On a winter's day, the monuments in the tomb complex of Mughal emperor Humayun are showcased against the perfect backdrop of a setting sun.
I have often wondered if these walls could talk, what tales they might have told. 400 and more years - of the people, their politics, the rendezvous of lovers, the whispering of secrets, the change of dynasties, the rise and govenments.
The festival of Diwali (or Deepavali, the original Sanskrit name) signifies the triumph of good over evil according to Hindu mythology and is traditionally celebrated with rows of oil, clay lamps lit over 5 days.
But modern day lights have taken over the festivities with its psychedelic colours and varieties of light displays. No fuss, no oily mess to deal with, no fear of flames being blown away by the wind, electric lights are a convenience here to stay. It has changed the face of the festival and how?
Busy streets lined with jewellery stores selling the most sought after metal - gold, almost an obsession during Diwali (textured photos). The greater the competition among them to attract attention with bigger & brighter displays each year.
Diya (lamp) - shaped electric lights strung on a tree in front of a high-street store
Colourful paper-lamps hung in a corner-street shop waiting for customers to take them home.
The new diyas or clay lamps are generally bought in advance and soaked for a few hours in water to reduce the absorption levels of the clay. When oil is poured it stays in the lamp and does not get absorbed by the porous nature of the clay. Whereas, all it requires is for the electric lights to be taken out of storage, given a good dusting, strung on railings, balconies, trees & shurbs and plugged in. Reusable, year after year. Unlike, clay lamps which if used one year cannot be reused the next year as per tradition.
Traditions do evolve over time but one cannot help but feel a sense of nostalgia for the earthy, tiny, diyas which are fast becoming just token symbols of the festival.
In recent times, one of the most talked about advertisements on Indian television is the new Kerala tourism ad. The reasons may not be all that the tourism board officials or the agencies involved envisaged but a buzz it has definitely created.
Love it or hate it, one thing's for sure, you can hardly ignore it (which I might add is also the reason for this post. I couldn't ignore it either)
Most Indians viewing it on their television channels in India seem to have gone ballistic about the ad being mis-representative of the state. Kerala, one of the most attractive & well-visited by tourists, both domestic and international evokes images of swaying coconut palms, cool back waters, lashing rains, boat races and resplendent elephants at temple festivals. Imagery, which by the way, has only been reinforced by advertisements (view here) from the tourism board themselves. It has to be one of the most advertised states in the country, a job the tourism guys are doing very well, I must say.
So what exactly is the problem? Is it that Indians are so influenced by stereotypes of Kerala that they cannot keep an open mind and view it differently? Is it that the visuals are just so stark and haunting that it just doesn't invite? Was it even meant for Indian viewers, given that it was launched in London as a promotional to attract foriegn tourists (who incidentally love the ad) ?
Did Kerala tourism then make a mistake by airing it in India and opening it up to unnecessary criticism? Yes, I would think they did make a hash of the media plan and subsequent PR in India. If the advertisement was created as a invitation to foriegn audiences who are vastly different from Indians in their outlook, why air it on Indian channels and that too in such a piecemeal fashion? Guess, Kerala tourism's marketing people are the only ones who probably know the answer to that question.
Is the creative in question a true representation of the state? To that, I can only say, "to each his own", every creative person has the license to express her/his creativity freely. The creative has the feel of an art film rather than a commercial that sells a product to viewers. In the case of the ad, the client and the advetising agency collaborated with the production house in the making of the film, so shouldn't the brick-bats as well as the bouquets be for all?
The bigger question though - is the creative an original or heavily "inspired" by another nation's tourism advt? I believe it to be as good as plagiarised from what I have seen of Mexico's tourism advts. Though don't take my word for it... see for youself:
And some more in the series of advts at http://www.youtube.com/user/bicentenariotelevisa
Infact, this blatant 'copy' bothered me more than the bad idea of releasing the advt in India or the so-called mis-representation of Kerala. An ad that showcases Kerala and therefore, a slice of India to the international audience is going to be seen as a rip-off. More surprising is that a reputed production house like Nirvana (creators of the Zoo Zoos - very original) is associated with copied content. Why?
