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.
