ON THE
WSWS
Donate
to
the WSWS!
News Feed
Contact
the
WSWS
Editorial
Board
New
Today
News
& Analysis
Workers
Struggles
Arts
Review
History
Science
Polemics
Philosophy
Correspondence
Archive
About
WSWS
About
the ICFI
Help
Books
Online
OTHER
LANGUAGES
German
French
Italian
Russian
Polish
Czech
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Portuguese
Turkish
Sinhala-
Tamil
Indonesian
LEAFLETS
Download
in
PDF format
|
|
WSWS : Arts
Review : Film
Reviews
The view from the oasis
Monsoon Wedding, directed by Mira Nair
By Joanne Laurier
30 March 2002
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
Monsoon Wedding , directed by Mira Nair, written by Sabrina
Dhawan
Monsoon Wedding is a comedy-drama by Indian filmmaker
Mira Nair about a Punjabi family wedding in New Delhi. Nairs
film took the 2001 Venice film festivals prestigious Golden
Lion award, the first time in four decades that an Indian production
has won the honor. The filmmakers previous works include
Mississippi Masala (1992) and Kama Sutra (1997).
An upper-middle class, globally extended family comes together
for an arranged marriage between a young New Delhi woman, Aditi
Verma (Vasundhara Das), and Hermant Rai (Parvin Dabas), a Houston-based
engineer. A buffoonish wedding planner, P.K. Dubey (Vijay Raaz),
oversees the lavish and intricate organization of the four-day
event at the Verma familys affluent home, always with an
eye to extracting more money from his client.
The bride-to-be, Aditi, has only reluctantly agreed to the
marriage after a failed relationship with her married lover, a
television talk-show host. The negative comments of her closest
confidante, her forward-thinking and unmarried cousin Ria (Shefali
Shetty), deepen Aditis doubts about her hasty agreement
to commit to life in America with a man she has only just met.
The brides father, Lalit (Naseeruddin Shah) maintains the
demeanor of a gracious host, despite struggling with the escalating
costs of the wedding, his daughters imminent departure and
a variety of family difficulties. The hot monsoon season and its
torrential eruptions seem to parallel and anticipate the dynamics
of the emotionally intense, status-conscious Verma family. As
relatives from disparate parts of the world converge, Indian traditions
get diluted. Speak a little English and you become a cultivated
family, declaims a member of the clan, which speaks more
English than Hindi.
One of the movies story lines involves the downstairs
courtship between the Vermas servant, Alice, and the upwardly
mobile, Dubey. Despite his entrepreneurial successes, Dubey is
a lonely man seeking a mate, as much to please his mother as himself.
The angelic Alice, largely invisible to the wedding participants,
has dreams of her own.
Upstairs, a sex scandal (a history of pedophilia
on the part of one of the familys distinguished friends
is uncovered) disrupts the celebratory mood. Downstairs,
the couple must overcome their reluctance to trust. Both worlds
succeed in their respective rites of passage. Now, after a mix
of comic moments and attractive dance numbers, all contradictions
are resolved in the colorful wedding finale with monsoon rains
enhancing the ecstatic mood.
At first glance the film appears to be making a solid argument
against Hindu religious fundamentalism, an important political
tactic of the Indian ruling elite. With visual succulence, the
filmmaker presents the wedding, a core event in Indian tradition,
as a confluence of international influences. Pointedly, in one
of the films early sequences, Aditis married lover
moderates a television program, Delhi dot-com, on
which a fundamentalist is advocating censorship in a Hindu
India. Indeed the film does present a multicultural tapestry
which exposes the absurd fundamentalist claim that the population
must rally to a nonexistent traditional India. The
films production notes comment: Set in todays
globalized Delhi, Monsoon Wedding interweaves the ancient
and the modern, the old-fashioned and the irreverent, the innocent
and the sexual, to tell a modern Indian story.
Monsoon Wedding also takes a relatively sharp-eyed look
at the lifestyle and concerns of the Punjabi middle class layers
who now dominate New Delhi. Punjab was divided into Indian and
Pakistani provinces at the time of partition in 1947. A large
number of those who migrated across the new border to India were
resettled in Delhi. Nair, who comes from this milieu, involved
family members in the project. This, as well as the filmmakers
artistic approach, which she describes as one that masters our
story and our method completely before we begin shooting ... always
returning to the essence of the actor, accounts for many
of the films engaging segments.
However, serious weaknesses in the film surface when Nair ventures
outside her milieu. The family conducts its life in an oasis surrounded
by extraordinary poverty, which rarely shows up on camera. Containing
some 14 million people, Delhi is a megalopolis with sharp class
divisions. The film, however, lavishes all its energies on the
characters in the oasis. And to the extent that it feels obliged
to reach out beyond, myth and fabrication substitute for realistic
portrayal.
Alice, the films only working class character, is irritatingly
sweet, saintlyand one-dimensional. Not much effort has been
expended to make her authentic. Dubey is a more rounded character
and, as an entrepreneur, holds an intermediary social position.
He serves mainly as comic relief, although certain moments in
his dealings with his employees reveal glimpses of a society still
gripped by the hierarchical caste system. Dubeys home in
Old Delhi, where his mother follows the stock market, is pretty
miserable, although one must presume, because of his social standing,
that he lives much better than the average working person. Nothing
much is made of these characters and in the end there is no class
tensiononly a playing field made level by love.
It must be said that Monsoon Wedding stacks the deck
in such a manner as to distort reality. Are there arranged marriages
in which both parties are attractive and intelligent, so that
a potentially satisfying relationship develops? No doubt. Are
there Indian upper middle class families that treat their help
with respect and even affection? Probably. Is a more or less seamless
coexistence of elements of tradition and modern life possible?
Yes, under certain conditions. However, if all the social exceptions
to the rule in the film are added up, one confronts a narrative
that simply stretches credibility.
Nair elaborates her concept of the relations between rich and
poor in an interview given to IFCRant: Their life
[the have-nots] is the same as our life [the haves]. Its
just that the language of love is different. In her own
notes about the film, she further says that Monsoon Wedding
capture[s] a time in Indian society when we are proud of
our culture, free from colonial complexes. The filmmaker
does offer an explanation for what she means by the dubious phrase
free from colonial excesses in the IFCRant
interview: We no longer have inferiority complexes about
the West.... Bollywood is very chic. The clothes are very chic.
It is no longer the cousin from New Jersey who is the hippest.
Its actually the reverse.
Nairs outlook reveals why Monsoon Wedding is so
skewed in its character development. With such self-serving complacency
and indifference towards the lives of the vast majority of people
in her country, why even include any representative of the general
populace in the film? But, according to the production notes,
it was important to Nair to show the co-existence of upstairs
and downstairs in this society because, in India as
is no other place, the haves and have-nots live side by side.
In the Hindustan Times Nair speaks more candidly, revealing
a truly reprehensible cynicism, when she quips: I could
have done another movie about poverty and derelicts and got rave
reviews for it. There is nothing that the western audience loves
more than watching the poor in the third world.
Let us give Nair the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, and
suggest that behind this cynicism and complacency, or commingled
with them, is probably a sense of the apparently overwhelming
dimensions of poverty and misery in India. Despondency, the feeling
that nothing can be done, will tend to encourage susceptible
petty bourgeois layers to conclude that nothing should
be done, or even discussed. Still, to dwell, for example, on an
unconvincing and contrived scandal involving a pedophile in a
country where 100,000 women die each year simply giving
birth, has almost the character of a social provocation.
Monsoon Weddings espousal of class détente,
as well as the filmmakers indifference to the condition
of the poor, forces a closer examination of the movies attitude
to Hindu fundamentalism. The scene at the television station is
a dig at the fundamentalists and, at its most interesting, the
movie does show how the globalized family phenomenon erodes insularity.
But at Monsoon Weddings core is an uncritical and
conformist acceptance of the wretched arranged marriage.
How does one explain the picking and choosing when it comes to
such a reactionary and destructive practice? Only someone concerned
with the fate of the masses can be a consistent opponent of all
fundamentalist philosophies.
Whether she cares to admit it or not, Nairs film ultimately
curries favor with the Hindu fundamentalists, or implies that
there can be a compromise between the demands of modern life and
those of reactionary, quasi-mythical religious and cultural tradition.
Nair, a Harvard graduate and a film professor at Columbia University,
was asked by the IFCRant interviewer about how filmmakers
should view their social and political responsibilities after
the September 11 bombing of the World Trade Center. She replied:
Social responsibility sounds extremely dull. I shrink from
that. As I get older, I look for movies to affirm life, to embrace
life. It is a symptom of an intellectually impoverished
time that accepting social responsibility and affirming life should
be considered opposites. Monsoon Wedding would have been
a better film had Nair taken her responsibilities as an artist
more seriously and had not sunk politically to the level of the
social layer she was investigating.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |