RELIGION AND SOCIETY
The President of the French Republic Mr Sarkojy made a very bold and undiplomatic comment about a month ago on wearing of burkha by muslim women by stating that it reflected backwardness. It seemed a comment loaded with ideology for goodness as perceived by the President.However,I was amazed by such a statement from a politician of our times. One noted that even though as head of State the leader should be sensitive to the culture of minority he chose to speak his mind and therefore was a serious propagator of social reforms even if it meant displeasing many. However his recent reported remarks on ‘ religious ostentatations’ reflected his shortsightedness wherin he stated that he will oppose those who challenge the ‘christian roots and republic’ of France. Such a strong statement do not behove a President of a State which has set standards in modern society and therefore made him a commoner . Like any citizen he too was protective of his religious roots and therefore was opposed to the social symbols of other religions. For a moment I saw no difference between him and our rightist politicians who talk of safeguarding of Hindu religion. .And one wonders as to what is superior ‘Religion’ or ‘Republic’. Does republic stands on religious foundation or on Secular principles? And the foundation of French Republic is based on the slogan of French Revolution – ‘Equality-Liberty- Fraternity’.
It is indeed ironical that it was the same France which gave political asylum to Ayatullaha Khomeni who set up an Islamic regime in Iran. But; then France had tradition to support people’s resistant movement all over the world. We forget! That Lenin the Russian Revolutionary was in France planning his Great October Revolution after the failed attempt in 1905. The leaders of the Chinese revolution –zhow en lie was also given shelter in France.
शुक्रवार, 18 दिसंबर 2009
मंगलवार, 1 दिसंबर 2009
CASTING AND CREATIVITY IN --- CINEMA
CASTING AND CREATIVITY IN - CINEMA
Though many Directors in Hindi films merely succumb to the stereotypes, moreso when dealing with minor characters. So we see the lean and tough Iftikhar playing the role of commissioner of police whilst Jagdish Raj had to satisfy with the role of an Inspector. Characters of Doctor, Pandit and similar such roles are assigned to a set of actors permanently—good old bald headed David performed as Doctor in numerous films. Reduced now; owing to the surge of ‘Saas- Bahu’( daughter -in -law v/s mother -in-law) soaps on TV; ‘Mothers’ played an important role enacted by a set motherly actors. Lalita Pawar, Nirupa Roy and Sulochana excelling in their flow of emotions.
Minor characters act as a link to the major action or to the confluence of action. They are distinct landmarks to the destination and therefore should be well crafted. ‘ Sholay’ the most popular and successful Hindi film of the last millennium is remembered for its ‘characters’- ‘ Ramu Kaka’, ‘Mausi’ and ‘Sambha’ and of course 'Gabbar', 'Viru' and ' Basanti' . Films which have entertained generations after generations are those which give regard to the minor characters. Those who treat minor characters as mere fillers have short shelf life and lack in totality. Inadequacy in characters and characterization leads to deficiency in story and screenplay, thus hampering the appeal and thereby success of the film.
Among the many abilities of Raj Kapoor as a great film maker was his casting sense. Though commercial considerations play a dominant role in hindi cinema Raj looked for the suitability and of course ability. Two of his films suffice at what I intend to convey. ‘Mera Naam Joker’ failed commercially but the casting of Dharmendra as the Boss of the Circus was apt and was proved on screen with his refined announcements, attractive built to match the Russian Artists and the overall sophistication in command . The portrayal of David's character by Manoj Kumar,the fiancé of Raj’s beloved teacher was a pleasant surprise; easy going, subtle and understanding the emotions of his rival !. Few would have suggested his name at the writing stage. Only Raj could fathom the ability of the available talent. And there could be examples and examples. Simi ; as the class teacher is discussed to this day . The casting of ‘Bobby’ is a lesson in the Department of Casting. Premnath as a loud large hearted rum loving Konkan fisherman. Prem Chopra as a mean villain was redesigned by Raj and remains unforgettable for his tiny role but terrorizing presence.Pran as matter of factly father, ‘Sonia Sahni’ as a glamorous and glossy mother, Durga Khote as loving and loyal Nanny contributed in equal measure for the success of this landmark love Saga which liberated the Indian Youth.
Finally; the hallmark of a casting Director and in our case the Director himself is his sharp creative insight in assessing and sizing up his actors. Greatness of a Director is executing the conception in Screenplay with the ability of the Actors so that they rise above the script.
Though the Director is the ultimate decision maker in cinema; the casting director plays a vital role in realization of what is conceived in screenplay. Correct casting is an important key to the creation of one’s conception. It brings alive the structure and puts it in flesh and blood on screen .It is difficult to say as to what would have been the result if instead of Marlon Brando some one else was cast in the role of the legendary ‘Godfather’ because the role was so perfectly portrayed. The very presence of Brando uplifted the film . Similarly, Topol was so well cast in ‘Fiddler on the Roof ‘ that despite many characters the movie is identified with him. On the contrary there are imminent Directors who work with a set of actors in most movies; because they have tremendous faith in their script and they too feel comfortable amongst friends and protégé. Satyajit Ray cast Soumitra Chatterji in most of his films. Martin Scorsese had Robert De Niro as his protagonist. Though; some consider actors and even stars as mere props to execute the Director’s vision. Roberto Rossellini cast non actors to drive home his point . Historical charaters pose a different challenge to Directors as public image of the person is prevalent in the minds of the audience; the challenge is to balance one’s creativity with the popular appeal. George C scott achieved the vision in ‘ The Patton ‘ essentially with the brilliant screenplay of Francis Cappola . In Hindi cinema the role of Akbar played by Prithvi Raj Kapoor established the image of the famous emperor in the consciousness of the Indian people – a case of perfect balance and casting.
Though many Directors in Hindi films merely succumb to the stereotypes, moreso when dealing with minor characters. So we see the lean and tough Iftikhar playing the role of commissioner of police whilst Jagdish Raj had to satisfy with the role of an Inspector. Characters of Doctor, Pandit and similar such roles are assigned to a set of actors permanently—good old bald headed David performed as Doctor in numerous films. Reduced now; owing to the surge of ‘Saas- Bahu’( daughter -in -law v/s mother -in-law) soaps on TV; ‘Mothers’ played an important role enacted by a set motherly actors. Lalita Pawar, Nirupa Roy and Sulochana excelling in their flow of emotions.
Minor characters act as a link to the major action or to the confluence of action. They are distinct landmarks to the destination and therefore should be well crafted. ‘ Sholay’ the most popular and successful Hindi film of the last millennium is remembered for its ‘characters’- ‘ Ramu Kaka’, ‘Mausi’ and ‘Sambha’ and of course 'Gabbar', 'Viru' and ' Basanti' . Films which have entertained generations after generations are those which give regard to the minor characters. Those who treat minor characters as mere fillers have short shelf life and lack in totality. Inadequacy in characters and characterization leads to deficiency in story and screenplay, thus hampering the appeal and thereby success of the film.
Among the many abilities of Raj Kapoor as a great film maker was his casting sense. Though commercial considerations play a dominant role in hindi cinema Raj looked for the suitability and of course ability. Two of his films suffice at what I intend to convey. ‘Mera Naam Joker’ failed commercially but the casting of Dharmendra as the Boss of the Circus was apt and was proved on screen with his refined announcements, attractive built to match the Russian Artists and the overall sophistication in command . The portrayal of David's character by Manoj Kumar,the fiancé of Raj’s beloved teacher was a pleasant surprise; easy going, subtle and understanding the emotions of his rival !. Few would have suggested his name at the writing stage. Only Raj could fathom the ability of the available talent. And there could be examples and examples. Simi ; as the class teacher is discussed to this day . The casting of ‘Bobby’ is a lesson in the Department of Casting. Premnath as a loud large hearted rum loving Konkan fisherman. Prem Chopra as a mean villain was redesigned by Raj and remains unforgettable for his tiny role but terrorizing presence.Pran as matter of factly father, ‘Sonia Sahni’ as a glamorous and glossy mother, Durga Khote as loving and loyal Nanny contributed in equal measure for the success of this landmark love Saga which liberated the Indian Youth.
Finally; the hallmark of a casting Director and in our case the Director himself is his sharp creative insight in assessing and sizing up his actors. Greatness of a Director is executing the conception in Screenplay with the ability of the Actors so that they rise above the script.
शुक्रवार, 4 सितंबर 2009
AWAMI IDRA ( PUBLIC INSTITUTION )--- MARXISM AND URDU IN PRESENT TIMES
AWAMI- IDRA ( PUBLIC- INSTITUTION ) -- MARXISM AND URDU IN PRESENT TIMES
It was a touching piece of news in TOI, Mumbai titled ‘ From Trotsky To Tailoring ‘. It reported the depravity of the institution in present times which once inspired the mill workers toiling for better tomorrow. Perhaps the only Urdu library in Mumbai in the Muslim mill worker colony in Parel. It started in fifties in close cooperation with IPTA ( Indian Peoples’ Theatre Association ) . At Idra the mill -workers would get together and engage in discussions and other intellectual activity dreaming of their time to come; often distinguished poets such as Kaifi Azmi and Prem Dhawan would compose songs for them which they would sing to instil revolutionary zeal among people. With the ’best of times’ no more and market economy succeeding intellectualism the members of Idra have arranged tailoring classes for young and unemployed to enable them whilst they search for themselves in the old photographs recollecting the times no more . On the occasion of May Day ( 01 May , International labours’ day ) they celebrate by organizing health camps etc thus paying tribute to their ideology and ideals.
Indeed Marxism has fallen on bad times and so has Urdu . Is there a link or its mere sad coincidence? Are these two following the natural course of birth childhood, youth ,decay old age and death or there is hope of revival ? Urdu remains symbol of Hindu and Muslim confluence; result of interaction and mingling of two cultures. In society there is something we consciously design such as the various laws and there is something which happens naturally ; gets created; Urdu is one such thing. It represents which is finest in Hindi , Sanskrit, Persian as it developed when Hindus and Muslims desired to talk for they wanted to talk, for it was natural to talk and so a new words and phrases resulted, gradually Urdu developed into a language of its own and became the official language , the language of courts and courting ! as well . Yes it remains the language of lovers, of poetry and divinity. Of anger , protest and revolution ! And then it became so dear that the politicians took possession of it and was wounded in the aftermath of partition for it was uprooted from the land of its origin and clubbed with religious identity .What remained here suffered the fate of the minority; remained a suspect, propped up occasionally for populist purposes. Urdu which along with Hindi was transforming into Hindustani, a language spoken by majority of the Indians and had large acceptability had potential to be the true National language; but the opportunity was lost .
The fate of Marxism has been similar to that of Urdu, though it has larger area of operation for an ideology of Political economy it affected both Science and Art. Marx can be rated as the most influential philosopher of 19th and 20th century. His theory transcended from paper to proletariat, vast nations built their foundation on it. Today the two biggest subscribers of its ideology have succumbed to capitalism. Despite the setback it brought dramatic and swift improvement in socio-economic lives of millions of people though some people suffered the discipline which flowed with it. But; the ideology is still alive and inspires many for Marxism is a way of life. It changed attitude of people toward people. It challenges all the social ills which are prevalent -- castism ,communalism, regionalism, racism etc. It certainly makes people better humans but it requires sacrifice, certain renunciation which the world of competition and market economy do not believe. We have witnessed the change of human character after the ideology was abandoned in Bosnia; Chechnya and many such places. Therefore Marxism is an ideology which still has hope but one does lament its downfall.
Both Marxism and Urdu made fine human beings , refined societies and need to be nurtured. There is a Urdu couplet on the declining state of the language which is apt for Marxism as well it translates
….” Urdu has become like a prostitute in a market; everyone wants to enjoy her but there is no one who professes love for her …
Marxism and Urdu need to be loved again for societies to save themselves from consumerism and communalism.
It was a touching piece of news in TOI, Mumbai titled ‘ From Trotsky To Tailoring ‘. It reported the depravity of the institution in present times which once inspired the mill workers toiling for better tomorrow. Perhaps the only Urdu library in Mumbai in the Muslim mill worker colony in Parel. It started in fifties in close cooperation with IPTA ( Indian Peoples’ Theatre Association ) . At Idra the mill -workers would get together and engage in discussions and other intellectual activity dreaming of their time to come; often distinguished poets such as Kaifi Azmi and Prem Dhawan would compose songs for them which they would sing to instil revolutionary zeal among people. With the ’best of times’ no more and market economy succeeding intellectualism the members of Idra have arranged tailoring classes for young and unemployed to enable them whilst they search for themselves in the old photographs recollecting the times no more . On the occasion of May Day ( 01 May , International labours’ day ) they celebrate by organizing health camps etc thus paying tribute to their ideology and ideals.
Indeed Marxism has fallen on bad times and so has Urdu . Is there a link or its mere sad coincidence? Are these two following the natural course of birth childhood, youth ,decay old age and death or there is hope of revival ? Urdu remains symbol of Hindu and Muslim confluence; result of interaction and mingling of two cultures. In society there is something we consciously design such as the various laws and there is something which happens naturally ; gets created; Urdu is one such thing. It represents which is finest in Hindi , Sanskrit, Persian as it developed when Hindus and Muslims desired to talk for they wanted to talk, for it was natural to talk and so a new words and phrases resulted, gradually Urdu developed into a language of its own and became the official language , the language of courts and courting ! as well . Yes it remains the language of lovers, of poetry and divinity. Of anger , protest and revolution ! And then it became so dear that the politicians took possession of it and was wounded in the aftermath of partition for it was uprooted from the land of its origin and clubbed with religious identity .What remained here suffered the fate of the minority; remained a suspect, propped up occasionally for populist purposes. Urdu which along with Hindi was transforming into Hindustani, a language spoken by majority of the Indians and had large acceptability had potential to be the true National language; but the opportunity was lost .
The fate of Marxism has been similar to that of Urdu, though it has larger area of operation for an ideology of Political economy it affected both Science and Art. Marx can be rated as the most influential philosopher of 19th and 20th century. His theory transcended from paper to proletariat, vast nations built their foundation on it. Today the two biggest subscribers of its ideology have succumbed to capitalism. Despite the setback it brought dramatic and swift improvement in socio-economic lives of millions of people though some people suffered the discipline which flowed with it. But; the ideology is still alive and inspires many for Marxism is a way of life. It changed attitude of people toward people. It challenges all the social ills which are prevalent -- castism ,communalism, regionalism, racism etc. It certainly makes people better humans but it requires sacrifice, certain renunciation which the world of competition and market economy do not believe. We have witnessed the change of human character after the ideology was abandoned in Bosnia; Chechnya and many such places. Therefore Marxism is an ideology which still has hope but one does lament its downfall.
Both Marxism and Urdu made fine human beings , refined societies and need to be nurtured. There is a Urdu couplet on the declining state of the language which is apt for Marxism as well it translates
….” Urdu has become like a prostitute in a market; everyone wants to enjoy her but there is no one who professes love for her …
Marxism and Urdu need to be loved again for societies to save themselves from consumerism and communalism.
शनिवार, 15 अगस्त 2009
REACHING OUT – LEADER AND THE ART OF ROUSING THE PEOPLE
It was once again so demoralizing to listen to the dull and drab;( well meaning though) utterances of our dear Prime Minister in yet again Independence day speech. It was such a sorry sight to watch him labor his way with simple Hindustani words as he read out the Independence day speech to the nation on 15 Aug 2009 . Among the many commonalities between Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh is their lack of communication skill which is indeed the most predominant and visible to the ever expectant public. Both are poor public speakers and have to be fed with words; at least in Hindustani.
What probably makes their task even more difficult is that they do not seem to be writing their speeches. For if one writes talking/ delivering becomes easy and more convincing. It adds conviction to the speech. Even if the quality of voice and style may be moderate. It is on such instances that the concept of philosopher- king advocated by Plato comes to mind. Plato had argued that a leader should be a thinker too; only then could be his reach be long and lasting.
Nehru; was perhaps the only leader who would qualify to be the King – philosopher. His writings and speeches inspire the people world over even today. He had an original view on every subject which mattered the nation and which carries meaning to this day. He too started slowly and initially was a shy speaker; but because he could think and feel he could convey. It is such a pathetic sight to watch the planted leaders!
The problem of Manmohan Singh is that being a Professor of Economics enables him to fluently comment in English; but effective he is not for he is not known to be a thinker;a warm hearted person who could feel for the people
What is expected on an Independence day is a rousing speech.We do not remember when we last witnessed it? Atalji did inspire us initially but later was struggling with poor health. VP Singh did deliver an effective solitary performance but all that was drained down by his ill intent. Mrs Gandhi did motivate the masses for she could speak their language and feel for them.
The bottom line remains that a political leader has to be an effective speaker. And for that he is to be an original thinker who should have sufficient ‘warmth ‘ to convey his thinking so that it reaches their heart.
Our leaders should know the difference between addressing a press conference and addressing their Nation.
शुक्रवार, 7 अगस्त 2009
CAUSE AND COMMITMENT
CAUSE AND COMMITMENT– RIGHT TO EDUCATION BILL
As a young student in the University it was inspiring and assuring to read of the initiatives and improvements taken by the then communist regime in Soviet Union in the areas of health and education thereby uplifting the standards of deprived and downtrodden. The advancement made by that generation in numerous discipline, results in Olympics showed the success of the policy. However; much water has flown down the Ganga and Volga since the breakup , disintegration and re-emergence of that society but the benchmark was set and the results are still relished as the human resource created under the Marxist regime is still wooed by all emerging economies , including India and China .Nowhere else such parity was achieved in such a short time.
Against the above backdrop ; it is indeed heartening to witness the enactment of Right to education bill which has made compulsory for the state to provide free education to children upto class viii . However; between the conception and creation falls the shadow. And; therefore the challenge of our budding democracy would be to reduce the long shadow . Do we have enough schools ? Teachers ? Will we be able to achieve the teacher student ratio of 1:35 in our country when the same is a challenge in the best of colleges in the nation ? What about funds ? And measures to monitor and extract accountability. Will it meet the same fate as that of land reforms ?
To provide free education till the age of 14 is enshrined in our Directive principles of state policy, and has taken about 58 years to convert policy into Law. How much time will we take to convert this cause into creation? I have serious apprehensions and am deeply cynical of the standard mechanisms to implement and control Govt
Plans as without ideology and commitment such directives remain half served. What made the Soviet policies work was the commitment and zeal of the cadre of the communist party . The various Universities , schools and colleges which are run by the Christian minority institutions excel and are sought by the majority because they have commitment . There are schools such as Shisu mandirs and Arya vidya Mandir run by the Hindu cultural organizations which are maintaining high standards despite being defamed of their extreme views on Nation and society; but their educational achievement cannot be ignored as it is backed by sincere commitment.
I wish Congress under Rahul motivates its cadre to such level wherein they immerse themselves toward execution of the policies without worry of self promotion and rewards. But that is highly unlikely; the dependence on private sector is living in illusions for they can just create islands of excellence such as Reliance International college ; but we need some one to create an Ocean of excellence.
Till then we continue to live on hope.
As a young student in the University it was inspiring and assuring to read of the initiatives and improvements taken by the then communist regime in Soviet Union in the areas of health and education thereby uplifting the standards of deprived and downtrodden. The advancement made by that generation in numerous discipline, results in Olympics showed the success of the policy. However; much water has flown down the Ganga and Volga since the breakup , disintegration and re-emergence of that society but the benchmark was set and the results are still relished as the human resource created under the Marxist regime is still wooed by all emerging economies , including India and China .Nowhere else such parity was achieved in such a short time.
Against the above backdrop ; it is indeed heartening to witness the enactment of Right to education bill which has made compulsory for the state to provide free education to children upto class viii . However; between the conception and creation falls the shadow. And; therefore the challenge of our budding democracy would be to reduce the long shadow . Do we have enough schools ? Teachers ? Will we be able to achieve the teacher student ratio of 1:35 in our country when the same is a challenge in the best of colleges in the nation ? What about funds ? And measures to monitor and extract accountability. Will it meet the same fate as that of land reforms ?
To provide free education till the age of 14 is enshrined in our Directive principles of state policy, and has taken about 58 years to convert policy into Law. How much time will we take to convert this cause into creation? I have serious apprehensions and am deeply cynical of the standard mechanisms to implement and control Govt
Plans as without ideology and commitment such directives remain half served. What made the Soviet policies work was the commitment and zeal of the cadre of the communist party . The various Universities , schools and colleges which are run by the Christian minority institutions excel and are sought by the majority because they have commitment . There are schools such as Shisu mandirs and Arya vidya Mandir run by the Hindu cultural organizations which are maintaining high standards despite being defamed of their extreme views on Nation and society; but their educational achievement cannot be ignored as it is backed by sincere commitment.
I wish Congress under Rahul motivates its cadre to such level wherein they immerse themselves toward execution of the policies without worry of self promotion and rewards. But that is highly unlikely; the dependence on private sector is living in illusions for they can just create islands of excellence such as Reliance International college ; but we need some one to create an Ocean of excellence.
Till then we continue to live on hope.
सोमवार, 3 अगस्त 2009
REVIEW -- LOVE AAJKAL
REVIEW -- LOVE AAJKAL
Much awaited film it was; specially after the barren period of stand off between producers and Multiplex owners and the disappointing ‘ Kambhakt Ishq ‘ ( Kambhakt Film ! ).
The film surprised me. Saif surprised me and Imtiaj Ali’s credentials as durable film maker were established .He was in control of his craft. The strength of the film are three—screenplay, dialogues and Saif’s performance . In posters and promos to me Saif appeared jaded and probably a little over the hill for a young love story . He proved me wrong.
Not a novel story but presentation and narrative clinch the issue. It is story of how two young Indians fall in love but part ways for the sake of their career as they refuse to commit long distance love . How a sagacious Sardarji ( Rishi Kapoor ) helps them to meet again by narrating his love story set in remote Punjab.
Apart from basic theme of having loved , lost and recovered the film does tickle our sub conscious to rekindle the faded emotions of devotion and sacrifice. It is indeed so reassuring to see an effective director in control . The shallow and superficial craft of Karan Johar and his ilk is exposed after witnessing a truly talented filmmaker like Imtiaz.
I felt the movie losing grip in the initial stage; when the interaction between Saif and Padukone and flowering of their relationship is shown. It appeared a little jerky and casual ; but gradually after the titles are completed the movie warms up to delight. I also thought the ending a little stretched by about ten minutes . Saif’s American journey very well portrayed though could have been reduced.
The hallmark of the film is its ‘restrain ‘ . It is presumed and in some instances mandatory for love stories to go overboard . , however ‘Love Aajkal’ is well measured and moves step by step to its destiny. It will haunt many; for some time.
Much awaited film it was; specially after the barren period of stand off between producers and Multiplex owners and the disappointing ‘ Kambhakt Ishq ‘ ( Kambhakt Film ! ).
The film surprised me. Saif surprised me and Imtiaj Ali’s credentials as durable film maker were established .He was in control of his craft. The strength of the film are three—screenplay, dialogues and Saif’s performance . In posters and promos to me Saif appeared jaded and probably a little over the hill for a young love story . He proved me wrong.
Not a novel story but presentation and narrative clinch the issue. It is story of how two young Indians fall in love but part ways for the sake of their career as they refuse to commit long distance love . How a sagacious Sardarji ( Rishi Kapoor ) helps them to meet again by narrating his love story set in remote Punjab.
Apart from basic theme of having loved , lost and recovered the film does tickle our sub conscious to rekindle the faded emotions of devotion and sacrifice. It is indeed so reassuring to see an effective director in control . The shallow and superficial craft of Karan Johar and his ilk is exposed after witnessing a truly talented filmmaker like Imtiaz.
I felt the movie losing grip in the initial stage; when the interaction between Saif and Padukone and flowering of their relationship is shown. It appeared a little jerky and casual ; but gradually after the titles are completed the movie warms up to delight. I also thought the ending a little stretched by about ten minutes . Saif’s American journey very well portrayed though could have been reduced.
The hallmark of the film is its ‘restrain ‘ . It is presumed and in some instances mandatory for love stories to go overboard . , however ‘Love Aajkal’ is well measured and moves step by step to its destiny. It will haunt many; for some time.
सोमवार, 27 जुलाई 2009
BRANDO OR BURTON ?
If one was to choose between Marlon Brando and Richard Burton as one’s favourite whom would one select? Vote for? Difficult! Both were great Artiste and made tremendous impact not only on the generation they represented but thereafter too. They still are source of inspiration and subject of discussion and debate among film goers and theatre enthusiasts . Moreso for providing joy and happiness in the field of entertainment. Though both had distinguished theatre background; however were contrast to each other . Both started their career in forties; though burton died in 1985 and brando in 2004. Burton was cast in the shakespearian mould and represented British style o f acting whereas Brando was the pioneer of method acting propounded by Constantin stalislavaski in the famous Actor’s studio ..Burton’s hallmark was his rich voice and speech;Brando spoke with his silence epitomized in the role of the Godfather which has become part of the American consciousness.
Burton mastered his voice and speech under his teacher up in the welsh hills where he was tutored to shout in whispers thus strengthening his voice .Brando gave new dimension to Acting and made it more expression, gesture , movement oriented . Acting which could be exploited by the modern camera and film making.Burton delivered through his dialogues sheer rendition an extention of theatre. Burton’s style moved round his speech; Brando was a brooder who merely mumbled his words. Both were nominated on seven occasions for the Academy awards; Brando won on two occasions, Burton none.Both were extremely handsome and attracted many women , had affairs. Burton’s love story with liz taylor; whom he married twice is part of the love legend specially the expensive diamonds which he gifted her.Both played the role of Mark Anthony in their typical style. Burton carried slight sadness in his eyes whereas Brando was a recluce. Al pachino carries the Brando’s ideology and principles and is much respected. Anthony Hopkin’s carries the Burton’s flag.
For me Richard Burton remains a favourite; though Brando may be great.I belong to the old school of acting where speech, voice control is primary. The depth of delivery with control and command of one’s voice is dear to me. That is why I prefer Anthony Hopkins, Peter O’tole ,Rex Harrison, Lawrence Olivier, Alec Guiness to the many method actors .
Who do you prefer?
If one was to choose between Marlon Brando and Richard Burton as one’s favourite whom would one select? Vote for? Difficult! Both were great Artiste and made tremendous impact not only on the generation they represented but thereafter too. They still are source of inspiration and subject of discussion and debate among film goers and theatre enthusiasts . Moreso for providing joy and happiness in the field of entertainment. Though both had distinguished theatre background; however were contrast to each other . Both started their career in forties; though burton died in 1985 and brando in 2004. Burton was cast in the shakespearian mould and represented British style o f acting whereas Brando was the pioneer of method acting propounded by Constantin stalislavaski in the famous Actor’s studio ..Burton’s hallmark was his rich voice and speech;Brando spoke with his silence epitomized in the role of the Godfather which has become part of the American consciousness.
Burton mastered his voice and speech under his teacher up in the welsh hills where he was tutored to shout in whispers thus strengthening his voice .Brando gave new dimension to Acting and made it more expression, gesture , movement oriented . Acting which could be exploited by the modern camera and film making.Burton delivered through his dialogues sheer rendition an extention of theatre. Burton’s style moved round his speech; Brando was a brooder who merely mumbled his words. Both were nominated on seven occasions for the Academy awards; Brando won on two occasions, Burton none.Both were extremely handsome and attracted many women , had affairs. Burton’s love story with liz taylor; whom he married twice is part of the love legend specially the expensive diamonds which he gifted her.Both played the role of Mark Anthony in their typical style. Burton carried slight sadness in his eyes whereas Brando was a recluce. Al pachino carries the Brando’s ideology and principles and is much respected. Anthony Hopkin’s carries the Burton’s flag.
For me Richard Burton remains a favourite; though Brando may be great.I belong to the old school of acting where speech, voice control is primary. The depth of delivery with control and command of one’s voice is dear to me. That is why I prefer Anthony Hopkins, Peter O’tole ,Rex Harrison, Lawrence Olivier, Alec Guiness to the many method actors .
Who do you prefer?
शुक्रवार, 24 जुलाई 2009
RETURN TO THEATER
What is this urge which brings back Actors from movie to theater? A performing Art which is more time consuming and less paying. Al Pachino does it often and so do many western stars. In India we have our Naseeruddin Shah who does theater regularly and only reluctantly does cinema. Apart from the easy pace of theater; a place where one can schedule the dates according to one's requirement there are other considerations as well. The foremost being the urge to express. Remember! that theater is an actor's medium where as cinema is director's. On stage the actor; despite physical restrictions gets larger freedom to perform wherin he seeks compensation for the restrictions cinema imposes on him -- primarily creative.It is to say that this is my territory and i will perform here the way i want to unhindered by the director and technology. It is also in a way preparatory /training ground for future progression in cinema .
Is cinema sought for fame and money and theater for inner sustenance? is cinema more material and consumeristic ( made in bulk ) and theater more spiritual ?
unfortunately despite the recording and retaining facilities the joy of theater is direct. it therefore does not have longivity ( i only hear the great performance of Balraj sahni as Mirja galib in 'akhri shaam ' somewhere in forties ) which cinema has.But; that is what gives it a special identity. unlike cinema it has to be created performance after performance and hence is more dynamic. There are numerous interpretations of Hamlet and Merchant of venice. Theater gives longivity to the writer like a piece of music.
Is theater therefore a superior form of expression and Art?
Is cinema sought for fame and money and theater for inner sustenance? is cinema more material and consumeristic ( made in bulk ) and theater more spiritual ?
unfortunately despite the recording and retaining facilities the joy of theater is direct. it therefore does not have longivity ( i only hear the great performance of Balraj sahni as Mirja galib in 'akhri shaam ' somewhere in forties ) which cinema has.But; that is what gives it a special identity. unlike cinema it has to be created performance after performance and hence is more dynamic. There are numerous interpretations of Hamlet and Merchant of venice. Theater gives longivity to the writer like a piece of music.
Is theater therefore a superior form of expression and Art?
शनिवार, 18 जुलाई 2009
TO SERVE WITH LOVE
Provision of food remains one of the key activities in human and animal kingdom.Societies from tribal to the most civilized and cultured have 'food' part of its integral identity. Traditionally in all societies mothers and wives cook and serve food. Similar is the way in animal kingdom as well.It is believed that it is the lioness which provides food. The lion protection.Modern civilization has developed variety of food by multinational firms, devised efficient cooking , preserving and distribution methods.Set hygiene standards/ quality controls ( HACCP,ISO ETC ).Stringent checks have been introduced globally for food safety.
However it is the culture of food and the intimacy involved with which truly affects all humans.The manner in which it is presented .The menu and recipe. the combination of colours, accompaniments etc.the most important part is serving.we all long to be served despite our varying station and status in society. even the solitary farmer toiling in the fields under the harsh sun awaits the arrival of his mate at noon to be served the frugal meal they can afford ,but the presence of your loved one beside you compensates for all adequacies.it gives much psychological boost.often we do not realize the importance of such a need but do feel the loss
when such a support is missing.therefore as we require such emotional sustenance so do our mothers and wives whom we take for granted
However it is the culture of food and the intimacy involved with which truly affects all humans.The manner in which it is presented .The menu and recipe. the combination of colours, accompaniments etc.the most important part is serving.we all long to be served despite our varying station and status in society. even the solitary farmer toiling in the fields under the harsh sun awaits the arrival of his mate at noon to be served the frugal meal they can afford ,but the presence of your loved one beside you compensates for all adequacies.it gives much psychological boost.often we do not realize the importance of such a need but do feel the loss
when such a support is missing.therefore as we require such emotional sustenance so do our mothers and wives whom we take for granted
गुरुवार, 16 जुलाई 2009
SCARRED SWIZ BEAUTY
It is an expensive place. Right from cheese to swiz watch to hotel stay to travel to memorabilia the nation’s nook and corner is on premium for display.Even many marvel its democracy and deep federal structureto the village level.It’s neutral role during the two world wars is noteworthy and comes up often for praise during discussions and discourses on peace and pacifism. The red cross represents the nation and is a neutral body providing medical care to both the victor and vanquished during wars and conflicts.
However the country is notoriously famous for its banking laws which closely guard the name of its account holder. It is widely believed that unaccounted money of many political leaders, industrialists and public servants is stacked in the banks of
Therefore despite its beauty and neutrality it plays a key in the uneven distribution of wealth and keeping the poor deprived of health, food and shelter.
Swiz beauty is therefore only skin deep.
सोमवार, 13 जुलाई 2009
decline and degeneration of hindi cinema
the world is flat these days. technology and ideas flow freely from one latitude to the other.management experts have brought in discipline which has resulted in hardbound scripts,scheduling of activities, payment by cheque etc alas it is all at the cost of creativity. three big films with international cast and crew have attempted to further stylize and popularize hindi cinema and have failed miserably. therefore not surprisingly they have failed in the same manner as the big multinationals in the recent past.for there exists no creativity. cinema is being sold like macs burger. tashan , chandni chowk to china and the latest kambakht ishque are the films. with kambhat ishque the cinema has reached its nadir.this is what happens when the aim is just to make money with no conviction for creativity.commercial hindi cinema has always stressed on making money but not by degenerating to such an extent.raj kapoor showed his hrroines under the water. vijay anand films have showed striptease and cabaret but the bulk of cinema was pure emotion.alas that is not visible.therefore along with the influx of science and technology the cinema requires emphasis on social science as well.film makers should read and draw stories from history and literature; not from dvds
बुधवार, 11 मार्च 2009
'THE READER' -- LOVING A NAZI
‘
I have admired Kate Winslet for her talent and beauty since the days of ‘ Titanic ‘.Therefore was happy on her winning the Oscar in the best actress category for her role in the film ‘ The Reader ‘.
After seeing the movie I was convinced of the Academy’s decision; late though but befitting as this was her sixth nomination.
The film is set in Germany and moves to and fro between 60s and 90s.It depicts an unusual relationship between a young man ( kid of 15) and a woman bus conductor in her early 40s. How this relationship flowers into a lifelong yet distant association . It is also a strange story of guilt and redemption. The woman suffers from stigma and guilt of public crime and redeems herself by committing suicide just short of her release from prison. The man is guilty of keeping secret his affair with a Nazi, though she helps him to discover himself and make a presence in life. He redeems himself by admitting to his relationship to his daughter and also to one of the survivors of Nazi executions.
The role of Hanna is played by Kate Winslet. Hanna is part of the infamous SS guards under Nazi regime during the second world war who are instrumental in the mass execution of Jews. During her trial along with the other accused she is the only one who truthfully admits to her actions without guilt or guile to hide the facts. Her admission of accusations is also aggravated when she admits to her writing the report on keeping the door latch of the church closed during enemy bombing thus allowing the trapped Jews to die in fire. Ironically she does not know to write but accepts the report to be hers to hide her shame. The revelation could have saved her from life sentence!
The film deals successfully with the complex human personality and one’s public persona and private self. Hanna is shown as serious but caring person who tends to young Michael when she finds him unwell near her house and the meeting moves from physical to literary when she insists on being read from literary classics. At that juncture it never occurs to an audience that she has such a villainous past. Yet; though she participates in war crime with a sense of duty she is instrumental in flowering the personality of a reluctant and shy Michael as he discovers his reading skills whilst in her company and; in a way, liberates him. The two are together only for a solitary summer but it leaves an indelible mark on Michael. He is present in court as law student during Hanna’s trial and is even tempted to advise her to speak the truth regarding her inability to write ; also discusses the matter with his law teacher who advises him to inform the court. But he withdraws ; probably on realization of the impact it would have on his personal life of having defended a criminal that too not an ordinary one.
The latter part of the film dwells on the guilt which prevents him ; now a lawyer of repute to establish link with Hanna who is under life sentence in jail. In order to provide her some comfort and solace he reads out for her again ; but this time in isolation of his old home which he tapes and sends to her, all that which he had read to her earlier. Thus begins Hanna’s journey of learning to write. She succeeds in sending small letters to him but he only replies by sending tapes.
The film ends in the tragic suicide of Hanna who expresses no remorse for the dead when asked by Michael.Also she learns that she will have to stay alone though Michael may provide for her. She attempts to express her guilt when in her will she desires that her earnings in jail be handed over to one of the victims daughter. Michael redeems himself by fulfilling her will and admitting to the victims daughter his relationship with Hanna. He also takes his daughter to Hanna’s grave and narrates his and her story.
After seeing many films which probe the mind of the Nazis, here there is a film which attempts to probe their heart.
I have admired Kate Winslet for her talent and beauty since the days of ‘ Titanic ‘.Therefore was happy on her winning the Oscar in the best actress category for her role in the film ‘ The Reader ‘.
After seeing the movie I was convinced of the Academy’s decision; late though but befitting as this was her sixth nomination.
The film is set in Germany and moves to and fro between 60s and 90s.It depicts an unusual relationship between a young man ( kid of 15) and a woman bus conductor in her early 40s. How this relationship flowers into a lifelong yet distant association . It is also a strange story of guilt and redemption. The woman suffers from stigma and guilt of public crime and redeems herself by committing suicide just short of her release from prison. The man is guilty of keeping secret his affair with a Nazi, though she helps him to discover himself and make a presence in life. He redeems himself by admitting to his relationship to his daughter and also to one of the survivors of Nazi executions.
The role of Hanna is played by Kate Winslet. Hanna is part of the infamous SS guards under Nazi regime during the second world war who are instrumental in the mass execution of Jews. During her trial along with the other accused she is the only one who truthfully admits to her actions without guilt or guile to hide the facts. Her admission of accusations is also aggravated when she admits to her writing the report on keeping the door latch of the church closed during enemy bombing thus allowing the trapped Jews to die in fire. Ironically she does not know to write but accepts the report to be hers to hide her shame. The revelation could have saved her from life sentence!
The film deals successfully with the complex human personality and one’s public persona and private self. Hanna is shown as serious but caring person who tends to young Michael when she finds him unwell near her house and the meeting moves from physical to literary when she insists on being read from literary classics. At that juncture it never occurs to an audience that she has such a villainous past. Yet; though she participates in war crime with a sense of duty she is instrumental in flowering the personality of a reluctant and shy Michael as he discovers his reading skills whilst in her company and; in a way, liberates him. The two are together only for a solitary summer but it leaves an indelible mark on Michael. He is present in court as law student during Hanna’s trial and is even tempted to advise her to speak the truth regarding her inability to write ; also discusses the matter with his law teacher who advises him to inform the court. But he withdraws ; probably on realization of the impact it would have on his personal life of having defended a criminal that too not an ordinary one.
The latter part of the film dwells on the guilt which prevents him ; now a lawyer of repute to establish link with Hanna who is under life sentence in jail. In order to provide her some comfort and solace he reads out for her again ; but this time in isolation of his old home which he tapes and sends to her, all that which he had read to her earlier. Thus begins Hanna’s journey of learning to write. She succeeds in sending small letters to him but he only replies by sending tapes.
The film ends in the tragic suicide of Hanna who expresses no remorse for the dead when asked by Michael.Also she learns that she will have to stay alone though Michael may provide for her. She attempts to express her guilt when in her will she desires that her earnings in jail be handed over to one of the victims daughter. Michael redeems himself by fulfilling her will and admitting to the victims daughter his relationship with Hanna. He also takes his daughter to Hanna’s grave and narrates his and her story.
After seeing many films which probe the mind of the Nazis, here there is a film which attempts to probe their heart.
बुधवार, 4 मार्च 2009
FROM JINHE NAAZ HAI HIND PAR TO JAI HO
Rahman has been awarded for the score of slum dog and for the song ' jai ho ' by the American Academy of motion pictures and sciences.He deserves to win an oscar; so talented is he;but this certainly is not his best work.The main purpose however of my writing this blog is not so much for rehman but for the lyricist Gulzar who too has been awarded for the slumdog song ' jai ho '. Gulzar has completed about 50 years in cinema. He started as assistant to the legendary Bimal Roy; wrote his first song for 'Bandini '--' mora gora rang lele mohe shyam rang dede'. Since then Gulzar has traversed a path of versatality and distinction not only as a lyricist but also as filmmaker,dialoge and screenplay writer.
Hindi cinema too has moved on from the era when music was superior to the film and lyricist such as Sahir, shakeel, shailendra dominated not only the film music but the hearts and minds of indian youth.
The landmark music of Guru dutt's Pyasa by sachin da and lyrics by sahir created such an impact on the youth that administration was worried.Specially the song-- 'jinhe naaz he hind par wo kahan hai ' -- the image of Gurudutt as he meanders and stumbles through the narrow lanes of poor urban dwellings depicting the sorrow , hunger and helplessness of young India.
The song in 'Pyasa' , mocks at Nehru for his failed Socialism; so high were the expectations from him.
Well; the nation , songs and cinema have come a long way since the days of 'Pyasa', the standard of songs have degenerated, the standard of living has improved for many and many are still the same; the ever mushrooming slums state the state.
But we say 'Jai ho 'as we jump on the captilist bandwagon to redeem us from our slums and slugishness.Abandonig; Socialism and Sahir.
Jinhe naaz he hind par woh kahan hai.
Hindi cinema too has moved on from the era when music was superior to the film and lyricist such as Sahir, shakeel, shailendra dominated not only the film music but the hearts and minds of indian youth.
The landmark music of Guru dutt's Pyasa by sachin da and lyrics by sahir created such an impact on the youth that administration was worried.Specially the song-- 'jinhe naaz he hind par wo kahan hai ' -- the image of Gurudutt as he meanders and stumbles through the narrow lanes of poor urban dwellings depicting the sorrow , hunger and helplessness of young India.
The song in 'Pyasa' , mocks at Nehru for his failed Socialism; so high were the expectations from him.
Well; the nation , songs and cinema have come a long way since the days of 'Pyasa', the standard of songs have degenerated, the standard of living has improved for many and many are still the same; the ever mushrooming slums state the state.
But we say 'Jai ho 'as we jump on the captilist bandwagon to redeem us from our slums and slugishness.Abandonig; Socialism and Sahir.
Jinhe naaz he hind par woh kahan hai.
शनिवार, 28 फ़रवरी 2009
UNFAIR -- FILMFARE
28 feb was the filmfare award nite. though it was not telecast live i kept tab on news channels to report the results. but the news was slow and only the minor awards were announced till midnight when i decided to update on sunday morning.and there ! as i opened the folds of Toi to my disappointment i saw the beaming victorious posture of priyanka chopra ( the way boxers do ). she had won the the best actress trophy for 'fashion 'defeating the deserving Aishvarya Rai.The other upsets were -- 'rock on' winning six awards and 'a wednesday'not winning a single award.
Filmfare are the oldest film awards and therefore has history to boast. over the years film awards such as 'screen ' 'zee ' stardust' have been launched but they too have followed the same pattern . even the national awards are known to be partial and political.
past memories of filmfare's partisan attitude come rushing fore; 'Sachin da' not getting award for 'guide'. Sohan lal kanwar's 'beiman' winning seven filmfare awards.That is why Aamir khan does not attend award function and Dharmendra pore his heart out on being ignored for years when he received the Life time achievement award from Dilip and Saira.Shahrukh stating that he had even brought cash to ensure that he gets awarded for Baazigar; on receiving the trophy.It is no secret that certain groups and camps manipulate and influence Filmfare awards.in the past yashraj films, dharma productions and certain influential superstars have swept the awards leaving many deserving speechless.with 'rock on ' on roll the Akhtar clan has made its presence known in field other than cinema!
the elimination of 'a wednesday ' will remain a matter of discussions for long time, but crowing of shri farhan akhtar as the most promising new comer needs to be rebutted immediately. we must know that people liked 'rock on ' not for the performace of farhan but the manner in which the story was unfolded, for characterization and acting of all actors. farhan too was good but he certainly does not deserve the award. similarly in the role of Jodha Aisvarya was regal to the toe an unexpected great performance, which should have handed the award to her hands down; it was a challenging role. priyanka acted well in a author backed role ;but fell short.
filmfare need to to rework their jury structure ; perhaps make it more broad based; but such blunders will not redeem its notorious past.
Filmfare are the oldest film awards and therefore has history to boast. over the years film awards such as 'screen ' 'zee ' stardust' have been launched but they too have followed the same pattern . even the national awards are known to be partial and political.
past memories of filmfare's partisan attitude come rushing fore; 'Sachin da' not getting award for 'guide'. Sohan lal kanwar's 'beiman' winning seven filmfare awards.That is why Aamir khan does not attend award function and Dharmendra pore his heart out on being ignored for years when he received the Life time achievement award from Dilip and Saira.Shahrukh stating that he had even brought cash to ensure that he gets awarded for Baazigar; on receiving the trophy.It is no secret that certain groups and camps manipulate and influence Filmfare awards.in the past yashraj films, dharma productions and certain influential superstars have swept the awards leaving many deserving speechless.with 'rock on ' on roll the Akhtar clan has made its presence known in field other than cinema!
the elimination of 'a wednesday ' will remain a matter of discussions for long time, but crowing of shri farhan akhtar as the most promising new comer needs to be rebutted immediately. we must know that people liked 'rock on ' not for the performace of farhan but the manner in which the story was unfolded, for characterization and acting of all actors. farhan too was good but he certainly does not deserve the award. similarly in the role of Jodha Aisvarya was regal to the toe an unexpected great performance, which should have handed the award to her hands down; it was a challenging role. priyanka acted well in a author backed role ;but fell short.
filmfare need to to rework their jury structure ; perhaps make it more broad based; but such blunders will not redeem its notorious past.
शनिवार, 21 फ़रवरी 2009
DELHI 6 - PLEASING SECULAR SERMON
Delhi is one of the most ancient cities of the world. Destroyed by external and internal social and political conflicts many times. But; rose to prominence with its dominant spirit of tolerance and brotherhood restored. The majority ideology of inclusion prevailed upon exclusion.
Recent history of 200 years has witnessed social clashes/ persecution/killing involving christians v/s hindu/muslim combine in 1857, hindus v/s muslims in 1947 and hindus v/s sikhs in 1984. Finally,extremism subsided and sanity prevailed.
The chandni chowk ( Delhi 6 )area of old Delhi has had close neighbourhood of hindus /muslims/sikhs living together for many years. Life usually remains normal but occasionally fundamentalists/ politicians with narrow interest provoke people and then the devil in them ( us ) rises like the 'black monkey ' and engulfs all.
Rakesh Mehra has attempted to emphasise on secularism through the journey of his main protagonist Roshan Mehra from America to Delhi's chandni chowk. Son of a hindu father and muslim mother from chandni chowk he is at home in both cultures.He meets friends of his parents, witnesses Ramlila,attends collective namaaz at jama masjid confronts the local police havaldar and is shocked at police atrocities. Also at religious superstition, being American his outspoken and casual nature is resented by some. He plays main role in cementing many a cracked relationship and gets rooted himself after finding love with the neighbours daughter Bittu; after ofcourse Baptism by Blood and near death.Chandni chowk social collage presented by the writer- director is sweetly composed with imagination, realism and experience. There is suave and cultured Beg ( rishi kapoor ) childhood friend of Roshan's father,dumb and loving 'Gobar'( atul kulkarni) the domestic help,affectionate and impulsive ' Mangu'( dobriyal)the halwai,vulgar yet comical 'police walla'( vijay raaj),ambitious and vibrant Bittu ( sonam kappor )and her conservative father ( om puri), cunning and calculative 'lalaji'accompanied by his newly acquired young and 'smart' wife. Pawan malhotra as brother of om puri who stays in the partitioned house with his family and converses indirectly with his elder brother comes out convincingly as a typical punjabi shopkeeper.Divya dutta the sweepress is saucy and golden hearted. one is reminded of the famous tele serial ' Nukkad ' which showcased life of a mohalla and harmonious relationship among people from differnt trades and background.There are shades of 'Jagte raho' the famous Raj kapoor film of a poor villager who in search of water bumps into the inhabitants of the building many of whom are guilty of small and serious crimes but combine their attention to catch the thief who they mistake for Raj kapoor.Not realizing the 'thief ' in themselves; similarly in delhi 6 the residents resolve to catch the ' black monkey'the intruder but are unaware of the 'black monkey ' within themselves- the devil of communalism.
Rakeyesh Mehra ; the director has honorable intentions of making a socially relevant cinema but somehow the seriousness seems diluted with the introduction of the 'monkey business'.The semi horror-comical track does not blend with serious subject.
However despite its flaws; i applaud the courage of film maker that at least he belongs to a different league and not to the routine reelmakers.In times of social in the tensions and cross border terrorism he has propagated lesson of harmony by showing that not only in delhi's chandni chowk but in so many indian towns and villages hindus and muslims have been living in harmony by involving themselves in secular activities.
There is hope for India as long as the two social currents of hindus and muslim aspirations mingles in the narrow secular lanes of chandni chowk .
A pleasing secular sermon.
Recent history of 200 years has witnessed social clashes/ persecution/killing involving christians v/s hindu/muslim combine in 1857, hindus v/s muslims in 1947 and hindus v/s sikhs in 1984. Finally,extremism subsided and sanity prevailed.
The chandni chowk ( Delhi 6 )area of old Delhi has had close neighbourhood of hindus /muslims/sikhs living together for many years. Life usually remains normal but occasionally fundamentalists/ politicians with narrow interest provoke people and then the devil in them ( us ) rises like the 'black monkey ' and engulfs all.
Rakesh Mehra has attempted to emphasise on secularism through the journey of his main protagonist Roshan Mehra from America to Delhi's chandni chowk. Son of a hindu father and muslim mother from chandni chowk he is at home in both cultures.He meets friends of his parents, witnesses Ramlila,attends collective namaaz at jama masjid confronts the local police havaldar and is shocked at police atrocities. Also at religious superstition, being American his outspoken and casual nature is resented by some. He plays main role in cementing many a cracked relationship and gets rooted himself after finding love with the neighbours daughter Bittu; after ofcourse Baptism by Blood and near death.Chandni chowk social collage presented by the writer- director is sweetly composed with imagination, realism and experience. There is suave and cultured Beg ( rishi kapoor ) childhood friend of Roshan's father,dumb and loving 'Gobar'( atul kulkarni) the domestic help,affectionate and impulsive ' Mangu'( dobriyal)the halwai,vulgar yet comical 'police walla'( vijay raaj),ambitious and vibrant Bittu ( sonam kappor )and her conservative father ( om puri), cunning and calculative 'lalaji'accompanied by his newly acquired young and 'smart' wife. Pawan malhotra as brother of om puri who stays in the partitioned house with his family and converses indirectly with his elder brother comes out convincingly as a typical punjabi shopkeeper.Divya dutta the sweepress is saucy and golden hearted. one is reminded of the famous tele serial ' Nukkad ' which showcased life of a mohalla and harmonious relationship among people from differnt trades and background.There are shades of 'Jagte raho' the famous Raj kapoor film of a poor villager who in search of water bumps into the inhabitants of the building many of whom are guilty of small and serious crimes but combine their attention to catch the thief who they mistake for Raj kapoor.Not realizing the 'thief ' in themselves; similarly in delhi 6 the residents resolve to catch the ' black monkey'the intruder but are unaware of the 'black monkey ' within themselves- the devil of communalism.
Rakeyesh Mehra ; the director has honorable intentions of making a socially relevant cinema but somehow the seriousness seems diluted with the introduction of the 'monkey business'.The semi horror-comical track does not blend with serious subject.
However despite its flaws; i applaud the courage of film maker that at least he belongs to a different league and not to the routine reelmakers.In times of social in the tensions and cross border terrorism he has propagated lesson of harmony by showing that not only in delhi's chandni chowk but in so many indian towns and villages hindus and muslims have been living in harmony by involving themselves in secular activities.
There is hope for India as long as the two social currents of hindus and muslim aspirations mingles in the narrow secular lanes of chandni chowk .
A pleasing secular sermon.
शुक्रवार, 20 फ़रवरी 2009
SLUMDOG MILLIONNAIRE – TIME TO CONFRONT
DANNY BOYLE AND OSCARS
Slum dog millionaire an English film directed by Danny Boyle about an Indian boy from slums! Who wins a million by answering all the questions in the television quiz contest; has been nominated for ten Oscars and has recently won seven BAFTA (British Academy ) awards. India is rejoicing as A R Rahman the music director has been nominated for music in three categorizes .The media is full of reports and updates. Mr Amitabh Bachhan in his Blog has raised objection to glorification of Indian poverty in the film. Defenders of cinematic and artistic freedom have quickly been critical of any objection being raised about the movie. During a chat show Anil Kapoor and Irfan Khan ; the two stars of the movie have been vocal in their support for Danny and Slumdog.
After having seen the movie and also read the book ‘ Question and Answer’ by Vikas Swarup on which the movie is based I am of the opinion that there is no cause to rejoice and celebrate but to confront and oppose such cinema which selectively picks up issues and elements harmful to the image of India purely for commercial purpose. Danny Boyle has only extracted those scenes and incidents from the book which are more saleable in the west – slums, rag picking, poverty, communalism, children being blinded for begging, car part theft, dhobi ghat etc. Many incidents are not even mentioned in the book such as communal riots, rag picking, car part stealing, jumping in the pool of excreta and dhobi ghat but have been added to the the script to create an impact.
I fully understand that once movie rights of a book are sold it is for the director to portray what he considers cinematically correct. It is also not possible to depict the book completely; some deletions are necessary to meet the cinematic demands. But one should not tamper with the very essence of the book and tarnish its very soul. But alas! These salesmen from the west have made a typical Bollywood movie of the 80s and 90s and twisted and turned the basic structure of the book upside down.
The book was an instant hit when it was released about two years back and was translated into many languages . It is a story of Ram Thomas Mohammad who is raised by a priest in a church and learns the fundamentals of spoken English in church surroundings of Delhi .He keeps the peculiar name as his mother had abandoned him and his actual religion was not known; he uses of his name to his advantage according to the situation The boy is about 18 when he wins the quiz contest and in order to prove that he knows the answer to the questions from his life experience he narrates his story to his lawyer. During the 18 years of his life he stays in Mumbai chawls, as domestic help he stays in the flat of a female fading star where he sees Prem the host of quiz show.He is also a cook in a contract killer’s flat who is also part of the cricket batting mafia. He spends time in Agra as guide at Taj Mahal where he meets the girl who becomes his wife and for whom he participates in the quiz show. He escapes narrowly along with his friend Salim from the clutches of gangsters who handicap children for begging. There is confrontation with a gang of dacoits in a train and life with an Australian Defense Attache who turns out to be a spy and is deported
However; what could have been an interesting story of a poor boy; his escapades and adventures and who wins a Contest; Danny Boyle has made into a typical average film.The book is of two friends Salim and Ram Thomas Mohammad and how Salim fulfils his dream to be a film star and Ram accidentally wins the quiz show; but the basic plot has been changed to that of sibling conflict,gangster moll and captivation.. A routine Bollywood Saga.. whereas the hero stays in slums in the later part of his life he is shown in the film being raised in the slums by his mother with his brother Salim and the mother is killed in a communal riot.The blinding scene which has been graphically portrayed is only mentioned in the book as mere contemplation on knowing which the children escape.
The communal angle is the creative input of the screen writer in the film to provoke the western mind. The most repulsive scene is where jamal jumps in the pool of human excreta in order to obtain the autograph of his Star –Amitabh Bachhan . The scene has no connection to the book, it is shown to shock the western audience. The book depicts poverty, betrayal, cowardice, homosexuality, greed, inhumanity and other human aberrations and fallacies but Danny Boyle has deleted portions which would have embarrassed the West- homosexuality and drug abuse by a christian priest , deportation on charges of spying of an Australian defense attaché.
It is also a case of bad casting. The protagonist – Jamal, enacted by Dev Patel does not look like a boy from slums but a well bred lad with western accent whereas the actors playing his childhood and early boyhood are convincing he himself is misfit.
It is indeed sad that Anil Kappor and Irfan Khan who should have advised the director to delete the ‘ shit scene ‘ are justifying his acts. It is classic example of servility under which this nation has suffered in the past. Could not these gentlemen prevail upon the makers to make amends during the trial show? So pleased they appear in the reflected glory that they are oblivious that at what cost will be the Oscars.
And finally the question of the Oscars? Does it deserve the oscar?At what cost? The answer is no. It is an average film based on a beautiful book with refreshing scenarios which has been betrayed by the film maker for commercial reasons.
An Artist has no nation, he is not for a certain section but for the entire world; the humanity. By exploiting the sentiments of Indian humanity Danny Boyle has betrayed the entire humanity.
It is time to confront Danny Boyle and Oscars for promoting mediocrity.
By Himanshu
DANNY BOYLE AND OSCARS
Slum dog millionaire an English film directed by Danny Boyle about an Indian boy from slums! Who wins a million by answering all the questions in the television quiz contest; has been nominated for ten Oscars and has recently won seven BAFTA (British Academy ) awards. India is rejoicing as A R Rahman the music director has been nominated for music in three categorizes .The media is full of reports and updates. Mr Amitabh Bachhan in his Blog has raised objection to glorification of Indian poverty in the film. Defenders of cinematic and artistic freedom have quickly been critical of any objection being raised about the movie. During a chat show Anil Kapoor and Irfan Khan ; the two stars of the movie have been vocal in their support for Danny and Slumdog.
After having seen the movie and also read the book ‘ Question and Answer’ by Vikas Swarup on which the movie is based I am of the opinion that there is no cause to rejoice and celebrate but to confront and oppose such cinema which selectively picks up issues and elements harmful to the image of India purely for commercial purpose. Danny Boyle has only extracted those scenes and incidents from the book which are more saleable in the west – slums, rag picking, poverty, communalism, children being blinded for begging, car part theft, dhobi ghat etc. Many incidents are not even mentioned in the book such as communal riots, rag picking, car part stealing, jumping in the pool of excreta and dhobi ghat but have been added to the the script to create an impact.
I fully understand that once movie rights of a book are sold it is for the director to portray what he considers cinematically correct. It is also not possible to depict the book completely; some deletions are necessary to meet the cinematic demands. But one should not tamper with the very essence of the book and tarnish its very soul. But alas! These salesmen from the west have made a typical Bollywood movie of the 80s and 90s and twisted and turned the basic structure of the book upside down.
The book was an instant hit when it was released about two years back and was translated into many languages . It is a story of Ram Thomas Mohammad who is raised by a priest in a church and learns the fundamentals of spoken English in church surroundings of Delhi .He keeps the peculiar name as his mother had abandoned him and his actual religion was not known; he uses of his name to his advantage according to the situation The boy is about 18 when he wins the quiz contest and in order to prove that he knows the answer to the questions from his life experience he narrates his story to his lawyer. During the 18 years of his life he stays in Mumbai chawls, as domestic help he stays in the flat of a female fading star where he sees Prem the host of quiz show.He is also a cook in a contract killer’s flat who is also part of the cricket batting mafia. He spends time in Agra as guide at Taj Mahal where he meets the girl who becomes his wife and for whom he participates in the quiz show. He escapes narrowly along with his friend Salim from the clutches of gangsters who handicap children for begging. There is confrontation with a gang of dacoits in a train and life with an Australian Defense Attache who turns out to be a spy and is deported
However; what could have been an interesting story of a poor boy; his escapades and adventures and who wins a Contest; Danny Boyle has made into a typical average film.The book is of two friends Salim and Ram Thomas Mohammad and how Salim fulfils his dream to be a film star and Ram accidentally wins the quiz show; but the basic plot has been changed to that of sibling conflict,gangster moll and captivation.. A routine Bollywood Saga.. whereas the hero stays in slums in the later part of his life he is shown in the film being raised in the slums by his mother with his brother Salim and the mother is killed in a communal riot.The blinding scene which has been graphically portrayed is only mentioned in the book as mere contemplation on knowing which the children escape.
The communal angle is the creative input of the screen writer in the film to provoke the western mind. The most repulsive scene is where jamal jumps in the pool of human excreta in order to obtain the autograph of his Star –Amitabh Bachhan . The scene has no connection to the book, it is shown to shock the western audience. The book depicts poverty, betrayal, cowardice, homosexuality, greed, inhumanity and other human aberrations and fallacies but Danny Boyle has deleted portions which would have embarrassed the West- homosexuality and drug abuse by a christian priest , deportation on charges of spying of an Australian defense attaché.
It is also a case of bad casting. The protagonist – Jamal, enacted by Dev Patel does not look like a boy from slums but a well bred lad with western accent whereas the actors playing his childhood and early boyhood are convincing he himself is misfit.
It is indeed sad that Anil Kappor and Irfan Khan who should have advised the director to delete the ‘ shit scene ‘ are justifying his acts. It is classic example of servility under which this nation has suffered in the past. Could not these gentlemen prevail upon the makers to make amends during the trial show? So pleased they appear in the reflected glory that they are oblivious that at what cost will be the Oscars.
And finally the question of the Oscars? Does it deserve the oscar?At what cost? The answer is no. It is an average film based on a beautiful book with refreshing scenarios which has been betrayed by the film maker for commercial reasons.
An Artist has no nation, he is not for a certain section but for the entire world; the humanity. By exploiting the sentiments of Indian humanity Danny Boyle has betrayed the entire humanity.
It is time to confront Danny Boyle and Oscars for promoting mediocrity.
By Himanshu
BILLU - STRUCK BY SUPERSTAR
The legend of 'Krishna - Sudama ', dwells deep in our subconscious as story of friendship.It conveys that childhood friendship is true friendship and lasts for ever,that one never forgets one childhood friend even if one is rich and other poor.It invokes in us the most secular emotions of comradrie and brotherhood.
Billu; is also based on the theme of 'Krishna - Sudama ',story.How king of Dwarka never forgets his poor Brahmin friend of childhood when compelled by his economic hardship and taunting wife he musters the courage to visit him not sure if he will be remembered and recognized.On meeting Sudama Krishna weeps in joy and showers him with wealth and gifts; restoring our faith in childhood friendship.
Alas! what could have turned into a simple and sweet allegorical expression is damaged by the loud and brash treatment by Priyadarshan.
The story from Billu's angle is well presented. But; that of Samir Khan the film star who is billu's friend is marred by poor screenplay. Instead it is filled with song after song ( all mediocre item numbers ). Shah Rukh's presence in the film is that of an item number artist. The director may have injected a few scenes to convey his super star larger than life status but there is an over dose of his star charisma and exagerration of star status.
Priyadarshan should have understood that the mere presence of a star like Shahrukh is enough to portray to the audiance the gulf in the status of two friends in order to convey the conflict. But; stressing it by showing three similar group songs at short intervals the pace and mood of the film is marred. Indeed! this was one film where one wanted Irfan ( Billo ) to appear more on screen as seriousness of shahrukh toward the project becomes suspect after the item performance.
Like me the audiance too felt cheated for having been taken for song!! and also for want of cinematic sense.Did Shahrukh think that his mere presence in multiple songs would steer the film to safety and success?
Irfan's portrayal of the poor yet humouros ( reminds one of fidler on the roof )barberwho prefers to remain in anonymity and never boasts of childhood friendship with Shahrukh comes out convincingly. Though he too appears to be constrained in the starstudded atmosphere-- successful director and superstar costar.
Sitting in cinema hall one feltthat Priyadarshan may have successfully handled many ventures and maybe the original Malyalam version would have pleased the audiance but this billu seems not his forte. Perhaps; Shyam Benegal, Gulzar or even Amol Palekar would have handled better.
Irfan was expected to break into big league on the success of this film but i am afraid he has been struck by the 'superstar' whose vision it was to narrate the story the way it has been done.
Cinema too requires performance;not mere presence and pelf.
Billu; is also based on the theme of 'Krishna - Sudama ',story.How king of Dwarka never forgets his poor Brahmin friend of childhood when compelled by his economic hardship and taunting wife he musters the courage to visit him not sure if he will be remembered and recognized.On meeting Sudama Krishna weeps in joy and showers him with wealth and gifts; restoring our faith in childhood friendship.
Alas! what could have turned into a simple and sweet allegorical expression is damaged by the loud and brash treatment by Priyadarshan.
The story from Billu's angle is well presented. But; that of Samir Khan the film star who is billu's friend is marred by poor screenplay. Instead it is filled with song after song ( all mediocre item numbers ). Shah Rukh's presence in the film is that of an item number artist. The director may have injected a few scenes to convey his super star larger than life status but there is an over dose of his star charisma and exagerration of star status.
Priyadarshan should have understood that the mere presence of a star like Shahrukh is enough to portray to the audiance the gulf in the status of two friends in order to convey the conflict. But; stressing it by showing three similar group songs at short intervals the pace and mood of the film is marred. Indeed! this was one film where one wanted Irfan ( Billo ) to appear more on screen as seriousness of shahrukh toward the project becomes suspect after the item performance.
Like me the audiance too felt cheated for having been taken for song!! and also for want of cinematic sense.Did Shahrukh think that his mere presence in multiple songs would steer the film to safety and success?
Irfan's portrayal of the poor yet humouros ( reminds one of fidler on the roof )barberwho prefers to remain in anonymity and never boasts of childhood friendship with Shahrukh comes out convincingly. Though he too appears to be constrained in the starstudded atmosphere-- successful director and superstar costar.
Sitting in cinema hall one feltthat Priyadarshan may have successfully handled many ventures and maybe the original Malyalam version would have pleased the audiance but this billu seems not his forte. Perhaps; Shyam Benegal, Gulzar or even Amol Palekar would have handled better.
Irfan was expected to break into big league on the success of this film but i am afraid he has been struck by the 'superstar' whose vision it was to narrate the story the way it has been done.
Cinema too requires performance;not mere presence and pelf.
मंगलवार, 17 फ़रवरी 2009
DEV D- EXPERIMENTING WITH DEVDAS
Anurag Kashyap's Dev D is an attempt to demystify the legendry Devdas immortalized on screen by stalwarts like P C Barua ( K L Sehgal as Devdas ) , Bimal Roy ( Dilip Kumar ) and Sanjay Leela Bansali ( Shah Rukh Khan ). The traditional Devdas were set in Bengal whereas Dev D has the backdrop of the Punjab. Is it to justify the extrovert character of its main protagonists?The three main players- Dev D ( Dev ), Paramjeet ( Paro ) and Chandramukhi ( Chanda ); also Chunnilal , the pimp are all grey and victim of personal inadequacies . The old Devdas was a poignant story of childhood friends / neighbours who owing to the class conflict of the era cannot marry or perhaps could not marry for lack of courage on part of Devdas who fails to express his love in time to his childhood sweetheart - Paro. Paro gets married to an older man but never forgets Devdas. Devdas is introduced to drinking and a dance girl chandramukhi by his friend Chunilal. Chandramukhi attempts to reform Devdas but instead reforms herself. Finally; Devdas drinks himself to death at the doorstep of Paro. Devdas has been a cult figure and is related to those men whose love remains unrequited.Despite some criticism for being not such a great story it has enchanted many a filmmakers and even Gulzar attempted to make one with Dharmendra, hema malini and sharmila tagore.Anurag kashyap has attempted to project modern/liberated Dev/paro/chandramukhi with dominant sex and slut to shock the audiance. The original Devdas is to an extent victim of external factors beyond his control whereas the characters of kashyap are tied to their internal conflicts. It is smart cinema but not endearing at all. It makes one uncomfortable with the overdose of sex, drugs and alchohol.
Even though Kashyap gives Dev D a lease of life in the end the traditional audiance feel disappointed.In the name of realism the maker has disfigured the sublime image of Parvati ( Paro ).
On returning from the movie dejected i wondered as to why we remember and look forward to Devdas even though knowing the inevitable; it is to see the union of devdas with paro ; not to revel at the elopement of devdas with chandramukhi.
Even though Kashyap gives Dev D a lease of life in the end the traditional audiance feel disappointed.In the name of realism the maker has disfigured the sublime image of Parvati ( Paro ).
On returning from the movie dejected i wondered as to why we remember and look forward to Devdas even though knowing the inevitable; it is to see the union of devdas with paro ; not to revel at the elopement of devdas with chandramukhi.
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)