Read with interest an erudite open letter by award winning actress and a fellow JNUite Ms Swara Bhaskar to Mr Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Always a pleasure to see her act on screen and speak passionately on issues in real life. As any thought provoking piece does, the letter also set me thinking. The letter can be seen here.
I dealt with the issue of putting cinematic after ideological in an article after the release of movie Pink. My views of film criticism can be seen here.
Some additional points specific to Ms Bhaskar's letter.
Her surprise is surprising. Any film that chose Padmavati as topic has to deal with Jauhar. Being an educated actor she must be aware of that and having worked with and being an admirer of Bhansali's work, she must be aware of his operatic tendencies. Anyone who is familiar with Bhansali's works like Raas Leela, Devdas, Bajirao etc can imagine what will he do with a topic rich with hyperbolic possibilities. But that is not important, fore knowledge is not an excuse for accepting trash from anyone. But few other points may merit some thought.
She gives full marks to cinematic aspects of the movie but end up putting her version of value system before that. She takes away those choices from the auteur- How dare you treat this issue not according to my vision of value system. This is something akin to karni sena (sans rowdy insane deplorable goodaism - Ms Bhaskar is not at all in the same category as she is steadfast in her advocacy of the rights of a filmmaker). Topic, value tangent and treatment.. shouldn't all that be a prerogative of the director. He chose a version and you want him to choose something else. It is pertinent to mention that Ms Bhaskar had full right to play a role in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo where her character reinforced the property rules of monarchy. She got all notes right and that's what that should matter.
Cinema is an emotion driven medium a complicated medium a complex instrument that achieves a telling shot with utmost difficulty. I for one, am a bit weary when we start burdening it with ideological demands. Bhansali should be allowed to choose his topic as Padmavati - as seen by him. He chose a story of valour and a version of Jauhar which may not be focusing at a another important or basic aspect - right to live in any circumstances- that's a valid subject and has been dealt with varying success. Bhoomi is one such recent failed attempt.
There are films like Natural Born Killers, Raman Raghav of Anurag Kashyap, Taxi Driver which are resplendent in delving into the sickness of human psyche without being judgmental. Celebration of pure depiction capabilities of cinema. Asking them to carry a critique of grotesque illnesses that they portray is missing the point.
By disallowing cinema to choose it's context (21st century is your context) we will be caging much of our imagination. If an artist can't slip into the soul of an ancestor than who will. Mad Men on TV depicted offices of a certain era, nonchalance towards certain behavior in the depiction is bound to be there.
Another key point is having an arrogant disregard for the agency of the audience. Director driven cattle driving of audience is accepted canon of cinema mechanism. Hitchcock in particular, has elaborated on this. Cinema aims to manipulate as all artworks do in any form. But when we start believing that audience is not willingly submitting to the suspension of disbelief in a darkened theater but are treating ongoings on the screen as real, we expose our arrogant superiority of thinking them as dumb cattle. No 21st century women is going to commit Jauhar because of Padmavati. If someone is that naive then the blame is not with Bhansaali. Audience are intelligent lot same as Ms Bhaskar who can perceive an extravaganza from a real exhortation.
There is a very thin line when you say that your depiction is glorifying Jauhar and it will have sociological consequences (Ms Bhaskar) and saying that your depiction dishonor Mata Padmavati (Sena chant). You open doors for intolerant censor practices. Outrage brigade of religious, cultural nature is an obnoxious development.
Using sensational language may sometimes make a point clear, sometimes it does a cause disservice by killing nuances. If someone explains karni goons behavior as penis waving than they are killing layers of understanding of this despicable behavior. Similarly deploying vagina here road rollers the deepest understanding of sexual social and mental exploitation of women and reducing it to unidemensional linguistic anamoly- though a catchy one. Vagina Monologus was far superior effort.
I am not saying that films should not be judged ideologically. But a refined mind will always put cinematic before ideological and will be somehow be able to enjoy the alchemy of conflicting strands in a piece of art.
PS. Ideological criticism is a valid form of film criticism. Ms Bhaskar has all the right to disagree with the director and she has done it beautifully, and in the most sane way. Similarly, with less dexterity, I am trying to object to her line of thinking. I respect her for her steadfast espousal of the film makers right to make films of his choice and here we are in complete agreement.
Brilliant exposition Dhiraj, though with all humility at my command, the article did not really merit such an intricate anal ysis. The criticism was oxymoronish at its best. Reserving the right of a filmmaker to use the shades as per his grasp of the rainbow and then a not too subtle demand of being bound or obligated to adhere by the author's canvass. Without being judgemental, I can't but have an inkling that the basic objective of any not so successful film actor is to remain in the public eye and that indeed, has been achieved. Regards.
ReplyDelete