Assignment Paper No. 205 : Power and Ideology in Popular Cinema

Power and Ideology in Popular Cinema

This blog is a part of the assignment of Paper 203: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Academic Details:

Name : Jay P. Vaghani

Roll No.        : 06

Sem. : 3

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name :Cultural Studies

Paper No. : 205A

Paper Code :  22410

Topic :Power and Ideology in Popular Cinema

Submitted To : Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Submitted Date : November 8, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1944

Characters         : 14294

Characters without spaces : 12412

Paragraphs         :78

Sentences         : 142

Reading time         :7 m 47 s

Table of Contents

Personal Information

Assignment Details

Abstract

Introduction

Theoretical Framework: Althusser, Stuart Hall, and Laura Mulvey

Cinema as Ideological Apparatus: Power, Nation, and Narrative

Spectacle and the Politics of Representation in Baahubali

Audience Reception and Resistance

Conclusion

Abstract

This paper explores how popular cinema functions as a cultural site where ideologies of power, class, gender, and nation are reproduced and challenged. Drawing upon Louis Althusser’s theory of Ideological State Apparatuses, Stuart Hall’s model of encoding and decoding, and Laura Mulvey’s notion of the “male gaze,” this study analyzes Indian popular cinema, with special reference to Baahubali (2015). The paper argues that cinema operates as a medium of ideological negotiation—while it reinforces dominant narratives of nationalism and masculinity, it also leaves room for audience reinterpretation and resistance.

Introduction

Cinema, as one of the most influential forms of mass culture, shapes public imagination by constructing social and political meanings. Cultural Studies regards cinema not merely as entertainment but as a site of ideological production. Stuart Hall defines ideology as “the framework of meaning through which we interpret the world,” while Althusser sees media as part of the Ideological State Apparatus that sustains dominant class power.

In India, popular films have long reflected and reinforced state ideologies, from Nehruvian modernism in the 1950s to the cultural nationalism of contemporary cinema. Baahubali: The Beginning (2015), directed by S. S. Rajamouli, epitomizes this blend of myth, masculinity, and national identity—presenting heroism as divine destiny and the ruler as the embodiment of moral order.

Hypothesis

This study hypothesizes that popular Indian cinema, exemplified by S. S. Rajamouli’s Baahubali, functions as an Ideological State Apparatus that naturalizes hierarchies of power, gender, and nationhood through visual spectacle and mythic narrative, while simultaneously allowing space for oppositional audience interpretations.

Research Questions

How does Baahubali function as an Ideological State Apparatus in the Althusserian sense, reinforcing dominant socio-political and cultural ideologies?

In what ways does Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding model explain the varied audience receptions and interpretations of Baahubali?

How does Laura Mulvey’s concept of the “male gaze” operate within Baahubali, particularly in its portrayal of women like Devasena and Sivagami?

How does Baahubali use visual spectacle and mythic narrative to legitimize power structures such as monarchy, patriarchy, and cultural nationalism?

Can popular cinema like Baahubali serve as a site of ideological resistance, or does its aesthetic and emotional appeal ultimately reinforce dominant values?

Theoretical Framework: Althusser, Stuart Hall, and Laura Mulvey

Louis Althusser (1971), in his seminal essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” proposed that ideology functions not through coercion but through subtle social institutions such as education, religion, and media. These Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) operate by shaping individuals’ consciousness, making them internalize the dominant values of the ruling class as “common sense.” Cinema, as one of these powerful apparatuses, does not simply entertain—it constructs ideological meanings that naturalize existing social hierarchies. Through narrative, camera techniques, and characterization, films interpellate individuals into specific subject positions, making them identify with certain worldviews. The spectator thus becomes a subject who unconsciously accepts the film’s ideological message while experiencing the illusion of freedom and pleasure.

Within this Marxist framework, cinema becomes an instrument that both reflects and reproduces the conditions of power. The pleasure of watching a film—its drama, beauty, and emotional satisfaction—is not ideologically neutral. As Althusser would argue, it conceals the processes by which spectators are “hailed” into ideological conformity. In this sense, popular cinema is a site where political, social, and cultural norms are both reinforced and contested.

Stuart Hall (1973), in his Encoding/Decoding model, extends Althusser’s ideas by emphasizing the agency of the audience. Hall argued that media messages are “encoded” by producers with certain preferred meanings aligned with dominant ideology, but audiences “decode” them according to their own social positions and experiences. Thus, audiences are not passive consumers—they can interpret messages in dominant, negotiated, or oppositional ways. This model opens up the possibility of resistance and reinterpretation within media consumption.

Applied to cinema, Hall’s theory suggests that viewers may accept the film’s ideological stance (dominant reading), partially agree while questioning certain aspects (negotiated reading), or completely reject its values (oppositional reading). Hence, cinema becomes a dynamic space of ideological exchange rather than a one-way channel of control.

Laura Mulvey (1975), in her groundbreaking essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” brought a psychoanalytic and feminist perspective to film theory. She introduced the concept of the male gaze, revealing how classical Hollywood cinema constructs visual pleasure through patriarchal structures. Mulvey argues that film form—especially through camera angles, editing, and narrative focus—positions the spectator to identify with the male protagonist and to view the female character as an object of erotic display. Women in film are often presented as spectacles to be looked at, not as subjects of their own desire.

Together, Althusser, Hall, and Mulvey provide a comprehensive framework to analyze cinema as an ideological text: Althusser exposes its function as a mechanism of ideological reproduction, Hall restores the active role of the audience, and Mulvey critiques its gendered visual politics. This triad of theories helps us understand cinema as a site of negotiation between power, pleasure, and resistance.

Cinema as Ideological Apparatus: Power, Nation, and Narrative

Fredric Jameson, in The Political Unconscious (1981), declared that all narratives are “socially symbolic acts.” By this, he meant that stories, even those that appear apolitical, encode the social and political tensions of their historical moment. When applied to Indian popular cinema, this approach allows us to read films not merely as entertainment but as cultural texts that encode and circulate national ideologies.

In this context, Baahubali (2015–2017), directed by S. S. Rajamouli, becomes a rich site for ideological reading. The film’s grand mythic narrative constructs power as divine, hereditary, and morally justified. Its world is hierarchically structured, where the righteous king embodies truth, bravery, and virtue, and his rule is presented as natural and divinely ordained. Through spectacular visuals and heroic characterization, the film legitimizes the idea that authority and social hierarchy are sacred duties rather than political arrangements.

Rachel Dwyer (2021) notes that such mythic spectacles in Indian cinema “rework older national myths to align with the ideology of cultural nationalism.” The visual language of Baahubali—its palatial architecture, ritualistic ceremonies, and deified hero—mirrors the ideological motifs of Hindutva and masculine sovereignty. The hero’s moral strength and physical perfection symbolize a purified, dominant vision of the nation.

Richard Dyer (1979) reminds us that film stars themselves are ideological constructs: their images condense social aspirations, fears, and contradictions. In Baahubali, the titular hero operates as a fantasy figure who embodies moral integrity, physical dominance, and divine legitimacy. This idealized image conceals the realities of caste and class inequality by transforming political dominance into a narrative of moral righteousness. The film’s mythical grandeur thus serves as an ideological veil that disguises social contradictions within the language of spectacle.

Spectacle and the Politics of Representation in Baahubali

The power of visual spectacle in popular cinema lies in its ability to transform ideology into pleasure. Stephen Heath (1981) argued that film form—particularly through techniques such as continuity editing and point-of-view shots—structures the spectator’s gaze to align ideologically with the protagonist. The viewer experiences a seamless identification with the hero’s perspective, and through that identification, internalizes the ideological meanings embedded in the narrative.

In Baahubali, Rajamouli’s visual techniques—slow-motion battle sequences, symmetrical framing, and divine iconography—elevate the protagonist’s authority to god-like status. The mise-en-scène is carefully designed to glorify the hero’s body as both aesthetic and sacred. The temple-like set designs and dramatic lighting blur the boundaries between the religious and the political, producing what Anurag Thapa (2021) terms “techno-religious realism”—a fusion of digital spectacle and devotional symbolism that sanctifies power itself.

The portrayal of Queen Mother Sivagami further complicates the film’s gender politics. She embodies the paradox of female strength within patriarchal limits—authoritative yet nurturing, powerful yet ultimately defined by her loyalty to male lineage. This duality aligns with traditional patriarchal ideals of womanhood, where female virtue is celebrated only when it serves male heroism and dynastic continuity.

However, such cinematic representation is not universally accepted. Scholars and critics have pointed out that beneath the grandeur lies a reinforcement of caste hierarchy and gender subordination. The South Asia Journal (2017) review highlights that the film’s mythological framework masks systemic inequalities by presenting them as divine order. By merging political dominance with spiritual symbolism, Baahubali naturalizes social hierarchy as destiny.

Audience Reception and Resistance

Despite its ideological density, Baahubali has not been received uniformly. Audience reception studies reveal that viewers interpret the film through varied cultural and political lenses. While dominant readings celebrate it as a patriotic epic and a visual triumph of Indian cinema, others adopt negotiated or oppositional positions.

Some feminist viewers interpret Devasena’s assertive personality and martial skill as a sign of female empowerment, reading her as a subversive figure within a patriarchal narrative. In contrast, Dalit scholars and leftist critics perceive the film as a glorification of feudalism and Brahmanical hierarchy, arguing that its representation of loyalty and servitude reinforces casteist values.

Stuart Hall’s audience theory allows us to understand these divergent readings as active cultural negotiations rather than deviations. Each viewer decodes the film according to their social position, cultural identity, and ideological awareness. The same spectacle that produces national pride for some may provoke discomfort and critique for others. In this sense, Baahubali becomes a contested site where ideological meanings are produced, resisted, and reimagined through audience interaction.

Conclusion

Popular cinema, as this analysis demonstrates, is far more than an instrument of entertainment—it is a complex ideological apparatus that shapes and reshapes collective consciousness. Through Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatuses, we recognize cinema’s power to reproduce dominant ideologies; through Hall’s model of encoding and decoding, we understand how audiences participate in the process of meaning-making; and through Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze, we see how cinematic pleasure is structured by gendered hierarchies.

Baahubali exemplifies how national cinema fuses mythology, politics, and spectacle to construct fantasies of divine authority and moral purity. Its aesthetic grandeur masks ideological contradictions, turning domination into visual pleasure. Yet, the possibility of oppositional reading—enabled by critical spectatorship—keeps cinema alive as a field of cultural struggle.

Ultimately, every cinematic frame is a battlefield where meaning is negotiated between ideology and interpretation, between the power of the image and the freedom of the gaze.

References 

Althusser, L. (n.d.). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Louis Althusser 1969-70. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm?utm

 

Dwyer, Rachel. “9 New Myths for an Old Nation: Bollywood, Soft Power and Hindu Nationalism.” Cinema and Soft Power: Configuring the National and Transnational in Geo-Politics, edited collection, Edinburgh University Press, 2021, pp. 190–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474456296-013 

Dyer, Richard. Stars. 1st ed., British Film Institute / Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019. 

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/Decoding in the Television Discourse.” Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, 1973. PDF available at: https://ia801304.us.archive.org/6/items/ktoub2/02CHallEncodingDecoding.pdf

Heath, Stephen. Questions of Cinema. Communications and Culture Series, Macmillan/Indiana University Press, 1981.  

Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981. 

Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3, Autumn 1975, Pages 6–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6