Dogville

If you like philosophy or sociology, you can’t miss Dogville. It's similar to 1984 or Brave New world in way because it creates a mythical society to serve a purpose. It meticulously constructs how a society develops prejudice once it discovers power. Goes to question if human beings would really be civilized if they didn’t have to be. If they could get away with doing what they did, if they didn’t have to bear the punishment for being inhuman. Haven’t we heard that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? If a whole society was entitled to power over someone who is powerless by virtue of not belonging, wouldn’t we abuse it and enjoy it? And that is exactly what prejudice is. It is a fair assumption that prejudice for strangers or outsiders arises out of fear and distrust. But Dogville forces to open your eyes to see that prejudice is an open door to experience and use power, especially with the minority. Prejudice makes you feel better about yourself, and liberates you from the real need of proving yourself. Prejudice is easy success and free identity. Grace, (played by Nicole Kidman) was a single, helpless and harmless woman in need of help. Chased by gangsters, she needs shelter and ends up in the fictional town of Dogville. Nobody in Dogville needed to fear her. They didn’t too. They begin as nice people with values who want to embrace her with a notion of altruism. Their values slowly start eroding when a collective sense of abandoning the value systems happen as they start discovering power- the power to get away with raping her, abusing her and mistreating her.

The film’s subtle but intelligent tagline ‘A quiet little town not far from here’ is just the place we are in today – quiet, and with dangerous things deep within us. Dogville might be a slight exaggeration or a simplistic point prover. It reminded me of Dylan’s Not dark yet. But it’s getting there.  

The film is shot like its taking place real time on stage. I think it’s a powerful method to construct a world with minimal distraction. The point to pick is a philosophical question that hounds our society now, and everything else in the film is an aid to be constructing that question.

 

The pace of the film is slow. But the slowness suited the film. It would be incomplete without it. Because decay in the values of a conditioned society happens only slowly.

Dogville was my second Lars Von Trier movie. The first was Dancer in the dark. Dancer in the dark was deeply disturbing because it brutally portrays a really believable tragedy that we very often want to avoid because most of us are conditioned to hope. We are splattered with inspirational stories where zeroes become heroes, right wins over evil. These actually occur with a low probability. But using Pareto’s 80:20 rule, these 20% stories receive 80% of PR. Dancer in the dark is a shocker, because very simplistically, it depicts a poor, helpless, disabled woman being easily/effortlessly taken advantage of and cheated upon by someone who was stronger, for a very simple reason – he could and he could get away with it too, and that too without much ado. It isn’t counter intuitive. It’s our conditioning that makes us feel disturbed.

Unlike the tragedy that Dancer in the dark is, Dogville has a filmier ending, feel good but powerful.

 

And you can’t help but love Dogville for the way it questions the arrogance of ‘generosity’ in its climax. The benefit for being generous is to put yourself above the others on a pedestal, because that is what really defines generosity – doing something that most instinctively fail to. And generosity is an easier value to develop because you can control it more easily, and ironically, by going against your primal instincts, as opposed to a quality like ‘being a genius’ which if you don’t have, you don’t know what to do to attain either. So yeah, it’s a guilt free way of making yourself feel good. Grace was treated that way, because she allowed herself to be. She tried to be generous, understand them and forgive them. And all this at the cost of allowing them to become animals. Lars Von Trier asks if  power’s consequences can be offset only by power.

Dogville is serious cinema.Truly, just meant to be thought provoking and nothing else.

Dhobi Ghat

 When you read about it, it seems like one of those stories about many random people in the city who connect through coincidences. It is that. But it’s also different from other films in the same space like New York I love you or Firaaq or Edge of Heaven because the characters make conscious decisions about developing relationships with their random coincidences. Shay makes an effort to get to know Munna, and Arun makes a choice to get involved with Noor's life. I find beauty in these decisions because they leave you with hope, as if it’s in your hands to breathe the city, and not destiny’s’.

The characters are very well etched, their lives beautifully detailed and the camera lens non judgmental and real. Dhobi Ghat traverses the life of 4 people in the city - Artsy Arun to elite, sophisticated Shay, to lower middle class, aspiring actor Munna to naive Noor – new to the big bad city.

It’s hard to make a movie that has enough drama, and yet seems as real as a documentary. It means that you have to do double work to ensure that you have the best of both worlds – hold on to the power to fictionalize, but also recreate the space as its supposed to be by paying attention to every detail.  I liked the way they constructed the different spaces and lives of these guys - so much detail, but nothing glares or jumps out saying - notice me, I have made the effort...Like for example, did you notice the lamp in artistic Arun's house or the statue of Buddha in Shay's, the stainless steel utensil holder – the most common kitchen ware in every lower/middle class household in mumbai that cant afford to furnish a kitchen, or the slapstick comedy that Munna is watching in his chawl with his like brother. And of course, Munna's room – walls plastered with all the pictures of Bollywood superstars….

Another charming thing in the movie are the relationships between the different characters. Of course, the one between Shay and Munna is the most obvious one. It was so easy to understand their relationship, in the sense that, its so easy to understand Munna would fall in love with her but be very inhibited..Shay is beautiful, sweet and unattainable. Munna loves her knowing she is impossible to attain, and Shay talks to him knowing that she cannot possibly love him. Class is a big thing, consciously and subconsciously. It was easy to understand why Shay liked him, but never loved him, or was never even confused about not loving him...like that was not an option. The movie managed to capture some other aspects of ‘class’ – like how Munna was expected to service the high class woman…gosh! The laziness, the fat and the arrogance of the woman!
Shay's unrequited relationship with Arun was interesting too...an unrequited relationship hinges on two things...obsession and hope..but the base is fear, till a realisation dawns...its like you are running away from the realisation with it chasing you, and deep down you know its going to get you. Shay gets it all in the end I think, and then tears roll down.

The film captured everyday sentences and expressions – which open windows to understanding complex contexts - A simple innocuous statement from Noor like "He has come. We will watch TV now..He doesn't talk too much...” is about arranged marriages with no conversation.
And I couldn’t help but wonder how Shay, and Noor belonging to such bipolar backgrounds did the same thing. They were both capturing the city using their own powers of expressions.

I liked the end – the climax, and then the going on of life, as though nothing much happened. Silent lonely tears and getting over the many emotions that swell up every once in a while. Life does not end, even if phases and relationships do. That’s how it is, more tragedies than comedies. And life goes on!

Lost in translation

I think no other piece of work can really depict the idea better than this piece from Malgudi days

Part 1: here

Part 2: here

Fantasy and destiny

Noticed something really interesting...every movie that quells the need for fantasy has destiny playing a huge role in it...so in Hum Aapke Hain Kaun...Madhuri even decides to marry her Jiju, but destiny brings her to her love...In Hangover, they did everything that a boy would fantasize about, but went scott free, with destiny seemingly connecting things to make it perfect...Take any other example...So its fantasy that destiny takes responsibility for things to happen...and fantasy is about escaping responsibility and action, about having a good time and not pay for it? isn't it?

Plot vs. Characters - Reflection of two kinds of societies?

Individualistic society's content always rely on strong characters, because characters are supposed to control and change the world, whereas collective societies always rely on intricate plots, with lesser emphasis on individualism of characters, as the fundamental belief and curiosity is about destiny, and understanding that not everything really is in an individual's control - individual is too small, and insignificant in the larger scheme of things controlled by both God and destiny. Which is why Chinese films - like the clouds, like the wind, rising the red lantern, or curse of the golden flower, have fantabulous plots and stories filled with coincidences, ripple effects, and million intricate possibilities triggered by a gargantuan system.

Confusions of a dangerous mind: Jesse vs. Summer

There is uncanny similarity between the two films - (500) days of summer and Vinnaithandi Varuvaya (Tamil). Both are love stories narrated from a boy's point of view. In both the films, the boys, from whose viewpoint the story is being told are entirely sure of their love for the woman. And in both the stories, since its the guy's viewpoint, the women come across as confused, and stereotypically 'hard to fathom'.Both base their stories with contemporary relationships as their landscape. Its probably a universal confusion with women, and perhaps even men...'Its hard to say no to someone who loves you so much, but its harder to say yes'. No wonder the women go out to explore the relationships but dont stay with the men in the end.

Incidentally, both the films were released almost simultaneously, and  across two culturally very dissimilar parts of the world. And these very same cultural differences, bring out the differences in the way the choices were made by both the women. Summer, highly individualistic and independent, makes her choice, is sure of it and takes responsibility for it..in the end, she knows she did not love him enough to marry him. With Jesse, its more complicated, I couldn't really figure out if she decided not to marry the guy because of family, her father and for the sake of his social pressures or if she just used that as a reason, in her head and otherwise..because deep down she thought it wasnt the love worth fighting so much for? She is courageous, because she walked out of her marriage, and confronted her family, and confessed about being in love with somebody else...but also made the choice of not marrying her guy in the end, but marry someone her parents wished her to. Interesting to see Sheena Iyengar's theory of how our choice making process depends on where we come from, come alive through these two films, which are so similar, but for where they are set, which contributes to all the differences.While an individualistic society offers more choice, and the responsibility of making the choice lies with you, a collective society poses a lot of different external variables, and there is a lot of possibilities that one can play with, consciously and sub - consciously!

Udaan!

The movie is infused with hope in the bleakest situations, unexpected humor,  a 17 year old writer, small town pace and colorful dreams. Writer - director Vikramaditya Motwane says its about teenage angst, and coming of age of a boy. About teenage boys discovering sex, porn films, alcohol and cigs, coming to terms with their relationships, finding their place in the world,  making choices to follow their dreams and cribbing, frolicking with friends...
But to me, in addition to all this, this film is about complex characters, parenting and a father son relationship

Ronit Roy, who played the father was one of the best etched characters in Indian cinema, so far. I loved the fact that Ronit justifies his stance and we know why he has become what we see - A father whose wishes he adhered to, revered with fear, and submitted himself to...accepted his definitions of 'masculinity' and 'loser'..
They say that if you had a bad parent you didn't do anything about, you'll end up being the same monster in the future, because he dictates your world and creates 'the right definitions for you'. Ronit, a typical MCP, always weighs and assesses everybody with his set and standard definitions of masculinity...which is why he calls his boy 'a girl' and finds it funny that 'tumne sex bhi nahin kiya' (which was also his way of bonding with his son the manly way, weirdly endearing i thought) or calls his brother a loser, because he does not have kids...
 Never having been truly loved, resorts to life filled with self - pity - which is the most dangerously indulgent way of loving yourself. In his mind, he is the ideal father..the one who has given his savings and life for creating a bright future for his sons, except that his elder son does not want to live that future. He does all the 'done things' by a parents, like showing the son Jamshedpur, by pointing out to all the statues of famous men in that city, taking the sons for a 'picnic'...but the acts have no emotion, no life and definitely no love.Its rare that we know everything about a villain, his insecurities and his incapabilities and yet not feel like empathizing with him..

I also liked Rohan - the kid who plays Ronit Roy's son...one of those strong willed heroes...self - assured, confident, silent and brave. Rohan is not someone who stomps around the world saying or thinking he is great. He is just quietly in peace with himself, who he is and discovers things about himself in his life. He isn't defined by peer pressure, but only by his dreams and conviction. His simple acts of courage, and his rebelliousness are really endearing and inspiring.

There were two extremes in the film...a 17 year old with ample conviction, a boy who knows what he wants, and who he exactly wants to be...and a monstrous, strict, self - piteous father who is stifling, scary and smothers the dreams and lives of his sons...I just thought its even more complicated in real...half monstrous parents, but kids also lacking in conviction :)

The film never loses its sense of humor and ingrained lightness no matter what how bleak the situation or how dark the plot - beginning with 'Kantishah ke Angoor' to 'Rathod' to 'Papa mujhe bhi hospital bejh denge' to 'Motumaster', the humor is what really brings us to tears, and builds empathy. And there is just so much hope, through and through in Rohan's character, and in the climax. Must watch for the humor, Rohan, and his Father played brilliantly by Ronit Roy, and of course, the most awesome music!