“If you make people think they are thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you.” — Don Marquis.
This is what separates a film like Gulaal from No Smoking. Both were made by India’s beloved, Anurag Kashyap, but both drew opposite reactions. Gulaal became the darling of the ruling elite because of its austere, dark narrative; whereas, No Smoking became the most notorious movie ever because of its abstruse story, unconventional narrative and overall weirdness. One made people think that they were thinking, while the other actually made an effort to make them think. After the disastrous response to No Smoking, Anurag Kashyap grasped the ruling elite’s fostered dogmas and moved his career in the direction of Gulaal.
The serious directors in India are called unconventional. But no one ever realises that they just mirror what so-called mainstream directors do. Mainstream directors make films that appeal to the masses, while the serious directors focus on critics. They are just two sides of the same coin. Both follow certain formulas. Both seek approval of their respective audience. Both can be very insecure. Yet the serious bores get all the accolade. If mainstream action films are formulaic, then so are gangster films. If mainstream directors cannot make supposedly award-worthy films, then the “serious” directors cannot make blockbusters. It’s easy to ridicule a blockbuster but hard to make one. Anurag Kashyap fell flat on his face when he attempted a mainstream film with Bombay Velvet.
Who decides that critics are superior to common people? What makes a film critic an authority on cinema? Critics don’t even need any qualification, unlike other professionals. In India anyone who cannot do anything in life can become a film critic. Kamaal Rashid Khan’s resounding success as a film connoisseur is a proof. So, who decides that Kamaal Rashid Khan or his cronies have the authority to influence the kind of movies that should be made? Critics cry for more freedom, yet they cannot take any criticism from public. The very idea of film critic’s influence is dictatorial.
No one ever wonders that a biopic or a film based on real events, has a ready-made story. (Of course cinema isn’t all about story. It’s the treatment of a story that matters.) But thinking up a piece of fiction requires more creative effort. An austere biopic on Gandhi is admirable but comedy like Lage Raho Munnabhai entails far more creativity. Films like Back To The Future, Memento, and Inception are works of pure genius.
In India any movie that’s has a serious subject and is “realistic” and easy to comprehend, gets pigeonholed as good cinema. Everyone follows this sentiment robotically. It has become a dogma. Like religious beliefs, nobody dares to question it. Anyone who dares to do so is insulted. Here are some of the dogmatic diktats: biopics are intelligent because they are real and anything unconventional or that makes you feel good is lowbrow rubbish. No Smoking makes you stupid, while Gangs of Wasseypur can make you smarter than Einstein. If you don’t like Airlift and Neerja you are not only anti-national but also stupid. You could be doing a PhD, yet it’s Gangs of Wasseypur that determines your intelligence quotient.
India has another ridiculous notion: any movie that’s realistic or serious is artistic. Alfred Hitchcock mostly made suspense thrillers; they were not only very entertaining but more artistic than the oeuvres of modern-day ascetic bores. Luis Buñuel and David Lynch — the legends of surreal cinema — made great films but none of them would get any respect in India because most of the self-proclaimed intellectuals don’t understand surrealism. Hence, it’s rubbish. The films of Luis Buñuel and David Lynch challenging and require more thinking than a straight-laced austere film.
The irony of Anurag Kashyap’s cinema (or any branch of serious cinema) is that it preaches shades-of-grey mindset (acceptance of human flaws, realism, lack of idealism etc.), yet its supporters expect idealism and obedience from film viewers by expecting them to only watch “serious” cinema. They want free thinking, but they are ones who curb free thinking by restricting cinema to their blinkered, austere vision. Diversity is beautiful. Films like Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Sixth Sense, Memento, The Prestige, The Godfather, Back To The Future, 8 and 1/2 are great films and all of them are different from one another. It’s the beauty of diversity that makes cinema so rich. But diversity is considered an enemy because of political and cinematic propagandas.
The Don Marquis’ quote at the start of this post best describes the strategy of politicians and film snobs to control people. Anyone who doesn’t like mainstream cinema is called a non-conformist, even though they don’t have the guts to criticise or even question any serious film (what an irony!). People who like feel-good cinema do it on their own volition; they have the freedom to like or dislike any feel-good film. So who’s more open-minded and obedient? Anyone who likes Anurag Kashyap is touted as a liberal, even though they abuse those who are not into such cinema. So, who’s more liberal? How can not liking Neerja make one unpatriotic or irresponsible or stupid? Neerja was a great lady whose story deserved to be shown. But not showing interest or not liking that movie doesn’t mean disrespect towards her. Anyone who wants to know about her can read about her. It’s a matter of personal choice. Having an opinion on a movie is a personal choice, not a criteria for determining one’s purpose in life. Politicians and “serious” filmmakers shame movies that are made for money (as if they would ever quit their high-paying jobs). An Indian politician literally beats up an Air India employee for giving him an economy class ticket, but he expects common people to watch “sensible” films and American TV shows. Karan Johar emotionally blackmails people who prefer feel-good cinema, while boasting about his riches. In 2010 he made a statement against Islamophobia in My Name Is Khan. In 2017 he used anti-Muslim sentiment to promote Bahubali. Anurag Kashyap’s rabid fans (are there any other kind?) chastise those who don’t watch serious cinema, whilst enjoying a game of cricket with beer.
Most people cannot see this hypocrisy, because of the indoctrination and emotional blackmail that they are put through. They are lied to by the establishment. They throw flattering adjectives at them like “hipsters”, “yuppies”, “non-conformists”, “rebels”, “street smart liberals”, “cool motherfuckers” etc. They are told that they know everything but in truth they don’t. And they don’t even know that they don’t.
This is what separates a film like Gulaal from No Smoking. Both were made by India’s beloved, Anurag Kashyap, but both drew opposite reactions. Gulaal became the darling of the ruling elite because of its austere, dark narrative; whereas, No Smoking became the most notorious movie ever because of its abstruse story, unconventional narrative and overall weirdness. One made people think that they were thinking, while the other actually made an effort to make them think. After the disastrous response to No Smoking, Anurag Kashyap grasped the ruling elite’s fostered dogmas and moved his career in the direction of Gulaal.
The serious directors in India are called unconventional. But no one ever realises that they just mirror what so-called mainstream directors do. Mainstream directors make films that appeal to the masses, while the serious directors focus on critics. They are just two sides of the same coin. Both follow certain formulas. Both seek approval of their respective audience. Both can be very insecure. Yet the serious bores get all the accolade. If mainstream action films are formulaic, then so are gangster films. If mainstream directors cannot make supposedly award-worthy films, then the “serious” directors cannot make blockbusters. It’s easy to ridicule a blockbuster but hard to make one. Anurag Kashyap fell flat on his face when he attempted a mainstream film with Bombay Velvet.
Who decides that critics are superior to common people? What makes a film critic an authority on cinema? Critics don’t even need any qualification, unlike other professionals. In India anyone who cannot do anything in life can become a film critic. Kamaal Rashid Khan’s resounding success as a film connoisseur is a proof. So, who decides that Kamaal Rashid Khan or his cronies have the authority to influence the kind of movies that should be made? Critics cry for more freedom, yet they cannot take any criticism from public. The very idea of film critic’s influence is dictatorial.
No one ever wonders that a biopic or a film based on real events, has a ready-made story. (Of course cinema isn’t all about story. It’s the treatment of a story that matters.) But thinking up a piece of fiction requires more creative effort. An austere biopic on Gandhi is admirable but comedy like Lage Raho Munnabhai entails far more creativity. Films like Back To The Future, Memento, and Inception are works of pure genius.
India has another ridiculous notion: any movie that’s realistic or serious is artistic. Alfred Hitchcock mostly made suspense thrillers; they were not only very entertaining but more artistic than the oeuvres of modern-day ascetic bores. Luis Buñuel and David Lynch — the legends of surreal cinema — made great films but none of them would get any respect in India because most of the self-proclaimed intellectuals don’t understand surrealism. Hence, it’s rubbish. The films of Luis Buñuel and David Lynch challenging and require more thinking than a straight-laced austere film.
The irony of Anurag Kashyap’s cinema (or any branch of serious cinema) is that it preaches shades-of-grey mindset (acceptance of human flaws, realism, lack of idealism etc.), yet its supporters expect idealism and obedience from film viewers by expecting them to only watch “serious” cinema. They want free thinking, but they are ones who curb free thinking by restricting cinema to their blinkered, austere vision. Diversity is beautiful. Films like Psycho, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Sixth Sense, Memento, The Prestige, The Godfather, Back To The Future, 8 and 1/2 are great films and all of them are different from one another. It’s the beauty of diversity that makes cinema so rich. But diversity is considered an enemy because of political and cinematic propagandas.
The Don Marquis’ quote at the start of this post best describes the strategy of politicians and film snobs to control people. Anyone who doesn’t like mainstream cinema is called a non-conformist, even though they don’t have the guts to criticise or even question any serious film (what an irony!). People who like feel-good cinema do it on their own volition; they have the freedom to like or dislike any feel-good film. So who’s more open-minded and obedient? Anyone who likes Anurag Kashyap is touted as a liberal, even though they abuse those who are not into such cinema. So, who’s more liberal? How can not liking Neerja make one unpatriotic or irresponsible or stupid? Neerja was a great lady whose story deserved to be shown. But not showing interest or not liking that movie doesn’t mean disrespect towards her. Anyone who wants to know about her can read about her. It’s a matter of personal choice. Having an opinion on a movie is a personal choice, not a criteria for determining one’s purpose in life. Politicians and “serious” filmmakers shame movies that are made for money (as if they would ever quit their high-paying jobs). An Indian politician literally beats up an Air India employee for giving him an economy class ticket, but he expects common people to watch “sensible” films and American TV shows. Karan Johar emotionally blackmails people who prefer feel-good cinema, while boasting about his riches. In 2010 he made a statement against Islamophobia in My Name Is Khan. In 2017 he used anti-Muslim sentiment to promote Bahubali. Anurag Kashyap’s rabid fans (are there any other kind?) chastise those who don’t watch serious cinema, whilst enjoying a game of cricket with beer.
Most people cannot see this hypocrisy, because of the indoctrination and emotional blackmail that they are put through. They are lied to by the establishment. They throw flattering adjectives at them like “hipsters”, “yuppies”, “non-conformists”, “rebels”, “street smart liberals”, “cool motherfuckers” etc. They are told that they know everything but in truth they don’t. And they don’t even know that they don’t.
No comments
Post a Comment