SHAITAN (2011)
Fifteen minutes into the film and I knew either I’m watching my favorite Hindi film of the year or the least favorite. I like to give every movie at least an hour for me to start judging it, so I sat watching one slow motion shot after another. Let me tell you I’m not a fan of flashy editing or slick camera movements. But I do not let that get in the way of what the movie is about and is trying to say. Halfway into the film, I was thinking, okay I still don’t know whether I like it or not, but it sure as hell is an important film, at least important as far as the niche audience is concerned. A pop cultural phenomenon like Rang De Basanti (2006). But 3/4th into the movie I was sure I was hating it. Hating it so much I could literally feel it in my stomach. One more POV shot and I would have "accidentally murdered" someone myself.
I’m going to use examples of films like A Clockwork Orange (1971), Fight Club (1999), Requiem for a Dream (2000), Trainspotting (1996) and Rebel Without A Cause (1955). Before you read further I must let you know that I am not a fan of most of these movies, barring A Clockwork Orange and Rebel Without A Cause. Still, Clockwork is one of my least favorite Kubrick movies. If you want to judge my film choice, now would be the time to do so and stop reading. I will also use examples of directors like Scorsese and Tarantino. But I will also reflect on Anurag Kashyap’s filmography. The most obvious example of a film like Shaitan is Kashyap’s unreleased directorial debut Paanch (2003). Paanch was a radical film. The fact that it was unreleased and has still been seen by many is itself radical. Shaitan extracts everything that was wrong with Paanch and throws it on the screen. The film is like a four hammers constantly beating your eyes and ears. Thank god it lasted only for two hours or my brain would have been hampered. Stylistically, it borrows shots all the movies mentioned above and even some playful narrative devices from Godard. (Kalki’s hair, a nod to Anna Karina or Uma Thurman? Let me guess, Uma Thurman of course!)
First let me talk about each of these films mentioned above. (This is a long essay so bear with me). A Clockwork Orange is the first time we saw “a bit of the old ultra-violence” on screen. Such unabashed, daring filmmaking was bound to influence a whole generation of filmmakers to come. It was the first Kubrick film I ever saw and damn it to hell I wanted more. I also think it features one of the best twist endings ever. This film is certified cool.
Fight Club is a film I hate. I hate how it inadvertently glorifies and propagates violence. How many of us saw that film and did not want to be in a fight club? The first thought that came to your mind? To my mind it did! But then I used some of those grey cells. Clearly this young'un didn't.
But Fincher got away with it. I even have a problem with A Clockwork Orange (1971), I do not like the violence, but it doesn't bother me too much as I know it is not set in reality. It is set in a dystopian future. Firstly it shows a sociopath being institutionalized and from then on the film becomes a social commentary. A commentary on totalitarianism, behaviorism and a parody of aversion therapy. It is definitely a social satire, not a celebration. It is more allegory than reality. Fight Club is also allegory. It is set in a utopian anarchic future. Apart from the fact that I think its one of the worst twist endings ever, what the film has to say is not something I believe in and hence my hate for the film. But I do believe the first half of the film is extremely cool. But my point is both films do not show reality. Comment on it, yes, but show it? No.
Trainspotting is a film which I rather enjoyed. It is fun, it is real (heightened maybe) and it is cool at the same time. Most of all, it is neutral. It doesn’t say drugs are good or bad or that these people are cool. It just films a bunch of heroin addicts. It films them in the way they ought to be filmed. The form comes from the content and not the other way round. Hence, it is the film that is cool. Not my favorite film, not at all, but I like it.
Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream (2000) is one of the most disturbing films I’ve ever seen and it makes sure you feel uncomfortable. It is a film I do not want to watch again. It is also a film where Aronofsky shouts “I went to a film school and look how many tricks I learned!” But over there, every flashy cut or camera movement is used to make you feel something. You felt what they felt. It never glorified what it was showing. In fact it did the opposite. Again, I’m not the biggest fan of the film because I don’t think what it says about addiction is of any profound value. It tries to but for me, it fails. It only made me uncomfortable which is what it set out to do.
Rebel Without A Cause (1955) is more “my kind”. It is cool (mostly because of James Dean’s presence), it is observant and it is responsible. It shows reality and comments on it. It uses a tilted camera angle to show the dysfunctional family and disorient the viewer just twice but my god how powerful it is! Never before or after have we seen a film deal with adolescence, rebellion and delinquency with such brilliance. The film made James Dean a big star. But Dean died in a car crash before the film’s release. In the film Dean almost died in a car crash in the chicken race scene. Many people now remember Dean dying in the film and not Sal Mineo’s character. Now you see the power of film and how it changes people’s perception of reality? It becomes a part of our collective subconscious especially with films which provoke. The teenage demographic (age 15-19) is the softest target to provoke and stir. It is an age when teenagers think they are already adults, they are rebellious and are prone to even the slightest form of excitement. At this age, any new way of thinking becomes the best and the only way of thinking. This can make them act on it. Filmmakers need to be cautious about this as much as they are about their own children. Being provocative here is neither daring nor challenging in my opinion, it is plain irresponsible.
This also reminds me of another irresponsible film called Rang De Basanti (2006). (Yes, you can stop reading now) Killing your corrupt politician father and announcing it on the radio and then taking the bullet is NOT martyrdom, my friend. Films like these are dangerous because they have the ability to provoke. To make people get up and say this is wrong or this is right and we should change it. One good thing that came out of RDB was the candlelight peace march. You see, the audience is not dumb enough to get influenced; they chose to light candles and go peace marching and not go on killing politicians. Whether you like it or not, films have the power to subconsciously influence masses. To understand this power is responsible. To not understand it, is understandable although not intelligible. To misuse this power without understanding, it is a sin. A cinematic sin. RDB committed half of that sin. Shaitan commits it fully.
I don't think these films are any less different than Hitler's propaganda films like Triumph of the Will (1935). The only difference is that, Hitler needed validation from his nation. Here, the public needs validation to act. What could be better than taking films for influence? V For Vendetta is another film I didn't quite like. But something proves me wrong, lookie here:
What is common amongst all of these films is how they are all cult films and popular at the same time. Some became cult films first and a part of pop culture later, some followed the opposite path. They are meant to. Shaitan is a film that is made after ogling at films like these and drawing a serious misreading of it.
Scorsese has fashioned his career on violence. His first film Who’s That Knocking On My Door (1967) has a beautiful slow motion sequence. One of the best I’ve ever seen. It is also a fight and it is friggin' cool. But just look how it is shot. Does it make you want to get up and hit someone?
Tarantino used slow motion in his debut Reservoir Dogs (1992). But I don't think it made people rob banks and kill each other in a Mexican standoff. Scorsese and Tarantino did not fall into this trap, they voluntarily plunged into it. They inspired, they influenced. They did not provoke. If you carefully examine Scorsese’s films especially his last Shutter Island (2010), it says something very important. I’m quoting - “We are not violent men, we are men of violence”. There is a thin line there and most filmmakers don’t understand that. Scorsese is not considered one of the greatest moviemakers of all time because he used slow motion or how he glorified the life of a gangster in Goodfellas (1990). But because he also had something important to say about its downside. Tarantino on the other hand shows heightened, almost-bizarre violence and he shows it, well, because he thinks its fun. How many of us have ever tried to bash someone’s brains out with a baseball bat after watching Inglorious Basterds (2009)? How many us wanted to pick up a sword and chop off someone’s scalp to see whether blood spurts out like a fountain after watching Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003)? Nobody! Because we know it isn’t real. You would want to wear the yellow body suit worn by Uma Thurman but you won't kill people. Yes it is cool. It is friggin' cool. But it isn’t friggin' real! Pulp Fiction for me is the coolest film ever made. It is so because it is a great movie first and a cool movie later.
Trust me there is nothing I like more than grey characters. Hell, I even like amoral, inhuman characters. Anti-heroes, bad guys, femme fatales, bring it on! Bonnie & Clyde could be my best buds if it was up to me. But what I don’t like is when I’m told this is bad but look how cool that is. When you are trying so hard to be cool, it reeks of stupidity. Many filmmakers fall into this trap – to hide the fact that they have anything interesting or anything to say at all, they use gimmicks like slow motion. Shaitan does exactly that. Every shot in this film says “Hey look at me I’m a shot!” I am sorry to say but what these irresponsible fuck-ups were up to in this film was not cool in any way whatsoever. More so because it was real. Just shooting it in slow motion is not enough for you heighten reality.
This brings me to the fact that this film is an irresponsible mess. Anurag Kashyap has made many films on teenage delinquency and rebellion. Right from directing Paanch (2003) to his last production Udaan (2010). But sadly, here he gives the reigns to Bejoy Nambiar and this one fails. In Udaan, Rajat Barmecha’s character destroys his father’s car. I thought that was the ballsiest act committed on film last year. If he had gone and done the same to his father, I would have instantly written off the film. I hope my point is getting clearer.
Now, Shaitan does not say drugs are good or trying to get away with murder is good. What Anurag Kashyap misses in the personal disclaimer he offers before the film starts is that the film DOES show that drugs are cool. No, that is not the point of the film. In fact if you see the story it does show how violence leads to more violence and drugs ruin you. But I’m talking about the images and the way it is done. When you show a person bashing someone’s brains out with trippy version of Khoya Khoya Chand in the background making it look like the coolest thing you have ever seen, I’m sorry but this is a serious film crime in my book. By the way, what was that godawful sequence? This has to count as one of the most atrocious sequences I've ever seen on the Indian film screen. Why was there a shoot out between Rajeev Khandelwal and black people?!? Oh god.
Okay let me forget cool for a second. Let me just talk about the film. The story as such is confused. A dreadful “accident” sets the story in motion and from then on it’s a pretentious mess. I still cannot believe how they don't conclude the case of the accident. In fact they trivialize it. In the end, Rajeev Khandelwal is told to 'fuhgedaboutit'. They don't even care to mention that they were involved in a murder. Let's shove it under the rug and forget about it? Trying to show "reality" here, "bhaiya aisa hi hota hai aaj kal" makes the film pansy, not daring. Not having the balls to go the distance.
The characters. Oh god, the characters. Characters in Shaitan and those in A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, Paanch are sociopaths (a.k.a. people with antisocial personality disorder). A Clockwork Orange is aware of that and hence is a great film. Fight Club is aware but not entirely (yes one could argue it is). The characters in Shaitan are sociopaths too and the film is incredibly unaware. Kalki’s character is appalling. She doesn’t get roles where she has to act but her shoddy acting is brought to the forefront here. It was even laughable at points. “My dad will get the money, he loves me.” Come on you retard! Who talks like that? But the film is not aware of that. The film is not even aware that she does not need to go to a convent she needs to go to an asylum! By the end of the film I wanted all of them to die. I don't think I've ever seen a film which makes me hate all of its characters one by one.
Rajeev Khandelwal is the only impressive actor in this film. The man has presence and talent. Sadly, his character is one dimensional too. His sub-plot of his wife and his divorce is as vacuous as the other characters in the film.
It tries to be a film on les enfants terribles and cleverly it does succeed but what it actually is - is le film terrible. I’m going to go as far as saying this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. And I have seen many crappy films. I’m not asking you not to watch this film. Watch it. Like it. Love it. But just don’t forget to think.
Rating:
Side note: 3 things I liked though - Suck my dikra, Dildo pagal hai and Khandelwal kicking the auto-driver when he refuses to go. But that’s not enough, is it? Not quite.
No comments:
Post a Comment