On Kieslowski

From Roger Ebert's review of Three Colours

We see him (the judge in 'Red') like so many of Kieslowski's characters, swimming upward through a suffocating life toward the possibility that hope still floats somewhere above.

I connect strongly with Kieslowski because I sometimes seek a whiff of transcendence by revisiting places from earlier years. I am thinking now of a cafe in Venice, a low cliff overlooking the sea near Donegal, a bookstore in Cape Town and Sir John Soane's breakfast room in London. I am drawn to them in the spirit of pilgrimage. No one else can see the shadows of my former and future visits there, or know how they are the touchstones of my mortality, but if some day as I approach the cafe, I see myself just getting up to leave, I will not be surprised to have missed myself by so little.

No wonder, Roger Ebert called him "one of the filmmakers I would turn to for consolation if I learned I was dying, or to laugh with on finding I would live after all".

On a side note: Juliette Binoche! I have nothing to add.

Manhattan project

Why is life worth living? It's a very good question. Um... Well, There are certain things I guess that make it worthwhile. uh... Like what... okay... um... For me, uh... ooh... I would say... what, Groucho Marx, to name one thing... uh... um... and Wilie Mays... and um... the 2nd movement of the Jupiter Symphony... and um... Louis Armstrong, recording of Potato Head Blues... um... Swedish movies, naturally... Sentimental Education by Flaubert... uh... Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra... um... those incredible Apples and Pears by Cezanne... uh... the crabs at Sam Wo's... uh... Tracy's face...

- Woody Allen in Manhattan

In defense of Bollywood

Indian cinema, particularly Bollywood cinema has a (bad) reputation as colourful musical extravaganzas that have no resemblance whatsoever to anything remotely real. It is no surprise then that a lot of people from outside India cannot really get into it. I am not a big fan of Bollywood school of cinema myself but I understand where it is coming from. 

Basically, there are two schools of thought about film-making. One philosophy is that cinema should portray reality. The film acts as a window into the lives of people that we relate to at some level. Granted that nothing important or interesting ever happens in most of our lives but the characters in the realist film are archetypes of people we know or of ourselves, slightly exaggerated or dramatised. So one can handle topics such as ennui, existential despair, love (in its stripped down unromantic version), dilemmas about life, the universe and everything. So one could watch a movie, go home and think what would I have done if I was the guy in the Nazi camp or the girl with terminal cancer. What insight do I get about how to lead my life from the trials and tribulations of the life of others shown in the big screen?

But this philosophy is completely shunned by the second group. For them, cinema is about escape. It is about wish fulfillment. People don't want to spend good money to watch a movie about poverty and despair. They have enough of it in real life. They don't want existential angst. They want catharsis. Simple themes. Good vs. evil. Triumph against odds. Superheroes. Miracles. Disasters. Gooey love. Dance. Music. Popcorn.

IMO, the more difficult 'real' life is, the more one is interested in escapists fantasies more than anything else.

On the other hand, my problem with Bollywood (and I use the term loosely) is not that they make escapist capers,  it is that they make really bad escapist capers.

Intelligent cinema

What is an intelligent movie? I had this long discussion with a friend of mine on what I perceived as dearth of intelligent cinema coming out of the Tamil film industry. And how watching a much-touted film like Enthiran or Vishwaroopam is painful. I couldn't quite boil down a definition of what makes a film quote unquote intelligent, because saying something like "the film was so intense that it moves you" is too abstract. Perhaps in the famous words of Supreme Court Justice Stewart, "i know it when i see it".

One of the definitions that I found online is that a movie is considered intelligent, when the idea is new. Another definition was that intelligent cinema is that which entertains and provokes a mature viewer to reflect on what they saw, long after the film ends--extending the entertainment value. Someone else suggested something worthwhile and lasting which will impact the audience and remain with them and form a part of their collective memory.

One could argue that there is no such thing as intelligent cinema but this would probably entail that a Vijay flick is then just as good as a Kamal film. I don't see a lot of people accepting that. Or one could argue that we don't 'need' to have intelligent cinema. That is a whole other argument (that I will deal with separately). Mind you, nobody is arguing that we shouldn't have any escapist entertainment capers. I liked Gilli as much as the other guy. My argument is that we could do with some smart films. Not many. Just a few.

And if there isn't consensus on what intelligence is, let's substitute it with terms like innovativeness, inventiveness.

It is not controversial to say that nothing in at least the last 25 years in Tamil  cinema has pushed the frontiers of film-making. Not even 'Hey Ram', which is a pretty decent flick. The problem is that directors like Maniratnam, Kamal or Shankar pretend that their movies are somehow 'different', 'historical' or 'profound' or 'pushing boundaries' when they are none of those. They balk at making anything that hasn't been already made a million times.  I'm perfectly happy for them to come out and say that I am not in the business of making intelligent films but let's not pretend that they are making the Metropolis. 

Kamal for instance complained that he won't get an Oscar because there is an Indian sensibility and the West doesn't get it. He won't get an Oscar because he is just not that good. It is like the Olympics. You may be the unrivalled National champion but you don't even get to run in the Olympic finals because you are running a full minute behind the top athletes. (I actually pity Kamal the actor - he just doesn't have a good screenwriter or director to bring the best out of him). It is not just a matter of taste.  I have more respect for a person like Vijay or Vijaykanth who has no pretensions of intellectual fortitude.

And I can't stress this enough - I am not calling people dumb. Quite the opposite, I believe people are not stupid but are treated as such by film-makers who think something is too high-brow or as some idea as too difficult for an average person to understand. It is these so-called 'good directors' that say I could totally make a world-class film if only I didn't have to consider the B and C-centres, that make the argument that people are too dumb for intelligent films. And my beef is with sophisticated film-goers in India who have lowered their expectations so much that even a smattering of 'sense' from a director is lauded as the next best thing since sliced bread. This is what allows film-makers to produce films that are for the lowest common denominator without even having to justify it or pay a price for being so mediocre.

My point is that some film-makers, despite commercial constraints that are just as true everywhere as they are in India, do not shrink from doing the smart thing. I am not talking about the Terrence Malik and Jean-Luc Godard kind of art-house independent films. I am talking multi-million dollar summer blockbusters. I am talking of typically juvenile franchisees like the Batman and James Bond becoming deep and well-rounded films and still earning truckloads of money. Inception is another example of a mainstream blockbuster being incredibly smart. Yes, we want someone to make "American Pie-25" or "Die Hard 18 - This time is the Hardest", but we can also be certain that there is someone out there who will make the next 2001: A space odyssey.

There is literally no Indian Woody Allen. No present Indian director is making films remotely on the same level as Chris Nolan or Aronofsky, no screenwriter is writing as well as Charlie Kauffman. There is nothing written that matches 'Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind'.

Perhaps we have to admit - we are just not capable of it.

Update: While we are at it, can we get a Tina Fey and a Steven Moffat

Vishwaroopam - the controversy

There has been considerable drama surrounding the release of "Vishwaroopam" that it piqued my curiosity. I watched the film and while I wouldn't wish to impose another review on the inter-tubes, I wish to talk about the widespread criticism of the film, with regard to its depiction of Muslims.

Right at the outset, let me reiterate that I am not in favour of censorship and the movie should be allowed to be screened. And if the screening engenders an engaged and reasonable debate about the portrayal of race and religion in Indian cinema, it is to be welcomed. However, the protests against the film should not be brushed aside as irrelevant. There is some validity to the argument of the muslim protesters that the film portrayed the entire community as blood thirsty jihadis. One cannot point to other innumerable films that also deal with terrorism, for instance Gaptain Vijaykanth hunting down Bakistan terrorists as an excuse. The difference is between the cartoon violence of Tom and Jerry and the real horror of 6 year old children killed by gunfire on the evening news. The point being that no one takes seriously the comical portrayals of terrorists in a Vijaykanth movie even if the villains are Muslims. The problem with Kamal's portrayal is the "plausibility" of the Muslim terrorists. The viewer is led to believe that the people shown in the movie are not caricatures, this is how it really is.  This poignant hyper-realism, even if it is an cinematic artifice is the main reason that critics of the film like Charu Niveditha object to the 95 crore boondoggle.

The problem is perhaps of Kamal's own making. He has continually portrayed himself as a serious thinker and film-maker, neither of which is in evidence in this film. If one did not expect anything better from the actor, if we went to watch a film that was exactly in the same category as other Batriotic Bakistan Bashing films, then I am certain we wouldn't have any problems with Jerry taking a shotgun to Tom's face.

So, I suppose it is our fault that we wanted an entertaining action film with tact and nuance; something that didn't treat us like we were three year olds being scared in to eating another mouthful.

Haneke On Cinema

“I’m interested in seeing films that confront me with new things, with films that make me question myself, with films that help me to reflect on subjects that I hadn’t thought about before, films that help me progress and advance … For me, personally, I think watching a movie that simply confirms my feelings is a waste of time.”

- Michael Haneke (director of Amour)

A quick tale - A broken dream factory

"We have conquered the earth. Now it is time for the moon and the stars beyond," Director Shankar said to his assembled team of writers and assistant directors as they sat in the plush beachside resort in Maldives. The warm and pleasant sun wasn't the only thing that he was basking on; the success of his last film about a killer robot had surpassed all his other movies put together. "It is time to begin the next project and the only thing we know about this new movie we are going to make is that it will cost more than the previous one," he said amid drunken cheering. "I have a new Hollywood cameraman and special effects team ready to sign the papers. Charu here has agreed to write the chase sequences and they are going to be bigger and better than last time". More cheering. "We have had a week-long holiday and I am sure everybody is completely relaxed, ready and eager to begin work now. I want each one of you to pitch me an idea in three days. No idea is taboo. As long as it spells big commercial success, anything is fine."

That was three days ago. 

The meetings were scheduled in increasing order of experience; the young and wet behind ears were called in first. Any second now, Karthi, the most senior of Assistant directors would be called in. Karthi was nervous. The usual brainstorming sessions were easy enough to handle; you let the eager-to-please young kids come up with ideas and you suggest a tweak there, a twist here and bingo! you have got yourself a script and a good day's work is done. But this one-on-one scared him. This was blatant 'What have you got to offer' challenge. Fifteen years he had been an assistant and he was afraid that he would get passed over. Three days and countless hours scouring through every movie on the pay-per-demand list later he was no closer to coming with anything. There was one sequence from Inception that he was counting on ; a shot of earth folded on itself and the hero running up and down defying gravity. But rumour has it that one of the juniors had already pitched it earlier in the day. Now, he truly had nothing.

Time was closing in.

The door opened and he was signaled in. It was all over.

Time did cartwheels and an hour later, Karthi walked out with his beaming boss. He had pulled out a golden-egg laying rabbit out of the hat. It was a fucking miracle.

He had started with what he thought of the director, hoping that flattery would get him through this ordeal. And then lightning struck. The motherlode. He remembered how Shankar had started the previous meeting with conquering the stars and decided to roll with it. The movie will involve astronuats, exploring space. Not in a dream sequence, dance routine kind of way, but for real. Throw in a few technical terms; rocket, resistor, transistor, satellite and  jackpot! People saw him as the modern director, a risk-taker who used latest technology and scientific terms in his films that people would otherwise not ever encounter. This will be a first by an Indian film-maker. Not just some alien comes to earth in a flying saucer story. But real space exploration. Half the movie happens in the moon or in Mars. 

With each sentence, he could sense Shankar's eyes glaze over in gleeful anticipation. 

"There is one sequence that I can actually see in my mind's eye," said Karthi, "Villain and his goondas chasing the heroine through the sand dunes of the Mars, to rape her of course, their each step a leap due to the Mars' gravity, a tiny earth in the dark background and the hero with a jet pack flying through a volcanic eruption, are there volcanoes there, who cares, to save the heroine. Her oxygen tank runs out and the hero gives her lip kiss to keep her alive. Would make a dramatic scene, wouldn't it?" 

He had thought that Karthi had dried out. How wrong was he! Seniority and experience did count for something. Shankar realised what a massive hit this was going to be. His success formula involved  2 parts larger-than-life hero, 2 parts patriotism, 1 part technology, 1 part set design, 2 parts sentiment, 1 part "I get the struggles of middle class" down-to-earthness,and 5 parts unfettered extravagance. This had all the ingredients, ticked all the boxes. He was already thinking ahead; he can get Thotta Tharani to erect huge sets, the size of stadiums.  Planting the Indian flag in the Moon or Mars or whatever, was sure to create goosebumps. It has to be Mars, so we can say we have overtaken the Americans and the Chinese and the Russians. In the backstory of the hero, and a flashback in second half was his trademark style, he can show him as coming from a poor family, his mother holding a candle for him all through the night for him to study for his engineering entrance exam. The hero can say, "I didn't have money to buy a new shirt and now I am wearing space suit". Ignite youngsters' dreams. He can claim how he was doing a great service to the country by making this movie. Ah! he could borrow from Abdul Kalam's biography for the backstory. If he could get Abdul Kalam to say he liked the film, he could sell in B and C centres for an extra crore or two. And he can name-drop Kubrick, Asimov in interviews for the city people. If Vivek didn't get too preachy, he can do a nice comedy track. Maybe stick to Santhanam. he seems to be the flavour of the year. And Vairamuthu will have a field day with planetary references - 'Chevvay, Buthan, Ulagam unna suthuthu'. Sure there was work to be done; there was still songs and fights to conceptualise. But there will be a climactic battle scene with a thousand extras in alien costumes. Kind of like Avatar without cgi. The publicity wrote itself. Oh! the joy of being a director.

Everybody wins. Him more than others. But everybody wins.

Kitsch

There are many surprises in this world. Every time I turn around a corner, surprise stares me in the face. Sometimes, it is sneering. NO, make that often. I don't mind. Not so much, that I have gotten used to it. Surprises no longer surprise me.

Like the other day, I was browsing through comments on Rediff (which is the next best thing after FRIENDS to cure mild depression), and someone had written that Satyajit Ray was a traitor.

Oh why! I wondered, he is the only Indian to be awarded an Oscar, surely in a country where international success or any remote connection to it is lauded and worshipped, he ought to receive more respect than that. What treason could he have committed? I read on. Do you know why Satyajit Ray is a traitor? Because he depicted poverty in India. That abject thing that does not exist anywhere in India. He is a unpatriotic because he marketed India's poverty to the west. Won awards and recognition because that is what the west wants to see of us.

Now,take a director of the Johar ilk. Well! You know he is patriotic because he depicts true Indian values and traditions. Doesn't he make us all proud? My chest is so swollen with pride, it is going to burst any second now.

All along, I described the movies of the Johar kind (lets be kind to him as these movies predate him and call it the Bollywood masala) as shit, bullshit, horseshit, manure and crap. It has just dawned on me that they are not shit. If anything they are the exact opposite of it; the negation of shit. Kitsch, if you please.

I am reminded of Milan Kundera's definition of Kitsch in the The Unbearable Lightness of Being as “the absolute denial of shit”. Kitsch, he wrote, excludes from view everything that humans find difficult to come to terms with, offering instead a sanitised view of the world.

What the writer of that article was trying to say was that Ray's vision was against their ideal of India and therefore unacceptable. Ray, despite gaining eminence overseas is not worthy of being our hero. It has nothing to do with ciematic sensibilites or style.

Why does it surprise me or ought to? We, in India (maybe it is an universal phenemenon) are so thirsty for heroes to put up on pedestals that I expected Ray to be on one. A national hero. A role-model for filmmakers of the new generation.

Perhaps it is only fitting that he is not on one. (And perhaps... he is not on this pedestal, only to be put up on a different one)

Mani-bhai

The thing about shit is that even the most sweet smelling shit, the most tastefully decorated shit, shit with caramel topping and a cherry on top is still, ultimately shit. Turd. Useless. Maniratnam's Guru is that; visually stunning and aesthetically pleasing shit.

Most of the reviews that I read were about how, even if it wasn't spectacular, the movie was worth a watch. I beg to differ. It is without any doubt Maniratnam's worst movie. The movie wasn't too bad if someone was making his/her debut feature. It was very ordinary for an experienced 'auteur' and if you consider that it was by (allegedly) the best director in the country, you begin to wonder if there is any hope for Indian cinema.

To be fair to Mani, I don't think he fared badly as a director. He wasn't at his best but could easily be forgiven. His inexcusable failure is that of the scriptwriter (which incidentally wasn't credited to him or to anyone. Yup! That sounds right. It did look like a movie without a scriptwriter). Either you have lost it sir or you tried to accommodate the script for the 'ever-so-mysterious' North Indian audience. There was no cogency, the songs were a joke and the script was incomplete and ideologically flawed.

Sir, if I may, can I make a humble request. Please, please stop trying to make movies in Hindi. (Is it your lack of understanding of the language or the people that works against you?) If you don't want to make a movie in Tamil, make one in French or Spanish. Or Elven for all I care. But not Hindi. They don't like you and you trying to bend yourself backwards to please them is not going to help. Like a Harry Potter novel, Mani sold out (but in a totally different sense). He pimped himself to make money. Mani fans, don't start lynching me. I don't hate him. I love him dearly and that is why I can't accept such substandard stuff from him.

Mani, either intentionally or inadvertently mirrors himself in Guru's character; the manipulative bastard. I can read the movie as a metaphor to his own cinema. Mani is of course the protagonist Guru; the one who gets greedy enough to sell his soul. We, his faithful fans, who first saw in him the spark of genius and the burning desire to make better cinema, are represented by Mithunda's Nanaji. We love him and we can't see him flounder and remain unmoved. Aishwarya Rai is the visual aesthetics that he brought to Indian cinema (unchanging in its beauty). Meenakshi is the hope of the Tamil filmgoer for world-class cinema. It was born with multiple-sclerosis and died with this movie. Maddy's Saxena represents the independent media (myself included) who are willing to be not overwhelmed by the halo around Mani-bhai's head and to write fearlessly to right a wrong.

Read another way, Guru, like Mani's earlier works, Roja (1992), Bombay(1995) reflects the current mindset of the majority; in this case our nation's euphoria and the India poised campaign (see previous post). Success is made out to be so important, that we, as a society have been granted license to take shortcuts to make money. With a justification that is as elegant as George Bush's speeches. A whatever-it-takes approach for the purported 'greater good' is rationalized as being 'not wrong'. That's what great people do and that is what greatness is. Whoever says so otherwise is saying that only because they are jealous.

BTW, the whole monologue at the end of the movie, in the courthouse was so ribticklingly hilarious and illogical that I expected one of the judges or at least someone in the press gallery to laugh out loud. Keeping in mind Mani's management background, I thought he must have planned it as a parody. And Priya, it is quite evident that the hostile judges are converted by his inspiring speech.

Mani was wondering why people still remembered him as the director who made 'Mouna Raagam' (1986) and 'Nayagan' (1987) and hoped that after Guru he'd be remembered as the director who made Guru. For his sake, I should hope that people forget Guru soon and not relate it with him at all.

What happened to you, sir? I wonder, surely one can't become senile at the age of 50, can one? But on a more hopeful note, the thing about shit is, even the greatest have to get it out once in a while.