Perceptions .. mysterious and yet so every day phenomenon.
Art, almost all forms of it emanate from the way an artist perceives. Likewise, Cinema - another art form is a creation of perception. It is also a medium of expression - a medium where filmmakers exercise their freedom of expression to create a lasting image of how they see what they see and why they see it the way they see it. That's what writers, poets, painters, sculptors, directors do - they help create a piece that mirrors its true nature perceived by them. That's how it is supposed to be and that's how it may attain greatness if it ought to - by the sheer magnificence of its true nature.
On the other hand, viewers, readers, onlookers - in general the "people" who "view" these pieces of creation possess yet another level of perception. Here, because of the very nature of heterogeneity among "people", the complexity and the inscrutability of perception acquires an unimaginable magnitude of non-linearity. If one decides to stay true to the creator's perception (whatever it may be) and views the piece of art from an unbiased point of view, it becomes easier to focus on the "core" rather than the "skin". Such a stand point allows you to comprehend and appreciate the "art of making" rather than the "art of application". In reality though, the world is far from such ideal views and tangled in its more than a fair share of biases - yet completely and comfortably oblivious to it!
Many have and practice "individualistic" biases. Others exercise "institutional" or "socialist" biases - mostly "anthropological". Some believe in "political" biases. Most ignorant fools though suffer from the chronic "mechanistic" bias syndrome and let themselves be dragged into the social pandemonium full of such muddled idiocy.
Such biases and their existential influence allows mortally ill attitudes in society. Fissiparous attitude is a child of such biases and today's world would be a much better place without it. This is what lets politics (special reservation for Indian politics) be the way it is, this is what lends freedom and power to anti-social elements and this is what forces every mumbaikar into a sleepless night on
26/11 and days to follow.
... OK .. agreed .. almost every independent thinker recognizes these facts .. so, why do I bother the effort of reiterating it and why now???
The reasons are many and by now have become an accumulated pile covered of
"Yeh India hai Bhai .. yahan pe aisa ich chalta hai" dust. Though, the current reason and stimulus to such provocative outburst is just one -
Slumdog Millionaire, a film directed by British director
Danny Boyle and based on a novel titled
"Q&A" by diplomat
Vikas Swarup.
Over the past few days local newspapers in India and across the world, as well as several online news websites flashed bold headlines that applauded, encouraged, blasted, cautioned, celebrated, or trashed this film in ways that are best known to today's corporate media. The film bagged 4 awards at the 66th Golden Globe awards, including that of the best motion picture ..
...
Amitabh Bacchan blasted the film - Four days ago, Bachchan wrote on
his blog:
"If SM projects India as a Third World, dirty underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky underbelly exists and thrives even in the most developed nations.".. this started a debate and
TOI dutifully reported and followed the juicy story ..
..
AB replied "Someone mentioned the film on my blog. Some expressed opinion for it, some against... I merely put both of them up and invited debate." ..
TOI.
..
"Yes, we are idiots and you are senile, we get it! Then why write?" - moi ..
..Vikas Swarup replied
"Slumdog has my stamp of approval.", "Slumdog Millionaire isn't poverty porn" - again dutifully
reported and
followed by TOI.
I overheard someone talking about the film saying
"It's too anti-hindu".
Me:
"Ohh, interesting!" ..
I just sat, read, mused and persisted with the developments .. until today. Today, I write.
People, do you understand that it is a film directed by someone who perceived it in a certain way and that's why it is the way it is? Do you understand the concept of not mixing politics, socialism, regionalism etc. with the pure joy of art appreciation? Have you ever watched a film as a film - a story narrated, acted, directed and filmed by a group pf people from their point of view? Have you ever watched a painting unfold with a pure idea of appreciating its strokes, colours, patterns, and composition rather than thinking about whether its a nude portrait of some hindu deity among the 33 crore of them?
If you have then you will simply laugh at the pettiness of this debate and if you haven't well .. you are probably in accordance with Mr. AB.
For the record and for the sake of Mr. Bacchan I'd like to state a few things:
The world already is fully aware of the dirty underbelly of even the developed nations. There have been numerous films that have successfully and boldly shown the inside view of its existence and just to name one - "City of God" (
Cidade de Deus) that showed a true view of the ghettos of
Rio de Janeiro six years ago. If this movie is able to evoke emotions such as "pain and disgust" among the so called nationalists and patriots, then we might as well grant Danny Boyle some national level award! He deserves it as he's been successful in causing "pain" - an extremely rare human emotion - in the species known as "Politica rhinocera moronae". I mean cm'on you can't be serious, AB!! And even if we agree that it did cause them "pain and disgust", then where were these jerks in 1988, 21 years back, when
Mira Nair directed
"Salaam Bombay"?? Where were they in 2001, 8 years back when
Madhur Bhandarkar directed
"Chandni Bar"??? This is the only time they got struck by the thunderbolt of apathy? or is this the only time when AB got struck with the thunderbolt of cinematic wisdom?? Come to think of it, was it AB who signed up for
"Shantaram" directed by Mira Nair or do you find "Wasn't me!" written on his blog somewhere?
"Shantaram" based on a novel by
Gregory David Roberts portrays an even truer and cut throat picture of India's/ Mumbai's "underbelly" like never before. Sadly though, as of January 2009 the film remains postponed and Mira retains her opinion that the film was still on track and that it would be released by 2011.
For the sake of people who say that this is an "anti-hindu" film -
Cm'on now! This is a film that revolves around the story of a muslim boy. How the hell do you even arrive at such a conclusion?? I don't see you making a hue and cry about films made on the likes of
Savarkar,
Ambedkar,
Sardal Patel et. al. to be anti-muslim?? Actually .. let it be. You just want something to chew on when there's nothing at all. To be honest, I in fact adored the scene where these two young boys - Jamal and his elder brother - are running frantically during the communal riots and come across a young boy who's dressed as "Lord Rama" in one of the by lanes - there's something charismatic about that particular frame when they show Rama - through that single frame the director displays the state of conflict, similarity and yet striking difference between Jamal and Rama , the intensity of influence it may have had on Jamal etc. .. very powerfully! That's the beauty of his direction, cinematographer's view .. appreciate THAT .. don't waste your time in labeling!!!
Coincidently, I found an article written by
Khalid Mohamed in The
Observer, Sunday 18 January 2009. He's also the national culture editor of the
Hindustan Times. I like what he has written - of course in much lessor words compared to me - but then, he's paid to write every word of it and I am not! Big difference!!! I quote him here:
"There is no taking away from the team's achievement. All the pros and cons of its cinematic flourishes considered, Slumdog Millionaire is a bloody good, riveting and emotionally rousing film. Somebody had to pull the flush. Boyle did. While others might raise a stink, I'll salute."And thus, I rest my case.
Amar
