Dealing with the art of the discredited artists

 

There is always changing appreciation of artists and historical figures. Polarization is affecting not only political figures but the tribal energy of a changed society has brought an unprecedented, unforgiving  ferocious quality to re-evaluation of the cultural icons. Not even Shakespeare and Tulsidas are above this. Even the art of Picasso is treated as problematic by some. Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Kevin Spacey, Tarun Tejpal, Bill Crosby, the list is endless. Many classical works are even being re-written to tackle their racial and gender related anomalies that have crept up due to changing values and sensitivities. Spread and importance of social media coupled with the polarization is creating innumerable moments of cancellation and reputational loss, deserved or otherwise. In societal and legal sense these individual artists get what is mandated and are generally finished if they are alive to take the corporal punishment that is there in the rule book (Harvey Weinstein). Some like Polanski, live  exiled lives. And many are finished professionally (Kevin Spacey) as due to ethical, moral and above all, commercial / reputational reasons they become untouchable and stop getting work.  Where does this leave a fan or admirer who finds art in their work that provides a rare transcendence. 

I, for one, am strongly of the view that art should not be expected to carry ideological burden. I respect the idea and right to exist of ideological or even ethical critique of works of art. Ethical and ideological criticism often provides new avenues to absorb the art. But art, for me, is ultimately an intensely personal experience and this aesthetic intimacy of the personal trumps the sociological expanse of the ethical and ideological. So, it is the personal that allows me to resonate with the universal. Only the most personal can resonate  with  the truly universal. That what is societal or socially constructed is inherently limited. In the ensuing discussion, it will always be I/me as I believe that  this discussion of art of discredited artists has to be in first person. Here, I am dissecting ‘my’  relationship with these works of art and impact of the pressure that I feel when the communal aspect of art weighs on my intensely personal space of consuming, living and appreciating art. This personal space is the key arena where this formation of the aesthetic experience is taking place. My argument will eventually underline my distaste for telling others about how to feel for some critical aspect of life which is or, at least,  should be personal to that person.  

Art is a realm of feeling, even seemingly more cerebral aspects of art are absorbed  and situated in a matrix of feeling. Emotions and feelings are about transcendence and not about transection. If an artwork is helping me  feel the transcendence of emotions despite knowing the crimes of the artists, I am entitled to that feeling. Undoubtedly, communal and intellectual aspects will weigh in on my feeling realm. If these intellectual ethical considerations are not colouring my feeling to an extent where the piece of art starts losing its transcendence, I am well within my right to enjoy the piece of art. If the impact of the crime is sufficiently powerful to impact the experience of art appreciation and muddle the transcendental experience then it will be me, and me only, who will shun the artists as he or she is not no longer giving me a deep aesthetic feeling. All this is happening in the personal space where I deal with my artistic being.

I am not talking about the rupture between biography and Art of the artist. It is bound to impact my appreciation of art as the knowledge of his crime and misdemeanour has become part of my being and my being is the receptacle and instrument to feel the art. So my experience of the art is bound to change by the biographical details. My point is that it is nobody's business to tell me how this knowledge should impact me. The mixing of biographical perversions and transcendence weight of the art is unique and personal to me and should be protected from outside evaluation to the extent to which it stays personal.   Without belittling the experience of the victims of his crime, I need not feel guilty about her experience not significantly mudding my experience of the art of the criminal. This is my intimate personal arena and I am not performing a societal function, my social judgement will occur when I will deal with the criminal, legal aspect of the crime. It is not compartmentalization. It is just preventing a social censorship of guilt to enter in an area that should be autonomously decided by the individual in the feeling realm.  I  will surely be mindful of this knowledge if I am performing a societal duty like voting or jury duty but in my sanctum of experiencing the art, I retain my paradoxical autonomy of  being guided by my own feelings. This cuts both ways, I can't tell someone who is no longer able to enjoy the art about her degree of being repulsed by the biographical detail or the crime is an overreaction. Her experience will be guided by her being, environment, history and civilizational victimization of her as an individual and as a member of social categories like gender, race etc.

If the crimes of Roman Polanski or Woody Allen impact people differently, and I am speaking about the consumption experience of their art, I think this is one area where people should be able to agree to disagree without castigating others. Every crime has a different level of impact for different people. We may not or should not be able to have a graded response for the crimes in law and social settings as there is a need for some predictability of consequences of crimes and having a too graded definition of heinous crimes may slow down the function of law. However, in something as intensely personal as art appreciation, feelings are the best guide and different people can react differently. "How can you  watch X while knowing that he is a child molester? '' is a question that impinges upon an area where the person asking the question is asking me to think like him. I have taken an extreme example (child molestation in my case will surely change the experience of the art of the molester) just to prove a point. It is possible that I may be ambivalent about the  crime or I may feel culturally and geographically too distant to feel the full immediacy of it or simply I am ignorant. There can be many factors which may keep the revulsion from significantly impacting the aesthetic experience. The above question is the same as asking a person who is deeply disturbed by the biographical details and crime "why can't you see 'Manhattan' for its aesthetics. This is a masterpiece?'. It is no longer a masterpiece for her. If the biography of the director has ruined it for her then  we have no business telling her to think otherwise as she has no business to shame me for not abandoning the art work because of the crime. I will not ask for leniency in the court for the crime of the artist, but will surely insist on being allowed to pick my art as per my feeling world. 

The person can ask me what if the crime was committed against you or your family. I am sure, the immediacy of the crime would surely ruin my experience and that personal space where I am absorbing and engaging with the work of art will not be a location of transcendence as the force of my hurt,outrage and hatred will outweigh the transcendence. I will shun the art and artist both with maximum prejudice. This is not hypocrisy but perhaps a more honest  acceptance of my  feelings and autonomy of my internal space to absorb the artwork within the realm of my own experience.

In the factual world of social reaction where thinking and intellect rather than aesthetics and feeling are the governing factors, parameters would be different. Laws and Social reaction have a degree of finality. Whatever you might feel about Polanski bedding a teenager, and Allen marrying the daughter of his partner, law is often fixed and punishments are clear. I do not have the mandate or expertise to debate the legal aspect of these crimes or even the religious social reactions towards them.  I am not getting into the nuances of time and culture in evaluation of the severity of the crimes and confine my arguments to the autonomy of my feeling space. 

Yes, as I  said there is no completely private sphere and like religion, aesthetic tastes too have a social dimension. There, in my opinion, I should be circumspect about the feelings of the victims and those who think differently from me. I will not be signalling about or sharing these things. This does not  include spending money to consume the art. I will pay to watch a movie, read a book or visit a gallery. Awards are obviously difficult area as they are very publicly celebratory. This will depend on the appetite of the awarding agency and public protest and debates are totally fair game if a controversial artist is getting the award. 

If history has taught us something, it is the fickle nature of the parameters of fame and socially accepted behavior. Things change and they should. Some form of social surveillance and censorship will always be there which may be productive for social reality or may acquire  extremely dangerous proportions like inquisition and witch burning. While society will find ways to deal with this, nurturing the autonomy of personal feeling realm remains a valid pursuit, a bastion of preserving truly universal and enduring, and art as the distillation of transcendence, deserves a truly private feeling realm to be judged uniquely by every individual sensitivity. 

A Review of Yugal Joshi's Boons and Curses (Rupa)

Vedic and stories of our epics are such a fertile ground for  irreverent and playful examination of human situations. The effortless acceptance of emotions and desires, absence of narrow inhibitions and a general sense of abundance, decency and acceptance pervades this priceless repertoire. In worthy hands these stories become pure joy of effervesce of broad mindedness imbued in natural understanding of basic grammar of human existence. Yugal Joshi is worthy  raconteur of these grand stories. 

Mother and child is the basic unit of human society, rest all is socially constructed. Naturally, world of literature and art  is replete with the energy and possibilities that such a primal source material provides. Shrewd selection of the theme "Boons and Curses: The Legend of the Mythological Mother" ensures a canvas pregnant with thrilling possibilities. Mention of mothers in Indian context carries the apprehension of  cloying deference. This may  overwhelm  the individuality of a woman by the stream rollar of motherhood. It is to the credit of Yugal Joshi that all mothers remain strong vivacious women while serving his narrative schemes beautifully. 

There is a fairly established annual award in literature "Bad sex scene in fiction award". Yugal Joshi is not a contender for this award by a long stretch. He comes into his own when dealing with human, or for that matter equestrian intimacy. He dwells lovingly and with a satisfying languid pace on the physicality and joy of  what he delicately calls 'copulation' or 'procreation'. All these mothers are wild when it comes to their sexuality and Yugal shares their passion and has the wherewithal to bring that on the page. Sanjana-Soorya, Taara -Chandra are some but not the only memorable steamy encounters. Full marks there. 

As a kid raised on Amar Chitra Katha and not so infrequent subscriber of Gita Press, your reviewer considered himself fairly well acquainted with the family trees and milestones of Indian mythology. After reading the book he is more well-informed about manasputras of Brahma and their prolific genealogical output. Rishis and sages and their role in the pantheon and mythology will be a huge take away of the book,  though it is never pedantic. 

Apart from the knowledge, this book has a very sensible cosmopolitan sensibility. It is tolerant and broad minded. Large  hearted ness, not only about gender issues, is hallmark of this unputdownable book. Yugal has hit the mark on the generosity and liberalism of Indian ethos. His paragraphs, specially in the second chapter on various  moral and worldly issues display a level-headedness which is not tainted by even a hint of parochialism. It enhances the pleasure  of this deep but easy read. 

The reviewer was apprehensive about the use of English language for a very Indian topic. Somehow, it is very rare to convey the nuances of Prakrit , Sanskrit  and Hindi sensibilities in English with their complete ethos and flavor. The reviewer is a regular viewer of Yugal's weekly Facebook live on Grehlakshmi where he narrates his stories in Hindi. He is a bona fide social media star there with, sadly for us, largely female fan following. His narration in Hindi gels very fluidly with his topic and while commenting I also found it easy and natural to use Hindi. To our utter relief, the colloquial eloquence of his Hindi narration remained fully intact in English and, surprisingly, got enhanced on many occasion. 

Despite, all the strength of characters, the Mothers of the book are players in a patriarchal set up. They are overpowering the masculine restrictions to achieve masculine objectives of power for their children, mostly sons.  They are using their guile, sexuality , force of personality and sacrifice within men's world and for men. They are using men, fathers, lovers, brothers, son and husbands to achieve their goals. This might appear jarring to few woke readers. However, this is not Yugal's burden to bear. He has taken up the valid field and period and has narrated that with utmost sensitivity. His sensibilities are robust and generous. He is never a voyeur or a exploiter and still manages to tell a gripping story, this is no mean achievement.

PM Vajpayee and Journalism - A personal Musing

I don't blog about my official dealings.This is different.

 I was PIB officer to PM Vajapyee from 1998 to the end of his tenure in 2004. He was, in a sense, my first boss. As happens with naturally charismatic people there is a deep bond one feels towards such leaders. I started on a series on various topics which was aimed at culling out his views on important topics. The plan was to release them when he was to come back to office in 2004. But that was not to be....Only this piece was written.

I want to place this piece in public domain  as a personal tribute as TV Channels are expecting the worst any time. This was written in 2004 and uses present tense. I want to keep on using the  present tense.

The rawness of my language and bit of unfinished feel is evident. I don't want to tamper with it at all as this is what it was .. Opportunity to be in the vicinity of an icon at a very formative age and I want to retain that. I know he is going but ......

Here goes.

            Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee is on record about his confession that premiership was not his first choice of career.  He always wanted to be a journalist first and he realised this ambition on becoming founding editor of ‘Panchjanya’, which went on to become the nation’s leading ideological organ of a party. 

Atalji is a veritable wordsmith – a man of words, he plays with them to great effect.  As a poet and, more so, as an orator he has proved time and again his felicity with words.  Among his closer circle, his editorial capacities are well known.   He has an uncanny knack to spot a mistake, tightening of prose and shedding undue verbosity from any written piece.  It is only natural that his views on journalism as a profession acquire great importance.  He knows the ways of the journalistic craft and profession and as one of the most seasoned political figure of international repute, he knows the other side also.  No wonder his views on the ‘fourth estate’ have a statesmanesque ring to them. 

The PM has been steadfast in his refusal to treat media as just another business.  He is fully aware of the need for financial viability of any medium of mass communication.  He is clear that the media’s task of enriching social consciousness makes it a superior calling.  Media deserves to be given a special status as keeper and shaper of pubic opinion.  At the same time, this places a special responsibility on it.  Media just can’t be dictated by crass commercial concerns.  His views are laced with a certain degree of idealism, which is natural for a person who has refused to compromise his values for short-term gains.  His accommodation and liberal spirit is suitable for governing a diverse country like India, but this follower of middle path is a fanatic of sorts, when it comes to maintaining basic principles of integrity and unimpeachable personal conduct.  Similarly, he is all for economic well being of media organisations, but he is also clear that public responsibility not profit-motive should underwrite the endeavours of journalism.

He is deeply respectful of the breed of journalism, which contributed to the freedom movement and later to the cause of social development.  For such newspapers “Journalism was not a commercial proposition, but a mission that demanded unimpeachable integrity and fierce intellectual independence.”  As a statesman, the premier has been a strong votary of media’s role in development.  He has time and again exhorted to use media as a ‘force multiplier’ in developmental process.  From his speeches it emerges very clearly that free flow of information can play a pivotal role.   Media can be a powerful force for information, rather than propaganda, for education rather than prejudice, for awareness rather that misinformation.  At the recently held conference of SAARC Information Ministers in New Delhi, Shri Vajpayee pointed out that free-flow of information can improve regional cooperation more than any thing else.  In his characteristic style of blending eternal principles and modern perspective, he has always championed the cause of adoption of latest technology for media.  

For a man tutored in the old school of journalism, PM has shown a remarkable readiness for technological advances in the field of journalism.  He is against suppressing technology, but at the same time he is also against creating a divide by denying technologies.  He recognises with satisfaction the explosion of media platforms and formats as result of new technologies.  

“Journalism is a sacred calling.  Newspapers are not brought out like goods come out of factory, nor should it be so….. No newspaper or magazine can be sold like soap.  Soap stops at body only but issues raised by media reach deeper inside.  They touch human heart.  One who picks up pen and dons the mantle of editor, does not do so just to collect advertisements and profit.  Journalism is a great responsibility.”  

When he talks of high idealism in media, it sounds very plausible – as his idealism is tempered by great degree of pragmatism.  However, as happens with great statesman, pragmatism never outshines idealism.  He advocates firmness but does not allow it to turn into harshness.  He favours ideology in papers but abhors fanaticism.  He likes newspapers with flavour of their own but disagrees with exclusivity.  He does not equate malice with professionalism.

“If you can bring to fore some thing elusive or esoteric, well congratulations, but creating mountain out of mollhill by mixing malice with criticism can never strengthen good journalism.”

As a leader of both opposition and government the Prime Minister has grappled with the question of criticism in great details.  A deep-rooted democrat, he considers criticism as the lifeblood of democracy.  He never flinched from his duty, even if he was taking on someone he deeply admired.  He did not hesitate while confronting Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. His criticism of Pandit Nehru earned the great man’s admiration. With such a distinguished initiation in Parliamentary democracy, Vajpayee’s values were bound to be in tune with the greatest democratic traditions.  He often reacts sharply to personalised criticism.  He never crosses the limits of decorum and half a century of politics has not changed that.  Perhaps this is the reason that he belongs to the rare species of a poet-politician.  Opposition is an integral part of democracy, but opposition should remain within the limits of decency.  As a master of words he knows that lack of harshness and indecency does not reduce the sting in the criticism.

“Today there is crisis of decorum, what limit is to be reached.  Democracy has been defined as an arrangement where publicity could be done without hatred, where government could be changed without violence, but today bitterness is being promoted.”

Lack of malicious reporting and dedication to values, ethics, nationalism and integrity can keep any criticism howsoever strong, from falling into destructive propaganda.

He believes that growing tendency of sensational reporting weakens media’s capacity to set the agenda for natural discourse.  Ability for a deeper analysis is being given the short shrift.  He realises that media should be driven by higher values and ideals that just cheap thrills and titillating sensationalism.  As a staunch democrat, he never even hints at state censorship.  A belief in the maturity of our democracy he urges media to exercise self-restraint and decide what is best for people.  Like Nachiketa of Kathopanished, the poet PM said:

“It is the duty of journalist to raise voice in favour of truth and justice and expose lie and injustice.  But this duty should be performed in such a manner that decency, moderation and good taste is maintained.”  He doubts “that a valueless media can take the society in the right direction”.

Like any visionary, PM Vajpayee is a believer in principled existence.   Despite all his accommodative spirit he treats values of nationalism, service and integrity as anchoring traits. He praises newspapers for their strong stands.  He is deeply respectful of newspapers, which refused to be co-opted by imperial enterprise.  (Assam Tribune)  Newspaper should have a flavour of its own.   He is clear that media should spread “a grand all inclusive and idealistic nationalism.”

Though he trashes labels like national press or regional press as misleading (4.12.99), his few media related activities like meeting with representatives of regional media (22.12.98).  He is clear that as an instrument of change and information dissemination, regional papers both big and small, make equally significant contribution and any so-called national newspaper.  Intellectual independence was a virtue commonly found in regional media.   If he attended functions related with mainstream players like HT, PTI and India Today, he was equally happy to preside over anniversaries of regional papers such as Andhra Patrika, Mathrubhumi and Assam Tribune.  He says: “Those of us who live in Delhi are rarely aware of newspapers published from other States, they are referred as regional papers.  But just like India’s national identity is a sum total of her regional identities, India’s national media would be incomplete without what is described as the regional press.”

Interplay of various elements of Vajpayee mystique is a larger part of his enormous appeal.   A poet and a politician, a moderate, but a fanatic when it comes to some basic values, soft words, but concentrated actions and energy behind the moves.   A centre of power, but the greatest democrat who gives full freedom to his lieutenants.  Each and every aspect acquires a new shade when seen in the context of the entire personality and the enormity of impact of interplay of these elements on national life.  It is fascinating to see the journalist in him operating within the broad contours of his leadership persona.  He emerges as a statesman, deeply aware of implications of media trends, who treasures the role of media in a democracy.   He exhorts players in the field to contribute positively.  As a pragmatic politician he knows that newspapers need to be financially viable but he insists that this should not be the sole criterion.   Idealism is not unviable.  His belief in the success of ideal position is strengthened by his own success where there was no compromise on values.  Despite a lifetime in opposition, he never let sensationalism, bitterness or narrow self interest overpower and overtake him.  His sole touchstone was prestige and development of the nation.   He always found these to be feasible and right course of action.

He is patient and articulate with media persons, lensmen love his understanding of their demands.  Often it is a smiling PM, who gives some more time to photographers much to the dislike of security personnel.  He has played generous host to a wide array of media persons.  Editors, foreign journalists, women media persons, photojournalists and even cartoonists have enjoyed lavish hospitality at what Shri Vajpayee often describes as a ‘temporary residence’.  This has increased the accessibility of the leader to the Fourth Estate.  However, PM continues to still remain an enigma and people are left interpreting those pregnant pauses during his speeches, that meaningful smile or gestures like the swish of the hand. Photographers admire his stillness which, at the same time is an opportunity and a challenge to peel off the layers of his rich persona. He may not have done too many press conferences in the capital but his views are always available on most of the issues. Innovations like the annual musings have resulted in increased communication.

There are times when he finds himself flummoxed by the values of new age media.  He bemoans the negativity in media discourses.   Selective highlighting of his statements have resulted in some disclaimer or clarifications by the PM.  He presumes that media will do its duty of taking a holistic perspective.  Problem arises when mediapersons completely black out his entire speech and quote one or two sentences and blow them out of proportion.  He takes all this in stride, criticises the tendency and moves on. In almost child-like manner the hurt is healed and no bitterness is left. Over the years he has come to terms with new realities and occasions for clarification have reduced drastically. He knows when to keep quiet. On the occasion of release of Savarkar Samagra, the atmosphere became charged by the heated speeches. When the Prime Minister rose to speak, mediaperson sensed blood and were expecting some indiscretion from the Prime Minister, given the surcharged atmosphere it was not very unlikely. Shri Vajpayee just smiled and simply recited one of his poems based on Veer Sawarkar. Atmosphere was calmed and a sober normalcy returned to Panchvati  (auditorium of the PM House)

Similarly he uses his famed wit to come out of awkward corners during  press conferences.  Instead of giving  half baked answers for still emerging situation he takes a witty way out without ruffling too many journalistic feathers.  He will avoid making any personal comment or raging an unnecessary controversy. He uses wit to enhance his articulation not to undermine anyone.  His wit makes the listener smile without hurting anyone.  

His interviews and press conferences are relatively rare.  This is perhaps because of pressures of a coalition government.  He has to keep a degree ambiguity which will give him space to manoeuvre  in coalition arena.  As a synthesiser of conflicting views he can’t pin himself  to a position.  Still a soft assertion was always there perhaps that is why outlook magazine says that Atal Bihari Vajpayee has moulded party and government in his image.  He takes stand but avoids any attending harshness decorum is never takes leave of.  He expects the same from media.  A good idea can dominate without making much song and dance about it.  Quite persuasiveness of a great vision makes itself felt without much hoopla. 

********

Auteurs, Autonomy and Critics--3

Photo Link- Hemon-Phantom-Thread.jpg

“Phantom Thread” is nothing if not propaganda for patriarchy" sums up Aleksandar Hemon in the  New Yorker. He manages to discover "Disguised as art-house cinema, the film spectacularly endorses the inherent genius of masculinity." he also goes on to label six academy award nominations as "a symptom of the Weinsteinian toxic masculinity exposed by the #MeToo movement."  His article in the great magazine is valid but 'Phantom Thread' is a valid movie. As the author doesn't agree with the propaganda, I  find it difficult to agree with his way of reducing the movie to "nothing" if not a toxic propaganda for masculinity.

Phantom Thread is a movie about a self absorbed genius, often a prick, this doesn't put the movie into the same class as Czech propaganda movies or Leni Riefensthal movies of the third Reich. Those are corporate movies and their provenance and sometimes even stated use is a dead give away. I am sure, you have to go really psycho analytical to call the exploration by Anderson a product at par with aforementioned propaganda movies. The author does make it clear that he is given to easy classification and and finds solace in a bit of lazy slotting. His description of Zero Dark Thirty and Hurt Locker is a pointer. He is happy to find some ideologically jarring stand and switching off to all other pleasures. Somehow, I find this a little limiting and a barrier to expose myself to the pleasures of a well made movie.

By going microscopic we cede the opportunity to be somewhere in the middle ground away from the extreme polarization where nuances are not possible. Every art form has some ideological function and it is incumbent on any independent intellect to be aware of that. At the same time wisdom lies in not going hyper rational, that would obviate the possibility of art that requires an ability to be vulnerable. Reason is there and will be there but it has to be moderated by emotions and willingness to surrender to the joys of contradicting demands of vulnerable abandonment, if it doesn't want to become debilitating.

Hyper rationality has its uses in the domains of discipline and regimented spheres but it is inherently dogmatic. It doesn't allow for nuances as nuances ask for a plurality of explanation - an anathema to rational certainty.

While ideological film reviews are valid and pointing out the ideological outcome of an art piece is a legitimate exercise, it is very easy to go too far and take leave of nuanced world of cinematic pleasure. When delicate and not so delicate undercurrents and artistic pleasure spots are road rollared by an uncompromising ideological interpretation of an art work, we are short changed. We might win an argument (where you have to be forceful..unidirectionally) but art achieves depth by seeping in and not by pointed drilling.

The author is right about the masculine heavy handedness of the ambience of the movie. This is something to be noted and even be allowed to form a backdrop of the entire viewing experience if one's asthetic receptors work in that fashion. But problem arises when such observation becomes central enough to ruin the viewing experience. Self absorbed masculine genius is an intriguing and culturally present, rich and valid cinematic archetype. Presence of such an archetype should not qualify a movie to 'nothing but a propaganda' specially when the actor playing the role brings in so much richness to the proceedings.

If permitted to take similar strident uni dimensional view as Mr Hemon, the article in question is nothing but shameless exploitation of new sensitivity brought in by recent events, including #metoo campaign. A shoddy news jacking.

Auteurs, Autonomy and Critics--one more time

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. 

https://thewire.in/218456/end-magnum-opus-i-felt-reduced-vagina/

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. 

http://dhirajonculture.blogspot.in/2016/09/auteurs-autonomy-and-critics.html?m=1

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.

Auteurs, Autonomy and Critics

What does a film owe to us­? After all, we as an audience, expect certain pay off for the money, time and addicted energy that we devote to the act of watching a movie. Movie has to be  an elevating experience and route for this elevation is through emotions. Movie, as an ensemble art form talks to our emotions. It induces certain mood in the audience and conveys messages through the vehicle of emotions. Very often, when cinema is used to make an intellectual point, success is, at best, varying. Films, arguably, are the pinnacle of such a medium. Some might say dance or theater, but Film, to a great extent incorporates all of it.

       

There are schools of cinema appreciation that demand a social message from a film. A very powerful socialist/communist school has invested huge instrumental value in the movies as a tool of proletariat struggle to achieve an equitable society. This is true to the extent that any cultural product is also a force of culture creation, which obviously is a long drawn process.

 Then, there are thinkers who say that only ideology and pornography have purpose. Art has an intrinsic value. Both extremes, usually have elements of reality in them. Cinema is a force of culture and it is, to a greater extent a personal vision.

Film criticism, is an arena of opinion. We examine the film with our biases. A self-created lens of what constitutes good cinema is applied with full force of prejudice, scholarship and slant. A critic is self-appointed arbiter of taste. She has the arrogance or self-regard to impose her view and advise other to follow it. Distinctive voice is another name for this. This self-regard or lack of diffidence about one’s own judgement is a supreme requirement of being not only a critic but, I daresay, of being an artist too.

What saves this distinctive voice or personal regard from degenerating into blinkered vision or, worse, megalomania, is clear understanding of field and what you can expect your art form to deliver. The moment you start burdening the art form with the tasks that it is ill-suited to shoulder, your comments start bordering on fanatic espousal of personal belief that are not rooted in the grammar or universe of the area in question.

       

This brings us to the question whether cinema should be politically correct. Does a film-maker has the liberty to construct a scenario that serves her vision or she should try to align her vision to the prevailing political values and tastes of public in mind? We might criticize an execution of a cinematic vision on the basis that it might encourage a certain social force that may not be in sync with our vision of right or wrong. Now, how far can we go being value vigilante as an audience or more importantly, as reviewer. Can a fully realized cinematic product be hauled up on the basis of reviewer’s notion of various values? Is there some domain where film maker is sovereign?    Can she deploy her characters in the service of her vision or the storyline that she has decided? Or the reviewers are correct to demand she should envision the story and characters in certain way.

Here, it needs to be emphasized that, a film can be legitimately flayed for weak characterization (Happy Bhag Jayegi), narrative deficiencies (Baar Baar Dekho), technical flaws, poor production design, cinematography, shoddy editing, acting or any such thing which form the part of movie-making universe. We can obviously criticise a movie for not executing its vision with available cinematic tools. A realized film means optimum deployment of cinematic tools to the vision of the auteurs. Emotional response to a film results from the alchemy of these tools that a film maker deploys, Brian de Palma achieved a momentum by seemingly without cut, continuous opening scene in Snake Eyes. Saving Private Ryan first 20 Minute of mayhem, classical cutting in the train scene in Sholey are some example that come to mind. A critic evaluates the appeal of the movie to her and sees the felicity with which cinematic tools have been deployed to create that appeal. After technical aspects, a reviewer has all the right to look into the soul of the movie- that area where  a film decides what it wants to be. Though the auteurs is the best person to talk about the key creative choices but critic can comment on what the film aspires to be, its core concerns and principal tools that it leverages to achieve its vision.

There is another area which can also be taken as fair game for reviewer- eye of the camera, its intention. It is not difficult for an accomplished viewer or a critic to identify the intention of the camera. A person watching Hitchcock’s (that master manipulator with total command over his tools) handiwork in the shower scene of Psycho can’t but be fascinated by the exquisite amalgamation of voyeurism and suspense. Camera can be taken as the eye of the film maker. Critic can be appalled or exhilarated by the melodramatic, voyeuristic, trickery turn of the camera. They can despair in the auteur’s tendency to play for cheap laughs or applaud her flat refusal to differentiate between sublime and ridiculous. By no means film is just a craft, the moment you harness that craft for emotional response it enters the realm of art. This enlarges the mandate of the film reviewer to the motives and choices of the film maker. Again, how deep is the place where film maker can turn back and say that  my creative choice is not just a choice to realize my  vision but integral to my vision itself. 

              

Off late, I have come across many reviews which object to portrayal of women character, not on the ground of characterization, fit with the story, plausibility, or realism, but on the basis of reviewer’s concept of feminism or women’s place in society. They want soaring/upbeat and liberated character. This nation of strong female presence in society is not only welcome but should be seen as natural condition of societal growth. However, neither the human experience nor the artistic vision is made of perfection. In fact, much of creative tension is achieved through the imperfection that make life so fascinating. Social reality places women in various points in their journey to equitable society. Any acute observer of this reality will be appalled, inspired and, above all fascinated by this multi layered actuality. She may decide to probe a particular facet from a particular point of view with a particular set of characters  in mind. 

Makers of Pink decided to discuss challenges to safety, autonomy and dignity of free spirited women. The film maker decided it to be a story of three girls and a lawyer. This arrangement obviously  paid off with monumental performances from Amitabh Bachchan and the three female protagonists. In a great review, Deepanjana Pal lauded the film for its achievements as a polished work and competent performances. However, she expressed her disappointment over inherent 'mansplaining' that came in the form of giving central stage to Amitabh Bachchan and not having the nerve to give the monologue or the soaring poetry to one of the female characters. She clearly gives her take on such issues and writes “The point is not that men can’t be part of the feminist struggle. They’re more than welcome to join. However, as the conversations that we’re hearing around us make patently clear, women don’t really need to be told to find themselves (and certainly not by men). The women are already doing it unprompted. So while we appreciate the support, perhaps men like Sehgal would be better off giving lessons to the likes of Rajvir, who despite all the exposure in the world, remain blinkered by misogyny? As Falak in particular makes quite clear, the women are not the ones in need of either guidance or instruction.”  This selective inclusion of men in universal issue of gender question may or may not be valid but is it a proper ground for souring movie experience of one of our most literate film reviewer. The reviewer who herself notes that film does not hit a single false note feels, disappointed as the film does not conform to her notion of feminism. She wanted it to be a film of three girls not about three girls and a heroic lawyer. Was it really her choice or the film maker’s when she herself acknowledges that film works, however, not as per her scheme. Should not we leave the choice of storyline to the film maker and judge him or her for execution?

                                  

In Pink, vision was not only the message of female autonomy or brutality of patriarchy but also a powerful delivery mechanism i.e. Amitabh Bachchan- an actor with a historically proven reservoir of skills as a powerful communicator. Person who has charisma, histrionic depth, credibility and a persona that can convey the weight of the message. From the point of film-maker, cinematic consideration were more in play than the ideological niceties. Celebration of the core idea of the film in the powerful poetry ended up being more grand and effective with Amitabh delivering it. The Universe of Pink, as envisaged by its creator had Sehgal in it. His defeats and his moral values, his past and his skills all were conceived in that universe. This vision, this universe may not be in sync with certain hyper exclusive notion of feminism, but was clearly plausible and complete with creative traction to realize a powerful movie.

       

The whole point of this discussion is an attempt to see whether film should be burdened with our ideological preferences. Raman Raghav may not be chiming with great values but is sure a celebration of pure pathology which can be appreciated at a level of purity of execution, lack of compromise in acting or gritty determination to stay with the ugliness of life. Will it be correct to get disappointed by the role of police or willing surrender of police officer’s girlfriend to brutality?  Corruption in police and domestic violence, child murder are part of the creative vision of Raman Raghav can we get ‘niggled’ by presence of such flawed situations and characters (from a certain value point) in the movie?

Having said so, as established in the beginning, what real reviewer will not have a quirk of her own? In such an opinion driven field you have to see the film with the prism of all your baggage, cinematic or ideological. For me though, ideological should always be dominated by cinematic.