Saturday, February 21, 2009

Reflections of India in a puddle of Vodka

In DEV D, amidst all the noise of the wonderfully outlandish soundtrack and the cleverly interspersed background score used to underline the personal and interpersonal dynamics of the characters, Anurag Kashyap maintains a peculiar silence throughout the narrative. It is a silence, not of a man appalled at the downward spiral that each of his lovingly sketched characters take at various points in the movie but a diplomatic silence of a man who wishes to watch the events unfold from a distance rather than have an actual opinion on the sordid ways of his protagonists. Never for once does Kashyap lower his guard and offer the audience an insight into what he truly feels about Dev, Chanda and Paro. The treatment rendered is deliberately and carefully open-ended and it is this delicious ambiguity that makes DEV D work.

Unlike previous interpretations of Devdas, Kashyap’s modern and gritty-with-a-vengeance take on Sarat Chandra Chatterjee’s novel makes it explicitly clear that this is a three pronged narrative in which you could be forgiven for considering anyone of the three main characters to be the protagonist of the movie. Which makes sense because Kashyap manages to inextricably intertwine the fates of Dev, Chanda and Paro with a Tarantino like flair.

Kashyap doesn’t alter the literary character of Devdas- he brutally mutilates him as if in a “Thums up- vodka- ke- saath” induced frenzy himself, dresses him in low rise jeans and aviators, snatches the shaving razor from him and shoves him into joining the ranks of the 21st century Indian youth still grappling with the need to give expression to sexual angst. And give expression he does. Cultural and economic globalization has seemingly come to the aid of Dev and provided him with a variety of outlets to go on the most famous downward spiral associated with Indian cinema and literature. So Dev uses his credit card and a currency note to snort coke, prefers sex chats to perfumed love letters, and uses scanned photos so as to leave nothing to his already prurient imagination, all the while, listening to Amit Trivedi’s stunningly composed rock fusion on his MP3 player to go with his mood.

The women, nauseatingly maudlin in the previous cinematic versions, have come a long way as well. Mahie Gill’s Paro is reinvented as a woman whose desires of sexual liberation are trapped in her almost metaphoric traditional attire of salwar kameez. In an audaciously clever and a lip smacking maneuver, Kashyap replaces the social inequality barrier between Dev and Paro and in its place plants suggestions of Paro’s promiscuity as the trigger for the sundering of hearts.Kashyap’s Paro is a woman who not only consents to her boyfriend’s wild sexual proclivities but also brings the proverbial mattress to the fields on a bicycle. And what’s more, she carries it back too. She is a woman waiting for India to come of age. Indeed, she is a seminal female character in Indian cinema deserving of a far more elaborate analysis.

The choice of the half French Kalki Coechlin to essay the character of Chandramukhi, the courtesan (read prostitute), is a directorial masterstroke. If you didn’t know better, you could have sworn you ran into her in one of those dingy, infamous localities tucked in to the dirty belly of your town. There is something about Chanda’s curved, protruding lips that betray cigarettes smoked and profanities mouthed. Unaware of the 2 mega pixel camera that Kashyap has slipped into his modern day setting, she proceeds to find answers to her sexual curiosities and instantly becomes a social pariah. The street smart Paro gets away with her excesses. The naïve Chanda doesn’t. In a way, her tragedy is the greatest of the three as it is completely devoid of the vices of ego and self abuse which mar the life Dev. It is a tacit admittance that women still get the raw deal socially. In fact, if one were to look closely through the lingering haze of Dev’s cigarettes and the crimson night club lights bouncing off the swirling vodka, DEV D is a brutally scratched, albeit adequately honest, mirror of our times.

For all the colour splashed around in cinematography and the gaudiness of the “Patna ke Presleys”, the theme of Kashyap’s DEV D is a somber grey. He carefully steers clear of painting characters in strokes of black and white. Even Chanda’s dad, seemingly the victim of the humiliation heaped upon him by his precocious daughter is railed for getting round to seeing the MMS of his daughter in a compromising position. “Did you get off on it, you sick bastard?” screams an aghast Chanda who, by now, has been scarred for life.

Which makes one wonder that maybe Kashyap sympathizes with his characters but considers them undeserving of his empathy. Yes, there are protracted moments in the film when he decides to provide an all pervasive silence, interspersed only by sounds of the city, to his characters to acknowledge the gravity of their emotional turmoil. For instance he patiently bears with Dev as he downs two successive shots of vodka each time hurling the glass against the wall and piercing the few moments of silence, devoid of background score or soundtracks, which have been borrowed from Kashyap’s restive disposition.

But DEV D finds Kashyap in a capricious mood. He is undoubtedly out to have some good old sadistic fun at the expense of Dev, Paro and Chanda. So, as soon as Dev shatters his second glass of vodka, Kashyap’s patience runs out, and he follows it up with some jazzy music and colorful, whirling camera work to glorify Dev’s vodka induced numbness. His dispassionate and often cold treatment ensures that his audience never feels manipulated. Whenever he feels the burning desire to mock the trio he calls upon his singing-dancing cronies to trivialize their emotional roller coaster with a rustic melody with often hideous lyrics.

Kashyap couldn’t care less whether you like Dev or feel repulsed by him. He is out to have fun. And he suggests you do the same.

Ramblings On The Opinion of Art

It’s a lot of drivel if you ask me- the notion that an actor can, with due preparation, get into the skin of the character he is supposed to portray. I mean, come on, I woke up this morning nursing a hangover that I managed to pick up at some party I attended last night. An orange juice (with extra pulp) and an omelette later, I’m driving my sparkling blue Porsche to the sets and before I know it I have been transformed into soldier behind enemy lines in a war ravaged terrain staring a gun barrel in the face.

Fine. Maybe this is the kind of thing that actually does happen to real people embroiled in unfortunate circumstances. I also realize that as an actor, who takes his job extremely seriously, I’m supposed to try and relate to these circumstances of mortal danger, place myself in the shoes of the character I’m playing, reach into the chasms of my soul and pull out an expression that is in coherence with reality. They call that being a spontaneous/ natural actor. All this, knowing full well that far from dying an anonymous , unceremonious death in a foreign land what awaits me in the next couple of hours is a few autograph pads thrust in my face and , traffic permitting, a chance to catch my favourite show before I snuggle into bed. Can I be expected to do that? Really?

I concede, nevertheless, that “acting” is different from “reacting”. The best that an actor can do is be convincing enough to keep the audience engaged to the tale. What then is a ‘sincere’ performance? Acting is, intrinsically, an exercise in subversion. And I use the word ‘subversion’ after having, hopefully, cleansed it of all pejorative connotations. Indeed, any actor who believes he can truly transmit to the audience, without dilution, exaggeration or pre-treatment of any sort, the emotions felt or the expressions conveyed by any person in an analogous situation in the real world is deluding himself. The arrogance which is implicit in any such belief is also worthy of considerable mention.

It is a world of rampant consumerism that we find ourselves in. Every product which is sold is packaged. And everything that is packaged has its own little bundle of lies hidden away in plain sight. Things are no different when it comes to the product that is performance. Ever wondered why so many of the lead actors (the successful ones, at any rate) on both television and big screen are both attractive and charismatic? Because they are easy on the eyes- whether they are happy, morose, ecstatic, scared, shocked or anxious. Harsh as it may sound, the human mind is more tuned to the emotions of others if the expressions conveying those emotions are, well, not ungainly. Does that make actors uncompassionate beings, feeding to the audience in a ready-to-eat avatar, situations which may potentially scar or mould a person’s life forever?

Having said that, is there any such thing as good acting? Of course there is. But then good, bad and ugly are merely words which exhibit considerable flexibility and range in meaning , connotation and undertone .It is this delicious ambiguity that serves as the cornerstone of all art and the opinion of it. There is, however, a school of thought that contends that there are no absolutes in the business of judging art. “There are no facts, only interpretations”, they say, an obvious attempt to win over Friedrich Nietzche to their side. So have the philosophers of the world decreed that equal respect be granted to all opinions of art? So do we maintain a stoic silence every time we find a work intellectually hollow and repugnant on the off chance that someone somewhere finds his jaws dropping when subjected to the same? Equally, are people allowed to cling on to their opinions knowing full well that they form an overwhelming minority? And more importantly, are people justified in proactively trying to develop a “better” taste even if it does not come naturally to them? After all, we all crave acceptance from highly regarded connoisseurs of society with “refined” tastes. Or should we rather hang on to and take pride in our visceral reaction to art?

There lies great merit in the theory that maybe these questions are best left unanswered. After all, great art is often born out of mental conflict and not the resolution of it. It is almost poetically just for valuable “opinion of art” to also have its roots in such conflict. Art does not pose questions about itself. It provides us with a brutally graphic reflection of self. Whether we should embrace the monster behind the mirror or try and tame it into becoming a more politic, socially acceptable entity is the question which confronts us. It is a question which will reveal a rare glimpse of that which we truly are and at the same time offer us the choice of becoming who we want to be.

In the question of art, no choice is right or wrong. Our choices are precisely and only just that---ours. Nothing more. Nothing less.