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. : 2

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name : Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Paper No. : 109

Paper Code : 22402

Unit : 2- Northrop Frye's The Archetypal Criticism

Topic :“The Archetypal Feminine: The Mother and Virgin Archetypes in Literature and Their Subversions”

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

Submitted Date : April 17, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1784

Characters         : 13212

Characters without spaces : 11502

Paragraphs         :98

Sentences         : 162

Reading time         :7 m 8 s

Table of Contents

Personal Information

Assignment Details

Abstract

Introduction

The Silenced Woman: Feminist Reclamation in Rhys’s Narrative

The Postcolonial Lens: Creole Identity and Otherness

Madness and Isolation: The Psychological Landscape of Antoinette

Narrative Technique and Multiplicity of Voice

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.

Theoretical Framework: Althusser, Stuart Hall, and Laura Mulvey

Louis Althusser (1971) argued that ideology works through Ideological State Apparatuses such as education, religion, and media, which function to maintain the power of the ruling class by shaping individuals’ beliefs. Cinema, as one of these apparatuses, offers pleasure and identification while normalizing certain values.

Stuart Hall’s (1973) Encoding/Decoding model adds nuance by suggesting that audiences are not passive recipients of ideology—they can interpret media messages in dominant, negotiated, or oppositional ways.

Laura Mulvey (1975), in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, introduced the concept of the male gaze, revealing how classical film form constructs women as objects of visual pleasure and men as bearers of the look. Together, these theories explain how cinematic language, representation, and reception become sites of ideological struggle.

Cinema as Ideological Apparatus: Power, Nation, and Narrative

Fredric Jameson’s The Political Unconscious (1981) proposes that all narratives are “socially symbolic acts.” Following this, Indian popular cinema can be read as a cultural text that encodes national and political ideologies within narrative form.

In Baahubali, power is portrayed as both divine and hereditary. The film constructs a hierarchical social order where loyalty, sacrifice, and martial valor are glorified. Rachel Dwyer (2021) observes that such mythic spectacles “rework older national myths to align with the ideology of cultural nationalism.” Similarly, Baahubali’s depiction of monarchy and heroism reflects dominant narratives of Hindutva and masculine sovereignty.

However, as Richard Dyer (1979) reminds us, stars and spectacle themselves are ideological constructs—idealized figures that embody social desires and contradictions. The heroic image of Baahubali operates as a fantasy of power and moral purity, concealing internal social inequalities.

Spectacle and the Politics of Representation in Baahubali

Visual spectacle in popular cinema often disguises ideology through aesthetic pleasure. Stephen Heath (1981) argues that film form—through continuity editing and point-of-view—positions spectators in ideological alignment with the protagonist. In Baahubali, visual grandeur, slow-motion battles, and deified imagery elevate the hero’s authority to divine status.

As Anurag Thapa (2021) explains in his study of techno-religious realism, such films merge technological spectacle with religious symbolism to “sacralize” political power. The portrayal of the queen mother, Sivagami, as both maternal and authoritarian also aligns with patriarchal ideals of female virtue subordinated to male heroism.

At the same time, critical reception of Baahubali reveals contested readings. Online discourse and academic reviews (South Asia Journal, 2017) expose how the film’s treatment of caste, gender, and violence reinforces social hierarchies under the guise of mythological universality.

Audience Reception and Resistance

While dominant readings often celebrate Baahubali as a national epic, audience reception studies suggest that viewers also engage in negotiated or oppositional decoding. Some feminist critics view the film’s portrayal of female strength as empowering, while Dalit scholars criticize its glorification of feudalism.

Hall’s audience theory helps interpret these differing responses—not as misreadings but as active cultural negotiations. In this way, popular cinema becomes a dynamic space where ideology is not fixed but continually produced and contested.

Conclusion

Popular cinema, as this paper demonstrates, is neither a mere reflection of society nor a neutral form of entertainment. It is a powerful ideological apparatus that shapes and reshapes public consciousness. Through Althusser’s concept of ideological control, Mulvey’s gendered spectatorship, and Hall’s encoding/decoding model, we understand that every cinematic frame is a battleground of meaning.

Films like Baahubali dramatize the spectacle of power—turning political dominance into visual pleasure. Yet, through audience reinterpretation and critical awareness, cinema also holds the potential to question and transform the very ideologies it once reinforced.

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