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!
That was a pretty good commentary.
ReplyDelete