Back in August of last year, as I emerged from a period of gripping ennui that had largely led to my blog hiatus, I eagerly went on an internet search jaunt to see what new finds might be out there, and I happened onto Hari Krishnan's just-published book, Celluloid Classicism: Early Tamil Cinema and the Making of Modern Bharatanatyam. Within the blink of an eye I had ordered it, and I have slowly been reading it in earnest.
Reading through this masterful contribution has been riveting. Every chapter is filled with one exciting piece of information after the other, populated with the names of people and films I've encountered over my years of trying to quench my thirst for knowledge of a topic that is little-researched, reclusive, and under-appreciated.
But the book is not simply a descriptive work that reveals anecdotes and tales from the past. Having dug deep into archives, film print culture, personal collections, and a few candid interviews, Hari is out to explain the significance of the information, make connections, and contribute meaningful and new ideas to the world of scholarship on Indian dance and cinema and the real people and communities involved— the book is based on his doctoral dissertation, after all!
The central arguments of his book are something I've never heard anyone even hint before about Bharatanatyam. As the back cover describes, "This book unsettles received histories of modern Bharatanatyam by arguing that cinema [...] bears heavily and irrevocably upon iterations of this 'classical' dance" and that there was a "reciprocal exchange of knowledge between screen and stage versions of Bharatanatyam in the early decades of the twentieth century." That's quite tame frankly, given that by the time one has made it to the end of the book, the "exchange" and "heavy bearing" are clearly even more significant.
Reading through this masterful contribution has been riveting. Every chapter is filled with one exciting piece of information after the other, populated with the names of people and films I've encountered over my years of trying to quench my thirst for knowledge of a topic that is little-researched, reclusive, and under-appreciated.
But the book is not simply a descriptive work that reveals anecdotes and tales from the past. Having dug deep into archives, film print culture, personal collections, and a few candid interviews, Hari is out to explain the significance of the information, make connections, and contribute meaningful and new ideas to the world of scholarship on Indian dance and cinema and the real people and communities involved— the book is based on his doctoral dissertation, after all!
The central arguments of his book are something I've never heard anyone even hint before about Bharatanatyam. As the back cover describes, "This book unsettles received histories of modern Bharatanatyam by arguing that cinema [...] bears heavily and irrevocably upon iterations of this 'classical' dance" and that there was a "reciprocal exchange of knowledge between screen and stage versions of Bharatanatyam in the early decades of the twentieth century." That's quite tame frankly, given that by the time one has made it to the end of the book, the "exchange" and "heavy bearing" are clearly even more significant.