After a very disappointing 2010 (My Name is Khan fans: stop reading now), I have good reason to be optimistic about the rest of the year. Fortunately, we won’t have to wait too long. On Friday, July 16, two movies that I’ve been eagerly waiting for will be released. Soon after that, Aamir Khan’s Peepli Live and Aisha will also hit  theaters.

Next week, Udaan and Tere Bin Laden will release. Udaan is another film that appeals to the urban youth audience, the latest trend in Bollywood. (Thank God the NRI phase is over). Anurag Kashyap  started last year with a bang when Dev D.’s success was attributed to this emerging demographic. As a producer for Udaan, I expect this film will also be able attract a younger crowd, and slowly, a larger audience. After the horrific HLS , which was as formulaic, predictable and cliche as they come, sensible Bollywood fans are dying for a film that is, well, good. Udaan will stand in stark comparison to IHLS. And if the film doesn’t turn out to be the saving grace of indie-Bollywood, we at least have some great music by Amit Trivedi. Check out the theatrical trailer for the film:

Promos for Tere Bin Laden never fails to make me burst out laughing. With such an enticing premise, which includes a look-alike Osama Bin Laden, the film has set up high expectations for anyone who hears the title or watches the trailer. If the filmmakers can pull off such a novel concept, it will be the biggest story in Bollywood this year. It’s a hard task, one that reminds me of my ultimate favorite film, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron– it’s hard to beat the film’s satiric tone and  its intricately woven message about corruption. As is well known in Bollywood, it takes one movie to become a hit to start a trend. Bollywood hasn’t yet been able to consistently address political issues, and Tere Bin Laden would be a great start.

Peepli Live is the reason Aamir Khan is infinitely better than his arch nemesis, Shahrukh Khan. The film addresses farmer suicides, and even though it is produced by Bollywood’s favorite actor, most actors are either art house or unknown. The film would have gone unnoticed by the masses if it weren’t for Aamir Khan’s name attached to the project, and no matter how big Khan’s ego is (one of the biggest in Bollywood, which is saying something), the fact that he’s putting his name behind a film that isn’t a popcorn movie (even the music is authentic), is inspiring and commendable.

Here’s a great video about the film:

Let’s see what the coming weeks in Bollywood bring us. Hopefully, these films can carry us through the winter, when the brainless masala films takeover the industry.

Rachel Saltz of The New York Times wrote that the film jumped from scene to scene, easily resting the blame on the the screenplay for the faulty narrative. But, for me, this very feature of the movie let it redeem itself from all the other less intriguing segments. The fast pace of the film and parallels to the Indian epic Mahabharat are the reasons I write in support of the movie.

The Mahabharat was a story of the Kuru family who ruled Hastinapur. It was about the power struggle and the fight of good and evil between two branches of the family, the Pandavs and Kauravs. Both the Pandavs and Kauravs had flaws, but the Pandavs were clearly the good guys. They stood with the truth, and had God on their side (literally). The Kauravs, on the other hand, personified evil. Samar and Prithvi (Ranbir Kapoor and Arjun Rampal) represented the Pandavs, while Veerendra and Sooraj (Manoj Bajpai and Ajay Devgan) symbolized the Kauravs. Devgan’s character in particular was an accurate reflection of Karan from the Mahabharat, who was also the illegitmate child of Kunti, the mother of the Pandavs.

Unlike the Mahabharat, it is hard to argue that one side– either the Pandavs or Kauravs, are inherently “good.”  Arjun Rampal’s character was obviously flawed– his relationship with Shruti Seth’s character, his violent streak, his refusal to let a Dalit run for election and his thirst for power were all qualities that don’t match up with the famously moral Pandavs. It was unclear as to why Katrina Kaif’s character believed he had a “good” heart. His love for his brother and his failed attempt to save his brother’s girl friend did not make him a good person, but definitely a compelling character.

Samar, Ranbir Kapoor’s character, also had too many shades of darkness to be accurately matched up with the most famous Pandav, Arjun. Bajpai and Devgan together did have darker shades than their counterparts, but the stunning difference of a lack of truly moral figures from the Mahabharat is notable, and one of my favorite themes in the film. It was a deliberate and brilliant move by Jha. Frank Lovece of Film Journal International stated that the film “becomes so ridiculous and over-the-top violent that there is nobody, nobody, to root for.” For me, this was one of the saving graces of the film. Jha’s message that politics doesn’t have room for heroes was accurately conveyed, even more so, with the use of the Mahabharat.

The characters in Rajneeti played politicians, yet none showed any compassion or responsibility toward their constituents– they were all selfish, all greedy, and all power hungry. At the end, Kapoor’s character stated that politics can only bring the darkness from inside of you, and he has a point. It was a pessimistic message about Indian politics, one that differed from Mani Ratnam’s Yuva.

In Jha’s film, he conveyed that in the modern era of politics, it’s all a power struggle– there is no virtuous Yuddhishtir, no politicians who stand who work for the greater good. There are some who are more evil than others, but circumstances did play a hand (as seen through Devgan’s story). According to Jha’s film– in politics today, there are only Kauravs.

The film’s storyline and performance by Arjun Rampal were delightful. Katrina Kaif’s performance and storyline were weak and almost destroyed the film. Oh, and I must note that her character bares no significant resemblance to Sonia Gandhi.

Overall, Rajneeti was a compelling story, and due to a lackluster Bollywood year, I’m glad that a film that relied on a good script and strong performances outdid some other less deserving films that pulled strong box office numbers (cough, My Name is Khan, Housefull, cough). This movie also deserves merit because major Bollywood stars took a risk by making a dialogue-heavy film that wasn’t too commercial. It was nice to see Ranbir Kapoor, Arjun Rampal and even Katrina Kaif act in a film that was very different from anything they had done before. Kapoor’s career in particular is becoming more intriguing by the day.

Because Bollywood seems mythological obsessed these days (Raavan releases on June 19), stay tuned for a post about Kalyug, Shyam Benegal’s 1981 film starring Shashi Kapoor– also an adaption of Mahabharat.

In the 1950′ through the 60’s, many Muslim actors would often change or hide their names to conceal their religion. Ironically, this is also when “Muslim” films surged, and were amongst the most popular and memorable films of the era. These films didn’t just have Muslim protagonists, but were rich with Islamic culture and the Urdu language.

Dil hi to Hai was one of the biggest hits in the early 1960’s. The film starred two of the most popular actors of that generation– Nutan and Raj Kapoor,  who played Muslim characters on-screen, although they were Hindu in real life. Their religious background had no role in the story. It was a comedy with a heavy emphasis on music.

The film was an example of the fact that Muslims were a part of Indian society as much as Hindus were. The film did amazingly well, and the music is still amongst the most memorable from that era.

The films Umrao Jaan and Pakeezeh were about tawaifs, or courtesans, who performed traditional dances for their male audience, called mujras. The mujras originated from Mughal courts, where they were performed for Mughal leaders. Mujras were not only a major part of Muslim heritage, but of the history of India. These two films, and many with similar themes, were rich with Urdu poetry. The female leads in these two films are remembered as two of the best roles portrayed by women in Bollywood.

Here is one of the most famous songs from the 1981 film, Umrao Jaan, where actress Rekha is performing a Mujra:

Films like Bahu Begham and Chaudhvin ka Chand similarly displayed clothing, language, and other cultural aspects of Muslims in India.

After the heavy usage of Muslim culture in films in the 1950’s through 80’s, there was a slow decline in any diversity in films. By the 1990’s and early 2000’s, the once flourishing Islamic culture in Bollywood films had all but vanished. Eloquent Urdu was replaced by everyday Hindustani (a combination of Hindi and Urdu), and character names were chosen from the most typical of Hindu names.

1990’s to mid 2000’s were some of Bollywood’s darkest times, when creativity was scarce and risks were rarely taken. Artistic merit was lost in films, and so was any hint of diversity of religions. Ironically, this is also the period where the most famous stars were Muslim, but rarely played their religion.

In 2000, there was some glimmer of hope. There was a growth of films centered around Islam, but sadly, the films would often be about terrorism or communal riots. Take Dev, for instance. Fardeen Khan and Kareena Kapoor both followed the Islamic faith, but the film was about communal riots in Mumbai. In Fanaa, the characters again were Muslim, but the main actor, Aamir Khan, was a terrorist.

After the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai in 2008, a slew of films with Muslim protagonists released, such as New York, Kurbaan, and My Name is Khan. But again, all these films had a subject matter revolving around terrorism. Before the attacks, there were many like Veer Zaara and Refugee, which had the backdrop of India-Pakistan tensions.

It’s great that Bollywood no longer ignores political and social issues, but the message that is sent is troubling as well. Much of the Hindustani music, language, and culture has Muslim roots, so why not bring back the beauty of the films of bygone eras and make films with families by acknowledging this fact without tying the culture to terrorism?

What’s important to keep in mind is that Bollywood films are hugely popular in the Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although Muslim culture varies in different regions, it’s still a pity that these regions no longer see the eloquence of Islamic culture in Bollywood films, without the usual terrorism or violent undertones.

Of course, there are some filmmakers who dare to venture away from commercial Bollywood. Vishal Bhardwaj is one of Bollywood’s best and most sought after filmmakers. His  critically acclaimed film Maqbool took place amongst the underworld in Mumbai. The film is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, and is dark, beautiful, and bold, and ripe with Islamic culture. In an interview with Filmfare, Bhardwaj, who is Hindu, told the magazine that “I love the Urdu language. I love the tehzeeb and the rishton ki nazakat (delicacy of relationships) which is a part of Muslim culture.”

The one place where Muslim heritage has revived is in Bollywood’s music. This aspect is comforting, but avoiding films with Muslim characters is not only detrimental to society, but also to filmmakers who are losing out on the artist merit of the culture.

As Bollywood moves into a new progressive era, it needs to take a few lessons from the movie industry’s roots.

Priyanka tweeted, “kashmir is absolutely safe and definately a place i wanna come to on a visit.. stay on a house boat.. walk around the lake.. mmmm.. ” But when she returned to India, she tweeted, “Back to civilization,” which caused some offense.  She corrected this by tweeting further, “by back to civilization i meant coming back to my regular life.. kashmir has been amazing and i love it.. you guys MUST plan holidays here!!”

Peer’s mirthful and sympathetic (well, slightly)  tone toward Chopra points to a much bigger issue. One of the obstacles to peace in Kashmir is that fact that both Pakistan and India have tended to overcompensate and use Kashmir to project there own rhapsodic fantasies onto it. (Peer discusses this at length in the discussion, of which the full conversation can be viewed here.

In particular, Hindi cinema has tended to reinforce an ahistorical notion of Kashmir as India’s Paradise. For decades, Kashmir was the lush backdrop for some of the most exquisitely romantic song and dance sequences. To give Ms Chopra the benefit of the doubt, location filmmaking is gruelingly dull. Remember the fuss created when Sienna Miller, fatigued from filming The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, described Pittsburgh as “Shitsburgh”?

But Priyanka Chopra, wittingly or not, was playing into this ecstatic and traditional honeymooner narrative of Kashmir.

In this clip from the 1970’s super hit film Bobby, Kashmir is the dreamy backdrop for young Rishi Kapoor and Dimple Kapadia.

Political events in Kashmir over the last generation has made it all but impossible for Kashmir to be represented in this way. And as Hindi cinema has grown richer and more global, the whole world

is now its theater when it comes to song sequences. And Kashmir, in the Bollywood film imagination, has become a Paradise Lost.  The treatment of Islamic fundamentalism and the Kashmiri insurgency in films like Fiza and Mission Kashmir — both of which curiously star Hrithik Roshan as a dream boy Taliban — are in many respects political cop-outs,

even if they at least acknowledge a history of state violence, repression and discrimination in India against religious minorities. Suketu Mehta in his staggering book, Maximum City, tells of the experience of being politically at “left angles” while writing the screenplay of Mission Kashmir with Vinod Chopra, “I do not believe in the mouths of my characters,” he wrote. “The script,” he complained, “keeps making half-hearted attempts to balance the view of the Indian state with that of the Kashmiris.” Mani Ratman’s visually very beautiful Roja of 1994 plays virulently plays into this tragic- paternalistic and Indian nationalistic Paradise Lost narrative. (Ananya Jahanara Kabir has an interesting discussion of Roja in her book Territory of Desire.)

Where, one wonders, is the bold, Pontecorvo-or Loach-like  filmmaker to unsettle this and turn Bollywood’s treatment of Kashmir upside down? Could a filmmaker of the dazzling and subversive talent of Anurag Kashyap frame Kashmir in a non-nationalistic way? There are rumors that Arundhati Roy–a brave writer who is never one to shirk controversy—is writing a novel set in Kashmir. And one can hope that there is a filmmaker who has the sensibility to render Peer’s eminently cinematic memoir to the screen.

Bachchan, one of the most popular movie stars in India and in the world, was asked to become the Brand Ambassador to Gujarat. What’s the controversy in that, you might ask? Bachchan was Brand Ambassador for Uttar Pradesh, his home state, not long ago.

The problem stems from Gujarat’s government. The Bharatiya Janata Party (right wing) Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, has been harshly criticized for his Hindu fundamental stands, most notably for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, one of the most violent events in post-partition India. The United States revoked his Visa the following year, and calls for his resignation were continuously made in the aftermath.

Bachchan was once the darling of the left wing, secular Nationalist Congress Party. He was pals with Rajeev Gandhi and was even a member of Parliament in the 1980’s. He now campaigns for the Samajwadi Party, a popular one in U.P and  amongst his fellow Bollywood colleagues. Consequently, the superstar has been harshly criticized by Congress Party members for his endorsement of their main competition (Samajwadi doesn’t align itself with BJP or Congress, but is not a right wing party).

Congress has constantly raised one question: Does Bachchan’s endorsement of Gujarat translate into his support for Modi’s actions during the 2002 communal riots?

Bachchan is usually comfortable sitting on the sidelines during major controversies– the latest was his silence on the Shahrukh Khan- Thackeray debacle. Before that in 2008, Raj Thackeray, another Shiv Sena member and Bal Thackeray’s nephew, accused Bachchan of caring more for his home state, UP, over Maharashtra. This criticism was made during a series of attacks on immigrants in Maharashtra. Bachchan chose to stay mum on the whole issue.

While  Congress is being a bit dramatic over his endorsement, Modi himself said anyone who questioned Bachchan’s action were “The Taliban of public life.”

Bachchan hasn’t specifically stated his rejection of Modi’s politics or previous actions; he simply stated that he is a fan of Gujarat’s culture, and is acting as a public servant.

It’s time for Bachchan to speak up. As one of the world’s most popular actors, all of his actions receive immense speculation, and sometimes criticism. Like columnist Vir Sanghvi, I don’t give in to Bachchan’s notion that supporting Gujarat and supporting Modi are that different.

If Bachchan supports Modi, that’s fine. It’s his right. But he shouldn’t keep hiding from every controversy that comes his way. His popularity wouldn’t wane if he was vocal– take Khan’s stance against Thackeray, for instance. He spoke agaisnt Bal Thackeray, and the film industry supported him. Bachchan, like Khan, needs to start addressing uncomfortable situations, whether it be over Congress’s silliness or Thackeray’s absurdity. Especially with that enchanting voice of his, the world would listen.

If Congress thinks that Bachchan will publicly renounce Modi, they shouldn’t hold their breath. It’s not Bachchan’s style. It seems as though all the ruckus Congress has created is because they are afraid of permanently losing the superstar to the right wing. Don’t worry too much, Congress– you still have Govinda.