Va Quarter Cutting – An absurdist Tamil film?

                The director duo of Oram Po Pushkar and Gayathri seem to make films that are difficult to categorize within the genre of Tamil popular cinema (is there any other kind?). Their Oram Po consciously treaded along the lines of mainstream cinema but with chaos and chance playing a very important role (not to mention “crude yet smart humor”)…, in Va they take it to the next level. Like several good films even Va received lukewarm response upon its release including (and surprisingly) poor word-of-mouth. This article is an effort to try to identify certain unique aspects of this film and why I feel this film is “different” in the truest sense of the word.

            
The movie starts off with a cheeky title sequence followed by an unknown narrator (possibly the director) explaining a set of seeming unrelated characters who would predictably connect and dis-connect through this movie. Though this type of multi-narrative movies are becoming clichéd (Babel, Ayudha Ezhthu ..), what is unique with Va is how these characters don’t exhibit a neat cause/effect relationship but instead act as particles in a chaotic medium that just collide with each other in the “spin of things”. The movie hinges on the idea of existentialism which in its most elementary level would indicate the meaningless of life and the absurdity at trying to find its meaning. This is where the absurd idea of searching for “quarter” is even more significant – the harder you try the tougher it is to get at. Va is similar to “No Smoking” (in terms of dark comedy) and DevD (existential cinema/musical) where elements of absurdism/existentialism is employed as a means to propel characters forward instead of depending on a traditional plot structure. Va starts at sunset and ends at sunrise and characters that define Chennai populate this absurd space. Chennai is also used in an interesting way – here people are either moving into it, away from it or within it rarely in this film will you see any static shots. From Movie Stars to Street Dogs to Politicians having Nietzsche like moustaches, the director duo seems to have captured the absurdity that is Chennai at a very core level.

The way “Thala” is ridiculed while putting his arms over “Gilli” Vijay with a dead-pan Mise-en-scène is nothing short of brilliance and the movie is littered with such sequences throughout.

The narrow corridors hand painted with what appears to be images of pulp-art further draws attention on how the movie employs space to capture a particular time (upto 80s perhaps ?).

Another interesting aspect of Va (1/4) is how it employs the idea of duality - Chinna Anna/Periya Thambi, Vettu/Kuthu, Retta Pappa, Prince/King, Mapillai/Machan so much so we even have two Michael Jacksons dancing for us. Perhaps this identifies and celebrates the dualities that exist all around us – sunrise/sunset, life/death, happy/sad and so on. Just like how duality is a key ingredient to life as we know it the film cannot do without it. It is further interesting to note the movie is directed by a director-duo. 

 

The other aspect of the film that is worth noting is how colors are used (Red/Green/Yellow). Red usually indicating excitement (and danger) probably symbolizes Shiva, Green representing Calmness (and safety) represents Charan and yellow representing optimism, enlightenment and happiness is “Super Saro”.

Two films that seems to have influenced (other than our own DevD/No Smoking) is the french modern classics Amelie and Delicatessen

 At a personal level I got stuck with the yellow raincoat which reminded me of the transcendental sequence from Angelopoulo’s Eternity and a day (at about 5:50 but my suggestion is to watch the entire clip just to see how beautiful movies can be). 

As indicated before the dependence on “chance” is further highlighted by using the card game – it does not take a genius to draw parallels to life and the card game. Simply put card games are not pure “chance game” you need skill and luck, something that’s equally valid for life in chennai. But what makes this even more interesting is the religious stand the movie takes and later drops – perhaps signaling the inherent hypocritical nature of chennaites. To elaborate..., the dependence on chance/luck seems to indicate the dismissal on the “role of god” but again there is a paradox with the “fall of god” to “protect the innocent” (climax). His presence and absence (another duality) is thus emphasized.

 I used to think Chennai has two things in abundance, wine shops and places of worship - the movie has omnipresence of both.

The climax is the icing on the cake and I could not help wonder if this is homage to Buster Keaton. I will let people judge it for themselves  (Steamboat Bill, Jr)

The reference to Buster Keaton does not stop there…, the dead-pan dialog delivery of Siva mimics the dead-pan look of Keaton and the carefully choreographed chaos is very similar to how Keaton would arrange his sequences.

 A common complaint that I hear is how un-funny this movie is and I think this is true in a certain sense. But then this is not the movie that is “designed” to have Laugh-out-Loud moments…, this is the one where you go with the ride occasionally smiling, sporadically laughing and mostly end up scratching with WTF situations. This is the movie where laughter “arises from cynism and skepticism”. In that sense (and arguably) this is probably the first Tamil Black Comedy. The closet I could think of in recent times is the good but not great “Tamiz Padam”. There might not be as many laughs in Va as Tamiz Padam that you could readily pick at surface level but Va scores high in how deep it goes. The easiest examples we can compare with are the films of Coen Brothers (also director-duo !).  Comedy in Tamil cinema is pretty primitive– its either slapstick or insults thrown at each other to evoke laughter. There are very few smart comedy films (Ratha Kaneer, Thillu mull et. al.) to even treat this as a legitimate sub-genre. With  Va the director duo for the first time have not only pushed the boundary of Tamil cinema but created an entire new path for people to pursue.

 With the movie already out of theaters perhaps this is a “mokkai” film. Interestingly enough the greatest acknowledgement of how mokkai this film is,is when Siva while watching an equally mokkai film says to the conductor “Ithu mokka padam sir ana thodai ya thatti train a …..” with this Va seems to have acknowledged and embraced the absurdity that’s called life in chennai.

Aayirathil Oruvan as a Women Empowerment film ?

Selva Raghavan has often been accused of showing women (Tamil women?) in poor light. Critics and even fan’s accuse him of full filling his male fantasies. Most if not all the accusation center around the way his female protagonist (or antagonist) appears sexually liberated.  This author (for lack of better word) strongly feels this judgment has been too quickly passed and there is merit in exploring the other side to this argument. Which is, his films could actually be the opposite of what it’s being accused off – both feminist and women empowering. To further this case we can look at his recent Magnum Opus “Aayirathil Oruvan” (AO).  

AO has two women leads namely Anita (played by Reema Sen) and Lavanya (played by Andrea ).  Both these characters are modern women in the sense that they have good education, are financially independent and more importantly are sexually liberated.  And it is this aspect that clearly separates selvaraghavan from the other “women” centric directors. Most Tamil (or even Indian) directors usually concentrate on the first two aspects of the “Modern” Indian women namely Education and Economics, Very few take on the sexuality aspect of the “Modern Indian women”.  The closest person (in Tamil Films) who can be compared with is Balachander (Apporva Ragangal).  

Feminist movement has an inherent sexuality that cannot be denied and if women progress needs to be measured then any progress on getting sexually liberated cannot be left out. It is this aspect that Selva so crudely shows that seems to put-off most of his fans (and his detractors).  For instance his women are always shown to have a sense of sexual maturity (Sonia Agarwal in 7G, Reema and Andrea in AO) while his “heroes” are juvenile at best.  The problem comes when the viewers apply the concept of the “Male Gaze”. But again one needs to understand that there six types of “gaze” at work here

• The first Gaze is how the hero looks at the girl
• The second Gaze is how the Male viewer looks at the girl
• The third Gaze is how viewer through the eyes of the hero looks at the girl
• The fourth Gaze is how the director looks at the girl
• The fifth Gaze is how women viewers look at the girl
• The sixth and perhaps more of a “parallel gaze” is how an homosexual person might look at the girl

In Selva’s case, Fans & critics seem to always pin it on the “director’s gaze” as he is the easiest to put the blame-on (after all he is creator). But when one starts to look at it from the perspective of all the other gazes’ one wonders how these accusation might hold ground.

When looked at it from the “Female Gaze” AO’s women are clearly more powerful than any of the men in the film. Reema is the easiest example to examine as she clearly seems to know how to handle men be it the Army General, the Worker or even the King. She is probably at the very end of “extreme feminism” so much so that she is always seen equipped with a gun. A classic scene is the one in which Karthi says he is “ready with a condom” for which her response is holding the gun right between her legs almost symbolizing the phallus which in both a Freudian and non-Freudian way scares the shit out of Karthi. Reema’s way to deal with men in the world is lies, guns, deceit and her body. She is not only quite capable at it but also quite comfortable.  Even the cliché of “women softness” does not exist in Reema’s world as seen in the war crime scene – she knows women and children are part of the group yet she choose to not only ignore but also completely be oblivious to any call for help.

Andrea on the other hand is a more complex character and hence far more interesting.  While Reema had to become a Man (or show their tendencies) Andrea seems to exhibit her feminism (nursing karthi) while maintaining her freedom. Women’s life in India socially, culturally and historically revolve around three “types of men” – Father, Husband and Son.  Most of Indian films either directly or indirectly prison women within these clichés and this is where Andrea is different. She is quite comfortable in breaking off her relationship with her Father for her lover (which is her choice) and is even more comfortable for dumping her boyfriend in lieu of her profession (again her choice).  She is both sexually liberated (living with her boyfriend) and comfortable (holding onto Karthi’s naked body).  She seems to know when to “draw the line” (so to speak) and when to cross it.

To further drive the idea of “women empowerment”, we can try applying the concept of “Iru Kodugal” (Thank you again Balachander !). If we think of men and women as two lines then clearly Selva’s men are the shorter ones.  Both Karthi and the King are “weak” men.  While both men show great interest and enthusiasm for food, music and sex they falter when faced with real problems. In both halves of the movies Selva test his men for their survival instincts and both fail (in varying degrees).  In the 1^st half of the film Karthi is clearly showing huffing and puffing yet always behind both the women.  His job is mostly curtailed at lifting boxes (or the women) and he is never asked to do anything other than menial tasks. He spends more time thinking about getting his hands on food or between Andrea’s legs.  In the trip as things go out of control we see the women figuring out a way to move “forward” while he is bent on moving “back”. In the second half of the film Karthi is in a way brushed aside while the king (Parthiban) becomes the target of the women (esp. Reema).  Again in here we see Parthiban as a person who is trapped in his past fighting furiously to get out.  He is no Regal king, his people have more complaints about him than praises. He is lured easily by Reema and his judgment falters. He is dependent on his “head queen” for advice and his longing ends up with trickles of tears. All of which are completely “unmanly” acts in the classic sense. Perhaps the most heart-breaking is his attempted suicide when he realizes how he has been deceived. Clearly when Selva etched his character(s) his women stand taller when compared with his men.

Now back to our gazes, the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd are all interlinked but are often ignored while putting the blame on the director (the 4^th gaze) . It’s as if the viewer has a higher moral ground than the director (lets ignore the hero as he is merely a puppet in hands of both the director and viewer). This apparent self claimed morality is often seen in Indian cinema viewers. A case in point is the clear lack of protest against Bala’s Naan Kadavul or Ameer’s Parutheveeran (both equally profound film) on grounds of violence by male audience. It’s as if extreme violence against women is tolerable while a show of promiscuity is enough to cause a scandal. This “mis-placed” way of applying moral values while viewing and judging films is detrimental to both the director’s vision and the “film experience”. As often seen, whenever a yard-stick of morality seeps in we end up with films that become preachy, stereotypical, predictable and ultimately boring.

The 6^th gaze is the most fascinating one – how would a homo-sexual person react to Selvaraghavan’s women? Would he/she be in awe at how the “weaker” sex is shown or frown on how they are exploited or would he/she get titillated? Unfortunately this needs a much deeper understanding of human psychology and it’s for someone else to shed some light on.

It is the belief of this author that Selvaraghavan deserves some slack on how he portrays women. Ofcourse he does exploit them (commercial pressures of cinema or otherwise)  but his women never fall under the cliché of “Tamil cinema” and are definitely more unique and arguably more mature than his heroes. If their assumed sexual comfort-ness is discomforting to audience (esp. male audience) it’s because like his heroes they are possibly high on testosterone and blind with the “morality of the Tamil Male”.

Aayirathil Oruvan - A method to its madness

Aayirathil Oruvan is probably one of the most anticipated Tamil film of 2010 for two main reasons – its hero Karthi Sivakumar and more importantly its director Selvaraghavan. Both are returning to the silver screen after few years of hiatus. While Karthi was introduced and seen last in the amazingly earthy coming-of-age film Parutheveeran, Selvarghavan gave us the severely underrated Pudhupettai (how this satire missed box office success will remain a mystery to me). When both announced that they will be working together on Ayirathil Oruvan, expectations rose sky high. Unfortunately things seemed jinxed right from start and the team was faced with a slew of problems. As years rolled by, the film was almost forgotten (even after music launch) and it was the trailer that evoked some interest. It’s a cliché when a director says he is showing something that’s never been seen before in “Tamil cinema” but when I saw two girls bitching about a scumbag I was hooked – never have I seen this in Tamil Cinema and instantly I recognized the Selvarghavan stamp.

Aiyrathil Oruvan is “marketed” as an action adventure film – an archeologist is lost and a team of people go in search for him. That’s really what the film is about. But for any cinephile who looks deeper, we see the film is “action/adventure” only on the surface but deep down lurks a social commentary/anti-war film. The movie is divided into two half’s (strategically aligned with the film’s interval). If the first half of the film is a “trip into madness” then the second half is “madness” itself. By the time interval seeps in you are left breathless and high with anticipation, the trip (thought influenced by numerous Hollywood films) culminates in a very nicely constructed surreal madness as the team reaches the lost Chola city. It’s in the second half that we realize Selvraghavan is not really interested in action/adventure anymore …, instead he focuses on a trapped isolated “Tamil” community. We are shown a king reigning over a land where hunger is in more abundance and the color of mother’s milk is red. Though they are surrounded by gold and other material wealth they cannot do anything with it…, they seem to be people who are trapped within the glory of their past than the suffering of the present. The trapped people believe in a messenger who would come and take them back to their homeland. What follows is misunderstanding, betrayal and valor as Reema Sen is identified as the messenger. While she gains the king’s confidence she also plots his downfall. The back-story is that she is a descendant of the Pandiyas who have vowed vengeance and will not rest till the last remaining evidence of Chola Empire is destroyed. As all this unfolds on screen and the intense imagery flood our senses we soon realize the films pulse is not on any fantasy but in a more “real” Sri Lankan war, the plight of its Tamil people and in the most audacious move shows the “great Indian betrayal”. When this hits you things start to unfold even more consistently showing a method to this madness. The Vietnamese island becomes Sri Lanka, the tiger symbol an obvious reference to the Eelam flag and we soon realize perhaps it’s our “own” people who are trapped and in what might be the master stroke show a light skinned women (a dig at Sonia Gandhi ?) unleash her vengeance. The final sequence shows the Srilankan (oops Indian) army denigrating the Tamils including the queen…, something that happened to Prabakaran’s own family and the idea of the young prince being saved by Karthi and the story continues is perhaps an oblique reference to Prabakaran’s missing son (its still not clear what happened). Further looking back in history the pandiyas had embraced Jainism and Buddhism and even sided with Singhalese to eliminate the Cholas. More recently India had “gifted” tactical surveillance helicopter to the Singhalese army, providing intelligence support and tightening costal security there by “trapping” the Tamils. The people of Tamilnadu (just like this films audience) stay trapped witnessing the carnage not able to do anything . Perhaps their cry for help is so pure in Tamil that we need subtitles to fully understand their cry for help (pun intended). The MGR reference all over the movie (including the title) further cements the idea of the original and only savior of the “trapped” Tamils. Clearly this is no longer an action/adventure film but an artist's clear expression of disappointment, anger and helplessness. Of course this might all be an afterthought as the movie went on floors much before the gruesome end of the Srilankan war, nevertheless I am happy I saw this film rather than something else.

Reading this film is like opening a can of worms and its best to leave it up to the individual viewer to infer what he wants. Irrespective of its handfisted imagery there is no denying that the movie above all celebrates “Hopelessness of hope”…, hope for the pandiyas to find the missing chola prince, hope for the cholas that their young prince will continue to live and hopelessness at history repeating itself. In this film more than anything Selvaraghavan reminds me of Werner Herzog…, how he combines the real with unreal is something of an art and Selva (along with Bala) are clearly shaping Tamil cinema in this direction.

In terms of performance, the obvious choice would be Reema Sen and Parthiban. But Karthi is not far behind, infact he seems to provide the structural sanity to the film that’s filled with madness. He shines as the scumbag and is now more comfortable (less wooden) with his role. Andrea and her father (Prathap) seem content on looking and finding themselves, they serve their purpose to facilitate the movie and nothing more. The film is far from perfect and its key weakness is the CGI used (even beats this list) and the “general” with the machine gun mouthing English (!). I wonder why no one laughed when they saw this first time at the editing table. Less said about this the better. Music is adequate but not spectacular, showing signs of greatness and blandness in equal measures. The songs (except Thaai Thindra Manne ) seem totally unnecessary (ok kidding they served as wonderful eye candy).

I am happy to have enjoyed this “Aiyrathil oru padam”. Irrespective of the box office (or artistic) success of this film there is no denying that this is an unique film both in its scope and arrogance. As a “Tamil cinema fan" I am happy to live in times where atleast few filmmakers are producing fractured/imperfect masterpieces than the regular “feel good” Tamil film. I suggest fans of cinema give this a spin atleast once on the big screen, if anything to savour Selva’s message which is simple - Today is tomorrow’s history and till we learn to live together the action-adventure and its inherent madness will continue….

Dasavatharam - Kamal disappoints

Let’s get this straight – Kamal Hassan is a national treasure and KS Ravikumar is a very bad director.

Indian movies for most parts merely serve as a vehicles for hero worship – from the days of Bhagavathar to “Dr Illyathalapathi”. every decade has its favorite “hero-pair” be it MGR/Sivaji, Rajini/Kamal, Ajit/Vijay and so on. Our directors (with a few exceptions) are either slaves to these heros or mere puppet in their hands.

Kamal is a rarity – he is both an actor (national award winning I might add) and a director (some obscure Korean award for virumandi?). Anyone even remotely doubting his penchant for making movies has probably been sleeping under a rock for the last forty year – simply put he is a living legend who makes mistakes. What is additionally interesting with kamal is that he is a “known” rationalist and spiritually inquisitive – look no further than Anbe sivam for what I mean. This particular aspect is what draws this writer to “kamal films” – Nayagan, Thevar Magan, Guna, Pushpak, Anbe Sivam all stand tall in repertoire.

Kamal , post Indian has developed a fixation with makeups – probably from his drama routes. This fixation has only helped soar his reputation as a great actor – be it the atrociously simple Indian or the sweet Avvai Shanmugi (my favorite ). Alas “this” kamal seems to have gone overboard with his fascination resulting in disastrous consequence – namely his over hyped magnum opus “Dasavatharam”.

Now to the movie – with all the hype surrounding the film, the initial scenes captivate and glue you to your seats. It moves you deeply, leaves you with Goosebumps and makes you impatient while asking for more. Alas for most viewers the movie will start and end here, what follows after is probably the most contrived storyline one would have ever hatched together.

Kamal’s canvas is simply too large and too thin to paint and whatever happen on it leaves nothing but a-mess-of-a-film that’s scarred beyond recognition by its own auteur. Perhaps the giant who calls himself kamal has either taken up a task too big for him or was reined in by the more earthly commercial gimmicks – romance, comedy, fight, drama and yeah 10 different makeups !

The story is “simple” – its fate trying to connect the dots between people. Every action is inter connected and has a consequences. More importantly these actions have a meaning that’s all carefully put together by the master himself a.k.a the almighty. The people, as you would guess is kamal in 10 different roles criss-crossing each other in the most cinematic fashion. If “this” is how god planed, then he surely must suck at it!

The details – a biological weapon is out of the super secret labs in the US and reaches shores of India, following the “viral-bomb” is kamal the scientist, his boss sends out “terminator” kamal to wipe him out and retrieve the box. Kamal is stopped by naidu (his best role following the priest). The box is addressed to patti kamal, so our hero reaches Chithambaram to retrieve blah blah blah……, yawn… yawn – you get it right ?

Now that the stupid story is out of the way – let’s look at why one should hate this movie

• Plot holes – there are so many that this exercises is best left as an exercise for kindergarten kids.
• Inconsistent script, screenplay and not to mention the piss-poor dialogs, what could have been powerfully moving, rib-tickingly funny, bitingly sarcastic only ends being irritatingly repetitive and idiotically unfunny except of course our naidu who along with the priest stand tall among all other insignificant characters.
• Hollywood influence – being clearly inspired by the “terminator” assassin, the butterfly effect, the crash/babel style screen play and day after tomorrow type tsunami only proves that the director has either seen these movie or own these dvds (thank god for these wonderful little invention!) . I still don’t understand how this tsunami special-effect was accepted – we simply don’t know how to create special effects , by even somalian standard it looks very amateurish.
• Makeup – as numerous others have complained online and elsewhere, we come to see kamal movies for his acting skills, the way he would flex his facial muscle to show off character nuances, not hide behind some ramsay brother horror show makeup. As they used to say “the make-up fails once the character vanishes and the actor emerges”. Alas the film’s greatest gimmick is also its failure !
• Overly symbolic - With characters named as Govind Ramaswamy, Andal, Chritian Fletcher etc. there were opportunities galore to leverage them but nothing happened along these lines – Andaal was good at being more stupid than taking care of lord, and our “periyar” was more confused than a dog on a highway.
• Tsunami – In an effort to showcase a point-of-view, the creators of this magum opus have leveraged tsunami to explain “intelligent design”. In order to save millions of victims a few 100 thousand need to be destroyed !!!! This accordingly to this reviewer is the single most obscene cinematic act that Indian cinema has ever experienced. No one and I repeat no one can justify what happened when nature unleashed her fury on unsuspecting, innocent people. Its heart breaking to notes these people were also socially and economically weak. Tsunami is the absolute truth – one cannot justify why it happened, trying to do that would only result in rubbing salt in “real” wound of victims. Along with india how does one explain over 100K death in Indonesia, 30K death is srilanka and over 200K missing in total !

Of course kamal does question the act but leaves it at that and starts romancing the very next minute while the backdrop is filled with people either dead or dying or crying for their dead. This cinematic time-splice experiment is so disgusting and so forced this viewer felt like throwing his slipper at the screen.

Fate, chance, religion, actions, consequences are too big of a topic to wrestle with – it’s best left with people who can handle it. As much as I complain about running-around-trees-signing-songs-type-films, I would prefer that over this half-baked insulting piece of trash cinema.

So let me repeat Kamal is a national treasure – his movies are looked up on as quintessential good Indian movies, but his latest outing is a travesty is film making. In an effort to create a record of some sorts kamal et. al. merely resemble the fellow who stopped cutting his finger nails to enter the Guinness book – yes it’s a world record but pretty disgusting to look at!

Kamal fans (unlike others) are of two types – one who like him as a brilliant actor and the other who worship him for his persona. I am the former, for me Kamal is our Robert De Niro – numerous times have I seen his films and enjoyed them but alas in Dasvatharam Kamal the persona takes over and when all chaos ends only his mountain size ego remains.

Say "YES" to "No Smoking" - Movie Review (?)

Don’t listen to anyone - just go see it...., its that good.

AK has taken Indian cinema several notches above..., kudos to anyone and everyone associated with this project. All i can say is our beloved critics (really box office pundits nothing more) have no idea what is going on (and to an extent the audience too) - by claiming "boredom" on seeing this film we are merely acknowledging our "intellectual fatigue" and our inability to comprehend ‘personal cinema’ expressed in this case as "Symbolic Cinema". Now symbolic cinema have long existed in Indian cinema and let me add in its most crude form (why do you think they sing & dance in our cinema?). But I doubt anything as surreal as this one has ever burned the Indian silver screen. I am no film historian or theoretician – but I have seen my "quota of cinema" and this one is strikingly unique atleast for Indian cinema.

The film in itself resembles a dark comedy (atleast I feel it is), which takes on the style of a "surreal neo-noir" cinema. The existence of an ‘underworld’, use of shadows, layered characters, moody atmosphere, weird camera angles and of course the quintessential femme fatale (perhaps the weakest link of the film) points me to believe AK wanted to create a noir-istic mood for this offering and what a treat it is. No amount of adjectives or superlatives will ever truly translate to what you see on the screen – a picture is indeed worth a 1000 words, a pure kino-matic experience!

Now for the film itself ** spoilers ** (or do u care?) , the film revolves around characters (quite literally) the protagonist is called "k" , his wife, his brother (called "j"), a doctor, a friend, a secretary, a high-priest, a mother, a policeman, a watch man etc. etc. at an abstract level there is no difference between them of course other than their ‘obvious’ profession or should we say their "purpose of existence" in society – all in a way zombies carrying on with their everyday mundane life. I believe this might be a reason why so many characters repeat themselves (wife is same as secretary, driver & security all the same man , at some point a character even says he is there to meet an alphabet!). The film also is very claustrophobic with most things happening in a very "closed" environment inside bath tubs, inside elevators, inside car, inside a prison etc. perhaps highlighting how much we are all "restricted" to move not necessarily with our body but also with the mind – what we are allowed to do and what we can really do. The other point worth mentioning is that the film is not necessarily a linear film – i.e. events shown on screen don’t necessarily follow one another in space or time. It pretty much unfolds like a dream not knowing where you started, not sure where you will end, not sure when it happened or how it happened. There is also a continuous flow of sexuality in the film – from a Narcissus ‘k’, to recurring homo-sexuality themes, transsexual/transgender rendezvous (at the traffic signal), infidel "castro" cigars, ‘performance issues’, the jazz number (loved it!), secretary fetish …, to the extent I believe the last post-credit song is also merely an extension of ‘k’ renewed sexuality (it was funny to see how the audience was in awe of the last song more than the film !).
With so much going on in the film its tough to tie all the dots and give a concise "central theme" if I am asked to write something say at gun-point (pun intended) then I have to say its about suppression, the ability or the lack of ability to do what we want to do. Perhaps the "Prayogshala" is representative of the society and ‘guruji’ our government (or any governing body)…, you have to follow certain rules to be accepted into formal society and that rule AK believes applies in particular to the soul (which is more free spirited than the body). Any "body" that does not conform first goes through a physical strain (a big bang), where the "body" looses all sense of hearing. You are given "special" hearing aid – perhaps this is to make free spirited people to listen to ‘them’. Then there is the psychological fear – hurting the body and his near and dear ones. This "fear" is a powerful tool and it makes even the toughest nut crack. Now when even this doesnot work its time for the soul to be "freed"….,gas-ed to be precise, very similar to the German gas chambers (another recurring theme in the film). When the "free spirited" soul is killed the body abides and everything is back to normal. Once ‘k’ is "cleansed", he now has to work towards getting more people into the system (similar to the amway system?).

The film is also very circular in narration – characters keep visiting the same places, have the same nightmares over and over again, do the same thing. One of images that stick to your mind is the "arrogant", "perfect" John looking at himself in the mirror in awe of himself – so full of it…, that is he is succinctly branded as ‘gay’ by his wife (could this be true ?), perhaps this self centered thought process is what brings about his demise. Had he paid attention to the transsexual then he would have the "one ruppe" to free his soul (she does say "it will come of use"), but in real world he is deaf (he does not have the hearing aid then!). His arrogance has cost him his soul. The ‘almost’ final shot of himself staring at "emptiness" but realizing his "soul" is looking back at him is poignant and bland at the same time.

The film in way is autobiographical I presume, in the way this country and its people treat its artists and their free will. The film title is a misnomer – by saying "No Smoking" it really means loosing your free will by cleansing your body and killing your soul. Perhaps in its "truest" form this film is anything but anti-smoking and for anyone who thinks this is a film against "smoking" and its "ill effects" they really need a smack against their cinematic sense…, if you still don’t get it, no worries "Om Shanthi Om" and "Saawariya" are waiting for you – enjoy them.

My humble request to all cinephiles in India – I assume most of the folks reading this have not lived during the hay days of Ritwik Ghatak, Mani kaul, (among numerous other unsung giants and "real" mavericks of Indian cinema). This film marks the point when "real" cinema in India has just been fertilized…,but with this joy also comes a sense of in security, perhaps a desperation that even before this "cinema" grows…, its going to be killed by the omnipresent "consumer cinema". I never "dreamt" that we would be analyzing the work of an Indian filmmaker like how we do for films from Lynch or dare I say Bunuel (perhaps even Takashi Miike)…, oh for how long have we waited for this day to come. Now the question is – is this a dream ? If so don’t wake up from cinema nirvana.

I could go on and on but to explain it any further will invariably lead to deviation from the director’s true intent and I will stop at that. Perhaps a directors commentary on the DVD ?, it’s a nightmare to image its going to be done by ERO$

Slacker - the immense effort required in order not to create

After “slacking” of for a few years (!) , my personal movie watching habit is looking back at me. Perhaps Aditya and Dhananjai (two of Raji’s friends) had to be the conduit through which this curse had to be broken (Thanks Guys).

For the last couple of weeks (4 really?) we have been watching movies regularly - Pan’s Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine, Wag the Dog and finally Slacker. Ironically it had to be “Slacker” that got me into writing again (Ahem – I am no writer in any sense of the word, for me writing is merely a “thought registering process”, nothing more).

As “usual” we met at around 6-ish at our house, Aditya was first in and while waiting for Dhananjai we started talking of “things” we have been doing …, work , life and in general how “methodological” life is turning out to be (with most bickering done by myself). As Dhananjai walked in, Raji followed gleefully flaunting her new “creation”…. behold – Bindi Masala (Thank God – it’s not the awfully ‘tasty’ spaghetti/noodles of hers). We were our usual suspicious self about her “creation” but given no choice – we gobbled down the Bindi Masal with Dosa (it was actually good). After we were done, Raji “welcomed” herself to our club, the lights dimmed and the movie rolled.

Without ranting about what happens “in” the movie, I guess I loved to see what happened “outside” it. Right out of the bat I could feel everyone was waiting for the movie to end – with Raji really spearheading the group. It was unlike any movie they have seen let alone “expect” to see. Aditya and Dhananjai gave it thumbs down while Raji gave it the middle finger. There was no divided opinion, all of them consistently hated it and I am sure I will be held accountable for ruining their Saturday evening.

To understand the Movie or at least its relevance folks can refer to any number of articles that are found online. Perhaps even listen to the director’s commentary on the DVD.

Following are some online resource

Slacker's Oblique Strategy - Ron Rosenbaum
Slacking Off - John Pierson
"Slacker": 15 years later - Salon.com

As for me, I loved the movie, its structure or the lack-of-it is what initially attracted me to it, but what really cemented my liking to the movie is the “fun” Linklater seems to be having with the movie camera, the climax (for lack of a better word) is my absolute favorite (not to mention the numerous quotes you can potentially “steal” for the movie). No doubt it’s a very personal movie (almost semi auto-biographical ?) and like all ‘good’ personal films to criticize or analyze is futile – either you are with it or against it, there is no middle ground.

I fail to understand why others seem to “miss” its significance for our times especially in “booming” India.

Have we never felt the “chaos” and more importantly the “order” that stems from it ? Have we not realized the meaninglessness of our professional life ? or even better/bigger have we never felt the “useless” of our own lives ? Or is it just me who is the ultimate nihilist in this group.

I sincerely feel its our own reluctance to step out of ourselves than anything that’s stopping us in making this film relevant. Perhaps we are all merely putting in an “immense effort to not create anything”, alas we will reproduce rather than produce!

With this I will leave this post with one of the most “meaninglessly” poignant observation made by the old-man in the movie

“When young, we mourn for one woman... as we grow old, for women in general. The tragedy of life is that man is never free yet strives for what he can never be. The thing most feared in secret always happens. My life, my loves, where are they now? But the more the pain grows, the more this instinct for life somehow asserts itself. The necessary beauty in life is in giving yourself to it completely. Only later will it clarify itself and become coherent. “

P.K

Took a break

Well it appears i took a fairly loooooong break ..., hopin g to break that pretty soon. so watch out for "my" BLOG