Response for Deewar - Aishwarya Vardhana

    Koushik Banerjea's “Fight Club: Aesthetics, Hybridisation, and the Construction of Rogue Masculinities in Sholay and Deewaar” supports an analysis which suggests the hybridization of the man Amitabh Bachchan with the character Vijay from Deewaar to create a new space within Indian cinema which explores the intersection of the personal (i.e. the man behind the character) and the public (i.e. the character) to create a new kind of aesthetic and cultural project which celebrates and sells the art found in the lives of average men. This “aestheticization of everyday life’ is not only a product of the technological advancements of the twentieth century and the socio-political climate of postcolonial India but a direct result of India’s first big stars like Amitabh Bachchan imbuing their roles with their own personality and background.

    The rise of movie stars and movie star culture forever changed the perception of on-screen characters. The personality and spirit of characters within movies no longer existed independent of the of the acto. The power, personality and context of Bachchan permeates every role he plays. When watching Deewaar the audience sees beyond the singular character of Vijay. We see Amitabh Bachchan playing the part of Vijay. As Banerjea writes “his actual caste and class affiliation operates in stark contrast to the harsh social milieu of his angry young film icon”. Bachchan is far removed from the struggles of the lower/middle class of India, much less a survivor of a fatherless, slum childhood, however the Indian audience makes him their hero but not as Amitabh Bachchan or as Vijay, but as a hybrid of the two. The air of nonchalance and unbreakable confidence is bred in someone with Bachchan’s background and his ability to adapt this aura he possesses into the role of Vijay and make such a hybrid believable is what makes the aestheticization of everyday life possible.

    It is interesting to explore whether this appropriation of the struggles of the lower/middle class by Bachchan and movie directors/producers lends itself to greater harm or aid to the lower/middle class. While Deewar gives a face and story to the millions of poor working men of India whose core self is lost in the struggle to survive within the metropolis it also distracts the lower/middle class from confronting the systemic causes of their poverty and lack of social mobility, simplifies the nuances of the larger struggle, and romanticizes the experiences of India’s poor in the postcolonial state. Amitabh Bachchan is neither an activist, community organizer, entrepreneur or politician; he is no hero for India’s poor and yet films like Deewar allow him to be. I find it troubling that he should profit from the poverty and difficulties of others whilst doing nothing to eradicate said poverty. It could even be argued that Bachchan and films like Deewar cause more harm than help to poor communities of India. These films provide India’s lower/middle class with false hope and an unaffordable escape. Deewar serves as a dangerous anesthesia against the structural injustices and cyclic violence its biggest fans must face.