The Guru marks a shift

Given the contemporary issues and ideological stances adopted by Hindi films these days, Bollywood demands to be taken seriously.

Given the contemporary issues and ideological stances adopted by Hindi films these days, Bollywood demands to be taken seriously. Last year8217;s big hits, Rang De Basanti and Lage Raho Munnabhai, have received a fair amount of attention but the recent release, Guru, seems to have been smothered by news of the impending marriage of its co-stars. Which is a pity, because it is a film that needs to be taken note of, not because it is probably the first time an Indian film has dealt in a realistic manner with recent events involving powerful, controversial personalities 8212; the closest parallel one can think of is the fleeting presence of the Modi-like character in Parzania and films such as Nayakan, Company and Black Friday, all of which recreated underworld figures which is perhaps not quite the same thing as making a film on the life of Dhirubhai Ambani 8212; but because, in its blatant ideological thrust, Guru is possibly one of the most unusual films ever made in the history of popular cinema.

For those who have not seen the film, Guru is the story of a simple village boy who builds a textile empire in the stifling business environment of post-independence India. One part of the film deals with Guru8217;s struggles against the establishment and another part with a newspaper8217;s campaign against his malpractices no prizes for guessing which one this could be based on. Guru8217;s character is sympathetically drawn 8212; his ruthlessness is overlaid by charm, his lack of ethics presented as enterprise. Yet, once the idealistic newspaper proprietor decides to go after him, his downfall seems assured. But, in an unexpected twist, similar to Kamal Hasan8217;s change of heart in Mani Ratnam8217;s previous effort, Hey Ram, Guru stirs out of his paralytic stupour to give a rousing speech, casting himself as a rebel and a man of the people in the Gandhian mould and promising to build the world8217;s largest company.

The parallel is patently specious. It is absurd to imagine Gandhi pointing to material goals as Guru does or using ends to justify unethical means. Yet there is no evidence of irony on the part of the filmmaker. Guru emerges larger than life. Why is this unusual?

For starters try keying in 8216;capitalist films8217; into Google. What you would get is a host of websites discussing anti-capitalism films. With some luck and many tries later, you could find your way to a website specialising in 8216;rare, special films8217; that have four series on offer: Red Scare on cold war propaganda, capitalist propaganda 8212; all cartoons, Capitalist Propaganda 2 8216;some of these have to be seen to be believed8217; and Yellow Peril, four 8216;fascinating8217; propaganda films that come with the warning: 8216;this is not politically correct8217;. My point: to root for capitalism in cinema is not and has never been politically correct.

It is hard to think of realistic biopics of capitalists in Bollywood but from the zamindar to the smuggler in Deewar and the upwardly mobile middle class duo in Yes Boss, greed has not been rewarded. Hollywood is perhaps an even more appropriate place to test the hypothesis. Consider the great American films made on the capitalist theme. In Orson Welles8217;s Citizen Kane, the wealthy newspaper owner dies a sad, lonely death. In Fritz Lang8217;s Metropolis, the industrialist is a tyrant ruling over robot-like workers. In film versions of classics like Theodore Dreiser8217;s An American Tragedy and Tom Wolfe8217;s Bonfire of the Vanities and in the archetypal 8216;80s drama, Wall Street, the greedy protagonist meets with a sad end. Pretty Woman, Erin Brokovich, The Pelican Brief and The Insider are just some examples of Hollywood8217;s penchant for casting the capitalist in a bad light. Even the rare films that seem to buck the trend The Secret of My Success have a goofy theme which successfully undercuts the triumph of capitalism. In fact, Larry E. Ribstein, professor of law at the University of Illinois, in a 2004 paper entitled 8216;Why Does Business Look Bad in Movies8217; claims, 8220;Film8217;s attitude towards business has remained relatively constant despite the changing demographics of film audiences.8221;

Ribstein8217;s explanation for this unlikely phenomenon in the world8217;s greatest capitalist enterprise is that the artist, frustrated by commercial constraints, sees film as a vehicle through which to vent frustration. There is also the belief that with the emergence of new sources of film financing TV, product placement, venture funding, the anti-capitalist bias in cinema will diminish.

So the question is: why did Mani Ratnam decide to make such a break with the past? Was it to reflect contemporary reality or is Guru a harbinger of a new cinematic future shorn of the artist8217;s angst?

Shah is a Mumbai-based writer