Desicritics Author: Vikash Singh

The Indian Demise: Individualism is Communalism's Ghulam

Vikash Singh — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:17:53 EST

The thought of a unified India is an entirely superficial one. Held together by a fabric of woven events and circumstances which once were, India was, is, and forever will be an idea of our forefathers - who now rest in sediments of a river or lay in graves unknown. In a year, 60 years of independence will be evident of an accomplished democracy whose subjects only acknowledge each other with the scorned eye of communalism.

In a country where religion touches the bone of everyone, our shaksiyat, our individualism has been washed away into superficial divides: first religion, then caste, then money, then sub-caste, then skin color, and etc. Every Indian's shak (doubt) of every other Indian has kept our identity as Indians at bay. Being an Indian only makes sense during political speeches, where for a brief moment political parties remove the wedges in between us only to win our votes. In reality, the wedge between us can only be separated by intellectual agreements and mutual respects - which once cultivated is only found to be an outcast in a society of communalists.

A Muslim shuns a Hindu worshiping an idol while a Hindu throws glances in superiority about being a vegetarian. The Muslim does not realize that the Hindu pantheon believes in only one supreme-being who is omnipresent, and since it is, why can it not be encapsulated into a murti(idol). The Hindu does not realize that, even in Hinduism, eating meat has been the way of the people. It is Darwin's success story, being omnivorous has only bettered our chances for proliferation. Even in Vinobha's translation of the Bhagvat Gita, he speaks of eating meat stating that if you do eat meat do so in God's name.

But never mind the specificity and also the banality of such an incidence. Let's speak of the intellectuals that get churned up in the middle. Let us take an act of marriage as an example. Forget Hindu-Muslim marriages, Sunni-Shia marriages or inter-caste marriages are a big "NO-NO". Even though middle-class individuals of either of these communities might have a marriage which will truly last "till death do them apart," it is communalism that does them apart. Sunni and Shia argue over their methods of cleaning themselves prior to prayer even though Islam holds them together - this bleeds into two individuals who love each other as they are pried away by opposing groups with their steaks of superiority.

Hindu inter-caste marriages suffer from a similar disease. A disease propagated and sustained by Vedic loving Brahmins who have not realized the evolution of Hinduism into Vedanta. Whether socio-economic implications or a scientific explanation of the different human mindsets, the Hindu caste system holds little value in a capitalistic society with humanist values - where every individual is of equal capabilities and value regardless of their backgrounds or physical abilities. Capitalism has gone so far as to erase politically drawn national boundaries. Europe, is a fine example of such; however, in the end a liberal Christian outlook unites Europe and communalism, here too, creeps into society.

Regardless of how smart, how educated, and how well-known an individual is, religion has no superior - intellect always finds itself in a submissive role. Even if two individuals wish to transcend such boundaries, they are held back by society. The rare sightings of a Hindu-Muslim couple, always find themselves getting ridiculed. At gatherings of one religion, the other partner is drowned intellectually by the redundancy and rigor of a pride led argument.

In the modern India, such mixed-couple was something left for the "Bollywood" elite and in its reproduction found itself in pedestals of "what not to do" in society. Even if such a mixed couple were to have more common than they ever could with someone from their own religion. Maybe they both loved watching Kishore Kumar films without once laughing. Maybe they both adored how each celebrated each other's festivals - Diwali then Eid then Eid Bakri then Holi. Maybe they loved each other.

But, maybe that wasn't enough. Maybe two bearded men, one in orange and the other in white, thought it would be best to destroy intellectualism so they would retain the power and the leverage they have always had on the common man. Maybe education was really pointless in such a society. Educate yourself only to find out you live in a prison. We are taught only to live in peace with presence of foreign thoughts - ignoring its affect on our lives and simply respecting its right to be. We are not taught to live WITH each other or indulge in the diversity of being Indian. Why see the good in all individual when you will eventually reside in ONLY the good of your own kind, own religion, own race...?

Sure, there is an increase in mixed couples throughout urban India, but it is insignificant to the sharp communal divide which exists today. The existance of such a sharp divide prior to the employment of democracy or even the British Raj is perhaps another argument.

Monogamy's Swan Song - Real or Imaginary

Vikash Singh — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:38:03 EST

It is only apt that New York, the city that gave us promiscuity on a platter, reads Monogamy's Eulogy (via New York magazine) at its funeral.

It is essentially about couples who went into marriage, when they really should not have - promiscuity and its casualness was something they had adapted to. So where and how does the lifestyle-altering idea of monogamy come into play at all?

Marriage has always been a monogamous institution and if not ingrained, then definitely held on a pedestal by society as a virtue in couples. Men, either biologically or for some other reason, have always been propagators of dabbling in cheating resulting in a socially more acceptable act than a female committing the same act. Females have always held their base with monogamy, with exceptions of course. Surely, if the female wanders outside the relationship, the relationship will fall apart.

The latest "trend" as reported by New York magazine is something of a specific incidence between Claire and Alex (and a few more). Monogamy is something they do not need. The couple only need to hold each other's hand for support while staying put to their previously accustomed lifestyles - dating, breaking up, dating to get over break up, hook-ups, and etc.

It is all of that but with the benefit of always having a partner for hook-ups to get over the previous break ups. The dating and breaking up is something of a superficial act as no emotions are involved, just physical indulgence with other partners which challenge the taboos of society and the limitations of monogamy. Why is Claire so obsessed with sensual indulgences and, even more, why is modern society so obsessed with sensual indulgences?

MORE IMPORTANTLY, does the reporting of a few incidences qualify itself to be labeled as a trend? How much of this trend really affect society? Surely it has some affect on the "FAD-loving" population. In this case the "Cosmopolitan-reading" female will be sure to raise a couple eyebrows and consider changing their lifestyle in hopes of "more freedom" - which really means the freedom to "slut around"(their words, not mine).

OR is New York magazine just a poor effort at journalism: "looking" for trends rather than identifying them and offering "trends" as a conclusion to isolated incidences.

DVD Review: Bluffmaster (2006)

Vikash Singh — Sat, 4 Mar 2006 00:14:04 EST

Bluffmaster (not to be confused with 1963's Bluff Master with Shammi Kapoor and Saira Banu) showcases Abhishek Bachchan's return to Amitabh-type roles and marks an entry point for Priyanka Chopra as a serious actress.

Ramesh Sippy's film directed by his son Rohan Sippy, is different from other Bollywood films of late.(NOTE: I'm staying within the bounds of Bollywood and not venturing off into a comparison with Hollywood). Written by Shridhar Raghavan, the film is about Roy(Abhishek Bachchan), a professional conman who, after cheating his fiancee's family-friend of quite a bit of money, is exposed at his own engagement party. Things only go downhill for Roy afterwards. He finds he still loves his fiancee Simmi(Priyanka Chopra) and tries ever so hard to win her back. He then stumbles upon another person Aditya(Ritesh Deshmukh) who wants to become just like him. Upon hesitation and other life changing predicaments, Roy decides to mentor Aditya. In the process Roy's old foes, self-made enemies, and his love, Simmi, are all shuffled into Roy's life which desperately needs arrangement. The story breathes into life from this perspective - Roy's perspective.

Firstly, Priyanka, the former Miss World (2000) from Jamshedpur, despite her co-star status in the film, does the job remarkably well. No glitches, no hang-ups, just simply your everyday poised, modern, independent female character with the trademark rich father, of course. Her beauty is evident on screen even with the usually uncomfortable close-up shots - the film has a plethora of such shots. The close-up shot is once again part of the fashionable trend in cinematography - the tool itself is meant for intimacy (see other cinematography trends in ...Birth of Indian Cinema). Regardless, I am sure we will see much more from her in the future - meaning she will turn into a Bollywood A-list regular, cranking out more films than we will ever watch. I usually despise such "hurry up and make movies while you're still a household name" thinking, but that's just me.

Secondly Abhishek Bachan(Bachcha B), having tampered with numerous roles finds himself at ease with characters that mimic his father's previous characters - the actor almighty - Amitabh Bachchan(Big B). There were a string of roles Big B churned out during the 70s which featured characters who sported a stern presence on-screen without engaging in much dialogue - ie. Zanjeer, Sholay, etc. Abhishek's character in Bluffmaster is essentially the same, and that is perhaps why the film will enjoy a great cult following - its retro-ness if you will. Bachcha B as seen in Bluffmaster also serves the purpose of appeasing the demand for such a rugged, silent, and behroopiya(faceless) characters which have been missing for sometime now in Bollywood. As I recall, Manoj Bajpai in Ram Gopal Varma's Satya and Nana Patekar in Vidhu Vinod Chopra's Parinda were the some of the more recent of such characters.

Another trend in the movie was the use of swear words. Even though it was obvious what they were saying and the words were bleeped, its presence only goes to show how the "Cineplex" audience of urban India are enjoying the non-wholesome approach to Bollywood - one without limits in dialogue and certainly without any taboos (see other dialogue trends in ...Birth of Indian Cinema).

Boman Irani performs his duties well as the semi-jovial doctor.
Nana Patekar, in the film, along with Ritesh Deshmukh were also convincing and played their roles with great ease. However, with inclusion of these characters, it is hard to place Bluffmaster in a genre. It's not the typical masala film as it has a central plot which binds the characters and leads the audience; however, it is not a typical Bollywood comedy either which tend to rely heavily on over-acting and overly-rehearsed dialogues which spring about at such timely manner it seems odd rather than funny.

With all aspects taken into account, this movie is a "comedy." The term "comedy" here is used in the Greek theater sense of drama vs comedy, where "drama" implies a resolution-less ending while "comedy" implies a conclusive end to the story. I beg of the audience to not expect a Maqbool or Satranj Ke Khiladi here. The movie is meant to be taken for its face value only. It would be a mistake to pursue its plot lines beyond the realm of entertainment into the world of serious analytical film discussions. With such light-heartedness in mind, the songs will only add to the experience as it features a non-conventional soundtrack which dabbles more in the synthetic sounds rather than using traditional live instruments for recording. The soundtrack is delightfully textured with Arabic, Techno, Hindi Remix, and Punjabi genre of music with a slight hint of hip-hop - a unique listening experience to say the least.

Finally, the editing and cinematography must be praised for venturing outside the strict guidelines. The cinematography paints a picture of Mumbai far better than the everyday reality by elevating shots to capture a fuller landscape. The cinematography also ventures outside the actor's 3 feet of space and captures numerous scenes in excellent intimacy. The editing also strings together the story-telling aspect of the film fairly well. Although upon a thorough run-down technical shortcomings can be found, as is the case with 99% of films. To the average everyday movie-goer, this movie will not disappoint.

I could also ruin the film by telling everyone it is based off of (or borrows from) the Hollywood film......I won't! At parts I was laughing so hard I was rolling on the cinema theater's floor.....which actually brings the question why do all Indian movies playing in USA end up in the neihborhood's worst cinema theaters?

Ismail Merchant - A Requiem

Vikash Singh — Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:08:35 EST

Born Ismail Noormohammed Adu Rehman, Ismail Merchant always had a love for the movies. From his days at the St. Xavier's University in Bombay(now Mumbai), Ismail had contacts with the Bollywood film elites. He once invited Nargis(the first Bollywood stars to hail from Allahabad) to speak at his university, but some sharrati students had called Nargis and mentioned that the event had been called off. As the audience waited, Ismail and a friend drove over to her house and found she had not left because of the phone call. They soon ushered her to the stage and the function began. Such was his personal connection with Bollywood and its personalities.

Ismail Merchant produced a plethora of films, most of which were nothing short of remarkable. It seems, Ismail was born to fit into the personable-producer role; however, I wish to focus on his Directorial works, works which were sometimes overlooked due to their simplicity. This was the beauty behind Ismail Merchant's films. Below are some films directed by Merchant. Cotton Mary was co-directed in collaboration with Madhur Jaffrey.

Furthermore, while Shakespeare Wallah was not directed by him, the film serves as a reminder of 1960s Indian film renaissance: music by Satyajit Ray, script by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, produced by Ismail Merchant, directed by James Ivory, cinematography by Subrata Mitra, and edited by Amit Bose. Shakespeare Wallah featured a few Hindus, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian. The film is representative of the middle-class India which was on the rise after Indian independence. A middle class which transcended religious boundaries and spoke of talents in India in pursuit of making films of a universal appeal. A stark contrast to the Indian films present today.

Style
Ismail Merchant's style of directing was simplicity itself. A kind of simplicity not seen these days: shots often rise and sink at the breath of each scene to show a new perspective of a traditional shot (see Death of Classic Hindi Cinema....). The method ensures the attention of the viewer. Merchant's direction told stories by a turning of pages. Each page is written properly with an intended purpose. The refinements of such a style is present in his latter works: Muhafiz(In Custody) and The Mystic Masseur.

The camera in most of his shots stayed at eye-level for the character in focus. In Muhafiz, the scene exiting the brothel where Deven(Om Puri) and his helper are in an argument, the shot stays at the end of the stairs waiting their arrival. Such waiting is also typical of Merchants shot. A foreshadowing of where the characters will approach. Not that such a style of shooting is unique to Merchant, mind you, but rather, he stuck with the principles of simplicity.

Masterpieces
Muhafiz and The Mystic Masseur were Merhcant's masterpieces in direction. Muhafiz was written in English as In Custody by the half-Bengali half-German prize winning author Anita Desai. In Custody was shortlisted for the 1984 Booker Prize. It told the story of Urdu, the dying language of Mughal India, Nur(Shashi Kapoor), a dying Urdu poet, and Deven(Om Puri), an Urdu professor struggling to capture it all in its last breath. The film beautifully depicts the Mughal India dying in its last breath, loosing the very essence of its rule - its language.

The Mystic Masseur is another great work by Merchant based on a prize winning author. The knighted and Nobel Prize Winner, V.S. Naipaul wrote The Mystic Masseur and captured with it an image of Trinidad which suits Merchant the best - simplicity and beauty. In the book and film, Ganesh(Aasif Mandvi) is a struggling writer/author who takes on the profession of a masseur which, due to its success, provides him with popularity and later a political career. The portrayal of rustic Trinidad is unique and stays with the viewer long after the end of the film.

In both such films, the characters leave in such a manner that leaves you with an emotion. An emotion that cannot be dismissed nor discussed, its void of any words or expression, the film simply "is". Sadly such a manner of story-telling has passed away along with its master Ismail Merchant. Simplicity of story-telling is now void of a story-teller. Ismail Merchant will surely be missed.

DVD Review: The War Within

Vikash Singh — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:25:07 EST

Directed by Joseph Castelo and written by Ayad Akhtar, Joseph Castelo, and Tom Glynn, the film The War Within(official web-site) deserves its applause for dealing with quite a sensitive issue. The premise of the film goes far beyond an out-grown friendship, an insolvable pride, a few cultural differences, and being a victim. The film deals with the ONLY casualty of a two-sided argument - the truth.

Film
The film stars Ayad Akhtar as Hassan, a Pakistani wrongfully imprisoned by the Americans for links with terrorist activities. The false imprisonment brings about drastic change in Hassan which eventually leads him down the path of terrorism. Hassan finds his way to the States via cargo containers and meets up with his old friend Sayeed(Firdous Bamji), his wife Farida(Sarita Choudhury), his sister Duri(Nandana Sen), and his two children Ali and Rasheeda.

Once in the States, Hassan meets up with two other terrorist cell members Khalid(Charles Daniel Sandoval) and Izzy(Wayman Ezell). The rest of the film follows the development of Hassan: his obedience of Islam, his love for Nuri, his passion to change the world, and his relationship with, his now American/liberal friend, Sayeed. I will not say anymore for I might risk the enjoyment of the film.

Statement
Through analogies and stories, Hassan makes his case about terrorism to Sayeed's younger son Ali, a boy who has yet to fully comprehend the world. This relationship is the most crucial to the film. It is as though Ali represents the audience, unaware of the convictions of a terrorist. This only serves to show the divide between the American line of thought and Hassan's line of thought. However, to call Hassan a person subscribing to a "terrorist line of thought" instead of his own would be a mistake. Hassan has developed his antagonism through his own personal experiences and scars.

It is through these scars that Hassan is seen as a human being - tortured and turned into something unrecognizable. This, to me, speaks of the casualty of the War on Terror - the truth. To the average Joe, the American foreign policy is something decided by Congressmen yet they end up suffering the greatest due to terrorist attacks fueled by their country's foreign policy. To the innocent destroyed through wrongful imprisonment(i.e. Guantanamo Bay), the anger and helplessness brings a form of hatred beyond reconciliation which only awaits the kindling by terrorists. To the terrorist, whether religious and political convictions, ends justify the means and the death of innocent is only a step towards their goal. To the American foreign policy, ends justify the means and the wrongful imprisonment of the innocent is only a step towards their goal.

It is with such a rendering, one is forced to see the lacking dialogue: two sides unwilling to talk. This theme is extended with characters in the film: every character is on a different page and waiting for the other to compromise. In the end its the circumstances which change the characters and foreshadow a forced compromise.

Technicals
My favorite scene is one which takes place with Duri and Hassan in the kitchen after a certain incident. Won't say anymore.

The American-Indian regulars are also present with cameos: Aasif Mandvi(The Mystic Masseur, Spiderman 2, Analyze This, American Chai... and Ajay Naidu(Office Space, The Guru, Requiem for a Dream, American Chai...). I actually met Aasif Mandvi once on the NY Metro. I told him I was there for an interview at NYU Grad Film School to which he told me he needed a director with a prior feature film experience. I offered my services but they were no good. Really good guy though, and a brilliant actor - The Mystic Masseur is one of my favorites. I loved Ismail Merchant.

The film was an official selection at The Toronto International Film Festival(2005) and is an Independent Spirit Award Nominee for Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Male(Firdous Bamji). Press Kit