Dialogue in Cinema
Bhopal, Nov 2006
“Most film dialogue seems to have been interpolated for the sake of clarification. It is a false approach. Dialogue is a part of the theme and reveals character. For the real theme is the person, whom dialogue, picture, situation, setting, temperature and lighting all combine together to depict. The world is one whole”
- Jean Renoir
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Why I wanted to work at S3IDF
Hyderabad, Dec 2006
My interest in seeking a role with S3IDF is a result of beliefs that have been shaped by my experiences, observations and reading during the past few years. It is only in recent months that these beliefs have assumed an urgency of action prompting me to seek a role with S3IDF. I will describe the pertinent thoughts below.
It is generally believed that large-scale enterprises competing in the global economy hold the key to poverty alleviation. However, due to a large number of Indian poor being agrarian in remote, rural areas that are a long way from being part of the global economy, it will be impossible to effectively address poverty unless large-scale enterprises are complemented by strong self-sufficient local economies at the level of district and below. By definition, self-sufficiency requires local economies to be powered by small-scale enterprises that are run by the poor for the poor. And since the whole becomes stronger when the parts are strengthened, strong self-sufficient local economies strengthen national and global economies.
It is disappointing, however, that projects aimed at developing small-scale enterprises in rural areas don’t attract sufficient investments. I am confident, though, that rural people are both capable and willing to participate in operating such projects and using the services they offer. V. R. Krishna Iyer, in his efforts to establish minor irrigation and electricity projects in Kerala, insisted on people’s participation and labour, “which came voluntarily and abundantly”. He writes, “This productive contribution was largely drawn from the local villages, which gave the people a sense of possession and gram swaraj … rural youth can play a substantially creative role”. To quote a Chinese proverb, “Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand”.
While I am convinced with the soundness of the above thoughts in principle, I am aware of the limitations under which they are formed – lack of exposure to the poor and rural environment. Having been brought up in middle class urban environment and worked in protected IT parks solving business problems several layers above basic human needs, the problems of the poor and rural people appear clear and solutions easy. I would like exposure to the poor and rural environment so that my thoughts can be moulded by direct contact with the issues they address. It is an intellectual pursuit as well as a pursuit for meaning in my life.
Being part of the S3IDF team, the most important personal objective I would achieve is having direct exposure to the rural environment. My project interests, in line with my beliefs, would be to build small-scale enterprises that can feed off each other and contribute in the construction of self-sufficient local economies.
Hyderabad, Dec 2006
My interest in seeking a role with S3IDF is a result of beliefs that have been shaped by my experiences, observations and reading during the past few years. It is only in recent months that these beliefs have assumed an urgency of action prompting me to seek a role with S3IDF. I will describe the pertinent thoughts below.
It is generally believed that large-scale enterprises competing in the global economy hold the key to poverty alleviation. However, due to a large number of Indian poor being agrarian in remote, rural areas that are a long way from being part of the global economy, it will be impossible to effectively address poverty unless large-scale enterprises are complemented by strong self-sufficient local economies at the level of district and below. By definition, self-sufficiency requires local economies to be powered by small-scale enterprises that are run by the poor for the poor. And since the whole becomes stronger when the parts are strengthened, strong self-sufficient local economies strengthen national and global economies.
It is disappointing, however, that projects aimed at developing small-scale enterprises in rural areas don’t attract sufficient investments. I am confident, though, that rural people are both capable and willing to participate in operating such projects and using the services they offer. V. R. Krishna Iyer, in his efforts to establish minor irrigation and electricity projects in Kerala, insisted on people’s participation and labour, “which came voluntarily and abundantly”. He writes, “This productive contribution was largely drawn from the local villages, which gave the people a sense of possession and gram swaraj … rural youth can play a substantially creative role”. To quote a Chinese proverb, “Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand”.
While I am convinced with the soundness of the above thoughts in principle, I am aware of the limitations under which they are formed – lack of exposure to the poor and rural environment. Having been brought up in middle class urban environment and worked in protected IT parks solving business problems several layers above basic human needs, the problems of the poor and rural people appear clear and solutions easy. I would like exposure to the poor and rural environment so that my thoughts can be moulded by direct contact with the issues they address. It is an intellectual pursuit as well as a pursuit for meaning in my life.
Being part of the S3IDF team, the most important personal objective I would achieve is having direct exposure to the rural environment. My project interests, in line with my beliefs, would be to build small-scale enterprises that can feed off each other and contribute in the construction of self-sufficient local economies.
Thoughts on gated communities
Hyderabad, 2006
I came across an article in ‘The Hindu’ titled, ‘The Tale of Two Cities’ that talked about the poor-rich divide that is growing steadily into geographic separation of the city of Chennai. The poor are being relocated out of some localities to make them more attractive to investors. What struck me was not the relocation itself but the fact that we want to blind ourselves to the existence of poverty. The development of real estate in Bangalore and Hyderabad drive this point home. Apartment complexes, office spaces, shopping malls, etc. express our innate desire to model our environment after the developed countries. There remain a few grievances, though – the corridors that separate them, the roads, remain Indian. Link them with elevated highways and that just seems to complete the illusion of living in USA. By building these pleasure domes and barricading ourselves from the have-nots, we are not only blinding ourselves to the rampant poverty around us but also making the polarity between the haves and have-nots all the more visible. By building palaces, we are not only showing our new found wealth but are highlighting the condition of the poor. We could just be making ourselves more vulnerable. In the past, such polarities have been leveled by way of revolutions – not always peaceful.
Until about 10 – 15 years ago, most of us were apathetic to the state of our country and people. But the crucial difference is that there were very few rich and there was no visible polarity among the others. The middle class lived beside the poor. The poor were not shooed away, nor did the middle class build palaces. With poverty largely visible, there was a possibility for affirmative action. By cordoning off ourselves from poverty and blinding ourselves, we are eliminating what little chance there is for affirmative action.
Hyderabad, 2006
I came across an article in ‘The Hindu’ titled, ‘The Tale of Two Cities’ that talked about the poor-rich divide that is growing steadily into geographic separation of the city of Chennai. The poor are being relocated out of some localities to make them more attractive to investors. What struck me was not the relocation itself but the fact that we want to blind ourselves to the existence of poverty. The development of real estate in Bangalore and Hyderabad drive this point home. Apartment complexes, office spaces, shopping malls, etc. express our innate desire to model our environment after the developed countries. There remain a few grievances, though – the corridors that separate them, the roads, remain Indian. Link them with elevated highways and that just seems to complete the illusion of living in USA. By building these pleasure domes and barricading ourselves from the have-nots, we are not only blinding ourselves to the rampant poverty around us but also making the polarity between the haves and have-nots all the more visible. By building palaces, we are not only showing our new found wealth but are highlighting the condition of the poor. We could just be making ourselves more vulnerable. In the past, such polarities have been leveled by way of revolutions – not always peaceful.
Until about 10 – 15 years ago, most of us were apathetic to the state of our country and people. But the crucial difference is that there were very few rich and there was no visible polarity among the others. The middle class lived beside the poor. The poor were not shooed away, nor did the middle class build palaces. With poverty largely visible, there was a possibility for affirmative action. By cordoning off ourselves from poverty and blinding ourselves, we are eliminating what little chance there is for affirmative action.
Ardh Satya and the Art Cinema, Commercial Cinema debate
Bhopal, Sep 2006
I haven’t seen many Govind Nihalani films. I saw Drohkaal during my college days, which I liked. After a break of nearly a decade, I watched Dev. It was a sensitive subject, brilliantly handled by Nihalani by means of a taut script and sensitive portrayals. A couple of years later I had time and opportunity to watch Ardh Satya.
Ardh Satya starts off without preamble. Though it is disconcerting, it makes its intentions clear – its paring-down of the plot, story, environment, people, etc. to the absolute minimum, a conscious effort to de-dramatize. All three Nihalani films that I had seen are essentially police stories. Drohkaal and Dev are about terrorism and communalism. In Dev, the characters’ views towards communalism and the ensuing violence are clearly defined and firm. The theme is examined and illuminated by incidents and debates in the narrative. By showing different perspectives and by means of the story itself, Dev aims to put the viewer in a position of introspection. The evolution of characters is absent and irrelevant to the film. Contrastingly, Ardh Satya’s theme is the protagonist’s struggle to harmonize his thoughts and actions. Ananth Welankar, the protagonist, is repeatedly put into situations of conflict between thought and action, his moments of truth (MoT). It is not until the closing frames of the film, the last few seconds that Ananth finds redemption. In his biggest MoT, he is able to cast-off his ‘Napunsaktha’ (cowardice, in this context) and performs an act of courage. By surrendering himself to the police and face the consequences rather than bail himself out, he tilts the balance firmly in favour of ‘Paurush’ (courage). Nihalani exercises tremendous self-restraint in de-dramatizing this pivotal moment. In fact, it is as though he was getting late for his dinner and therefore, wrapped-up the movie in a rush. It is over even before you realize it.
The movie is memorable because we can see ourselves in Ananth. Our beliefs and thoughts constantly challenged by reality and compromised in the interest of self-preservation. We all have our MoTs and our actions are not always in harmony with our beliefs. We jettison our beliefs in the interest of self-preservation. Ironically, we lose our “self” in the process to become just another among the crowd.The script of Ardh Satya is a live wire – never swaying from the central theme, brutal sometimes in not providing a respite. The locations, settings and characters are realistic without any artifice. The acting is fantastic. Om Puri is colossal.
Ardh Satya is classified as an art film. I don’t know what an art film is. I can understand westerns, comedies, tragedies, etc. What is an art film? There can only be good films and bad films. The talk of commercial films vs. art films is quite baffling. Every film director wants his / her film to be seen by people – be commercially successful. Even the “art film” directors. Some directors make movies confident (oftentimes misplaced) that their film will be a commercial success. Some directors make movies with hope that it will be commercially successful. The difference is conceit in the former case and humility in the latter. Not commercial and art. Ardh Satya is a great film. If it wasn’t commercially successful, the reasons could be numerous – but certainly not because it was an art film.
Bhopal, Sep 2006
I haven’t seen many Govind Nihalani films. I saw Drohkaal during my college days, which I liked. After a break of nearly a decade, I watched Dev. It was a sensitive subject, brilliantly handled by Nihalani by means of a taut script and sensitive portrayals. A couple of years later I had time and opportunity to watch Ardh Satya.
Ardh Satya starts off without preamble. Though it is disconcerting, it makes its intentions clear – its paring-down of the plot, story, environment, people, etc. to the absolute minimum, a conscious effort to de-dramatize. All three Nihalani films that I had seen are essentially police stories. Drohkaal and Dev are about terrorism and communalism. In Dev, the characters’ views towards communalism and the ensuing violence are clearly defined and firm. The theme is examined and illuminated by incidents and debates in the narrative. By showing different perspectives and by means of the story itself, Dev aims to put the viewer in a position of introspection. The evolution of characters is absent and irrelevant to the film. Contrastingly, Ardh Satya’s theme is the protagonist’s struggle to harmonize his thoughts and actions. Ananth Welankar, the protagonist, is repeatedly put into situations of conflict between thought and action, his moments of truth (MoT). It is not until the closing frames of the film, the last few seconds that Ananth finds redemption. In his biggest MoT, he is able to cast-off his ‘Napunsaktha’ (cowardice, in this context) and performs an act of courage. By surrendering himself to the police and face the consequences rather than bail himself out, he tilts the balance firmly in favour of ‘Paurush’ (courage). Nihalani exercises tremendous self-restraint in de-dramatizing this pivotal moment. In fact, it is as though he was getting late for his dinner and therefore, wrapped-up the movie in a rush. It is over even before you realize it.
The movie is memorable because we can see ourselves in Ananth. Our beliefs and thoughts constantly challenged by reality and compromised in the interest of self-preservation. We all have our MoTs and our actions are not always in harmony with our beliefs. We jettison our beliefs in the interest of self-preservation. Ironically, we lose our “self” in the process to become just another among the crowd.The script of Ardh Satya is a live wire – never swaying from the central theme, brutal sometimes in not providing a respite. The locations, settings and characters are realistic without any artifice. The acting is fantastic. Om Puri is colossal.
Ardh Satya is classified as an art film. I don’t know what an art film is. I can understand westerns, comedies, tragedies, etc. What is an art film? There can only be good films and bad films. The talk of commercial films vs. art films is quite baffling. Every film director wants his / her film to be seen by people – be commercially successful. Even the “art film” directors. Some directors make movies confident (oftentimes misplaced) that their film will be a commercial success. Some directors make movies with hope that it will be commercially successful. The difference is conceit in the former case and humility in the latter. Not commercial and art. Ardh Satya is a great film. If it wasn’t commercially successful, the reasons could be numerous – but certainly not because it was an art film.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
An extract from ‘The Discovery of India’ by Jawaharlal Nehru (1944)
Hyderabad, Aug 2006
“The independence of the United States of America is more or less contemporaneous with the loss of freedom of India. Surveying the past century and a half, an Indian looks somewhat wistfully and longingly at the vast progress made by the United States during this period, and compares with what has been done and what has not been done in his own country. It is true no doubt that the Americans have many virtues and we have many failings, that America offered a virgin field and an almost clean slate to write upon while we were cluttered up with ancient memories and traditions. And yet perhaps it is not inconceivable that if Britain had not undertaken this great burden in India and, as she tells us, endeavored for so long to teach us the difficult art of self-government, of which we had been so ignorant, India might not only have been freer and more prosperous, but also far more advanced in science and art and all that makes life worth living.”
I was really touched by this longing for things to have been different, for India not to be subjugated, for her to be free of colonialism, and become prosperous. This longing was shared, I am sure, by many people born in pre-independence India who strived for her freedom, and who in their passing have left their dreams for us to live. 59 years since our independence from British colonialism, I wonder if we are living this dream of a free-India, striving for prosperity and happiness of our people. Or have we long abandoned them, stashed away at the bottom of our bourgeois existence.
Hyderabad, Aug 2006
“The independence of the United States of America is more or less contemporaneous with the loss of freedom of India. Surveying the past century and a half, an Indian looks somewhat wistfully and longingly at the vast progress made by the United States during this period, and compares with what has been done and what has not been done in his own country. It is true no doubt that the Americans have many virtues and we have many failings, that America offered a virgin field and an almost clean slate to write upon while we were cluttered up with ancient memories and traditions. And yet perhaps it is not inconceivable that if Britain had not undertaken this great burden in India and, as she tells us, endeavored for so long to teach us the difficult art of self-government, of which we had been so ignorant, India might not only have been freer and more prosperous, but also far more advanced in science and art and all that makes life worth living.”
I was really touched by this longing for things to have been different, for India not to be subjugated, for her to be free of colonialism, and become prosperous. This longing was shared, I am sure, by many people born in pre-independence India who strived for her freedom, and who in their passing have left their dreams for us to live. 59 years since our independence from British colonialism, I wonder if we are living this dream of a free-India, striving for prosperity and happiness of our people. Or have we long abandoned them, stashed away at the bottom of our bourgeois existence.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Where do we go from here?
Hyderabad, Dec 2006
4 billion years of events and circumstances have abetted in enabling our existence today. Given the low probability of this confluence of favorable conditions, many of us consider this more than chance. It is as if God or some unknown, all-powerful entity has shaped events thus, having had a clear vision of today all along. Evidence corroborates this, for none of the events – celestial or terrestrial triggered – appears to have occurred with the actors’ fore-knowledge of the consequences, nor was it a result of their choice. It was not out of choice that an asteroid collided with earth 65 million years ago. Nor is it earth’s awareness of the effect of Milankovitch’s cycles that it obeys them (read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle).
For the first time however, actors shaping the future have a choice. Not a choice to make it better or worse – which in the final assessment is complete irrelevant – but purely a choice to shape it, one way or another. We, the human beings inhabiting earth, are aware of the consequences of our actions, and in a position to choose. One could contend that our development thus far, our scientific achievements and social development, were in a broader sense pre-ordained and we are inexorably moving towards a future that we don’t have control over. Nevertheless, we are certainly cognizant of the nature of this future and its implications for us and planet earth. It is my sincere belief, however, that we DO HAVE a choice. Watching a game of cricket convinces me that we HAVE a choice. It takes talent, mental toughness and enormous discipline, but I am convinced these qualities abound in many individuals who can and will influence the affairs of the world.
We have had awareness of the consequences of our actions on our immediate environment for several hundreds of years – consider the opposition to coal burning in medieval England. However, it was only in the past few decades that this awareness has become a subject of active discussion, among scientific as well as non-scientific communities. It is only in the past few decades that the impact of our increasing population, green-house gas emissions, environmental plundering for petty commercial gain has become evident (read ‘The Weather Makers’, by Tim Flannery).
So, for the first time, actors shaping the future of planet earth have choice, and awareness of the consequences of these choices. Are we going to make a conscious choice, fully aware of the consequences, or are we going to continue our unthinking inexorable journey towards an unsustainable future and possible extinction?
Hyderabad, Dec 2006
4 billion years of events and circumstances have abetted in enabling our existence today. Given the low probability of this confluence of favorable conditions, many of us consider this more than chance. It is as if God or some unknown, all-powerful entity has shaped events thus, having had a clear vision of today all along. Evidence corroborates this, for none of the events – celestial or terrestrial triggered – appears to have occurred with the actors’ fore-knowledge of the consequences, nor was it a result of their choice. It was not out of choice that an asteroid collided with earth 65 million years ago. Nor is it earth’s awareness of the effect of Milankovitch’s cycles that it obeys them (read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle).
For the first time however, actors shaping the future have a choice. Not a choice to make it better or worse – which in the final assessment is complete irrelevant – but purely a choice to shape it, one way or another. We, the human beings inhabiting earth, are aware of the consequences of our actions, and in a position to choose. One could contend that our development thus far, our scientific achievements and social development, were in a broader sense pre-ordained and we are inexorably moving towards a future that we don’t have control over. Nevertheless, we are certainly cognizant of the nature of this future and its implications for us and planet earth. It is my sincere belief, however, that we DO HAVE a choice. Watching a game of cricket convinces me that we HAVE a choice. It takes talent, mental toughness and enormous discipline, but I am convinced these qualities abound in many individuals who can and will influence the affairs of the world.
We have had awareness of the consequences of our actions on our immediate environment for several hundreds of years – consider the opposition to coal burning in medieval England. However, it was only in the past few decades that this awareness has become a subject of active discussion, among scientific as well as non-scientific communities. It is only in the past few decades that the impact of our increasing population, green-house gas emissions, environmental plundering for petty commercial gain has become evident (read ‘The Weather Makers’, by Tim Flannery).
So, for the first time, actors shaping the future of planet earth have choice, and awareness of the consequences of these choices. Are we going to make a conscious choice, fully aware of the consequences, or are we going to continue our unthinking inexorable journey towards an unsustainable future and possible extinction?
Thursday, June 01, 2006
How do we want our films to be - cliched or original?
Tokyo, 2006
Films could be vibrant and original OR dull and cliched depending on the degree of conventionality of film-makers and audience. The more conventional they are, the more cliched their films; the less conventional, the more varied and original. Every major film industry would have had or has formulae for their films. When asked about the repeating storylines, plots, treatment, etc. film-makers often remark that they make what the audience want. This may not always be true. One could only take a guess at "what the audience want", influenced by one's own sensibilities. Assuming one can tap into the audience's thoughts, it would be quite obvious that these thoughts could neither be universal nor be cast in stone. So, reality may be that film-makers are limited by their own conventionality. When film-makers do try something original, they are not always rewarded by profitable box office returns. While film-makers may not have got it right in making and/or marketing the film, it could also be a result of the audience's conventionality of rejecting non-formulaic films.
I read an interesting thought: "Sometimes you have to fight against conventional wisdom because conventional wisdom is always going to go with the path of least resistance. With the known. If you go with the logic that everyone knows, you will produce the same thing as everyone else. And someone who takes a little bit of maverick approach and does it right will make a difference" - Sheryl O'Loughlin, Chief of Brand, Clif Bar Inc. from the book "Raising the Bar" by Gary Erickson with Lois Lorentzen
So, how do we want our films to be - cliched or original? If we want a greater variety of films, how we can break out of the negative vicious cycle producing more and more cliched films into a positive feedback cycle resulting in original and stimulating films?
Tokyo, 2006
Films could be vibrant and original OR dull and cliched depending on the degree of conventionality of film-makers and audience. The more conventional they are, the more cliched their films; the less conventional, the more varied and original. Every major film industry would have had or has formulae for their films. When asked about the repeating storylines, plots, treatment, etc. film-makers often remark that they make what the audience want. This may not always be true. One could only take a guess at "what the audience want", influenced by one's own sensibilities. Assuming one can tap into the audience's thoughts, it would be quite obvious that these thoughts could neither be universal nor be cast in stone. So, reality may be that film-makers are limited by their own conventionality. When film-makers do try something original, they are not always rewarded by profitable box office returns. While film-makers may not have got it right in making and/or marketing the film, it could also be a result of the audience's conventionality of rejecting non-formulaic films.
I read an interesting thought: "Sometimes you have to fight against conventional wisdom because conventional wisdom is always going to go with the path of least resistance. With the known. If you go with the logic that everyone knows, you will produce the same thing as everyone else. And someone who takes a little bit of maverick approach and does it right will make a difference" - Sheryl O'Loughlin, Chief of Brand, Clif Bar Inc. from the book "Raising the Bar" by Gary Erickson with Lois Lorentzen
So, how do we want our films to be - cliched or original? If we want a greater variety of films, how we can break out of the negative vicious cycle producing more and more cliched films into a positive feedback cycle resulting in original and stimulating films?
Monday, May 01, 2006
Ikiru
Tokyo, 2006
A film about social change with a commentary on society was not what I expected - based on what I had read briefly about the film. However, the audio commentary by Stephen Prince was quite educative in helping me understand this film – fulfilling the purpose Francois Truffaut gave to film critics.
The ultimate objective of social activists would be for humanity (or a nation) to embody such principles as they think are appropriate. Gandhi believed in non-violence – he did not approve when people violated the peaceful tenets he believed Indians should embody. It was not enough that his immediate followers would much rather put down their lives than resort to violence. He wanted ‘all of India’ to embody the principles of non-violence. I remain in awe of Gandhi, who, until his last breath, believed in the possibility of this. Ordinary people would have given up – disappointed by the setbacks. Not the ‘Mahatma’. In spite of my awe for Gandhi, I wonder if mass social change can be driven by one person and his / her actions. Ikiru provides extremely compelling thoughts on this subject. It is suggested that social change as a result of one person and his / her actions has restricted coverage. My extension of this thought is that if attempted beyond this coverage, the actions would either fail to achieve the desired results or the objectives will have to be compromised. For mass social change to become a reality, many people, from different walks of life but similar thoughts on social changes, have to co-incidentally come together to form a critical mass. a person can only be ‘one’ of the agents driving this change. Sometimes, extreme co-incidences happen – like the post war years in Japan. The most one can do is work sincerely and earnestly towards bringing a social change in his / her immediate environment – and hope for providence to play a part in creating a critical mass. It may happen. It may not. The only way to know is to play your ‘part’.
Kurosawa is an extremely intelligent director. Watching a Kurosawa film, one is transported to a world of ideas, of motion, of all the aspects of cinema. He is a master and all I can do is watch more of his films and repeat the ones I have already seen.
Tokyo, 2006
A film about social change with a commentary on society was not what I expected - based on what I had read briefly about the film. However, the audio commentary by Stephen Prince was quite educative in helping me understand this film – fulfilling the purpose Francois Truffaut gave to film critics.
The ultimate objective of social activists would be for humanity (or a nation) to embody such principles as they think are appropriate. Gandhi believed in non-violence – he did not approve when people violated the peaceful tenets he believed Indians should embody. It was not enough that his immediate followers would much rather put down their lives than resort to violence. He wanted ‘all of India’ to embody the principles of non-violence. I remain in awe of Gandhi, who, until his last breath, believed in the possibility of this. Ordinary people would have given up – disappointed by the setbacks. Not the ‘Mahatma’. In spite of my awe for Gandhi, I wonder if mass social change can be driven by one person and his / her actions. Ikiru provides extremely compelling thoughts on this subject. It is suggested that social change as a result of one person and his / her actions has restricted coverage. My extension of this thought is that if attempted beyond this coverage, the actions would either fail to achieve the desired results or the objectives will have to be compromised. For mass social change to become a reality, many people, from different walks of life but similar thoughts on social changes, have to co-incidentally come together to form a critical mass. a person can only be ‘one’ of the agents driving this change. Sometimes, extreme co-incidences happen – like the post war years in Japan. The most one can do is work sincerely and earnestly towards bringing a social change in his / her immediate environment – and hope for providence to play a part in creating a critical mass. It may happen. It may not. The only way to know is to play your ‘part’.
Kurosawa is an extremely intelligent director. Watching a Kurosawa film, one is transported to a world of ideas, of motion, of all the aspects of cinema. He is a master and all I can do is watch more of his films and repeat the ones I have already seen.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Pyaasa
Tokyo, 2006
A long forgotten film – last watched when DD telecast it on the occasion of celebrating 75 years of Indian cinema (1987). Pyaasa is about humanity threatened by the materialistic world shown through the story of a struggling poet. Orson Welles said that a film director holds a mirror up to nature. And Guru Dutt surely holds the mirror at astounding angles. The visual and narrative simplicity accentuates the anguish inflicted by a morally corrupt society. One of the most touching scenes is when Ghulab offers all her jewelry to a publisher in return for printing Vijay’s poems. This is not melodrama. The jewelry itself is irrelevant. The honesty of her love for Vijay in the face of morally hollow publisher and his wife is what touches us. It is one of the best film scenes I have seen. Vijay’s anger towards the society and his desire to leave it is so realistic, it touches a raw nerve.
Pyaasa remains as relevant today as it was in 1957, when it was released. A booming Indian economy makes moral degradation and materialism that much more pervasive, that much more justifiable. Moral compromises can be easier to swallow in the context of economic growth – especially when such growth assumes nationalistic color. I don’t condemn the strides India is making in world economy – it has given Indians an opportunity to realize a future that hitherto existed only in dreams. On the contrary, highly grateful for our current station, I wish to question if our future is going to be a mere accelerating extension of our past achievements. Maybe it is time for those of us fortunate to have ridden the Indian economic success to morally enrich ourselves; to be grateful for our riches and uphold our moral values (rather than compromise them further); to give Vijay his due.
Tokyo, 2006
A long forgotten film – last watched when DD telecast it on the occasion of celebrating 75 years of Indian cinema (1987). Pyaasa is about humanity threatened by the materialistic world shown through the story of a struggling poet. Orson Welles said that a film director holds a mirror up to nature. And Guru Dutt surely holds the mirror at astounding angles. The visual and narrative simplicity accentuates the anguish inflicted by a morally corrupt society. One of the most touching scenes is when Ghulab offers all her jewelry to a publisher in return for printing Vijay’s poems. This is not melodrama. The jewelry itself is irrelevant. The honesty of her love for Vijay in the face of morally hollow publisher and his wife is what touches us. It is one of the best film scenes I have seen. Vijay’s anger towards the society and his desire to leave it is so realistic, it touches a raw nerve.
Pyaasa remains as relevant today as it was in 1957, when it was released. A booming Indian economy makes moral degradation and materialism that much more pervasive, that much more justifiable. Moral compromises can be easier to swallow in the context of economic growth – especially when such growth assumes nationalistic color. I don’t condemn the strides India is making in world economy – it has given Indians an opportunity to realize a future that hitherto existed only in dreams. On the contrary, highly grateful for our current station, I wish to question if our future is going to be a mere accelerating extension of our past achievements. Maybe it is time for those of us fortunate to have ridden the Indian economic success to morally enrich ourselves; to be grateful for our riches and uphold our moral values (rather than compromise them further); to give Vijay his due.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Stagecoach
Tokyo, 2006
My view of the 19th century “West” was largely shaped by the popular movies of 60’s – The Good, The Bad, The Ugly; For a Few Dollars More; Once Upon a Time in the West. It was a glamorous land full of macho gun-totting men – some bad and some good. There would be saloons, poker, alcohol, girls and gunfights. The glamour of “The West” was so strong and widely acknowledged that Chiranjeevi made a Western in Telugu, an Andhra Western in the 80’s (the Gult fascination with the “West” is nothing new).
John Ford’s Stagecoach presents a de-glamorized view of the same epoch. Stagecoach shows real places inhabited by real people – some brave, some kind, some vulnerable, some selfish – facing severe hardships of a hostile environment. It shows families and friends, social structures and prejudices, hatred and kindness. Just like any other place in the world. What Stagecoach is most memorable for is its depiction of a world from a long time ago - a world that is lost to us – buried under the scientific “advances” of later years. Like a good period film, Stagecoach holds up the past to us and makes us wonder what we have “thrown-away” as we “progressed” through the years.
Tokyo, 2006
My view of the 19th century “West” was largely shaped by the popular movies of 60’s – The Good, The Bad, The Ugly; For a Few Dollars More; Once Upon a Time in the West. It was a glamorous land full of macho gun-totting men – some bad and some good. There would be saloons, poker, alcohol, girls and gunfights. The glamour of “The West” was so strong and widely acknowledged that Chiranjeevi made a Western in Telugu, an Andhra Western in the 80’s (the Gult fascination with the “West” is nothing new).
John Ford’s Stagecoach presents a de-glamorized view of the same epoch. Stagecoach shows real places inhabited by real people – some brave, some kind, some vulnerable, some selfish – facing severe hardships of a hostile environment. It shows families and friends, social structures and prejudices, hatred and kindness. Just like any other place in the world. What Stagecoach is most memorable for is its depiction of a world from a long time ago - a world that is lost to us – buried under the scientific “advances” of later years. Like a good period film, Stagecoach holds up the past to us and makes us wonder what we have “thrown-away” as we “progressed” through the years.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
A fable from Orson Welles' "Mr. Arkadin"
Tokyo, 2006
A scorpion wanted to cross a river, so he asked a frog to carry him. "No," said the frog. "No, thank you. If I let you on my back, you may sting me, and the sting of the scorpion is death." "Now, where," asked the scorpion, "is the logic of that?" (for scorpions always try to be logical.) "If I sting you, you will die and I will drown." So the frog was convinced and allowed the scorpion on his back. But just in the middle of the river he realized a terrible pain and realized that, after all, the scorpion had stung him. "Logic!" cried the frog as he started under, bearing the scorpion down with him. "There is no logic in this!" "I know," said the scorpion, "but I can't help it - it's my character."
I was mesmerized by Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. I watched it again and again. The more I watched, the more I was fascinated. I am reading an interview-book of Welles by Peter Bogdanovich (This is Orson Welles) and his views on films and film-making are just as fascinating. I wonder how a person of Welles' talent got around struggling for survival as a film-maker. I wonder if the fable from "Mr. Arkadin" has some clues.
Tokyo, 2006
A scorpion wanted to cross a river, so he asked a frog to carry him. "No," said the frog. "No, thank you. If I let you on my back, you may sting me, and the sting of the scorpion is death." "Now, where," asked the scorpion, "is the logic of that?" (for scorpions always try to be logical.) "If I sting you, you will die and I will drown." So the frog was convinced and allowed the scorpion on his back. But just in the middle of the river he realized a terrible pain and realized that, after all, the scorpion had stung him. "Logic!" cried the frog as he started under, bearing the scorpion down with him. "There is no logic in this!" "I know," said the scorpion, "but I can't help it - it's my character."
I was mesmerized by Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. I watched it again and again. The more I watched, the more I was fascinated. I am reading an interview-book of Welles by Peter Bogdanovich (This is Orson Welles) and his views on films and film-making are just as fascinating. I wonder how a person of Welles' talent got around struggling for survival as a film-maker. I wonder if the fable from "Mr. Arkadin" has some clues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)