Sara Akash (1969)

A 1969 film, ‘Saara Akash’ is the debut directorial feature of Basu Chatterjee, who later went on to make some of the most acclaimed films of the 70s and the 80s. It is very much a non-mainstream effort with mostly first time actors forming the cast, and has been given a very unique treatment by Chatterjee, especially in terms of its experimental shot-taking, quirky camera angles, and use of nano-flashbacks to depict the internal conflicts of the chief protagonist. Like many of the director’s later efforts, the movie has its basis in literature and its story is adapted from the first part of a novel of the same name, written by noted Hindi writer Rajendra Yadav.

The movie has a very novel premise about how a newly-wed husband and wife don’t exchange even a single word between themselves for almost six months. Set in a traditional middle class Hindu family in the historical city of Agra, the story is soaked in the atmospherics of the Indian grassroots, especially the ones associated with the custom of arranged marriages in a joint family system.

A young man, yet to complete his formal education, is married off to a beautiful and demure girl, much against his wishes. The girl too has had some schooling, and is seen as someone who is well educated by the general societal standards set for her kind. Thus, completely unprepared for matrimony, both youngsters enter into a relationship that is marked by uncertainty, apprehension, and bashfulness. After making an inauspicious beginning by completely ignoring each other on their first night together, their problems only get compounded, as the reservations they have towards one another keep on getting fueled by their family dynamics.

The boy is fiery and ambitious, heavily influenced by the ideals of Subhash Chandra Bose and other noted public figures that had a stirring impact on the youth of those days. He channels a firm outward belief that marriage is nothing but an impediment in the makings of a great man, resulting in him assuming a tough face in front of his wife, despite covertly longing for her companionship. Some of the most delectable moments of the film are the ones that highlight this contradiction, and mostly involve him completely ignoring her presence, despite wanting to do the exact opposite. Till about halfway into its duration, the film has a light-hearted approach and derives humor from such situations. However, the tone of the film soon changes as the focus shifts on the other half of the conundrum, i.e. the inner world of the bride, who is harangued not just by her husband’s insurmountable apathy, but also by his family members’ demanding behavior and condescending attitude towards her education, especially from the jealous women-folk of the household. In a poignant scene that illustrates this change of treatment, the girl makes a mistake while doing a household chore and is severely reprimanded by her mother-in-law, and when the boy enters the scene and is told about the misdeed done by his wife on whom he has no apparent control, he goes forward and slaps her, which marks the first physical contact between the couple. Later he cries like a baby, hating himself for that act of physical abuse, and mocking his own fake ideals that couldn’t stop him from hitting his wife. The result of this unfortunate occurrence is that he starts spending more and more time outside the home, taking refuge in solitude or in passing time with his friends. On the other hand the girl’s solitude becomes even more absolute, especially when her confinement’s only solace, the boy’s sister with whom she shares some sort of understanding, is sent back to her husband despite her many protests.

Throughout its short duration of 90 minutes, the film unequivocally portrays the plights of a newly wedded bride in a patriarchal, male-dominated set-up. In the alien environment of her husband’s home, the young girl is shown to get little respite, and her world gets completely distraught as she gets abandoned by what could have been her only source of comfort in the unforgiving situation, her husband.  The husband, on the other hand, comes across mostly as a pitiable and spineless figure, with little points of redemption. Hardly out of his childhood, his mind replete with regressive societal notions on how a wife should behave and not behave, and at the same time heavily influenced by the elders in his family, the boy-man’s helplessness too comes out on occasions when he breaks into a child-like smile on being teased by a friend, or when he shyly dreams about little moments of intimacy with his wife.

The acting by the two leads, Rakesh Pandey and Madhu Chakravarty is impressive and both manage to do complete justice to their extremely complex characters. The three most familiar faces in the cast are those of AK Hangal, Dina Pathak, and Jalal Agha, but none of them have really much to do. There are no songs in the film; however, the music by Salil Choudhary, which plays mostly in the background, fits the mood of the film very well.

Parting Note: An exceptionally well shot experimental film with a very realistic treatment that remains topical, despite the forty-five years that have passed since its making. A must watch for all those who wish to study and savor the parallel Hindi art-film movement, which according to many, started with this film.

Interesting fact: The film was shot entirely in the ancestral home of its writer, Rajendra Yadav (source Wikipedia)

Party (1984)

Govind Nihalani’s Party, based on a play by noted Marathi playwright Mahesh Elkunchwar, is indulgent cinema at its most brilliant. This irreverent indulgence however can be mostly attributed to the playwright, for it is set in the world of elitist art and theatre and there are long ramblings about the responsibility of art and its connections to politics. And thus, this is one of those rare Hindi movies that give the impression of being entirely written on paper before any of their shots were canned. It is the quintessential theatrical cinema, minus all its negative connotations. It is hard to remember any other such movie where long visceral monologues were the fodder for most of the narrative.

The movie is set entirely in one long party where the most elite and distinguished theatre personalities and journalists gather to celebrate the success of one of their own. This constrained time-frame and space builds up tremendous tension in the exchanges of many of the characters. But before the party is set in motion, the main characters get introduced one by one through a series of poignant scenes. A veteran insecure writer who is becoming stricken by the shallowness of his work, and his alcoholic and lonely girlfriend of ten years who craves for his attention; a bespectacled, fiercely independent, female journalist who is an open supporter of Maoists; an upcoming and hugely talented playwright who is grappling with the lack of purpose in his writing; a middle aged socialite who is throwing the party to celebrate her writer friend’s recent award, and her daughter who is a single mother waiting for the return of her lover, a talented young writer himself, who has gone to support and fight with the adivasis in the jungles of Andhra; a middle aged theatre star actor who has lost his own identity in the maze of iconic characters that he has lived and breathed. The troubles and emotions of all these characters collide and implode while they party and the wine flows…

Apart from these main characters under the spotlight, there are many other interesting peripheral characters that act as the director’s tool to make a comment on the moral depravity that is quite rampant in such high-society circles. The shallowness and superficiality that infests such people who are nothing but troubled souls from inside, quite unable to fight their own demons, is brought out remarkably through a series of exchanges that are quite intriguing to witness. And witness is what a stolid, sober, and quiet family friend of the rich hostess of the party does- Amrish Puri, once again after Aakrosh, in a role that is not quite connected to the main happenings in the narrative, but still is a vital and significant vehicle to channelize the director’s vision. He is the assured presence which is so unlike the rest of the people in the party, and yet in some ways as artificial as everyone else, for he chooses to take a back seat and let the show go on, despite his many reservations with a lot that happens during the course of the night. In some ways his character symbolizes a lot of people in our society who are dissatisfied and unhappy with the social happenings, but remain on the surface shielding themselves from the gaze of the dirty maze.

The political backdrop of the proceedings adds an intriguing dimension to all discussions between the lead characters. The growing social unrest in some corners of the country, and how some people some people pretend to be affected by it all is brought out wonderfully well through some dramatic exchanges. This backdrop also gives an opportunity to the makers to debate and discuss an issue that evidently is of great importance to them- the intertwining of art and politics and can both be really kept separate from one another. The last half an hour or so is devoted exclusively to this debate, and the rest of the things are relegated to the background. This change of texture is not exactly sudden, but is still quite stark. To many it may come across as too quirky, but it is nothing but an honest expression of an artist’s most personal thoughts and conflicts...

Some of the leading theatre personalities of that time make up the ensemble cast; however the two champions of parallel cinema of that time- Naseeruddin Shah and Om Puri are given very small but significant cameos to play. All the actors do a seemingly fabulous job, but it has to be said that hardly anyone of them has been made to transcend his or her comfort zone. The written material is so strong and emphatic, and the treatment is so very much like a theatre play, that these veterans of the stage would have hardly found it very challenging.

Parting Note: Party is one of Govind Nihalani’s finest works, if not the finest. However it is hard to infer how much of its finesse can be attributed to him, and how much of it is the brilliance of the playwright who has written the play. It is certainly a much watch for all those who like watching unconventional cinema.

Reflections: Actors and the Act of Acting

Now a days we see a lot of people trying to make a perfect top 10 list of actors. Well here are my views on acting and actors and why I don’t agree with most of such lists and why such lists should not be attempted.

First. It is the writer, and not the actor who speaks on screen. It is the scene, the context, the environment and the treatment which translates into a performance. So naturally the general view is that dark, disturbing and edgy movies comprise of the best ‘acting performances’. So Abhay Deol is hailed as a great actor after DevD, while most people rubbished his performance after Socha na Tha (actually how many people saw Socha Na tha?). After DevD worked and once Abhay was accepted as a great actor- people see Socha na Tha on TV and cant stop singing praises. This example brings me to the second point.

Second. The general sentiment is seldom argued. If ABC is a good actor, and DEF is an over the top actor. Then ABC is a good actor and DEF is an over the top actor. An example- when you ask people who are the best actors ever- people who want to sound intelligent and knowledgeable (almost everyone) will say Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Irfan Khan, PANKAJ KAPOOR. Then ask them how many movies of Pankaj Kapoor have you seen? “I don’t remember. Recently I saw Dus. He was brilliant”… So there are many youngster who havent seen any work of Guru Dutt, Ashok Kumar etc. but will still include them as the best actors ever.

Third. Histrionics / EDGY/ EMOTIONAL= good acting. Now again this is my view and people may choose to disagree. I didn’t like Aamir Khan the actor in TZP. Now this is blasphemous almost. If I say this to anyone- ANYONE- they will say- “Are you mad? How could you not like him?” Well I was very uncomfortable while watching him cry and shed tears when he saw child labor etc. (in the title song). His dialogues seemed too rehearsed- an actual teacher like that wont talk like they way he did in the movie- in that sense it was not a natural performance. But because he is a good actor in general and the movie was great- he was great in TZP. Now I hear that the people in Shaitan are such good actors- they all pitched in with fabulous performances- but the truth is- most of the times they were looking into the camera and acting weird. I am not an actor- but give me those parts and I would be able to do them (it’s another thing that I would have refused them). This brings me to the fourth point.

Fourth. There is one simple test. I am not an actor. Most of us are not. (its another matter that all of us are actors). So when I see a performance sometimes I wonder- can I do this? could I have done this? I could have easily attempt what Abhay did in DevD (thats what I feel), what Rahul Bose does in many of his movies, in fact what Aamir did in TZP (I could have made an attempt at least). Maybe this point sounds a bit weird. But how many of us can attempt Dabangg. So when a man does that and makes it a huge phenomenon- people just say that he is a star- what was there to act in it? common try. give it a try. Okay its a larger than life role. But if somebody can carry it off- he needs skill- and that skill describes acting for me.

Fifth- Now a days actors are defined by the company they keep. So Ranvir Shorey, Vinay pathak, Rajat Kapoor, Saurabh Shukla are brilliant actors. So if some one acts in their films/ or films of similar sensibilities- he is a good actor. Neha Dhupia a case in point ( I have made this point earlier but cannot resist)- After Qayamat she was deemed a bad actor- now a days she gets praise from leading critics and public alike- how perceptions change.

Sixth- it is very easy to experiment when there are almost no stakes. So a Irfan Khan, Kay Kay Menon, Abhay Deol can experiment and do hatke stuff and win accolades ( I am not saying that they are not good actors- I am really fond of both Irfan and Kay Kay) – it is just that they act in films and subjects that people associate with good acting. And people dont even remember their bad works- or they easily forgive them for that- who remembers a HISS when you have a YEH SAALI ZINDAGI to praise? Can someone like Salman Khan really afford to do such roles? When he tried in London Dreams- he tried to please the masses and mix commercial elements- and it ended up as a confused film- he did great- and had the same role been done by say a Kay Kay menon- it would have been hailed as an awesome performance- because it wouldnt have had the comic /fun elements salman’s character had-

Seven. And last ( I am tired of typing- and you guys would be tired of reading- if you are reading that is) ABUSES. EDGY STUFF. Dont know what is happening these days. So when Rani Mukherjee says fuck- it makes the audience go WOW- WHAT A REALISTIC PERFORMANCE- Vidya Balan in Ishqiya was good- but I feel she was as good in her bad films too- like Kismat Konnection- but there it was her wardrobe that got the attention- Bad film is not =bad acting, good film is not = good acting.

THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS. People are free to disagree. As they are free to have as many top ten lists as they want.

Katha (1983)

First post in the series- and will start with 'Katha'- for that's what movies are- stories on celluloid...

This 1983 Naseeruddin Shah- Deepti Naval- Farookh Sheikh starrer is a take on the popular children’s tale- ‘The Hare and the Tortoise’. It is a light-hearted comedy with a simple narrative that shows the daily hustles and bustles of a Mumbai ‘chawl’, and how the life of the simple-helpful-naïve-idealistic Rajaram (Naseeruddin Shah as the Tortoise) changes when the confident-clever-manipulative-complacent Bashu (Farookh Shiekh as the Hare) re-enters his life. The sequence of events brings out a stark contrast between the two characters and how they approach each and every situation and life in general. Very subtly the film also paints a comparative picture between the ‘high society’ and the ‘chawl class people’. The unity that binds the ‘chawl’ people and the way they enjoy simple joys of life is shown in a very adept manner. Although this is an ensemble cast film, there are almost no sub-plots or distractions and the movie sticks to its core idea. The end is beautifully done and is really thought provoking. The old story has it that the tortoise always wins. But in today’s times, as a character rightly sums up- ‘yeh jeet bhi koi jeet hui?’

A very little known classic by Sai Paranjpaye movie- this certainly deserves a watch. No big budget- no foreign locales- no big stars- no popular songs- no thrills and action- just a simple engaging story that will make you smile a lot. Farookh Shiekh plays the brat really well and Naseer excels as the simpleton. In a way this a role reversal of sorts as Farookh Sheikh was known to play simple sad characters and Naseer would be thought of as more suitable for what his anti-thesis in the movie is.