Eeb Allay Ooo

 Eeb Allay Ooo

2019, Hindi, Netflix, 7.4/10 IMDB, Directed by Prateek Vats

A prying gaze in to the devolution of humans, aping the apes, for a living, in the name of 'Monkey-Repelling' jobs in the capital city. The film blurs the already thin divide that exists between the lives of the downtrodden and that of the animals on the streets.

In a culturally rich country like India, lives of animals are sacred. Yes, they possess the same rights as the humans does over this planet, but it turns worrisome, when the unfortunate human lives are not valued equally. From monkeys, to elephants, to cows to crows, the personified 'sacred-being' list, goes on and somewhere it strikes a contrast to the plight of the 'not so sacred' migrant humans, who are forced to be uprooted and displaced for survival. The maker nails in establishing their agony, through a subtle narrative.

A classic sequences is, where a man feeding a monkey, standing adjacent to the placard that says, 'Do not feed the monkeys' and when condemned by the Repeller, gives a sly reply that he knows the monkey repelling contractor. The maker is keen on highlighting the very kind of systemic corruption that the country is infested with. The maker also parallelly establishes the nimbus of 'Government jobs', even if it is to do with chasing away a bunch of monkeys.

The bigotry of the migrant worker, Anjani, in his new job, echoes the viewer's thoughts, through his hardship in getting the monkey phonetics, right. His instinct to use a slingshot and his innovative effort to dress up as a langur himself to scare the monkeys, ends in vain and he looses his much needed job. Unemployment is captured in its full glory through the toppled life of the naive migrant youngster, sending unknown wrenches.

The menacing monkey's life being esteemed over the life of the sincerest Repeller's life, runs a chill down the spine. He is lynched to death for he accidentally had killed a monkey, while at his repelling work. The maker chooses not to visualize it onscreen and rather leaves it open for the viewer's insight to depict the predicaments of the human lives, especially the migrants.

Fatigued by job hunts, Anjani joins the procession of the God, with the other monkey costumed performers who lead the way. He lets himself loose off the pain caused by his anguish and desperation. He dances beside the frenzy devotees, now that he is not bounded by the Job that demanded him to play by the rules. He did just the same, while at work, dressing up in a langur costume to scare the monkeys, but got fired instead. Radical irony indeed.

Firebrand

 Firebrand

2019, Marathi, 5.1/10 IMDB, Netflix, Directed by Aruna Raje

A beautifully choregraphed film, that claims love and sex are two different things by adorning feminism and redefining chauvinism while at it.

A seemingly simple story of a feminist lawyer, Sunandha played by Usha Jadhav, has many layers to it. She is a Dalit rape victim in her school days and her parents had disowned her. She apparently had handled the trauma by herself.

Her dear friend Madhav played by the fantastic Girish Kulkarni, during her NGO days, weds her. The couple are in abundant love but experience sexual problems as Sunandha's rape incident haunts her.

The director reveals later that Madhav had ignored the fact that she may not be ready for marriage. She even warns him that he will regret it. He never regrets it though and is the epitome of a caring husband who understands her completely.

The couple's visit to the psychiatrist helps them to an extent. The exercise of writing about the incident and narrating it in front of the mirror, at some point tires them as a couple.

Madhav infers that the clients Sunandha handles in the family court, might have some impact, in her not 'letting go' of her past. Sunandha, pities Madhav thinking her past disturbs their marriage. Sunandha, insists they get a divorce. They mutually decide to separate for a while.

The story takes an unanticipated turn out of no where. One has to totally give it to the feminism quotient of the Director Aruna Raje's perception. The intention of the maker, poetically transcends the visuals on screen. The film ends with a feeling of content, as the director's mature treatment leaves you in an awe.

Sachin Khedekar plays the husband of a client of Sunandha's. The client accuses her husband of being a womanizer. This aspect, kind of greys his acquaintance with Sunandha. But when the director decodes the implication it has in Sunandha's relationship with Madhav, those moments are a total revelation of the character's strengths.

The list of Sunandha's clients, such as a beauty pageant mom disowning her autistic child blaming her husband for the bad gene, a grieving family of a girl whose husband is gay, shadows the societal issues.

The court scenes give an occasional detached staged feel, but the character's intentions compensate for the lack of personal connect to them.

Catdog

 Catdog

2020, Hindi, YouTube, First Prize at Cannes 2020, Directed by Ashmita Guha Neogi -2013 Student Diploma Film of FTII (Film and Television Institute of India, Pune).

A shocking revelation of the evilness in unattended children and whose emotional needs are not catered promptly.

The core plot revolves around children unleashing their duality similar to adults, when left alone. Its something like the animation world of Toy Story series, where the toys have their own lives, choices, likes and dislikes. But this isn't by that cute standard here. It's a miniature representation of the world of adults. Children aren't those naïve innocent bundle of joys that we take them to be, the film claims. Especially in the technology driven world that we live in right now, we silently acknowledge to ourselves.

A teacher, a single parent has very little time to spare for her kids- Rachana, a teen daughter and her little brother. The kids seem to have their own lives. Their time in the woods seems such a relief, as they are away from the addictive gadgets, you are left to presume.

Rachana's science text doesn't fascinate her any longer. The mischievous duo set the cats in an old woman's house to trouble her, a regular feature in Indian cinema.

As we become restless for the prize winning moment of the film to unravel, there it comes. The heart wrenching obnoxious role play in the absence of their mother. The sequence is alarmingly unpalatable, immaterial whether you are a parent of a kid that age or not.

The overlapping TV commentary hints that the behavior might have been influenced by the shows on the TV about animals. Her mom's affair, fuels Rachana's preexisting psychological distress, as she keeps prying. The story weighs on the responsibilities of parents to provide undivided attention to the children. It's not what they watch, it's who is guiding them through what they watch seems to be emphasized.

Hide and seek with a polybag covered face is a freaky musical the siblings play. Rachana is left deprived of companionship as the scene ends poetically with her little brother moving to boarding school. As they are separated, one is weirdly reminded of the two headed snake's story they discuss in the woods.

Restricting TV time and monitoring the content looks insufficient if there is no parental guidance at all time. It poses even a bigger threat for the broken families and where both parents work full time. The film is a wakeup call as it addresses the state of emergency as these mishaps in child upbringing are directly proportional to the crimes and abuses of society at large.

Pyaasa

 Pyaasa

1957, Hindi, YouTube (Tommydan55 Channel), 8.5/10 IMDB, Directed by Guru Dutt

A tale of a poet in a wistful society. A society that pretends in making the dead immortal, rather than acclaiming the talents of the living.

Pyaasa (Thirst), is about a remorseful poet Vijay (Guru Dutt), who tries to publish his Urdu poems. None, including his brothers, value his work. A prostitute, named Gulabo (Waheeda Rehman), who buys his poems from the waste paper man, falls for the poet's writing. Vijay though is in reminiscence of his lover Meena (Mala Sinha) from his college days. Meena had left him for a wealthy man Mr. Ghosh (Rehman). Whereas, Gulabo, dreams of a respectful life with Vijay, but never reveals to him.

The global influence of 'realism' on Indian films are pretty much evident. The consequences of 'unemployment' is the core of the film and it surfaces in many instances.

In the later half of the film, the death of a beggar mistaken to be Vijay's. He had given his jacket to the beggar. Vijay is dead while he is admitted to the hospital and is in shock. In the meantime, Gulabo, approaches Mr. Ghosh to publish is work and Vijay's poems become a huge success.

Vijay is out of his mental shock while hearing his poem being recited by the nurse. But, when he claims he is the dead poet, he is put in an asylum. Vijay escapes and reaches just in time for the memorial service in his name. Vijay happens to witness the ill intentions of his brothers, friend and society. This prompts him to pronounce that he is not the celebrated poet.

A story that's so novel as it has so much relevance even in today's scenario. This makes the film ironically 'immortal', given the story is about glorifying the dead instead of recognizing the living.

While confronted by Meena, he expresses his hatred towards the society. The society that denies the right to be a human and throngs to worship the dead, crushing them when alive. He says he could never be at peace in such a society. He then leaves with Gulabo to a place where he doesn't have to go any further.

The character's arc is well defined and the director's closure to the characters are exceptional. Meena's character is an echo of an average human who is after fame at any cost. But instead of embracing the recognition that he had longed for all his life, Vijay opts to outcasts the society for its hypocrisy. The thirst of the poet is quenched. Yet his expedition continues, as his thirst in finding an upright society with integrity, remains unquenched.

Fine craftsmanship is the strength of the film. From the soulful renditions of Sahir Ludhianvi's lyrics in S. D. Burman music to cinematographer V.K. Murthy's usage of light and shadow, the outcome of the combination is sheer magic.

The channel Tommydan55 is a treasure trove. It houses many such timeless collection of legend, in amazing quality aptly subtitled.

Teesri Kasam

 Teesri Kasam

1966, Hindi, YouTube, 7.9/10 IMDB, Directed by Basu Bhattacharya

A sincere depiction of the life of a female theater artist, who boldly demonstrates her passion for the art over her love for a naïve and honest man.

A theatre artist Hirabai (Waheeda Rehman) falls for the innocence of the bullock cart driver Hiraman (Raj Kapoor), who drives her to the fair where she is playing. You are made to realize in those days women artist had fame and money, but never had the halo that they at some point yearn for.

The philosophy in songs are very simple yet profound. The song, "Duniya banane wale kya tere man mein samaye" (Maker of the world, what came in to your that you made this world), talk the beautiful philosophy about 'love' that had awakened a world of dreams and the pain caused by separation. You never know depth and the significance of the song until the curtain falls repeating the verses. 

The visuals are memorable, true to the film company’s name, 'Image Makers'. The actors are splendid performers, Raj Kapoor for his innocent looks, emotional outbursts and his adorable naïve colloquial ‘isssshhh’s and Waheedha for her calm face, that masks her inner emotions but hint on her desires.

Mundane remarks on virtue of women does make her uneasy, especially Hiraman’s petty talks about daughter in law and unwed women, even distress her. But such contrast is her performance with the Zamindhar, once she realizes she had fallen for Hiraman and she gives back to the zamindhar who talks ill of Hiraman.

Power of dialogues when coupled with equally powerful performance, makes a lasting impression on the viewers, don’t they? When her body language changes and she gets comfortable on the cot, turning to the tigress that Hiraman was talking about earlier, she proclaims that ‘the way Hiraman looks at her as 'Goddess', give her the headiness that no wealth of the zamindhar could ever give her.

Films in the 60s period would have taken the coward route to compromise that the lead lady of the film is an artist, not because she loves to but because she is forced by her money-minded mom or and uncle.  The characterization was so bold that she speaks of her intoxication in performing as a theatre artist. It was a surprise to see her deliver the dialogue on her virginity- kudos to actress, the writer and the team who went ahead without apprehensions.

When others persuade her to leave Hiraman alone, the dialogues take over the mantel of the film. Her dialogues, "She was silent when she should have spoken and she won’t do the blunder of speaking now, when she ought to be silent", readily conveys the chracter's dilemma.

Best saved for the last, I guess. ‘I have played the part HE wrote for me, but the curtains refuse to fall, what can I do?’ The dialogues are not heavy, not one bit melodramatic. They seem to have a purpose. I see it as a collective voice of artists who are trying to set the taints on them right.

Hiraman's first vow, never to carry illegal goods and the second vow, not to carry bamboo were simple. But in the final shot of the train passing-by, from Hiraman’s point of view from inside his cart, he takes his third vow- never to carry an artist in his cart again, makes one realize that he is not only a hopeless conservative but also sadly denotes, the task of wiping the taints off the artists is simply inconceivable, as long as people see all Hirabais through the eyes of Hiramans. 

Sadgati

 Sadgati

1981, Hindi, Television Film, YouTube, IMBD 8/10, Directed By Satyajit Ray

Categorical depiction of untouchability, distinct from the abstract versions we are familiar in the 21st century mediums, that ends with a tone of a sharp cynicism.

Sadgati, meaning deliverance or salvation, based on a short story by Munshi Premchand, is a story of a Tanner Dhukiya (Om Puri) and his wife Jhuria (Smita Patil) who try to invite the Temple priest to fix a date for his adolescent daughter's wedding. The priest extracts hard labor from him in exchange for his visit and Dhukiya who had just recovered from a fever and had nothing to eat that morning, dies while chopping log on the priest's command. The priest is forced to remove the dead body himself, from his backyard, as his neighbors complain of inconvenience to pass the house to fetch water.

The slender Smita patil and the deep rumbling voiced Om Puri valiantly express in their eyes the emotions of the characters of Dhukiya and Jhuria. The character's gullibility are illustrated with just simple gestures like when Jhuria tries to repeat grocery list so she doesn't forget and when the shopkeeper errs in repeating her list, she giggles naively. The helpless life of the down trodden is effortless showcased as she inquires her husband of his giddiness but she has no choice other than standing there looking at the plate of food that her husband leaves back without eating as he had to rush to see the priest.

The suppression is unconsciously outlined through the inability of the low born to defend for themselves in many instances, like when Dhukiya apologies to have entered the house of the priest, when he squats keeping mum without asking for an axe until he had been spoken to and lets himself to be exploited with unfamiliar job of chopping logs.

When Jhuria wails in distress, at the doors of the priest accusing him of exploiting her husband and killing him, none answer her. The subjugation in the name of caste system is reiterated.

When the priest is left with no choice other than removing the corpse of Dhukiya himself as the people refuse to carry, he inhumanely ties a rope to the ankle of the corpse using a stick to lift his limb and drags it to dump it near the skeleton of rotting animals. This act is what the writer contemptuously attributes to in the title - the belief of Salvation (Mokhsa), for Dhukiya, as his dead body is handled by the 'so-called' holy man himself.

Neither an ounce of exaggeration in the emotions nor any exciting events, yet the film translates the intensity which evidently speaks for the modus operandi of the eminent director Satyajit Ray. The story ends with the priest sprinkling holy water on the place where Dhukiya lay dead, leaving the viewers to ponder on what salvation is.

A cringe worthy watch as these caste discrimination hasn't died down and vigorously thrives in many educated households even today. 

Sujata

 Sujata

1959, Hindi, YouTube, 7.3/10 IMBD

The cruelty of untouchability seen through a rare lens of an orphaned lower-class girl baby who is chanced to grow up in a Brahmin household. Based on a Bengali short story by Subodh Ghosh, its Bimal Roy’s directorial touch that brings the best in his artists, especially the female lead, Nutan.

The villagers bring a new born baby girl, whose parents have died, to the house of Upen and Charu who themselves have a new born baby girl. When Upen is uncertain, his wife Charu reluctantly asks the maid to take care of the baby for the time being. While Charu's lullaby makes her daughter sleep inside the house, the same lullaby makes the untouchable baby Sujata, falls asleep outside the house. Humanity overrides untouchability. That’s the fine line the story is targeting to address and obliterate. 

Plans to send ‘Sujata’ to an orphanage turns futile as Sujata’s love for the family over-powers them and she continues to live with them. Education is refused to her but naively yet righteously she fights for it. Upen’s soft corner for her is made evident through many instances, like the one when he insists, Sujata be taught as well by the tutor at home along with his daughter.

The effects of ‘societal burden’ on an educated individual like Upen who tries to shed discrimination by birth, is efficiently pictured by the character of his aunt, a pious lady who reinforces untouchability back in to the family’s subconscious every time Upen and Charu attempts to get over it.

 Sujata (Nutan) grows to this smart young lady who is dutiful and affectionate. The family’s relative boy Adheer (Sunil Dutt), falls for her and is determined to marry her. Upen’s pious aunt who had adopted Adheer after his parents had died, is obviously against his love for Sujata, a low born. The film takes few dramatic twists and ends on a happy note.

The film stands apart for its subtlety in surfacing the pain of girl who is being loved yet not accepted and the conscious choices of the couple who seem to be caught between their beliefs and that of the society’s. The director is justified to go to the bottom of the problem by bringing in blood compatibility between the Brahmin mom and the low born girl in the last couple of scenes, as the heinous roots of untouchability demands such primal treatments to grab the attention of the viewers.

Lyricist Majrooh, Music composer SD Burman and Nutan’s powerful expressions are a treat to watch, as the trio along with the director, makes us the viewers experience what it feels like to be addressed- “She is like my daughter" instead of "She is my daughter”. The mise-en scene of the film enhances the visuals and it is a treat to watch the magical song sequence, ‘Jalte Hai Jiske liye’  by Talat Mehamood- the irony being, the usage of a telephone, a modern advent of those time, by the hero to sing to the heroine, in a plot which houses a core theme of an age-old caste discrimination.

The harbor's sound signals echoing Sujata’s every sorrow, the silent weeps of hers, the pain of her wailing heart, the hangover of love every time her eyes meet Adheer’s, the innocent reminder to give an umbrella to protect him from the scorching heat, every time her father steps outside house - The doyen director has packaged it all, that makes it a 'Memorable Watch'.

Thappad

 Thappad

2020, Hindi, Amazon prime 7.2 /10 IMDB, Directed by Anubhav Sinha

A strong content, told from a weak person's perspective. Somewhere the powerful message fails to touch the audience, the way it ought to.

The movie starts with Amrita, pampering her husband in his everyday involuntary chores, right from waking him up with a drink as the alarm goes off, to reminding him to carry his wallet to work. She literally is like a mom spoiling her child. She is in fact celebrating her housewife's role thinking, it translates as - 'Service to the husband'.

She is so hung up on the daughter -in-law's role, that she doesn't realize that she neglected her passion, and didn't bother to think of having a career. People in her new house don't think she need either of those as its not on the requirement list of a daughter in-law of a wealthy household. But they wouldn't have stopped her if she had the drive in herself to pursue her passion or to find a career for herself. That's a worry isn't it. You can't blame anybody other than Amrita.

For a split second, I wonder if the movie was set in the 1980's or 90's. She does exactly what her mom had trained her to be - 'A good daughter in law', by putting the needs of her husband's, before her own.

If the husband is brough up with an affluent family's patriarchy values, Amrita is brought up with middle class family's values, where girls are groomed only to become an ideal homemaker and if she gets lucky, may be in an affluent family.

If I think calmly for a moment, that's what I personally was trained to be, by my mom in the 80s, - a good homemaker and I turned out to be minimally ambitious as well. But I am not cringing over it either. I believe I am reasonably a good homemaker. I am pretty efficient in what I do, and most importantly, I have my self respect and self esteem and yes, all thanks to my husband.

But the question arises, what if I was not treated with the respect that I think I deserved. Irrespective of the decades that I belonged to and even with the very few ambitions that I had, I'm sure I would have seen it as an instant panic alarm in the arranged marriage scenario of mine.

I would have tried to discuss with my husband that I am NOT OK with the way I am being treated and that I am hurt. But then, that's me. It's got to do with my personality I guess, irrespective of my mother's brought up. But where will I get that instinct to protect my self respect - is it from the education, the society, the people around me? No, it's from within me. My own nature needs to urge me to do so.

I wonder why Amrita, Taapsee's character never spoke about it until the day she was slapped in front of the guests at home. Mind it, the slap was not a specific one, like the husband beating up the wife kind. It was an impulsive one, originating from the frustration of the news on his failure to excel in his dream career. And the poor wife had to end up taking the brunt. It looks like he would have slapped or man handled or pushed anyone who had tried to calm him down at that time.

The husband is a spoilt brat, caught up in the career rat-race, doesn't know to treat women, thinks a dinner or a diamond necklace could fix any issues with his wife, all this instead of saying a heartfelt apology for his behavior - the ultimate unbelievable kind. Yes, he is a moron. But why did she take so long to put the relationship the way she would have loved it to be, right from day one of the marriage. She felt inferior to do so may be. Or there are some 'Slow Bloomers' like Amrita, who realise it ever so late, because their values of obedience to their husband and his family are so damn deep rooted. May be it takes a bang on their head or a tight slap to awaken such people from their fairly tale dreamy world.

The movie's biggest success lies in bringing to light that, whether we like it or not, such systems do exist, which handicaps the women folks even today, in the Indian subcontinent.

Do we blame it on the, 'arranged marriage system' in the country, which is thankfully fast dying, at least amongst the educated corporate lot. Again, we can't point to the system of marriage alone, as this is not exclusive to that type of marriages alone. It again points to the kind of person that you are. The personality that you have become irrespective of your upbringing, your education and society.

Some subtle yet powerful acting from Taapsee and this is completely in contrast to the role of hers in Manmarzian. The girl is on the roll, creating a niche for herself like Ayushman Khurana and you are glad that such female talents are let to shine through in the 'so called' male dominated industry.

The lawyer and maid's abuse stories were two end of the spectrum but the lawyer liberating herself after the cues she gets from Taapee's character, was however not depicted powerfully enough.

On the other hand, I keep wondering how the Taapsee's character would have reacted if the husband had genuinely apologized to her for slapping her unintentionally. Would she forgive him and get back to the normal, No:1 housewife contender that she was before?

Yes, not all people would behave the way we want them to and they let others walk all over them. They allow them to be taken for granted until one fine day, when it all dawns on them.

I am happy Amrita files for a divorce but I am not content because she never discussed with her husband the issues that bothered her in their relationship, as any normal couple would do, right from day one of the marriage. If the in equal economic background and low self esteem are the barriers that refrained her from speaking her mind, then it's sad, and she needed that slap to free herself.

A good watch. It could have been a great one, if the pacing was faster. Is it that our expectations are high from the director Anubhav Sinha's previous work, Article 15? May be, may be not.