This book was one of about three I got from the library
during my last week at college. It was the least theoretical book I got (as the
others were like Understanding India's Movies and Cinema at the End of Empire),
but I was somewhat excited for it because it had descriptions of India's
different film industries outside of Bollywood.
But what I found was bad grammar and poor quality. My main
takeaway from the book ended up being a bucket of laughs at the terrible film
title translations provided by the book. Now, I feel the pain of trying to accurately
translate film titles as I did it often for the newspaper blog (and Zindagi Na
Milegi Dobara in particular gave me so much hassle!). But these were laughable.
Here's a list of some I found for your own laughter. It's
title = "translation in book" (a more accurate translation if
you need it).
Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge = "Lovers Win Brides" (The
Big-Hearted Will Take the Bride)
Kuch Kuch Hota Hai = "Sometimes Things Do Happen"
(Something Happens)
Hum Aapke Hain Koun! = no translation was even provided!
(Who Are You to Me!)
Lagaan = "Tax"
Dil To Pagal Hai = "The Heart is a Wild Thing"
(The Heart is Crazy)
Khabi Khushi Kabbie Gham (WILDLY misspelled as it's Kabhi
Khushi Kabhie Gham) = "Joys and Sorrows" (Sometimes Happiness,
Sometimes Sadness)
Chalte Chalte = "The Course of Life" (chalte is a
verb that means walk; evidently saying it twice is something akin to While Walking)
Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam = "I Am in Love" (often
called "Straight From The Heart" in English; We've Given Our Hearts,
Beloved is a shaky translation)
Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak = "Love is Forever" (From Disaster
to Disaster)
Dil Chahta Hai = "My Heart's Desire" (What the
Heart Wants or just The Heart Wants)
So, yes, those were so bad they were laughable. Furthermore,
despite its attempt to take a somewhat high-brow theoretical approach, the book
refers to SRK as "the spirit of Bollywood." And it questioned whether
Salman, "a charming young man," had proved his mettle as an actor.
Yes, really. Oh, and it misspelled Shahrukh's name. More than once.
So, sum total, read this book only if you want a laugh and
if you want to feel smart in what you already know about Bollywood.
Unfortunately, I find this review rather naive. The book isn't meant for research scholars or advanced Graduate students. From the very outset the book makes it clear that it is for students who dont know anything about Indian Cinema. Its an introductory ramble through it. I for one know its used by more than a dozen SouthAsian Cinema modules as a textbook and its available in all the major libraries in the world. In fact it is a book i refer to my students
ReplyDeleteA few typographical errors hamper the otherwise
flowing text, the chapters offer an excellent overview of Indian cinema and television
that should be read by all scholars and students interested in global media processes
in general or Indian media studies in particular
It has been well reviewed in all major academic journals including the Journal of Popular Film and Television and the Asian Journal Communication amongst others. Maybe if you had read the book in the context of the audience it was meant for you would have provided a better review
While I appreciate your opinion, I'd like to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with your calling it naive. If you were paying attention, I didn't say this was a book for scholars or graduate students; I said it was the least scholarly (by far) of several texts I had checked out. And I am not a graduate student either — Bollywood is a hobby passion of mine, and all of my undergraduate film classes were in things like early silent cinema. Perhaps my only "naivete" in that regard is that I have taken no South Asian cinema modules; I am self-taught through experiencing and watching the films.
ReplyDeleteI do not care if the book has been reviewed in major academic journals — that proves nothing for its mettle. Plenty of textbooks are reviewed like that, and I'm pretty sure a great deal of academia praises books that serve no other use than to satisfy the group of academics who are around that field. University presses in particular publish such texts all the time.
And as a writer, a journalist and an editor in particular, I think I have a very firm grasp on what a "flowing text" is, and this book is not a flowing text. The prose is in no way extraordinary. It is mediocre.
I also fail to see how one could teach from a book that passes judgment on particular actors without explaining their impact on the nation's cinema. To offhandedly dismiss certain actors like Salman Khan, who is wildly popular (a word in the book's title) in India, is absurd.
Typographical errors and straight-up translation errors that thereby fail to accurately communicate the title of a film — subsequently leading to miscommunication of a film's substance — is not tolerable, even in a classroom. It can lead to misinterpreting a film just as one would misinterpret any other work of art. What if Miguel Cervantes's Don Quixote was poorly translated? How could you knowingly promote reading a translation of it that was poorly done and did not accurately represent the original work?
I thought of all these things during the review. If that is naive, then I admit to being naive.