From Celluloid Empire to Tribal Resistance: Cinema, Hegemony, and the Politics of Representation

A Postcolonial Reading of Rambo, James Bond, and S. S. Rajamouli’s RRR

This Blog is a part of Flipped learning Activity assigned by Dr. and Prof. Dilip Barad sir regarding Postcolonial Studies and cinematic representation...

Introduction

Cinema is often described as a source of entertainment, but popular cinema can do much more than entertain. Films can shape our understanding of history, nations, cultures, heroes, enemies, and even political power. They select particular events, give importance to certain characters, and leave other perspectives outside the frame. In this sense, cinema does not simply reflect reality; it actively constructs and re-presents reality. This makes cinema an important subject for postcolonial studies because postcolonial criticism is deeply concerned with questions of power, representation, identity, domination, resistance, and voice.

so this two articles, “Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative” and “Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR,” provide two different but connected examples of cinematic representation. The first article examines how Hollywood films such as Rambo and James Bond participate in American and Western geopolitical narratives. The second examines how RRR transforms the historical tribal figures Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem into nationalist heroes. Together, these articles show that cinema can challenge domination, but it can also reproduce new forms of cultural and ideological power.

HERE IS THE MINDMAP OF MY BLOG

HERE IS THE INFOGRAPHIC OF MY BLOG

Hollywood and the “Celluloid Empire”

ARTICLE : HEROES OR HEGEMONS? THE CELLULOID EMPIRE OF RAMBO AND BOND IN AMERICA'S GEOPOLITICAL NARRATIVE CLICK HERE

In “Rambo and Bond in America’s Geopolitical Narrative,” Barad argues that the Rambo and James Bond franchises have functioned as powerful vehicles for presenting American and broader Western geopolitical perspectives. Hollywood’s global reach gives these narratives a form of cultural power. Barad particularly discusses Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) and Rambo III (1988). The former revisits the Vietnam War and presents American soldiers as heroic figures who were betrayed by their own government, while the latter places Rambo in Afghanistan, where he helps the Mujahideen fight the Soviet Union.

From a postcolonial perspective, this is important because the films do not present geopolitics as a neutral subject. They organise the world around heroes and enemies. America is positioned close to the moral centre of the narrative, while opposing political forces are represented as threats. The result is what Barad calls a kind of “celluloid empire”—a situation in which entertainment participates in shaping how audiences understand global power.

The James Bond franchise demonstrates a similar pattern. Although Bond is a British character rather than an American one, this article notes that films such as The Living Daylights connect Bond with Western geopolitical interests, particularly during the Cold War. These films contribute to the image of the Western hero as intelligent, powerful, morally justified, and capable of intervening in conflicts outside his own nation.

This can be understood through the concept of cultural hegemony. Hegemony is not maintained only through force; it can also operate through ideas, images, stories, and cultural institutions. When audiences repeatedly encounter Western heroes presented as defenders of freedom and justice, a particular political worldview can begin to appear natural. Cinema therefore becomes a form of soft power.

RRR: From Tribal Resistance to National Heroism

ARTICLE : REIMAGINING RESISTANCE: THE APPROPRIATION OF TRIBAL HEROES IN RAJAMOULI'S RRR CLICK HERE

The second article moves the discussion from Hollywood to Indian cinema. “Reimagining Resistance: The Appropriation of Tribal Heroes in Rajamouli’s RRR” examines the representation of Alluri Sitarama Raju and Komaram Bheem. The article explains that these historical figures were associated with resistance against oppressive systems and, importantly, with struggles involving tribal rights to land, water, and forests. Bheem’s resistance is especially connected with the idea of “Jal, Jangal, Zameen”—water, forest, and land.

Rajamouli’s RRR, however, reimagines these two historical figures as friends who join together in a larger struggle against British colonialism. This creates an emotionally powerful nationalist narrative. The film celebrates unity, courage, friendship, sacrifice, and resistance. Yet Barad argues that this transformation also changes the historical specificity of Raju’s and Bheem’s struggles. Their localized struggles for community rights become part of a larger anti-British nationalist story.

"This raises an important postcolonial question: What happens when a marginalized hero is transformed into a national symbol? On one hand, the process can bring greater visibility to a forgotten or marginalized history... On the other hand, the process of nationalization can reduce the complexity of their original struggles."

Therefore, RRR can simultaneously be read as a film of resistance and a film of appropriation. It resists colonial representation by celebrating Indian heroes, but it also appropriates tribal histories by reshaping them according to a nationalist cinematic framework.

From Colonial Oppression to Environmental Justice

The strongest point in Barad’s article is that the struggles of Raju and Bheem should not be treated as belonging only to the past. Their concerns remain connected to contemporary questions of displacement and environmental degradation. Barad explains that indigenous communities continue to face threats to land, water, and forests because of industrialisation, deforestation, and expanding economic interests.

This makes RRR relevant to contemporary environmental debates. The question today is not simply about a foreign colonial ruler controlling a territory. Power can also operate through development, resource extraction, displacement, and decisions about who has authority over natural resources. A postcolonial approach therefore asks us to examine whose idea of development is being followed and whose losses are being ignored.

The discussion can be connected with contemporary concerns surrounding the Ken–Betwa River Linking Project. The project brings questions of water management and development together with concerns about forests, land, livelihoods, and displacement. From the perspective suggested by article, such situations remind us that “Jal, Jangal, Zameen” is not merely a historical slogan. It can also be understood as a continuing demand for environmental justice and community rights.

Barad argues that RRR misses an opportunity to connect the historical resistance of Raju and Bheem with contemporary struggles for environmental justice. A different cinematic approach could have shown that resistance does not end with independence; it can continue wherever communities struggle to protect their land, water, forests, culture, and ways of life.

Nationalism and the Danger of Reproducing Hegemony

The two articles become especially interesting when read together. Rambo and Bond demonstrate how Western cinema can make geopolitical power appear heroic, while RRR demonstrates how Indian cinema can transform tribal resistance into a nationalist narrative. These are not identical situations, but both remind us that cinema can make particular political ideas emotionally attractive.

Barad makes this point directly when discussing the suggestion that Bollywood should use Hollywood as a model for projecting India’s image globally. He questions whether reproducing Hollywood’s strategy would simply create another hegemonic model. Instead, he argues that Indian cinema can challenge dominant narratives and provide space for voices that have traditionally been silenced.

This is an important postcolonial lesson. The aim of postcolonial cinema should not be to replace one dominant narrative with another. If Hollywood presents America as the universal hero, Indian cinema should not simply make India the universal hero. A stronger alternative would be cinema that allows multiple communities and histories to speak.

My Reflection

These articles have changed the way I look at popular films. Earlier, I usually watched films such as RRR, Rambo, or James Bond mainly for their stories, action, characters, and entertainment value. After reading these articles, I realised that a film can influence our thinking even when we are simply enjoying it.

What interested me most about RRR is the difference between remembering a hero and remembering a struggle. The film successfully makes Raju and Bheem memorable heroes, but Barad encourages us to ask whether their original struggles are equally remembered. For me, this distinction is important. Representation should not stop at putting a marginalized person at the centre of a film. It should also preserve the complexity of the history and community behind that person.

I also realised that postcolonial criticism does not mean rejecting everything associated with nationalism. Rather, it means questioning nationalism when it becomes so powerful that other voices disappear. A film can celebrate freedom from colonialism while still leaving questions about contemporary inequality, displacement, and environmental justice unanswered.

HERE IS THE SLIDE DECK OF MY BLOG

cinematic-hegemony-and-the-postcolonial-politics-of-representation from Khushi Parmar

Conclusion

The two articles demonstrate that cinema is a powerful cultural space where history, politics, nationalism, and identity are constantly reimagined. Rambo and James Bond show how Hollywood can function as a form of geopolitical soft power, projecting Western values and presenting Western intervention through heroic narratives. RRR, meanwhile, demonstrates how Indian cinema can reclaim colonial resistance while also reshaping tribal histories through nationalism.

A postcolonial reading therefore encourages us to look beyond the spectacle. We must ask who is represented, who becomes the hero, whose history is transformed, and whose voice remains outside the frame. The struggles of Raju and Bheem should not remain locked in the colonial past. Their concerns about Jal, Jangal, Zameen connect with contemporary questions of displacement, environmental degradation, development, and justice.

Ultimately, cinema has the power to create not only heroes but also ways of seeing the world. For this reason, postcolonial cinema should not simply create another “celluloid empire.” It should challenge hegemonic narratives, recover marginalized histories, and make space for voices that have often been represented by others rather than allowed to represent themselves. This, in my view, is the real potential of postcolonial cinema in today’s globalized world.

HERE IS THE BRIEF VIDEO OVERVIEW OF MY BLOG

Works Cited

Dennison, Stephanie, and Rachel Dwyer, editors. Cinema and Soft Power : Configuring the National and Transnational in Geo-Politics. Edinburgh University Press, 2020.

Roberts, Gillian. Race, Nation and Cultural Power in Film Adaptation. Edinburgh University Press, 2023.

“Reel vs. Real: The Cinematic and Historical Portrayal of Komaram Bheem in RRR.” International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, vol. 7, no. 2, 2025.

𝑲𝒉𝒖𝒔𝒉𝒊’𝒔 𝒃𝒍𝒐𝒈

Saturday, 29 August 2026