Dishoom: The unconscious overpowers the just; Representation of Muslims
Last evening, I complete the 2016, Indian Action-comedy film Dishoom, directed by Rohit Dhawan. The most conspicuous aspect of the movie, for me, was the representation of Muslim characters. The film is set in UAE and hence there will be a dearth of Muslim characters. In fact, there are more Muslim characters than from any other religion. But, the problem lies in the portrayal of those characters. Almost all the stereotypes have been utilized in this single flick.
The main vilaine of the movie is named Wagha, he's devoid of any real identity; but most others working for him are Muslims. Altaf Dad is one of them, who lives in Abuddin, a Muslim dominated area which is the hub for anti-social activities. As it is shown in the movie, all the criminal activities - selling the weapons on road to drugs and human trafficking, prostitution and illegal batting and wrestling - are taking place here in full view of public, implying that everyone is involved in it. The police chief describes this area on the analogy of 'Pakistan'. The border vigilance for Abuddin is also shown not doing his duty properly. He takes a goat as a bribe to let the truck pass. This entire scenario of Abuddin is portrayed unambiguously putting the entire community in the criminal-zone.
The protagonist of the movie is Kabir Shergil. Shergil surname implies his Royal descend and connection with upper social strata. The entry of Kabir to solve the case in UAE is a statement that the local police is inefficient. Sameer Gazi is a rich party-animal and gay. Kabir's aid in UAE is Juned Ansari. His character is molded in the fashion of Ali from Dhoom series. He is stupid; he is desperate for girls; he is unable to perform his duties efficiently; he can never be serious. But, as he starts working with Kabir, he gets senses and in the end turns out to be an efficient police officer.
All these things are not unique to this movie. This is a stereotype trend in Indian cinema. Movie after movie, same type of Muslim characters are found, probably because our audience has accepted this stereotype and normalized it. But, at the same time, such acceptance can spread and do spread in real life too, which could be dangerous to the social fabric of our nation in general and harmful to the Muslim community in particular.
Or the bad news could be the characters in the movie are actual reflection of unconscious image of the Muslims in the minds of the people. The image which is more of a result of Media and political jingoism, than the real people out there.
Right in the heart of my place there are two varli Matka Adda. Everything is done in broad day light and most of not all of us know that. But I don't think that it implies that the entire area and people living in the area are involved in it. I don't know what makes you think so. Also, I feel that your contention that Muslims are portrayed in negative light falls foul of facts. You may want to compare the way Hindu religious places shown in movies and pandits shown in there with mosques and maulavis and churches and the priests. That indeed would be revealing.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen it comes to Media-representation, there is something called Agenda-setting which is a characteristic of any form of media, anywhere. And Media stories run in the form of metonymic representations, and not the iconic one.
DeleteThe example you have given is truthful, however it is not represented through media. The difference is a spectator can evaluate it on one's own. While in case of media 'representation', the spectator is lead to believe certain aspects of it. We, as a spectator, see only what we are asked to see. It may be explicit or implicit. The entertainment media does this job quite implicitly. One can take the soap-operas, for example.
If you study the commercial feature films of last couple of decades, you will realize that the protagonist - in the traditional sense of savior and problem solver - comes exclusively from upper cast, forget about religion. There are exceptions, though quite a few. The spectator cannot be influenced by minor characters.
The US and UK films had villains from Russia, China and, at times, Japan. But, now, they are mostly Arabs supported by any of these countries. Similarly, during 1960s-70s we used to get villains exclusively from China. Now-a-days they are all Pakistani, and soon there will be Bangladeshi villains. And the financiers for majority of our films are also the ones who are close to the authority.
If you study the controversies related with movies, the things would become clearer.
I am still looking for more films and more characters and I, humbly, wish your assumptions turn out to be true. Because, the kind of observations I have had, are frustrating and dangerous for the harmonious society.
* please read: "most of us if not all of us..."
ReplyDeleteI have the same concern like yours but with Hinduism especially the upper caste shown as villian. The recent " Patalkot" is spreading hatred for upper caste. Where the upper caste sikh are doing group rape, the Brahmin are gundas who wear dohti put tilak killing muslim and desrrspecti muslim. I was taken aback after watching that webseries the kind of hated for upper caste is next level. I personally feel that hindi muslim sikh etc religion should never be shown because it create frustration in audience who belongs to same category but have not done and seen nothing of that sort. It is a serious concern.
ReplyDeleteThe series like 'Patallok' was an exception which dared to show the dark reality and corrupt nature of Indian society, for which they had to face the backlash as well. Look at these texts in terms of statistical sense and observe the politics of representation.
Delete