Shrink Tales: A Friday After Many

It has taken great effort to write again. Putting in a routine will help me greatly, evidence shows. So this is hoping that it will help me in some way. If it doesn't it is always good to keep writing.
Especially when it is a large part of what you do for a living.

Back to Therapy | Shrink Tales

I go to that dark place over and over again in my mind. It was after i booked the session at Dr. Vani's that Kan called me and said those horrible things which in the end made me cut myself up after a long time. Maybe those weren't horrible things. Maybe i am just a horrible person.

Ish is going to ask me what i feel so

I feel like a failure because i am back to therapy - i cut myself up after a long time

Feel like a failure with no redemption in sight because two people told me the same thing. The first being inji.

Abandoned. Inji being absent from my life makes me feel abandoned.

Always when she is not there, i feel like i am standing at the end of a cliff staring into a dark abyss.

I feel inconsequential. I don't matter to anyone. I matter only to inji and even she doesn't want me anymore.

This is not a book review: The Essential Calvin and Hobbes

The Essential Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This copy smelled like those Jetco books we had in kindergarten. Anyway Calvin - as usual. The other collection that i have is 'The Days Are Just PACKED' and compared to that one, this has more details of Calvin's love for Susie. In fact more about Calvin's love with one strip of him dealing with death. More dad polls. More fantasies.

View all my reviews

Article 15 - A Much Needed User Manual

I did not watch Kabir Singh. I think people decide which movies to watch based on the publicity material that is released before the release of the film. Posters, teasers, trailers and in some countries including ours, songs. Reviews come from the watchers and not the makers. I decided not to watch Kabir Singh looking at its poster. I also watched a review that told me that what i guessed from the poster was kind of the gist of the film.

The faces in Kabir Singh and Article 15 posters

It had an indian male who looked rebellious - unkempt hair, sunglasses, staring at us and the name of the film was probably the name of this indian male. Hmmph. I thought. This is probably one of those films in which the genius of a man, whose genius no one can understand, lives his life while inconsequential beings - women, for example - make way for him. 

All this from a poster? Isn't it too harsh? Maybe. But this medium called cinema is very telling. What we see immediately translates to concepts, ideas, prejudices and assumptions in seconds. The poster below follows the same format - an indian male staring at us with the name of the male for the name of the film. Yet, this poster did not make me think that the film was going to bathe everyone in toxic masculinity like how the Singh thing did.

Raees poster

There are a lot of factors doing this to each and every viewer. I am sure there are books and research that tell us how the colours, the lighting, the font etc. work together to form opinions that can be shared and understood by human minds. I will not delve into that because this is supposed to be about the film 'Article 15.'

I talked about Kabir Singh because that was the other film that was showing in the theatre i went to watch Article 15. So i could pan my head to look at Shahid Kapoor in sunglasses and pan back to Ayushmann Khurrana in sunglasses. This must be why i got obsessed with posters and reflective surfaces when i decided to write about why Article 15 was a much needed film in this country. As ridiculous as it sounds, it is so because Khurrana's sunglasses reflect something and Shahid Kapoor's are see-through.

Article 15 is the story of a police officer who conducts an investigation into the rape of three Dalit girls in rural india. The investigation is heavily influenced by casteism and it becomes extremely difficult for him to find and arrest the perpetrators.  

The image on Khurrana's glasses was one that was splashed across all media when the incidents on which the film is based happened. People who remember would remember how two minor girls in Badaun, Uttar Pradesh were raped by a group of men and were hung on a tree for everyone to see, to serve as a warning to the people of the caste that the girls belonged to. Article 15 is about caste discrimination - something indians don't talk about in films. Indians usually talk about Kabir Singhs in films.

I did see reviews that pointed out how it was a story of an upper caste hero providing justice to helpless lower caste victims. It is. But i also think this is the least bollywood can do. Create a hero out of someone who fights caste based violence. Tell people that if you are an upper caste male who is in a position of power, the least you can do is do your job. 

If you look at it, the hero of this film is not someone who beats up a hundred able bodied men. One might say that he is a rebel. But is he? He is in fact going by the rules. If you receive a complaint of a missing person, you file an FIR. That is your job as a police officer. The hero in Article 15 does only that. The film is making a hero out of an officer who goes to work every day and does his job. 

Bollywood thinks if a person has a job and he works in an office, there has to be something missing in his life. Think Lunchbox and every other boy-meets-girl-who-makes-him-understand-there-is-more-to-the-world-than-his- 9-5 job. If he has a desk job, he definitely needs a road movie. The one in which he finds the meaning of life. The hero in Article 15 is not interested in the meaning of life. He only wants to make sure that an investigation is done if a complaint is registered. An autopsy is done if there is a dead body. A search is done if there is a missing person. 

This has to be seen in the light of the fact that in India, most of the positions of power, be it in media, academics, administration, judiciary are filled with upper caste people. It is no secret that Brahmins who come to around 5% of the population control most of these systems. This film therefore looked like a user manual for them. I don't think that it is an exercise in vain, educating the privileged. It has to be done but keeping in mind that it is not the marginalised people's responsibility. A similar situation can be found in patriarchy. Men need to be taught feminism but they have to understand that it is their responsibility, not women's. For everything else, there is google.  

The illusion that Khurrana is a rebel is created only because the rest of the people - his subordinates - are determined to not do their jobs. The only other rebellion is in his past when he says 'cool' to his superior (instead of cool, sir, i suppose) but that doesn't count. Rebels pee in their superiors' pools, break bottles on their heads or if they are speaking, give a lengthy eye opener of a speech with swear words in Hindi, if possible. Our hero can't even swear to his heart's content because his subordinates don't understand English swear words.

I am not saying that the film is without problems. For a film dealing with caste based discrimination, it gives undue importance to the hero's personal life. A writer-activist girlfriend who gives him strength to do his job is inappropriate in the context. It is true that upper caste humans also feel defeated and scared while dealing with ground realities. But it can be shown in a film and be justified only if at some point they realise that their tribulations are irrelevant. The only things that matter are the crime and the victims. The film does not do that. The upper caste couple gets their personal victory while the lower caste couple are unable to even live. And i still haven't figured out why there was an encounter killing of Dalit leaders in the script.

The film looks like the makers researched pretty well before making it. Which is why i find it a little strange that they did not touch upon the subject of the caste of the girls. I understand it was not a replication of the Badaun incident that they did in the film. There is a dialogue where the Badaun case is mentioned. So in the film, the incident is happening after Badaun and therefore is different from it. But the Badaun case was riddled with questions regarding the caste of the girls. It was falsely reported that they were Dalit. Later it was reported that they belonged to OBC. This is a major part of the caste politics of this nation. One reason is that the caste determines if the perpetrators can be charged under SC/ST Atrocities Act. The other, as always, is votes.  In Article 15, all three girls who were abducted were shown to be Dalit. At the same time, they have made use of the details from the Badaun case like how the fathers of the girls were falsely implicated, how the CBI took over and bungled the investigation, the protests by local Dalit activists etc. So why change the caste identity of the girls? 

The family of the girls have been reported to be upset about this fact. '...we belong to backward caste but the movie shows the cousins as Dalits and accused as upper caste...' they have been quoted as saying.

For instance, we belong to backward caste but the movie sho ..

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/69716869.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

However, if seen as a story based on true events, there is a brilliant conversation in the film about caste that the hero has with his fellow officers. Portions of this scene can be seen in the trailer as well. It clearly shows how caste discrimination is so deep rooted, that the oppressed castes further discriminate based on caste. It is amazing how passages from Ambedkar's Annihilation of Caste (AoC) were translated to moving pictures and sounds. For example, the scene mentioned above is a translation of the following passage from AoC for me.

'...caste system has two aspects. In one of its aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social status. Each caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it is above some other caste... Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible to organise a common front against the caste system.' 

I started with the image of the girls hung on the tree seen reflected on the hero's sunglasses. It is common films - something that indians find a lot appealing because half the strength of our heroes comes from their sunglasses. But this image was so shocking and painful that the decision to publish it when the incident happened was heavily criticised. 

We needn't be disrespectful to the victims to understand the injustice. They were hung in that manner to be a lesson. By publishing it we are only broadcasting the message from the upper caste perpetrators - 'Dissent from you shall be rewarded in this manner.' I myself am guilty of using the image in one of my short films. 

Screengrab from 'Gi,' a short film i directed

Some part of me still believes that these images that we see all over media, the happenings in this country, the political developments, history - all come to haunt us in our dreams. Sometimes i think that we are only being honest by reproducing these images. Be it in our dreams or in films. Remember the time when China was offended by the Leica camera advertisement that showed the Tiananmen Square man reflected on the lens. Yes, the difference here is that that was a picture of dissent while the girls' picture was that of the 'punishment' for it by those in power. At the same time, i also feel that the discomfort that the real image causes to india is a necessary reminder of the privileges that keep the alive alive.

Tiananmen Square man seen reflected on the lens in the Leica advertisement

So forgive me if i sound hypocritical when i say that i absolutely detested the depiction of rape in the film. It was shown in flashes, it was shot from the point of view of the perpetrators and it lacked respect.

But there are sequences that were handled brilliantly. Sometimes with no dialogue. In one of the shots Khurrana is speaking over phone in front of a tea shop oblivious to the man who was sitting on a bench beside him. Seeing the upper caste man, this person gets up and sits away from him and only the audience see it. It is amazing how the normalisation - it is almost as if a switch was turned on and a light shined - of caste based discrimination was brought to screen with just one shot and two characters, one of them an extra. 

The hard hitting documentary 'Shit' by Amudhan R P which was about manual scavenging had a segment called 'Vandemataram - a shit version.' (Seen below.) It used the patriotic song as the sound track showing the conditions in which dalits worked to clear the shit and garbage produced by the rest of india.



The same has been done in Article 15. It is ironical that Amudhan's films run in festival circuits and other independent screenings while this one becomes mainstream. But i will have to admit that i loved it because every single person in the theatre had stood for the national anthem in the beginning, before the screening. It is an amazing feeling when the director succeeds in making the air in the theatre tense. 

In other Article 15 news, 

Isha Talwar joined the list of 'female characters whose absence wouldn't change anything in the film.' 

The rap in the end with Khurrana standing there, staring at us while rappers rap about caste and India undid everything the film did right. 

I liked the film the same way i liked 'Gully Boy'. It is definitely a much needed intervention in Bollywood. 


Article 15 mentioned in this piece refers to the film and not the Article in the constitution of india. 
i don't capitalise my i's and proper nouns because i don't see the point.

So That You Don't Have To Read: The Art of Dramatic Writing

This segment is for filmmakers or readers in general who would like to skip some reading. I am collecting books that are no fun to read and stating the essence of it here also telling you why you needn’t read it. This time the book is Lajos Egri’s The Art of Dramatic Writing: Its basis in the creative interpretation of human motives.

Why you needn’t read the whole book: It is boring. The writing is crap for a book that is telling us how to write a play. It is redundant. The style and format suck. So i will just tell you what the book says that might be useful so that you don’t have to go through the poorly edited 134 pages. I am not joking. There are even spelling mistakes! 

Also, this is a very old book so sexism is all over it. It’s annoying to any sensible person trying to learn something trudging through sexism – however great the book is supposed to be. 

1. Human character is the basis of everything

This is one lesson that the author gives again and again.

2. The most important thing you need to start writing is a premise.

Again something he says over and over again till we feel like murdering the person who coined the word itself. 

About Premise

1. You need to practise penning down the premise. ‘Every good play (or film) should have a well-formulated premise. There may be more than one way to phrase the premise, but however it is phrased the thought must be the same,’ he says. (Paranthetical is mine)

2. This premise is not that difficult to arrive at even though it might sound that way from some examples. For example, ‘bragging leads to humiliation’ is a premise and it sounds stupid. But your story has to have a premise like this.

3. One way to deal with this problem is to understand that the premise has three parts.
a) Character
b) Conflict
c) End

So in the example of ‘bragging leads to humiliation,’ the ‘bragging’ is character, ‘leads to’ is conflict and ‘humiliation’ is the end.

4. There can only be one premise.

About character

1. All characters should have three dimensions

a) Physiology
b) Sociology
c) Psychology

In other words, the physical attributes of a character, the social setting, upbringing influences a character and justifies their actions. The combined effect of these two will reflect in their psychology and that will influence the character a great deal as well.

Throughout the book we are told that the author’s approach is dialectical. I would call it boring but yes, like the book says, this is a method by which something is said, written or done by following the following approach: All movement is comprised of these three steps

‘First, statement of the proposition, called thesis. Then the discovery of a contradiction to this proposition, called antithesis, being the opposite of the original proposition. Now, resolution of this contradiction necessitates the correction of the original proposition, and formulation of a third proposition, the synthesis, being the combination of the original proposition and the contradiction to it.’ 

It is basically what we want our (Facebook) arguments to be but they never are.  

2. All characters should grow

I call it an arc. Egri says, ‘There is only one realm in which characters defy natural laws and remain the same – the realm of bad writing’ I agree. Thanks.

3. This change or arc should match the physiology, sociology and psychology of the characters.

4. These things can be learned through observation or by observing those who have observed before you – which is why we need to read great books by great authors, watch great films by great filmmakers etc. We are observing them to see what they observed and how.

5. Everything – plot, conflict etc. stem from character and all of this should in the end prove the premise.

6. You need to have a pivotal character – also called ‘protagonist’. This person must be the one with the highest stakes. (He says that in A Doll’s House Krogstad is the pivotal character and i vehemently disagree. It is Dora.)

7. Characters should be well orchestrated. That is, they should not all be the same type. ‘If all character are the same type – for instance, if all of them are bullies – it will be like an orchestra of nothing but drums,’ says Egri. Orchestration is having contrasts in characters of your play or film.

8. Even if characters are well orchestrated, they need to have ‘unity of opposites’. It means that both or all characters should have conviction and should not give up on their ideals mid-way. ‘The real unity of opposites is one in which compromise is impossible,’ he says. Unity of opposites is when opposites – for example, the hero and the villain are united by their will. This unity can only be broken by death of the dominant quality in one of the characters. For example, if we have a rational person and a superstitious one in a film or a story or a play, one has to succeed and the other fail. 

About conflict

1. Action cannot happen by itself. It is a result of factors that cause it. ‘We cannot find action in a pure, isolated form, although it is always present as the result of other conditions. It is safe to say, we conclude, that the action is not more important than the contributing factors which give rise to it.’

2. Conflict is of four types.

a) Static
b) Jumping
c) Slowly rising
d) Foreshadowing

The names mean just what they say.

Static is when a character makes a decision but lacks the strength to carry it through

Jumping is when the person decides something all of a sudden provoked by almost nothing

‘Rising conflict means a clear-cut premise and unity of opposites, with three-dimensional characters.

‘Every rising conflict should be foreshadowed first by the determined forces lined up against each other.’

3. It is possible that we do things upon impulse in real life but in fiction, we have to fully justify it using tools used in fiction – like the rising conflict.

4. Conflict springs from character. To quote, ‘…if we wish to know the structure of conflict, we must first know character. But since character is influenced by environment, we must know that, too. It might seem that conflict springs spontaneously from one single cause, but this is not true. A complexity of many reasons makes one solitary conflict.’

5. ‘…if you foreshadow conflict you’re promising the very substance of existence.’ – which is why we should do it, is what he means. ‘Since most of us play possum and hide our true selves from the world, we are interested in witnessing the things happening to those who are forced to reveal their true characters under the stress of conflict. Foreshadowing conflict is not conflict yet, but we are eagerly waiting for the fulfilment of the promise of it. In conflict we are forced to reveal ourselves. It seems that self-revelation of others or ourselves holds a fatal fascination for everyone.’

6. The point of attack – this can be called the inciting incident for screenplay writers – it has to come at the right place. ‘A good point of attack is where something vital is at stake at the very beginning of a play.’

7. Even though transitions happen in seconds in real life, in fiction, it is necessary to make it smooth so the audience can see and understand it. ‘The author has to take all the steps which lead to the conclusion, whether that conflict happened in just that way or in the person’s mind.’

Regarding dialogues

1. ‘…every line of your play, every move your characters make, must further the premise.’

2. In life, people quarrel year in, year out, without once deciding to remove the factor which causes the trouble. In drama this must be condensed to the essentials, giving the illusion of years of bickering without the superfluous dialogue.

3. ‘Only a rising conflict will produce healthy dialogue.’

4. He gives a couple of good examples of good dialogue and how it is achieved.

About Shakespeare, ‘The sentences in his philosophical passages are weighty and measured; in his loves scenes lines are lyrical and flow easily. Then, with the mounting of action, sentences become shorter and simpler, so that not only the sentence content, but the word and syllable content, vary with the development of the play.’

‘The dialectical method does not rob the playwright of his creative privilege.’ I agree with this. A lot of people say that this approach just limits. Especially film school people hold the opinion that anything with structure is death. I disagree. ‘Once your characters have been set in motion, their path and their speech are determined, to a great extent; but the choice of character is completely your own. Consider, therefore, the idiom your people will employ, and their voices, and methods or delivery. Think of their personalities, and backgrounds, and the influence of these on their speech. Orchestrate your characters, and their dialogue will take care of itself. When you laugh at The Bear, remember that Chekhov gained his bombast and ridiculous dignity from a bombastic character played against a ridiculously dignified one. And in Riders to the Sea, John Millingyon Synge sways us to the tragic yet lovely rhythm of people who employ harmonious rhythms which are not identical. Maurya, Nora, Cathleen, and Bartley all use the accent of the Aran Islanders. But Bartley is swaggering, Cathleen patient, Nora quick with youth, and Mauraya slow with age. The combination is one of the most beautiful in English.’

5. ‘The dialogue must stem from the character, not the author.’

Genius

‘The extraordinary mental power of a genius is not necessarily strong enough to create his success. First, one must have a start, an opportunity to deepen one’s knowledge in a chosen profession. A genius has the ability to work at something longer and with more patience than any other man.’

Something to practise while narrating your story

‘If you must read your work to someone, ask that person to tell you the moment he begins to feel tired or bored.’

‘A play should start with the first line uttered’. In films, it should start with the first frame and first sound.

‘…”exposition” should proceed constantly, without interruption, to the very end of the play.’ – cramming information into dialogues in patches here and there will not work. Audience should understand what you are exposing in the flow of the film/play.

Egri says that the ‘obligatory scene’ is not really a thing. It just means a scene that will prove your premise the best – and by its nature, it has to be there in all work of fiction.

 

Hey! I am Second AD!

Bruises. Shoe bite. Muscle pain.

For the first time in my life, i assisted a director on their shoot. I was the second AD (Assistant Director) - the last in hierarchy in the direction team of an ad film shoot.

When i chose filmmaking as my career, one thing i was sure of was that i wouldn't take the path of assisting a director for decades before getting a chance to make a film. That is how most people start off but from those who had done it and i had spoken to, i knew it was a crappy place for me to be in. But in Bombay, the first company i worked for shut down, i couldn't clear any interviews to other jobs, i was already unable to pay my rent and was moving towards abject penury. I would have taken any job.

My only actor friend told me that she might be able to help me. Her partner who also happened to be a director was making an ad film. He immediately asked me to join as an AD and i did. I needed the money. Badly. Little did i know that i was going to do a job that i would grow to love to bits. But yes, you have to keep this in mind. It might not be all that great if your director is bad. Mine was a great one and the best part about it was that he welcomed ideas from everyone. There was no shutting of doors based on hierarchy in that. Even a second AD could make suggestions and if they were good they would be accepted. That is something that doesn't happen very often. 
 
The work started many months ago, in November.The project got delayed and delayed. I had made a promise to myself. That i wouldn't quit this job. This was necessary because i knew for a fact that everyone else other than the director would be a pain to work with. That's the nature of films like these and i knew it the moment i went into the first meeting in the production house. There were a hundred things i wanted to object to. A hundred things i wanted to say and could not. It wasn't easy for me to keep my promise to myself but i did it anyway and i am awfully proud of myself. I did write a complaint letter but come on, one complaint letter in 6 months is nothing for my nature. 

For instance, during tech recce, the person who was the Director's Assistant (DA) shared his sandwich with me and remarked 'perks of having a wife.' I almost choked. I asked him what the perks of having a husband were. He said, with a knowing smile, 'many things'. I think he meant sex. That smile is the typical indian-men-talking-about-sex-smile. I didn't do anything except judge him. 

Till this project, i had only directed others. I had other ADs work for me and i knew how to do that job. But switching places, i realised it is great fun to be an AD too. As the shoot date nears, you have less and less time to think, worry about things, cry, have sex etc. During shoot, you will be required to be like wind. Everywhere and swishing past things and people and often carrying them with you while at it. 

You get to do everything. I got to work on costumes, managing extras, managing people, suffering people, negotiating and a hell of a lot more. This picture that looks like it's taken from a badly made horror film is the only picture i have got of the shoot. I took it to remember the position of actors in the scene while rehearsing with them. 

Everyone hated me and i hung in there. Everyone scolded me and i braved it. I cried only once, when a costume assistant said he wouldn't talk to me after i told on the walkie talkie that he wasn't working. I didn't know he could hear me but i wasn't lying. Even then i cried a lot. Not as much as i wanted to though because there wasn't enough time and not enough bathrooms or nooks to cry in. Everyone was everywhere. 

During shoot at least four people asked me if i was from 'South India'. South Indians work very hard, one person told me. Someone asked if i was from Mangalore. An actor spoke all the malayalam she knew to me. Which was 'do you want tea?' One person told me that he liked the way i worked but was too 'on the face'. I messed up a lot of things and learned even more. Look at this bandage i aged. I learned how to do it there, during shoot.

Even after shoot, after catching up on all the sleep, i can't wait to be back on it. There is no other way than to make a film, now. That's the only thing that will help me get back into that swiftness of action and thought that i so miss already. 
 
I told the Producer that the vanity van for women actors had a sexist sign. It was a sexualised image of a woman. She disagreed with me and said that i was wearing a sleeveless top too. I ignored the stupidity and asked her why the men's vanity van had no such design. Hopefully, that got her thinking. Oh, the letter i wrote, by the way was accusing her of discriminating against me on the basis of my class and colour of skin etc. 

Then there was the DoP (Director of Photography). He was white. When we met, he shook my hand and asked to the Associate Director who was sitting next to him if it was okay to shake hands with women in india. 'I got into trouble in Saudi Arabia once,' he said. It only got worse from there. When the Associate Director told him that living in London changed her life, he asked 'did you get married?' He would call me 'little mini elf'. I was too little to be anything, for him. He would always pinch me unexpectedly. I have a problem of getting startled even when someone calls out my name, pinching would just scare the living daylight out of me. He continued doing it even when he realised it startled me. 

He was very impressed with the perks-of-having-a-wife-DA. And he even called me 'little DA' once when i was anything but. But the strangest and the most annoying thing he did was during tech recce when he said he found out what to do with the DA when he went to pitch his projects. He took a little water and splashed it on the DA's crotch. He held his crotch, affecting embarrassment. I gave a cold look to the DoP and said that it wasn't funny. He said that i didn't count because i didn't have a sense of humour. Excuse me, but didn't he just ask me to look at a fellow worker's crotch after pouring water on it? I still haven't got the joke, honestly. 

I left after the director yelled 'it's a wrap' We had worked for more than 48 hours straight. It had changed my life and i was still unmarried.

First Film Screening in Mumbai

Anand Patwardhan and i go a long way back in time, you know, of him being unaware of my existence and me being a faithful fan. Yesterday, two things happened. I talked to him. I realised that as of now, Bombay is my home. So i am overwhelmed.

I think i watched 'Ram Ke Naam' when my sister was preparing for her entance exams to various media schools. I was a child. I realised from the conversations she and my mother had that the film was a milestone. Babri Masjid was India. Like in a film, i now see myself in flashback in the drawing room of what once used to be my home in Calicut, Kerala.

Later, i started making films. I started attending VIBGYOR film festival and that's where i saw Patwardhan for the first time. 'Who would've thought' is the underlying emotion here. His white hair was connected to the disturbing visuals from 'Ram ke Naam' in my head. By then i knew a bit more of India and Babri Masjid. Not very much just a bit more.

I must have been in late teens when i won this John Abraham award at SIGNS film festival. The award ceremony was in Palakkad, Kerala and my jaw dropped when i learned that it was Patwardhan who was going to give me the award. I had by then realised that i had severe social awkwardness problems. But i made up my mind to hug him when he handed me the award. But when the time came, my heart was in my mouth i barely managed a smile, let alone a hug. But i got to sit a few seats away from him on stage. Prakash Bare was sitting next to me and was making small talk and i was like 'can i make them switch places using my head?'

Then i went to film school where a lot of things happened (and where i did most of them). But once, in Main Theatre, my most favourite place in the world, i watched 'Jai Bhim Comrade' and wept and wept. I picked fights with idiots to whom i usually don't talk when they called the film 'propaganda'.
Years later i moved to Bombay. Bombay and Pune were the two options in front of me and my partner who were starting a life together. I got a full time job in Bombay and in we moved to that dingy flat where all Bombay stories start. In real life and in films.

I hated Bombay. Still do. Never had a city been so hostile and unwelcoming to me. I lost my job, found odd ones, lost them, found them and lost them again. In one such, i had to shoot the massive farmers' march to Bombay. I had to stay at Azad Maidan overnight, alone, because i was doing the camera too and there in the early hours of morning was Patwardhan. He was operating his own camera and shooting the farmers. I made whatsapp jokes to the three people i talk to, saying Patwardhan is copying my shots. That's how i compensated for not going up to him and speaking, like others were. And yes, i clicked his pictures as if that is saying 'hello'. Friends rolled eyes on WhatsApp.

Again, a couple of years later, yesterday, they screened 'Gi' a short film i directed in Prithvi theatre, Bombay. First screening in Bombay. Forgetful and absent minded as crazy, i almost forgot the event, didn't know that Anand Patwardhan, Simantini Dhuru and Chandni Parek were curating it. Imagine my poor heart when i lost my way to the venue and ended up in a book store where this white haired man was looking at titles. I ran elsewhere to ask for directions, of course.

When i got in and sat down in the hall it was dark. When the lights went on after the first film, there he was. Then before i knew it, he was talking to me. From behind the hall, he was looking at me and was asking something about introducing the film. I don't quite remember what words came out and in which language but must have been a 'no' because they switched off the lights and started playing the film.

After the screening, again, he was talking to me! Asking me to go to the front of the hall and answer questions. As usual, i fumbled through my answers and said ridiculous things and then, Patwardhan asked me a question! About the film i directed. My mind went 'this is the chance. You finally get to make him understand that there is a person shaped like you in the world and that you talk.' My mouth went something like 'yeah, what you asked is very nice but since i am an idiot i am going to give you the stupidest answer ever because hey, first impressions!'

After that disaster, we spoke about SRFTI and laughed.

Then the evening was over and everyone went home. I started replaying the words i spoke and editing it in my head to give sensible answers and not stupidities. My rickshaw got into a fight with a taxi car. The car driver said 'if i didn't have a passenger, i would have got out and showed you'. My rickshaw driver said 'yeah, motherfucker, i would have liked to see that.' I went home, forgot to turn off the water supply to the tank and woke up in a flooded flat. Balance was restored to the world.

March 2019: Films

Peruvazhiyambalam - P Padmarajan

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32000911

Padmarajan's debut as director. Also Asokan's debut. Watched an extremely bad print but really liked it. About a rapist rowdy returning after serving his term. The film starts with him coming back - people gather around etc. He beats up the person who gave testimony against him. He also intimidates Asokan's sisters. (Wikipedia says he rapes one of them but the print i watched didn't seem to have that part. Also couldn't spot Geeta anywhere even though Wikipedia names her in the cast list) The movie picks up speed when Asokan murders this rowdy. He is lean and only 16 or so. He is forced to run away. Various people offer him shelter. In the end he reaches Gopi and he takes him to a sex worker. Played beautifully by K P A C Lalitha. This could be why she gets sex worker roles from time to time. But this one will remain the best. So lovingly written. So nice. The more i watch Padmarajan, the more i love him. You know after talking to Kani yesterday this is what i am wondering. The script is really good. The dialogues are EXCELLENT. But it is not written in spoken malayalam. Realistic as they are called these days. How is that done? Will i be able to do it? Let's see. Because films should have a language of their own right?

Shalini Ente Koottukaari

Script is by Padmarajan. Based on one of his short stories. Directed by Mohan. The title sequence itself attracted me. I have not seen any other title sequence in Malayalam films where pictures of women are shown in this manner. In Bachelor Party i remember the comics appearing etc. But these title cards are JUST the faces of the women with titles written on them. That sets the mood first.

The opening shot is that of that old fan turning its head. All of our houses have one such fan. It also strangely reminded me of the opening scene of an Antonioni film. Will have to check which. Monica Vitti of course. And her husband having one of those Antonioni problems.

It was shot in Calicut. I remember seeing Alakapuri premises. The college was Guruvaayurappan college.

Frame starting and ending a bit unusual. Starts with the fan, sweeps the entire room, goes to Jalaja as seen below and then zooms in on her face. Not something i liked but it is different for sure.

Salini is introduced as singing 'maadapraave vaa' in the bathroom. Intertextuality.
So Shalini comes from a troubled family. Ummer is her father and Sugumari is her step mother. She has a brother, Venu Nagavalli. Ummer is pissed that Venu doesn't have a job. He wants to send him to gulf. The character of Sugumari is well written and she has done it well too. The step mother is supposed to be a villain but the film makes it clear that she loves all the children. Ummer tries to get Shalini married off to someone much older than her - an alliance she doesn't like. She expects her brother to stop her father but Ummer is adament. He beats Venu Nagavalli up when he intervenes. He commits suicide the next day - his death stops all marriage talks immediately. Shalini becomes depressed after this. The onset of depression and the change in her behaviour is depicted really well. Jalaja and Venu Nagavalli have a small love story going on with Jalaja singing his poem, meeting him under the banyan tree near the temple etc. The song 'Himashaila Saikatha' is when Jalaja sings his poem. It's sweet.



The new professor in her college, Sukumaran is attracted to Shalini. (Just felt that Aruvi is a bit similar to this. Especially the character) They fall in love. After Jalaja gets married, Shalini becomes even more depressed. There is a scene in which Jalaja is leaving for her husband's house after the wedding and seeing the vacant space under the banyan tree. Absence is a very important tool. But i will have to say that Mohan the director completely messed up the script. His storytelling falls flat in many places and is redundant.

Something to copy: the sequence with Jalaja and Shalini on the swing. A narration, we go back to the swing and it is now empty. Shalini gets a disease - the doctor says it is cancer Wikipedia says it is brain tumour. The research is evidently poor. But they did attempt to show a brain surgery with prosthetic brain. Horrible but they tried and thought it necessary to be shown.



However, more than all this, the film introduced me to actor Sobha. She has done a brilliant job in this film. When i looked her up, i was shocked to learn that she was only 17 at the time and committed suicide at the same age. Apparently this film was running successfully when she killed herself. I WhatsApped my mother 'why did Sobha kill herself' because she would know anything that happened to heroines from her time. 'Balu Mahendra killed her' was her immediate reply. This was just the beginning.

I was unaware of these facts and rumours till then so the only thing i remembered about Balu Mahendra was how crappy i felt his film Sadma was. The one with Sridevi and Kamalhasan. People loved it. I felt it was verging on sexual abuse. So imagine my shock when i learned that he made the film as a sort of reply to those who said he was involved in Sobha's suicide! I could not make head or tail of this. Sobha was 17 when she died and married to Balu Mahendra. How can a person have more than one wife? How can a woman get married before the age of 18? I also learned that the K G George film 'Lekhayude Maranam Oru Flashback' was based on Sobha's suicide. I had watched this film on TV when i was way too little but still remember Nedumudi Venu and a scene with something to do with sex. I need to check it. I also want to find out how K G George handled it as a student of cinema.

Sobha's mother was also a mallu actress. Read that she too committed suicide. She was the one who wrote to the President saying her daughter was murdered. That is when they ordered a probe and found out that Balu Mahendra had faked documents to be an Indian citizen. I found a list of irregularities associated with her suicide. Like the body showing no signs of death by hanging, her body found on the floor and not hanging etc. This was way too much information for me to handle. I got very affected because first, i loved the actor because of her character and performance in a film and then learned that she ended her life. It pains me whenever successful women end their lives. It tells me that people wronged them. I intend to find out all i can about this blessed actor who bagged a National Award at the age of 17. Just look at her face. Just look at her expressions in just this film.

Lekhayude Maranam Oru Flashback

Watched it as part of research for the Shobha film that's brewing in my mind. I didn't like it as much as the other K G George films. He will have to be interviewed before he dies. It's not a great film. I liked Gopi's acting, as always. And yes, my memory was right. I saw the scene in which Nedumudi Venu asks her to undress. Also remembered another scene in which Shobha says 'temper' instead of temperature. Mammootty was good in the first bit. He forgot his style by the time the porn watching telephone conversation was shot. The film says that Balu Mahendra refusing to leave his wife and child is the reason behind her suicide. It gives Shobha's mother a typical money eating agent of nubile actress role. I don't understand why K G George did not stick to real life and make her an actress. The subservient father all fit into the same tropes. End titles roll on close-up of a photo of Lekha. 

Why on earth is the material on this suicide and actor so scarce!

"The most tragic in this series was the death of Shoba, in 1980, the girl who set a new trend in realistic portrayals through memorable performances in ``Nizhal Nijamakirathu'', ``Pasi,'' (which got her the `Oorvasi' award for acting), ``Enippadigal," ``Moodupani,'' ``Azhiyatha Kolangal'' and so on. The career graph of this promising star was rudely cut short. She was found hanging. Again the police closed the file as a case of suicide. The death actually inspired a Malayalam director to make a film based on this situation but it didn't achieve anything."

says the Hindu report cited in Wikipedia. The report in India Today  gives the irregularities pointed out at the time.

The police's finding of a suicide note only the day after the death has spurred further speculation. Can a fabric like chiffon - a chiffon georgette saree was the instrument of death - snap easily? If she hanged herself, who loosened the noose? What about the Shobha-Mahendra quarrels that took place? Why weren't the eyeballs swollen and the tongue hanging out as normally happens?

The age stated in this report is 19. Balu Mahendra was 45 at the time.

In this interview Jalaja speaks of how Shobha and she watched the film Madanolsavam together. (Yes, John Brittas shall be murdered.) This is supposedly footage of the funeral procession etc. I think the user has inserted shots from films in it. Not sure. This article again from India Today reports a fresh probe that commenced. Balu Mahendra's driver who drove him to and from Shobha's house before and after her death disappeared at this time, it says. The language is deliberately sensational which makes me suspicious about the credibility of the report. But it has some very disturbing details.

Balu Mahendra secured an anticipatory bail in the case
The suicide was staged again for the investigation. When Shobha's weight was hung on the saree, it did not snap. It was concluded that the ligature did not snap but was cut.
Wasn't clear why Shobha used the saree she was wearing for the attempt
The position in which her body was lying did not match with the position it should have been in had it been a suicide by hanging.
Shobha's mother Prema called the relationship between Balu Mahendra and Shobha 'incest' according to the report.

"How could he do it? He kept on telling everyone that Shoba was like his daughter."

She also accused Balu Mahendra of drugging Shobha
According to the report Mahendra said that it was true that he gave her pills and it was 'ovrol' birth control pills.

Thakara

Script by Padmarajan directed by Bharatan. Liked the opening sequence and its craft. Rest is not much. Except when the fishing net prank is done by Subhashini. She reminds me of my college mate Arya and also Archana Padmini. Learned from Wikipedia that it was K P A C Lalitha who dubbed for Subhashini actor. I had indeed felt so while watching. Ha ha.

I didn't like Bharatan much. He was definitely better than Mohan in working on a Padmarajan script but even then he did not have a signature style that was mesmerising. This film, like Rathinirvedam, focuses too much on the female body. I don't know how that works. How is it helping your story when you show men getting aroused by cleavage and bare thighs.

One of the scenes in which Chellappanaasaari eggs Thakara on to have sex with Subhashini

Even then, Thakara is really about consent, love and rules of sex. Chellappanaasaari played by Nedumudi Venu eggs Thakara on to have sex with Subhashini. Both the carpenter and his assistant boy want to have sex with her but thinks humiliating Thakara by egging him on will be a nice idea. Subhashini will shun him, definitely. Why? Because she shunned both of them earlier. Made it clear that she does not want to sleep with them. So these two idiots are shocked when they find out that Thakara and Subhashini are in love and more importantly (for them) they are sleeping with each other. They just don't understand how a woman can say yes to Thakara and no to them.

Thakara on the other hand, is in love. It's clear. Chellappanaasaari tells her father that they are sleeping together, he beats Thakara up, almost kills him. Thakara is rescued by people from the other shore (where Subhashini's mother stays, separated from her father). He vows to kill Subhashini's father as soon as he has money to buy a knife. He will then marry Subhashini - that's his plan.

In love

However after he stabs her father to death, Subhashini refuses to marry him or go with him. Thakara then commits suicide. The suicide is filmed by juxtaposing train shot over Thakara's face but in that case why did Bharatan show the blood on the tracks and the knife with which he killed?

Bharatan's style is not consistent. That, i felt is the biggest problem. Like in between he gets lazy. The opening sequence is good. Thakara sleeping under the bridge, from under the bridge we see the train - the same train that will kill Thakara in the end - things like that. This portion in between when Subhashini pulls a prank on sleeping Thakara - he shows both of them through the fishing net.

The strained relationship between her parents. Mother played by Santadevi. So when they leave four of them are in the frame and we cut to the counter shot of that as well.

People who share a relationship in a frame

And the counter frame to that

Cleo From 9-5

Because Agnes Varda died. Only recently had i watched her 'Gleaners and I'. The card reading sequence is the beginning and it's strange because the cards are in colour and the rest is in black and white.

A woman taxi driver. The year is 1962.

She goes on to narrate how difficult it is for women. People refusing to pay up. But she is not the type who gets scared, she says. In the car, singer Edith Piaf is mentioned. Since the name sounded familiar i looked her up and realised it was that beautiful woman who sang one of my favourites. Life of a Rose film that won the Oscar for best actor, first time best actor went to a French film, i had watched. It should be in one of my notes. Anyway the news was reporting the war in Algiers and also Piaf's operation for some medical condition.

I didn't think the film was great but it's language is so fresh and hard hitting even now. The singer who is awaiting the result of her medical test - that is the time that is shown in the film. She thinks she has cancer. No one takes her seriously because hey, she is a drama queen. The only relief she gets is in the end when a soldier in the war strikes a conversation with her. He goes on to accompany her to the doctor and she promises to see him off to Algiers.

The doctor confirms that she has cancer. In a matter of fact way. It should be alright in two chemotherapy sessions, he says. Before she meets the doctor there is an interesting sequence where the people in the reception say that the doctor is not in. She decides to phone the doctor later at night. That is when he comes driving his car and tells her the news. After knowing that, she says she is finally free.

There is one aspect of the film. This woman is under the impression that her beauty is her strength. She feels everyone looking at her. Many shots of people looking at her. Repulsive things - those that she might consider ugly - like a man swallowing frogs and running a knife through his arm etc. She also feels contempt for the taxi woman and her own friend who poses for nudes for art students. The jump cut of Godard is famous. Wonder if they even noticed it in her film. She uses many. Remember one when is climbing down the stairs. Also - there are cute kittens and a cat mom in her house. It's nice.

There is a sequence in which she sings the tune given to her by her composer. A single shot in which we go closer and closer to her face. It becomes intense. This never fails, i have noticed. He he.

I also learned about the 'Left Bank' of French New Wave that she belonged to. Wikipedia says

The Left Bank, or Rive Gauche, group is a contingent of filmmakers associated with the French New Wave, first identified as such by Richard Roud.^[18] The corresponding "right bank" group is constituted of the more famous and financially successful New Wave directors associated with Cahiers du cinéma (Claude Chabrol, François Truffaut, and Jean-Luc Godard).^[18] Unlike the Cahiers group, these directors were older and less movie-crazed. They tended to see cinema akin to other arts, such as literature. However they were similar to the New Wave directors in that they practiced cinematic modernism. Their emergence also came in the 1950s and they also benefited from the youthful audience.^[19] The two groups, however, were not in opposition; Cahiers du cinéma advocated for Left Bank cinema.^[20]
Left Bank directors include Chris Marker, Alain Resnais, and Agnès Varda.^[18] Roud described a distinctive "fondness for a kind of Bohemian life and an impatience with the conformity of the Right Bank, a high degree of involvement in literature and the plastic arts, and a consequent interest in experimental filmmaking", as well as an identification with the political left.^[18] The filmmakers tended to collaborate with one another.^[20] Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Robbe-Grillet, and Marguerite Duras are also associated with the group.^[21] The nouveau roman movement in literature was also a strong element of the Left Bank style, with authors contributing to many of the films.
Left Bank films include La Pointe Courte, Hiroshima mon amour, La jetée, Last Year at Marienbad, and Trans-Europ-Express.

Roger Ebert review has some interesting observations including sexism in the industry - even in the new wave.  

Varda is sometimes referred to as the godmother of the French New Wave. I have been guilty of that myself. Nothing could be more unfair. Varda is its very soul, and only the fact that she is a woman, I fear, prevented her from being routinely included with Godard, Truffaut, Resnais, Chabrol, Rivette, Rohmer and for that matter her husband Jacques Demy. The passage of time has been kinder to her films than some of theirs, and "Cléo from 5 to 7" plays today as startlingly modern. Released in 1962, it seems as innovative and influential as any New Wave film.