I will set aside the many structural and creative problems with Ala Vaikunthapuramulo. Honestly, they are the more forgivable issues. I have, and did have even while watching the film last night, two major problems with its philosophy.
1. OGLING IS NOT ROMANCE. Maybe women who enjoy it exist but I have never known any woman who would want to be with any man who creeps her out. Maybe Pooja Hegde enjoys it or she thinks the character Amulya is the type who finds it flirtatious. Many women won't. Trivikram has always written crappy heroines, usually bimbos, who don't need any reasons to fall in love with his heroes. Infact the one strong woman I can think of in his oeuvre is the Parvathi Melton character in Jalsa who expresses her interest in the hero but is turned down because he accuses her of being intelligent. One argument I can see coming is that these are just characters and he does it to bring out the humour but if he keeps doing it and if it's the only thing he seems to be capable of, it gives an indication that he doesn't see anything beyond it. Even the ostensibly progressive strong heroine in Ala, who built up her own business, needs the hero to help her refuse offers she does not want to accept, cannot tell her father that she does not want to marry the person he chooses, and falls head over heels with one of her new employees who introduces himself by salivating at the sight of her uncovered legs. Telugu film heroes and heroines don't need to talk to her each, don't need to share interests or spar ideas, don't need to bond emotionally to fall in love. Their bonding is expedited by the need for a duet.
2. A person's birth deciding his fate is what we call Casteism. We call a society modern if it tries to negate what we believe is the accident of birth by giving every individual an opportunity to realise their fullest potential. I understand Valmiki who is so filled with jealousy that he wants to torture the kid who is his boss's son. What I don't understand is the pride with which Ramachandra claims Bantu. He is overjoyed to realize and take credit for begetting the hero. What he does not realize that he has failed as a father. To be a father is not to complete the biological requirement but raise the kid to be the person you are proud of. And in that respect Ramachandra is a colossal failure because he is repulsed by the person he raised, his true son. This argument holds if you believe that kids are who we raise them to be, atleast to a large extent. By that account both Ramachandra and his wife have failed and Valmiki, despite his best efforts, and his wife have succeeded.
But if you think that we are who we are born as, choosing nature over nurture, then Ramachandra has a reason to be proud, Bantu is the ordained king and Raj will never be anything but a servant. This is what we call caste. Trivikram could have this viewpoint, and I have no problems with that but that raises the question of why did ARK pick Ramachandra from his 'lowly' state and hand him over the kingship?
I've been told many times earlier that I overthink these things, that a 'commercial' film does not have to or need to get into any discussion of competing ideas, that a large section of the audience comes to a theatre not to think but to 'not think' about their problems. Maybe, but no cultural artefact is created in vacuum. It is, consciously or otherwise, a certain way and those thoughts follow structures. And many things we find problematic, inconsistent or unacceptable also come from those structures. And it is those structures that I want to understand and question.
--
In this wonderful interview with Kunal Karma, Anubhav Sinha compares two different riffs on the concept of societal hierarchy. There is a line in Super 30 that goes, "Raja ka beta raja nahin banega. Raja wohi banega jo haqdaar hain." In Article 15, one character questions the other by asking, "Agar sab log samaan hojayega, toh raja kaun banega" to which the other character replies, "Raja ki zaroorat hi kya hain?".
"Middle class predominant గా తయారవ్వటం అంటే అది భయంకరమైన situation. Middle class is dangerous.. for many things" -కె. శివారెడ్డి గారు
1. OGLING IS NOT ROMANCE. Maybe women who enjoy it exist but I have never known any woman who would want to be with any man who creeps her out. Maybe Pooja Hegde enjoys it or she thinks the character Amulya is the type who finds it flirtatious. Many women won't. Trivikram has always written crappy heroines, usually bimbos, who don't need any reasons to fall in love with his heroes. Infact the one strong woman I can think of in his oeuvre is the Parvathi Melton character in Jalsa who expresses her interest in the hero but is turned down because he accuses her of being intelligent. One argument I can see coming is that these are just characters and he does it to bring out the humour but if he keeps doing it and if it's the only thing he seems to be capable of, it gives an indication that he doesn't see anything beyond it. Even the ostensibly progressive strong heroine in Ala, who built up her own business, needs the hero to help her refuse offers she does not want to accept, cannot tell her father that she does not want to marry the person he chooses, and falls head over heels with one of her new employees who introduces himself by salivating at the sight of her uncovered legs. Telugu film heroes and heroines don't need to talk to her each, don't need to share interests or spar ideas, don't need to bond emotionally to fall in love. Their bonding is expedited by the need for a duet.
2. A person's birth deciding his fate is what we call Casteism. We call a society modern if it tries to negate what we believe is the accident of birth by giving every individual an opportunity to realise their fullest potential. I understand Valmiki who is so filled with jealousy that he wants to torture the kid who is his boss's son. What I don't understand is the pride with which Ramachandra claims Bantu. He is overjoyed to realize and take credit for begetting the hero. What he does not realize that he has failed as a father. To be a father is not to complete the biological requirement but raise the kid to be the person you are proud of. And in that respect Ramachandra is a colossal failure because he is repulsed by the person he raised, his true son. This argument holds if you believe that kids are who we raise them to be, atleast to a large extent. By that account both Ramachandra and his wife have failed and Valmiki, despite his best efforts, and his wife have succeeded.
But if you think that we are who we are born as, choosing nature over nurture, then Ramachandra has a reason to be proud, Bantu is the ordained king and Raj will never be anything but a servant. This is what we call caste. Trivikram could have this viewpoint, and I have no problems with that but that raises the question of why did ARK pick Ramachandra from his 'lowly' state and hand him over the kingship?
I've been told many times earlier that I overthink these things, that a 'commercial' film does not have to or need to get into any discussion of competing ideas, that a large section of the audience comes to a theatre not to think but to 'not think' about their problems. Maybe, but no cultural artefact is created in vacuum. It is, consciously or otherwise, a certain way and those thoughts follow structures. And many things we find problematic, inconsistent or unacceptable also come from those structures. And it is those structures that I want to understand and question.
--
In this wonderful interview with Kunal Karma, Anubhav Sinha compares two different riffs on the concept of societal hierarchy. There is a line in Super 30 that goes, "Raja ka beta raja nahin banega. Raja wohi banega jo haqdaar hain." In Article 15, one character questions the other by asking, "Agar sab log samaan hojayega, toh raja kaun banega" to which the other character replies, "Raja ki zaroorat hi kya hain?".
"Middle class predominant గా తయారవ్వటం అంటే అది భయంకరమైన situation. Middle class is dangerous.. for many things" -కె. శివారెడ్డి గారు
2 comments:
శిరీష్.. నువ్వు చెప్పిన రెండో పాయింట్ కారణంగా నాకీ సినిమా మీద అసహ్యమేసింది. కమర్షియల్ సినిమా విషయంలో దాని ఐడియాస్ చర్చించటం తప్పెందుకవుతుంది, అది ఐడియాలు బడాయి పోతున్నప్పుడు? కుక్కపని కుక్క చేయాలి, గాడిద పని గాడిద చేయాలి. రేసుగుర్రం లాంటి సినిమాతో నాకేం ప్రోబ్లెమ్ లేదు, అదేం చేయాలనుకుంటుందో అదే చేస్తుంది నిజాయితీగా. కానీ త్రివిక్రమ్ అదే పని చేస్తూ కూడా తను "అంతకుమించి" అని ప్రూవ్ చేసుకోవటానికన్నట్టు కథలోనో, డైలాగుల్లోనో ఇలాంటి చెత్త ఫిలాసఫీలు చెప్పాలని ప్రయత్నిస్తాడు చూడు, అది అన్బేరబుల్ నాకు. ఈ సినిమా మీద నరేష్ నున్నా ఫేస్బుక్లో పోస్ట్ పెడితే, ఇక్కడ నువ్వు రాసిన రెండో పాయింట్ గురించే నేనిలా రెస్పాండ్ అయ్యాను:—
This is the ugliest story I’ve come across in any form in recent years. అచ్చ హిందీలో చెప్పాలంటే.. పరమ నీచ్ కమీన్ కుత్తే కథ (ఆ పై బ్లాక్ బస్టర్ సుగర్ కోటింగుతో నాకు సంబంధం లేదు). పెంపకం వల్ల ప్రభావితంకాని స్వభావం ఒకటి ఏ మూలో ఉంటే ఉండొచ్చును. రష్యన్ బానిసల (serf) వంశంలో పుట్టిన చెహోవ్ కూడా తన slave blood గురించి కించపడతాడు. తన లాంటి ఒక పాత్రని పెట్టి ఇలా రాయాలనుకుంటాడు:
“What aristocratic writers take from nature gratis, the less privileged must pay for with their youth. Try and write a story about a young man… write about how this young man squeezes the slave out of himself drop by drop and how, on waking up one fine morning, he finds that the blood coursing through his veins is no longer the blood of a slave, but that of a real human being.”
కానీ ఈ ఒప్పుకోలు చెహోవ్ లో మనిషి పట్ల ఆత్మీయతతో, దయగల దృక్పథంగా వ్యక్తం అవుతుంది. చాలామంది కళాకారుల్లో సహజంగానే అలా వ్యక్తమవుతుంది. కళ వాళ్ళని ఆ కనీస స్థాయి ఔన్నత్యానికి చేరుస్తుంది. కానీ ఇక్కడ, ఈ సినిమాలో, ఆ ప్రకృతి కాఠిన్యాన్ని (పాక్షిక సత్యాన్ని) ఇంత complacentగా, ఆత్రంగా, వెకిలిగా హత్తుకోవటం ఈ సినిమా దర్శకుడి స్వభావ వికృతి అనుకుంటాను. “స్థానాన్ని ఇవ్వొచ్చు కానీ స్థాయిని ఇవ్వలేం” అన్నది సినిమా సారాంశమని ఒక ఇంటర్వ్యూలో చెప్పటం విన్నాను. ఈ సినిమా అనే కాదు, ఇతని రీసెంట్ సినిమాలన్నీ ఆ అరిస్టోక్రాటిక్ లోకానికి దాసోహమనే బానిసత్వమే కనిపిస్తుంది. ఆ బానిసత్వమే ఇతను ఫంక్షన్లలో నోరిప్పితే చాలు- వేయింగ్ మెషీన్ కార్డులకి సరిపోయే రూపాయికాసు ఫిలాసఫీలతో బయటపడుతుంది. ఇలాంటి బానిసత్వాలు తెలుగు సినిమా దర్శకులు పైకెదగటానికి కెరీర్ పరంగా అవసరమనుకుంటాను. ఒకవేళ ఫక్కా హైరార్కీలు కరుడుగట్టిపోయిన సినిమా లోకంలో నిండా మునిగిపోయాక- ఇదే వాస్తవం అని, ప్రపంచం ఇలాగే ఉండాలీ అని నమ్మే స్థాయికి దిగిపోతారేమో కూడా.
Good one mama, before commenting any further i still need to revisit the movie on kingship vs leadership. And watch movie from Ramachandra perspective, movie made much sense to me when I was watching the movie from Bantus and Valmiki point of view.
Because of those reasons I get Ramchandra character having the pride seeing Bantu and viceversa with Sushanth. His insecurity resulted in having a failed relationship, is same characteristic what you see in Sushanth but Bantu is not like Ramchandra which makes him feel proud of him.
I get the ogling part but i forgive Trivikram because it is Pooja Hegde and for my eager to watch the songs on the screen in the first half.
Maybe this will result in same kind of conversation we had for Attharintiki Dharedi but yeah i have to clarify on kingship vs leadership aspects in Ramachandra which i ignored.
Post a Comment