Page 199 - From Bombay to Bollywoord The Making of a Global Media Industri

186 << Conclusion

13
identity. For Srinivas, the performative dimensions of fan practices, espe-
cially as they cohere in and around the cinema hall, lead to a conception
of a cinematic public sphere where “the consumption of film becomes an
occasion for a range of performances that are broadly political in nature,”
one manifestation being the links to party politics and election campaigns
14
(emphasis in original). Further, while he argues that we also need to under-
stand the political nature of fan associations beyond their “linkages with
the politics of linguistic/identity nationalism,” he maintains that fan activ-
ity is political mainly because it “develops around the notion of spectatorial
15
rights.” He writes:
The cinema exists because of my presence and for me. Further, the “I” at
the cinema is always a member of a collective: we make the film happen.
Anyone who has watched a Chiranjeevi or Rajnikanth film knows exactly
what I am talking about. Not only do these stars address spectators in
rather direct ways (including by looking at the camera) but seem to per-
form according to “our” demands. 16

This articulation of cinema’s relationship to public culture and democracy,
with the figure of the “fan” occupying center stage, lies at the heart of our
understanding of participatory culture surrounding film and television in
India. Even as Srinivas exhorts us to examine the various “webs of public
transactions” involving cinema, and to rethink what constitutes the “politi-
cal” beyond the narrow sense of the term, his analysis remains bound by
one particular, highly visible, mode of participatory culture and the film
industry’s perception and management of such activity. He goes on to say:
“[M]uch work needs to be done across the spectrum of activities and orga-
nizations that fade into the cinema hall at one end and the political party at
the other.” 17
In light of Indian cinema’s flows worldwide, the question of who com-
prises the “we” in the cinema hall and what “our” demands might be compli-
cates the notion of “spectatorial rights.” For it would be difficult to maintain
18
that Tamil Malaysian fans of Rajnikanth are positioned as spectators in pre-
cisely the same way as fans in Tamilnadu or, for that matter, Japanese fans
who watch subtitled prints of Tamil-language films. I am not arguing that the
19
figure of the fan is not constructed by the filmic text. However, we need to
recognize that the notion of “spectatorial rights” certainly does not help us
20
explain the kind of activity that Rahman fans are involved in. While open-
ing up an important line of inquiry, Srinivas’s analysis needs to be extended
in at least two directions.