Perspectives

Century Bazaar

By BARADWAJ RANGAN | 1 June 2013
INDRANIL MUKHERJEE / AFP / GETTY IMAGES
Bollywood’s hegemony has overwhelmed all celebrations of Indian cinema’s centenary this year.

IF YOU ARE FROM THE NORTHERN PARTS of the nation, or if most of the movies you watch are in Hindi, you may not have heard of K Balachander. You may have seen the films he made in Hindi, though—Aaina, Zara Si Zindagi, Ek Nai Paheli, and, almost certainly, Ek Duuje Ke Liye, which was one of the biggest blockbusters of the 1980s. Then as now, a filmmaker from Chennai did not usually find himself splashed across entertainment columns, though Balachander did see his name in national papers when he won Indian cinema’s highest honour, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, for the year 2010. I thought I would write a book about him. After all, this was the man who launched Rajinikanth’s career. He shepherded an adorable child actor named Kamal Haasan into adult roles. And yet, despite the ubiquity of stars in his movies, South Indian audiences went to see “a K Balachander film”, which was often about women, often about tangled relationships. The director was the draw. He was an auteur in the truest sense, leaving his unmistakable stamp all over his creations. From the way, for instance, he handled his heroines, you could make a case that he was as drawn to the feminine mystique as he was repelled by it. He had to enshrine women. He had to punish them. I felt he deserved documenting.

Publishers, however, felt differently. I kept running into various versions of the same four words: “This book won’t sell.” The reason? Not many, up north, have heard of him, and as the population that reads is even scantier than the population that watches non-Hindi cinema—so the argument went—the book was simply not viable. I protested that mainstream publishers had brought out excellent books on, for example, Helen and Leela Naidu, neither exactly a household name in the South. For that matter, even in the North, how many Hindi-film watchers had heard of an actress named Leela Naidu? Or was the book pitched at those who wanted dish on Dom Moraes’s wife? As for Helen, would the audience who whistled at her moves on screen be just as interested in a well-researched book about her life? Why, I wondered, couldn’t these publishers see what I did: that the Tamilians and the Kannadigas and the Telugus and the Malayalis, both here and abroad, could easily make up in numbers for the supposedly uninterested readers north of the Vindhyas?

These publishers could just as easily have been newspapers or magazines or television production houses, reacting to a writer or a documentarian trying to pitch a long essay or a series about K Balachander’s career since his first film in 1965 (or his successful theatre career from even earlier). Stray too far from Bollywood and you hit a brick wall. It was inevitable, therefore, that the celebrations of Indian cinema’s centenary would turn out to be all about Hindi cinema. The recent compilation of Indian cinema’s 100 greatest scenes in Time Out magazine’s Indian editions featured 10 scenes from Tamil cinema (some of which were my contributions), nine from Bengali, two each from Malayalam and Marathi, and one from Kannada. The rest—76, if you care to count—were selections from Hindi films. In over 90 years of existence and with nearly as many releases per year as Hindi and Tamil cinema (the annual output of these three industries constitutes nearly 50 per cent of the films released per year in India), Telugu cinema, apparently, hasn’t produced a single scene worth singling out—not even in Pakkinti Ammayi, the Cyrano de Bergerac-like 1953 comedy based on the Bengali story “Pasher Bari”, where one man’s voice is assumed to belong to someone else. The list did, however, find a place for Padosan, which was made from the same material 15 years later.

The unfairness of the Delhi- and Mumbai-centric media establishment’s focus on Bollywood has always been felt to some degree by the rest of the nation. But at times this bias becomes a festering wound. Recently, when the great playback singer PB Srinivas—who, over a career spanning six decades, sang for Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Hindi cinema—passed away, the Indian Express carried a horrifying obituary from the Press Trust of India that confused him with another (living) singer, named Srinivas. And when, a week later, the legendary Carnatic violinist Lalgudi Jayaraman died, India Today’s obituary focused on his collaborations with Yehudi Menuhin and Bombay Jayashri, leaving the impression that this staunchest of classicists liked to dabble in fusion experiments. Irate fans were left wondering what would have happened had similar journalistic crimes been committed against, say, Mohammad Rafi or Shobha Gurtu. And now, it’s as if we’re celebrating 100 years of Bollywood, or worse, that we’re celebrating 100 years of Indian cinema aka Bollywood.

The implications of institutionalising Hindi cinema as Indian cinema by the media establishment are disturbing, and not just because of the pricked sentiments of those who make and watch movies in other languages. Whenever a best-of list of Indian cinema is announced, we see the same films—Pyaasa and Mother India and Sholay. The problem isn’t with these films but with the refusal to go beyond them, and to see through the eyes of audiences who watch more than just Hindi cinema. A Tamil film viewer, for instance, may laugh at the assertion that the most erotic moment in Indian cinema came about when Dilip Kumar stroked Madhubala with a luxuriant feather in Mughal-e-Azam, for this statement can be made only by someone who isn’t aware, for example, of Kamal Haasan’s tireless evocation of eroticism in films such as Nammavar, which includes a memorable sequence in which he savours Gauthami’s fingers. Each time the same Hindi films are celebrated as ‘Indian cinema’, those from inside and outside the country, those who are looking to know more about Indian cinema, are denied knowledge of non-Hindi cinema, at least, the serious kind. Rajinikanth, though, they know all about, because he is celebrated by the media establishment. He’s fun. He’s an internet meme. He can be packaged as wild entertainment. It isn’t difficult to envision a casual cinephile in Rome or Peru thinking that the big Bollywood movies apart, the only kinds of cinema in India are the ones Anurag Kashyap and Dibakar Banerjee make, and the kind in which a swarthy Southerner tosses cigarettes between his lips.

It must be said that Hindi cinema has done an extraordinary job of marketing itself. First, there was the minting of that neologism “Bollywood”, which, far from suggesting a cheesy rip-off of Hollywood, has come to suggest a vibrant, dominant cultural force. Other industries that have affixed “woods” to their names haven’t managed to burst out the way Bollywood has. Go to New York, and you’re not likely to witness a performance of “Kollywood dance”. Second, the Hindi film industry has aggressively sought to reach out to an audience that may not speak the language—through subtitles, through worldwide release patterns, through widely covered and ultra-glamorous red-carpet events, through participation in prestigious film festivals like Cannes, and through cleverly timed event movies, like the release of the heavily hyped Bombay Talkies to coincide with the centenary of Indian cinema. Even a major Tamil film rarely gets a release outside the South, and even if it does, it isn’t very accessible. A screening in a single-screen theatre in a distant Mumbai suburb—without subtitles—is hardly going to further the cause of a Tamil movie that doesn’t feature Rajinikanth.

Third, and most important, Bollywood has forged a symbiotic relationship with the English-speaking media to such an extent that news channels devote segments to everything from nostalgic programmes built around old Hindi cinema to review shows of new Hindi films. And let’s face it, the English-speaking media is the agenda-setting establishment; up north, everybody speaks of the Aamir Khan-starring Ghajini as the first Indian film to gross more than Rs 100 crore at the box office, but the fact that it was based on a Tamil blockbuster rarely comes up. The centenary celebrations are, in fact, a concoction of the Bollywood media machine. Raja Harischandra wasn’t a Hindi film in the first place—it was silent. Sadly, no other film industry in the country employs the English-speaking media or the vernacular media to further its cause, at least to this extent. The Tamil newspapers and magazines, for instance, talk about the local releases and find space for gossip, but there’s not much cheerleading for the industry’s history. You don’t find best-of lists being compiled by industry veterans. These publications do, however, dole out Bollywood tidbits, and frequently feature Bollywood heroines in sexy poses. On occasion, regional publications even review Bollywood films. So while Tamil readers get to know about Bollywood, those who don’t engage with the Tamil media remain largely unaware about Tamil cinema. Similarly, Malayalam films, presently among the finest in the country, are reviewed mostly in the Malayalam press and in Malayalam television channels, and end up with only Malayalis as their consumers. Perhaps those publishers are right, after all. Perhaps a book about a Malayalam filmmaker makes financial sense only if written in Malayalam.

This lack of recognition is why so many actors and technicians flee to Mumbai after making their mark in the regional cinemas—though there, too, most of them may have to settle for fortune rather than fame. Real recognition comes not if you prove indispensable in the making of a movie, as a worker behind the scenes, but if the media can spin a ratings-garnering story about you. That exalted echelon of newsmakers is occupied by Bollywood stars and, sometimes, star directors. (You cannot make a movie without an art director; you cannot make a much-read story about one either.) A newcomer to Indian cinema may be forgiven for thinking that the bigwigs of Bollywood are the only ones who’ve had anything to do with Indian cinema, as they’re the only ones who have been asked to say something about it on this occasion. And when asked for quotes, when asked for favourites, when asked for memories, they fall back on Pyaasa and Mother India and Sholay, and declare, as if for the first time, that Dilip Kumar stroking Madhubala with a luxuriant feather is the most erotic moment in Indian cinema.

Baradwaj Rangan is a National Award-winning Film Critic and Deputy Editor with The Hindu. His book, Conversations with Mani Ratnam, was published by Penguin in 2012.

IF YOU ARE FROM THE NORTHERN PARTS of the nation, or if most of the movies you watch are in Hindi, you may not have heard of K Balachander. You may have seen the films he made in Hindi, though—Aaina, Zara Si Zindagi, Ek Nai Paheli, and, almost certainly, Ek Duuje Ke Liye, which was one of the biggest blockbusters of the 1980s. Then as now, a filmmaker from Chennai did not usually find himself splashed across entertainment columns, though Balachander did see his name in national papers when he won Indian cinema’s highest honour, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, for the year 2010. I thought I would write a book about him. After all, this was the man who launched Rajinikanth’s career. He shepherded an adorable child actor named Kamal Haasan into adult roles. And yet, despite the ubiquity of stars in his movies, South Indian audiences went to see “a K Balachander film”, which was often about women, often about tangled relationships. The director was the draw. He was an auteur in the truest sense, leaving his unmistakable stamp all over his creations. From the way, for instance, he handled his heroines, you could make a case that he was as drawn to the feminine mystique as he was repelled by it. He had to enshrine women. He had to punish them. I felt he deserved documenting.

Publishers, however, felt differently. I kept running into various versions of the same four words: “This book won’t sell.” The reason? Not many, up north, have heard of him, and as the population that reads is even scantier than the population that watches non-Hindi cinema—so the argument went—the book was simply not viable. I protested that mainstream publishers had brought out excellent books on, for example, Helen and Leela Naidu, neither exactly a household name in the South. For that matter, even in the North, how many Hindi-film watchers had heard of an actress named Leela Naidu? Or was the book pitched at those who wanted dish on Dom Moraes’s wife? As for Helen, would the audience who whistled at her moves on screen be just as interested in a well-researched book about her life? Why, I wondered, couldn’t these publishers see what I did: that the Tamilians and the Kannadigas and the Telugus and the Malayalis, both here and abroad, could easily make up in numbers for the supposedly uninterested readers north of the Vindhyas?

These publishers could just as easily have been newspapers or magazines or television production houses, reacting to a writer or a documentarian trying to pitch a long essay or a series about K Balachander’s career since his first film in 1965 (or his successful theatre career from even earlier). Stray too far from Bollywood and you hit a brick wall. It was inevitable, therefore, that the celebrations of Indian cinema’s centenary would turn out to be all about Hindi cinema. The recent compilation of Indian cinema’s 100 greatest scenes in Time Out magazine’s Indian editions featured 10 scenes from Tamil cinema (some of which were my contributions), nine from Bengali, two each from Malayalam and Marathi, and one from Kannada. The rest—76, if you care to count—were selections from Hindi films. In over 90 years of existence and with nearly as many releases per year as Hindi and Tamil cinema (the annual output of these three industries constitutes nearly 50 per cent of the films released per year in India), Telugu cinema, apparently, hasn’t produced a single scene worth singling out—not even in Pakkinti Ammayi, the Cyrano de Bergerac-like 1953 comedy based on the Bengali story “Pasher Bari”, where one man’s voice is assumed to belong to someone else. The list did, however, find a place for Padosan, which was made from the same material 15 years later.

The unfairness of the Delhi- and Mumbai-centric media establishment’s focus on Bollywood has always been felt to some degree by the rest of the nation. But at times this bias becomes a festering wound. Recently, when the great playback singer PB Srinivas—who, over a career spanning six decades, sang for Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Hindi cinema—passed away, the Indian Express carried a horrifying obituary from the Press Trust of India that confused him with another (living) singer, named Srinivas. And when, a week later, the legendary Carnatic violinist Lalgudi Jayaraman died, India Today’s obituary focused on his collaborations with Yehudi Menuhin and Bombay Jayashri, leaving the impression that this staunchest of classicists liked to dabble in fusion experiments. Irate fans were left wondering what would have happened had similar journalistic crimes been committed against, say, Mohammad Rafi or Shobha Gurtu. And now, it’s as if we’re celebrating 100 years of Bollywood, or worse, that we’re celebrating 100 years of Indian cinema aka Bollywood.

The implications of institutionalising Hindi cinema as Indian cinema by the media establishment are disturbing, and not just because of the pricked sentiments of those who make and watch movies in other languages. Whenever a best-of list of Indian cinema is announced, we see the same films—Pyaasa and Mother India and Sholay. The problem isn’t with these films but with the refusal to go beyond them, and to see through the eyes of audiences who watch more than just Hindi cinema. A Tamil film viewer, for instance, may laugh at the assertion that the most erotic moment in Indian cinema came about when Dilip Kumar stroked Madhubala with a luxuriant feather in Mughal-e-Azam, for this statement can be made only by someone who isn’t aware, for example, of Kamal Haasan’s tireless evocation of eroticism in films such as Nammavar, which includes a memorable sequence in which he savours Gauthami’s fingers. Each time the same Hindi films are celebrated as ‘Indian cinema’, those from inside and outside the country, those who are looking to know more about Indian cinema, are denied knowledge of non-Hindi cinema, at least, the serious kind. Rajinikanth, though, they know all about, because he is celebrated by the media establishment. He’s fun. He’s an internet meme. He can be packaged as wild entertainment. It isn’t difficult to envision a casual cinephile in Rome or Peru thinking that the big Bollywood movies apart, the only kinds of cinema in India are the ones Anurag Kashyap and Dibakar Banerjee make, and the kind in which a swarthy Southerner tosses cigarettes between his lips.

It must be said that Hindi cinema has done an extraordinary job of marketing itself. First, there was the minting of that neologism “Bollywood”, which, far from suggesting a cheesy rip-off of Hollywood, has come to suggest a vibrant, dominant cultural force. Other industries that have affixed “woods” to their names haven’t managed to burst out the way Bollywood has. Go to New York, and you’re not likely to witness a performance of “Kollywood dance”. Second, the Hindi film industry has aggressively sought to reach out to an audience that may not speak the language—through subtitles, through worldwide release patterns, through widely covered and ultra-glamorous red-carpet events, through participation in prestigious film festivals like Cannes, and through cleverly timed event movies, like the release of the heavily hyped Bombay Talkies to coincide with the centenary of Indian cinema. Even a major Tamil film rarely gets a release outside the South, and even if it does, it isn’t very accessible. A screening in a single-screen theatre in a distant Mumbai suburb—without subtitles—is hardly going to further the cause of a Tamil movie that doesn’t feature Rajinikanth.

Third, and most important, Bollywood has forged a symbiotic relationship with the English-speaking media to such an extent that news channels devote segments to everything from nostalgic programmes built around old Hindi cinema to review shows of new Hindi films. And let’s face it, the English-speaking media is the agenda-setting establishment; up north, everybody speaks of the Aamir Khan-starring Ghajini as the first Indian film to gross more than Rs 100 crore at the box office, but the fact that it was based on a Tamil blockbuster rarely comes up. The centenary celebrations are, in fact, a concoction of the Bollywood media machine. Raja Harischandra wasn’t a Hindi film in the first place—it was silent. Sadly, no other film industry in the country employs the English-speaking media or the vernacular media to further its cause, at least to this extent. The Tamil newspapers and magazines, for instance, talk about the local releases and find space for gossip, but there’s not much cheerleading for the industry’s history. You don’t find best-of lists being compiled by industry veterans. These publications do, however, dole out Bollywood tidbits, and frequently feature Bollywood heroines in sexy poses. On occasion, regional publications even review Bollywood films. So while Tamil readers get to know about Bollywood, those who don’t engage with the Tamil media remain largely unaware about Tamil cinema. Similarly, Malayalam films, presently among the finest in the country, are reviewed mostly in the Malayalam press and in Malayalam television channels, and end up with only Malayalis as their consumers. Perhaps those publishers are right, after all. Perhaps a book about a Malayalam filmmaker makes financial sense only if written in Malayalam.

This lack of recognition is why so many actors and technicians flee to Mumbai after making their mark in the regional cinemas—though there, too, most of them may have to settle for fortune rather than fame. Real recognition comes not if you prove indispensable in the making of a movie, as a worker behind the scenes, but if the media can spin a ratings-garnering story about you. That exalted echelon of newsmakers is occupied by Bollywood stars and, sometimes, star directors. (You cannot make a movie without an art director; you cannot make a much-read story about one either.) A newcomer to Indian cinema may be forgiven for thinking that the bigwigs of Bollywood are the only ones who’ve had anything to do with Indian cinema, as they’re the only ones who have been asked to say something about it on this occasion. And when asked for quotes, when asked for favourites, when asked for memories, they fall back on Pyaasa and Mother India and Sholay, and declare, as if for the first time, that Dilip Kumar stroking Madhubala with a luxuriant feather is the most erotic moment in Indian cinema.

Baradwaj Rangan is a National Award-winning Film Critic and Deputy Editor with The Hindu. His book, Conversations with Mani Ratnam, was published by Penguin in 2012.

View as
Single Page
READER'S COMMENTS [14]

Though I broadly agree with the tone of the arguement, there are some obvious gaps. What has the tamil industry done to gain that cross state recognition? They cannot even market their movies by dubbing in other regional languages or providing sub-titles. Till very recently they were an inward looking group of artists.

I have the problem with the tone taken which seems to paint this as a North / South issue with Bollywood representing the entire North. Since the author has made token mentions of Kannada, Malayalam and Telugu movie industries, he could have also mentioned regional movie industries like Punjabi, Bhojpuri, Marathi etc which do not even get the 2 scenes mentioned in the books despite being from the North/Central/Western regions. At the end of the day Bollywood is the richest industry with all the money and glamour and pan india mass appeal. Like cricket in sports. True lovers of Indian cinema therefore, and I'm assuming the author is one of them, would have to go the extra mile to discover other movies irrespective of language and write about them.

A nice article. Inspite of total control over media, it was wonderful that Telugu Movie "Maya Bazaar" produced by Nagi Reddi and Chakrapani and ably directed by KVReddi, was voted Best Picture of all time in a poll conducted by CNN-IBN.

Well, what has The Hindu (where Mr. Rangan is the Deputy Editor doing about this)? NOTHING. Save for Mr. Randor Guys excellent articles on old Tamil movies, there is nary a piece of this celebration of movies, 100 years etc. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Mr. Rangan. Stop acting all righteous here and please go back to promoting Singham2, Siruthai3, Yannai1 and do continue your paper's insightful interviews w Karthi, Surya, Hansika and Namitha etc. on your Cinema+ pages. Your Hindu is doing diddly squat, so don't get on your high horse and pontificate about the N.Indian media.

This insularity of Delhi-Bombay silliness is true for other facts of life as well -- if someone gets raped and thrown out of a bus in Hyderabad or Madras or even Lucknow, there'd have been hardly any mention. A Talwar, the child who got murdered along with Hemraj, was local crime in Delhi. Why it became national news is simply because the media in Delhi is lazy. Instead of complaining, do what the Tamils do -- completely ignore Delhi, watch Sun TV, read The Hindu and or NY Times and there is always the New Yorker. Albeit with the minor problem that these same lazy people also set the political agenda. In the absence of a thundering CN Annadurai who asked if numbers are the reason for a national language, why is the Peacock and not the common Crow the national bird, or a polity that encourages such positioning, silently seeing Delhi usurp Education, Health and other state subjects is a sad reality of modern India.

Very nice article Mr. Rangan - views I have harbored for a long time myself! As a Keralite who grew up in Bombay (Mumbai came later), I'm as much a fan of Hindi and Marathi movies, as those made in the South, West Bengal, etc. Doordarshan deserves some praise for it's showing of regional movies back in the day, on Sunday afternoons. Anyway, I wanted to share a thought, my premise, on the origins of the term Bollywood. We in Bombay have a thing for taking a name, a term, etc., and "inventing" a word that sounds very similar. Examples are "taxi-vaxi", "car-vaar", "hattrick-beetrick", etc. It is my belief that this is exactly how the term Bollywood came to be. Hence, "Hollywood-Bollywood". Assuming the term originated in Bombay which, as the "unofficial" HQ of Hindi cinema, could be true.

a minor oversight. also telugu and kannada cinema, not just tamil and malayalam.

mr. rangan has articulated something i've felt for so long and could never really voice, given that i've lived my whole life in delhi and my peers are all from north & east india... i was also surprised to find, when i went abroad recently (for the first time) that the same argument could apply to food, indian cuisine being conflated with north indian cuisine. (and not even the good, interesting north indian stuff but orange dyed buckets of grease.)

The key capability today is 'perception management'. May be it always was, but with the distance between the description and the described increasing exponentially, the real becomes more and more inaccessible! Also, we might be seeing the misuse of the early days of patriotism when many Indians tried to learn Hindi as a sign of their commitment to the nation. What pray is the French equivalent of Hollywood? is there one?

Very good article.Absolutely spot on piece from Rangan. I watch Hindi films, the good ones; have grown up in N India, so have a natural inclination towards same. But I also appreciate good cinema in Tamil (my mother tongue), plus the occasional Telugu/Bengali film.How I wish that we in India could have access to a good non-Hindi film channel that showcases regional cinema with sub titles. We badly need one such channel devoted to regional cinema, and possibly another one for shorts and documentaries. Seriously, this media-Bollywood nexus cum hegemony is simply too much. There is so much in regional cinema, absolutely top class -- in comparison Hindi cinema swims in a sea of mediocrity where small islands of excellence exist too. Take a film like Michael Madana Kama-rajan (with Kamal in four roles, plus a stellar cast including Delhi Ganesh)-- this Tamil film is simply one of the funniest films of all time; a close second is another Kamalahasan starrer Thenali (also starring the excellent Malyali actor Jayaram). Fabulous intelligent comedy. Michael MK is in fact one film with a superbly picturized song, which is funny and takes the story forward. The only thing I did not like in MMK was the bully grandma's outrageous behaviour in the film's climax -- typical tamil film spoof attack on Brahmins. But otherwise this classic comedy deserves to be up there in a list of 100 best Indian films. I wonder if it is so, if it finds a place in any of the innumerable lists made recently. Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Marathi, Malyalam --these films deserve more media space. But Bollywood browbeats all. And a craven media supports such bullying.

nicely written article Mr.BR. I agree that the vernacular press should have come out with the 'lists'.

There's so much truth to this article and it deserves a wider audience, just like the movies mentioned! Kudos Caravan. As always!!

A very profound article Mr Rangan. This is only the scratch of a deeper malaise - south of the Vindhyas, India is more an after thought, as far as the people, media and publicity machine, of Mumbai or Delhi. Till recently, we were all banded together as Madrasis, and the caricature of the same being the character played by Mehmood in Padosan. I dont know about the other states, but in a strongly proud environment like Tamil Nadu, this attitude strikes deeply, as a planned insult. I dont know if it is that, or it is just benign neglect, ie chasing after the mammon. After all Bollywood has this huge heartland population to support it, and does not necessarily depend on the collections in Tamil Nadu or the three states (Puducheri included). Tamil culture, it appears, is in for a rough time, both in Sri Lanka due to planned genocide, and in India due to neglect, not only from outside of the state, but many a times, from within as well.

Thanks for thinking that North Indians care about Shobha Gurtu. Though the truth is - nobody will give a damn if some article mis-represents her achievements. The bigger truth is - no news article will ever cover her, forget misrepresenting. In terms of 'reach and impact' (marketing lingo that has made Bollywood the brand it is) - Shobha Gurtu is no better than Lalgudi Jayaraman. It's only Bollywood all the way. Also because Bollywood allows for so much of lazy, generic reporting, media aggressively fills up its space with more and more of the same. For example, i don't think a similar error in a piece on Md. Rafi will generate any outrage. The average Bollywood fans don't demand perfection or insight - hence the advantage in catering to them, and cultivating their tribe.

Leave comment

  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.