Off the beaten track

Jai Arjun Singh on Awtar Kaul, 1973 and a cinematic what-if

A favourite parlour game for the nerdish movie buff is the contemplation of great cinematic years. Internationally, obvious frontrunners include 1939—when a breathtaking number of high-quality films competed for hall space before the disruptive theatre of WWII took over—and 1959-60, when at least half a dozen countries seemed to have New Waves in progress and such varied directors as Jean-Luc Godard, Kon Ichikawa, Otto Preminger and Georges Franju did magnificent work. But looking at Hindi cinema through the lens of hindsight, it seems to me that something special was in the air in 1973.

This is not necessarily to say that numerous masterpieces were unveiled in those 12 months— it’s more that one feels things were on the brink; that new routes and possibilities were opening up, and much might have happened differently but for a single coin-flip. Amitabh Bachchan’s career-altering role in Zanjeer—a part he got after bigger stars backed out—birthed the defining screen personality of the decade to come. Raj Kapoor’s Bobby, the year’s biggest hit, created a fresh idiom for rebellious young love. The writers Salim-Javed, having created the angry young man Vijay, were just wrapping up a Western-inspired script about an armless thakur hiring two mercenaries to rid his village of a dacoit. Meanwhile, beyond the mainstream, the so-called Indian New Wave was in its ascendency: M S Sathyu made the elegiac Garam Hava and Shyam Benegal directed his first feature Ankur. And for a sense of what lay ahead, consider the stream of youngsters who entered the Film and Television Institute of India that year: Naseeruddin Shah, Saeed Mirza, Renu Saluja, Kundan Shah, Om Puri and Vinod Chopra among them.

One of the less-known gems of 1973 is a film titled 27 Down, produced by the Film Finance Corporation (later NFDC) and directed by Awtar Krishna Kaul. I confess shame-facedly to knowing almost nothing about it until a few weeks ago, except for the fact that Kaul had died in a drowning accident shortly after the film was completed. (It was his first and last feature.) But watching it on a restored DVD print by NFDC recently, I was certainly very intrigued.

“Phir koi pull hai kya? Shaayad pull hee hai.” (“Has another bridge come? Seems like it.”) The first words we hear in 27 Down are the subconscious musings of someone who knows trains and train journeys only too well, and who feels like he has spent his life crossing bridges without getting anywhere. Sanjay (M K Raina), the son of a railway employee, has to forgo his art studies when his father insists he return to the family profession. In one vividly shot and edited early sequence, we hear the father’s voice dispensing platitudes (“Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise”) while the son does things in contravention of this paternal advice— eating the “unhealthy” bhel-puri he has been cautioned about, walking about the streets of Bombay late at night. It’s as if these small, inconsequential acts of defiance are a part-compensation for the bigger battles he knows he is destined to lose. Now a conductor himself, he lives—literally and figuratively—on the tracks, and measures his life in train sounds and distances. His relationship with a young woman named Shalini (Raakhee, already a mainstream star but well-cast here) is also affected by the demands of conformity.

In the language of facile categories, this is an art film— a subdued, slow-paced work about a non-heroic life. Sanjay inhabits a very different universe from that of the other hopefuls, dreamers or malcontents of 1973: the two-fisted cop of Zanjeer, the teenage lovebirds quelling the odds in Bobby, the brothers reunited in a nightclub through the power of song in Yaadon Ki Baaraat. (In one scene in 27 Down, “Chura Liya Hai Tumne” can be heard playing on a radio, leading one to speculate that Sanjay might—in one of those bursts of filial rebellion—go to see a late-night show of Yaadon Ki Baarat.) There is no triumphal narrative in Kaul’s film, not even a hint of it; the dominant image is that of Sanjay feebly saying “Par, Anna… ” (“But, Anna… ”) as his father casually tells him what his future holds.

But if this is a movie about a man with no future (made, as it sadly turned out, by a man with no future), it certainly shows an understanding of the possibilities available to coming generations of movie-makers. It has a kinetic visual sense, for one thing: jump cuts are effectively used to mark the passage of time (while also ironically commenting on the stasis in Sanjay’s life); freeze-frames, abrupt zoom-ins and zoom-outs suggest the blurring of real life with desires or unreliable memories. There is an element of fabulism in a scene where Sanjay, watching Shalini’s silhouette as she changes behind a curtain, is reminded of the Aphrodite statue that fascinated him as a child. And for all the soberness of the content, there is a sense of playfulness too, as in the early scene where children play in train formation and a song goes “Chuk chuk chuk karti gaadi”.

At the same time, themes are sometimes spelt out in the style of a chamber drama; a couple of the conversations play like deliberately theatrical monologues rather than naturalistic talk. This directness and purity of form reminded me very much of the work of the great directors Carl Dreyer and Robert Bresson, which is not to say that 27 Down reaches the heights of the best films made by those men— it has a fragility that you’d expect from someone making his first feature, and there are a few awkward touches: such as the underlining of an emotional moment with a jarring music score. But there is much promise here, as well as signs of a versatile sensibility.

And so, to another of those parlour games: the ‘What If’. If Kaul had lived, what might his subsequent work have looked like?

In a way it’s silly to make such speculations based on a single movie. But on the limited evidence we have, I think Kaul might have found a goodly middle ground between the “arty” and the “commercial” film. (Incidentally, the only other movie credit he has on IMDB is as assistant on Merchant-Ivory’s Bombay Talkie, which was a meta-commentary on commercial movie-making.) He would also quite likely have brought a new dimension of interiority to 1970s and 80s cinema— with films centred on the human face, where we are encouraged to look at a person not because he is doing something interesting but because he is interesting.

27 Down explores a character’s inner life to a degree rare in Hindi cinema (even non-mainstream cinema). This isn’t just done through voice-over—that would be lazy filmmaking—it is achieved through an artful bringing together of elements: cinematography and shot juxtaposition, performance, the use of background sound (when Sanjay reflects on his unusual childhood, we hear an infant crying somewhere in the compartment he is in). A year later, something comparable was achieved in Basu Chatterjee’s Rajnigandha, about the inner turmoil of a woman caught between the idealistic memory of a past love and the apparent monotony of a present one. But among major filmmakers of the decade that followed, I can’t think of anyone who did this with regularity.

Then there is the fact that 27 Down is shot (beautifully) in black and white— not a commonly used medium in Hindi films of the time, or since. The decision may have been dictated by resource constraints, but I prefer to think it was deliberate: Kaul and his cinematographer Apurba Kishore Bir make the most of the form, composing stunning location shots of Varanasi and Bombay, of juddering trains and busy train stations in the gloaming— places that are simultaneously filled with crowds and suggestive of deep loneliness. Perhaps, given some artistic freedom, he would have shown some of his contemporaries how resonant black-and-white can be?

To speculate further: given Kaul’s apparent willingness to work with mainstream performers, I could even imagine him doing something really interesting with Bachchan somewhere down the road. This is not as improbable as it sounds: the Zanjeer legacy makes it easy to forget that in 1973 AB also did fine work in such low-key films such as Saudagar, which might have taken his career in a very different direction— and that he continued doing commercially unpromising films like Alaap and Manzil after becoming a superstar. Imagine one of his better roles—say, the guilt-wracked ship’s captain in Kaala Patthar, punishing himself for a moment of cowardice—shaped and performed without the over-expository trappings of commercial cinema: done with discerning silences and close-ups and fragmented interior dialogue rather than with fiery dialoguebaazi. (And in black and white! Bachchan in a good role in a really well-photographed B&W film is one of our great missing cinematic treasures.) I think both the actor and the director might have been up to the task.

Quite possibly, none of this would have come to pass— there have been enough cases of directors who faded away after their first films. But watch 27 Down and you’ll probably agree that Kaul was among Hindi cinema’s most promising unrealised talents. The only film he made was about a frustrated, circumscribed life, but in the best of all alternate universes he might have found a way to lay new tracks to the places where he really wanted to go.

Sudershan (Chimpanzee) Superstar

[issuu width=643 height=490 printButtonEnabled=false backgroundColor=%23222222 documentId=121204112635-e60805f9965c47ee9674e909b2e92781 name=sudershanchimpanzee-extract username=tbip tag=india unit=px v=2 showHtmlLink=false]

Sudershan (Chimpanzee) is a graphic novel about a primate who became a movie star. Here is an excerpt that tells the tale of his ascent through the Bombay film industry’s underbelly in the 1960s. Written by Rajesh Devraj. Illustrated by Meren Imchen

This extract from Sudershan (Chimpanzee) is reproduced courtesy of Hachette India

Buy the book, and read the full story of Sudershan here

Cinema’s Most Iconic Fashion Moment

We ask fashion designers to share their favourite fashion moment or style statement from the movies

“The movie Unzipped, an artistic account of a fashion designer in Manhattan, is filled with superb fashion moments that a fashion designer goes through in the course of creating a fashion collection. (Isaac) Mizrahi at his best performance— perhaps the only well documented insider’s view of how fashion is created.”

Raghavendra Rathore is a leading Indian fashion designer. His label, Rathore Jodhpur, is known for having reinvented traditional royal designs from Rajasthan for a modern, global aficionado.

 

Scene from Unzipped— Isaac Mizrahi on putting together the pieces of the fashion puzzle

 

Scene from Unzipped— Mizrahi outlines his creative vision for his 1994 Fall show 

 

Scene from Unzipped— On the ramp and backstage with supermodels at Mizrahi’s show

 

Indie Show Down: Onir responds

In October TBIP took a petition to save indie cinema, by some of India’s most acclaimed filmmakers, to the I&B Ministry, and published its initial reactions. Filmmaker Onir, who drafted this petition, responds

Firstly, this petition to save indie cinema is not about criticizing anyone. The whole idea is that we can do this together. You are our government. This is our money. You can help us. How much ever you say we can’t do anything, we feel you can. The most important thing, in all of this, is the will. The desire to do something to change things that can be changed, instead of looking negatively at things that can’t.

Secondly, this petition is not about a power structure or power games between filmmakers, or between the state and centre. It’s not about a few people taking charge of the whole. It’s not about a person, or persons, controlling the funds allocated and dictating where it goes and why. It’s about collaboration. A collaboration between the states, and the centre. Between filmmakers and other members of the artistic community: painters, sculptors, musicians, writers…

A question has been raised as to who will decide the films to be shown in theatres for indie cinema that we’re asking the state to allocate funds for. Or the indie films that will be aired on Doordarshan? You can have a decentralized system by which bodies comprising luminaries of the film fraternity, or respected names from the other arts, are selected by the government in each region or state. The members of such bodies can be changed from time to time. They can vote to decide which films from their state or region will be exhibited, or aired. The I&B ministry cannot possibly be alien to the idea of such a structure. It has under its jurisdiction the NFDC which has centres throughout the country, with a script selection committee comprising known names from cinema and the arts. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC, more commonly referred to as the censor board) also functions in such a manner, with separate screening committees, deciding which films can be shown in different regions. Will this system be perfect? Perhaps not. But it will be something.

Another question has been raised as to the unavailability of, and difficulty in acquiring, land or properties that can be used as theatres to show such independent cinema. I have placed my faith in this petition because it is an issue I am passionate about. So naturally some thought has gone into it. I have travelled throughout this country and observed the paucity of exhibition spaces in cities and states outside of the metros. Andaman doesn’t have a single theatre. Manipur has just one. Shillong got one theatre, only last year. Srinagar has just one. These are places where land or property can be acquired at a fraction of what it would cost in Mumbai or Delhi. And these are the places that need such theatres the most, because their people don’t have many other ways of accessing independent cinema. Also, since the tickets won’t be priced that high, these films will be available to a large cross-section of society.

I’d like to reiterate here that we’re not asking for swanky multiplexes. We’re talking about basic spaces, hundred to two hundred seaters, where there will be digital projection, which will serve as theatres as well as centres for discussion, interaction and debate— film clubs of sorts. Among spaces you can use are university auditoriums. Colleges in such places have huge areas of land that can be utilized.

In the big cities or metros too there are so many properties that are lying unused. Let’s take the example of Delhi. We have four auditoriums that come to mind: the Meghdoot Auditorium on Copernicus Marg, the Films Division Auditorium at Mahadev Road, near Connaught Place, and two small theatres at Siri Fort Road that lie unused through most of the year. Mumbai has the Films Division auditorium. And the Y B Chawan and Nehru Centre Auditoriums. Similarly the I&B Ministry has well equipped, or moderately equipped cinemas in major cities throughout the country. Kolkata has an unused state theatre at Dakshinapan. Lucknow has theatres that are just lying unused. Since we’re spending money on so many things to celebrate this hundredth year of Indian cinema, I’m sure we can revive these auditoriums too. Do we have the will to?

Solutions can be found if there’s a desire to change things. Funds have been allocated already, the I&B Ministry says. But if this is what people need we can go back and re-look at this allocation. Because what is more important is that funds are used for the right things, and for long-lasting effects.

Another concern raised has been who will manage these theatres. Here we have to look at collaborating again. We could involve those who are in this business. A PVR can be involved. Greater support for films like the ones shown in PVR Director’s Rare (an initiative to promote independent cinema) may not be viable in the financial scheme of things at the multiplexes. But maybe they could be asked to run and manage these theatres for the government, instead? Or other private exhibitors can be brought in.

Finally, when it comes to showing independent films on Doordarshan, obviously these films won’t garner a lot of ads to begin with, because the audience for such cinema has been destroyed over the years. But it can be rebuilt.

These measures can make independent cinema available to all, let it breathe, give it a chance to be saved.

 

Also Read:

Delhi 5

Mihir Pandya tells you about 5 Delhi films that you must watch, and why

The Plea: Ab Dilli Door Nahin, 1957 

Many regard 1957 as a watershed year in Hindi cinema. One of the films released that year, along with Naya Daur, Pyaasa, Do Ankhen Barah Haath and Mother India was Ab Dilli Door Nahin.

Produced by Raj Kapoor and directed by Amar Kumar, Ab Dilli Door Nahin is a perfect example of a film made and set in a young nation-state. It is the 10th year of Indian independence. The state is slowly beginning to establish its authority over a new citizenry. And for that the state’s justice system becomes its primary tool. You can read other famous Raj Kapoor films like Awara, Shree 420 and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Bahti Hai along similar lines as Ab Dilli Door Nahin.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru has become the symbol of hope for an entire nation. His elusive promise of Justice For All becomes a personal ray of hope for Ratan, a small boy living in a village. He begins to believe Nehru’s promise is his only chance to save his father Hariram’s life, who has been falsely implicated in a murder case. Holding on to his faith, Ratan (played by Master Romi) embarks on a long journey to Delhi, the capital of the promised nation, with a plea for his father’s innocence.

Here’s a conversation that establishes the enormous significance of Delhi, and Nehru, in those days. In the scene Ghasita (Yaqub), a kind-hearted pick-pocket who accompanies Ratan to Delhi, is talking to Mukunda (Anwar Hussain), the real culprit of the murder, and Ratan. Ghasita is witness to the fact that Ratan’s father was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the killing, but the local police refuse to take his word for this because of his own dubious criminal record.

Ghasita: Come on, we’ll go to Delhi.

Mukunda: Delhi? Do you even know anyone there?

Ghasita: Yes, our Masita (another character) lives there.

Mukunda: The way you’re saying it, one would think you knew Pandit Nehru.

Ghasita: Who doesn’t know Pandit Nehru? He’s like a father to all of us. If he doesn’t listen to us, then who will he listen to? I’ll fall at his feet first, then beg for justice. I’ll tell him how, with an emperor of justice like him around, a child is being treated so unfairly. (To Ratan) Come on, we’ll free your father and send the real murderer to the gallows.

Ghasita goes on to say: What’s Delhi? I’ll go all the way to God if I have to.

The film also has memorable music by Dattaram with lyrics penned by Shailendra and Hasrat Jaipuri. Songs like Chun Chun Karti Aayi Chidiya (that used animation way ahead of its times), Ye Chaman Hamara Apna Hai and Lo Har Cheez Le Lo Zamaane Ke Logon are all markers of their times.

The Delhi that Ratan finally reaches has trees lining the India Gate and a visibly clean Yamuna coursing its veins. Here he meets Nehru finally, presents Ghasita as a witness, and secures a pardon for his father.

Raj Kapoor had initially persuaded Nehru to appear in this last scene of the film, where the child met him. His son Rishi Kapoor recalled in an interview that his father had said to Nehru that this would put his new government “on a high pedestal, and bring the desired credibility”. However, when it came to shooting the scene Nehru backed out for “reasons”, according to Rishi, that were “best known to him”. Instead, stock shots of Nehru were used for the film. Rishi Kapoor believes this took away considerably from the film. “As the whole film was based on the child’s meeting with the PM which didn’t happen, the film fell flat. Obviously no one could empathise with it”, he said.

The Capital Is For The Young: Tere Ghar Ke Samne, 1963 

Vijay Anand’s 1963 classic Tere Ghar Ke Samne is one of the best urban-youth love stories to have emerged out of Hindi cinema. Like a lot of other films produced by Vijay Anand’s production house, Navketan, in its early years, this film had a distinct modern sensibility that set it apart from other great production houses of the era. The Delhi of Tere Ghar Ke Samne is a new metropolis that provides the protagonists Rakesh (Dev Anand) and Sulekha (Nutan) with the possibility of overcoming familial pressures and societal barriers.

Rakesh is an architect who is contracted to build houses, located one in front of the other, for two warring businessmen. Neither of these businessmen know that he has been contracted to build the other’s house as well and each demands that his house be better than his rival’s. Rakesh is also the son of one of these businessmen, whereas Sulekha, whom he is in love with, is the daughter of the other. When the houses are finally unveiled, they are absolutely identical. Rakesh uses the replication of architectural design as the ultimate ‘solution’ to end the one-upmanship between two families. Reflected in his tongue-in-cheek ingenuity is Nehru’s socialist ideals and his idea of his dream-project Chandigarh— a meticulously planned city with similar looking blocks of houses.

Tere Ghar Ke Saamne references Nehruvian ideology at other times as well. In one scene where Rakesh and Sulekha discuss how they can get married, when their fathers are at war, he says: “Cheeni tareeqa yeh hai ki main bandook le kar tumhare ghar mein aa jaun aur thaa thaa zabardasti tumhe tumhare maa baap se cheen loon. Hindustani tareeqa hai Panchsheel ka tareeqa pyaar ka tareeqa (The Chinese way would be me reaching your house with a gun and snatching you away from your father. The Indian way is the way of the Panchsheel… the way of love).”

It is worth mentioning that when the film was in the making our capital’s first post-independence master plan was taking shape. This was the plan according to which Delhi’s development was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s. This plan elaborated the role of the Delhi Development Authority and laid clear provisions for the formation of independent colonies that would have their own markets and schools. You see the imprint of that powerful document in this romantic drama which begins with two businessmen bidding for residential land in a new Delhi colony at a government auction.

One of the lasting images from the film is that of the protagonist Rakesh, seated on a chair, while Sulekha’s house is being constructed in the background, reading a love letter written to him by Sulekha. She writes to him from Shimla describing how she wants him to build her room and how it has to be ‘open’ from all sides. He is reading the love letter and remembering his lady love, and all this while the construction work continues behind him.

“Maahaul achcha hai”: Chashme Buddoor, 1981

Sai Paranjpye’s Chashme Buddoor is about the space- physical and mental, that Delhi once provided to a generation that was in college in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A space for friendship, love and other delightful reveries. The capital wasn’t as densely populated then as it is now, and there were many public places like parks, or spaces on Delhi’s North Campus, where couples could find spells of privacy. This is in stark contrast with the city as it is today. Sometime in the early nineties the Delhi Police began to routinely raid such public spaces and oust young couples who had come to spend time there. This ridiculous practice, that continues to this day, has been dubbed ‘Operation Majnu’ by some TV channels.

Chashme Buddoor’s Delhi, a pre-‘Operation Majnu’ Delhi, is also bereft of the crazy urban development that the city has seen in the last 20 years. But it is not the ancient city of dilapidated monuments either. It is the long lost 1980s campus city rarely documented in cinema (the only other film that talks about this Delhi is a lesser known indie film directed by Pradeep Kishen: In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones). At the heart of the film are the vast and deserted New Delhi roads, laced by lush greens.

This is the Delhi inhabited by its three protagonists – Siddharth Parashar (Farooq Shaikh), Omi (Rakesh Bedi) and Jomo (Ravi Baswani), students sharing a flat and living outside of the familial structure (the only reason we know they even have families is because they keep receiving money orders from back home). It is also home to a paan and cigarette shop owner called Lallan miyan (Saeed Jaffrey), a character replete with old world charm and painstaking diction— who still uses archaic Urdu words like andagafheel (to vanish).

An enduring scene from the film is one where one of the protagonists, Siddharth, is out on a date at an open air restaurant, that used to be at the Talkatora Gardens. “Yahaan achcha kya hai (What’s good here)?” he asks the waiter, who replies: “Maahaul achcha Hai (The ambience is good)”. I went to the spot where the restaurant used to be, after re-visiting the film in 2010. A guard at the Gardens told me it had been shut down a couple of years ago. The Talkatora Gardens themselves seem to have faded from the city’s public memory despite being located in Central Delhi. The guard said not as many people came there anymore. I looked around and found a few couples sneaking intimate moments. The guard was disapproving of this. “This isn’t a family place any more,” he said.


In Dark Times: New Delhi Times, 1986

Directed by Romesh Sharma, New Delhi Times is one of Gulzar’s best screenplays. Like Ab Dilli Door Nahin, this film represents Delhi as India’s mighty capital, except three decades later it appears to have entrenched itself as the seat of corruption, concerned with little except power and money. Ab Dilli Door Nahin‘s naive dream of the capital as a temple of justice and progressive thinking is obliterated by the gritty portrait of Delhi as a cold and cruel metropolis, up for grabs by those who are determined to ascend the slippery slope of social hierarchy in any which way.

Two tracks play out parallel to one another in the film: one in Delhi, the other in the small town of Ghazipur (a district in Eastern UP). As Journalist Vikas Pande (Shashi Kapoor) traces the murder of an MLA in Ghazipur, and subsequent riots that break out in the district, all the way to a burgeoning politician-industrialist-journalist nexus in Delhi, these tracks collide, showing us how places like Ghazipur are mere pawns for such nexuses in the big bad capital city. 

Most of the horrific events in New Delhi Times play out at night, which was possibly intended by Sharma and Gulzar as a suitable way of bringing out the city’s dark side. It is at night that a reporter who works for Pande is run over by a truck on a Delhi highway before he can tell him what he has found. It is also night when Pande and his wife Nisha (Sharmila Tagore) return home to find their beloved pet cat killed by way of a deadly warning. But Pande labors on through the dark believing he will be able to pin down an evil parliamentarian (Om Puri) who he believes is responsible for all this. Then he discovers that another political group in the city, as deadly the one he seeks to prosecute, has been using his zeal for this story to its own end. The last scene of the film has Pande writing an editorial which denounces both of these groups, resigned to the nightmare India’s first city has become.

On The Fringes: Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, 2008 

Finally, a film that takes us into the back alleys of the formidable capital celebrated and lamented by the films listed above. In Dibakar Banerjee’s Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye! Delhi isn’t the oppressive power-centre of New Delhi Times or the idyllic campus-city of Chashme Buddoor. And it definitely hasn’t turned out to be the well planned city Tere Ghar Ke Samne willed it to be or the citadel of justice Ab Dilli Door Nahin saw it as. Oye Lucky… is Banerjee’s uncovering of a city within Delhi, just below the class divide. The rambling mess of post-partition colonies aspiring to push into the cool colonnades of middle-class life in South and Central Delhi; setting itself apart and yet trying to elbow its way into the parade of the posh; endearing itself with its distinctly delicious dialect in one minute and letting its hypocrisies swell like the open gutter in the next.

Banerjee brings this part of the city alive by looking beyond the historicity that overwhelms the capital, relegating it to a campy tourist photo of an adolescent Lucky (the titular role, played by Manjot Singh and Abhay Deol) with his closest friend, shot to make it seem like they’re touching the top of the Qutub Minar.

Lucky grows up in a lower-middle class Sikh family living in a peripheral West Delhi colony. This has narrow filthy streets, electrical wires that hang loose from lamp posts, red chillies being dried in courtyards and old-style UHF antennae on the rooftops. Here is the Delhi of real-life-master-thief Devinder Singh, alias Bunty, whose life Oye Lucky… has been inspired by; the megapolis of a melee of North Indian migrants whose characteristic Jat twang transforms ‘Rajouri Gardens’ into ‘Raj-au-ri’.

An older Lucky thieves his way through his youth in search of a place where he can belong. When his father, who beats him up and neglects him, refuses to lend him his scooter he steals a motorcycle from a garage. He takes a girl out on it to “New Amar”, a seedy West Delhi restaurant that he can ill-afford. Later, he joins a gang to rob houses, then goes solo because he is betrayed by his partners-in-crime. He steals, among other things, a Mercedes, a TV, a laptop, greeting cards, a teddy bear, a photo frame and a pomeranian. He tries to buy his way into respectability by owning a Delhi restaurant, but is cheated again. As Lucky finally gets caught he is discussing a romantic but futile getaway with his girlfriend, across balconies in a West Delhi colony, even as his loot is being seized. These moments are all he can steal to keep.

 

Mihir Pandya is author of the book Shahar Aur Cinema: Via Dilli

Turning Point

As we lead up to the centenary of Indian Cinema we ask those who’ve journeyed with it to name one significant turning point in its path.

“A turning point in Indian cinema, as in the cinema of many countries, was the advent of dubbing and playback, beginning with India’s first talkie Alam Ara in 1931. A musical, this film established song and dance as the mainstay of Indian cinema— a tradition that continues till this day. But, more importantly, dubbing and playback changed the way performance was perceived. Performances no longer had to be loud and theatrical. A character could be portrayed through acting that was ‘minimal’. The words of American actor and method-acting teacher Sanford Meisner, “an ounce of behaviour is worth a pound of words”, found new relevance in Indian cinema. The introduction of dubbing and playback also meant we were no longer reliant on actors who could sing. Instead, attention shifted to nuances in actors’ dialogue delivery or his body language. Stars like Prithviraj Kapoor and then Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand were known for mannerisms and dialogue delivery specific to each of them. Later you had the phenomenon of the Angry Young Man, a character whose quiet brooding intensity would have been quite unimaginable if we didn’t have dubbing and playback. Today too, one associates an actor, such as Salman Khan or Aamir Khan, with their unique style of acting and dialogue delivery that either strikes a chord with the audience, or not.”

Salim Khan, 77, has been one of India’s best known scriptwriters. Along with Javed Akhtar he wrote some of the biggest hits of the seventies and the eighties, including Yaadon Ki Baaraat, Deewaar, Sholay and Don. Salim-Javed, as the duo came to be known, are credited with creating a new kind of protagonist—the angry young man—often played by superstar Amitabh Bachchan.

Eye of the beholder: Pushpamala N

Pushpamala N (born in 1965) is a Bangalore based photography and video performance artist. Starting out as a sculptor with an interest in narrative figuration, Pushpamala N eventually took to casting her own body as various characters and personae in the medium of photo-performance. Interested in exploring photography as a medium of narrative fiction, she drew heavily from the history and traditions of cinema for her work. Recently she has also been using experimental short films, live performances and sculptural tableaux to explore the ideas that fascinate her. In this interview she talks about the synergy between movies and photographs, takes us into the fantastical and intriguing world of her art, discusses her work and traces its roots in cinema, explains her oeuvre that stands firmly in the middle-ground between film and photography and tells us that, in India, cinema and photography both created and recorded the country’s modernity.

Leisure and Longing in Mumbai

Here is the story of Aram Nagar, whose houses went from being British barracks to bungalows of leisure. The story of how it became a hub for those wanting to make it in the movies and those at the helm of a new kind of Hindi cinema. And the story of how it may all disappear

 

73 year old Balbir Singh Sandhu is in the middle of making his first film. He is stocky and has a flowing white beard. He wears a turban that is so faded that it is difficult to make out what its original color was. Today he is dressed in a loose collar t-shirt and baggy trousers which give him the appearance of a disheveled Santa Claus on a sabbatical. We are at his office in Aram Nagar 2, in Versova, Mumbai. Glossy posters of his unfinished film take up most of a large softboard. Unknown bikini clad models in and around a swimming pool. Men in suits and ties, and women with plunging necklines, who look into the camera in a medley of expressions that signify lust, suspicion, envy, rage— separately and all at once. A couple, presumably the leading pair, gaze at each other coyly in the middle of an embrace. A man reaches out towards you with a murderous glint in his eye. Just below him is the film’s title: I Will Find My Murderer. The ‘I’ is in the shape of a Christian cross, bleeding at the top.

 

Sandhu is producing the thriller under his own banner, Prabhjot Films, named after his son, who passed away in the 1970s, at a very young age. He finished writing it two years ago and began shooting it last year. But he has finished only half of it because, as he puts it: “I’m working with new actors and this always takes more time”. Accompanying the posters, on the softboard, are two photographs of Sandhu with yesteryear superstar Rajesh Khanna.

 

On another wall, behind his desk, are worn out laminated certificates of recognition for social activism. They explain a second signboard—one larger than the plate that says Prabhjot Films—both propped up on stands just outside his office. A signboard claiming that this is also the Andheri West office for the All India Human Rights Association (AIHRA), Maharashtra.

 

Sandhu tells us that he heads the district committee for the association. He insists that we refer to him as Balbir Badshah (‘Badshah’ meaning ‘king’), instead of using his actual name. He says that’s what everyone in the vicinity calls him. But he doesn’t have a specific answer for what exactly his social work involves. “I’ve been a social worker since 1954,” he says cryptically. “Even when I was young, in my hometown, I would help marry young couples and organize events for festivals.” Nowadays, he says, he helps resolve “domestic disputes”. He is also a part of protests in the area against a builder who wants to redevelop Aram Nagar by demolishing existing bungalows and cottages.

 

Cottages like the one that Sandhu lives and works out of. This is one of two spaces that he uses as offices. Despite the garish film posters, there is an air of tranquility. It is furnished simply with two small wooden tables, a desk, basic plastic and foam swivel chairs and a cramped computer workstation. Sandhu says he uses this office for his AIHRA meetings. At the other end of the house is another, more done-up room that Sandhu uses to meet people for his film. It is lit brightly. There are stained glass panels on the walls and a smooth table topped with black granite.

 

Sandhu moved to this house, from Karnal, in Punjab, 42 years ago. “I was a business man,” he says. “I was involved in many businesses, especially the business of chemicals.” He came to Bombay to become a hotelier but didn’t succeed. “Then I was also writing in the newspapers before that,” he goes on. “So, after that, as a writer, I entered films.” He wrote a film called Vaishya (Prostitute), which was directed by Syed Hussain, whom he calls his guru. But the film did not see a release. Then Sandhu wrote Aashiana (Home), a 1974 film, also directed by Hussain, which had a very young Neetu Singh, who would go on to become one of the biggest stars of the decade. Sandhu says he did some more “uncredited writing” in the 1970s, and then stopped. His “many businesses” kept him going. His daughter got married and settled in the UK. His wife passed away.

 

Outside Sandhu’s house a tin roof, held up by iron poles, forms a makeshift garage for his silver colored car— a Hyundai Accent. The house itself seems to be a squat, smallish structure. But it has been improvised. A section of the porch has been covered by thick tarpaulin, straw mats, and the kind of cloth used in shamianas (tent shelters used for outdoor parties and feasts) to fashion a room out of it. It is hard to imagine that this house was once one of many structures used to house British soldiers during the Second World War.

 

***

 

Sandhu’s house is one of 367 in Aram Nagar, an area divided into Parts 1 and 2 and spread out over 40 acres of land in Versova, a locality in the suburb of Andheri, in North-West Mumbai. In the 1930s, when the country was under British rule, these buildings were British Army barracks. Today they contain, among other occupants, many photography and casting studios and the offices of some of the leading lights of the Hindi film industry. In fact, the area has become a hub for what is loosely called ‘new Bollywood’. A Bollywood that makes saleable films which steer away from its more formulaic and starry big-budget productions, and has a greater consideration for meaningful cinema. The advent of filmwallahs in the area initially met with resistance from the older residents but they eventually reconciled. Today Aram Nagar faces a new threat. A state authority called the Maharashtra Housing And Development Association (MHADA) wants to demolish most of the houses and build apartment blocks in their place. They have appointed a private construction company to do so.

 

***

 

“They were single storied brick buildings, with asbestos roofs,” says 78 year old Hynginus D’Lima about the barracks that have become Aram Nagar. “The area where the Bhavan’s college complex stands today also had British barracks,” he adds. He has been born and brought up in Andheri and as such is the one of the oldest and most authoritative voices on the history of the suburb. He draws up a rough map to explain the topography of the land in the 1930s. “Versova was not thought to be a part of Andheri then,” he explains. “And neither Versova, nor Andheri, were a part of Bombay.” Before the barracks came, in the area where Bhavan’s College is now, there was a Japanese golf course and club. “They had to leave during the war, because Japan allied with Germany— the enemy,” D’Lima says. We are at his house, a single storied building called ‘Herwish’, in Andheri Gaonthan, Lane 1, where D’Lima has lived all his life. Her-wish, because this was a house his mother really wanted. “There was a narrow strip of road through marshy land which connected Andheri to Versova,” D’Lima continues. This marshy land is what is now known as Four Bungalows and Seven Bungalows. “A bus service was begun on this road,” says D’Lima. “Connecting the two areas.” But because the buses were double deckers, and the road too narrow, they would often keel over. The only other means of transport was a kind of bullock cart that had rubber tyres.

 

After Independence, in 1947, the barracks were used to house Sindhi refugees who came in from Pakistan after the Partition, many of whom extended the basic brick structures into more comfortable housing. By the 1960s many of the refugees had moved out from here to more central locales in the city of Bombay, and the state government took over the land and allotted these homes as permanent housing to Class 4 employees (the junior-most grade in government service). Eventually, a lot of them moved out too. Many of the current residents have had the leases of the previous occupants transferred to their names, and have stayed on as tenants of the state. “They beatified the houses,” says D’Lima referring perhaps to the tacky embellishments to be found on most houses in the area. Some tenants believe that their long stay here has given them rights of ownership. The State believes otherwise.

 

As roads in the area got better, and Versova was absorbed into Andheri, and Andheri into Bombay, which became Mumbai, the builders came. Robust skyscrapers now loom threateningly over the midget bungalows of Aram Nagar. The bungalows and cottages themselves, however, are still connected to one another by a maze of dirt tracks, which can be a nightmare to navigate. The tracks get flooded during the monsoons and sprout greenery immediately after, giving the locality the eerie feel of a hamlet in the middle of Mumbai, that does not belong, yet has been forever. The only thing that makes sense in all of this is its name whose origins no one can trace. Aram Nagar, or the ‘Township Of Leisure’.

 

To complicate the paradox of this space, Bollywood began to move in in the 1990’s. Photographer Jagdish Mali, known for his portraits of Hindi film stars, remembers taking a walk here with a friend after a meal in 1992. He was struck by “the atmosphere of the place, the calm and the greenery”. And by the houses that seemed to belong to a different era altogether. He set up his studio there in the same year. A few years ago he moved out but not without casting his influence. His assistant, Rajesh Gaunde, set up his own photography studio in 1997. Gaunde was also the first person in Andheri to offer his studio, named Studio 2000, up for film auditions. “At that time the only other big casting studio for ad film auditions was Famous Studios in Mahalaxmi (roughly a 90 minutes drive away),” he says. “Hardly two to three auditions used to happen at my place in those days.” Only if an actor lived in the suburbs, too far away from the heart of the city, was he or she asked to audition at Gaunde’s studio.

 

Over time, more and more advertising agencies began to set shop in the suburbs. Actors and models too began shifting to the Northern parts of the city. (Today Andheri is the hub of aspiring models and actors). With these changes the demand for cheaper and nearer spaces to conduct auditions in went up and business boomed for Gaunde. Many more photography studios and audition centers began to come up as well. The quiet lanes of Aram Nagar were suddenly swarming with ‘strugglers’— as acting and modeling aspirants are known in these parts. Young girls wearing layers of makeup and boys in skin tight t-shirts, older men and women too, who wanted to be cast in their dream roles. It took the long-term residents of the area a while to get used to the sight of a model teetering off her stilettos into a puddle or, occasionally, a leading Bollywood director stuck in his car in a waterlogged Aram Nagar gully in the oppressive Mumbai monsoons.

 

A few years after Gaunde opened Studio 2000, the Aram Nagar Resident’s Association had demanded that he shut it down. They were concerned that the models and actors, with their flashy and skimpy clothes and boisterous manners, would be an untoward influence on their children. Gaunde called a meeting of the association at the end of which they agreed to let the studio be. A resident who was at the meeting lets out that Gaunde had agreed to shut his studio on condition that other residents who ran commercial establishments or offices from within their homes, without a license, would shut shop too. Many residents of Aram Nagar, often even retired ones, run some sort of business from their homes. This could mean an office space for their enterprise, or a shop selling homemade foodstuff, or could simply imply sub-letting a section of their bungalow to a business concern. As many of these establishments don’t have the necessary license, they are not entirely within the law. The objections to Gaunde’s studio were withdrawn quickly in the wake of his veiled threat to report the liberties his neighbours had been taking with the law. And they haven’t been raised since.

 

A crowd of actors gathers outside Studio 2000 to audition for an HDFC Bank ad. The filmmakers want to cast a man who is above 60, and a woman in her 20s. Casting calls have been sent out through text messages and through casting coordinators, who extract up to 10% of the actor’s fee as commission for getting them the role. Auditions are held for one to five days for an ad, and can go on for months for a film. The hall in which auditions take place is lit brightly with lights on stands and is bare except for a curtain, that is used as a backdrop, and a camera hooked up to a TV screen. Actors are handed a white board on which they write their name, age, height and mobile number, and hold it up to their chests as the camera zooms in on them. They introduce themselves to the camera, flash a smile, and look left and right so their profiles register. Then they act out a scene they have been asked to perform. They are allowed two to three takes. Studio 2000 does 50 to 100 such auditions in a day.

 

64 year old Purushottam Mulani has just completed his audition. He’s tall and fair, with a round face and salt and pepper hair. He’s asking the cameraman who filmed him to give him feedback on his performance. Mulani claims all the cameramen say to him, every time, is “very good” and “excellent” but there’s no genuine feedback. The cameraman says this isn’t true. He’s up-front with those who don’t make the cut. A man came in earlier today and the casting crew had to spend half an hour explaining the scene to him. They gave up on him when he still did not seem to get it. Sometimes, when actors insist on auditioning, even when the crew tells them they don’t fit the part, the casting crew does what they call a ‘Kodak’. This is a fake take, where the cameraman turns on the camera, but doesn’t record the audition.

 

Mulani has appeared in all sorts of films, from action blockbusters like Ghajini to No One Killed Jessica (a thriller based on a real murder trial) to Miss Lovely, an independent film that made it to the Festival de Cannes. Casting directors claim he’s got the “good father look”. He owns a building in Lokhandwala, nearby, whose flats he rents out to actors. The same actors tell him about casting opportunities and he turns up for an audition when he feels there’s a suitable role. He says he doesn’t do it for the money. “I am looking for something substantial that will test my acting skills,” he explains.

 

The casting and photography studios were only the first phase in Aram Nagar’s live-in relationship with Bollywood. In 2006 Ajay Rai, a producer with UTV Motion Pictures, one of India’s biggest film production houses, rented an office for the director and the creative team of the film Mumbai Meri Jaan (Mumbai, My Life— a film on the aftermath of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts) to work out of. “It was very well connected— you could easily find autos, and there was so much space for parking,” are reasons Rai gives for why he chose the locality. “And it’s so reasonably priced too.”

 

He returned the office to the broker after work on the film was completed, but came back to Aram Nagar, in 2009, as executive producer with UTV Spotboy, UTV Motion Picture’s new offbeat film division, to set up office for a children’s film called Chillar Party. The offices for most UTV Motion Pictures and UTV Spotboy productions over the next few years were rented in Aram Nagar. In the last five years UTV Motion Pictures and UTV Spotboy have produced films by new directors who have ushered in a new kind of Hindi movie— experimental but deferent to commercial concerns. Directors like Anurag Kashyap, Raj Kumar Gupta, Tigmanshu Dhulia and Dibakar Banerjee. Kashyap has since then set up his own production company, Anurag Kashyap Films Production Ltd (AKFPL), that has two offices in Aram Nagar as well. Tigmanshu Dhulia has his office in the area too. Eventually Rai left UTV to start his own production house Jar Pictures but he did not leave Aram Nagar. Meanwhile, the UTV Spotboy office he established has shut. Vikas Bahl, the creative head of UTV Spotboy, left the company to start a new venture called Phantom Films with Kashyap and director Vikramaditya Motwane. The Phantom office stands where the UTV Spotboy office once was— at 121, Aram Nagar 2.

 

With the advent of a new kind of cinema, the profile of the aspiring actor has changed too. Now Aram Nagar is thronged not just by fair, light-eyed young men and women with gym-sculpted bodies but also plainer looking aspirants, from small towns throughout the country, who believe they can be Aram Nagar’s next big find. Their role model is not so much Hrithik Roshan as Nawazuddin Siddiqui, the star of Kashyap’s last film, an epic revenge saga called Gangs Of Wasseypur. The ‘strugglers’ fill up cafes just outside Aram Nagar on Yari road, where they chat endlessly about the possibilities this new kind of cinema has opened up for them. They loiter around the dirt tracks, breaking into impromptu performances to attract the attention of some casting director who might happen to notice them, or for practice, or fun.

 

55 year old Kevin Martyres lives opposite Studio 2000. He has lived here all his life and has witnessed closely Aram Nagar’s transition into a moviemaker’s hub. Martyres works out of home. He supplies steamed corn to multiplexes across the country. His office comprises a foldable table and chair, and a filing cabinet. He is worried that the safety of the area has been put at stake because of the tremendous number of visitors the film production offices and studios solicit. This is especially worrying because Aram Nagar is not a gated colony, and there are too many entries and exits to actually keep track of who is coming in, or leaving. “It’s a nice sight to watch beautiful women,” he says. “But I have the right to protect my family. I don’t want so many strangers around.” Also, he doesn’t like so many people “roaming about, smoking, eating, littering and peeping into my house”. He also complains that the actors create a lot of noise while rehearsing for their auditions.

 

But his principal grouse is with the parking space these visitors occupy. It is an issue that seems to overwhelm Martyres. “They park their vehicles haphazardly,” he says. “There have been numerous fights between these commercial establishments and the residents because of parking.” He goes on to add: “If there is a Third World War, it will be because of parking.” It is hard to get him to talk about anything else. When asked about his relationship with people he knows from the film industry, he says: “I have a good relationship with all the filmi people. But if there is a parking issue, I will be the first one to fight.” We ask him if he has ever interacted with a film star. He recalls having met 1990s’ action hero Suniel Shetty once. “He was very well spoken,” he recalls. “I told him he couldn’t park here and he got his car removed.” He reiterates: “If you want peace, there has to be war.”

 

Yet Martyres agrees that “there is no industry bigger, more colourful, than the film industry.” Or more incestuous. While Aram Nagar prides itself on being home to a whole new breed of directors, the incestuousness associated with the film industry has seeped into its by-lanes in its own way. Take Martyres’ son, 21 year old Stefan, who has just graduated and is working for Actor Sohail Khan’s PR agency which is just a few blocks down the lane. He has worked, before this, as an assistant director on Muskurake Dekh Zara (Look At Me With A Smile), a 2010 film produced by Ram Gopal Varma ( one of the first big directors who defied formulaic conventions of Hindi cinema) and directed by Varma’s cousin P. Som Shekar. Shekar stays a few blocks away from Martyres too.

 

While the older generation in Aram Nagar still seem a world removed from Bollywood, their children or grandchildren are not. Their lives reiterate Frigyes Karinthy’s ‘six degrees of separation’, often whittling the degrees down to three or two. A friend of Stefan’s, for instance, is 22 year old Prateek Agarwal. His family has been living in Aram Nagar since the 1940s. His father and grandfather are timber merchants. But Prateek is an event manager who wants to manage celebrities instead. The family is not star-struck by Aram Nagar’s new inhabitants. Only once does Prateek remember his folks being excited— when Dharmendra visited the area. “But he’s Dharmendra,” he says by way of explanation. His mother Uma is more concerned about the restaurants and cafes that have come up around the area, particularly those close to their home. They add exponentially to the litter and noise, she tells us. Their house is a two-storeyed structure where Prateek’s uncles, grandparents and parents all live together. It is a stone’s throw away from Cafe Mangii, a high end Italian restaurant that serves as a lunch spot and meeting place for film folk. It is also very close to the AKFPL office.

 

Anurag Kashyap’s office shows no signs of the activity that one would expect of a bustling production house. It is surrounded by a six feet high wall. Inside there are framed posters of most of Kashyap’s films— Dev D, Shaitaan, Black Friday, Gangs Of Wasseypur and Return Of Hanuman, an animated children’s film he had directed in 2007. Several Assistant Directors sit chatting, sipping tea or working on their laptops in the foyer. There is a large picnic table and benches where people smoke and talk shop or exchange gossip. Kashyap’s own room, just as you enter the office, seems as if it is rarely used. There is a black desk and chairs. There are no papers or stationery on the desk. Most of the work happens in the inner rooms where the production and post-production teams work. On the day that we visit the office space is being renovated and workers are walking back and forth with plywood and electric drills and saws. Karuna Dutt, one of Kashyap’s assistant directors, describes the experience of working in the office as idyllic. “We listen to music, people start singing in the middle of work,” she says. “And then we realize we have deadlines to meet, and get back to work. It is like our own space, really.”

 

Down the lane from the office is the Holy Cross Convent. A large one-storied structure, it houses nuns from the Sisters of Mercy order of the Holy Cross. A gravel path leads from a formidable iron gate to the front door with small faded letters that say: “Jesus, Bless This House”. There are flower beds and small plants on either side. We are led into a waiting room with a couch and tables with matching blue tablecloths that have yellow flowers on them. The room also has an altar and a large portrait of Christ on one wall.

 

The building has belonged to the order for 37 years. Previously, it was owned by a group of ornithologists, who used it as their office. 20 nuns lived at the convent once, and worked at the Holy Spirit and Vimala Hospitals nearby. But most of them have now moved to Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, for missionary work in the villages. Two nuns—Sister Mary Margaret and Sister Christine—stay at the convent currently. The house is used as a creche for the children of domestic workers until three pm every day. There are 30 children and three helpers. Also, the dormitory rooms, which used to house the nuns once, is now a subsidized paying guest accommodation for unmarried women, earning minimum wage, who can stay for up to two years. Only eight of the 15 beds in these rooms are occupied.

 

The nuns say that many of the women who leave their children at the creche, or who stay at the dormitory, are victims of domestic violence. Sister Mary Margaret narrates the tale of a pair of twin girls who has been left with them for a few months. She had been beaten and mistreated by her husband’s family because she delivered twins who were girls. When she was pregnant again she fled their home for fear of the abuse she would have to endure if she gave birth to a female child again. She went to stay at her parents house, away from the city. To spite her, and because he didn’t particularly care for the twins she had given birth to, her husband left his daughters with the nuns at the convent. She delivered a boy. Now, the family she had married into wanted her back. Her husband came to the convent to reclaim his daughters, drunk, at night. The nuns refused to let him in. Eventually the woman went back to him, with her children.

 

The nuns maintain neighbourly relations with Kashyap’s office next-door. The watchman alerts them, for instance, if he sees any of the children straying out of the gate. Once, when a man had created a scene outside the convent and collapsed, drunk, at its gate, the watchman had helped remove him. Portions of the AKFPL film Shaitaan (The Devil), a dark psychological thriller directed by Bejoy Nambiar, were shot outside the convent. The crew asked for permission to shoot inside, but the nuns refused. They haven’t seen any of AKFPL’s films, or any recent films for that matter. “We don’t have the time,” says Sister Mary Margaret. “We only watch about half an hour of TV in the evening everyday.”

 

***

 

Filmmaker Tigmanshu Dhulia set up office here in 2009. He had been looking for an office in Bandra or Lokhandwala, but couldn’t afford it back then. His first office in the area was rented by UTV, so he could work on their production Paan Singh Tomar, a biopic based on an athlete turned dacoit, which he was directing. But he has rented another office and stayed on even after the film was done. He was taken in by “the open spaces and the greenery” of Aram Nagar, he says. Dhulia relishes the fact that a place like this can exist in Mumbai, and that he works from it. The dirt tracks of Aram Nagar may be filthy and a breeding ground for diseases, especially in the monsoon. The bungalows may seem tacky and awkward. But to Dhulia, and many other people, this is the best escape from the many anxieties of the city. “We feel really cut-off here,” he adds. “It doesn’t even look like Bombay.”

 

He asserts that, unlike so many other people’s offices, his office is “not a flat, it’s a cottage”, which is not something Bandra or Lokhandwala would have been able to afford him. There is a lemon yellow gate that leads you into the small courtyard, partly covered by a tin-shed, where there are some plastic chairs, a table tennis table, that is folded, but in working condition, and a poster of Paan Singh Tomar. Two stray dogs, adopted by Dhulia, saunter about the place freely. The walls have been painted bright blue but something about the ‘cottage’ is still reminiscent of the army barracks long gone.

 

The table tennis table has become a sort of rallying point for people who are working with Dhulia, or an indicator for those who will end up doing so. Karan Bhutani, Dhulia’s associate director, remembers how Actor Randeep Hooda used to come in the evenings to play table tennis there when he had no work. On one such evening Dhulia and his team came up with the idea of Saheb, Biwi Aur Gangster (The Master, Wife and The Gangser). The title of the film (a take on legendary filmmaker Guru Dutt’s classic Sahib, Bibi aur Ghulam or ‘The Master, Wife and The Slave’) was thought of first, then they worked out a script and the locale. Hooda, who happened to be there, playing table tennis, was cast as the ‘gangster’ in the movie. The film, made on a shoestring budget, went on to win a lot of acclaim. Now they’re making a sequel— Saheb Biwi Aur Gangster Returns in which they’ve cast Actor Pravesh Rana. “He plays table tennis here too,” says Bhutani. This transition of Aram Nagar into a kind of freewheeling commune for filmwallahs suits Dhulia just fine. He often bumps into acquaintances, old and new, at the locality. “In Bombay, you only end up meeting your colleagues in parties or premieres normally”, he says. “Here, I can just walk around and you’ll bump into Sunil (Bohra- a prominent film producer). Or Sudhir bhai (Mishra, an acclaimed filmmaker). Or an old friend from NSD (the National School of Drama, where Dhulia had studied theatre) who’s working with films now.” Bhutani, only 23, is looking to start his own office here soon, and make his first film.

 

Dhulia also believes that there is an unmistakable sense of community that exists between filmwallahs in Aram Nagar and its older residents. He shares a warm relationship with his elderly neighbors, 85 year old K S Hariharan and his wife Vishalakshi, who live next door. “They’re an elderly couple,” he says. “They feel secure because my office boys are here all the time. This place is very lonely in the night and we have some dubious happenings at times. There have been instances of petty theft at my office.” Someone stole the iron lid off the water storage tank at his cottage. “It weighed six kilos,” he says. “There are some drug addicts who roam around the area at night. It was probably them. So all this shit happens. But it’s alright.” The couple call his office boys if they need help around their house. And bring back sweets and packets of banana chips for Dhulia whenever they visit their hometown in Kerala.

 

Hariharan’s courtyard has a small Tulsi plant in the middle. The porch of the house has been covered because, says Hariharan, “the crows would bring in non-veg food”. He moved here 50 years ago. He used to work as a secretary with Bharat Petroleum, but he’s long retired. He’s wearing a white mundu (a traditional sarong like garment worn around the waist in South India) with a golden border. We’re at his study, sipping sweet Kerala filter coffee from steel tumblers.

 

Dhulia is the only filmwallah in the area whom Hariharan interacts with. He doesn’t approve of today’s movies, not even the films made by Dhulia. Their violence, their brazen use of swear words, their amoral depiction of reality, make him recoil. “Films should mould children’s minds, catch them young,” he reasons. “These days both parents work mostly, so children are left alone at home. Movies they watch have a huge influence on them.”

 

***

 

In the room adjoining Hariharan’s study is a cabinet that is filled with files and documents related to the proposed redevelopment of Aram Nagar. At the heart of the issue lies the fact that the State of Maharashtra claims that the land on which Aram Nagar lies belongs to it, and that it has the right to break down the bungalows and cottages to build low-cost apartment complexes in their place. It has appointed a real estate developer called RNA Builders to carry out this task.

 

The residents will be compensated in lieu of this and be given a flat in the new buildings. The High Court, in 2010, ruled in favour of the land being redeveloped by MHADA. The residents have asked for a revision of this ruling on the grounds that the developer has actually not obtained consent from the residents of Aram Nagar (70 percent of the residents need to provide consent). The person in charge of the Aram Nagar project at RNA Builders is Sudhir Pillai. Despite repeated phone calls to his office over the last one and a half months he has been unavailable for comment. Phone calls to the legal department of RNA Builders have yielded the same result.

 

Those living or working in Aram Nagar are divided into three groups by way of their reaction to this stand:

 

One group of residents, which Hariharan is a member of, believes that they own their houses by virtue of having lived in them for so long. They do not want the area on which their houses are to be redeveloped and have fought a long drawn case against the government on this front. They cite a government resolution of 1987 which was applied to similar properties, where tenants were allowed to buy their houses from the government at subsidized rates—where the houses had been allotted to them by the government itself—or at premiums, where the tenants had bought the leases to such homes from the state allottees.

 

Another group of residents, such as Martyres and Sandhu, are open to the idea of Aram Nagar’s redevelopment but have taken umbrage to the way it has been orchestrated so far. They believe the real estate developer for the project should have been appointed with their consent. “The developer was chosen by a committee of 13 members from the Aram Nagar Tenant’s Welfare Association,” says Nitin Mavani, the Secretary of this association. He refrains from commenting on how these 13 members were chosen, despite repeated phone calls and SMSes.

Another contention of this group of residents is that the consent to redevelop the area has actually not been obtained from 70 % of the residents. Here, Hariharan claims that the residents have gotten hold of a report filed by MHADA to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, which says that only  “62%” of the residents consented to the redevelopment. They obtained a copy of this report by filing a Right To Information (RTI) petition. So this group of residents believe this move to redevelop the area should be scrapped and begun anew.

 

A third group comprises of people who work here but live elsewhere. A lot of them are from the film industry. They see themselves as tenants with no real rights over the land, or voice in the issue. “They’ve got a stay order, how long it will last?” asks Karan Bhutani, Dhulia’s assistant. “There is no saying whether the builder will win the case eventually or no. In any case we can’t do anything about it. At the end of the day we are working here on a rental basis.”

 

Some residents hope that the film personalities who have their offices, or residence, here will be able to deter the authorities. Bhutani subscribes to the theory that the filmwallahs might be able to wield their clout. “Suniel Shetty and Javed Jaffrey have offices here”, he tells us. “They own property. So they will fight to prevent the redevelopment.”When we contacted Shetty to get his take on the issue, he claimed he has “moved out of Aram Nagar” and so can’t really comment on the situation. Hariharan too praises Jaffrey and his wife Bina for their support. Yet all this support has meant is that they have provided a “means of transport” (a car) to members of the group when they’ve had meetings with lawyers or the authorities. A petition against redevelopment was filed in the High Court in 2010 by, among others filmmaker Guddu Dhanoa, Cinematographer Rakesh Shreshtha and photographer Subi Samuel. When contacted Subi Samuel too chooses not to comment on the issue. Evidently, despite its influence the Hindi film industry has not taken a firm stand against redevelopment, perhaps because, legally, it is a complicated matter and the industry is not known to stick its neck out for complex social or political concerns. Or maybe because the idea of home in Mumbai is transient and takes a few decades to take shape. The strongest petitioners against the area’s redevelopment remain an older, more traditional lot, who cherish the British barracks they have lived in, and transformed in their own modest ways. Their cottages of leisure, in a city that decries the idea.

Iran, Islam and The Movies.

Prof. Hamid Dabashi, 61, was born into a working class family in Ahvaz, Iran. Currently he is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York, the oldest and most prestigious Chair in this field. He is also a founding member of the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society and the Center for Palestine Studies at the same University.  

The writer of 25 books on a gamut of subjects, Dabashi is one of America’s most prominent, and sometimes controversial, liberal voices on politics, philosophy and culture. Banned from entering Iran, for his criticism of its government, he is equally reproachful of American policies towards his home state. A celebrated speaker, he is known for his razor-sharp one liners: ” …even if [Barack Obama] has sold his soul, … he used to have one. That is not the case with McCain.”

Dabashi also writes prolifically on cinema. He is credited with having brought to the fore the work of many luminary Iranian filmmakers. Mohsen Makhmalbaf has called him “a rare cultural critic”. His involvement with cinema extends to participating in international film festivals as a jury member and advising filmmakers such as Hany Abu-Assad (on Paradise Now) and Ridley Scott (on Kingdom Of Heaven). When Scott was attacked for recreating the war between Christian crusaders and Saladin in Kingdom Of Heaven he defended himself by saying he had the approval of “one very important Muslim in New York”.

When I meet Dabashi for a chat at The Imperial’s coffee shop in New Delhi, he cuts a formidable figure. In the middle of Delhi’s sweltering summer, with spectacles and a respectably grey beard, he sits upright in a neatly worn jacket which gives off a distinct Ivy League air. It is a clear Sunday morning. He and his wife, Dr. Golbarg Bashi, have just finished breakfast. He gets ready to field my questions as she sifts through some papers on the same table. He refuses to take coffee during this interview. For him, conversation is serious business. 

 

You’ve spoken and written about politics and art, especially with reference to cinema. While cinema from Iran has won accolades around the world what impact does the cinema of, say, Abbas Kiarostami and Jafar Panahi, have on the people of Iran themselves?

This is a very good question. There are two sides to this. One side is that it’s not limited to Iranian cinema. The more a cinema, whether of India or Iran or China, is incorporated into the global film festival circuit the more distant it becomes from its own people. And the best examples are in the Iranian case. Filmmakers like, most recently, Abbas Kiarostami or (Mohsen) Makhmalbaf have for one reason or another not been able to make films in their own country and that has affected their cinema. They continue to be celebrated in film festivals, but their films are scarcely seen inside Iran, let alone have an impact.

Satyajit Ray, perhaps the greatest Indian filmmaker ever, was more loved and admired in the global context. But he was loved and admired in India too, because he continued to be nourished in his own country.

But despite the fact that these films are not seen, they can be tuned to the aesthetic intuition of the people. They emerge out of the cultural subconscious of the people. And they continue to be nourished by it, even if they are not permitted by state censorship to give back. But the circularity of creativity is exhausted by the censorial policies of the state.

Still, given the condition of the modern media, it is possible for at least a significant proportion of people to continue to see this cinema. I’m persona non grata in Iran because of my very clear political position. I can’t go to Iran. But I constantly see Iranian cinema in film festivals or when filmmakers send me their DVDs— and there are a number of other possibilities that ensure films get circulated. If films are banned in Iran, it doesn’t mean they are not seen. In fact, if a film is banned that itself is a good reason for us to go on and see it. So states are no longer as capable of censoring cinema as they once were.

But nevertheless the point remains that these censorial policies are crippling the subconscious of the people of Iran. This has always been the case, even under the former Pahlavi regime.

Let’s talk about popular and art cinema. In the case of Ray, it took a while for his cinema to be accepted by the people, but he finally found his local audience, at least among the people of West Bengal, if not India. In Iran, there has been a popular cinema. Besides the censorship there is the concern that if something is too meaningful or complex it won’t have a wide popular reach…

That is not a problem and again that is not endemic to Iran. Take the case of the US— when people think of American cinema they don’t think of Jim Jarmusch, they think of Hollywood. Proportionately as many Iranians know about their cinema as art as Indians do, or as Americans do. How many Indians know of Mani Kaul? If a statistically significant portion of the society: the political community, the hermeneutic circle and public intellectuals, recognizes the significance of a work of art, and continues to write about it, that becomes a conduit.

The difference between India and Iran is that India is a healthy society that’s allowed to grow. Iran is a healthy society, but has a sick government that doesn’t allow the natural growth of its hermeneutic circle. When there’s a movie by Abbas Kiarostami or Makhmalbaf one critic likes it, another critic does not, and they can both write their opinion. Then society at large becomes a beneficiary because word goes out. Some people pay attention to it and some people do not, but word goes out.

India is the perfect model of that society. It doesn’t mean that the state doesn’t have its problems and India doesn’t have censorial policies or there’s no repression. It does. But judging by the fact that you can have a film festival like the Osian’s Cinefan Film Festival in the capital, it is a healthy society. Filmmakers make their films. Some are good. Some are bad. They have issues— sex, politics, violence. But it is the hermeneutic community around a work of art that recommends what should be seen, or not. Sometimes one person likes a film, another person doesn’t like it, and you get both views. It is not for one state bureaucrat to decide what seventy five million human beings should or should not see.

During the 2009 Iran protests, you gave a speech in a seminar that you ended with an allegory from The Godfather. You referenced Don Corleone telling his son Michael that whoever would come to him with a deal would be the traitor. Similarly, you said, whoever said that these protests would lead to a regime change in Iran would be lying. Is there anything that can lead to a regime change in Iran, according to you? And can cinema play any role in this at all? Something like the cinephile movement (of France in 1968)… ?

The metaphor that I use for the democratic movement in Iran is that of an adolescent growing body that has clothes on it that don’t fit. Those clothes are the state. The growth of the body politic of Iran is apace. A very young and ambitious population is manifested in its cinema, poetry, drama, journalism and public intellectuals. And the state that is governing it is outdated and condemned to the dustbin of history. But, as with all other oppressive regimes, the state continues to use violence to stay in power. This social movement predates the formation of the Islamic republic, and will outlast it. The Islamic republic will either adjust to this growing body and remain, or not adjust and be discarded in time.

The society, which is a public sphere will continue to be enriched by one form of cultural expression or the other. Cinema is integral to this but that doesn’t mean that it will remain integral. The reason is that the cultural manifestations of a society are promiscuous, not monogamous. The cultural manifestation of Iranian society used to be poetry. Then it became fiction. Then it became cinema. Right now it is blogging and underground music which, in fact, are more in tune with the pulse of the society than cinema. But that has less to do with censorial policies and more to do with the inner dynamics and inner episteme of cultural manifestation— that one manifestation hits a plateau. In my book Masters And Masterpieces Of Iranian Cinema I posit a semi-formation around twelve films at the end of which I conclude that that epistemic synergy has exhausted itself where cinema is concerned and has now moved into other directions, possibly underground music and blogging. But that doesn’t mean it will remain there either, it keeps evolving.

Let’s discuss this plateau you’re talking about that cinema has reached. What is the reason for cinema to have given way to underground music or blogging as primary forms of cultural expression today?

To me cultural expressions of a society vary and are decided by two forces. One is societal forces that change it. And another is the inner dynamics of cultural expression, whether it is poetry or cinema or drama or whatever. My argument has been that since the constitutional revolution in Iran, which took place between 1905 and 1907, poetry became the most important modus operandi of culture in relation to politics. This continued until the 1930s when fiction and prose picked up and then in the 1960s cinema took over. And in the course of the (Islamic) revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, the trauma of these gave a volcanic outburst to Iranian cinema in the 1980s. These are the social conditions.

But then in Masters And Masterpieces Of Iranian Cinema I go through the various formations of realism. I don’t call the whole thing neorealism. The realism of Kiarostami is different from Makhmalbaf which is different from (Dariush) Mehrjui which is different from (Amir) Naderi. But they’re all different forms of realism. And by tabulating and theorizing those forms of realism in Iranian cinema, I argue that that epistemic mode of realistic cinematic production has exhausted itself. It’s not that Makhmalbaf or Kiarostami or Panahi will not continue to create fantastic films. But my proposition is that they will be more on the model of a post Koker-trilogy of Kiarostami where they will keep repeating themselves. There will be no inroads to new discovery until something happens. In the Osian film festival I saw a fantastic film called Modest Reception which I think has new possibilities. But a cinematic movement doesn’t show itself with just one film. One has to be patient and watch. But the sense that I get now, after the proliferation of underground music and blogging, is that these are the forms of cultural expression to watch out for where Iranian society is concerned.

Though cinema ultimately is the most complete medium. It has stories, it has fiction, it has poetry, it has drama, it has everything. So as with the rise of cinema in the ’60s with filmmakers who were the beneficiary of every other art form I wouldn’t be surprised if the emerging cinema became a beneficiary of underground music. Forugh Farrokhzad, for instance, was an important filmmaker as well as a big poet in the 1960s. Similarly Bahman Ghobadi’s No One Knows About Persian Cats today is a film which tries to come to terms with the underground music movement in Iran.

But I do provide an argument in Masters And Masterpieces… that that particular kind of cinema that began with Forugh Farrokhzad and came to the forefront with people like Naderi and (Bahram) Beizai, then came to full fruition with the cinema of Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf, has completed its cycle.

You’re involved in a Palestinian film festival called Dreams Of A Nation. What do you hope to achieve with this?

When it comes to Dreams Of A Nation, my responsibility is that of an archivist. Like everybody else I have my ideas on Palestinian cinema, of preferring one filmmaker to another filmmaker— but here because of the absence of archives, because of the trampling of the archives by the Israelis in every way conceivable, and because of the scattered nature of where Palestinian filmmakers are I would like to fulfill my role as an archivist first. Palestinians don’t have any cine-clubs, they don’t have any infrastructure or a foundation on which to build a cinema culture, they don’t have any major source of funding. And till very recently there was not even one movie theatre in East Jerusalem where they could show their films.

But, of course, it is impossible to imagine in a condition like the Palestinian condition for cinema not to have an immediate impact on its people. I observed inside Palestine that Palestinians were extremely attracted and connected to their cinema – perhaps precisely because they don’t have the infrastructure. So people were projecting a film in the Sakakini Foundation (The Khalil Sakakini Cultural Centre Foundation) in Ramallah under very harsh circumstances while the Israeli army jeeps are driving by. The projector here was not even a proper projector and circumstances were very dire, but that made the experience far more significant than watching a movie in a fantastic movie theatre in Tel Aviv. This political condition is momentous and of extraordinary significance to Palestinian cinema.

However, this creates an aesthetic crisis. How do you represent something which is unrepresentable, where reality out-exaggerates any fiction, where fiction cannot out-exaggerate reality, in order to show it.

They have what I call a mimetic crisis in Palestinian cinema. And the creativity and genius of Palestinian filmmakers, particularly someone like Elia Suleiman is how to train that mimetic crisis into something positive. To me, in fact, the aesthetic particularity of a filmmaker like Elia Suleiman, whom I consider one of the greatest living filmmakers, would not be possible without that mimetic crisis. A particularity such as a certain kind of non-linear narrative, for instance.

Six years ago you were very critical of a book called Reading Lolita In Tehran, a personal account of a woman’s journey in post-revolution Iran, and you actually compared the author Azar Nafisi to an American soldier abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib. When you look back do you feel you were too harsh?

Listen, I wrote that essay at a moment when we were in a very critical condition of impending military strike against Iran. I’m very critical of the Ahmadinejad regime which misrepresents the political culture of Iran and is repressive. But I’m against military strike. And I’m against putting economic sanctions on Iran. So when I look at the issues from the perspective of someone living in New York, and not only someone who is anti-war against Iran, but anti-war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Libya as well—I’m consistent on my position—and when I feel eventual manufacturing of consent, as Noam Chomsky says, by use of human rights, or women’s rights, or repression or torture, I become critical. All of these things are true. But who is to be at the forefront of fighting against them? Not an expatriate professor of English in Washington DC who frequents the White House and frequents the State Department, but the Iranian people.

So I think that our responsibility when we live in the United States is a double edged sword. You should never let go of criticizing Islamic republics severely as they deserve to be criticized. But you need to be simultaneously, in the same sentence, critical of the aggressive, violent, new cochonnerie of the right wing in the United States and their warmongers. And when I see one is gung-ho on one and silent on the other I become critical. I’m equally critical of people who never say anything of the oppression in Iran. Was my language harsh? When I think now, many years later, perhaps. What was my thinking? What I just said.

Besides bringing Palestinian stories to the fore, does cinema in Palestine also make its citizens question themselves? What role does cinema play among the people in the country?

Yes, but here again we have to consider the absence of infrastructure. Palestinians are in occupied territories and also in refugee camps outside their country. I went to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon. And I took a backpack full of Palestinian films to show them, in really disheartening conditions. There was no electricity. There was mismatched equipment. We were projecting onto walls. At this stage, the conditions are so dire that the sheer attempt is to remind Palestinians that they have a cinema, and filmmakers. That there are people who care about them who are Palestinians, or Palestinian at heart, and who go through the thick and thin of the world’s politics to document their condition. This is a huge support that they need. Hopefully cinema will eventually enable them to see their state and reflect on it, and talk about it. At this stage, Palestinians who are not under occupation— who are outside Palestine or live in Europe and North America etc. are really miniscule in number.

However, through avenues such as Al Jazeera, and through international film festivals—like right here in Delhi (in the Osian Cinefan’s Film Festival) we watched a Palestinian film and we had a filmmaker in the jury who just finished her new film—it is possible to create a simulacrum of a space where Palestinians can show their films to Palestinians and get feedback. But at this stage in Palestine, when they have a nation but no nation state and hardly any infrastructure, it is very difficult.

You have often said that we should try to be ‘cosmopolitan’ not ‘secular’.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Tomorrow we have a conversation with Prof. (Ashis) Nandy. His thoughts are very similar to mine. He has written against secularism. I don’t write against secularism. I just don’t have any use of the word ‘secular’ because it glosses over a reality that creates a false binary between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’.

The one thing I like about Islamic society, culture and history is that it has always been in conversation within itself and without itself. Within itself the Islam of the mystic is different from the Islam of a jurist or of a philosopher. And in the course of history, Muslim philosophers and Muslim jurists have been in conversation and conflict with each other too. And the definition of Islam has benefited from this conversation. And Islam will always be in conversation with realities outside it. Islamic philosophy became possible because of conversation with Greek philosophy. Islamic aestheticism became possible because of conversation with Christian and Buddhist aestheticism. Islamic theology arose out of conversation with Jewish theology. And I call that reality cosmopolitan worldliness that crossed over the last two hundred years, after which you have a transformation of the Islamic cosmopolitan worldliness into a singular site of ideological conversation with the West. And my point, now, is that this period of binary opposition of Islam and the West has fortunately exhausted itself and entered a new phase. What is that new phase? The retrieval of cosmopolitan worldliness not by way of an antiquarian interest in it, but by recognizing the contemporary world.

Can American popular cinema play a role in influencing the way the West perceives the Muslim World? To rid people’s minds of Samuel P. Huntington’s idea of the ‘Clash Of Civilizations’ for instance?

Officially it can. But movies that constitute popular culture like the movie 300 or, of late, the last movie in the Batman trilogy (The Dark Knight Rises), their kind of cinematic allegory is in fact conducive to the constitution of the Muslim other as the absolute, unconditional enemy of the state, of the empire. This is an unconditional and vicious demonization of the Muslim other.

Can it play a corrective role? Yes of course it can. And there are many American films that ease this Islamophobia. But popular culture, because it caters to the basic and most common denominator— the gut feeling of the society, it continues to vacillate.

Is there a way to counter this? You’ve been ‘chief adviser’ to Ridley Scott on his characterization of Saladin for the film Kingdom Of Heaven

That is but one example. The thing is that even before he made Kingdom Of Heaven the script that he had was so brilliant. Not because of William Monahan (the screenwriter) or because I was a consultant, but because of the character of Saladin. It would have been practically impossible to destroy who Saladin was, and his magnanimity and generosity of spirit.

But the fact that Sir Ridley went to the character of Saladin, that Monahan wrote that fantastic script, and that between the two of them they approached somebody like me to become their consultant, all points to the fact that there are countervailing forces who can go through the period of history, find a positive character and make a fantastic epic. But despite Kingdom Of Heaven being critically acclaimed, making a lot of money and becoming very popular it comes nowhere near the significance of the Batman trilogy or 300, which became a cult movie.

But in that case isn’t there need for a more co-ordinated effort or forum to exchange ideas on this issue with the makers of popular Hollywood films?

Yes of course there is. The thing is Muslims in United States or in the Arab world— they don’t have the wherewithal to mobilize such a thing. So the best we can do is with critical intimacy.

There are two aspects. If you just say Hollywood is demonic, it doesn’t work. You need to have critical intimacy with popular culture, with Hollywood. Critical, but intimate at the same time. And it is through that that you can have great impact. Another great movie was the movie Crash where you have multiple representations of not just Muslims, but other minority groups in the United States— a very loving caring depiction, yet interwoven in a complicated way. So that no one comes across as evil, or angelic.

Coming back to Iran, there have been films, world over, which have sparked off movements of protest by engaging with a public mood. Has there been any such film in Iran? If not do you see the possibility of such a film?

Not in recent times. The movie A Separation, was a great movie, and had a great reception outside Iran— but became more of a global hoopla than it was in Iran. Partially because the difference between the Pahlavi regime and the Islamist republic is the difference between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian regime. In the authoritarian regime of Pahlavi there was room for the possibility of virulent discussion. In the totalitarian regime of the Islamic republic, they are very conscious of not letting anything of that sort emerge. A movie such as Amir Naderi’s Saz Dahani (Harmonica) became what you said, where people stormed out of movie theaters after it and there were rallies and demonstration. But that was in 1974. Nothing of that sort is possible under the Islamic republic, that took over in 1979, because it is so totalitarian, so conscious of its own absence of legitimacy, that it kills everything in the bud.

But even in a movie like A Separation that has nothing to do with the state directly, there are implications: Why is it that the wife wants to leave Iran? Why is it that the husband is not disagreeing? Why do they want to leave the country, even when he has a father that they have to take care of? Or in the case of (Asghar) Farhadi’s (the director of A Separation) Oscar acceptance speech in Hollywood, that very act becomes an occasion for people to express their solidarities with a filmmaker, their hopes for a better life, and their defiance of the censorial policy. And, as you know, the speech was altered and dubbed by the government and they had him make a statement about the Iranian nuclear program, something he had not, of course, said. Any such occasion becomes a point of protestation between the society and the state. So I’m not waiting to see something like what you mentioned to happen because I realize that notes of dissatisfaction within society can have multiple expression.

SPOOFING US

 

India’s first international spoof film fest is here. But how has the genre evolved through the ages? And what does it stand for in India? 

Spoofhmania is India’s first international short film festival on spoofs. It’s taking place from November 20 to 25 at various venues throughout Delhi (especially in the Hauz Khas village) and Gurgaon, with the grand finale being hosted at the Siri Fort Auditorium.

The festival is the brainchild of Delhi-based Short Film Organization Filmbooth, which was founded by Gaurav Raturi, Mohak Mathur, Nagendra Singh, Ajesh Balachandran and Sumit Nanda in 2008, as a platform for short films. The team believes short films are a democratic medium and “the next big thing in the entertainment sector”. Gaurav Raturi explains that they initially conducted short film festivals for social causes such as education, the World Environment Day, the Millenium Development Goals, “and then we felt we needed to do something fun, needed to do the opposite”.

For Spoofhmania the team collaborated with Crowd Funding Platform Wishberry to raise funds. Entries have poured in over the last few months and the six day festival will screen selected spoofs in its competition section. Among the most exciting entries are Creamerica, a crime drama spoof co-directed by Subhashini Dewada, Vinimay and Varun P Anand that is a mash-up of several popular films and characters including Godfather and popular Indian TV drama CID; Lubdhanam Cora (The Greedy Thief), an animation film, written and directed by Sagar Kadam, which won the Special Jury Award in a competition organized by ASIFA (Association Internationale du Film d’Animation) India; and Casting Call by Nicholas Grasso, a spoof movie where Robert De Niro meets Johnny Depp.

Spoofs, or parodies, are a sub-genre of comedy. The team at Spoofhmania, however, doesn’t believe in an iron-clad definition for the genre. The idea, simply, is to make people laugh and take a less-serious approach to life, to bring together a crazy mix of films and people, and have some fun. Hence, the ‘h’ in the middle of the festival’s name, or a jury, who will be judging the films in the competition section, called the ‘cabinet of ministers of spoof’. The Ministers of Spoof include Rahul da Cunha, MD and Creative Director at DaCunha Communications, the company behind Amul’s legendary ad campaigns; Josy Paul, Chairman and National Creative Director at advertising firm BBDO India, and Documentary Filmmaker Nitin Sukhija.

There will also be screenings of Hindi spoof movies (Tere Bin Laden) and those from abroad (Spider-Plant Man), as well as viral videos (How It Should Have Ended). Two films to watch out for will be Sita Sings The Blues, an animated version of the Ramayana tale, through a feminist lens, that integrates blues music with mythology and Star Wreck (an obvious take on Star Trek). Besides films, the festival will showcase spoof through stand up gigs like ‘Stand up for the Spoof’ by Sanjay Rajora, Mahep Singh (winner of best comedian at the Indian Comedy festival, Delhi 2012) and Amit Tandon, art exhibitions and a ‘Spoof Parliament’ with Ministers of Spoof Josy Paul and Nitin Sukhija.

It is difficult to identify the first spoof movie. Among the earliest was the 1922 silent film Mud and Sand. The film spoofed and satirized several scenes from the succesful Blood and Sand, released in the same year which told the tragic tale of a great Spanish matador and his disastrous extramarital affair. So Matador Rudolph Valentino and his wife Carmen became ‘Rhubarb Vaselino’ and ‘Caramel’ in the spoof. A scene from the movie, lauded for its slapstick comic precision even today, is one in which Vaselino tosses the bull over the fence and it lands sitting upright in a spectator’s chair. In the 1940s and the 1950s, spoofs began to find recognition as a valid film genre. Charlie Chaplin parodied Hitler and his Nazi regime in The Great Dictator. The spoofs of William Abbott and Lou Costello centred around encounters of the comedic pair with characters from the suspense, horror and science fiction films of Universal Studios with names like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Abbott and Costello Meet Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man and Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy.

It was in the late 1970s that the spoof movie became a widely watched genre. Filmmaker Mel Brooks made the spoof a part of mainstream Hollywood with films like Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, both ranking among the biggest money-makers of their times. Blazing saddles earned Academy Award nominations for Best Film Editing, Best Actress in a Supporting Role and Best Original Song, while Young Frankenstein was nominated for Best Sound and Best Adapted Screenplay. The comedy trio of the Zucker Brothers and Jim Abrahams made Kentucky Fried Movie, crime comedies in The Naked Gun series, and the classic Airplane!— which has been on several funny movies lists, and has been ranked 10th in an American Film Institute’s list of the hundred funniest films. British comedy troupe Monty Python parodied King Arthur and his knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Today, in Hollywood, spoofs have grown into big franchises with spy comedies like the Austin Powers films and the Scary Movie series.

In India, however, the spoof is a genre whose true potential is yet to be realized. “There are a lot of viral videos online but we don’t have much spoof in the mainstream,” says Raturi. Films like Tere Bin Laden and the recent Supermen of Malegaon would fit the bill. A cult classic is Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro: “The scene where they use the Mahabharat— that’s the cult scene which made Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron so popular,” Raturi says. Satish Kaushik, one of the dialogue writers of the film, has said in an interview to daily.bhaskar.com how the idea of bringing all the characters of the film and the epic together, in a comic climax on a theatre stage, came to him. “I saw cheap colourful comics of Laila Majnu, Shirin-Farhad, Mughal-e-Azam,” he said. “That’s how the idea struck! In the climax, we wanted a blend of characters.” During the actual filming the actors, some of the best in the country, took to improvising the scene to make it what it is today.

Meryl Mary Sebastian