Disclaimer: Most of what will follow is a personal opinion, and does not amount to speaking for anyone else. Also, I can never do justice to whatever compelled me to write this in my capability as a writer.
When I was in my IXth Standard, I was asked to write an essay for the school magazine on Indian Cinema. That was a wonderful opportunity for me at that stage in my life — being asked to write for the school magazine in an ICSE curriculum school, and on cinema, nonetheless. This was at a time when I had next to zero interest in art. I lived in a small town, and did not have a computer back then, and as a corollary, had no access to the internet. We were not a family that went to theaters on weekends, and all cinema I knew then was whatever little I saw on Doordarshan, which largely meant Sunday evenings 4pm, electricity permitting. I still managed to read up some stuff from the Sunday Economic Times and speak to my parents for some insight into the industry. The magazine editors had asked for a very narrow scope: the remit was to focus on the first family of Bollywood. So yeah, I concocted something undistinguished, filled more with fact than opinion, and incomplete facts at that, and wrapped it up in bombast. Fortunately or otherwise, it got published and got me some fame.
Now after all these years, and after the little cinema I managed to watch in college and in Mumbai, I think I may have slightly more to think about what cinema means to me. A large part of it still remains TV driven — and we are in an age where kids may not know that Set Max used to show movies other than Sooryavansham or IPL, and that all Hindi movie channels use to broadcast movies written, directed and produced in Hindi language. But again, we make do with what we have — just the way we judge people. I am not particularly fond of going to the cinema hall for movies — I think they are very expensive for the kind of value they offer most often. And over time, my expectation from cinema has evolved in a manner that allows me to categorise a lot of it by the medium I think is most suited for my personal consumption. So without much ado, I make the grand opening statement: Cinema, according to me, is an amalgamation of a variety of human cultural traditions that manages to synthesize most modes of communication that mankind has ever used, and packages it with an intent to help us realise one of our strongest desires — to be able to live vicariously.
An avid cine-fan would have quoted a few movies or dialogues or whatever, here and there, to up the oomph, but my reader will have to make do with quotidian platitudes, and a tiring, pedestrian verbiage in the following sentences.
Amongst all traditions that we have carried as humans, there are a few that have transcended the boundaries drawn by shared identities. I think storytelling is the greatest of them all. Almost all of our collective memories are but accounts of events, real or myths. Generations upon generations have relied upon their predecessors for their knowledge and wisdom, and with bated breaths and mouths agape, listened in rapt attention to all the stories that were. It is, of course, another matter that these stories have kept changing with every generation, for each generation leaves the world a different place than it inhabits, but stories remain. Storytelling remains. In oral / aural form, in written form, or as visual culture. Legends are born out of storytelling. Gods are born out of storytelling. Well, at the crux of it, cinema is mostly story telling. I may be wrong, but for a lot of people, it is basically that — a plot that one can immerse oneself into.
All stories affect us, though in different measures. Some stories are considered better than some others, while some others are trashed. A part of our fascination with stories, and hence cinema, is that we tend to position our lives at a much lower pedestal that the life of the characters in the story. It is not hard to admit that most of our stories are not as colourful or as heroic or as romantic or as enthralling or as exciting as those of the characters in our stories. Even if they are, the grass is always greener on the other side. Even if they are, the denouement is hardly as satisfying or as joyful or as poignant or as poetic as we want it to be. You would notice that a lot of stories that do not have a definite conclusion are not really very well accepted (except by critics who may have their own reasons, but let’s not go there). We all want resolution, and most stories give it to us. There is a reason why there are terms like parallel cinema or art cinema, as a counterpoint to commercial or mainstream cinema.
So what constitutes a story? Characters and a premise. The premise can be as elaborate as a lifetime that bears testimony to an enormously large body of events, thus making it extremely alluring to the everyman because of its scope and ambition, and a gargantuan task for the raconteur to hold the narrative and the listener at the same time. On the other hand, a premise could be as little as a few minutes in the life of a character, thereby exacting as much effort and attention from the narrator as from the listener to be meaningful in the impact that it warrants, and strives to create. Characters are the fulcrum on which the premise rests. I would like to think that a premise metamorphoses boundlessly with the introduction of characters, not necessarily great in numbers, but great in the manner they are placed into the premise. The transformation is in many respects — the story changes in its urgency, the story changes in its magnitude, the story changes in its arc — the entire semiotics of the story changes with the introduction of characters.
A key element that makes a story compelling, beyond the premise and the characters, is the story teller himself. In my opinion, the role of a story teller is as much about choosing the material of the lever and the fulcrum, as it is about the positioning of the fulcrum and the ensuring the balance is maintained at all times. It takes a lot of skill to be a story teller. There is a reason why Modi sells while Rahul does not. At least that is what the perception is. A wily story teller has a method about his craft. Depending upon the premise and the characters, the story teller introduces various elements that first catch the attention of the listener and then hold it by the scruff — intrigue, drama, tension, wit, style and many more, depending upon the audience he wants to target. Often, the premise and the characters themselves manifest these very elements so that the act of story telling becomes minimal, thereby giving a natural glide path to the story and creating an immersive experience for the audience. Sometimes, we know very little about the characters and the plot and the story seems contrived, up until the point where everything goes helter-skelter, when we see that nudge and the plunge and then everything becomes clear. Sometimes, we don’t associate with the story, either because the premise is too complex for us to process as an audience in the limited time frame that we get, or because the characters do not seem fleshed out enough, or because everything is something that we have already seen / heard / lived. In all of the above, the craft of a story teller comes to the fore.
Cinema as a story telling medium brings so many other dimensions. It adds the visuals, the locales, the music, the faces, and so much more, to the extent that the whole package far exceeds the sum of the parts. It is something that one can immerse into, and come out of it a changed human being. There are wonderful things said about books, and novels, and poetry that are all perfectly valid. But I think somewhere in all of this (part nostalgia, part wistfulness), we tend to overlook the significance and the practicality of cinema. Reading takes a lot of effort, watching something not as much. Reading leaves a lot on the imagination of the reader, watching something not as much. You can argue which is good or which is bad, but there is no arguing that while a subjective element brings some amount of thoughtfulness, we are basically talking about a story, a plot. In its elemental form, a book or a novel or poem or cinema is just that — the premise, and the characters. To that extent, while it may be called lazy, I reckon a good reason why the tradition of storytelling has survived is because stories fascinate us; stories take us to another world; and all things said and done, more often than not, it is the end state and not the journey in the stories that matter to a lot of us. “So what?”, or “And then?” are questions that the listener seeks to find the answer to during the process of consuming a story. As enthralling as the journey is, there need to be events. There needs to be tension, and its subsequent resolution. This is not to say that there haven’t been stories where the journey in itself was the premise, but let’s admit, we are not as patient as often.
What cinema brings in addition to the novelty of a book / story is human beings who portray characters. There are innumerable stories immortalised by a crew unparalleled in its craft — right from the screen writers to the cinematographers to the editors to the sound artists to the make up artists to the directors and many more — many characters that have built a special place in out hearts, thanks in no small measure to the actors portraying them on screen. And this is where cinema sets itself apart from any other form of story telling. It allows a vision to be recreated in reality, to an almost exact from. It allows a story to be interpreted in multiple dimensions — from how the crew sees it, all with their own interpretations of the premise, to how the actors see it, with their interpretations of the characters. We have seen many instances where the same story is recounted, recreated and retold by many different sets of people, and each one of them has a different soul. Remember, cinema is a broadcasting medium, and the sheer nature of it renders it instantly important, placing it very high in the pantheons of story telling.
I decide to write this after watching 5 movies this weekend. Starting with Brahman Naman, The Hobbit — Battle of five armies, Dangerous Khiladi 2, The Dark Knight and Man from U.N.C.L.E. Each of these 5 movies are tremendous in what they want to depict. I am not writing a review, but I will try and figure out why I decided to write this essay, and what role did each of the aforementioned 5 movies played in that.
“Brahman Naman” is a classic example of a not so grand premise, turned into a raging 90 mins production by the sheer dynamism of screen play and extremely good acting. The characters are never spelt out like in most other pedestrian movies, but are built scene by scene into living caricatures. In all of 90 minutes, it lays bare the warp and woof of the socio-cultural fabric of the time it is set in, depicting the sense of social entitlement along with ironical references to both the characters in the movie as well as the audience it targets. A lot of Indian cinema today owes its success to larger than life characters and stupid plot lines. But there have always been movies about the everyman that compel us once in a while to look at ourselves and take stock of who we are. Naman is one of those which not only takes a totally plausible premise, but also takes actors who look the part, and deliver with great earnestness. Naman, for me, is a very potent illustration of the small things in life, an resounding affirmation of the fact the no story is not-good-enough, a compelling specimen of the synthesis of great music, great acting and superb editing, brought to the fore through the wonderful medium of cinema.**
I don’t think I would be able to add much on “Dangerous Khiladi 2”because this one of those Telugu movies dubbed in Hindi which essentially loses most of its original appeal and performance factor. Based on whatever movies I have seen, all dubbed mind you, I would like to believe that Allu Arjun is one of the biggest and most talented stars of his generation in Telugu Cinema. He has done many a movie well received by both the audience and the critics. Originally called “Iddarammayilatho”, Dangerous Khiladi 2 is may be the formulaic Telugu revenge rom-com movie. But does away with the normal routine of a Bhojpuri villain, locations in Andhra being passed off as Mumbai and some patriotic / family centric dialogues. Shot entirely in Spain and France, and believably so, the movie ups the game slightly with good camera work, above average music and decent action scenes. But yeah, the premise is nothing much to talk about, and the characters are not really carved out to the extent I would expect. Considering the target audience, I cannot complain. So this goes down as another entertainer, and not much more. The songs are catchy, so!
This should not come as a surprise, but every time I see a Tolkien movie on TV, I cannot not watch it. Whether it is the LOTR trilogy or the Hobbit movies. So this weekend, I saw some parts of “The Hobbit — The Battle of Five Armies”. There definitely has to be something about the way the stories are written which makes them so much of a fit to be converted to cinema. And of course, the brilliance of Peter Jackson in transforming the text into the visual medium. There is something about the LOTR and the Hobbit movies that I cannot seem to ignore. It may just be the emotional wave that they ride on, or the leitmotif in these movies, or the way they build their heroes for us, or perhaps as simple as the triumph of good over evil. Practically speaking, it is just that — a story where good eventually prevails, with all the usual trappings of distress, early success, extreme distress, hopelessness and then the final battle where good comes good. Among all emotions that are remotely positive, hope is the most powerful, and these movies are strongest examples of how we are all suckers for hope and happy endings. The Hobbit movies are not as dark in theme as the LOTR movies, but they still are very important in bringing across the the forces that dwell in the hearts of men. The background score in these movies tugs at so many strings in our hearts that I feel it alone would be sufficient in telling an entire story. From ominous horns to the deeply melancholic fiddle, to the rousing strings arrangement, everything just seems so perfect. The technical angle that movies bring to good stories may not work well for a lot of people, but for me, it creates an overall experience that works well to elevate average premises and lazy characters into a bang for your buck product. In case of Hobbit movies, obviously the premise and the characters are both as good as they would come! Some movies overwhelm by their scale in a manner where the audience comes out feeling a little confused about the movie — whether they should praise it because of its ambition or they should pan it because a lot of their time was wasted figuring out what it means! Hobbit movies are as grand and as ambitious, but they carry along the viewer in a manner that it does not appear that there are multiple, disparate elements in the movie which make it tick. Rather, the movies work like a charm. I would perhaps just say this: Tolkien movies are very important landmarks in cinematic history because of the manner in which they way they have managed to create a parallel universe; because of the way they have managed to evoke compassion for their characters in the audience.
“The Dark Knight” is a different animal altogether. So I will just give it a pass. Every scene, every dialogue, every note in the background score, just feels like a climax to me. The manner in which Nolan has crafted such an elaborate story, notwithstanding the fact that there is more human element in this movie than any other superhero movie (or any other movie in this genre) before or since, is just super fucking awesome.
“The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” has Guy Ritchie written all over it. It is basically a smart, stylish movie, with a very very good looking star cast — all the ingredients of a good espionage film. I did not like Henry Cavill before I saw this movie, so I think there is some good work he put in there. While it is not difficult to spot that the movie does not have much of a premise, and it basically relies on the old-world charm and some slick action sequences that give you a feeling that the actors have all the time in the world while carrying out those scenes, I think the movie worked for me. There are some clever dialogues, but I am afraid they might get lost because of the director’s focus on trying to position this movie as a funnier, swinging counterpart to the rather louder (but subtler) and grimmer Bond movies.
So yeah, that was my two cents on why movies are really important cog in the wheel of storytelling. I am sure people have had their own experiences in movie watching, and that these movies may not have even featured on a lot of people’s watch list, but I think that’s what stories in general, and cinema as a package means to me.
**After writing this, I read the reviews, and well, they are note really glowing, partly because the critics cite numerous influences that the movie draws upon, and ultimately fails to live up to, and partly because they are critics. I am not writing this to signal a change in my opinion about the movie or to justify my point of view vs. that of the critics, but because it is important for me to mention that the movie comes across as an important milestone in Indian cinema where the benchmark for sex comedy is very low. I must also admit that throughout the movie, I thought more of it as a social commentary than as a sex comedy; I enjoyed those fleeting moments that make the movie worth every minute you wold spend more than I felt revulsion at some of the gags. I must confess that I have not seen any of the inspirations behind the movie, or any of Q’s earlier works, but that is precisely what I said about the importance of cinema as a broadcast medium. I am ready to see beyond some of the rather unintelligent / puerile (a word often used by critics in the movie's context), because the movie gives a glimpse of what lies beneath. The one drawback might have been the lack of real emotional quotient in the film, and again, this is where the role of the story teller becomes important. In our case, we got a package with the right intent, smartly gift wrapped, but may be with the hastily, but handcrafted nonetheless, put together content.
No comments:
Post a Comment