对音乐在宝莱坞影片中使用的讨论：
Philip Lutgendorf looks at the “Indianess” of Indian films from both emic and etic perspectives. He was able to boil down an Indian aesthetic that is present in all aspects of Indian culture. Much like what we’ve discussed from the previous class, Indian aesthetic focuses on the complexity and delicacy of rasa. Lutgendorf explains this concept in his discussion about Indian theater. He states, “primary and individualized human emotions (bhava) generated by the multifarious experiences of life are transmuted, through their representation by actors in a dramatic spectacle, into universalized emotional ‘flavors’ (rasa)” (Lutgendorf 2006, 237). As in the process of fission, a primary emotion generates multiple sub-emotions, which turn into corresponding cinematic expressions, compared to the “flavors” in the film. These flavors are also “somatic,” giving the viewer physical sensations while experiencing emotions. To achieve this palpability in the film, it is important to cater the performance to the senses. Therefore, techniques such as frontality, use of bright colors, incorporation of dance, and an opera-style storytelling are implemented. These techniques, too, embody the Indian aesthetic of complexity and delicacy.
Indian aesthetic is present in other aspects of Indian culture as well. The polytheistic beliefs in Hinduism, the sophisticated and exquisite decorations in Hindu temples, the tala matrix in Hindu music, and the layered flavors in Indian food… It is inevitable for one to start wondering where does this aesthetic come from? Why is it so complex and delicate? What are the primary influences that give rise to it? What is the relationship between culture and aesthetic; does culture (food, dress, music, etc.) induce a general aesthetic, or does aesthetic give birth to the peculiarities of culture? The exploration to these questions might be philosophical and historical, but it answers questions that deal with the root of things.
Teri Skillman’s historical survey on Bombay Hindu Film Songs sheds some light on the importance of musical storytelling in Indian films. Music speaks louder than words. Just like how the famous composer for Bollywood films has put it in “There’ll Always be Starts in the Sky,” “Life begins and ends in music … just as food is a must for the body; I feel that music is a must for the mind.” Skillman also highlights, “Songs were used to express sentiments which could not be spoken, and when dramatized in film, the body language, covered by the veil of a song, suggested a display of affection which was forbidden in public” (Skillman 1986, 138). This speaks to the practical nature of Indian film music. It serves as rhetoric to express the unspeakable, as a safe and “tricky” way to break societal taboo, and as a functional device to communicate in a codified language. These functions of music relate directly to India’s socio-historical and cultural background that prompted the use of music in such ways. Moreover, the ideas of using alternative ways of expression, speaking in a coded way, and the implication of subverting social norms are embedded in this specific function of music. Examples from other cultures that draw a parallel: the Jamaican dread talk, c-walk.
Jayson Beaster-Jones’ discussion on the evergreen songs in Indian films and their remixes paints a vivid picture of Indian pop culture. However, I think his choice of examples is way too one-sided, which gives the reader an illusion that this is contemporary Indian music. What about Tabla Beat Science, Talvin Singh, Karsh Kale, TJ Rehmi, and much more? I see a strong argument on how Indian musicians do have legitimate dub-style remixes, and contribute to the country’s popular music heritage in a positive way.
