When we proceed towards examining the finer details of any form of art, we inadvertently decide upon tracing the background, be it political, be it social or be it an isolated form of existence. As highlighted by many eminent thinkers of the past and modern day, art as such is construed to be followed from and to follow, in itself, a very general form of a thought from which it emanates. The broader meanings of art, pertaining to recreation, somehow dilute these finer details. The ideas upon which the art is built, the process undergone in the interim (from the conception to the tangible execution of that thought), and the effects of the output on the environment surrounding the thought; not solely does this sum up the concept of art, but the overt aspect more or less is contained in these. The essence of this art however, needs an expression for itself, a mode, and not just means, to reach the final target, if at all it is meant to. Ignoring, luxury of which we can afford ourselves with, while discussing the theoretical basis and the desired outcome of the same, I proceed on to discuss the form, though most entertaining, but simultaneously, the broadest, the most diverse and at the same time, a very concerted form of expression, of representation and in terms of the effects, the domination.
I must however, disclaim at this juncture, the inclination towards the absurdity of, and the assumption itself that all art is meant to be interpreted in a way that goes on to conform with the most suitable ends, the contemporary society or the history as such. The point here is to credit the creative genius of the artist through an appreciation, even if positively critical, and not just undermine and belittle the effort citing the possible parallel to an existing culture or even an ideological hegemony. Art is as it should be, and the rights of democracy or the diktat of liberty guarantees every second individual to draw a totally different meaning as it should, but the fact that art is not ephemeral or temporal imparts a lasting soul to that form of art, and the success of that art lies in its ability to speak for itself, and not just be a passive mode of expression. Allowing many an interpretation of an art diminishes the motive behind the creation by a magnitude so great that the original gets lost somewhere in the middle pf these assumes states of mind the artist had been in. The success of art, methinks, is the connection it establishes with the spirit of the medium through which finds expression and the one where it is impressed upon.
Rang De Basanti is a quintessential form of that art, the art that has a soul, the art that is meaningful, all the time being very pertinent to the contemporary mindset of the society, and never forgetting that it is just an nart not a didactic or a doctrine, and hence it has to be vocal, simultaneously, about the plebeian connection as well, for what is art if not vulgar, what is memory if not shared, and what is an idea if not popular (I mean made known to the outside of its conception). The movie, (I think my first usage), aims at the conscience of the audience, it carries with itself, the idea of integrity and truthfulness, the burden of responsibility, the Promethean man, the feeling of a community, the strong undertones of love, the idea of knowledge from the prism of power and the expressions in their manifestations thorough the protagonists. It has a very nuanced hint of the effect of the third eye, the eye of the foreign, the effects of the beholder, the terms of conformity with the third eye and the solidarity and the degree of mutual acceptance of the no-so-own.
Sue is a Briton, with roots that can be dug up to the imperial, so to say, the colonial master, Britain. The ancestor is shown to have been an important figure of the British presence in on of the most exemplar colonies, India. The light in which the story sees a path is the confession of an outer falsehood by a "seemingly" conscientious British "ruler". He finds it immoral to carry on the duties he has undertaken with the burden of responsibility. He has to execute the barbaric, violent natives, who at the same time, he says, were epitome of patience and persistence. This clearly brings out the paradox. The intimacy between the two parties is reflected through the mutual acknowledgment of qualities which overtly may seen hostile but somewhere there is a resonance of thoughts. And Sue, in her capabilities sets out to uncover this aspect of British thought. We see a dichotomy in the psychology, the exact manifestation of the acceptance of the evil, but framing it as a necessary evil. We can also project that individual evils are not subject to any hegemony. That the source of the knowledge is a very instrumental part in the way that knowledge is assimilated, that the form of that knowledge is itself not dissociated from the source. We see a Brit commoner, personally disturbed, but for the greater purpose assumes a falsehood. We see a seeker of truth, a desire to present the alternative side of knowledge.
The college kids, or boys as I must call them, represent an aspiration, the aspiration of a future that is independent of their present and past. The boys symbolize a feeling of emotional solidarity within a community however small it may be. The boys represent the "let-live" form of thought, when we come to know of their past and the present. The college represents a place of connectivity, a forum to rid oneself of all the individual strains, of backgrounds of families, or of emotions; and indulge in the shared ideas of liberty, of fraternity. There are strong currents anti-social elements, which represent the idea of a moral right of a particular form of aspiration to bring within its fold, the offshoots of the broader society. The hooligans represent the false notion of exclusivity of belonging, to a particular school of thought or definition of community. The introduction of the western immediately projects the incorrect perceptions of the west about the east, and the east of the west. This also presents the ideological hegemony present in both the societies.
The plot introduces the terms of the shared oneness. We can see the reluctance transforming into tolerance and then metamorphosed into acceptance and belief. Through this process, we are shown the re-representation of the Indian underground terrorist movement during the colonial rule; the lackadaisical attitude towards one's nation in the boys, even after having been active instruments of representation through a nationalist view.
The plot takes a turn and assumes a serious nation-towards march when the friend is killed in a crash. The representation again plays its part in the power circuit and through the media, it finds a general acceptance. Behind the scenes we are shown the concerns and the dismissal of these concerns by the power circuits through thr tool of representation. The truth is projected through the tool of virtue and morality, through the concept of linear and empty time, where in the viewer unknowingly fits the trajectory of the strong and then we see the rising of a common sentiment. The peaceful gathering and the tailoring of the opinions to meet the personal ends, is shown very meticulously. The conscience of a nation is shown through the candle scene. The following story constantly projects the mis-representation of the truth as the false, and simultaneous anger about the real-politik in the conscience of a people. The impulsive childish response of the protagonists ends with the slaying of the minister, and yet again this attempt bears no fruit. In this fact and the subsequent story, we are shown the concept of Gandhian time, where the myth is truer and stronger than history. The boys repeat the process of self surrender but are assumed to terrorists, and killed. We know nothing of what becomes of Sue, and the later stages after their killing, but this definitely is the point of view of a nationalist in the makers.
The creators, in short, try to present, if I may, represent the Indian history, through the present. The ideology of art speaking aloud for itself succeeds, as I find myself writing my view about it. Was it meant to be interpreted in the way I did? We never know. What we know is that whatever be the purpose, this art traces the bits of the formative stage of a nation, parallels it with the current state and seeks to make a comparison which even though might not have been intentional, it successfully does.
No comments:
Post a Comment