Watching Deepa Mehta's Midnight's Children: My Worksheet Response
📄 Sir's Worksheet:
Worksheet on Film Screening: Deepa Mehta's Midnight's Children
Midnight's Children: Film Screening Worksheet Response
A quick note before I start. I have watched the whole film, but I have only read parts of Rushdie's novel, not all of it. So most of what I say below comes from the film itself, along with the background readings and class discussion. Where I mention the novel, it is based on the parts I have actually read, not the full book. I think this is worth saying clearly, because a lot of writing on this novel pretends to know the whole six hundred pages inside out. I do not, and I would rather be honest about that than fake a confidence I have not earned.
Part 1: Pre-Viewing Activities
1. Who narrates history, the victors or the marginalized? How does this relate to personal identity?
My first instinct, before watching anything, is that official history usually belongs to whoever held power at the time an event happened. It gets written down, printed in textbooks, and taught in schools, and the people who actually lived through the event on the ground rarely get the same chance to record their own version. I think this connects to personal identity because the version of history a person grows up believing shapes how they understand their own place in the world. If you only ever hear the victor's account, you learn to see yourself either as part of that victory or as someone left out of it entirely, with no room for a messier, in-between position. I expect a novel and film built around a personal, unreliable narrator is going to push back against this in some way, probably by giving us someone whose memory does not match the official record, but I am guessing at that for now rather than describing anything I have actually seen.
2. What makes a nation? Is it geography, governance, culture, or memory?
Going in, my honest answer is that a nation is mostly its land and its government, something you could point to on a map and describe by its borders and its laws. But I already suspect this question is being asked because the reading list is going to complicate that answer. If a nation were only geography and governance, it would be strange for so much writing to exist about what a nation "means" or "feels like" to the people inside it. So before I have read anything else, my working guess is that a nation is probably some mix of all four options the question offers, geography, governance, culture, and memory, and that different people within the same country might weigh these four things very differently depending on their own history. I want to hold this open rather than deciding it firmly before I have done the actual reading and watched the film.
3. Can language be colonized or decolonized? Think about English in India.
My first thought is yes, a language can be occupied, the way a house or a piece of land can be occupied by an outside force, and living under that occupation for generations probably leaves marks on the language that do not disappear quickly, even after political independence. Whether it can be fully "decolonized" afterward is harder for me to answer honestly right now, since I have not yet done the reading on this. My starting guess, before looking anything up, is that English in India today probably carries both things at once, some leftover association with British rule, and also a huge amount of everyday, local, Indian use that has nothing to do with the British anymore. I expect the background reading and the film will push me to be more specific than this vague guess, and I come back to this exact question in much more detail in the Group 3 section below, since it turned out to be the center of my own group's task.
B. Background Reading
We were asked to look at four ideas before watching the film. I will explain each one in plain language, but I also want to say a little about why each one actually matters for reading the film critically, not just define it and move on.
Hybridity, from Homi Bhabha. Bhabha says that when a colonized person copies the colonizer's culture, the copy never comes out perfect. It always comes out a little different, a little bent, and he calls this in-between, mixed space the "Third Space." The important move here is that Bhabha refuses to treat this mixing as failure or confusion. He treats it as the place where something new gets made. I think this matters for the film because it gives us a way to talk about Saleem's mixed background without falling into the lazy reading that he is simply "lost" between two cultures. He is not lost. He is standing in a space that did not exist before people like him had to build it.
Nation as an idea, from Partha Chatterjee. Chatterjee argues that a nation is not only its land and its government offices. It is also an idea that a community builds together in its collective imagination, and that idea does not have to copy the European model of one flag, one language, one straight-line story of steady progress. India's story is full of breaks, contradictions, and separate pieces that do not fit into a single timeline, and Chatterjee's point is that this is not a broken version of a "proper" nation. It is what an Indian nation actually looks like once you stop measuring it against a European template. I find this useful because it stops me from watching the film's chaos, the switching narrators, the jumps in time, and reading it as a flaw. It might instead be the film being honest about the shape of its own subject.
Chutnification of English, from Salman Rushdie. In his essay "Commonwealth Literature Does Not Exist," Rushdie says he never had access to "pure," proper English in the first place, because the language arrived in India already carrying the weight of empire behind it. Instead of pretending he can write in some neutral, untouched English, he mixes it deliberately with Indian words, rhythms, and habits of speech. People sometimes call this mixing "chutnification," as if English were a raw ingredient being pickled and spiced until it tastes like something local. I think the sharper point in Rushdie's essay, and the one worth holding onto, is that he is not doing this as decoration. He is doing it as an argument. Standard English, in his view, was never neutral to begin with, so there is nothing pure being damaged by the mixing. I explain this idea in much more depth in the Group 3 section, since it is the concept my group was asked to focus on.
Film adaptation and voice, from Mendes and Kuortti. This article studies how different audiences respond differently to the film adaptation. Indian viewers and Western viewers do not always read the same scene the same way, and the Padma frame narrative in particular gets interpreted differently depending on what kind of story about India a viewer already expects to see. This reading is useful for me because it stops me from asking the lazy question of whether the film is "faithful" to the book. A better question, and the one I try to hold onto through this whole response, is what the film is doing on its own terms, for its own audience, with its own tools.
| Idea | Who said it | Simple meaning | What it lets me argue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hybridity | Homi Bhabha | A mixed identity is not broken, it makes something new | Saleem's confusion is creative, not just tragic |
| Nation as an idea | Partha Chatterjee | A nation is a shared, disputed story | The film's broken structure matches its subject |
| Chutnification | Salman Rushdie | Mixing Indian words into English as argument | English on screen is doing political work |
| Adaptation | Mendes and Kuortti | Different viewers read films differently | "Faithfulness" is the wrong question to ask |
Table kept exactly as in worksheet: Four ideas with their meaning and critical use
About the Book: Midnight's Children
Midnight's Children — The Novel
Midnight's Children is a famous novel written by Salman Rushdie. It was first published in 1981.
The novel is set around the time of India's independence in 1947. It tells the story of Saleem Sinai, who is born at midnight on 15 August 1947, exactly when India becomes independent.
The novel connects Saleem's life with the history of independent India. It includes themes of identity, memory, family, politics, history, and cultural diversity.
Rushdie also uses magical realism in the novel. The children born around midnight are given special powers, which makes the story a mixture of history and imagination. The novel won the Booker Prize in 1981 and is considered an important work of Indian English and postcolonial literature.
Basic Details
- Title: Midnight's Children
- Author: Salman Rushdie
- First Published: 1981
- Genre: Historical fiction, magical realism, postcolonial fiction
- Main Character: Saleem Sinai
- Main Setting: India before and after Independence
About the Movie: Midnight's Children (2012)
Midnight's Children was adapted into a film in 2012 from Salman Rushdie's novel. The movie was directed by Deepa Mehta, an internationally known Indian-Canadian filmmaker. Salman Rushdie wrote the screenplay and also provided the narration for the film.
The film follows the life of Saleem Sinai and connects his personal story with important events in Indian history. It presents subjects such as Independence, Partition, family, identity, political change, and the Emergency.
The film uses visual storytelling to bring Rushdie's imaginative world to the screen. It includes elements of history, fantasy, politics, and magical realism.
Basic Movie Details
- Title: Midnight's Children
- Release Year: 2012
- Director: Deepa Mehta
- Screenplay: Salman Rushdie
- Based on: Salman Rushdie's 1981 novel
- Main Character: Saleem Sinai
- Genre: Historical drama, magical realism
- Main Setting: India, from the period of Independence onwards
Part 2: While-Watching Activities
Trailer: Deepa Mehta's Midnight's Children (2012)
Here are my notes for each of the observation points from the worksheet, expanded a little further than a first reaction.
Observation Points — Expanded Notes
Opening scene. The film opens with Saleem's birth happening at the exact same moment as India's independence at midnight. On a first watch this felt almost too neat, too perfectly timed, almost like a coincidence written by someone who wanted a clean symbol. On a second thought, I do not think this is an accident of the script. I think Mehta wants us to notice the neatness itself as artificial. She hands us a simple equation, one baby equals one nation, in the film's very first minutes, and then spends the rest of the film slowly taking that equation apart, showing us how messy and unreliable it actually is once you follow Saleem's life in detail. The opening is a promise the film does not keep, and I think that broken promise is deliberate.
Saleem and Shiva's birth switch. A nurse named Mary Pereira swaps the name tags of two newborn babies in the hospital. She does this because of her boyfriend's rough, half-formed idea about redistributing wealth from rich families to poor ones. One baby, biologically the son of an Englishman and a poor street singer, ends up raised by a wealthy Muslim family. The other baby, the real son of that family, grows up poor. Nobody in the story consciously chooses this outcome for either child. It happens because of one nurse's private decision made in a few seconds, and yet it decides the entire shape of both children's lives. What struck me watching this on screen, rather than just knowing the plot summary in advance, is how small and almost accidental the switch looks in the moment. There is no dramatic music, no slow motion. It happens quickly, the way real mistakes often do, and I think the film wants us to feel the disproportion between the size of the act and the size of its consequences.
Saleem's narration. The camera often shows us only pieces of a scene: a face seen through a small gap in cloth, a hand reaching for an object, a conversation we hear only half of. We are almost never given a full, steady, "objective" view of events the way a more conventional historical drama might show them. I think this visual choice is doing the same work as Saleem's own unreliable narration on the page, at least in the parts of the novel I have read, where he openly admits to getting dates and facts wrong. The film asks us to trust a narrator, visual and verbal both, who has already told us he cannot be fully trusted. That is an unusual thing to ask of an audience, and I think it works here because the alternative, a clean and confident narrator, would betray everything the film is trying to say about how postcolonial history actually gets remembered.
The Emergency period. This section of the film looks and feels different from everything before it. The warm, cluttered, overexposed colors of old Bombay give way to flat, grey, colder lighting once the Emergency begins. The children with special gifts, who earlier in the film stood for a kind of free, unpredictable, mixed India, full of different possible futures, are now hunted down and stopped by the state. Watching this scene next to Chatterjee's argument about nations trying to force one official version of themselves onto a much messier reality made it land harder for me than it would have on its own. The Emergency, in this reading, is not just a historical event the film is depicting. It is the moment where the state tries to erase the very hybridity the earlier parts of the film had celebrated.
Use of English, Hindi, and Urdu. The characters move constantly between the three languages, and the film does not add subtitles or explanations to smooth this over for an outside audience. English sentences get interrupted by Hindi or Urdu words that are never translated for us. I think this is the film doing, in sound, exactly what Rushdie's prose does on the page. It refuses to pause and explain itself. It assumes the audience either already belongs to this linguistic world, or is willing to learn its rhythms as it goes, the same way a child learns a language by being surrounded by it rather than being taught a dictionary first. I want to hold this thought here because it becomes the whole subject of my group's task below.
Part 3: Post-Watching Activities
A. Group Discussion Topics
Group 1: Hybridity and identity
The worksheet asks how the film shows hybrid identity as something possible, rather than only confusing. I think the clearest answer is Saleem himself, but I want to be a little more critical here than just repeating that hybridity is good. He has an English biological father, a Hindu birth mother, and a Muslim upbringing, and the film never simplifies this into one clean identity. This mixing gives him something extra: a telepathic connection to every other child born at midnight across the country. His mixed background is not treated as a problem the plot needs to solve. It becomes the reason he has this unusual power in the first place. That matches Bhabha's idea of the Third Space fairly closely, a mixed identity producing something genuinely new rather than something diminished. But I also think it is worth asking whether the film makes hybridity look too magical, almost like a superpower, when for most real people a mixed identity does not come with telepathy attached, only with the ordinary, unglamorous difficulty of not fitting cleanly anywhere. The film's optimism about hybridity is moving, but it is also a little convenient.
Group 2: Narrating the nation
The worksheet asks whether India feels like one coherent country in the film, or a broken, fragmented one. I do not think the film tries to present India as coherent at all, and I do not think it should. Partition, the wars, the Emergency, and Saleem's own body slowly falling apart all happen alongside each other, and the film keeps cutting between Saleem's personal life and these larger national events without ever forcing them to line up neatly.
Here is a rough timeline connecting the two, as the activity asks for:
- 1947: India becomes independent. Saleem is born at the same moment.
- 1965: War between India and Pakistan. Saleem loses much of his family.
- 1971: War over Bangladesh. Saleem is hit on the head and loses his memory.
- 1975 to 1977: The Emergency. The midnight's children are hunted down.
Every time something large happens to the nation, something large and painful also happens to Saleem's body or memory. I think this parallel is the film's central argument about nationhood. India in this film is not one single, coherent story with a beginning, middle, and end. It is many broken, competing pieces placed next to each other, and the film's structure, jumping and doubling back the way it does, is trying to look like that fragmentation rather than smooth it over for the audience's comfort.
Group 3: Chutnification of English, in full detail
This is my own group's task, so I am giving it the fullest treatment here, working through each part of the worksheet prompt in order rather than compressing it.
What "chutnification" actually means, and where the word comes from
Chutney, in most Indian kitchens, is made by taking separate raw ingredients, coriander, mint, tamarind, chilli, and crushing them together with a mortar and pestle until they lose their separate identities and become one new, sharp-tasting thing. Rushdie borrows this kitchen image for what he does to English. He does not add a few Indian words as spice on top of otherwise normal English sentences. He crushes English grammar, rhythm, and vocabulary together with Hindi, Urdu, and Bombay street slang until the result is something new, not simply English with Indian seasoning, but its own distinct dish. In the parts of the novel I have read, Saleem actually describes his own life story as something he is pickling in jars, chapter by chapter, so the food metaphor is not just something critics invented afterward. Rushdie built it into the story on purpose.
I think it is worth being precise about what exactly gets "chutnified" in the language, since the worksheet asks us to reflect on this rather than just define it:
- Vocabulary. Words like "funtoosh," "nasbandi," "Padma," and various affectionate or insulting nicknames appear without translation. A reader or viewer either already knows these words or has to guess their meaning from the scene around them, the same way you would pick up a new word from a friend rather than a textbook.
- Grammar and sentence rhythm. Indian English often repeats words for emphasis ("hot hot," "slowly slowly"), uses "isn't it" as a general tag question regardless of the actual verb, and builds sentences with a different rhythm of pauses than standard British English. Rushdie uses these patterns deliberately in his prose style, and the film's dialogue carries some of the same rhythm in how actors deliver their lines.
- Direct address and exclamation. Words like "Arre," "hai hai," and various honorifics such as "sahib" or "Begum" appear in the dialogue exactly as they would in ordinary Bombay speech, without being softened into an English equivalent.
Historical background: why this is a political choice, not just a style
To understand why this mixing matters so much, it helps to remember why English arrived in India in the first place. Thomas Macaulay's well-known 1835 education minute argued for building an Indian class of people who would be, in his words, Indian in blood and color but English in taste, opinions, and intellect. English was introduced into Indian education specifically to produce loyal administrators who thought like the colonizer while still looking like the colonized. Once you know this history, Rushdie's chutnification looks less like decoration and more like a direct answer to Macaulay. Instead of English producing Indians who think in an English way, Rushdie makes English itself start thinking in an Indian way. The colonizer's tool gets turned back on the project it was originally built for.
Pickling as preservation, and as a kind of violence
The worksheet also asks us to reflect on "pickling" specifically, not just chutnification in general. I think this word carries something the word chutnification alone does not fully capture. Pickling is not only about mixing flavors. It is a method of preservation, of making something last long after its original, fresh form would have spoiled. Saleem's habit of "pickling" his own memories into labeled jars suggests that he sees storytelling itself as a way of stopping his history from rotting away and being forgotten, the same way official history might prefer to forget an inconvenient, complicated life like his. But pickling also requires crushing and salting the original ingredient until it can never go back to its raw form. I think this is an honest, slightly uncomfortable admission inside the metaphor itself. Preserving a memory through this kind of language is not a neutral act. Something about the original experience gets changed, compressed, and made sharper in the process, the same way a raw mango is never the same thing again once it becomes pickle.
The debate: is English still a colonial language, or has it become Indian?
The worksheet asks us to debate this directly, so I want to lay out both sides properly before giving my own answer, rather than jumping straight to a conclusion.
The case that English remains a colonial language rests on more than just history. Writers such as Ngugi wa Thiong'o have argued that a colonized people can never fully own the colonizer's language, because the economic and educational systems built around that language keep reproducing the same old hierarchies. In the film, this argument finds a clear example in William Methwold, the Englishman who agrees to sell his Bombay estate only if the new owners promise to keep living exactly as he did, his furniture kept in place, his habits imitated. Even after his political power over India ends, Methwold insists on a kind of cultural leash tied to English manners and English things. English, in this reading, keeps functioning as a marker of class and status inside India itself, long after the British left, since fluency in "proper" English still often decides who gets the good job or the respected seat at the table.
The opposing case, that English has become genuinely Indian, draws on linguists such as Braj Kachru, who studies what he calls "World Englishes," the idea that English has split into many legitimate regional varieties around the world, Indian English being one of them, with its own grammar, its own idioms, and its own literature, rather than being a broken or incorrect copy of British English. Rushdie's own writing is often cited as a literary example of this claim. His English is not "bad" English struggling to be proper. It is a fully worked-out variety with its own internal logic, and the film's dialogue, mixing all three languages without apology, seems to make the same claim through its soundtrack rather than through prose.
My own conclusion, after sitting with both sides, is that the film does not actually let either argument win outright, and I think that refusal is the more critical position rather than a dodge. English in this film is doing both jobs at once. It still marks status and colonial memory in scenes like Methwold's house sale. It is also being actively reshaped, interrupted, and made local in Saleem's narration and in the ordinary chatter of the streets. A film that declared English fully "decolonized" by its final scene would be ignoring how much real economic and cultural power still runs through that language in India today, not just in 1947 or 1975, but now, in job interviews, university admissions, and much of the content we still consume in English rather than in our own regional languages. So my answer to the worksheet's debate question is neither yes nor no. It is that the question itself assumes English has to end up in one category or the other, and the film's real achievement is showing that it can permanently sit in both.
Extended creative task: translating two passages
The worksheet asks us to take a passage, reflect on how it is chutnified, translate it into standard English, and reflect on what is lost. I have done this with two passages to get a fuller sense of the pattern, rather than relying on just one example.
Passage One — Based on how Saleem describes his birth city
ORIGINAL STYLE:
"At the exact moment of India's independence, at the stroke of midnight, I tumbled into the world, born in the city of Bombay, once upon a time, back before there were clocktowers, when the Koli fishermen pulled in pomfret and made fish eaters out of all of us."
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSION:
"I was born in Mumbai on 15 August 1947, at the same time India became independent. The city had originally been a group of islands where local fishing communities caught fish before the British developed the land."
LOSS ANALYSIS:
The standard version simply reports a fact, in the neutral tone of a report or an encyclopedia entry. The original version tells a story instead, using a phrase like "once upon a time" directly next to a specific, checkable date, a combination that a plain news report could never risk. The word "tumbled" makes birth sound sudden and physical, almost accidental, rather than a clean administrative event with a time and place recorded on a certificate. The phrase "fish-lovers of us all" pulls the reader directly into a shared, local "us," something the standard version cannot do at all, since it is written for an outside reader who needs the city explained rather than felt.
Passage Two — Ordinary Dialogue Rhythm
ORIGINAL STYLE:
"Arre baba, why you are worrying so much, isn't it. The whole of Bombay is watching, na, so behave properly, sahib, otherwise log kya kahenge."
STANDARD ENGLISH VERSION:
"Please do not worry so much. All of Bombay is watching, so please behave properly, or people will talk about us."
LOSS ANALYSIS:
The standard version is polite and complete, but it is also flat. It could be spoken by anyone, anywhere. The original version cannot be mistaken for any other setting. The tag word "na," the direct code-switch into "log kya kahenge" without translation, and the address "Arre baba" all locate the speaker in a very specific social world, a Bombay household worried about reputation and gossip. Once this gets smoothed into standard English, the sentence keeps its meaning but loses its address, its sense of exactly who is speaking to whom, in what tone, and within what community's rules of shame and reputation.
I think this second example makes the loss even clearer than the first, because it shows that chutnification is not only about describing places poetically. It is built into how people actually argue, worry, and scold each other in the film, moment to moment.
B. Written Reflection: What Does It Mean to Belong to a Postcolonial Nation That Speaks in a Colonizer's Tongue?
This is the main written prompt from the worksheet, so I want to answer it directly and in full here, using the film and the parts of the novel I have read, while trying to stay critical rather than just agreeing with the theory I have been given.
I think the honest answer is that it means living with a discomfort that never fully resolves, and that this discomfort is not something the postcolonial subject is supposed to fix or grow out of. Saleem is not a damaged version of some purer Indian identity that exists somewhere else, untouched by colonial history. He is what an actual person born at that exact historical moment looks like: mixed parents, a language inherited from the people who once ruled the country, and a body that keeps cracking under everything it is asked to represent on behalf of a whole nation.
"Rushdie's essay makes a related point: a writer in his position never had a 'pure' language available to choose from, since English arrived in India already carrying power with it (Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands 17). The only real choice left is what to do with the language once it is already in your hands. His answer is to overload the language with so much untranslated local sound and rhythm that it stops being able to pretend it is neutral or universal."
Bhabha's idea of hybridity supplies the other half of my answer. He argues that when a colonized subject copies the colonizer, the copy always comes out slightly displaced, slightly shifted from the original, and that this displacement is not something shameful to hide. It is the place where something new actually gets produced (Bhabha 86-88). Saleem's fractured identity, his swapped birth, his body that keeps breaking down across the novel and the film, reads to me as this same idea pushed to an extreme. His broken pieces are not what prevent him from belonging to India. His broken pieces are what belonging to a country shaped by Partition, many languages, and inherited colonial government structures actually feels like from the inside, once you stop pretending that belonging should feel whole and settled.
I do want to hold onto one genuine tension here, rather than smoothing it over the way a tidier essay might. This same fracturing eventually becomes fatal for Saleem. His body cannot keep holding together, and by the end he is described as literally cracking into many pieces. There is something almost cruel about a story that celebrates mixed, hybrid identity as creative and full of possibility, while also using a hybrid body as the exact site where everything collapses. I do not think this is an accident or a flaw in the story. I think it is closer to the actual point. To belong to a postcolonial nation in a borrowed tongue is to hold two things together that do not comfortably fit: a real, creative freedom in reshaping the language and the identity you were handed, and a real, physical cost in carrying a history that was never fully yours to author in the first place. Neither the film nor the parts of the novel I have read try to resolve that tension into something comfortable, and I have come to think that refusing a comfortable resolution is itself the more critical and more honest choice a postcolonial text can make.
Additional Presentation & Mind Map
Midnight's Children: Postcolonial Synthesis Guide by Sanjay Rathod
Timeline Analysis: Saleem's Life and Indian National History
📄 Full Mind Map:
Midnight's Children Novel Structure (Google Drive)
Closing Thoughts
I went into this screening expecting a film that could not possibly match the parts of the novel I had already read, and I want to be honest that I still think the film loses something in the compression. Three hours cannot hold a story this large, and several stretches, especially in the later Emergency section, felt rushed rather than lived through. That is a real limitation, not a small one, and I do not want to pretend the adaptation is flawless just because I ended up admiring what it does with language.
At the same time, on the specific question this worksheet keeps returning us to — whether a borrowed language can be reshaped into something that genuinely belongs to the people who inherited it — I think the film earns its answer honestly rather than taking a shortcut. Mehta is not trying to copy Rushdie's sentences directly onto the screen. She is translating his central move, an English language under constant pressure from everything around it, into camera work, sound design, and a soundtrack that never once stops to explain itself for an outsider.
The answer the film gives is not a clean yes, and it is not a no either. It is something closer to a broken shape that has learned, however painfully, to hold together anyway.
📚 Works Cited
Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.
Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton UP, 1993.
Kachru, Braj B. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Pergamon Press, 1986.
Mendes, Ana Cristina, and Joel Kuortti. "Padma or No Padma: Audience in the Adaptations of Midnight's Children." The Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 2016, pp. 1-18,
doi:10.1177/0021989416671171
Midnight's Children. Directed by Deepa Mehta, screenplay by Salman Rushdie, performances by Satya Bhabha and Shriya Saran, Hamilton-Mehta Productions, 2012.
Ngugi wa Thiong'o. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. James Currey, 1986.
Rushdie, Salman. Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism, 1981-1991. Penguin, 1991.
This comprehensive worksheet response examines Deepa Mehta's 2012 adaptation of Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children through pre-viewing, while-viewing, and post-viewing activities — exploring hybridity, postcolonial identity, the chutnification of English, and the politics of language, memory, and national belonging.
No comments:
Post a Comment