Om Dar Ba Dar : A Pioneer in Indian Avant – Garde

 “Forget Bunuel, Jodorowsky or Warhol for a while! If there’s a single Indian film that draws you towards mind-blowing realm of post modernist…absurdist…surrealist blast to the senses, here’s the cult made by Kamal Swaroop.” This had been the reaction of one of my facebook friends(Hiren Dave), after watching ‘Om Dar Ba Dar’. This is considered to be a groundbreaking film in Indian cinema, pertaining to the avant-garde genre.
The term avant-garde film refers to the genre of innovative and experimental cinema. Avant-garde as a film movement started in Europe in the early 20’s notably among filmmakers like Rene Clair, Man Ray, Duchamp etc. In 1929 film auteur Luis Bunuel in collaboration with artist Salvador Dali created a short film ‘Un Chien Andalou’, that would become a benchmark for avant-garde films all over the world. The genre gradually spread to other parts of the world and resulted in various flavors of experimental filming. This was possible because avant-garde did not restrain itself to any particular format, rather opened up a boundless arena for experimentation on celluloid.
India did not lag far behind. Though avant-garde did not emerge as a major movement during the Indian New Wave, there have been attempts at experimental cinema since 1969(Uday Shankar’s ‘Kalpana’(1948) did contain elements of avant-garde, however, it is debatable whether it could be called a full fledged avant-garde film). However the first feature length film that could be classified as avant-garde (though not necessarily synchronous with the avant-garde movement) came in 1988 from the hands of an auteur known as Kamal Swaroop. ‘Om Dar Ba Dar’, was also the first avant-garde film to get national and international recognition and is still widely viewed and discussed among film enthusiasts.
Kamal Swaroop, a 1974 graduate from FTII Pune had previously worked on a collaboration project, ‘Ghasiram Kotwal’(1976) with the likes of Mani Kaul and also assisted Richard Attenborough during filming of ‘Gandhi’(1982). ‘Om Dar Ba Dar’ was his first solo film. Its release was preceded by a huge controversy in the censor board. However, it won Filmfare Critics Award for the Best Film in 1989. Today, after 20 years of its release, this film has attained a cult status

Kamal Swaroop

 The film is a satirical representation of Indian life as a whole. However, this statement fails to give any insight into the film that is absurdist to the core. It eludes conventional narrative structure in general and comprises of a series of psychedelic and non-linear imagery that does not attempt to make sense on a whole. It rather comes across as a deconstruction of collective meaning.
At this point, I would try to give a brief overview of what distantly resembles a plot for the film. Om(Manish Gupta/Aditya Lakhiya) lives in Ajmer. His father Veer Shankar(Lakshminarayan Shastri), who is referred throughout the film as Babuji, is a retired government employee cum astrologer. After Om was born, Babuji discovered that he was destined to die at the age of 18 years, from his horoscope. He named the newborn child Om in an attempt to evade the agents of death, since he believed that the sound of ‘Om’ has never been heard in the jamalok. Om’s elder sister Gayatri(Gopi Desai) considers herself equal in stature to men and sits in men’s section of theatre to emphasize this. Jagdish(Lalit Tiwari), a young man shifts to Ajmer from Jhumritalaiya. He falls for Gayatri when he spots her bold demeanor in the cinema hall. He is further elated to discover that he and Gayatri have been requesting the same song on radio for years. Om meanwhile gains popularity in school due to his ability to hold breath underwater for a long time. Babuji buys Gayatri a bicycle. Jagdish takes the task of teaching her how to ride it. They come closer. Om celebrates a friend’s birthday at a terrace on the same night that Neil Armstrong and his crew land on the moon.
As days pass, we see Babuji setting up an astrology centre in his home and Jagdish becoming his typist. Gayatri also helps Babuji in receiving clients and carrying out the business.

Om has grown into a teenager. He is interested in science as well as mystics and occult and has a fascination for frogs. A lady named Phoolkumari(Anita Kanwar) arrives to consult Babuji. Since she is unable to pay them money, Babuji and Gayatri decide to appoint her as a typist, citing that Jagdish’s spelling is bad. This enrages Jagdish and he breaks off contact with them.
Om is in an adolescent phase and is attracted to Phoolkumari. Lala Lotamal, a businessman on fearing an approaching war; hides his diamonds in the soles of a pair of his shoes and gives it to Babuji for safekeeping.

 Meanwhile, Jagdish visits Gayatri. She compels him to get involved physically with her. One day, Om runs off wearing the shoes with diamonds, unknowingly. Babuji suspects Phool and she puts a curse on him which would make him unable to leave his room forever. Om arrives at Lotamal’s private land where some of the diamonds fall off and are swallowed by frogs. When Lala Lotamal comes to claim the diamonds, Babuji convinces him that he has crushed the diamonds and mixed it in the food he is being served. He also instructs Lalaji to hold his bowels for fifteen days and defecate in his land on the night of full moon in order to sow an unlimited supply of diamonds. He also warns him that if anyone sees him in the process, that person should not see anyone else till morning. Lalaji goes to his own land on full moon night in order to comply. Om spots him in the act. Lalaji remembers Babuji’s advice and appoints Om as the guardian of his land. Om starts supplying frogs to a local girls’ school for biology practical lessons.

When these frogs are dissected in the Biology class, the girls discover diamonds in them. The word spreads and leads to a frog-hunt on Lalaji’s land by a mob, in search of diamonds. Though the diamonds have actually fallen off from Om’s shoes, Lalaji believes that they have come from his feces. Lalaji tries to stop this and is shot.

 
When Om returns home, Babuji tries to catch him. In the process he crosses the verandah and dies due to Phool’s curse. Om arrives at Pushkar. A local Brahmin discovers his ability to hold breath underwater and plans to utilize it for moneymaking. Since the time of Pushkar festival is approaching, he convinces Om to do his breath holding trick every night at 12. This brings a mass of pilgrims to the lake every night. The media also get interested in this event and various brands use Om to promote their products. The people are inspired by Om’s feats and decide to hold their breath along with him as a movement. Om’s discussion with his friend leads him to believe that since his nature is to hold breath, he should breathe once in order to participate in the peoples’ movement(A Saans a ra andolan). He dies underwater when he tries to breathe and his dead body floats up.
Jagdish comes to visit Gayatri after a long time and finds that she has given birth to a child(presumably a result of their lovemaking). He pleads for forgiveness and Gayatri finally obliges. In the end they contemplate suicide by taking potassium cyanide(KCN) and plan to let the world know about its taste. Jagdish takes it first and instructs Gayatri to take down the taste of KCN, since he is weak at spelling. He utters “Gobar”(implying that KCN tastes like cow dung)  before dying. Gayatri changes her mind, abandons the suicide plan and returns home in a bike.

Though the above summary seems logical and linear, the actual treatment is far from it. Many parts of the plot come in reverse and juxtaposed sequences with respect to time. For instance the event of Om arriving at Pushkar is shown before he meets Lotamal in his land. Also the sequence of Lalaji coming to console Gayatri after his father’s death is shown after the sequence of him being shot dead during the frog-hunt. However, such non-linearity is perhaps the least of befuddling elements in the movie.
As mentioned before, the film does not have a collective meaning, a fact that aligns it with the principles of absurdism (human beings’ inability to comprehend an absolute meaning in the universe). However, characteristics or symbolisms can be discerned if we look at the movie in parts. Indeed, the film contains a myriad of varying themes and traits referenced at multiple junctures in the narrative/anti-narrative.
My attempt would be to enumerate some such key elements of this unique film:

• Examples of non sequitur logic(e.g: all a’s are b’s) are strewn throughout the movie. One example that comes to my mind is towards the beginning, when Gayatri asks Om, “Tujhe kaise pata barish hone wali hai ?”(How do you know it is going to rain?) and Om replies “Tu Kangi jo kar rahi hai”(Because you are combing your hair). Many of the dialogs in the film follow this pattern. Besides this, many of the dialogs are deliberately incoherent and incongruous to produce a nonsensical effect.
• Another central theme of the movie is the effortless intertwining of science, religion and superstition in Indian life. When Gayatri asks, “Kya koi ladki ladke ke bina Everest chad sakti hai?”(Can any woman climb the Everest without the help of a man?); Jagdish replies, “Parvati ji Chadi Thi”(Godess Parvati did). Again when Gayatri says, “Suna hai chand pe nani ka post khali hai”(I’ve heard that the post of the old lady on moon is vacant), Jagdish in turn asks, “Tum kat leti ho?”(Can you sew?) . The chand ki nani is referenced again on the day when man lands on the moon. Amidst the celebration on the terrace, we see a woman with white hair smiling just when the time of the moon landing arrives.These aspects may seem to be abstract amalgamations, however if we think how science, religion and superstition serve as driving factors for an average Indian citizen, this treatment assumes a very significant relevance.
•  Gayatri’s part in the movie is perhaps the only linear aspect in the whole film and integrity can be found between the fragments of the narrative relating to her. This is perhaps because views on women’s liberation come through her. She considers herself equal to men and sits in the men’s section of movie theaters, rides a bicycle etc to prove it. In one sequence, she asks Jagdish to make love to her. When Jagdish fumbles with the strings of his underwear, it is Gayatri who brings the scissors and cuts the string. Their lovemaking is portrayed through a humorous metaphor. We see Babuji calling out Gayatri’s name and cycling to and fro in front of their house. Here Babuji is physically not present, rather is a symbolism for the patriarchal inhibition, seemingly for protecting a woman’s virtue before marriage. Babuji collapsing with the cycle signifies the event of Gayatri’s capsizing this inhibition.
• 
• The scenario of a woman asking for sex rather than succumbing to a man’s desire was seldom seen in the cinema of that time. This is one of the aspects among others, which illustrates that Kamal Swaroop’s masterpiece was much ahead of its times. The director has maintained an egalitarian outlook throughout the movie. Thus, Gayatri gives birth to a child without marriage and raises her alone. Towards the end Jagdish takes Gayatri along to the edge of a cliff in the attempt to commit suicide by tasting KCN. He mentions about udna or flying together. However, we witness, only Jagdish taking KCN and dying. Gayatri changes her mind and returns on a scooter, as a strong departure from Bollywood love stories depicting the hero and heroine dying together. Here the flying becomes a double ended metaphor, one for suicide and the other for Gayatri’s liberation.
• The sequences involving Om comprise of the most bizarre and abstract imagery in the whole film, be it the dream sequence hinting at his fear of examination (biology), or the ‘Rana Tigrina‘ song. Om’s fetish with frogs is evident from the sequence of this song ending with Om supposedly gripping the picture of an attractive woman and the sequence where a dead frog is referred to as ‘ladki ki laash’(Corpse of a lady). This could be a subtle hint towards zoophile tendencies. Om’s comment about his growing nose obstructing his view(“Jab bhi mai padta hun, naak akshar kha jaate hai”) and the fact of his nose bleeding, is an indicator of the fact that Om has grown up, reached an adolescent age. Phoolkumari puts her black glasses on his eyes, which she claims would enable him to read properly.
• These simplistic scenarios in my opinion represent Om’s adolescent craving and the sexual undercurrents between Phool and Om. Interestingly, these are not represented through Freudian symbolisms, which is generally a favorite of filmmakers. The director rather conjures up an assemblage of unique metaphors for this and many other instances in the movie.
• The Pushkar Lake, that plays a significant part in the movie is a place of immense religious importance for the Hindus. In the texts of Padmapurana, it has been described as the place where Brahma had once held a jagna. Consequently, this is the only place to have a temple dedicated to Lord Brahma. It is believed that people who take a dip in the Pushkar during the time of Karthik Shukra Paksha(Full Moon), supposed to be the time of the year corresponding with Brahma’s jagna, wash away their sins and open the gates of heaven in their afterlives. The opening of the Pushkar festival is declared through the statement “Swarg dharti par utar chuka hai”(The heavens have descended to earth) delivered in an airlines announcement-like tone. It is during this time that Om’s magical feat in the Pushkar is put up as a moneymaking prospect for the local Brahmin. The reference of the ‘Promise’ toothpaste(a brand which was available back then) stresses the use of religious platforms for advertising. The use of God as a brand is equally relevant in our times.
•  Songs have been an integral part of any Indian movie, since inception. The avant-garde songs of ‘Om Dar Ba Dar’ play a very important part in this avant-garde movie as well. The song played on radio is an attempt towards nonsense verse. The song ‘Meri Jaan AAA’ is partly in English, illustrating the English speaking tendencies of the youth and is  a reflection of urban men’s outlook toward women in the then India. ‘Rana Tigrina’ depicts the adolescence of Om and his fascination with frogs.  The lyrics by Kuku and the music by Rajat Dholakia are very appropriate.

One could go on an on writing about this movie; there is so much to write and so much yet to discover. Every time I watch this movie, I find an unexplored nook, a new aspect which I had previously overlooked. Even after all these years, Kamalji gets emails, messages and posts in facebook(he is active in facebook, by the way) from fans of this movie and he is very earnest in replying back to them and discussing about his movie. I was fortunate to have interacted with him on facebook and resolved various doubts about ‘Om Dar Ba Dar’. There are a considerable number of people, who want this movie to be remastered and released with English subtitles. However, when I mentioned this to Kamalji, his reply was, “Too late. I am too tired by this film. I like to move on.” However, the ardent lovers of the film will keep on expecting.
We have had very few examples of feature length avant-garde films in the arena of world cinema. The prominent ones among them were made mostly by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Even considering those, ‘Om Dar Ba Dar’ is unique and Indian to the core. Kamalji does not like to call it an avant-garde film however. In his opinion, “Avant-garde is a technical term applied to a different movement. In Om Dar Ba Dar, I was reacting to the parallel cinema of that time.” He acknowledges Surrealist and Dadaist influences in it. It is certain that if someday, an Indian film theory is developed; this cult classic will receive a special mention as a pioneer in Indian avant-garde, a very deserving accolade for this film and for its creator.

P.S : A digitally restored an subtitled version of this film was released by PVR Cinemas on January 17, 2014, in the metro cities. This release was met with an significant response among film lovers 
References:

1. http://artviewblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/kamal-swaroops-interview/


 This article was first published in movie site Madaboutmoviez
http://madaboutmoviez.com/2012/07/08/dar-b-dar-pioneer-indian-avant-garde/

Animal Farm – An Allegorical Satire on Stalinism

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. This is one of the principal allegories for criticizing Stalinism, used in 1954 animated film ‘Animal Farm’. Based on George Orwell’s masterpiece in literature, this film excels in the portrayal of his satire on Joseph Stalin’s rule in USSR, in spite of a number of deviations from the book. This is also Britain's first animated feature film to be officially released.

The film begins with the arrival of spring in Manor Farm. The animals are not happy under the oppression of Mr. Jones, the owner. As discontent grows, one night, Major, an old prize boar assembles all the animals and encourages them to revolt against Jones and establish a system with equality, compassion and justice. 

He imbibes the principles of animalism in them and teaches them the song ‘Beasts of England’, which speaks of the liberation of animals, but drops dead in mid song.

The next morning, Jones forgets to give breakfast to the animals. The animals under leadership of a pig named Snowball, break into the storehouse in search of food. Meanwhile Jones wakes up and tries to intimidate them with a whip. The animals get infuriated and drive him away from the farm. Jones comes back with some other farmers, but the animals, once again led by Snowball, manage to defeat them. Thus the long awaited revolution finally succeeds. 

 The animals change the name of ‘Manor Farm’ to ‘Animal Farm’, accept Snowball as their leader, formulate the seven commandments of Animalism as per Major’s principles and paint them on a barn wall. They are:

• Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
• Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
• No animal shall wear clothes.
• No animal shall sleep in a bed.
• No animal shall drink alcohol.
• No animal shall kill any other animal.
• All animals are equal.

They set out to remove all traces of Jones from the farm. In the process, a sly pig named Napoleon stumbles upon Jones’s material possessions and a litter of puppies left motherless. He secretly takes away these puppies with him.

As the days progress, Snowball tries to educate the animals and devises programs for the betterment of the farm. Napoleon meanwhile makes other schemes and gains allies among other opportunist pigs. When snowball proposes a new plan, Napoleon opposes him and drives him away using his goon squad of dogs, now fully grown and ferocious. The dogs catch hold of him and kill him brutally. Napoleon convinces the animals that Snowball is a traitor and had been planning to bring Jones back. The animals, terrorized by such a possibility acquiesce to accept Napoleon as their leader. 

 Napoleon then proclaims Snowball’s idea of a windmill as his own and gives orders for its construction. Boxer, a workhorse along with his friend Benjamin, a donkey and other animals put in a lot of labor to finish the windmill.

Things start changing in the farm. The pigs enjoy special privileges, good food, beds to sleep and start drinking alcohol from Jones’s leftover supply, while the burden of work on other animals increase. Napoleon uses a pig named Squealer as his spokesperson to brainwash the animals into believing that they are better under Napoleon’s rule than they were under Jones’s and also to make additions to the commandments secretly, in the dark of the night.  Two of the commandments are thus changed to suit the pigs as:

• No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets
• No animal shall drink alcohol to excess

Mr Whymper, a local trader eventually enters into a deal with Napoleon. He starts supplying them with jams and jellies in exchange for hen’s eggs. When the hens protest by throwing their eggs at the pigs, Napoleon names them traitors and hands then over to his goon squad, who slaughter them.  Thus another commandment is changed as:

• No animal shall kill any other animal without cause

Napoleon also bans the song ‘Beasts of England’, citing that its relevance has ended since the dream of animal farm has been materialized.

Animal Farm’s trade with the outside world flourishes. Embittered by this success, Jones along with some other farmers once again attempt to take over the farm. Though they are defeated, Jones succeeds in blasting the windmill, striking a great blow to the farm. A disheartened Boxer takes up the task of rebuilding the windmill, but with his failing health, collapses beside it one night. Napoleon sends a carriage in the pretext of taking him to a hospital. Benjamin notices that the van belongs to Mr. Whymper's glue factory, where Boxer is likely to be poached and attempts to mount a rescue, but fails. Squealer delivers a phony speech, claiming to have been at Boxer's side at his deathbed, and his last words being to glorify Napoleon. The animals finally realize how they are being cruelly exploited by Napoleon.

As years pass, the pigs start wearing clothes and walking on two legs. One day, pig delegates from afar come to visit them. Around this time, Benjamin notices that the seven commandments have been finally reduced to one phrase:

·         All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

This aggravates the animals everywhere. They gather in the animal farm, revolt against Napoleon under the leadership of Benjamin and manage to overthrow his regime. The film ends with a portrait of Napoleon being smashed and an indication that he is being beaten to death by the animals.

It would be helpful at this point to list down the relationship of the characters and events in the film with the actual characters and events in history:

• Old Major is the counterpart for Lenin, while Snowball is for Trotsky and Napoleon for Stalin. Boxer is a metaphor for the proletariat or the working class.

• Jones’s oppression is a symbolism for the Tzar rule in Russia, while the animals overthrowing Jones is a metaphor for the Bolshevik revolution

• The allegory correctly represents Lenin as the driving force of the 1917 revolution. (Though he was alive, after it happened) Trotsky apart from being the first leader of the Red Army, was also a Marxist revolutionary and theorist. He rose in power after the revolution and became a member of the first politburo. However, during Stalin’s rule, he was expelled from the communist party, driven out of Russia and executed on Stalin’s orders. This is perfectly paralleled in the allegory of Napoleon driving Snowball out of the farm and killing him. Napoleon’s use of dog goon squad for slaughtering animals, that defy him, is a reference to the mass executions that were brought about by Stalin.

• Animalism is a metaphor for Communism, a practice of the theories of Socialism and Marxism that was implemented by Lenin after U.S.S.R came into existence. The violation of these principles during Stalin’s rule is reflected in the modification of the commandments to suit the pigs, on Napoleons orders.

• The establishment of trade between Animal Farm and Mr. Whymper is, in my opinion a reference to the 1939 non-aggression pact between U.S.S.R and Nazi Germany (Stalin and Hitler). The animals were shocked by Napoleon’s dealing with a representative of humans, after they had revolted against the tyranny of another representative of the same race (Jones). Indeed, the world had been shocked by this treaty between the extreme left and the extreme right wing political entities.

• The second attack on the farm by Jones and other farmers is a symbolism for Hitler’s invasion of U.S.S.R in 1941, a crucial event in the history of World War II. U.S.S.R was heavily affected by the war in spite of being on the winning side. The blasting of the windmill is perhaps a reference to this fact.

There are differences and improvisations in the film as compared to the book. The major one among them is in the ending, which is quite apt in my opinion. While the book ends in a melancholy tone, with the animals rendered helpless, the film ends with the animals revolting against Napoleon. This was quite a foresight, since Stalinism did come to an end in U.S.S.R, though not in the same way as portrayed in the allegory.

For an animation made in 1954, the film is surprisingly well made in terms of technique. Though it banks upon the potential of Orwell’s book, directors John Halas and Joy Batchelor, the creative team and the animation director John F Reed deserve equal credit for their adaptation. The treatment, the dialogs, the expressions put on the cartoon animals and humans, the meticulously conceived scenes of the animals working and the spontaneous flow of the film's narrative hand in hand with the theme are brilliant. Special mention must be made of Matyas Seiber, for his music. Maurice Denham’s ventriloquist talents are commendable. He single handedly gives voice to all the animal and human characters in the movie.

The storyline, though intended as a satire on Stalinism, goes beyond the confines of a particular period in history and establishes a fundamental truth of the human society; ‘Even if the oppressed come to power, they eventually become the oppressors’. This has been proved right innumerable times in history. Thus, the appeal of this film is timeless.

Note: This article was first published in Silhouette Magazine Volume 10-1. The link is:

http://silhouette-mag.wikidot.com/vol10-1-riddhiman

References and Further Reading:

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm_%281954_film%29

2.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

3.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky  

Obscure Surrealist Classic – Un Soir Un Train

Lovers of surrealist cinema are acquainted mostly with the names of Bunuel, Tarkovsky and at the most that of Cocteau and Has. However few people can profess to have heard the name of Andre Delvaux(1926 – 2002), a celebrated Belgian filmmaker, in this regard. I had the opportunity to watch his 1968 film ‘Un Soir Un Train’(A Night in the Train), based on Johan Daisne's book ‘De trein der traagheid’ and was enthralled by the subtlety of the narration, the use of multilayered metaphors and the beautiful intertwining of dreams and reality adding to the aspect of ambiguity in the movie. It is a very demanding film and requires multiple viewing to make sense out of it. A brief synopsis of the film is as follows.

Mathias(Yves Montand) is professor of linguistics in a Belgian university, at a time when Belgium is plagued by Walloon movements. He is a writer of Flemish plays as well and is morally opposed to the cause of Walloons.  Although middle-aged, he is unmarried, but has a mistress, Anne(Anouk Aimée), who is a Frenchwoman, working as a costume designer for a theatre. It is revealed that she is currently working on the production of Mathias’s play ‘Elkerlyc’. Their relationship looks as if it may be coming to an end. Anne feels alienated in her Flemish surroundings and is also further aggravated by the fact that Mathias shows no inclination to formalize their relationship.  After a passionless dinner together, Mathias and Anne board a bus which would take them to the railway 

                 

station, since Mathias needs to catch a train to a town where he is to give a lecture. Anne wants to accompany him on the train, but Mathias is uncomfortable about introducing her in his circle. This sparks a heated debate among them. After alighting from the bus, Anne resolves to break off their relationship and declares that she would be leaving Mathias forever.

 However, on the train, Mathias is delighted to see Anne enter his compartment, in spite of his initial reservations about Anne accompanying him.  The couple find themselves incapable of speaking to each other and Mathias falls asleep. He has a series of dreams. Through multiple jump cuts, we are shown a flashback of the couple’s tour of England, the previous year, Mathias watching Anne stand by the window of the train, a scene in the woods and finally overlapping images of a train accident and Mathias and Anne lying beside each other. Mathias awakes from this dream to find his train has stopped and Anne has vanished.  When he leaves the train to investigate along with an old colleague Professor Hernhutter(Hector Camerlynck) and an ex-student Val(François Beukelaers) , the train continues on its way, leaving Mathias and the other two men stranded in the open countryside.  Under nightfall, the three men make their way to a nearby village which is strangely silent. Throughout the journey, Mathias recounts the circumstances under which he had met Anne. When they finally meet the locals, Mathias and the others are unable to recognize their language. They go to a nearby restaurant and are served food by a beautiful waitress whose name is later revealed to be Moira(Adriana Bogdan). The band stars playing a tune and Moira tries to engage them in the dance. Val succumbs in spite of Mathias’s warning. After the dance gets over Mathias is unable to find either professor Hernhutter or Val. He confronts the waitress and suddenly goes into a fit.

                                   

                                            

The scene jump cuts to the site of the train accident and Mathias wakes up from the fit. He finds the lifeless body of Anne in the barn along with Val and breaks into tears.

The acting in the movie is top grade, especially in the roles played by Yves Montand and Anouk Aimée(she appears in quite a contrasting avatar compared to her role in Fellini’s ‘Eight and Half’). The music by Frédéric Devreese blends perfectly with the enigmatic tone of the film. The treatment by Andre Delvaux is very effective, with a straightforward narrative towards the beginning, intended to disarm the viewers and make them unprepared for the non-linear imagery that follows in the latter part of the movie. Let us now look at the film from an analytical angle.

A principal theme of the movie is the linguistic barrier between the Flemish Belgians and the Walloons (French speaking Belgians), which has a long history in Belgium. The relationship between Mathias and Anne becomes a metaphor for this linguistic barrier. The fact that they are unable to speak on the train is a further hint of this situation. However as the synopsis reveals, the latter part of the movie is exceedingly complex since it becomes difficult to gauge the transitions between dream and reality. On closer speculation, multiple interpretations spring up, imparting an ambiguous nature to the film.

On first viewing, it seems that the scene of the train accident shown earlier is not part of a dream, rather a real event demarcating Mathias’s first dream from his second. Mathias passes out due to the accident and dreams of the two other people, the village and his experiences out there.

However, on repeated viewing, several aspects take on new proportions and hint towards other possible interpretations. Early in the movie, the actors enacting Mathias’s play hold a discourse about the appearance of death. They debate whether death should be represented in the traditional getup according to middle age texts or should be inconspicuous (As Werner(Domien De Gruyter) puts it, “In Mathias’s adaptation, death is among thousand other things which could occur”). This discussion becomes relevant if we concentrate on the following facts.

Firstly, the name of the waitress is Moira, which literally means fate. Secondly, when Mathias warns Val about dancing with her and says, “You don’t know what game she is playing”,

      

Val replies, “Her name is Moira. I understand her language. It’s a miracle”. Later Mathias finds Val’s corpse along with that of Anne’s.  These observations hint that Moira could be the personification of fate or death (indistinguishable from any normal person unlike the death in Bergman’s ‘The Seventh Seal’). According to this interpretation, the village can be thought of as a transition state between life and death. Hence, the language barrier between Mathias and the villagers act as a double metaphor, one being the symbolism for the linguistic barrier between the Flemish and the Walloons and the other being the barrier between life and death. Val understands Moira’s language when he submits to her, thereby crossing the barrier. Mathias escapes her and comes back to life from this near death experience.

Yet another possible interpretation could be considering the whole sequence of events after Mathias getting on the train as a series of multilayered dreams (in the same lines as ‘Inception’), from which he does not wake up within the span of the movie. Though this interpretation is a bit ambitious, certain facts like the entry of Anne into the compartment in spite of their previous heated argument and the two of them being unable to communicate, somewhat supports this conclusion. Moreover, the final sequence of Mathias breaking down into tears beside Anne’s corpse is reminiscent of the image of the two of them lying beside each other, which was a part of the first(in this case the first level of) dream, which is also suggestive of the above interpretation. According to this interpretation, flashback of the England tour, the other overlapping imagery and the train accident are part of the first level of dream. Mathias relapses into a second level of dream where his interactions with the other two people and the experiences in the village take place. On waking up from this second level of dream, he moves back to the first level where he confronts the death of Anne and Val as a continuation of the train accident. Mathias’s subconscious is troubled by his treatment of Anne, the fact of their breakup and fabricates the event of Anne’s death as an instrument of rebuke.

       

  

It is difficult to say if Delvaux wanted stress on any single interpretation. It is more likely that he wanted to keep the film open-ended, which follows from the fact that he had given equal hints for each of the possible interpretations. Therefore, it would be unfair to impose any specific interpretation on this movie which aspires to remain ambiguous. This gem of a movie showcases Delvaux’s mastery in every aspect of his craft. It is immensely rewarding for people who enjoy surrealist, enigmatic, ambiguous and intellectually satiating cinema.

References and Further Reading:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Delvaux
2. http://filmsdefrance.com/FDF_Un_soir_un_train_rev.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walloon_movement
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waloons  

Note: This article was first published in Volume 9-4 of Silhouette e-magazine.  
           The link is as follows:

         http://silhouette-mag.wikidot.com/vol9-4-riddhiman

 

The K File – A bold take on the Kasab conundrum

26/11/2008 - A day that would forever be etched in the memory of Indians. On that day, lots of disbelieving eyes were glued to the television set, witnessing the rape and humiliation of their commercial capital. The shock that such a full-fledged terrorist attack could be executed, that their country was so vulnerable to the intelligence agency of their neighbour, was perhaps more than the horror of the actual events. That day, they came to know the name of Muhammad Ajmal Kasab, for the very first time. Ajmal, the 20 year old, belonging to the Kasab(butcher) tribe had indeed justified his name to a sinister extent. His young age drew no sympathies. The people detested him, hoping for a quick and exemplary punishment.

The scenario three and a half years later -  Kasab had been found guilty and sentenced to death numerous times by several courts in India, the latest being Bombay High Court on 21 February 2011. On 30 July 2011, he moved to the Supreme Court of India challenging this sentence and managed to obtain a stay order on the previous verdict. These three and a half years have perhaps been the most comfortable time in his life. Staying under the protection of the government, getting his choicest meals in jail, this was a life Lashkar-a-Taiba could never give him.  The question that has naturally sprung up is that why, even after all these years has this brute not been brought to justice? What is the reason for this delay, when the nature of the convictions are nothing but certain? There have been speculations. Is it India’s penchant for fairness, even in the face of such an appalling crime? Or is it something deeper, the desperate effort by the government to maintain its secular image, a deliberate inaction to secure the vote bank of a particular community. Whatever be it, it has resulted in an immense frustration for the Indian citizens.

It is from this frustration (or rather because of it?) that Oorvazi Irani’s short film ‘The K File’ takes off. From this splice in space time in the territory of fact, the film takes a leap into the realm of fiction and spins off an alternate history of our contemporary times.

The film begins with the footages of 26/11 and the verdict of death penalty for Asab(the counterpart of Kasab in the film, played by Sanjay Nath). Next we see Asab in jail, where he speaks in a mocking tone about his last wish of having mutton biryani. This is a tricky reference to the fact that Kasab is being given his choicest food in jail, as well as his confidence that despite the death sentences, he will be hanging around for long.

Next we see the home minister(Tushar Ishwar) in conversation with a judge. In this segment, he describes his dilemma and the tricky position he is into, since he wants to bring Asab to justice without endangering the Muslim vote bank. Throughout the sequence, the camera is focussed on him. This monologue like treatment is perhaps intended to stress the fact that the onus of handling the actual matter and of being accountable to his party and the public lies on the home minister alone and the person(s) giving opinions on what could be done have hardly any significance in this context. When the minister negates every opinion, we come to understand the fix he is into.

With the passing of months, the helplessness of the minister and Asab going through a train of thoughts are depicted. Asab’s coming to a decision is portrayed though a stiffness in facial expression and a shadow movement on the wall. He bribes the minister with information on ISI in exchange for his freedom. After his phone conversation with the minister, we witness the minister’s thoughtful expression. It seems that the he is perplexed. However, this is only a red herring, as we find out later.

In the jail sequence, the wasp sitting on the minister’s hand sets the stage for the drama to follow. When the minister appears to be tacking a wasp that got into his clothes, thereby exposing the gun in his coat pocket, the buzzing soundtrack makes the audience a part of the deception along with Asab. He snatches the gun, holds the minister on gunpoint and tries to make an escape. In the final scene, we see Asab being shot through the glass of the car window. This is portrayed through a bullet time sequence (that is generally accompanied with a heartbeat, no exceptions here) and a change from natural colour to a colourless tone (a de-saturation or draining of colour), which are both effective in portraying Asab’s approaching death. When Asab tries to shoot the minister in turn and finds the gun not loaded, he finally realizes the trap he has played into.  The person shooting Asab is deliberately masked, giving a point-of-view shot thereby placing the audience in the role of the shooter. Indeed, the shooter is an embodiment of the collective hatred of Indians towards (K)Asab. The minister gives a sly smile, befitting his intelligence, and the film ends with a close up of the bullet hole in the glass. 

For a 10minute film, this has quite a number of elements related to cinematography. Martin Xavier’s camera work is commendable. The dimly lit sequences in the jail and Asab’s shadow on the wall as well as the de-saturation effect towards the end and the close up of the bullet hole are very well executed. There is an interesting aspect in the camera angle with which Asab is portrayed. Towards the beginning, he is captured from a low angle. As the film progresses, the camera moves up culminating in a crane shot when he gets into the car along with the minister. This hints towards a gradual loss in the significance of Asab, from the audiences’ point of view. While towards the beginning, he had seemed a gargantuan presence, towards the end he is reduced to a plaything in the hands of the minister. (This was hinted at in Oorvazi’s Interview on making the film) However, this is not apparent until one has witnessed the complete plot and therefore requires multiple viewing to appreciate.

Ayan Dey’s soundtrack is perfectly in sync with the pace of the movie, especially the use of a fast paced track in the climax sequence and the violin in the final sequence with the minister smiling. Besides doing the background score, Ayan has also handled the editing for this film.

Both the actors have done justice to their roles. One aspect of the film is that is it quasi-realistic, hence it does not strive to align itself with the reality. Hence, the character of Asab is not exactly Kasab, but is rather a personification of our projection of a terrorist as amoral, fanatic and without remorse. Sanjay Nath carries off this archetype brilliantly. His expressions emphasize the heartlessness of a terrorist throughout. He makes the sudden switch from a defensive to an offensive mode very believable. Tushar Iswar looks sharp and blends perfectly with his role of a responsible minister as well as a political mastermind. His smile in the final sequence is very measured, it aptly reflects a satisfaction of beating Asab at his own game, rather than joy or relief.

Oorvazi, as a director prefers the surrealist and avant-garde genre.  From this standpoint, 26/11 was a different and challenging subject for her to make a film on. However, her foray into the thriller genre (I prefer to call this film a thriller rather than a political drama) has been immensely rewarding. She has done a lot of groundwork for the film through the process of interviewing common people, a senior crime investigation journalist, as well as the victims of 26/11, recordings of which have been used as promotional videos for the film. I remember telling her in light humour, that I have never seen this kind of an hour long promotion for a ten minute film. But in reality, I admired her sincerity in getting immersed into the subject, which is a preliminary criterion for any filmmaker, yet which is seldom practiced. Her earnest efforts have paid off. She indeed holds a mirror to our contemporary times, highlighting its stark realities, through her quasi-realist film.

The script by celebrated novelist/screenwriter Farrukh Dhondy is certainly a winner. The representation of the dichotomy of Asab; a man without principles, someone who wants to betray ISI in exchange for his life, yet someone who screams ‘Jihad Zindabad’ when he secures a gun, was interesting. The conceptualisation of the home minister as a young, intelligent and thoughtful person was also very apt. However, the script really stands out for the sheer brilliance of its idea.

And finally it would be a crime not to make a mention Sorab Irani, Oorvazi’s father and the producer of this film who was responsible for bringing this script to her and supporting the film throughout with his constant encouragement. With his years of experience as a veteran producer, he had the vision to recognize the immense potentiality of Farrukh’s script. According to Oorvazi, this film would not have been made, if not for him.


The best thing about this film is that it reflects the current political scenario in India, that is perhaps responsible for the delay in Kasab’s punishment(thus giving voice to the common people’s speculations), yet refrains from making any statement against it; rather comes up with a bold solution within the feasibility of the current framework. There lies the USP of the film and the script.

In the end, it must be said, that in spite of a good script, this film would not have been so well executed without the efforts of all the people associated with the film and above all the director, who knit it together, with passion and precision.






‘The K File’ has been released on the Internet on 28^th May, 2012 and is available in the following youtube link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEg7fGT5pLQ&feature=youtu.be

Inception and The Philosophy of Mind

"Admit it. You no longer believe in one reality. So choose. Choose to be here. Choose me". These enigmatic dialogues, directed towards Dominic Cobb are spoken by his subconscious which has taken the form of his deceased wife, towards the end of 2010 blockbuster ‘Inception’. She tries to convince him that his reality would be what he himself chooses to believe as real and hence urges him to choose for himself. This film is an extremely rare example in the context of Hollywood, which is entertaining as well as intriguing and succeeds viscerally as well as intellectually. It is rich in its non linear, often ambiguous narrative style and its subtle and surreal imagery, many of whose aspects could be subject to detailed analysis. The above comment for instance, gives us an inkling into the philosophical implications of this movie. It specifically points towards a branch of western analytical philosophy known as the Philosophy of Mind.

It would be helpful at this point, to give a basic overview of the philosophy of mind before we proceed further with our analysis. This branch of philosophy deals with the study of the mind, its existence, properties and functions, the origin of our consciousness and their relation to the physical world. One of the central goals of this philosophy, is seeking an answer to what is commonly known as the mind-body problem. The mind-body problem arose because human beings since time immemorial, have felt that mental properties like fear, pain, desire and above all consciousness are substantially different from physical bodies on which they seem to depend. Therefore a question naturally arose about the constitution of the mind and the body, their interrelation and interaction.

Two main schools of thought namely Dualism and Monism exist in Western Philosophy, which take two alternative approaches to address this problem.

Dualism, propounded by iconic Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristrotle and later formulated by French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes, nurtures the belief that mind and body are two separate entities. It proposes that the mind is a non-physical entity which is distinct from the physical world. There are numerous variants of Dualism which differ on the arguments of whether mind is a non-physical substance and how the two entities interact and influence each other. An interesting variant of this theory is found in Panpsychism which states that all matter have physical and mental aspects, i.e all objects, even inanimate ones have a mind just like human beings.(I somehow have a hunch that this was a belief harbored by Rishabha and Mahavira, the founders of Jainism. This could explain why Jainism preaches ahimsa or non-violence, even towards inanimate objects)

Monism, propounded by the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides and later formulated by Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza, holds the belief that the mind and body are in essence not distinct entities, but are different manifestations of the same entity. As in the case of Dualism, here also we have variants of the main theory that differ on the question of which entity to be considered as supreme. A variant of Monism, known as Monistic Idealism states that the mind is the only thing that exists, the body as well as the physical world are fabrications or illusions created by the mind. This theory places the mind as the supreme entity in the universe.

It may be tempting to draw parallels of these theories to the ancient Indian philosophies of Dvaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta. However in their case, the approach is focused on the Bramhan or the source of everything and the Atman or the self, rather than mind and body. And as in the case of all ancient Indian philosophy, propagated from the era of Ramayana and Mahabharata, they are inseparable from the Hindu religious teachings as opposed to Western philosophy which is mostly independent of religion. Hence it is pointless to attempt a comparison between the two.

Released a decade back, The Matrix Trilogy which portrayed a futuristic dystopian world with human consciousness being trapped in a virtual reality, also alludes to certain aspects of the philosophy of mind. These films take a Dualist stand in the context of the mind-body problem, since they clearly differentiate between the physical body lying in the pods used for generating energy in the physical world and the ignorant mind being a resident of a virtual reality known as the Matrix. The fact that Neo is able to control the machines in the real world, in the final part of the trilogy(The Matrix Revolutions), can be though of as an allusion to panpsychism.

In the case of Inception however, we cannot pin down the interpretation on a specific theory that easily. The brilliance of Christopher Nolan lies in the fact that, through a magnificent intertwining of reality and dream and a perplexing ending sequence, he has managed to keep the movie quite ambiguous, much like Belgian filmmaker Andre Delvaux’s surrealist classic, ‘Un Soir Un Train’(A Night in The Train).

Hence to analyze the philosophical implications of ‘Inception’, we need to look at all the possible and debatable interpretations.

For this purpose, I have devised a logical treatment. Let Fig1 below represent the hierarchy of dream states(multilayered dreams) with each concentric circle signifying a dream state. A circle within a circle signifies a dream within a dream. L₀ being the outermost circle represents reality. L₁ is the first level of dream L₂, L_3, L₄ upto L_n further states of dreams within dreams. L₄ occuring after L₃ should be considered as the Limbo.

Fig1 : Hierarchy of Dream States

With the help of this treatment, let us now look at the different ways of interpreting the movie

Some different ways of looking at it are:

• The plain approach - The futuristic world that possesses the technology to enable shared dreams is a reality and can be represented by L_0. While performing inception on Fischer, Cobb traverses through the dream states L_1, L_2, L₃ and finally reaches limbo L_4. There he succeeds in persuading Saito of the unreality of L₄ and together they traverse back up to the reality L₀, i.e they wake up. Saito fulfills his promise and Cobb returns home and finally meets his children. Hence the spinning top at the end of the movie would finally come to rest after the screen goes blank.

In this scenario, we have a frame of reference L₀ by means of which we can distinguish between the real or physical world and the dream states L₁, L₂, L₃, L4, which are fabrications of the mind. Hence this interpretation is in favor of Descartes’s Dualism

• The not so plain approach - The futuristic world is still real and is represented by L₀. However since Cobb and Saito have missed the kick which would have let them traverse back to reality L₀ and also owing to the deep sleep induced by Yusuf’s tranquilizer, they are unable to wake up from Limbo L₄. Thus when Cobb is shown to be waking up in the flight he has not actually returned to L₀, but relapsed into a further dream state which should ideally be represented by L₅. L₅ represents the dream state where Cobb finds all his wishes fulfilled, i.e his being acquitted of all charges, returning home and meeting his children, which does not happen in reality. Hence the spinning top at the end would continue to spin after the screen goes blank.

In this scenario, we still have a reference frame L₀ for distinguishing between reality, which encompasses all the events that happened before Cobb entered the shared dream on the flight and the states L₁ to L₅ which are fabrications of his mind. Hence this interpretation, like the previous one points towards Dualism

• The imaginative approach - The whole movie is a dream. Cobb is actually traversing through the labyrinths of his mind. The concept of the totem as well as the belief that one can wake up from a dream through death, is the actual Inception, which manifests itself in Cobb. The spinning top comes to rest in the dream states which Cobb’s conviction label as reality and the top continues spinning in whichever dream states he recognizes to be dreams. So the top’s continuous spinning or coming to rest is controlled by Cobb’s own conviction as to what is reality or dream. In his dream, Cobb’s subconscious fabricated the character of Mal as his wife, someone who never really existed. It is never clear which dream state actually represents the Limbo that Mal and Cobb were in together. Let us assume it to be L_i, where i is a natural number ranging from 1 to n. When Cobb and Mal killed themselves in Limbo L_i, Cobb did not wake up, but relapsed into a further limbo state L_i+1. Mal played the part of Cobb’s subconscious aptly and proposed the idea that their waking world was not real. This time she killed herself by jumping off a building and showed Cobb the correct method of waking up by means of a kick. However Cobb continued to live in L_i+1 convinced of its reality. His mind eventually fabricated the characters Saito, Adrianne, Fischer and his entire team in order to pursue his goal of returning home. This can explain why the multilayered dreams during the supposed inception on Fisher follow a mathematical precision regarding the relative time, since the whole scheme of inception through shared dreams had been engineered by Cobb’s mind. Adrianne once again, taking up the part of Cobb’s subconscious, suggests the correct way of waking up through a kick, but to no avail. While trying to perform the supposed inception on Fisher, Cobb penetrates further into his dream states and reaches a state L_j(where j>i), which looks similar to the limbo L_i, since Cobb envisions himself to be back in L_i. He convinces Saito, i.e his own subconscious that they can escape the Limbo by killing themselves and thereby completes the inception on himself. Cobb shoots himself and is seen to be waking up on the flight, but actually reaches a state L_j+1(where j<=n), which resembles state L_i+1. Here his wishes are fulfilled and he is able to return home. When he spins the top, it initially spins without deceleration, since Cobb still has his doubts. However, when his children look up and he goes to meet them, the top follows a natural course and seems to slow down, once again indicating that the inception on Cobb has been successful. The children don’t seem to have grown any older than the last time he saw them; however Cobb is convinced of his reality, the one he truly desires. The top would finally come to rest after the screen goes blank, but it would still be a dream.

This interpretation rules out the scope of a reference frame for determining the reality in the context of the above diagram. We have no way of knowing where and when, Cobb had initially started dreaming. What we had initially perceived to be reality is nothing but a dream state L_i+1. We also do not have any standard to affix a specific value to i. Considering the lowest possible value i=1, the outermost state L₀ is revealed to be a limbo state itself. Therefore, this interpretation leaves us with no other option than to take an abstract view of the nature of reality. It makes an amazing suggestion, that reality could be a dream as well, making it very much aligned with the postulates of Monistic Idealism. The dialogues mentioned at the beginning of this article are very much suggestive of this as well. The idea that the dream states are no different from reality, both being fabrications of the mind and hence each dream state could be considered as an alternate reality; can definitely be thought of as a corollary to Monistic Idealism. This purview seems to be the most feasible of all in my opinion; some subtle elements in the film, acquiring full proportion only during the second viewing, stress this aspect. However, still more varying interpretations could be made about this movie by different critics. Moreover, it would be wrong to impose any specific interpretation on a movie that aspires to remain ambiguous.

Christopher Nolan himself chooses not to explain much about this movie which in my opinion is a correct decision, since an explanation would close the avenues for
further speculation and take away the romance of the ambiguity which Nolan has taken such good care to impress upon the viewers. It is possible that Nolan himself may have pondered over the philosophical implications while scripting the movie, or they may have been imbibed from the literary works of Jorge Luis Borges
which have acted as a main inspiration for ‘Inception’.Whatever be the case, it is apparent beyond doubt that this movie is an allusion to the philosophy of mind, in one way or the other.

P.S : While I was in the process of writing this article, I received the news that ‘Inception’ has lost out on the contest for the best motion picture in the Oscars. Though grossly unfair, this decision was not quite surprising. America has seldom recognized cinema that go beyond the traditional Hollywood formulaic narrative style and incorporate elements of ambiguities. Hollywood has always been congenial to lucid narratives(some of which are no doubt great films). Hence the tradition of disregarding non-conformative narratives as in the case of Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001 Space Odyssey’ made in 1968(an award for visual effects does not really count), continues till this day. However, such films have always won accolades among true film enthusiasts, which in my opinion hold much greater value than a metal statuette.

References:

1. http://timesnewsworld.com/inception-movie-review-and-analysis.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind