I never really liked him. Especially when he tried acting ( Memories of March), I remember being quite certain of my dislike for him. Even then, when I heard of his death yesterday, I felt a sense of loss. Similar to, but not quite the same as when I had heard of Reginald Hill’s demise end of last year. The difference is, I think Reginald Hill left behind his perfected literary contributions, with a definite potential for more, but no absence of a nicely tied bow for his readers.
Rituparno, for all his national awards, was still waiting to actually tell a flawless story that can grip you till the end and leave an impression that is everlasting. I have seen most of his movies, and other than the fact that he could make EVEN Aishwarya Rai- Bachchan integrate into some scenes that would normally have had her posing as the bereft and lonely woman in Rain Coat ( with the haughty or unfocussed eyes and body language of a beauty queen, who never for a moment forgets her beauty and her queenness) I never saw much to hold on to. I agree that most of his movies were probably better than anything Tollywood has produced in a long time, but still he is nowhere near Satyajit Ray, no matter how much he is inspired by him. Or, unfortunately today, was inspired.
Is he better than Satyajit Ray’s son, his contemporary , whose name I cannot recall? Yes. In fact better than most of the other bengali directors of the time after Ritwik Ghatak, Ray and Mrinal Sen. But thats like saying Chetan Bhagat is a great writer, just because he is a North Indian who has written books. Okay, bad analogy. Chetan Bhagat is purely a writer for people trying to say they read, and have no interest in content. (Khushwant Singh’s joke books or Sudhir Dhar’s or R.K. Laxman’s Cartoon collections are probably way better in content, according to me)
So Rituparno is not Chetan Bhagat, he had vision, he was ORIGINAL. In his style, his movies and in the stories he wanted to tell. Maybe he got Ash to fit in some of them because they were similar in one way, it is hard for both of them to actually separate themselves from their art and be one with their creation and still allow it to have its own life and more importantly its own soul. If you watch a Rituparno movie, you may not be moved very much because it doesn’t really try to draw you in at all, under the high handed pretext that you are not worth it, and it is beyond your capacity to understand such greatness. You will also immediately know who made that movie. It has his imprint all over it and by that I don’t mean a hallmark or the handling or some signature shots. I mean the movie is about him, in one way or the other. The lead actor (usually female, be it Sharmila Tagore in Shubho Mahurat, Bipasha and to a certain degree Prosenjit Chatterjee in Shob Charitro Kalponik) is him trying to portray his unequalled talents as an artiste, through his actors. Antarmahal, with Abhishek Bachchan, seemed to lack a story and a story teller. I think in Bariwali he was closest to separating himself from the story and that may be my favorite movie by him, I also liked Shubho Mahurat.
I guess I didn’t like him because I didn’t think he was great enough to justify so many movies showcasing his purportedly ‘extraordinary’ facets. Thats justified for writers or philosophers who thought deeply about what makes us all human, not just about their own greatness; like Dostoevsky ( which is why I would read the story ABOUT him, by someone else: The Master of Petersburg ), or their biographies.
I wouldn’t use cinema to be my endless (auto) biography. One movie, or two, well-made, is all that is needed and that too very few people actually make their own biographies successfully (I can’t think of many, except maybe parts of Kaagaz Ke Phool, by Guru Dutt, whose cinema has a life of its own and some characters in movies by Raj Kapoor and maybe some Hollywood movies that I have not seen).
However, I think because of his self consciousness or maybe the result from being in a society that has traditionally had very low acceptance of sexuality, let alone homosexuality or transsexuality, he was overtly manifesting himself through his movies. I strongly believe that had he lived, he would have moved beyond that soon. He was 49. That is young for someone who takes themselves seriously, their ‘being’ even more so and their art presumptuously.
I am sad he is gone before he fulfilled his expression of true self and moved on.
In ‘Never let me go’, Ishiguro used the term ‘completed’ when the organ donors or essentially the clones were used up for their body parts, for the benefit of the ‘real’ people. I feel that in this life Rituparno Ghosh had not yet lived fully and just used his talent in a fragmented manner. Being from a family with a movie maker father and an obvious knack for film making, he was still using those to find himself and be himself by projecting his feelings through the screen. I would have wished to see him find that peace. I think that would have made him better, though it seems to be unanimous that creativity thrives on unfulfilled desires and sorrow..
His creativity seemed to be stalled because of it.
I may never have liked you, but I appreciated you Rituparno. May you find peace somewhere.
And one can only hope they will be one day. Well at least we have one. Who I wouldn’t mind being in ‘any room with’. Like his character (Avinash) in ‘Bombay Talkies’ said about Randeep Hooda’s character ( who also I wouldn’t mind being in any room with, whether he is Sahib or Gangster ).
I first saw ‘Mujhse Fraaindship Karoge’, which is probably Saqib’s first movie in chronological order, quite a while after its release (the title didn’t sound very promising, plus all new cast, is usually too much of hedging. I stand corrected). The movie was not bad, definitely a topological topic ( of social interactions in the wake of social networking sites, like my favorite Facebook). The new guy (Saqib) never once tried to take his shirt off, or rip it off or take it off and rip it. Yet, he had smooth moves (in dancing and otherwise) and obviously wasn’t hiding fat under the clothes (which for the longest time has been the only reason Bollywood stars and starlets would avoid being shirtless).
His delivery is smooth and contained, comic timing, flawless. I have not seen that in a long time, since I would have to say ‘Hera Pheri’ and Paresh Rawal ( Saqib is not quite there yet, but he is a kid and Paresh Rawal is a veteran). There is no doubt the kid is a natural. When he laughs it doesn’t seem like he is choking on a pebble that is trying to come out of his nose. Its a good hearty or sarcastic or knowing laugh- whatever the scene demands. Also, MFK didn’t try too hard to kick and prod you into laughing. So over all.. I found a new interesting actor, but the movie dissolved in my mind.
Then more recently I saw Mere dad ki Maruti.. I couldn’t actually remember where I had seen the guy in the first scene. But seeing the absence of shirtlessness, even amidst pelvic thrusts and one, slightly-over-the -top dance number, I recalled another actor in another movie like that, and indeed, it was the very same guy. Now, I will never forget him. MDKM, overall was not bad. The female leads really need to either develop some character that doesn’t have such blank eyes and call themselves ‘Chandigarh ki Shakira’, like that is something that deserves an award, or just simply shut up. To be fair to the character, it ( I mean she) did try to redeem herself later, but by then it was too late. Ram Kapoor is good as always, and looking at Saqib you won’t know he wasn’t born in a punjabi household. Nothing great or a must watch, but what I would call a ‘can’ watch, over, say, Friends-with-benefits, Friends-having-babies-together (as the benefit), Friends-with-extra-benefits, Benefits-and-Friends and Friends-who-basically-sleep-with-everyone OR High-school-girls who just can’t seem to get enough and yet show the heart to fall for a nerdy- invisible-geek.
Bombay Talkies, on the other hand is actually a well made film with four different YET appropriate stories about how movies and Bollywood has affected different parts, personalities and people of India. Saqib or Avinash’s story is the first one where he is gay and is strongly attracted to his boss’s husband ( Ranbeer Hooda, a newsreader). I would be remiss to forget to mention Rani Mukherjee (married to Randeep Hooda , Saqib’s boss, works in a tabloid magazine) who is as good an actor as Bollywood has ever produced and then destroyed mercilessly. However, she has more mettle than her contemporaries and can take a challenging and small role and make you want to kill all the Karan Johar’s and Aditya Chopras who just make movies that have no soul. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Karan Johar, in fact, had directed this short story and I have to say, it was good. Karan Johar also did perhaps the first mainstream movie, again with Rani, about extra marital affairs being less than evil ( Kabhi alvida na kehna), he tries to be different, I think, maybe he tries too hard and wants commercial success as well, I don’t know, he never seemed even average to me, as a director. But this story was very well handled, I thought. Hooda is in denial about being gay, but Saleem senses his attraction to him and in fact, immediately sets about getting it straight with Rani and Hooda. Their attraction is fortified by their love of old Hindi film music, something that encompasses them in their own sphere, as a little girl sings their favorite old song ( Lag ja gale..se, se). I think the singing by the very talented child singer was a sweet and unusual angle, but the background score should have been a little older person, the song is way too mature and poignant for a child, other than being my favorite too..
Since this post is not about the movie, I will not detail the other three stories, which were also very well made, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, thankfully no longer requires an introduction or any praises. He will and has done for Indian theatre actors what had been owed to them for ages and not paid. He will no doubt extract that in full and more.. Despite the imminent and perennial danger of being type-casted, his Temur lang ( in an otherwise lack -lustre movie, Talaash) is a character I will never forget. Speaking of Talaash, I think Rani Mukherjee did real justice to her character of a distraught mom, looking for any form of hope.
Coming back to Saqib, the boy can cry. He doesn’t look like he is trying hard to strangle a cat, while whistling , when he does that ( in case people don’t get who I am talking about in all these references to shirtless, style and character less actors who cannot do comedy or cry and definitely cannot dance, it is usually Salman Khan, though the contrived shirtlessness is now an epidemic). When Saqib (Avinash) gets angry and you feel the tension between his egotistic, willfully ignorant and bully of a dad and him, on the issue of him being gay and his imploding frustration. He is outrageous with his boss, yet you feel his nervousness and anxiety about her reaction and possibility of acceptance, towards him and his sexual orientation. From the chemistry in the music room between Hooda and Saleem to Rani’s deliverance from feelings of subconscious inferiority, the scenes were quite moving. A definite step in the forward direction for Indian Cinema. I hate using oft used phrases- but when Hooda kisses Saleem ( yes, they even show that), sparks do fly and it doesn’t seem apologetic or superfluous at all.
Saqib Saleem, please don’t change. You are a sight for sore eyes, an oasis in the desert and while I am undoubtedly going overboard- maybe that is needed to finally make Bollywood what it could be. One Nawazuddin or Paresh Rawal can’t seem to get the job done. Join ranks with the gangsta’s like Randeep Hooda. While I am at it, Saqib ji, kya aap ‘Mujhe Fraaindship Karoge?’
If there is such a thing, I wonder what it would be for me, or for ‘a’ person. Some claim it is youth, but I have seen more youthful old people than youthful youths. Here I have to say that when G.B. Shaw said, “Youth is wasted on the young” , or perhaps it was ‘Youth is a wonderful thing. What a crime to waste it on children’, he was right, and probably not very young.
I am not saying this because I think young people are fools, I made most of my good decisions when I was relatively young. I don’t particularly think I was youthful then, but that is besides the point (or maybe it is the point). I am relating youthfulness to being more prone to taking chances, following whims and fantasies. I think the decisions we make while young, are much more critical and life changing. Where one wrong one, can really do you in. A few right ones can bring you to a position where you get to be youthful- this time without misadventures causing you more than what you bargained for or even knew what you were bargaining..
Its not avoiding mistakes when you are young, its taking the time to learn from them and from others’ mistakes and not forgetting in a moment of youthful carelessness. Obviously anyone who is so inclined cannot be youthful all the time.
Maybe like most things worth having, youthfulness should also be earned, not be an entitlement (even if most healthy young people may have it). That gives you something to look forward to, too. So take more chances later- but not so late that you are bound to a way of life. That would be a waste of the entitled youth and the one you worked for. If you live in the US, you must know people who either married too full of youthful love at a very young age, or gave in to all kinds of youthful experiments and by the time the were 30, you won’t believe looking at them that they had ever been the spirited young people, they must have been. In India and probably most other places in the world, youthfulness is often forgotten completely, because we get only one or two chances to get it right, if we don’t do those right, there is no hope of being youthful. Society won’t let you. Again, you can still earn it, by not letting other people tell you what you are ( or are not, i.e., successful).
Add up all the good decisions (figuratively speaking) and balance with whimsical turns and stakes later.
I love the look of old metal- it worked better when it was new for sure, but it hadn’t built character- and now even if it doesn’t do what it was meant to do, it did the right thing for long enough to stay there and look poetic in its old age. There is a reason those years are called golden.
So which ones are the best years.. if you are old enough to know what you are asking, when you ask yourself when yours will be, it is the ones you are living now. No time to waste.
Let me end with my recent favorite G.B.S. quote ( it may not be exact):
‘Life is not about finding yourself, it is about creating yourself’
This weekend we went to Branson, MO (The Las Vegas of Missouri, no less). We went on a dinner cruise with a variety show. There was a boy-man band, a magician who was the comedian and host, a violinist who was also an aerialist ( who can play a violin while perching/ hanging upside down or sideways, on two silk ropes). Very interesting and entertaining. The kind of shows meant to entertain people on face value. Without the snobbish requirement of cultured learning and the effort one must undertake to truly understand, say, Opera, or be able to afford the tickets for a family of 5 to Broadway.
Just the kind of thing I profess to stay away from and it is true that I never intend to go to Las Vegas. It is not because I don’t think the entertainers here are any less valuable or less talented. It is more like they think so themselves and bend over backwards trying to prove themselves wrong, or …right. I don’t think any artist of any kind has it easy, even if they are natural born stars. I imagine that this progression to visually stimulating and gaudy shows, from what they no doubt hoped would be the next big thing in LA or NYC, is hard and heart breaking for some. But they still get to do what they love or once loved and they can actually make a living that’s not just pennies. Branson was actually not so bad, because it probably is more family oriented and doesn’t look like a haunted city during the day.
I wonder what a Julliard graduate feels when they have to up their art, with a spectacle. Something that has given them spectacular muscle and flexibility ( which in itself is an added advantage in this case). I have heard of several types of strange acts in Vegas, I don’t think I will ever see any first hand. It makes me sad. I don’t know why. I think I would just like to believe that the people who are trying to make the audience happy, are also happy themselves. As we all know, I am obsessed with happiness. ( seriously)
I am no Ayn Rand who believed that the profession or art was an end to itself, for only a few in millions have that gift and the opportunity to use it. Without the right stage, genius dies unfulfilled. Maybe of malnutrition, even.
Then I wondered about why people moved across a country, across the globe. Looking for that right stage, where even they, will be genius. It is all relative after all, so in NYC you were one of thousands of aspiring artists. In Branson, you are a hit. In China you are simply one more hard working individual with little respect for your own rights and comfort, in the US, you are one hell of a worker. In India, the average American girl is beautiful because she is pale. The Kenyans run marathons leaving every other country behind, in western countries. It is all relative, so must be a place for everyone where they shine. So what of the geniuses no one has heard of? Or even of the ones we know now, but were ridiculed when they were alive. Why did they not find their stage?
Why is it, that people move?