Fashioning Bollywood

The Making and Meaning of Hindi Film Costume

Clare M. Wilkinson-Weber

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780857852977
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Design
• Subtopic: Fashion Design

The Hindi film industry, among the most prolific in the world, has delighted audiences for decades with its colourful, exquisite and sometimes startling costumes. But are costumes more than just a source of pleasure? This book, the first in-depth exploration of Hindi film costume, contends that they are a unique source of knowledge about issues ranging from Indian taste and fashion to questions of identity, gender and work. Anthropological and film studies approaches combine to analyze costume as the outcome of production processes and as a cinematic device for conveying meaning. Chapters lead from the places where costume is planned and executed to explorations of characterization, the actor body, spectacles of fashion, to the imagining of historical or fantasy worlds through dress, to the power of stardom to launch clothing styles into the public domain. As well as charting the course of film costume as it parallels important trends in cultural history, the book considers the future of Hindi film costume, in the context of new strains of filmmaking that stress unvarnished realism. Fashioning Bollywood will appeal to students and scholars of Indian culture, anthropology and fashion, as well as anyone who has seen and enjoyed Hindi films.

–1–

The People and Places of Costume Production

THE WAY TO MAKE A COSTUME

Cultural fields are vulnerable to the effects of time in that no field can be expected to remain the same, even as its products and its rationale appear consistent. The essential framework of costume production in Mumbai has remained the same for nearly one hundred years, including its institutional figures (on-set costumers, or dressmen) and local economic contingencies (the vast number and versatility of tailors in the city). But any conversation with retired personnel brings to light the changes that have occurred, offered along with ample glosses upon what caused these changes and what they mean. The impact of consumer capitalism since the 1990s on costume and on the nature of film work was clear to all by 2002. This impact could be seen both in the kinds of costumes that were being made and in the kinds of people who were taking the lead in designing them.

As striking as these recent social and cultural realignments in the film world are, other moments of change in costume design and production conventions are just as important. For example, there was the rise of the very same designers, from the 1960s onward, who now see themselves marginalized by the designers at the forefront of the industry today. In turn, the pointed (and sometimes public) generational and class antagonisms between designers can very easily obscure the adjustments and adaptations taking place in other parts of the costume field occupied by such figures as costume supply shops, tailors, and so forth. In this chapter, I introduce the principal characters whose practices and interests reverberate throughout the field. In reviewing the most significant changes in how costume is conceived of and produced, as well as the key points of contention between the chief costume “actors,” I hope to lay the groundwork for explorations of more detailed costume matters in chapters to follow.

But before going further, I want to pose the question of whether it is possible or even desirable that any aspect of film production (here, costume design) should take the same form over geographical space. In formal interviews, I would ask everybody (tailors, dressmen, designers, and so on) to describe how they did their work, as a way to open up an exchange about the many components and considerations of making costume for Hindi films. As a starting point for a concrete, detailed narrative about the elemental activities of costume design, the question could not be more straightforward; yet, designers, assistant directors for costume, and costume assistants (and no one else) almost all equivocated to some degree with statements about the idiosyncrasy of costume production in Mumbai, taking care to draw attention to its difference from American (or even perceived global) norms. Take, for example, this explanation provided for me by Amina, who has designed for many of the top male stars in the industry:

First of all, in India, I mean since you’ve met so many costume designers, the system is not like Hollywood, where a particular designer does everyone. Here the star system exists, like Salman has his own costume designer, Shah Rukh has his own costume designer. Like I work for five stars exclusively. I am their designer whenever and whichever film they work on. It’s a completely different system from Hollywood, where one designer does the entire film, whether it’s Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, anyone. Here it’s completely different, so the star will tell [the producer], in the beginning, and since I’ve been working for so many years, everyone knows, this one is his costume designer. So the producer and the director approach, the director tells you what the subject is, what he sees the star in, then he’ll give you inputs, and that’s the way it is.¹

In other instances, quibbles came later, as the narrative of “how I do my work” touched further upon the relative power of the star versus the designer in determining a star’s costume. This comment was offered by Ravi, a menswear proprietor making costume for a major superstar for more than twenty years:

It is very different from the Hollywood way. I feel, from what I’ve heard and what I’ve seen, if a costume designer [in Hollywood] is in charge, then that person is in charge, that person has to decide everything. This is what you have to wear. The person coordinates with the director also. That is what I’ve heard.

As a last example, Lovleen Bains, a designer who has worked on prestige projects for Merchant Ivory Productions, as well as both art films and commercial projects, reflected upon her preference for working solo on one film at a time before noting:

Over here it’s more between the star and the designer, and they do their own thing, and they land on the set and everyone does their own thing, and so there is no sort of coordination. But I guess maybe it’s not required also.

I generally assumed that it was my status as a white foreigner that prompted these equivocations; clearly my interviewees thought I knew all about how costume got made in the American, European, Chinese, or indeed any other film industry. In fact, at the time I did not, since I had made a point of approaching the study of costume in Mumbai with as few preconceptions as possible, precisely so I would not be tempted to measure it against a putative Western (or Hollywood) norm. That I encountered these norms just the same did not simply remind me of my own ethnographic status; these moments were occasions for my interviewees to exercise “self-othering,” or offering a distanced reflection upon practices that they otherwise took for granted.

The fact is, while costume design everywhere draws on the coordinated labors of the people conceiving, drawing, stitching, embroidering, finishing, pressing, storing, and so on, there is no invariant occupational structure that costume production in different locations demands. The arrangements one finds in any given setting arise out of the peculiar historical and social circumstances that prevail there, and any change responds to the same principles. The fact that there are a number of different organizational and conventional routes to creating costume, however, does not mean that we simply dismiss the comments of designers that allude to the Hollywood way of doing things. To claim that there is a single correct way to do things that current practice flouts is a reminder that the relationships and assemblages that bring costumes into being are suffused with conflict and anxiety, no matter that in one way or another they seem to work. Equally as significant is not making such claims at all, for as much as not doing so implies ignorance of alternative conventions, it may also signify fluency with materials and persons in the costume production network that contrasts markedly with designer expressions of frustration.

I shall return in later chapters to the question of why designers and their peers in the film hierarchy worry so much about the right way to do things, whereas tailors or dressmen do not. For now, I will refer to the American and European practice less as a yardstick than as a springboard to understand the historical and social factors that explain the industries’ divergence. In the sections to follow, I situate costume in its geographical context and then begin to chart the main shifts in the creation of the present-day costume art world via an examination of the flow of responsibilities and relationships between its various members. These are, in turn, tailors and designers; designers and dresswalas; and dressmen and assistant directors for costume/assistant costume designers. Additionally, I describe other creators of film “looks,” such as hairdressers and makeup artists (who, along with dressmen, belong to the same labor association), as well as production designers and directors, whose activities have a bearing on costume either directly or indirectly.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF COSTUME

During the shoot, costumes are worn and re-worn; duplicates are made, broken down to convey age or injury, and otherwise used up. Their initial use value is exhausted, and they move to the next phase of their existence—as part of a dresswala’s stock, as a costume in a trunk destined for reuse by a junior artist (extra), or (at the other extreme) as the personal property of a star or as a celebrity collectible. From start to finish, costumes traverse a wide range of productive and commercial spaces and move, hand to hand, body to body, among just as wide a set of workers and producers.

Costume producers can be found in distinct work and residential spaces in Mumbai. The workspaces include, obviously, film studios dotted about the suburbs (such as Filmalaya in Andheri, Filmistan in Goregaon, and Mehboob Studios in Bandra), as well as Film City to the northeast of the city, whose sheer size allows for the construction of multiple massive outdoor sets. Costume personnel must also adapt to conveying costumes to and from the many sites of location shooting, ranging from the ever-popular landmarks of the city, such as Marine Drive or the Gateway of India in South Mumbai or Juhu Beach in the Western Suburbs, to private bungalows rented out for movie shoots, to—as I have witnessed—apartment blocks under construction, juvenile prisons, vacant hotels, and many more. Increasingly, the suburbs of Dadar or Khar northward contain all that costume producers need to get their jobs done: dresswala and tailoring shops, embroidery workshops, boutiques and department stores, street markets, malls, storage units, and commercial office space. There is a laundry storefront in Vile Parle, with its washing operations located near Lokhandwala. There are godowns (warehouses) in Oshiwara for storing costumes after a film has wrapped, and hair salons all over Bandra, Versova, and Seven Bungalows. The offices of media companies fill new complexes in Goregaon and Malad.

Actors, directors, and other people in the creative ranks have been migrating for several decades from the environs of Malabar Hill, Worli, and other areas to Bandra and northward. Several generations of film people have now called Bandra home, and a drive around its winding roads takes one past house after house that once belonged to a deceased superstar. The Western Railway tracks mark a boundary of sorts between the residences of actors, producers, directors, and creative personnel on the west side, closer to the sea, and the homes of technicians and craft workers on the east side. As the northward movement of production personnel and facilities has gathered pace, ties to the craft industries of South Mumbai have been loosened. The unmatched textiles resources of Crawford Market, the diverse treasures of Chor Bazaar, and even the cheap and plentiful ready-mades of the Heera Panna shopping center in Mahalaxmi continue to lure designers and art directors. But designers active from the 1950s to 1980s sought out shoemakers, launderers, haberdashers, and cloth merchants in “town” to a far greater extent than do designers today.

A few actors, writers and even costume designers (notably film costume Oscar winner Bhanu Athaiya) doggedly remain in South Mumbai, but there are fewer of them as the years go by. For the sake of proximity and efficiency, the industry’s promotional events, such as book launches, awards shows, and fashion shows can be held in large, suburban luxury hotels, including the J. W. Marriott in Juhu, the ITC Grand Maratha Sheraton in Sahar (along with others close to the international airport), and the Taj Land’s End in Bandra. The city proper retains its cachet, of course, but reaching it becomes harder and takes longer as traffic increasingly clogs the main north–south routes. The spectacular Bandra–Worli sealink speeds drivers past the congestion of Mahim and Dadar, only to deposit them back into the traffic jams at either end. The effective remoteness of South Mumbai has benefited the suburbs, however, by compelling their residents to refocus their retail and productive energies in the areas around them. The mixed commercial and industrial landscapes of the rapidly developing areas north of Dadar have been invigorated, pulling the film industry as much as it is being pushed.

THE INVENTION OF DESIGNERS

Prior to the mid-twentieth century, costume design was the prerogative of dressmen, dresswalas, and personal tailors, all of them men. Some historical and mythological films included special credits for persons who might be expected to have specialist knowledge to bring to the venture, but otherwise there was no costume designer as such directing the production of a film’s look in the domain of clothes and accessories. The vast and complex studio costume units of Hollywood’s golden age engendered a minute division of labor that lingers on in a broadly shared consensus on what jobs are, how they are done, and who can do them (Calhoun 2008; Nielsen 1990). In Bombay, on the other hand, costume production, even at the height of the studio system, was never contained wholly within the studio walls, and jobs and seniority were never broken down into fine levels of discrimination. Heroines and heroes routinely provided clothes from their own wardrobes, stitched by the same tailors they employed to make their personal wear.

The well-rooted custom of having one’s clothes made by tailors has historically led to stars forming close attachments to their favorites, whether these were dressmakers who hired in-house tailors, menswear stores, or masters (the proprietors and head cutters) of independent shops. Before dress designers emerged as a distinct category in costume design, a tailor with several heroines as clients could command a certain degree of influence in the film industry. The same would have been true of the masters and proprietors of menswear stores with respect to heroes. Whereas female designers inserted themselves quite successfully into the relationship between heroine and master tailor, it took much longer for personal designers to be able to unbalance the conventional relationship of hero and menswear shop—in fact, the loyalties of heroes to their favored menswear stores, and the master cutters at those stores, remain unchallenged even today.

In Mumbai, many of the craft inputs to costume have always come from artisans removed from studio life, and we find no equivalent of an Adrian or Orry-Kelly or Edith Head presiding over in-house workshops for stitching, embroidering, or beading. On the contrary, according to Mohan, the oldest dressman...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 The People and Places of Costume Production
• 2 Costume and Character: Wearing and Being
• 3 Costume and the Body
• 4 Fashion and Spectacle
• 5 Dressing the Past
• 6 Beyond the Screen
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Filmography
• Index