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.

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.