What's new

Should there be a CPEC for Lollywood?

Clutch

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
17,022
Reaction score
-3
Hello,

Question: Should there be a CPEC initiative for Pakistan's movie entertainment industry known as Lollywood?

  • Chinese busness invest in movie studios and production companies
  • This will encourage development of Pakistani centric talent
  • Pakistani movie actors will not go to India to prostitute themselves for $$$
  • Pakistan soft power projection in the region will grow
  • Pakistan will have an opportunity to tell stories from its prospective
  • Pakistan will reclaim the history and heritage of the Moghals, the Indus Civilization and more
  • China-Russia cultural development
  • Chinese movie studios will help bring in new technologies
  • Pakistan will have a better opportunity to counter Indian Bollywood porpaganda against Pakistan
  • It will help our youth from taking Indian Stars as their role models and will make them more patriotic towards Pakistan


A film studio (also known as movie studio or simply studio) is a major entertainment company or motion picture company that has its own privately owned studio facility or facilities that are used to make films, which is handled by the production company. The majority of firms in the entertainment industry have never owned their own studios, but have rented space from other companies.

There are also independently owned studio facilities, who have never produced a motion picture of their own because they are not entertainment companies or motion picture companies; they are companies who sell only studio space.

The largest film studio in the world is Ramoji Film City, in Hyderabad, India.[2][3]


A production company or a production houseprovides the physical basis for works in the realms of the performing arts, new media art, film, television, radio, and video.




Tasks and functionsEdit

The production company may be directly responsible for fundraising for the production or may accomplish this through a parent company, partner, or private investor. It handles budgeting, scheduling, scripting, the supply with talent and resources, the organization of staff, the production itself, post-production, distribution, and marketing.[1]

Production companies are often either owned or under contract with a media conglomerate, film studio, entertainment company, or Motion Picture Company, who act as the production company's partner or parent company. This has become known as the "studio system". They can also be mainstream, independent (see Lucasfilm), or completely independent (see Lionsgate). In the case of television, a production company would serve under a television network. Production companies can work together in co-productions.


TypeEdit

Entertainment companies operate as mini conglomerates, operating many divisions or subsidiaries in many different industries. Warner Bros. Entertainment and Lionsgate Entertainment are two companies with this corporate structure. It allows for a single company to maintain control over seemingly unrelated companies that fall within the ranges of entertainment, which increases and centralises the revenue into one company (example: a film production company, TV production company, video game company, and comic book company are all owned by a single entertainment company). A motion picture company, such as Paramount Pictures, specializing "only" in motion pictures is only connected with its other counterpart industries through its parent company. Instead of performing a corporate reorganization, many motion picture companies often have sister companies they collaborate with in other industries that are subsidiaries owned by their parent company and is often not involved in the making of products that are not motion picture related. A production company can either operate as an affiliate (under a contract) or as a subsidiary for an entertainment company, motion picture company, television network, or all, and are generally smaller than the company they are partnered with.
 
Last edited:
CPEC Cultural Caravan kicks off in PNCA
Category : Latest News Source : The News Date : 26-02-2018

CPEC Cultural Festival kicked off on Sunday at Pakistan National Council of Arts (PNCA), Islamabad and will be concluded today. The inaugural ceremony entailed thrilling tunes of dhole, the local music drum, fashion show, photo exhibition, screening of documentaries and cultural performance. Speaking on the occasion, the Chinese ambassador Yao Jing said the success of CPEC depends on the interaction and collaboration of people from both the countries.



CPEC Cultural Caravan kicks off in PNCA


Islamabad: CPEC Cultural Caravan Festival kicked off Sunday at the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA) amidst thrilling tunes of dhole, the local music drum, fashion show, photo exhibition, screening of documentaries and cultural performance. The Chinese Ambassador Yao Jing and the Minister of State for Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage Marriyam Aurangzeb were the chief guests on the opening ceremony.


Speaking on the occasion, the Chinese ambassador Yao Jing said the success of CPEC depends on the interaction and collaboration of people from both the countries. The cultural collaboration would enhance the ties between the people to people contact for lasting bilateral economic and political bond between China and Pakistan.

The Minister of State Marriyam Aurangzeb said the CPEC is not about the performance of the present regime but it is the future of next generation. The successful implementation of the CPEC would bring prosperity to the nation while it would also lead to regional integrity. She thanked the Chinese people who she said are the ambassadors of Pakistan for the world as they have always promoted the positive image of Pakistan.

The regional cultural performances depicting folk heritage of Pakistan marked the opening ceremony of the CPEC Cultural Caravan that is being held at PNCA Islamabad. The guests were being greeted by the dancers who sang and danced at the beat of the ‘dhol’ and created a festive ambiance to the ceremony.

The grand art exhibition was also inaugurated that showcased the paintings, drawings and art work produced by artists of CPEC cultural caravan. Besides, a series of books and research reports was also part of the Caravan to document, preserve and promote the cultural and artistic expressions of the diverse communities around the Silk Route and CPEC, which are under publication.

A documentary was also screened at the ceremony that showcased the work of the professional photographers and artists of Pakistan and China that they captured during the CPEC Cultural Caravan journey.

CPEC Youth contest entries, documentaries and photo montage by filmmakers were also screened each dedicated to one of the city on the CPEC route, showing historical background, culture, history, tourist attractions and monuments.

Panel discussions and cultural stalls showcasing regional culture were organized. The stalls of traditional food and cuisine from Pakistan and China were also established within the premises of PNCA.

Regional handicrafts included embroidered dresses, ceramics, wall hangings, vases, handicrafts carpets were displayed. Chinese and Pakistani songs were presented by Chinese and Pakistani singers.

Under focus Group Discussions TV, theatre and films, various senior artists of all the genres were present at the group discussions.

Veteran actor Mustafa Qureshi while discussing on the challenges faced by film industry said that its high time that we should name of our film industry which is often called as Lollywood. Another thing he recommended after the 18th Amendment, a film that has to be cleared in all provinces from sensor board. He proposed that a film cleared from one city should be cleared in all other cities.

Usman Peerzada renowned actor, producer, director said that film censor board should not allow irrelevant guests while the film is being censored.

Syed Noor renowned producer and director of film industry said there should be policy in which the people who understand the technicalities of cinema should come into the censor board. The people should come literature and film background so that they could understand the film. He said that the cinema owners should give equal screen time to Pakistani movies as compared to Indian and English movies. But this should not be done that for a new Indian movies five shows are held and one screen is being spared for a Pakistani film. He also demanded the revival of NAFDEC National Film Development Corporation.

Hameed Sheikh renowned actor said that we want financial support for our films, we get no logistic support from the government. There should be one window operation for NOC, visas etc so that we can get clearance for our films.

Mumtaz Hussain said that there should be way that we could save our films. There is no archives for film industry. Even film posters should be preserved as it is also an art. We should be given free access to historic monuments. Our students should also be taught about our own local artists, directors and producers.

Rehan Sheikh renowned actor and director said that there should be a law to safeguard our own local films. Government should implement the law. In Canada and in Britain, the government support the film industry. Corporate brands should support our film industry. They have pumped in huge money in film industry and the actors are demanding exuberant amounts from the producers.

Firdous Jamal stressed that we should dump our individual benefit in favour of our film industry as survival of individual producers in this cut throat competition is bleak. We should showcase our cultural soul in our cinema and for this reason we’ll have to unite and formulate a policy so that we all move in one direction for a bigger and better future of our industry. More cultural avenues should be explored.

It was also demanded that our films should be dubbed in Chinese and Arabic language to be released in China and Saudi Arabia. As well as our regional language movies should get subsidy. The cinema should be made accessible to everyone, the tickets should be less expensive, so that everyone can entertain themselves.
 
Yes, there should be. Chinese and Middle Easterners should invest in Lollywood.

We should team up with them to make good quality movies.

lol I never take Indian stars as role models. Many Indian stars are rotten to the core and morally bankrupt like Shahrukh Khan. lol.
 
No i am not interested cause our directors are literally makin indian bollywood copycat shytty films with extremly tacky item numbers.

There was one area where pakistan used to be considered better than india but now tha ks to item songs like Billi, May tutti frutti hoon and many more such hideous lyrics songs urdu poetry has gone to gutters.

And i am so done with crappy pakistani films. Then they have no faces left besides thatRanbir kapoor ki thooki hui Mahira khan and 1940s say hero ata hua Humayoon saeed.
 
Pakistan will have to compete with not just Bollywood, but multiple Indian industries with similar production value and better films than Bollywood. And these industries will keep trickling production talent to Bollywood because it pays more. Even Chinese investment won't create a competition.
Pakistan should instead focus on artistic films which are a minority in India and thus create a good global image like Iran. That's what I'd do.
IMG_20180317_210652.jpg


I'm giving this free advice so that Indian filmmakers hopefully take it as a threat.
 
Pakistan will have to compete with not just Bollywood, but multiple Indian industries with similar production value and better films than Bollywood. And these industries will keep trickling production talent to Bollywood because it pays more. Even Chinese investment won't create a competition.
Pakistan should instead focus on artistic films which are a minority in India and thus create a good global image like Iran. That's what I'd do.View attachment 459971

I'm giving this free advice so that Indian filmmakers hopefully take it as a threat.
I disagree with you.

We Pakistanis should let Chinese and Middle Easterners invest in Lollywood. That is the way to go.

No i am not interested cause our directors are literally makin indian bollywood copycat shytty films with extremly tacky item numbers.

There was one area where pakistan used to be considered better than india but now tha ks to item songs like Billi, May tutti frutti hoon and many more such hideous lyrics songs urdu poetry has gone to gutters.

And i am so done with crappy pakistani films. Then they have no faces left besides thatRanbir kapoor ki thooki hui Mahira khan and 1940s say hero ata hua Humayoon saeed.
Bhai, that is not the attitude. We should make our own movies with our own themes in it.

We need to be original.

Better to have Middle Eastern and Chinese investment in Lollywood.
 
Movies and Culture

Previous
Next
Learning Objectives
  1. Recognize how movies reflect cultural attitudes, trends, and events.
  2. Indicate how movies influence culture.
Movies Mirror Culture
The relationship between movies and culture involves a complicated dynamic; while American movies certainly influence the mass culture that consumes them, they are also an integral part of that culture, a product of it, and therefore a reflection of prevailing concerns, attitudes, and beliefs. In considering the relationship between film and culture, it is important to keep in mind that, while certain ideologies may be prevalent in a given era, not only is American culture as diverse as the populations that form it, but it is also constantly changing from one period to the next. Mainstream films produced in the late 1940s and into the 1950s, for example, reflected the conservatism that dominated the sociopolitical arenas of the time. However, by the 1960s, a reactionary youth culture began to emerge in opposition to the dominant institutions, and these antiestablishment views soon found their way onto the screen—a far cry from the attitudes most commonly represented only a few years earlier.

In one sense, movies could be characterized as America’s storytellers. Not only do Hollywood films reflect certain commonly held attitudes and beliefs about what it means to be American, but they also portray contemporary trends, issues, and events, serving as records of the eras in which they were produced. Consider, for example, films about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: Fahrenheit 9/11, World Trade Center, United 93, and others. These films grew out of a seminal event of the time, one that preoccupied the consciousness of Americans for years after it occurred.

Birth of a Nation
In 1915, director D. W. Griffith established his reputation with the highly successful film The Birth of a Nation, based on Thomas Dixon’s novel The Clansman, a prosegregation narrative about the American South during and after the Civil War. At the time, The Birth of a Nation was the longest feature film ever made, at almost 3 hours, and contained huge battle scenes that amazed and delighted audiences. Griffith’s storytelling ability helped solidify the narrative style that would go on to dominate feature films. He also experimented with editing techniques such as close-ups, jump cuts, and parallel editing that helped make the film an artistic achievement.

Griffith’s film found success largely because it captured the social and cultural tensions of the era. As American studies specialist Lary May has argued, “[Griffith’s] films dramatized every major concern of the day (May, 1997).” In the early 20th century, fears about recent waves of immigrants had led to certain racist attitudes in mass culture, with “scientific” theories of the time purporting to link race with inborn traits like intelligence and other capabilities. Additionally, the dominant political climate, largely a reaction against populist labor movements, was one of conservative elitism, eager to attribute social inequalities to natural human differences (Darity). According to a report by the New York Evening Post after the film’s release, even some Northern audiences “clapped when the masked riders took vengeance on Negroes (Higham).” However, the outrage many groups expressed about the film is a good reminder that American culture is not monolithic, that there are always strong contingents in opposition to dominant ideologies.

While critics praised the film for its narrative complexity and epic scope, many others were outraged and even started riots at several screenings because of its highly controversial, openly racist attitudes, which glorified the Ku Klux Klan and blamed Southern Blacks for the destruction of the war (Higham). Many Americans joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in denouncing the film, and the National Board of Review eventually cut a number of the film’s racist sections (May). However, it’s important to keep in mind the attitudes of the early 1900s. At the time the nation was divided, and Jim Crow laws and segregation were enforced. Nonetheless, The Birth of a Nation was the highest grossing movie of its era. In 1992, the film was classified by the Library of Congress among the “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films” in U.S. history.





Figure 8.6



The Birth of a Nation expressed racial tensions of the early 20th century.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.







“The American Way”
Until the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, American films after World War I generally reflected the neutral, isolationist stance that prevailed in politics and culture. However, after the United States was drawn into the war in Europe, the government enlisted Hollywood to help with the war effort, opening the federal Bureau of Motion Picture Affairs in Los Angeles. Bureau officials served in an advisory capacity on the production of war-related films, an effort with which the studios cooperated. As a result, films tended toward the patriotic and were produced to inspire feelings of pride and confidence in being American and to clearly establish that America and its allies were forces of good. For instance, critically acclaimed Casablanca paints a picture of the ill effects of fascism, illustrates the values that heroes like Victor Laszlo hold, and depicts America as a place for refugees to find democracy and freedom (Digital History).

These early World War II films were sometimes overtly propagandist, intended to influence American attitudes rather than present a genuine reflection of American sentiments toward the war. Frank Capra’s Why We Fight films, for example, the first of which was produced in 1942, were developed for the U.S. Army and were later shown to general audiences; they delivered a war message through narrative (Koppes & Black, 1987). As the war continued, however, filmmakers opted to forego patriotic themes for a more serious reflection of American sentiments, as exemplified by films like Alfred Hitchcock’s Lifeboat.



Youth versus Age: From Counterculture to Mass Culture
In Mike Nichols’s 1967 film The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman, as the film’s protagonist, enters into a romantic affair with the wife of his father’s business partner. However, Mrs. Robinson and the other adults in the film fail to understand the young, alienated hero, who eventually rebels against them. The Graduate, which brought in more than $44 million at the box office, reflected the attitudes of many members of a young generation growing increasingly dissatisfied with what they perceived to be the repressive social codes established by their more conservative elders (Dirks).

This baby boomer generation came of age during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Not only did the youth culture express a cynicism toward the patriotic, prowar stance of their World War II–era elders, but they displayed a fierce resistance toward institutional authority in general, an antiestablishmentism epitomized in the 1967 hit film Bonnie and Clyde. In the film, a young, outlaw couple sets out on a cross-country bank-robbing spree until they’re killed in a violent police ambush at the film’s close (Belton).





Figure 8.7



Bonnie and Clyde reflected the attitudes of a rising youth culture.

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.







Bonnie and Clyde’s violence provides one example of the ways films at the time were testing the limits of permissible on-screen material. The youth culture’s liberal attitudes toward formally taboo subjects like sexuality and drugs began to emerge in film during the late 1960s. Like Bonnie and Clyde, Sam Peckinpah’s 1969 Western The Wild Bunch, displays an early example of aestheticized violence in film. The wildly popular Easy Rider (1969)—containing drugs, sex, and violence—may owe a good deal of its initial success to liberalized audiences. And in the same year, Midnight Cowboy, one of the first Hollywood films to receive an X rating (in this case for its sexual content), won three Academy Awards, including Best Picture (Belton). As the release and subsequently successful reception of these films attest, what at the decade’s outset had been countercultural had, by the decade’s close, become mainstream.



The Hollywood Production Code
When the MPAA (originally MPPDA) first banded together in 1922 to combat government censorship and to promote artistic freedom, the association attempted a system of self-regulation. However, by 1930—in part because of the transition to talking pictures—renewed criticism and calls for censorship from conservative groups made it clear to the MPPDA that the loose system of self-regulation was not enough protection. As a result, the MPPDA instituted the Production Code, or Hays Code (after MPPDA director William H. Hays), which remained in place until 1967. The code, which according to motion picture producers concerned itself with ensuring that movies were “directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (History Matters),” was strictly enforced starting in 1934, putting an end to most public complaints. However, many people in Hollywood resented its restrictiveness. After a series of Supreme Court cases in the 1950s regarding the code’s restrictions to freedom of speech, the Production Code grew weaker until it was finally replaced in 1967 with the MPAA rating system (American Decades Primary Sources, 2004).



MPAA Ratings
As films like Bonnie and Clyde and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) tested the limits on violence and language, it became clear that the Production Code was in need of replacement. In 1968, the MPAA adopted a ratings system to identify films in terms of potentially objectionable content. By providing officially designated categories for films that would not have passed Production Code standards of the past, the MPAA opened a way for films to deal openly with mature content. The ratings system originally included four categories: G (suitable for general audiences), M (equivalent to the PG rating of today), R (restricted to adults over age 16), and X (equivalent to today’s NC-17).

The MPAA rating systems, with some modifications, is still in place today. Before release in theaters, films are submitted to the MPAA board for a screening, during which advisers decide on the most appropriate rating based on the film’s content. However, studios are not required to have the MPAA screen releases ahead of time—some studios release films without the MPAA rating at all. Commercially, less restrictive ratings are generally more beneficial, particularly in the case of adult-themed films that have the potential to earn the most restrictive rating, the NC-17. Some movie theaters will not screen a movie that is rated NC-17. When filmmakers get a more restrictive rating than they were hoping for, they may resubmit the film for review after editing out objectionable scenes (Dick, 2006).



The New War Film: Cynicism and Anxiety
Unlike the patriotic war films of the World War II era, many of the films about U.S. involvement in Vietnam reflected strong antiwar sentiment, criticizing American political policy and portraying war’s damaging effects on those who survived it. Films like Dr. Strangelove (1964), M*A*S*H (1970), The Deer Hunter (1978), and Apocalypse Now (1979) portray the military establishment in a negative light and dissolve clear-cut distinctions, such as the “us versus them” mentality, of earlier war films. These, and the dozens of Vietnam War films that were produced in the 1970s and 1980s—Oliver Stone’s Platoon (1986) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989) and Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987), for example—reflect the sense of defeat and lack of closure Americans felt after the Vietnam War and the emotional and psychological scars it left on the nation’s psyche (Dirks, 2010; Anderegg, 1991). A spate of military and politically themed films emerged during the 1980s as America recovered from defeat in Vietnam, while at the same time facing anxieties about the ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Fears about the possibility of nuclear war were very real during the 1980s, and some film critics argue that these anxieties were reflected not only in overtly political films of the time but also in the popularity of horror films, like Halloween and Friday the 13th, which feature a mysterious and unkillable monster, and in the popularity of the fantastic in films like E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Star Wars, which offer imaginative escapes (Wood, 1986).





Movies Shape Culture
Just as movies reflect the anxieties, beliefs, and values of the cultures that produce them, they also help to shape and solidify a culture’s beliefs. Sometimes the influence is trivial, as in the case of fashion trends or figures of speech. After the release of Flashdance in 1983, for instance, torn T-shirts and leg warmers became hallmarks of the fashion of the 1980s (Pemberton-Sikes, 2006). However, sometimes the impact can be profound, leading to social or political reform, or the shaping of ideologies.

Film and the Rise of Mass Culture
During the 1890s and up until about 1920, American culture experienced a period of rapid industrialization. As people moved from farms to centers of industrial production, urban areas began to hold larger and larger concentrations of the population. At the same time, film and other methods of mass communication (advertising and radio) developed, whose messages concerning tastes, desires, customs, speech, and behavior spread from these population centers to outlying areas across the country. The effect of early mass-communication media was to wear away regional differences and create a more homogenized, standardized culture.

Film played a key role in this development, as viewers began to imitate the speech, dress, and behavior of their common heroes on the silver screen (Mintz, 2007). In 1911, the Vitagraph company began publishing The Motion Picture Magazine, America’s first fan magazine. Originally conceived as a marketing tool to keep audiences interested in Vitagraph’s pictures and major actors, The Motion Picture Magazine helped create the concept of the film star in the American imagination. Fans became obsessed with the off-screen lives of their favorite celebrities, like Pearl White, Florence Lawrence, and Mary Pickford (Doyle, 2008).



American Myths and Traditions
American identity in mass society is built around certain commonly held beliefs, or myths about shared experiences, and these American myths are often disseminated through or reinforced by film. One example of a popular American myth, one that dates back to the writings of Thomas Jefferson and other founders, is an emphasis on individualism—a celebration of the common man or woman as a hero or reformer. With the rise of mass culture, the myth of the individual became increasingly appealing because it provided people with a sense of autonomy and individuality in the face of an increasingly homogenized culture. The hero myth finds embodiment in the Western, a film genre that was popular from the silent era through the 1960s, in which the lone cowboy, a seminomadic wanderer, makes his way in a lawless, and often dangerous, frontier. An example is 1952’s High Noon. From 1926 until 1967, Westerns accounted for nearly a quarter of all films produced. In other films, like Frank Capra’s 1946 movie It’s a Wonderful Life, the individual triumphs by standing up to injustice, reinforcing the belief that one person can make a difference in the world (Belton). And in more recent films, hero figures such as Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), and Neo (The Matrix) have continued to emphasize individualism.



Social Issues in Film
As D. W. Griffith recognized nearly a century ago, film has enormous power as a medium to influence public opinion. Ever since Griffith’s The Birth of a Nationsparked strong public reactions in 1915, filmmakers have been producing movies that address social issues, sometimes subtly, and sometimes very directly. More recently, films like Hotel Rwanda (2004), about the 1994 Rwandan genocide, or The Kite Runner(2007), a story that takes place in the midst of a war-torn Afghanistan, have captured audience imaginations by telling stories that raise social awareness about world events. And a number of documentary films directed at social issues have had a strong influence on cultural attitudes and have brought about significant change.

In the 2000s, documentaries, particularly those of an activist nature, were met with greater interest than ever before. Films like Super Size Me (2004), which documents the effects of excessive fast-food consumption and criticizes the fast-food industry for promoting unhealthy eating habits for profit, and Food, Inc. (2009), which examines corporate farming practices and points to the negative impact these practices can have on human health and the environment, have brought about important changes in American food culture (Severson, 2009). Just 6 weeks after the release of Super Size Me, McDonald’s took the supersize option off its menu and since 2004 has introduced a number of healthy food options in its restaurants (Sood, 2004). Other fast-food chains have made similar changes (Sood, 2004).

Other documentaries intended to influence cultural attitudes and inspire change include those made by director Michael Moore. Moore’s films present a liberal stance on social and political issues such as health care, globalization, and gun control. His 2002 film Bowling for Columbine, for example, addressed the Columbine High School shootings of 1999, presenting a critical examination of American gun culture. While some critics have accused Moore of producing propagandistic material under the label of documentary because of his films’ strong biases, his films have been popular with audiences, with four of his documentaries ranking among the highest grossing documentaries of all time. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), which criticized the second Bush administration and its involvement in the Iraq War, earned $119 million at the box office, making it the most successful documentary of all time (Dirks, 2006).

Key Takeaways
  • As products of mass culture, movies reflect cultural attitudes, trends, and concerns:
    1. D. W. Griffith’s film The Birth of a Nation, presenting a racist perspective on the U.S. Civil War and its aftermath, reflected racist concerns of the era in which it was produced.
    2. During World War II, films reflected the patriotic, prowar sentiments of the time.
    3. In the 1960s and 1970s with the rise of an antiestablishment youth culture, movies adopted more liberal stances toward sexuality and violence and displayed a cynicism toward established social structures.
  • After the failure of the Vietnam War, films reflected a more ambivalent attitude toward war.
  • The MPAA rating system, established in 1968, gave filmmakers greater freedom in the content they were able to portray on screen.
  • Movies shape cultural attitudes and customs, as audiences adopt the attitudes and styles of the characters they watch on screen. Filmmakers may use their movies to influence cultural attitudes toward certain social issues, as in Fahrenheit 9/11 and Super Size Me.
 
.
.
.


Why a Bollywood film has been accused of distorting history
  • 06 September 2016
  • India
Share this with Email Share this with Facebook Share this with Twitter Share this with Whatsapp
_91026377_7af1f325-b457-4b9d-82d8-7d99269cef03.jpg

Image captionBollywood star Hrithik Roshan plays the farmer hero of the film
A star-studded Bollywood epic based on life in Indus Valley, home to one of the world's first large civilisations, has kicked up a storm over its depiction of history, says Sudha G Tilak.

Mohenjo Daro , written and directed by well-known filmmaker Ashutosh Gowarikar, has met with a tepid response at the box office and irked historians and Indologists over its misrepresentation of the period.

Gowarikar had earlier made the smash hit Jodhaa Akbar (2008), a fictitious romance between the 16th Century Mughal Emperor Akbar and a Hindu princess, Jodhaa.

The ancient city that's crumbling away

His new adventure-romance film is set in the Indus Valley civilisation, which began nearly 5,000 years ago in an area which is now in Pakistan and northern India. The biggest cities here were Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, where some 80,000 people are believed to have lived.

Historical fiction
Mohenjo Daro - or Mound of the Dead - was one of the world's earliest major urban settlements. It is also one of the world's largest archaeological excavation sites, located in modern day Sindh province in Pakistan.

Gowariker's film is set in 2016 BC. The hero, Sarman played by Bollywood star Hrithik Roshan, is a farmer of indigo textiles. The heroine, played by south Indian actress Puja Hegde, is a priest's daughter.

The hero dances and serenades the heroine who wears plumes in her headgear. Wild horses are tamed at the speed of a rodeo show. Characters speak a strangely accented Hindi.

An evil king played by Kabir Bedi, throws the hero into a Roman coliseum-like arena in a gladiatorial fight. (Historians say there is no evidence of such practices.) Critics found the actors looked "more like Aryans" than the dark skinned Proto-Australoids who possibly inhabited the ancient city.

Image copyrightAFP
_91026054_gettyimages-465907951-2.jpg

Image captionMohenjo Daro is an important part of history lessons across schools in India
The film's epic climax is a devastating flood that submerges the city, with the hero valiantly saving the citizens with a Noah's Ark trick to take them to safety across the swollen river. (Theories about the city's decline include devastating floods in the Indus Valley, droughts, or an Aryan invasion that led to the inhabitants abandoning the city for the Ganges plains.)

All this has not gone down well with critics and historians alike.

"Creating fiction in an authentic historical setting is what historical fiction is about, but Bollywood seems to throw the authentic setting to the winds in favour of a better story," says Diptakirti Chaudhuri, author of Bolly Book, The Big Book of Hindi Movie Trivia.

'Sick Orientalism'
"And the liberties - while acceptable under the guise of fiction - often make one wonder why link it to a particular historical episode or era at all?"

Mr Chaudhuri says the film "had the additional disadvantage of being released in an era of hyper-promotions and people knew the makers had messed up many aspects of accepted history right from the time the first trailer came out".

He's right. Social media began criticising the glamourised version of an ancient historical city even as the film's trailer was released.

Ruchika Sharma, a student of archaeology in Delhi, tweeted that the heroine's glamorous costumes were nothing but "sick Orientalism" and condemned "Bollywood depicting tribal societies in stereotypical terms with feathers in their hair and paint on their faces".

Film critic Anupama Chopra called the film "a mess" and an "unintentional comedy" . The New York Timessaid Mohenjo Daro "isn't really interested in how the city worked, or in its ancient bells and whistles".

_91026382_mediaitem91026380.jpg

Image captionMohenjo Daro is a song-and-dance adventure epic
_91026457_36bcf3ea-96cf-4a63-a923-1840c0b95760.jpg

Image captionThe film has been panned by historians for its depiction of history
Parents who took their school going children to watch Mohenjo Daro have returned disappointed to find more romance that history in the movie.

"Movies have a big impact on school students and misrepresenting history can lead to confusion," says Vasav Dutta Sarkar, a Delhi-based history teacher.

She points out how the 2001 Bollywood film Asoka , the great Indian warrior king, was "riddled with historical inaccuracies and many students confused the movie for historical facts" in classrooms.

In her book Reel History: The World According to Movies, British historian Alex von Tunzelmann writes that a "lot of people can and do believe some of the things they see in the movies".

"Many of us will know that a particularly outlandish claim is tosh when we watch it, but years later it may have taken root in our imaginations - and we don't always remember that we first saw it in a fictional film."

'Suspend disbelief'
Now Mohenjo Daro's makers and cast have defended the film as historical fiction. They claim that the film is a fictitious tale of people of a bygone time.

"Hindi cinema is entertainment cinema not realist cinema", says Rachel Dwyer, a professor of Indian Cultures and Cinema of London University's School of Oriental and African Studies.

In his defence, Gowarikar told an interviewer to"suspend disbelief" while watching the film and ignore the history and authenticity part of the film.

He also said he had "taken plenty of artistic liberties with the looks of the characters".

_91026384_mediaitem91026383.jpg

Image captionOne critic called the film an 'unintentional comedy'
Gowarikar's supporters have also pointed out that Hollywood has also slipped with regard to history with movies like 300, Rise of an Empire or 2000 BC.

"Popular history is more important than academic history in films. It's not just cinema. Popular narratives of the Tudors are similar in Britain. History as history would be documentary rather than a feature film", says Prof Dwyer.

Copyright © 2017 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
 
I disagree with you.

We Pakistanis should let Chinese and Middle Easterners invest in Lollywood. That is the way to go.


Bhai, that is not the attitude. We should make our own movies with our own themes in it.

We need to be original.

Better to have Middle Eastern and Chinese investment in Lollywood.
But the kind of urdu movies that are being made jow lack class and are full of vulgar content.

Majority directors copy bollywood style shytty film making likes of na maloom afraad, actor in law are so crappy they literally gave me terrible headache after watching and atleast i will not watch any movie made by bollywood copycatting director nabeel qureshi, the guy who directed the two films i mentioned above

This is the content pur films are showing





And much more such stuff.
Should i go to cinemas for this trash?
 
For those who wish to avoid Bollywood for its "vulagrity"... That is fine... I believe it's the parents responsibility to ensure their kids aren't watching crap.

Sure the argument that Bollywood does not represent Pakistani values and culture..

Whether Lollywood tries to imitate Bollywood or not is not the complete issue...

It's about Pakistani cultural platform through movies.. its an important power projection.

American military commonly works with Hollywood to project American military might through movies... American industry commonly works with Hollywood for product placement through movies... Eg. General Motors in Transformers movies etc.

Likewise Indian Military and Indian Hindutva'ism works with Bollywood to protray Indian Military might and a distortion of Muslim History and Kashmir issue...

Pakistan need the same softpower capabilities.

War through the arts has been around for thousands of years... just the platforms change.
 
Last edited:
Hello,

Question: Should there be a CPEC initiative for Pakistan's movie entertainment industry known as Lollywood?

  • Chinese busness invest in movie studios and production companies
  • This will encourage development of Pakistani centric talent
  • Pakistani movie actors will not go to India to prostitute themselves for $$$
  • Pakistan soft power projection in the region will grow
  • Pakistan will have an opportunity to tell stories from its prospective
  • Pakistan will reclaim the history and heritage of the Moghals, the Indus Civilization and more
  • China-Russia cultural development
  • Chinese movie studios will help bring in new technologies
  • Pakistan will have a better opportunity to counter Indian Bollywood porpaganda against Pakistan
  • It will help our youth from taking Indian Stars as their role models and will make them more patriotic towards Pakistan


A film studio (also known as movie studio or simply studio) is a major entertainment company or motion picture company that has its own privately owned studio facility or facilities that are used to make films, which is handled by the production company. The majority of firms in the entertainment industry have never owned their own studios, but have rented space from other companies.

There are also independently owned studio facilities, who have never produced a motion picture of their own because they are not entertainment companies or motion picture companies; they are companies who sell only studio space.

The largest film studio in the world is Ramoji Film City, in Hyderabad, India.[2][3]


A production company or a production houseprovides the physical basis for works in the realms of the performing arts, new media art, film, television, radio, and video.




Tasks and functionsEdit

The production company may be directly responsible for fundraising for the production or may accomplish this through a parent company, partner, or private investor. It handles budgeting, scheduling, scripting, the supply with talent and resources, the organization of staff, the production itself, post-production, distribution, and marketing.[1]

Production companies are often either owned or under contract with a media conglomerate, film studio, entertainment company, or Motion Picture Company, who act as the production company's partner or parent company. This has become known as the "studio system". They can also be mainstream, independent (see Lucasfilm), or completely independent (see Lionsgate). In the case of television, a production company would serve under a television network. Production companies can work together in co-productions.


TypeEdit

Entertainment companies operate as mini conglomerates, operating many divisions or subsidiaries in many different industries. Warner Bros. Entertainment and Lionsgate Entertainment are two companies with this corporate structure. It allows for a single company to maintain control over seemingly unrelated companies that fall within the ranges of entertainment, which increases and centralises the revenue into one company (example: a film production company, TV production company, video game company, and comic book company are all owned by a single entertainment company). A motion picture company, such as Paramount Pictures, specializing "only" in motion pictures is only connected with its other counterpart industries through its parent company. Instead of performing a corporate reorganization, many motion picture companies often have sister companies they collaborate with in other industries that are subsidiaries owned by their parent company and is often not involved in the making of products that are not motion picture related. A production company can either operate as an affiliate (under a contract) or as a subsidiary for an entertainment company, motion picture company, television network, or all, and are generally smaller than the company they are partnered with.



Absolutely, there should.
 
But the kind of urdu movies that are being made jow lack class and are full of vulgar content.

Majority directors copy bollywood style shytty film making likes of na maloom afraad, actor in law are so crappy they literally gave me terrible headache after watching and atleast i will not watch any movie made by bollywood copycatting director nabeel qureshi, the guy who directed the two films i mentioned above

This is the content pur films are showing





And much more such stuff.
Should i go to cinemas for this trash?
Agreed with you bro, Lollywood should promote Islamic values which is our culture.

Not the Bollywood crap which copies Hollywood.

For those who wish to avoid Bollywood for its "vulagrity"... That is fine... I believe it's the parents responsibility to ensure their kids aren't watching crap.

Sure the argument that Bollywood does not represent Pakistani values and culture..

Whether Lollywood tries to imitate Bollywood or not is not the complete issue...

It's about Pakistani cultural platform through movies.. its an important power projection.

American military commonly works with Hollywood to project American military might through movies... American industry commonly works with Hollywood for product placement through movies... Eg. General Motors in Transformers movies etc.

Likewise Indian Military and Indian Hindutva'ism works with Bollywood to protray Indian Military might and a distortion of Muslim History and Kashmir issue...

Pakistan need the same softpower capabilities.

War through the arts has been around for thousands of years...bjust the platforms change.
Agreed with you. Lollywood should never copy Bollywood or Hollwood.

We need a distinct identity, we need our values to be portrayed. We need to show our decent culture.
 
Back
Top Bottom