The Low Budget Libido Cinema: A "Sleaze" Sex Film Industry in India

An Introduction

Article Copyright © R. Amit Kumar. Do not use without permission.
Published in: The Spectator, A University of Southern California publication. (Fall 2006).

Outside Naaz (Dignified), a run down movie theater in Bombay, a hoarding reads Kaliyon Ka Chaman. With its sexual connotations, the title poorly translates as “young girls’ bodies.” Some thirty or forty men, a little tense and a little excited, on a Sunday evening hide from each other, making sure that any familiar faces do not see them. Entering the theater I head for the restroom. In an unbearably stinking, dingy, and unsanitary toilet, I hold my nostrils until I am done with a short call of nature. Reaching the screening hall, I wait in one of the many empty and broken seats. A man, roughly sixty years old, turns in another seat, “jara dekhna bhai ye pankha band kyun hai, bijli nahihai kya (Would you check why this fan is not working, is there no electricity)?” I go out and ask the theater manager whom I have already befriended. He tells me, “bijli bachani padti hai, aap chalo abhi chalu karata hun (We have to save electricity, you go, I`ll see).” The fan works by the time I reach another broken seat. The oldie smiles, “garmi bahut hai (it is hot).” Suddenly, the celluloid screen exhibits the national anthem. I ask myself. Should I stand? I do not know why, but I do stand, with a few others in the cinema hall. After a minute, united we all sit, and wait, and wait, and wait for some nudity. Everyone involved with the “sleaze” film industry wipes off the pre-cum with the national flag. (Field notes, Bombay, June 2004)

Such an experience is commonplace in special Indian theaters. Almost every city and town in India has at least one such theater that plays “sleaze” sexploitation films and thus acquires a social reputation identical to a brothel. The sleaze films that such a theater plays, and the female actresses in those films, have a social reputation analogous to prostitutes who stand in the silver-screen, inviting, and to some extent gratifying, the Indian male audience. Almost one-fourth of the Hindi films circulating every year are the C-grade-sleaze films “meant for frontbenchers in small towns.” In Indian theaters, as far and as high as one sits with respect to screen, one pays more, and is thus classified as member of a “higher-better” class. In the popular imagination, “sleaze” films are for frontbenchers, for those who sit close to the screen, in lower-stalls, and not for those who sit in the upper-stalls or balconies. In short, the sleaze films are for a “lower-class.” For the popular imagination, the lower-stall suggests not only an economically lower-class audience but also a “no-class” or “lowbrow-taste” as well.

The mainstream film industry in India also makes sex-based films, but popular discourse degrades the ultra-low-budget, star-less, sex-based films as sleaze, XXX, adult, soft porn, B, C, and Z grade. The social reputation of sex-films and of the people—producers, distributors, theater owners, and audience—associated with these productions motivates me to name my object of study the “sleaze-film.” Embracing an already “normalized” term—sleaze—my research exposes the construction of low-class status for those associated with the exhibition, audience, distribution, and production of these films. However, in this essay, the first task at hand is to recognize, categorize, and demarcate a cultural industry that is rampant in the scale of its circulation, and yet is completely marginalized by the popular media and by scholarly studies of Indian cinema.

In an attempt to enlarge the perimeter of global film-studies and of “clean” histories of national cinemas, I will focus on the “sleaze” film and its relationship to the commercially dominant mainstream cinema of India. In the wake of cultural studies, some outstanding scholarship on Indian cinema has examined film as a political and cultural document. Of primary interest have been issues of national identity, post-colonialism, gender, censorship, the interplay of tradition and modernization, and the “uniqueness” of Indian cinema. These scholarly approaches have often focused either on the “art” or the “culture” of Indian cinema. The products of Indian cinema have been generalized and categorized by scholars in three broad categories: Popular cinema (Bollywood), Art cinema (New Indian cinema), and somewhere in between (Middle cinema). Regional film industries have also been discussed using similar paradigms. These categories can be seen as constituting the mainstream of scholarship on Indian Cinema, thereby locating Sleaze as the other that is pushed aside to live on the margins of legitimate film culture. But the sheer size of the output of the Indian sleaze-film industry demands that the definition of Indian film culture be broadened. My research seeks to explore the sleaze-film industry in order to better understand the role of cinema in the everyday life of India, and more precisely, in the life of Indians who live in the interiors of the country, in smaller towns, and on the margins of the big cities. In an Indian context, this study on the sleaze industry raises questions and provides starting points to alternative ways of looking at the theories and issues of spectatorship, cinema of attraction/ narration, visual pleasure, public and private space, censorship, authorship, and art/aesthetics. Using ethnographic and reception studies approaches, I researched the sleaze-film industry while spending two summers in India. I interviewed a number of theater owners, distributors, and filmgoers. I studied the publicity used in local film venues and participated in a number of screenings in the theaters where these films are played. I also carried out research in the National Film Archive of India (NFAI) in Pune which gave access to the trade magazines, one of the few available sources for information on sleaze-films and the sleaze-film industry. For NFAI, these films are “aesthetically trash” and therefore beyond any artistic or social significance. For the press, they are “commercially trash” created by insignificant producing agents while sporting insufficient production values.

But in contrast to this dismissal of sleaze-films as merely trash, whether from an aesthetic or commercial perspective, I will map out five contexts in which the sleaze-sex film industry stands as a culturally and socially powerful alternative to the mainstream film industry in India: theaters, audiences, publicity, distribution, and films. It is important to highlight a key feature of the sleaze-sex film industry in India: pornography is illegal. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), a state run regulatory body, censors and certifies the films that can be exhibited in India. The CBFC do not have any separate guidelines or even a category for sex films. It considers all films under the broad certifications of U (theme and treatment suitable for family viewing including children), UA (whether any child below the age of twelve may be allowed to see the film should be considered by the parents), and A (thematically or treatment wise the film will be adult oriented; it is illegal to take children to adult movies). The sleaze films advertise the forbidden spectacle of sex to the spectators, yet the actual depiction of sex is to be no more found in Sleaze films than in mainstream films. However, the CBFC laws are flouted in innumerous cases and pornographic “bits” find space in the sleaze-sex films. I will discuss these naughty bits later; for now, let us go to the theaters.

I. Theaters as “Brothels”

Sleaze films are played in special theaters: dilapidated, partially ruined exhibition spaces. Seats are “wooden” and broken, restrooms are unsanitary, and projection facilities are so poor that even a “quality” print can end up looking bad. The working staff is small. In many cases a single individual, a man of many skills, multi-tasks as both manager and gatekeeper. Intermission refreshments are often unhygienic. The pervasiveness of the sleaze film industry is such that almost every city and town that has cinema theaters in India has at least one theater that specifically caters to sleaze films. Such theaters have the reputation of “brothels” in a society that despises the prostitute-films and also despises the men who visit these “cheap” places to quench their “lust.” These brothel-theaters are usually located near areas of “floating” (transitory and mobile) populations such as bus stands and railway stations. Some examples are Ritz in Delhi, Alankar and Maya Palace in Muzaffarnagar, and Jagat in Meerut. This practice is analogous to the fact that many prostitution centers in India are around the areas of floating populations.

“Thirsty Youth” playing at the Ritz theater near the Interstate Bus Station, New Delhi, Summer 2005.

Pendakur sketches the distributors’ classification of theaters based on their marketability:

Distributors in India classify theaters based on their location and grossing capacity. Generally speaking, big cities such as Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, Bangalore, Madras, and Hyderabad are classified “A” centers; medium-sized cities with populations over 100,000 are “B” centers, and small towns are “C” centers.

Pendakur further explains, “Within a metropolitan center, theaters that are located on the fringes of the city do not get treated as A centers.” This classification provides a pretext for the terms “B and C grade” used synonymously for the sleaze films because these films are only circulated in the B and C centers. Noteworthy is that India has about 12000 theaters (approximately 9000 permanent and 3000 itinerant), and the big budget Bollywood films each releases around 300-500 prints with an eye to the A centers. B and C centers have to wait for months before they can have a mainstream release, and by that time, under rampant piracy, the mainstream films lose most of their appeal with audiences outside of the big cities. In small towns, besides the run down condition of the theaters and the effects of piracy on demand, cultural conditions and more “traditional” gender roles keep many women and families away even from theaters that play mainstream “family films.” Every center, even big cities, has theaters (like Ritz and the Moti in Delhi, and the Naaz in Bombay) that do not have the financial resources to purchase mainstream films. Hence, such theaters have to survive on “other” films: primarily sleaze films, and secondarily, old films (sometimes with original titles changed to give these recycled films a new life). Also, theaters that have a poor grossing capacity are always in danger of falling into the sleaze category. In recent years, many theaters have lost their high-class status and have de facto become part of the sleaze industry. In 1994, Alankar theater in Muzaffarnagar (a small town about 120 Kilometers from Delhi) played Hum Aapke Hai Kaun..! (Who am I to you..!, Sooraj Barjatya 1994) for a record-breaking run. It was one of the topgrossing “family films” in the nineties, and families in Muzaffarnagar thronged Alankar to watch it. In 2005, the same theater had “fallen” into playing sleaze for a men-only audience with lower prices than it was charging in 1994. Different social groups experienced Alankar differently, and it has changed over a period of time, exemplifying Jancovich, Fair, and Stubbings’ argument:

Places cannot be seen to have single, unitary identities. They are inevitably composed of internal conflicts and contradictions, and hence there are competing meanings and definitions of any place as different social groups struggle over it. In other words, any place will be experienced differently by different social groups and will inevitably change over time.

Noteworthy is that the identity of the sleaze theaters defines a unique identity while providing a sleazier patina to “art/auteur” films such as Bandit Queen (Shekhar Kapur 1994), Fire (Deepa Mehta 1996), and Kamasutra—A Tale of Love (Mira Nair 1996), and also to the mainstream-sex films such as Masti (Fun, Indra Kumar 2004), Murder (Anurag Basu 2004), and Hawas (Lust, Karan Razdan 2004).

Furthermore, Hindu fundamentalists and high-morality religious groups have often struggled over theatrical spaces. One example is Mathura city, located approximately 50 kilometers north of Agra, and south of Delhi. Mathura is the reputed birthplace of Lord Krishna, hence an important center for the Hindu fundamentalists. There are no theaters in Mathura that can play the sex-based films. Whenever it has been tried the fundamentalist groups have created havoc and disturbed the “order” of the city. The local district magistrate has sent letters to theater owners warning them against playing the sex films in the city of God.

Sleaze-exhibition practices break with mainstream-exhibition practices in several ways. In big cities like Delhi, mainstream films cost 50-70 Indian National Rupees INR), while in sleaze-theaters tickets range between 20-40 INR. In smaller centers, mainstream films cost around 20-50 INR, while sleaze-theaters entertain at 10-30 INR. Smaller towns, lower-stalls, and sleaze films are “cheaper.” The price for sleaze films also complements the length of these films (about 60-120 min. in comparison to the 160 min. running time of most Bollywood films). Usually, single screen mainstream theaters play four shows a day, roughly at 12 noon, 3 pm, 6 pm, and 9 pm. The shorter length of sleaze-films allows sleaze theaters to run more than four shows daily. Also, some mainstream theaters program sleaze films to run during morning shows (10 am-12 noon).

After noon, “regular” films play through the day and into the evening. In northern India (and some other parts of India as well), mainstream theaters that are not-yet-ready to give up their mainstream status, have once a day “separate-shows” for sleaze-films so as to make extra cash. The practice of “separate-shows” is an important feature of sleaze-film exhibition, and it reveals the changing identity of screening spaces at different times on the same day.

There is a string of cinema halls in Kerala (as could be the case elsewhere), which mostly or at times only shows these kinds of films. An instance is of a cinema hall called Crown in Calicut where to be seen during the 12 noon and 2 pm shows was considered to be a shame and to be seen during 4 pm, 6 pm and 9 pm shows was a matter of pride. This was because it was understood that sleazy soft porn is shown in Crown for the two early shows and that the Hollywood classics were shown for the evening shows. (Ratheesh Radhakrishnan)

Sleaze-shows are fluid, as the pornographic “bits” might, or might not, be added. A sleaze film can become a different film in the next show, or on a different day, depending on what can be shown based on the “local-conditions.” The audience might leave the theater dissatisfied and exploited. They say, “kuch bhi nahi tha yar (There was nothing in it).” But on getting “some good stuff ” the expression might change to, “bees rupye main aur kya loge, ab to aur jo bhi mile vo bonus hai (What more do you want for twenty rupees, whatever comes next will be a bonus).” The censorship violation of adding “bits” thrives in the B and C centers, “According to the [censor] board’s statistics for last year, all but two of the 57 recorded incidents of contravention took place in small communities” (BBC News, 8 February 2001). Regulating agencies receive complaints, raid the theaters, and do on-the-spot checks. “Sources” inform the exhibitors prior to the raids, but at times theater licenses are suspended and film prints are seized. On being questioned about pornographic “bits,” exhibitors blame distributors who blame producers who return the blame back to distributors and exhibitors. However, the local authorities get their “share” and business runs smoothly barring a few complicating incidents here and there.

Due to rampant piracy, audiences with lesser disposable income, and the rarity of audiences composed of women and families, B and C center exhibitors find it more rational to keep their theaters in poor shape and to screen sleaze films. For these second and third run theater owners, renovating a theater space and buying a new projection system in order to screen mainstream films is not a good business decision. The worn-out condition of sleaze theaters, poor audio-visual projection systems, broken wooden seats, slow fans, and stinking unsanitary restrooms legitimate the classification of these public-theaters as being that of the “lower-stall.”

II. A Low-class “Uncivilized” Men-only Audience

Gender, class status, and the expectations and behaviors of the sleaze film audience demarcate it from the mainstream audience. Social conditions segregate the sleaze theater spaces by gender: only men attend theaters that play sleaze-films. The social “image” of Indian women is reproduced via Indian popular cinema in dichotomies. One image is of the mainstream woman: a desexualized mother, a sister/daughter, a domestic wife; the Sita/Sati/Savitri. The “other” image is of a sexualized courtesan: a prostitute, a vamp, and a modern/bad girl. The brothel-theaters are not safe places for mainstream woman, and by “nature,” if a woman is seen in these spaces she is labeled as the “other-prostitute” (also true for the actresses on the screen). These spaces are not safe for women; hence, they are not family spaces. Even for men, telling the family about watching a sex-film is not the norm. Further, the men want to make sure that no close relative sees them in and around the sleaze-theaters. To watch sleaze-sex films, they make trivial excuses such as “time-pass” and “sex-education.”

A poster in the lobby of the Heera theater in Agra.

About 75% of the Indian population lives in rural areas; the B and C centers of film exhibition provide access to cinema for this audience. For the purposes of this essay, class is not defined from a Marxist (ownership based), Weberian (skill, education, race based), or any other unified sociological description. Instead it is important that this audience be understood to derive its low-class status from certain parameters within the popular imagination about this audience: rural dweller, less income, less education, non-intellectual, traditional lifestyle, and employed as laborers or menial workers. The majority of the actual sleaze film audience consists of poorly paid workers, and boys who attend school and college. But there are also variations of this demographic that do not fit within popular conceptions, therefore it is critical that one acknowledge that the “sleaze” audience is composed of men from every religion, class, caste, and community.

However, the majority of the sleaze audience lacks the economic capacity to have access to domestic private space. Of course, porn films and clips are available on videotapes, DVDs, and the Internet, but social groups with limited disposable income live in small houses with joint families. Sleaze films are seen as a way of gaining access to a private space via a public space. Thus, while many audience members are able to purchase “porn-in-the-home” they lack a private space and the private time in a private space in which to consume sex oriented media. “Sex-theaters” become an easier and cheaper venue for creating an acceptable “private” space for the consumption of illicit media.

Parallels can be drawn between the Indian sleaze-audience and the early cinema audience (of which much has been written in the last two decades). Like early cinema audiences, organized as they were around the performative aesthetic of Vaudeville and other popular entertainments, sleaze-audiences are more vocal—talking, hooting, and groaning—than the “cultured” audiences of the “upper-stall” mainstream Indian cinema.

They get increasingly restless if they must wait for sexual spectacle to appear. They grow increasingly boisterous and sometimes even break seats so that their “needs” are made clear to the projectionist-exhibitionist. In a few cases, the theater manager has to stop the show for long intervals, or even completely, until the audience calms down. More than a narrative, the sleaze audience is looking for “attractions”—a sexual spectacle (in the case of the addition of pornographic “bits”). These men of the lower-stall often ridicule a film if it attempts to impart a moral lesson; they just wait for the “scene.”

III. Local Publicity

Publicity for a mainstream film is included in the film’s budget. With the help of the spicy elements of Indian popular cinema—stars, music, thrills, actions, spectacles, plot—mainstream producers extensively uses media to publicize their films. Publicity campaigns are centralized and include press articles, star promotions, and interviews with cast and crew. The music, song, and dance sequences of mainstream films and trailers play on TV for months. On the other hand, publicity for sleaze films is a responsibility of the distributors, and in many cases, the theater owners. Owing both to budgetary constraints and to legal/moral problems, sleaze film producers cannot afford lavish publicity. The only market power for their publicity is the “promise of porn.”

I wouldn’t agree with the fact that we only show sex, in my view the mainline cinema shows more sex compared to what we do, but I will agree that we do show obscenity when it comes to publicity of our films. (Harinam Singh, a Sleaze film producer qtd. by Bhatt)

With no centralized campaign, no identifiable stars, and little money for publicity, the sleaze-film industry has developed unique advertising practices in order to distinguish their product from that of the mainstream film industry. The publicity of a sleaze film is local and concentrates only in the town where it is playing and mostly in the area around sleaze-theaters. Publicity mainly depends on wall posters and the enticing “self-explanatory” titles of the sleaze-films themselves. Some “promising” titles from recent films are: Youth is Fun, Dangerous Desire, Market of Love, Lust and Desire, Open Door, Behind the Blouse, My Wife’s Husband, Businessman of Beauties, Night Queen, Lust, Desirous Woman, Beauty in Your Hands, Seven Virgin Girls, Rented Wife, All that I Have is Yours, Colorful Body, Thirsty Woman, and Let Beauty Remain Veiled. A Sleaze title can also suggest the secondary theme of the sleaze-sex films: horror—Thirsty Vamp, Midnight Devil, Ghost House, Murderer Vamp, Virgin Vamp; incestuous undertones—Wife Lame Sister-in-Law Game, Sister-in-Law in the House Means Revelry; Kamasutra or sex-education—Kamadev (God of Sex), Kama-Kariya (Sex-Performance), Kamasutra, French Kamasutra, Korean Kamasutra, Body and Kamasutra. Street walls close to the sleaze-theaters display the “suggestive” posters. A sleaze film lacks stars and popular music but it does not lack the identification provided by the genre of “sex cinema.” The fact that these films play in special theaters also works hand-in-hand with local publicity, as men know where to go to view sleaze-films. In some cases, one or two small-classified type advertisements can also serve as advertising in local newspapers.

Consequently, like sleaze films, the publicity for sleaze films perturbs morality-activists. Display of “vulgar” posters is a legal offence.

A member of the CBFC admitted that some of the distributors in association with the exhibitors and producers sometimes prepared separate posters on their own, circumventing all checks to meet their commercial ends. (Kappan)

An example of a title-poster on a street wall in Meerut: “When night tortures, then I think of…Juicy Lover. Onlyfor Adults.”

“Obscene/Indecent” posters and titles have been a problem for the CBFC as well as for the upholders of morality. The CBFC guidelines regarding “obscenity/indecency” also apply to the titles of films. “The Cinematograph Act does not directly cover obscene posters and these come under the common law of the land relating to obscenity, particularly section 292 of the Indian Penal Code” (CBFC). Often posters for sleaze films have been torn apart and burnt by local high-moral religious groups.

To avoid legal and moral problems, another publicity strategy unique to the sleaze films is the use of “written-text” in place of “visual-images” in posters. Title-posters with one-liners and no graphics have become a kind of unique symbol, a logo so as to recognize sleaze films. While text based advertising helps to avoid problems with the authorities, it also saves costs on printing and differentiates sleaze-film marketing from that of the mainstream by relying on a fantasy conjured by the viewer that what cannot be graphically displayed on the streets, because of its “nature,” might be available for display in the darkened movie theater. The “Adults Only” (A) tag is also promoted on sleaze-film posters in contrast to those of mainstream films which hope to attract a family audience. Lines like “finally censored” also helps sleaze publicity to arouse the interest of their intended audience.

Altering original titles for re-release is also a practice associated with sleaze-sex films (and also with the old Hindi films). The CBFC states that, “After certification, normally a title cannot be changed unless the Regional Officer is satisfied that there is a genuine reason for change of title. Even here, titles cannot be changed for a film which has already been released in a theater.” Under these CBFC restrictions, in some cases, the title is legally not changed, but the film is publicized in a way that the new and more arousing title takes the center place in the posters, while the original certified title is left out in the margins.

Once inside a sleaze theater, the stills, posters, and trailers of upcoming films are important publicity tools. Men “gaze” through glass-windows at the inviting posters pasted in the lobby of sleaze-theaters. The trailer of an upcoming film works as a dual-publicity campaign. It not only promotes the upcoming film, but also becomes an important part of the overall show, of the overall attraction provided in a particular screening. Most trailers are explicit in their pornographic content and usually more explicit than the actual content in the films. “We do not know what an actual film might have but the trailer shows all. Do not miss the trailer, we can talk later,” a theater manager/gatekeeper told me. The audience makes sure to watch the trailers. Contrary to the trailers of mainstream films, showing the “main-content” is the key. The “promise of more skin” brings the audience back to the theater. Trailers also require the censor certificate, which is often ignored leading to a violation.

IV. Small Distribution. Any Origin. Any Time.

Like producers and exhibitors, distributors of sleaze films are small operators who do not have ostentatious establishments. The distribution of sleaze films takes place primarily in two ways: exhibitors go to distributors or distributors go to exhibitors. In the first case, in lower-revenue centers, exhibitors send their agents to procure films who visit many distributors during one trip to the “distribution market” to make the best deal.

Film distribution in India is largely disorganized. Most operations are “father-son” shops with skeletal staff. Each circuit [mainly 11 circuits] has one major market in one major city, in which most of the activity is concentrated – Lamington road in Mumbai, Chandni Chowk in Delhi, and Mandi road in Jalandhar. This is to facilitate easy interaction between distributor and exhibitors, especially those from other towns, who can visit many distributors during one trip to the “market.” Other ancillary services such as poster printers and cinema equipment suppliers also tend to function from this one locality. (Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema)

A worker ready with prints and posters in the Chandni Chowk film distributor’s bazaar in Delhi.

Usually the “deal” in case of sleaze films is made on “minimum guarantee” or “fixed hire,” though exhibitors often demand “theater hire” or at least a “theater protection.” In a minimum guarantee arrangement, an exhibitor guarantees a distributor a minimum amount, but if the collection exceeds a pre-decided figure, the two share the additional box-office revenue. In fixed hire, an exhibitor pays a specified amount to a distributor for a fixed number of days of booking, usually a week, irrespective of box-office revenues.

In the second kind of distribution practice, in some relatively higher-revenue-centers, the distributors send their agents to a sleaze-exhibitor and the “deal” is usually made on minimum guarantee. Distributors send a representative, a middleman, or an agent who hangs around the theater while a sleaze film is screened. This helps the distributor in two ways. One, the distributor is roughly aware of the box-office revenue so that the exhibitor can not make an “extra-cut” (Tax evasion is rampant in small towns. Exhibitors underreport actual tickets sold, and the number of shows per day. They make the “extra-cut” from the government, and also from the distributors). Second, if there is any “small legal problem” with local authorities, the middleman can outwit (bribe) them, and inform the distributor to “get ready.”

A distributor who buys sleaze films usually removes the producer from the picture, once and for all, by buying a film through “outright sale” for “life time rights.” The distributor pays a one-time amount to the producer and does not have to share any box-office collection with the producer. As sleaze films do not have a good video market, the distributor tries to make the most out of theatrical exhibition. Bad quality and worn-down prints do not deter distributors or exhibitors of sleaze films. In contrast to mainstream distribution, distributors of sleaze films release relatively few prints at any given time, and the same prints cycle throughout the country. For the mainstream industry, the reason for having a larger number of prints is to fight piracy and to get the maximum benefit out of centralized publicity campaign during a first release. But sleaze films do not face problems like piracy and centralized publicity. Sleaze films remain in release for several years. The norm is to get the maximum out of every print cost, and use the print until it tears apart.

Sleaze films are also distributed over and over again with alternative titles. Any specific film-text in itself does not hold much importance. No matter how “good” a sleaze film is, in most cases, it is taken out of the theaters in a week. In a few cases, sleaze films are removed from theaters after playing two or three days, which is rare for mainstream films. Sleaze-audiences do not choose any specific film in advance, they just go to the sleaze-theater; the “content” these men are looking for is the same.

Sleaze-distributors pick films of any origin: foreign, Hindi, or south Indian. It is only necessary that a film should have the “required elements.” Hollywood films and foreign films have never been able to compete with Bollywood, but in the case of sleaze films, foreign films/bodies are in more demand, and do better business. Like their place of origin, the oldness of sleaze films does not deter distributors as long as sexual images are promised. In June 2005, the Naaz theater in Bombay was playing Felicity (John D. Lamond 1980), made in Australia and dubbed in Hindi as Kaliyon Ka Chaman (Young Girls Bodies).

V. Low-Budget Sex

The promise of sexual depiction is at the core of the appeal of sleaze films. The primary subject is sex, a subject forbidden in public places in India. Public display of sexuality is against the law and the morality of India. In a recent example, “An Israeli couple was fined 1,000 rupees ($23) after an Indian court found them guilty of obscenity for kissing during their marriage ceremony in a Hindu pilgrim town.” On the other hand, the Indian film industry has applauded, and made full use of the recent “liberal” attitude of the CBFC in allowing on-screen kissing. Sleaze films make spectacle of a taboo subject—sex—to draw attention and an audience. The plots and narratives are structured so as to display women’s bodies for the sexual gratification of the male-only-audience.

However, mainstream films imply sexual content through the sublimation of sex through “romance,” and, in song-and-dance sequences that stand for sexual intercourse in the language of Indian cinema. Also, mainstream films have always dealt with sexual subjects in oblique fashion, and sometimes in the sex-as-central-theme films. There

has been a recent urge in mainstream cinema to cater to the sexual interests of the Indian audience with sex-as-unique-selling-point films like Ek Choti Si Love Story (A Small Love Story, Shashilal Nair, 2002), Jism (Body, Amit Saxena, 2003), Murder (Anurag Basu, 2004), Khwaish (Desire, Govind Menon, 2003), and Hawas (Lust, Karan Razdan, 2004). The reputation of mainstream-sex films as less sleazy than sleaze-sex films derives from the comparatively higher production values and better-known faces (cast and crew) attached to mainstream films in general. However, some mainstream-sex films eventually take on a life as a lower-stall, sleaze-sex film when advertised around and exhibited in “sex-theaters.” Different circulation practices, and different physical spaces of exhibition, impart a different life and reputation to a given film.

Art Versus Porn—Mainstream Versus Sleaze

Pornography is illegal in India. The CBFC guidelines disapprove of:

Visuals/words that offend human sensibilities by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity; such dual meaning words that obviously cater to baser instincts; scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner; scenes involving sexual violence against women like attempt to rape, rape or any form of molestation or scenes of a similar nature; and scenes showing sexual perversions.

However, “if any such incidence is germane to the theme, they shall be reduced to the minimum and no details are shown” (Italics mine, CBFC). Details such as exposed breasts, buttocks, and genitals cannot pass through the CBFC, a state run regulatory body that officially decides what can be seen on the silver-screen in India. Bose states that the CBFC, in 1993, made some additions in the guidelines in an attempt to clear the confusion between “art and pornography” (143). To give an idea of the extent to which sexual explicitness is disallowed by the CBFC, a few memorable additions to the objectionable-visual are:

Selectively exposing a woman’s anatomy; double meaning dialogues referring to a woman’s anatomy; simulation of sexual movements; man and woman in close proximity to each other, or one over the other, and making below-the-waist jerks suggesting copulation; pelvic jerks, breast swinging, hip jerks, man and woman mounting each other, rolling together, rubbing a woman’s body from breast to thighs, hitting/rubbing man with breasts, sitting on each others thighs and waist with entwined legs, lifting and peeping into a woman’s skirt, squeezing woman’s navel and waist; vulgar kissing on breasts, navel, buttocks, and upper parts of thighs; and women being disrobed. (Derek Bose 143-144)

What is not approved by the CBFC is illegal for public, and also private, exhibition. Thus, a film—sleaze or mainstream—is only certified if it does not include “such details.” However, under the same guidelines different levels of “vulgarities-and-obscenities” have been passed by the CBFC.

If the sleaze films do not violate the CBFC laws, they are not necessarily any more explicit in featuring nudity, and in sexual connotations, than the films of the mainstream industry, as the censor guidelines are the same for all films exhibited in India. Mishra quotes, “Sex as violation of moral order is always the text, without the possibility of that violation there is no melodramatically rendered pleasurable scandal and no Bombay cinema”. Here he refers to a scandal of the film’s diegesis, yet his quotation befittingly explains that sex, and its most sublime form, romance, has always been at the heart of Bollywood cinema. “Symbolically,” and “in-veil,” everything is tried and tested: skimpier-wetter clothes, bad girls (courtesans, vamps, bar girls), bathing sequences, modeling sequences, “lovemaking” under-the-sheets and over-the-clothes, rape sequences, song and dance sequences, and behind-the-bush sequences. In terms of style, sleaze films extensively borrow from Bollywood. “Mise-en-scene” is quite similar: women’s bodies are framed, revealed, and exhibited in a similar manner to that of Bollywood. Superficially, the Indian made sleaze films give an impression of a poor-man’s Bollywood. A sleaze film differs from a mainstream film in that a sleaze film structures and organizes the story and its several plots to offer “attractions” that make a spectacle of “less-classier” girls and “aunts” (as they are called in the case of south Indian cinema) while featuring partial nudity and suggesting sexual activity with more frequency and in cheaper settings. For these factors along with the aforementioned modes of circulation and exhibition, the mainstream industry, media, and society at large, slaps these films with the pejorative title “sleaze.” Both types of films have to pass through the CBFC certification process. Sexual depiction becomes more explicit in sleaze films only when “violations” occur.

Interpolation: The Possibility of Violation

After a film is certified, there are a number of ways the Cinematograph Acts, under which the CBFC guidelines were formulated, can be violated. Exhibition of a film in a form other than the one in which it was certified is a major violation, and according to the CBFC these violations “agitate” the mind of the public. The CBFC is aware of the rampancy of such violations and defines them as Interpolations:

(i) Re-insertion in prints of a film for exhibition those portions which were deleted by the Board before certification of the film.

(ii) Insertion in prints of a film, portions which were never shown to the Board for certification.

(iii) Exhibition of ‘bits’ unconnected with the certified film.

Other possible violations are:

(iv) Exhibition of a film which was refused a certificate (or ‘banned’ in

common parlance).

(v) Exhibition of uncensored films with forged certificates of other films.

(vi) Exhibition of films without censor certificates.

Any of these violations are cognizable offences, and non-bailable.

The CBFC and the local authorities have always taken measures to prevent violations. Yet, sleaze-sex films continue to violate these proscriptions: pornographic “bits” find space in sleaze-sex films. Violations and the possibility of violation circumscribe the sleaze industry, and in a large part differentiate it from the mainstream film industry. Sleaze film becomes a separate category just by the act of becoming a site of possible violation of laws, of morality, of a uniform social structure, and a homogenous film industry. The mainstream cannot violate; it must remain mainstream and in “good-taste.” Regulating and categorizing the sleaze film industry—whose inclination to include sexual content in its films represents for many a stain on society—has, therefore, always been a problem for the CBFC.

An"other" Category of Certification?

The CBFC recognizes this “other” category of film, and in 2002, made vocal the need for separate guidelines to regulate violations associated with the sleaze film industry. The late Vijay Anand, then CBFC Chief, proposed a double-X certificate for “vulgar-films” to differentiate them from other “Adults Only” (A) certified films. He also proposed that different—more liberal—guidelines should be applied to sex-films, and that they should be allowed to play legally in “specific-theaters” (which have a history of screening this type of film). He was trying to take a progressive step to legitimize activities associated with the sleaze-industry and to avoid problems like interpolations and violations associated with the addition of uncertified “bits” in the sleaze-sex films. When asked about “other” possible forms of certification besides the A, U/A, and U certifications, he replied:

Ideally there should be something like a double X for certain films, which in my opinion, aren’t fit for public viewing at all. I would also ask the government to double the taxation on such films. I’m in no position to stop vulgar films from being made but at least I can make sure that not too many people see them. I personally don’t think vulgar flicks have a major market.
(Italics mine, Filmfare, December 2000)

It is noteworthy that Vijay Anand easily categorizes these films as vulgar and not fit for public viewing, much as they are in popular sentiment. Ironically, Vijay Anand, the man looked upon as doing favor to the “porn” film industry, himself brands these films as low-class and sleazy. Also, he believes that they do not have a major market, revealing that “vulgarity” in a low class market, with lower stakes than that of the mainstream film market, is not of much concern to him. Sleaze shall be allowed to live with the sleaze audience. The B and C centers, and their audience, are not major—and are therefore unimportant —for the Indian film industry, for the mainstream media, and for the administrators who hold the right to decide what should/should not reach theaters in India. In June 2002, Vijay Anand made the aforementioned suggestions to the Indian government. He was refused even a discussion on these and other recommendations. He not only recommended the legitimation of the “sex theaters and films,” but he had also initiated a thorough reappraisal of the Cinematograph Act by creating a “document of recommendations” that reportedly included a comparative analysis of film censorship rules in twelve countries. In protest of not being offered even an “internal” discussion, he resigned in July 2002.

Categorizing sleaze films through CBFC certification is problematic. Sleaze films are usually certified “Adults Only” (A). But a number of mainstream films, with or without any sexual content, earn an “A” certificate from the CBFC. And as discussed earlier, categorizing sleaze films as “sexual texts” per se is also problematic, because, if pornographic “bits” are not added after the censor certification, the differences between mainstream and sleaze film representations of sex are blurred at best. Violations of CBFC laws have been central to definitions of the sleaze-sex cinema, and in a large way distinguish it from the mainstream cinema, yet pornographic “bits” are only a possibility, and in numerous cases, no violations actually take place. However, the sleaze film industry stands strong, and has other ways to differentiate itself from the mainstream industry. Sleaze film finds its visibility, and strengthens its “otherness” through its form of circulation. It gets branded “sleaze” and “lower-stall” by the mainstream industry and popular media and, therefore, differentiates itself through this very branding: the low-class reputation, the stories and attractions constructed around low-budget sex, the publicity promising “erotica/porn,” the unique practices of exhibition and distribution, and the niche of an all-male audience. All of these attributes serve to brand and to market the sleaze film industry.

Conclusion

In this essay, I have set forward some of the ways in which the sleaze film industry gets categorized by official regulatory bodies and is differentiated from the mainstream film industry in India. This examination helps to expose the construction of a low-class status for sleaze films in production, distribution, exhibition, and reception. Sleaze films bring social disrepute to everyone associated with these films—filmmakers, cast and crew, distributors, exhibitors, audiences, and even common passerbys, flaneurs of a sort, who, “by-chance,” glance at “obscene” posters on a wall—while also bringing monetary and personal rewards to all who partake of this illicit industry. The motive behind genrelizing and defining this industry as a lower-stall sleaze-sex film industry is to recognize in it a category which thrives in spite of “good taste,” morality, and the censors: the tainted, stained, sexual “other” of mainstream Indian cinema. It is important that we discuss sleaze film on its own terms and not simply as the shadow of the mainstream.

Works Cited

Bhatt, Apurva. “The Other Side of Bollywood.” The Times of India. 7 Jul 2000.

Bose, Derek. Bollywood Uncensored. New Delhi: Rupa and Co., 2005.

BBC News. “India’s Censors Hire Film Sleuths.” 8 Feb 2001 and 20 Nov 2005.

Center for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore. Media and Culture Archive.

Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). 20 Nov 2005. .

Dissanayake, Wimal, and Gokulsing, K. Moti. Indian Popular Cinema: A Narrative of

Cultural Change. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1998.

Filmfare. .

Gulzar, and Nihalani, Govind, and Chatterjee, Saibal. Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema.

New Delhi: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2003.

India Today. .

Jancovich, Mark, and Faire, Lucy, and Stubbings, Sarah. The Place of the Audience.

London: British Film Institute, 2003.

Kappan, Rasheed. “Obscene Film Posters Dot Bangalore City Walls.” The Times of

India. 17 Jun 1995.

Kohli, Vanita. The Indian Media Business. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.

Mehta, Monika. Selections: Cutting, Classifying and Certifying in Bombay Cinema.

Thesis, UMI Publication, 2001.

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. .

Mishra, Vijay. Bollywood Cinema: Temples of Desire. New York: Routledge, 2002.

National Film and Development Corporation (NFDC). .

National Film Archive of India. .

Pendakur, Manjunath. Indian Popular Cinema: Industry, Ideology, and Consciousness.

Cresskill, N.J: Hampton Press, 2003.
Radhakrishnan, Ratheesh. “Soft Porn and The Anxieties of The Family: The Gendering
of the Imagined Addressee of Malyalam Cinema.” Unpublished essay, 2005.

Screen. .

Swami, Praveen. “Furor Over a Film.” Frontline. 19 Dec 1998.

The Hindu. .

The Hindustan Times. .

The Indian Express. .

The Times of India. .

Wallia, Kaajal, and Shedde, Meenakshi. “Vijay Anand Does Porn Films a Favour.” The

New Indian Express. 26 Jul 2002.