INTRODUCTION:

In the ocean of World cinema, India cinema stands marginalized, with a lowly status (Chakravarty, 2007). It could be due to an infinite number of reasons ranging from technology/budgets to the market. We can be sure that the lack of talented directors is not one of it. Today, the name Mani Ratnam is synonymous with Tamil cinema. Though he started his film career in the year 1983 it took several years and several failed films for him to establish himself as a decent director.

The film ‘Mouna Ragam' (1986) was the film that put him on the radar of Indian directors, followed by ‘Nayagan' (1987), which established him as a respectable director. His critical acclaim is the result of concentrating on every aspect of his films, right from lighting, cinematography, editing, dialogues, cast, and music.

To recognize the operation and workings of Mani Ratnam we choose to view five of his films from two different perspectives. Firstly, we will try to understand his stories from a culturally grounded perspective to cognize how his stories operate. And secondly, we will explore the ideological thread behind his movies with the help of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the ideologies function as a base for the superstructure of films.

Culture and Mani Ratnam’s films:

The emergence of cinema in India has led to inevitable changes in the social and cultural milieu of our country. Especially in a state like Tamil Nadu cinema has a great impact in context with politics, cultural rituals, a routine, etc. Culture is something, which manifests a clan of people who are cohesive with the same set of practices, which has a serious effect on media/cinema and is subjected to the argument. Cinema tries to instill/perpetuate an identical perception among the multifaceted audience. Indian cinema has an enormous influence on the urban audience (Munshi, 2017). When speaking about equality for the people living in the fringes and, hegemonic values of the society, it has never failed to impart and inculcate the spirit of religion, through cohesiveness of the people.

A) The Evolution of culture in Mani’s films:

Overall cultural milieu of the films and its evolution over time:

Mani Ratnam scripts the films with overpowered issues in India, portraying political dis-fluency in administration pertinently staring at patriarchal culture, which forms the foremost of the dominant culture. The director has sculpted his films in the vicinity of Indian ambiance. Five of such films are taken for CDA. Upon examination, instances of observable patriarchal culture are found persistently throughout the films. This research would evaluate continuous and significant changes in culture.

India is a country that has suffered under colonization. The suffering has transformed the country to develop sustainable economic policies, which are always subjected to change. This had paved way for empowering women, in various fields other than housekeeping. It has also penetrated to rural areas motivating, the jobless of the society. The above-elaborated scenario of India from colonization to the developmental changes is exhibited in all streams of the society, such as interpersonal psychology, social stigma, hegemonic attitudes, dominant culture etc. All these features have all been broadcasted in his film through a handful of characters.

Mani Ratnam's films are grounded in the reality of contemporary culture. He has been directing stories rooted in the present cultural ideology of the dominating culture of a particular period. Nayagan (1987) was themed around a don who acts out as Robin Hood (The heroine plays a minor homely role in this film). In 1990's when liberalization was embraced the nation he came out with Roja (1992), where the idea of a blind nationalism was professed (Here the heroine is a school‑level literate and is married at a young age and spend rest of her days as a homemaker). Alai Payudhey (2000) is purely about love and marrying against the wishes of the parents (The arranged marriage myth is broken and the heroine is a Doctor by profession, but still she is subservient). In Ok Kanmani (2015) both the characters are averse towards marriage and embrace a live-in relationship lifestyle (The heroine here is an architect from a city in Tamil Nadu, who Works in Mumbai). Interestingly Kaatru Veliyidai's (2017), plot is set during the Kargil war (1999) time where he again initially depicts living-in relationship, premarital sex, but culminates by settling down in traditional way of life (The heroine is a Doctor from Tamil Nadu, who works in Kashmir, and is involved in an abusive love relationship with the protagonist and she survives as a single mother). His (women) characters have evolved along with the changes in society. This cultural relevance (evolution) remains as the impetus behind his success. The sad truth is that, though the charter portrayals have evolved remarkably, the ideology of patriarchy and hegemony fails to change/evolve.

Despite the stereotypical projection of men and women character, Mani Ratnam still differs from others, giving more space to women in all his films. On the other hand, Mani Ratnam has been termed as elitist to add to the list of directors like Balachander (Mukund, 1996). Though, looking at the space provided to women characters, few shots especially the introduction shots in all the above-mentioned films, emphasizes the meaning that women are kind, tender, sweet, and beautiful. Apart from this projection, rituals fully concentrate more on women character than men, which also insists on the religiously‑ patriarchal dominant culture. All his characters criticize the traditional system and show aversion towards marriage, the predominant characteristics of patriarchy. But finally, their tendencies are always conquered by the patriarchal system. The lifestyle of new generation people or love is portrayed as a mirage riddled with inconsistencies until they get into the eternal institution of marriage.

B) Exploring the crossover texts in Mani Ratnam’s movies:

On analysis of Mani Ratnam's movies over their cultural context, it is hard to miss the amalgamation of different cultures. This type of cinema is referred to as crossover cinema. "Crossover cinema ... denotes cinema that crosses borders at the stage of conceptualization and production and hence manifests a hybrid cinematic grammar ..., as well as crossing over in terms of distribution and reception" - Khornan (2013). In the early 90's Tamil cinema was at its peak in the use of ethnic-cinema, which was rooted in ethnicity of a particular culture. The ethnic-cinema was falsely presented as realist cinema. Mani Ratnam subverted this trend and carved out a path for himself, by becoming one of the first breeds of Tamil directors to embrace crossover cinema. The film Roja became the first dubbed Tamil movie, to achieve pan-Indian success (Shedde, 2006). A detailed analysis of the said films reveals that every movie is scripted within the dominion of the crossover culture. In Nayagan an elderly gentleman of Muslim community brings up a Hindu boy who ran away from Tamil Nadu to Mumbai and the young boy becomes a don there. In Roja the culture of a traditional rural, under-educated girl meets the culture of the modern city-bred cryptographer. They travel from Chennai to Kashmir and blends with the culture of the ostensible terrorists. In Alai Payudhey the boy from a high-class falls in love with a girl from an economically lower class, her modernity confronts the tradition of the high-class expectations. In Ok Kanmai the lead pair hails from different economic backgrounds in Tamil Nadu and migrate to Mumbai and aspire to move abroad later. In Kaatru Veliyidai both the characters from Tamil Nadu move to Kashmir to pursue their completely contradicting professions. There are two elements in common in all these plots, one is the journey of the character from one part of geography to another, on a complimentary note the culture of one specific dominion clashes along with the culture of other and manifests into to hybrid crossover culture. Other than this, various elements of crossover culture such a people from different ethnicity are also represented in the Film. Usage of location such as city frontier, rural backgrounds, Mumbai, Chennai, Kashmir and song locations in India is yet another element of the crossover culture. All of the above factors are undeniable identifiers of crossover culture; hence Mani Ratnam can be called as a successful crossover filmmaker.

To further understand the working of Mani Ratnam's movies we must explore how he uses the crossover culture. Multiculturalism is used as a cover to perpetuate the elitist ideologies. "They [Mani Ratnam's movies] all feature high-caste, if not Brahminical, figures, who travel throughout India, rehearsing a high-caste Hindu identity of nationalism" – Dwyer (2006). Several scholars reiterate the same (Bharucha ,1994; Niranjana, 1991). This crossover culture provides a wider reach and success to a movie. Because of the plethora of different cultures involved in a particular movie, naturally, the viewer base for the film rises exponentially. The crossover cultural films of Mani Ratnam have reached the global audience because of their diverse cultural milieu. He exploits the tool of crossover culture and ensures that it enables him to simultaneously manufacture consent favoring the niche culture that he tries to perpetuate. Athique (2008) opines that the trend of using multiculturalism as an arm of capitalism (and dominance) is gaining momentum in other fields also (including cinema). This kind of negative use of crossover culture is not unique to India but is also prevalent in other countries. The same happens to race-related issues in America (Storhoff, 2002). With shocking results from research of Xu and others (2004) reveal that "frequent consumption of culture-specific products and services may indeed contribute to the development of a stronger ethnic identity". Hence, it is fundamentally important to examine what sort of content (movies) is being propagated, so that the tools such as crossover cinema are not essentially misused.

Critical Discourse Analysis:

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was introduced and popularised by Fairclough and deals with power, dominance, and social inequality. CDA cannot be unbiased, as it has to take a particular stand to observe the power relations. Power and dominance can be observed in two levels one is the macro notion and other being micro notions. This analysis follows Teun A Van Dijk's framework of CDA. According to Van Dijk (1993), power can be categorized generally into two areas firstly Access and, secondly Control. The discourse structures can be analyzed using two categories, production of discourse and reception of discourse. Several widely known strategies to observe power are Positive self-representation / negative other representation, Majority being presented as minority, Communicative discrimination (not allowing other to talk or say their part), Control Over discourse, Privileged access, Manipulating the other thinking in one's own favour, portraying the oppressors as victims, and quoting minority representatives who adhere to majority's views.

The CDA of the dialogues is to be viewed in four parts Access, Setting, Genre and Communicative acts, and social meaning. Overall the Access, Setting, and Genre remain the same for all the different dialogues from different films, but within each film, the Access, Setting, and Genre differs.

Access:

Movie making is not a profession that many have access to. In a nation of one billion people roughly only 600 movies get released every year. Approximately only one person out of two million people makes a movie. Cinema is also an opulent medium to have access to if you want to make movies. The access is stringently regulated, making it very difficult for a layman to put across his discourse.

Setting:

Settings of the cinema, gives access to almost any citizen, with a minimal amount to spend on entertainment. Though communication is one way, the imposition of discourse and ideologies has the potential to reach every house via television for practically no cost. The potential of providing a discourse to the people of the world, itself permits you a possibility to wield power over them. It must be kept in mind; even in the twentieth century, cinema is still almost completely dominated by patriarchy and its forces, even in the so-called developed countries of the world.

Genre:

Cinema is one of the costliest medium, the special access to the cinema is not an option even for the bourgeois'. Only the wealthiest and those who are already in a dominating position will be able to fund and make a movie. Though cinema is accessible to the masses, it is only in a position to impose its views and ideologies on them and not vice versa.

Social meaning for each of the dialogues differs so each dialogue is analyzed separately. To understand the expression of patriarchy and the inequality it perpetuates, it is necessary for us to perform a detailed analysis. To support the CDA, one of Van Dijk CDA approaches is followed below.

Nayagan:

(The protagonist, his friend, and the heroine visit a Mandir) While the heroine is worshipping the deity, the protagonist gives a Mangal Sutra to (via his friend) the priest and asks him to conduct their marriage ceremony. Without even asking her, the protagonist ties the Mangal Sutra around her neck and places vermillion on her forehead. Then she falls to his feet and acquires his blessings.

Level of specificity and degree of completeness:

The complete or over-completeness is assigned to the rituals, practice and, to the temple, as an institution of marriage. The importance of witness is underplayed, while the emphasis is given to the rituals of tying of Mangal Sutra, chanting of the Mantra's, placing the vermillion in-between the eyebrows and again on the top of the forehead, falling to the feet and worshipping the Mangal Sutra. The incomplete or the repressed portion is, not dealing with the heroine's consent or knowing about her wishes. This over-representation of the self (patriarchy and religious ritual) and under-representation of the other (wish/consent of the women) forms the thread of exercising power and dominance.

Perspective:

A simple analysis reveals that marriage as an institution is necessarily reinforced by mantras, priests, institution of worship, etc. The will of the male is blatant whereas the female's will or wishes are of least importance. The silence of the female character in the entire ceremony shows how little importance or voice she has over the discourse.

Implicitness:

Even in absence of witnesses, marriage as an institution; even for an atheist, such as the protagonist, should be initiated among the deities of god by a religious priest who chants religious mantras to authorize the marriage.

Local coherence:

Though the wedding is a communion of two people, the males behave like they have acquired a person of another gender. The patriarchal society and rituals seem to reinstate the same. The falling at the feet, claiming a person placing a vermillion on their forehead, and other rituals of these sorts also signify the same. Overall coherence is that the strong institution of religion/rituals and marriage are all form of patriarchal enforcers that extend their reign over woman and womanhood irrespective of their desires.

Roja:

(Dad)I told you not to allow an adolescent girl to roam around. Now, look she is proving to be a competition to her sister. (Roja)What did I do, dad? (Dad): What's the hurry to get married? Why did you keep smiling? She has come in front of the groom and seduced him. Now, he is obsessed with her. (Grandmother)Then why don't we marry her? The groom is a good man. (Roja) I don't want to marry anyone. I want to study. (Dad) Shut your mouth, all the setbacks arose because of you.

Alai Payuthey:

(Mom): Is this why we educated you? Is this for what, we mortgaged our possessions so you could study medicine? (Heroine) I didn't ask them to come. (Mom) Just because you went and smiled at someone, that's why he's taking advantage of you. (Heroine) I didn't smile at anyone. (Mom) What's the hurry for you? Why did you have to find yourself a man?

Since both the conversation from different movies are along the same line, for the sake of convenience only one of the conversations from ‘Roja' is being discussed.

Level of specificity and degree of completeness:

The complete level of specificity and detailing is applied to the actions and behaviours of the heroine. Irrespective of her denying those actions and being almost invisible to the protagonist (groom) she is accused as the transgressor. The victim (heroine) is being painted as the perpetrator. Without committing the said actions, she is accused of smiling and seducing the groom. There even arises a notion to marry the groom (against her wish). The level of over-detailing that's given to her (said) actions are contrasted by silencing her. This also goes on to exhibit the privileged access of the patriarchy.

Perspective:

The father severely attacks the character of the daughter, and doubts her modesty by the usage of terms such as ‘roaming around', ‘why are in a hurry?'. He associates ‘smiling' and ‘coming in front' (of someone) to the act of seducing a person. It is tantamount to saying that the mere existence of the girl is a mistake and any action she commits is equated to being seductive.

Implicitness:

Upon analysis of the implicitness of the discursive, it is revealed that a girl can neither smile/move about nor even appear before a man. Any action women are involved in, is sexualized and the consequence of the actions of others are also blamed on her. She is not even allowed to protest and is forced to ‘shut her mouth'. It is the heroine who is going to be married and she has no say in it. Everybody (parents/grandparents/groom) except the heroine has a say in her future, their thoughts, ideas, and wishes are honoured and she is deprived of every control over herself.

Local coherence:

The heroine expresses her wish to study, and not get married. Her father assassinates her character, and pushes her into marriage, even without asking her wish. Whenever she tries to answer, she is shunned and abused to silence, this leads to communicative discrimination and asserting the dominance over discourse by the patriarchal forces. Positive self-representation (‘The groom is a good man') and negative representation of the other (the heroine) is also observable. Hence, the applicability of multiple notions of exertion of power and dominance is established over the women (by patriarchy).

Ok Kanmani:

(Heroine) Are you going to marry me? (Protagonist) You don't have to forego your studies. You don't have to forget Paris. Marry me and then leave. Wherever you are I'll come and join you.

Level of specificity and degree of completeness:

The epicenter of the discursive falls on the aspect of marriage. The actual discussion on the way they might have to live their life takes a backseat. The over-representation is on the notions that are not expected of the heroine. The discursive is incomplete without the practicality of the happenings. The protagonist presents a facade of magnanimity (by not asking her to ‘forgo her studies' or ‘forgetting Paris'), but in reality, it is merely a representation of equality. The discourse hangs the picture of freedom just before the eyes, but there is a catch, it breaks their pact of just "living-in" and not getting into the institution of marriage. This represents the patriarchies' ‘control over the discourse' by where he decides for both of them and the ‘privileged access' he has over her.

Perspective:

The underlying notion suggests that's, a women's freedom cannot be attained but must be offered by her oppressor.

Implicitness:

The heroin is opulently wealthy, compared to the protagonist. The reversal of the roles where she says ‘He need not forgo his studies or forget about Paris' would sound completely absurd. In spite of wielding the power and wealth still, she cannot match with the dominance of patriarchy. This discursive suggests that she has freedom, but it's he, that has the power to offer it to her. It also might go on to imply that, education might change her mind and hence falling within the institution of marriage might keep her mind from getting corrupt.

Local coherence:

The highest level of display of power or dominance lies, with "changing other's mind to suit one's own interest". This discursive succeeds in changing the other's (women's) mindset to suit the protagonist's interest. Throughout the movie the discourse is about not marrying and just "living-in", but with one discursive the complete notion of the movie is reversed by making marriage the keystone on which the entire discursive rests. By using the rhetoric that ‘she needn't forgo studies or Paris' he suggests that it's a normal expectation that she should leave her interests and pursue nothing other than satisfying her significant other. Initially, this same notion of forgoing job/studies is what disconnects her from her mother. The same notion, which she considered negative at one point, is painted as positive and by being magnanimous the protagonist frees her from her expectations.

Kaatru Veliyidai:

(Protagonist) Hey, prodigy! Do you know that they are militants? Leela, will you please keep quiet? (Heroine)Why? (Protagonist) Because I say so? (Heroine)Is my gender a problem or my occupation as a doctor is problematic? (Protagonist) Leela, Enough… I said take it off [The Captain's cap]. (Heroine) Sorry. (Protagonist) Leela, even I shouldn't have shouted. (Heroine) Ok! So women shouldn't speak, she shouldn't voice her opinion, she shouldn't become a fighter pilot? (Protagonist) No! they can be. There's just one condition. They should be beautiful. (Heroine) Beauty is the only factor that women are worthy off right? (Protagonist) [Twisting her arm] Men and women are different. Men are meant to Hunt… (Heroine) So women are meant to just bear a child? (Protagonist) They could also do that.

Level of specificity and degree of completeness:

There is over-emphasis on how women are inferior to man in every way possible relegating her only use to bearing children. The ‘positive representation of self' (patriarchy) manifests itself via men are meant to hunt and ‘negative representation of other' (womanhood) is demonstrated by the discursive reference to childbirth. The retort of the heroine falls on deaf ears. She is derogated by utterances such as ‘Hey prodigy', ‘Because I Say so' show the privileged access and control over discourse that the protagonist has over the heroine. These utterances blatantly profess male supremacy, and openly disgraces the oppressed womanhood.

Perspective:

The underlying perspective that is presented by the discourse is that women irrespective of her educational status know nothing about society. Her opinions don't matter and her intelligence or educational status can easily be oppressed by (physical) dominance and (biological) control. The only factor that is worthy of consideration is her physical beauty.

Implicitness:

The male supremacy, its power, and dominance are overtly perceptible, the implicitness of this discursive lies in the fact that even though there is no fault on the heroine, she wishes and apologizes to the aggressor. Only womanhood and beauty are the qualities that are worthy of a woman, she cannot have her dreams/goals or ambitions and other forms of status such as education or profession still is inferior compared to the gender.

Local Coherence:

The discursive seeks to justify the male supremacy by basing it on ostensible scientific-facts ‘men are meant to hunt'. The fact by itself is fabricated and just a belief, this belief is stated to be a fact, thereby misdirecting the actual discourse. Generally in the animal kingdom, females and males both hunt for themselves. Though sometimes, the genders play a specific role, in the species of humans, patriarchy has expressed it dominance and used power to oppress the woman and ever since, made it very difficult for them to even attain equality. By deliberately misstating facts, the protagonist tries to ‘paint the oppressor as victims'. The utterances such as ‘will you please keep quiet', ‘I said take it off' are all explicit markers of exhibiting power. The protagonists, not only acknowledges the disparity in treatment of gender but generalizes it as acceptable, basing it on a factoid.

Final Remark:

From our CDA analysis, a clear thread of thought emerges and its presence is constant throughout the works of Mani Ratnam. There are two sides to this discussion on one side it is seen as the women characters are presented with enough space, quantitatively speaking. When the quality of the representation is analyzed it is found to be constantly evolving to match the mindset of the majority. The women characters in his pre-2000 films are weak and have no voice under any circumstance. Even if they are presented as having a voice in the outside society, inside the home, they are reduced to performing chores of a maid. Their opinion holds no sway even in decisions that directly affect them. So women in early Mani Ratnam's movies may look as though they are strong and free characters overtly but in a detailed analysis, it is explicit that they are mute, dominated by forces such as patriarchy, tradition, rituals, etc. They are trapped and are accused of seducing others just by their mere presence; this notion reminds us of the Laura Mulvey's gaze theories and how the representation of women even in crossover films, are still yet to overcome the traditional notions of patriarchal dominance. These tradition-based discursive, instead of objectifying the body of the actress, relies upon pleasure derived from ‘objectification of the character' of the females, irrespective of the rash acts of the male.

n the post-2000 era, Mani Ratnam's female characters evolved, the characters evolved reflecting the bold society, but the oppression and dominance are not overtly visible anymore they are disguised in the name of tradition, cultures and superficial moral values. Here the women talk back against family, relatives, their husbands, etc., but still are institutionalized in one form or other via rituals, marriages etc. When the dominance is losing its hold on women in the society, the representation of it seems to take a twist; no more are films representative of the mindset of the society. Though they appear to reflect the majority mindset, they are subtly bonded into their old-traditional roles via some covert means. This form of presenting the minorities opinion as that of the majority is a signifier of the perpetuating power via discourse. The recurring leitmotif of marriage and family institutions in all his works reiterate the faith in the system, in spite of the transformation in the portrayal of characters and the behaviours, the underlying belief in the already-broken exploitative system seems unflinching, which induce us to conclude that he might be more than just a passive player within the system. The same patriarchy, hegemony, and oppression are disguised in the form of modernity with belief in traditions, ritual, and culture. Since the former structures are outwardly brutal in their functioning, these new subtle forms have evolved with equivalent effectiveness and an aura of implicitness. This type of pseudo-modernity serves as a blow to the fight for equality and liberation of women. The conservative mindset is established as a form of modern mindset and is sold as the same.

The narrow spectrum of elitist characters presented several times over in numerous creation by the director, reveals a pro-elitist mindset. This ‘pro-elitist mindset’ coupled with ‘obsession with shackling traditional values’, serves two purposes. Firstly, it goes on to enable the ostensible moral and characteristic supremacy of the elitist ideology and lifestyle and secondly, it ostracises the others as being sub-power to them. This glorification of self and discrimination towards the other is a typical of exercising of power and dominance via discourses. Additionally, on a larger scale, it tends to change the mindset of the others, in favour of the mindset of the Director. This repeated battery of similar thoughts and ideologies, through consistent discursive in a series of works, facilitates the change of mindset, which is again a sign of exercise of control and power. Here movies making, which is one of the most difficult media to get access to serves the purpose of perpetuating the hegemony and oppression through modern means. Hence very few people who have access to make movies have the ability to extend the superstructure of ritualistic-oppression and cultural-dominance and yet can deceive the viewers. This one-way access of the media of films enables accumulation of surplus power in the hands of few filmmakers, this itself presents a nexus of power and control.

The analysis reveals the pro-elitist, patriarchal and hegemonic ideologies. Patriarchy perpetuated injustice to womanhood and, oppresses them. Remarkable minds such as Ambedkar have written about the oppression of women in the form of religion and rituals (Ambedkar, 1916), Periyar fought for the same in the form of demonstrations, publications and via his public speeches (Periyar as cited by Geetha, 1998), and Mahatma Jotiba Phule fought for women equality and education (Jotiba Phule as cited by Sirswal, 2013). These kinds of negative discourse on women, tend to undo the years of hard work people like Ambedkar, Periyar and Phule had spent fighting for an egalitarian and just society.

CONCLUSION:

Mani Ratnam is undeniably one of the pioneers of Tamil cinema if not Indian cinema. He is "clearly intelligent and talented" (Shedde, 2006). Contemporary film legends (esp. in Tamil cinema), irrefutably operate in the cinematic space that was established by Mani Ratnam. While other Tamil directors were perusing soil films, Mani Ratnam took a different path and explored crossover culture right from his very first successful film. His feat of mastering crossover culture has resulted in him gaining a pan‑Indian/worldwide audience. His exploitation of audio-visual techniques is capable of inducing synesthesia, thereby establishing his ability to perceive and control them. As Barthes (1994) suggests, an author has very little control over how his creation is interpreted, irrespective of his intention. Without considering any explicit explanations, the analysis reveals the nature of ideologies behind the creation. By holding them captive, he can perpetuate the patriarchy, dominance and pro-elitist ideologies behind the facade of audio-visual ecstasy. A layman is unable to see the dominant ideology behind the disguise of technology. The point-of-view of others (minorities/villains) is only visible overtly, but to understand the real intention one has to delve into more subtle nuances (Basole, 2010; Bharucha, 1994). On a positive note, he is still one of the very few directors who inevitably gives comparatively high screen time to his female characters.

Though there have been a notable number of scholars who have seen through this facade and criticized his perpetuation if the hegemony (Bharucha, 1994; Niranjana, 1994), there are also few scholars who say that the perpetuation is not intentional (Engineer, 1995). Mani Ratnam's usage of technique and crossover culture is worthy of mention, if they are used more cautiously it would contribute towards the betterment of the society. I conclude this research article by quoting Werbner on hybrid culture.

“More than celebrating hybridity, we need to ask whether cultural movements are critical and emancipatory or conservative and exclusive, whether they recognize difference and allow cultural creativity, or deny the right to be different”.

- Werbner (2004)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES:

1. Ambedkar, B. R. (1916). Castes in India: Their mechanism, genesis and development (Vol. 1). Ssoft Group, INDIA.

2. Athique, A. M. (2008). The ‘crossover’audience: Mediated multiculturalism and the Indian film. Continuum, 22(3), 299-311.

3. Barthes, R. (1994). 11 The Death of the Author. Media Texts, Authors and Readers: A Reader, 166.

4. Baskaran, S. T. (2009). History through the lens: Perspectives on South Indian cinema. Orient Blackswan.

5. Basole, A. (2010). Subverting Our Epics: Mani Ratnam’s Retelling of the Ramayana. Economic & Political Weekly, 45(29), 25.

6. Bharucha, R. (1994). On the Border of Fascism: Manafacture of Consent in Roja. Economic and Political Weekly, 1389-1395.

7. Chakravarty, S. S. (2007). Teaching Indian Cinema. Cinema Journal, 47(1), 105-108.

8. Dwyer, R. (2006). 13 The Saffron Screen? Hindu Nationalism and the Hindi Film. Religion, Media, and the Public Sphere, 273.

9. Engineer, A. A. (1995). On'Bombay'. Economic and Political Weekly, 1886-1886.

10. Geetha, V. (1998). Periyar, women and an ethic of citizenship. Economic and Political Weekly, WS9-WS15.

11. Handyside, F. (2013). Color and meaning in Eric Rohmer’s films. Brown, S., Street, S., & Watkins, L. (Eds.). (2013). Color and the moving image: History, theory, aesthetics, archive. Routledge.

12. Khorana, S. (Ed.). (2013). Crossover Cinema: Cross-cultural Film from Production to Reception. Routledge.

13. Mukund, K. (1996). Elites vs Subalterns or Ideology vs Methodology?. Economic and Political Weekly, 1881-1881.

14. Munshi, M. (2017). Significance of Cinema in Shaping Cultural Values of Young Consumers. Asian Journal of Management, 8(4), 983-988.

15. Niranjana, T. (1991). Cinema, femininity and economy of consumption.

16. Niranjana, T. (1994). Integrating whose nation? Tourists and terrorists in'Roja'. Economic and Political Weekly, 79-82.

17. Sarrazin, N. (2008). Celluloid love songs: musical modus operandi and the dramatic aesthetics of romantic Hindi film. Popular Music, 27(3), 393-411.

18. Shedde, M. (2006). Bollywood cinema: Making elephants fly. Cineaste, 31(3), 24-29.

19. Sirswal, D. R. (2013). Mahatma Jyotiba Phule: A Modern Indian Philosopher. Darshan: International Refereed Quarterly Research Journal for Philosophy and Yoga, 1, 3-4.

20. Storhoff, G. (2002). “Strange Fruit”: Lady Sings the Blues as a Crossover Film. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 30(2), 105-113.

21. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283.

22. Werbner, P. (2001). The limits of cultural hybridity: on ritual monsters, poetic licence and contested postcolonial purifications. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7(1), 133-152.

23. Xu, J., Shim, S., Lotz, S., & Almeida, D. (2004). Ethnic identity, socialization factors, and culture‐specific consumption behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21(2), 93-112.

Received on 09.03.2019 Modified on 16.04.2019

Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2019; 7(3): 633-640.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2019.00040.6