The modern globalized space is filled with diversity, contradictions that have developed historically through wars, seizures of power, colonization, and the discovery of new lands. Modern society thrives in industrial and material consumption and informational consumption, which is much more critical. The cultural characteristics of different peoples and territories constantly interact, which is reflected in modern media, social networks, art, and television. On the example of the collision of two cultural layers, American and Indian, in cinema, it is visible how two cultures with a rich history manifest themselves in the same genre.
National cinema is a fascinating topic that can be infinitely detailed. In the book, Jack Lule states, that “Though Hollywood and Bollywood get much attention, the cultivation of film industries in nations around the globe continue to this day” (65). Some people are ironic about Bollywood, which originated in Bombay, cherishing childhood memories of the genre’s popularity. Bollywood has fascinated even some foreigners with its mysticism and peculiar religiosity. Despite the apparent tracing of Hollywood, these Hindi films have little to do with the American monopoly. Bollywood films are three hours long, while a typical Hollywood film is one or an hour and a half. The rationalist model of storytelling in Hollywood films is not comparable to Bollywood. The unity of time and space for such films is central, but for the sake of entertainment and giving spiritual meaning to such films, Indian directors readily sacrifice. In addition, it is essential to note the relatively weak marketing of Bollywood works. It is inappropriate to say that Bollywood is impersonating Hollywood and its idea.
The behaviors broadcast by Bollywood, in general, can sometimes be called similar, but this is not the same similarity that could appear in cultural convergence. It is appropriate here to talk about the universality of some ethical norms, values, and rules. Of course, Bollywood cinema reflects the importance of Indian society as well as a religious idea. Hollywood is focused on the consumer worldwide, while inside India, there has always been a unique film market, which generated demand. By David Hesmondhalgh, “Bollywood has the greatest market penetration in India” (398). This aspect is not cultural but socio-economic; investigators and readers must also take it into account.
In the situation with the film industry in India, it is essential to note an attractive characteristic: Hollywood, due to national protectionism, could not influence the content of films so much. Hollywood brought action, equipment, technology, some shooting models, specific rules of camera work (although here, Bollywood still has unique specifics). In the 1990s, Hollywood films did not gain traction with Indian audiences largely because of their unfamiliar aesthetics. Bollywood ties narrative traditions to the theater and religious epics. While it was important for Hollywood’s rationalization model to reflect reality, not to violate the logic of the narrative and plot, it was important for Bollywood to demonstrate fantasy, fairy tale, and specific mood.
In its internal structures, Hollywood is similar to McDonald’s in its rationalization, standardization, and control over various roles. Cinema is an art even in a globalizing world; it is difficult to say unequivocally that the penetration of the fast-food system is similar to the transformation in the field of cinema. There will be some framework similarities or technical issues in the use of specific cameras, microphones, the order of the director’s work, and the team’s work. However, they do not qualitatively make Bollywood cinema an empty tracing of Hollywood.
This example is cultural hybridization, thanks to which, by combining Indian and American cultures, contemporary cinema has received a unique genre. Bollywood failed to become an example of cultural convergence since Indian cinema of this genre did not repeat the Hollywood picture of reality. The differentiation of these cultures is also evident, but it is not the key. It was influenced by the political aspect, public demand, sponsoring of specific projects by individual states, and national protectionism.
The ancient mystical culture of India through cinema has become available to many people around the world. Thanks to Bollywood films, many people can touch something that they previously fantasized about, guessed. The cinema broadcast on television once connected many people of different cultures, which is why readers can assume that this example brings the reader closer to McLuhan’s universe. In addition to the fact that Bollywood brings a solid and severe variety to the film market, it is a competent competitor to the monopolist. Jack Lule states that people see the “ascent of Bollywood as a competitor to Hollywood” (194). Modern space is less and less likely to recognize standardization and traditionalism in the American way and more and more often chooses something less familiar and interesting.
The globalization of cultures has a severe impact on the media, art, and even politics. Two unique cultures, American and Indian, became a special hybrid and created an unusual genre of cinema called Bollywood. Bollywood is not a tracing of Hollywood in the Indian way but has always existed in relative independence, taking only certain features from Hollywood. For the international community, Bollywood has become a unique phenomenon that cannot be compared with Hollywood and attracts only an audience of connoisseurs of the religious and mythological avant-garde. Bollywood was the answer to the questions of the then Indian society, which fell in love with this aesthetics and mysticism.
Work Cited
Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries. 4th ed., SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019.
Lule, Jack. Globalization and Media: Global Village of Babel. 4th ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2021.