So Gary had us do this assignment where we needed to categorize different parts of our argument into three “classes”: claims, reasons, and evidence. It was a pretty interesting/useful exercise, because it really made me think about the overall flow of my paper, which right now is quite choppy and all over the place. Here’s what I came up with:

Claim: Neoliberal economic shifts have allowed for a dynamic media relationship between India and Hungary, which has led to the production of culture with Bollywood films, in order to boost inter-government amicability. Yet the economic origin of this cultural production limits its success: there is unresolved tension between filmic representation and national identity related to Hungary (this last sentence sucks…)

Reasons:

1) Pre-1980s Indo-Hungarian exchange was limited to formal industrial trade

Evidence: Communist/strong central gov set up from 1950s-1970s; stemming from politically-focused alliance

2) Neoliberalism opens up economic structures for transnational interactions

Evidence: Shift of economic figures, both domestically and Indo-Hung trade; industrialization of Bollywood, further globalization of Indian economy

3) Cinematic production allows for a blend of cultural/economic production

Evidence: India Film Festivals, India Week, the function of film festivals, on-location shooting

4) A blending of cultural/economic production can sometimes lead to¬† complications of national identity representation (w/ “national erasure”)

Evidence: Act of 2004, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, Aks, film analysis + broader implications (econ stats too)