Between Reviews: From Darkness to Light
FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT
NOV 30, 2008 – I CANNOT EXPRESS IN WORDS HOW INVIGORATING IT IS to spend a fortnight at a film festival, especially when you review commercial films for a living, and your recent assignment involved grappling with the intricacies of Yuvvraaj. It’s like a full-system purge, as if your rotting innards were being revitalised by an infusion of a new stream of blood, albeit of a snobbish Type. A few cinephiles I’ve talked to here want to know, sneer firmly in place, why I review, of all things, Hindi films. And all I can say, by way of a reply, is that, given all the usual caveats, Hindi films are easily the most interesting place to be right now. It’s where the money is, which means it’s where pretty much anything can be commissioned in theory, from big-budget spectacles to low-key arty fare. But more importantly, it’s also where a staggering amount of talent is (or migrates to, from other film industries), which results in films that are interesting at least in conception, if not in execution.
And if you have to watch every single new film, week after week, and write about them in fairly detailed terms, Hindi films are the best of the bunch – even given the fact that this has generally proved a pretty lousy year. Put differently, I guess I’m trying to say that, if we include the indie efforts, Hindi films at least don’t make you shudder and reach for that invisible glass of scotch to steady your nerves before a screening, at least not to the extent the regular releases in other languages do. (If, however, you wish to counter that borderline-irresponsible blanket statement with the fine instance of, say, the Marathi film industry, of which I’m fairly unaware, please feel free to prove me wrong.) Take, for example, the current festival favourite Thanks Maa. Is it a great film? I’d have to say no. But is it something I regretted watching? Again, I’d have to say no.
The question that arises, then, is this: Am I saying that I’d rather review Hindi films (not necessarily the ones from the Bollywood machine, but also the films from the fringes) simply because they are best of the worst? I suppose that’s what I’m saying. For all our bragging about size, we’re not exactly quality performers when it comes to staying power – and of the hundreds (or thousands) of films we make each year, we’re lucky if there’s a couple we reach for a few years later. Of course, I could have told those people (who asked me the question that triggered this piece) that I wouldn’t mind reviewing Tamil films for a living if I was guaranteed a Subramaniyapuram every six months, or even a Chennai 600028. But till then, I’ll stick with Hindi cinema, thank you very much, for even in this bad year, I’ve had Mithya, Dasvidaniya, Sarkar Raj and Tahaan, not to mention the more commercial entertainers like Rock On and Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na.
But all that said, it is nice to spend a fortnight watching films as far away from Hindi cinema (or, for that matter, Indian cinema) as is humanly possible. Ever since I started writing the Part of the Picture column for this paper, I’ve been asked either (a) why I didn’t think of doing this earlier, or (b) why I am wasting perfectly good column space over obscure films few people are likely to see. As an attempt at answering the latter, I wish I could drag those who harboured these doubts to Goa, this time of the year, if only too see the number of people willingly submitting themselves to difficult foreign films. But if you still want to ask why, I have no answer. Well, a question, maybe: Why read Ulysses? Why listen to Mahler? Why not, in every field of life, just settle for the easier options – easier to see or hear, easier to experience, easier to comprehend, and therefore easier to discuss about later?
I read, recently, Haruki Murakami’s characteristically surreal After Dark, and it’s not the easiest of books to stick with. Like most foreign films, the experience is like being blindfolded and let into a room with no light, with the door being banged shut behind you. What do you do in such a situation? You rip the cloth off your eyes, and you feel your way around. You slowly get used to the dimness, and suddenly, you sense the shape of a stuffed chair at the left-hand corner, a kitchen counter just beyond. And once the “rules” of this new place – the geography, the climate, the tactile details – become familiar, you begin to feel, if not completely at home, at least more comfortable. And after about thirty pages, I was hooked. I didn’t care that there was no “story” to speak of, or no juddering narrative drive. All I wanted was the experience, to soak in the free-floating abstractness of Murakami’s prose.
But with films, we’ve been led to accept that narrative is everything, and if a film has neither some sort of story to tell nor, in terms of compensation, some kind of entertainment value, we wonder why we should bother with it. Why should we deliberately opt for spinach in a country whose film culture doles out fries in such ginormous helpings? There’s no answer to that question. You don’t have to do anything in life – well, except the basic thing, you know, which is to be happy with what you choose to do and how you choose to be. And so, if you thought all that buildup was by way of converting you to the cause of foreign cinema, you’re mistaken. But as I said, and as I’m experiencing in Goa this fortnight, it is nice, at times, to be blindfolded and thrust into a dark room, and subsequently feel extremely satisfied about locating where the switch for the overhead light is.
Copyright ©2008 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
BR: OLLO has the merit to be added to yor list, IMO. Waiting for the review once you get back from Goa.
Anand: From what I’ve been hearing, Poo has merits too. Have you seen it?
Baradwaj,
How true! Hindi/Bollywood films are definitely best of the lot. Just look what they have offered in the last five years: Maqbool, Munnabhai, Ek Hasina, Jhonny Gaddar, Khosla Ka Ghosla, Wednesday, Aamir, No Smoking, Being Cyrus, Manorama, Dil Chahta Hai, Lakshya…the list just goes on. What has Tamil cinema offered? The same old idealistic, superhuman hero performing the same old ridiculous stunts, ridiculous dances. Of course there have been some notable exceptions but nothing compared to the Hindi films. Has there been one Tamil film without the ridiculous song and dance sequences? There was a time in the early 90s (when Thevar Mahan and Roja were being produced by the Tamil industry) when tamil films were far superior to Hindi stuff but now, tamil films are light years behind.
Brangan: This piece comes at an opportune time, especially with respect to the Murakami book. I am grappling with the first half of Crime and Punishment and am at the point of giving up but it seems like I should persevere for there is light at the end of this tunnel. “ThamasOmA jyOthir gamaya” and all that
.
BTW OLLO is definitely something Abhay Deol/Paresh Rawal should be proud of having in their repertoire.
Deepauk: Actually, from what I remember, Karamazov is a racier read. BTW, what’s with all this catching up at this ripe age? Shouldn’t you have gotten done with the classics (along with Ayn Rand and suchlike) during the teens/college years? Or were you one of those cool kids, who, instead of locking himself up with books during the summer hols, went and hung out with the other cool kids?
brangan: What is this summer hols you speak of ?
(We used to have this abomination called holiday homework).
Actually when it comes to literature I am a bit of a late bloomer. I am still catching up with Camus, Kafka, Dostoevsky and other esoteric works(though I did go through the Ayn Rand phase in the second year of college). In all honesty though I don’t think I would have grasped the depths of what any of them were trying to say without the perspective on life I have now. The reason I have trouble with the works lies more in my mind’s propensity for related extrapolation.
Deepauk: Completely agree about the “perspective” bit, but now that I look back, even with my limited worldview. I’m glad I ploughed through a lot of these books when I did — if only because now I have so little time. I used to go through three or four books a WEEK, and now it took me a month to finish After Dark, which, actually, is a very slender book.
BR: Have not watched POO. Have not particularly liked any of Sasi’s films. Dishyum was partly enjoyable because of the lead actor. In Poo’s case, I am not too fond of the lead actor. Again, bias plays a role
Waiting for your take.
brangan says “I used to go through three or four books a WEEK” – I could never claim such voracity, unless I was reading featherweight stuff like DaVinci C(omm)ode or Dumbledore’s coming out party (aka Deathly Hallows) [To all Dan Brown / J.K.Rowling fans that was just a joke].
Touche’ on the time thing. If I was a slow reader before, I am a regular turtle (as opposed to the teenage mutant ninja kind) now. I have much better luck with audio/video material so I ought to jump on the audiobook bandwagon.
Can we assume if you were a reviewer in the laste 80’s and early 90’s, you would have chosen Malayalam films?
(Thats what your justification for reviewing Hindi films in these days implies implicitly.)
raj: Nope. As I’ve told you earlier, I don’t follow the language. But had I been a reviewer then, I’d have still reviewed Hindi films, for that when the parallel films were still being released in theatres. So amidst the bad, there would have still been a lot of good.
So, it is not quality per se. More that you can relate more to it?
The excuse is really weak because the average hindi movie being released those days was far more intolerable than anything Indian film world has ever seen.
If only you hadnt spent your summer holidays in Kanpur…;-)
raj: Even coming fom you, this is quite ridiculous. “Relating to” something isn’t the same thing as “understanding” it — following the nuances of the language and the storytelling and the lyrics and local colour and the idiom and everything. Do you really expect me to review films in languages I do not understand? Without subtitles? How would that be fair to the film?
And two, it’s a HUGE self-propagating myth that the “average hindi movie being released those days was far more intolerable than anything Indian film world has ever seen.” For every crappy big-budget venture like Shahenshah or Ganga Jumna Saraswati, I can show you a Maya Memsaab or Is Raat Ki Subah Nahin or Dharavi or Lekin or Rudaali. These were solid art films being released in the theatres (which would be called multiplex films today), plus there was Mahesh Bhatt at his prime, along with JP Dutta at his prime (I mean, Ghulami, Hathyaar, Yateem), and Rahul Rawail was doing interesting stuff, as was Aziz Mirza…
For some reason, people tend to focus on the bad films of that period, the Govinda films and the like. But that’s true of any time period. I have never, till date, been able to understand why people consider Hindi cinema of the 80s/90s so terrible. Sure, it wasn’t a bright shining moment compared to, say, the 50s, but there was so much to enjoy and appreciate if you cared to look beyond the hollow blanket judgements.
BR, no, thats not what I meant. I dont expect that you would review malayalam movies. Just that the way you regally said I would still have reviewed Hindi movies cos they were doing great stuff. But the thing is despite what you say the average malayalam movie of those days was of higher quality. Average is the key word.
It is possible to find the JP Duttas, the Mirzas and the Mahesh Bhatts even in today’s tamil film world – not perse literally but equivalents who may even deal with totally different themes. That doesnt mean a thing.
I’d just like to disabuse the notion that Hindi movies have been superior to other languages always, notably post 80’s. Thats not true at all. it is just that a greater chunk of our population is exposed to Hindi and can relate more to it. The same kind of Chameli Ki shaadi you probably dig as good, is available even in much maligned telugu – and telugu is probably the worst in terms of all-time percentage of good films released. You can come across some reasonably well caricatured godavari jilla character or ambience in a random movie. To me, with that exposure to telugu, mallu as well as tamil and hindi, I find that you make too mcuh of the average Hindi mahesh bhatt or Rahul Rawail – every language has that sort of average guy all the time. I’d like to ignore these in the greatness stakes much as I would Dasari or KRRao or EVVSatyanarayana.
If you had exposur eto both, you will see merit in my claim that during that period, Kerala churned out varied set of interesting films. Deepak can probably make a bigger list than your Hindi list of films and directors of those time in Kerala.
Some points to ponder
– I can see the merits of both.
Kaikala Satyanarayana Rao would be revered in Telugu film world the same way Boman Irani is in these spaces. He cant do a sardarji business owner but he still can do similar stuff within the telugu context. Someone in Guntur may not see the merits of Irani. Thats where I find myself with snob-value
All this reminds me of a similar discussion on Hindi per se – the argument I have always faced is that it is the national language and therefore, a tamilain knowing Hindi is more national than one who doesnt. But then I know Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and even a little bit of Bengali and Marathi. Does that make me more national than one who knows only Hindi. I dont carry such megalomania around so why do people who merely know tamil and Hindi do?
raj: I don’t know how a simple comment about personal preferences on films has escalated into a summation point about nationality and megalomania, but clearly this isn’t about the films anymore and I’m not sure there’s anything left for me to say.
BR, thats because i go tangential all the time
I am not expecting you to say anything either. All I will say is it is blessed to know many languages – you are not limited to seeing the merits of only one language – you are really free to choose the best among the best. And Hindi movies are overrated – as in the good ones become excellent in propoganda and the excellent becomes outstanding.
This is not a comment on you but the general trend – however I dispute your statement that Hindi movies were in great health in late 80’s or 90’s.
The point I’m trying to make is that you chose the best among what you could understand in the late 80’s – and that was Hindi movies. However, i can state very confidently that you missed out by not knowing Malayalam. That’s not, like, a crime but I’ll have to state it as I see it. As someone who is passionate about films, I am sure if you had an understanding of kerala and malayalam, you would have had a ball with those movies.
That was the spirit behind “If only you had not spent your holidays in Kanpur..”. Read that “if only you had spent your holidays in Thrissur or Alapuzha…”. Implying that you would, with you rlove for movies, have understood why mallu movies of those times are highly rated – even above the corresponding hindi ones.
I’d also like to add that if all this makes me sound like anti-hindi, thats tragic because as I said, I give myself the freedom to choose and enjoy the best amont best in Hindi.
So I make 2 long comments and the only portion you respond to is the one about non-film issues(namely Hindi language)?
Raj: I just caught this latest rant
. Just wanted to clear something up – “Deepak can probably make a bigger list than your Hindi list of films and directors of those time in Kerala.” – I doubt it, purely on the basis of the volume films brangan seems to have seen. There may very well be a higher percentage of quality middle of the road cinema in MalayaLam in the 80’s (just recently I revisited Kireedam for like the 6th time and was blown away – didn’t even need a time handicap), just that I dont think I have seen ALL of them and so I am not the ideal person to make an exhaustive list.
Personally, I am a little with brangan that regional idioms sometimes don’t translate well in subtitles. I am more than willing to recommend and even function as translator, if necessary, but how do I translate why I find the absurdity of Innocent modeling the muscles of his completely rotund frame while simultaneuosly singing “Bharatham ennAl kEvalam oru pidi maNNallA” (in the middle of a completely inane movie like KalyANarAman) side-splittingly funny? One could explain BaniyAn’s obsession with bringing about perumalayAn down (in kaLiyAttam) but to truly understand it would take an understanding of the Theyyam hierarchy (something I dont possess). If I tried to explain why MT’s take on ArOmal ChEkkavar and “Chathiyan” Chandu was so well received, I might take the inventiveness away from Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha. How does one understand the significance of Captain Thomas’ bombastic declaration that he is a “KanjirappaLLy chritian” in KoodevidE without an understanding of “achchAyan-achchAyaththi” stereotypes? The list will extend…
I’ve often wondered how many of the intricacies I miss from a lack of exposure to the milieu of the “international” DVD’s that pass through my player.
Deepauk, I dont deny any of what you say. I dont pretend that i understood any of those either. But you can sense quality sometimes even if you dont completely comprehend it. But that doesnt mean regional cinema should be pushed under the bed or no attempts should be made to engage with it – if you are a film-lover who can track and love films from italy, argentina and ethiopia, Kerala is just the next door, mate.
Any authoritative statement on why Hindi Cinema is/was the best must have a disclaimer.
No Indian film critic can be accepted as true-to-his-calling until he makes attempts to engage with languages other than hindi and his mother tongue. You dont have to be comprehensive and cover Oriya, Kashmiri and Bhojpuri but you can make reasonable attempts at neighbouring states, no?
Well, I have only this much understanding of Hindi/urdu but I can see the quality in Omkara. It engages. It is a fascinating film. Maqboool – even more language intricacies, still even more fascinating.
Does anybody claim that that is because, “well, it is a hindi film you know -obviously, the quality will be higher so no wonder you could be fascinated even without understanding it?”
Actually, the reason I said Deepak was that I have seen many lovely films from that time (mostly on TV) but cant recall their names or the directors’ names. That is the beauty. So many movies from that time in malayalam have this ability to engage even if you didnt understand them completely. A lot of what you can say for hindi movies recently – the so-called small movies – kerala has been there, done that.
raj: Several points, as usual, and with a weary sigh, as usual, let me address what I can:
“But you can sense quality sometimes even if you dont completely comprehend it.”
I can’t boss. I’m a very average movie-goer, who needs subtitles in languages I’m not extremely fluent in. So if it’s not Tamil, Hindi, English, and to an extent French, I can’t do this quality-gauging thing just by… gaping at the screen.
“But that doesnt mean regional cinema should be pushed under the bed or no attempts should be made to engage with it”
Um, who’s doing that? Oh, but let me guess. You skipped the IFFI posts where I said I sacrificed certain other screenings (and a Lubitsch at that) so I could see Adayalangal and Akashagopuram with subs.
“a film-lover who can track and love films from italy, argentina and ethiopia”
A-g-a-i-n, t-h-e-y a-l-l h-a-v-e s-u-b-s. It’s not like I rent a Bergman and just see the moving pictures speaking in Swedish. Oh what fun THAT must be, to be able to sense all the “quality” flashing before my eyes even if I don’t understand a word.
“Well, I have only this much understanding of Hindi/urdu but I can see the quality in Omkara.”
And with that quality you “see,” (that is without fully comprehending) you’d be able to write a review? Or at least, you’d feel *qualified* enough to write a review? Because this post is about reviewing — and if you can do that, my hat is off to you.
“Kerala is just the next door, mate.
Any authoritative statement on why Hindi Cinema is/was the best must have a disclaimer.”
Oh, but there *was* a disclaimer, uh… MATE, in which I even called my statement borderline-irresponsible
Let me print it out again for you, for clearly you didn’t get to it. I guess the red haze that descended in front of your eyes the second you saw the words “Hindi” and “films” in juxtaposition prevented you from reading any further. Here goes:
(If, however, you wish to counter that borderline-irresponsible blanket statement with the fine instance of, say, the Marathi film industry, of which I’m fairly unaware, please feel free to prove me wrong.)
BR, I can’t review films because I can’t review films – hindi tamil or swahili – tht doesnt mean a thing! If I could do it 1/10th as well as you, I wouldnt even be visiting this site
.
“which results in films that are interesting at least in conception, if not in execution.”
isnt that a problem? Say with Dasavatharam which we panned mercilessly for the same reason?
I could also say that you are commenting on my points without going through all and with a blanket pre-judgement. But then I expect it will be a chore for you to read through my long incoherent comments so I dont blame you for it
Ok let me try to summarise so you dont get me wrong:
All I was trying to say was that “You probably prefer Hindi films because you can relate to (or understand ) them better and giving a 3-4 year slump period, every film industry would have a good period where it churns out a series of decent average films. Similarly about talent – see the Satyanarayana example. To me he is no less than Irani though I dont expect you to see it the same way. So it is erroneous to say that the best talent is in or migrates to Hindi. Just that you can relate to it better. The way you take average Rahul Rawail and parade it as proof of quality of Hindi films of those times, that kind of average quality is always there in all film industries so thats where the disconnect is. Who would question if you are talking about Benegal, Gulzar or Baradwaj as proof of hindi cinema’s quality. When you start quoting Rawail and Bhatt, I have to point that that is average and that will be there all the time everywhere.”
raj: Well, now you say Rawail is average – which is what I sort-of said earlier. I just said he was doing “interesting stuff” like Arjun. I never said he is Rajkumar Hirani or Mani Ratnam. But of course, as he’s a Hindi film director, even if I’d said he’s barely okay, you’d still have interpreted it as an extremely hearty endoresement.
I was essentially countering your bombastic statement”: “the average hindi movie being released those days was far more intolerable than anything Indian film world has ever seen”
People concentrate on just the big, bloated, bad commercial Hindi movies and say the 80s/90s were crap. But that was also the time a lot of parallel cinema, and even middle-of-the-road cinema (Sai Paranjpe, Raman Kumar et al) was being made and making it to theatres (which means they ere available for reviewing every Friday). And all of these contribute to the “average Hindi film” – because a lot of these were popular hits too. And IMO there was nothing here that was “far more intolerable” than, say, Thai Veedu or Mangamma Sabadham or you-name-it.
Maybe if you just take the big-star, big-budget films, Hindi films and Tamil films were on par — a lot of crap, along with a few (as you say) “average” films, and fewer good ones. But taken as an overall industry, the number of worthwhile films (i.e. worth reviewing) in Hindi was (and is) far greater, simply because there wasn’t (and there still isn’t) a viable, workable model for the distribution of off-the-mainstream films here. (Or, for that matter, a sufficiently interested audience.)
And given this situation, I still maintain that I’d rather review Hindi films – which was really the only point being made in this piece (besides the bit about foreign films). Of course, when I talk of reviewing films, I’m only speaking of films in languages I understand.
Thai Veedu, Mangamma Sabadham, Sai Paranjpe. We are mixing periods here.
We were talking of late 80’s early 90’s when even Gulzar had tapered off and if you remember, you literally listed out all the good ones during that period earlier in this thread.
I said Rawail is average. You are saying that I wouldnt accept it if you called him tolerable. Is there a disconnect somewhere?
Like I said, because I have strong opinions on Hindi, you cant say that I am saying that all hindi stuff is crap. You are taking an extreme view.
Late 80’s – early 90’s – average, yes, average fare =Aashiqui, QSQT, DHKMN, Tezaab types. I am sorry the off-mainstream ones were hardly released in Chennai if you remember. You cant bring in Kitaab and Mirch Masala into the equation becuase they were earlier. We are confusing periods.
Late 80’s-early 90’s – tamil movies actually had a kamal-led revival – Thevar Magan was 92, Manirathnam was in his peak. I dont like Roja or Bombay but those could brush shoulder-to-shoulder with the best of the Hindi stuff of those times, including the arty ones.
Early 90’s, big Hindi films included Amitabh Bachchan’s post-senility phase, something which Kamal and Rajni are going through now. I may have missed out on the arty stuff – they werent released in Chennai but the mainstream stuff was way bad. Again, not talking of early and middle 80’s which were way above corresponding tamil stuff though maybe still not above corresponding Mallu stuff – even Kamal was doing Kaakkki Chattai during those times.
If Rahul Rawail had some moments in some of his movies, we could say that of even AR Murugadoss in Dheena and Ghajini. So there – even during these lean times, something as bad as current tamil filmdom have their rahul rawail moments. How can that crop up as a support for the argument that Hindi movies had quality those days? I mean, I agree there probably were quality movies but we are arguing with the wrong examples here.
“Aashiqui, QSQT, DHKMN, Tezaab”
In fact, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, these could even be called among the best ones during that period.
br?
you’ll only respond to brazen, blatantly over the top comments from me which can be easily ridiculed?