Powerful scenes with women!

There are often scenes that are etched on our minds even after the viewing experience has long since passed. When one thinks of powerful scenes, they are flooded with movie frames with some of the most memorable dialogues and sometimes frames devoid any dialogues. There is the 'you can't handle the truth' moment in A few good men (1992), the musical marvel of the famous shower scene in Pyscho (1960), and The Godfather (1972) scene that features a horse head on a bed (with lots of blood!). Some honorable mentions have to be that of Jaws' (I know, I just can't get enough of this one!) 'you need a bigger boat' moment and Deep Blue Sea's Samuel Jackson's death scene. They are scenes that were packed with power. The power was wielded on account of the emotions these scenes could manifest in the viewer. The sheer fear when we see the dead horse or, a bodiless hand with a knife going at Janet Leigh when she's at her most vulnerable, and excitement of feeling what Tom Cruise feels at that gotcha moment have made these scenes remain etched on our minds for as long as they have. 

But there are other scenes which have just struck a chord with me simply because of the subtlety with which certain sensitive and necessary themes were handled, and social issues implicated. The scenes I mention here all star women and (unfortunately) do not pass the Bechdel test. In spite of not passing the test, in no way do these scenes skirt away critical issues of feminism. 

The first one I must mention is from a Tamil movie, Varane Avashyamund (2020) in which the protagonist is an already engaged Nikki who has a meeting with her soon to be mother in law who informs her that her son wishes to call off the wedding because Nikki had a romantic relationship prior to meeting him. A shellshocked Nikki tries to reason that his father may not have liked her, to which the older lady responds succinctly that she had thought her son was like her but turned out to be like her husband. She says, 'I am glad you are not coming in our home, you will not be happy'. This scene took me by surprise. Each and every dialogue is heavily laden with feminist critique. When Nikki tries to reason, she does not fault the guy, but seems to feel some kind of guilt, as though she indeed was impure for having loved more than once. The older woman is the surprising voice of reason who stands tall against the typical trope of a strict and protective mother in law, who calls out her son's fault but sadly cannot do much beyond protecting the protagonist to some extent. The two women are never shown in the same frame throughout this scene. It's as though they belong from different sides of the narrative, and yet they are not shown face to face,  butting heads- very contradictory. (Of course this reading of the frame maybe my projection and naive interpretation as an inchoate movie buff, but I could not help but notice this!) 

The other scene is from the super famous Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967). In this scene we see Katherine Hepburn who after just having found out about her daughter's decision to marry someone from another race, is met with her employee from the art gallery. The employee encounters Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton and is visibly shaken to see them behaving as though a romantic couple. She immediately calls on Hepburn and calls her a 'poor dear' when they are out of hearing distance from the rest. She asks, 'what are you going to do about it?'. Hepburn (Oh the brilliant Hepburn!) in, I believe one of the most fabulously acted scenes, stops her mid sentence and gives her the most clear instructions ever. She seats her in the car and instructs her to go to the art gallery and write herself a cheque and remove absolutely everything from the office that could remind Hepburn of her and 'permanently get lost'. Phew! It gives me a rush even as I write this! Such a brilliant scene. It had me laughing, smiling and crying all at once. The scene ends with Hepburn's classic hand wave to direct the car away. Hepburn till this point in the movie had voiced neither support nor disdain towards her daughter's relationship. But at this very moment, we see her stance and we heave a sigh of relief, thinking that all is not lost. Till this moment, the audience wonders, are the parents genuine liberals, and at this moment that debate is put to rest to some extent. Through the rest of the movie we see her as a thoughtful woman with an opinion who stands tall in support of her daughter often chiding her husband and calling his double standards out.

Both these scenes stuck with me because they caught me by surprise. I did not see the women's responses coming. And the classic belief that women often reproduce preexisting social inequities amongst their brethren, are challenged in some ways through such nuanced screenplays. Of course, there are other great scenes which do not showcase as much hope. One example is from the Hindi movie Thappad (2020) in one of the concluding scenes where the protagonist has one last conversation with her mother in law. 

These scenes may not go down in history as academy award winning moments, but they are true to human spirit. These are not moments of outright women empowerment, but they stand as instances of dissenting women in the face of rampant social inequities. They hold the power to move any woman or any empath who holds the power to gauge human suffering. I may have missed out other great scenes, but these were the ones that I must emphasize demand a viewing (along with the movie of course!). 

Testing for Intersectionality

Films are the easiest for information and knowledge to permeate to the masses. Films have been used as a tool for propaganda as early on as the Second World War. Although propaganda has a negative and pejorative connotation to it, one cannot help but agree with the mass appeal a film can garner. While a film like 'Gone with the Wind' in 1939 could hope to reinstill beliefs of the Lost Cause in the Confederate sympaths, a film like 'Toilet: Ek Prem Katha' (2017) could also increase awareness for rights to dignity and safety. A famous South Korean movie 'Dogani' (Silenced) (2011) with its strong message on child sexual abuse garnered immense favour among the public and catalyzed strong legislation to be penned down against child sex offenders in the country. Hence, the point I make is convincing and even rhetoric, that films can be a mirror of the society and can also work to chide and correct social wrongs. 

However, socially degrading messages can do equal harm and perpetuate social inequalities and render the weak even more weaker. To ensure that the marginalized and societal imbalances that prevail do not get reflected in films, a number of tests were created. The very first conspicuously marginalized faction that received recognition was women in 1985 when one of its kind Bechdel-Wallace Test. This test was inspired by the cartoonist Alicia Bechdel. For a film to pass this test it posed the conditionality that the film must have at least two (named) women characters who talk to each other about something other than a man. Some films that have successfully passed the test are 'Chak De! India' (2007), 'Bend it Like Beckham' (2002), 'Hunger Games' (2012), 'Hidden Figures' (2016), 'Frozen' (2013), 'Lipstick under my Burkha' (2016) and 'Tumhari Sulu' (2017). However, despite the increased frequency of movies that pass the test, there are many more that do not. Gendered depictions and idolization of patriarchal tropes continue to receive validation on the silver screen (viz. Kabir Singh (2019)).

In the recent past the social fabric has been in a state of flux as debates over distinctions between gender and sexual orientation have moved to the fore. Cultural and religious dogmatism may have attempted to thwart the growing dissent in favour of the expansive and inclusive gender spectrum, but legal precedents have enabled an atmosphere of tolerance (albeit at a fledgling state). The Pride Movement dedicated to the LGBTQIA+ social group validated and designated dignity to all who would otherwise have been rendered a social pariah. 

Given the increasing favourable circumstances, portends films to be more representative of the community. Hence, in alignment with the Bechdel Test the GLAAD introduced the Vito Russo Test in 2018 which would vet how queer community is represented in films and what narratives are assigned to queer characters. For a film to pass the test, a film must have a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer. The person must have unique traits (that are commonly attributed to cis-gendered individuals) and should not be defined by their gender identity or sexual orientation. Finally, their character should be etched in a way that their removal would have significant ripple effects on the plot of the film and they are simply not their to establish certain social commentary or to make the audience crack up. 

Surprisingly, these well defined conditions have been passed by many films in general and continue to feature in film festivals across the globe. Although, 'A Fantastic Woman' took away the oscar in 2017 and we do not see too many transgender characters in films. Films like 'Portrait of a Lady on Fire' (2019) received immense critical acclaim and yet is not quite heard outside film circles. In India very  few movies make it to being commercially successful like 'Shubh Mangal Zyaada Saavdhan' (2020). The OTT platforms provide some protection against outright rejection by audience and has seen certain plots like 'His Story' (2021) feature. We have received an undeniably high dose of offensive and queer unfriendly films for the past few decades. The tide is turning, but things will take much longer.

Race and caste form the other social groups that beg representation and recognition for prevention of social ills. While the issue of race has been dealt by Hollywood time and time again, films that cast a shadow on caste of characters are few and far between. Anubhav Sinha's 'Article 15' (2019) paved the way for this. Ever since, characters with an angle of caste have been portrayed a few times, the most recent one being in 'Grahan' (2021). However, it is too little to create ripples and question the hegemonic way of being. 

The point of this article was not to  but the sheer degree of change that has come about in the historicity of films across the world and in India. The Bechdel Test and Vito Russo Test  provide us with measures to check and recheck where we stand as a society. Testing for and acknowledging intersectionality is one of the few ways we can try to allay the evils that our predecessors have inflicted.

Sources:

http://bechdeltestfest.com/about/ 

https://www.glaad.org/sri/2018/vitorusso

Jaws: Much ado about nothing?

There have been many horror movies on sharks. But have they all been as great as the one that started it all? There can be no answer in the affirmative for that one! This Steven Spielberg directed film is one in a million, where the villain does not make an entrance until the second half. Of course, Alfred Hitchcock paved the way for this genre with his brilliant 1963 film 'Birds', but it was Jaws that set the stage for the creation of a genre that now has taken a life of its own. I will not be discussing the lesser known and some terrible movies from this genre like the Sharknado series or DinoShark or even The Meg (although it definitely is better than the others). But I believe there is a film that comes a distant second to the Jaws with regard to holding true to all that an authentic horror film can and should offer. The Deep Blue Sea is the 1999 slasher/horror film that boasts of bigger and scarier sharks- this time three. While not being the best, it leaves a movie buff like me happy and satiated with the time I have spent on the couch watching this one. These are classics in their own right and so I am assuming that there aren't too many spoilers for you dear readers. However, in the event that you haven't watched one or either of them, mark this to be a humble spoiler alert for what is to come.

Through the innumerable rounds of watching both these movies I cannot help but observe some glaring similarities and some wonderful differences. In so many ways Deep Blue Sea is the answer to all the questions that Jaws can leave us with. The world renowned film critic Roger Ebert in a much enlightening review discussed how dialogues and shark attacks in the dark waters suggestively hint at the lurking 'killing machine' shark and successfully make us feel startled when the shark finally makes its appearance. This amazing screenplay helps to compensate for the lack of special effects. There is more- John Williams' scary , haunting and now super famous score makes a debilitating fear sink in our hearts of the approaching death scare. Deep Blue Sea having been created more than two decades later, has at its disposal technologies and special effects to make the shark look terrifying. But it still chooses the Jaws way- making the 'world of gliding monsters' suggestive. This makes Jaws mark up above the Deep Blue Sea.

Although Jaws can be deemed as an immortal super hit blockbuster, I cannot help but be critical of a few things that have troubled me over the umpteen number of viewings of this movie that I have awarded myself with. The three main characters we see in the film are- Brody (Roy Scheider), Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and Quint (Robert Grey). They seem to represent three points of a pyramid. Brody is the naive and scared of the water Common Man. Hooper is the scientist who uses technology to learn about about sharks and loves them. Finally, Quint is the working class hero, embittered Second World War returned veteran who claims to know the waters and yet falls short at the most trying time. He is tragically bitten in two by our villain. The last scene with Brody and Hooper swimming back to the island with the help of the buoys is telling of the alliance between Common Man and technology that finally prevails. It is this bitter ending of Quint and the strong allusions to have faith in technocracy are what I am not too keen on. 

Technology cannot act as a silver bullet. Movies like iRobot and Transcendence have explained this well. Let me be clear, I have no peeve with technology, but I only implore you to look at the greys. As John Ruskin said 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. This holds true for technology too and blind faith in it can translate to technocracy. This issue I believe, is at the heart of Deep Blue Sea. It shows us the grey. The protein complex developed in the brain of these Mako Sharks can help cure Alzheimer's. However it comes at a cost- human lives. We are introduced to these sharks in captivity. Technology has enabled and necessitated fettering of these sharks and all they seek is freedom. In Jaws the killing machine is nothing but just that. It kills without any reason. Humans and sharks are at loggerheads. Are they really? Deep Blue Sea gives us a plot that delves into considering the question of conscience. Conscience of not only us humans but also of the so-called villain in the shark. There is a power struggle and the tables turn. So while in Deep Blue Sea we see a villain in the shark, we also witness the not so ethical ways of technology. The characters are definitely not as memorable as in Jaws. But we see the dawn of a new survivor. The survivor of the fittest (Carter, the strangler) and the most religious (Preacher, the chef). Samuel Jackson represents the big buck owning tycoon who is proud of his adventurous travails, playing with fire and life, Stellan Skarsgard and Saffron Burrows represent the arrogant scientists, while Carter and Preacher would rather play it safe and not disturb nature. Deep Blue Sea succeeds in unraveling the not so good facets of technocracy that Jaws embraced and this is where this film wins my heart. 

This discussion cannot discount how much I love Jaws and I will continue to enjoy it in my future viewings. But the lesser known Deep Blue Sea deserves the much needed appreciation for what it has to offer and that which the former failed to acknowledge. Would you agree or do you think all this is much ado about nothing? Consider giving these movies another watch to agree or agree to disagree with me. 

The Sound of Music: No 'so long, farewell' for this one!

We have all grown up with a healthy dose of ‘Do Re Mi’ and ‘Favourite things’- all songs from this wondrous musical drama set in the golden years before the Second World War reared its dirty head. ‘The Sound of Music’ directed by Robert Wise starring the melodious Julie Andrews, the breathtakingly charismatic Christopher Plummer (may his soul rest in peace) and the seven children actors playing the Von Trapp singers is everything sweet and more. This is a reel life depiction of the real life Von Trapp family singers who hailed from Austria, set in the period just before the National Socialist Party took control over Austria under the leadership of Hitler.

Wise makes us fall in love with Maria's simpleton character. Just like the Von Trapp family, through her we rediscover our love for music. Maria shows them a way of life that is carefree and beautiful while the horrors of war are imminent. So much so that Captain Von Trapp is more enamoured by her than by the ostentatious Baroness. Music forms the heart and soul of this 1965 drama. It is music that helps Maria discover herself, it is music that helps the children reunite with their father, it is music that helps the lovelorn Captain  find love again and it is also music that finally helps the Von Trapps escape Austria.

There are umpteen number of films that have based their premise on the Second World War, but few have done it through through such melodious entrapments. The undertones of war are shown through nonchalant conversations between the Von Trapp children and uncle Max or a Herr Zeller with a fellow Anschluss sympathizer. They set the background for all that transpires. Even Rolfe and Liesl's  young love turning sour  stands testimony to the dying exhilaration among the masses. Captain Von Trapp's patriotic idealism notwithstanding his discernment of the times makes for some magnificent subtlety in a period musical. The other spoil of war of course is the dehumanized young men shown through the depiction of Rolfe who is close to tears when he realizes he may have to shoot Captain Von Trapp. The gonging of wedding bells which signify time pass by as Austria comes into the dangerous clutches of the Nazi is another example of the wonderful screenplay.

Of course the film took creative liberties. It did away with one conflict – money. The Von Trapps in reality had lost their fortune in the Great Depression of 1929 and Maria taught her step children the art of singing so as to earn a living. Of course, a dull and helpless Von Trapp would not play to the strengths of depicting the grandeur of the Austrian elite. Unsurprisingly, this film also does not pass the Bechdel test. The conversations Maria shares with the Reverend Mother, Liesl, Baroness, all involve a man. But given all that this 1965 classic gifts us I can absolve it of all its faults.

The picturesque locales are a beautiful sight and add to the already plush palette of music and acting that film boasts of. Lin Manuel Miranda’s funny video with his family on revisiting all the famous locations of the film sets in Salzburg is a wonderful reminder of how this movie continues to stand the test of time. This holds true for lesser known humans like me as well as I intend for this to be the very first non-animated musical I show my niece. 

The VERY Talented Mr. Ripley !

It’s been long since a film affected me to the extent this one did. Only recently The Talented Mr. Ripley  has been doing the rounds on Netflix. The film, boasting of an excellent cast and with a very benign and unassuming trailer piqued my interest. I decided that this would be next on my watch list. Little did I know what was in store! I was in for an emotional ride that would send shivers down my spine.

This 1999 psychological thriller directed by Anthony Minghella is based on the novel of the same name written by Patricia Highsmith. It is nothing short of a masterpiece. Matt Damon starring in the titular role of Thomas Ripley is the seemingly innocuous working-class hero trying to make ends meet. He takes up odd jobs, passes off as a Princeton graduate and seamlessly plays the piano. In short, he is not the typical muscular working-class protagonist. He is an oddly charming individual who skillfully seals the deal for himself when an opportunity to travel to Italy comes by. Jude Law’s character of Dickie Greenleaf is an eccentric jazz lover and his stance throughout the film reeks of entitlement. The camaraderie between Greenleaf and Ripley is an interesting reflection of the power dynamics in play on account of the class differences. Gwyneth Paltrow, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cate Blanchett and Jack Davenport form the rest of the cogent cast. Every actor does their due to be remembered in this excellent endeavor. A special mention of Paltrow is must. A scene where she shares the screen with Damon is a treat to watch (or rather to not watch!). I was barely able to sit through the scene as I was too scared of what was going to happen next. Paltrow’s expressive face portrays fear, horror and hesitation all at the same time. That scene had me holding my breath.

There are two scenes that I wish to write about in particular as they had an immense impact on me. But first, a well-meaning warning before I head right into it- As I gush over the scenes, it is exceptionally difficult to not give away spoilers but I shall try my level best. Either way, notwithstanding my heartfelt attempt in ‘spoiler-free writing’ if you can actually guess what I don’t want to allude to but unknowingly end up alluding to, please forgive my inchoate writing skills.

First, the boat scene. The brilliant screenplay from the previous scene is comparable to the stillness of a night before a storm. Greenleaf’s evasiveness and Ripley’s insistence forebode that something is about to happen. What happens on the boat is not as shocking as it is disturbing. The first signs of our titular character’s repressed sexual awakening is hinted at. And the way it is done is absolutely brilliant and yet shocking.

The second one is of course the final scene- shot again on the ocean. One of the characters who Ripley has come to admire lays on the bed as we, the audience realize to our sheer horror what is about to happen. Yes, a murder takes place. But we do not get to see it. The sounds seem to enunciate the feelings of shock in the audience even more. There is no closure to be had-neither for us and nor the titular character. The scene reeks of Robert Bresson’s influence. The ability to express with sounds without showing anything else makes us imagine in our mind’s eye. This makes it an even more disturbing experience.

Both these scenes are on the ocean, first on a dangerously bobbing small boat and the other on a ship far more stable, yet in the danger of sinking. They portray Ripley’s evolution- from his trepidations and hesitation to the final acceptance of his true self. Yet his thirst to be someone else is far from quenched, which finally spells doom for him.

Shot for the most part in the quaint cities and towns of Italy, the cinematography is soothing to the eye. The warm color palettes in every scene seem to portray a sense of calm- as though trying to mislead us from the forthcoming bedlam. But what does forebode this, is the hauntingly beautiful background score interspersed with melancholy music- every scene is teeming with tension.

The director uses the tool of foreshadowing judiciously. The screenplay is exceptional as nothing gives away the imminent chaos. The film leaves breadcrumbs for us to pick up on in our later viewings of the film. This is a brilliant piece of art that deserves a second watch. 

Kalank (indeed!)

I am making these notes because I want to pen down my thoughts fresh after the viewing experience. In spite of having heard extremely negative reviews about the film, the songs and the royal ambience set by the songs made me wonder what the film was really about. And hence notwithstanding the umpteen red flags (viz. the glam of K-Jo movies that have disenchanted me from watching his movies now and the multi-starrer biz which often alludes to a poor plot line and heavy dependence on the cast to carry the film through- K3G being an exception) I embarked on watching this film.

The song direction was genuinely excellent and reeked of regality, especially Begum Bahaar’s (played by Madhuri Dixit) swan song. The film sets made it a conspicuous Dharma Production, often going overboard with its allusions to a period drama. The beauty of cinema lies in its subtlety which I feel this film lacked with the exception of the very last scene at the station. Although the character arches were not well etched the viewer does sympathize with a few characters especially if there is an aspect of relatability with the partition of India. And that is where my compliment for this movie ends. There were quite a few technical decisions that I disagreed with. For instance, in the last scene set in the station, the impact could have been manifolds if instead of the closeups, wide angle camera shots had been taken. But of course, these are the perceptions of a simple fledgling cinephile. Good scenes were few and far between. In fact, one scene where Begum Bahaar gives music lessons to Roop (played by Alia Bhatt) was downright plagiarized from the 2014 coming-of-age Marathi film Timepass. And yes, this movie is also a huge fail on the Bechdel test meter. Even when Sonakshi Sinha, Alia Bhatt and Madhuri Dixit share screen space, the common string that attaches them is a man.

Alia Bhatt’s headstrong Roop is a confused portrayal and only has an iota of semblance to her Sehmat from Raazi. Aditya Roy Kapoor had porcelain doll expressions throughout and this is an absolute euphemism. In spite of the star-studded cast, the only character that I feel did justice was that of Zafar played by Varun Dhawan. He exuded confidence and vulnerability at the same time. Even stalwarts like Madhuri Dixit couldn’t save this sad excuse of a film with a wafer-thin plot.

The strength of a period drama is its ability to captivate the audience with the sets and the socio-political backdrop that eloquently etch the important watershed moments of the film. Sadly, this movie while playing the cards of the emotionally strung Partition of India could not succeed in this. Abdul’s (played by Kunal Khemmu) incessant rants about how their community is mistreated and Dev’s (played by Aditya Roy Kapoor) persistent faith in industrial development seem hollow to say the least because there is not enough effective foreshadowing done at all. In short, this film was difficult to sit through, and very hard to believe.

I was surprised to learn that this was Karan Johar’s dream project which he had been attempting to make since 2003. I wish that his attempts had not been brought to fruition. We would have one substandard movie less to watch. The glitz of a film is only one aspect which cannot drive the film through. Sans effective (and not melodramatic and meaningless) dialogues, impactful acting and exceptional screenplay which can reflect in effective character development, a film even of Kalank’s stature is bound to fail. I wish I had paid heed to those who had warned me against watching this melodramatic sob story. Do not waste your time watching this movie.