From Sarajevo to Bollywood...

This past weekend, I very much enjoyed reading Keenan's commentary on the inherent vulnerability of language as a window into ourselves; I was especially intrigued, however, by his other essay discussing the power (or lack of power) contained within images, and the inaction that is therefore allowed by desensitization. The idea that simply showing a horrifying image is not enough, as the average person will simply assume that others must be doing something about it, is one that I think applies to my generation in particular. We continue to face issues every bit as significant as those behind the great protests and upheavals of the 1960s, but as a generation and as a society, we take small steps (if any) and imagine that others are picking up the slack. As just one of many examples, the response to the genocide in Sudan is reminiscent of the indifference towards Sarajevo, but for the fact that the media's coverage is so limited because the television outlets already know that the public is more interested in other matters.

On a less cynical note, I also took an interest in the concept of Third Cinema and Prof. Rosen's lecture in particular. I spent some time thinking about the last question asked in lecture about where Bollywood films fit in to film classification. Clearly, they are produced for an audience that includes the Third World, but they depict fantastical and unrealistic musical wonderlands that are a far cry from the struggles of Third Cinema. So where do they go? Pondering the idea further, I realized that Bollywood films seem, at least in India, to be the truest Third World Cinema, in the sense that they actually appeal to the citizens of the Third World in far greater numbers than actual Third Cinema films. The average Indian, from my experience, would much rather go to a Bollywood movie filmed in the United States to be transported away from their troubles than watch a serious look at the lives of the poor in the slums of New Delhi. For example, Satyajit Ray was a renowned Indian director whose films would certainly fall under the umbrella of Third Cinema, but their popularity and presence within India itself (outside of film circles) is practically nonexistent compared to the Bollywood juggernauts. I wonder if Third Cinema is more for the benefit of the First World and the filmmakers themselves than it is for the Third World audience.