Saturday, October 8, 2011
Jheeni Jheeni Beeni Chadariya
Jheeni Jheeni Beeni Chadriya - the book I am reading now and what a suggestion it has been!
I am tempted to make a documentary out of it. That route may be easier since I dont have to go through the painful 2 years of writing the script, casting and many more glitches typical to a fiction drama. Docu drama is sleek ,frill free, direct and almost can live up to the emotional character of the book.
One is always tempted to make a film on a book. But is that book worth that much. In short, yes. I have to ask myself this question more than others
Do I believe in the story?
Is that worth the next 5 years of my life?
Am I ready to go to very end to see that come to life?
These are tough question but the one that need answering before you embark on any serious journey. In my case I am in a unique position to find an almost intimate spot with that book. I love the characters, I see them everywhere. It is strange that no matter where you get in your life, the problems remains the same existential ones. They never leave you.
The worst thing
The worst thing in the world is sitting listlessly while the final cut editor exporter crawls to the finishing line. That is about the worst thing you could see. After spending hours into editing that project, you have spend the painful hours not being able to focus on anything except seeing that export finish successfully. I would kiss your hands if you tell me the best way to do this. I guess there are no shortcuts to FCP exports!
The generation gone by
In your generation, people already got old at 25. Oue generation is living what yours could merely dream of. We are a dream generation. True that you made sacrifices but you made mistakes too. So in the end we didn't get a smooth ride anyhow. We made it possible by being more ambitious and by paining ourselves.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A Nos Amours - an impression
Another day, another film, another unseemly review..
Maurice Pialat's "a nos amours" wanders a bit aimlessly to begin with, assaults its viewers with uncertainities, ungainly plot twists (was there a plot?), asks a lot of questions (and leaves them unanswered) and finally ends on you with a classic dinner scene which wasn't in the script until it was acted out on the spur of the moment.
What film manages to do successfully is create those unique sensory pleasures that you only get from a story free of all plot conventions, cinematic traditionalism and from a filmmaker who has tried hard to maintain a distance from the mainstream. In his own words he was trying to sit on the fringes of the french cinema. What you find is this cocky individual who relied entirely on his instincts to throw the script aside and made the film as it was shot. The script was just a pretense to have all these actors together in a place and make them act. Moreover, he featured himself in a character which although should have but hadn't died and made a rather presumptuous re-entry in the dinner scene.
How should the actors react when you slap them unannounced? I don't know, neither did they. But they reacted, creating those little, almost insignificant physical errors, which somehow in the film look so unbelievably real that they embolden the cinematic truth with a new light.
The film is also full of what you call character inconsistencies; the father is both noble and vile. He would have look of deep empathy in his eyes but he will hit you in the next moment. There are scenes of extreme domestic violence. It is shot in a direct manner but narrated in the most convoluted fashion, leaving large plot holes for you to fill.
And I don't know why but it is all so endearing!!
Maurice Pialat's "a nos amours" wanders a bit aimlessly to begin with, assaults its viewers with uncertainities, ungainly plot twists (was there a plot?), asks a lot of questions (and leaves them unanswered) and finally ends on you with a classic dinner scene which wasn't in the script until it was acted out on the spur of the moment.
What film manages to do successfully is create those unique sensory pleasures that you only get from a story free of all plot conventions, cinematic traditionalism and from a filmmaker who has tried hard to maintain a distance from the mainstream. In his own words he was trying to sit on the fringes of the french cinema. What you find is this cocky individual who relied entirely on his instincts to throw the script aside and made the film as it was shot. The script was just a pretense to have all these actors together in a place and make them act. Moreover, he featured himself in a character which although should have but hadn't died and made a rather presumptuous re-entry in the dinner scene.
How should the actors react when you slap them unannounced? I don't know, neither did they. But they reacted, creating those little, almost insignificant physical errors, which somehow in the film look so unbelievably real that they embolden the cinematic truth with a new light.
The film is also full of what you call character inconsistencies; the father is both noble and vile. He would have look of deep empathy in his eyes but he will hit you in the next moment. There are scenes of extreme domestic violence. It is shot in a direct manner but narrated in the most convoluted fashion, leaving large plot holes for you to fill.
And I don't know why but it is all so endearing!!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
मायने बदल चुके हैं
कुछ गांठें आसानी से खुला नहीं करतीं
मगर जब खुलती हैं
तो लम्बी सांस के साथ
जिसके ऊपर आसमान से भी ऊँचा कुछ है
मगर जब खुलती हैं
तो लम्बी सांस के साथ
जिसके ऊपर आसमान से भी ऊँचा कुछ है
Monday, February 21, 2011
On Woody Allen
The world of cinema should always be thankful to Woody Allen. He is that shining sun under whose gaze even the ordinary particle musters the gleam to shine to its glory. Every moment that he picks, takes that special shift from transitory to transcendental that you seem intoxicated by it for days and month to come by. And all this is done with such genius that hardly seems cloying; it’s rather inspirational to have such genius. True that his films may be overt in his self-indulgences and bear a typical maverick expression which only Woody can do.
His actors are very deftly handled in terms of space, inner conflicts. I even noticed some emotional jumps during conversations but somehow they feel liberated and deliver improvised performances with pauses or beats or gestures which only real life dialogue can evoke. Also they all seem to speak the woody allen speak at times out of their own comfort blocks but that’s again not too overboard. The point is all this adds to the mood and may be even intentional, sort of.
Woody may be laying too much emphasis on dialogue, the good old debate of showing versus telling. He may be a bit too liberal with flamboyance or cerebrally motivated lines which seem out of place with the characters at times but the overall impression is far too aesthetically sweeping to ignore.
His actors are very deftly handled in terms of space, inner conflicts. I even noticed some emotional jumps during conversations but somehow they feel liberated and deliver improvised performances with pauses or beats or gestures which only real life dialogue can evoke. Also they all seem to speak the woody allen speak at times out of their own comfort blocks but that’s again not too overboard. The point is all this adds to the mood and may be even intentional, sort of.
Woody may be laying too much emphasis on dialogue, the good old debate of showing versus telling. He may be a bit too liberal with flamboyance or cerebrally motivated lines which seem out of place with the characters at times but the overall impression is far too aesthetically sweeping to ignore.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
World History of Films
Upon receipt of a very special book on “World History of Film”, my first reaction was – why didn’t I think of it? After endlessly unsettling days of frantic search over news papers, blogs, journals and words of mouth, I finally met the very sizeable - although a little more western than my taste – anthology of films and film norms over the past one century.
It was rather uncanny to have received such a book at such needy times when my gaze constantly moved from one idea to another, often capping my vision. It’s hard not to feel guilty watching a film a bit too late. All the things that matter most in your life should be done as early as possible.
Hence, the book is a rather miraculous serendipity.
Cinephiles come in all sizes, but a serious film-lover can’t always remain a passive lover. S/he needs to graduate to higher sense of purpose that only emanates from pure love. You might end up making a mediocre film, but believe me; a mediocre credit is far better than non-credit.
A particular downside of watching too many films by different filmmakers is what I call ‘fungible filmic ideas’ – you tend to see the world through all those filmmakers, ignoring the most essential tenet of finding your own voice - the second most difficult quest besides the proverbial quest of the meaning of life.
Good cinema develops a positive sense of intuition. During La Samurai, I could predict the fate of ritualistic suicide. I knew it was going to end in a celebratory death of the protagonist, even though it didn’t become obvious until very late in the film. Was it because I had seen too many films of this genre? No, it is one of the most unique films I had seen – a lone killer out to have it on nobody but himself. In fact, it’s one of the most difficult films to classify into a particular genre.
Sometimes surprises look fabricated, almost fake. You can sense that it couldn’t be automatically concluded without doubt. La Samurai was almost abstractly quite and in the words of a famous critic – ‘unbearably perfect’.
Some other times you leave it to the film to fill that void between the surprise and non-surprise. A good film always lives up to the expectation. During The Purple Rose of Cairo, I got surprised but still felt acutely aware of the reality. The film mingled the real and unreal, ever so smoothly that they become inseparable almost indiscernible (I may be over-emphasizing).
You want to wind up with a lasting sense of pleasure after devoting hours, energy, life and emotion into a film. And often a film that doesn’t seem to work on the surface enters into a sublime depth leaving your hollowness illuminated with beauty; such a film leaves you breathless yet doesn’t intoxicate you. One such film is The 400 blows.
It was rather uncanny to have received such a book at such needy times when my gaze constantly moved from one idea to another, often capping my vision. It’s hard not to feel guilty watching a film a bit too late. All the things that matter most in your life should be done as early as possible.
Hence, the book is a rather miraculous serendipity.
Cinephiles come in all sizes, but a serious film-lover can’t always remain a passive lover. S/he needs to graduate to higher sense of purpose that only emanates from pure love. You might end up making a mediocre film, but believe me; a mediocre credit is far better than non-credit.
A particular downside of watching too many films by different filmmakers is what I call ‘fungible filmic ideas’ – you tend to see the world through all those filmmakers, ignoring the most essential tenet of finding your own voice - the second most difficult quest besides the proverbial quest of the meaning of life.
Good cinema develops a positive sense of intuition. During La Samurai, I could predict the fate of ritualistic suicide. I knew it was going to end in a celebratory death of the protagonist, even though it didn’t become obvious until very late in the film. Was it because I had seen too many films of this genre? No, it is one of the most unique films I had seen – a lone killer out to have it on nobody but himself. In fact, it’s one of the most difficult films to classify into a particular genre.
Sometimes surprises look fabricated, almost fake. You can sense that it couldn’t be automatically concluded without doubt. La Samurai was almost abstractly quite and in the words of a famous critic – ‘unbearably perfect’.
Some other times you leave it to the film to fill that void between the surprise and non-surprise. A good film always lives up to the expectation. During The Purple Rose of Cairo, I got surprised but still felt acutely aware of the reality. The film mingled the real and unreal, ever so smoothly that they become inseparable almost indiscernible (I may be over-emphasizing).
You want to wind up with a lasting sense of pleasure after devoting hours, energy, life and emotion into a film. And often a film that doesn’t seem to work on the surface enters into a sublime depth leaving your hollowness illuminated with beauty; such a film leaves you breathless yet doesn’t intoxicate you. One such film is The 400 blows.
Monday, February 7, 2011
कुछ काली बुदबुदाहटें
वो अपना मीठा सा मुँह लेकर
सामने चली आई
उसके माथे की चमक से जब नजर हटी
चाँद बेदाग़ मालूम हुआ
उसके घुलते नैन,
सोने की चाह में
जागते रहते
उखड़े फूल की खुशबु की तरह
उसकी नाराजगियां
जेहन को पैवस्त करती
उस कड़वे सुख की लकीरें
धुंए के बालों की तरह
खिचती जाती
और रुख की मिट्टी
गीले आसुओं को
पीने तैयार हैं
सामने चली आई
उसके माथे की चमक से जब नजर हटी
चाँद बेदाग़ मालूम हुआ
उसके घुलते नैन,
सोने की चाह में
जागते रहते
उखड़े फूल की खुशबु की तरह
उसकी नाराजगियां
जेहन को पैवस्त करती
उस कड़वे सुख की लकीरें
धुंए के बालों की तरह
खिचती जाती
और रुख की मिट्टी
गीले आसुओं को
पीने तैयार हैं
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The modern film arrivistes
We are coping with a "niagara of visual gabble". It's very hard to zone oneself out of the visual over-information we are living with. We are swamped by the stampede of emotions relayed to us via TV, Internet and Bollywood. Come friday, and we have an quick flick ready to be visually embraced by thousands of movie-goers across the nation. Public consciousness has been subject to some serious visual, aural memorizing. No matter how moving the creative work, it fails to leave enough impression into our consciousness. It has become absolutely imperative for an art product to literally sweep the audience into its realm, otherwise it will fail to leave a mark.
Is this matter of fact which artists, especially filmmakers have to learn to get used to? Is it a capitalistic consumeristic reality of our postmodern era? The world has shrunk and people are presented with varied choices of entertainment. Such abundance impedes our ability to appreciate art, especially film art. I confine more to the film art because it is far more accessible to masses than any other form of art in contemporary societies, developing or developed alike. Television has also become a carrier of movie notions into our mindsets. People rely more on television since movies don't last in theaters much. Uncanny wisdoms have silently seeped into the labyrinth of modern tastes. People watch movies perfunctorily and pass snap judgements using such wisdoms. Every common movie goer can boast of being a movie critic.
Lets shift the attention to filmmaking briefly. Before going there we need to acknowledge the technological advancements into photography in recent times. Camera and photography has become a pervasive hobby. A visit to any of the social networking sites can testify that. People are aggressively pursuing their photographic passions so much that lines have completely blurred between a professional and non-professional photographers. Post processing techniques have made it possible for one to take their hobby to a level of perceived professionalism. Enter, modern cameras with video capabilities. Professional filmmakers admit the power of an iPhone to make reasonably good quality videos. Such capabilities abound, leads to gadget obsessive cultures. One can capture quick footage, edit it superficially, lay their favorite song in the soundtrack and post the film on youtube and voila you're a filmmaker already!
What challenges does it leave to a film practitioner? Although film technique is too vast to be be fully pursued as a hobby, it still leaves the market open for a range of competition between not so evenly matched skills and changes the rule of the game.
Is this matter of fact which artists, especially filmmakers have to learn to get used to? Is it a capitalistic consumeristic reality of our postmodern era? The world has shrunk and people are presented with varied choices of entertainment. Such abundance impedes our ability to appreciate art, especially film art. I confine more to the film art because it is far more accessible to masses than any other form of art in contemporary societies, developing or developed alike. Television has also become a carrier of movie notions into our mindsets. People rely more on television since movies don't last in theaters much. Uncanny wisdoms have silently seeped into the labyrinth of modern tastes. People watch movies perfunctorily and pass snap judgements using such wisdoms. Every common movie goer can boast of being a movie critic.
Lets shift the attention to filmmaking briefly. Before going there we need to acknowledge the technological advancements into photography in recent times. Camera and photography has become a pervasive hobby. A visit to any of the social networking sites can testify that. People are aggressively pursuing their photographic passions so much that lines have completely blurred between a professional and non-professional photographers. Post processing techniques have made it possible for one to take their hobby to a level of perceived professionalism. Enter, modern cameras with video capabilities. Professional filmmakers admit the power of an iPhone to make reasonably good quality videos. Such capabilities abound, leads to gadget obsessive cultures. One can capture quick footage, edit it superficially, lay their favorite song in the soundtrack and post the film on youtube and voila you're a filmmaker already!
What challenges does it leave to a film practitioner? Although film technique is too vast to be be fully pursued as a hobby, it still leaves the market open for a range of competition between not so evenly matched skills and changes the rule of the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
