Looking back at the delineation of LGBTs in Hindi cinema in general and in some recent releases in particular in light of the Section 377 judgment
There no single or simple answer to “Which is the first queer Hindi film?” To some, it may be D.G. Phalke’sRaja Harishchandra, which had male actors playing the female parts. To some, it may be the 1974 release KunwaraBaap, whose most cherished song, Sajrahigali, is filmed on a group of hijras who are commemorating the protagonist’s adoption of an abandoned newborn as his son and thus become the unmarried father the film’s title refers to. To others, it may be the now-unavailable BadnamBasti, released three years before KunwaraBaap and dealing, according to some reports, with two men involved in a sexual relationship.
Personally, I think homoeroticism became a regular part of Hindi cinema only after the arrival of Amitabh Bachchan. Raja Harishchandra may have had men in drag, but that was the socio-cultural norm in 1913 (the year it released) rather than an articulation of queerness on the part of the film, which is a mythological based on Indian folklores. It is common, to this day, for hijras to bless a newborn through their song-and-dance rituals, and be paid for it by the parents, so the song in KunwaraBaap functions as a portrayal of that custom rather than as a portrayal of the hijra community, who are not seen before or after the song. As for BadnamBasti, no opinions may be offered, for it is no longer possible to see the film and find out how, and to what extent, it portrays a same-sex relationship. A number of Bachchan’s films, on the other hand, have him play the part of a protagonist involved in a till-death-do-us-part relationship with another man, and though these relationships are seldom spelled out as homosexual ones, there is no mistaking the undercurrent of romantic attraction. In the recent years, critics and scholars have picked up on this undercurrent. Meheli Sen has said that such films of Bachchan cut across categories:if there is anything (apart from Bachchan) that Angry Young Man films like Zanjeerand KaalaPatthar, masala concoctions such as Sholayand Hera Pheri, and middle-of-the-road fare like Anand and Namak Haraam have in common, it is that in all of them, the most significant relations that Bachchan has is with a “friend” of the same sex, for whom he is prepared to do anything. R. Raj Rao has translated and analyzed the lyrics of the songs in these films that Bachchan and his male companions sing for each other, and has demonstrated the thoroughly romantic bent of the feelings expressed in them. Baradwaj Rangan acknowledges the homoeroticism of the Bachchan-starrers in his review of Gunday, which owes much to those films. Sanjay Srivastava acknowledges the same more openly, saying, “An aspect of Bachchan’s on-screen appeal lay in his ability to tap into the symbolic world of homoeroticism that finds play in a number of provincial contexts in India”, adding that while same-sex desires have, for long, found expression in myriad ways in many parts of India and are even recognized as such, “Bachchan was the first hero to openly express a homoerotic aura in several of his films.” Plus, there are those five drags he puts on in Mere angne mein, and the dance moves in Yeh hain Bambainagariya from Don, where he claps his hands and swings his hips much like the hijras do during their dances. Take all of this into account, and the queerness of Bachchan’s onscreen personas become apparent.
Indeed, some of the best portrayals of same-sex relationships in Hindi cinema are along the same lines as the Bachchan films. These films don’t bother (or perhaps, given the priggish censor board and the largely homophobic Indian audience, don’t dare) to actually call their protagonists gay, but leave enough indications for the discerning viewers to arrive at the necessary conclusions. Some go further than others in this regard, but Kai Po Che, Udaan, SonuKeTitu Ki Sweety and Detective Byomkesh Bakshy all have this propensity of colouring their characters queer but doing so in a manner that’s subtle rather than overt. The same goes for three of the most cherished characters in RajkumarHirani’s films—Munna, Circuit and P.K.
If some movies actually spell out the characters’ queerness, it is often because the characters in these films are comic degenerates (think of the parts Bobby Darling mostly plays), or unprincipled traitors (such as Page 3 and Life…In a Metro, both of which castigate gays who stay closeted and get involved in heterosexual relationships, but say nothing about the strictures that make them do so), or a combination of both (the principal in Student of the Year and the gay gangster in EkChalis Ki Local; their sexual orientation constitutes the comic relief in both movies, and while the principal is blamed for ending the friendship between the students, the gangster turns out to be as violent as he is comical, going so far as to almost rape a young man after binding him to the bed). Since these characters are either ridiculous or unsympathetic anyway, revealing their sexual inclination carries no risk. It is best not to say much about something like Girlfriend, where Isha “I am a lesbian” Koppikar is the crazed killer. The likes of Fire and Dedh Ishqiya are almost as nauseating, given their misconception that women enter same-sex relationships when they are being ignored by their husbands for some reason or the other.
For sure, you do find a My Brother Nikhil here and a Margarita with a Straw there, with more accurate and sympathetic portrayals of LGBTs, but these are small dots on the vast expanse of Bollywood, and even in these films, the characters’ sexual orientation is often set aside to address other, admittedly relevant, topics. My Brother Nikhil has far less to say about Nikhil’s homosexuality than it does about his being HIV positive. There are plenty of discussions in the film about the need to treat those diagnosed with this disease with care and understanding, but there is hardly any mention of the need to do the same with gays. Besides, as the very title indicates, Nikhil’s relationship with his sister, rather than his boyfriend, is prioritized (to the extent that the one occasion that Nikhil says “I love you”, it is addressed to his sister, not his lover), meaning that the movie is ultimately about the final acceptance of the ill Nikhil by his initially disapproving parents, via his sister’s mediation. The necessity of parental acceptance for an AIDS patient can hardly be overstated, but since Nikhil’s relationship with his boyfriend is so rarely delved into, it stays unclear if the parents have come to accept only their son’s ailment, or his homosexuality as well. The sister’s declaration that the parents began to treat Nikhil’s boyfriend as their son after Nikhil’s death, is similarly bereft of any direct acknowledgement of the exact relationship between the lovers. Making the protagonist gay, and then defining him almost exclusively in terms of a disease that many continue to think of as a “gay disease”, is somewhat troubling, and this could have been averted had the film been a little less discreet about Nikhil and his boyfriend’s relationship.
To cut a could-have-been-much-longer story short, Bollywood does not make many films about LGBTs, and the ones that it does make often do not fare well in terms of the accuracy and understanding with which the queer characters are presented. This is precisely what makes 2016 something of a watershed year, for you cannot name any other annum when as many as four Hindi films dealt with homosexuality, and did so with empathy. I am glad for this, because this same year also has releases that serve as lessons in how not to deal with homosexuality. Take Dear Zindagi, for instance, a film about a young woman named Kaira who learns, with the aid of an unorthodox therapist called Dr. Jehangir Khan, to cope with the troubles in her personal life. There is much that I did not like about the movie, but let me speak, for now, only about what it has to say about LGBTs, and how it says this. Raunak, a friend of Kaira’s, visits a shrink, and since Kaira is contemplating if she should do the same, she asks him, “Why did you start seeing a therapist? So that you could speak to others about being gay?” Raunak replies, “I did it so that I can come to terms with my being gay.” At first, you may want to praise this scene—I know I did—for saying that it is okay to be gay, and that you must first learn to accept yourself for what you are before you ask others to do so. Then I found myself asking, “Why does this fellow feature prominently in only this one scene, and then is practically shooed off the movie? I mean, in a film running for almost three hours, Raunak has, by a generous estimate, about five minutes allotted to him, and during those five minutes, all he does is loiter around Kaira and have with her that one-line conversation. I know the movie is about Kairaand not about Raunak, but it is also not “about” Jehangir, or Fatima or Jackie (the latter being Kaira’s friends), so if the movie could nonetheless make them a prominent part of Kaira’s life, what stopped it from doing the same with Raunak?” This lead me, inevitably, to the further ask the following: Is that scene between Kaira and Raunak put in the movie for the sole purpose of portraying how cool Kaira is about having a gay friend? This does seem to be the case, all the more because of a later scene, where Kaira’s nosy relatives ask her if she is “Lebanese”, by which they mean lesbian (this pun/joke is as old as Bend It Like Beckham, which is to say it is not very funny any longer, but the Dear Zindagi team obviously thinks otherwise), and that if she is, then it is the doing of the film industry she works in, which is full of gays. A long, indignant reply comes from Kaira, all of which I don’t remember, but the gist is that while Bollywood does have gay people working there, every individual in the industry is not gay; it is simply that the industry is more accepting of homosexuals than the other workplaces are, which also have gay and lesbian workers who, unfortunately, have to conceal their actual selves from others. The relatives then ask again, “Are you lesbian?”, to which she says she is not, and then leaves to go and stay with a friend.
There are three things to be said about the scene. Firstly, that paean to Bollywood for being gay-friendly is incredibly smug. Bollywood may well be more accepting than other industries are about gays, but do let us remember that this very industry was reluctant about funding My Brother Nikhil, and said to Onir, “Make Bipasha Basu give Nikhil AIDS, and we shall produce your film.” Years later, Karan Johar struggled to find an actor to play the young gay protagonist in his segment of Bombay Talkies, before Saquib Saleem accepted the part. As many as six actors, among them five prominent stars, turned down the part of the gay sibling in Kapoor and Sons, and had Fawad Khan, who was finally cast, not been around, the film would probably not have been made. To me, this does not seem like a very LGBT-loving industry, and to have industry-insiders spout praise for it in this regard is therefore very irritating. Secondly, queer people in Bollywood have to hide their sexual orientation as much as the queers in other workplaces; what else accounts for the fact that in these hundred years since the beginning of the industry, hardly any actor, producer or director has come out? I am not judging them for not doing so. I am simply unable to understand what makes Kaira think that queers in Bollywood have to be any less closeted. Thirdly, the entire scene, like the conversation between Raunak and Kaira, seems to have been put in the movie to enhance Kaira’s appeal as a character, rather than to promote discussions on LGBT rights. After all, as Kaira confirms, she herself is heterosexual, so her speaking for about two minutes in favour of gays does not really facilitate any engagement on the part of the audience with homosexuality. They are still being asked to invest in, to identify with, a young, beautiful, straight woman, and a socio-financially well-off one at that, who can afford dinners at posh restaurants and costly sessions with a shrink (in other words, she is very much like the multiplex crowd who constitute the chief audience for this movie). There is no rule that a movie cannot have such a character for a protagonist, but I think it is distressing if queer people, or discussions about them, populate a movie not in their own right but as means to ennoble a heterosexual character. If the makers were really concerned about LGBTs, they would have made Raunak a more prominent figure, or better still, made Kaira lesbian…or is that asking for the moon?
The film Befikre errs even more. Picture this: Dharam, the hero, who has come to Paris to work as a stand-up comedian at a friend’s club (don’t ask!), reaches the flat he is supposed to stay at. A woman opens the door, invites him in, and shows him around the place, while Dharam, even before he has put down the luggage he is carrying, has begun to fantasize about making out with her, leering like a horny teenager who has had his first glance at smut. Then, a second woman appears, and she is the first one’s partner; they are lesbians, learns Dharam, and there goes his wet dreams. Or so you think, because Dharam, after a second’s surprise, gets the leer back on his lips, thinking, now, of doing both of the women, instead of the only the first. The prurience in these scenes, I must add, is not held up to be satirized or criticized. Dharam learns no lesson about the pitfalls of heteronormative thinking, about not assuming somebody is straight unless stated otherwise. Rather, these scenes constitute what, I am sure, the makers consider comic relief, a proof of Dharam’s sense of humour that has landed him the gig as a comedian at the club, and not of a discriminatory attitude towards the LGBT community that involves laughing at them for what they are. Later, when Dharam and Shayra, his former flame, are walking through a marketplace, Dharam shouts “That’s so gay” to mark his disapproval of something Shayra has said. This alone would have been mortifying, but there also happens to be agay person present in the immediate vicinity, so that he can be made to speak in the slightly lisping manner that people seem to think is common to all homosexual people’s diction, and so that Dharam can mock that manner of speech and crack a joke about balls that is so dumb, I am glad I don’t remember it any longer.
The good LGBT films of 2016 more than make up for the lapses of the aforementioned ones, though. Kapoor and Sons and Dear Dad are made by different directors (Shakun Baatra and Tanuj Bhramar), financed by separate production houses, and there is no overlapping of cast and crews, but the similarities between them are many. Both have a scene in which the gay character tries to come out but cannot, and the outing in both films, when it finally happens, is accidental. In Dear Dad, Nitin, a middle-aged husband and father of two, has revealed that he is gay to his wife, and they have decided to part amicably, but Nitin also has to inform Shivam, his adolescent son, about this while driving him back to his boarding school after the vacations. Understandably, he is hesitant, and beats around the bush by asking Shivam about his classes and his friends, till the conversation veers towards the upcoming IPL tournament. Apparently, there are rumours doing the rounds about the sexual orientation of a cricketer, so Nitin tries to use that as a means to broach the topic of his own homosexuality, asking Shivam, “Do you know what they are saying about him [the cricketer]?” The son, fiddling with his mobile, asks, “What?”, and Nitin, in response, stutters and stumbles, before saying, “That…that…he is playing very well these days.” Shivam shrugs and keeps playing with his cell phone, as Nitin, cursing his hesitation silently, keeps driving.
The corresponding scene in Kapoor and Sons is even more poignant. Rahul, the elder of the two brothers in the film, comes to India after his grandfather suffers a heart attack. The old guy has recovered well, though, to the extent that he is smoking joints in his room, and his two grandsons, Rahul and Arjun, decide totake part in the revelries. They return to their bedroom in a state of intoxicated euphoria, and Rahul, apparently emboldened by the fumes inhaled, says, “Shall I say something to you? Something I have not told anyone else?” Arjun does not respond, for he has fallen asleep. Rahul looks at his sibling, sighs, and surrenders to sleep as well. At this stage, we still don’t know what this “something” is; we don’t, either, in Nitin’s case when he mentions the cricketer, though we did hear his wife say that he must speak to Shivam, so we know it is something urgent. The person to whom Nitin does first mention his homosexuality is his father, who is now paralyzed and cannot speak. Despite Nitin’s protestations to the contrary, his father’s condition, one feels, is one significant reason that Nitin can actually speak to him about this, for no matter how upset or enraged the father may get upon hearing that Nitin is gay, there is little he can do. Unfortunately, Shivam overhears Nitin’s confession, and his response is what one would expect—he storms away furiously, refuses to speak to his father except in monosyllables thereafter, thinks that his father is being friendly with a reality television star only because he wants to sleep with the latter, and even goes to meet a sadhu who, he thinks, can “cure” Nitin’s homosexuality. Rahul’s mother, Sunita, chances upon the photos of Rahul and his British boyfriend on her son’s laptop, and confronts Rahul in the ugliest manner possible, using all the terms that gay people fear their parents shall hurl at them should they come out: “Shame on you!” “You didn’t bother to think about me or your father or any of us, did you?” “You have hurt me so much.” “Go away, there can be no relations between us any more.” Indeed, Sunita even accuses Rahul of having lied to her about having a girlfriend, unaware that it is precisely the sort of virulent homophobia that she is demonstrating that necessitated Rahul’s falsehood. As Rahul asks her later, “Is it my lie that bothers you, or the truth about me?”
Rahul’s attempt to reach out to his mother, and Nitin’s to his son, throw light on a further similarity between the two films—both are about how queer people relate to their families, their near and dear ones. Rahul cares for each and every one in his household. In spite of having a novel to finish and submit to his publisher, in spite of going through a writer’s block, he comes to India immediately after hearing about his grandfather’s stroke; he speaks separately to each of his bickering parents to bring about some sort of reconciliation; he tries to patch up with Arjun, with whom he is not on good terms for reasons we shall learn of later; he takes the blame for his father’s thoughtless actions to prevent further fights between his parents; and he is shattered when he learns that his father has been cheating on his mother with a neighbour, as Sunita has suspected for long. Such devotion, in itself, is reason enough to love Rahul back unconditionally, but if there is one lesson to be learned from Kapoor and Sons, it is that love is seldom unconditional, and that the conditions imposed are often cruel. Therefore, while Rahul may be a “perfect bachcha” to Sunita, that perfection is synonymous with heterosexuality. In an early scene, we see Sunita say to Rahul that if he wants to make her happy, he should marry a good Indian woman and have children, and later, we see her trying to pair Rahul off with a prospective daughter-in-law, much to Rahul’s discomfiture. For Sunita, like it is for countless Indian parents, a good son is he who knows when to “settle down”, and once it becomes clear that Rahul won’t, can’t, settle down the way others can, rage replaces Sunita’s affection. Shivam’s actions are a little more understandable. One cannot possibly expect a school student to be very knowledgeable about something like homosexuality, and since Nitin being gay means he and his wife are going to split, Shivam has grounds to feel upset, for divorce is painful for the children involved. This is not to say that his homophobia is not disconcerting. Even as Nitin tries to reach a truce, Shivam keeps pushing him away, and when Nitin says that he has been struggling with his homosexuality for long and had felt, on some occasions, the urge to commit suicide, Shivam retorts, “You know what, you should have.” This reply hits you like a slap, not only because those are cruel words to say to anyone, but also because we have seen how much Nitin loves his children, Shivam and his younger sister, and that he cares, even, for his wife, though not, of course, in the way a heterosexual husband could have. He also visits his parents and looks after their needs. In other words, Rahul and Nitin are like any other son, brother, or father, different only in terms of their sexual leanings, but those leanings are, alas, the only bit that matters when it comes to LGBTs. Thus, Nitin can speak to his father about being gay only under the assurance that the latter’s paralysis shall prevent him from responding spitefully, and Shivam supplies that spite once he comes to know that his father is gay, all the love he has received from Nitin forgotten in the light of that one, single fact. Likewise, Rahul hides his homosexuality with mentions of a non-existent girlfriend, can think of coming out only in a drugged state, and once the truth is out, his mother is outraged, and his brother mutters, “I don’t know what to say.” Is it surprising, then, that so many LGBTs in our country stay in the closet, and even submit to heterosexual marriages? Kapoor and Sons and Dear Dad are valuable because they clarify, among other things, that queers keep secrets not because they like to, but because they have to. One can easily see that Rahul, had he lived in India, would have possibly become a Nitin, married to one of the many good girls his mother would have kept introducing him to until he concurred to marrying one of them, and then having children, and living a painful life until one day he could no longer have. Going abroad has spared him that fate, but how ironical is it that the country that has offered him, a gay Indian, a refuge, is Britain, the very nation that had drafted the homophobic Section 377 that criminalized homosexuality in India till about two weeks ago. This calls for sustained, prolonged, agonizing reflection: that our former oppressor and colonizer is now a safer place for our fellow Indians who are queer, and this is because so many years after the departure of the British, we continue to hold on to the homophobic remnants of colonialism even as the colonizers themselves have decriminalized homosexuality. If this doesn’t make us feel ashamed as a nation, what shall? The fact that Rahul and Nitin are finally accepted by Sunita and Shivam is not much consolation in this regard, though this acceptance, undoubtedly, is important, for the same reason that E.M. Forster’s decision to give Maurice a happy ending is important—for opening up the possibility the being gay need not be all about misery, that there is light at the end of the tunnel. You could say that for many Indian queers, there is no such light, but a retort to this may be found in Kapoor and Sons itself, namely, that since life so often refuses us happy endings, fiction is the place we often go looking for them, and while realism in fiction is admirable, even necessary, change can be heralded only by incorporating what should be (the ideal) alongside what is (the actuality). A son should reciprocate the love of a father, as Shivam ultimately does, even if the father likes men, and a mother should ask after the well-being of her son’s male lover, as Sunita manages to.
One niggle, though; if the road to this acceptance, this love, is so difficult with one’s kith and kin, is there any possibility of getting it from others, those to whom a queer is not related by blood? The otherwise tragic Aligarh has a surprisingly optimistic answer to this, for Srinivas Ramchandra Siras, the Marathi teacher who has his house broken into by hired goons, is beaten up, and suspended once the photos and videos of him in the bed with his partner are released, finds a confidante in somebody who is not only unrelated to him, but is unlike him in almost every way possible. The difference between Siras and Deepu Sebastian, the reporter who comes to like and respect Siras in the course of reporting about what has been done to the latter, is not only that one is gay and the other heterosexual. Siras is old while Deepu is young; Siras is Marathi and Deepu Malayali; Siras is a devout Hindu but Deepu is a Christian who doesn’t care much about religion; Siras is a poet while Deepu, as a reporter, deals in prose and, by his own admission, has little grasp of the nuances of poetry that Siras does. Aligarh acknowledges these differences, and then proceeds to say that they do not matter as long as you have empathy for others. The film is also very clear about what constitutes empathy and lets us know as much early on. After reading about Siras’s suspension, Deepu asks his boss for permission to cover the incident. The boss answers that Deepu should delegate the task to somebody else, somebody who is good with “sex scandals”, to which Deepu indignantly says, “You call this a sex scandal, boss?” “Then what is it, according to you?” she sarcastically asks. “It’s a human story”, comes the response. The ability to treat others’ misfortune not as material for gossip but as human concerns is one of the fundamental definitions of empathy, and it says a lot about our country that Deepu is one of the few folks around Siras who understands that. But what is incredibly interesting and moving about Aligarh is that the ones who do come to Siras’s aid are not his relatives or even his old friends, but a small group of persons who were practically strangers to Siras until mishap struck. There is Deepu and his photographer friend; there is LGBT and HIV positive rights campaigner Anjali Gopalan who conveys to Siras the important message that he must fight for his rights if he wishes to reap their benefit; and then there are the gay men he later meets at a party who had signed the petition that criticized the way Siras had been treated, some of them being admirers of Siras’s writings as well as translators of the same. Apart from his lover, the ones mentioned above are the only ones with whom Siras feels happy and at ease.Having been thrown out of their houses and often disowned altogether for their sexual orientation, LGBTs have often had to find support and love and consolation and aid from those who are not related to them by birth and who build relations with them solely through humane considerations. The film is a beautifully accurate portrayal of that side of LGBT lives.
That heartening bit aside, Aligarh offers us a grim portrait of the Indian society as one that is so rife with prejudices that it invites comparison to the one that hauled up Oscar Wilde about a hundred years ago. I mention Wilde specifically because the reasons behind his persecution and Siras’s are eerily similar. As Graham Robb has said in his wonderful book Strangers, the reasons Wilde had to suffer included not only his homosexuality but also that he consorted with men who were younger than he was and who belonged to the working class, and that Wilde was Irish was one more reason behind the hostility he had to withstand (Robb mentions the other Irishmen of the period who had been penalized under England’s anti-sodomy statutes). The factors of age and class are also relevant as far as Siras is concerned. He is berated and mocked for being in a relationship with a working class person (his partner is a rickshaw-puller) despite coming from the “educated” upper strata of the social order, as well as for indulging his sexual urges in spite of being sixty-four years old. The issue of age is used to suggest both that Siras is a damaging influence on the young because he is likely to make them emulate his ways (“societies have a right to filter their members and no one shall want someone like Siras living where his/her children are growing up”) and that he is slighting the stature of senior citizens by not only thinking about but having sex at a stage in his life when he is supposed to give up desires (an idea that has its roots in the Hindu scriptures that permit sex only for the grihastha or the young married householders so that they have children and continue the lineage; the next stages are vanaprastha and sanyas, meaning retirement and renunciation, when spiritual practices are meant to replace desirous thoughts as a person grows older). Since religion is often to Indians what race is to westerner, and as Siras lives in a city where the population is almost evenly split between Hindus and Muslims, one cannot but ask if Siras being in love with a Muslim man has antagonized both communities, the Hindus because Siras has loved an ‘Other’, the Muslims because one of their own has been polluted by an ‘Other’. The term “haram” (sacrilege) has been used in the film by a character to describe homosexuality and another denounces same-sex orientations as being abominations before God, so religious ideas about homosexuality do have a part to play in Siras’s suffering, though Aligarh does not dwell on that in detail. A homosexual person who was from a country that was not on the best of terms with England was denounced for luring the young into the “sinful” life and disregarding the rigidly observed class divisions in the British society of the period, and another person who chose to get involved in an inter-class and inter-religious relationship with a younger lover of the same sex was denounced in India for those very reasons. The more they say things change…
Even keeping the other factors in mind, though, there is little doubt that Siras’s homosexuality contributes more to his misery than anything else. Perhaps having a woman who was younger than he was and who came from the lower strata of the society and belonged to a different religion as a lover would also have caused Siras trouble, but I doubt if his effigies would have been burned on the streets or if he would have been looked at with so much repugnance then (the reporter William Stead said the same about Wilde when he remarked that had Wilde had an affair with a friend’s wife or romanced younger girls rather than boys he could not have been persecuted the way he had been). What really kills Siras in the end is that he lives in a country that looks upon homosexuality as a sexual act of the unusual sort rather than as a manifestation of love. That is something Siras mentions when he says he does not understand the term “gay” and does not think that three-letter word to be capable of capturing the breadth of his feelings and sensibilities. That he loves a person is simply a source of joy for Siras, much like the songs of LataMangeshkar that he is so fond of. He does not see the need for any definite term like “gay” to understand and luxuriate in that love, though he does grasp the fact that his love is one that ought not to speak its name before others (hence he says his love is like the moon that comes out only at night and retreats into a celestial abode at dawn). Belonging to an older group of LGBTs from non-metropolitan India that has not seen gay rights movements, he does not ask for anything more than non-interference in his life and that of his partner. But when the world outside barges into his house and insists on seeing him as nothing more than “gay” and therefore “haram” he learns to fight for his rights, but he also feels that the fight is going to be endless in a nation as full of homophobia as ours, and that he ought to go to a different part of the world if he is to live with dignity and in peace. The “mysterious” death which befalls him and the fact that those who killed him remain at large to this day demonstrate how right he had been: India is indeed a land of heteronormativity that brooks no deviation.
The fourth film I shall mention is perhaps one that does not belong in this article, for unlike the other three discussed so far it is a short film and not a feature-length one. But Kawa Hatef’sAarsa has stayed with me since the day I first watched the film, and I cannot let go of an opportunity to speak about a favourite film that not many have seen and not many are likely to because such films rarely make it out of festival circuits that screen LGBT-themed films. The film is about a fellow named Raju who works as a cleaner at a dance studio. The stares he often directs at a famous dancer named Sitara who teaches there suggests that the film is about a love that is rendered unrequited by class differences. But then there comes a twist that I simply did not see coming, as Raju finds a costume of Sitara’s that the latter had forgotten to pick up. Seeinng Raju affectionately run his hands over the costume and trying to putit on, one realizes with a jolt that Raju does not desire Sitara but desires to be Sitara and that the film is not about a poor young man who falls in love with a celebrity woman but about a transgender person who finds in the said woman an ideal to emulate. The rest of the film chronicles Raju’s attempts to break out of the control of a domineering mother and pursue that ideal with gusto. Twists in stories are often evaluated in terms of their cleverness, but here the cleverness is laced with a humane touch which ensures that the viewers are not only surprised but also emotionally stirred. I realize that the information I have provided thus far about Aarsa constitutes a spoiler and that many would have preferred to see the film without learning beforehand what Raju is. But I also could not think of a way to describe why I like the film so much without giving away the revelation that it hinges on. The initial scenes are so similar to the many heterosexual romances between one rich and one poor person we see every year that when the film turns out to be something completely different, one gets the sense that a message is being delivered on that aspect of heteronormativity that assumes everyone is the same and that there is nothing more to anything than what meets the eye. The film is a brief and forceful statement to the contrary that ought to be more well-known than it is.
While I love the four films discussed, there is something which is missing from them: a portrayal of a same-sex romance. The scenes between Siras and his partner are compressed into a couple of flashbacks that are lovely but also so brief that one cannot really get to know what they mean to each other; Rahul’s boyfriend appears for about five seconds in person; there is hardly any romance in Nitin’s life; and Raju does not mention any lovers. I understand that those films had been made with different aims and that there is nofilm discussion more fruitless than that which finds faults with films for not doing something that they did not set out to do in the first place, but compared to the countless heterosexual romances that release every year the dearth of the LGBT counterparts is troubling. The only Hindi films featuring openly LGBT characters that permit them a love life seem to be those that are made by LGBT directors, such as Sridhar Raangaayaan’sEvening Shadows and SonaliBasu’sMargarita with a Straw. Shall things be different now that homosexuality has been decriminalized in India and LGBT-related Hindi films are no longer completely unheard of? Here’s hoping that a change along those lines happens.
(by Abhirup)
Cited:
From Dostana to Bromance: Buddies in Hindi Commercial Cinema Reconsidered, by Meheli Sen.
Memories pierce the heart: homoeroticism, Bollywood-style, by R.Raj Rao.
Review:Gunday, BaradwajRangan.
“Sane Sex”, the Five-Year Plan Hero and Men on Footpaths and in Gated Communities: On the Cultures of Twentieth-Century Masculinity, bySanjay Srivastava.
Strangers, Graham Robb
Anusha
October 26, 2018
“One niggle, though; if the road to this acceptance, this love, is so difficult with one’s kith and kin, is there any possibility of getting it from others, those to whom a queer is not related by blood?”
I think, at least with this issue, all that matters is the acceptance by one’s kith and kin. Today, many people find homosexuality and queer identities acceptable outside, but not within the boundaries of one’s own family or home.
LikeLike
Arjun
October 26, 2018
While Bachchan films celebrated ‘dosti’ (gay groups took that up as a descriptor), the hindi film that was most seen in gay bars, around the world, was Qurbani.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
October 26, 2018
What a superb write up. One of the most heartfelt, intelligent article I have read on this blog. Thanks much.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
October 26, 2018
To say I loved this piece would be a gross understatement. This was absolutely wonderful. I did wish someone would write some thing related to LGBT. But this piece covers the topic more beautifully than I could dream of. I have not watched any of the mentioned movies but I could feel that I’d have felt the same about it.
People tend to say a movie dealt with LGBT sympathetically even if that means that a person who is identified as gay is merely found in the background usually to show that our cisgender protagonist is broad-minded.
I loved this article very very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karou
October 26, 2018
Thanks for this wonderful piece Abhirup! I will be checking out Aarsa, despite the spoiler, for how beautifully you have written about it. I wonder if you have seen the film ‘Loev’ by Sudhanshu Saria. I think it is available on Netflix.
LikeLike
Prashila
October 26, 2018
Loved this too. Though Dear Dad and Aligarh are hardly ‘Bollywood’ as it has come to be known. I thought Kapoor and sons was slightly overrated, but undoubtedly still one of the better ones in Bollywood . And good on Fawad Khan to accept that role.
Abhirup, have you seen a movie called Loev (wish they had a better title). It is a lovely sad little film that would basically snigger at the juvenility of the homoeroticism you mention in Bachchan movies and Sonu ke Titu… And what I liked the most was how the gay characters here are like any other characters we see on screen. The conflicts are not built around acceptance of homosexuality, or the angst around being unable to fit into the society (all of that is there already), but rather on more ‘human’ emotions like messy, unrequited, love, deep emotional connections that you feel for another person irrespective of their gender, and then the exploration of physical intimacy, desire. As a bonus, the performances were so good, I almost forgot I was watching a movie, it felt so real. Check it out if you haven’t. It’s on Netflix.
And not related to movies. But another short story collection by Kannada author Vasudhendra who sort of came out through these stories, also paints such a vivid and often disturbing picture of male homosexuality and a desire of the male body, I literally had to take multiple breaks to finish the collection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
October 26, 2018
Great article, had guessed who it was going to be before I got to the end.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 26, 2018
Abhirup, this was a fantastic piece. Loved it.
I think Karan Johar’s Dostana and his segment of Bombay Talkies both opened the way to mainstreaming gay relationships in a way that earlier films hadn’t. While Dostana played the gay angle for laughs, many of my gay friends were happy that the topic had come out of the closet and could be discussed. Interestingly, while both Boman Irani plays the effeminate gay, and John Abraham pretends to be an effeminate gay, Abhishek Bachchan (who’s also pretending) plays his gay man as the average guy. It is interesting to note that Kapoor and Sons also came out of the Johar stable.
I’m glad to say that Malayalam cinema has – despite the patriarchal overtones of the larger society – been more open to same sex relationships than its counterparts elsewhere. Way back in the 70s, we had a film called Randu Pennkuttikal which dealt with a collegial romance. Director Mohan confessed that he chickened out in the end; the book on which the film was based was far more explicit.
Desadanakili Karayarilla was director Padmarajan’s sensitive look at same sex relationships. While it also dealt with sexual and domestic abuse, the base relationship was handled with a maturity that was amazing.
Sancharam dealt with a same sex relationship as well, this time, playing out against the background of the orthodox Church. This was made by an LGBT director.
Papilio Buddha had two homosexual protagonists against a larger narrative of Dalit rights and environmental degradation.
Mumbai Police was a mystery thriller with a plot driven by the sexuality of one of the main protagonists. It was a bold move for a young superstar with a huge female fan following.
Ardhanaari dealt sensitively (and was well-researched) with transgender issues. Manoj K Jayan turned in a fabulous performance.
Silent Valley and Buddy in the early part of this decade were both based around these themes.
These are still but a handful of movies in nearly a century of film-making, but it is a start.
At least, I can be happy that gays were never caricatured in mainstream Malayalam films. At least, not that I know of.
Thank you once again for this article. It was an interesting read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Krishikari
October 26, 2018
Beautifully written reflection on LGBT portrayals in Hindi cinema! Make me want to seek out Aligarh especially. I don’t know about this bit, however:
“The likes of Fire and Dedh Ishqiya are almost as nauseating, given their misconception that women enter same-sex relationships when they are being ignored by their husbands for some reason or the other.”
When I saw Fire (years ago) I thought of it as the two women discovering that they were attracted to each other, and they still might have had their husbands been around. Actually, that would have been more interesting. I’m not a huge Deepa Mehta fan but I thought this was one of her good ones.
As for Dedh Ishqiya I don’t even remember any lesbian scenes.
LikeLike
shaviswa
October 26, 2018
Ada kadavule!! Looks like a normal male-male friendship cannot be shown on screen anymore! People want to interpret these as gay relationships.
No. Movies like Sholay and Zanjeer showed normal friendship between men, friendship that they value a lot and were willing to sacrifice their lives too if needed. But there WAS no underlying sexual connotations to those friendships. This article is such a waste of time
LikeLike
Srinivas R
October 26, 2018
My comment sent midway..
@shaviswa – one of the most offensive comments I have ever read. I don’t think you will understand why I say that, but a little bit of sensitivity before dismissing someone’s heartfelt work as waste of time wouldn’t hurt.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Anu Warrier
October 27, 2018
shawisva, I am not too certain myself about the homo-eroticism in earlier movies, but this article was definitely not a waste of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
October 27, 2018
@prashilla “Abhirup, have you seen a movie called Loev (wish they had a better title). It is a lovely sad little film …”
Can I say I really hated this film, found every single character unlikable and entitled and was unable to care at all what happened to them? The LGBT aspect was beside the point, a film has to create a world where even if the characters are rich and privileged their problems should make a connection and that’s what Bollywood does well. Even Dear Zindagi did this better, the Karan Johar segment of Bombay talkies also made urban elites sympathetic. These poor little rich boys in Loev were very boring.
LikeLike
Ravi K
October 27, 2018
Quite a few A-list Indian actors have done drag. Does drag have the same queer connotation in India, the way it does in the West? Seems like it’s just not that big a deal for an Indian actor to do drag.
shaviswa wrote: “Ada kadavule!! Looks like a normal male-male friendship cannot be shown on screen anymore! People want to interpret these as gay relationships.”
I wondered about that too, while reading the article. Not that there haven’t ever been deeply coded homosexual subtexts in Indian films, or closeted filmmakers/actors, but I wonder if it’s more about perception than the creators’ intent.
In India I’ve seen men holding hands and putting their arms around each other, and I doubt these were openly gay men!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
October 27, 2018
” Seems like it’s just not that big a deal for an Indian actor to do drag.” – Yup, Kishore did that comedy song where he sang in two voices and also acted in a drag. Kamal in Avai Shanmughi which was a remake of Mrs Doubtfire. I don’t remember anybody then inferring homoeroticism in either film and the male guys behind the drag were straight up hetero anyway.
“but I wonder if it’s more about perception than the creators’ intent.
In India I’ve seen men holding hands and putting their arms around each other, and I doubt these were openly gay men!”
Yup. I don’t begrudge the right of others to infer homoeroticism in say Sholay but that was pure male (non sexual) bonding to me. In today’s climate, probably the final scene in Jungle Book where Baloo tells Bagheera to get with the beat and they sing and dance with arms wrapped around each other would also be interpreted as gay love. It MAY be but there absolutely exists male to male contact that has zero sexual connotations and is nothing more than friendship. Even the friendship for life concept mentioned in the article isn’t unusual (and doesn’t have to be borne out of sexual attraction). Other such male friendships like Holmes-Watson have also been subject to speculations of gay love but I highly doubt Doyle intended it that way. Again, I fully understand that a homosexual’s perspective of such depictions would be different in the same way that male-female friendships are rarely shown as being devoid of sexual desire (because that is the heterosexual normative view of the world)..
LikeLike
sanjana
October 27, 2018
I think Shawiswa made a valid point and only the last sentence could have been avoided. We should not confuse male bonding with lgbt. If we start doing that, we will feel threatened by all our husbands’ male friends. The beauty of friendship will vanish. Even lgbt relationships are as intense as heterosexual relationships. And the problem is that they cant come out with their problems openly like others do. So we find news about one man or woman murdering his or her respective same sex partner due to jealousy, insecurity and so on and make people think that this is what happens when you are into such relationships and these same people conveniently forget that these things are far more in heterosexual relationships.
All same sex bonding is not lgbt.
Good or bad Indians are still ok with male friendships without attributing other meanings. Film makers who make flippant films introduce these ideas recklessly. These things should be solved not through such sensational films but through educated information.
LikeLiked by 2 people
praneshp
October 28, 2018
Same Abhirup that used to comment here a while ago? Great write up, even though I personally felt there was a lot of sexualization of plain friendships. I miss your comments on regular posts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 28, 2018
Thanks a ton Mr. Rangan for featuring my article here. Means a lot to be thus recognized by someone I admire.
Thanks, also, for those who have praised the article. I am grateful for your appreciation.
For those who have mentioned ‘Loev’, I have seen the film but did not love it all that much. The performances were very good and the fact that same-sex physical intimacy has been portrayed without making a huge deal out of it is something to praise, but as far as the characterization in the film is concerned, I kept thinking back to what Roger Ebert had said about the characters in ‘Gladiator’: that “if the characters are bitter and morose enough, we won’t notice how dull they are.” The film practically revels in the “sad gays” trope, using every possible means in order to portray same-sex relationships as unhappy and troubled. That is not to say that all LGBT films should be full of sunshine and laughter–‘Aligarh’ is tragic and one of the best films made in India–but there has to be a purpose, dramatic or thematic, behind the tragedies in a film. Otherwise, what viewers get is misery for the sake of it and that hardly makes for an enjoyable film. The film seemed to think that merely making the characters suffer is enough to make us feel for them, and hence it did not bother to give us fleshed out humans. I find the subtexts in the 1970s films more rewarding.
Krishikari: I watched ‘Fire’ recently and felt, as before, that a direct cause-and-effect relationship is established between the husbands neglecting their wives and the wives seeking solace and love (of a romantic sort) in each other. That is such a wrongheaded portrayal of same-sex love that I could write a book on the topic. For now, let it only be said that same-sex attraction is not a substitute for heterosexual relations; the former is not something one tries out when the latter is not working out for some reason or the other.
shaviswa: “People want to interpret these as gay relationships”–Which is something folks have a right to do much as you have a right to consider my article “a waste of time” because, you see, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are not the exclusive preserve of homophobes but fundamental rights meant for everyone, including LGBTs.
Ravi K: “but I wonder if it’s more about perception”–Interpreting works of art has more to do with perception than anything else. I think I ought to quote Mr. Rangan here:
“The verb that’s thrown in my face so often it’s a small miracle it hasn’t adhered to my cheek and congealed into a birthmark is “overanalyse.” “I overanalyse films.” “I overreach for meaning.” “The director did not intend all this.” “I am imagining things.” The polite response, of course, would be to quip, “Just because you effers don’t want to use your brains while watching a movie and want everything explicated through dialogue, I’m not going to stop engaging with the film on a visual/subtextual level”…But even that I can abide. What I have grown tired of explaining is that I am not a character in a Charlie Kaufman screenplay capable of burrowing into filmmakers’ heads, so I DO NOT KNOW (yes, that’s my silent e-scream) that the director planted these nuggets deliberately.
“Maybe they just happened. Maybe it just happened that the death of Beera’s sister [in ‘Raavan’] and the abduction of Ragini were both orchestrated in water. Maybe it just happened that Dev held out the photographs in that order so that the camera captured Beera as being in the middle of Dev and Ragini on a literal level.
“I don’t deny this at all.
“But I do deny that that the film contains no plausible grounds for these extrapolations. One can make a case for these interpretations of mine because, whether Mani Ratnam intended these meanings or not, the film (through its visuals and through its text) supports these claims. And that’s the only thing that interests me. (Refer simplified explanation of deconstruction here. “In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ”virtual texts” constructed by readers in their search for meaning.”)
“And so when I point out the water-situated parallels in the arcs of the two women characters, I am attempting to reconcile the two visuals in the two opposing halves of the film that, to my mind, exist in beautiful balance. But because it’s in my mind (and not necessarily in the director’s), it doesn’t mean I’m imagining all (or any) of this.” (quote ends).
More detailed thoughts on the same topic here:
That is what I have to say to anyone who asks whether the subtexts in the older films that I have spoken about in the earlier paragraphs of my article are actually there in those films or only in my head.
“In India I’ve seen men holding hands and putting their arms around each other, and I doubt these were openly gay men!”
Let me tell you, as a member of the LGBT community that many of us hold our partners’ hands in the open precisely because we know that many heterosexual men and women do the same and that therefore we LGBTs are also likely to be considered friends or cousins. A useful strategy in a country as homophobic as ours.
Therefore, while every same-sex pair you see holding hands is not a rainbow couple, some definitely are.
Thanks, again for your responses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
shaviswa
October 28, 2018
To those folks who felt I was being dismissive of this article –
I was being honest in my opinion. I read the article – I did not dismiss it before reading it. And then I gathered my thoughts around it. I felt that a lot of the content in the article were outlandish claims or extrapolations. They have to be dismissed as being that.
So when a significant part of an article that you read has to be dismissed as being plainly wrong or as being poor extrapolations sans logic, you realize that the time you spent reading it is a waste of time. And hence my comment on this post.
Again – please note that I made no attack on the author. There was no offensive comment on anyone. This is just my opinion on reading a rather lengthy article.
LikeLike
Apu
October 28, 2018
First off, great write up.
I would agree with other commenters that there was a lot of interpretation between the lines about older movies such as Sholay, Qurbani, etc.I am not sure about other countries, but definitely in India the “till death do us part” relationships between males are quite common, as well as “chaddi dost” concept. That does not necessarily mean sexual connotations. In fact, given the issues that society raises about mingling of opposite sexes, it is no wonder that same-sex friendship goes so deep.
So, it might be the way it is interpreted.
I studied in a girls school and many times we told each other that we will all stay together in the same city. I do not think those conversations had any sexual undertones.
Also, your point about “Dear Zindagi”: “Thirdly, the entire scene, like the conversation between Raunak and Kaira, seems to have been put in the movie to enhance Kaira’s appeal as a character, rather than to promote discussions on LGBT rights.”
– Why would a movie about Kaira need to promote a discussion about LGBT rights? I understand that might have been your expectation, but does not seem fair to hold the movie accountable to it.
The one movie in which I thought there were undertones of same sex relationship was Razia Sultan, in this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD_0FpVM8Fs. I saw it when I did not much understand Hindi and this song made me uncomfortable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 28, 2018
Apu: “Why would a movie about Kaira need to promote a discussion about LGBT rights?”
Nope, it does not have to do that. I would have been completely okay with the film if it had zilch mention of LGBT rights. But the film introduced a gay character and gave him no significant part to play in the film, and brought in the topic of LGBT rights in the most perfunctory manner. That strikes me as having things both ways: trying to look cool and progressive by mentioning homosexuality and speaking in favour of it but doing so only a little bit so that it does not upset mainstream sensibilities much.
As far as the older films and the subtext in them is concerned, why is it so difficult for some folks to consider that what seems no more than friendship to heterosexual viewers may seem to be something different to LGBT viewers? As Arjun has mentioned in the second comment of the thread, those older films speak to gays in a different manner than it does to others. I did not speak about the older films in detail because I wished to do so about the more recent LGBT films like ‘Aligarh’ and others; writing in equal detail about every film mentioned would have made a long article even longer. Therefore, I mentioned the articles and essays by others such as Meheli Sen and in particular R. Raj Rao (who have spoken about those older films at length, as have Ashok Row Kavi and Ruth Vanita among others) hoping that folks shall seek those articles out and read them and give those alternative perspectives a bit of thought. I am not asking anyone to change their views. I am only asking that others do the LGBT perspective the courtesy of saying, “I see where you are coming from. I do not interpret the relationships in those older films as gay ones but I understand that those with a different orientation may interpret them in a different manner.” Instead, I get responses along the lines of, “No no no no, there is nothing gay about those films. There are plenty of abiding friendships without there being anything LGBT about them.” Thanks, but I know that. I also know, from personal experiences and the experiences of many fellow LGBTs, that many of us have had to hide our loves as abiding friendships because the society would have it no other way even in this day and age. The lines between what you call friendship, and same-sex love are not all that clear, whether in reel or real life, in a country like ours.
LikeLike
Vanya
October 28, 2018
This was a wonderful write-up, Abhirup, and gave me plenty to think about.
To add to Anu’s comment about Dostana, that same pattern was observed in the US too, where a show playing fast and loose with stereotypes (“Will and Grace”) was responsible in a significant part for the accelerated change in attitudes towards homosexuality here. TV shows from the 90s generally fare poorly in how they treat the subject (I’m looking at you, Friends), but upon rewatching Frasier recently, I was relieved to see how well it has aged.
One of my favorite episodes is The Matchmaker, in which Frasier attempts to hook up his new boss with Daphne, his dad’s live-in physical therapist, not realizing that his boss is gay. At the same time, his boss misunderstands Frasier’s motivations and interprets his dinner invitation as a date with Frasier. This premise is ripe for homophobic jokes, and would have received very different treatment on another show. Here instead, the show chose to play on the trope of misunderstood attraction in a way that the gay character isn’t other-ized. It helps that 2 of the main cast and 2 other supporting actors on the show were gay, and more importantly, so were the writer and director of this episode. One part that stuck out for me was at the end where Frasier says to his boss “it never even occurred to me that you were gay”, which has shades of “oh, I just don’t see color!” His boss retorts “it never even occurred to me that you were straight.” On Friends, such a line would have been played for laughs by having the target respond with shock and horror. Instead, Frasier smiles, acknowledging his graceless remark.
Clip here: https://youtu.be/8CAWqEYf26M
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 28, 2018
Apu, I agree about your point about Kaira. Because the movie was about her, and not about the peripheral people. But I can see where Abhirup is coming from, because I, too, felt – in the context of her two closest same-sex friends, that they appeared and disappeared. I kept wondering they were there only to provide Kaira a platform to announce something.
But, to me, that was lazy writing. Not, I think, just to showcase Kaira’s appeal as a character. Or to put in ‘token gay guy’.
In general:
As for the male bonding films earlier, I think viewing same sex friendships through the prism of homoeroticism does them a disservice because I don’t think that was the intention. Male friendship (more so than female friendship) has been celebrated in our literature from centuries. Shakespeare did it, our own Krishna-Sudama, Krisha-Arjuna tales, etc., are manifestations of that.
Turning the LGBT gaze to interpret art and literature is a valid exercise in and of itself. As is, turning the feminist gaze to films. I do have a problem with both sometimes, because, especially with the latter, there’s sometimes a stretch to shoehorn the art to fit the narrative. And as a feminist, I want to smack my head.
I agree with Apu that holding hands and vowing to be together until life do us part does not, in and of itself, connote romantic interest. But art is a very subjective medium. So I can disagree that those films showed homoeroticism, and still see Abhirup’s perspective as a valid one.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 28, 2018
@Shaviswa – I think if you’d said ‘Reading this article was a waste of my time’, no one could have argued against that. 🙂 You can disagree with its premise; so did several others. But the article itself, wasn’t a waste of time because it discussed Abirup’s perspective on LGBT representation in films.
@Apu – yes, the Razia Sultan scene did have erotic overtones. Pretty obviously, as well.
LikeLike
brangan
October 28, 2018
For all those getting horrified about the alleged gay-isation of male bonding, let’s not forget — first — that Abhirup is talking about an undertone.
It is not about Jai or Veeru being gay in Sholay. It is about them giving enough fodder for a gay reading of their relationship, based on, say, the lyrics:
Khaana peena saath hai
Marna jeena saath hai
Saari zindagi
Heck, a wife wouldn’t even fit into this scenario!! 😀
This is surely grounds for at least such a consideration, along with the fact that Jai dies in Veeru’s arms at the end, mimicking the visual trope of star-crossed lovers.
Countless theses have been written about these things, in literature as well. (Eg. Was the adversarial relationship between Bligh and Christian based on unresolved homosexual undertones, and so forth).
This is not about TRUTH. This is about a reading of art, based on evidence from the movie.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Abhirup
October 28, 2018
“For all those getting horrified about the alleged gay-isation of male bonding, let’s not forget — first — that Abhirup is talking about an undertone.”
“This is not about TRUTH. This is about a reading of art, based on evidence from the movie.”
Thanks a lot Mr. Rangan for those words.
LikeLike
Rahul
October 28, 2018
To add to what BRangan has said – and I am by no means an expert on this – but I am going to talk about something other than the right to subjectively read a situation – because it usually infuriates people who are cocksure – pun intended – about their opinions.
Homo eroticism does not necessarily mean that persons involved are banging each other. Kinsey scale had 7 categories and that too is a continuum. Kinsey is one of the more famous and admittedly controversial researcher. There are other studies that talk of sexuality and sexual identity as amorphous, evolving, psychological without a physical manifestation etc.
Also to further elaborate on this statement by Brangan-
“This is not about TRUTH. This is about a reading of art, based on evidence from the movie.”
It is not about reflecting the social truth as audience is expecting from their own experience about the general behavior of the population. Cinema is cinematic, at the risk of stating the obvious. One could argue that no males bonding in real life are actually singing songs like that, and one could counter argue that cinema has its own way of displaying male bonding , and one could give example that hetero sexual couples also behave in cinema as they do not in real life. So one can make following two arguments-
The cinematic metaphor , and not necessarily the reality it is trying to represent, is couched in homo eroticism. This calls for careful examination of the metaphor/shorthand instead of a summary dismissal of the idea of homo eroticism based on someone’s own assumption about the nature of reality.
One could also argue that in case of cinema there is no reality beyond the metaphor that we see on the screen, or at least that that reality is unknowable. So when we see a couple behaving in a certain way on the screen, it is impossible to know how exactly to extrapolate that behavior to predict their sexuality or any other trait so that it corresponds to real life statistical facts. Hence every interpretation is as valid as the other one with the caveat that it should be internally consistent within a certain cinematic universe (a film or a body of films).
The point I am trying to make in 1 and 2 above is that the reading of homosexual subtext may be valid or invalid, but it is tightly wedded to the context of cinema and divorcing it from that context is interesting in its own right but can not provide a satisfactory rebuttal or an affirmation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dracarys
October 28, 2018
The song which always had such an ‘undertone’ was this song from Kadhal Desam:
It looks more direct now than i just had the suspicion when it was released.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Akshay
October 29, 2018
The scenario is evoked because there’s no wife: at that point in the film, neither has found lady love. Hence the hyperbole promising lifelong fellowship. In the same song, they toss a coin to decide who gets the girl they happen upon. The way the coin falls — were the makers then hinting an orgy?
It is one thing to identify homosexual strains and discuss on how that changes / contributes to our reading of the film as a whole. The new angle that opens up due to the same-sex subtext and the difference it makes to us as viewers. (Happened to me with Dedh Ishqiya.)
But to noodle out homosexual elements in every same-sex bonding, in cinema and literature, is giving invitation to parody. In trying to broaden the discussion, we might inadvertently end up undermining the entire enterprise. (Stretch some more and we might insert incest in Sholay.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ravi K
October 29, 2018
I get the role of interpretation and perception in art, and I don’t dismiss it’s role in favor of a strict reading of what is intended, if that can even be known. I just don’t want to ascribe any specific intent.
What is the impetus to read gay undertones into these on-screen friendships? Is it for LGBTQ people to feel that they have something to relate to in these films? That something of their experience is being secretly depicted, since it can’t be depicted openly?
Brangan wrote: “It is not about Jai or Veeru being gay in Sholay. It is about them giving enough fodder for a gay reading of their relationship, based on, say, the lyrics:
Khaana peena saath hai
Marna jeena saath hai
Saari zindagi
Heck, a wife wouldn’t even fit into this scenario!! 😀”
Those lines do sound like wedding vows, don’t they?
LikeLike
sanjana
October 29, 2018
@Akshay:
But to noodle out homosexual elements in every same-sex bonding, in cinema and literature, is giving invitation to parody. In trying to broaden the discussion, we might inadvertently end up undermining the entire enterprise. (Stretch some more and we might insert incest in Sholay.)
Same thoughts came to me. If you stretch it, brother sister bonding, father daughter bonding, mother son bonding, everything will come under scanner. To prove otherwise, everyone has to live an emotionless life and build steel walls around oneself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eswar
October 29, 2018
“It is about them giving enough fodder for a gay reading of their relationship”
Even to decide whether there is enough fodder to identify an undertone shouldn’t one be exposed/aware of the cultural, social context?
In the west when I see people of the same sex holding hands or exhibit some form of informal physical contact I would think they are probably Gay. But I am unlikely to feel the same ways if I see two guys holding hands in India. This assumption is because I am not aware of same sex people exhibiting informal physical contacts in the West. So when I see such a scene either in real life or in western movie its likely that I would think they are interested in each other. But an andhi nera thendral katru, kaatu kuyila manasukulla or Mustafa Mustafa would not make me feel the same because of its Indian background.
On the other hand, in the country where I live, men walk around naked in the changing room in leisure centres after a gym or sports session. So two males in such a scene in an English movie wouldn’t make me think they are homosexuals. But in an Indian context, such a scene would make me wonder if there is an undertone.
So, I think, in acknowledging or realising an undertone the viewer’s exposure or awareness of the cultural context matters.
Said that, keeping the context aside, a viewer or reader can reinterpret a movie or a story using a newer world view that may not have been popular or accepted in an earlier time. In Devdutt Pattanaik’s ‘Shikandhi: And other tales they don’t tell you’ not only Arjuna and Krishna exhibit homosexual tendencies but even the relationship of the Tamil King Koperunchozhan and the poet Pisirandhaiyar falls under the same view. As much as this reinterpretation would infuriate a section, this is totally plausible and acceptable in a different world view.
This discussion also made we wonder if there are are many instances of male-female bonding in a non-sexual friend only relationship in Indian movies. I would guess there are
much more in Bollywood but in Tamil, what immediately comes to mind is Pudhu Vasantham and the Cheran-Sneha part in Autograph. Out of curiosity I wonder if interpreting a sexual undertone in these movies would upset some sections.
LikeLike
Madan
October 29, 2018
@Ravi K An easy way to understand the impetus is to look at how heterosexuals view the depiction of male-female companionship in the movies. Almost invariably, the movies proceed with the assumption that at least one of the two companions will be sexually attracted to the other. We do not question this even if we know this to be unrealistic. In the same way, homosexuals probably tend to assume male-male bonding as sexual by norm. Because for them, it probably is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
shaviswa
October 29, 2018
@Madan – not always. There are innumerable number of films where the male-female bonding is asexual. To avoid any confusion to the viewer the female will call the male Anna. 🙂
That said, what you say is true and that is precisely the bone of contention. The films are made for consumption of the larger population which is hetero-sexual. And the male-male bonding is just the friendship that is being depicted. Interpreting homosexual connotations to that is trying to weave something out of nothing. Secondly, if such interpretations are accepted and become mainstream, then as someone said above, every relationship will come under the scanner. Everything will be viewed with a sexual prism leading to a unhealthy understanding of how people relate to one another. This kind of wrongful interpretation cannot be justified as “reading of the art.”. Any argument that is placed to justify such a reading is plainly rhetorical. Or in the term to be used from our Tharkasashtra – Kutharkam.
That is why this interpretation needs to be summarily rejected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
October 29, 2018
Whether one agrees or not Abhirup made some very interesting observations and one can understand the anguish felt due to society’s lukewarm if not hostile attitude.
Unless people with a different outlook come out in the open and make more noise, things will change at a snail’s pace. Even some of our leaders must also be having these tendencies but they cant come out due to obvious reasons. As for films, there is this censor fear to make more bold movies. The difference is somewhat like mainstream films and art films.
LikeLike
Rahul
October 29, 2018
I think Shaviswa’s concern is valid . I am reminded of Mohnish Bahl’s iconic dialog in Maine Pyar Kiya –
If a few more articles get published like this ,A similar dialog might be heard in some movie –
Ek Ladka aur dusra ladka kabhi dost nahi hote. Ye toh ek parda hai parda!! kapkapati rato me dhadakte dilo me bhadakti hui homo erotic aag ko bujhane ka, mitaane ka!!:
LikeLike
Madan
October 29, 2018
@shaviswa: Well, because the large majority of consumers of a given film are of one sexual orientation doesn’t exclude the others and their right to interpret it another way. So I have to part ways there with you and say I don’t find it as something to be nipped in the bud. Rather, I was pointing out that the assumption that male-female friendships develop into sex is exaggerated and yet frequently paraded about in the movies. By the same token, homosexuals may exaggerate reality if they wish to. At least until such time as enough movies actually representing them are made. As Abhirup points out, there aren’t many by any means.
LikeLike
Sifter
October 29, 2018
@Abhirup, long, but a wonderful write-up.
I agree completely with you about ‘Girlfriend,’ but not fully with Fire and Dedh Ishqiya. Yes, they were being ignored by their husbands. Maybe they found each other because of that. So what? Sometimes, the circumstances and situations that bring people together are suspect, but the women did bond in both the films and did end up with each other. That is not to say these films did not have their issues. I saw Fire in a theatre when it was released (the only woman in the entire theatre that screened it at 9.30 am, implying it as an XXX rated film and the horny hooting hombres expected the film to be that as well!). At that time, I also had the same thoughts as you wrote here and more, but I have come to see Fire in a positive light over the years. As for Dedh Ishqiya, it had problems galore (but Madhuri was enough for me to go watch it!). The one look she gives when Huma Qureshi returns in the morning spoke volumes for me.
Agree with you on Kaira and Raunak in Dear Zindagi, because I did wonder about it.
I beg to differ on your take on AB’s movies. Yes, he made a lot of movies in which he had the marte-dam-tak friendship, but I did not get any such vibe from Sholay/Anand/Namak Haram. I agree with others that every relationship between two people of the same sex (or even opposite sexes) need not be sexually-romantic. I do know people who’d do anything for their friends, but will not do the same with their wives/husbands. It is quite normal, unlike the surprise expressed here about that.
And yes, that song in Razia Sultan made me sit up and take notice years ago when I was more innocent 😊
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
October 29, 2018
@Madan- it has nothing to do with homosexuals interpreting it in a different way. Many critics point out homoerotica in many movies. It doesn’t make them homosexuals. It’s only about a conditioned/learned way of interpreting movies for sub-texts.
LikeLike
Madan
October 29, 2018
@ramitbajaj: I don’t disagree. I was only taking up shaviswa’s point there.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 29, 2018
Sifter: “I agree completely with you about ‘Girlfriend,’ but not fully with Fire and Dedh Ishqiya. Yes, they were being ignored by their husbands. Maybe they found each other because of that. So what?”
Perhaps that portrayal of a same-sex relationship is acceptable to you but I find it inaccurate and misleading because it makes homosexuality look like a substitute for heterosexual relationships. That is simply not the case; folks don’t turn gay or lesbian because their heterosexual relationships have not worked out.
“I agree with others that every relationship between two people of the same sex (or even opposite sexes) need not be sexually-romantic.”
I have not said anywhere in my article or in any of my comments that “every relationship between two people of the same sex” is a homosexual one. There is no declaration of “every” anywhere. I have spoken about a handful of Hindi films that, for me (and many other LGBT viewers), has a gay subtext. I shall continue to insist on my democratic right to interpret them that way regarless of what the “majority” thinks of them.
In response to shavishwa and a few other’s hysterical fear that LGBT-themed interpretation of a few FICTIONAL characters shall hasten the Judgment Day by encouraging “unhealthy understanding of how people relate to one another”, I think I shall now turn my “unhealthy”, rainbow-coloured gaze to Holmes and Watson, Renaultt and Rick (‘Casablanca’), Bertie and Jeeves, Osgood and Jerr (‘Some Like it Hot’), Huck and Jim etc. Pissing homophobes off is a lot of fun.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Voldemort
October 29, 2018
This discussion also made we wonder if there are are many instances of male-female bonding in a non-sexual friend only relationship in Indian movies.
Vikraman’s Priyamaana Thozhi. She doesn’t call him anna even once.🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
shadow
October 29, 2018
This was a beautifully written and moving piece! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts Abhirup. It meant a lot to me to see someone write about this.
Being (relatively) young and queer in the middle class tier of urban India is a strange experience. You live in a world where you can be yourself around most of your friends, while struggling with the awareness that you might never be able to share your true self with your parents and relatives, because you might lose them forever or be unfairly ostracized for trying.
All forms of creative media, especially those as easily accessible as film and television, influence what we consider normal and socially acceptable in a huge way. I cannot stress how much of a difference it would make if movies and TV shows in India portrayed LGBT characters and themes with the same sensitivity, complexity and respect as they do heterosexual and platonic relationships or other issues like caste, religion, class, abuse, mental health, patriotism and social justice. Although it’s heartening that there have been some good movies (like Aligarh), in recent times, what we really need is not just a realistic portrayal of what it means to be gay or trans or gender fluid (no one even talks about intersex or asexual people in India, we haven’t gotten that far yet), but stories that go a step ahead and show us what life can be like for these people if they were allowed to live the lives they want to. Isn’t cinema about hope? I’m not trying to minimise the real struggles of queer people or say that it isn’t meaningful or valuable to depict reality. But where real society seems to look at a whole section of people through narrow vision glasses and sees only two dimensional caricatures that align with existing prejudices, wouldn’t it help if we were shown the breadth and depth of possibilities instead? There is a whole spectrum of ideas and emotions to explore beyond pain and fear and despair. For eg. The Netflix show sense8 has two same sex relationships. One between two men and the other between a trans woman and cis woman. This show was nowhere close to perfect, but i adored it. And one of the things you do get out of the show is a 3D exploration of same sex relationships. The end result is humanization. These relationships occur between two humans and they are filled with the same awe and wonder and desire and conflict and compromise and understanding and love as a hetero relationship. They do face social backlash because of their sexuality or gender identity, but they also have support, especially in the form of lovers who are very present in their lives. Content like sense8 would be too much for the mainstream Indian audience. But it would be nice to just see a PG-13 gay or lesbian romance with a happy ending. Or a transgender person with a supportive family. People can be inspired to be more accepting and empathetic towards social minorities when those qualities are frequently shown to be the norm.
Beyond ideas of social acceptability, mainstream media also influences how we understand ourselves. I grew up watching a lot of TV and movies and reading every book I could find in the library. I loved the idea of falling in love. Serendipitous meet-cute, hesitant flirting, inevitable love, regulation angst, making hard choices, fighting for love, the triumphant happily ever after. I knew it was all make believe. Nevertheless, I cultivated this grand romantic idea of what love was about. I imagined myself going through all these stages at some point in my life. But as a teenage girl and then a young woman, I never experienced what any of these fictional women did. I never felt that swoop in my stomach or the tingling electric warmth that you are meant to experience in the close proximity of a boy you find attractive. Nor did I feel the kind of yearning one is expected to for a boy you’ve been crushing on or a man you crave to know better. Most of my associations with boys/men were always close and supportive, but primarily platonic. I spent years wondering whether I was just not being spontaneous enough or I just hadn’t met the right kind of person yet. How could this almost religious experience that so many authors and film makers and poets use as inspiration, these stories that people seem to universally relate to and these characters they identify with, not be based on some kind of reality? It couldn’t not be real because I had been there for many a friend in the throes of unrequited love. I had also seen many a friend get their happily ever after. So, was it just not a part of my reality? It was only when I finally read a lesbian fiction novel that I realised that my reality lay in all those intensely painful, emotionally draining, seemingly platonic, bonds I had with a few girls. Filled with mutual yearning, but their true nature heavily veiled by the fear of knowing something you can’t un-know. So, I had experienced the madness of love, but only through the filter of that mute subconscious acceptance – it can never be that way because that is not how it works in the real world. I’ve always been more confused and unaware of my true feelings and desires than most people are, but I just wonder whether it would have made a difference if I had had access to more relatable content earlier in my life. Would I have understood myself with more clarity? Read my needs and emotions better? Would I have handled my friendships and relationships better? Would I have felt less like a square peg in a round hole (probably not, probably just in a different way)? I can’t describe the relief I felt after reading that book. At finally being able to truly relate to something created by someone else out there in this world. It’s hard to explain how much representation can mean to someone like me. How much it can mean to see the kind of relationship I crave being acknowledged as something real and possible. Content like that may not cater to a large primary audience, but if queer people can empathize with heteronormative stories and cisgender characters, should it really be so hard for the mainstream crowd to appreciate a tastefully developed LGBT story? I guess a true indication of positive change in society with respect to LGBT acceptance would be a film
with a complex queer character (who actually has a life) as the protagonist, becoming as big a hit as a generic Akshay Kumar film (i say that because he seems to play the most socially acceptable/respectable roles these days).
I watched Kapoor and Sons with my younger sister and we both had tears in our eyes towards the end of the movie, because we could relate to the dysfunctional family drama and the individual characters and struggles of the two brothers. What made it so meaningful was that I shared the viewing experience with someone who matters to me and it let us see the world through each other’s eyes, if only for a few minutes. It made us more aware of each other’s internal conflicts. I was grateful that it wasn’t cringy or topical as one would normally expect. It was poignant. Johar tries. He might not do it overtly. But his subtle attempts to bring up the topic of homosexuality through the films he directs or produces are commendable, especially since they are progressively becoming something more than caricature or devices comedic relief (like Dostana, Kal Ho Na Ho, SOTY in the past). It’s like he slowly tested the waters by giving people what they wouldn’t outright reject. Now he’s dipped a toe, or maybe a foot into the ocean. Maybe someday he will take the plunge. Atleast he’s trying, as are many other filmmakers. Small time content creators have been the bravest so far. Making mini series for other platforms. Like The Other Love Story on YouTube. But, of course, the problem is that only those who are looking for such content are going to find it. That’s not going to go a long way towards normalizing queer content.
The whole reading homoerotic intent where it does not exist thing. Sometimes, people who write stories or make movies deliberately try to channel some of their experiences/opinions/views related to same sex love in an easily digestible way, so as not to alienate their mainstream audience. They might be closeted, or they might have homosexual friends they empathize with, or they just might be compassionate towards the cause. Sometimes there IS intent. Much like JK Rowling implying Dumbledore was gay for Grindelwald even though hardly anything in the HP series indicates his homosexuality other than the lack of a love life (though it’s questionable whether that was intent or an after thought). Sometimes it’s just that homosexual people relate to what they see on screen, even though it isn’t explicitly stated in the story. Or they see the potential for romance between two compatible characters and want to imagine what it would be like in their ideal world. It might be wishful thinking (It’s the stuff lgbtq fanfiction is made of. It’s why an old show like Xena has a huge lesbian fan following and a whole website dedicated to fanfiction starring the lead characters, who have never officially been said to be homosexual. Sometimes the way the characters interact reminds you of something you might’ve shared with a love interest in your real life and you see potential where nothing explicit exists). But is it really wrong for someone to interpret it that way even if it isn’t true? Everyone has the right to interpret a work of art as they see fit. To take offence at someone else’s interpretation in this context is homophobic no matter what kind of facts the argument is based on. The worry seems to be that the homosexuals will steal the right to depict platonic friendships. This is not true. People are capable of respecting platonic bonds irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, it is easy to see why one might interpret homoerotic intent in the case of Sholay, but not in a movie like Rang De Basanti, or Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, or even something as silly as the Dhoom series (Jai and Ali), although there were strong ties of male friendship depicted in these movies too. I don’t think interpreting homoerotic intent where the stories and characters tempt you to implies that it’s not possible for two men to be best friends. Or two women. You might be surprised by how many gay men and women have close platonic bonds with their same sex best friends.
(I hope this doesn’t get posted twice. I don’t know what happened the first time I posted.)
LikeLiked by 8 people
shaviswa
October 29, 2018
@Abhirup
“In response to shavishwa and a few other’s hysterical fear that LGBT-themed interpretation of a few FICTIONAL characters shall hasten the Judgment Day by encouraging “unhealthy understanding of how people relate to one another”, I think I shall now turn my “unhealthy”, rainbow-coloured gaze to Holmes and Watson, Renaultt and Rick (‘Casablanca’), Bertie and Jeeves, Osgood and Jerr (‘Some Like it Hot’), Huck and Jim etc. Pissing homophobes off is a lot of fun.”
Nothing new to me. I have had similar arguments with my homosexual friend at college. In fact what you are saying are pretty old stuff that I am surprised are still being bandied about.
My position has not changed even if you want to call me names.
LikeLike
sanjana
October 29, 2018
Just because we are disagreeing does not mean we are homophobic. Leave it to the religious fundamentalists who are worried about their flock decreasing and so they bring religion into it to make it a movement against. Meanwhile those who have other views about Jai Veeru, willingly close their eyes and hearts the way Veeru stalks, pesters and even tries drama to get Basanti while Jai silently gazes at the lady who lights lamps. Unless they are bisexuals.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 29, 2018
I’m gobsmacked that an LGBTQ perspective on some of our most popular films is so horrifying to a lot of people. Yes, like many of them, I didn’t see a homo-erotic sub-text in those films. BUT. I assume, like me, those people are also hetero-normative. Therefore, we look at those relationships and see male-to-male bonding. But for a gay man (or woman), those characterisations may well be their aspirational visuals of what they feel, and what they would like to see better represented. Why is that so threatening to straight people?
That Abhirup sees a gay sub-text or undertone to the Jai-Veeru friendship doesn’t take away from your [general ‘your’ including me] perception of it as male bonding, the Indian way. To go from that to ‘Oh we will now see a brother-sister/mother-son/father-daughter/whatever relationship through those lenses’ is not only mindlessly fear-mongering but is insulting to the LGBTQ gaze. It implies that they are incapable of seeing any relationship unless it is through the prism of the homosexual gaze.
It brings to mind the conservative Christians of the ‘family-values’ party here who moan about legalising gay marriage. ‘What’s next? Legalising bestiality’ they shout, thereby reducing the gay community to the sum of their private parts.
We are demonising an already-marginalised community, and in India, more so than in the US, it is – even today – not an easy life to live openly as gay. Being truthful to yourself is a privilege that is only granted to the cis community. I’m sad that homophobia is so rampant.
When an article can create such fear that gays are going to take over the world, or that the end of straight relationships as we know it is nigh, I can only imagine how much they have to hide their true selves.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Abhirup
October 29, 2018
“I have had similar arguments with my homosexual friend”
Ah, getting into the “I have a black friend” territory now, are we?
“In fact what you are saying are pretty old stuff that I am surprised are still being bandied about.”
They shall continue to be bandied about, because (i) the interpretation of art is never going to become a monolithic enterprise, even if some desperately want it to be so, and (ii) LGBT folks shall keep voicing their non-heteronormative opinions, more so now that homosexuality is decriminalized in India and the campaign to gain further rights are going to begin.
“My position has not changed even if you want to call me names.”
Oh please no one has asked you to change your position and no one has called you names of any sort.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 29, 2018
“Unless they are bisexuals.”
Thanks for that bit because it saved me the trouble of writing that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
shaviswa
October 29, 2018
@Anu Warrier
“When an article can create such fear that gays are going to take over the world, or that the end of straight relationships as we know it is nigh, I can only imagine how much they have to hide their true selves.”
That is a hyperbole. All that I said was that I disagree with the interpretation. And all that I said was such illogical extrapolations can be extended to other relationships as well making everything seen from a sexual connotation.
Actually, what I am saying is exactly the opposite of what you have written. That there IS NO homosexual aspects to the male-male bonding in those films. That is all. I am not adding anything more as is being interpreted.
Looks like everything is up for interpretations – even comments on blogs. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
October 29, 2018
@shawisva, who said that comment was directed at you?
But the following is:
And all that I said was such illogical extrapolations can be extended to other relationships as well making everything seen from a sexual connotation.
a) Why would you think that? Homosexuality is not the gateway to incest.
b) Why is that view illogical?
That there IS NO homosexual aspects to the male-male bonding in those films.
Who’s to say there’s not? How would YOU know? (Or me? Or any other straight person?)
Abhirup is seeing a homo-erotic (as opposed to homosexual) subtext to that friendship. Who are you, or I or anyone else, to say he’s wrong? At the most, we can say we don’t see it. Which is where I stand. But my perspective is not the only way in which art can be consumed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Abhirup
October 29, 2018
“Looks like everything is up for interpretations”
Truer words etc. etc.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 29, 2018
Disclaimer: My comment above – ‘Homosexuality is not the gateway to incest.’ I’m not saying or implying that shawisva said that. It was tangential to this comment from someone earlier on – (Stretch some more and we might insert incest in Sholay.).
But I’m using that to counter shawisva’s such illogical extrapolations can be extended to other relationships as well making everything seen from a sexual connotation.
LikeLike
sanjana
October 29, 2018
“We are demonising an already-marginalised community, and in India, more so than in the US, it is – even today – not an easy life to live openly as gay. Being truthful to yourself is a privilege that is only granted to the cis community. I’m sad that homophobia is so rampant.
When an article can create such fear that gays are going to take over the world, or that the end of straight relationships as we know it is nigh, I can only imagine how much they have to hide their true selves.”
Take it easy Anu. If Abhi can interpret, we also have the right to interpret and it is not exactly fear mongering. Excessive love and possessiveness in the family have these warnings. It has nothing to do with lgbt. Bringing these things does not disrespect any community. It is used for argument about interpretations. Everything shown can be interpreted and we can find new meanings.
IT IS ABOUT INTERPRETATIONS AND NOT ABOUT DISRESPECTING OR UNDUE FEAR MONGERING.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
October 29, 2018
@shadow – what a touching comment. The point you make about representation in mainstream making a difference to all homosexuals who struggle with their identity – it’s something that most of us understand, but when you say it like you did, it really hits home.
LikeLike
Madan
October 29, 2018
Speaking of incest, ’tis a strange land , ours, where marrying one’s cousin is OK but homo…nah!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
October 29, 2018
@Anu Warrier: From reading other threads, shaviswa has a tendency to sound dismissive -though he later insists he isn’t – of perspectives he doesn’t agree with.
LikeLike
Dracarys
October 29, 2018
If a good old friendship can undergo a homosexual interpretation, what stops people from a similar view on a sibling relationship? Isnt it as icky as the former?
In fact, these kinds of so called re-interpretations are responsible for people’s mindset changed drastically for worse on a pure form of friendship. You cant put your hand on your friend’s shoulder as we used.
And these kind of ‘harmless’ interpretations lead to #metoo kind of situations. EXACTLY what is happening in Kannda film industry right now! A fake one!
On a lighter note, some how the author hasnt considered Rajinikant and Mammotty’s relationship for his article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
October 29, 2018
“We are demonising an already-marginalised community, and in India, more so than in the US, it is – even today – not an easy life to live openly as gay. Being truthful to yourself is a privilege that is only granted to the cis community. I’m sad that homophobia is so rampant.
When an article can create such fear that gays are going to take over the world, or that the end of straight relationships as we know it is nigh, I can only imagine how much they have to hide their true selves.”
Take it easy Anu. If Abhi can interpret, we also have the right to interpret and it is not exactly fear mongering. Excessive love and possessiveness in the family have these warnings. It has nothing to do with lgbt. Bringing these things does not disrespect any community. It is used for argument about interpretations. Everything shown can be interpreted and we can find new meanings.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 29, 2018
I love how Dracarys makes no bones about the fact that he/she considers homosexuality to be “icky”; that is bigotry sans any pretension. Besides, such comments are a good reminder of how much dirt one still has to clear in this country of ours.
LikeLiked by 3 people
sanjana
October 29, 2018
‘Speaking of incest, ’tis a strange land , ours, where marrying one’s cousin is OK but homo…nah!!!’
This needs another thread. This thing is not allowed in north India. Even in the south it is discouraged.
Seriously we need a blood test to rule out the possibilities!
LikeLike
Madan
October 29, 2018
“You cant put your hand on your friend’s shoulder as we used.” – Really? Male colleagues who are friends do that so why would it be a problem for, say, besties?
LikeLike
Dracarys
October 29, 2018
@abhirup my concern is for needless and careless interpretations and not for the people for who and what they are!
If LGBT community wants to build its legacy then do it as a standalone and more inclusive framework. You dont need to ride on something which already existed and is existing.
Its like building mosques/masjids on top of temples and call for progressive and secular attitudes towards the new ‘interpretations’ of faiths! We are already seeing how dangerous this is!
Be wise and careful before you judge someone as a bigot!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Srinivas R
October 29, 2018
“And these kind of ‘harmless’ interpretations lead to #metoo kind of situations. EXACTLY what is happening in Kannda film industry right now! A fake one!” – I have no idea how you connect homo erotic intrepretations to #metoo. Also do you mean the charges against Arjun raised Sruthi Hariharan are false? What makes you think so?
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
October 29, 2018
@Abhirup- I think Dracarys is finding ‘good old friendship undergoing homosexual interpretation’ as icky, and not homosexuality icky.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 29, 2018
In fact, these kinds of so called re-interpretations are responsible for people’s mindset changed drastically for worse on a pure form of friendship. You cant put your hand on your friend’s shoulder as we used.
Huh? Unless you are so leary of being thought gay, why would it even matter? I haven’t seen any of my friends, male or female, being bothered about casually draping an arm around their same-sex friends. I have great friendships with both men and women, none of which have been tarred with the tinge of sexuality – homo or hetero.
And these kind of ‘harmless’ interpretations lead to #metoo kind of situations. EXACTLY what is happening in Kannda film industry right now! A fake one!
Again, huh? No. What’s happening in the Kannada industry is a male star taking advantage of a particular scene in the film to grope his female co-star. Unfortunately for him, the woman was made of sterner measure and called him out. It’s fake because now that she’s agreed to do an intimate scene, she should be okay with him having more arms than an octopus has tentacles?
Take it easy Anu. If Abhi can interpret, we also have the right to interpret and it is not exactly fear mongering.
A) Abhirup is presenting his perspective on a particular characters’ relationship. Sure, you can disagree. I did, as well. But I can still see his perspective as also valid. Seemingly, you can’t.
B) Then you misrepresented Abhirup’s perspective as being one that can therefore be used as the prism through which to view other relationships – incest, etc. Which is totally not the point of Abhirup’s article and which he has defended in the comments later.
That is fearmongering that because Abhirup (and others) said ‘A’, then ‘B’ could be the result. As if homosexuality = incest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
praneshp
October 30, 2018
@Anu Warrier: Sorry because I’m writing this to insult you; but you belong in the Off Topic threads. There was no need to bring in one of your country’s parties into this discussion. It’s also hyperbolic to suggest that I am “We are demonising an already-marginalised community”. You’re forcing me to either call Abhirup’s filter awesome, or be a homophobic person. My point was that applying a LGBTQ filter (as a straight person) to these relationships did not lead me to the same results.
I’m pretty sure I can skim through your past comments on this blogs and find some shit you wrote about how free speech is a great ideal. Can I assume you stand by those, or are you like the leaders of your country’s other party?
LikeLike
Ravi K
October 30, 2018
Anu Warrier wrote: “Abhirup is seeing a homo-erotic (as opposed to homosexual) subtext to that friendship.”
What is the difference between “homo-erotic” and “homosexual?” Is the former a perceived subtext and the latter an intended subtext?
“Who are you, or I or anyone else, to say he’s wrong? At the most, we can say we don’t see it. Which is where I stand. But my perspective is not the only way in which art can be consumed.”
I agree with you, though it sometimes it clashes with my “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” tendencies. I’ll read certain things as
I guess I’m comparing this reading of Indian films with readings of American films by known gay filmmakers like James Whale, where inferring filmmakers’ intent WRT gay subtext is based in some facts, other than personal interpretation. But like you and others have pointed out, a viewers’ reading of a film doesn’t have to line up with the creators’ intent (whether or not we know the intent).
I know Abhirup’s post is about Hindi cinema, but I wanted to post this ending scene from Superbad.
It knowingly uses the tropes of romantic depictions to comedically depict a close male/male platonic friendship, and I think it went a long way in normalizing intimacy and vulnerability in depictions of such friendships, without anything to undercut the intimacy back to heteronormativity.
LikeLike
Eswar
October 30, 2018
@voldemort – thank you. 🙂. Haven’t seen that movie. Just read the plot in wiki now.
— —
“it makes homosexuality look like a substitute for heterosexual relationships. That is simply not the case; folks don’t turn gay or lesbian because their heterosexual relationships have not worked out.”
Isn’t this kind of defining or narrowing down what homosexuality is or should be? What is in the name when two consenting adults enter into a relationship? Does it matter if it is because of their biological nature or if it is their preference by choice? Either ways none of us should have any say on their relationship as long as it’s voluntary and non-coercive.
On that note, isn’t the view on incest merely a social construct? I understand it can seriously affect the offsprings and subsequent generations. Apart from that, is incest inherently wrong? If the relationship is between consenting adults, is it just the society restricting their relationship? Isn’t this observed in nature at all?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
October 30, 2018
sanjana: Discouraged publicly but privately some South communities still doggedly cling to it. The point is we will even tolerate inbreeding if it’s ‘traditional’. Unfortunately the Brits did a good job of convincing us that homosexuality is evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
October 30, 2018
@Anu Warrier: Sorry because I’m writing this to insult you;
No, you are not. Sorry, that is.
but you belong in the Off Topic threads.
Says who?
There was no need to bring in one of your country’s parties into this discussion.
Why not? It was exactly what someone over here suggested – and I pointed to that statement too.
It’s also hyperbolic to suggest that I am “We are demonising an already-marginalised community”. You’re forcing me to either call Abhirup’s filter awesome, or be a homophobic person.
No. Not really. Plenty of people have disagreed with Abhirup’s reading, including me on some points. It was the reasons they gave for the disagreement that made this argument what it is.
My point was that applying a LGBTQ filter (as a straight person) to these relationships did not lead me to the same results.
No, who said it should? Heteronormative people are never going to see these relationships the way the LGBTQ community does. But that doesn’t mean the LGBTQ community (or anyone else for that matter) cannot interpret a film or a piece of art through their perspective.
I’m pretty sure I can skim through your past comments on this blogs and find some shit you wrote about how free speech is a great ideal. Can I assume you stand by those, or are you like the leaders of your country’s other party?
Firstly, ‘Free speech is a great ideal’ is not ‘some shit’.
Secondly, just because I disagree with people disagreeing with Abhirup doesn’t mean I am against free speech. ‘Free speech’ also doesn’t mean that I can’t disagree with what someone said. I can’t shut down anyone’s posts here – only Baradwaj Rangan can do it.
Thirdly, my comments have never been about anyone not finding Abhirup’s post ‘awesome’. It has to do with one person saying that if this continues, then other relationships will also become suspect; that if we continue to indulge in such ‘harmless interpretations’ then same-sex friendships will be looked at with suspicion. Really?
Which, by the way, since my comments are ‘some shit’, why don’t you just scroll on by when you see my name?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 30, 2018
@Easwar – Does it matter if it is because of their biological nature or if it is their preference by choice?
I liked the larger point you made about consensual relationships, but just a point to note – Homosexuality is not a ‘preference by choice’. It is biological. The jury is out on whether we have chromosomes that determine our sexuality or whether it is the preponderance of one hormone over another. But it is certainly not ‘choice’.
LikeLike
sanjana
October 30, 2018
“A) Abhirup is presenting his perspective on a particular characters’ relationship. Sure, you can disagree. I did, as well. But I can still see his perspective as also valid. Seemingly, you can’t.”
Anu:What makes you think I cant? I can see his point of view very clearly. But his interpretation cant be taken as it is and it is bound to get another interpretation of it. If that makes it fear mongering I cant help it. My intention is not fear mongering.
Madan: I know some who married their first cousins (who are from hindu communit) where it is not done. They simply fell in love. When warned about children out of such wedlocks will not be healthy, they replied that they wont have kids and they just married for love and not for vansh. Here no tradition compelled them but their own will.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 30, 2018
@Ravi: That’s an honest question?
Homoeroticism or the sexual attraction between members of the same sex, refers specifically to the desire itself. It may or may not be temporary. “Homosexuality” generally refers to the person’s state of personal identity and/or sexual orientation.
Interestingly, homoeroticism is way older a concept than homosexuality. Manifestations of this desire have been depicted in visual arts and literature throughout.
I agree with ‘Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.’ I think the point Abhirup wanted to make – he can correct me if I’m reading him wrong – is that his perception of those (to us) straight friendships is that, to him, there’s a tinge of homoeroticism in those supposedly ‘just a cigar’ male bonding. It need not necessarily be true, and I don’t think he’s claiming that Jai and Veeru, for instance, are homosexual or bisexual or anything.
Quoting from one of his comments itself: “I see where you are coming from. I do not interpret the relationships in those older films as gay ones but I understand that those with a different orientation may interpret them in a different manner.”
and
I have not said anywhere in my article or in any of my comments that “every relationship between two people of the same sex” is a homosexual one. There is no declaration of “every” anywhere. I have spoken about a handful of Hindi films that, for me (and many other LGBT viewers), has a gay subtext.
I can’t say it better than that.
LikeLike
Madan
October 30, 2018
@Easwar: The animal kingdom is vast and I would hesitate to generalise as it is not my specialisation. But from my days of reading wildlife books and watching discovery/natgeo (and predictably being mocked for it), male lions leave their pride as they approach adulthood and, when they are strong enough, seek out a new pride to pass on their genes to. This is to ensure that inbreeding doesn’t happen. Inbreeding would affect the health of the species long term. As humans we do not have to have such considerations, so yes a consenting relationship between adults is fine. Arranged alliances between family, I disapprove of. But no, wouldn’t call for a ban, do as you wish is what I say. Just respect the right of others to do as they wish as well. Including deriving homo erotic angles in Jai Veeru. The characters don’t personally belong to us anyway.
LikeLike
sanjana
October 30, 2018
I enjoyed reading Abhi’s long essay.I dont mind more of it coming. It makes me think and reflect. And now I am thinking about Duryodhan and Karan. And why there are so many male fans for the Khans and Bachchan? Or for Rajni and Kamal? Some Hrithik fans openly confessed as much.
LikeLike
Kay
October 30, 2018
“If a good old friendship can undergo a homosexual interpretation, what stops people from a similar view on a sibling relationship? Isnt it as icky as the former?”
Surprising (not really) how this thread has escalated. Icky? Really?
As I go through the comments I can’t help wondering, so what if abhirup feels those movies have homosexual undertones? Some people feel it’s just good old friendship, some people don’t.. There is no need to feel threatened when someone else looks at it differently. And this insistence on proving it’s not there and also asking someone to change the way they look at a film is only adding to the hundreds of other problems that they face in expressing themselves.
Those that ask why Mustafa or thalapathy has not been brought up, probably because the guys are already married/or in love with someone else.
As Anu said, that’s very insulting and also unnecessary fear mongering. And if you don’t understand it, it’s not worth the time to make you people understand.
Excellent write up Abhirup. And Shadow, loved your comment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
October 30, 2018
Human beings have the option and intelligence not to breed in present times. Can avoid inbreeding as well. Marriage and then kids is an old world idea. Many normal couple also dont want to bring kids into this heartless world. They want to end everything with themselves. It maybe a selfish idea or an idea to protect future generations from being born and suffer. And children can no longer be considered as insurance against old age. What if they die in an accident before their parents? If one wants kids that badly there are lakhs of kids to adopt and nurture.
LikeLike
Madan
October 30, 2018
Sanjana: In case of consensual relationships between adults of their own free will, I have no quarrel whatsoever. Even in case of arranged relations between cousins, I would not ordinarily object (though I would personally never choose something like that). But in this case, I am only bringing up the hypocrisy of perpetuating something like this owing to tradition while objecting to homosexuality as unnatural. It was also unnatural to get children married off and happened for a long time in India.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 30, 2018
“concern is for needless and careless interpretations”
What is “needless” and “careless” to you may not be so to others, so I am afraid your views are not going to be considered the final word on anything.
Eswar: “Isn’t this kind of defining or narrowing down what homosexuality is or should be?”
I am not narrowing anything down. I am simply saying what LGBT folks have said for ages: that their orientation is as innate as that of heterosexuals and not some temporary aberration caused by circumstances. Sure, there is something called circumstantial homosexuality which may be found in prisons, for instance; since there are no members of the opposite sex around, heterosexual men and women inmates may turn to each other to find sexual relief. But that shall not bring about any fundamental change in their orientation. But that is precisely what ‘Fire’ says: the portrayal of the wives’ relationship gave the impression that their husbands’ indifference to their needs has changed their orientation. The corollary then is that if the husbands were loving and caring, the wives would not have become lovers and heterosexuality would have reigned. That is what a lot of homophobes keep saying–that homosexuality is something abnormal that may be “checked” or “cured” through what they consider the right measures. If they see ‘Fire’, their response shall be, “Ah, none of that would have happened if the husbands cared about the wives”, because that is exactly what the film portrays. That is also the reason countless LGBT folks are forced into heterosexual marriages; their elders are convinced that heterosexual marital bliss shall clear out the vestiges of same-sex attraction. ‘Fire’, in my opinion, contributes to that misguided line of thought.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Apu
October 30, 2018
Vanya: “One of my favorite episodes is The Matchmaker, in which Frasier attempts to hook up his new boss with Daphne, his dad’s live-in physical therapist, not realizing that his boss is gay”
– Fellow Frasier fan coming right up – I still watch re-runs of that show.
Abhirup/Anu: point taken about the homosexual gaze – yes, we interpret art our own way.
LikeLike
dracarys
October 30, 2018
@ramitbajaj01 Thanks! atlast somebody read my comment and commented. everybody else was just emotionally reacting!. thanks again!
@Srinivas, Anu, what makes you think that the Shruti isn’t faking it? just coz, a woman complained, you have to make the male guilty?! Have you heard his comments as to what happened?
Arjun clearly said that it was a rehearsal when they were improvising a scene in public!
Anu, don’t you try to better a draft following your editor’s (say, a male) comments and do you respond back now (assuming you left journalism years back) saying your editor ‘harassed’ you into writing that article years ago?! do you feel ’empowered’ to ‘come out’ now and talk about the ‘courage’?! Sorry. for picking you on this. but just wanted to give an example.
If there is a deadline, and a manager asks his team member (say, a woman) to complete the task and if it requires a night out or stretching, may ppl in the IT industry do it (grudgingly) and not that they complain years later that they were harassed into doing it!
am not against the genuine concerns. atleast there should be some credibility in that! this is total hogwash. From all those media reports, looks like she is just trying to be an entitled and ’empowered’ whiner!
Again, my opinion, after hearing and seeing media videos from both the parties.
somebody commented that I was over-reacting by bringing the #metoo into the LGBT topic of ‘interpretatiion’ – See this article: how it gets blown out of proportion and commonly misunderstood.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/us/new-york-woman-calls-police-black-boy/index.html
LikeLike
Sifter
October 30, 2018
@Shadow- It was only when I finally read a lesbian fiction novel that I realised that my reality lay in all those intensely painful, emotionally draining, seemingly platonic, bonds I had with a few girls.
Loved, this bit. Agree with you on the ‘The other love story” as well.
It’s the stuff lgbtq fanfiction is made of. It’s why an old show like Xena has a huge lesbian fan following and a whole website dedicated to fanfiction starring the lead characters, who have never officially been said to be homosexual.
Agree on this too. Not sure if you already know this, but the impact was so powerful that a retired surgeon, became a fanfiction writer who also went on to become a full-time author and publisher of lesbian novels. She created the space for the rest of the writers and published/publish their novels thereby providing to many a woman content that they weren’t able to find in the mainstream publishing world. That is only one of the examples that I know.
LikeLike
Sifter
October 30, 2018
@Abhirup- On the
Perhaps that portrayal of a same-sex relationship is acceptable to you but I find it inaccurate and misleading because it makes homosexuality look like a substitute for heterosexual relationships. That is simply not the case; folks don’t turn gay or lesbian because their heterosexual relationships have not worked out.
I didn’t say they turn gay or lesbian because…… as you have written. I also wrote that they did bond and ended up which each other. Maybe they did have an innate liking towards other women, which was brought out due to their unfortunate circumstances. I understand your issues with the film, I already said I had the same set of issues when I first watched it. To put your point to rest, I do agree with you that folks don’t turn gay or lesbian because their heterosexual relationships have not worked out.
On the
I have not said anywhere in my article or in any of my comments that “every relationship between two people of the same sex” is a homosexual one. There is no declaration of “every” anywhere. I have spoken about a handful of Hindi films that, for me (and many other LGBT viewers), has a gay subtext. I shall continue to insist on my democratic right to interpret them that way regardless of what the “majority” thinks of them.
I didn’t say you did declare it like that. It was a mere agreement to what others were talking about. Ofcourse you are free to insist on your democratic right to interpret them and please continue to do so. I’d not be the one to try and deny that.
LikeLike
Rahini David
October 30, 2018
Abhirup: Genuine Question. I have not seen Fire but I have heard the points of you have raised regarding that movie. I often wonder why it does not make sense if they were both bisexuals? A Bisexual person who was brought up in a decidedly heterosexual environment will consider themselves straight and will not explore their LGBT side so easily, no?
Maybe some thing should occur in their life to see themselves in that light, no? So it can make sense?
LikeLike
Rahini David
October 30, 2018
https://www.dailydot.com/via/frozen-gay-film-lgbtq-representation-disney/
I was a bit surprised that “Let it go” of Frozen and the interpretation it was given was not discussed in this thread. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to participate more extensively in this thread. So just going to lurker mode for now.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 30, 2018
Rahini ma’am: “A Bisexual person who was brought up in a decidedly heterosexual environment will consider themselves straight and will not explore their LGBT side so easily, no?
Maybe some thing should occur in their life to see themselves in that light, no? So it can make sense?”
I think a bisexual person shall feel an attraction towards members of the same sex even if he/she does not understand those feelings and does not act upon them. The trouble with ‘Fire’–I am saying the next bit in response to Sifter’s latest comment as well–is that there is no indication in the film that the wives had prior feelings of same-sex attraction. The relationship between them begins only after they realize that their husbands do not care about them. If ‘Fire’ wished to portray the wives as bisexual, there should have been something–a flashback, a monologue–that tells us that the attractions towards men as well women is something the wives had felt all along. But what the film portrays–and what makes it a misguided portrayal of same-sex relationships–is that they fall in love after, and as a result of, their husbands’ indifference towads them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
October 30, 2018
Arjun clearly said that it was a rehearsal when they were improvising a scene in public!
Do you think a woman can’t be groped in public? ‘Improvisation’ does happen in cinema. But all the actors involved know about it. You don’t just jump in and ‘improvise’. That’s not how it works.
Anu, don’t you try to better a draft following your editor’s (say, a male) comments and do you respond back now (assuming you left journalism years back) saying your editor ‘harassed’ you into writing that article years ago?! do you feel ’empowered’ to ‘come out’ now and talk about the ‘courage’?!
When I was a trainee, I had several bosses, both male and female, tell me how to better my copy. But if any of them made me ‘better my draft’ because I refused to give in to their advances, that would be sexual harassment. Would I have said anything at the time? Perhaps to a friend. Perhaps to a trusted colleague. Because if I raised a concern – firstly, there were no committees to raise concerns to, in those days. Secondly, if I did, I would be the one sidelined from the major stories.
You ask why women feel empowered to come out now (no need for the double quotes there – it is empowerment) – read the many articles out there by women who have articulated very well why the culture of silence is so strong, and why collective voices give them what you sarcastically call, ‘courage’.
Does a woman’s career mean nothing at all? The number of ‘oh, just give up your job if you are harassed’ has the QWERTY permanently imprinted on my forehead. A friend of mine was repeatedly harassed when she was a resident in a hospital following her MBBS. Did she have to give up medicine and sit at home? Remember she doesn’t get to change her place of work.
In my case, who would I have told? My first job. I had had an argument with my father about standing on my own feet. There’s no way in hell I could have gone back home – if I did, I would have had to resign a job I loved. So the choice was ‘career’ or ‘shut up and try and ensure I’m never in a place where my harasser could do anything’. Which is not easy. I managed by judiciously using colleagues’ help.
Have you seen what happens to women who speak up in the moment? Do you know how many careers have been scuttled? How many reputations spoiled? How many years of trauma sexual harassment and abuse victims go through?
Re: Shruti – the same way you saw both sides and decided Shruti was faking it, I saw both sides, read both sides, and think she has a definite case. Arjun is not the first actor, nor will he be the last, to try to exploit a female co-star or crew member on set.
But that aside – sure, there can be fake allegations. No one is saying women are perfect and men are guilty just upon their say so. That’s where due process comes in. In Shruti’s case, she’s taking the case to court. She claims she has evidence. So let’s see where it goes.
What I called you out for was you conflated Abhirup’s representation of the LGBTQ gaze and with the #MeToo movement.
This is what you said: And these kind of ‘harmless’ interpretations lead to #metoo kind of situations. EXACTLY what is happening in Kannada film industry right now! A fake one!
What does the LGBT gaze on representation in cinema have to do with the #MeToo movement?
What happened in that link you posted where the white woman called out a black boy for sexual harassment is not part of #MeToo. It’s part of institutional racism and what is now referred to here as ‘Living while Black’. Because ordinary black people doing ordinary things have suddenly become the target for white people to call 911 on them.
LikeLike
Kay
October 30, 2018
If there is a deadline, and a manager asks his team member (say, a woman) to complete the task and if it requires a night out or stretching, may ppl in the IT industry do it (grudgingly) and not that they complain years later that they were harassed into doing it!
Whether they complain or not it IS harassment. When a manager (someone in a position of power) forces a team member to do something that they don’t want to do, it is harassment. Sadly, we just take it as a part of the job and move on.
LikeLike
Madan
October 30, 2018
About bisexuals growing up ‘straight’, Whitney Houston was brought up by a conservative Christian mother but developed feelings for Robin Crawford (a relationship she may have acknowledged but for her mother’s disapproval of same sex relationships). She also married Bobby Brown and birthed Bobbi Kristina through him. So I guess she was bisexual in spite of the orthodox upbringing, neither lesbian nor straight.
LikeLike
Apu
October 30, 2018
I read through the thread once more, and the arguments:
I think Abhirup (and others with the LGBTQ “gaze” – just to get me out of the trouble of mentioning all the names here :)) has every right to interpret movies the way he sees fit and read any homo erotic sub text that he gets a vibe about.
I also think that everyone else who do not read it that way have a right to say – I did not see it that way, this seems natural because of the underlying acceptable behavior in our country and “oh man, now you will see all such stuff in “that” way”.
And we can co-exist without saying that (1) one side is polluting the other (2) other side is marginalizing the other.
The fact that people are taking time to read through and comment and engaging in a discussion is a big step, and thanks Abhirup for writing this. Many times we joke about it rather than engaging in a conversation. And thanks everyone, yes, Shaviswa included for commenting – helps me think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apu
October 30, 2018
Abhirup: “I think a bisexual person shall feel an attraction towards members of the same sex even if he/she does not understand those feelings and does not act upon them.”
maybe that is true. I have Lesbian friends who initially married and had a child – not sure if their realization came later or it was because of social pressure.
LikeLike
shadow
October 30, 2018
@Srinivas and Kay, thank you!
@Sifter
“Not sure if you already know this, but the impact was so powerful that a retired surgeon, became a fanfiction writer who also went on to become a full-time author and publisher of lesbian novels. She created the space for the rest of the writers and published/publish their novels thereby providing to many a woman content that they weren’t able to find in the mainstream publishing world.”
I think you’re talking about Radclyffe? That’s a great example of how the community creates content for its own consumption! Even now, most original lesbian fiction is published only by a select few publishing houses, like hers, which are dedicated solely to the lesbian romance genre. They have done a lot to fill the gap, by providing a supportive platform, and succeeded, to a certain extent. Most of the authors are amateurs though, so the writing can get super tropey. There is such a rush to produce content, that the focus tends to be on volume rather than quality. There is still a long way to go before we see more depth and diversity in plot, character development, world building, etc. in original lesbian/bisexual fiction.
That’s one way in which fanfiction has the upper hand. Any story, even when written by someone who is not very skilled at writing, further builds on the existing well-known archetypes embodied by the on-screen characters. People already know these characters, understand their world, their individual skills, motives and vulnerabilities, not to forget, their appearance, body language and quirks, the chemistry and relationships between different characters. It makes the job of the writer easier. They can go crazy with their premise, plot points and interpretations, because readers already have a well formed attachment to their personal image of the fictional characters. They are already invested in their fate. They are already rooting for them. Strangely, at times, there appears to be more originality to be found in fanfiction than in original fiction. Since fanfiction sites are free for all and not moderated, there does tend to be a lot (like a lot) of trash, but some of it is so well written, by people who genuinely understand what it means to be queer, that it moves you in the most beautiful ways.
I guess it isn’t terribly hard to find content that is relatable, atleast in print. But it tends to circulate only within the community. The internet and social media have definitely made it easier to access content and connect with a sort of global support network. Yet, it’s still largely a virtual network. Acceptance and compassion are most needed within the immediate social environment, to feel truly safe. It’s only positive visible representation in the regional mainstream that can contribute to the mitigation of the prevalent prejudice. Begin to bridge the divide, so to speak.
LikeLike
Eswar
October 31, 2018
“Homosexuality is not a ‘preference by choice’. It is biological. The jury is out on whether we have chromosomes that determine our sexuality or whether it is the preponderance of one hormone over another. But it is certainly not ‘choice’.”
@Anu I agree that Science says it’s biological at the moment. But Science may or
may not hold this view forever. Not because there is a new discovery around the corner. But because Science can get things wrong and in course of time reject its own earlier confirmations. Also I would guess our understanding of genes is very nascent still. It’s an evolving field. So it may not help tying our definitions of homosexuality with that of Science. In the future if Science comes out saying Homosexuality is not biological, then does it make homosexuality non-existent? Should the view on Homosexuality change? I don’t think so.
— —
@Madan yes, voluntary and consent is the key.
— —
@Abhirup: I understand it’s innate. My point is should it be considered homosexuality only if it is innate? If a person who has enjoyed heterosexual relationship, accidentally enters into a homosexual relationship, and since would want to only be in a Homosexual relationship, which category would he or she fall under? Is it possible that a person could be open minded and adventurous, who has no inclination in a same sex relationship, but is open to the idea and eventually prefers it over the other? Is this natural or by choice? In the future, if Gene editing or harmony therapy allows individuals to change their sexual preferences what is their sexual orientation then?
The problem may be in trying to slot sexual orientation in distinct groups. May be Sexuality is a spectrum. A majority of people has probably experienced only one part of the spectrum that is Heterosexuality. So to even say that individual sexual preference would not change over time may be inaccurate. They wouldn’t even have questioned if their orientation is natural. What they believe as their natural orientation may not be even correct.
The discrimination against LGBT is probably a result of how one group decided what sexuality is, what is an acceptable orientation etc. So I would have thought LGBT community wouldn’t limit homosexuality with a certain definition.
— —
On a general note, groups who come together for a certain cause, sometimes end up becoming its guardians. They become its owners and start defining an exclusivity by not allowing any other variation of it. It is like the guardians of Marriage insisting marriage should be only among heterosexuals. Like the guardians of a religion like Hinduism defining who a Hindu is. The LGBT community should be wary of not falling into this pitfall.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahini David
October 31, 2018
I wholeheartedly agree with Eswar. Our orientation may not be a choice. But if it is chosen, that should be ok too.
A decidedly homosexual man consenting to marry a heterosexual woman because of social pressure is completely wrong (and vice versa of course). But if we as a society decide to remove the taboo about homosexuality and choice marriages, then they will not be forced to make this choice.
But if a bisexual person did identify with being heterosexual and at a certain point of life does feel enough attraction towards a member of their own sex who returns the interest, then that should be ok too.
I am saying this from a “that is how it should be if we are truly open-minded” context. We can’t know that for sure unless several people who identify as being bi-sexual openly tell us about how it is from a bi-sexual perspective.
LikeLike
Abhirup
October 31, 2018
“If a person who has enjoyed heterosexual relationship, accidentally enters into a homosexual relationship, and since would want to only be in a Homosexual relationship, which category would he or she fall under?”
How does someone “accidentally” enter a homosexual relationship? I am asking because I shall not be capable of answering what you have asked unless I understand what you mean by that.
“Is it possible that a person could be open minded and adventurous, who has no inclination in a same sex relationship, but is open to the idea and eventually prefers it over the other?”
There is a bit of contradiction in that statement. How may someone simultaneously have “no inclination” towards same-sex relationships and be “open” to the prospect of being involved in such a relationship?
“if Gene editing or harmony therapy allows individuals to change their sexual preferences what is their sexual orientation then”
I suppose a lot would depend on the reason behind the person’s undergoing such a change. Is there any coercion involved? If there isn’t, then what makes the person feel that having a different orientation is preferable? Unless those details are provided, speaking about such what-if scenarios is difficult.
“So I would have thought LGBT community wouldn’t limit homosexuality with a certain definition.”
I concur with what you have said but I also think some ideas that are prevalent about homosexuality are simply incorrect. The turning-lesbian-because-husband-does-not-love idea in ‘Fire’ is one such.
LikeLike
Sifter
October 31, 2018
@Eswar- My thoughts about science and slotting exactly, but you put it brilliantly into words. Awesome, awesome comment above. Take a bow 🙂
LikeLike
Sifter
October 31, 2018
@Shadow- Yes, Radclyffe.
Most of the authors are amateurs though, so the writing can get super tropey- Been there, done that and got the books. Suffered enough 😊
There is such a rush to produce content, that the focus tends to be on volume rather than quality. Haha, that is true, as it is with mainstream publishing as well.
LikeLike
sanjana
October 31, 2018
I have heard about young boys abducted by hijras and castrated to become one of them. I dont know if it is connected to lgbt in any way. Can someone clarify?
There is also this serial Shakti being telecast on Colors about a transgender. Anybody watching it?
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
October 31, 2018
@Abhirup : Easwar’s comment means exactly what it means. I’m a straight male. Maybe I’m curious to know what’s on the other side ? What if I want to have a fling occasionally? Should I prove that I’m homosexual by birth or whatever. .
Do still people believe that homosexuality is biological. This bullshit needs to stop. Some liberals haughtily think “Oh, poor LGBTs, but for this biological problem, they would be fine. So, let’s not demonize them and decriminalize Sec. 377”. Hell no – homosexuality is about individual freedom and choice.Some LGBT folks too, are protective of their turf – I can understand that. I’m really tired of repeating this argument everywhere in my workplace, home & elsewhere – when two consenting adults have sex, why do you guys worry whether its biological, chromozomal, unnatural or whatever ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ramitbajaj01
October 31, 2018
In the novel A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara, there is a character Willem, who always has had heterosexual relationships but eventually settles down in a homosexual relationship with a close friend. At the same time, he declined being labeled gay, and claimed himself to be straight. I totally believed that character. So @eswar, when you talk about heterosexual person choosing to be in a homosexual relationship, I guess that person would still continue to be identified as a heterosexual.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
October 31, 2018
@Uncouth Village Youth- For some, homosexuality might just be a choice. However, for most people, it isn’t a choice. It’s like breathing. It just is. There is nothing to think or decide about it. Please do not use your specific case to dismiss the reality for so many others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
October 31, 2018
Please do not use your specific case to dismiss the reality for so many others.
Dismiss? Is it a dismissal to say that people must be free to do whatever they mighty well please and people should not be bothered whether it is innate or not? Please note that we are NOT saying that it is not innate. We are saying it NEED NOT be the main reason why we accept homosexuality within the society.
Being hung up on “It is not a choice” means that we ourselves will not accept it if it had been a choice. It strongly implies that there is a “right” way and a “wrong” way and that everyone knows that cis is right and homo is wrong. That is a rather judgmental thought and we are saying we want to accept people as they are, whether they choose to be a certain way or are born that way.
People should stop talking about homosexuality as if it is a disorder. Let it be like breathing and just what it is. That is ok. Just remove the sting out of the topic and let people be whoever they are either by innateness or choice.
This is a problem only if people say “Since it is only a choice, YOU choose MY way”. THAT is a dismissal. That is not what we are saying at all.
LikeLike
Madan
October 31, 2018
@ramitbajaj: I THINK he is saying it is enough if the person has chosen to be homosexual and whether that is a biological condition or not should not be relevant here. All that matters is whether both parties in the sexual act have consented to it.
LikeLike
krishikari
October 31, 2018
I would also love to know how someone accidentally enters into a homosexual relationship! Can we have this scenario sketched out, please?
I also think, based on nothing but feelings that hetero-homosexual inclination is a spectrum. That still does not account for accidents!
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 31, 2018
Rahini, I think why many people, both straight and gay, reject the ‘it’s a choice’ scenario is because ‘It’s a choice’ is what is used to keep gay rights in the dark ages. In a truly open-minded society, one wouldn’t care if it was biological or a choice. But we are light years from being there, if ever.
Which is why When Uncouth Village Youth says: Do still people believe that homosexuality is biological. This bullshit needs to stop. Some liberals haughtily think “Oh, poor LGBTs, but for this biological problem, they would be fine. So, let’s not demonize them and decriminalize Sec. 377”. This is problematic on so many levels. Because laws are passed and rights are handed out based on whether they are actually gay by birth or whether it is a ‘choice’. From that latter viewpoint is where the ‘Oh, it’s just a gateway to incest and bestiality’ opinions come from.
But this statement by him: When two consenting adults have sex, why do you guys worry whether its biological, chromozomal, unnatural or whatever ?
Slow clap!
Yes, why are so interested in others’ sexual proclivities?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abhirup
October 31, 2018
“Easwar’s comment means exactly what it means. I’m a straight male. Maybe I’m curious to know what’s on the other side ? What if I want to have a fling occasionally? Should I prove that I’m homosexual by birth or whatever.”
The meaning of certain parts in Easwar’s comment were not clear for me and hence I sought clarification. If you understood precisely what he/she meant, that’s awesome. But I am afraid I still need those clarifications if I am to answer what he/she asked.
Nope, you don’t have to “prove” anything to anyone and you are free to find out “what’s on the other side.” So is every other person out there. I had simply said that I find the portrayal of homosexuality in ‘Fire’ a misguided one and gave my reasons for thinking so. There is nothing I have said anywhere that may be construed as imposing restrictions on anyone’s right to be in a relationship of any sort.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 31, 2018
@Anu I agree that Science says it’s biological at the moment. But Science may or
may not hold this view forever. …because Science can get things wrong and in course of time reject its own earlier confirmations. Also I would guess our understanding of genes is very nascent still. It’s an evolving field. So it may not help tying our definitions of homosexuality with that of Science.
No. No one’s saying throw the baby out with the bathwater. The reality of homosexuality will never go away. It has been there since forever in the human world. Whether it is biological or chromosomal or whatever, the lived reality for gays is that it is certainly not choice. As in, the are not choosing to be with someone of their own sex. Or to put it more clearly, their biological attractions are towards their own sex. The only ones for whom homosexuality is a ‘choice’ is for bisexuals, who can be happy with either sex. Finally, like in all relationships, it comes down to compatibility with a person irrespective of their genitals.
In the future if Science comes out saying Homosexuality is not biological, then does it make homosexuality non-existent? Should the view on Homosexuality change? I don’t think so.</I.
That’s a bit like saying ‘People said the Earth was flat. Then Science proved it wasn’t, so now the Earth is non-existent.’. Alright, I’m stretching here, but I haven’t had my morning coffee yet. Insert something here where the Science changed our notions – it doesn’t remove the thing itself; it just changes our understanding of it.
This is what Science knows now. If Science can prove for a fact that homosexuality is not biological, it still will not make homosexuality nonexistent. What it will do is make us reevaluate what we know of homosexuality and go forward based on the new knowledge.
LikeLike
Rahini David
October 31, 2018
Anu: I actually completely agree with the “born this way” thing. Most gay people are born gay and it maybe even a good 100%
But I do hate it when people equate it with genetic diseases or disabilities etc. Not that anyone in this thread has done that. But over emphasis on “not a choice” at times verges on treating homosexuality as a deformity.
Maybe I am not explaining it correctly. In short, maybe it is not a choice. But the choice/nonchoice part should be very unimportant.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
October 31, 2018
But over emphasis on “not a choice” at times verges on treating homosexuality as a deformity.
Rahini, maybe that’s just you. I guess for most people, ‘homosexuality is not a choice’ is a complete statement without any wrong intention beneath it.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 31, 2018
Rahini, I get where you’re coming from. But I agree with Ramit – ‘Homosexuality is not a choice’ is a complete statement in and of itself. All it means is that they were born that way, the same as a straight person is born the way he/she is. And it means nothing more than that. Definitely not an implication that it’s some deformity or deficiency.
‘Choice’ implies they choose their sexual orientation, and that if they were only sensible, they would ‘choose’ to go straight. Hence the many ‘sexual reconversion centres’ here in the US – to teach homosexuals to ‘choose’ to be straight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
November 1, 2018
ramitbajaj01 wrote: “Rahini, maybe that’s just you. I guess for most people, ‘homosexuality is not a choice’ is a complete statement without any wrong intention beneath it.”
The intention behind “not a choice” might be to treat homosexuals fairly and to discourage things like conversion therapy, but it’s not quite the right framing of the issue. Putting the emphasis on choice makes it seem like homosexuals are unfortunately stricken with some terrible condition. It also implies that if homosexuality WAS a choice, it should be stopped or repressed. Choice or not, homosexuality is not a flaw or disease that homosexuals should stop, or something that others should discourage, shame, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
November 1, 2018
Apart from the intention behind “not a choice” might be to treat homosexuals fairly and to discourage things like conversion therapy, “not a choice” is also the plain truth as is experienced by gay people. It is not a theory or a point to argue but a clear cold fact. That much I agree.
I also agree with Abhirup about the implications that arise from movies like Fire.
I think only bisexuals can speak for themselves. So until someone who identifies as being bisexual comments here, I can’t ask questions about what bisexuality is like. Abhirup has been very clear about the gay perspective.
But unlike what Ramit says it is not just me. I have seen posters, slogans etc. literally equating homosexuality to disorders like clinical depression. While I want to be completely accepting of those who are undergoing clinical depression, I found that implication icky.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
November 1, 2018
Ravi K : Really well articulated. LGBT rights are human rights. It doesn’t matter whether they are biological or not. However, if it helps someone convince oneself to come out in support of LGBT rights, so be it.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
November 2, 2018
Rahini, sure, many people used to consider homosexuality a disease. Many still continue to do so. But to say that this implication is inherent in ‘born this way’ narrative is not true.
Ravi K, saying some people can’t help but use their left hand for eating or writing doesn’t imply that using left hand for eating or writing is a terrible condition some people are stuck with. Also, it definitely doesn’t imply that if it was a choice, it won’t be allowed.
Any extra meanings are exactly that- extra. They are add-ons. A reflection of someone’s own bias.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
November 2, 2018
Many of us are commenting generally. Only LGBTs know what it is to be one and what are their feelings. I wonder how film makers who do not belong make such films just by guessing. That maybe the reason why they touch the subject by making it a sad story than an authentic one with myriad emotions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
November 2, 2018
Ramit: The parallel between left-handedness and homosexuality is so good that I am kicking myself for not seeing it sooner.
Left-handedness is definitely innate and is related to the brain’s wiring. It is also given a sinister color by the majority of the crowd. Right-handers do experiment with Left-handedness to see what it feels like, but right-handers can never become left-handers and vice-versa. Left-handers are routinely forced to right-hander ways. Even with corporal punishments in cases.
Ambidexterity also sits as a beautiful parallel for Bi-sexuality. Neither left-handers nor right-handers can fake being ambidextrous. You either are or you are not.
Thank you for this. 😀 A hundred likes. It makes everything easy to explain and to understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
November 2, 2018
ramitbajaj: You are talking past the comments a little. UCY/Ravi K aren’t saying homosexuality is always an intentional choice and not an innate quality of the person. The point is from a legal rights perspective, that should be irrelevant. Legally, it is a choice and not a birth condition. Look at how Trump is now trying to restrict who all may call themselves transgender by determining it purely on biology. This is the danger we run into if we say homosexuality is only a biological condition. If it is that way for 99%people but 1% choose it maybe out of gender confusion (just as a hypothetical), the law should still permit people to choose to be homosexual rather than determining it medically. It is nothing more than the right to be whoever you want to be. From that perspective, defining it as a choice makes a lot more sense.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
November 2, 2018
Madan, I am all in for homosexuality being a choice, provided we make room for ‘homosexuality not being a choice’ argument as well, especially when most LGBTs insist on it not being a choice. For some, it just might be a choice. Both the arguments can co-exist. Let’s not look down upon one line of argument.
LikeLike
Eswar
November 3, 2018
@sifter – Thank you 🙂
@uncouth village youth : thanks for that example.
@Abhirup, the crux of my point is what Rahini and Madan wrote succinctly. The various scenarios, questions I asked were only to point out homosexuality may exist outside the natural orientation.
To clarify your questions:
How does someone “accidentally” enter a homosexual relationship?
It is possible for someone going through elevated emotional levels to let their guard down, slip away from the social constructs and end up having a sexual relationship with another person who is also in a similar state. This another person need not be of the same gender. This could be just one off or could end up being in that relationship every time they enter that state or even outside that state. Heightened emotional state could be a result of drugs or some form of mystical spiritual state. I vaguely remember some cult group with unusual sexual practices. What they have experienced accidentally in this state could become their norm.
How may someone simultaneously have “no inclination” towards same-sex relationships and be “open” to the prospect of being involved in such a relationship?
It’s pretty much what Uncouth Village answered. Someone who is not attracted to the same sex but wants to experience it.
I suppose a lot would depend on the reason behind the person’s undergoing such a change. Is there any coercion involved? If there isn’t, then what makes the person feel that having a different orientation is preferable?
There could be many reasons. One plausible reason I could think of is depression. Depression can drive people to do unimaginable things. By saying this I am not stigmatising or making depression abominable. Depression is yet another thing the society is finding it difficult to comprehend.
The point is it does not matter what the reason is. It’s the individual’s right.
—- —
@Anu: To rephrase what I meant by non-existent – – If the reason for homosexuality to exist is its naturalness, and when the reason does not exist, then what would make homosexuality exist? The reason why I don’t want Science’s back up in this instance is, people who are tolerating homosexuality only because it is natural would change their stance when science has its doubts. I don’t know if there has been major studies on sexual orientation among twins. Identical Twins studies are usually used for nature vs nurture debate as they share almost identical genes. If there are going to be significant number of twins with different sexual orientation then the nature vs nurture debate will kick in asking questions like how much of sexual orientation is genetics and how much is epigenetics — the non genetic factor that causes gene expression. So I prefer a stance that is independent of what science has to say.
— —
I don’t think there is much left for me to say on this topic. So going to end this with a moving talk by Andrew Solomon which relates not only to this topic but identity in general : Love, no matter what – https://youtu.be/9EVEmZ2c_es
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 3, 2018
Someone who is not attracted to the same sex but wants to experience it.
Here, they are called ‘bi-curious’. Not necessarily homosexual, but somewhat attracted (or not) to the same gender, and therefore wanting to experience it.
For me, at least, my pushback against ‘It’s not biological, it’s a choice’ is because it is almost always used to take away LGBTQ rights. But that, as Madan points out, is the legal/civil rights verbiage.
In the actual world, I’m for acceptance – I honestly don’t care where that acceptance is coming from, and I will take what Uncouth Village Youth, Easwar, et al feel about the issue – because what matters is the destination, not the paths they traverse to get there.
LGBTQ rights is human rights, as Uncouth VY put it, and that is all we need to remember.
LikeLike
brangan
November 3, 2018
Abhirup: Thank you for setting off a most unexpected and fascnating discussion — though given the quality of some of the commenters, I should hardly find that surprising.
Everyone: One thing, though. I think you guys need to clarify what you are referring to when you comment.
When you say homosexual “relationship”, do you refer to an emotional one (like the one Clive wanted in EM Foster’s Maurice)? A physical one? Both?
And if physical, are we talking about one-offs and experimentation? Are we talking about married men (or women) hooking up with guys (or girls) on the side?
Relationships cover a huge spectrum — and I’m thinking the emotional motivation behind each type is very different.
LikeLike
Madan
November 3, 2018
” For some, it just might be a choice. Both the arguments can co-exist. Let’s not look down upon one line of argument.” – Sure, but extending that line of argument, I don’t see the need to restrict it to an either-or. Whether it chose your or you made the choice, it is still a choice. Like, a homosexual country singer in Nashville may choose to hide this fact and even marry as coming out would hurt his career. They actually depict something like this in the TV series named after the famous country music city if I am not mistaken. So even if you were born with it, choosing to live with that reality rather than pretend it away to fit into mainstream society is still a choice. This is not choice in a superficial sense like what one chooses to wear but choice in the sense of opting for a way of life. No govt nor society should intrude into that as it is a purely personal and private domain.
LikeLike
Abhirup
November 3, 2018
“Heightened emotional state could be a result of drugs or some form of mystical spiritual state. I vaguely remember some cult group with unusual sexual practices. What they have experienced accidentally in this state could become their norm.”
The things folks do under the influence of drugs are often not voluntary and hence I am not sure if that counts. The same goes for spiritual cults. If someone has a physical relationship with a person of the same sex because the rituals of a cult call for it and not because he/she is attracted to that person, is that homosexuality or is that only a ritual? Whether a same sex act one indulges in in a drugged state or as part of religious rituals may become a norm or not, I am afraid I don’t know, but I have not heard of any such occurrences and hence I have my doubts regarding the topic.
“Someone who is not attracted to the same sex but wants to experience”
I would say that a lot shall depend on what the person feels after the experience. There is the possibility that he/she shall feel that he/she did not like the experience and does not want to have it again. Such a person may be unhesitantly called a heterosexual one. The person may also feel that while he/she did not mind the same-sex fling his/her preference is for members of the opposite sex. Such a person is also a heterosexual one.
Should a person have his/her first same-sex experience out of curiosity alone and realize that he/she enjoyed the experience, and would love to continue, then that shall be a interesting instance for sure, but even then, some questions shall remain. I know someone who said he was heterosexual but then met a man and fell in love with him and has been in a relationship with him since. In the earlier days of his relationship he used to say that he had not had any romantic feelings for a member of the same sex before, but recently he remarked that he had in fact felt stirrings of attraction to other men since adolescence while also feeling the same attraction to women but since everyone around him was heterosexual he decided that his feelings for girls are the real romantic feelings, and that his feelings for men are some sort of puberty-related weirdness; he said he now understands that he has been bisexual all along. Therefore, when a person says that he/she enjoyed his/her first same-sex experience but had not felt any homosexual desire before that experience, one has to consider the possibility that the person had in fact felt those desires beforehand but had suppressed them.
“There could be many reasons.”
But you provided only one and that is hardly a very convincing one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ramitbajaj01
November 3, 2018
I don’t see the need to restrict it to an either-or.
Yes, that has been my stress throughout.
even if you were born with it, choosing to live with that reality rather than pretend it away to fit into mainstream society is still a choice.
Sure, living a particular life-style is indeed a choice. But sexual orientation, in itself, is not a choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rad Mahalikudi
November 3, 2018
BR: Relationships cover a huge spectrum — and I’m thinking the emotional motivation behind each type is very different.
Very good comment. In human and animal kingdom, every trait is a spectrum. A distribution like a bell curve. While we may refer to height as Short and Tall, we all know it is a curve / distribution and we can’t go with two points, one for short and one for tall. Similarly for color of eye, hair, size of eye, etc. Also, sexual orientation and gender. It may be easier for us to bucket them in to two (male or female, hetero or homo), in reality we all fall somewhere in the spectrum with a mix of hormones. What we do became a function of what we are born with followed by environment, trigger, and chance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rad Mahalikudi
November 4, 2018
Finally got time to add my thoughts in viewing a movie or a picture. Reading through the comments, I guess all of us pretty much agree or on the same page that it is personal and each is going to interpret it differently and takeaways are going to be different. What puzzles if a view is different from how a majority views. To be clear, I am using majority loosely here. Maybe contrarian view or against the grain. From my experience, I was in full surprise (or shock) when I took a guided tour of an Art Museum in New York (forgot the name but it is one of the famous). 2 hours talking about 10 drawings. Famous artistes. Interpretation the guide went through and points put forth by few in the group, initially came as a surprise to me since I didn’t notice them at all from my viewing. I was like Kamal from Kaadhala Kaadhala – ithellam eppadeenga ungalukku theriyuthu. For the whole tour, I was only a listener trying to understand how do they read and interpret. To me, movies are bit easier than still art form. I can’t interpret without getting a background for a picture and need a holding hand. With movies, among my friend groups itself, each of us interpret it differently. It is always interesting for me to know why someone read it differently and I didn’t see it that way.
Random thought: Why is that we ask the question “is it by birth or by choice” for homosexuality but never stop and ask a heterosexual, “hey is that by birth or by choice”?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 4, 2018
Why is that we ask the question “is it by birth or by choice” for homosexuality but never stop and ask a heterosexual, “hey is that by birth or by choice”?
ZInger! Thanks, Rad.
LikeLike
sanjana
December 27, 2018
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tom Shaw
May 16, 2019
Well written Rangan and covers the spectrum. I had noted the homoerotic undertones in Hera Pheri, the overt joke in Silsila and the emotional bonding in Anand & Namak Haram. The analysis of some of the other Bachchan movies is a revelation. The 80s did see similar bonding between Anil-Jackie and Raj Babbar-Deepak Parasher.
LikeLike
Ramit
September 19, 2019
LikeLike
Ramit
February 26, 2020
LikeLike
Prat
January 9, 2022
This was a great article and discussion. Surprised to find Willem from A Little Life mentioned here – a perfect example in that context.
And we even got complex, 3D queer characters in Geeli Pucchi last year! Glad to see the progress over time.
LikeLike