Based on my last post about a movie called 'Zero', I kept wondering about the need to be more open in our approach towards the acceptance of things that are around us or probably not.
The idea of filmmaking was to create an aura for the perceiver to be transported to a dimension that they will have to detach themselves from after few hours. That being said, since the impact was so powerful, it gave rise to cinephiles who started seeing between the frames and discovered an extra dimension to filmmaking.
Quoting a personal example, my parents always thought that I was interested in movies because they were fun to watch and a career in it would be like a part-time job for me, once I have settled down in my life. For the most part of my life, this thought framed a major section of my reality until I started to find my own voice. Ever since then, there has been a huge change in my parents' approach when they watch a movie because they can now see the dimension that is present right in front of them. Earlier, their minds were clouded by opinions of people around them, which is still the case. Only this time, their society has been shaped up by me.
This brings me to our own cinephiles. Just like a modern day society that is condemned for being too arrogant in their ways of adhering to rules that are way too ancient and rigid, the filmmaking society has become what we call a social structure with an ideology that has no relation to subjectivity. There are rules that are being followed. There are voices that are being heard. An artist, amidst all of it, is creating a product that they want to, only to be left surprised by its rejection owing to these voices and rules. I don't think I need to put examples in here.
There is a regular trend of mapping out a film through certain parameters that are definitive which is fine. The problems start to arise when everything in a film is defined by those parameters and there is an individual assessment of their presence instead of taking a holistic approach. This is why a film like 'Zero' is ridiculed despite it claiming to be a film that took everything literally. There is a constant need to suit one's own artistic ego via someone else's work. The last line, to me, is something that is completely unfathomable.
Another example that comes to my mind is that of 'October' (which surprisingly is mentioned in most of my posts). I requested a friend of mine, who is completely oblivious to the cinema and watch movies for the same reason my parents used to, to experience this film. I wanted to see how truthful the film was through an external dimension (albeit her internal) and she absolutely loved it. For someone who is still into typing WhatsApp messages like 'sm1 clled u' wrote 'Every improvement was a sense of Hope' because there was, subconsciously, a desire to express one's own feelings, once they saw their own expression via an external reality, by recognising the presence of that dimension. She asked me if any of the makers had experienced that in life since it would not be possible to get everything spot-on. Which makes me wonder if she would have liked the film at all if she hadn't felt the emotion in the first place?
Adding to the list of examples is that of the group favourite Anurag Kashyap. He has been a terrific director and a brilliant craftsman. However, I felt his writing aspect started to get repetitive with each film and Mukkabaaz was a complete disaster for me. He comes with a film called Mannmarziyaan that is not written by him and you could see a huge change in the way he presented the story. For me, it is his best work since none of them has stayed with me for so long. I strongly believe he needs to start looking beyond himself to keep nurturing his craft. This idea of widening your understanding of this universe not by expanding it but finding a new dimension within the existent reality is something that I am trying to present here. It is not about whether the dimension will hold true in the future since in the past a number of scientists had been asked to falsify their theories in order to accommodate the ego of the religious institutes and bureaucracy. It is about sustaining the idea in your own wee realm and allowing it to make its presence felt in the world outside.
This, obviously, brings me to 'Zero'. There were polarising reviews and I had read most of them. However, the more I read them, the more confidence I had in the film. I could see people pointing out mistakes which were actually the strength of the movie but they were in a dimension that we have chosen not to see because the order that we live in has been powerful enough to make us do so. After watching the movie, I felt the lesser the people watch it, the better it is (which was wrong from my end) because of the downgrading it will face from the people due to incomprehension. It had happened with 'October', with a few reviews drawing criticism towards it pace, and I did not want 'Zero' to go the same way. Alas, it did.
One of the worst criticism that the movie received was the showcasing of the love angle between a Scientist and a High-School dropout. These are the same people who have been critical about the division within the Indian circuit in terms of multiple parameters. However, when it comes to 'Intellect' or 'Class; the division somehow seems okay. Categorically speaking, it's not. The idea of finding something in nothing is what an artistic mind does and it is the acknowledgement of a person of who they are, irrespective of the parameters that have shaped them up, that forms the definition of Equality. Science is no different than Art. As a matter of fact, every profession can be termed as Art (mentioned in one of my other posts). But then, some of our cinephiles and critics do not want to look beyond what they know. A coherent story, a strict screenplay and a logical outcome are what continues to define 'Good Cinema'.
Did Cinema exist for this purpose or are we just following a trend that someone started?
The idea of filmmaking was to create an aura for the perceiver to be transported to a dimension that they will have to detach themselves from after few hours. That being said, since the impact was so powerful, it gave rise to cinephiles who started seeing between the frames and discovered an extra dimension to filmmaking.
Quoting a personal example, my parents always thought that I was interested in movies because they were fun to watch and a career in it would be like a part-time job for me, once I have settled down in my life. For the most part of my life, this thought framed a major section of my reality until I started to find my own voice. Ever since then, there has been a huge change in my parents' approach when they watch a movie because they can now see the dimension that is present right in front of them. Earlier, their minds were clouded by opinions of people around them, which is still the case. Only this time, their society has been shaped up by me.
This brings me to our own cinephiles. Just like a modern day society that is condemned for being too arrogant in their ways of adhering to rules that are way too ancient and rigid, the filmmaking society has become what we call a social structure with an ideology that has no relation to subjectivity. There are rules that are being followed. There are voices that are being heard. An artist, amidst all of it, is creating a product that they want to, only to be left surprised by its rejection owing to these voices and rules. I don't think I need to put examples in here.
There is a regular trend of mapping out a film through certain parameters that are definitive which is fine. The problems start to arise when everything in a film is defined by those parameters and there is an individual assessment of their presence instead of taking a holistic approach. This is why a film like 'Zero' is ridiculed despite it claiming to be a film that took everything literally. There is a constant need to suit one's own artistic ego via someone else's work. The last line, to me, is something that is completely unfathomable.
Another example that comes to my mind is that of 'October' (which surprisingly is mentioned in most of my posts). I requested a friend of mine, who is completely oblivious to the cinema and watch movies for the same reason my parents used to, to experience this film. I wanted to see how truthful the film was through an external dimension (albeit her internal) and she absolutely loved it. For someone who is still into typing WhatsApp messages like 'sm1 clled u' wrote 'Every improvement was a sense of Hope' because there was, subconsciously, a desire to express one's own feelings, once they saw their own expression via an external reality, by recognising the presence of that dimension. She asked me if any of the makers had experienced that in life since it would not be possible to get everything spot-on. Which makes me wonder if she would have liked the film at all if she hadn't felt the emotion in the first place?
Adding to the list of examples is that of the group favourite Anurag Kashyap. He has been a terrific director and a brilliant craftsman. However, I felt his writing aspect started to get repetitive with each film and Mukkabaaz was a complete disaster for me. He comes with a film called Mannmarziyaan that is not written by him and you could see a huge change in the way he presented the story. For me, it is his best work since none of them has stayed with me for so long. I strongly believe he needs to start looking beyond himself to keep nurturing his craft. This idea of widening your understanding of this universe not by expanding it but finding a new dimension within the existent reality is something that I am trying to present here. It is not about whether the dimension will hold true in the future since in the past a number of scientists had been asked to falsify their theories in order to accommodate the ego of the religious institutes and bureaucracy. It is about sustaining the idea in your own wee realm and allowing it to make its presence felt in the world outside.
This, obviously, brings me to 'Zero'. There were polarising reviews and I had read most of them. However, the more I read them, the more confidence I had in the film. I could see people pointing out mistakes which were actually the strength of the movie but they were in a dimension that we have chosen not to see because the order that we live in has been powerful enough to make us do so. After watching the movie, I felt the lesser the people watch it, the better it is (which was wrong from my end) because of the downgrading it will face from the people due to incomprehension. It had happened with 'October', with a few reviews drawing criticism towards it pace, and I did not want 'Zero' to go the same way. Alas, it did.
One of the worst criticism that the movie received was the showcasing of the love angle between a Scientist and a High-School dropout. These are the same people who have been critical about the division within the Indian circuit in terms of multiple parameters. However, when it comes to 'Intellect' or 'Class; the division somehow seems okay. Categorically speaking, it's not. The idea of finding something in nothing is what an artistic mind does and it is the acknowledgement of a person of who they are, irrespective of the parameters that have shaped them up, that forms the definition of Equality. Science is no different than Art. As a matter of fact, every profession can be termed as Art (mentioned in one of my other posts). But then, some of our cinephiles and critics do not want to look beyond what they know. A coherent story, a strict screenplay and a logical outcome are what continues to define 'Good Cinema'.
Did Cinema exist for this purpose or are we just following a trend that someone started?
No comments:
Post a Comment