CRITICAL ADOOR & A FEW MORE WORDS FOR MUMBAI FILM INDUSTRY

There is a series of recent releases in Bollywood as usual. With more to come in time I was thinking about a reaction from great Adoor Gopalkrishnan about the mainstream Hindi films. He, in a recent interview to The Telegraph (Graphitti), had said that very recently he was trying to see a Hindi film and he could not bear it for more than 10 minutes. He said that there were money in the Mumbai industry and directors knew nothing but to spend it on sets and mindless scenes. Coming from Adoor it was a heavy attack on the merits of those so-called wonders of Hindi films, of whom various media are writing, showing and trumpeting as Avatars in Cinedome. Adoor is a man of plain speaks and when he speaks he knows what exactly he is talking about. Only yesterday I saw a promo of a Bachchan enacted big-budget special effect drama in television news. Amitabh is a warrior of a sect that do not condone war, but when they do a sway of Bachchan’s sword produces a bird of fire and it flies over the head of the assembled army. I was thinking how poor can be the scape of imagination that even can not surplus B-grade technoes of Hollywood? How many times we had seen this kind of jugglery in such movies where dragon to bird to a demon

(pterodactyl sort of) appears in the screen to install fear among its viewers?

Anyway, it also had reminded me of an era of Bengali stage when the lack in playmaking (in content and form) was supplemented by placing elephants, even camels on stage to create wonders for the directors and producers. But that had soon gone overboard and all these petty magic had dried up to restore sanity and ofcourse the ‘Art’. But there is no stopping in Hindi film industry. They are hell-bent on doing what they can, that is, spending money on bad ventures. I had also seen that most of the so-called big bullies like ‘Ajuba’ had fallen flat on its face. Why? The answer is very simple. Though it is said that people go to cinema hall to get only, yet more often than not it is a half truth. They do not stick to a film that is poor on story and that also can be seen in the earlier demise of great Bachchan when he acted in films like ‘Indrajeet’, ‘Lalbadsha’ etc. etc. He came back with KBC series and then in films those had some stories in it. So any sort of mindless entertainment can not keep viewers in hall. But one can argue that these stories are definitely not the once like Adoor’s. It is true indeed. But then again there are some points to be taken note of here.
In all literatures there are writers like Sheldon who are more popular than James Joyce. But definitely no one in right mind can claim that Sheldon is much greater than Joyce. There will be some all the time that will enjoy Sheldon than Joyce and vise-versa also. But at the base these are all creditable narrations told in different manners. When it comes to non-narratives it becomes a bit more difficult and Anuraag Kashyap is facing that with his ‘No Smoking’. I have heard that his film is getting good reception in Rome festival, but here in India he was anguished by the critics. He has to realize that Mani Kaul had also faced serious lack of interest in general viewers, even Adoor himself is not that much watched here. So if you are taking a few steps more to experiments you are open to critic for wounds, but obviously not always for wrong reasons. For now I must stop here in discussing non-narratives, because I will have to get back to entertainment itself.

If there is a narration well woven in movies it certainly will attract viewers and it surely not only depends upon stars in actuality. Time and again it had been proven by films like ‘Satya’ and directors like Ramgopal Verma. Just remember Mani Ratnam’s ‘Roja’ in which he had cast an actor like Madhu who is not that a celebrity in Hindi atleast and Arvind whom Bollywood barely knows at that period. But he dealt his piece of narration with good technique and it was an instant success. In that film he had spend certain money, but cleverly and knowingly and he had his fruit. I am not saying that I expect someone like David Dhawan to make a film like ‘Arth’ even, but then he atleast can follow earlier comedies like ‘Golmaal’ that had certain story to tell and he will not need to stoop to low standards. Entertainment also needs a process of understanding and it has its logic too. I rarely have seen any film woven with logic to fail and I had seen thousands to topple with spending spree and nonsense.
When Adoor had commented he knew that thousand of producers and distributors are behind these sort of nonsense who actually controls film industries everywhere and they do not want to promote good cinemas as that will make them helpless in return. These are the people who want to dictate terms in the industry and for that reason they operate behind curtains or ‘Star System’ and again when any of the so-called Star gets too big to fit in their given shoe they try to cast him or her off. Actors who turns into star know this well but then money speaks a volume in human civilization. Then one may argue that directors are hapless lots and that is certainly not the case.

Some directors like Sanjay Lila Bansali or Ram Gopal Verma have their own company and they can even break distributor’s strangleholds too. They do often do it as I remember that after each and every Yash Chopra production a scuffle goes on with multiplexes in all around India for share of sells and all that. So they can negotiate and get free of this strangle. Then why they do not make films that of which they are capable of? In the facet of world cinema we have directors like Spielberg or Tarantinho whom we can consider good atleast. Each and every director can not be turned into a ‘Maestro’ overnight but they can be sensible at least. In India we are lacking in such sensible directors and producers too, who does understand entertainment properly. Even after Devdaas or Sarkar Raj a sensibility is lacking in Bollywood cinema. In the period of Bimal Roy it had started to produce fine narratives and from then on it took great shapes in the hands of directors like Hrishikesh Mukharjee, Bijay Anand etc. But now even with people like Bansali, Verma, and Vidhu Vinod Chopra around can we hope for a better take than Deshai or Dhawan style idiosyncrasies? Then it may come out one day that Adoor had seen a Hindi mainstream movie to its full length and house full notices can be seen on theatres too. Yes, even in this period of television and DVD-s also. That is quite possible I think.

Published in: www.passionforcinema.com

Bernardo Bertolucci-A Quixote in modern cinema

In his youth he wanted to create ‘Miuras’ or ‘Young Bulls’ as his films and in the end had made a film like ‘The last Emperor’. Bernardo Bertolucci had pompously failed himself in cinema. But was it an individual failure?
The other day I was commenting in ‘Passion for Cinema’ and had a good debate on Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’ or ‘Ultimo tango a Parigi’ (1972). It had started from a very harsh comment of mine to discard this as a trash film and a real pathetic show of Marlon Brandon (not as actor, but as artist who had chosen a bad film with all his conscience). As I got a very interesting reply from Shan there, I thought that space will not be enough to elaborate on my thoughts.
As Shan had said that we all have our rights to disagree I here am just doing that by disagreeing on Bertolucci’s greatness.

He was a son of a decadent bourgeois family and had a poet-writer father. He was a son of a devastated Italy that saw fascism and its tentacles that embraces all sources of life and sucks dearly.
He started as a poet and then in graduation had grown into cinema to say that he had dreamt of living in film. Along with his aforesaid thoughts another realization, that for a bourgeois turned conscious Marxist it was difficult to be a Marxist, had a great role in his cinema. Because there were the bubby traps waiting eagerly for a footstep on it and to the dismay of people like me, Bertolucci had walked on that and was exploded.
But how and why and that is the question, rather puzzle, that I will try to solve here.
I will start with certain personal experiences of mine as Shan had asked a few questions based on that.

When I was a child, the days in West Bengal were turbulent with Naxalism and anti-emergency struggles. People around me were activists, anxious, puzzled, and tortured by poignant and cruel time. Bloods were everywhere. There I had met certain peoples who were very committed to their beliefs in communism. They wore dhuti-kurtas and had a bag by their side. They travel to places where state had not visited even twice in the shape of officials or vote-mongers. They travel to such places to distribute relief in the time of flood or famine. They were there to propagate communist thoughts. Days of hard work and then they won certain friends and comrades there. In much friendlier terrains poignancies of their political work can be imagined easily. Communists, as they call themselves had won elections on the ground of those works. These workers had fought landholders and mill-owners along side farmers and workers and had achieved their faith in them.
Was that a win for communism? In my later years I had tried to understand what exactly it was and I had found a rather interesting answer for that. These men and women, whom I had known through my father as communist party workers were people of very religious nature. Their religion was Marxism and they will be hurt today, that I know for sure, with such an analysis. But I can not help it. Marx is a difficult author to be understood without proper preparation. I realized that without certain knowledge in various discipline ‘Das Capital’ is simply impregnable. Marx was not the first one who had called for equality among individuals in a class ridden society. He was the one who took this call beyond simple humanitarian wanton. If one does not understand Marx properly then how one can differentiate between his call and that of old Christianity! My known world was infested with simple believers of communism, who had no idea how will the economy be if communists have power one day.
To them party and communism was all the same. Party, just like states are run by few people and they may fall from ideologies, which these men had no idea of. When time came and communists had grabbed state power and erstwhile enemy landlords became comrade these party-workers fell short of understanding. At the beginning they had thought this as a psychological change of landlords and finally when they were outvoted in local range intra-party election they had faced a shocker. Their party is in the hand of enemy itself. They, one by one, had left the party and became silent, though with a suppressed anguish and loyalty.

Most of these men were not even half-rich as Bertolucci was. They were professional political workers and had to live on the party’s whole-timer benefits. They had no other alternative profession. But Bertolucci was in a far greater state than them as far as the economy and education were concerned. He had chosen to live in cinema with the help of his cine-critic father. Finally he had a stint with Pasolini as an assistant and he entered in cinema.
Pasolini, a thrown-out of Italian communist Party and a rebel at heart, had taught him cinema. But I hope not Marxism, because like all others Pasolini was influenced with Gramsci, the thinker. Gramsci’s thoughts on ‘Hegemony’, ‘Common-sense’ and ‘Lumpen-proletariat’ or on ‘Southern question’ do need a proper system to understand it. Bertolucci had not had that. A bourgeois by birth can be a communist, but will be challenged in a hard fashion.
There are two reasons for that. One lies typically with the formation of apparent freedom in bourgeois society and another in its knowledge system. If you have money you can buy certain freedoms in such a society. Obviously I am very much aware about equality before the eyes of law in so-called democratic or bourgeois state. To the poor this is a hoax for ever and it will be so as law can be bought through lawyers. If one judgment upholds legal system then scores other are there that can show you the farce at its height. Therefore a child like Bertolucci of ‘Surplus sustenance’ often falls into the trap of ‘Free’ society. Wealth and power have given a shield to that child to even be mesmerized by that. By pronouncing rights of ‘Freedom’ of our thoughts we only acknowledge its limitation as there is no such thing like ‘Free’ will. Bertolucci had learnt that lesson in a wrong way in his detainment by Italian state.
The other part, knowledge system, is partly academic and partly observational. If you have never lived in a secluded island ever you just can imagine how it can be and you will definitely be wrong in understanding that. This is an extreme example and I used this just to point out the difference between bourgeois and proletariats. Pasolini, once had accused Italian state in his first feature film ‘Accattone’ had shown us the ‘borgate’ (just like fascist Italy) as concentration camps where lumpen-proletariats live and Accattone himself proclaims that after his first day of work there. Therefore one can easily understand the distance between that and bourgeois world. I must not elaborate. From here our Bertolucci had started his career as a cinema-wala.
How strange was it when he proclaims his dream to live in cinema? A poetic (?) thought indeed. If you live in cinema you will miss the real world and reality. No creator can create without the point of departure of an objective world. Objects we reflect in our thoughts and dreams and acts and in creation with our own interpretations only. In cinema we do not see a chair; it is a mere reflection as it is in the case of our own eyes. Then how can one be creative without being objective in cinema?
If you start from there you can treat your subject with better understanding and so do we, the viewers. Well you can also create your own world too. And that will be interesting to visit. Take Klee’s paintings for that and it will definitely deliver you content in the shape of few thoughts. You can nurture them, you can grow old with them and day after day you will find layers in it.
A withdrawing bourgeois and a failed Marxist even do not have his own say. Shan, my friend, had declared Maria’s (Jeanne) win in the last blow-job she gave to Brandon’s (Paul) character. Paul is beggar and she is the giver now. What had won exactly? A primitive and animal instinct to have sex (though I do not know if animals do know any such forms as blow-job) or self-satisfaction that I am the master of my master, what exactly came out in this win? In psychology and Marxian politics this sort of satisfaction has been associated with typical slave mentality of women in male-dominated society. Well, then we are having a win that is not a win at all. Then, at the last sequence, a shot from a Jeanne’s gun and Brandon (Paul) dies with a chewing gum. Is that the final win?

How pitiful it was! Is this content can be compared to any work of even the ‘Evil’ De Sade or a pitiable ‘La Miserable’? No and there lies its follies in content that even can not surplus Pasolini’s controversial mixture of Sade and Mussolini’s thought in his great film Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom (1975). Then why will it be a great one in cinema?
As far as the cinematic treatments are concerned I find his language mimicry of Godard and Pasolini at large. On that front he had scored nothing in this Last Tango and I must refrain from discussing it. It will be a waste of time. Bertolucci as a maker was never sure about his place and was always inclined to popular cinema. On the wrong understanding of Marxism he thought being ‘Popular’ is a crime in Marxist thought at his early days. It was not like that at all. Only some intellectuals, bereft of proper understanding had thought so. Ideological goal of Marxism is to be popular to spread its message of equality among workers and peasants of the whole world.
A Marxist becomes a saint only with the lack of understanding of it. My dhuti-cladded warriors of Marxism of childhood had probably thought so. They were washed out when they were out of position in party and had found the loneliness unbearable to some extent. People were used to look at them with awe and they were like gods or sages to them. By the process they had seldom enjoyed life and had become too monkish and Marxism had resembled a church system in this part of the world. When time came people who were against this rigid, dogmatic process (mostly middle class for their comfort and a few for the sake of sanity) had succumbed easily to the traps of system. When confronted then or even today they use these miserable good beings as examples of uselessness of discipline and commitment. Both they and these men had failed to make a striking balance in their act, although Marx did it rightly in his period and writings. He had not only prescription of violence for the world, he even talked of non-violent movements and transfer of bourgeois state to a worker’s state too (in 1832, Amsterdam).
And for sinners (err liberators) like Bertolucci a failure in radical movement is bound to be salvaged by an erotic radicalism. This too I know personally. Many of the revolutionary writers of 1970’s had turned into soft porno novel writers later on and they boast it as subversion in culture. In ‘Last Tango’ this disguise of rebellion was not enough to cover a pure search for own pleasure in disguise of rebellion. Truly names are not needed in brothel and if liberation is in the brothels only then too I remember some similar mediocre creators in West Bengal aka India who had similar point of view.
I will rather read Jean Genet or Sade again. Straightaway they can tell at your face that they can harm you to buy happiness for them and that is not the case with Bertolucci. He, at the best is a Quixote who poses himself as a knight. Probably the system that had made him out as a failure will produce a poet or maker to tell his story (partially told in ‘The Pornographer’) like Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra one day and I am waiting for that.

Published in:

http://www.passionforcinema.com/