Must Watch Before You Die #4: 'The Truman Show' (1998)

A couple of days ago I finished studying Nicholas Proferes’ shot-by-shot discussion of Peter Weir’s ‘The Truman Show’. In his excellent book ‘Film Directing Fundamentals’ he studies the craft of three movies, the other two being Hitchcock’s ‘Notorious’ and Fellini’s ‘8 ½‘. While I was aware of the greatness of these two masterpieces, I wondered, before watching ‘Truman’, why Proferes has chosen this movie among the two great ones. I wonder no more.


Why ‘The Truman Show’ is a must-watch-before-you-die movie?
• Because ‘How the hell they came up with this idea!’ is the universal exclamation the audience has on watching this film. You talk about innovative story ideas? After watching this film, it will be the benchmark to evaluate that. Also, twelve years after its release, it now has indeed acquired a prophetic status, with our private lives actually being chased by the phenomenon of reality television.
• Because this story can only be told through the medium of cinema. Movies like these establish the importance and uniqueness of cinema among other forms of art and expression. ‘The Truman Show’ is a triumph of the power of cinema, something that would make its founding fathers smile in their graves.
• Because it is universal in its emotional appeal and entertainment. No one can stay unaffected by the wonderful journey of Truman, beyond cultures, languages, and even tastes. This film again proves that when it comes to pure entertainment, nobody does it better than Hollywood.
• Because Jim Carrey is Jim Carrey. And in this film he is more than that. He is Truman. I have watched its dramatic scenes so many times already, and with a very mathematical eye at the camera movement and the edit pattern and all. And in spite of that, Carrey’s performance makes me truly emotional. The climax is devastating and uplifting at the same time.
• Because you can not help but think about the philosophical undertone of this film – the world is an illusion, a make-believe trap for us, controlled by a mastermind, who loves us, but is cruel at the same time, who exists because of the world he has created, and the world exists because we allow ourselves to be trapped in the illusion. As Christof, the Creator of the Show says about Truman: “He could leave it anytime, if his was more than just a vague ambition. If he was absolutely determined to discover the truth, there is no way we could prevent him... ultimately, Truman prefers his cell.”

If you haven’t watched this movie, you are definitely missing something wonderful.

A Dream Come True

Last week I got the opportunity to talk to a group of Mass Media students, 50-60 of them, on Screenwriting. It was a wonderful experience and I feel like thanking them for their patience. The lecture ran for close to two and half hours, and though there were a few dozing heads and heavy eyelids, it was a fairly successful affair! I had gone there to learn, rather than to teach, though teaching has always been a dream. But I did learn a lot, about myself, about the students, and about the subject. There were some interesting experiences that I thought to share here:

• A long time was spent on explaining the difference between a screenplay, and a script. Some brought up the issue of a shooting script; some were obsessed with the idea of storyboarding. You can go through the “Getting Cinemate” series of my posts under the label “Reading Film” for a quick understanding of these.
• Surprisingly, it was not a problem to convince them that screenwriting needs to be learnt. Not a single one of them objected to me saying something like: “A storyteller is a born storyteller. Why does he need to learn anything?”
• I explained them about the inherent three-act structure contained in every purposeful bit of communication. One of them shared a joke – I broke it down to three acts. I did it with the poem “Johnny Johnny, Yes Papa.” And then asked someone to share a random dream he had. And showed to them how a dream does not have a universal appeal because it does not have a distinct beginning, a purposeful direction, and a definite conclusion. It is a product of the subconscious and the conscious storytelling is a different thing. Also, while sharing the dream, we actually give it a ‘structure’ because now we are consciously “telling a story”.
• I chose the structure of ‘The Matrix’ to explain them the three-act paradigm. It is a popular film and has a very conventional three-act structure (you can find the discussion in my “Getting Cinemate” discussion). Also, the inquisitiveness to ‘understand’ the story of this film helped. I’m pretty sure these students have taken the first step towards understanding the classical structure of storytelling.
• While talking about protagonists and antagonists, we had a little debate over the antagonist of ‘Titanic’. Some believed it was the fiancé of Rose, before I convinced them that it was nature. Also, I loved it when someone did answer my question regarding the antagonist of ‘Inception.’ Cobb is the protagonist and he himself is the antagonist: his past, his fears, his weaknesses are proving to be the biggest hindrance in his desperate pursuit of fulfilling his dramatic need.
• I didn’t want them to take notes during the lecture. But if there was one thing I wanted them to take down, and take home, it was this: “Make sure you know the end of your story before you know the beginning or anything else.” They appreciated the illustration, and I hope they will remember it forever.

A wonderful experience indeed, for a student of screenwriting to test the theory in front of a group of enthusiasts. I wish some of them write a great script some day that would teach me a thing or two. It has to be a two-way process, or a self-centered man like me would hardly be interested. Teaching is fun, learning is life.

Must Watch Before You Die #3: 'This is Spinal Tap' (1984)

A ‘rocumentary' by director Rob Reiner on the legendary British rock band ‘Spinal Tap’, covering their trip to the USA to promote one of their forthcoming albums is the perfect answer to the ‘must watch’ question. I won’t say a word more about this, just that you must, must, must watch this film as soon as you can. Unlike other posts, I’m purposefully not giving any ‘must watch reasons’ for this film, because the most important reason will spoil the film for you.

If you have not watched this film, stop talking about it with anyone, do NOT google or wiki about it. Just watch it.

If you have watched this film already, I’m sure you understand me. Please respect this sentiment and do NOT give a hint about anything to those who haven’t watched it. Just ask them to do it soon, so that we could discuss.

By the way, for your information, Entertainment Weekly rated ‘This is Spinal Tap’ as the greatest cult film of all-time. Come, join the fan club.

Must Watch Before You Die #2: 'Raise the Red Lantern' (1991)

Zhang Yimou’s ‘Raise the Red Lantern’ is set in China, in the year 1920. It tells the story of a young girl who becomes the fourth wife of a wealthy man and finds herself caught in the game of winning that disgusting, good-for-nothing chauvinist from other ‘sisters’.

Why is this movie a must watch?
• Because it is a bold and brutal critique of our society that has traditionally been making rules to suit the polygamous and perverse nature of the male. At the same time it displays an interesting game of sexual politics by women who know how to make use of the male’s weaknesses.
• Because it is immensely erotic and haunting, without being either. There is a gutsy aesthetic decision made by the director by hardly revealing to us the face of the husband – as if it is a shame, as if it is irrelevant, though we are allowed complete access to the expressions, the emotions, and the inner lives of most of the wives.
• Because it is always wonderful to witness something so unique, so local in its socio-cultural expression, so universal in its aesthetic appeal. From the customs, to the music, to the costumes – it is an amazing cultural journey into one of the world’s oldest and richest civilizations.
• Because it is one of those rare films where the location is as important as the plot or the characters. You can not forget the imposing castle that contains all of the film and might even feel like taking a trip to China just for visiting that place.
• Because this film proves how a good director can take the script and re-write it on celluloid, making it rise to a level so supreme that is beyond words written on pages.

Film Critic James Berardinelli says, talking about its opulent visuals, “The appeal to the eye only heightens the movie's emotional power." He rated this film as the 7th best film of the decade.

Must Watch Before You Die #1: ‘The Wild Child’ (1970)

Watched Francois Truffaut’s ‘The Wild Child’ yesterday. And it inspired me to start a new series of posts on this blog. I would be recommending movies in this series that must be watched if you love cinema. A movie can be anywhere on the spectrum of poor to brilliant. And a ‘must watch’ movie need not be among the most brilliant ones. Let me make it absolutely clear that I would not suggest movies on the basis of their merit or their quality, but depending on a simple fact: If you don’t watch this movie, you are going to miss something truly unique. For example, I would recommend ‘Let’s Talk’ over superior films like ‘Maqbool’.

Also, there are certain expressions possible only through the medium of cinema. I would try to recommend those movies. ‘Amelie’ is a must watch for the same reason.

‘The Wild Child’ is based on a true story – about a beast-boy discovered in some jungle in France, and how a doctor dedicatedly works to ‘civilize’ him. Why is this film a must watch?
• Because it is a great study into the mental development of man over other species, illustrating the unique achievement of certain inherent traits in us that we hardly seem to notice. This film can actually arouse in you an interest in the psychological evolution of man.
• Because it doesn’t take sides and still triggers a discussion, a paradoxical debate in your head, about the importance or the futility of ‘civilizing’ someone by robbing him of his natural habitat. This balance, this ambivalence of the film is a rare achievement.
• Because the way Truffaut directs his actors (including himself as the Doctor) makes you seriously doubt whether a better film would be possible with a similar story.
• Because you do not want to blink and miss a moment during the entire length of the training sequences – you see the child being civilized and learned, and you smile at his achievements, but can still feel the loss of that wild ignorance, as if it were a desirable virtue.
• And finally, and this is going to be my strongest reason for many ‘must watch’ films – because you just don’t want this film to end.

“It is an intellectually cleansing experience to watch this intelligent and hopeful film” - Roger Ebert

P.S. I will try not to go through the list of movies I have already watched, because then there will be no end to this exercise. Instead, I will come up with these recommendations only when a new movie blesses me and I’m dying to make you watch that.

Disturbing Delight

When we watch the first film of a director, and one made on a low-budget, there are certain things we take for granted. If the film fails miserably, we dismiss it. And we know that the next film made by this filmmaker will not inspire us to the theatres. But if it moves you at some level, there is just one thing that comes to mind – wish it could have taken care of its flaws, wish the craft was just a little more mature, and effective.

While watching ‘Antardwand’ it was very apparent. All this script required was one final rewrite – just a little work on the structure, making small but meaningful changes in some of the scenes, cleverly hiding expository dialogue and making it more true, and at times, just getting rid of the lines – replacing dialogue with expressions, with action. And I believe one week’s work would have been sufficient to cause significant improvement.

‘Antardwand’ is a deserving story, and the horror of its premise and the psychological trauma of its characters are deeply moving. All its characters and some of the actors are so true that I felt transported to the land of my birth, my first taste of Bihar in more than three years now. But other actors appear equally fake, in spite of sincere attempts to do their best. Again, it could have been handled with a little more understanding from the part of the director. Just a better camera placement, just a purposeful cut, just letting the shot linger on for two more seconds…

The film is definitely worth a watch, for some of the performances, if not for anything else. And if you allow yourself a little sensitivity, and thought, you can be truly affected. My advice would be to watch this movie alone – I almost was, with just four other men in the large PVR theatre. Even with its flaws, it is good enough to win the National Award for Best Film on Social Issues. Here is your chance to stop cribbing about the lack of sensitive and meaningful cinema in today’s Hindi film industry. Catching it in a theatre would be difficult, considering its limited release, but grab a DVD when it is out. You won’t be disappointed.

The Beginning is the End!

Hitchcock is the classic text-book - to make you understand the grammar of cinema. Kurosawa adds a legendary and epic quality to it and takes it to a higher emotional and spiritual plane.

And then comes Stanley Kubrick - to make you realize the intuitive potential of cinema and explore its abstractions - to motivate you to keep stretching its limits. No doubt, he has influenced all modern maverick masters.

Remember 'Pulp Fiction'? Of course, you do - where the first scene is the last scene. Many films have used this device in the last two decades and it still continues to work. It is actually an established literary device called In medias res ( Latin = into the middle of affairs), a story beginning either at the mid-point or at the conclusion, rather than at the beginning.

We, my brother and I, seem to be so much in love with this tool that all three of our completed screenplays begin with the climax of the respective films!

Watched Stanley Kubrick's 'Lolita' today. He used this tool for wonderful effect, way back in 1962! His earlier film 'The Killing' is most probably the first major film to use parallel narration with several tracks going back and forth in time.

Vikramaditya Motwane says, you can learn all you need to learn about film making from Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Kubrick. Just last night my brother and I were discussing this. Hitchcock is the classic text-book - to make you understand the grammar of cinema. Kurosawa adds a legendary and epic quality to it and takes it to a higher emotional and spiritual plane. And then comes Stanley Kubrick - to make you realize the intuitive potential of cinema and explore its abstractions - to motivate you to keep stretching its limits.

No doubt, he has influenced all modern maverick masters.

Getting Cinemate: #12 The Lens of the Camera

There are mainly four types of Lenses, based on their focal length (distance from the plane of the film to the surface of the lens):

1. For cameras that use 35mm film, the “normal” lens has a focal length of roughly 35-50mm. It distorts the least and most closely mimics the way the human eye perceives reality.

2. For 35mm film, any lens shorter than 35mm focal length is considered WIDE-ANGLE lens. In a cramped location, these types of lens are used to photograph as much of the subject as possible. Since they enhance the ‘angle of view’, they are called Wide-Angle lenses. (Eg. The fish-eye lens, an extremely wide-angle lens, with angle of view approaching 180 degrees). But it greatly emphasizes our sense of depth perception and often, distorts linear perception as well. Remember those visuals where the person close to the camera appears too large compared to those away; or a fist or a gun approaching the camera loom large!

3. Similarly, focal lengths more than 60mm (up to 1200mm) make TELEPHOTO or LONG lens. They, like telescope, magnify distant objects. They do not distort linear perception but do, and it is useful at times, suppress depth perception. Akira Kurosawa was fond of using this type of lenses. These lenses provide a flattened, staged appearance.

4. The ZOOM lens (focal length between 10 to 100 mm) has a variable focal length, ranging from wide-angle to telephoto, which allows quick changes in focal lengths between and also, during a shot. This effect permits the zoom shot to compete with the tracking shot.

‘Once Upon a Time in Mumbai’ is, as we know, set in the 70s. In spite of a lot of work on the costumes, the make-up, and the sets, and giving them the feel of that era, the film does not remind us of the 70s. It looks very much like a picture of modern times if we can see beyond the production design tools I just mentioned. And the reason for that is the use of Wide-Angle lenses. You will not find a movie from that era that has been shot with this type of lenses. We ‘know’ inside our heads that the distorted, exaggerated feel of a Wide-Angle lens is a modern cinematographic development. Our sub-conscious that relates an era or a place to the pictorial descriptions fed into our brains by images, and more effectively by ‘moving images’, ‘refuses’ to ‘feel’ that these visuals depict the same. Hence they look phony, despite all hard work put in by the production designer, art director, costumes and make-up departments.

That is the power and the limitation of film craft, essentially a collaborative art-form. Each and everything should fall into place in order to create great cinema.

(The technical details provided in this post are a part of my notes from this brilliant book by James Monaco – ‘How to Read a Film’.)

Intent and Imperfection

Aniruddha Guha (DNA) writes in his review of ‘Peepli [Live]’ that it ‘leaves you impressed but unaffected’. I read the fairly positive review, trying to find out whether Guha tries to diagnose the reason behind this impression he gets from the film. Perhaps he does. I’ll try to elaborate.

The film is a satirical take on the plight of poor farmers in modern India. The premise is extremely powerful, as it plays around, in a stark black comedy, the expected death of poor Natha. Sex and violence are the most affecting tools in cinema and it has been proved beyond doubt with the all-time success of Exploitation and B-films. And death of a human is as violent as it could be. Weaving a funny tale around it promises just the correct cinema experience. The problem here is that this merit of the film has already been known to us through its long and overt promotional campaign. I believe a film like this can have a much stronger impact if we watch it with no preconceived expectations and, more importantly, any idea about its theme and tone.

But this alone is not the problem with ‘Peepli [Live]’. In spite of brilliant performances, sharp and intelligent lines, and a different, ‘real’, and believable setting, there seems to be something missing. And that ‘something’, in my opinion is the mantra all screenwriting gurus insist on. I would like to name it: ‘Progression and Pace’.

After establishing the primary conflict of the film, the writer is supposed to take us on a journey. Not to a circus where we sit and wait for performers to exhibit their vibrant colours but to an active, involving journey of human emotions. Irwin Blacker brilliantly puts it as: “Plot is more than a pattern of events: it is the ordering of emotions.” To invoke the desired emotional response, the writer has to establish a serious ‘want’ for the protagonist – what exactly is at stake; the higher the stake, better the chance for drama. But to actually achieve drama, the writer needs to elaborate and enhance the conflict. Create obstacles in the path of the protagonist who is striving to achieve his dramatic need. These obstacles, preferably as harsh as they could be, and the protagonist’s efforts to overcome them is what makes drama affecting. His success or failure in doing so is hardly important. And this entire act of confrontation has be to crafted with intelligence and an acute critical eye, making sure that each scene takes the story forwards – it progresses from one plot point to the other with a definitive sense of purpose, remembering that each tree is important without losing the idea of the forest.

‘Peepli [Live]’ has the ‘want’ perfectly in place. But it lacks a purposeful progression of story through well-defined obstacles and attempts by the characters to overcome them. Also, the presence, and active involvement of such a large number of secondary characters causes the plot to meander, not meaninglessly, but diluting the force of the impact. There are sequences where it does work. But if you notice carefully, all those instances in the film are strong plot points and the scenes surrounding them are high on conflict-want confrontational drama. Of course, this is a very orthodox approach of writing films and the Quentin Tarantino school of cinema has always believed in defying such norms. If you are a genius, you can actually make a beautiful and affecting ‘circus-like’ film on a thin plot if you manage to create memorable characters and sequences, as Fellini did in most of his movies. But for all of us who are not Federico Fellini, and I think most are not, the conventional rule of ‘progression with a sense of purpose’ is the rule to follow.

This brings me to the ‘pace’ of the film. Contrary to the common notion, a film need not be ‘pacy’ to make an impact. It is attaining just the perfect pace suiting the mood of the film that matters. ‘Peepli [Live]’ has apparently too many things happening without actual progression of the story during the most of its hundred minutes. The story is stagnant, but the ‘events’ are happening hurriedly. So, we do not get time to think and feel the drama that is already minimal. The result is: we feel unaffected. The most affecting portion of the film unarguably is the final act. And I believe the best portion of this satirical film created in overtones is the final sequence, the denouement or the post-climax. Over the faces of Budhiya and Natha’s wife, lost over their bleak fate and ignorance about Natha’s reality, the camera makes an obvious meandering motion backwards. Kieslowski would use such camera movements to suggest some supernatural ‘eye’ looking at our characters. I could not help but feel the same as the camera pulls back and after a long journey through villages and towns reaches a modern city. Without a word more of dialogue or staged action, it presents before us the faces of numerous labourers working at a construction site. One of them is Natha. But who are the others? Aren’t all of these migrants from rural India – trying to survive in the inhuman loneliness of the polluted cities? One of them is Natha, and we have just witnessed his story. But wouldn’t there be similar, if not equally heart-wrenching, stories behind all of these helpless faces? There is so much conveyed during this entire closing sequence, so much of impact using a brilliant montage and camera. And although the closing title reduces it to a ‘fact’ about farmers in India who have left agriculture and spoils the understated brilliance of it for me, it still succeeds fairly. Notice that this entire sequence has only one strong dramatic reveal; otherwise it is just the stagnancy of its progression, or the ‘slow’ pace that generates such a strong emotional response in us.

‘Peepli [Live]’ in my opinion would work better in its repeat viewings, when you already know the story and understand its nature and limitations. It is then that the wonderful detailing and the ‘moments’ in its narration will make you smile. Its business story and importance, or the lack of it, in Hindi cinema history will always be worth discussing. But to understand the triumph of cinema, we need to keep these aside and assess the craft on its face value. The intent of a movie and the courage behind its making must be applauded if it deserves that. And after having done that justly, to really understand the cinematic achievement of it, the craft of the film should be analyzed, of course only if it is worthy of it. Perfection is not the prerequisite for great art, it is the stimulation that it provides to the audience is what matters. ‘Peepli [Live]’ does that, by not only making you think about the social issue it addresses but also, if you are interested, by inspiring you to diagnose the merits and demerits of its craft as a work of cinema. That, I believe, is enough of an accomplishment.

Being Beautiful

Talking about the merits of ‘Aisha’, a leading trade-guide (and self-proclaimed film critic) writes: “The film did showcase Sonam as a fashion icon.” Point taken, Sir.

This brings me to something Sudhir Mishra had told me not so long ago. He said: “In our film industry we don’t tell stories, we make lifestyle statements.” Can it be more true? Our films are about what clothes you should wear, about the latest fashion trend; they are about stylish cars and foreign holidays and everything else but honest storytelling. Our stars are not actors, they are brand ambassadors. ‘Aisha’ is really a beautiful film; even those who have hated it admit that.

P.S. My last few posts have been full of negativity and I think that is not the right thing to do in this forum where we should be celebrating cinema. In my posts to follow, I’ll try to stick to discussing cinema. No use indulging in calling bad ‘bad’. Let’s focus our attention in understanding what makes good ‘good’.

Gods of Small Things

‘Udaan’ just recently won three awards at the Giffoni Film Festival in Italy, the largest children’s and youth film festival in the world. Apart from winning the second place in the Campania Regional Council Awards based on the results of the juror's votes, the film won the Audience Choice Award for Best Film and the award for Best Music Score. Director Vikramaditya Motwane is glad for Amit Trivedi and Amitabh Bhattacharya – the music director-lyricist duo, whom he calls ‘the unsung heroes of the film’.

Following is my favourite song of the film. Please note the poetry:

चढ़ती लहरें लांघ ना पाए, क्यों हाँपती-सी नाँव है तेरी
तिनका-तिनका जोड़ के सांसें क्यों नापती-सी नाँव है तेरी
उलटी बहती धार है बैरी, कि अब कुछ कर जा रे पंथी.

जिगर जुटा के पाल बाँध ले जो बात ठहरी जान पे तेरी शान पे तेरी
'हैय्या हो' की तान साध ले जो बात ठहरी जान पे तेरी शान पे तेरी
चल जीत जीत लहरा जा, परचम तू लाल फेहरा जा
अब कर जा तू या मर जा, कर ले तैय्यारी
उड़ जा बनके धूप का पंछी छुड़ा के गहरी छाँव अँधेरी
तिनका-तिनका जोड़ के सांसें क्यों नापती-सी नाँव है तेरी

रख देगा झकझोर के तुझे तूफानों का घोर है डेरा
भँवर से डर जो हार मान ले कहे का फिर ज़ोर है तेरा
है दिल में रौशनी तेरे, तू चीर डाल सब घेरे
लहरों की गर्दन कस के डाल फंदे रे
कि दरिया बोले "वाह! रे पंथी, सर आँखों पे नाव है तेरी"

This has to be one of the best written songs of the year. I still wonder whether any popular award function in India has the guts to honour the lyricist for this. The music of the film is not only apt, it is catchy and you fall in love with the songs within a couple of hearings. Sadly, it is next to impossible to listen to these songs. T-Series did not release too many copies of the audio CD. I have failed to buy one in spite of visiting all leading stores. FM Channels will play everything but the songs of ‘Udaan’. They don’t listen to the songs to select them; they look for ‘names’ associated with the songs. Any FM guy would reject the songs of 'Peepli [Live]' if the name of its star-producer were not attached to them. But they played, and the audience loved, and ‘Menhgayi Daayan’ is one of the top rated songs on Radio Mirchi today. But those Amit Trivedi numbers that could have easily been popular due to their inspiring rhythm, easy melody and beautiful lyrics are just nowhere to be heard. This link will take you to the lyrics of other songs from the film. We can easily say that Amitabh Bhattacharya is one of the best in the business as of today. Only, not too many people know him. And this really makes me sad, and angry.

'Peepli [Live]' is already generating positive reviews. But for me there are some things of significance beyond the product. And it is the fact that this ‘small’ film is being produced by one of the most powerful men in the film industry. That is the triumph for the film. Aamir Khan has proved to us that you can use your name to sell almost anything. This fact will remain true even if the film is not too well-made, because its marketing has already done the trick. And if it is a decent product, Aamir’s decision will only gain reputation. Sadly, even if it is a brilliant film and is commercially successful, I doubt it will make producers like Yash Raj Films stop making films they make and turn their attention towards content and originality. And if 'Peepli [Live]' fails, I can already imagine these ‘Gods’ of Hindi commercial cinema laughing on Aamir’s ‘stupidity’.

Poor Cinema, mon amour!

Post ‘Shwaas’, the Marathi film industry has undergone a revolution and a significant number of filmmakers have emerged, telling wonderful stories in simplest but effective ways. As my producer says, “It is a wonder how they manage to make such beautiful films with little resources. These Marathi guys, they know the fuck they are doing!”

‘Knowing the fuck you are doing’ is not an easy thing. Watch ‘Harishchandrachi Factory’ and you’ll know. The film tells two similar stories. The main story is about a simple man with the heart to follow his dream, who gave India its first motion picture, kick-starting a movement that has turned into the most prolific film industry in the world. Today we remember him as Dadasaheb Phalke, after whom the highest cinema honour in this country is named. He had nothing when he was struck by this dream of film-making – not even the basic technical know-how. But he learnt, and he invested all he had, and he endured the disparaging remarks of the people around him. He was a Howard Roark with a smile. And his ‘Raja Harishchandra’ was indeed the fountainhead of Indian cinema.

The second story is not what the film tries to tell, but the film itself. The writer-director was inspired to tell the story of Phalke. And he does that, simply, and effectively, and again, with a smile. It doesn’t try to sound profound or motivational; neither does it even slightly try to exalt its protagonist. Instead, it takes a funny, entertaining course. It doesn’t try too hard to affect you, but it does so by being itself. Simply written, simply shot – you will be amazed by the impact some of the scenes shot purely in master shots have on you. Paresh Mokashi’s work is something that even the Grand Old Man of Indian cinema would have been proud of. Good filmmakers do not worry about what resources they can not afford, about things they can’t control. But they know what it takes to make a good film, and have the heart to do so, as evident in a scene from the movie:
The cinematographer (asks Phalke while shooting an outdoor sequence): “What about those jackfruit trees?”
Phalke: Didn’t they have jackfruit trees in those days (during the days of Raja Harishchandra)?
Cinematographer (wonders): Jackfruit?
Phalke (insists): It is the story that is important.

It is this uninhibited art of storytelling and the love for the medium that has resulted in the cinema of today – cinema that we all love. And then it really pains me when I get to know the work culture of Mumbai film industry. The more my brother and I are discovering the way they make films here, the more we are filled with disgust. And we feel pity for poor cinema that they treat like a whore. They use it to fulfill all their sensual pursuits and hardly care for the art, or the lack of it, that is resulting in some truly embarrassing works. When Phalke tried to get some female actors for his film, even the prostitutes refused to do this ‘lowly’ job. He and all other great visionaries after him made sure that the art of motion picture gained the stature it deserved, so much so that it would be difficult for anyone to decline a film offer these days. Sadly, most having reached there do everything but taking care of the cinema they are making. It is Hindi cinema that is blamed for being mediocre, when it should be these self-proclaimed ‘filmmakers’ who are the real sinners. Oh, my darling, I wish I could do something for you!