Seeta aur Geeta: A Bolywood Film of the 1970s

   
     Seeta aur Geeta is the story of a pair of identical twins, separated at birth and later reunited. How do they discover each other again? By rare coincidence, they end up taking each other's place. Seeta is found by Geeta's family and thought to be her and Geeta is mistaken as Seeta by the police who have been told to keep an eye out for Seeta. Yes, it is all very confusing, but that is what happens. Each is able to deal with the problems in that life better than the other one was, and so all is well for a while. In fact, they each form a relationship in their new life as well. Seeta and Raka, a street performer, decide to get married, and so do Geeta and Ravi, a doctor. However, when Ranjit, a cruel relative of Seeta, discovers what is really going on, he attempts to bring both girls to their ruin. In the end, it is Raka, Ravi, and the two girls themselves (mostly Geeta), who save Seeta and Geeta. The film ends merrily with photos of the two couples getting married and a scene in which Raka and Ravi struggle to tell their brides apart.
     The film portrays two vastly different people, and along with them, different backgrounds and ideals. Seeta is extremely demure and submissive. She has a strong sense of modesty and hates to wear anything revealing at all. Rather, she wears long, elegant saris. She lives under the guardianship of her aunt and, only technically, her uncle. Her uncle really has no/makes no say in her parenting. Her aunt treats her like cinderella and forces her to do way to many things at once. If Seeta fails to complete even one of these tasks, she is either slapped and beat by her aunt. If Ranjit is around, he whips her with his belt. Septa is not a fighter, but she silently endures her suffering and goes to her grandmother for comfort.

     Geeta, on the other hand, is spunky, capable, and full of personality. She is not  especially worried about modesty, but she is not one to flaunt her body either. Before taking Seeta's place, she was a street performer with Raka, her partner. In this profession, she displayed a free spirit and incredible skills physically. These traits come in handy when she decides to take revenge for Seeta on her tyrannical aunt and cousin. Not long after she enters Seeta's old household, she turns things upside down. Where previously Seeta had lived in fear of her aunt and obeyed her every command, now Seeta (Geeta) is the one with the upper hand and her aunt lives in fear of her. Geeta is not afraid of using violence for justice.

      While both girls are extremely different, the film seems to uphold the character and the values of each. From this, one might conclude that there is an underlaying message of diverse people holding equal worth.
       At one point in the film, Geeta asks her grandmother if a lie is still evil when it is made for a good cause. Her grandmother answers, "If you have to lie for a good cause.... then that lie is equivalent of 100 truths." Here, we see an ideology that indirectly supports the clause, "the means justify the ends." Throughout the film, these values are supported through actions. Geeta uses force, and at times, cruelty, to fulfill vengeance against her cruel aunt and Rajit. sometimes, she seems to take unnecessary liberty, such as when she beat Rajit to a pulp after he attacked her. Yes, at first she was just defending herself, but then she went to an extreme and whipped him repeatedly (almost maliciously) and caused him to tumble down the stairs (and they were steep stairs, too). Throughout the film, both directly and indirectly, violence, and what would normally be considered sin, is upheld if done with "good" intentions.
     For one of the first times in Bollywood cinema, we see an antihero and deviance from the law. Geeta is this antihero, and what makes her even more rare for the times, is her gender. Up until the 1970s, a female lead who was also an antihero was almost unheard of. She is not an antihero in the usual sense, however. Instead, she holds the role of a character with a just cause who uses unjust means to get there. By violence and by trickery, Geeta forces Seeta's aunt and family to do what is right. She can be compared to a female version of Robin Hood, except she is fighting against injustice in a far more concentrated area, a household.
     Geeta also provides many of the main examples of social deviance within the film. One example is near the beginning of the film, when Geeta tries to deceive Raka out of his full gain in profit. She hides some of his money, but he is fully aware of what she is doing and she doesn't get away with it. Another example is when Geeta is at the police station. Although there are a pack of officers chasing her, she manages to turn the whole station into a train wreck and ends up on the ceiling fan. A third example is when Geeta arrives for her wedding "drunk" and dressed very immodestly. It is not clear whether she really is drunk or not, but she pretends to be. Lastly, at the end of the film, Geeta sneeks out of jail with the help of Raka. In previous Bollywood films, it would have been more traditional for Raka to have gone to court or tried to explain the truth to police in order to rescue Geeta. All these examples of deviance mirror a change in the attitude of society during the 1970s. People were beginning to ease up on their ideals and justify actions in support of their causes.
     By the end of Seeta air Geeta, the people in control at the beginning of the film are no longer in control. This seems to be a prevailing theme in movies of the 1970's. Seeta's aunt and her aunt's brother, Ranjit, can no longer control Seeta, beat her like an animal, or take her money. They are also no longer in control of her happiness. At the beginning of the film, due to her aunt's cruelty, Seeta tried to commit suicide. Now these people, previously tyrannical oppressors on her life, have been defeated by Seeta's sister and both their beaus. This trend of a reverse in power has become more and more popular in society since the 1970's and shows how thinking has progressed. Part of this change is the corruption of government that was clearly seen in the Cold War. There is less faith in the present authorities and increased belief in rebellion.
     The society of India in the 1970's represented in the film Seeta air Geeta is one of reform. Individualism (i.e. Greta vs. Seeta) is becoming more popular, and while oppression by government is being recognized, violence for just causes is also being encouraged. What is this called? Rebellion. The line between right and wrong is starting to blur and society is beginning to think independently and without reigns. Although in India this movement wasn't as strong as other major areas of the world, it was still happening, just in subtler degrees.
   

Amrapali

      Amrapali, the story of a young woman torn between love and her beliefs,  reveals not only the society of Magadha and Vaishali, but also perhaps the society and ideology of India in the 1960s. At the time the movie was made, historical epics were very popular. This was largely due to Hollywood's newfound obsession with them. Smaller film industries followed in Hollywood's footsteps and began producing their own movies of the past. The movie Amrapali is one such film, made in 1966 and directed by Lekh Tandon. Although it is set in the past, it very much pertained to and represented present beliefs in India at the time it was made.     

      

      One pretty obvious statement in this film was that of peace. Our main character, Amrapali, becomes a Hindu at the end of the movie in order to have and to live in a state of peace. The second to main character, Ajatashatru, Emperor of Magadha, chooses this path as well after he has utterly destroyed Vaishali and Amrapali's heart. Besides these prominent pointers, there are other indications towards not only peace, but Hinduism as well. Ajatashatru is very violent for most of the film and this is seen as a bad thing, the thing which ultimately separates Ajatashatru from Amrapali. On the other hand, Amrapali is seen praying several times in the movie. Even when destruction ensues for her sake, she is grieved by it. From all these different aspects, it can be concluded that peace and a god of some kind was important to the producers of the film and certain people of the time.

      Despite the broad message of peace carried out in the film, Vaishali's strong war efforts were encouraged. Why is this? Seemingly, the film supports both fighting and peace. When Ajatashatru wants to war against Vaishali, his mother advises against such action, saying, " But don't forget that it's impossible to defeat the army of Vaishali, because they don't fight to maintain a king's rule. They fight for independence and to protect their self respect." Here, their war efforts can be seen as valiant and morally good. Later on in the film, Amrapali, our princess of peace, sets a figure of the king of Magadha on fire, a direct act of violence. Besides this example, she asks for Ajatashatru's head from a friend. Her defiance against Magadha and it's king is almost seen as heroic, so why is it that the war efforts and violence from Magadha is seen so poorly? The reason is, Vaishali was a republic nation and was fighting for it's liberty as a defense, while Magadhi was a nation of tyranny seeking after power by conquest.

      Even though Vaishali's violence is somewhat justified by it's motives, is it fully justified, and does it match up with the message of peace? That depends on the definition of peace and the definition of violence. Are peace and violence simply words that label certain actions or are they words that label the nature of certain actions? Vaishali's defense of self isn't necessarily violent when the latter is considered. If protecting themselves in order to protect ideals preserved in their nation is the true motive behind Vaishali's fighting, it is possible they are not being "violent" at all. In order for the movie to have a message undivided, it must support some sense of intention being what's important and also a little bit of "ends justify the means" ideology. 

      Another dimension of the movie was Amrapali's struggle between loyalty to country and ideals and her love for a man. This struggle could possibly be simplified down to the struggle between emotion and sense. This is a struggle we all face daily. In the end, Amrapali chose sense and loyalty. As a result of this decision, however, she gains genuine love. Had she gone by impulse and been convinced by Ajatashatru to become queen of Magadha  she would have received counterfeit love instead and a continual grief and guilt for the ideals she threw away. In Amrapali's struggles, the movie supports a sense of choosing what's right before what feels nice, and often nice feelings will follow. 

   Although the movie Amrapali supports peace, it also supports physical violence if it is justified by cause. The reason for this is that although the action may be violent, the heart supposedly isn't. Another ideal supported is that of choosing what is right over emotions. Oftentimes when we do, emotions follow anyway. These ideals and standards were very much upheld in India in the 1960's, so the movie was not just a reflection of ancient times, but also of the modern world. 

Personal Opinion: 

      So far, this has been my favorite Indian movie. The only parts I didn't like were the amounts of skin showing and the ending. Besides these two aspects, the cinematography was graceful, the acting was superb, and the plot was intriguing. On top of these key elements, the dancing and song numbers were beyond amazing. Vyjayanthimala dances as if she is an attachment to the music, or vice versa. Her character is also charming and amusing, yet able to deftly switch into a mode of agony and despair. She, like Veronica from The Cranes are Flying, is an actress I won't be forgetting soon. If at all interested, I would definitely give this movie a chance!

Social Control/ Fahrenheit 451 & the 1960's

     Social control can be split into four categories: internal social control, external social control, informal social control, semi-formal social control, and formal social control. Internal social control is the way society shapes a person simply through culture. The biggest form of internal social control in most cultures is family. Without family to set a norm, there would be very few regulations or boundaries known to a child. This form of control also includes school, peers, and the media. Most of the time, we take internal social control for granted.
      The second kind of social control, external social control, includes outside forces made up of negative and positive reinforcements. This form may include laws, police, punishments in school, bribery, and even bullying. External social control is less psychological than Internal social control and is usually more prominent in it's use.
      Informal social control has to do with the way a certain action or belief will be reacted to by the culture. It usually doesn't involve direct punishment through the law, but has more to do with bandwagon and prejudice. For example, if a student dropped out of high school, many people involved in his or her life would most likely be very disappointed and may even inflict some form of social punishment. The law, however, would have no obvious effects on the individual.
      Semi-formal social control is not so extreme as to be able to carry out arrests or incarcerations, but still carries out it's duty with direct punishment from a sort of law. A person who inflicts this kind of control is called a Professional Controller.
      The last form of social control is formal social control. This includes the law and punishment for breaking the law. Arrests, trials, and even parking tickets are all forms of formal social control.

      In the movie "Fahrenheit 451" and in the 1960s, social control was present, but in different degrees and in different areas more than others. Violent social control was more prominent in F451(Fahrenheit 451), but it had it's place in society during the 1960's as well. In F451 a person could be killed for refusing to leave their books, books being completely banned. Even if they did allow their literary treasures to be burned, they were often arrested, and after that little was known as to what happened to them. In the 1960's, a death penalty for such menial crime did not exist, but other forms of violent social control did. For example, African Americans were sometimes chased by police who sprayed them, children in particular, with water hoses. On top of this, women during the 1960's were sometimes physically abused. Although this will always be the case, they were more so then than in the present day. Lastly, three major assassinations occurred. Martin Luther, John F Kennedy, and Jr. Kennedy were all killed for social and political reasons.
      So what is worth protesting and why? In Fahrenheit 451, those in charge banned books for a reason. In the movie, a character says the reason is so that people will not be hurt by the books because books bring about unnecessary and painful emotions. This, however, is not the true motive of those in charge. Banning books limits the knowledge and consciousness of people which makes them ignorant and easily swayed. A government's worst enemy is rebellion. In order to avoid this, knowledge is simply kept from the general public.

     In the 1960's, the Civil Rights were pushed by African Americans and Caucasians alike for a couple of different reasons. In the case of African Americans, their motives and reasoning is significantly more obvious. They were the ones struggling under the tide of segregation and prejudice. They were not able to go to the same schools, ride the same buses, or even drink from the same water fountains as whites. With far less rights than Caucasians and social persecution at every corner, it is easy to see why they wished so badly to gain equality. 
     The reasons for Caucasian's support for African Americans' rights are slightly less obvious. The majority were simply morally aware and felt sympathy for their cause, but this was not the only reason. Another reason for their support was because they were afraid of America looking like a hypocrite, which it was. They didn't want the rest of the world to see the "land of freedom" harboring segregation for such menial reasons as skin color.

      Oftentimes, when one party puts forth a deviant display of their beliefs, the other side condemns them further than their previous state. Christians are a great example. The more that we stand up for our beliefs in day to day life, the more we are looked down upon by others. If instead, we stayed completely silent, we would experience much less condemnation and criticism, but we would also have little to no effect on the spiritual state of our fellow peers. it is natural that when one is presented with views in opposition to their own, they will either conform to them or fight them with all their defenses up. The same concept goes for opposing parties in any conflict. In this manner, both sides become more and more stressed in their views and more and more prejudiced against the other side.
They begin to caricature the other side in all their flaws and caricature themselves in all their strengths. In other words, they exaggerate the opposite party's weaknesses till nothing else is distinguishable and exaggerate their own strengths till they are blind to any vice on their part. This phenomenon has happened and is currently in place between Democrats and Republicans, Communists and Capitalists, the wealthy and the poor, and many other parties. It's name is prejudice.
      In Fahrenheit 451 the informal resistance was somewhat similar to that of the 1960's, but also different. The people in F451 who still believed in reading hid books in their houses and when they were caught either chose death over denial of their convictions or to run away in order to carry out their beliefs in secret. People in the 1960's weren't that different. If they were in support of women's rights, they would defiantly learn and work. African Americans defiantly went to the places that would not serve them and simply sat waiting to be served. Men drafted for the Vietnam War often ran away to Canada (similar to how people in F451, including Montag, ran away).  They were different, however, because in the society of F451, the punishment for breaking the law and keeping books or running away was far more severe than for young women, African Americans, and drafted young men in the 1960's. On top of this, people of the 1960's were more outspoken in their protesting. They were able to have marches and organize committees committed to their cause unlike the people in F451 who had to be especially secretive in order to avoid punishment.
       Informal social control was also present in both Fahrenheit 451 and the 1960's. In Fahrenheit 451, it was not all too uncommon for an observant of someone's crime to report them in secret. This is actually a form of semi-formal social control, but still applies. In addition, books were socially considered evil and anyone who read them, an outcast. Instead of reading, people occupied their time with watching TV and listening to music. This reinforced laziness and made the work of reading seem even less appealing. In the 1960's informal social control included a lot of people looking down their noses at other people. This was similar to how people in F451 saw people who kept books, except in that scenario, those who kept books were considered even more inferior and perhaps even a threat. The three main groups of people looked down on were African Americans, Independent young women, and soldiers in Vietnam.