Showing posts with label Tribute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tribute. Show all posts

Thursday, 10 December 2020

Essay: A Tribute to Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s “Khamosh”

[Contains spoilers.]

A couple sits on a rock near the banks of a gushing river and discusses a future together. Their lines sound unrealistic in the way Hindi film dialogue often does, because this is a scene from a movie they’re shooting. A hand appears from the water and brushes against the woman’s sole. She kicks it away, caught in the eroticism of the moment. The director calls for a retake. The same thing happens again. Momentary confusion paves the way for a breathtaking reveal: a body emerges from the water in slow-motion, breaking, in truly cinematic fashion, the brief lull a plot that had seemed to hit a dead end left in its wake.

In Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s “Khamosh,” murder is everywhere. It is discussed, it is suggested, and it is seen. A motley film crew is filming a romantic thriller (ironically titled “Aakhri Khoon”) in Pahalgam, Kashmir, and at the heart of it is a murder. The director understands its significance in the film—he wants its execution to be flawless. But his crew is indifferent to his enthusiasm. His actors, like most seasoned film stars, are weary but professional, not particularly fussed about this director and his grand plans to stage the perfect murder.

This introduction doesn’t divulge what simmers just beneath the surface. Jealousies abound. Bitter glances and murderous stares are shot over dinner. Men are seduced and women objectified. From sleazy producers to conniving mothers, the set-up is reminiscent of a great Agatha Christie novel. (There is no doubt Christie might have been one of Chopra’s many influences.) After a budding actress slaps the inebriated producer at a party, her body is found hanging from a tree the next day, exactly how it was supposed to have played out in the movie they were filming. The police declare it an open-and-shut case of suicide, citing that she was upset to lose out on the lead role in an upcoming production. But, as it happens so often in the movies, this isn’t the entire truth.

What’s puzzling is that she was rehearsing her lines the night before in the hotel’s boathouse, an isolated cabin on the hotel’s grounds doubling up as a costume cabinet. The scene she was rehearsing is the one in which her character gets murdered, an ominous coincidence. She was screaming out her lines, much to the chagrin and amusement of the crew, when suddenly her voice lost its histrionic quality. Fear was palpable. Her terrified screams for help echoed in the dead of night. But nobody batted an eye. Everyone heard her rehearse, but nobody heard her getting killed. 

Released in just one cinema, the Regal, in Bombay in 1985, a year after Chopra’s remarkable debut feature, “Sazaye Maut,” “Khamosh” is a fascinating specimen of Hindi independent cinema. Working off what might have been a stringent budget, Chopra uses ingenious filmmaking to elevate a stock murder mystery. The misty, stark, achingly beautiful landscapes of Pahalgam accommodate not lasting love affairs but cold-blooded murders. Quite incongruous, one might think, keeping in mind how the Hindi film industry has long used Kashmir as a place where lovers requite their love for each other, often through lavishly filmed songs. In “Khamosh,” the place attains a shroud of eeriness. Even Binod Pradhan’s camera is voyeuristic—it creeps up on people, eavesdrops, intrudes. We, the audience, are complicit.

A cursory glance at Hindi cinema’s most popular murders tells us how dramatic we like them to be. Vijay Anand’s “Teesri Manzil” opened with the image of a body zipping through the night air and landing on a slab of pavement. Later, in the same movie, a more sensational killing, extracting a well-earned gasp from those watching it for the first time. In Yash Chopra’s “Ittefaq,” a fugitive seeking refuge in a woman’s house on a rainy night stumbles upon a dead body in her bathtub. And that startling twist in Abbas-Mustan’s pulpy “Baazigar” deservedly made a star out of an actor. What these subversive murders have in common is that they were executed in cold blood by someone we expected to possess a little more humanity. And if only the film was seen by a larger audience, the cleverly staged murders in “Khamosh” would have found their rightful place alongside them. If only.

By choosing to not let the film deviate from the blueprint of an old-fashioned whodunit, Chopra makes the crucial (and brave) creative choice of giving us ample time to engage with the clues. And what clues these are: a deceptive photograph, a hidden movie prop, an inscribed khukuri, a missing button, and a body hanging from a tree. To the lover of mystery fiction, this would seem like a fine world to get lost in, especially when nothing ends up being what it first appears to be. We see each of these clues in close-up before Chopra cuts away. When they are referred to later after the plot has unravelled a little more, they acquire a special significance. Shorn of the flamboyance seen in Chopra's later work, “Khamosh” is a tightly controlled, thrilling exercise in suspense.

In this teasing mix (which includes passing tributes to “The Godfather” and “Psycho”) is a parallel thread casting light on how the Hindi film industry exploits hopefuls. At one point, a chilling rape scene is woven casually into the film they’re shooting. “This’ll make your career,” the director tells a budding young actress. When the scene crosses into lewdness, she breaks down. Chopra’s camera pans across the film crew’s stony faces. This pan is slipped in at the end as well, when the mystery is tied up, the villain is dead, and the crew discovers who it was all along. Only this time we see their faces through a red filter, as if indicating their complicity in letting these brutes roam free.

For years I instructed whosoever I recommended the film to to get into the habit of watching charming Hindi-language comedies from the 1970s if they ever hoped to grasp the achievement that is “Khamosh.” And for years I got puzzled looks in reply. Truly, what makes the film’s climax Hindi cinema’s finest example of metacinema is how it shrewdly plays on one of Hindi cinema’s most loved stereotypes. Oddly enough, “Khamosh” ends up being just like its murders: cold, smart, flawless.

[Not For Reproduction]

Friday, 20 November 2020

Essay: A Tribute To Ram Gopal Varma’s “Rangeela”

[Contains spoilers.]

It is Hindi cinema’s oldest story: The girl chooses love over riches. It is also the story of Ram Gopal Varma’s “Rangeela,” which turned twenty-five a couple of weeks ago. I desist from saying it has ‘aged like fine wine’, for it hasn’t aged a day. If anything, it achieves a rare feat, a hallmark of a great film: with each viewing, one gets to see a different film. A recent rewatch made it plain that this was no longer the fairytale I believed it was. “Rangeela” is far richer than it is made out to be, far more melancholic. Beneath its buoyancy is a tale of loss and discovery, an ode to a city that has time and time again taught people more about themselves than anything ever will, and to the city's cinema that has a say in not just what we dream about but also how we dream.

“Rangeela” arrived in 1995, when India, its mind fixed on globalisation, had opened its doors for the world to peek in; when Hindi cinema, resurrected after a bad run in the 1980s, delivered its most beloved romance with “Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge”; and when a young filmmaker, Varma, who had not made an out-and-out romance until then, decided to take on a fairytale set in Mumbai. And the approach he chose for his first romance was daringly novel: he recruited a music director who had not scored a Hindi film before; a young actress, while not new, had yet to get her big break; and a young actor, who was actively resisting getting typecast, was picked to play a street cookie. These elements gave “Rangeela” its face: a flock of young talents, eager to prove themselves, conduce to deliver a film that is, at its core, a crowdpleaser, but not in the way most Hindi films tended to be at the time. It didn’t have heroes and villains or even traditional action sequences. Even its love-triangle (if it was indeed one) was atypical: the two men never fight for the affections of the girl. They brood privately, hurt privately; there isn’t a grain of machismo in them. The two men, Munna and Kamal, are broken. Munna is an orphan and Kamal a widower, their shot at a happy life cruelly obliterated by fate. Mili, the woman they both love, is their best shot at happiness. They cling on to it, unwilling to let go.

The essence of “Rangeela”—and of Mumbai—is captured by this love-triangle. Mili, young and vivacious, dreams of becoming an actress. The fact that she is one of hundreds of thousands of hopefuls doesn’t cross her mind. Her naïvety is offset by the men who love her. Munna is a small-time black marketeer of movie tickets, dealing with life one day at a time, one problem at a time, with no idea of what his future looks like. But even his aimlessness is measured. He has had a rough childhood, one that may have involved a trip too many to the police station. A single scene in which Munna deals with a cop who comes sniffing without any trace of fear slickly establishes this.

On the other side is Kamal, a withdrawn and lonely movie star yet to get over the death of his wife in a car accident. The incident haunts him, stings him: one gets the impression that he blames himself for it. When narrating the incident to Mili, Kamal, brave at first, is soon overcome by remorse. For a moment, just a moment, his vulnerability is for all to see. Only Mili does, her face drained of all colour at the sight. It’s the first time she sees him for who he is, without the curtain of stardom to shield him from the lies that movies feed us.

The two Mumbais of “Rangeela” clash constantly—Mili’s fanciful, Munna and Kamal’s grounded. Cinematographer W. B. Rao uses light to great effect. When alone, Munna and Kamal are cloaked by darkness. For Mili, Rao chooses bright frames. When Mili is with either man, the frames are lit well, reinforcing how important she is to them. Disguised to appear as throwaway details, they colour this tale in their own little ways. But the film derives much of its magic from A.R. Rahman’s sublime soundtrack. What of it? The film just wouldn’t have been the same without it. My childhood wouldn’t have been the same, either. Nor would Hindi film music.

A sombre tale this is not. “Rangeela” is pure, unbridled joy. Any implication otherwise is put to rest by its upbeat opening number. The dialogue is rapid but witty, specked with wisdom. The relationships are carved beautifully. When Munna and Kamal first meet, Munna is aloof but Kamal is polite, not threatened by this man because he does not care to know him. At an amusement park, Mili’s father gets ice-cream for his family but not for Munna. Munna may be ‘like a son’ to him but he is still only a tenant. (An example of how “Rangeela” consciously avoids being goody-goody.) This is Mumbai’s middle-class: Amiable but not overly so, keeping one eye on their money at all times. And although Munna doesn’t try to hide what he does for a living, this law-abiding family couldn’t care less. He is still welcome to dine with them. Believing in the inherent goodness of people is one of the city’s many characteristics, and that Varma not only recognises this but understands it well enough to use it to lift the film puts him in a class of his own.

As with any great film set in Mumbai, “Rangeela” works the far-reaching impact of ‘Bollywood’ into the film. The lead characters’ fantasies and dreams are often based on the movies they watch. An extra movie ticket becomes an instrument to show you care about someone. When Mili asks Munna if he has an extra ticket to a new film starring Kamal, Munna wields it as if it were a slice of gold. A closer reading tells us why—it’s the only thing he can afford to give her. And it is from a cinema hall that Mili flees in the film’s charming climax to stop him from going so far away that they would never meet again. Varma plays to the gallery here; of course he couldn’t resist. And neither could we. Here is a film that laughs at ‘Bollywood’ (Gulshan Grover, as the Steven-Spielberg-worshipping Steven Kapoor, is a hoot) but cheekily slips in a final scene at dusk where Munna and Mili squabble, having just professed their love for each other. Once the tricky business of confessing one’s true feelings is over, there’s still a life to lead. But we need not worry. We leave assured that no matter what the world throws at them, these two will be all right.

[Not For Reproduction.]