INDIAN CIVILIZATION: MIDTERMS

THE INDIAN HER0 – FROM MYTH TO CINEMA

The nationalistic hero, the romantic hero, the savior hero, and the gray hero, Hindi Cinema over
years have put forward all kinds of heroic figures. Each hero comes with his own set of socio-
political background, a reflection of the nation wrapped in their archetype. One emerges as a
disagreement or discontinuity from the previous. Mazumdar, through her piece in “Making
Meaning in Indian Cinema” throws light on the transformation of the hero from the ‘angry
man to the ‘psychotic’. This paper tries to trace back the trajectory of the hero figure, within
the realms of Cinema and addresses the emergence of the hero figure from mythic traditions.
I believe, that the narrative style of Hindi cinema and its evolution through innovations
of each era/actor is a deciding factor in the transformation of the hero figure. In the
conventional formula film, the hero is surrounded by choices - tradition or modernity, truth or
falsehood, and rural innocence or urban sophistication (Mazumdar 2001: 240). These movies
are marked by their melodramatic narrative, which requires an excess of expression. It is the
emergence of Bachchan’s angry man however, that marks discontinuity in the image of a hero.
The ‘angry man’ introduces a sense of control over the ‘excess’. This control and restraint over
his body and dialogue delivery operates against the melodramatic narrative of the formula and
offers a break from the romantic hero figure.
In considering the pattern of denial of the existing melodramatic narrative, I argue that the
origination of Shahrukh Khan’s ‘psychotic’ is through the opposition of the sense of rationality
that the ‘angry man’ introduced. The psychotic stands against the control of the ‘excess’ so
much so that his actions and mannerism can no longer be bounded by any moral compass. I
argue that the control of the excess in the Bachchan phenomenon was fragile and an attempt
to hide the ‘Other’ within his ‘Self’. Thus, the emergence of the psychotic in my eyes is the
consequence of all the pain bottled up by the angry man, it is as if the masking of the ‘Other’
equivalent to a ticking bomb, when the bomb finally goes off, we come face to face with the
hidden ‘other’, in the form of the ‘psychotic hero’.
Mazumdar also marks the transformation of Bachchan’s ‘angry man’ to the ‘psychotic’, I
believe through the social standings of both the hero figures. The pain of the angry man
acknowledges the crisis of post-colonial nationalism. The identity of his trauma is equivalent
to the “widespread poverty, inequality and the ineffectiveness of the regime” (Mazumdar 2001:
245). Pain for the ‘psychotic’ is just a driving force for the abolishment of the self and lacks any
form of nobility as opposed to the angry man.
I believe that the pain of the ‘angry man’ is a shared entity whereas the pain of the
‘psychotic’ is more of a personal obsession. While Bachchan’s pain gives the audience a
platform for self-identification and projection in a more external sense, the helplessness of the
poor and the weak and their desire for a righteous authority around the time of the Emergency.
The pain of the ‘psychotic’ stems out of a more personal struggle, the sense of unity long gone.
The audience faces external violence in this process and it is urged to question and reform its
vision of the ‘Self’ or nation. This change from a public figure of subjectification to a hero whose
actions are driven by personal vendetta marks the transformation of the hero figure on a social
palate.
The transformation of the hero figure goes beyond cinema as we follow a similar pattern of
narrative form in the mythic traditions. I believe that the similarity between the Mythical hero
and our Cinematic hero is the sacrificial death of the heroes. As in the case of the Cattle ridding
myth of Tejaji, his heroic actions are driven by his desire to protect his honor as an honest and
brave soldier led to his death. The death of Tejaji is a consequence of his heroic actions, and
the deaths of the angry man (in Deewar), as well as the psychotic (in Baazigar), are also a
consequence of their heroic actions, with the definition of heroism evolving in each era. These
heroes drive themselves to the point of sacrificial deaths. Their act of sacrifice leads to a sense
of unity, as it brings the audience together for a moment of cathartic experience in the case of
the Cinematic heroes, while the Mythical hero brings the agonistic neighbors closer in form of
worshippers.
I argue that the transformation of the honorable hero from the mythic traditions to the
nationalistic or romantic hero in Hindi cinema is a consequence of the shift in personal
values to the adaptation of communal values to form a national identity that our nation
has been deprived of post-independence. I believe the metamorphosis, from the realms of
Myths to Cinema of the hero figure are a reflection of reconstructions in our State.

References:
Singh, B. (2011), Agonistic intimacy and moral aspiration in popular Hinduism: A study in the
political theology of the neighbor, American Ethnologist
Mazumdar, R. (2000), From Subjectification to Schizophrenia: ‘The Angry Man’ and the
‘Psychotic’ Hero of Bombay Cinema, Making Meaning in Indian Cinema, Oxford