To be or not to be



Whether it is nobler in the mind to wallow the slings and arrows of outrageous mainstream or to take arms against a sea of mediocrity. May the Bard pardon the liberal bastardisation of his phrase; hopefully he would understand the dilemma that faces the pseudo intellectuals caught on the middle of this river, not knowing which side of the bank to get off at.

Two movies, Jodha Akbar and Taare Zameen Par, watched only recently, presented this essential question. Brilliantly crafted and well acted, both the films have traversed far away from the mainstream Indian formula, yet magically seemed to revel in the formula fare. A tricky act that would emphatically vindicate the quantum theory, both these movies could be vigorously thrashed by someone longing to see serious films in the Indian screens.

The two films in question adhere to none of the mainstream formula elements. Taare Zameen Par particularly attempts sincerely to lift up the quality by consciously choosing a crucial problem plaguing the middle class Indian children and not veering away into duet songs shot in exotic locales. Sensitively shot, spectacularly acted (especially by the child protagonist), the film tackles the issue in direct, non-abstract terms. Indian media, both print and visual, has always endeared groups and personalities to banal proportions generating empty emotions. The film attempts to generate emotions by glorifying the innocence of children but that's pardonable considering the serious plight of the children in Indian homes. Hence, the film's appreciation can come mainly through social criticism. In the sense that the impact it would (hopefully) have on the parents would be immense, regardless of whether their child is dyslexic or not. This hope if realised would vindicate the purpose of the film and deserves all the appreciation. However, films are not meant to be documentaries and hence do not require a social message. Even considering this, content wise, the film self contradicts the objective that it sets to achieve through the sufferings of the lead character. Couple of questions will contextualise this problem: How many Ishan's were there in the final painting competition whose self-esteem would have been damaged because our 'hero' Ishan had to win? And why Ishan winning the first prize was so important to the film, which derides the parent's obsession with first ranks? Cinematically, these questions are irrelevant considering the larger objectives of the film and its makers.



Jodha Akbar on the other hand remains only the second historic to be commercially successful in Hindi. Interestingly the first film Mughal-E-Azam also is about Akbar's family. Well crafted and well acted, the film ironically has all the elements of a formula film yet remaining aloof from the mainstream. To complete the process, it even has a song glorifying the protagonist, referred to as 'entry song' in south Indian films. Apart from this the story is intriguing and captivating for a historic film, perhaps because many wouldn't know the story of Akbar's love of his Hindu wife and the political developments surrounding it. Cleverly scripted, the film attempts to fill the huge void of epic saga genres. Nevertheless, it is difficult to decide whether these two films would change Bollywood. It would be premature to attempt an answer as it was premature when Lagaan and Satya saw the silver screen for the first time though both did indeed change the way films were made.

If Taare Zameen Par was about a village kid whose father was a peasant who can't even pronounce dyslexia, the story would have turned out different. On the other hand - fortunately for the child as well as the audience - the child was a Mumbai kid whose laptop wielding father could be 'concerned' and his mother could browse Wiki on dyslexia. Similarly Jodha showcasing feminist tendencies were not surprising, Akbar reciprocating them were shocking. An illiterate emperor who rarely stepped out of his sprawling castle emanating the sensitivities of a Magsaysay winner was actually plot convenience of filmmakers. How else could you portray a superb sword fight between Jodha and Akbar filled with abundant sexual energy? Ditto about the father affording boarding school for the troublesome child and educated mother browsing the Web about her child's learning difficulties.

But then how can you criticise these things when you believe that such attempts, half- or full-hearted, are dire need of our industry. Would you be severely criticising these attempts brandishing them as insufficient or falling short of international standards, or would you appreciate them for their courageous efforts, engaging outputs hoping that we are on our way to making our own 400 Blows or Ikiru. And why should we be setting such yardsticks that are alien to us? Isn't what is essential is to meet the Indian audience with Indian sensibilities and succeed in that? But who defines what our sensibilities are and how adequate they are? What of attempts to elevate our emotional standards? If art is not going challenge our sensitivities and elevate our social and artistic consciousness what else will? That was again digressing to social criticism and obviously artistic innovations are not bound by that. Are they?

So you get the dilemma.