Postcolonial Cinema and Resistance: From Hollywood’s Celluloid Empire to Tribal and Environmental Struggles
This blog is written as a task assigned by the Head of the Department of English, MKBU, Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. The aim of this blog is to explore the representation of power, resistance, nationalism, and postcolonial struggles in selected films. The blog examines Rambo, Top Gun: Maverick, RRR, and Jai Bhim through concepts such as cultural hegemony, Orientalism, soft power, tribal resistance, and environmental justice. The articles provided for background reading serve as the basis for this critical discussion, which also connects cinema with contemporary issues of land, water, forests, displacement, and marginalization. Here are the articles provided for background reading, which have been used to develop the critical discussion and analysis presented in this blog:
Article 1: Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America's Geopolitical Narrative
Postcolonial Studies and the New Empire: Hollywood’s “Celluloid Empire” in Rambo and Top Gun: Maverick
Introduction: Cinema, Power, and the New Empire
Popular cinema is not merely entertainment; it is a powerful cultural space where ideology, nationalism, geopolitics, and national identity are produced and circulated. Dilip Barad’s article “Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative” examines how Hollywood films contribute to the projection of American geopolitical interests. The article argues that the Rambo and James Bond franchises have functioned as “powerful vehicles for promoting American geopolitical perspectives”, particularly during the Cold War and the era of globalization. Hollywood exercises “soft power” by shaping global perceptions of American values, ideology, and military might.
The argument can be extended to another Hollywood film, Top Gun: Maverick (2022). Although the film belongs to a different historical moment, it continues the cinematic tradition of representing American military power through heroic individuals, technological superiority, and emotionally compelling narratives. A postcolonial reading therefore allows us to ask whether Hollywood has moved beyond the Cold War “celluloid empire” or simply developed new ways of presenting American power as legitimate.
Rambo and the Construction of the American Hero
The article's discussion of Rambo provides the foundation for understanding this cinematic form of geopolitical storytelling. In Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), the Vietnam War is presented from an American perspective. The United States appears as a nation seeking redemption, while the Vietnamese are represented largely as villains. American soldiers are portrayed as heroic figures who were betrayed by their own government but ultimately triumph over communism.
In Rambo III (1988), the setting shifts to Afghanistan. Rambo assists the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, transforming a complicated geopolitical conflict into a “moral crusade against communism.” The film consequently promotes the image of America as a “global liberator.”
From a postcolonial perspective, the important issue is not simply whether Rambo is a hero. The question is how the film decides who deserves to be represented as heroic and who becomes the enemy. The American perspective becomes the dominant perspective, while the political histories and voices of other societies remain marginal.
Top Gun: Maverick and the New Form of the American Hero
Top Gun: Maverick offers a contemporary version of this heroic structure. Unlike Rambo III, it does not explicitly identify its enemy with a particular nation or ideology. Instead, the film presents an unnamed hostile state as a threat to international security. This anonymity is significant because it removes the enemy from a specific historical and political context.
The narrative instead concentrates on the exceptional American pilot, military discipline, advanced technology, teamwork, and sacrifice. The protagonist's individual courage becomes the emotional centre of the story. As in Rambo, military intervention is transformed into an exciting spectacle in which American power appears necessary and morally justified.
The article observes that Rambo and Bond position American or allied characters as the “moral center of the story.” Top Gun: Maverick continues this pattern. The American military is represented through competence, courage, professionalism, and technological mastery, while the opposing side receives little opportunity to explain its political motivations.
Thus, the film represents a new form of the celluloid empire: instead of openly celebrating Cold War anti-communism, it celebrates American military capability itself.
Cultural Hegemony: When Power Becomes “Common Sense”
The concept of cultural hegemony is central to the article. It argues that the widespread global distribution of Rambo and James Bond films “normalized American values and geopolitical perspectives”, helping to perpetuate a pro-Western worldview.
This idea can be applied strongly to Top Gun: Maverick. The film does not directly tell audiences, “America is powerful and legitimate.” Instead, it allows viewers to experience American military power as entertainment. The spectacular aerial sequences, emotional relationships, heroic sacrifice, and technological achievement make military power appear admirable.
This is how cultural hegemony operates: ideology becomes less visible when it is presented through pleasure and entertainment. The audience may not consciously interpret the film as geopolitical messaging, yet repeated representations of American military competence can contribute to a worldview in which U.S. power is associated with freedom, security, heroism, and legitimacy.
In this sense, Top Gun: Maverick demonstrates that the “new empire” does not necessarily need direct colonial control. It can operate through images, popular culture, technological spectacle, and global entertainment markets.
Orientalism and the Silencing of the “Other”
A postcolonial reading can also employ Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, particularly the division between the Western “Self” and the non-Western “Other.” In Rambo III, Afghanistan becomes a geographical space where American heroism is performed. The Afghan people are incorporated into the American narrative primarily as allies who require assistance against the Soviet enemy.
Top Gun: Maverick modifies this structure. The enemy is deliberately unnamed, but this does not necessarily eliminate the politics of othering. Instead, the absence of a clear identity makes the enemy an abstract and threatening “Other.” The audience knows that this enemy possesses military power and represents danger, but is given almost no political or human perspective.
Consequently, the film makes the American perspective appear universal. The viewer is encouraged to experience the conflict primarily through the American pilots. A postcolonial critique therefore asks: What happens when one side has the power to narrate the conflict while the other side is denied a narrative voice?
Soft Power, Globalization, and America’s “Celluloid Empire”
The article identifies several ways in which these films function as “tools of soft power.” These include “projecting ideology,” “cultural hegemony,” “economic influence,” and shaping “global perception.”
Top Gun: Maverick is particularly relevant to the idea of economic and cultural influence because its spectacular representation of American aviation and military technology circulates through a global entertainment industry. The film does not need to explicitly promote American foreign policy in order to contribute to an attractive image of American military power.
This demonstrates the article's larger argument that cinema can help construct America as a “benevolent global superpower.” The transformation from Rambo to Top Gun: Maverick is therefore significant. Rambo openly connects American heroism with Cold War geopolitics, whereas Top Gun: Maverick presents American military power through professionalism, technology, personal sacrifice, and national duty.
The political message has become subtler, but the underlying structure of representation remains powerful.
Conclusion: Heroes or Hegemons?
The comparison between Rambo, James Bond, and Top Gun: Maverick demonstrates that Hollywood cinema can operate as a form of geopolitical storytelling. The article's question “Heroes or Hegemons?” is therefore highly relevant. Rambo is presented as a hero who fights communism; Bond represents broader Western interests; and Top Gun: Maverick presents American military expertise and sacrifice as necessary for global security.
A postcolonial approach, however, encourages us to look beyond the heroic spectacle and ask whose perspective dominates, whose history is represented, and whose voice is absent. Cinema does not simply reflect political reality; it selects, reshapes, and re-presents reality.
The article's discussion of Bollywood is particularly important here. It warns that other film industries should not simply “replicate this hegemonic approach.” Instead, they should focus on “critiquing and deconstructing these dominant narratives,” offering “alternative perspectives” and creating platforms for “voices that are often silenced or ignored.”
Therefore, Top Gun: Maverick shows that the “celluloid empire” has not disappeared; rather, its methods have become more sophisticated. The new empire can operate through entertainment, spectacle, technology, and emotional identification. The task of postcolonial criticism is not simply to reject such films but to read them critically to recognize how apparently universal stories can carry particular geopolitical assumptions. As the article suggests, cinema has the potential not only to reflect cultural identities but also to “question and challenge the status quo,” opening space for a more diverse and inclusive global discourse.
Here is the Video-overview of this blog:
Reimagining Tribal Resistance: RRR, Environmental Justice, and Contemporary Indigenous Struggles
Introduction: From Historical Resistance to Contemporary Struggles
Popular cinema does not merely entertain; it also participates in the construction of history, nationalism, identity, and resistance. S. S. Rajamouli’s RRR (2022) is a significant example because it transforms two historical tribal figures, Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem, into larger-than-life national heroes. The article “Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR” examines this transformation from a postcolonial and environmental perspective. It argues that RRR creates a compelling narrative of “unity and resistance,” but at the same time appropriates and reimagines the histories of Raju and Bheem by reframing their localized struggles as a broader nationalist struggle against British colonialism.
The article is particularly significant because it connects historical tribal resistance with contemporary concerns of “land, water, and forest rights,” displacement, climate change, environmental degradation, and environmental justice. A postcolonial reading of RRR, therefore, requires us to look beyond its spectacular action and patriotic narrative and ask: What happens to tribal resistance when it is absorbed into a nationalist cinematic narrative? And what happens when the struggles of the colonial past continue in different forms in the postcolonial present?
Tribal Resistance and Nationalist Reimagining
The historical backgrounds of Raju and Bheem are important for understanding the article’s argument. Alluri Sitarama Raju resisted British policies associated with the Madras Forest Act of 1882, which restricted Adivasis’ traditional access to forest habitats. Komaram Bheem, on the other hand, resisted the Nizam of Hyderabad, and his struggle is associated with the powerful slogan “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” — Water, Forest, Land.
However, RRR brings these historically separate figures together and reimagines them as united freedom fighters against the British Raj. This creates an emotionally powerful story of friendship, sacrifice, brotherhood, and national unity. Yet the article argues that this process “shifts the focus from their specific, localized battles to a broader nationalist narrative.”
This is where the concept of appropriation becomes important. The film does not simply represent history; it selects particular elements of history and reshapes them for cinematic purposes. Raju and Bheem are no longer primarily remembered through their distinct relationships with forests, land, water, and local forms of oppression. Instead, they become symbols of a unified Indian resistance against colonialism.
Thus, RRR can be understood as both empowering and appropriating tribal history. It gives tribal heroes extraordinary visibility, but it also risks reducing their complex histories to symbols of national pride.
From Colonialism to Contemporary Displacement
The article's most important intervention is that the struggles of Raju and Bheem should not be confined to the colonial past. At the heart of their resistance were land, water, and forests, resources that remain threatened by “industrialization, deforestation, and the expansion of corporate interests.”
This allows us to connect the article with the Anthropocene and climate change. Environmental destruction is not simply an ecological problem; it is also a question of power. When forests are destroyed or rivers are redirected, indigenous communities can lose not only physical territory but also their livelihoods, cultural practices, spiritual relationships, and ways of life.
The article makes this point particularly strongly through its discussion of displacement. Drawing upon Annie Zaidi’s Known Turf, it explains that displacement is not merely moving from one place to another. It can mean losing a river, access to drinking water, land, cattle, forests, livelihood, and cultural connections to place.
Therefore, the article encourages us to expand our understanding of colonialism. Colonial rule may have ended, but forms of dispossession and marginalization can continue through development, industrialization, deforestation, and corporate expansion.
Jai Bhim: From Colonial Oppression to Postcolonial Marginalization
The argument of the article can be further connected with T. J. Gnanavel’s Jai Bhim (2021). The comparison is useful because the two films represent marginalization in very different ways.
RRR looks primarily toward the colonial past. Its heroes fight the British and become symbols of national liberation. Jai Bhim, however, directs our attention toward the postcolonial present, where an indigenous community continues to experience social exclusion and institutional oppression.
This comparison allows us to ask a crucial postcolonial question: Does the end of colonial rule automatically mean the end of colonial forms of power?
The article itself warns that contemporary indigenous communities continue to face displacement and destruction of their environments, driven not only by foreign rulers but also by “domestic and global corporate interests.” Jai Bhim complements this argument by showing that independence does not automatically eliminate structures of marginalization.
The contrast between the two films is particularly valuable:
RRR monumentalizes tribal resistance, whereas Jai Bhim humanizes continuing marginalization.
RRR transforms historical figures into spectacular national heroes; Jai Bhim focuses on the vulnerability and everyday struggles of marginalized people. Thus, Jai Bhim helps us move from heroic representation to lived resistance.
This also strengthens the article's criticism that RRR risks turning Raju and Bheem into “symbols of national pride” rather than connecting their histories with the ongoing struggles for environmental and social justice.
Ken-Betwa: “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” in the Present
The contemporary relevance of the article can be understood through resistance surrounding the Ken-Betwa River Linking Project. The project is presented through the language of development, water management, irrigation, and national progress. However, questions surrounding displacement, rehabilitation, land, forests, livelihoods, and ecological consequences bring us back to the article’s central concern: Who pays the social and environmental cost of development?
Here, Komaram Bheem’s “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” acquires a contemporary meaning. Water, forests, and land are not merely natural resources; for indigenous communities they are connected to identity, livelihood, culture, and survival.
The article argues that displacement involves the loss of “entire ecosystems and ways of life.” The Ken-Betwa context therefore demonstrates why the article considers the nationalist framing of RRR a “missed opportunity.” The film could have used the historical struggles of Raju and Bheem to create a dialogue with contemporary environmental movements.
The significance of this connection is that it changes the question from:
“Who fought the British?”
to:
“Who continues to fight for land, water, forests, livelihood, and ecological survival today?”
Ladakh and Manipur: Resistance Beyond the Film
The same framework can be extended to contemporary struggles in Ladakh and Manipur. These examples demonstrate that indigenous resistance today does not necessarily take the form of armed rebellion. It can involve protests, constitutional demands, public mobilization, and struggles over land, resources, representation, and cultural autonomy.
The relevance of these movements lies in the article’s argument that the issues faced by Raju and Bheem “are not confined to the past.” The article emphasizes that indigenous displacement and environmental destruction continue in the present.
Ladakh demonstrates how questions of land, political representation, cultural identity, and local control can become forms of contemporary resistance. Similarly, struggles in Manipur over indigenous land and natural resources reveal the continuing tension between state-defined development and indigenous understandings of territory and belonging.
These movements help us recognize that resistance must not be romanticized only through the figure of the heroic warrior. Resistance can also be expressed through satyagraha, hunger strikes, constitutional demands, environmental movements, and collective action.
In this sense, the contemporary struggles give new meaning to the historical slogan “Jal, Jangal, Zameen.”
Appropriation, Empowerment, and the Possibility of a Postcolonial Cinema
It would nevertheless be too simplistic to dismiss RRR. The film succeeds in bringing tribal figures into popular cultural memory and presenting them as powerful symbols of resistance. The article acknowledges that RRR succeeds as a “cinematic spectacle” and a celebration of Indian resilience.
The problem, therefore, is not representation itself but how representation changes the meaning of resistance.
When tribal heroes become national heroes, their histories can become absorbed into the ideology of the nation-state. The article warns that nationalism, with its emphasis on the “glory of the nation-state,” can obscure the ways in which the state itself may be involved in the displacement and marginalization of vulnerable citizens.
A genuinely postcolonial cinema must therefore ask whether it is simply replacing one dominant narrative with another. It should not merely celebrate the tribal hero of the past; it should also listen to the living voices of tribal communities in the present.
This is where Jai Bhim, contemporary environmental movements, and RRR can be read together. They encourage us to move from representation to recognition, from nationalist memory to environmental justice, and from celebrating resistance to understanding why resistance remains necessary.
Conclusion
The article provides a valuable postcolonial framework for reading RRR beyond its spectacular presentation of heroism, friendship, and nationalism. Raju and Bheem were not simply fighters against colonial rule; their struggles were deeply connected with land, water, forests, indigenous rights, and resistance to exploitation.
RRR powerfully recovers these figures for popular memory, but its nationalist framework risks flattening their complex histories. By focusing on the British Raj, it makes colonial oppression visible while making contemporary displacement and environmental degradation less visible. The article therefore calls this a “missed opportunity.”
Reading RRR alongside Jai Bhim shifts the discussion from colonial oppression to postcolonial marginalization. Bringing in the contemporary struggles associated with Ken-Betwa, Ladakh, and Manipur further demonstrates that the questions of land, water, forests, autonomy, and indigenous rights remain unresolved.
Ultimately, the significance of “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” extends beyond its historical association with Komaram Bheem. It becomes a continuing language of indigenous resistance and environmental justice. The article suggests that cinema should connect historical resistance with contemporary struggles rather than freeze tribal heroes in the past.
Thus, the most meaningful postcolonial reading of RRR is not simply to celebrate Raju and Bheem as national heroes, but to ask what their struggles demand from us today. A cinema that connects their histories with contemporary struggles against displacement, ecological destruction, and marginalization can transform the tribal hero from a symbol of national pride into a voice for environmental and social justice making cinema not merely a celebration of the past, but, as the article concludes, a “call to action for the future.”
Here is the Presentation of this blog:
Here is the Video-overview of this blog:
References
Barad, Dilip. “Heroes or Hegemons? The Celluloid Empire of Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative.” ResearchGate, Aug. 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383415195
Barad, Dilip. “Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR.” ResearchGate, Aug. 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383603395
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment