Monday 9 November 2009

Ajab Prem Ki Ghazab Kahani - my thoughts

It's a ghazab beyond my understanding why a houseful audience at Regal cinema, a small sample of the larger audience around the country and probably the globe, would pay money to have themselves derided for 2 and surplus hours and come out saying, 'saaru timepass hatu.' I went with friends, all of whom are well-educated and represent the upper middle class of the socio-economic strata of our economy. They whole-heartedly endorsed the majority opinion. I was, am and will continue to be disturbed by the willful apathy of people towards themselves.

Do we enjoy being made chutyas of? Evidently we do! Why? Apparently because the 'common man' is so riddled with problems and tensions of real life that the only respite he gets from it is a mindless, repugnantly uncrafted and less-inventive-than-bad-plagiarism motion picture. FUCKALL argument. It has always been a fuckall argument and for all of time to come shall remain only as such. It is an argument which cannot be defended by any sizeable majority that entertainment MUST be mind-numbing, cannot include any commonsense or logic and must be a thundering slap in the face to any self-effacing and reasonably intelligent person. Am I being a snob? I don't care if I am, if snobbery is the price to pay for demanding better of people who are paid in the crores to create content which I pay my money to consume. People who can't tell their asses from their mouths with a fuckin' map in their hands.

I made this argument earlier with Om Shanti Om. With the benefit of hindsight, that picture seems like a classic now. Is that the defining standard of our mainstream cinematic entertainment? We are getting progressively worse. So films that are crap today become classics tomorrow. Shouldn't the curve be going upwards? Or is the downward spiral of content a reflection of what the 'consumer wants?' If it is, then we're in trouble.

In a holistic purview, one cannot delineate the correlation between the apathy evident here versus that which percolates through every part of our lives today. We don't care that our politicians squander our hard-earned money and fill up their coffers with it. We don't care that we don't get answers to questions we can rightfully ask. We don't care to 'set right' a failed democratic system that is still ghazab-aly hailed as the greatest in the world. We don't care that Naxals are taking over the administration in a bloody coup and the administration does nothing except dashing out stern words in the media. We don't care that the media is a ridicule stooped to such low levels that it is nearly impossible to tell a lie from a joke. We don't care... that's it!

So among all these important issues, why should we care if some of the highest earning members of our economy squander our money and insult our intelligence inside a dark cinema hall for a couple of hours!?! WHY MUST WE CARE? Very simply because, if we don't, we will die. Look at it holistically. The arts (yes, cinema is an art form and mainstream cinema cannot shrug that responsibility under the pretext of good business) are the catalogue of time. Is this what we want it to tell future generations? Oh we were a bunch of bumbling idiots where grown ups behaved worse than the mentally retarded (and this deserves an apology to the mentally retarded) and we had no stories of significance or reasonable intellectual value to tell of our times?

I'm not rubbishing mainstream cinema to say that all films must be dark, tragic and serious as bloody hell. Jab We Met was mainstream; it did great business while telling an all-out candy floss romantic story but it did not do it at the cost of insulting the intelligence of the man who invested his hard earned two hundred in the film. Johnny Gaddar was a semi-mainstream film which entertained while telling an interesting story. We can go back in time and go wide in picking up examples from other nations to uphold the argument that mainstream cinema does not automatically spell "DUMBFUCK".

Cinema has many facets to it. It has aspects of craft and art. If you're not artistically exploring more stories, wider subject matter, I at least expect you to push your craft of story-telling, of screenplay / dialogue writing in making better cinema. Does not Hollywood make hard core mainstream cinema? Like bleeding hell, they do! But they do not accept numbnut scripts which lack any sort of coherence or logic in doing so. Their writers push the envelope in terms of the written material; let's find a new way to do this scene, let's find news ways of saying these same dialogues because everyone in the world has heard this a million times before. Why is it then that the audience sitting in Regal with me that night still found sitting on a cake the funniest thing in Ajab Prem...? Why do we obstinately not raise our standards?

The onus to improve lies on both sides; the makers and the consumers for either side will immediately point the finger on the other saying, this is all they're giving us / this is what they want. This rut cycle shall never end, not until it guts out the very last flicker of hope. Going purely by numbers, since the supply side is smaller, I suppose it is logical that the change must start there.

Must we wait for Armageddon before we start afresh? History has never been a bloodless process...

Monday 19 October 2009

Chal Diyay

Mere humsaazi, mere saaz-e-rooh
Mere kal, woh pal ab rubaru
Aaj yunhi jab hum mude, sochke hum the khade
Khamoshi ne tab kaha, hum kabke chal diyay!

Haan - kabhi neend mein, tera naam lun - choo lun
Barson bhooli ek yaad se sehar karoon
Yaad wohi mere sang liye, teri adhkhuli aankhein choomke
Tera haath thaamke, hum ek din aur jiyay!

Kya yeh hosh hai, humne jo ki - justajoo
Gairon mein ghule, karte rahe guftagu
Teri aankhon mein sanam, na rahe jab woh diye
Haq ka haath thaamke, hum kabke chal diyay!

Haan - humne chuna, haq mein hi lein - aabroo
Pairon tale, jaane woh raah laut aaye kyun
Raaz liye sab ankahe, saaz wohi lab pe liye
Apna haath thaamke, hum phirse chal diyay!

Friday 16 October 2009

Into The Wild

Disclaimer - This is not a review of the like-titled film. Just so happened that watching it triggered this essay.

What is it about the unknown that draws us like a moth to the flame? What is it about the known that tears at our peace of mind? One could always be placed right in the middle of this continuum.

'You're wrong if you think happiness comes from human relationships...' edifies a young 21 year old to a septuagenarian only to scribble in his journal a few months later and a few moments from the end, 'Happiness only real when shared.' A 2 year journey through the length and breadth of the American landscape in search of answers to 20 years of existence, but realised entirely within the 9 weeks between those two lines. A moment before the young man delivers his parting line, the septuagenarian asks him if he can adopt him as a grandson since he has no family of his own. 'Can we talk about this when I get back?', he says and leaves the old man with restrained tears and a forced weak smile. Some times, there is no coming back. Most times, life kindly offers a second chance.

We're all looking to be happy but having said that, we are masochists with an enthusiasm that cannot be explained by logic. We put ourselves first, yet we never hesitate to claim our pound of happiness from the world. We want to be self-sufficient but don't mind help when it is forthcoming without much cost. Individualism is unquestionably integral to one's happiness. When it begins to stretch into selfishness which is as untraceable a merge as a moment into the next, is when the purpose itself is defeated.

Then does happiness lie within the thin line of gratifying one's selfish interest while balancing it with the maximisation of others' acceptance? If so, we are left to grapple with an unsustainable model for it. On the other hand if one side outweighs the other, either one isn't left with any 'self' to find happiness for, or is only left by oneself where happiness is as achieved as the sky within one's fingers.

Man wasn't built to be alone. He was built to be lonely at times or maybe all the time, even in the closest of companionships. Into The Wild is a story about a young man who cannot appreciate the distinction between alone and lonely; and thus extends that discrete design of nature to justify the transience of every human relationship based on one deceitful one that he witnessed. He comes to believe that no lasting happiness can be found 'with' other people. Happiness with others can only be ephemeral and must be that way because if stretched, it becomes a lie. His journey down that path lands him in a deserted bus in the Alaskan high-forests, dying alone and scribbling those precious words of wisdom that he earns at the cost of his own life - 'happiness only real when shared.'

That said, how then does one go about evaluating the significance of relationships while the journey is on? As long as the sharing of happiness is equal, a relationship is ideal. It is only when disparity upsets the balance that one questions the relationship; its values, cost-benefits and most critically, its fundamentals.

People change. Should one let go of people for that reason? The same people who once saw beauty, truth and happiness together, could not possibly have changed so much that they cannot see unison in anything anymore. One could deduce that some perspective and ground has been lost, which means that if that is acknowledged on both sides and an effort is made to gain lost ground / vision, order can be restored. It is only a few words in theory but may be years in time-space journeys, apart from needing a great amount of perspective in order to be aware of, acknowledge and accept that order NEEDS to be restored. As a tragic paradox, ours is a generation of instant gratification.

We're fast, we're ambitious, we're fired up and everything that takes time to mature is left for someone else down the line to deal with... let's get a move, can't be held back by these things. 'These things' encapsulate our lives today. Personal lives are mirrors of professional lives; make checklists for who fits the bill. It isn't about moulding oneself with another person into one life; it's about having a ready mould and finding someone who fits in. Instant gratification! We do not have the same socialist beliefs of our previous generations and we certainly do not allow for long gestation periods in any aspect of life. Ironically idealism and capitalism part ways upon that note. Idealism does not fit into the mould of instant gratification.

Tugging at that same thread, if one were to have found the one person with whom one finds oneself most willing to mould into a unified life, should those fundamental emotions be questioned at another point in time because 'things changed'? Change is a constant; nature changes. The sky changes color, the ocean changes ferocity, the winds change direction - all the time! Do we not find them perfect just the same? Does our awe or love for it subject itself to a questioning of the fundamentals because of change? Why then do we resort to it with disconcerting immediacy and consistency with people? What is it about the fabric of relationships today, even the closest and most cherished ones, that comes ripping at the seams at the tug of 'change'?

I was reading the script of a recent film called Gran Torino (2008). Clint Eastwood has a line in it that goes, 'I got the greatest woman who ever lived to marry me. I had to work at it but I got her and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Hands down.' I stopped cold at that line. Somehow I could not imagine anyone younger than Eastwood to be able to ring truth in those lines. In the sea of change that has swept over us since we switched from being a socialist nation to a capitalist one, somewhere we traded our socialist values and beliefs: short-sold it for a quick profit.

Fortis est veritas. Once we find our truth, there would be little meaning in allowing circumstances to cloud it. If it demands strength, courage and persistence, pray that one find it all in the truth itself to endure, in order to parent the happiness that births from it.

There was a good reason togetherness was put above self, back in the day - because at the end of it, sitting in an ivory tower all by oneself may not be as satisfying as being in a reasonably modest home with someone who doesn't have you miss an ivory tower.

Not proposing apathy over ambition; merely perspective over profit.