To accomplish their ends,the heroes often undertake impersonations, commit thefts, and carry out adulterousseductions, and though they are occasionally assisted by supernatural forces, theyjust as frequently skewer both pious pomposity and folk superstition. The pace andstyle as well as the self-assertive ethos of these "action-adventure" tales, which arecharacterized by abrupt plot turns and mood shifts, dramatic reunions and recognitions, and lyrical interludes set in demidivine or magical realms, are indeed suggestive of mas?l? films (see, for example, van Buitenen 1959: 111-27, 179-258). Theyalso include a feature that is generally not foregrounded in the ancient epics (thoughit sometimes enters into their oral retelling): a strong current of (often irreverent)humor. Though recorded in a number of famous texts, such stories remained in oralcirculation throughout the premodern period, and with the coming o

et once the "main" tale begins, unfolding as a flashback,it too may be regularly interrupted by subordinate tales, which branch off from andreturn to it and which it, in turn, "frames." These substories often recapitulatethemes found in the larger plot, but with variations?as in a baroque fugue or (moreaptly) a classical raga. Though they may strike Western readers as "digressions"from the "main story," they are not regarded as such by their primary audience,which savors the slow unfolding of the tale through such detours. In oral storytelling and dramatic performance, these subsidiary stories often provide the occasionfor humorous set pieces, poems or songs that take on an independent life, interludesset in alluring or magical realms, or flashbacks, dreams, prophecies, and otherdevices that suggest the designs of fate or the illusory and cyclical nature of time

here is general consensus among scholars that the storytelling conventions ofIndian popular cinema are significantly different than those of most other filmindustries. Accounts of that difference generally focus on the "complexity" and"loose structure" of the plots, their lack of a "linear" narrative, and the presence of"discontinuities" in the form of both subplots and song and dance sequences. Suchunderstandings take the form of assessments either negative or positive. Bengalidirector Satyajit Ray complained, back in 1976, of the commercial cinema's"penchant for convolutions of plot and counterplot rather than the strong, simpleunidirectional narrative" (23), such as he favored in his own films.

hat is most notable formy purpose is the assumption that, although a given performance will have apredominant rasa (thus a farce will be dominated by h?sya rasa, or the comicflavor, and a martial saga by v?rya rasa, or the heroic), it is expected to offer a rangeof others as well. The imagery used is somatic and in fact gustatory, locatingaesthetic pleasure in the body as much as in the mind; thus the text asserts that adrama's rasa may be likened to the taste produced "when various condiments andsauces and herbs and other materials are mixed" (N?tyas?stra 6.31-33; Rangacharya1996: 55). Further, it is understood that rasas are fleeting and may be enjoyedserially; a successful performance is thus akin to a well-designed banquet orsmorgasbord, serving up rasa after rasa for spectators to savor.11

t is ironic to have to remind a Western critical audience?which is slowlybecoming comfortable with the privileging of image over text and which lives in aculture in which poetry is in retreat, political discourse reduced to soundbites, theart of rhetoric suspect, and the manipulation of emotion and desire increasinglyachieved through visual content alone?of the artistic weight that, in successfulIndian films, is carried by dialogs structured as rhetorical setpieces and by songs thatare sometimes penned by renowned poets. Given their importance to audiences, therhetorical and musical aspects of popular films have been grossly neglected inscholarly analysis?dismissed as insignificant relics of earlier performance ge

his format of alternately spoken and sung performance, which gave greatemphasis to poetic and musical expression of emotion, survived the demise ofSanskrit drama toward the end of the first millennium CE and became characteristicof a range of regional folk dramatic forms using vernacular languages; it wastransferred to the urban proscenium stage by the (mainly Hindi/Urdu language)"Parsi theatre" troupes of the nineteenth century. It also became, after the introduction of film sound to India in 1931, the standard format for commercial cinema. Justas, in Sanskrit and most regional languages, there was no word for "play" that didnot imply "music-and-dance drama," so Indian-English "film" normally means oneincorporating songs and dances, and there has never been a separate genre category of"musical" in the Hollywood sense.

n his assessment, darsan itself is another vestige of "feudal" values: "ahierarchical despotic public spectacle in which the political subjects witness andlegitimize the splendor of the ruling class" (Prasad 1998: 78). Extending thisinterpretation to Hindu worship, Prasad emphasizes the necessity of a mediatingBr?hmana priest who controls the experience for the worshiper and reinforces thelatter's abject position (for example, "the devotee's muteness is a requirement of theentire process"); identification with the object of "the darsanic gaze" is impossible,he claims, except on a "symbo

he theovisual spectacle of the Hindu pantheon was, however, "hard to see" for mostEuropean observers prior to the twentieth century, and they dismissed it either as"demonic" or as a distorted simulacrum of the "realist" aesthetic of Greco-Romancivilization (Mitter 1977)?the latter assessment prefiguring one common Westernresponse to the visual code of Indian popular films. When Hindu images are crafted,their painted or inlaid eyes are customarily added last and then ritually "opened,"establishing the deity within the icon and making him or her available for theprimary act of worship, which is "seeing/looking" (darsana; Hindi dar san). InIndian English, people go to temples "to take darsan"; Hindi favors "to do darsan"(darsan karn?)?both idioms imply a willful and tangible act. "Darsanic" contactinvites the exchange of substance through the eyes, which are not simply "windowsof the soul," but portals to a self that is conceived as relatively less autonomous andbounded and more psychically permeable than in Western understandings (F. Smith2006). Darsan may also refer to the auspicious sight of powerful places and persons;holy people and kings (and politicians and filmstars) "give darsan" to those whoapproach t

he practices and conventions that I will be discussing are observably pervasive ofthe Indian cultural environment, alluded to in verbal idioms, body language, andubiquitous iconography. Hence they can be relearned by successive generations,though their precise forms at a given moment are of course subject to historicalcontingency and outside influence. Indeed, the "hybridity" of Indian popular cinemais another of its proverbial features: its pastiche and parody of foreign forms andpractices and its frequent borrowing of camera shots, plot ideas, and musical styles.Although every cinema borrows, the specific forms that borrowing assumes in thepostcolonial South Asian context and the economic and cultural forces that influenceit are indeed deserving of study.

his approach, drawing on the Marxist-influenced criticalsocial theory of the Frankfurt school, attributes the distinctive features of Indianpopular cinema to the material and sociopolitical conditions of twentieth-centuryIndia and of the film industry itself and argues that the films encode an ideologythat "subsumes" a modernist agenda of egalitarianism, individualism, and radicalsocial change within a feudal and nonegalitarian status quo (for example, Kazmi1999; Prasad 1998). Other similarly ambitious surveys see popular films asessentially allegorizing the political history of the nation-state (for example, S,Chakravarty 1993; Vird

or South Asia, the standard narratives of history, religion, and literaturehad largely emerged from the colonial-era collaboration of British and Indian elites;given the asymmetry of power in this collaboration, the expectations of the formeroften influenced the information they received from the latter, which in turn shapedthe explanatory narratives they crafted and then (through the colonial knowledgeeconomy) exported back to their native subjects.

et as atrained linguist and folklorist, he was indeed interested in the recurring patterns andthemes that lend a distinctive flavor to South Asian culture?a flavor that may beespecially recognizable to an outsider, or to an insider who steps out. That Indianpopular films likewise have a definite "flavor" is generally recognized (and oneindigenous descriptor of them is indeed as mas?l? or "spicy"), even by AngloAmericans who encounter them while surfing cable TV channels?and not simplybecause the actors happen to be Indian. The films look, sound, and feel different inimportant ways, and a kind of cinematic culture shock may accompany a firstprolonged exposure

An analysis of popular Hindi cinema through an interdisciplinarysocial and cultural lens would not be complete without consideringhow this assemblage is connected to, and quotes from, other culturaland social sources and referents. Bollywood draws from a range ofreferences in the composition of its films and music ranging fromSouth Asian religious texts, to historical folk tales, to other Asiaticcinemas; from regional South Asian musical genres and lyrics toWestern pop and rock music. Perhaps Bollywood cinema’s use ofreferences from mainstream Hollywood cinema has caused the mostconcern.

The increasing interest in Indian audiences andin Bollywood cinema by transnational corporate players from theAmerican cinema industries, and also by non-resident Indian (NRI)venture capitalists is considered in terms of Bollywood cinema’sarrival as a player in the global cultural commodity markets.

The actual body _of the cinematic-audience.is_._a physical and biological as well as a social and cultural construction“that interacts with: the body of cinema _in_terms af-afects and P<sensations that produce particular kinds of desires (for example,around caste, race, class, gender, sexuality, and so on). These desiresare partly‘in circulation in the immediate social and cultural worldsof the audience and are then mediated further through an interactionwith the cinematic assemblage.

thesocialprocessesofglobalisation—theexpansionofcapitalandcapitalism,thecompressionoftimeandspace,increasedculturalcommodification,theinteractionsbetweenthe localandtheglobal,allincreasingly occurringinandindicativeofthelatemodernera(Harvey1989;Jameson1991; Sassen1993)—andthe socialconditionofthediasporaasanexpressionofthe social,culturalandpoliticaldimensionsofglobalisationassettingintoplayarelationshipbetweenthehomelandofancestraloriginandthenewplaceofmigratory settlement throughactualand imaginedsocialandculturalmovements(Appadurai 1990:Dudrah2004; Tololyan 1996)areelaboratedoninthiswork.

The Indian and South Asian diaspora more generally is now almostalways an important consideration in the production, distribution,anticipated. monetary returns and potential audience reach forBollywood cinema, especially where films are centred on urbansettings or characters. The Indian diaspora alone has been conser-vatively estimated at 11 million people around the world and isconsidered as one of the fastest growing global diasporic communities(see Mishra 2002: 235-41).1! Of late, the diaspora’s prominencebecomes apparent not only at the level of diegetic activity in Hindicinema but also in terms of creative collaboration. Cultural producersfrom the South Asian diaspora are also making their input inBollywood films through production possibilities. For example, thefilm Hum Tum (Me and You, dir. Kunal Kohli, 2004) features themusical and vocal talents of British Asian RandB fusion artists RishiRich with Veronica and Juggy D.on a song of the music album,entitled U n I. This song accompanies the international travels of thetwo main urban Indian characters Karan (Saif Ali Khan) and Rhea(Rani Mukherjee) whilst their love story develops throughout the filmacross India, the Netherlands, New York and Paris.

‘Bollywood’notonlyrevealsonaliterallevelan.obviousrewor!ing oftheappellationofthecirieinaofHollywoodbut;-on-a-more:significant_level,,thatBollywoodisableto-servealternative cultural.andjsocialrepresentationsawayfrom-dominantwhiteethnocentric audio-visualpossibilities

Dil Se... failed at the box office in India. The film’sovert political agenda of the trials of the Assamese people on theIndia—China border, interwoven with a love story on the eve of India’s50 years of Independence celebrations, was said to have proved toomuch for Indian audiences. In.contrast, Bollywood-goers in Britainwere reported to have acclaimed the film’s handling of an originalpoliticised plot through a populist convention, and the factthatcurrent-~~ heart-throb Shahrulth Khan was playing the lead, coupled with A.R.~Rehman’s pulsating music score meant that Dil Se... became a ‘mustsee movie’ in the UK well ahead of its release (see Joshi 1998). Infact, for the first two months after its release in September Dil Se...was shown on five screens, five times per day, at staggered intervalsat the 14-screen Cineworld complex in Feltham, west London

ollywoodfilmsongsarealso animportantpartoftheschedulingofSouthAsianradiobroadcastingplayeddailyandforseveralhoursonradiostationsthroughoutthediaspora.Bollywoodvideooutlets,popularlyknownas‘Asianvideoshops’,areabundant.InBritainalone,inthelatenineties,itwas estimatedthattherewereover4,000videooutletscateringtotheregulardemandforBollywoodfilms(NetworkEast1997).Furthermore,BollywoodmoviehouseslikethePiccadillyCinemaonStratfordRoadinBirmingham(UK)runbylocalSouthAsianentrepreneurshavemushroomedsincethemidninetiesregularlyfeaturingthelatestreleasesonthe bigscreen.The main-streamcinemachainsofOdeon,UCIandVirginintheUKalsoshowBollywoodfilms,thereby cashinginonthepopularityofthemovies.Forexample,theCineWorldmulti-screencomplex,Wolverhampton(Uk), hasbeendailyshowingoneofthelatestBollywoodmoviessince1995.

Outside South Asia and its diasporas, the popularity of Bollywoodfilms in developing countries such as Nigeria, Egypt and Zanzibar hasbeen .attributed to the ways in which some of its themes andrepresentations of Indian rural traditions and urban modernity, ascoming to terms with one another, are seen as culturally familiar(Larkin 1997; Power and Mazumdar 2000). Furthermore, popularIndian cinema’s characteristics of melodramatic oral performance(for example,the Hindu mythologicals and religious tales of theTOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF CINEMA 31Mahabharataasrecountedinthegenreofpost-1947independentBollywoodsocialdramas)havebeenofferedasanexplanationofwhyHindifilmswould engageglobalaudiencesofsimilarorally-transmittednarratives(Nayar2004).‘Inthisway,BollywoodismorethanjustpopularHindicinemaforIndiansalone. Millionsofpeople,besides IndiansandotherSouthAsians,partakein,derivepleasureand constructsocialmeaningsfromthiscinema.Throughoutthisbook,then, whilstitisacknowledgedthatIndiaistheprimaryintendedaudienceforBollywoodfilms,weneedtotakeintofurtheraccounthowBollywoodcinemaequallyandsimultaneouslyappealstowideraudienceconstituencies,notleasttheaudiencesinSouthAsiaanditsdiasporas.

Bollywood, the moniker for popular Hindi cinema from Mumbai,India, has become an important catchword_in_the vocabulary of~global'SouthAsian popular culture. Bollywood not only signifies the“Jarge number of films made and viewed in the city of Mumbai(estimated at around 200 films annually), but also the distribution,subtitling, dubbing and watching of these motion pictures worldwide.Bollywood

Usingthe’exampleofBollywood'cinemaasa:social,culturaland'mediaphenomenon,SociologyGoestothe’Moviesintendstoofferaesthetic.cultural“andsocialanalisesofthecinematicform“throughtheinterdisciplinary subjectenquiriesofrelatedfieldsinthearts;:humanitiesandsocial.sciences;.name'yacross‘healoremen-tionedacademic'subject:areas.The''use-ofinterdisciplinaryandcriticaltheoreticalandmethodologicalframeworks—germanetothesubjectsofsociology,filmandmediastudies,andiculturalstudies—areselectively used'inanattempttoestablishand.elaborate:onsomeoftherelationshipsbetween cinemaandcultureand'socie'ythroughthecasestudy_ofBollywood.Thus,'.acontemporary’sociologyofcinemathatisput’forwardinthisstudyisonethatdrawsoninterdisciplinary.schoolsofthought and:that addressescinemaintermsofitsworkingsasaglobal industry,filmsas':popularculturaltexts}andtherelationshipsthat filmfosters withitsaudiences.Inessence,this:bookaimstoviewBollywood cinema

Heconsidered themtobesecondaryto‘proper’and‘serious’sociological research.Forhim,sociologicalresearchwasquantitativelydefined—‘Howmanypeoplego tothecinemaeveryday_inIndia?HowcanyoudeterminethatcinemaimpactsoneverydayIndians?’He evensuggestedthatmyinterestSESVOTE2,eeeeeinBollywoodwasfinefornowaslongasIrememberedtomoveontodo‘serious’ socialresearchthatengagedwith actualsubjectsandcommunity-basedorganisingandsocialmovements.

InthefirstexchangetheproducerhadgotintouchwithmeashewasintheprocessofgettingreadytogotoMumbai,India,torecordaprogrammeinwhichhewantedtoexploreHindunationalismanditsreceptionamongstaudiencesinBollywoodmovies.Inourinitialconversationwe chattedatlength overthephone,foraboutsome20minutes,inwhichduration wediscussedtopicsranging fromthehistoricalemergenceofpopularHindicinematoitsglobaloutreachin thepresentday.Theproducer seemedquitekeentoput—_forwatdtheargumentthatHindicinemawasescapismfor themassesandhad troublinglevelsofrightwingandconservativepoliticsenshrinedinitsmovies

Furthermore,andinwaysthat arenot toodissimilarfromDenzin’s sociologicallyimaginativeengagementwithmainstreamUScinemaandsociety,thecriticalworkofrecent scholarsofBollywoodcinemahavealso‘interpreteditsrole'in theformationofanationalconsciousnessthat'setsintoplaydominantand subordinateIndianand SouthAsiansubcontinentalidentitiesinanuneasyandcomplexrelationshipthatbegsfurtherquestioning andanalysis.Suchidentitiesinclude,forexample,therepresentationsofreligion, casteand gender;the-MuslimminorityinIndia; India’srelationship withitspoliticalneighbours; corruptioninpubliclifeandsoforth.-Of note heretoo,isthatasinthedevelopmentoffilmstudiesintheWest,the historyofcontemporaryHindifilmtheoryalso lacks an explicitengagementwith issuesofsociologicalmetho

EarlyscholarlystudiesinIndia,whilst offeringanoverviewofthehistoryanddevelopmentofitspopularHindicinema, consideredit6beanescapistfantasyforamassaudience

nparticular,Denzin drawsonthesociologicalimagi-nationofC.WrightMills(1959) andputsittouseinhisanalysisofHollywoodcinema(Denzin1991:Chapter4).

When the social dimension was brought intotheoretical analyses of film it was made not through the applicationof sociological theories or methods but instead through the conceptof ideology, borrowing most notably from Lacanian-derivedAlthusserian approaches where the subject of cinema is consideredTOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF CINEMA 23asconstitutedbyandthroughthefilm text(i.e.,filmasanexampleofasystemofdiscourse)andistherebycaughtwithinideology. Byfocusingonthetextualconstitutionofsubjects,seventiesfilmtheoryencouragedamethodbasedinstructuralpsychoanalysisratherthanallowingemphasistobeplacedonsocialcontextualissueswhichwouldhaveenabledamoresociologicalapproach.Thus,thetermsoffilmtheoreticaldiscoursethatbecamecommonplaceduringtheseventies andeightiesrelegatedsociologicalconsiderationstotheperiphery.

uelledbypublicconcernintheUSattheendofthetwenties,thePayne Fundfinancedaseriesofresearchprojectsthatbroughttogether sociologistsandsocialpsychologiststoexploretheimpactofmotionpicturesuponyouth(forexample, Bulmer1933; PetersonandThurstone1936).The Payne FundStudiessetthetoneforinterwar and post-warsociologicalapproachestofilm.They wereprimarilyconcernedwiththemeasurableeffectsoffilmon particularsocialcategoriesofaudience,with particular focus beingmadeontheperceived negativeeffectsoffilminchanging behaviour amongstyoung people.

neof themainfunctionsofsongs withinascreenplayistodisplayemotion,andinthe caseofHindicinemathisisoverwhelminglyrelatedtolove.The generalbeliefinthe filmindustryisthatloveandromancearebestexpressedmusically.Infilmswherealove storyisnotthemainfocusof the plot,a“romantictrack”isdevelopedprimarily throughsongsbetweenthemale and femaleleads

usicalsohasbeencentraltocategorizingcinemainIndia.Thepresenceorabsenceofsongs operatesasamethodofgenericdifferentiation, andhasbeenthemainbasis bywhichfilmsarelabeled:“art”filmsusually donothave songs;“middlecinema”—referstoanartfilmwithsongs;and“commercial” cinematofilmswhichunquestionablyhave songs.Songsareperceivedasthequintessential“commercial”elementinafilm.Filmmakers workingoutsidethemainstreamhave treatedsongsasawayofreachinglargeraudiences,andthishasoftenbeencharacterizedby thepressaseitheraccommodatingorpanderingtopopulartastes.Theomissionofsongshasfrequently been interpretedasanoppositionalstance—awayofmakingastatementagainstthedominantformofcinemaaswellascircumscribingone’saudience. Songsequencesare alsoiconicof“badcinema”and seenasanimpedimentto“good cinema” accordingtostateand intellectual discourses

aHindifilmdoesnotpretendthatitispresentinganunmediatedviewofreality.Hindifilm-makersdo notgotothesamelengthsastheirHollywoodcounterpartstohidetheprocessoffilmmaking.Anexampleofhowthetwo industriesapproachshootingonlocationshould conveythisdifference.WhenanAmericanfilmisshotinNewYorkCityonthe street,spectatorsareshooedawayorherded behindbarricadescompletelyoutof thecamera'sfieldofvisionbecausethegoalistoshowa“typical”streetscenewherepeoplearewalkingalong andnotstanding andwatchingafilmbeingmade.WhenaHindifilmisshotinasimilar publicsituation, spectators,aslongastheyarenotdisturbingtheproductionprocess,arefrequentlyincorporatedinto thebackground.ItisverycommonwhenwatchingaHindifilmtoseecurious bystanders on-screen watchingthesameaction—areminderthat thescene was filmedinfrontofpeople.IfthesceneisshotinIndia,it isnotuncommon

indifilmmakerstendtoworkwiththesurroundingsratherthan tryingtoshapethesurroundingstotheirshootingneeds.Hindifilmmakersarealsoremarkablyefficientinworkingwithlimitedresources.'?AlthoughHindifilmsexhibit highproductionvalues andarefrequently elaboratevisualspectacles,theproductionconditionshavebeensurprisingly simpleanduseminimaltechnology.Withtheexceptionofcertainelaborate actionorsong sequences, Hindifilmsareusually shotwithasinglecamerauni

Therehavealsobeen instanceswheredirectors and pro-ducers haveliterally“takenaway”thevoiceofactorsbyhavingsomeoneelsedubintheir place, butthiswas interpretedasanaffrontorinsult.The practicesofplayback singing anddubbing meantthatinpopularIndianfilms, thespeakingvoice, singing voice, andactor’son-screenbody couldbe three different entities

OtheraspectsoftheeventthathighlightitsritualizednatureisthefrequentincorporationoffeaturesfromHinduritualworshipsuchasthebreakingofacoconutbeforethe“RollCamera!”commandoreventheperformanceof anarati—therotational displayof anoillamporacamphorflame—tothefilmcamera.Thisquasi-devotionalrelationship withtheinstrumentsofculturalproductioniscommonplaceinIndia;itcanbewitnessedbetweenclassicalmusiciansandtheirinstruments,dancersandtheiranklebells,painters andbrushes,actorsandthe stage

Duetotheincrediblelinguistic diversitywithinIndia,Englishfrequentlyservesasalingua francaamongurban,middle-classIndianslivinginmajorcitieslikeBombaybecausetheyhavebeeneducatedinschoolswhereEnglishisthemediumofinstruction.Asaconsequence,althoughthelanguageof thefilmsmaybeHindi,thelanguageofproductionismulti-lingual,encompassingallof themajorIndian languages,ofwhichEnglishhasbecomeone.

Thisemphasisonpersonalinteractionresultsinahighlyorallyorientedworkculturewhereverbalcommitmentsbecometheequivalentofcontracts.Ifaproducerdiscussesafilmprojectwithastar,theassumptionisthatunlessthestarstatesotherwise,heorsheisinthefilm

artoftheBombayscreenwriters’dilemmaisthatscreenwritingisnotgenerallyregardedbymembersoftheindustryasaspecializedcraft thatrequirestrainingorspecificskills.Manydirectors writetheirownscripts,andassistantsortechniciansnursingadesiretobecomeadirectorareusuallyworkingontheirownscripts

Piracywasanevengreaterproblemfordistributors and exhibitorsinsmallercenterssince therewasatimelagbetweenwhena filmwas releasedinanA-classcenter anditsscreeninginaB- orC-classcenter,bywhichtime piratedVCDswereeasilyavailableand/orapiratedprintof thefilmhadbeenairedextensivelyonthe localcablechannel

notherfactorinrisingbudgetsisthemuchgreaterexpenditureonpublicity andmarketinginthelate2000sthaninprevious decadesoffilmmaking

Anotherfactorinrisingbudgetsisthemuchgreaterexpenditureonpublicity andmarketinginthelate2000sthaninprevious decadesoffilmmaking.

corporatizationhasplayedakeyroleintheindustry'sowneffortstorecastfilmmakingintothemoldofamodern,high-status profession.WiththeentryoftheIndiancorporatesectoranditsattendantcultureofwrittencontracts, institutional finance,andstandardized accountingpractices,filmmakingbeginstoappearandoperatemoreinlinewithdominantunderstandingsofprofessionalOrganizationanddiscipline.

Manypubliclylistedproduction,distribution,and exhibi-tioncompanieshavetheirfounders’childrenorother familymembersworkinginkeyexecutivepositions.Withmostfilmpeoplemarryingotherfilmpeopleandwiththeirchildren enteringtheindustry,theHindifilmindustryhasbeenliterallyreproducingitselfforseveraldecade

EventhoughtherehavebeenanumberofmarriedactresseswithintheHindifilmindustry,somewhocontinuedtoact inleadingrolesevenafterhavingchildren,theimmediateconclusionthatproducers,journalists,andaudiencemembersjumptowhenhearingofanactress'sdecisiontomarryisthatsheisineffectannouncingherretirement, Suchassumptionsleadmanywomentodelaymarriageorinsomecasesevenhidetheirmarriages

LikeHollywood,malestarswieldagreatdealmore powerintheBombayindustrythantheirfemale counterparts. Malestars areperceivedashavinggreaterbox-officedrawingpowerandthusarepaidmoreandafirst.

he industryisprimarilycomprisedofindependentproducers,distributors, financiers, exhibitors, and audiocompanies.Aspreviouslymentioned,allthree sectorsof thefilmindustry—production,distribution, and exhibition— aredominatedbyfamily firms,whichisthedominantcharacteristicofbusinessactivityinIndia

AllthreesectorsoftheHindifilmindustry—production,distribution,andexhibition—consistmainlyoffamilyfirms,formallyestablishedasindividualproprietorships,partnerships,orprivatelimitedcompanies. Withintheproductionsector,manyofthese firms