Nanpakal Nerathu Mayakkam - A Pilgrim's Progress

 James, the agnostic producer of a Malayalam theatre group and one who is in constant search of truth, at some point of time on his return from a long pending and reluctant pilgrimage, crosses the Churuli-esque bridge and enters the realm of dreams. 

 The movie begins earlier with the song which refers to 'wandering in search of the unknown' (irukkum idaththai vittu... yedhum ariyaada..)  but right at that moment when James crosses the bridge between the sleep disturbed reality and the dream that promises to reveal him the truth, the background score morphs to a more explicit question  iraivan irukkintraanaa? (is there god?). 

Deep inside his dream, he drags his entire entourage along the sleepy streets lined with walls plastered in cow dung cakes that can be used to cook rice as well burn dead bodies. As James rides the rickety bike through dreamy and colourful  mindscapes of Sundaram in search of the elusive truth, his family and friends, unable to grab hold of him, wander the yellowish Tamil landscapes. 

Just before the beginning of this trip, the first words spoken in Tamil are the ones that promise to 'reveal'.

 When the hope of revelation was kindled before the journey, the lights were still flickering in the lodge corridor. The same light that started flickering in Vavachan Mesthiri's house just before his death (in movie Ea Ma Yau by Lijo Jose).  And the same light, incidentally, was seen flickering in the bar where the Stalker assembled his fellow passengers ahead of their trip to the Zone, with a promise of revealing the ultimate truth (in movie Stalker by Tarkovsky).  

The light that was smouldering in the beginning of the journey, finally blooms to its finest glory when the revelation commences to the accompaniment of  "mayakkamaa..kalakkaamaa.. " : 

The villagers taunt James for being ignorant of the temple "which has always been there". 

And when the dead Mayilswamy's face inside the photo frame pans to James (inside the mirror frame), inevitability of his own death is revealed to him.  

Inside the Sundaram dream, James recognizes the divine providence, as well as the definitude of death. 

Inside the James dream, Lijo leaves behind his shadowy loops and is liberated from his entangled dreams. 

That was as much Lijo's personal pilgrimage as James's. 

When the camera pans from Mayilswamy to James, what we hear is probably the only non-diegetic sound of the movie and that ends with the sound that we heard at the beginning of the dream- the clattering sound of the window glasses of the bus, signifying the beginning of the end of dream. 

Lijo, and James wake up from the dream and they are now "ready to go", in peace -with the knowledge that death is just another episode of sleep.

James is no more scared of death, one similar to what his grand dad had to face, against his wish. He no more insists that he is perpetually bonded to the earth on which he lies down. He no more needs any persuausion from his family, friends, villagers, the dog.. to leave this earth. He realises that death isn't a show stopper. It isn't worth closing down the ration shop.

James vaguely sees the long lost Sundaram amid the bittergourd farm. And suddenly, the dreamscape of corn fields that separates his reality from his sleep dries up.

He is ready to go.

The spiritual dimension aside, a pilgrimage of aesthetics can be drawn out of this movie. In the middle of the night the driver bridges these two narratives when he says: നാടകമേ ഉലകം 

"The whole world is a stage. That is what this is." 

When he walks into the dream, James leads his theatre group into a different universe, one which is enveloped by sounds from Tamil movies-mostly from a distant past. It is as if they enter a huge bubble whose boundaries are defined by these sounds. And the visuals from these movies are so intense that they can be appreciated even by a pair of dead eyes. 

Juxtapose this to the disturbingly jarring visuals from a movie that one sees inside the bus.  Lijo's perspective of aesthetics undergoes a massive transformation when he realizes that Sundaram is a better storyteller. His performances inside the local bar and the village hang-out stand proof for that. Lijo decides to imbue his artistic values with the essence of Thirukkural, above which, nothing else will rise. 

And that was Nanpakal Nerathu Mayakkam. 

Tokyo Story

 

Tokyo Story, the 1953 Japanese movie  directed by Yushihiro Ozu is considered to be one of the greatest movies ever made.

Tokyo Story is about a simple journey. A journey that  the aged parents make from the distant village to visit  their children who have settled down  in Tokyo. They spend a few days in Tokyo with their children and return back to their village.

Soon after their return, the mother dies – may be due to travel fatigue. The  family assembles for her funeral. And once the funeral ceremonies are over, they all return , one by one, back  to their day to day  lives.

That’s it.

That is  not even a story. Just a chain of events happening  over a period of few days in a family. That’s it.  A movie of just over two hours running time.

 What makes it a great work of art?

 Not many would have heard about Yushihiro Ozu the Japanese director. But after watching  this movie, you are sure to  feel that the movie’s writer - director Ozu had all along known you very intimately. A movie about a few people from a distant Japan from the mid 20^th century resonates with emotions that are  very universal. 

 Before getting more into the intricacies of the characters , or the universality of the theme , let us see how Ozu communicates  with his viewers.

 The camera in this movie is an abandoned piece of equipment- on the floor- in a corner, like a piece of forgotten furniture. As if to take extreme care lest any slight movement of the camera should  disturb the  equilibrium of the universe. 

In a movie that runs more than two hours, the camera never moves except twice- for  a few seconds. 

And the director presents the  entire movie effortlessly,   like  a neighbour appearing at your stationary window  frame , makes some random  remarks about mundane everyday happenings...and walks away. 

The characters in Tokyo Story appear as if they are talking from the screen directly addressing the viewers - an  attempt probably  to make the viewer feel as if she is sitting "inside" the scene, as one of the characters. And the characters of the movie converse with each other through the viewer as the medium.

Another feature of Ozu are his "punctuation sequences". As and when he intends a scene transition, the camera goes outdoors capturing a string of  seemingly unrelated shots. Apart from facilitating a seamless transition, these visuals add an element of cinematic magic that doubles up as the contextual thread running all along the movie. 

Tokyo Story, the movie can be approached from multiple vantage points of reference. And each attempt could offer a different reading of the movie. 

For a reference of analysis, here we take the sequence where the parents are waiting at Tokyo railway  station for their return journey. 

It can be noticed that even though we see trains all over the movie, we never see the parents traveling in one. 

At the Tokyo railway station, as the parents rise to board the train,  we see only the clock, instead of the train itself. 

And the train reference elsewhere is invariably bound to the concept of time. As in the scene where the grandmother talks to the little kid about what he wants to become once he grows up:

 

And in the final scenes, when we finally get to see the actual  train journey , the movie  explodes with a big bang and reveals its transcendental dimension:

Noriko comforts  Kyoko and grooms her to accept life with all its fallacies and disappointments. And later Noriko herself gets her life lesson from the father who teaches her to accept the inevitability of life and death. 

And presents  her the  watch from the previous generation. 

 

Just as the parents viewed the city of Tokyo from up the staircases, Kyoto, from a room full of children  watches the train pass below. In which Noriko carries the watch forward.  

And the boat continues its journey. 

With the solid structure occupying almost half  the screen as a recurring motif, the father watches the ephemeral flow nonchalantly.    

Maheshinte Prathikaaram - Art and Gender Perspective

India churns out thousands of movies every year, peddling the inflated ultra masculine  image of the "hero".  A majority of those movies  subscribe to a certain formula, a tried and tested template that doesn't demand much of a creative infraction from the film makers.

Like Mahesh the photographer in this movie, they  routinely apply a bit of a  dodge, smudge, sharpening  tools uniformly across all subjects  and deliver packaged movies that trick the viewers into being entertained.

Until some one comes up to say this on their face: "So you have no idea about this, is it?"

Mahesh's father Vincent is someone who sees things differently. When rest of the world sees cow dung in the streets, he visualises a beautiful world out there. And in the glittering lights that adorn the framed images of gods, he picks up the nostalgic cabaret dancer.

And, all through the movie he is addressed as Bhavana Vincent. He takes up this name from the photo studio that he has set up and  currently being run by his son, Mahesh.


The word Bhavana in Malayalam translates to Creative Imagination. That represents ideas.

To trace the thread where the screenplay, with the help of the still camera and phtography as a symbol,  talks about  art - and the art of film making in particular, let us start from " Bhavana " Vincent. The one  who reminds Mahesh that " It is not a shop, but a studio".

In this film, we actually see two other movies also :


 One: In the initial scenes when Mahesh is searching for his father, we catch a glimpse of the television in which a song from the iconic movie Yavanika is being played.  Yavanika is a movie by the legendary film maker K G George who broke templates that were in vogue in the early 80s by treating his women characters with empathy.  And the scene that we get to see clearly displays the word "Bhavana Theatre".

Two: The second movie that we see is in Artist Baby's house. An outright "commercial" blockbuster in which the inflated macho hero image is projected onto the screen with monumental aggressiveness.

And in the  third  instance when Artist Baby's brother in law " Thendi Aliyan" (Beggar Brother-in- law) projects his male ego  mimicking the serial shows the women are watching.

Apart from these, we also visit an actual movie hall along with Crispin and Sonia. But all that we see on screen are  the cancer afflicted  images.  And nothing else.

The rabid masculinity which the movie tries to juxtapose with the characterisation of Mahesh is more pronounced when we look into another thread that weaves through the entire movie.

The song being played in the background during the opening credits apparently is about the beauty and essence of the geography of Idukki and Munnar. But the accompanying images and the suggestive lyrics - with a clever wordplay rhyming Idukki with Midukki (smart girl) -  talk about
women.

Later in the movie, we do hear Jimsy and her mother agreeing on the fact that all men are crazy.

This is the right moment to discuss the  "Butterfly Effect"  sequence and  analyse its  relevance to the overall framework of the movie.  Just like fluctuation in global crude oil price having an effect on Mahesh's life, the chain of events starting with the funeral scene finally  snowballs onto the village square  bringing the entire village as stake holders and equal participants in the fight "and" the revenge. Now, the fight is not just between Mahesh and Jimson alone.

This is accentuated by the character of Vijilesh. He joins the revenge training course as a reaction to another woman being harassed by a group of men.

It gets more interesting when we venture to see where does the "party" stand in this fight?  When Mahesh rushes off to take on Jimson, the party rally is heading in  a  direction opposite to that of Mahesh.

This is to be read with the ominous comment by  party's member Thahir  that "he has stopped interfering in such issues" .

The bigger picture of the crisis  and redemption  is illustrated  in the card picked up by Mahesh (after refusing an offer to buy a lottery ticket) which says: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:47

The key to  redemption turns out to be  another woman: Jimsy.

Overlooking  the image of Mother Mary breast feeding her son , the intense debate happening in Mahesh's mind is  enacted as a casual discussion between Crispin and  Baby regarding the relationship betwen art and the artist.

 This debate finds its culmination with the dog being unchained. And the splinter getting removed from Mahesh's palm.

It also coincides with artist Baby having a perception correction with respect to his daughter.

Eventhough Mahesh's father is addressed as Bhavana Vincent, Mahesh is never referred to with the Bhavana appendage. Not until he clicks the candid image of Jimsy. It is Jimsy who addresses Mahesh as Bhavana Mahesh for the first time. And the name printed in the magazine is Mahesh Bhavana. The transformation is complete.

When Mahesh finds his dad with his camera in the middle of the night in the woods, he asks him  if the "birds have flown off". To which Vincent replies: " No, was just checking if the bird has come".

(  Kili poyo literally translates to  " Have the birds gone? ", but it is a figurative way of speech to imply " have you gone nuts ! " )

Mahesh, at that stage had  failed  to comprehend Vincent's response , like his approach towards art.


A video review of Maheshinte Prathikaaram can be viewed here 

Portrait Of A Lady On Fire - The Female Gaze

The movie begins with the students sketching portraits of their teacher Marianne. And almost ends when they complete the portrait. Can we deduce that the portrait referred to in the title is that of Marianne?  

May be. Or may be not. 

It could be that of Heloise's sister... Or Sophie... Or any of the women in the village who sing  fugere non possum . 

In a movie directed by a woman and that which has almost no male characters at all, the titular portrait could be of any of the female characters... or a collective one. 

Sophie is the key link in this muliebral chain. It is Sophie who introduces fire for the first time in the movie. 

And from then on, fire remains a constant presence through out the move- as a crackling sound... as embers...as flames...as the heady smoke of tobacco... fire is a pervasive element of the movie- just like Sophie herself. 

Marianne makes the first contact with Sophie the night she experiences her menstrual pains.  And that is when she comes to know of Sophie's choice - that of abortion. And this choice is what connects Heloise with Sophie. 

Heloise is not free to make even seemingly minor choices - like that of going out for a walk- on her own! 

And Sophie, the maid from the 18th century France is free to decide for herself on  abortion. 

Once Marianne and Heloise identify  Sophie as fellow woman , their  relationship breaks the rules of the maid and the master. They are all women. 

Sophie even takes up the role of a leader and guides Marianne and Heloise to the village where they get to meet the rest of the women. The women who sing fugere non possum (they come fly). 

The menstrual pain of Marianne, the missed periods of Sophie, the choice of Orpheus, the sense of equality and freedom to choose that Heloise dreams of... All these converge at a point where  the portrait ends to be that of any single woman and manifests as that of entire womanhood. To understand this, we need to know when the portrait is completed. Or rather, what all goes into the completion of the portrait. 

Tracking the scene sequence from the night Marianne sketches the abortion scene with Heloise and Sophia will lead to the culmination of the portrait. 

Immediately after the abortion sketch is made, we see Heloise smiling profusely while posing for the portrait in her green dress. 

And in the next scene Heloise and Marianne "fly together" with the help of weed they got from the village women. 

And then comes the most beautiful scene, blending all the underlying motifs and images: 

Like Orpheus making the poet's choice of saying goodbye to Eurydice.... like Sophie making her choice of killing her unborn child.... like Marianne and Heloise coming to terms with their inevitability of confining their relationship to that of memory.... the flowers that Sophie uses as model dries down and the embroidery - a work of art- that Heloise's sister left unfinished is completed by Sophie. 

And in the nest scene, Marianne completes Heloise's portrait. 

The movie can be structurally divided into three parts: 

One: From the time the students start drawing Marianne's portrait till they complete it. It can be assumed that whatever happens in between goes into Marianne's portrait. 

Two: The painting exhibition where Marianne knowingly smiles at the finger slipped between the  vulvar pages. 

Three: When Marianne sees Heloise for the last time. When Vivaldi's storm, which Marianne once tried to explain to Heloise is experienced by Heloise in a two and half minute single close up shot.  The single shot which tries to unravel the entire movie . Which conveys the experience of Love. And of art.  

A video review of  the movie Portrait Of A Lady On Fire is available here