So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.
After almost 3.5 years I turned on my parents’ TV set today to watch Aamir Khan’s show Satyameva Jayate. I must confess upfront that i am not an Aamir fan – i find his films terribly self indulgent, I find his projected persona very tiresome & self righteous. I far preferred the fun Aamir Khan from the QSQT and Jo Jeeta Wahi Sikandar days. Its almost as though something has sucked away all the fun and spontaneity out of him, and left us with this pontificating figure.
Having said that, i was curious about Satyameva Jayate, especially given that industry at large was scratching its collective head at both the timing (11 am on a Sunday Morning) and the content (serious, chat show, with no embellishment. Real people, real clothes, little make up – a show that puts the real back in reality). Many I spoke to, some as late as yesterday evening, were not sure if the show will be accepted by the audience.
Today’s episodes was on the desire for a male child and the accepted, though illegal, practise of female foeticide. It is one thing knowing the data. It is quite another hearing a woman talk about her in-laws who forced her to abort 6 foetuses because they were female. It is one thing to know about a woman being hit, it is quite another to see the scarred face in extreme close up as well as pictures that showed the face when it was all stitched up. The woman’s crime – giving birth to a girl. The show also took head on the myth that female foeticide is rife in villages. It is not. It is practised just as much amongst my neighbours as yours. Statistics show that the richer localities have fewer daughters than the poorer ones. A clip during the show revealed the prevalence of an organised cartel in Rajasthan that provided end to end service in female foeticide. But it was not just about the doom and gloom – it talked about how one DC of Navashehar in Punjab reversed the trend. Solutions are important. Problems are known but is it all beyond hope? no. and that is what is refreshing about this show.
Nothing presented in the show was new. What was new, however, was the approach. First person accounts of brutality suffered or loss endured are infinitely more powerful than experts in studios pontificating. Our journalists should take a leaf out of Aamir’s interviewing style – let the other person talk. The stories were heart breaking. Yet, the courage of these women was totally inspiring. There was nary a trace of self pity or negativity. these are women who give me hope and courage. Sometimes it takes a celebrity to drive a point home. Just as it took Amitabh Bachchan to drive home the point of giving kids polio drops.
The other thing that was very interesting was the treatment, starting with the nature of the Set. This is not a chrome and steel, post modern set with sharp edges. It is an old fashioned set in comfortable, non obtrusive colours and with soft curves. Aamir is apart from the audience and yet is a part of it. The use of space and spatial distances – either by default or design – is very well done. Also interesting was the way it was shot and edited. No jerky camera movement, no ramped up shots. No extreme close ups. The technique was almost old fashioned. No jumping cameras, no racing trollys, no jimmy gibs, clean shots, clean edits… soft dissolves. a hark back to older, maybe nicer values.
This show is setting an agenda by using three things – a) Star value of Aamir Khan b) Star value of Star TV to reach an urban and semi urban household via satellite and cable, and finally c) Doordarshan for reaching households that don’t get satellite and cable. Hopefully a substantial chunk of the audience would be covered. For those of us who consume news on a regular basis most of the revelations are passe. but most of India does not consume news. At the height of the Anna movement last year, news consumption peaked at 11% of the total audience. While people may be aware that there is female foeticide in their family or neighbourhood – the stories don’t really hit home.
What is the reaction to the show? At home rapt attention. Friends of mine have liked it. many I know have spent their Sunday morning watching TV after almost a decade or so. On twitter, a whole bunch liked the show. In fact most on my time line did. Then there were the moaners, those who wondered about the cost per 10 seconds and Aamir’s fees and the cost of production … not any issue with the show perse … am not even sure if they watched – but issues with the motivations of others. Yet others were asking questions about Aamir’s religion and secularism . (yeah, there are those kinds as well). Reminds me a bit of the old Hans Christian Anderson Story of the Snow Queen- people who have a splinter of the mirror stuck in their heart and can only see an ugly world. But, hey it is a free country – and people are entitled to their misery and cynicism. And i am entitled to turn away from them and look at the sunshine streaming onto my face.
I am glad that Aamir Khan has decided to produce & anchor a show like this. Am glad that the number one channel in this country has decided to move away from high pitched drama into sombre programming. I am grateful that it runs on Doordarshan. It has been a long time since Indian Broadcasting worked in the public interest – i hope that this marks the point at which the which an adoloscent industry goes towards adulthood by not just creating content aimed at titilating the lowest common denominator, but also at bringing the lowest common denominator a notch higher
And finally, Ram Sampath & Swanand Kirkire – o ri chiraya
There are some movies that you leave the theatre after watching with a big gooey smile on your face. The Avengers is one of them. It is highly unlikely that you will remember anything of the film a week down the line, except that you enjoyed it immensely.
What is the story – Superhero team films have a standard plot. Disparate heroes who don’t exactly get along. A great evil from outside that wants to take over/enslave/ destroy earth – team comes togehter. Gets its butt handed to it in the first 2/3rds of the film. Suddenly there is a moment, and it all falls into place. The good guys kick the bad guys butts, and you have the possibility of a sequel. This film follows the standard format. The story is about Loki, the brother of Thor, coming to earth to steal the Tresseract – a cube that is a portal between worlds – and use it to conquer the earth. Nick Fury of SHIELD hasto put together a team that will beat the bad guys.
But given the simple plot point, it is easy to get a superhero film wrong. The tendency to make it angsty. To make it wordy. To make it about esoteric things like liberty and justice. See the last version of Superman or Ang Lee’s Hulk, or even Nolan’s take on Batman. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the Batman films but they are emotionally very draining. On the other hand this film is fun. Great one liners, fabulous team dynamics and fun. Kick ass fun. Good guys v/s bad guys and you know the good guys are going to win.
The director Joss Whedon – of Buffy, Angel etal fame – has pulled off a difficult task. The task of getting 6 super heroes - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, Hawkeyeand Black Widow – screen time, balanced with Nick Fury, the villains and everything else that is going on in the film without cluttering it up would be tough. The story, also written by Whedon, is tight and easy to understand without any explanations of the back stories of each character. Each character is self contained, there is no need to know long reams of continuity or what happened in earlier films. If you did it was great , but if you did not – the enjoyment of the movie was no less.
Currently reading Stephen Pinker’s book The Better Angels of our Nature : Why Violence has declined,recommended by Nitin Paiof Takshashila, who suggested we needed a Leviathan to unify India. I had issues with the Leviathan, simply because it was written at a different point of time, where power was concentrated in fewer hands. You didn’t have universal franchise, decisions were made by land owners, the poor had no say nor did women – it was a deeply unequal time. At which point Nitin pointed me to this book.I have been enjoying reading it)
Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan,quoted in the book. And for some reason with all this furore over money & honour, this quote seemed kind of apt.
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.
The Conspirator, directed by Robert Redford is an earnest historical film that tells the story of Mary Suratt, the first woman to be tried and hanged in the United States of America. The film is set in the period following the end of the Civil War and the the assassination of President Lincoln.
In the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, seven men and one woman are arrested and charged with conspiring to kill the President, the Vice-President, and the Secretary of State. The lone woman charged, Mary Surratt, 42, owns a boarding house where John Wilkes Booth and others met and planned the simultaneous attacks. Against the ominous back-drop of post-Civil War Washington, newly-minted lawyer, Frederick Aiken, a 28-year-old Union war-hero, reluctantly agrees to defend Surratt before a military tribunal. As the trial unfolds, Aiken realizes his client may be innocent and that she is being used as bait and hostage in order to capture the only conspirator to have escaped a massive manhunt, her own son.
The film works on two levels. The first is the straight story of the trial of Mary Suratt (Robin Wright), who is accused of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln, and the efforts made by her lawyer Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) to save her. The second, and this is what makes the movie earnest, is the issue of the “rule of Law” and “rights of citizens” and whether they apply to people you don’t like and causes that you find distasteful.
The film begins with a battle field sequence that establishes that Aiken is a Union Officer, a brave man and a war hero. But, the film is not about the Civil War. The film is about the deep rent in American Society caused by the War, a division that is made worse by the assassination of Lincoln and the desire of the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline) to make someone (it could be anyone) pay for the murder of a well loved President. That someone is Mary Suratt, the owner of a boarding house, in Washington, where the conspirators to the murder met regularly. Frederick Aiken begins as a reluctant defender of Mary Suratt. However, Aiken realises that the Constitutional Process is being subverted in the interests of giving the people a verdict they want, and that Suratt may not be guilty.
The parallels between the post War and post Assassination paranoia and the post 9/11 reactions are unmistakable. In fact it is so overt that it is really very overt. from the hooded masks use to cover the faces of the , to the military tribunal. from the suspension of civil rights to the military prison, there very little that is subtle or left to the viewer to form linkages. While watching the film and hearing the various arguments being made for the rule of law and the right to a fair trial and the right to legal representation – I couldn’t but help think of the situation when leading papers and TV news channels ask why India needs to spend money in keeping Kasab alive (and by implication why he needs to go through the legal process). The film is that subtle
The film rests on a single base – that Constitutional Rights are paramount. The problem with an approach like that is that the human story becomes secondary. It is the story of the trial and the battle between those who wish to subvert the constitution and those who wish to defend it. Mary Suratt, in the film is not a well etched out character but a symbol . She represents the victim of State Paranoia. The human story, the story of Mary Suratt is lost. Robin Wright does a commendable job in terms of bringing dignity to the character, but the character herself is not fleshed out. James McAvoy has a slightly better canvas to play with. His character graph is slightly better etched out. He is more than the man against the system. The support cast is fantastic. Especially Kevin Kline.
The period is beautifully reconstructed. the lighting is superb – i loved the muted shades and tones through the film. The background score was exemplary and not intrusive..
Is it worth watching – yes. Despite its flaws the film is worth watching. ITt is well shot, well acted, holds your attention and leaves you with something to think about ..
