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.

Lyrical Pathos of Aligarh

 

Aligarh the movie, is about rebellion of lyricism.  It emphasizes poetry in the face of harshness.  Siras aspires for that sweet spot of tender sensibilities where he is in the realm of letters and music.   He is committed to stay a rasik. His mannerism,  his thoughts and his traction with the world aims for a depth that is erotic,  sensual and above all poetic.. He is grateful for the support that he gets from the world but finds solace in his book and music. His relationship with Lata Mangeshkar songs is true manifestation of his determination to stay in his preferred zone of high culture. In one scene,  after eviction from his official residence,  his first unpacking is the tape recorder and the bottle of whiskey. He valiantly tries to escape to his mood in spite of his situation and mosquitoes.  His aesthetic is his defence. 

His sexuality is more of an aesthetic mood. Hansel Mehta is sensitive in portraying homo sexuality and places it in more 'normal' scene and doesn't dwell on the 'exotic' aspects of the orientation.  He has very successfully captured the fear,  suffocation and stress of such a person. However, his emphasis of inviolable nature of private space is perhaps an even bigger theme of the film.  Sanctuary of home and bedroom comes out perhaps more clearly.

Mehta has very deftly created a sense of private space in a sparse official quarter and Siras's attempts to carve out such spaces in his temporary dwellings. Dipu too felt violated when his room was overtaken by his landlady (remarkable characters created in very few strokes- mark of a great director.)

Both the key characters have given solid performances. Bajpayee is superb in conveying all the vulnerability and hopes of his character,  he is equally successful in depicting deep rooted determination to stay cultured and in tune with the rhythm of his poetic nature. His frailties give an unexpected dignity to Siras. He is confused even harassed but has managed to avoid bitterness. Here lies the beauty of his lyricism which he portrays without making it pretentious.

I will rank Raj Kumar Yadav at the same pedestal in his performance,  as Bajpayee.  His sympathy can easily appear to be a put on. Bajpayee's Siras is a canvas where only deeply genuine connection will hold.  Perceptive professor has no time for false emotions. Yadav does not betray even a remotely false note. Siras's struggle and dignity gets accentuated by the deeply sympathetic filters of pure heartedness of Dipu. He tells Dipu that poetry resides in the gaps and silences between the words. Dipu who is not into poetry,  is perfect explorerer of those silences. His sensitivity is deeply humane and he delivers a first class performance in which fondness of the two develops in a memorable fashion. These two unlikely friends needed strong actors and Yadav and Bajpayee delivered.

GoT S6 Finale

'Winds of Winter' has  a great  experience as in its topsy-turvy ride it clarified so many things for the plot line. It was a plot pusher episode. Bumped off many characters and gave some final touches to many others.  Arya stark is finally a killer she wanted to be.  Interesting but distracting story arch of the High Sapt met its fiery end.  John Snow's lineage was clarified to a great extent.  Red priestess rode into the wilderness.  Three eyed Raven finally accepted his destiny.  Final alliances (for now)  have taken shape. 
I am sure next season will move with engaging speed with stage set so comprehensively.

Revival by Stephen King

Had this been only a story of the main protagonist and his relationship with the eccentric pastor, King's Revival would have been a great book. Late entry of horror is good and is in the caliber of his earlier books but it does take away a lot from a promising novel. King is at the top of his game when he is creating family scenes, a child's world view, a teenagers romp and a drug addicts travails be is chilling when creating the horror scenes but in this novel structural issues are there. Despite lurking horror late horror feels contrived and labored.
All said, this is good writing and enjoyable read though climactic pay-off is not adequate.

Review of Mission Impossible Rogue Nation

Mission Impossible the Rogue Nation hits the ground running. Which is a supreme achievement. The franchise is so well established that a build up can be dispensed with, simultaneously every movie, specifically this movie of the series is admirably self contained so that new audience doesn't feel obligated to brush up on the previous installments. 
Tom Cruise is still more than a nostalgia number. He is valid superstar to helm a viable movie.  This action persona has helped him to stay in the game and the persona itself got enriched by his years in front of the camera. He comes off as seasoned agent,  wise and weary for his experience. Charisma and stamina both look intact. Stories about him doing the stunts himself apart, he is believable and is able to convey skill and amusement in equal measure. 
Team is top notch specially the female lead (Swedish actress Rebecca Ferguson)  and Sean Pegg a perfect Watson. Story has sufficient suspense and shadow areas so characteristic to the series. Action lives up to the hype and the movie delivers. An enjoyable and movie that fulfills the genre expectation without looking dated.

A Love Letter to Goa

‘Finding Fanny’ is, if nothing else, is a love letter to Goa. The languid raw beauty of the land coupled with distinctive culture has been captured with unfailing affection. Story or plot was just a flimsy excuse for bringing out the archetypal Goan characters. Socially active Rosy, good girl Angelina, Don Pedro, irritable Savio and Ferdie.

 Naseer is easily the highlight of the Movie. After long time,I found him worthy of his reputation. Woolly headed Ferdie has been realized to the last hair. He is very credible as a lost lonely person who has enough quirks to make few good souls care for him. Naseeruddin Shah maintained that low apologetic pitch, which would have been irritating in less accomplished person but with the thespian defines the diffident but committed human being. Dimple stayed with the character bravely and avoided the caricature despite having to act with broad strokes. Her vanity and vulnerability is clearly communicated without compromising the complexity of her situation. She played being old with aplomb. Young couple was sweet and fit in the roles with ease. Dipika exuded sweetness and was suitably good at being good natured and sassy. Arjun Kapoor was to bring confused adolescent longing to his part which he shouldered competently. Only my favorite Pankaj Kapoor struggled to break in the party. He brought his presence to the role but could not create a memorable character. While he portrayed artists anguish for regaining inspiration, he failed to give the artist a home. He was rarely Goan and looked least rooted in his surroundings. Instead of attempting a Picasso,  he would have been better of as Manjeet Bawa on a break in Goa. Still, him being Pankaj Kapoor, he is never less than entertaining.

Apart from locales and performances, film does not impact as it should with its strengths.  Reason for this may be that this was neither a road movie, nor a love story. It set out to convey a slice of Goa which it did admirable and this success was both its success and limitation.