Archive for the ‘movie reviews’ Category

Seen Haider yet? Naah? What are you doing? Go, book your tickets first. Coming back to the film, if Vishal Bhardwaj can get two Salmans, we aren’t far behind. We got two Haiders. One is his, other is ours. So here is our Haider on his Haider.

Our Haider Hussain Beig is a 23 year old filmmaker based out of Netherlands. When he’s not alienating close friends with painful film gyaan, he dabbles in Aerospace Engineering. You can check out his stuff here. This is first post here.

To read our previous post on the film, “Haider : Uncertain, Complex, Asymmetric…Because the screenplay is Kashmir”, click here.

Haider2

Heavy handed exposition usually kills a film for me. It could be a tasteless voiceover or a redundant character painstakingly ear-fucking the audience with drab explanations of already convoluted plot-points. Which brings me to one of my favorite ‘did you catch that?’ Moments in the film. It occurs when Khurram is being led into an abandoned house and he notices ‘Yeh toh Kaul Saab ka ghar hai.’ Then a brief exchange ensues about the whereabouts of ‘Kaul Saab’, finally coming to the conclusion that he has ‘shifted’ to Bombay.

This was an in passing reference to the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits from their homeland. It perfectly captures the nonchalance of the characters who, putting it crudely, have different issues to deal with now. And perhaps are still dealing with the brutal and horrific ousting of their Hindu neighbours as a mere migration to the big city. This is just one of the many examples of sheer brilliance in storytelling by someone who I would not have expected less of. Best of all, I didn’t feel like I was being explained a point of view or thrown facts at that I was supposed to ingest like a frustrated teenager in a History lesson. I knew most facts about the region and the socio-political situation already, and never once did I feel the need to internally sigh with a ‘pata hai bhai, gyan dena band karo‘. And trust me when I say I know a lot about Kashmir. Because unlike most of us, I have not been fed frustratingly conflicting facts from different sources of news, I have lived them in my own little way.

I was born in Delhi to a German mother and a Kashmiri father, who decided to name me Haider. It’s one of those unique ‘this-guy-is-definitely-a-Shia’ names. I guess like most things my father does, he wanted to be different. And I was happy with that. I personally don’t know any Haiders. Until late last year, when I heard Vishal Bhardwaj was making his third Shakespeare adaptation on Hamlet, called Haider. Same name, same spelling. Not Hyder, Heydar, or Haidar. HAIDER. F-U-C-K-ed-M-E.

Putting it simply, it’s unnerving to see your name in posters, on billboards, as a trending hashtags of some of my cinematic idols on the big screen. In the ticket line at the box office I turned around as a reflex to my name being called out by impatient ticket buyers. And let’s not get started with the jokes that only true friends and elementary school goers can come up with; ‘How does it feel to have Shahid Kapoor in you?’, or ‘Dude! You gave Hansal Mehta fulfilling sleepless nights!’.

What put me to a melancholic ease though, was the name being pronounced in a Kashmiri accent. It took me back to an angry grandmother yelling out ‘Huhder!’ at my mischief. It’s sad that it takes a great like VB to put in the careful attention to detail to make sure that stars make the proper effort into not caricaturizing the dialect. From Shahid Kapoor’s ‘Sirinagar’ to Shraddha Kapoor’s endearing ‘Luvved, Givved, Suckked, Fu..’. They were almost pitch perfect. And even if some may not agree, full points for the effort.

The dialogues, their delivery, and timing, were just a revelation. Blending in Shakespeare’s cunning words with the heavy backdrop of the ‘Kashmir Issue’. Nothing felt pedantic, heavy handed, apologetic, expositional, out of place, or forced. It was as it should have been. Nothing more, nothing less.

The supporting cast was mostly played by locals, and they were spot-fucking on. There was no need for windy character back stories. From Janus’ two faced Salman and Salman, to Khurram’s born-again militant henchman. They could all have separate films based on them and I would pay good money to watch those too. It’s heartening to see such a wide pool of talent scattered all across the country. WAKE THE FUCK UP, BOLLYWOOD!

Shraddha Kapoor’s work was a welcome surprise. I wouldn’t say her performance was perfect, but three films in, she’s already giving her contemporaries a hard time. Aloof, innocent and gullible, Arshia was what I would call a perfect representation of Kashmir in the early parts of the militancy. It resonated, or was rather amplified by Tabu’s Ghazala, as a more worn out, mature, but also much more grey representation of Kashmir in the time the film is set in, the glorious mid-nineties. It seems like Tabu is the only actor that can play a self destructive feminine character in a Shakespearean tragedy to such seasoned perfection. And to Shahid Kapoor, all I want to say is, Ghanta-Ghar in Lal Chowk will never be the same for anyone again. They better fucking throw all the big (even if bogus) awards at him.

Never have I seen a film capture the reality of the situation so beautifully. Pankaj Kumar’s cinematography is a result of what would happen of each character we’re given a brush to paint out exactly what they see. Each frame was a representation of these personal works of art. It was almost akin to the wounded beauty of the valley. You are one of my heros. I was more excited about seeing your name attached to the film than VB’s. After Ship of Theseus, and now this, I can’t wait to see much much more work from you!

Finally, to the master himself. Vishal Bhardwaj. I might need a series of blog posts to talk about your work. And I’m sure, as I have also read, there is enough information, analysis, discourse and dissection of your work already. I’d rather not add to the pile. I’ll stick to what stuck out most for me, the score. I had listened to the songs that had come out in the run up to the release quite a lot. My favorite being, of course, Bismil. Though what really captured my entranced attention was the score. So, so, …. Fuck I’m out of adjectives that would do justice. I hope the score will be out soon. I know what music I’m going to write to now.

I have never lived for more than two months in Kashmir. Most of my upbringing has been in Delhi, though I have visited Kashmir every year of my life since I was born, most of those years being the most dangerous. I have only fond memories. I have never once seen a terrorist/mujahid/militant/freedom-fighter/jihadist. And it’s not like I lived in a cordoned off posh area. In fact my family lives in one of the rather impoverished Shia neighbourhoods in Srinagar. Though that is not to say, that the distant sound of gunshots and bomb explosions was not a common sound. In my own way, a part of my brain would register them as the sound of Diwali fire crackers, and things would be festive in my mind again. I’ve had the most tranquil moments of reflection on the banks of the Nigeen lake, on a grass patch between abandoned houseboats. I’ve cried my eyes out laughing with my cousins at the millionth viewing of Andaz Apna Apna on local cable channels. And don’t even get me started on wazwan. The closest I’ve come to ‘danger’ was a scooter ride back from football practice, dodging a hail of stones, swerving around burning tyres, and slyly detouring to my aunts house who lived nearby. I’ve always thought of that memory as a rather funny adventure. My worried wailing mother on the other hand, did not.

On the contrary, I’ve heard personal first hand accounts of friends, acquaintances and even close cousins (mostly young men), about the dangers they’ve had to endure. From both the militants and the army. Some accounts are so chilling that I’d rather not get into them, for your sake and mine. ‘Jab do haathi ladte hain, neeche ghaas hi kuchli jaati hai‘. It saddens me to see tasteless Anti-India graffiti vomited on ancient walls. Though their distrust and disdain for the AFSPA and conversely the Armed forces, is not without reason. There are bad apples everywhere, even in Kashmir. I recommend Ashwin Kumar’s two brilliant documentaries – Inshallah, Football and Inshallah, Kashmir. They will show you a side of the story the mainstream media conveniently redacts. I’m not an expert on the subject and I’m not foolish enough to think that I might even have something close to an answer. If anything, having a foot in both worlds, has given me a rather confusing point of view, so I usually stay out of Kashmir based bar-conversations. Plus, whenever anyone looks at me for an explanation, I conveniently say, ‘I don’t know bro, I’m German’. Which is why, I love this film too. I went in as an outsider, and actually learnt a few things I did not know. Thank you Basharat Peer, I’m no one to challenge a reputed journalist and writer who, by the way, happens to be from Kashmir.

Haider is by far the most realistic depiction of Kashmir I’ve seen on screen so far. That includes Aamir Bashir’s heartbreaking Harud.

It’s a perfect balance that knocks you out of your seat in a jolt of energy and then in an instant makes you slow-down and wonder. The only think I would have liked to see more of was a bit more on the exodus of the Kashmiri Pundits. Though, the film takes place in a time when the people have ‘gotten over’ it.

The first scene I ever wrote was of a conversation between two friends on the banks of the Nigeen Lake, my spot of tranquility, hiding from the world, sharing a cigarette, something I’ve done a countless number of times. Since then I’ve rewritten, thrown out, written again, and rewritten it again. I think it’s time to finally finish it. Thank you Vishal Bhardwaj.

To everyone out there still deciding, please watch this film. It’s the real ‘Bang Bang’. I really hope it releases in Kashmir. Last I heard, my local cinema in Hawal Chowk was still an army bunker.

Haider Hussain Beig

A Vishal Bhardwaj film is an event for us. He is our tent-pole movie. With his latest one, Haider, he has left his contemporaries far, far behind. A bold and uncompromised take on a complicated subject with a master craftsman weaving magic on screen – dark, depressing, violent, poetic, and gloomy. How else do you like your VB-film? Who else can do it better than him? Over to Nadi Palshikar who just watched the film and jotted down her thoughts.

An MBBS doctor by training, Nadi has also done the screenplay writing course at FTII. She is currently doing Gender Studies at Pune University. Sutak is her first novel which has recently got published. This is her first post on mFC.

haider

Innocence has betrayed him ; Haider’s hands are tied by the red scarf made by the innocent one.

He has been captured by the trickster, the two faced Janus – comic and now revealed to be cruel.

Two funny photographers with the same name are used to depict a two faced trickster.

The trickster working at the periphery of the state.

Periphery, the two photographers (the two Salmans) have not got ‘permanent’ posts yet, but serve.

They have once bestowed a favor – they came and took Haider away on a motorcycle, they took him away to safety.

Now, they are driving him in a vehicle owned by his enemy, they are taking him away to death.

He overpowers them, but after a scuffle, they escape.

Haider now picks up a stone and aims it at the (two) trickster(s). We see in the background that the landscape is full of stones. Hurled by those who had no other defence against the powerful state.

A stone for a bullet. And yet, the world took notice.

For the first time, India’s lack of capabilities to handle law and order situations in an appropriate manner came to light. Surely, firing is an out-of-proportion response for stone throwing, asked citizens.

For 20 years, the biggest threat to security forces was militancy, now it is these stones youngsters are hurling at the speed of 40 kms per hour said the Chief Minister. The age old form of dissent (probably inspired by the Palestinian Intifada) had worked.

To the world was presented a clear picture, literally a picture of who was the strong Goliath in this confrontation.

But back to Haider, and the landscape heaped with stones.

Then as if the stones have joined to become formidable, a big rock. And Haider uses this rock to destroy the cruel shape shifting monster.

We leave the scene with an image of stones, stones…

Beautiful, but strange..like the landscape of Kashmir, this tribute to the young men who risked the bullet to hurl a stone..

Just writing down my response to one scene in the film. The film is full of such scenes, making meaning – so many meanings. What an excellent screenplay by Basharat Peer (Curfewed Night) and Vishal Bhardwaj.

What it achieves – An unlikely adaptation of  Shakespeare’s Hamlet – Unlikely and effective. The setting so difficult, yet so believable.

Every little thing, every spoken word has a purpose, a meaning. Even simple lines of dialogue which may seem just ‘funny’ lines reveal insight. e.g- Haider is at a very low point. He is mentally breaking down. And his girlfriend asks him “kya haal banake rakha hain?” To which his quick and laughing retort is ask me “kuchch lete kyun nahin?” Those of you who were born then, do you remember the 80s Coldarin advertisement? This is 1995, and these two young people were are childhood friends.

They shared this dialogue, laughed about it, when they were children.

Also, those were happier times, easier times.

Now at a very difficult point in their life he calls that line from the past.

Also, for us, as audience – the writers are after all Vishal Bharadwaj who will not have anything purposeless, meaningless in his film, and Basharat Peer who has written Curfewed Night about his personal experiences as a child inKashmir.

He knows that History is not just what you find in textbooks. History is personal accounts. History can be what we experienced in popular culture at a particular time.

As audience we remember that ad – we see Haider remembering that ad.

We shared that experience.

This Kashmiri young man, and us.

The same ad is aired over a geographical location.

We shared it.

We are a part of the same history..

A political stand taken by the film- 

I will state it simply – Haider’s monologue about AFSPA is the politically bravest piece of writing that I have seen in film in a long time.

The ending – Even as he ‘hears’ his father’s voice calling for revenge, he also ‘hears’ another voice – his Grandfather’s saying that revenge only leads to more revenge. How can revenge make us free?

How can it give us Azaadi?

Speaking of the AFSPA, remember, when the present government had ruled out changes in the AFSPA?

There was a statement by the army chief which had hurt me then.

He called it an “enabling act” because he said “AFSPA gives Army additional powers to operate in an environment which is marked by very high degree of uncertainty and complexity and an asymmetric environment where you cannot differentiate between a friend and a foe as the terrorist merges with the backdrop and hides amongst the locals.”

A statement that I did not like and now a screenplay that has moved me. See how Kashmir was described?

“environment which is marked by very high degree of uncertainty and complexity and an asymmetric environment where you cannot differentiate between a friend and a foe”

The structure of the screenplay is Exactly that.

Uncertain,

Complex,

Asymmetric.

The screenplay Is Kashmir.

– Nadi Palshikar

STEVE-LOPEZ-1

“The crucial thing is to find a truth which is truth for me, to find the idea for which I am willing to live and die” Søren Kierkegaard

I begin with Kierkegaard because Rajeev Ravi begins with Camus. “Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence”, his title slate declares. But before that we get a hint about the road the film might take from the title, ‘Njan Steve Lopez.’ I am Steve Lopez.

Steve Lopez is your regular, middle-class, Malayali college-going youngster of Trivandrum, used to singing songs of innocence. Angst and truth do not bother him, he not escaping nor seeking either. His angst limits itself to communicating his love for his childhood crush Anjali (Ahaana Krishna) and displaying mild abrasiveness to his aged grandfather. Anjali returns his affections and the grandfather isn’t a much of a threat yet Steve finds life boring, a mark of a mind seeking something more, finding it in temporary erotic pleasure by peeping at neighbourhood women from his bathroom window and then, well, moving on. As Camus said in The Plague, “The truth is that everyone is bored, and devotes himself to cultivating habits.” Back to boredeom.

Minutes into the film we realise Steve is an onlooker, a spectator of life as it passes by. He doesn’t seem too keen on engaging with it but he does seem to be nursing a placid wish to understand it, even if it is from the fringes. Farhaan Faasil’s big clear eyes and soft looks reflect a certain innocence as did Fahaad Faasil in Rajeev’s debut, ‘Annayum Rasoolum’, help him incredibly in this task. Son of a DYSP who is also a protective father, Steve, by the looks of it seems to fall in that category of dreamy youth who, wasting away, remain lost in their own self-doubts. Hanging onto the fringes of life they keep drifting, out of touch within and without.

But Steve springs to life one day, when a random accident involving a daylight murder leaves a man bleeding to death in front of him. He rushes the man to the hospital only to be admonished by his father later. Clearly, there is a gangwar on and he doesn’t wish his son to be involved in it. Steve doesn’t see the logic but takes his father’s reprimands silently. As though he is trying to understand this part of life as well.

However, Steve decides to punctuate his silences with uncomfortable questions revolving around the culprit Hari. Questions his father and his subordinate do not wish to entertain. Questions that won’t let Steve be in peace. Gnawed by the need to know, he sets out on his own search for tenuous truth. He could just as well have been Sisyphus. Intuitively then, Ravi weaves the web of humanism across all the characters of the film, binding Steve and Hari together with one simple device, both their lady-loves are called Anjali. Hari is nothing like Steve but to Steve, Hari and he don’t seem much different. With this leit motif of the name, it’s almost like Ravi is nudging us to look closer at our own selves, and around; at others whose essence we share…

Njan Steve Lopez must probably be the simplest and least dramatic tale of existential angst ever told. Of course, it is sentimental using music, slow-motion, poetry at is evocative best. But in the sum of it, it is the internal world of Steve that it urges us to explore, a world that isn’t dramatised by form or style, simply reflected in his persona. A world built for us through a linear narrative, one that is as simple and straightforward as the milieu it belongs to, a mileu Ravi knows as well as he does his protagonist. Steve is quite a template character for the theme – sober, moody, innocent, aloof, reserved and prone to pathos. Yet, Rajeev Ravi paints him intuitively, almost seeming to know the next flick of his hair or twitch of an eye before it will happen. And because Ravi seems to know him so well Farhaan portrays him with more sincerity than sheer talent. And this sincerity is spread across the canvas, across the various actors fresh and experienced. Performances are given to a certain amateurishness and direction seems to be a little raw, something that one did not see a glimpse of in Ravi’s refreshing debut, ‘Annayum Rasoolum’, a Mani Rathnam-ish love story of common people busy loving each other the very common way, who find themselves caught in the web of ganglords and crime. However, Njan Steve Lopez is a more personal story, individuated by the search of this young man for truth and his inevitable coming-of-age. It’s a loaded theme, told subtly, even ponderously, something like Udaan what did, and that precisely draws us in, the deceptive simplicity. There is less deftness of skill but more depth of thought, there is less brilliance of craft but more heart and that is heartening for those whom linearity doesn’t appear as simple-minded. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of Steve’s search and the gentle, even motherly manner with which the film looks at him isn’t nurtured into a fully-formed film to give us something we may call satisfying cinema because of a certain hesitation in direction and performances that tags along throughout. There are times when the sincerity and good intentions alone aren’t enough.

Yet, the film appeals due to its personal nature and maybe that is due to the authenticity of the milieu Ravi creates. The middle class Malayalis of Trivandrum that the film is populated with, with their earthy ambitions and homely habits, cloistered morals and systemic conformation. People who have the ringtone of their phone set to the song in which their beloved’s name appears. People who admonish but take care of each other. People who seem very very real. (However, some of my Malayali friends from the region have bemoaned the fact of unripe accents of the actors mar the authenticity of the film.) Going by his two films, Rajeev Ravi, the film-maker, seems to be drawn to small, individual stories that is punctuated by an ethos and operate in a specific socio-politico-economic environment. Like in ‘Annayum Rasoolum’, he is happy speaking of and to a niche audience one that he knows very well. And maybe, because of this very choice Steve’s dilemmas are more palpable to us than they would have been in a universalised, sterile, lowest common denominator type of palette we are used to. Small town stories, regional stories, stories of India’s very common people, if we won’t tell them who will?

How one acts is, from the ethical perspective, more important than any matter of fact, truth is to be found in subjectivity rather than objectivity.” Kierkegaard’s subjective truth becomes Steve’s and in a metafictive universe seems like it is Rajeev’s own aim too.

Fatema Kagalwala

(To read more posts by Fatema, her blog is here)

The film has got a multi-city release with English subtitles.

It’s the latest blockbuster that you might not have heard about. A bit of googling tells me that Anurag Singh’s Punjab 1984 had no takers intially. A serious drama in the backdrop of 1984, and that too in the age of YoYoHoneySingh and Jatt-Juliet, who would watch? But if only formulas and calculations of what-works-what-doesn’t could prove right every time, we would have been deprived of some of the best films ever made. Shailesh Kapoor tells us why Anurag Singh’s Punjab 1984 is a must watch, and how it has turned out to be such a blockbuster.

Punjab1984

Technically, Punjabi is my “mother tongue”. I have grown up seeing my parents converse in the language at home, as well as with friends and relatives. I have even studied Punjabi as a third language in school for two years, till I was shifted from a Sikh school to a “normal” school, post the 1984 riots in Delhi.

Yet, I have never watched a Punjabi film in a theatre before this Thursday. Till recently, Punjabi cinema was not a thriving industry. Over the last 3-4 years, the industry has found its feet, thanks to the mushrooming of multiplexes in the East Punjab territory, creating a fertile ground for business. Yet, their cinema has been skewed towards the comedy genre. In a bus trip in Punjab last year, I was subject to watching one such Punjabi blockbuster on video. Assault on the senses won’t be an over-statement to describe the experience.

Glowing online reviews of last week’s release, Punjab 1984, forced me to a theatre during my short Delhi trip earlier this week. My interest in Operation Bluestar has grown over the last few years, leading me to read a few books on the subject. That familiarity with the subject, and the presence of Kirron Kher in the principal cast, was sufficient motivation.

Even as I went in with high expectations, I was not prepared for the brilliance of the cinematic experience I was about to be a part of. Know the song “Luka Chhuppi” from Rang De Basanti? Punjab 1984 is that song’s little story told through a film. And even though the song featured Waheeda Rehman as the mother, Punjab 1984 can well be described as the story of Kirron Kher’s character in the same Rang De Basanti, converted into a full-length feature film.

A mother-son story set in the aftermath of Operation Bluestar, Punjab 1984 has a grammar that’s uniquely matter-of-fact. It does not attempt to commercialize the subject, and equally importantly, it does not do the reverse either – of trying to be an off-beat film that demands to be taken seriously. As a result, what we get is a human story, laced with human situations and dialogue, directed with a free spirit that blends entertainment with sensitivity effortlessly.

Director Anurag Singh has directed some of those mindless blockbuster Punjabi comedies, one of which I encountered in the aforementioned bus trip. With a solid script and a superb starcast, he comes into his own with Punjab 1984, delivering a knockout performance at the helm.

I hadn’t heard of Diljit Dosanjh till a week ago, though I now realize he has sung a few Bollywood songs as well. Kirron Kher is in top form, at home with the language and the culture, and yet, Dosanjh manages to live upto her caliber in the role of her son, played with a sense of raw believability that’s rare to film these days.

There are at least half a dozen moments in the film when you struggle to hold back tears, when emotional highs are delivered through a mix of fine writing and good acting. And unlike Gulzar’s Maachis, the film does not confuse the issue of terrorism, and leaves the audience with a clear message that’s rooted in reality and morality together. Of course, without a hint of being preachy at any point.

The end credits blend the real into the reel. Not a soul moved in my half-filled theatre till the screen had turned absolutely black. I last remember going through that experience in Taare Zameen Par.

Punjab 1984 is set to cross the 10 crore mark, which remains a magical figure for Punjabi films, much like 150 or 200 crore for Bollywood. It’s been four days since I watched it, and I’m still wondering why an industry more than 20 times in size not produce such films, at a rate more than once or twice a year. And by “such films”, I don’t mean this exact film, but unconventional subjects where human emotions are treated as, well, human emotions.

I know that we are in an age of instant gratification and the youth drive cinema choices at the studios these days. But surely, there can be more variants (not versions) of A Wednesday or Queen. Surely, there’s a market. At least, there is no evidence that there’s not a market.

If “regional” cinema like Punjab 1984 is needed to shake up a national industry, then so be it. But hope the shake-up happens at some level. No place is a bad place to learn from.

Go and watch Punjab 1984 in a theatre if you can. Even if the language is entirely alien to you, the universality of emotions will cut through to you, right across the screen. And great performance can be heard, even when you don’t understand a word.

(Shailesh Kapoor is the founder and CEO of Ormax Media)

The World Before Her, directed by Nisha Pahuja is currently playing in select cinemas across India. Fatema Kagalwala first wrote about it on our blog, where we called it a ‘must-watch’. Here’s another post about the film by Shazia Iqbal:

MFC1

“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me”

These are words of Objectivist Ayn Rand who rejected religion and faith and believed in rational reasoning as the way to make sense of life. Her words tore up the frame as the sub text every time the two protagonists (along with other girls) spoke in Nisha Pahuja’s powerful documentary ‘The World Before Her’. The irony is the world they want to capture; a world where they know they can’t be stopped has already caged them with its regressive ideologies and unfortunately they aren’t even aware of it. I watched the film a few days ago and it has been pulling me back for several reasons. Not because the film is full of strange, depressing truths about a divided India, and a women’s identity in the same, more so because it asked the very questions I have been asking of myself for years now. Who else does an atheist woman go to? I love and respect Ayn Rand and women like her who publicly shunned religion because it’s a tad bit more difficult for women to deny God than their counterparts.

I am a Muslim woman. My surname makes me a minority in a country that largely has fixed notions of the community I belong to. My gender makes me a minority in a patriarchal society. Also to make things a little more twisted for myself, I questioned and tried to reason with my religion and others, and bracketed myself in another group, the atheists. Minority again. Minority within minority is a task to pull off, I now realize. In a world where humans are so deeply fucked up, it sometime gets lonely to not even have a god but when you see the madness in the ones that have him, you know you are better off not belonging anywhere.

When asked about my faith, my regular responses are ‘I’m not a Muslim.. I’m an Atheist’, ‘Agnostic?’ Or simpler: ‘My parents follow Islam.’

‘So you are a Muslim?’
‘No, I don’t belong’
‘Don’t belong?’
‘Don’t belong to any religion.. I’m fine without knowing the truth about God’s existence.’

Somehow my answers have never been good enough to not raise eyebrows. For years I have been looking for an identity. And I have made my peace with not having one and my questions being unanswered. I don’t look at myself as a Muslim and that’s why I have not felt discriminated against though being called a Pakistani is something most Indian Muslims grow up with and get used to. I am not victimizing Muslims, just that being a minority comes with its own share of pros and cons in every part of the world. We have our own. So every time my surname separated me from the crowd and I was treated differently, I didn’t retaliate because why should I? I am not a Muslim. So I thought.

I think my parents are a rare case because they celebrated the birth of their first daughter, when everyone around was killing the female child. I was born in a small village near Patna. After two sons, they were craving for a daughter. I am not thankful to my parents for not killing me, I take it for granted as my right to live and yet the character I empathized with the most in the film is Prachi Trivedi, the 24 year old instructor at the training camp of Durga Vahini, the women’s wing of VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) because she is grateful to her father for not killing her at birth. That line made me realize how deeply complexed we are as a society.

 

My life is not about a movement, I don’t hate Gandhi and terrorizing people is not my idea of teaching. And yet it was Prachi’s volatile relationship with her father that touched my heart. Prachi is aware that the world that gives her strength to fight the enemies of the Hindu Culture (apparently the Muslims and Christians) is also the world that eventually asks her to follow the norms of marriage and children, something she doesn’t agree with. The ideologies that tell her women are not meant for house chores also tell her she ‘has’ to be tamed by getting married and not fly high and dream of a career. Girls don’t do that. Prachi struggles to balance the two contradicting ideologies, while asserting the right to find her way. Like Prachi, I have had my own daddy issues. My emancipated father raised me and my sister like ‘boys’. He told me very early in life about carving out a place for myself in the world. Marriage was not his idea of making a good life. It’s never been my idea of anything. We never spoke about marriage. But our relationship is volatile and argumentative because of our different belief systems of surviving in a society, where we are lesser in numbers compare to other race. It’s not about me being atheist. Although I have defied God in his presence, he is liberal enough to mostly let me think with my own head. The only one issue I have had with him is he asked his children to be quiet and not rebel because ‘we are minorities’. Under different circumstances, we fought over the same issue, and never reached common ground.

During a Ganapati festival, my mother was just back from a long stint in hospital. The noise mongers were playing loud music at 5 in the morning, and after bearing with it for days in row, I finally decided to call the police. He stopped me. ‘We are Muslims, we can’t complain. You are a girl and people don’t show their bias to women but you’ll know some day’. I argued and was told ‘ladki ho, ladki hi raho’ (You are a girl, behave like one). I struggled to understand if this was the same man who took pride in raising his daughters like sons. And whether I should be a boy and speak up or be a girl and shut up. And what’s stopping me from speaking up is it being a Muslim or being a girl? Or both? I felt suffocated in the hypocrisy of the world my father created for me. I didn’t choose to be a Muslim or a girl. Why do others have the rights that I don’t? Lottery of being born a man? Lottery of being born in a religion that’s bigger in numbers? I didn’t want this world. I wanted to make my own new one that doesn’t chain people in their own thoughts. But largely this is the reason why most anonymous in history have been women.

Somewhere halfway through the film, when you are already exposed to two very different, yet parallel, disturbing worlds, a young teen at the training camp gushes with pride ‘No, I don’t have any Muslim friends and I am proud about it’. After bearing with a few prejudices, this one felt like a sharp knife cut through the heart. I felt stifled. A few drop of tears streamed out. Why did it affect me so much when I don’t consider myself part of the community? When I proudly defy standing by any faith. When I don’t feel the need to group with a bunch of people who have similar ideologies and believe we are superior to the other race. Her words made me realize that even though I have left the religion years ago, it hasn’t left me. And in all probability, it never will.

Her words reminded me of how I felt years ago, when Bombay’s lifeline, the trains were attacked on 7/11. I worked as an Asst Art director back then and was shooting in a studio at Filmcity for a feature film. We were working with a couple of stars and anticipated an early pack up that evening. But as soon as the blast news came out of the vanity, the set became a story in itself. Chaos reigned. People panicked and called home. I managed to call home and found everyone safe, except my brother, who none of us could trace. Production decided to lock up the set till the bombings stopped. It went on for 11 minutes but we kept getting news. Mostly post blast rumours. My mother realized that the sixth train that blew up was my brother’s regular ride back home. That was it. I fell on a chair and broke down. A couple of Asst directors gathered around me. Out of nowhere the production manager, a paan chewing middle aged man, shrugged them aside and attacked me in his stringent language ‘kyun ro rahi hai? Tum logon ne toh karaya hai yeh sab’ (why are you crying when you and your people have executed this). I looked at him. The asst director retaliated ‘What the hell! She is a girl…’

He attacked further, ‘the girls carry the bomb inside the veil.. ’ He said that and spat his chewed betel leaf next to me. My friend blabbered something that I didn’t hear. I was numb. I don’t know the chemical composition of a bomb, not even as much as Prachi’s knowledge of an AK-47. But we are both victims here. I have never worn a veil and have fought against people who support and justify women being bound in a veil. I realized that I belong neither to a community that wears the veil nor to the one that’s judges it and labels them a terrorist because of it. I feel that spit on my face every time I recollect this incident. I remembered my father’s words and reasoned his fear of speaking out as a minority.

Ruhi is a Miss India contestant who dreams of winning the crown to make her parents of their product, that’s her. Jo-Ann Endicott in Pina Bausch’s Walzer struts around angrily, frustrated and enraged at a world that tells her how to carry off her body. She chalks out a boundary in different spacial forms her body creates and repeatedly screams ‘I don’t need your help or anybody else’s help, Thank you!! ’ She describes how she is asked to sit with an erect posture, so her legs don’t look fat and ugly. She struggles to keep her thighs together because they fall apart or hold her boobs up with a bra or they hang, sometimes right till the floor. There is rule for every part of the body, the fingers, wrist, elbow, the long neck, the longer hair, the various ways of doing up the hair, which lets the world categorize as classy or trashy. She wants to let her hair down and be herself. She wants to hide herself behind her long hair but they wont let her. Her face, her torso, her spine, her legs, her gait is all exposed for her to be judged. This is the gist of what beauty pageants stand for. Girls in this country have grown up dreaming of the crown from the time Sushmita Sens and Aishwarya Rais won the Miss world crown and made India ‘Proud’. The beauty standards pretty much changed in this country since then and how.

I would love to say fuck your fascist beauty standards if I myself wasn’t falling prey to it every now and then.

It was only a couple of months ago when I went to a skin clinic for a regular acne issue; they asked me to undergo a surgery for a sharper Jawline. A half an hour procedure that would apparently change my life. I was dumbfounded. The doctor told me it would give me confidence to face the world with a new face. Ha! Fortunately I didn’t think anything wrong with the current one. I smiled and walked away. But a lot of women fall prey. The rising numbers of these clinics are a proof of that. Everything is wrong with a world that tells a women a certain body type, certain shapes, particular complexion are what makes an ideal women, empowers them. Botox, skin whiteners, weight control, boob jobs are not going to let me have my place in the world. A director once belittled me when I refused to do a fairness cream TVC. He said if not me, somebody else would take it up. Exactly! I am aware.

Wearing a bikini doesn’t empower women. Neither does holding a gun and being able to pull the trigger. You are not empowered by exposing your bra strap or by being married and raising kids at 18; not by having ideal torso and limbs, not even by internalising the politics of hatred in a religious camp.

If this is power, I don’t want it. I want the opportunity to voice my opinion and be heard respectfully. I do not ask for permission before I speak. It is my right as a human. I do not want a career to escape the world you have made; I want to create my own world. Don’t allot me my space. Give me the freedom to carve my own niche. That would be empowerment. Hope Prachi and Ruhi and thousands like them comprehend this and liberate themselves from the world that is thrown before them.

Thank you- Nisha Pahuja for this hard-hitting story and Anurag Kashyap for supporting it.

(Shazia Iqbal is an Art director, and has worked in Films and Advertising since last eight years. She designed Dum Maaro Dum and many other films. Her script was selected for NFDC’s Director’s Lab.)

 

 

Kanu Bahli’s Titli premiered at Cannes Film Festival in Un Certain Regard section. Here’s all the buzz from the Cannes.

(click on any pic to start the slide show)

An enjoyable, character-driven Indian yarn about an emotional family of criminals gets better as it goes on…. Behl shows talent directing a largely non-pro cast, situating them carefully in the squalor of their Delhi surroundings. The family’s cramped apartment is the theater of many domestic dramas but also symbolizes the close ties that bind everyone together, like the humorous intimacy of their noisy tooth-brushing.

All the technical work is top quality. Namrata Rao’s editing keeps the rhythm flowing, while sound effects and music (uncredited) are used to great effect to pump up the mood.

– From The Hollywood Reporter. Full review is here.

To Behl’s credit, as wretched, repulsive and disgusting as his characters often are, it’s impossible to ignore them, because there is a spark of human grace even in the least appealing ones. His cast, mostly consisting of inexperienced actors, instill lots of fiery passion  in their respective roles, with a couple of remarkably intense scenes between Arora and Raghuvanshi standing out among others.

– From Screen Daily review, it’s here.

– Screen Daily interview is here.

– Film critic Anupama Chopra tweeted about it

– A Variety feature on “Titli’s challenges” is here.

– To know more about the film (synopsis, cast, crew, poster, trailer), click here.

(pics from various sources)

In the last of our posts on Ankhon Dekhi (Fatema Kagalwala’s piece here and Q&A with Rajat Kapoor here), Mihir Pandya (film critic and the author of Shahar aur Cinema: Via Dilli) comes up with some keen observations on the naksha of Babuji’s home, mind-scape, and philosophy.

And continuing with our efforts to share the scripts of most talked-about and best reviewed films, we have Ankhon Dekhi’s script in its pre-shooting original draft. Thanks to Rajat Kapoor for sharing it.

 


vlcsnap-2014-04-21-16h54m50s212अाँखों देखी : विलक्षण साधारणता अौर अनुभवजन्य यथार्थ

राष्ट्रीय पाठ््यचर्या की साल 2005 में प्रोफेसर यशपाल की अध्यक्षता में बनी रूपरेखा के मध्य एक दिलचस्प किस्सा सम्मिलित है, ‘शीत ऋतु की एक सुबह’ शीर्षक से. किस्सा कुछ यूँ है, “शिक्षिका ने बच्चों को प्रात:कालीन दृश्य बनाने के लिए कहा. एक बच्चे ने अपना चित्र पूरा किया और पार्श्व को गाढ़ा कर दिया लगभग सूर्य को छिपाते हुए. “मैंने तुम्हें प्रात:कालीन दृश्य बनाने के लिए कहा था, सूर्य को चमकना चाहिए.” शिक्षिका चिल्ला उठी, उसने यह ध्यान नहीं दिया कि बच्चे की आँखें खिड़की से बाहर देख रही हैं; आज अभी तक अँधेरा था, सूर्य गहरे काले बादलों के पीछे छिपा हुआ था.” किताबी शिक्षा के ऊपर स्वयं बच्चे के अनुभवजन्य सत्य को तरजीह देनेवाले इस किस्से की याद मुझे फिल्म ‘अाँखों देखी’ देखते हुए बेतरह अाती रही.

रजत कपूर द्वारा निर्देशित फिल्म ‘अाँखों देखी’ के मध्य एक सहज ध्यानाकर्षित करनेवाले प्रसंग में कथा के केन्द्रीय किरदार बाबूजी (संजय मिश्रा) अपने स्कूल में पढ़ने वाले भतीजे के उस गणित के मास्टर से सीधे भिड़ जाते हैं जिसने भतीजे द्वारा उत्तरपुस्तिका में अक्षरश: वही उत्तर न लिखा होने के चलते, जो किताब में लिखा है, उसे परीक्षा में फेल कर दिया है. इस दृश्य की खूबसूरती जितनी इसके तर्क में है, उतनी ही इसके किरदारों की ख़ब्त अौर उससे उपजते उनके विरोधाभासी व्यक्तित्वों में है. यहाँ पुरानी दिल्ली के निम्नवर्गीय परिवार का मुखिया एक मिडिल स्कूल के गणित के मास्टर को यह समझाने में लगा हुअा है कि सिर्फ़ नज़रिये का फर्क किसी सच को झूठ में नहीं बदल देता, अौर कि सच्चाई को देखने-समझने अौर महसूस करने के सबके अपने निजी तरीके-रास्ते हो सकते हैं. दोनों सामान्य से गणित के सिद्धान्त पर दूसरे अादमी को खिजा देने की हद तक पिले हुए हैं. बाबूजी का तर्क है कि जब दो समांतर रेखाएं एक-दूसरे से मिल ही नहीं सकतीं, तो यह क्यों कहा जाये कि वे किसी अनदेखे-अदृश्य ‘अनन्त’ पर जाकर वे मिल जायेंगी?

बाबूजी का भतीजे की गणित की किताब में मौजूद निर्जीव समांतर रेखाअों को नई मौलिक नज़र से देखने का यह अाग्रह जीवंत लोगों को देखने के उनके नज़रिये में भी पैठ बना रहा है. अपने ही दफ्तर के चायवाले अौर साथ काम कर रहे बाबू में उन्हें वह सुन्दरता नज़र अाने लगती है, जिसे चिह्नित करने की फ़ुरसत अौर नज़र, शायद दोनों ही उनके पास पहले नहीं थी. अौर सिर्फ़ अपने ‘भोगे हुए यथार्थ’ पर दुनिया को पहचानने के इस नए प्रण के पीछे कोई अाख्यानिक किस्म का किस्सा भी नहीं है. यूँ ही एक भले दिन घर में घटी सामान्य सी घटना से बाबूजी को यह भिन्न क़िस्म का नज़रिया हासिल होता है अौर फिर घर में एक नितान्त रोज़ाना सी सुबह बाबूजी दफ़्तर जाने से पहले नहाते हुए यह प्रण करते हैं कि “मेरा सच मेरे अनुभव का सच होगा. अाज से मैं हर उस बात को मानने से इनकार कर दूंगा जिसे मैंने खुद देखा या सुना न हो. हर बात में सवाल करूँगा. हर चीज़ को दोबारा देखूँगा, सुनूँगा, जानूँगा, अपनी नज़र के तराजू से तौलूँगा. अौर कोई भी ऐसी बात, जिसको मैंने जिया ना हो उसको अपने मुँह से नहीं निकालूँगा. जो कुछ भी गलत मुझे सिखाया गया है, या गलत तरीके से सिखाया गया है वो सब भुला दूँगा. अब सब कुछ नया होगा. नए सिरे से होगा. सच्चा होगा, अच्छा होगा, सब कुछ नया होगा. जो देखूँगा, उस पर ही विश्वास करूँगा.”

यहाँ यह भी साथ ही रेखांकित किया जाना चाहिए कि बाबूजी को अचानक हासिल हुई दुनिया को देखने की यह अनुभवजन्य यथार्थ पर अाधारित दृष्टि उन्हें परिवार के अन्य किरदारों से भिन्न तो बनाती है, लेकिन वे फिल्म के ‘अादर्श नायक’ नहीं हैं. फिल्म इस बात को लेकर सदा चेतस है कि बाबूजी अपनी नई दृष्टि से लैस होकर भी परिवार के मुखिया की उस भूमिका को नहीं छोड़ते जहाँ घर के अन्य सदस्य उनकी नज़र में स्वयं कर्ता नहीं, उनकी क्रियाअों पर प्रतिक्रिया करनेवालों की द्वितीयक भूमिका में हैं. छोटे भाई के घर छोड़कर चले जाने के प्रसंग में भी उनका अनुभवजन्य यथार्थ उन्हें अपने भाई के निजी यथार्थ तक नहीं पहुँचने देता. अौर ख़ासकर यह उनके अपनी पत्नी (सीमा पाह्वा) से संबंधों में प्रगट होता है. बाबूजी अपनी नई दृष्टि से लैस होकर भी घर के भीतर उस नई दृष्टि का इस्तेमाल कर पाने में असमर्थ हैं अौर अपनी पत्नी को कहते हैं, “कुछ भी नया सोचो अौर तुम अौरतें… चुप रहो.” लेकिन फिर अपनी बेटी से संबंध में यह नई दृष्टि बाबूजी को नई पीढ़ी के अनुभव तक पहुँचने में मदद भी करती है. वे देख पाते हैं बिना किसी पूर्वाग्रह के, जो उनकी बेटी अपने भविष्य के लिए निर्धारित कर रही है.

बाबूजी अजीब किस्म की लगती ख़ब्त तो पालते हैं, लेकिन वे इसके ज़रिये कोई क्रान्ति करने निकले मसीहाई अवतार नहीं हैं. दरअसल इसके ज़रिये वे अपनी साधारण सी लगती ज़िन्दगी को ही कुछ अौर बेहतर तरीके से जानने, समझने की कोशिश कर रहे हैं. यहाँ यह फिल्म शशांत शाह की ‘दसविदानिया’ की याद दिलाती है, जिसमें मध्यवर्गीय ज़िन्दगी की साधारणता अौर उस साधारणता में छिपी विलक्षणता की कथा कही गई थी. यहाँ दरियागंज में पुश्तैनी मकान में रहनेवाले संयुक्त परिवार की ज़िन्दगी का टुकड़ा हमारे सामने है, जिसके चिह्न फिल्म के प्रामाणिक सेट डिज़ाइन, संगीत अौर धारधार छायांकन में उभरकर सामने अाते हैं. अौर उन संदर्भों के ज़रिये जिनसे फिल्म पुरानी दिल्ली की निम्न मध्यमवर्गीय ज़िन्दगी अौर उसमें होते पीढ़ीगत बदलाव को रचती है. घरों का बदलना अौर उनमें मुखियाअों की सत्ताअों का बदलना यहाँ स्टील के गिलास से चीनी-मिट्टी के कपों में होती गरम चाय की यात्रा में अभिव्यक्त होता है. यहाँ बन्द घरों अौर अापस में जुड़ी हुई छतों वाले घरों में इन्हीं शामिल छतों पर मनाए जाते सार्वजनिक जन्मदिन हैं तो मोहल्ले के नाई की दुकान अाज भी पुरुष ज़िन्दगी का सबसे महत्वपूर्ण सार्वजनिक स्थान है. लेकिन फ़िल्म का सबसे चमत्कारिक पदबंध उस घर की संरचना में छिपा है, जिसमें यह संयुक्त परिवार इतने सालों से रहता अाया है.

मेरे लिए ‘अाँखों देखी’ की बहुत सारी प्रामाणिकता उस घर के नक्शे में छिपी है, जिसमें बाबूजी अौर उनका परिवार इकट्ठे रहता है. बीच में बड़े से चौक के चारों अोर बने रेलगाड़ी के अागे-पीछे लगे डिब्बों से छोटे-छोटे कमरों से घिरी इस बहुमंज़िला इमारत को मैं देखते ही पहचान जाता हूँ. चूने की बनी दो हाथ चौड़ी मोटी दीवारों अौर खड़ी सीढ़ियों से बनी यह इमारतें उत्तर भारतीय शहरों की भवन निर्माण कला का शायद एक समय में सबसे प्रामाणिक नक्शा रही हैं. इनका बड़ा पोलनुमा दरवाज़ा किसी घनी इंसानी बस्ती की संकरी सी गली में खुलता है अौर कमरों के भीतर कमरे निकलते चले जाते हैं. अाप इस इमारत के नक्शे का मिलान अागरा शहर में रहनेवाले मिर्ज़ा परिवार की उस पुश्तैनी हवेली से कर सकते हैं, जिसे हमने सथ्यू साहिब की ‘गरम हवा’ में देखा था. अौर साथ ही इस तुलना द्वारा यहाँ समय के साथ उपयोग में बदलाव के चलते इन पुश्तैनी मकानों की बदलती संरचना पर भी गौर किया जाना चाहिए. समय के साथ जैसे-जैसे शहरी जीवन की सामुदायिकता सीमित हुई, घरों की संरचना में चौक का केन्द्रीय महत्व भी सीमित होता गया. भागती ज़िन्दगी के निवासी इन नौकरीपेशा लोगों की ज़िन्दगियों में समय को लेकर वो सहूलियत नहीं थी कि वे चौक में मजमा लगाकर घंटों चौपाल किया करें. नतीजा, चौक की जगह के अन्य उपयोग ढूँढ़े जाने लगे.

लेकिन इन इमारतों का नक्शा कुछ इस शक्ल का था कि चौक पर सीधे-सीधे छत डाल देना भी संभव नहीं था. यह चौक दरअसल बाक़ी मकान के लिए उस कृत्रिम फेंफड़े की तरह था, जिससे होकर ताज़ा हवा अौर रौशनी बाक़ी सारे निर्मित मकान में अाया करती थी. अौर मकान की संरचना में यह इन्तज़ाम ज़रूरी भी था, अाखिर अापस में एक-दूसरे से छतों से जुड़े मकानों वाले इन रिहाइशी इलाकों में वैसे भी अौर घर में रौशनी अाती भी कहाँ से. घर के नक्शे में हवा अौर रौशनी का इन्तज़ाम घर के बीच से ही करना ज़रूरी होता था. अौर ऐसे में अगर इस चौक के ऊपर पक्की छत पड़ जाती तो बाक़ी सारे मकान की हवा-रौशनी बन्द हो जाती. यहाँ फिर वो जुगत काम में अाती है जिसे इन पुश्तैनी मकानों में रहनेवाली नई पीढ़ियों ने इन घरों को हमेशा के लिए छोड़ने से पहले के कुछ सालों में बहुतायत से अपनाया अौर जिसका गवाह मेरा बचपन भी रहा है.

‘अाँखों देखी’ उस परिवार के बारे में है जिसके सदस्यों के मन में नए समय के साथ दौड़ लगाने की तमन्ना तो है, लेकिन उसके पाँव में सीमित अाय की बेड़ी पड़ी है. वह इस पुश्तैनी मकान की संरचना को बदलना चाहता है, उससे बाहर निकलना चाहता है. लेकिन उसके अार्थिक संसाधन उसे ऐसा करने की इजाज़त नहीं देते. अौर इस कारण वह इसी घर को नए समय में अनुकूलित करता है. इसीिलए चौक के ऊपर पड़ी उस जाली को मैं तुरन्त पहचान जाता हूँ. लोहे के सींखचों वाली यह जाली चौक के ऊपरी हिस्से को कुछ इस तरह ढकती है कि रौशनी अौर हवा पूरी तरह बन्द भी न हों अौर ऊपरी मंज़िल (जो ऐसे मकानों में सदा ज़्यादा ‘ख़ास’ होती है) को घर के बीच एक नया फर्श भी मिल जाये. फर्श न नही, फर्श का अाभास ही सही. ‘अाँखों देखी’ में परिवार के रिहाइश के मकान के मध्य में पड़ी यह जाली कितना कुछ कहती है. यह बताती है कि इस मकान में रहनेवाले अब इस रिहाइश के अनुकूल नहीं रहे अौर किन्हीं मजबूरियों के चलते अब अपने मकान को खुद की ज़रूरतों के अनुसार अनुकूलित कर रहे हैं. यह भी कि एक न एक दिन वे यहाँ से निकल जायेंगे. इसीलिए शायद छोटे भाई ऋषि (रजत कपूर) के पुश्तैनी घर छोड़कर जाने पर फिल्म का जो दृश्य सबसे ज़्यादा याद रह जाता है वो है उसी जाली को बीच से खोलकर रस्सियों द्वारा उतरती अलमारी का दृश्य.

कुछ साल पहले ‘लाइफ स्टाइल’ का कहलाए जानेवाले एक टीवी चैनल पर परिचर्चा में निर्देशक अौर अभिनेता रजत कपूर अपनी निजी ज़िन्दगी के बारे में बड़ी दिलचस्प बात बता रहे थे. ऐसे समय में जब मोबाइल भारतीय मध्यवर्ग की ज़िन्दगियों का ही नहीं, शहरी निम्नवर्ग की जीवनचर्या का भी अभिन्न हिस्सा हो गया है, वे अपने साथ मोबाइल नहीं रखते. वजह पूछने पर उन्होंने बताया था कि उनके हिसाब से इतना महत्वपूर्ण कुछ भी नहीं कि ज़रा देर इन्तज़ार न कर सके. बात को कुछ अौर लम्बा खीचूँ तो मतलब यह कि दुनिया में अाप जिस वक्त जहाँ मौजूद हैं, उससे ज़्यादा महत्वपूर्ण कहीं कुछ अौर नहीं घट रहा, यह विश्वास इस निर्णय के पीछे है. गौर से देखिए तो उनके द्वारा निर्देशित फिल्म ‘अाँखों देखी’ के मुख्य किरदार में भी अचानक यही विश्वास पैदा हो जाता है. वह अपने वर्तमान को किसी अन्य अदृश्य यथार्थ के लिए ठुकराने से इनकार कर देता है.

फिल्म में बाबूजी का यह निर्णय उनको अपने निजी यथार्थ में कहाँ पहुँचाता है, यह तो अाप फिल्म देखकर ही जानें. लेकिन फिल्म में बाबूजी की इस ख़ब्त से उपजे दो बहुत दिलचस्प प्रसंग हैं, जिनका उल्लेख मैं यहाँ करना चाहूँगा. पहला प्रसंग उनके फैसले के दिन का ही है, जब बाबूजी अपने भाई के अखबार पढ़ने पर टिप्पणी करते हैं, “खबर नहीं है ये. सब बकवास है. खबर वो होती है जिसे हम अपनी अाँखों से देखते हैं, कानों से सुनते हैं.” अौर दूसरा प्रसंग उनके पड़ोसी के लड़के द्वारा यह टिप्पणी किए जाने पर कि “बाबूजी भी न, कुएँ के मेंढक जैसी बातें करते हैं.” उनका जवाब बहुत मानीखेज़ है, “हाँ, मैं मेंढक हूँ. लेकिन अपने कुएँ से मैं परिचित हूँ. उसको जानने की कोशिश कर रहा हूँ. उससे अपना परिचय बढ़ा रहा हूँ.” अौर इसमें वह प्रसंग भी जोड़ लें जहाँ बाबूजी चावड़ी बाज़ार मेट्रो स्टेशन के बाहर व्यस्त सड़क पर हाथ में तख़्ती लिए खड़े हो जाते हैं. तख़्ती पर लिखा है, “सब कुछ यहीं है, अाँखें खोल कर देखो.” मेरी दिलचस्पी इन दोनों संदर्भों को जोड़कर देखने की है. क्या हम सूचना विस्फोट के इस महासमय में अपने निजी अनुभवजन्य यथार्थ से अपनी पकड़ खो रहे हैं? मैं यह सवाल इसलिए पूछ रहा हूँ क्योंकि इन अाधुनिक सूचना के साधनों पर हमारी निर्भरता कहीं न कहीं हमें द्वितीयक स्रोत पर प्राथमिक अनुभव से ज़्यादा भरोसा करनेवाला बनाती है. तर्क भी इसका साथ देता है क्योंकि एक अकेले व्यक्ति के अनुभव के मुकाबले समूह का अनुभवजन्य सत्य या तकनीक अाधारित सामुहिक यथार्थ बड़ा माना ही जाना चाहिए. लेकिन इसके अपने खतरे हैं, जिनका सामना हम वर्तमान समय में कर रहे हैं. अाज द्वितीयक सूचना के स्रोतों को योजना के तहत नियंत्रित किया जा रहा है. शायद मध्यवर्गीय जनसमूह इसे पहचान भी रहा है. लेकिन दिक्कत यहाँ अाती है कि उसने अपने प्राथमिक स्रोत, अपने अनुभवजन्य यथार्थ में भरोसा खो दिया है. ऐसे में हम सब जैसे किसी अंधेरे तहख़ाने में हैं अौर एक-दूसरे से भविष्य का हाल ऐसे ले रहे हैं जैसे कोई अंधा हाथों से टटोलकर कमरे में रखे हाथी की अाकृति को पहचानने की कोशिश कर रहा हो. पिछले एक महीने में दर्जनभर लोग मुझसे बहुत उम्मीद से यह पूछ चुके हैं कि मैं उन्हें बताऊँ कि अाने वाली सोलह मई को अाखिर होने क्या वाला है.

मेरी खुद को भी, अौर उन तमाम लोगों को भी जो किसी छिपे हुए यथार्थ को जान लेने की तलाश में अाजकल बनारस की अोर भाग रहे हैं, एक ही सलाह है − “सब कुछ यहीं है, अाँखें खोल कर देखो”.

– Mihir Pandya

(This piece was first published in Hindi journal ‘Kathadesh’)

And here’s the script of Ankhon Dekhi

Rajat Kapoor’s new film Ankhon Dekhi opened with rave reviews. Though it has been a limited release, if you still haven’t seen it, do watch. It’s easily one of the finest films of the year. And if you have seen it, here’s Fatema Kagalawala on what worked and what didn’t. Read on to see if you agree or not.

“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Walden

ankhondekhi-4b (1)

Are stories set in a real-life world created with an unimaginable honesty, enough? Remember this line as you read along.

There are films that are character-centric, there are films that are character-driven, there are plot-driven films and there are those where the idea looms large enough to swipe everything under its shadow. Ankhon Dekhi is one of those films. Truth is your inner truth, your own truth, what you can see and feel and experience. Can a theme get more universal and personal at the same time than that? Can a theme get more exciting, thirsting to be explored threadbare than that?

“There are only two days that are important in life; the day you were born and the day you realise why.” – Mark Twain

Bauji has an eiphany one day and he must follow it because suddenly he has realised why he was born. He must follow his own truth and his own truth will only be that which he has experienced. Soon, the meaning of his entire life changes. He leaves his job as a travel agent because he hasn’t seen any of the places he regularly recommends and hence it is a false existence, something he cannot allow in his life anymore. “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth”, Bauji could easily have been Thoreau. Or Maya Angelou who when asked what is right simply said, “Truth is.” His loving wife and daughter indulge him, his younger brother, tired of hauling material responsibilities leaves him, his loyal fans follow him blindly and we have a picture of life as we all have seen unfolding in our own worlds.

Creating a world to touch and feel

Every film is rooted in its own ideology and born of it, whether it likes it or not, whether it is conscious of it or not. Rajat Kapoor’s cinema seeks to question consciously and that is the joy of watching his films. In Mixed Doubles he questioned the idea of monogamous relationships, in Mithya and Fatso identity and truth, in Ankhon Dekhi truth again. There is something very honest, at an intrinsic level, in his searching and nudging set beliefs. That draws you in and makes you take it seriously, keen to know if the journeys of his characters will somehow make your own easier and enlightened.

It does but not in the philosophical proddings. It does in the earthy, rustic (and inspired) casting of Sanjay Mishra, Seema Pahwa and others. It does in the lovely, early morning winter mist-like songs written by Varun Grover used beautifully. It does in the very common-sounding but carefully written dialogues. It does in the loving relationships we see functioning in what we see as a very average, very ordinary family. We smile when we see Seema Pahwa’s Amma, nagging but warm and soft-hearted wife and mother because we know her, maybe in our own mothers, wives, mother-in-laws, aunts, grandmothers or neighbours. Even if we don’t she seems familiar. Because she is real.  There is no artifice in her character or her performance and she appeals to us in a way no hot babe or heartthrob can aspire to. Like most women do, she forms the spine of the family, keeping it together emotionally yet invisibly. (If you disagree, imagine the family without Bauji. Then imagine the family without her). Getting her character right (and getting the brilliant Seema Pahwa to play it) is the first solid brick Rajat Kapoor lays in creating a world we cannot help but fall in love with.

As we gently land into the world we are welcomed by a ruckus over the inappropriateness of the friendship the daughter of the house has with a boy. Bauji protects her as Amma lashes at her. We then see Bauji’s younger brother Rishi (a terribly miscast Rajat Kapoor) step in to play the peace-making voice of sense role with a sigh; a role he has probably been playing for a long time now and is weary of. There is also the no-good younger son (a character that spirals the story even more out of focus in the second half) whom Bauji doesn’t know what to do with and we see that the irregularities of the family are as regular and middle-class as they can get. There is daily bickering, daily endearing moments, gentle warmth and regular disappointments as ordinary yet interesting for it, as the patchwork quilt the family cosily shrouds themselves in, in the cold nights of this North Indian town.

“The truth is out there!”

Bauji would like to believe so but there is a strong corollary to that. Only that truth is truth that is true to your experience. And hence begins a journey of a family dragged into this search of truth by the man of the house who now begins to appear a little senile to our eyes shrouded by practical concerns. We, as an audience become the family and Bauji the lone crusader trying to put out what he has discovered.

I tripped out on the promise of the premise completely.

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell

Truth does revolutionise Bauji’s life. The search for truth comes with a price, from Gandhi to Satyapriya, they all knew it. The price Bauji pays is to see his joint family breaking up. Rishi chooses to live separately with his family and the graceful Bauji lets him be. We sense there is a parallel search for one’s own truth unfolding elsewhere. Practical and material concerns do not provide us the middle-class luxury to indulge in fancy philosophical journeys; no, that’s for the elite. And hence the entire family rises up in arms against Bauji’s new avatar. Philosophy is costly but we forget that in merely surviving we let go of living. Subtly deceiving ourselves that this is what life is meant to be after all. For Bauji, surviving suddenly becomes an ugly word.

Sadly, his discovery does not become an expansive, life-affirming philosophical journey or a guiding light. Neither does it elevate itself to a deep, cinematic exploration of its theme. Like Matrix did for example.

Instead, we have a situation with little sub-text to the real theme, of his younger brother’s separation from the joint family. Animosity grows between the brothers, one that is treated gently and with love but does it contribute anything to the central conceit of the film? Yes, the younger brother is following his own truth but the film seems to be saying little about his journey, treating it with realist-humanist sympathy alone with no philosophical implications. A mere by-product of the mess Bauji has invited in his life by choosing what he has. That a sub-plot that crucial has little bearing to the theme than being a mere outcome seemed to me to be disservice to everyone included.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” ― Winston Churchill

The tender-hearted Bauji suddenly becomes a braveheart in our eyes because he finds in himself the courage to face the truth he has found. It isn’t easy, such conviction, but neither is it difficult because when you have an epiphany, when the clouds clear for that insoluble moment of time and the sun shines brighter than it ever has, all shadows fall away, and the truth stands alone, refusing to be blind-sided, refusing to be hidden by rationalisations yet again. With such truth such courage comes as default. One has no other way. Yet, Bauji’s truth does not become ours nor egg us to seek ours. It gets lost in the whimsy of card-playing popularity, fan-following herds, and placard-holding eccentricities. None of which are organic or dynamic. They remain interesting plot points, the ‘coulds’ one writes on the margins of a script when at crossroads of plot development.

It’s almost like Rajat Kapoor himself stumbled over the truth, picked himself up and hurried off as if nothing happened.

And that killed the film for me. A theme as rich as that I found aimlessly tossed around, especially one with a very honest intent and one that is completely devoid of posturing. I know what became of Bauji but was it an organic growth or a cop-out? To me it seemed like the latter. Not that I know, but the alleys of truth must be convoluting, without easy answers, especially since so many of us know so little about it. The end of Bauji’s search seemed very easy. And his journey very unmindful as well. For a man who has found the reason of his existence, one which has been turned 360 degrees, he seemed to be acting more from whim than a focussed intent. Because whim is superficial but intent helps you delve deeper. If Bauji’s character had truly delved deeper he wouldn’t be going on trips to the zoo very late in the second half to establish a point he had painstakingly established very early on. If his character hadn’t taken an eccentric turn he wouldn’t suddenly become the lucky charm of a small-time Mafioso. His character seemed to be truly seeking and struggling, breaking free and revolutionising all that we know of an average man’s search for truth (notice the paradox in the statement) when he took to standing on the chowk holding confounding placards embarrassing his family. But suddenly, there was no movement in this journey. And a brilliant plot point became a mere set piece contributing nothing to anything.

 “The more I see, the less I know for sure.” ― John Lennon

Is this why Bauji ends up the way he does? We don’t know, however we are led to believe that he has come to a fructifying end to his journey. With the end as he chooses for Bauji, Rajat Kapoor seems to want to put an existential spin in the narrative which is as exciting a thought as his original theme. But there are no questions raised before we are led to this resolution. Nor is there an indication of a journey that seeks a proper close. The end comes and goes, just like Bauji’s epiphany, leaving us cold when it should have ideally left us shivering with goose bumps. Maybe inches closer to our own spiritual or intellectual thirst. That is because we did not see enough. Deep enough. Of Bauji and his thirst, his angst of marrying his new reality with his old, or a trajectory that led to his resolution that seemed to satisfy him. The film is linear and not episodic, however treating his journey as episodic fails the entire structure of the film and the audience, who by the middle are expecting more. Not answers, no one has them nor they can give anyone (Your truth is your own, remember?). Nor was it the intent of the film to provide ready ones. It was the experience of the search, the pain, angst, growth, questions, answers, trials and peace. Logically, all of this exists in the film but tattered and scattered, making little sense, not feeding off each other as it should and hence coming across as an under-played game of TT where no one wins.

Aldous Huxley once wrote, “Experience isn’t what happens to a man, it’s what a man does with what happens to him.”

I think that just about sums up, at many levels, what I feel about the film.

– Fatema Kagalwala

 

Editor’s Note: Imtiaz Ali’s much-awaited film ‘Highway’ released last Friday, and, over the course of just a few days, has achieved the unique feat of inviting equal amounts of love and hate. What’s even more remarkable is the vehemence with which both ‘lovers‘ and ‘haters‘ have expressed their views about the film. Barring the sedate review or two, sharp words have flown between between the two ‘camps’, especially if you’ve followed the buzz on Twitter. Or perhaps you’ve read the gloriously funny Neruda-take on the film. With this Highway it seems, there’s been no middle-road.

However, as the fires die down, it’s time to pause and reflect on this undoubtedly fascinating film that’s made some fans of Ali despair at his latest turn; some fans exult in his new achievement; and converted some Ali-sceptics into fans. For now, here’s Shivam Sharma taking stock of the film and taking you on a journey he greatly enjoyed.

Also, if you have seen the feature, click here to watch Imtiaz’s original telefilm which inspired the feature and was also titled Highway. And do participate in an interesting poll in that post.

(The following piece contains spoilers. It also contains personal whims, fancies, two languages and if the point gets lost in between somewhere then भूल-चूक, लेनी-देनी माफ़ कीजियेगा.)

“मैं हमेशा कहती थी न कि मैं भाग जाउंगी यहाँ से, मुझे शहर में नहीं रहना।
सब कहते हैं न, पर भागता कौन है?”

highway-1

१५ साल पहले इम्तियाज़ अली ने ज़ी टीवी के शो “रिश्ते” के लिए एक एपिसोड बनाया था उसके बाद उन्होंने काफी कुछ बनाया, हासिल किया और काफी हद तक बॉलीवुड में एक secure, genre-specific director बन गए. Especially after ‘Rockstar’, his biggest hit, his career graph has gone steadily upwards. ‘रॉकस्टार’ जैसी बड़ी hit देने के बाद, he had the option of going even bigger financially. Knowing how the industry works, giving a big hit generally works wonders — Nolan had a carte blanche to give his whims free rein after ‘The Dark Knight’; and so he made ‘Inception’. But the decision of not going bigger in terms of cast, budget and stars, and instead making a movie based on a story he wrote 15 years ago (or more) with a modest budget, stripped of most ‘Bollywood’ elements and with a not-so-bankable cast, tells us more about the director that Imtiaz is and the path he is on. ‘हाईवे’ की journey सिर्फ वीरा और महाबीर की नहीं है. ये इम्तियाज़ की भी उतनी ही “Finding oneself” वाली journey है. Back to his roots.
१५ साल पहले वाली.

Highway may not be Imtiaz’s best work but it’s definitely his most honest. Of all his films, this has the most scenes without crutches — minimal background music; long, apparently aimless scenes interspersed with silence as if they were unplanned; and scenes that are ‘real’, that feel raw: Veera laughing/crying without any reason sitting on a boulder by a freshwater stream; Mahabeer’s breakdown. Rough edges काफी visible हैं and some scenes seem unfinished in a sense. काफी clear है कि इम्तियाज़ खुद कुछ नया ढूंढ रहे हैं यहाँ. He relies more on his instincts and the power of raw scenes and narrative here than anything else — and he fumbles along the way quite often too. His warts are quite visible here and the screenplay isn’t entirely convincing. However, he has tried to get out of his comfort zone i.e. a strong soundtrack, typical funny side characters, likeable leads etc. The part which juts out like a sore thumb — and that I personally hated the most — was the end segment, the final 15 minutes where he tried to define everything, make sense of the proceedings and tie all the loose ends. It all felt forced and unreal. That part was the most Bollywood-like of the whole movie and I wish he had ended the film 10 minutes earlier and not necessarily provided a forced closure. (The Lunchbox followed it so beautifully. Ritesh Batra knew where to stop. पर it’s ok, कोई बात नहीं.)

The movie soars with the terrain it slowly travels — almost metaphorically. The part where Veera and Mahabeer lose themselves in the mountains, without a care in the world, is the most enchanting. These scenes soar higher than all others. सूफ़ियत कह लें या कुछ और, उस हिस्से में फ़िल्म एक अलग space में पहुँच जाती है. Imtiaz makes a great decision here to cut back on the spoken word and just let the ambient sounds and the scenery do the talking. This part is probably one of the purest cinematic experiences that I have had at a theatre ever.

highway-2

“एक गोली में आदमी ख़तम हो जाता है न?”
“दो आदमी.”

What looks like a simple ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ story gradually becomes much more as we go farther up the mountains and Imtiaz lets the story take its course beautifully towards the latter half (with the help of some great cinematography by Anil Mehta). There are many scenes without much dialogue here. These silent scenes help — they make you think; at that point, it all becomes subjective. You interpret what you want to, you become a part of the journey and maybe that’s what it all comes down to eventually.
You find stuff about yourself.

The two leads shine as does the supporting cast. Alia is brilliant in most parts, despite overdoing a few things here and there. But what a revelation she is! Randeep Hooda is restrained throughout and gradually takes over when Mahabeer finally breaks down. He is one of the best actors we currently have and this performance strengthens that position. AR Rahman’s music and background score take a backseat here and honestly he does not have that much to do. It’s just not that kind of movie maybe. ‘Patakha Guddi’ and ‘Maahi Ve’ are soulful; Sooha Saha is a lovely track as well. However, I really missed Mohit Chauhan’s vocals. The visuals reminded me a lot of especially this song of his.

Highway tries and succeds and fails and then succeeds again. It has some glorious highs and some not-quite-there moments but कुल मिला कर its highs spectacularly overshadow the lows and the movie now and again transcends into a रूहानी space which is well worth the journey — a rarity in Hindi cinema.

But I have always been a mountain person all my life so do excuse me for being a bit biased. चलिए फिर, I’ll see Highway again and try to find out more.
अपने बारे में.

Shivam Sharma aka @GhantaGuy

(Professional procrastinator. Amateur doer. I sleep, eat, drink and live movies. And right now I am trying to learn how to make movies at FTII)

Well, the header is self-explanatory.

So Milords, scroll down to read Gyandeep Pattnayak‘s defense of Ridley Scott’s The Counselor, and see if it convinces you otherwise.

the-counselor02

‘The Counselor’, for over than a week, has been like that itch which I’ve tried really hard to ignore but can’t anymore.

And won’t.

The reactions to the film are as fascinating as the film itself. But I’m getting way ahead of myself here. Let’s wind back our clocks a little. Remember how the Internet exploded with euphoria when it was announced that Cormac McCarthy had sold his first ever screenplay, and that Ridley Scott was attached to direct it? I mean, who wouldn’t be excited, right? McCarthy – the genius that he is – writes prose that oozes blood and as a writer, he’s pretty much cemented his position as one of the literary greats. Scott, on the other hand, is a filmmaker whose greater works have (often) initially been rejected as being overtly indulgent and devoid of any real emotion. ‘The Counselor’, which boasts of such impeccable pedigree (both in front of and behind the camera) was bound to raise expectations to an all-time high. So, what went wrong?

Nothing.

The primary issue that the audiences (and critics) had with the film was that it was too talky. Agreed that the dialogs are a bit impenetrable at first but meandering and unnecessary they aren’t. Also, this is a film that warrants repeated viewings and it will only get better the next time you see it. To validate this, let’s consider the scene in which the Counselor (Michael Fassbender, as the titular character) goes to Amsterdam to purchase a diamond from a diamond dealer. They engage in a conversation related to the quality of flawed and perfect diamonds. Slowly, the conversation veers towards country, culture, God, philosophy. You are hooked, you ARE the Counselor in this moment. You don’t understand all of what the diamond merchant says but you are intrigued. The words flow like music. And then McCarthy subverts this very scene, with the merchant saying, “Enough, i see your look. No more philosophy.” You expect the conversation to stop. But what the old man says next will show how incisively sharp McCarthy’s writing really is. And this is just the beginning.

Another complaint: the plot is foggy, not enough of story to chew on. Wrong. There is a story about consequences, about what greed begets. There is always some talk about a deal, something which isn’t made clear. But we do see drugs being transported and re-transported in a truck. So we know it’s got something to do with them. And the Counselor is just asked by his friend, Javier Bardem’s Reiner, in plain and simple English, “Do you want to be a part of this?” He agrees. And this being a McCarthy/Scott film, things go spectacularly wrong. What else do you need to know?

Too little action. What the actual fuck? Dread is omnipresent, lurking around in all the frames (and we have Daniel Pemberton’s excellent, moody score to thank for, which adds to the mounting creepiness). There are at least two scenes that will scare you shitless. And then, there’s violence in those words, in between the lines, in all those phrases left unsaid and also in those which are spoken out explicitly (you’ll see what a bolito does). Like that scene in which Brad Pitt’s character Westray asks the Counselor to steer clear of the ‘deal’ while there’s still time. And then, he makes it clear that the beheadings, the mutilations are just part of the business, to keep the fear alive. It is a chilling scene, an indicator of what’s about to follow, and remarkably performed by both Pitt and Fassbender.

Scott, who is an atheist, also injects some of his own perversity into a scene where a character goes into a confession chamber and confesses (or at least tries to) to a priest about the sins that she’s committed. Initially, I thought this scene did not fit anywhere in the film. After seeing the film for a second time, I see where this one’s coming from. This character is just trying to piss off the priest. She wants to see what it feels like being in a confession chamber and she is aware that she feels no remorse, no matter how much she tries to. At one point, she even tells the priest, ‘Look, I don’t need any forgiveness. Just listen to my sins.’ It’s almost as if she’s laughing in the face of the beliefs and rules that ‘normal’ people adhere to.

I could also give you one more reason to watch the film: Cameron Diaz’s character Malkina fucks a car. Yes, you read that right. No, I didn’t mean a cartoon.

SHE.    FUCKS.     A.      CAR.

Got your attention, haven’t I? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. But yes, there are also two flaws that I can think of right away – 1) A woman wakes up from what she thinks is a nightmare (this scene reminded me of Raakhee from Karan Arjun. You’ll know it when you see it) and 2) the film would have been all the more edgier if not for the couple of cameos that pop up once in a while. Like my friend @drdang observed, ‘Audiences would have lapped it up in a big way had it been a foreign language film.’ I couldn’t agree with him more. To me, it constantly felt like (and I say this with no intention of belittling Scott’s craft) I was watching an Alejandro Gonsalez Inarritu film. In short, the film is anything but your typical Hollywood fare.

I can go on and on about this film because that’s how rich it is, with all those dialogues and those visuals. And honestly, I don’t expect this film to be everybody’s cup of tea because it simply isn’t. But next time, when Scott chooses to direct a tentpole summer movie like ‘Prometheus’, don’t be a dick about it. Because clearly there isn’t any appetite for restrained and intelligent cinema like this one. Towards the end of the film, one character tells another how easy it is to trade places for a loved one’s life and given the current situation, how impossible it really is. The scene closes with this particular piece of dialog – “The extinction of reality is a concept no resignation can encompass.” Even McCarthy couldn’t have put it any better. But he has.

Few years from now, people will look back at this film and wonder: this is the film we’d ridiculed back then? The year is young and there are 10 more months till we start making top 10 lists but guess what, I already know what one of my top favorites is going to be. Simply put, with this one, Messrs McCarthy and Scott have taken ruthless and cynical filmmaking to lethal heights.

Gyandeep Pattnayak