Rewatching Gulaal: Its almost washed now

There are very few films which actually speaks more in the second time than in the first time. Gulaal belongs to that rare species. I had started watching it again because I had liked it immensely. I like these kind of dark, open-ended movies a lot. I had no idea whatsoever that it will change my entire understanding of the movie. Initially I had thought that it is a political movie with lots of political undertones and overtones. But when I watched it the second time, I realised why I had a feeling that there is much more to it than just politics and pseudo-violence (and obviously non-violence).

The second time, I guess, I got that. The movie is a commentary on the very process and purpose of the artistic creation. Prithvi Bana (played to perfection by Piyush Mishra) is not a minor, mad character in the movie. He is the real hero. He is the one who raises all the difficult questions and who questions it all. He is the one who is the voice of the narrator; the voice of the movie. In fact he is the only sane person in the movie besides that girl in the dark room. Everyone else is real mad and from their perspective this guy talking about the 'lost people', 'sarfaroshi', war, fundamentalism, pseudo-equality and much more is actually mad.

In the movie he is depicted as a minor and weak character who does not do anything except singing and writing poetry. He is being tortured and hit by all. But he can react in only one way-- by writing more poetry or by quoting from other literature. He does not act violently anytime. When he is hit by Ransa, he looks very hurt but he does not say anything. In fact this incident acquires much significance if we consider the fact that both of them, in a way, belonged to the same group (towards the end KK's character, in fact, confirms it). Both are educated in a 'foreign' land, which simply implies that they are fed with some independent thoughts and they have their own perception which cannot be changed by what others say. Both are aware of the history of the world and very well-read, particularly in the area of revolutions that the world has seen. Both are shown to be very attracted by Lenin (the kind of books read by Prithvi Bana) and other revolutionaries of the world (a look at the kind of paintings put up in Ransa'a room clearly indicates that). Both don't believe in the mindless activities that their family members are doing. It is no coincidence that Ransa'a father and Prithvi's brother are allies but they are fighting over a trifle issue. The means of Ransa and Prithvi are different but the ends are the same. One believed in the direct action; taking the bulls by the horns. He makes fun of these people; he questions them. And he comes directly to the field to fight it out in the middle. It wouls have been very interesting to see what he would have done had he won the election. But, probably, that never happens. People like him are bound to be lost into oblivion very soon. But the other one is very subtle; an artist; a revolutionary poet who wants to let everyone know the truth through his poems. But no one understands or listens to him, not even those who are actually on his side. He is taken as a disturbance, as a distraction and hit by them. But he remains there till the end. We can imagine him singing his poems even after everything has changed; in fact we hear him in 'duniya' and 'raat ke musafir'.

And then we have people like Dilip. He is there to study law and gets involved into the politics. He always thought that he is with Ransa but actually he was never with him. His character is best described by KK. He was the kind of guy who just needed a girl. If one rejected him, she is bad; she doesn't love him. But the one who had sex with him (mind it they never made love even if Dilip always thought so) was the one who loved him, even if she deserted him long ago. People like him deserve to die. He never had an ideology; he was always run and dictated by the others. He is probably the common man. He is one who for a little immediate profit forgets everything and becomes blind in the greed for something. He couldn't see; in fact he didn't want to see the real face of the girl whom he thought to be so innocent and lovable. He never realised the fact that she was the one who was changing his spectacles (and it is not just spectacles; it is a very powerful and recurring symbol in the movie which stands for anything ranging from non-violence to one's perspective and one's ideology). He was the one who was not concerned much with reading literature or about revolutionaries. He comes in contact with one and tries to emulate him but he can't. Like the others he also does not have the power to change; probably he has! But he does not utilise it in the right way. He is very easily distracted. And he wasted his energy and anger in doing something which would not lead to much. He is the typical common man.

But the movie actually belonged to Prithvi Bana who is contrasted with that flute master. This flute master is introduced in the very beginning to Dilip and his brother (followed by an introduction to the broken glasses of Gandhi-- the 69 and also an instruction not to take the 'right' turn since there is none). He is an apt counterpart of Prithvi. He is basically free, his own master. He does everything without any specific reason as such. But at the same time he is not much recognised in the real world. He is there in some romantic, peaceful world. But in a world torn by strife and conflict, he is just a marginalised being residing somewhere in reclusion, unaware of what is happening just under his nose (after all Dilip lives with him only). He represents those art for arts sake people while Prithvi represents those revolutionary poets. Neither of them is praised or criticised. But their position is clearly shown with respect to the happenings of the world. Neither of them is able to make significant difference to the way the things are going. But still one is trying and he is able to make some ripples; he is able to shake a little bit of the sleeping beauties. At least he occupies more space than the escapist.

And this metaphor is not just limited to one art form or literature as such. It is extended to all the manifestations of art including the movie itself. The movie not only shows the situation of the world but also shows its own situation. It shows its own place in all this without being vainly bombastic. It shows a complete world It is a commentary on itself, which is highly reminiscent of people like Luigi Pirandello and his dramas. Anurag Kashyap is very much aware of the fact that most of the people is not going to understand what he is trying to say but he is never apologetic about it. He knows that “poetry makes nothing happen”. He knows that it is not going to change the world; but he also knows that it will upset a few things; it will disturb a few people; it will make a few ripples on that seemingly calm surface; and it shall affect, no matter how little. And he thinks it to be much better than those which never tried. And all this is shown in the film; expressed through this movie very elegantly and very beautifully. SIMPLY OUTSTANDING!

The Fable of Tahaan and the 'hell here' Gulaal: Tales of Obsession

It was probably a mistake to watch both the movies back-to-back. Both are the kind of movies which, once you have wattched them, stops you from watching another one for at least a week. And it is probabaly no surprise that both, at their heart, has the central theme of obsession. And both use extensive metaphors and symbols to carry forward their theme. But that doesnt mean that both are similar. Both are completely opposite,as films. But then too much differecne means that they tend to be closer and similar in this vicious circle of opposites.
One is disguised in the form of a fable-- where two children are obsessed by one donkey and one of them takes to dangerous means to get the donkey back. The symbols are quite clear. As a country India and pakistan are nothing sort of children, fighting over a trifle. In the larger scheme of things, this is indeed childish and trifle. And all the emotions and attachment would look insignificant if we will take a look at the suffering that veryone tackles everyday. In the movie we have two very sensible children who solves the problem of possession quite easily. One of them ventures towards the wrong path but immediately realises his mistake. He pledges to make 'thousands of rounds' to get back his Birbal instead of resorting to the other way of Idris. And on the other hand the other child immediately understands the situation and returns Birbal to its rightful owner. But then Birbal will never remain 'only' of tahaan. Its very easy to imagine the future. These two children have started a friendship of lifetime and beyond. And Birbal will always remain with both of them. It is a beautiful tale of not just obsession but of love, hope and friendship. Each and every character is simply a personification of all the events and issues of modern-day Kashmor. And just one question is asked in the film-- "To whom does this valley, this mountain belong?" And the simple answer is "no one". Probably, in retrospect, there is another question-- If these two children can be so sensible, can't all the so-called intellectuals and diplomats be? Why not take a leaf out of these children's book? And this is not just being asked for the problem of Kashmir. All the differences are because of this obsession.
In stark contrast to this serene (but very disturbing), peaceful fable of Tahaan and Birbal is the in-your-face, dark montage of 'Love...Power...Revolution". It catches you unawares; jolts you out of your sleep and mauls you completely. Once the movie ends, you just want to run away-- out of this world-- to anywhere. you feel as if you are just a hapless, helpless fellow caught in the spider's web. Even the option of killing others or yourself is snatched away from you. And like and extremely poor, weak puppet, you want to take rest after the whole day's toil. But you cant even sleep. You just hope that this is a nightmare. it indeed is! But it is REAL. You cant wake up to find everything all right. The 'ray' of hope that was there in Tahaan is nowhere here. Its all dark night and we are just 'raat ke musafir'. There is no point fighting. The ore we fight the worse it gets. And then we realise that probably it is not all so easy as Tahaan makes it look like. It is much more complicated; the obsession is too deep-rootes and no one is cjild here; and it is not the question of donkey (I doubt that; probably it is even less significant than Birbal was for the two children). At the macro level it is just the stroy of a family where everyone is related to the other. One brother is killed by another. And its completely at the personal level that the story moves forward. But hardly do we realise that it is all about a personal grudge, revenge and obsession. Nowhere is this 'personal' emphasised but everywhere the root is intensely 'personal'. And in all this the only loser is one who has no personal connection to whatever he is doing. Somehow the movie is prphetic also. It resembles a lot to the case of Aman Kachroo. The family members neglects the boy's complaints and he is killed. And this is what makes the stroy even moe poignant. The story moves at so many levels and layers that it is just not possible to keep track of all of them in a single viewing. There is, in fact, no story or a central plot. There are only themes; The issues and all these finally reach at obsession. Everyone is obsessed with one thing or the other. And the movie comes out as the montage of all the sub-plots; all the smaller incidents. There looks something of a sort of story. But then if you are asked to tell the story...............blank; not possible. whose story will you tell-- the Rajput senapati, the Rajpu, weak student, the rajput, bastard sister (or her brither), Jarhwal; the naked girl in the dark room; the keep of the Rajput senapati; the Rajput poet with his 'ardhnareshwar' or all those people standing with gulaal smeared all over the face; or many more. Each character is a story; a sub-plot and they are brought together in an extremely violent situation. The fil is a bif question on the 'unity' itself which the gulaal seeks to achieve but fails miserably. And then beyond all these and with all these is the music. The film belongs as much to Piyush Mishra as to Anurag Kashyap, if not more. The music is the voice of the movie; it is the common each situation. And in the end it also surrenders; you are left with the world of dark, sinister conspiracies. Adding to this voice is the extremely extraoridinary art direction and stage setting-- just look at the room of that student. '69'-- just this smal rendering speaks volumes-- a sexual posture; and the shape reveals as if it is the broken, round glass of Gandhi, Subhash and many more "idiots", who talked about unity, peace and freedom but failed miserably. Or that "Hello There" converting into "Hell here". Or that sports bicycle. This single room is the world which the music talks about; the 'duniya' which everyone is urged to save; and finally left as it is to us. You are urged to do a lot; but there is no readymade or permanent solution; and the worst solution is killing someone. The problem never dies with one person. Despite all the violence, the movie looks very Gandhian in the end-- you can't achieve anything by killing the person whom you think to be the culprit. And the concept of gulaal (the symbol for untiy, love and peace) is completely reversed (symbolising the reversal in our own perception and world-view); and the fact that the movie ends on Diwali night summarises the mood of this very well-directed and choreographed montage.