JAPC published version_compressed

Bollywood's Angromance: Toxic Masculinity and Male Angst in
Tere Naam and Kabir Singh
Aysha Iqbal Viswamohan, Sanchari Basu Chaudhuri
Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture, Volume 5, Number 2, 2020, pp. 146-170

(Article)
Published by Penn State University Press
For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/783155
[ Access provided at 31 Mar 2021 05:20 GMT from Indian Institute of Technology Madras ]
Bollywood’s Angromance: Toxic Masculinity
and Male Angst in Tere Naam and Kabir Singh
Aysha Iqbal Viswamohan | Indian Institute
of Technology, Madras
Sanchari Basu ChaudhurI | Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi
Abstract | The article draws on specific theories of hegemonic masculinity through

the performances of toxic masculinity to conceptualize “angromance” (our term for
“angry romance”) in recent mainstream Hindi cinema. It analyzes seminal discourses
associated with sadomasochistic heroes in commercially successful Bollywood films
Tere Naam (“In Your Name,” Satish Kaushik, 2003), and Kabir Singh (Sandeep Reddy
Vanga, 2019). The attempt is to understand how these films, separated by nearly two
decades, deploy standard conceits of Bollywood, which tend to normalize problematic
and hypermasculine traits. The protagonists’ metamorphosis into tragic heroes during
the course of the narrative also reinforces the denial of agency of the female protago-
nists. Such transformation invokes compassion toward the tragic hero, and is marked
by a shift in his physical appearance, leading toward self-destruction, bordering on
masochism. This performance of angst was manifested in the character of Radhe from
Tere Naam and his styling through the course of the film. In the case of Kabir Singh,
the leading man’s portrayal as tragic hero was remarkable for his unkempt looks, alco-
holism, substance abuse, and increasingly misogynistic attitude. Quite evidently, both
narratives draw upon characteristics from traditional portrayals of obsessive love on
Bollywood’s silverscreen. In recent times, representations of misogyny and sexism in
popular culture have received a backlash, particularly after the exponential rise in
crimes against women. Our attempt is to comprehend how Bollywood assembles var-
ious masculinities to validate the performance of angromance and, subsequently, the
limitations of such masculinities.
Keywords | angromance, toxic masculinity, Bollywood, hegemonic masculinity,

tragic hero
Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2020

Copyright © 2021 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
doi: 10.5325/jasiapacipopcult.5.2.0146
03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 146 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Bollywood’s Angromance | 147
Bollywood’s Normalization of the Unacceptable: A Brief Overview
Things you show on celluloid sometimes set a template. So, we as filmmakers,

need to be very responsible.1
Bollywood has often been interrogated for promoting hypermasculinity

and hyperfemininity through films and song and dance sequences to sus-
tain its economics of profitability.2 Even a casual reading of popular films
reveals that in a romantic relationship, the hero often asserts a dominance
over his romantic interest forcefully that is cloaked in the discourse of love.3
Heroes are aggressive toward women by perpetrating “moderate crimes
such as eve teasing, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.”4 Yet, on
screen, it is whitewashed as innocent banter. This forms the narrative of
many popular songs, particularly the so-called item numbers, where the fe-
male is projected as the recipient of lascivious male interest incurred by the
virtue of her beauty, and/or her sensuality.5 Despite initial protestations,
her annoyance soon restyles into unquestioning love for the wooer-hero.
Subsequently, there has been a criticism of such portrayals and their roles
in perpetuating gender-based violence.6 Quite often, certain kinds of nar-
ratives endorse aggression and violence as desirable masculine traits,
which often secure romantic love7 along with reinforcing the stereotype of
a woman as a submissive character catering to the male gaze.8 In a society
where women are largely suppressed by “patriarchy and a sexist film indus-
try,”9 representations like these not only normalize stereotypical gendered
behavior but also validate male violence within these cinematic tropes.
Of late, films that reinforce hypermasculine narratives are increas-
ingly being challenged for their stereotyped representation of gender.
The “pathological modes of masculinity,”10 as popularized in the block-
busters of the nineties have been under the scanner by film theorists for
their “misogynist and obsessive” representations of masculinity.11 The dis-
course on misogyny in India emerged as a response to the 2012 Nirbhaya
(The fearless) case, which involved the heinous rape and battering of a
twenty-something student in a public bus in Delhi. Public response, be-
sides extreme support from a large section of society, also included certain
other segments that blamed the victim for adopting “Western” practices
like dating and wearing “modern” clothes. Alternative narratives opposing
the systemic patriarchal arguments were brought into the public domain,
particularly online activism that highlighted misogyny in popular culture.

148 | Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture
This led to criticism in the realm of popular culture with reference to gen-
der. Moreover, in recent times, women-centric movies, such as Kahaani,
Mary Kom, Mardaani, Queen, and Piku depict women as active agents of
their life-course,12 thus providing audiences with alternate gender scripts.
Raminder Kaur notes that such female characters “have been propelled
in part as a response to allegations that popular film objectifies women
and condones misogyny and sexual harassment, which could contribute
to rape culture.”13 An infusion of global consciousness regarding gender
inequalities also brought to the fore pervading disparities within Bolly-
wood such as women’s representation in films, item numbers, wage gap,
everyday sexism, and the rejection of male-centric movies.14 Mainstream
filmmakers have countered this criticism by pointing out that escapist en-
tertainment, and not didacticism, is the raison d’etre of popular cinema.
However, in the wake of the Nirbhaya case, social commentators observed
the complicity of item songs such as “Munni” from Dabangg, and “Sheila ki
jawaani” from Tees Maar Khan,15 and the unwholesome part played by Bol-
lywood in representing women as little more than easily available objects.
Representations of women continue to be a battleground for filmmakers,
social observers, and censorhip boards.
Patriarchy, as a term, is used to describe the domination of men over
women through social, cultural, political, and economic institutions.16
Much of contemporary discussions on gender relations necessitate an
understanding of patriarchy. It was during the first wave of feminism that
scholars such as Simone de Beauvoir proposed that patriarchy renders gen-
dered inequalities as natural.17 Patriarchy has pervaded social institutions,
which is evident in the ways in which gender is done.18 Hence, Judith Butler
has argued for undoing gender, which will translate into a dismantling of
patriarchal structures.19
Any robust discussion of patriarchy would lead us to consider that “male
dominance is sexual. . . . Meaning: men in particular, if not men alone, sexu-
alize hierarchy; gender is one”20 and that in capitalist patriarchal world, the
central fact “is the subordination of women.”21 While burnishing a certain
type of masculinity on screen, mainstream cinema in Hindi also presents
an ideal female (or Bharatiya naari), an image that is carefully constructed
with the aid of particular tropes, implicating codes and with pronounced
references to what is understood as “Indian” culture. As Partha Chatterjee
explains: “A woman identified as ‘Westernized,’ for instance, would invite

the ascription of all that the ‘normal’ woman (mother/sister/wife/daughter)

is not—brazen, avaricious, irreligious, sexually promiscuous—and this not
only from males but also from women who see themselves as conforming
to the legitimate norm.”22 Such is the gender binaries on which commercial
cinema generally thrives.
It is against this backdrop that we discuss the representations of he-
gemonic masculinity and angromance in Tere Naam, and Kabir Singh.23
A combination of textual and theoretical readings of these films provides
us with a fascinating study of the representation of masculinity in its en-
counter with the feminine. Both films bring into play the tropes of a (near)
stalker-hero and obsessive love; the kind of crazed passions that normal-
ize violence against the female characters. They also draw upon traits from
the portrayal of the tragic hero in Indian cinema caused by the loss of their
romantic interests. While gender debates were practically absent from the
public realm when Tere Naam was released, Kabir Singh was critiqued be-
cause of its representation of a male lead with a questionable understand-
ing of masculinity.24
Immediately after its release, Kabir Singh became a subject of several
debates for its characterization of the eponymous sadomasochistic hero,
and its erasure of the subjectivity of the woman protagonist. Leading me-
dia platforms commented on the toxic aggression of the hero, enabled
by his family and friends vis-à-vis the absence of agency in the heroine.25
For the audiences though, Kabir’s intimidating tactics became a source
of on-screen entertainment, while his alcoholism and drug abuse evoked
sympathy. Likewise, almost two decades ago, Tere Naam featured a patho-
logically obsessive hero and an idealized, silently submissive heroine. Tere
Naam and Kabir Singh, as star-driven pictures, offer heroes “who are strong
both physically and morally,”26 where these twin attributes are considered
adequate to legitimize their boorish behavior toward women.
David Savran, in his reading of Robert Bly’s Iron John,27 notes how ideals
of masculine norms propagated by the exponent of “the men’s movement”
remain “endlessly conflicted, wounded, riven by pain, doubt, and dark-
ness.”28 In the ensuing sections, the paper problematizes the contradictions
inherent in representations of masculinity, with special attention to on-
screen performances of toxic masculinity and courtship portrayals, which,
in turn, are subsumed under the melodramatic codes of Bollywood. Repre-
sentation must be contextualized within the dynamics of other characters

and the politics of meanings associated within the realm of the culture
depicted. Therefore, we integrate theories of hegemonic masculinity and
interactive aspects of performance theory to situate the practices of mascu-
linity on screen. The films were selected for similarities in their narratives,
which centered on obsessive, aggressive, inarticulate male lovers perform-
ing male angst, and are counterposed by submissive females, glorified as
feminine ideals. Both movies were commercially successful and popular
with the youth, and were remakes of blockbuster South Indian films.29
Methodologically, we follow the textual analysis approach, where
films—including performances, stardom, mise-en-scene—are read as texts,
in addition to the interpretation of primary documents and select cultural
representations. Using this approach, we consider the hierarchy of mascu-
linities and femininities in conjunction with the performances of toxic mas-
culinity, while foregrounding relevant theories of gender. The article also
examines performances using Judith Butler’s representative ideas that
describe male-female binary caused by repetition of gendered acts and ac-
knowledges that some acts are identified as inherently masculine or femi-
nine, which legitimizes the gender binary.30
Men Will Be Men: Conceptualizing Angromance and the Crises

of Masculinity
In recent times, especially post– #MeToo movement, the term “toxic mas-
culinity” (coined by Shepherd Bliss, popularized in the 1980s) has gained
enormous currency, and is being used as an all-encompassing term for
male perpetrated violence, misogyny, and sexism. Gendered characterisit-
ics are deduced through domains of social, sexual and body.31 The realm of
the social sheds light on how men interact with others; the sexual delves
into romantic relationships and intimacy, while the body reflects on man’s
external appearances.
Hegemonic masculinity can be broadly referred to as a set of gender
norms and conventions that are validated through social structures in a
particular context. Robert Connell states that these norms legitimize the
dominance of men over women through patriarchy in different ways.32 It
must be recognized that such practices and performances based on vio-
lence lead to impoverished personal relationships, ailments, or suicide.33
By pointing toward the problematic portrayal of men, it shifts the discourse

of “blaming women for men’s self harm” toward the seamless amalgama-
tion of toxic and hegemonic masculinity.34 The femininity displayed by fe-
male lead characters, Nirjara and Preeti, mediates the knowledge that they
are the “gatekeepers of male desire” that absolve men for their aggres-
sion.35 Moreover, the characteristics associated with hegemonic masculin-
ity “create double binds for women” where they are subjected to criticism
for exhibiting same attributes or face degrading treatment.36 It is important
to acknowledge that such practices and institutions of hegemonic mascu-
linity vary on the basis of spatial/geographical locations, though common
parameters may exist universally.
The central tenet of masculinity is its preoccupation with distinguish-
ing itself from femininity through practices which discipline, fetishize, and
exploit women.37 It also seeks to establish its supremacy amongst other
masculinities.38 The physical performance of this masculinity is recogniz-
able through sexual activity,39 and competitive sports.40 The dominant as-
pect of hegemony or power, however, is expressed through violence, which
can retain or subvert power.41 Additionally, it is also manifested through
emotional performances such as hostility, emotional unavailability and
ruthlessness.42 Further, toxic masculinity refers to those aspects of mas-
culinity that are perilous to themselves and others. This includes, “misog-
yny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination... insensitivity to or lack
of consideration of the experiences and feelings of others, an incapacity to
nurture... (violence and self-inflicting harm arising out of) frustration of a
man’s need to be respected.”43
In addition, intimidation and hypersexuality,44 risk-taking behavior,45
in conjunction with alcohol consumption also underscore toxic behavior.46
While it is not necessary to conform to hegemonic masculinity, yet it serves
as a set of values considered ideal towards masculine performance. (The
conceptual framework has been criticized for its limiting aspects. This arti-
cle acknowledges the limitation that not all men accomplish such traits. Af-
ter all, the heroes in Tere Naam and Kabir Singh do not perform hegemonic
masculinity or toxic masculinity exclusively).
Before proceeding, let us locate Tere Naam and Kabir Singh in their
respective zeitgeists. A backward glance suggests how the notion of mas-
culinity represented in Bollywood movies during the 1990s was noticeable
for its recourse to tradition.47 This included its continuity with puritanical
representations of romance that excluded on-screen kissing, premarital

sex, or explicit lovemaking. At the turn of twentieth century, there was a

conspicuous proliferation of movies with overt sexual content.48 The ratio-
nale for this is that romantic films targeted at young consumers were made
with higher budgets, and youngsters preferred to watch movies with their
friends and were at ease with such scenes.49 Though some form of premar-
ital physical intimacy became less condemnable, audiences still had mor-
ally ambivalent feelings when such representations increased on screen.50
This “crisis of masculinity,” which graduates toward the changing discourse
of gender, also invites the reciprocal backlash, and what Savran calls, “a
particular mode of discourse that imagines men to be the victims of femi-
nism.”51 The reception of Tere Naam can be appreciated in this context, as
the film marked a return to the ideal of divine love, the kind of love that
was neither consummated nor forgotten, where the hero suffers punishing
consequences.
The case of Kabir Singh is remarkable because it signals a backlash
against the profusion of women-centric films that attempt to dismantle
patriarchy, such as Mary Kom, NH10, Pink, Begum Jaan, Tumhari Sulu.52
Very often these films adapt a rather high-handed approach to highlight
women’s struggles. This is reflected in their box-office performance, when
they lag behind those films that are more escapist and/or “entertain-
ment” driven. The masala (typical Bollywood commercial fare, compris-
ing song-dance/over the top melodrama) films include franchises such as
Dhoom, Housefull, Dabangg, Golmaal, Krrish, Race, Student of the Year,53 and
are consumed largely for enjoyment. Their main purpose is to draw upon
traditional norms of gendered performances to incite easy, accessible en-
tertainment. Such exemplars of escapist entertainment, which revel in nox-
ious masculinities, can be ascertained as a (to paraphrase Susan Faludi),
backlash against feminism.54 One can also assert that films that marginalize
women subvert any conversation on women’s liberation. The very notion of
feminism, for a certain type of man, generates “increased anxiety, particu-
larly sexual anxiety.”55
As Bollywood takes a cautious approach toward the cinema of fem-
inist insurgence, we find frequent expressions of masculine anxieties
with films such as Grand Masti, Great Grand Masti, and Sanju,56 that are
textbook instances of voyeurism, objectification of women, and misog-
ynistic innuendo. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that for ev-
ery Mard ko Dard nahin hota (a film that subverts the codes of traditional

masculinity and dismantles gender stereotypes),57 Bollywood lines up

enormously successful films that revert to the formulaic hegemonic ideals
of masculinity.58
Kabir Singh contributes to this tirade against feminism by glorifying
toxic masculinity as an inherent male trait, and crystalizes a particular kind
of gender difference where modern ideas regarding women are acceptable
“so long as women’s roles in the domestic sphere”59 remain inviolate. We
may consider that normalizing men’s violence exhibits the influence of
discourse and gender socialization along with limited agency of women to
change the narrative.60 In extreme cases, valorizing men’s violence through
the notion of obsessive love has even led to gender-based violence such as
acid attacks.61
The Discursiveness of “Pure” Love in Bollywood: Love unto Death
To a considerable extent, Bollywood romances owe their plots to epics,

myths, folktales, and oral traditions circulated in India’s subcultural ter-
rain.62 At one level, the depiction of love reflects the syncretic motifs gov-
erned by Hindu and Sufi cultures, and equates unfulfilled passions with
divine love. At the same time, over a period, Hindi cinema made women
in films receptacles of “virtues” of chastity, sacrifice, and self-effacement.
Bollywood’s fixation with the Madonna/whore binary further complicates
any discourse on representation of genders on screen.
Another theme on which Bollywood romance is assembled is the dichot-
omies of tradition/Indian and modernity/Westernization.63 In a typical film,
this hinges on the perils of Westernization, which reflects through characters’
attitudes, behavior, and lifestyle. The very act of falling in love clashes with
traditional (or Indian) values and supposedly realizes the implicit evil in the
rituals of modern/Western romance. This prompts the couple to revert to their
traditional selves and integrate within the folds of the joint family. Of late, the
conflict has shifted to the altercations between the couple due to challenging
circumstances or miscommunication.64
By the 1990s, with the advent of globalization and liberalization, the
discourse surrounding women’s emancipation gathered momentum, chal-
lenging men’s social, economic, and cultural dominance. However, main-
stream cinema’s response to the shift was largely to silence, dominate, and
domesticate women, before things spiral out of control.

Angromance: Angst-ridden Men, Angry Love
Bollywood’s fascination with the frustrated, brooding hero dates back to the
adaptations of Saratchandra Chattopadhyay classic Devdas.65 Chattopad-
hyay’s work maps the protagonist’s trajectory of self-pity, self-abjection, and
self-destruction that culminates in (almost) suicidal death. Subsequently,
there have been innumerable adaptations of Devdas in Hindi as well as other
regional languages, leading the premise to become a formulaic template for
many romantic films.66 The subtexts of these films, though these works are
separated by decades, remain the same: how a full-blooded alpha claims/
reclaims his position in a rapidly changing society and avenges his honor.
Here, we use the term “angromance” to connote the anger displayed by
the angst-ridden heroes to assert their passion, sexuality, and masculinity
in select cinematic texts. We draw upon the figure of deewana (crazy lover)
in popular Bollywood movies, representing the obsessive lover who stalks,
molests, humiliates, and as a last measure, resorts to violence to express his
love—all the while consumed with feelings of self-pity. The deewana hero
has been a popular figure for ages, but for the purpose of this article we
focus on certain representative films.
In the 1990s, the figuration of crazed lover paved way for the sadist
antiheroes in Darr: A Violent Love Story, Anjaam, and Dastak.67 The rep-
resentation of the angry lover negated the restraint of the “angry young
man” through excess of sentimentality and psychosis.68 Thus, the antihero
was unrepentant for his viciousness and killed for “self-esteem and self-
actualization.”69 Obsessive, angry, and abusive husbands were depicted in
Daraar and Agni Sakshi, both remakes of Sleeping with the Enemy,70 where
a battered wife escapes an abusive relationship. In the more recent past,
Ranjhanaa,71 glorifies one-sided obsession when the stalker hero eventu-
ally sacrifices his life to atone for the killing of the heroine’s lover.72
As romantic texts, Tere Naam and Kabir Singh reconfigure various
time-honored allegories. In Tere Naam, this template is set during the open-
ing credit as we see a love letter going up in flames. The impending fate of
star-crossed lovers draws on epic love stories, with the first shot panning on
the Taj Mahal, a signification of eternal love.73 On the other hand, in Kabir
Singh, the opening scene shows a couple sleeping in a state of embrace,
amidst the recitation of a couplet.74 This introduces the movie as a passion-
ate love story that presents physical intimacy in the realm of true love.

Aggression and Ownership: The Angromantic Hero
At this juncture, perhaps it would be appropriate to bring in the construct

of stars as texts. Tere Naam, with a pointed tagline “Unfortunately . . . A True
Love Story,” was released on the heels of actor Salman Khan’s breakup of an
alleged romantic relationship with a female superstar. The star’s subsequent
run-ins with the law (drunk and violent actions supposedly caused by a pub-
lic heartbreak) added that extra layer to his aura, that is, a spurned lover
driven to self-destructive behavior because of a cold, calculating woman.75
Quite akin to Salman Khan, Shahid Kappor too has been perceived as
a victim of a fickle femme fatale.76 Contextualizing the films with the stars’
public image also leads one to assume that, at least in the public percep-
tion, there is a degree of legitimacy involved when “betrayed” men avenge
their humiliation on screen. Thus, Butler’s cycles of “crises and resolu-
tion”limns a place where recognition of the socially constructed nature of
gender identities is repeatedly confronted with more regressive under-
standing of masculinity.77
In both Tere Naam and Kabir Singh the contentious masculinity of the
protagonists is perceptible through their aggression and disregard toward
other characters. While Radhe (Salman Khan) single-handedly confronts
villains to defend the marginalized, Kabir (Shahid Kapoor) flares up at the
slightest provocation.
Faithful to the Devdas template, the female leads in Tere Naam and Kabir
Singh are portrayed as traditional, demure, and, most importantly, pristine
pure. While both of them wear traditional clothes, in Tere Naam, Nirjara’s
(played by the debutante Bhumika Chawla) femininity represents the vir-
tues of domesticity associated with “ideal” Hindu women. A decade and half
later, Kabir Singh’s Preeti (newcomer Kiara Advani) aligns with a new image
of a family-oriented career woman. Hence, gender can be read as “ideolog-
ical, created and fuelled by public and social discourse,” determining the
traits associated with masculinity or femininity.78 It becomes evident that,
at times, slight modifications are introduced in gender constructions that
do not challenge, and remain nonthreatening to, the patriarchal paradigm.
Though both Nirjara and Preeti are modern, educated women, their lack
of agency or lack of subjectivity is repeatedly foregrounded as a desirable
trait. Partha Chatterjee rightly posits that with changing social conditions
the onus of “spiritual purity” and “social responsibility” is on women.79

Male gaze holds a place of prominence in these two filmic texts. Female
objectification, bordering on harassment, is evident at the outset in Tere
Naam, where Radhe gazes at Nirjara at the train station and subjects her
to incessant bullying, as his sycophantic friends cheer on. In Kabir Singh,
Kabir’s gaze is fixed on Preeti and later on another woman’s body as he de-
mands sexual favors from her. Both films signify the “controlling male gaze”
that identifies women as objects, while men possess the agency for casting
the gaze.80 The girls, both ingénues, lower their heads, speak in inaudible
whispers and avert their eyes to suggest their modesty and traditional/In-
dian values. This primes the heroine as an innocent, which qualifies her as
an object for hero’s love.
Masculinity is performed through a set of codes and conventions, in-
cluding clothes, accessories, and hairstyle. In Tere Naam, Radhe is initially
a boorish, yet good-hearted youth. Salman Khan’s now-famous hairstyle,
emulated across the actor’s fanbase, comprises side bangs that frame his
face with a middle parting. After he is institutionalized in a monastic retreat
(ashram) to recuperate, he makes a pathetic sight with his scarred face and
shaved head. A similar “visual image of crisis and instability” is played out
in two different stages in Kabir’s life as well.81 His unshaven beard, long
tousled hair, sunglasses, and scruffy appearance are indicative of his Dev-
das avatar. Quite significantly, the publicity poster of Kabir Singh featured
a close-up of Shahid Kapoor. Wearing dark glasses, his face unshaven,
and hair unkempt, the image was a clear departure from the slick-haired
and clean-shaven look that were signature trademarks of the star’s earlier
“boy-next-door” persona.
Figure 1 | Nirjara (Bhumika Chawla) walking demurely in Tere Naam. Tere Naam
(2003, MD Productions and Orion Pictures).

Figure 2 | Preeti’s (Kiara Advani) first day on college campus in Kabir Singh. Kabir
Singh (2019, Cine1 Studios and T-Series).
The chiseled male body caters to a counter-gaze encapsulating it within

desire. In Tere Naam when Radhe (displaying bare torso and rippling muscles)
caresses the peacock feather that once belonged to Nirjara, it signifies the
beginning of romance for him. Likewise, in Kabir Singh, the introductory shot
captures Kabir’s toned, bare back with long side-shots of his face. In his first
close-up shot, he appears as though inviting the gaze of the audience on this
glamorized version of Devdas. The idea that men can be fetishized has been
suggested by Steve Neale, who extends Laura Mulvey’s concept of male gaze
to identify “narcissitic identification and voyeuristic and fetishistic looking”
with masculine images on-screen.82 All other forms of masculinity (which lie
in opposition to this depiction) become subordinated to this hegemonic core.
This idea can be extended to Tere Naam. Radhe’s depiction as macho and
“cool” is presented through distinct elements of mise-en-scene. The spectacle
of the heroes’ bare bodies exhibits the body as “more perfect, more complete,
more powerful ideal ego.”83 Control and authority are, thus, vested in these
heroes, inviting the audience to identify with their machismo.
The ritual of romantic courting in Tere Naam and Kabir Singh is an ex-
clusive male domain, and so is the question of “ownership” of the female—
both considered as prerogatives of an “alpha,” self-righteous male. In Kabir
Singh, at first glance, the hero marks Preeti as his love interest and she is

anointed as “Kabir’s girl.”Kabir controls Preeti throughout their relation-

ship, including asking her to cover herself “appropriately” and taking her
outside the regular classroom to “instruct” her in human anatomy. On the
occasion of Holi (the festival of colors), he forbids others to touch Preeti be-
cause he wants to be the first to apply color on her. This desire almost par-
allels the hero’s desire to be the “first” in the virginal heroine’s life.
The few instances where the heroines assert control by making inde-
pendent decisions contribute little more than provide an expected denoue-
ment to the narrative. Patriarchal notions of caste and honor, intrinsically
embedded through female body and behavior, limit their choices. Nirjara
and Preeti mirror each other as women incapable of taking decisions, de-
void of agency, and, at the same time, held responsible for the abjection
of the heroes. Yet, in true populist Bollywood tradition, by choosing death
over marriage Nirjara remains eternally committed to Radhe, and Preeti
ends her marriage, thereby vindicating the deewana heroes’ claims of
ownership.
In Tere Naam, the male protagonist’s trespasses are offset by altruistic
actions, which is a key feature of heteronormative patriarchy.84 The mantle
of male as a protective figure is explicitly played out in both films. Again, in
almost identical scenes, where audiences heckle the heroines on stage, the
presence of the lover/guardian controls the disruptive crowd, thus winning
the heroine’s (and, perhaps our) gratitude.
Masculine performances of insolence are considered important within
the broader matrix of identity project. Judith Butler’s claim is pertinent
Figure 3 | Radhe (Salman Khan) in Tere Naam and Kabir (Shahid Kapoor) in Kabir
Singh guarding their women on stage.

here, “gender is an act which has been rehearsed, much as a script survives
the particular actors who make use of it, but which requires individual ac-
tors in order to be actualized and reproduced as reality once again.”85 In
both films, the protagonists’ identities are scripted through their mercurial
temperament, acerbic humor, and hyperactive gestures to offset their devi-
ant and immature behavior.
In their study on depiction of masculinity in cinema, Pat Kirkham and
Janet Thumim observe, “Filmic depictions of the male body in action of-
fer chivalrous deeds, sports, combat, and violence, with an emphasis on
competition.”86 Thus, in Tere Naam the hero’s entry is followed by the an-
nouncement of his successful manoeuvring of elections in college, and
in Kabir Singh, the hero is presented as an over-achiever and highly com-
petitive personality. As the captain of his college’s football team, we find
Kabir engaged in sledging, hurling expletives at the referee and showing
the middle finger to the rival team. Through these acts, Kabir is presented
as a dominant masculine and a role model in his college. Hegemonic mas-
culinity can be understood as the successful ways of being a man in par-
ticular places at specific times,87 which renders other forms inadequate.
This is evident when Kabir emasculates Preeti’s teenage brother by kissing
him (on his cheeks) in front of his friends. Unsurprisingly, the abjection of
the figures of authority (male relations, father figures, college professors),
serve to make the audience more empathetic toward the heroes, probably
because the viewers see a reflection of themselves in the acts of defiance
and rebellion.
Violence has often been perceived as an effective strategy to express
love, and has been a conspicuous part of Bollywood’s fabric. Even the
Figure 4 | Kabir Singh (Shahid Kapoor) kissing his girlfriend’s brother.

“gentlemanly heroes” of the Golden Age of Bollywood are not above vio-
lence, such as pulling the heroine by the hair or slapping her across theface,
to demonstrate control or to make her realize his true love.88 Instances from
Awaara, Aan, Dharam-Veer, Laawaris, and Betaab,89 come immediately to
mind, but there are more such examples. Aggression continues to be a po-
tent tool to express passionate love, which renders the protagonists inca-
pable of reasoning, yet succeeds in “taming” the female and ends in her
willing surrender to the dominant male. As Carrigan and colleagues argue,
“The most important feature of this masculinity, alongside its connection
with dominance, is that it is heterosexual.”90 Thus, when Radhe is unable
to accept Nirjara’s rejection, he kidnaps her. His anger, frustration, and suf-
fering are conveyed as he threatens to kill her and then commit suicide.
These actions are corroborated by his claims of extreme love and that she
“belongs” to him.
Kabir’s rage on being spurned by Preeti’s father follows the same trajec-
tory. When Preeti tries to reason with him, he slaps her to make her realize
that she does not have an identity except that of “Kabir’s” girl. As David
Buchbinder puts forth that representations of men “reproduce dominant
notions of masculinity” and facilitate in inviting other men to recognise
themselves in such representations,91 these “passionate” acts of violence
present a normative model of “victorious” masculinity that serves the
cause of patriarchal dominance.
The Devdas Trajectory: Dealing with Rejection in Tere Naam

and Kabir Singh
In the popular lexicon, Devdas refers to the male figure of an angst-ridden,

alcoholic, and self-destructive lover, and is used more as an adjective than a
noun. To channel his inner Devdas a man has to be brooding, alcoholic, and
abusive toward his love interest. Both Radhe and Kabir employ the Devdas
disposition to the hilt. When Radhe’s love is thwarted, he becomes masoch-
istic and self-abusive. In Kabir Singh, a resentful Kabir names a dog after
Preeti, and seeks comfort in drugs and alcohol. In a now (in)famous scene,
we see him shaving his crotch, and ending up nicking the sensitive area.
The spectators watch this act of self-loathing and masochism in horrified
fascination, as the bloodstain on Kabir’s pants increases in size, while the
hero remains stoic. Through visuals like these we appreciate Judith Butler’s

Figure 5 | Kabir Singh bleeds after shaving his crotch.
notion of gender performativity and how masculinity could be looked upon

as a masquerade or a performance.92
Two discourses of postcolonial masculinity have been identified in In-
dian context in general, and cinema in particular. The first is celibacy (brah-
mcharya), which denotes mastery over one’s body through self-restraint.93
Radhe and Nirjara’s romance can therefore be located in the supremacy
of unfulfilled love, where “union in marriage is a limited goal compared to
the transcendence toward infinity achieved through perpetual viraha.”94
Radhe’s renunciation of the material world and union with the mystical is
realized when he surrenders himself to the ashram after Nirjara’s suicide.
The everlasting popularity of Devdas is rooted in the impossibility of con-
sumating his love.95 In this respect, Kabir’s sexual excesses distinguish him
from Radhe, who remains in a state of oblivion, like Devdas, and then in a
perpetual state of feeling divine love, like Radha-Krishna.
The second discourse, which countered the colonial charge of effem-
inacy of India men, is through an overemphasis on virility.96 Kabir Singh
tries to forget Preeti through random acts of sexual encounters. When he is
unable to satisfy his baser insticts, he fills his pants with ice, indicating his
libidinal excess. The film’s repeated attempts to draw attention to the hero’s
sexual needs underscore that “now it is the penis and not the vagina that is
the site of the anxiety producing conflict.”97
From Toxic Maleness to Victimhood: Complicit Masculinities
R. W. Connell refers to “complicit masculinities” as those who support prac-

tices of hegemonic masculinity.98 Thus, we see Radhe’s friend Aslam aiding

the hero in several acts of bullying Nirjara, threatening her fiancé, and later
consoling Radhe. Similarly, Shiva (Kabir’s friend) shields him to the extent of
appearing ludicrous. In one disturbing scene, Shiva even offers Kabir his sis-
ter to Kabir in marriage, to help the latter overcome his obsession for Preeti.
It is also worth noting that both Tere Naam and Kabir Singh, as ex-
emplars of mainstream cinema—with accent on outmoded depictions of
masculinity—brought back their male stars from the brink of near oblivion.
Salman Khan and Shahid Kapoor were at the crossroads of their careers at
the time of the release of these films. The box office successes of the two
films have consolidated their positions as bankable leading men. Interest-
ingly, Salman Khan’s next major release is slated to be Radhe: Your Most
Wanted Bhai, while Shahid Kapoor promises to explore another aspect of
machismo with yet another remake of a Telugu film, Jersey.99
Conclusion
In the above sections we have referred to Connell’s discussions of hege-

monic masculinity, where men assert supremacy on other masculinities
and femininities and perform (different) sexuality and violence. Connell’s
conception of hegemonic masculinity also offers a model where we can
look beyond a monolithic understanding of masculinity.100 In conjunction
with Connell’s argument is Judith Butler’s claim that “gender norms are
phantasmatic,”101 and that masculinity is always in a state of crisis.
The protagonists in Tere Naam and Kabir Singh, conjoined by their pa-
triarchal outlook on gender relations, conform to these assertions about
image and masculine performance. While the angst-ridden model of mas-
culinity in Tere Naam is underpinned by Radhe’s altruism, the domineering
hero’s meritocracy in Kabir Singh condones his transgressions. Both films
go to great lengths to absolve the male protagonists of any aberrations and
gloss over the angromance with a “men will be men” attitude. The heroes’
constant acts of infraction are also camouflaged by “lesser heroic” charac-
ters such as friends and male members from their respective families.
Cinematic representations of toxic masculinities are “carefully cal-
ibrated to reflect dominant masculine practices and also bring forth ide-
alized versions of hegemonic masculinity.”102 In the garb of projecting
“divine” love, Bollywood filmmakers often resort to deploy poetic, mys-
tic, and romantic to reclaim masculine territory. In Tere Naam and Kabir

Singh we recognize an attempt to build on the rhetoric of divine love with

a complicit justification of the performative codes and conventions of mas-
culinity. The “loner” stalker-heroes elicit audience’s sympathy through an
airbrushed representation of their angst and aggression. Since the protago-
nists do not face the damning consequences of their misanthropic actions,
it is indicative to the male audience that they too can get away with impu-
nity, regardless of their misguided behavior. The discourses of hegemonic
masculinity associated with celibacy, virility, and a “quest for redemption”
are accentuated to add hues of angromance to the heroes’ persona.
As the case studies of Tere Naam and Kabir Singh illustrate, not much
has changed in the representations of “what it is to be a man” in the
conventional sense. Frameworks, such as discussed in this article, suggest
that paradigms of masculinity are confined within the scripts of heter-
onormative patriarchy, and through desirable attributes of hegemonic
masculinity. Consequently, Michael Kimmel’s thesis still remains relevant:
“Feminism posed perhaps the greatest challenge to a masculinity based
on exclusion and affected men both personally and politically.”103 Radhe
and Kabir’s constant denial of agency to the women in their lives, and
the women’s tacit complicity in ceding their space and voice, is indeed a
disturbing pattern of which Bollywood filmmakers need to be cognizant.
Earlier we referred to the tragic Nirbhaya rape and murder case of 2012.
In early 2020, we were confronted with the chillingly notorious incident
involving Bois Locker Room.104 The news received plenty of media atten-
tion highlighting the need for greater gender sensitivity in Indian society.
Popular Hindi films were once again questioned for their complicity in pro-
moting toxic masculinity and undermining feminist ideas. Nevertheless,
Bollywood’s tryst with toxic misogyny and patriarchy marches on with films
such as Pati, Patni aur Woh.105
It is desirable to pay attention to Butler’s assertion in Gender Trouble
that gender is always a failure and is an accumulated fact of social relations
that have become naturalized over time. The conception and representa-
tion of masculinity as violence and domination and femininity as tolerance
require greater on-screen resistance and off-screen conversation, along
with debates on Bollywood’s “angromance.” Existing scholarship on main-
stream Hindi films and performance is limited. This article is an attempt to
broaden the scope of research in the domain of popular films and gender
performance.

Contributor Details
Aysha Iqbal Viswamohan is a professor in the Department of Humanities and Social

Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India. She works in the areas of
film studies, popular culture and drama. Her recent books include the edited an-
thologies: Stardom in Contemporary Hindi Cinema: Celebrity and Fame in Globalized
Times (Springer, 2020), Behind the Scenes: Contemporary Bollywood Directors (Sage,
2017), and Post-liberalization Indian Novels in English: Global Reception & Politics of
Award (ANTHEM, 2013).
Sanchari Basu Chaudhuri is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at Jamia

Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. She is currently conducting research on Bollywood
movies as a part of her doctoral study. Her research interests intersect between pop-
ular culture, gender studies, and media.
Notes
1. Karan Johar apologizes for item numbers and stalking in his films: “Will never
do it again,” December 4, 2017, http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/karan-
johar-apologises-for-item-numbers-and-stalking-in-his-films-will-never-do-it-
again/story-J1twsOlnlb6baNoigW8fVK.html.
2. Urmimala Munsi, “Buy One, Get One Free: The Dance Body for the Indian Film
and Television Industry,” in Performance, Feminism and Affect in Neoliberal Times,
ed. Elin Diamond, Denise Varney, and Candice Amich (London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2017), 176.
3. Steve Derné, “Making Sex Violent: Love as Force in Recent Hindi Films,” Violence
Against Women 5, no. 5 (1999): 548–75.
4. Srividya Ramasubramanian and Mary Oliver, “Portrayals of Sexual Violence in
Popular Hindi Films, 1997–99,” Sex Roles 48, nos. 7–8 (2003): 334.
5. See, for instance, Laawaris (1981, Prakash Mehra Productions), Mard (1985,
M.K.D. Films Combine), Hum (1991, Romesh Films), Laadla (1994, Neha Arts), Dil Se
(1998, Madras Talkies & Varma Corporation).
6. Heidi Pauwels, “‘The Woman Waylaid at the Well’ or Paṇaghaṭa-līlā: An Indian
Folk Theme Appropriated in Myth and Movies,” Asian Ethnology 69, no. 1 (2010): 1–33.
7. Oliver, “Portrayals of Sexual Violence,” 334.
8. Derné, “Making Sex Violent,” 551, 560.
9. Jyotika Virdi, The Cinematic ImagiNation: Indian Popular Films as Social History
(Ranikhet: Permanent Black, 2003), 61.
10. Karen Gabriel, Melodrama and the Nation: Sexual Economies of Bombay Cin-
ema 1970–2000 (New Delhi: Women Unlimited, 2010), 206.
11. Gabriel, Melodrama and the Nation, 204.

12. Kahaani (2014, Boundscript Motion Pictures); Mary Kom (2014, Bhansali
Productions); Mardaani (2014, Yash Raj Films); Queen (2014, Viacom 18 Motion
Pictures & Phantom Films); Piku (2015, MSM Motion Pictures, Saraswati Entertain-
ment Creations & Rising Sun Films).
13. Raminder Kaur, “Mediating Rape: The Nirbhaya Effect in the Creative and Digi-
tal Arts,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 42, no. 4 (2017): 951.
14. Tupur Chatterjee, “Rape Culture, Misogyny, and Urban Anxiety in NH10 and
Pink,” Feminist Media Studies 19, no. 1 (2019): 132.
15. Dabangg (2010, Arbazz Khan Productions); Tees Maar Khan (2010, Hari Om En-
tertainment, Three’s Company, and UTV Motion Pictures).
16. Jackey Stacey, “Untangling Feminist Theory,” in Introducing Women’s Stud-
ies: Feminist Theory and Practice, ed. Diane Richardson and Victoria Robinson
(London: Macmillan, 1993).
17. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Vintage, 1952), 18.
18. Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman, “Doing Gender,” Gender & Society 1, no.
2 (1987): 125–51.
19. Judith Butler, Undoing Gender (London: Routledge, 2004).
20. Catherine A. MacKinnon, “Sexuality, Pornography, and Method,” Ethics 99, no.
2 (1989): 315.
21. Tim Carrigan, Bob Connell, and John Lee, “Toward a New Sociology of
Masculinity,” Theory and Society 14, no. 5 (1985): 111.
22. Partha Chatterjee, “Colonialism, Nationalism, and Colonized Women: The
Contest in India,” American Ethnologist 16, no. 4 (1989): 630.
23. Tere Naam (2003, MD Productions and Orion Pictures); Kabir Singh (2019, Cine1
Studios & T-Series).
24. “Kabir Singh Review: No Film for a Woman,”The Hindu, June 21, 2019,
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/kabir-singh-movie-review-this-
arjun-reddy-remake-is-no-film-for-woman/article28101634.ece.
25. “Kabir Singh Review: There’s Some Movie in This Misogyny,” The Wire, June 21,
2019, https://thewire.in/film/kabir-singh-movie-review.
26. Pat Kirkham and Janet Thumim, “You Tarzan,” in You Tarzan: Masculinity, Mov-
ies and Men, ed. Pat Kirkham and Janet Thumim (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993),
15.
27. Robert Bly, Iron John: A Book About Men (Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1990).
28. David Savran, Taking It Like a Man: White Masculinity, Masochism, and
Contemporary American Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 172.
29. Films from South India are dubbed for pan-Indian audiences and telecast on na-
tional television channels. These movies are often coded within the confines of angro-
mance. For more discussion on heroes of Southern India, refer to Sasi Mallam, “Sexual
Harassment as Courtship: Performing Hegemonic Masculinity in Contemporary Telugu
Cinema,” Journal of Creative Communications 14, no. 2 (2019). The female protagonist is

designated as the secondary character in the movie associated with chastity, maturity,
and domesticity. For more information, see Selvaraj Velayutham, Tamil Cinema: The
Cultural Politics of India’s Other Film Industry (London: Routledge, 2008).
30. Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phe-
nomenology and Feminist Theory,” Theatre Journal 40, no. 4 (1988): 519–31.
31. Jessica Birthisel, “How Body, Heterosexuality and Patriarchal Entanglements
Mark Non-human Characters as Male in CGI-animated Children’s Films,” Journal of
Children and Media 8, no. 4 (2014): 336–52.
32. Robert Connell, Masculinities (Cambridge: Polity, 1995), 196.
33. Nancy E. Dowd, “Asking the Man Question: Masculinities Analysis and Feminist
Theory,” Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 33 (2010): 421.
34. Dowd, “Asking the Man Question,” 424.
35. Cited in Dowd, “Asking the Man Question,” 424.
36. Dowd, “Asking the Man Question,” 420.
37. Sharon Bird, “Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance
of Hegemonic Masculinity,” Gender & Society 10, no. 2 (1996): 125.
38. Connell, Masculinities.
39. Robert Connell and James Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethink-
ing the Concept,” Gender & Society 19, no. 6 (2005): 829–59.
40. Raewyn Connell, “Masculinity Construction and Sports in Boys’ Education:
A Framework for Thinking about the Issue,” Sport, Education and Society 13, no. 2
(2008): 131–45.
42. Mike Donaldson, “What is Hegemonic Masculinity?,” Theory and Society 22, no.
5 (1993): 643–57.
43. Terry Kupers, “Toxic Masculinity as a Barrier to Mental Health Treatment in
Prison,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 61, no. 6 (2005): 717.
44. Diane Prusank, “Masculinities in Teen Magazines: The Good, the Bad, and the
Ugly,” The Journal of Men’s Studies 15, no. 2 (2008): 160–77.
45. Donald Mosher and Silvan Tomkins, “Scripting the Macho Man: Hypermascu-
line Socialization and Enculturation,” Journal of Sex Research 25, no. 1 (1988): 60–84.
46. Antonia Lyons, Sue Dalton, and Anna Hoy, “‘Hardcore Drinking’ Portrayals of
Alcohol Consumption in Young Women’s and Men’s Magazines,” Journal of Health
Psychology 11, no. 2 (2006): 223–32.
47. Patricia Uberoi, “The Diaspora Comes Home: Disciplining Desire in DDLJ,”
Contributions to Indian Sociology 32, no. 2 (1998): 305–36.
48. For instance, movies like Khwahish (2003, Akbar Arabiyan), Jism (2003, Fish
Eye Network P Ltd.) and Murder (2004, Vishesh Films) come under this category.
49. Rachel Dwyer, “Kiss or Tell? Declaring Love in Hindi Films,” in Love in South
Asia: A Cultural History, ed. Francesca Orsini (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2006), 300.

50. Dwyer, “Kiss or Tell?”

51. Savran, Taking It Like a Man, 173.
52. Mary Kom (2014, Bhansali Productions); NH10 (2015, Clean Slate Films and
Phantom Films); Pink (2016, Rashmi Sharma Telefilms Limited); Begum Jaan (2017,
Vishesh Films, Shree Venkatesh Films & Play Entertainments); Tumhari Sulu (2017,
T-Series & Ellipsis Entertainment).
53. Dhoom (2004,Yash Raj Films); Housefull (2010, Nadiadwala Grandson Enter-
tainment); Dabangg (2010, Arbaz Khan Productions); Golmaal: Fun Unlimited (2006,
Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd.); Krrish (2006, Filmkraft Productions Pvt. Ltd.);
Race (2008, Tips Music Films); Student of the Year (2012, Dharma Productions & Red
Chillies Entertainment).
54. Susan Faludi, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New
York: Anchor Books, 1991).
55. Michael Kimmel, Manhood in America (New York: Oxford University Press,
2017), 181.
56. Grand Masti (2013, Maruti International); Great Grand Masti (2016, Balaji Motion
Pictures & Maruti International); Sanju (2018, Rajkumar Hirani Films & Vinod Chopra
Films).
57. Mard ko Dard nahin hota (2018, RSVP Movies).
58. For instance, movies that portray men as the “real” victims, such as Pyaar
Ka Punchnaama (2011, Panorama Studios), Raanjhanaa (2013, Colour Yellow Pro-
ductions), Pyaar Ka Punchnaama 2 (2015, Panorama Studios & Viacom 18 Motion
Pictures) and Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety (2018, AA Films & T-Series). These movies are
notable for demonizing “liberated” female protagonists by portraying them as ma-
nipulating, self-centered and a threat to the more wholesome ideals of femininity.
59. Virdi, The Cinematic ImagiNation, 65.
60. Heather R. Hlavka, “Normalizing Sexual Violence: Young Women Account for
Harassment and Abuse,” Gender & Society 28, no. 3 (2014): 337–53.
61. Stacey L. Hunt, “Public Emotions and Variations of Violence: Evidence from
Colombia,” Perspectives on Politics 18, no. 3 (2020): 788–804.
62. The legendary star-crossed couples, such as Laila and Majnu (originally an
Arabic tale that precedes Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet), Mirza and Saahiban,
Heer and Ranjha, and Sohni and Mahiwal, form the ideal figures, as well as aspira-
tional role models, for lovers of every successive generation. Nasir Husain’s Qaya-
mat se Qayamat Tak (1988, Nasir Hussain Films) remains one of the most important
cinematic documents of integrating the Romeo-Juliet theme with modern Indian
sensibilities.
63. Rosie Thomas, “Melodrama and the Negotiation of Morality in Mainstream
Hindi Film,” in Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, ed. Carol
Breckenridge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 157–82.

64. Aarti Wani, “The Provincial Self in the Town of Love,” Economic & Political
Weekly 48, no. 51 (2013): 35.
65. S. C. Chattopadhyay, Devdas, trans. S. Guha (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2002).
Original work published 1917.
66. As a definitive emblem for male despair, the Devdas template was a successful
model for the “angry young man” of the ’70s in films such as Muqaddarka Sikandar
(1978, Prakash Mehra Productions) and later Jeet (1996, Nadiadwala Grandson Enter-
tainment), and to a lesser degree for Dhadkan (2000, Venus Worldwide Entertainment).
67. Darr: A Violent Love Story (1993, Yash Raj Films); Anjaam (1994, Shiv-Bharat
Films); Dastak (1996, Vishesh Films).
68. Ranjani Mazumdar, “From Subjectification to Schizophrenia: The ‘Angry Man’
and the ‘Psychotic’ Hero of Bombay Cinema,” in Making Meaning in Indian Cinema,
ed. Ravi Vasudevan (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), 251–57.
69. Nikhat Kazmi, Ire in the Soul: Bollywood’s Angry Years (New Delhi: HarperCol-
lins Publishers, 1996), 76–77.
70. Daraar (1996, Shree Shivbhakti Films & Venus Records and Tapes); Agni Sakshi
(1996, Neha Films); Sleeping with the Enemy (1991, 20th Century Fox).
71. Raanjhanaa, 2013.
72. Wani, “The Provincial Self,” 37.
73. The mausoleum was commissioned by Shah Jahan to commemorate his love
for Mumtaz Mahal, his favorite wife, and is still considered a manifestation of con-
jugal eternal love. Another signification of love here is the peacock’s feather (mor-
pankh). In Indian culture, it is associated with the mystical bond between the divine
figures of Krishna and Radha. Hence, the peacock’s feather denotes “pure love” of
two souls as opposed to the sexual union.
74. “Oh Khusrau, the river of love runs in strange directions. It is necessary to
drown in love to get across” (Khusrau dariya prem ka/ulti wa ki dhar/jo utra who doob
gaya/jo dooba so paar).
75. The fact that the star in real life is still single and never misses any opportunity
to make oblique references to his ex-ladylove add further fuel to the collective ro-
mantic imagination of Khan’s core audience. Coupled with his well-publicized acts
of charity and altruism, the onscreen persona Radhe of Tere Naam—misunderstood,
yet with a heart of gold—fits well with the star’s public image, and remains the ac-
tor’s one of the best-known self-referential roles.
76. The case of Shahid Kapoor (on screen Kabir) is only slightly different. The ac-
tor too had gone through heartbreak at the hands of a popular filmstar, under full
media and public gaze. Though happily married now, Shahid’s personal and profes-
sional transformation has been quite perceptible post-breakup of his much-touted
relationship. In his ensuing roles, particularly Kaminey (2009, UTV Motion Pictures
and VB Pictures), Haider (2014, VB Pictures), Udta Punjab (2016, Balaji Motion Pictures

& Phantom Films), and Rangoon (2017, Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment, VB Pic-
tures, and Viacom 18 Motion Pictures), Kapoor has been consistently downplaying
his clean cut looks and exploring the darker side of his personality.
77. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Lon-
don: Routledge, 1999).
78. Donna Peberdy, Masculinity and Film Performance: Male Angst in Contempo-
rary American Cinema (New York: Springer, 2011), 27.
79. Chatterjee, “Colonialism, Nationalism, and Colonized Women,” 629.
80. Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16, no. 3 (1975):
6–18.
81. Peberdy, Masculinity and Film Performance, 50.
82. Steve Neale, “Masculinity as Spectacle,” Screen 24, no. 6 (1983): 2–17.
83. Neale, “Masculinity as Spectacle,” 12.
84. Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity.”
85. Butler, “Performative Acts,” 526.
86. Kirkham and Thumim, You Tarzan, 15.
87. Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity,” 832.
88. Vijay Mishra, Temples of Desire (New York: Routledge, 2002), 7, 103–4.
89. Awaara (1951, All India Film Corporation and R. K. Films); Aan (1952, Mehboob
Productions); Dharam-Veer (1977, Mehboob Studios and R. K. Films); Laawaris (1981,
Prakash Mehra Productions); Betaab (1983, Vijayta Films).
90. Tim Carrigan, Bob Connell, and John Lee, “Toward a New Sociology of Mascu-
linity,” in The Masculinity Studies Reader, ed. Rachel Adams and David Savran (New
York: Blackwell Publishing, 2002), 113.
91. David Buchbinder, Performance Anxieties: Re-producing Masculinity (St. Leon-
ards: Allen & Unwin, 1998), vii.
92. Butler, “Performative Acts.”
93. Joseph Alter, “Celibacy, Sexuality, and the Transformation of Gender into Na-
tionalism in North India,” The Journal of Asian Studies 53, no. 1 (1994): 45–66.
94. Meenakshi Mukherjee, Realism and Reality: The Novel and Society in India (New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985), 104.
95. Corey Creekmur, “Remembering, Repeating, and Working through Devdas,”
in Indian Literature and Popular Cinema: Recasting Classics, ed. Heidi R. M. Pauwels
(New York: Routledge, 2007), 176.
96. Steve Derné, “Men’s Sexuality and Women’s Subordination in Indian National-
isms,” in Gender Ironies of Nationalism, ed. Tamar Mayer (New York: Routledge, 2012),
251–74.
97. Peter Lehman, “Crying over the Melodramatic Penis: Melodrama and Male Nu-
dity in Films of the 90s,” in Masculinity: Bodies, Movies, Culture, ed. Peter Lehman
(New York: Routledge, 2001), 27.


99. Radhe: Your Most Wanted Bhai (forthcoming, Salman Khan Films and So-
hail Khan Productions); Jersey (forthcoming, Geetha Arts and Sri Venkateswara
Creations).
101. Butler, Gender Trouble, 40.
102. Praseeda Gopinath, “‘A Feeling You Cannot Resist’: Shah Rukh Khan, Affect,
and the Re-scripting of Male Stardom in Hindi Cinema,” Celebrity Studies 9, no. 3
(2018): 5.
103. Kimmel, Manhood in America, 180.
104. Bois Locker Room refers to the Instagram group, consisting of male teenagers
from Delhi’s top schools, that triggered controversy after it was revealed that they
circulated obscene morphed photographs of young girls and their chats revolved
around sexual assaults, including rape. It exposed one of the many ways in which
misogyny and rape culture is normalized in contemporary society.
105. Pati, Patni aur Woh (2019, T-Series and B. R. Studios) validates objectification
of women using comic tropes.

JAPC published version_compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAPC published version_compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bollywood's Angromance: Toxic Masculinity and Male Angst in

Tere Naam and Kabir Singh

Aysha Iqbal Viswamohan, Sanchari Basu Chaudhuri

Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture, Volume 5, Number 2, 2020, pp. 146-170

Published by Penn State University Press

For additional information about this article

Abstract | The article draws on specific theories of hegemonic masculinity through

Keywords | angromance, toxic masculinity, Bollywood, hegemonic masculinity,

Journal of Asia-Pacific Pop Culture, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2020

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 146 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Bollywood’s Normalization of the Unacceptable: A Brief Overview

Things you show on celluloid sometimes set a template. So, we as filmmakers,

Bollywood has often been interrogated for promoting hypermasculinity

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 147 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 148 01/02/21 10:54 AM

the ascription of all that the ‘normal’ woman (mother/sister/wife/daughter)

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 149 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Men Will Be Men: Conceptualizing Angromance and the Crises

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 150 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 151 01/02/21 10:54 AM

sex, or explicit lovemaking. At the turn of twentieth century, there was a

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 152 01/02/21 10:54 AM

masculinity and dismantles gender stereotypes),57 Bollywood lines up

The Discursiveness of “Pure” Love in Bollywood: Love unto Death

To a considerable extent, Bollywood romances owe their plots to epics,

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 153 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Angromance: Angst-ridden Men, Angry Love

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 154 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Aggression and Ownership: The Angromantic Hero

At this juncture, perhaps it would be appropriate to bring in the construct

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 155 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 156 01/02/21 10:54 AM

The chiseled male body caters to a counter-gaze encapsulating it within

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 157 01/02/21 10:54 AM

anointed as “Kabir’s girl.”Kabir controls Preeti throughout their relation-

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 158 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Figure 4 | Kabir Singh (Shahid Kapoor) kissing his girlfriend’s brother.

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 159 01/02/21 10:54 AM

The Devdas Trajectory: Dealing with Rejection in Tere Naam

In the popular lexicon, Devdas refers to the male figure of an angst-ridden,

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 160 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Figure 5 | Kabir Singh bleeds after shaving his crotch.

notion of gender performativity and how masculinity could be looked upon

From Toxic Maleness to Victimhood: Complicit Masculinities

R. W. Connell refers to “complicit masculinities” as those who support prac-

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 161 01/02/21 10:54 AM

In the above sections we have referred to Connell’s discussions of hege-

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 162 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Singh we recognize an attempt to build on the rhetoric of divine love with

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 163 01/02/21 10:54 AM

Aysha Iqbal Viswamohan is a professor in the Department of Humanities and Social

Sanchari Basu Chaudhuri is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at Jamia

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 164 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 165 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 166 01/02/21 10:54 AM

50. Dwyer, “Kiss or Tell?”

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 167 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 168 01/02/21 10:54 AM

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 169 01/02/21 10:54 AM

98. Connell, Masculinities.

03_Viswamohan_Basu.indd 170 01/02/21 10:54 AM

You might also like