Amitabh Bachchan… Godfather of Bollywood!

Bollywood’s biggest celebrity Amitabh Bachchan has always been affiliated to some social cause or the other through out his career. The appeal of brand Amitabh Bachchan is every brand manager’s deepest envy - and the thing to aspire for.
The pull of brand Amitabh Bachchan is why most brand marketers keep signing him on as an endorser in the hope that his presence would have a positive rub-off on their respective brands or a cause. The simple message is that brand Amitabh Bachchan sells. Amitabh Bachchan has been able to generate not only awareness about the cause he supports, but has also managed to show a drastic difference among the audience’s psyche.
The Times of India recently launched a promotional campaign in which they consider that the year 2007 is ‘The Year of India’. This promotional advertisement which is a six week long campaign called 'India Poised' chose Amitabh Bachchan, as he was voted as the 'Indian of the Year' in 2005 and again in 2006 in a Times of India poll. India Poised shows two contrasting India, one that is raring to go and the other that is holding it back. When I first saw the commercial, it is an accurate description of the actual transition that is taking place in India the new emerging country. As an Indian I was overwhelmed to see this campaign and I would recommend one and all to watch the video. The backdrop for the film is the under-construction Bandra Worli Sea-link (like San Francisco’s famous Golden Gate), the sea-link which is otherwise a restricted zone. This goes to show that a combination of celebrities and a genuine effort towards social responsibility can help make a tremendous difference to the society and the people living in this society. What do you think of the video? Do you think Amitabh Bachchan is bigger than the message?

Click here for the video: 'India Poised'

Celebrity becomes bigger than the cause…

We all know that most often when a celebrity’s name is joined to any social cause the hype always leans towards the celebrity and the cause is barely talked about. Even when a Bollywood celebrity goes out of his way to support a cause he truly believes in, it may still come across as another publicity stunt. In 2004 when the deadliest Sumatran Tsunami affected few parts of South India, young actor Vivek Oberoi stepped forward to support and rehabilitate the tsunami affected people. Instead of simply writing a cheque, or sending relief supplies, he went to the affected areas, going from house to house, handing out supplies and taking hands on approach towards the tsunami relief. However, his effort was short-lived and his sincerity towards the tsunami project was questioned, as his career wasn’t sky rocketing, most media and people thought that this was his way to gain some credibility as a socially responsible celebrity. Around the same time he was dating Bollywood’s most beautiful actress Aishwarya Rai, their relationship was on a downhill and all that the media attention was focused on them. Other irrelevant stories cropped up and Vivek Oberoi was accused of hyping up his charity work in aid of victims to gain positive publicity.
Jayalalitha, the chief minister of disaster-stricken Indian state Tamil Nadu, told the state assembly that she believes Vivek Oberoi had gained "maximum publicity" in return for only a minor contribution to the relief effort. Whether Vivek Oberoi’s efforts were sincere or not towards the tsunami affected people, the media hype around him did help India notice the impact of the tragedy and the cause received acknowledgement and aid from other Indian organizations.
It is ironic how media twists every effort of a celebrity to generate a good news article, however this whole episode was a highlighting factor in Vivek Oberoi’s career and even though the spotlight was on him the awareness about the tragedy did reach out far across India. Other celebrities that become bigger than the cause are Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan whose support for polio has apparently given the project a big boost. Why would a charity boast of a celebrity to support a cause if he is going to be in the spotlight instead of the cause? I reflect that stars add creditability to a cause and in most cases a propaganda supported by a celebrity is bound to make a difference, as of today celebrities have a bigger social responsibility and must give back the love and support that they have won from the masses by working for the cause of society. What do you think?

Celebrities for a Cause

Some of the Bollywood celebrities that have extended their support to various different causes in India are as as follows:

Amitabh Bachchan – Polio

Aamir Khan – Narmada Bachao Andolan(NBA) and Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Shah Rukh Khan – Polio

Sunil Shetty – Dyslexia











Preity Zinta – Cleanliness Drive

Waheeda Rehman – Female Infanticide

Dia Mirza – Female Infanticide

Jaya bachchan – Growing more Neem Trees

Juhi Chawla – Children who require Cochlear Implant Surgery

Urmila Matondkar – Anti-Smoking

Vivek Oberoi – Tsunami Rehabilitation and Anti-Smoking

Aishwarya Rai - Eye Donation

Abhishek Bachchan – Dyslexia

Raveena Tandon, Yana Gupta and John Abraham – People for Ethical Treatment for Animals (PETA)

Celina Jaitley – Endometriosis Awareness

Shabana Azmi – Slum Rehabilitation

Why the Scepticism?

When bollywood stars come forward to support any cause there is always a certain amount of scepticism that surrounds them. Are they doing it for the genuine reason? How are they going to benefit by supporting this cause? Is this just another public relations tactic prior to their release? So many cynical questions come to my mind, even though I am a part of the public relations industry and I should be pleased to know that there is room for celebrity PR even if it is supporting a social cause; however the scepticism of celebrities supporting a cause will always remain a contest among media and the publics.
Celebrities lead an insulated life and are involved in the dream manufacturing business rather than the grim realities, and so there is a tendency to believe that they are apathetic or ignorant and it is this stereotype that ensures they are prejudged negatively. On the other hand every celebrity uses a cause and the only way a celebrity can earn credibility is by consistently standing up for a cause or social issue particularly when the arc lights are not focused on them. However, I reflect that bollywood celebes lost creditability during the general elections in 2004 when many of them joined political parties citing their wish to serve society, but in no time vanished from the scene! In an article on 19th April 2006 Priyanka Deladia for Bombay Times interviews senior bollywood actress and social activist Shabana Azmi who says “It’s alright when celebrities support causes such as AIDS, polio, cancer etc that don’t have a political connotation. The minute a celebrity is involved in the social cause that has political ramifications, political parties rush to rubbish their stand and malign the image of society.” And on a lighter note, actor Jackie Shroff adds “You’re damned if you do, you’re damned if you don’t” in a way I do agree with Jackie Shroff that celebrities are expected to take on social responsibility, because they are in the position financially and powerfully to do so. Although when they do support various different social causes the scepticism prevails…

Does a celeb help a cause?

Many bollywood celebrities have taken up social responsibility to the next level; today they not only lend their name for a cause but are also active participants towards the cause. The debate here is that many celebrities, especially bollywood stars have often been accused of using causes for publicity.
For example, Aamir Khan an ace actor is supporting the victims of the Bhopal Gas tragedy and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) the organization is a coalition of human and environmental rights activists leading a campaign to prevent a height increase of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River, for fears it would displace a significant number of villagers in Gujarat.
However, the actor received a lot of aggravation from certain political groups and activists. The Gujarat government banned Aamir Khan’s latest release Faana not because of the content, but because of his presence in the movie, as he is supporting the NBA. The controversy arose when media speculated that he was doing this to promote his latest film Faana, while the actor continues to endorse Coca-Cola even though Coca-Cola bottling plants in India received a lot of criticism for draining water, which took away the water supply of some villages. Many in India accused Aamir Khan of joining NBA as a public relations stunt to boost Fanaa after the mediocre box-office performances of his most recent productions. Whatever the reason, Faana did receive a fair amount of hype and media coverage over its ban in Gujarat. Later after sometime when the movie released in Gujarat people were flocking even more so to watch the film, even though it was just another Bollywood love story.
Sometimes it is hard to gauge what is a PR stunt and what is not, Aamir Khan has always been a part of many social service projects even in the past, and has never used any social cause to promote any of his films. On quizzing trade analyst Taran Adarsh he says that “for some celebes, it’s a mere gimmick to generate fan following and so, business for an upcoming movie.” But he quickly adds that “someone like Aamir Khan, who usually keeps away from the lime light, wouldn’t lend his name to a cause unless he feels very strongly about it.” However in a PR driven world one may just never know… do u think famous celebrities who need no more fame would adopt a social cause as a PR stunt to promote their latest release?

Hindi Cinema with a social message for the wrong reason…

Very often when filmmakers have taken a step forward in doing something for the society their creditability has always been questioned. When few filmmakers started making meaningful cinema in past few years, the film fraternity in order to appreciate their effort introduced a new award category called the ‘Critics Award’ in the Filmfare Awards ceremony. This was bestowed upon a director, actor, and actress that made a difference to cinema as well as society through that particular movie. Henceforth whether you won the popular category award or not, the Critic Award became more prestigious. The last fifteen years has seen an immense growth in the number of films made on social issues; however media always speculated whether it was a genuine effort or just another medium to gain utmost credibility and fame. In the recent times there are a few films in bollywood such as
Black which is a story of a blind, deaf and dumb girl who is not disregarded by her parents and is trained to accomplish something in life, Swades meaning ones own country – is a story about a youth, who returns to India from America to work for development and growth of the country, Lakshya meaning a goal – is a story about a soldier in the Kargil War that took place between India and Pakistan in May and July 1999 in the Kargil district of Kashmir.
Another movie that moved me immensely was 1947: Earth , a true story directed by Deepa Mehta about the India Pakistan partition, it is an honest attempt to show the world what happened during the partition and how the Hindus and Muslims killed each other. I do believe that the some movies are genuinely made to spread awareness about certain social issues, and in India Bollywood would be the best medium to educate the uneducated. However I do reflect that the young filmmakers who attempt to make films that are socially relevant and generate a lot of buzz, is mainly to attract audiences, or sometimes for personal benefits to be noticed in the industry and to be taken seriously as a good director and off course to aspire to win the critic award. It is hard to tell when the publicity used for a social cause is genuine or not, even if a filmmaker creates a movies based on a relevant social issue for the wrong reasons at the end of the day the social message is passed on to the audience. As an audience would u watch a socially relevant film if it was over or under publicized?

Entertainment industry warned by the government on publicizing smoking in Bollywood…

In continuation to my previous blog, I read this article written by Manisha Almadi, for Delhi Times, Times of India on 18th June 2005 regarding the statutory warning from the government, to ban smoking scenes from Indian movies as well as teleserials from 21st October 2005. The Hindi film industry did not appreciate it as it would now interfere with the total look and feel of the character they wish to portray in their movies. Some of the directors raised their voice against this statutory warning laid down by the government. Mahesh Bhatt a senior and ace filmmaker refutes that “this is outrageous; it's an absurd ruling in today's age." Actor-director Rahul Bose says that “this is a very narrow-minded decision on the government's part and that the ban will curb the creative expression of filmmakers and actors.” Director Madhur Bhandarkar argues that “what's the point in banning smoking scenes in Bollywood when people can watch actors smoking in Hollywood films?” he further states that his movies Page 3 and Corporate wouldn't have been possible without showing business tycoons smoking and drinking.
Actor Aman Verma rationalizes “How can one justify the character of a chain-smoker on screen without showing cigarettes? Would Devdas an award winning movie have been possible without showing Shah Rukh Khan smoking and drinking?” he also says that “the government should mind its own business; it should look at more important issues like the country's population and economy.” However director Mahesh Bhatt does feel that the government shouldn’t have imposed the ban on the fraternity they should have communicated with the industry and come to an amicable solution, while director Ajay Sinha feels that the film industry could screen 'smoking is injurious to health' warnings before showing actors smoking. Actresses Neha Dhupia and Mandira Bedi do understand the governments ban as they sense that smoking on screen is not the right thing for an audience that is so gullible and would emulate their favourite celebrities.

Although I agree with Ajay Sinha and feel that if a character demands a certain look and smoking is a part of his mannerisms it should be carried out, however the audience must be cautioned about the ill effects of smoking. I advocate that the ill effects of smoking should be communicated to the mass audience that is likely to emulate, during the publicity of the film before and after its release.