Monday, August 21, 2006

Chokher Bali: Uncontrollable feelings of a widow

Now, how would that title look on a poster? With some sleaze pictures of Aishwarya? If that is not enough, add this: "First glamour film of Aishwarya".

Rituparna Ghosh has given his consent or not, the Malayalam posters of the Tamil dubbed version of "Chokher Bali" reads "Perazhaki: Uncontrollable feelings of a widow". Some posters even claim that this film was banned in Northern India, while some others ask, "why was this beauty denied to the North Indian audience"? I am not aware of such a ban, I saw Chokher Bali about two years back in Bombay, and I know people who saw it in Rajasthan around the same time. Is it that anything goes when it comes to advertising?

The Tamil name of the film was "Aishwarya Rai oru Perazhagi", and that adopted similar marketing techniques in T.N., though the "banned in North India" thing wasn't there. Another difference is that in Kerala the film is running in A class centres (in Thrissur it is playing at the State Film Development Corporation-owned Sree) whereas it was mostly at B or C centres in Chennai.

[ Aishwarya Rai oru Perazhagi: 1 2 3 ]

3 comments:

Ratheesh said...

why do u seem to be upset about this? is it because it is an 'off beat'/'non-mainstream' film? we need better understanding of film industrial prcatices to have a take on this. hopefully u will agree with me that we do not need to be morally outraged about this. research on andhra shows that such practices are more the rule than the exception.

sudeep said...

And do you have any data on who are the audience in Andhra under this "rule"? For example, what is the percentage of women audience?

My problem is in the way the ads are targetted. I have the same problem with Mathrubhumi weekly that sell articles/stories/novels (that I think deserve to be read by Malayali men and women) as some piece of sleaze aimed at frustrated mallu men. The sellers are very clear about it.

ratheesh said...

The story in andhra is not necessarily about 'sleaze' (we need a better term that, for sure). its usually hongkong martial arts films that are rehashed as different films.
and about the audience. why is the genderng of public sphere an issue just with soft porn. isn't it the case with any kind of cinema (or other public spaces)? and more with film societies etc.
the suggestion is that these are two different issues. the outrage about an 'arthouse' cinema being maligned - as suggested by ur being upset about what rituparno ghosh would think - is what i was referring to.
is there a doubt that these or any other public art is gendered in its addressee? but does the intended addressee exhaust the possibilities of viewership. we need to find out.
i was referring to an industrial practice. audiences are a seperate issue altogether