A Heart in Winter

It seems sort of a  coincidence or say destiny that I have been watching an array of french movies on the variations of  love. In the earlier post I had scribbled about the subtle beautiful movie 'Mademoiselle Chambon'.

 The movie that I just saw yesterday was 'Un Coeur en Hiver' (A Heart in Winter). This seems at first a love triangle between a philanderer, a musical diva and monastic urban guy but it illustrates much more shades.

First half of the movie  goes in the predictable mode  of a love triangle. Stephane (monastic guy) who is a violin maker seems to be a good friend of Maxime( Philanderer) who is the owner of this violin shop. Maxime falls in love with the gorgeous Camille (Emmanuelle Beart). Then things change n Camille falls in love to Stephanne.

It is the love between Camille and Stephane that takes us to a different psychological level. I would rather say this is movie of a man with a cold heart (A heart in winter)

Let me put this complex and intense movie in lighter prose. In a story telling mode-

There was a man with a heart in winter.
He lived in the world of music, producing an instrument of music.
He knew music but considered it a stuff of dreams.
Dreams bcos he built a reasoned wall where feelings cannot touch his heart.
But, there came this beautiful mademoiselle !
A musical Diva, a gifted violinist (Camille).
She  is having this cold affair with Stephanne's friend (Maxime)
But then her musical heart is pierced by the mystical gaze of Stephanne,
the cold hearted man !
There is reciprocity of love in gaze but not in words.
There is emotional turbulence in both,
Camille leaves her ex-lover for Stephanne,
And the day when she is ready to pronounce her love to him
She plays the violin in love for him,
A performance of a woman enraptured by love with emotions pouring through the strings of violin.
A woman completely stung by his love. But the cold hearted guy denies it. The gorgeous violinist is shattered that the  love of her life denies her.
The rejection seems incredulous at first and we are also mystified by Stephane.
It was not that he didn't love her but he didn't understand his own feeling, as he lived in denial of it.
But there was some internal upheaval  happening inside him, 
Dizzying him out and piercing him,
This upheaval was love!
Which he came to realise late through the understanding that man is mortal.

The lightness of the prose above doesn't mean to undermine this complex pychological movie on love. The performance of Stephanne is intense and brilliant. The gorgeous French actress Emmanuelle Béart's performance is exquisite. 

A small clip from the movie

Just One Word Subtle

A sublime idea in a subtle movie on love. Can music be the conduit that could kindle the heart of two persons?
 A touch , a look and silence can change the matured desires and shatter the conventionality nurtured.No materialistic magnets that attract the frail in this confused age but just raw human emotions that have driven relations for ages. There are upheavals that arise from unexpected quarters that can change and break the brittle socially constructed identity. And there can be the music that could tear apart the wall of conformism. But then circumstances subvert passion to make way for reason.

Mademoiselle Chambon illustrates this concept. There is not much action nor words required to get each other charged but just some sublime music of Vecsey-Valse Triste.

A beautiful subtle movie on love

'Biutiful' is Beautiful !

Biutiful' is beautiful and powerful film as a cinematic experience. Biutiful was a film I had been waiting to watch for a long time. The Film was different from other Innaritu's movies where multiple narratives and multiple stories intertwine with each other. This was a linear movie, taking us into a  journey of  the crumbling world of a man named Uxbal (Javier Bardem). He is a multifaceted person, a sort of a vintage urban survivor who is  a devoted father, tormented lover,mystified son, a ghost seeker, underground business man etc.To appreciate this movie we have to wear an objective hat and throw away subjectivity to the fullest extent possible otherwise it would just seem as a depressing saga. The narration in the trailer below provides us the gist of the movie. "Sometimes fate is like a small sandstorm that keeps changing directions. You change direction but the sandstorm chases you. You turn again, but the storm adjusts. Over and over you play this out, like some ominous dance with death just before dawn. ...
An you really will have to make it through that violent, metaphysical, symbolic storm. No matter how metaphysical or symbolic it might be, make no mistake about it: it will cut through flesh like a thousand razor blades. People will bleed there, and you will bleed too. Hot, red blood. You'll catch that blood in your hands, your own blood and the blood of others. "

 Fate is a more than a small sandstorm and it cannot be escaped. Uxbal tries to fight with fate, but fighting with fate is like fighting with a shadow with only hurt in return. Life doesn't turn out like a popular flick or fiction where fate can be twisted to your own favor. Uxbal implicitly understands the inevitability of fate and tries to undertake things with atmost caution but trouble is chasing him all the time. The ardous journey that Uxbal has to undergo cannot be shortened and his life is going down a steep road without friction.

Javier Bardem was spellbinding in this hard hitting role and he has given the performance of his lifetime. Bardem gets into the skin of Uxbal and his intensity can be felt by us. A film in which the actor and the role really merges and produce an outstanding performance. A great work of art tries to portray its subject in such a manner that the observer  can feels the subject. If misery is portrayed then the audience should feel the misery. This is where Biutiful does well.  The film is minimalistic in terms of narrative technique unlike other innovative movies of Alejandro Innaritu.  But we get absorbed in the miserable life of Uxbal. The camerawork is  also quite  impressive. The movie conveys that fate is inevitable and we cannot fight it and death is a smooth passage. "When you come out of the storm your life would not be the same, it would be beautiful".

Pleasant Surprise !! (DG Revisited)

PS : Major changes from the first posting
I was not expecting much from the movie 'Dhobi Ghat (DG)' and was expecting it to be a pretentious dab on art house cinema. But it turned out to be pleasant surprise with themes inspired from  Alejandro Innaritu's movies especially Babel. The movie is about emotional dilemma's that people face in everyday existence. It shows the different emotional layers of eclectic people in the city of Mumbai.There are some good takers from the movie. 

DG revolved around three stories working simultaneously on relations but somewhat intertwined with each other. The first interesting feature that I liked about the movie was the use of silence and music. Emotions are better portrayed without words and this technique has not been effectively used in 'Hindi' cinema much. DG was able to somewhat effectively  use it in conjunction with music. Satyajit Ray was the master of this technique in India which can be clearly seen in movies such as Pather Panchali and Charulata, whereas in World Cinema Kieslowski was the master of this supreme narrative form without words.The stories were intertwined in subtle ways and showed an eclectic array of characters. Another interesting part was the simultaneous linear flow of these stories in a slow absorbing manner. The first story or theme portrays the case of Arun who cherishes his privacy and solitude.  His sense of solace comes from a vicarious experience (which can be considered  the third or another story in the movie) than from tangible human beings . The second story is about a typical 'Mumbai' struggler who aspires to become an actor one day. He seemed to me to be the central character of the movie. He finds this NRI girl who becomes his friend by chance and kindles his heart. But the girl is fond of Arun. These inconsistencies in relations and the emotional churning across different class characters has been portrayed nicely .The third story which has an vicarious emotional link to the first story and is about a simple and naive girl. She is like a adoring sister to her brother and loyal and servile wife to her husband. But her husband's infidelity she is not able to withstand and plans to commit suicide. The movie portrays in a basic sense the illogicality of life. But the end is kept open. There are movies with certain clear statements and predictablity which makes it singular in interpretation. But certainity in art form makes  it boring. Emotions are not predictable nor life is. 

Dhobi Ghat seems to be  a metaphor for life where it acts like a drainer or cleanser of emotions to make a person humble and more humane or maybe the opposite.

What is the 'Idea of India' ?

What is the 'idea behind India or Idea of India'. The idea that defines the identity of India. The thought that comes to my mind is that of a pluralistic jamboree where all revel and survive with the eclectic languages along with the sub-cultures. Or it may be said as a mega culture where many sub cultures flourish. If we start thinking behind the creation of this mega identity called India we realize that this is a sort of phantasmagoria or a metaphor for diversity.In a thoughtful article, Historian Ramchandra Guha articulates this idea as " articulated by Tagore, Gandhi and the Indian Constitution, the idea of India contains within its capacious borders more social diversity than any other nation. It privileges no particular religion, does not enforce a common language, and does not promote patriotism by identifying or demonising a common external (or internal) enemy." This concept of pluralism or Indian unity was basically a product of medieval India. This fact was shared by both Gandhi and Tagore.

 To understand this idea of India, we have to understand its differences with the European idea of 'nationalism' which was rejected fervently by Gandhi and Tagore. Gandhi and Tagore seemed united in thwarting the concept of nationalism but they were heterodox thinkers in many issues.  Here a basic distinction between nationalism and patriotism  has to be made clear. Patriotism is a sort of a sentiment whereas nationalism is an ideology. As Nandy has argued that patriotism doesn't define any specific territoriality (sort of a naturalism) whereas nationalism "is more specific, ideologically tinged, ardent form of “love of one’s own kind” that is essentially ego-defensive and overlies some degree of fearful dislike or positive hostility to “outsiders”. It is egodefensive because it is often a reaction to the inner, unacknowledged fears of atomisation or psychological homelessness induced by the weakening or dissolution of primordial ties and growing individuation, alienating work and the death of vocations, in turn brought about by technocratic capitalism, urbanisation and industrialisation."
Gandhi's idea of India or view of nation was/is considered utopian by many as he talked about an 'enlightened anarchy'. Gandhi was a firm believer of universal equality and considered armed nationalism as a sort of imperialism. Nandy in one of his brilliant essays 'Gandhi after Gandhi' dissects the idea behind Gandhism. Of the four distinct Gandhi's that he describes the first one is an avowed anarchist and anti-modern who doesn't believe in the concept of the nation state. He is patriotic and doesn't subscribe to the nationalist boundaries of private vs public, religious vs secular etc.
"After Independence, the political presence of the Father of the Nation, his memory and his writings were proving very problematic to the functionaries of the young Indian state and to intellectuals who had already begun to specialise in hovering, like so many flies, over the State’s patronage-structure. Not merely the strong anarchist strand in his ideology, but even his peculiar denial of clear-cut divisions between the private and the public, the religious and the secular, and the past and the present, were proving to be a real headache. These intellectuals were as disturbed by him as his assassin was. Nathuram Godse, a self avowed rationalist and modernist, in his last statement in the court that sentenced him to death explicitly claimed he had committed a patricide to save the nascent Indian State from an anti-modern, political neophyte and a lunatic. After independence, Gandhi’s own associates would have liked to bury Gandhi six feet under the ground, while keeping his image intact as an icon of the Indian nation-state. Not because they disliked Gandhi, but because he looked such an anachronism in the post-World War II atmosphere of centralised states, social engineering and ‘realist’ international politics.Since then, Indian statists of both the right and the left have never acknowledged their enormous debt to Mr Nathuram Godse for imposing on the Father of the Nation a premature martyrdom that straightaway gave him a saintly status and effectively finished him off as a live political presence. Their brainchildren still hold it against Gandhi that he has occasionally refused to oblige them and has defied the saintliness imposed on him, presumably as a strategic means of neutralising him. "
In another excellent essay in EPW,   "Nationalism, Genuine and Spurious' Ashis Nandy scrutinizes the Tagorian view against nationalism. Tagore was against the masculine European nationalism. It might seem paradoxical that a person who wrote and composed India and Bangladesh's national anthem and also scored Srilanka's national anthem disgusted the idea of nation state. This dislike was powerfully put by Tagore in his novels. As Nandy argues " In Gora, Tagore gives a powerful psychological definition of nationalism where nationalism becomes a defence against recognising the permeable or porous boundaries of one’s self that the cultures in his part of the world sanction. He in effect argues that the idea of nationalism is intrinsically non- Indian or anti-Indian, an offence against Indian civilisation and its principles of religious and cultural plurality. Ghare Baire is a story of how nationalism dismantles community life and releases the demon of ethnoreligious violence. It destroys the “home” by tinkering with the moral basis of social and cultural reciprocity and hospitality in the Indic civilisation."
Nationalism is in a sense against the idea of freedom of the 'self'. These two great thinkers understood the fallacy behind it and provided an idea of India which was unique and sound. But we are now living in an age where there are forces which are trying to redefine and eliminate the multicultural 'Idea of India'. Ram Guha suggests that we are facing three enemies against this pluralistic idea of India.  The first he argues are the domestic nationalists. As Guha puts "To the “theoretically untidy, improvising, pluralist approach” of Gandhi and Nehru, Khilnani wrote, the Sangh parivar offered the alternative of “a culturally and ethnically cleaned-up homogeneous community with a singular Indian citizenship, defended by a state that had both God and nuclear warheads on its side”. In another piece Nandy also has argued "The various brands of religious and ethnic nationalists have done one better. Modelling themselves on European nationalists, they have actually tried to subvert the organisational frame of the Indian heritage and reconstruct it according to the needs of a modern nationality. If the record of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh looks abysmal in the matter of India’s freedom struggle, it is because Hindu nationalism discovered early that silence, if not direct collaboration with colonialism, paid handsome political dividends. Such collaboration left it free to pursue its agenda against the minorities on the one hand and non-modern and non-modernisable Hinduism on the other."  The second challenge that he poses is the Maoist issue and the third is the separatist movements.

There are myriads of other forces also operating against this 'idea of India' such as corruption, economic inequality and criminalization of politics etc.  It requires a rethink on our side the common folks to preserve the 'unique' pluralistic idea of India that our founding fathers had given and nurtured.

Terminal Humour of Martin Amis

I recently  finished a prose driven novel by Martin Amis, where the narration was embellished with great 'terminal humor'. The novel I am scribbling  about is 'Money' by Martin Amis. This has been the most critically acclaimed novel of Amis. Money is a satire on 'money' set in the background of  'market and money' driven London and New York. Amis seems to be quite critical of Margaret Thacher's free market philiosophy where values were sensed to be based on Money. The story revolves around the topsy turvy life of John Self who epitomizes the 'real consumer' in such a money driven world. John Self wallows in all sort of vices and believes that everything in the world can be brought with money. His 'real' business is consumption. Consumption of  whiskey , cigarettes and porn defines his existence. He is portrayed as the archetypal 'incorrigible consumer'.  But behind this escapist philosophy of 'money can buy everything' we see  a John Self living a miserable life. The novel portrays the pschological collapse of a person with this philosophy. And then there is a twist where John Self losses everything and where his friends become  foes. It is not the story that is brilliant rather it is the scintillating narrative and the penetrating satire that makes it a great novel. Amis is a master of prose and his ability to infuse 'terminal humor' is quite unique. I have just started his another fascinating novel 'The Information' which also is quite  humorous and prose infused treat . 

Copie conforme: Abbas Kiarostami

Recently I saw a refreshing new movie by the Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami ' Certified Copy (French: Copie conforme)'. Being a Kiarostami movie we could have expected it to be an Iranian movie rather the film was was set in Tuscany, Italy with English being the major spoken language. The cast was also a surprise with French actress Juliette Binoche and British operatic singer (baritone) William Shimell in the lead. The movie just revolved around the interaction that happens in a day between these two middle aged characters. The film portrays the tussle and the adjustment that these two distinct personalites undergo just within a days meeting. The film reminded me of an earlier hollywood movie that I had watched long back 'Before Sunset' where also the movie revolved around the interaction between the two characters but the difference was that the characters had somewhat synchronous tastes.  Certified Copy is much more subtle and portrays the inconsistency and tension that can occur between couples of diverse tastes. It is a good critical take on relations which can happen naturally without the proper understanding of each others tastes. Juliette Binoche is brilliant as ever with her portrayal of a single mother who is searching and yearning to fill her emotional vacuum  with someone whereas William Shimell portrays a character who enjoys his solitude and is not ready to squeeze anyone new into his life. The film ends without a clear conclusion as in most of  Kiarostami's movies  in the style of 'Waiting for Godot' where the  interpretation is kept open  which in a sense makes the audience more involved towards the end.