3 ms·

> India never had that American influence problem because it's a much more insular culture, and had many illiterate people in the near past, who wanted to just

> India never had that American influence problem because it's a much more insular culture, and had many illiterate people in the near past, who wanted to just relax with a movie that shows people in their likeness and plays some nice local songs This is a pretty ridiculous and off-the-mark assertion about both the nature of Bollywood cinema and its popularity within India. > In Europe we don't consider companies "people". Also completely wrong. Corporations retain the rights of the persons that comprise them, both in the US and in Europe. In some European countries, this is literally written into the constitution.

coldtea 8y ago
>This is a pretty ridiculous and off-the-mark assertion about both the nature of Bollywood cinema and its popularity within India. I welcome a fact-based counter-argument. What is exactly ridiculous? That India had many illiterate people in the past? India is at 72%, below Bangladesh, and slightly above Rwanda and Yemen, far below all western countries. And that's the median, there are provinces like Bihar with sub 65% literacy (of ~100 million people). And that's today. In decades past it was worse. Or that most Bollywood movies are song-and-dance simplistic affairs? Let me quote Wikipedia on the lemma Bollywood: "Bollywood films are mostly musicals and are expected to contain catchy music in the form of song-and-dance numbers woven into the script. A film's success often depends on the quality of such musical numbers. (...) Indian audiences expect full value for their money, with a good entertainer generally referred to as paisa vasool, (literally, "money's worth"). Songs and dances, love triangles, comedy and dare-devil thrills are all mixed up in a three-hour extravaganza with an intermission. " >Also completely wrong. Corporations retain the rights of the persons that comprise them, both in the US and in Europe. In some European countries, this is literally written into the constitution. This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood Yes, this is about retaining the rights. That's exactly why corporations have rights of personality, both in the US and in Europe. It's not some unique facet of US law; it's literally written into the constitution in multiple European countries. > I welcome a fact-based counter-argument I'm not going to engage on this, because it's clear you're not particularly familiar with the topic at hand either. Claiming that illiteracy in India is somehow the reason that Bollywood has been successful despite Western influence is the sort of argument that no historian would actually make - and if they did, they would certainly provide more evidence than naively citing the literacy rate and literally no evidence and analysis linking literacy to cultural influence in cinema. Between this and other comment threads, it's also clear that you're not interested in having a good faith discussion, because instead you're spending your time listing Orientalist tropes.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I'm not going to engage on this, because it's clear you're not particularly familiar with the topic at hand either. Claiming that illiteracy in India is somehow the reason that Bollywood has been successful despite Western influence is the sort of argument that no historian would actually make - and if they did, they would certainly provide more evidence than naively citing the literacy rate and literally no evidence and analysis linking literacy to cultural influence in cinema. This is what people call a discussion, where they exchange arguments. I don't throw pre-digested ready-made conclusions at the other and call it a day. If you're interested in what historians say on the matter, go read them. I gave my argument, and pointers to any raw facts used in it (e.g. literacy rates). You can evaluate it on its own merits, or leave it. I, furthermore, have witnessed the connection with poverty/illiteracy and own-language song-and-dance movies from my own country, which for a large span until the '70s had a similar film industry, and for very similar reasons (and I have read local academics and cultural workers come to the same conclusions). But I don't just spew ready-made conclusions when it comes to soft sciences (as if they were physics), I prefer to process things with my own arguments. In any case, here's another link between illiteracy and Bollywood: https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/02/22/let-a-billion-readers-bloom-how-bollywood-teaches-literacy-in-india/ https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/02/22/let-a-billion...

coldtea 8y ago

>This is a pretty ridiculous and off-the-mark assertion about both the nature of Bollywood cinema and its popularity within India. I welcome a fact-based counter-argument. What is exactly ridiculous? That India had many illiterate people in the past? India is at 72%, below Bangladesh, and slightly above Rwanda and Yemen, far below all western countries. And that's the median, there are provinces like Bihar with sub 65% literacy (of ~100 million people). And that's today. In decades past it was worse. Or that most Bollywood movies are song-and-dance simplistic affairs? Let me quote Wikipedia on the lemma Bollywood: "Bollywood films are mostly musicals and are expected to contain catchy music in the form of song-and-dance numbers woven into the script. A film's success often depends on the quality of such musical numbers. (...) Indian audiences expect full value for their money, with a good entertainer generally referred to as paisa vasool, (literally, "money's worth"). Songs and dances, love triangles, comedy and dare-devil thrills are all mixed up in a three-hour extravaganza with an intermission. " >Also completely wrong. Corporations retain the rights of the persons that comprise them, both in the US and in Europe. In some European countries, this is literally written into the constitution. This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

chimeracoder 8y ago
> This is not about retaining some rights. This is about having the rights of natural persons. Referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood Yes, this is about retaining the rights. That's exactly why corporations have rights of personality, both in the US and in Europe. It's not some unique facet of US law; it's literally written into the constitution in multiple European countries. > I welcome a fact-based counter-argument I'm not going to engage on this, because it's clear you're not particularly familiar with the topic at hand either. Claiming that illiteracy in India is somehow the reason that Bollywood has been successful despite Western influence is the sort of argument that no historian would actually make - and if they did, they would certainly provide more evidence than naively citing the literacy rate and literally no evidence and analysis linking literacy to cultural influence in cinema. Between this and other comment threads, it's also clear that you're not interested in having a good faith discussion, because instead you're spending your time listing Orientalist tropes.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I'm not going to engage on this, because it's clear you're not particularly familiar with the topic at hand either. Claiming that illiteracy in India is somehow the reason that Bollywood has been successful despite Western influence is the sort of argument that no historian would actually make - and if they did, they would certainly provide more evidence than naively citing the literacy rate and literally no evidence and analysis linking literacy to cultural influence in cinema. This is what people call a discussion, where they exchange arguments. I don't throw pre-digested ready-made conclusions at the other and call it a day. If you're interested in what historians say on the matter, go read them. I gave my argument, and pointers to any raw facts used in it (e.g. literacy rates). You can evaluate it on its own merits, or leave it. I, furthermore, have witnessed the connection with poverty/illiteracy and own-language song-and-dance movies from my own country, which for a large span until the '70s had a similar film industry, and for very similar reasons (and I have read local academics and cultural workers come to the same conclusions). But I don't just spew ready-made conclusions when it comes to soft sciences (as if they were physics), I prefer to process things with my own arguments. In any case, here's another link between illiteracy and Bollywood: https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/02/22/let-a-billion-readers-bloom-how-bollywood-teaches-literacy-in-india/ https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/02/22/let-a-billion...