Anurag Kashyap's Positive reviews Makes Gangs Of Wasseypur, A Film Worth To Watch Out For....

He helped Bhiku Mhatre say his dialogues; but a fall out between them took almost a decade or more to fill up. Well that's Anurag Khasyap and Manoj Bajpai for you. Anurag wrote dialogues for Manoj staring Satya, Kaun and Shool. A small miscommunication came between the close friendship the two had formed while working on the films together. It is said that when Anurag was casting for his first film he approached Manoj's secretary to ask for the actor's fees. Manoj took offense to that as he thought that Anurag being a close friend should have approached him directly, instead of going through his secretary.

Now more than decade later the star and the maker are back together to create the most aspirational project ever under taken by the two. It is a five and a half hour long film, that has been divided into two parts. And now the film is ready for the audience to see and appreciate, and now we have it as 'Gangs of Wasseypur'.

The film is the story of vengeance, greed, power and violence is based in the mining towns of India, mainly Wasseypur and Dhanbad. The first part of the five and half hour long gangster epic is ready to be released in India soon. The film is going to be releasing on 22nd June, 2012.

The entire film was showcased at the Cannes International Film Festival this year, as a part of the Director's Fortnight. The film has received a lot of positive response and reviews by the audience and international media who view the film there. There were earlier some apprehensions about the length of the film, which for sure would have been more than tiresome for an international audience; but once the film began it became a charming world created perfectly with artistic vision and carefully drafted plot, that in no way lacked the entire length of the film. The cinematography of the film done by Rajeev Ravi seems excellent going by the trailers of the film. International audiences and reviewers have left no words out in praising the film and showering appreciation on its entire cast and crew, particularly it's director Anurag Kashyap.

The film's music is far too less conventional for the typical Hindi film audience and far too much regional keeping in mind the setting of the film. The music has been given by Sneha Khanwalker, who has earlier given music for Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye! and LSD; she is well known for her peculiar taste of searching for local music and sounds; and she has recreated the same for this one as well. All the songs of the film are quite different and quite unusual, most of them have strong appeal in terms of their sounds and very localized language and references.

As for the film's specifics and particulars, as in the story, direction, acting, etc. from a personal point of view; is worth the wait for me. So this June looking out for Gangs of Wasseypur to blow up the hype it has caused so far and turn positive on box office looking at the positive reviews after Cannes.
Meantime, here is a trailer and song from the film....

MIB 3: One-time watch for the MIB fans,Rare Laughs,still waiting to be enthralled and entertained like MIB 1.

Men In Black (MIB) III is nice, comfortable, has its interesting moments, a some really great addition of characters and actors in the story, and is definitely way better than its predecessor (MIB II). But, yes there is a big good ole' capitalized But here; it fails to enthral you as something spectacular and imaginative.

Film begins as a hot girl walks into a high-security prison on moon, with rather harmless looking cake, visiting a ruthless alien held captive there. From the first look itself you kind-of start to feel 'haven't we seen that already, don't we know its a ploy to free the prisoner'; and you were right. The 'rather harmless' looking cake is the escape plan, and so the villain of the 3rd instalment is free. Boris The Animal (Jemaine Clement) is the prisoner who is seeking his revenge on Agent K of MIB who took away his freedom and his one hand, 40 years ago.

MIB partners, Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) are back to save the unsuspecting humans from the knowledge and harm of the aliens existing amongst them. This is followed by a few run-off-the-mill jokes by Agent J, and the continuous space oddities of the two-odd partners, and a few 'wait, that's an alien, who could have guessed' moments. 

Agent K had apprehended Boris The Animal in 1969, when he was working on his plans to take over Earth and a few other planets. The freed Boris now time travels to 1969 to the day when Agent K had foiled his plans and he had lost his one hand and freedom to the young Agent; in order to change the course of history. He wants to kill young Agent K before he arrested him, and he is successful in that.

Coming back to the present day, K has been dead for 40 years, and only person who refuses to believe this is his partner Agent J, being the only one whose memory has just been fractured rather than being erased. Agent J too must now time travel back to 1969, to stop Boris in his plans of complete annihilation plans of his partner and his planet. Once he is in 1969, he meets young Agent K (Josh Brolin) and sets out on the adventure to find Boris and kill him before he kills K. Rest will be a spoiler, that I think is to early to give out, and something surely good for a one-time fun catch-up with the franchise.

The film has some nice interesting laughable moments, such as the part where in 1969 Agent J is involved in a car theft; and the introduction of Andy Warhol in the story is quiet engaging. The recreation of the setting of 60s is quite vibrant and colourful, keeping with the look and feel of the era.. 

The best part about MIB III is definitely Brolin, as young Agent K, who is bang on perfect and reminds you so much of Tommy Lee Jones playing Agent K. He is a welcoming change to the film and a great insight into the young Agent K. He dons a perfect stone-faced expressions and one syllabi responses in a dead-pan voice; yet coming across very much unlike his 'older' self, is still a youthful man of late 20s. Agent K of 1969 is still un-tempered by the events that will be changing him completely to become very much like his present day self. Or well did we just hear the bells for the plot of the next offering of the series ringing out loud. What is it that changed Agent K from the one in 1969 to the one whom we have seen in the first two film?? Let's see if this thread is exploited ahead or is it just a confusion that film created to leave unattended, for sure did a leave a perplexing thorn for me as the film ended.

What I also liked about this film, other than Brolin, was the introduction of the new friendly alien character Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg), he is someone who can perceive different future realities at the same time. This makes an interesting chance for the director and the special effect team of the film to rattle their brains to bring out some interesting special effects. 

The make up artist it seems has done some interesting takes this time on the looks of characters this time around, but sadly the script and direction fails to take them forward and completely exploit them to dish out something engrossing. I won't say much about 3D, because even though the 3D here is not irritating or disturbing blackening your vision; but it does very little to increase your viewing experience as well, as there is very little action in the film that would make it 3D worthy.

I definitely missed Agent Z, Frank the Pug, and the hilarious 'worm guys'. Also the jokes at times became a bit stale, and the plot has nothing magnificently interesting to offer, as in it doesn't appear to be anything new. The last movie in the series came out about a decade back and since then there have been countless other alien flicks in between to bridge in our gap. I wish MIB III would have neutralized me as an audience before it began, that way I would have still been able to laugh and few jokes, wow-ed the time travel concept, and loved the mushy-touching ending, that is absolutely misfit in an MIB film, that is supposed by about intense action, cool gadgets, and essentially funny.

In the end, I would definitely tell that it is a one-time watch for sure, only for those who are fans and followers of the franchise. I would give MIB III, two and half stars. One for Josh Brolin alone, one for the new addition of characters and the make-up artist, and half for being in love with Agent K & J.

Vijay Anand's Guide: Fragile human characters & progressive themes; a true cinematic journey, is one of the best films of Indian cinema

One of my favorite films of Dev Anand is Guide. I feel in love with the way he brings a lot of life and reality in the character of Raju Guide in the film. This film is well written, beautifully shot and well-edited, over all a brilliant execution, if the film product is to be the proof of the film's director's actual imagination. But yes, I still believe as it draws to it's climax it falls back on some typical Bollywood clichés.

 
Guide is the story of Raju Guide (Dev Anand), who is one of the most sought after guide of Udaipur, who is smart and a glib-talker. The film though begins by showing Raju coming out of a Jail, he has been released after serving his sentence there. He is in dilemma as to where should he go next, return to his mother and home-town, or return to his love whom he had cheated and lied to, or should he opt to leave it all behind and search for a new path. As he goes on in his journey of new path, the slowly of Raju Guide, his life and love, before he went to jail is revealed to the audience.

The flashback begins as Raju guide goes to station to receive his new clients Mr and Mrs Marco on the station. Mr Marco (Kishore Sahu) is an old archaeologist, who has come to the town with mission to discover some unknown caves in the region. Rosie i.e. Mrs Marco (Waheeda Rehman) is quite young and feisty, she doesn't wish to be subdued by her over bearing strict and rigid husband. The problems in their relation is very much visible and well understood by the Guide and the audience.

                                           

As the film progresses we see that with Raju Guide's help and with her own self-will to attain freedom, Rosie is able to free herself from the shackles of a love-less social marriage. Raju takes Rosie away from not just her loveless marriage but also his city, that is unable to understand the relationship and bonding between a guide and a married woman. But that is not enough for either of them.

Slowly problems of ambition, new found success, ego-clashes, etc. soon start to creep in their relation as well. Rosie touches new heights with her dance and acting, while Raju turns her self-appointed manager, and then begins the ego-clash of genders; where one doesn't want to be subdued and the other is constantly in agony to gain its socially asserted superiority over the other. After a sad incident that leads to furthering the problems between the two, taken over by gambling and drinking, in a weak moment makes Raju forge a cheque with Rosie's sign and her finding out about this act of cheating, that finally sends him to prison.


This is where film join backs to its beginning thread where Raju is now running away from Rosie, her life and her society. He reaches a village in a sad depleted condition, where naive locals consider him a 'mahatma', a 'sadhu'. What follows next is something that shouldn't be given away as it is a journey that every Hindi cinema and Dev Anand lover should take for themselves by watching the film (if you still haven't).

Guide, is one of the most magnificent and remarkable films of Indian cinema. It throws up a lot of issues, all at once, all together. It is based on R.K. Narayan's novel The Guide, but the film has very little to do with the novel other than just borrowing the characters and the setting. The film is a bold attempt by the director Vijay Anand, as it depicts themes like a married woman having an affair, and a man and woman getting into a relationship outside the boundaries of marriage; all this is especially remarkable considering the fact the film was made and based in 1960s, when such themes were still considered to be quite progressive and western.

The film makes no attempt to show any 'hero-like' character, it is about frail human beings and their follies, and that is what makes it more relatable to the audiences. Even though they don't understand or empathize the situations in which the characters in the film are shown, they for sure would understand and sympathize with the follies that these characters commit. The film's characters are all shown as plain human beings, who are open to commit their own sins, and are still able to continue without being apologetic about it.

There is a woman who firstly allows herself to be objectified and bound by her husband, and who later misunderstands the angst of her lover; there is a man who 'as per social norms' falls in love with a married woman and gets into a relationship with her and is then also consumed by his own jealousy of her rising successes and his mediocrity; then there is a mother who is so consumed by 'social  norms' and society's pressures that she fails to understand her own son and his love and therefore banishes him out of her home.

There are no 'heroes' in the film, it is all about frail humans having their own battles with their own mistakes and vices. This is something that the character of Raju is able to showcase the best; and along with him even the others are able to come out of their own fights with their mistakes in life. Yes, it is here that the film become a typical bollywood cliche that only a 'man' can be source of his own and thus everyone else's repentance as well.

The film has another very poignant theme, that is of the 'dislocation of home'. This is actually the destabilization of the idea of home, that very much keeps in mind the society of 1950s, where the young generation was beginning to express its digression from home and families. The film not just points towards broken relations (relation between Marco and Rosie; then between Raju and his mother; and finally between Raju and Rosie as well); but also towards the 'homes' that are broken/destabilized in that effect.


One of the most beautiful scenes, in terms of both the story as well as the way it has been shot and edited, is the scene where Raju, who has been fasting for long, has a moment of internal consciousness. It is the time when Raju mind and heart, which have constantly been at war have a chance of confrontation. This is actually a confrontation between Raju's ego and the eternal goodness of human nature; it is presented as if it is Raju is having a dialogue with himself. It is this particular scene that gives the director, the artists and the technicians a great scope to further their creative visions. So this scene is one is particular that one should carefully watch out for while seeing the film.


The film I feel had it's certain hold-backs too. Like in the end the 'hero-figure' finally emerges in the form of Raju, somehow even though the Director tried his best he couldn't resist the temptation of making it the most-cliche part of the film. Hero repents, let's go of his own ego, forgives those who did him any wrong, and then finally achieves the 'unnecessary' or 'falsified' status of saint-hood. Another thing about the film is that as much as the first part of the film is fast-paced exciting and engrossing; the second part is more stretched out,  preachy and slightly dragging in the narrative. These are the parts where Dev Anand's film digresses from R.K.Narayan's novel. In the novel, when Raju the guide dies there is no reference to whether the drought in the village got over or not, and whether the was resentful of his acts or not, and that whether he died as a 'saint' or not.

Guide is beautifully shot film. It is like a bursting riot of colours on screen. The cinematography, the music, the lyrics and the choreography are very very essential parts of this film. They are not just accompaniments to the film's narrative but as well a crucial part of it and work really well in enhancing it. The film is as much remembered for its beautifully shot dance sequences and its soulful lyrics, penned by Shailendra, that have had a great support of the maestro such as S.D. Burman. The songs were given voice by excellent singers such as Lata Mangeshkar, Mhd. Rafi, Kishore Kumar, Manna Dey and S.D. Burman.

The songs tell the story as well. Songs are either representing either a character's state of mind; or well most importantly a sign of Rosie asserting her freedom. Most commendable out of all songs is 'Kaaton se keech ke yeh aanchal....'.

It is a well choreographer, well shot and beautifully captures a turning point in Rosie' s life. The song is shot in careful low angles, this shows Rosie asserting her freedom finally by dancing freely, something was made off-limits to her by the binds of her marriage to Marco. Song has been shot in beautiful locales of Udaipur.

It is, as I have said before, one of the best Indian film. It is one of Dev Anand's best role, and Waheeda Rehman just rules the film and the character of Rosie so gracefully as both an actor and as a dancer. The film is one of the best directed films of Vijay Anand. it is a must watch film for every Hindi film buff as well as for the lovers of Hindi film music. Another interesting bit of trivia about the film is that Guide is the only film in Dev Anand's oeuvre where Dev Anand actually dies in the end. Dev Anand is one actor in Indian films, who has always expressed his love with 'life' and with 'youth' over and over again, and this is something that sweeps into his films as well. But Guide was an exception, here death is not seen as an end, because one Raju's internal conflict is revolved, death can now just been seen as a resurrection of higher truth, the eternal truth, that is beyond any boundaries of time and space.

Guide was also India's official entry to the 38th Annual Academy Awards (Oscars) in the category of the Best Foreign Language film. It was also the first film ever to sweep away the top 4 honors at the Filmfare Awards that year (not that Im any fan of Filmfare or another bollywood 'commercial' awards or have any faith in them, but this is just an interesting piece of info on Hindi films). The film went on to win the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and the Best Film Awards; along with this it also won the Best Story, Best Cinematography and Best Dialogues awards as well.

The film is about fragile human beings, the film is about issues that were quite progressive for its time, the film is about the beautiful cinematography, the film is about the graceful dances and soulful music. It is totally a film that you can definitely watch over and over again.

Guide (1965)
Director: Vijay Anand
Starring: Dev Anand, Waheeda Rehman, Leela Chattnis, Kishore Sahu, Anwar Hussain, Gajanan Jagirdar
Edited by: Vijay Anand & Babu Sheikh
Cinematography by: Fali Mistry
Music by: S.D. Burman
Lyrics by: Shailendra
Written by: Vijay Anand & R.K. Narayan
Produced by: Dev Anand

Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Anand (1971): Being Simple Is Difficult

I can't believe its been so long since i have written anything in this blog, more so because when in my life I have nothing else to look forward to or excite me there has always been and will always be Cinema and my film collection (sad but a true fact, for a poor friendless gal like me, can't help it if people are just jealous of my awesome personality and breath-taking looks.....sorry I digress :p :p ). Anyways i think one of the main reasons for me taking so long to put up a blog post is just the fact that I tend to over-analyse everything a tad too much. From now on my blog posts will be regular update, and well direct from heart.


So to start with Im going to write about Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Anand, a film that is set to be a start-up effort in the film movement of 70s known as 'middle cinema'. Middle cinema as the turn suggests is a compromise between mainstream commercial cinema and the parallel art cinema such as that of Satyajit Ray. Here were directors who were looking for styles to express their stories that would not just attract an audience to cinema hall but would keep them entertained as well as force them to think too. For me Hrishikesh da has always been one of the champion in this style, others included Gulzar, Bimal Roy and Basu Chatterjee. These directors/writers always spoke in a vocabulary that would attract anyone and that would entertain everyone and at the same time push the very same audience to seek the message and ponder on it. Here the messages were not of some great revolution or social upheavals or social evils; here messages were those of concern to an audience of 1970s, related to unemployment, shift in family traditions, fight between morals and monetary concerns, etc.


Coming Back to Anand...

Anand I believe is a story that epitomizes the saying "it's simple to be difficult, but it is difficult to be simple".
Anand is a very simple film to be viewed and understood, it doesn't have too many sub-texts, nor too many over dramatic twists in the plot, or something that would make you jump far off from the edge of your seats. This film is a simple story, with simple characters, in a simple plot, keeping in mind simple themes. Yet all together the film leaves an ever-lasting impact on the minds of its audience.


The film opens with Dr. Bhaskar (Amitabh Bachchan) being facilitated for his book Anand. As he takes on the stage he tells us that Anand is not a mere work of fiction, it is about scribblings in his own personal dairy, it is about a man called Anand. Then the story begins in a flashback, which covers the entire film from there on.


Anand (Rajesh Khanna) is a happy lively guy, who is suffering from Liver cancer; he comes to Mumbai and befriends Dr. Kulkarni (Ramesh Deo) and Dr. Bhaskar. Bhaskar is a straight forward man, who doesn't know how to mince his words but for sure doesn't know how to express his own personal feelings. Anand is exact opposite of that, he is completely free, someone who is in love with talking and with 'life' itself; even though he is very well aware that he is dying; yet that doesn't deter his spirits. This friendship is all about how opposites attract. Anand teaches Bhaskar and a lot of other characters in the film on how they should live their lives freely and should learn to be expressive; that is why he even helps Bhaskar to express his feelings to Renu (his patient who had come to him for a treatment of pneumonia, but whom he had never had got the courage to propose).
One of the most interesting characters in the film, other than Anand himself, is Isabhai (Johnny Walker). Anand who loves to catch hold of strangers, in efforts to make them laugh, by calling them 'Murarilal'; in Isabhai he finds a complete foil of his comic plan, as he responds with as much enthusiasm and acting as Anand.


There is nothing over-the-top dramatic about Anand, the audience from the very beginning are aware of the fact that Anand will die in the end; yet they still find themselves hoping that he would survive it all (one of them was me, when I saw the film for the very first time). The only dramatic moments (keeping in mind how much our cinema audience love the drama and the loud music accompanying that) are provided when the other characters in the film find out about Anand's condition and his impending death. This includes Mrs. Kulkarni, Dr. Kulkarni's wife, who is a loving kind hearted woman who takes instant liking to Anand and makes him her brother. Next is Renu, for whom Anand is like a brother as well as a brother-in-law, who helped her and Dr. Bhaskar express their feelings of love. Then there is Nurse D'susa (Lalita Pawar) who is the strict matron of the nursing home, but who is later taken in by the charm of Anand and thinks of him as her own son. And last but not the least, is Isabhai whose chance meeting turns into a good friendship. Hrishkesh Mukherji takes his turn into drama as he one by one reveals Anand's condition to each of these characters, who then handle the news in their own different ways whether through prayers or through comedy.


Anand, might be a simple story, but there is always more than what meets the eyes. Anand is a message as well, in the times when people where running after money and making basic ends of life meet, they forget that life is not about how long it is but about how big you make it. Other than this there are other social elements as well, such as poverty, pessimism in society, empty aspirations and empty ideologies; that both Bhaskar and Anand continuously make fun of.


Two most mentionable things about the film are; its cinematography and its music; both of which provide a great height to the story. The music lends a pace and an emotion to the story. None of the songs in the film look unexplainably imposed in the plot; they gel well in the screenplay to take the story forward. Songs penned by Gulzar and Yogesh are soft and hummable and complete go with the feel of the film. Salil Choudhary's music is near to prefect as there is hardly any jarring or loud note escaping into the plot, unnecessarily.


Cinematographer Jaywant Pathare seems completely in sync with the director's vision and the story. He seems at the top of his game and knows how to utilize the space given to him, as most of the film has been shot indoors, often being confined to just a room for quite a few sequences. He is able to use his creative vision all throughout.  


Anand is a superb comedy-drama, a rare combination but only a master such as Hrishikesh Mukherjee can achieve it. It is blessed with talented actors, and great technicians. It is a film that is about life, hope, friendship and love. It provided a perfect start to the era of 'Middle Cinema'.

    Anand (1971)
    Director and Editor: Hrishikesh Mukherjee
    Starring: Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bahchan, 
     Johnny Walker, Lalita Pawar, Ramesh Deo, 
     Sumita sanyal, Seema, Dara Singh
    Writers: Bimal Dutt, D.N. Mukherjee, 
     Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Gulzar
   Cinematographer: Jaywant Pathare
   Music Director: Salil Choudhary
   Lyrics: Gulzar and Yogesh
   Producer: Hrishikesh Mukherjee & N.C. Sippy

Agneepath (2012): A film caught between tribute and re-hash- inducing yawns

The entire 157 mins of Karan Johar's Agneepath made every minute, no every second count. Wait Wait. Dont get hopes jumping. It is not the illusion of excitement and twists and excellence of direction, that makes every moment worth of sitting through it. For the entire 157 mins I fought boredom, headache, fatigue, yawns, and seeking slightest indication of something interesting to happen in the plot.

The story was so filled with cliches of the typical early 90s films, that reminded me so much of Sunny Deol and Suniel Shetty times. The plot is so predictable, so are the 'so-called' twist. No, it's not predictable because certain points, the name of the film and characters, and the production house are same as 1990 Amitabh Bachchan starrer Agneepath. The film falls short of even being called the producer and director's tribute to the film, that I call a classic in its own way.


The film is a twisted tale of predictable lines.
Firstly the way in which Vijay Cauhan gets rid of Rauf Lal's son in hopes of gaining over his huge underbelly empire in Mumbai.
Secondly the part where 4 gun men open fire at Vijay and Kaali's wedding and gun down half of the party, and then Vijay single handed guns all 4 of them back, there and then.
Thirdly the part where Kaancha slams Vijay with swords and all in the climax drangs him and all, but still Vijay gets right back up for the last time to kill him and then die. Ok, this happened in the climax of old Agneepath as well, but believe me the way it is over exaggerated here its really reminds me of golden days, when an entire AK 47 was emptied yet he still gets up to kill the entire army of villains. The only hickup being that there hero would always survive.


There are a lot many twists in this story, but rarely did anything jolt me out of my state of somber fatigue. Come On Dude! I guess I would have been more happy if you would have even tried adapting the same story, should have done that one twist by twist, because no matter of shirtless Hrithik can make me forget the charisma of angry young man Amitabh from the old one.


Let's talk about the actors here. Hrithik Roshan seemed too cold as Vijay Deenanth Chauhan, Sunjay Dutt's look was something new and different but his acting was a bit too over the top, Om Puri lacked the convincing power of playing a police inspector/commissioner. Priyanka Chopra and rest of the female cast didnt have much to do and were completely props to fuel in more space for Hrithik. Rishi Kapoor's character was a new addition to the plot here, and he was the only one I found a bit okay. Though his look was too over the top and seeing Rishi as a villain doesnt naturally gets accepted by one's heart.


Ya that is one thing that I really found missing, the passion and anger of Vijay Deenanath Chauhan. Hrithik falls really really short in exuding the charm and magic of the character in the film. I dont know why but why has that 'angry young man' being done away with?? Why did K Jo not take chances at just dishing out the old script that was any time far more interesting and entertaining than this new 'so-called adaptation'. Even though you would have failed you would would have failed at matching that hit film, right now you just fail at 'paying a tribute' to that film, it's director and its script.


The dialogues of the film were a completely let down as mcuh as its screenplay. They were complete lackluster and too plain, for a film as powerful as this. The cinematography was not much impactful, and was fueled more by highly stylized sets that it failed to invoke any sense of connection to the places at all. 


I dont care if the film is a huge Box Office success or commercial critics praise it to the T, but I would stick by my review. Because the critics and box office even went on to declare Ready and Bodyguard, but does that make those a good film in any way.....I sure hope Not.


All I can say in the Vijay Deenanath Chauhan sirf ek hi tha aur ek hi raheka.....

Agneepath (2012)

Agneepath (1990)


Agneepath (2012)
Director: Karan Malhotra

Starring: Hrithik Roshan, Sanjay Dutt, Rishi Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, Om Puri

Screenplay: Ila Dutta Bedi, Karan MAlhotra

Editor: Akiv Ali

Producer: Dharma Productions

Running time: 157mins

Best Scenes: since I couldnt find anything much praise worth in this film....i kept going back to the original Agneepath in my mind (and no that is no reason for my prejudice to this film, believe me). So here are two of my best scenes from the Orginal 1990 Agneepath, that I think should have been referred to at lest, if to see the power of dialogues and dialogue delivery by the team behind new 2012 Agneepath.

Agneepath (1990)

A personal attempt to understand Films vis-à-vis the Catharsis Theory

I find the theory of cathartic effect quite interesting to explore. Catharsis is the sense of purging of one's emotions and inner held feelings. I first learnt this term when I was studying about classical literature and Aristotle. The term catharsis had first made an appearance in Aristotle Poetics, the term literally means ‘purging or cleansing of one’s emotion’. Aristotle taught that viewing tragic plays gave people emotional release (katharsis) from negative feelings such as pity, fear, and anger. By watching the characters in the play experience tragic events, the negative feelings of the viewer were presumably purged and cleansed. This emotional cleansing was believed to be beneficial to both the individual and society.

For example, in the most layman terms I will put it as I understand it, say if you are currently facing a problem such as say Corruption or price rise or legal injustice, etc; and then you see a film where this topic is taken up, explored and then it all ends with a happy note where everyone who were at fault were punished and greater good triumphs, so you would leave the theater feeling a sense of personal let go. You will feel as if you have just seen your problems being solved and your inner emotions are all cleansed with that feeling of personal content in the end.

That is what Aristotle said about theatre. Theatre, the only medium of mass entertainment and communication back then, was used as a medium by the government to induce the sort of catharsis’ amongst the people at that time, so that once people are purged out of their inner feelings such as dissatisfaction, violence, hatred, etc then a status quo is again established back where no one questions anyone or anything.

The most recent example where I found a society effectively using this theory to purge the emotions of its people, rather than letting them free to explore a subject or issue was when I saw Pakistani director Shoaib Mansoor's acclaimed film 'Bol'. Bol is very good film, it is sensitive portrayal of plight of women in a Pakistani society. It is feminist in its issues and it is contemporary in its age. Such a film that criticizes a society while being very much a part of a conservative society such as the one in Pakistan is an uplifting and brave attempt not just for its director but also for the Pakistan's film industry. But one thing that didn't quite please me while I was watching this film was its end. The film ended in, well how to put it, somewhat utopian state of being, where in the end everything is perfect, hope and good rejoice and government and society understand not just their faults but also their true responsibilities.

This sort of semi-utopian ending was also a part of Shoaib Mansoor's directorial debut, Khuda Ke Liye (KKL). KKL was another bold and heartfelt attempt to cleanse a society from inside. It was based on the backdrop of 9/11 attack on world trade center and its aftereffects as in the racial profiling, and the American-Afghan war, etc. I personally loved that film as well, it came way before Bol and was being a well circulated and talked about film in film festivals and all. It was a great social drama.

But in that too the end of the film doesn't leave more to be demanded as in the end, as the film ends with everything getting solved in the end. I don't know that where I find both the lack a bit when it comes towards an end the film, the society and people portrayed in the film do change for a betterment but it is too much of betterment too soon, so that's why I call it a semi- utopian state.

I'm a sucker for open endings in film, personally speaking. But not like that any film and every film with opening ending, the film needs to be good and strong script and good direction and all. I feel a strong social sensitive script supported by a good direction and good actors go a long way to stay in your mind and perplex you with the issues it throws up at you. And an open ending makes it just a sort of icing on the cake, for me on a personal level.

So yes, coming to films and cathartic effect they induce in the viewers. I feel that in movies like Wanted and Bodyguard, when people see violence on screen it relieves them of their own inner feeling and emotions of violence and anger and rage. Catharsis Theory suggests that rather than being harmful, the violence portrayed in Mass Media, may actually have positive effects as well on a society. The central assumption of the Catharsis Theory is that people in the course of daily life, often build up a lot of frustrations and inner feelings of anger, that often fall short of getting any positive vent to release it self. In such a situation being vicarious participants in others’ aggression often helps in releasing those personal inner feelings of tension and rage.

Films often induce emotions in people that led them to vent their own internal tensions and trapped feelings. It is like crying, crying is said often said to be good for a person both in physical and psychological ways. Crying is good for eyes (or so I’ve heard) and it leads you to purge yourself of your pent up feelings as well, that otherwise might have found some other negative ways to be vented, who knows, may be something like rage, aggression, or even a nervous breakdown.

So even though I believe crying is good at times, and so is the purging of one’s emotions by being passively involved in the actions of social media, but still there is a part of me that believes that not all purging of emotions is a good thing on the whole. I remember this research paper that I came across, during the semester when I had Film Studies as a part of my Master’s course. This one was about the films of Amitabh Bachhan and his image of angry young man in the 80s and early 90s. (Sorry can’t remember anything about the exact names of the topic or the author, right now, will certainly look it up again). This particular writer pointed out how the society of 80s was going through a sense of personal and social dissatisfaction, most of which was directed towards the Government and its other wings. So Amitabh’s angry young man character portrayed general emotions of anger and discontent with present social systems and all. But this was a careful plot, keeping in mind the theory of Catharsis. The Angry Young Man did expose the emotions, but then it provided a definitive ending of all the troubles and dissatisfaction within itself. Simply put, problems where taken up, exposed, fought over and very conveniently solved with the victory of good over evil. So when someone left the theater after watching such a film they left with a feeling of satisfaction that even in their lives everything will come back to essential betterment, thus leaving behind all their emotions of discontent with the present system back at their seats itself.

So well yes it seems like a clever plan, general public discontent, watches film, releases it’s pent up emotions in a passive manner and everything goes back to a status quo as all the emotions are purged so nothing left to now work on or build up on. Seems and sounds too simple to believe, but well power of visual medium and in particular the power of films is something I truly believe in, on a personal front.

So well if Catharsis Theory is infact true, then I would say that there is a time when we should not let it to numb our senses in a negative way, as in my most laymen used language we shouldn’t let it dumb us back into a state of contentment in  status quo in the personal and social front. If Films are a mirror of our society and are meant to be an effective medium of communication and a toll of positive social change, then why use it to make people purge of their emotions that can actually induce a positive effect. Yes, rage anger and violence are few emotions that when released or cleansed through being a passive witness to a violent act is a good thing; but one should not turn so passive in their actual social scenario as well. When the hero is thrashing up the villain in a film and the audience viewing it is clapping and feeling as if a part of the action and themselves relieving their anger; this doesn’t go on to mean that if you see someone thrashing up someone in real life (no matter how wrong or right that must be) you take the passive stance of an audience there as well, and let someone else take law in their hands.

Movies are supposed to be an empowering tool, as it has a far more reach and wider connect to a whole lot of common audience. It is something that should take up people’s issues, problems and general life woes and transform it into something entertaining, yet something so helpful as it induces a solution that makes people empowered enough to tackle these issues in real life as well, instead of just believing that like in the movies, come what may, in the end everything will end up being Happy positive and all evil will be punished. That is Hope for sure one should work towards, and I mean Work Towards.