“The play’s the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king”: Intertextuality in Om Shanti Om sudha shastri the bollywood hindi film Om Shanti Om adversely affect Shanti’s career. Omi, unable (2007) constructs its intertextual identity and to rescue his beloved heroine from the fire that debuts in the best postmodern fashion, with kills her, also dies, only to be reincarnated as irony, parody, pastiche, irreverence, and double Om Kapoor, or OK (also played by Shah Rukh entendre of the tongue-in-cheek variety.1 The Khan), a Bollywood superstar; now, armed with exercise of intertextuality can become intricate, money and power, he is in a position of strength given a context such as OSO, which keeps os- from which to execute his revenge on Mukesh, cillating between reality, illusion, and a formi- who has reinvented himself as “Mike,” after dable corpus of cinematic texts. In the process, a stint in Hollywood. Deepika Padukone reap- the extensive range of intertextual devices and pears as Sandy (though not a reincarnation of the role of self-reflexivity in the construction Shanti Priya) and helps OK, along with Omi’s of OSO’s intertextual identity come to be fore- mother and his friend Pappu, to carry his plan grounded. OSO’s narrative structure, because through. The movie ends with the revelation of its intertextuality, makes a visible break from that not Sandy, but the ghost of Shanti Priya conventional Bollywood cinema in a remark- (also played by Deepika Padukone), has made able way. Mackey’s observation on the contem- OK’s revenge possible. OK’s plan to avenge porary nature of such activity in understanding Shanti Priya’s death through the making of a the success of OSO is a useful pointer in this film called Om Shanti Om (OSO) creates the bet- regard.2 ter part of the self-reflexivity in the movie. The story of OSO starts “thirty years ago,” in line with plots that employ the technique Intertextuality of flashback, usually for suspense, with Om Prakash, or Omi (played by actor Shah Rukh Intertextuality is a term that describes the Khan), who is a junior artiste in Bollywood, processes of cross-referencing by a text that in love with the famous actress Shanti Priya relies overtly on other texts—whether they (played by newcomer Deepika Padukone). It are past texts, contemporary texts, or textual comes as a shock to Omi to learn that Shanti is conventions—in its composition. The term is secretly married to film producer Mukesh Mehra most famously associated with Julia Kristeva, (Arjun Rampal), who subsequently murders her, in her recapitulation of Bakhtin’s concept of because he does not want the news of their the novel’s dialogic nature. “By introducing the marriage to become public, fearing this might status of the word as a minimal structural unit, Bakhtin situates the text within history and sudha shastri is an associate professor of Eng- society, which are then seen as texts read by lish in the Department of Humanities and Social the writer, and into which he inserts himself by Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology rewriting them” (Kristeva 65). Bombay, Mumbai, India. However, because her position suggests 32 journal of film and video 63.1 / spring 2011 ©2011 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois Photo 1: Shanti Priya (Deepika Padukone, left) and Mukesh Mehra (Arjun Rampal) in Om Shanti Om (2007). that all writing is intertextual, the problem of tions of value in imitation and the ostensible redundancy in defining intertextuality is simul- superiority of original writing. taneously posed. Even if an attempt is made Intertextuality in OSO consists of references to narrow the concept to such overt interaction to previous films through such tropes as names between texts as is involved in plagiarism, (of movies, of actors) as well as plots—of mov- epigraphs, allusion, or pastiche, the term still ies such as Karz (1980), for example. The first seems to lack a critical rigor. impression left on the viewer by such interac- One way of confronting this problem is to tion is the thrill of recognition because no other delimit the term with, for instance, the recog- Bollywood movie until now has borrowed so nition that intertextuality implies “attitude”— diversely or eclectically or with utter disdain of typically of the later text toward the earlier. ontological borders. Parody is an obvious case in point. Ridicule The effectiveness of intertextuality lies in a through imitation is the function of parody, fine balance of economy in expression that is but intertextuality can and does extend atti- not ruined by the reader/viewer’s incompre- tude to include reverence, affirmation, skepti- hension. By involving the reader/spectator cism, and rebuttal. actively in the process of discovering meaning, Although it is possible to trace intertextuality intertextual works of art extend the spectrum as far back as Shakespeare or even Aristotle, of interpretive activity by teasing, challenging, whose definition of mimesis was a response and shaping their readers/viewers’ responses. to Plato’s discussion of the concept, intertex- Intertextuality has come of sophisticated age tuality, as deployed in the argument of this in Indian cinema as represented by the Bombay article, and as evinced by OSO, is a deliberate Film Industry, popularly known as Bollywood, proceeding marked by self-consciousness in through OSO. Remarkable about the intertex- representation. In the making of this case for tual identity of OSO is the way it flaunts itself, intertextuality, a postmodern identity is also given the context of Bollywood cinema. In a conferred on it, given that one of the most inte- milieu where plots are borrowed and altered in gral features and techniques of postmodernism consideration of originality with a justifiable eye is self-reflexivity, which usually involves break- on the box office, an open acknowledgement ing the reader/viewer’s “willing suspension of of earlier sources, as well as their imaginative disbelief.” The self-awareness posited in this assimilation in its plot, makes OSO a bolder activity, moreover, effectively addresses ques- venture than such intertextual attempts as, for journal of film and video 63.1 / spring 2011 33 ©2011 by the board of trustees of the university of illinois instance, Ram Gopal Varma’s supposed remake of the Hindi film industry, Raj Kapoor’s career of Ramesh Sippy’s legendary Hindi film Sholay spanned five influential decades. Aag (1948), (1975), titled Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag (2007). Barsaat (1949), Awara (1951), Shri 420 (1955), Interestingly, Varma wanted to retain the word Sangam (1964), and Bobby (1973) are some of “Sholay” (which, like the word “aag,” means his best-known films. Awara and Shri 420 in “fire” in Hindi) in his title, but a Delhi High Court particular became very popular in the USSR, judgment ordered the name to be changed be- which he visited in 1954. cause it infringed on Sippy’s trademark.3 The title of OSO comes from a famous song One can claim that with OSO, however, Bol- featured in the Bollywood movie Karz. The plot lywood has marked a new self-reflectively inter- of OSO, based on reincarnation, also comes textual milestone in a way much more emphatic from the movie Karz. To leave the audience in than the incidental forays made by Rangeela no doubt over its link with Karz, OSO begins (1995) or the Bollywood remakes in recent with a car entering RC Studios, and we see a years, from Devdas (remake, 2002; original, poster for Karz on one side. This is followed 1955) to Umrao Jaan (remake, 2006; original, by the supposed shooting of the song “Om 1981) and Don (remake, 2006; original, 1978). Shanti Om” featured in Karz. Watching this from The uneasy coexistence of intertextual debt among a crowd of cheering spectators inside with copyright issues on the one hand and the the studio is junior artiste Omi. artistic criterion of originality on the other ren- Self-reflexivity is intertwined with intertextu- ders the intertextual process fraught with both ality in OSO with this move itself, for Karz is not risk and challenge. There are other dangers only the movie to which OSO owes its plotline; as well, such as audience reaction. What if a the word “karz” in Hindi in fact means “debt.” literal-minded audience overlooks the self- This poises OSO on the first of several diegetic reflexivity? Going, however, by the response borders that emerge in the movie, because not of cinemagoers in the country, it does appear only is its story-world obliged to a film titled as though the risk taken by OSO has paid off; Karz; “indebtedness” is also a serendipitous not only has the movie been a success, but has way of looking at it as a film. This makes a survived controversy as well.4 larger point about intertextuality: that it can take the shape of indebtedness (so that the The Intertextual Identity response it evokes ranges from attention to of Om Shanti Om reverence), completion (implying that the ur- text, or original text, was partial or incomplete), What makes up the intertextuality of OSO? As rewriting (to revise an existing story or idea), suggested in the previous section, movie titles, or ironic mocking (implying that the urtext was character names, character stereotypes, plots, naïve, simplistic, or simply foolish). Intertex- and film stars (the last signifying an ontologi- tuality may not be innocent. OSO shifts across cal border-crossing) all come together to create all these positions. Its nostalgic recall of 1970s the déjà vu effect. The name “Shanti Priya,” Bollywood is fond, but its implied comment for instance, is a throwback to Bollywood on the genre of films that seem to qualify for actress Hema Malini, whose rise to stardom awards is definitely sardonic, as we find in the in the 1970s was no less phenomenal than Filmfare awards function, which figures later in her occupying prima donna status in Hindi this article.