Rest In Peace, Lekh Tandon Ji!

Lekh-Tandon2

Lekh Tandon (13 Feb 1929 – 15 Oct 2017)

Veteran writer-director and actor Lekh Tandon passed away on October 15th 2017, Sunday (evening), at his house in Powai, Mumbai. He was 88. (While the details on the cause of Tandon’s death are still awaited, industry sources have confirmed the news.)

Tandon was a multifaceted artiste who wrote, directed and even acted in many films like Swades, Rang De Basanti, Paheli and Chennai Express. He had also won the the 1978 Filmfare Best Screenplay Award for his movie Dulhan Wahi Jo Piya Man Bhaye, shared with Vrajendra Gaur and Madhusudan Kalekar. His directorial Amrapali which starred Vyjayanthimala and Sunil Dutt, was India’s submission to the 39th Academy Awards for the Best Foreign Language Film.

Lekh-Tandon

Lekh Ji is also credited with giving break to superstar Shahrukh Khan by casting him in his TV serial Dil Dariya. We at SWA, deeply mourn the demise of Shri Lekh Tandon Ji and pray for his soul to rest in peace.

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on Rest In Peace, Lekh Tandon Ji!

Adite Banerjie’s script makes it to the prestigious Academy Nicholl Fellowship 2017

Adite Banerjie Medium I (526x579) (2)                                              academy-logo1

The Academy Nicholl Fellowship, launched in 1986, and organised by the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is the most prestigious among Hollywood screenwriting
contests and labs. Each of the winners receives a $35,000 prize and opens doors for aspiring screenwriters all over the world.

This year’s Nicholl Fellowship (2017) saw Indian author, screenwriter and SWA member, Adite Banerjie’s screenplay titled COACHING CLASS, place as semi-finalist. It was among the top 151 screenplays that made it to the semi-finalists level out of a total 7102 entries from all over the world. COACHING CLASS is a gritty and uplifting drama set in small town India about a dishonoured teacher who takes on the education mafia to give his rag-tag bunch of brilliant but dirt poor students a shot at changing their destiny.

One of the readers of the script observed: “This is an exceptionally well-written story with a pro-active, sympathetic protagonist, and a variety of interesting characters. The plot
development is suspenseful up until the very end. Backstory is also used very effectively in
the present day plot. It is very rich in themes about class struggle and overcoming barriers to have a better life, and the themes are portrayed substantively in both the main plot and
various subplots.” Another reader observed: “The screenplay is very effective in portraying
the viewpoint of its characters through the dialogue, which is rich in language and also
reveals character.” The script had earlier placed as first runner-up in the Finish Line Script Competition (2016).

Says Banerjie: “I’m very excited that the script has done so well in the top international competitions. It’s a huge validation for the screenplay and my writing skills.” Adite Banerjie is a journalist turned fiction writer. She has written three novels which have been published by Harlequin/Harper Collins India and all her books have been featured on the top 100 Amazon.in bestseller lists. She can be contacted via her portal www.aditebanerjie.com

~ Team SWA

Posted in MainPage, NewsNReports | Comments Off on Adite Banerjie’s script makes it to the prestigious Academy Nicholl Fellowship 2017

Comedy Films Today (By Kundan Shah)

chalti-ka-naam-gadi

If I say Agreement 123 (Atomic Energy Agreement with the US) reflects the comedies made today in our country, you will call me mad. Where is the connection? But it has. Well, we are in the process of being Americanised. That’s a general term to signify consumerism apart from other serious repercussions depending upon your world view. However, the fundamental tenet of a consumerist culture is that everything is a product. And the function of any product (film) is to serve only its basic need – in today’s case it is entertainment. Now, there is nothing wrong with entertainment. There never has been. To entertain in itself is a great art. And yet “to entertain” in today’s times, there is a difference – there is no aesthetics involved. So, no qualms in making films based on videos, rip-offs, lift-offs, etc, etc. Aptly today’s films are called popcorn movies. Eat the popcorn and throw the cardboard box away. See the movie and forget about it once you’re out of the hall.

Besides, these indianised remakes of foreign films reflect no value, no relation to our culture and no mirror to our fast developing consumerist society or to its rural counterpart which has been excluded in our so called Indian economic renaissance. These films and their entertainment exist in a limbo, in a vacuum where you don’t see any glimpse of the reality we live in. You said reality? What has reality got to do with entertainment? With films? Man, films cost lots of money. As a producer aptly puts it: “I pay entertainment tax, so my movies must fundamentally entertain.”

In Hollywood, there is an unspoken dictum: “No film should have the mental age of more than ten years.” So, the birth of popcorn movies. We call ourselves Bollywood. How can we be any different? We lament the fact that there is no more a Hrishikesh Mukherjee amongst us. When will we get another classic comic sequence played between Mehmood and Om Prakash in “Pyar Kiye Jaa” or that frothy unforgettable  romantic tease played between Dilip Kumar and Vyjantimala in “Paigham”. And what about “Teen Bahuraniyan” which came from nowhere and regaled us with its take on middle-class morality. It is difficult to judge which of the two Prithviraj Kapoor’s performance is better: in that lavish and bombastic “Mughal-E-Azam” or this simpleton of a movie.

Comedies have the longest shelf life. Believe me, this is more true than the Einsteinian equation of E=MC square. Let’s take the earliest era – the silent films. What has survived are not the adventure and sword buckling dramas of Douglas Fairbanks, etc but even two-reelers of Chaplin, Buster Keaten and many others which regale us even today and make us wonder at amazing syncopation and unbelievable comic choreography some of their sequences achieved. They remain sublime, unsurpassed and impossible to film today. Why can’t we attempt to achieve their excellence? What is missing? What has been lost? The answer is simple – innocence.

To cross new horizons, to discover unchartered territories, you’ve to take chances, take risks, most important “to experiment”. And the daringness of being a failure. Our budgets, multiplex ticket prices and the star prices rule it out. So do the vanity vans. I am so out of touch that I got a shock of life when I was informed that even in DD serials, vanity vans are provided for almost every actor. That’s an amazing progress! So what for the fact that most of the television work today is making soaps with an unending variety of swish pans ever invented in the lexicon of the film language.         

To prove the point about shelf life twice over. How many more films do you remember which were contemporaries of “Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi”, “Padosan”, “Pyar Kiye Jaa”, “Teen Bahuraniyan”, “Chalte-Chalte”, etc, etc? Please don’t treat this to be an academic question. Off the cuff, you mention these very films again and again in daily conversations. While their contemporaries, probably bigger hits and winner of Filmfare awards are forgotten and have already met their nemesis. Please…please…please…. for heaven’s sake don’t jump the gun and conclude that the Filmfare Award winning films have zero shelf life! That’s unfair! So what if Oscar Academy never gave one to Chaplin till he was in his seventies.

I am diverting so much that I am forgetting what this article is all about. But does it matter? Are we destined to get the comedies we’re getting? No, please let’s leave the destiny and fate to their better usage in Shakespeare’s plays. We’ve brought it upon ourselves. I don’t mean the ills are only within our film industry. We’re, after all, a small part of the McDonald culture sweeping us today. And yet, some semblance of churning is taking place. The smaller films can probably learn to dare…to dare more and even experiment. The task is Sisyphean. But let’s begin rolling the stone to top of the mountain. The worst is that it will roll back once we reach on top. Even that may not be sufficient. But let’s roll back that other stone called Agreement 123 which may choke us to death. And once we roll that stone back, many more stones need to be rolled back before the phoenix can rise. I am a pessimist. Tell me, how not to be one.

Kundan-Shah

Kundan Shah (October 19, 1947 – October 7, 2017)

(SWA Archives)

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on Comedy Films Today (By Kundan Shah)

Concept and Function of ‘Foil’ in Comedies (By Kundan Shah)

JaaneBhiDoYaaro2

The thumb rule for making people laugh in a comedy is that somebody has to be a butt of the joke. In real life situations, when you pull a fast one on someone or what is popularly called leg pulling, that he or she becomes the butt of the joke and everyone has a laugh at his/her expense.  Instead of having pity for the victim, we take pleasure in deriding him. That’s cruel. Well, comedy is cruel.

How does this translate into movies? No one likes to be a butt of the joke in real life – but in films, one is forced to be – otherwise, there is no humour. That’s why there’s a general misunderstanding and a mistaken belief in the actors when they’ve to play the role of a “butt” i.e. they don’t want to look like a fool or a fall guy. On the contrary, it requires great art or perhaps greater art to play the role of a fall guy. The actor playing the role of a fall guy is the “foil” whose sole function is to set off or enhance the other actor by contrast and also willingly becoming the butt of his jokes, pranks or mischiefs. An example will put it in perspective.

pyaarkiyejaa

Take the classic sequence of a horror film story-narration between Mehmood and Om Prakash in “Pyar Kiye Jaa”. Om Prakash is obviously playing “the foil” to Mehmood and it’s his par excellence performance that enlivens Mehmood’s brilliant story narration. Om Prakash’s role is absolutely passive (with no dialogues to speak of!) but his graded and orchastrated petrified reactions build to a crescendo and the sequence ends with a topper when a casual calling of a third party off-frame frightens the blue lights out of them. There’s a fantastic give and take between the two which enhances their roles.  More Om Prakash gets frightened i.e. bigger and better the fall guy he enacts, juicier the scene. The story goes that when Mehmood got a film award for his performance in this film, not only he gave full due to his “foil” Om Prakash on the stage but went and touched his feet in the audience. A comic actor always realises the contribution to his own performance by his co-actor and is humble about it.

Well, not always. Manier times people under estimate the importance and function of “the foil” with a disastrous result that the whole comic sequence falls on its face. Take another film “Dostana” directed by the veteran Raj Khosla. Salim-Javed, the script writers, lifted a scene from the film “Paigham” and placed it between Amitabh Bachchan and Zeenat Aman who’re whiling away time at an airport field. They’re in love but just out of curiosity, she asks him whether he ever had any other girl friend in his life or some one he had fallen in love with. This sets Mr Bachchan off into building a casual encounter with a girl (Mina) into a majestic romantic Romeo and Juliet love tale. The idea is to make Zeenat Aman jealous to her teeth and how well she would enact to be the “the foil” with her mounting chagrin. Well…..? With due respect, Zeenat Aman fails to be a perfect “foil” which makes the scene into a long drawn out affair and probably affecting Mr Bachchan’s performance, too. (It also looks that Mr Bachchan enacted the role too confidently and in a calculated way instead of a casual and spontaneous approach taken by Dilip Kumar in “Paigham”. Maybe Mr Bachchan wanted to contrast his approach from the thespian but sorry to say it doesn’t work here.) In contrast, the “Paigham” scene sparkles and remains in your memory for years with Vyjantimala playing a perfect foil. It also helps in delivering probably one of the better comic moments in the thespian’s life.

A small note about the directorial technique in executing the same scene in both the films – both have two-shot without any close-ups as the reactions of one are important while the other enacts. “Dostana” has two different 180* axis two-shot, each favouring one of the actors and as such has many cuts. Unfortunately, it has many continuity jumps which, too, couldn’t save the scene. While “Paigham”  has frontal two-shot equally favouring both the actors and the scene is so engrossing that many cuts from the same axis to same axis without much image change are not noticed, or probably, forgiven.     

The same lapse in “foil” results in an unsatisfying scene in the film “Hum” with Mr Bachchan delivering the drunken repeat and repeat and repeat scene of “Gandi naali ke kidde…” speech or soliloquy or whatever you wish to call it.  Who is the “butt” of the joke here? The “butt” or the “foil” had to have a rising irritating curve of listening to the same thing again and again and, probably, should’ve attempted to walk out every time with Mr Bachchan stopping him and promising to narrate something different but ending up narrating the same thing! Is it then the scriptwriter’s fault? But believe me, probably a correct “foil” would’ve contributed and made the magic of the scene come alive.

No where the concept of “foil” becomes more obvious than when the enactment of scenes is between two actors. Marx Brothers’ films are replete with long comic sequences constructed between Groucho and Chico Marx. Groucho is always the fall guy and what a brilliant fall guy he is! In fact, in every comedy, each scene may have its own fall guy and, that too, sometimes in minor roles but their casting becomes crucial for the above reasons. They may end up ruining or enhancing the performances of your main protagonist/s.

The concept of “foil” should not be mixed up with comedy duos such as Jay & Viru in “Sholay”, Munna and Circuit in “Munnabhai Series” or many, many more such pairings of actors on which the films or series of films are based. What we’re talking about here is chemistry between their characters to create comic ambience. Of course, there are exceptions. No where the concept of “foil” as well as “character chemistry” is more brought to life together in one pair than in Laurel and Hardy film series. They’re perfect “foil” to each other and their chemistry itself can give rise to a comedy scene. Imagine Laurel and Hardy on a bus-stop and your mind can get so excited with permutations and combinations of things that can happen or can go wrong. In no time, your imagination can create a laugh riot.

To conclude: For comedy to be or not to be – don’t be a fool and cast a Hamlet when he’s not required. Just a clown would do – like Falstaff or Oliver Hardy or Groucho Marx or Mr Om Prakash who know that they also serve (and exceptionally, too!) and who are willing to be  such brilliant fools or fall guys on the screen.

Kundan-Shah

Kundan Shah (October 19, 1947 – October 7, 2017)

 

(SWA Archives)

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on Concept and Function of ‘Foil’ in Comedies (By Kundan Shah)

Role of A Director in Comedy Films (By Kundan Shah)

JaaneBhiDoYaaron

Charlie Chaplin had once said: “Comedy is a long shot, tragedy a close-up.”

What does a long shot mean? Simply put, a long shot is just a recorder of the action taking place in front of the camera. And frankly, comedy film technique reduces itself to this simple formula. What happens in front of the camera is far, far more important than what
happens behind it. Then, is it fair to conclude that the comedy belongs to the actors and
actors alone? Honestly speaking, yes.

You can be the greatest director on the earth but you can be reduced to a helpless wimp if you don’t have the right actors to execute your stuff. How often we’ve heard: “Ah, but you’re a great director! You can manage it.” That is, manage to make the actors deliver the comedy. The stark truth is that you can’t. Your actors fail, you fail. You want the proof? Take one of the greatest comic directors on the earth (Charles Chaplin). Take one of the greatest actors on the earth (Marlon Brando). And one of the chic actresses of all times (Sophia Loren). A great film? No, a dud. The film – the last of Chaplin’s films: A Countess From Hongkong. The fault doesn’t lie with Sophia Loren – she has given brilliant comic performances in many Italian bedroom farces. Not even Chaplin’s. The culprit is Brando. Some actors just can’t execute comedy. Even in his earlier comic film “Guys & Dolls”, Brando failed miserably while Frank Sinatra, in a minor part, walked away with the laurels.

When you talk of the comedy films you’ve enjoyed, the scenes which broke you into
repeated laughters, what you talk about most is the actors and the content (gags, etc) of
the scenes. But never its director. Off hand, did you know that the four-time Oscar
winning director Frank Capra, in the earlier part of his career, directed many of the shorts
of Henry Langdon? Or who are the directors of Marx Brothers films? Or of Laurel &
Hardy films? Closer home: Who directed the evergreen Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi? Or
Padosan? Or Pyar Kiye Jaa? Answer: Blank, blank, blank. Unless you’re a movie or a
quiz freak, you wouldn’t know the names of its directors. Frankly, you’re not supposed
to.

So what does a director do in a comedy? Just a Mise-en- Scene and a shot division? Well,
honestly he can’t even do a Mise-en- Scene and he should not attempt to without the
actors because the comedy lies precisely in its execution. So, he’s further reduced to a
helpless observer on the sets where the comedy is brought alive by the movement of the
actors (with his active participation and suggestions, of course) and then a shot division is
so simple that even a clapper boy can attempt it. So, what is his contribution? A lot – a
lot that is invisible which goes in the making of a successful comedy.

Let’s begin with the script. Even if it’s an adaptation of a stage play or an original, there’s
always a scope for an improvement. The comic chemistries of its characters and the
situations can be improved ad addendum. There’s nothing like a perfect comedy script. It
can always keep getting better and better on paper – like old wine and whisky. Let’s take
the script of “Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi”. It would be utterly wrong to say that the comic
genius of Kishore Kumar and the casting of just three brothers together worked for the
film. Then the sequel “Badhti Ka Naam Dadhi” should’ve been equally successful. What
worked wonderfully in CKNG is the contribution of the invisibles from the
scriptwriter/director in defining the attitude of the three brothers to women and love.
That’s the central thread on which the whole film hangs and the comic permutations and combinations which this attitude allows to define the characters of the three brothers and
their interactions in various comic scenes. Besides, a director knows what his actors excel
in and what they can execute and likewise he shapes the script accordingly. Anup Kumar
is so endearing in this film that he almost succeeds in stealing away the show from
Kishore Kumar. And what a brilliant characterization is his! Another great thing about
the script of CKNG which almost no other comedy film in Hindi has ever achieved – not
only it has great songs but almost every song is comically conceived. It has been a dream
of so many of us directors to achieve the magic of these songs in our films – even to the
extent of copying the same situations!

Correct casting is so crucial in a comedy. Imagine “Chupke Chupke” without Om Prakash
and the whole film would collapse. He is the comic cement which binds the whole film.
The director is well aware of this fact and goes to a great extent to make the casting as
creative as possible. Example of an off-beat casting is Harindranath Chattopadhyay in
“Tere Ghar Ke Samne. Or of Arshad Warsi as Circuit in Munnabhai series. And could
there have been a more perfect example of an off-beat casting than Kishore Sahu as
Wahida Rehman’s husband in “Guide”? (Not a comedy.) Or of the director Mahesh Kaul
as Sir BB Verma in “Kaagaz Ke Phool”? (Once again not a comedy.) And against the
concept of perfect casting, the comedy can surprise everyone by using the concept of
perfect anti-casting. Example: Agha, Ramesh Deo and Rajendranath as the three brothers
in “Teen Bahuraniyan”. To conclude, as actors only can deliver a comedy, the casting is
80% of the direction. Unfortunately, direction has many other aspects which are all
individually 80%.

Though no comedy is possible without actors, it is also true that no great comedy is
possible without a talented director. Left to themselves, actors can make a mess of a
scene as they never have the whole (the complete scene, plot, theme, screenplay, etc) in
mind. As a general rule, all actors are highly narcissistic – so they all would try to pull the
scene to each one’s advantage. It is the director’s invisible contribution which
orchestrates their roles, their chemistries, their timings, their syncopation of
complimentary actions. It is his job to bring out the best hidden subtleties in an actor and
his strengths. The more he makes the actor feel in charge and that he is the creator, more
successful he will be in his job.

To conclude, however great a director’s vision, it is the actors who give life and flesh to it. So, here’s a toast to great comedy: LET’S WRITE GREAT SCRIPTS, CAST KNOWN AND UNKNOWN COMIC ACTORS AND TRUST A TALENTED DIRECTOR WHO KNOWS WHAT THE COMEDY IS ALL ABOUT.

Titbits:
1. Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi: Director – Satyen Bose
2. Padosan: Director – Jyoti Swaroop, Dialogue & Screenplay – Rajendra Krishan
3. Sadhu Aur Saitan: Director – A. Bhimsingh, Screenplay – A. Bhimsingh, Dialogue – Rajendra Krishan
4. Teen Bahuraniyan: Directors – S. S. Balan, S. S. Vasan, Writers – K. Balachandar (Story), Kishore Sahu
5. Pyaar Kiye Jaa: Director – C. V. Sridhar, Writer – N. S. Bedi (Dialogues), Chitralaya Gopu (Story)
6. Night at the Opera (Marx Brothers): Director – Sam Wood
7. Duck Soup (Marx Brothers): Director – Leo McCarey
8. A Day at the Races (Marx Brothers): Director – Sam Wood
9. Animal Crackers (Marx Brothers): Director – Victor Heerman

 

Kundan-Shah

Kundan Shah (October 19, 1947 – October 7, 2017)

(From SWA archives)

 

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on Role of A Director in Comedy Films (By Kundan Shah)

Rest In Peace, Kundan Shah!

Kundan-Shah2

Kundan Shah (October 19, 1947 – October 7, 2017)

Acclaimed writer-director Kundan Shah passed away on October 7th 2017, in Mumbai. Shah got a massive heart attack in his sleep at 5 am on Saturday morning. The filmmaker, who had a great command over the genre of satire and black comedy , was 70.

Kundan Shah was an alumni of the prestigious Film and Television Insitute of India, Pune. He was most famous for the black comedy, one of the biggest cult classic movies of all time, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro (1983) which also won him the National Film Award – Indira Gandhi Award for Best First Film of a Director. His other major films include Kabhi Haa Kabhi Naa (1994) and Kya Kehna (2000); while he also directed famous television shows like Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi (1984), Nukkad (1986) and Wagle Ki Duniya (1988). His last film ‘P se PM Tak’ released in 2014.

Shah always showed a great support and an active endorsement for the Screenwriters Association and its goals. He was a regular at the Association’s major events and gatherings during which SWA members would catch him up for intense, as well as candid, discussions about cinema and comedy.

We at SWA, deeply mourn the demise of Shri Kundan Shah and pray for his soul to rest in peace.

Click here for an article from our archives, written exclusively for SWA website by Kundan Shah in 2012. The following is a video interview of Kundan Shah, conducted by Gayatri Gauri –

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on Rest In Peace, Kundan Shah!

पाठकों की रचनाएँ

(पाठकों की रचनाएँ)

Daily Life in India, ca. 1970s (15)

  1. बेवजह’

बेवजह ही हंस लिए, बेवजह ही रो लिए,

ऐसा क्या है हो लिया, हम दीवाने हो लिए।

 

कौन समझेगा  भला, दिल की ये दुश्वारियां,

कर के कुछ गुज़र गया या करने की तैयारियां,

कुछ तो ऐसे राज़ हैं जो राज़ ही हैं हो लिए।

 

बेवजह ही हंस, बे वजह ही रो लिए,

ऐसा क्या है हो लिया, हम दीवाने हो लिए।

 

मुस्कुरालो हक़ है तुम्हे, मेरे यूँ हंस लेने पर,

खुदा कसम ना आंसू बहाओ, मेरे रो लेने पर,

करके किनारा चल लेना, समझ बेगाने हो लिए,

 

बेवजह ही हंस, बे वजह ही रो लिए,

ऐसा क्या है हो लिया, हम दीवाने हो लिए।

हंसना हंसना हंस लेना, हर हंसने में मतलब है.

आंख में आंसू खुश हो लेना भी तो करतब है.

दुःख में आंसू कभी कभी, खुश्क से हैं हो लिए

 

बे वजह ही हंस लिए , बे वजह ही  रो लिए .

ऐसा क्या  है हो लिया , हम दीवाने हो लिए .

 

– जुनेजा शशिकांत

 

 

House

  1. बंटवारा

आज यहाँ एक घर टूटा

हाँ वही घर जो दो बार बना।

एक सपनो का घर

दूसरा जो टूट  रहा  है।

वही घर जहाँ  कभी किलकारियां ली थी

वही घर जहाँ बचपन बीता

गुड्डे गुड्डी का खेल कहूँ

या नुक़्क़ा छिप्पी।

हाँ आज यहाँ एक घर टूटा

 

रसोई घर, देवता घर, नहान घर

अब एक दूसरे से कभी बातें नहीं करेंगे।

ओसारे में बैठकर बारिश को देखना

गौरैये की चहचहाहट सुनना

मानो बरसों का वो रंगमंच है टूटा।

हाँ आज यहाँ एक घर टूटा।

 

घर का संदूक चारदिवारी से निकलकर

अनाथ सा महसूस कर रहा है।

आखिर जाये तो जाये किसके हिस्से में

कभी सबको बाँध कर रखना

चौखट का वो  घमंड है टूटा।

हाँ आज यहाँ एक घर टूटा।

 

कोना भी ढूंढ रहा कोई बहाना रोने को

जो कभी गुड्डू, चिमकी और मेरे काम आता था।

ईंट ईंट का हिसाब अब रखेगा कौन

जो जुड़े थे कभी एक दूसरे से

अब मानो टूटे रिश्ते की भांति बिखड़े हुए हैं।

दरवाज़े के बगल में टंगा

वो दर्पण है टूटा।

हाँ आज यहाँ एक घर टूटा

आज यहाँ एक घर टूटा।

– चंदन कुमार मिश्रा

 

 

eb6c5881c8dc5821f74c546eb18906c5--cemetery-statues-cemetery-angels

 

  1.  ‘इनायत

थोड़ी  इनायत  कर  दे , मुझे  दरवेश  समझ  कर।

भीख  में  उल्फत  दे  दे, मुझे  दरवेश  समझ  कर।।

 

मैं  कोई  खड़ा  नहीं  हूँ ,  बेजान   बूत   बन   कर।

मेरा   दीदार   कर   ले  , मुझे  दरपेश  समझ  कर।।

 

मेरा  ऐतबार  कर  ले , बेवफा  ना  बन  कस  कर ।

मैंने  दिल  दिया  है  ,  तुझे   बख्शिश  समझ  कर।।

 

मैं  आशिक  हूँ  तेरा , फिरता  हूँ  पूजारी  बन  कर।

फैसला  जल्दी  ना  कर, मुझे  फाहिश समझ  कर।।

 

थोड़ा   फ़र्क   समझ  ले, रहा  हूँ   तन्हा  बन  कर।

महफिल  में  बुला  ले, मेरी  ख्वाहिश  समझ  कर।।

 

मेरे  गम  को  बढ़ा कर,  दिल  से  घायल  ना  कर।

गहरे  ज़ख्म  दे  दे ,  ‘बुलंद’   रंजिश  समझ   कर।।

 

– लवकेश कुमार शर्मा (लव ‘बुलंद’)

 

Posted in Members Contributions, Members' Creations | Comments Off on पाठकों की रचनाएँ

Script Analysis of ‘TOILET: EK PREM KATHA’

 

STORY IDEA - Jaya leaves her husband Keshav, as there’s no toilet at their house. 
Keshav sets out on a mission to win her back by fighting against the age-old values 
of rural India.

Toilet_Ek_Prem_Katha

Channelling the unexplored woes of women in rural India, Toilet : Ek Prem Katha is one of the rare films that talks about the issues and functions of the women body, often considered grotesque for the mainstream audience, and is woven around the travesty of open defecation. Toilet is a love story of a newly married couple where the degree-educated wife asks for her right to a toilet at her new home, a demand which spirals the hollow concretes of social dogmas into a whirlwind with her husband at the centre of it. This is a premise that addresses a relevant social problem through a more personal one, will the men of rural India learn to stand up for their women and their basic rights? Let us find out if the plot explores the thematic possibilities of the idea and if it does justice to it.

PLOT ANALYSIS

The plot of the film is two-fold, one about Jaya-Keshav’s love story and the other about the problem of open defecation. And it is to the credit of the writers that they give the upper hand to the love story while using the social issue as a much-validated canvas, at least for most parts of the film. Lack of availability of toilets is essentially a device for the much larger expose of women living without their basic rights in rural India. However, later in the film, the device assumes the form of a campaign to align well with the ongoing tide of Swach Bharat Mission.

The film’s initial reels setup the love story between Keshav and Jaya almost at a snail pace, which disallows their primary conflict to kick in early. Keshav is a mid-30s man who has not gotten married due to his extremely superstitious father, who believes that his kundli requires him to marry a buffalo first, and then find a woman who has an extra thumb or else his marriage would fail. Being a supposed playboy himself, Keshav has a history of relationships, which he manages well with his business of selling bicycles. But when he falls for Jaya, he becomes the quintessential 20 year old who would stop at nothing to stalk her. Jaya, the well-educated and accepting woman, is the perfect anti-dote for an uncouth Keshav, who is horrified by his orthodox father. Amidst the laughs, we do sense a streak of righteousness in Keshav which wins over Jaya and she stalks him right back. They fall in love soon in a heart-warming series of scenes, soaked in nostalgia of the small town love affairs.

They manage to convince Keshav’s father by faking an extra thumb on Jaya’s hand. Their marriage takes place happily, but all hell breaks loose when Jaya is woken up the next morning by the women of the community to accompany them for their ‘lota party’ (signifying their ritual of going in groups to defecate in the fields). Jaya goes along, but when she sees the plight of the women openly exposing themselves in the fields, she gets disgusted and returns home, much to the shock of Keshav. Thus, the conflict in the drama is set up with Jaya telling Keshav to build a toilet inside the house or she would leave. Here, begins the ordeal of Keshav trying to help Jaya defecate every morning by finding various solutions, as his father outrightly rejects the petition for a toilet inside the house, calling it unceremonious for brahmins to break their age-old tradition. When Keshav’s quick-fixes for Jaya run out of steam, she does walk out on him and starts living back at her parents’ home, where she has grown up with a toilet inside the house.

Keshav’s desperate solutions to bring her back end up landing him in jail, which is when he decides to take up the matter with the village panchayat, who scoff at his request of building a toilet in the village for women. Keshav realizes that the problem is more universal than personal, as the women of the village are seemingly okay with defecating in the fields, while the men, as well as the panchayat are dead against breaking their so-called traditions.

Keshav, besotted by Jaya’s love, and determined to bring her back, decides to let go of his dubious ways of small-term solutions and approaches the higher authorities for a social change. He only realizes that one cannot blame the system and the government for all their plight, as sometimes, the change needs to come from within the society.

The first half of the film, although a bit overlong, is humorous and breezy, getting us invested in Keshav and Jaya’s love story. The second half of the film tries to strengthen the love story by putting it through various tests of time, but the conscious diversions into a propaganda driven message-y approach to the social issue makes the film a juggling exercise between education and entertainment, and would often put off even an unassuming audience. Ultimately, the humor does reduce and the climax rings untrue in an otherwise plausible film. Nevertheless, it is the love story between the characters that rides the film through despite being pulled apart by the need to force in the political agenda of its makers.

CHARACTER ANALYSIS

While Keshav and Jaya form the crux of the film, Toilet is also laced with some colourful supporting cast, most of which adds to the flavour of the film. Keshav’s brother, Naru, is the quintessential side-kick, carrying the abnormally high weight of the best of punches in the film. Naru seems to not have much of a life of his own, as he chooses to hang around Keshav all the time, but he is also the only one who believes in Keshav entirely, even when Jaya leaves him. Naru is Keshav’s sounding board, his bank of good and bad ideas, and ultimately, his well-wisher who would stick by him in his fight.

Embodying the role of the purposed antagonist of the film is Panditji, Keshav and Naru’s father, a man who is more of a chant-spewing patriarch, who has lived his entire life following the traditions and customs of his religion and being bound by it. He appears to be the lead custodian of culture in the village, while you would find many of his likes otherwise. His mother, Dadi, is where it all comes from as she propagates the same bigotry. On the other hand is Jaya’s mother, Vidya, who tells her to go back to Keshav’s house because he is a good man and that Jaya is over-reacting over a toilet. Both supporting women characters are etched out as a reflection of the men to drive home the point that women become their own biggest enemies. However, Jaya finds comfort in her father, and her Sunny Leone lusting uncle, Kakka, who have grown out of the dogmatic practices of our culture and don’t mind giving a piece of their mind to others as well.

While Jaya is a woman who challenges the small realities of rural India, whether by riding a bicycle built for a man or by calling out Keshav’s age, it is Keshav who becomes the centrepiece of this ensemble. Starting off as a rather callous fellow, it takes Keshav a while to be emphatic towards Jaya’s woes, but once he does, he slowly graduates to becoming her commander in her fight for dignity, not by heroics, but just by standing by her.

SCREENPLAY ANALYSIS

The screenplay of Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, comes across as largely choppy due to a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the screenplay takes a long while to come to the core conflict of the film, which is the problem of defecation. It spends an unruly amount of time to set up Keshav and Jaya’s love story while it could have done away with a much swifter pace there. The middle portion where Keshav tries to find temporary fixes for Jaya’s problem are the better portions of the film and quite engaging. During the second half, the screenplay becomes preachy about the social issue and crams a lot more than it is built for in the final act. It is here that the scenes become a propaganda exercise for the filmmakers, a court case becomes an absurd excuse to blow the issue out of proportion, and characters begin to jump from their original nature a bit too conveniently.

But amidst the mess, there is a lot to like in it as well. The screenplay does manage to make us laugh, through the use of quirky dialogues, and punches, almost throughout the runtime of the film. Some power-packed scenes, which are not agenda-driven, do bring across a heartfelt love story of the protagonists who we want to see get together. Jaya hates the predicament she has been put into, but she loves Keshav, and he loves her back. It is this uncompromised love that works for this social melodrama, helped by striking performances of the cast as well. Use of subplots, albeit minimal, looks unnecessary, as are a couple of the songs, which only hinder the narrative, instead of adding to it.

CONCLUSION

On the whole, the screenplay does partial justice to the idea of the film by indulging in the loud campaigning of the social problem, and one does feel the want for a crisper narrative on the premise. The entertainment, despite being laced around a toilet, does not pass off as toilet humor, and it is appreciable. The message, although novel and well-meant, comes across as if it is being pushed down our throats, which makes us care less about it, and more about the love story, getting shortchanged at the hands of politics.

  • SUDEEP NIGAM 

Sudeep is a trained screenwriter from Whistling Woods International and a freelance film critique. sudeepnigam11@gmail.com

IFrame

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on Script Analysis of ‘TOILET: EK PREM KATHA’

ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी (श्रद्धांजलि)

 

Zafar Gorakhpuri

ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी (5 मई 1935 – 29 जुलाई 2017)

(श्रद्धांजलि)

ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी

जन्म: बैदौली बासगांव, गोरखपुर | निधन: मुम्बई, अंधेरी (पश्चिम

गुज़रे ज़माने के वरिष्ठ शायर ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी का शनिवार 29 जुलाई 2017 को निधन हो गया। वे अपने पीछे पुत्र अयाज गोरखपुरी और इंतेयाज गोरखपुरी को छोड़ गए हैं।

ज़फ़र साहब ने हिंदी फ़िल्मों के लिए भी कई यादगार गीत लिखें, जैसे “किताबें बहुत सी पढ़ी होंगी तुमने” (बाज़ीगर 1996)। उनके अन्य लोकप्रिय गीतों के बारे में जानने के लिए इस लिंक पर जाएँ।

Zafar_Gorakhpuri_2

ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी बासगांव तहसील के बेदौली बाबू गांव में 5 मई 1935 को जन्मे। प्रारंभिक शिक्षा गांव में प्राप्त करने के बाद उन्होंने मुंबई को अपना कर्मक्षेत्र बनाया। बताया जाता है कि मुम्बई वे मजदूरी करने गए थें। सन 1952 में उन्होंने शायरी की शुरूआत की थी। उन्हें अपने ज़माने में एक से एक आला शायरों का साथ मिला। वे फ़िराक़ गोरखपुरी,जोश मलीहाबादी, मजाज़ लखनवी और जिगर मुरादाबादी सरीखे शायरों को सुनते और उन्हें भी अपनी शायरी सुनाते। उनके पास न केवल विशिष्ट और आधुनिक अंदाज़े बयां था, बल्कि उन्होंने उर्दू गजल के क्लासिकल मूड को भी नया आयाम दिया। आवाम से जुड़ाव की ताज़गी ने उनकी ग़ज़लों को आम आदमी के बीच लोकप्रिय बनाया। ज़फ़र प्रगतिशील लेखक संघ से भी जुड़े थे।

ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी का पहला संकलन तेशा (1962) दूसरा वादिए-संग (1975) तीसरा गोखरु के फूल (1986) चौथा चिराग़े-चश्मे-तर (1987) पांचवां संकलन हलकी ठंडी ताज़ा हवा(2009) प्रकाशित हुआ।  हिंदी में उनकी ग़ज़लों का संकलन आर-पार का मंज़र 1997 में प्रकाशित हुआ। उन्होंने बाल साहित्य में भी योगदान दिया। उनकी रचनाएं महराष्ट्र के शैक्षिक पाठ्यक्रम में पहली से लेकर स्नातक तक के कोर्स में पढाई जाती हैं। बच्चों के लिए उनकी दो किताबें कविता संग्रह ‘नाच री गुड़िया’ 1978 में प्रकाशित हुआ जबकि कहानियों का संग्रह ‘सच्चाइयां’ 1979 में आया।

रचनात्मक उपलब्धियों के लिए ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी को महाराष्ट्र उर्दू आकादमी का राज्य पुरस्कार (1993), इम्तियाज़े मीर अवार्ड (लखनऊ) और युवा-चेतना सम्मान समिति गोरखपुर द्वारा फ़िराक़ सम्मान (1996) में मिला। 1997 में संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका की यात्रा कर कई मुशायरों में हिंदुस्तान का प्रतिनिधित्व किया।

स्क्रीनराइटर्स एसोसिएशन उनके निधन पर गहन शोक व्यक्त करते हुए परमात्मा से उनकी आत्मा की परम शांति की प्रार्थना करती है।

Posted in Notices | Comments Off on ज़फ़र गोरखपुरी (श्रद्धांजलि)

DUNKIRK

DUNKIRK

“A MASTERCLASS IN FILMMAKING!”

CROP Dunkirk Poster    COP Christopher Nolan

Written & Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Written and directed by acclaimed British-American filmmaker Christopher Nolan, Dunkirk paints a vivid account of one of Britain’s most celebrated historical events. Set in the year 1940, Nolan’s latest venture tells the harrowing tale of Operation Dynamo: the ‘miracle’ that allowed for the evacuation of 400,000 beleaguered British and Allied troops from the beaches of Dunkirk (Dunkerque, France) in the midst of an air raid by the German Luftwaffe. With a diverse ensemble of British A-listers and Hollywood newcomers, Dunkirk focuses on its tide-turning subject with such pounding, pitiless conviction that it is impossible not to lose oneself in its expansive ingenuity.

Adopting a non-linear, triptych format that is narrated through three perspectives – land, air and sea – this World War II epic is a tense but thrilling tale of survival, fear, and the enormous fortitude of the human spirit.

On land, protagonist Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) survives a German attack and escapes to Dunkirk’s beaches, where he meets Gibson (Aneurin Barnard). Together, the two teenaged soldiers find and join the Allied troops readying for evacuation, overseen by Colonel Winnant (James D’Arcy) and the pier-master Commander Bolton (Kenneth Branagh).

On the sea, the British Navy requisitions private boats to aid in this mass evacuation across the English Channel. In an effort to save as many soldiers as possible, patriotic mariner Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance), his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and their young helper George (Barry Keoghan) decide to commandeer their boat into the warzone by themselves.

Flying high above them all, three Royal Air Force pilots including Farrier (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) provide air support to the stranded soldiers awaiting rescue at Dunkirk.

Barely ten minutes into the film, it becomes apparent that Dunkirk favours action over words, allowing sound (Michael Mitchell) and visuals (production design: Nathan Crowley; VFX: Double Negative) to form a terrifyingly realistic atmosphere around its characters’ silence. A cacophony of thunderous bombs, zipping gunfire and screeching engines builds tension and drama without the need for dialogue, hammering in the ‘ticking clock’ that is palpable throughout the film.

While the screenplay’s decidedly sparse dialogue enables viewers to immerse themselves in the film, it is also a setback for natural character development. Although each performer – A-listers and extras alike – is believable and remarkably well-cast (John Papsidera; Toby Whale), Dunkirk’s characterization is far too simplistic to generate a satisfactory emotional response. It is this lack of humanism and Whitehead’s consistently deadpan delivery (which works for most of the film but also tears away any potential emotion in key scenes) that strips the film of soul, replacing this conventionally core component with more physical, visual elements.

Although viewers are unable to form strong enough connections with most of Dunkirk’s characters, the film’s secondary motifs are expressed with skill. On several occasions, Nolan’s screenplay effectively voices moral issues without the need for dialogue. While Whitehead’s Tommy grapples with the unspoken conflict between patriotism and integrity, Hardy and Rylance convey heart-wrenching depth and drama solely through their eyes. With the omission of heavy dialogue, every gesture, twitch and grimace carries weight, and each moment in this film feels significant and well placed.

While the film chronicles the events on Dunkirk between May 26, 1940 – June 3, 1940 in vivid detail, it does not portray the activities preceding this event. It makes no mention of Belgium or Holland, does not dwell on Winston Churchill and solemn-faced Generals in stuffy war rooms, and consciously avoids presenting German soldiers on screen. Dunkirk is a single-quest undertaking and Nolan is unapologetic in his stone-cold focus in this pursuit. Much like its approach to dialogue, this, too, serves as a double-edged sword, for while this fierce emphasis is one of Dunkirk’s greatest strengths, it also weighs down its characters as empty vessels ferrying an inflexible script across land, sea and air.

Aided by jaw-dropping cinematography (Hoyte Van Hoytema) and an exceptional score (Hans Zimmer), Dunkirk fuses sound and image to deliver what will soon be hailed as a cinematic masterclass. While Hoytema expertly weaves texture and authenticity to layer into the film’s melancholic tone, Zimmer breathes life into it with a nervous pizzicato of frayed violins, rousing synthesizers and unrelenting clock samples that will ruffle even the calmest of listeners. Handheld cameras enforce the claustrophobia of Tommy’s desperation, concentrating on real locations, planes and boats to deliver an organic experience. Wide, vibrant shots of Dunkirk’s beaches in immaculate IMAX 70mm make this film a breathtakingly immersive journey.

Excellent war films are traditionally focused on nuanced character development and their emotional journeys, its players on one side of the screen and viewers on the other. Dunkirk, on the other hand, grabs moviegoers by the eyeballs and thrusts them into a heart-pounding warzone. Its characters are mere pawns, the chessboard a perilous chasm of violence, chance, loyalty and hope.

Dunkirk is brutal, ambitious and sincere, and its auteur’s propensity for pushing the boundaries of contemporary cinema has paid off yet again. In what is sure to earn several Oscar nods, Christopher Nolan has produced a unique form of entertainment that is so remarkable it must be studied almost forensically.

True to history, Dunkirk ends with both victory and defeat, leaving viewers wholly electrified and yet vaguely unfulfilled. Nolan has turned the story of a single battle into a symphony of sensory delight with piercing, clockwork precision. It is a war story without a hint of blood or gore; a tale of suffering and belief without conversation. Nolan hones the film’s strengths into a meticulously choreographed spectacle, creating a magnificent display of horror and courage through psychological suspense and silence.

Overall, it is most certainly worth a watch, if not a riveting study in filmmaking.

-Tina Mohandas

Tina Mohandas

Tina Mohandas is a songwriter, musician, tattoo artist, vintage motorcycle collector, and animal rights activist. Currently writing her debut science fantasy novel, she is also the co-founder of the non-profit Bikerhood India initiative, and hopes one day to free every caged animal in the world.
Posted in Film Reviews | Comments Off on DUNKIRK