“I want real people in the films.”

33 year old Samira Makhmalbaf, clad in black, sits on a plastic chair, patiently greeting many people who have lined up to talk to her. Someone hands her a canvas, a portrait of her in charcoal. She smiles. Her quiet, gentle demeanour belies the many laurels her work has won world over.

The eldest of the three Makhmalbaf siblings, Iranian director and screenwriter Samira is the first in her family to follow in the footsteps of her father, renowned filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Yet today she is a force to be reckoned with on her own steam.

At 17, she was the youngest director to present her feature film, ‘The Apple’, in the Un Certain Regard section at the Festival de Cannes. This was her first feature. Films that followed, ‘The Blackboard’ and ‘At Five in the Afternoon’, also competed at Cannes, winning the Jury Prize in 2000 and 2003 respectively. ‘At Five in the Afternoon’ was the first feature film shot in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. Samira has been a member of the Jury at Cannes too, as well as of that at the Venice International Film Festival, the Berlin International Film Festival, the Moscow International Film Festival, the Locarno Film Festival and the Montreal World Film Festival. She is said to be a part of the ‘New Wave’ of Iranian cinema.

 

What was it like to grow up around your father? To grow up acting in his films and working so closely with him, even when you worked on your own films? What influence has he had on your personal journey as a filmmaker? Do you consciously think about distinguishing your work from his when you make movies?

I can say the first thing that my father gave me was the love of cinema, because there are a lot of filmmakers in the world but I don’t think that all their children are making films, or that they love cinema this much, or that they ‘continue’ cinema (as a legacy). I love my father a lot, and I saw his passion for cinema, and I wanted to discover cinema. And I remember when I was five years old, when I saw his film screened on the big screen, for me it was like a miracle. It was the best thing I knew.

 

Which film was it?

It was The Peddler. For me it was this miracle and I wanted to do the same thing. Also his personality… I think even if he was not a filmmaker he would inspire me in many ways as a human being. It is possible to just watch him and gain. Watch him searching for peace, and making the world a better world. Because, I think, his cinema is not just about making films. Cinema is not, for him, just an entertainment. So I think I have learned that from him. Also, he became my teacher, because I left school at the age of 15 and then he taught cinema to me. And then, our relationship is actually like four relationships: he is my father, he is my teacher, he is my friend and he is my colleague. These are different roles. And I can say he has been my biggest teacher, for the longest time, and if I have some influence of his, I’m proud of that. But whether my cinema is different from his or not, all I can say is that I think that as human beings we are different in many aspects. I am Samira and he is Mohsen. But ultimately it is for the audience to gauge from watching my films.

 

You were the subject of your brother Maysam’s documentary (How Samira Made The Blackboard) and your sister Hana also initially started off (Joy of Madness) by shooting you casting for your film (At Five in the Afternoon). What was it like being on that side of the camera? Being the subject…

Actually I just kept doing my job. I was very focused on the making and I was not conscious about being shot myself, about How Samira Made The Blackboard. I was doing what I had to do. Because I don’t make films like a very professional person who treats filmmaking like an industry. For me, making a film is like a very big belief in what I do. It’s a very big passion. And I believe it’s going to change something for at least one person in the world. So, in that moment, even though it is hard or difficult, as making films is a challenge, I forget everything. I forget myself.

But what I remember about Hana’s film, which started with me casting for mine, but which is a completely different film… what I remember is that, once or twice, I was very aware of her filming me. Because, you see, this was the first time after the fall of the Taliban, in Afghanistan. I was making a film there and women were not ready for that and they were scared of it— so you were very aware of what was happening around you. And you can see the real face of Afghanistan through my sister’s film because she was very young, just 14 years old, and her camera was not something very special. So sometimes they didn’t notice her and sometimes they would be surprised at how she didn’t listen to me. And thank god she didn’t listen to me (when I suggested to her that it may not be a good idea) and she made this film.

How Samira Made The Black Board is from when I was 18. I was in the festival with my first film The Apple and it was a big question for people. They always asked me, “Oh! You are a woman. You come from Iran. You are young.” You know, sometimes they said, “You are small. How can you make a film?” Very quickly after that, it came to my mind, “Okay. A filmmaker should be an old, big man, even European.” I wanted to make the film The Apple but it so happened that I became a symbol of women, young women, who can make films. And once you’ve made a film then you break this cliché and after that it’s easier. Because then people can think that, “Okay, if one can do that, others can do it as well.” And I think for my brother also it was something interesting to look at in my filmmaking, and to see how the process of it is. So, for that, he made the film.

 

How Samira Made The Blackboard:

 

 

The Apple:

 

 

At Five in the Afternoon:

 

It’s interesting that you say that, because the kind of films you make are very political. Their themes are very political. So when you make such films, do you feel as if a political role has been thrust upon you? You may not think of yourself as a spokesperson in any way but do you feel that people, especially Iranians, expect you to represent them in a particular way?

I feel my films of course have some political dimension and layer as well, because of living in Iran. Because politics is interfering with our lives in every single moment. If we want to think of something, the politicians and rules have to decide. They decide whether we can make this film or not— especially in Iran. Also they try and decide what we believe or, on some days, what we eat or what we drink, to whom we talk to… and all these things. So it is a case of politics interfering in our life. So when we talk about a human story, it also becomes political. And, of course, as a filmmaker, one can talk about every subject one wants to talk about. But for me, the first important thing is not politics, it’s human issues. Because, I think, if we take a relationship between two humans, and if we focus on that—say the relationship between two friends, or a husband and wife—if we focus on that and if it’s correct, if it’s good, if it’s humanistic and if there is peace in there, then it becomes peaceful and good in the larger view of things. So if we don’t find democracy at a place you will not find democracy even in the human relationships there. So they ask me, “You are Iranian? You are a woman?” I think before being a woman, Iranian, young, old, being born at this moment, or later or before, I’m a human. So I try to tell the story of that. The main subjects of my films are human issues. Of course, they’re talking about one’s culture as well, and they’re also talking about politics.

 

Besides the content of your films, is there a politics to your aesthetics, your form, as well? 

Of course. It’s an art, but I believe beauty and art can save the world. I’m an artist and, for me, creating art and beautiful things is one of the first things I care about. How to tell a story, how to picture scenes myself, how are the songs and the music of the film… I think a film is two things: what you want to say, and how you tell that. Both are important. I don’t think they’re very different. Content and form come together. The rhythm of a film is the film itself. The way you talk about it is exactly what you say. And, as I told you, my films are humanistic and also political. They are not just political. Of course, I also talk about the relationship between concepts such as ‘power’ and ‘the nation’. But where does power come from? From human relationships.

 

You use non-actors in your films. Do you do so to bring about a certain sense of realism?

Yes, I always work with non-professional actors in the films and I love it. I make films about real people. My inspiration comes from reality. So I want real people in the films. It’s difficult but if you can be patient and if you know what to do, it can be a miracle and magic. Because their reality and their imagination also come into the film. Their soul also, their story also, comes into the film.

 

How difficult is it, because they are not actors?

It is difficult and it is challenging but if you know what you need, then the result is great. And I have to say there are some techniques I use. It takes a lot of trust and faith and love. When I search for my actors I search for someone whose soul is similar to the soul of my character and then I don’t tell them the whole story. I just give them the general idea, but I don’t let them know every detail of what is happening.

 

Do they read the script?

No, I just tell them the general idea. And many times the whole script is actually written only after editing because something or the other changes while making the film. As they (the actors) come into the film, their reality, their real life or some part of their person, affects the film. Sometimes I explain things to them, sometimes I try to make them imitate me and sometimes I evoke something in them because I know that if I tell him or her a particular thing then he or she is going to show that character. So these are the things I do.

 

You mix real stories and fiction, which emerges from your imagination, in your films. How do you balance the two? 

About imagination and reality? I think that, for me, art is where reality and imagination make love together and there is this miracle that happens where you can’t tell what is real and what is imagined, where are the metaphors and where you are speaking directly. People see themselves in the film, but it doesn’t end there. It’s like in surrealism. I like the surrealism not of (Salvador) Dali, which is completely imagination, but (Rene) Magritte’s surrealism, in which there is some reality and at the same time there are one or two elements that are not real and you don’t know where the border between the two lies. Here is the window, you see that it’s real. But in the picture, in the painting, where the clouds come in, there is a little bit of surrealism, which I like. And this imagination comes from the first idea and also from the imagination of the character as well.

 

How do you think films are going to bring about change in Iran? Because you make films, your whole family makes films, but there is strict censorship within the country and your films are banned— so people can’t see them. So how do you think films can bring about a change? Can they at all?

I’ll answer this generally, not only about Iran. Humans in the world are suffering from lots of pain and much of it is because of the way we think. And cinema has the power to change the way we think and that is one of the reasons I am in cinema. And, also, I think cinema is like a mirror; you put in front of society and society and culture can see itself and if they find something wrong they can change it. So yes, I believe cinema can change the world for the better.

 

Do you think people in Iran are aware of the significance their cinema has across the world?

I think so, yes. And, especially, I can see that through my father’s films because it was after the (Islamic) Revolution, because he was thinking of the progress after the Revolution and everything. And artists are most sensitive to these changes. They think and they bring up what is happening in society. If there is pain, they feel that. If there is some beauty, they see that. Especially after the Revolution, we have good art cinema because of many reasons. Because of not having Hollywood in Iran and also because of censorship which puts a lot of pressures on filmmakers and artists. In another way it makes them stronger to search for what they want to say through cinema. To search themselves and our culture. So they (the filmmakers) went to poetry. And I think when there is some darkness, sometimes, you can find light and if you can find the light in the darkness that is very important.

 

Also Read: “Even our name is banned in Iran.” Samira’s sister Hana Makhmalbaf on her films, her father, her family and her politics.

 

“Even our name is banned in Iran.”

Hana Makhmalbaf, 24, wears her conviction on her sleeve quite comfortably. Her ‘manto’, or Iranian overcoat, is a constant reminder of her homeland and, consequently, the suffering of her countrymen. And yet, she is equally interested in places and people outside of her country’s borders. Her films reflect the emphasis she places on looking at people of various nationalities as “humans first”.

Born in a family of filmmakers, daughter of acclaimed Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Hana’s career in filmmaking began early. Some would say too early. At the age of seven, she acted in her father’s film ‘A Moment of Innocence’. When she was eight she started studying films at the fabled Makhmalbaf Film School. The same year she made her first short film, ‘The Day My Aunt Was Ill’. Her documentary, ‘Joy of Madness’, made when she was 14, premiered at the Venice International Film Festival and won the Special Jury Prize at the Tokyo Filmex, 2003. Her first feature, ‘Buddha Collapsed Out Of Shame’, was also critically lauded, winning the Special Jury Prize and the TVE La Otra Mirada Award at the San Sebastian International Film Festival. The film also won the Crystal Bear for Best Feature Film and the Peace Film Award at the Berlin International Film Festival. In 2009, Hana filmed the protests in the run-up to the Presidential elections in Iran and went on to make the docu-fiction ‘Green Days’.

 

What was it like growing up in the Makhmalbaf family. You are all filmmakers. What is it like, with all of you working around films? Do you discuss your work often?

Yes I was born in a family of filmmakers. My father is a filmmaker. My mother was always helping him make films. So most of the time, in my family, we’re talking about cinema. Even when I was a child. Even my games were about cinema. So it was always like that.

 

What kind of games?

I remember, for example, when I was 8 years old I made a film. The name was The Day My Aunt Was Ill, which was kind of a game because my family, they left me at my aunt’s house. So I started directing my cousins and it became a film because it was, kind of, all the games I knew.

 

How much of an influence has your father been in your personal journey as a filmmaker?

I was born in this family. I’ve lived with him for 24 years. I worked with him. He was my teacher. He has been my favourite filmmaker. I became a lover of cinema because of my love for him. Sometimes when I talk, I think it’s him inside my head talking. But of course, everyone has their own way of… I have been so influenced by him but it’s not like I am totally him. It’s like two different people, but of course I learned a lot from him.

 

When you are making your own film, do you consciously work towards achieving your own style?

It’s not that you decide to have your own style. I’m a different person. I don’t everyday decide to look like Hana, but it’s how I have been created. It’s me. I didn’t decide for a different face from my father but it is different. So my character, the way I make a film, the way I write, the way I talk, they are all different but there are some similarities at the same time. It’s not something you decide. Say, you give the same script to me, I’ll make it differently, my father will make another film from the same script and my sister (Samira) will make another. Because we are different. For example, I have grown up in a family with my sister (Samira) and brother (Maysam), we have all learnt the same classes, we have lived in the same atmosphere, but my sister, my brother and me we are completely different people. My sister is much more philosophical. My brother is more technical, more ‘new generation’. I am somewhat in the middle of both of them.

 

Did you study at the Makhmalbaf Film School? What is the style of filmmaking that is taught? I have read that it is different from what normal film schools teach. How is it different?

It was different. It doesn’t exist anymore. It was there for six, seven years. There were three kinds of classes in our school. The first group of classes was on how to live better, because my father believes that a good filmmaker is a person who can live alone for a long time and can live well. In those classes there were cooking, riding, bicycling, swimming— everything to make ourselves stronger. Like, I remember, my mom couldn’t bicycle at all on the first day. After the seventh day, she bicycled 52 km around an island. So a filmmaker should be strong because he or she has to stand on his or her knees from 5 am to 6 pm. We don’t sleep. So it is something to make us strong.

The second set of classes was all towards becoming a better human being; because being a filmmaker, it’s not just to make films, it’s to make films that change the world, it’s to be a better human. So those kinds of classes we had, like philosophy classes, psychology classes— it was also to find subjects and ideas from these classes. We had sociology and also we had Sufism, which I remember was in the beginning of these classes. We started to learn that these people (the Sufis), they had nothing. For example, they were forsaking everything they had. And then, at the end of the class, we were even giving away our own books, to learn how to give away.

So the third kind of classes, they were about cinema. We learnt everything about the technical parts of cinema, analyzing cinema, editing, photography, cinematography, being a DOP (Director of Photography), everything which is involved.

 

Do you think this style of learning filmmaking is something that can be taken out from amongst the family and given to others to learn as well?

Actually when my father started this film school, he asked permission from the government of Iran to allow him to open the school publicly. But they said, the government said, “One Makhmalbaf is enough for the whole country, we don’t need one hundred like him.” But, anyway, some of our friends, some of our family, and our relatives started with us. But they were such difficult classes. We were working, sometimes, for 16 hours per day, we were studying for 16 hours per day. I remember I was 10 years old… I was in the philosophy class eight hours a day and everyone was telling my dad, “She doesn’t understand it.” My dad was saying, “Even if she gets 20 percent of this class, or 10 percent, at this age… if she gets it, it will stay here (indicates her head) like the structure of her mind. But if she studies it later, even if she gets 100 percent, it will only be a part of her mind.” So it was so difficult, the classes. Some of the students left, later. Some of them attended only some classes, like scriptwriting— and they became scriptwriters. Some of them attended composition class and became photographers. A few students came along with us (her and her family), to be filmmakers, and are now filmmakers, like Mohammed Ahmadi and some other friends. But the first rule that my dad put for this ‘university’ was that no matter what you do, it doesn’t matter, the only rule was that everything you want to do, even swimming, you have to do it eight hours per day minimum and for a minimum of one month. So even if you didn’t know how to swim in the beginning, if you did it for eight hours a day for one month, after one month you were a trained swimmer. So you became professional. That was the only rule that we were following.

 

The first film (The Day My Aunt Was Ill) you made was when you were eight. What were you thinking when you came up with the idea? Did you have a conscious thought?

Filmmaking for me is not like a job. It’s not like a business. It’s love or passion. And when I was eight years old of course it wasn’t the way cinema is now for me. It was a pure love. But for that, I remember, the main idea came from a photo that I saw in an exhibition. There were a bunch of children painting on the floor and the photo was taken from up, from a top angle while the children were painting. And the next day, my parents, they left me at my aunt’s house to visit some festival… I don’t remember. And then my aunt got ill and she went to the hospital and we were with my grandfather. So we started to play and the idea I gave was this painting. But little by little, my cousins that were there as well—my brother was my cinematographer—they started to become jealous of each other. So because I was influenced by films from my dad’s kind of cinema, I said let’s bring it all in front of camera and, as you can see in the film, I’m directing them in front of the camera and the ‘behind-the-scene’ and the ‘scene’ itself is mixed, and it’s shot that way because my brother was shooting all of us.

 

You shot the making of your sister Samira’s film.

I made a film called Joy of Madness. It’s a documentary film about her casting in Afghanistan. It was the casting of At Five in the Afternoon. But actually, though it was supposed to be a behind-the-scenes, it turned out in another way because, when she was trying to cast people, for one month everybody was afraid of her, everybody there didn’t want to act in the film. They were afraid of cinema, they were afraid of everything— their burqa, the Taliban, everybody. So I decided to change the subject of the film to the fear of Afghan women in general.

 

Because of the acclaim you get as a family of filmmakers, and for your own work, do you feel that somewhere you are representatives of your country politically, outside of the country?

It depends on what film I’m making. If it’s on Iran, of course I’m representative of Iranian people. But before anything else, I think I’m representative of human beings— whatever pain they have that I’m talking about. Then I’m representative of that. Of course, I will never forget my people in my country and the suffering they have. I always wear my manto, even when I’m outside of Iran, not to forget their pain. But I think we have to take off these borders that we put mentally for ourselves and think of the human being first and then think of women… then anything else that comes after.

 

But do you feel, when you go around making your film, that somewhere people expect you to explain the politics of Iran to them? Be a representative of that side of Iran to the world outside?

Actually I have made Green Days which is a docu-fiction film on the election in Iran. It was about exactly the same problem because, some of the people— they wanted to vote but they weren’t political people. American people, Indian people, they go to vote and none of them get killed for what they voted for. But people, normal people, very ordinary people, they went to vote and then the next day they got killed. They weren’t political but they got killed because of political reasons. That’s why in my country, everything at a point became political. The government brought politics inside people’s houses and it’s not something you can forget. You have to manage to live within it every day. Even the religion is political, is something that the government puts on you. Even my clothes… it’s something (clothes) that the government puts on people. So yeah.

 

Personally, what are you trying to explore as a filmmaker?

Everything you do in life, you are exploring it and going deeper and deeper. At first it’s a question for yourself, and then it becomes an idea, then it becomes the script, then it becomes the film. But when you go all the way back, it was a question that started it, and you want to put this question clearly in front of the society. That’s why you start to make that film.

For example, Buddha Collapsed Out Of Shame— it was a question for me at the beginning: What will happen to these children who are all in front of us? Then I was going and staying with my mother, who was a scriptwriter. Staying in the middle of Afghanistan in Bamiyan city. Then, little by little, I was seeing what was happening and that was the journey you can see in the film. This thing that you see in the film is the journey that I went through and that is the fruit of all the exploration. (The film is the story of a five year old Afghan girl attempting to attend school. It is set in the Bamiyan valley where the statues of the Buddha were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001.)

 

A scene from Buddha Collapsed Out Of Shame:

 

Are you working on anything right now?

I edited a short film of my dad’s and I produced a film for him. But making a film, as I said, is not a business for me. So I don’t make anything unless it touches me. It has to be something that I want to say. There is a pain that I feel and I say, “Oh my god I want to say this, and I know I can say it.” So I’m looking for that pain that I want to show to the world.

 

Iranian cinema has become very prominent in the world. How aware do you think the people of Iran are, generally speaking, of the significance their cinema?

Actually, 30 years ago, before the (Islamic) Revolution, we were making about 70 movies a year. Because of the Hollywood cinema in our country, because of the competition between Iranian cinema and Hollywood cinema, Iranian cinema was losing out, because people wanted to watch those (Hollywood) films. Then, after the Revolution, they banned the Hollywood films. Then Iranian cinema had to make its own films for its own people. So again the industry produced almost 70 films per year. And when the films started going around the world because of the New Wave in Iranian cinema, the poetic realism that was inside them, Iranian cinema won some two thousand awards, one hundred of them being won by just my family. All the Iranian people, they were interested in this even though they weren’t very interested in artistic cinema. They were saying, “Let’s see what we are proud of. Let’s see why we are attracting attention.” So they started watching such films and then they realized, later on, what this cinema was.

 

A lot of these films, including your family’s films, are banned in Iran, or censored. How do you see filmmakers combating that? How do you get those films across to your own people?

Eight years ago, eight films from my family were banned and six years ago all them were banned. Everything. Even our name is banned in Iran. But all our films are in the black market and they are available in the best quality. For example, my last film Green Days, the day it was shown at the Venice Film Festival, on its premiere, I decided to show it on BBC Persia to the Iranian people as a gift, so they could see it at the same time as the world premiere, on BBC Persia. So that’s the other way at this point. And the black market. Because of the people’s interest they go and look for it and find it.

 

A scene from Green Days:

 

Also Read: “I want real people in the films.” Hana’s sister Samira Makhmalbaf on her films, her process, her philosophy and her family.

 

 

filmflam

filmflam is a monthly column on the most exciting things to do with the movies online: photographs, art, writing, blogs, websites, trailers, films, tutorials, archival material. Our custom-made curation of cinematic coolth.  

 

Of Clouds, Stars and… Holy Ryan Gosling, Batman!

 

There’s a new Meghe Dhaka Tara in town. Alas, Ritwik Ghatak’s masterpiece has not been given the Criterion treatment just yet. Instead, director Kamaleshwar Mukherjee has taken on the life and themes of the great filmmaker and shuffled them into a sort of biopic-via-salute, making lives harder for DVD libraries everywhere by using the name of Ghatak’s best-known film as the title of his own. (Here’s the trailer). The results aren’t exceptional but decidedly thought-provoking: it tries to be I’m Not There but ends up Across The Universe, minus the songs. Either way, big ups to Saswata Chatterjee (yes, Bob Biswas himself) who plays Ritwik compellingly, even though he looks nothing like the iconic master.

 

For more on Ghatak, here’s Ramesh Sharma’s vintage Doordarshan documentary on the director, and here’s an interesting look at the way he shot automobiles in Ajantrik, one of his most compelling films. A few of his other features can be found in full on YouTube, and so it is to you I present — with a request to take the afternoon off, draw the blinds and silence the phone…

 

Titash Ekti Nadir Naam (1973)

 

Subarnarekha (1965)

 

and, one of my all-time favourite films, Jukti Takko Aar Gappo (1974)

 

Marvellous.

 

~

 

One of the most overwhelming cinematic experiences I had in a movie theatre this year came with Pacific Rim, a gargantuan summer blockbuster that dwarfed IMAX screens and made me feel as tall—and as thrilled—as when I was knee-high. But then Guillermo del Toro has a knack for reaching elbow-deep into our nightmares and plucking out something particularly squelchy. How did he get that way? This spectacular New Yorker profile attempts to find out, and unearths a man, a little boy and a monstermaker we should all be grateful for.

 

~

 

Speaking of monsters, the most fascinating film-related list I’ve encountered recently (and that includes Stanley Kubrick’s own ranked set of top ten films of all-time) is this jaw-dropping collection of visual effects shots, cherry-picked by men in the trade of razing cities to the ground and making alien eyeballs bounce:

http://www.empireonline.com/features/cinemas-greatest-vfx-shots.

It’s a helluva selection, accompanied by the clips in question, and what stand out most are the surprises: Fritz Lang and Michael Powell make it there along with Ray Harryhausen and Steven Spielberg.

 

~

 

Spielberg, in turn, has famously doomsayed an end for the blockbuster-era, saying that several will come a cropper and that a paradigm shift is in order. His buddy George Lucas, who made movies so popular he made millions off their lunchboxes, agrees. And we’re told Lincoln was “this close” to becoming an HBO series. Here’s that report, but then here’s another fantastic director who doesn’t think Spielberg’s all that brilliant— then again, how many would hold up when compared to Kubrick? Anyway, here’s Terry Gilliam dissing Schindler’s List:

http://www.openculture.com/2011/11/terry_gilliam_on_filmmakers.html

 

~

 

So there’s going to be a new Superman movie, and Batman’s going to be in it. Finally, that logo from I Am Legend can come in handy and the two most-mismatched combatants in history can have a go at each other. Alas, the film is being made by that guttersnipe Zack Snyder, murderer of true believers everywhere. Fan speculation has begun on who should next play Batman with names like the almighty Ryan Gosling being tossed around.
But what will the plot of the new movie be? Snyder might have the massivest Frank Miller boner around, but studios aren’t going to let Superman turn old and get clobbered this soon. If only they’d adapt Andrew Kevin Walker’s Asylum—a script which could be buffed into a truly solid superhero movie; here’s the full script PDF—but that’s just wishful thinking considering it’s coming to us from the makers of Man of Steel. The possibilities of DC Comics’ Big Two mixing it up, however, are manifold and awesome and, most frequently,very very twisted. Hee.

 

Either way, those caped lads need to bring out their A-game. Because, clearly, Iron Man can do everything.

Eye of the Beholder: Anjum Hasan

A quick Q and A with writer and poet Anjum Hasan.

 

Your first film-related obsession?

Dead Poets Society. A whole film about poetry, wow!

 

One thing you miss about the way in which you saw movies as a child?

The complete immersion. Not being able to tell the difference, and not caring for the difference, between a classic and a tearjerker, a bad film and a good one.

                                        

The worst book to film adaptation?

Lolita. Both the versions. I don’t think it’s possible for film to really capture Humbert Humbert’s poet’s eye or, indeed, his dirty mind!

 

If you were to adapt a film to a book, it would be…

Lars Von Trier’s Breaking the Waves. The spiritual trauma of the characters would lend itself excellently to reams of anguished Dostoevskian prose.

 

A sequence/ character/ plot in any of your books that might be inspired by cinema (by the medium itself or a particular film)?

I love the way Guillermo Arriaga writes films (Amores Perros, Babel, 21 Grams)— how unrelated events slowly and ineluctably collide, and how the fates always have the upper hand. I tried his technique in my story ‘Saturday Night’ in my recent short fiction collection Difficult Pleasures.

 

Do you read film reviews? What good are they?

I think Baradwaj Rangan, Pradeep Sebastian and Jai Arjun Singh are excellent film critics whose reviews are always a pleasure to read as of themselves and not just as pointers to which films to watch or avoid.

 

In a movie version of your life who would play you? Who would you have liked to play you?

I would have liked to play myself but I don’t act and, for better or for worse, my life is not a movie!

 

What book of yours could be made into a film?

I think all the fiction. The poems might be harder though there have been attempts to make those into films too.

 

Who would you like it to be directed by?

The documentary filmmaker Nishtha Jain. She’s one of the few film artists around.

 

Who would you cast as who (you could name any or all characters)?

I would leave that to Nishtha. I don’t know anything about casting!

 

One male actor you’ve always loved?

Matti Pellonpää, the deadpan, underdog hero of so many Aki Kaurismäki films.

 

One actress you absolutely adore?

Kajol.

 

What fictional characters would you like to see both of the above play?

Pellonpää as Hamlet. And Kajol as Madame Bovary.

 

One writer whose biopic would definitely be A-Rated?

Hunter S. Thompson.

 

A writer whose biopic you want to see?

Qurratulain Hyder. To see her life on screen would be to rediscover a whole lost aristocratic North Indian world.

 

One non-fiction title that could make for a good film?

William Dalrymple’s The Last Mughal. I would love to see how the Delhi looked through Mughal eyes.

 

One thing that the novel can do which a film can’t?

A novel can tell you what a person is thinking and how different that sometimes is from what she is saying.

 

One thing the film can do that a novel can’t?

A film can make you jump out your skin.

 

A film that made you very happy?

Juno. I love talky American films.

 

A film that made you cry?

Lukas Moodysson’s Lilya 4-ever. And whenever Shah Rukh Khan cries, I cry, no matter how much I’m laughing at myself with the other half of my head.

 

A film you keep re-watching?

David Lynch’s Mullholland Drive.

 

A film you would recommend for its dialogues?

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

 

A film every writer must see?

The Shining— however bad your writer’s block is, it can’t be as bad as this!

 

Your favourite film on writing/ a writer?

An Angel at my Table— about the New Zealander writer Janet Frame.

 

If you ever made a film it would it be…

…a complete flop because I think in words not images.

 

A film script you would like to read?

The Big Lebowski. Another talky American film, perhaps one of the best.

 

A film you wish you had written?

Take Care of Your Scarf, Tatiana.

 

One underrated film?

Mahesh Bhatt’s Saaransh.

 

One highly rated film that did not work for you?

Love, Sex aur Dhokha.

 

Name one male and one female character from the movies who you could imagine having an interesting conversation with?

The Wizard of Oz, maybe. And Alice in Wonderland!

 

Anjum Hasan is the author of the short fiction collection Difficult Pleasures, the novels Neti, Neti and Lunatic In My Head, as well as the book of poems Street On The Hill. Hasan has published poems, short fiction, essays and reviews in various anthologies and journals. She is also Books Editor at The Caravan, a journal of politics and culture.

TBIP Take

Ship of Theseus has a marked tendency: denouement by landscape.

 

Warning: Spoilers Ahead

 

The protagonist of the first segment, the photographer Aaliya, finds some sense of content sitting on a bridge over a mountain stream. In the second segment the protagonist, the Jain monk Maitreya, finds the passage to death much harder than he imagined. After nights of suffering and delirium we are signalled his decision to seek medical help (and a greater decision to return to the world) through a screen filled with lush, green fields. The wind passes through the plants and the breath of self-preservation returns to Maitreya. The protagonist of the last segment, stockbroker Navin, is accused by his activist grandmother of deliberately turning his back to the beauty and grief the world can offer. The widening of his horizons are all signalled by landscape: the cramped spaces of a Mumbai slum, the desolation of rural Sweden, the cramped spaces of a Swedish flat filled with young immigrants. When he returns to Bombay, the narrative loops like the ribbons of a Christmas gift and offers us all three protagonists in Dr. Bhau Daji Lad Museum at a special screening. Aaliya, Maitreya and Navin sit alongside five other organ recipients. They all received their respective organs: eye, kidney and liver from a man who had been an amateur cave explorer. They are now seated to watch some of his footage from the caves. And for the first time (well, almost— the repetitive halo light effect over characters’ heads also was painful), I found myself thinking: Oh no. And indeed a few seconds later we are heading deep into the caves with the shadow of the dead explorer holding up his camera. Denouement by landscape.

 

The landscapes are splendid. One can only feel enormous satisfaction from a screen filled with windmills and Quixote-ish monks in white or the rapid Gandhi-in-old-news-footage speed of Maitreya as he walks through a Bombay so beautiful it makes you feel a little bit drunk. But even the splendid landscapes can’t really disguise the on-the-nose plotting, the too-easy deployment of paradox. The blind photographer gets her vision back but is convinced that her post-op photos are not as good as the ones before. The Jain monk is fighting a case against animal testing in drugs and falls ill. How can he now consume the drugs that will make him better?

 

The last segment—the widening of Navin’s horizons—resists this neatness a bit. He is politically conservative but not a prude. He helps his grandmother pee into a bedpan with brisk efficiency. What makes Navin charge along to help Shankar who had his kidney stolen— particularly after he realizes that the kidney within him is not Shankar’s? Why does he decide to go to Sweden? The film doesn’t tell you and by now you are a tiny bit grateful it doesn’t. (Navin does have a wee bit of that do-the-right-thing going and who is to say when it hits people?) What did baffle me in this segment is the choice of a comic resolution for the other ethical crisis in this film.

 

While the monk and the photographer are given whole sequences to deal with the betrayals of their bodies and minds, the labourer Shankar’s decision to keep the money the white man has offered is easy, quick, a punch line. Navin in Sweden is stumped in his desire to begin a legal crusade on Shankar’s behalf. Navin’s friend Mannu is stuck between the narrow walls of the chawl— doing a close imitation of the Biblical admonishment that a rich man is as likely to enter heaven as a camel is to pass through the eye of the needle. Shankar is a variation of the old, hoary tradition of the comic servant. As Kantaben is ha-ha astonished by the homoerotic antics of the boys of Kal Ho Na Ho, Shankar is ha-ha fed up with middle-class justice. Unlike even P. K. Dubey of Monsoon Wedding who is allowed pensiveness and Delhi skylines, there are no widening, meaning-filled landscapes for Shankar.

 

*****

 

The ‘art objects within art objects’ can often be tricky. You are told that the heroine of the book is a fantastic poet. You read the poem offered and you are embarrassed for the character and the novelist. How can you believe the novelist anymore? When characters in movies are artists I brace myself for embarrassment. Watch out for bad water colours and pulsing Pollocks.

 

First films and student films have a terrible inclination to pick sex workers and artists as their protagonists. What a pleasant surprise then to see in Ship of Theseus the reasonably interesting work Aaliya produces and her actual artistic dilemma: Should I stage my work? If I just press a button to record unstaged life, am I an artist? While not the most tortuous or original of dilemmas, it is still better than the ridiculous simulacrum of artistic lives cinema usually offers. Once I made the mistake of watching Frida with a leftie from Kolkata. The moment when Frida slides with a Salma Hayek slither into Trotsky’s lap was when my friend lost her mind and left the room.

 

This same friend also lost her mind when a visiting software engineer flirtatiously said to her: “Oh, you are studying philosophy? My favourite philosopher is Ayn Rand.” The ‘philosophical discussions’ of Ship of Theseus do have the charming adolescent enthusiasms of an 18-year-old Ayn Rand lover. It is disguised by framing it as conversations between Maitreya and his quasi disciple, the school-boyish lawyer. I decided that the filmmaker’s way of telling us that Maitreya is a truly great man was his forbearance in not swatting at him and saying: “This ain’t moot court, bro.”

 

*****

 

On the subject of Aaliya’s work, Bombay is home to a whole school of blind photographers trained by photographer Partho Bhowmik. Bhowmik was inspired, he told me once, by Evgen Bavcar whose elaborate, costumed and plumed work Aaliya was sure to have liked.

 

From the Land of 5

Nirupama Dutt recommends Punjabi films you must watch, and tells you why.

 

 

Anhey Ghorhey Da Daan (English title: Alms for a Blind Horse), directed by  Gurvinder Singh and produced by the National Film Development Corporation of India, has proved to be a breakthrough in Punjabi cinema. Released in 2011, this is the first Punjabi film from India to have travelled to several international festivals. It premiered in the ‘Orizzonti’ section at the 68th Venice International Film Festival. It bagged one of the Black Pearl Awards (the $ 50,000 Special Jury Award) at the Abu Dhabi Film Festival. It has also been shown also at the 55th BFI (British Film Institute) London Film Festival and the 16th Busan International Film Festival. And it won awards for Best Direction and Best Cinematography at the 59th National Film Awards, as well as the award for the Best Feature Film in Punjabi. Anhey Ghorhey…, based on a 1976 novel by the Jnanpith Award-winning Punjabi novelist Gurdial Singh, is set in a Dalit village near Bathinda. It begins at the point where an old man’s house, on the outskirts of the village, has been demolished to make way for a factory (the landlord, who owns the village plots the contract farmers derive their livelihood from, has sold them to an industrialist). At dawn, the elders of the village, march silently to the spot to offer their condolences. The old man’s son is a cycle-rickshaw puller in a nearby town and is involved in a strike which turns violent. In such a setting, Anhey Ghorhey… follows a day in the life of a family. Through slow and studied camera work (by debutant cinematographer Satya Rai Nagpaul), stunning compositions, and the portrayal of villagers by non-actors whose weather-beaten faces tell stories of years of suppression—more with silences than with dialogue—the film takes an unbiased look at the struggles of the landlord, and the Dalit labourers in the farms and in the cities. Although it has won much critical acclaim, this was not a film the masses could relate to. Possible reasons for this could be the poor quality of average Punjabi films and also the stark offbeat treatment by Gurvinder, who had acclaimed Indian filmmaker Mani Kaul as a mentor, whom he dedicates the film to.

 

 

 

 

Khamosh Pani (English title: Silent Waters), made in 2003 and directed by Sabiha Sumar, is another offbeat Punjabi film from Pakistan that is a Franco-German production. The film tackles issues like religious fundamentalism as well as the plight of women in Pakistan. Set in 1979, during the dictatorial regime of Zia-ul-Haq, the film tells the story of a widow Ayesha and her son Salim who live in the village of Charkhi, in Pakistan’s Punjab. The peace of the village is shattered by the arrival of two radicals seeking recruits for the jehad and, while many of the village elders are cynical about their cause, they find supporters among the young. Salim is increasingly drawn towards religious bigotry and, despite his mother’s discouragement, joins the fundamentalists. Tensions are further heightened by a state sanctioned visit from Sikh pilgrims which unveils a long-held secret. Yet, despite all its twists and turns, Khamosh Pani refrains from over-dramatization and delves into myriad issues with great subtlety and poignancy. The film contains an excellent performance from Kirron Kher as the protagonist. Khamosh Pani won the Golden Leopard, the top prize at the 56th Locarno International Film Festival held in Switzerland. Also, Kher received the Bronze Leopard for Best Actress.

 

 

 

Marhi Da Deeva (The Last Flicker) was a 1989 film made by Surinder Singh and based on Gurdial Singh’s classic 1964 novel of the same name. This was the first Punjabi novel to feature a Dalit labourer as protagonist. The Dalit protagonist Jagseer’s story is set in the late fifties, the post-Nehruvian phase of independent India, which saw many dreams die. Within a decade of freedom, there was a great deal of disillusionment with the professed model of socialism. Jagseer’s despondency symbolizes the mood of the nation. Hailed as the first Punjabi novel of social realism, widely translated in Indian and foreign languages, Marhi Da Deeva—which literally translates into ‘the lamp at the grave’—remains till date the most discussed and debated work in Punjabi literature. The novelist’s triumph lies in bringing to centre-stage a low-caste oppressed man and telling his story in so humane a manner that it becomes a part of the collective psyche. The film remains faithful to the narrative in the book and forwards its ambitions. The cast includes some well known names like Raj Babbar (who plays the protagonist), Deepti Naval, Parikshit Sahni and Pankaj Kapur in important roles. The film’s music was composed by Mahinderjit Singh. Marhi Da Deeva also received the National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Punjabi.

 

 

 

Chann Pardesi, directed by Chitrarth Singh, was a unique Punjabi film released in 1980. Unique, because it won critical acclaim (and the National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Punjabi) and was also a commercial success. Unfortunately, the fine standards set by it could not be met by the shaky post-Partition Punjabi film industry. The star cast includes names like Raj Babbar, Om Puri, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Amrish Puri, Rama Vij and Rajni Sharma. The plot of the film, a saga spanning two generations, revolves around recurring Punjabi film themes of love, revenge and separation, culminating in penance, and a final coming together of key characters. Shot in rural Punjab, it had songs set to lilting, folksy music by Surinder Kohli.

 

 

 

Nanak Naam Jahaz Hai is another National Award-winning film directed by Ram Maheshwari and released in 1969. It stars Prithviraj Kapoor, I.S. Johar, Nishi and Vimi. This was the first major Punjabi ‘hit’ in post-independent India. The film is a family drama with an underlying devotional theme. The plot revolves around a family in, a newly independent India, that gets divided and eventually reconciles. Its music, by S. Mohinder, with playback singing by Shamshad Begum, Asha Bhosle, Manna Dey and Mohammad Rafi, is popular to this day. The film has shots of some of the most prominent gurdwaras in India. When the film was released, Punjabi Sikhs were rapturous. They distributed prasad in the cinema halls and women covered their heads on occasion while watching the film. Nanak Naam Jahaz Hai spawned several films in the religious genre, such as Mann Jeete Jag Jeet, Dukh Bhanjan Tera Naam and Nanak Dukhiya Sab Sansar. However, the response to the first remains unbeaten till date.

 

 

Play It Back

The past is not a foreign country but it is certainly largely undiscovered. In TBIP’s History Corner we bring to you stories, characters and anecdotes from times that must not be allowed to go away merely because they have gone by.

 

He was so passionate about music that he would break into song and sing along to the rhythm of a water pump, or the hum of his car’s engine. Such are the stories that Rajib Gupta has heard about his grandfather Pankaj Mullick. A legend and pioneer in Indian film music, Pankaj Mullick’s (1905-1978) legacy ranges from bringing playback singing to Indian cinema and introducing Rabindra Sangeet (songs written and mostly composed by Rabindranath Tagore) in films, to creating AIR (All India Radio) radio programmes that are still talked of.

 

Mullick was born and brought up in a middle class family in Calcutta. His father Manimohan Mullick was a Bada Babu (officer) with the British Administration. His mother Monomohini Mullick was a housewife. He showed an inclination towards music from a very young age, picking up songs and singing from the age of three. When he was ten, he started his formal training in music under Durgadas Bandyopadhyay. He went on to learn Rabindra Sangeet under Dinendranath Tagore, Rabindranath Tagore’s grandnephew.

 

Mullick’s tryst with composing music began with the All India Radio in 1927, when it was still a British company known as the Indian Broadcasting Company. His composition of the radio programme Mahishasuramardini is among his most famous works. It first aired in 1931 and continues to play on AIR even today. “It has actually become a part of Bengali culture. It is still broadcast today,” says Gupta. The programme plays at daybreak, every Mahalaya, marking the beginning of Durga Puja.

 

His ‘music class’ on radio, named Sangeet Shikshar Ashar, a programme that was on air for almost 47 years, introduced and popularized Rabindra Sangeet among its audience.

 

***

 

In his first few years as a composer, Mullick collaborated with his colleague Rai Chand Boral in radio and in cinema. Their work on radio caught the attention of New Theatres, one of the biggest Indian film producers of the time. New Theatres invited Mullick and Boral to run their music department and they agreed. This was their first step into the world of Indian cinema.

 

They started with composing music for two Bengali silent films—Chasher Meye and Chor Kanta—in 1931. They also conducted the live orchestras for the shows of these films. The same year, they composed music for their first talkie, Premankur Atorthy’s Dena Paona (also a Bengali movie).

 

Mullick and Boral worked together on around 20 films. Their first commercial hit was Nitin Bose’s Chandidas (Bengali, 1934). The trio of Bose, Mullick and Boral would go on to create history in Indian cinema. Through interviews with his grandfather’s contemporaries, Gupta has pieced together how an ‘accident’ changed Indian film music forever. “The director of the movie (Bose) had come to pick him (Mullick) up to go to the studio together. There was an English song playing next door and the director thought that my grandfather was singing it. When he came out, he asked: ‘Were you singing that?’ My grandfather said, ‘No.’ But the voice sounded very similar to my grandfather’s. So he (Bose) said, ‘You do something. Start singing the words without putting your voice in.’” This was the seed of the idea that would introduce playback singing to Indian films. At their studio, Mullick and Boral refined this experiment and playback singing was used for the first time in Indian cinema in Bose’s Bengali Bhagya Chakra (1935), as well as in its Hindi remake Dhoop Chhaon, which released in the same year.

 

Teri Gathri Mein Laga Chor from Dhoop Chhaon:

 

It was with the film Mukti (Bengali, 1937) that Mullick went solo as music director. The film’s music broke new ground, using Rabindra Sangeet in film music for the first time. At the film’s narration, director Prathamesh Chandra Barua heard Mullick hum a song and insisted on using it in the film. Says Gupta: “He (Mullick) said ‘These are words by (Rabindranath) Tagore, but the music is mine.’” At a time when Rabindra Sangeet was actually restricted to a closed, elite circle, Barua insisted on using the song in his film. “Till then nobody had ever sung Tagore’s songs, in public, to their own tune. It was not allowed,” Gupta says. “It was very seriously protected by the Tagore family.”

 

For permission to use Rabindra Sangeet, Mullick met Rabindranath Tagore. According to Gupta, Tagore was so overwhelmed after listening to the song that along with granting permission for its use in the film, he also suggested a few others. Tagore set tune to as many of his poems and lyrics as he could during his lifetime, but gave Mullick the honour of setting tune to the rest of them after his death.

 

Pankaj Mullick sings Diner Sheshe in Mukti:

 

***

 

Mullick usually sang for the songs he composed himself. When he worked with other singers, they were well-known names like Kundan Lal Saigal, Pahari Sanyal, Kanan Devi and Uma Shashi. His experiments with music extended to pushing the boundaries of classical music. Calling him the forefather of popular music today, Gupta says: “There were definite elements of classical music (in his songs) because they were grammatically quite correct with ragas and raginis. Yet, while he derived from it, he didn’t stick to the classical genre.” Mullick began using western instruments like the English flute, violin and double bass. “He wanted to make the sound different without moving too away from the melodic character of Indian songs. He did not take the western sound structure. He stuck to the Indian sound structure.” In the song Duniya Rang Rangili from Dharti Mata (1938) Mullick incorporated Western musical elements like harmonization and counter-melody.

 

For film music historian Pavan Jha, Mullick was a visionary. Pointing to his work in non-film music, he says: “A favourite of mine is Yeh Raatein, Yeh Mausam, Yeh Hasna Hasaana, a song written by Fayyaz Hashmi. The way he has used the orchestra, and the composition for it, it was very ahead of its time.” He adds: “People say it was O. P. (Omkar Prasad) Nayyar, but it was Pankaj Mullick who first brought in the famous ‘horse-cart rhythm’ (a rhythm created out of the sound made by a horse-cart in motion), to Hindi film music.”

 

Pankaj Mullick’s Chale Pawan Ki Chaal from Doctor (1941):

 

O. P. Nayyar’s Piya Piya Piya Mera Jiya Pukaare from Baap Re Baap (1955):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c1H59dL62E

 

Pankaj Mullick’s contribution to Indian cinema was not confined to music. He was also an actor, playing lead roles in films such as Mukti and Doctor. However, music remained his first love. He composed and sang classics such as Piya Milan Ko Jaana from Kapalkundala (1939), Yeh Kaun Aaj Aaya Savere Savere from Nartaki (1940), Aayi Bahar and Chale Pawan Ki Chaal from Doctor (1941), as well as songs from his private albums- Tere Mandir Ka Hoon Deepak, Pran Chahe Nain Na Chahe and Yaad Aayi Ki Na Aaye.

 

His other famous compositions include Tu Dhoondhta Hai Jisko from Yatrik (1952) sung by Dhananjay Bhattacharya, Main Kya Janu Kya Jadu Hai from Zindagi (1940), Karun Kya Aas Niraas Bhai from Dushman (1939) and Do Naina Matware from Meri Bahen (1944), sung by K. L. Saigal.

 

Mullick became one of the country’s most respected and sought after music directors. But, unlike his contemporaries who moved to Bombay as the Hindi film industry set its roots there, Mullick continued to work from Calcutta throughout his life.

 

For Real

TBIP’s documentary film recommendation

R. V. Ramani describes his film, Nee Engey? (Where Are You?) as an impressionist ethnography of the puppet theatre tradition in some of the southern states of India. He tracks both the performances and the lives of the puppeteers— painting a haunting picture of the neglect of a tradition and the difficult lives of the puppeteers. The filmmaker casts a gentle, deeply respectful and totally subjective gaze on his subject. For me, as audience, this is what accounts for the rigour and depth of his engagement with his subject.

The filmmaker overlays his own preoccupations with cinema, over his exploration of this ancient art form. The curtain on which the shadows of the puppets get animated and dynamized is also the sort of curtain cinema brings alive in theatres. This is where Ramani allows his ethnography to become impressionist. Nee Engey? penetrates that white frame to seek out images, sounds and stories that belong to the shadow puppet tradition and are also the basis of a cinematic tradition.

The manner in which the performances are filmed are not inscribed with a sense of loss, or despair over the fact that the tradition is fast disappearing. The gaze of the filmmaker is one of complete surrender to the performer and her/his performance. The bhav, or the emotional depth of the performances, spill onto the framing of the lives of the performers. The white curtain of the puppeteers and the frame of Ramani’s film connect in a continuum. One does not become the victimized/ valourized subject of the other.

Dusty, abandoned puppets are held against the light streaming through the doorframe of a hut. The same door frames the performer’s daughter dancing to a film song. The filmmaker’s gaze is without judgment. There is no attempt to validate one performative form and condemn another.

This is not a lament for a vanishing form nor is it a pamphlet demanding the resurrection of a dying art. Nee Engey? is a 152 minute film that allows the audience to undertake an incredible journey.

filmflam

filmflam is a new monthly column on the most exciting things to do with the movies online: photographs, art, writing, blogs, websites, trailers, films, tutorials, archival material. Our custom-made curation of cinematic coolth. 

 

Of undeserving kings and the problem with Patriot Games

More than thirty years after he made The Maltese Falcon, the legendary John Huston adapted a Rudyard Kipling short story about two British soldiers serving in India who leave the army and the country to head to the neighbouring—and, indeed, interestingly named—Kafiristan where they plan to crown themselves kings. In The Man Who Would Be King, Sean Connery and Michael Caine star as the two sacrilegious anti-heroes, while Christopher Plummer plays Kipling himself and our very own Saeed Jaffrey shows up as Billy Fish, a most quotable local character. It’s a rollicking entertainer, but only on reading the immaculate screenplay (by Huston and Gladys Hill) a couple of days ago did I realise how well the film stands up even without those great leading men being so marvellous. Great, great words. Here’s a scene I’ve always loved, and here’s the link to the whole script.

Speaking of short-story adaptations, here’s a look at Mobius Trips, Mukul Sharma’s mischievously named short story that was recently adapted into Kannan Iyer’s Ek Thi Daayan. As I said in my review of the film, the screenplay falters significantly in the second half when the film sadly moves away from the beautiful what-could-have-been ambiguity of an enchanted world viewed through a child’s eyes and descends (quite literally) into a rabbit hole crowded with cliché. Published on his own blog, here’s the eeriness as Sharma—the man who wrote that fascinating Mindsport column in the Times Of India, and Konkona Sen’s father—first saw it.

With the newspapers so full of a certain man all set for his own coronation, it is a fine time to revisit Rakesh Sharma’s searing documentary on the 2002 Gujarat Riots, Final Solution. The 2003 film was immediately banned in India, and then distributed through a pirate-and-circulate campaign which encouraged everyone who watched it to make copies and spread it further. You can read more about the film here. Final Solution is a harsh indictment of Narendra Modi’s government, and should be watched as soon as possible— before it is yanked off YouTube as well:

George R. R. Martin always knew which bad guys were worth being villains, as is more than evident by this fan-letter Martin, at 16, had sent to Marvel supremo Stan Lee. The Game of Thrones creator loved his comic books, and it’s most amusing to see which villains he considers worthy of the Fantastic Four—a comic he clearly loves—and which are the weak foes he believes deserve “eternal exile”. Off with their heads, eh George?

“If you’re going to invite me to a dance, you gotta let me dance.” This and other awesome assertions are thrown up during an afternoon where the late Dennis Hopper, easiest rider of all—and the first choice to play the tip-loathing Mr. Pink in Reservoir Dogs—swung by at Quentin Tarantino’s place to share a conversation while the director was editing Pulp Fiction. The entire conversation can be found here, and it’s gold. Tarantino compares Pulp… to Monty Python, Hopper throws up Satyajit Ray when talking of Éric Rohmer, and the two clearly love each other’s work. As a bonus, here’s the Sicilian scene in True Romance that QT wrote and Hopper dazzled in, alongside Christopher Walken.

Over on Twitter, @clownasylum pointed me to this 1990 interview in which Steven Spielberg talks about how he regrets passing on Rain Man— to go ahead and do Indiana Jones. It’s a Barry Norman interview, so you should naturally go see the whole thing. It also reminded me of just how Spielberg is a true virtuoso of the close-up, which this smashing video essay justifiably dubs the director’s signature stroke. Amazing.

And finally, paanch. (No, not that one. But here you go.) No, I speak of five short films that come from the Anurag Kashyap stable, fast turning into a school for talented youngbloods. The five films here, in my order of preference, have been made by Neeraj Ghaywan, Anubhuti Kashyap, Vasan Bala, Shlok Sharma and Gitanjali Rao— but I implore you to watch them all. Collected back to back thus, they make for very intriguing viewing, and I can’t wait to see each of them making features. Peddlers, Bala’s film that earned plaudits at Cannes last year, should be hitting theatres within the next two months.

~

Oh, and do reach out with your movie effluvia: I’m @RajaSen on Twitter. Add a hashtag #filmflam to your links. Happy clicking, and may the broadband be strong with you all.