Blue: Bollywood's shame

AR Rahman could have as well made Blaaze and co sing '....Blues...' instead of '..Blueeeeeeeeeeee, Buluuu..'! The headache we are rewarded with for watching this far overwhelms the only plus of the movie - the songs. It is entirely believable if we are told Rahman took up this assignment just because if was paid a bomb. Nothing else could have inspired him to take up a dumb project like this. Well,my focus in this post is on him because his association lured me to go watch this. Otherwise i would have struck to my long standing rule of watching movies based only on the sole criteria - the filmmaker. A debutant director here poured in a 100 crores to dish this trash, almost with a confidence of making another Dhoom2 on an extra large scale! It's unbelievable. Not a single scene looked imaginative! Dialogues are dumb and aimless. Even the superb songs are picturised with little taste. Just see Fiqraana to get my point. There is no soul. All we are dished out are those stunts we can sit home and watch in star movies. Collectively, all actors can say this is their worst movie in acting department. The credit goes to the debutant director. It is a shame to call this Bollywood's most ambitious project just because the makers had too much money to waste. And about Rahman's choices, I learnt my lesson. I will Stick to my rules.

Do we know Mr.Gandhi!?

October 2nd has become inexplicable as a public Holiday. It's not a flag-hoisting day or is it a religious festival day. Nor does anyone, including our scores of print/electronic media channels spare a serious thought about the person whose birthday we are supposedly celebrating this day.

For Indian public, Gandhi remained a caricature, whom we routinely tag with a few fancy words like 'ahimsa', 'truth','vegetarianism', etc. He is deified and so it automatically meant no one, being mortal, should even try to understand him as a person. We are told from our childhood that he asked us to show another cheek if we are slapped on one. What he actually meant through those words in not explained in any school or college textbook. We are asked to literally follow it as blindly as we follow our religions. Gandhi, we are lectured, is the new god.

What triggered this post is a new Telugu movie - Krishna Vamshi's 'Mahatma'. Any logically thinking person would come out after watching it swearing non-violence is a stupid idea! Consider this, the hero just survives the 'climax' purely because of luck - the bad guys by mistake ended up killing each other. Earlier, in the mandatory climax-fight the hero refuses to fight because he embraced mahatma and his ahimsa! Bucket loads of hero's blood was being spilled out by the bad guys in the movie and yet the hero refuses to put up a fight because we are told that is what ahimsa means - just stay put even if the villain is going to ram a truck onto you. Now with this kind of interpretation of Gandhism, we are not surprised with the common man's indifference to Gandhism. They end up saying Gandhi afforded to be that because he was mahatma while they being mortals can't afford to embrace his principles. Period.

I think a good tribute we can pay to our father of the nation is to spare some time to go through his autobiography, at least on October 2nd when we have a full day of free time. The book, having been written by Gandhi himself, leaves no scope to misinterpretation. If folks like Krishna Vamshi, who obviously didn't take the pain to read the book, can not find time to spare or just finds it too demanding to sit and read, they can contribute to Gandhism in their own way - by not speaking about it! After all it is grave injustice to misinterpret Gandhi's principles as irrational and just altruistic and forever alienate the uninitiated, especially the young from them.

Gandhism: Missing the wood for the trees!?
When we discuss Gandhi, we have to bear in mind the age he lived in, the people he dealt with and strategised for and against. He was no god, not even an apostle. He was shrewd and was a man of convictions. He was a England educated barrister, lived in the diverse South Africa, enriched his worldview enough for being rational. He called his own autobiography 'The story of my Experiments with Truth'. He devised his principles rationally over a period of time and not on some blind faith. He went testing with each principle through his own experiments and stood by them once they passed out. In fact he went on to say in his autobiography that no one should follow him as he is on his own path of self-discovery through his own experiments. He said he may have to switch paths for a better one, if he finds one, after a period of time and so he advised his followers to think on their own before committing to follow him. He went on to mention how he failed initially in his pursuit of non-violence, truthfulness, celibacy, vegetarianism, alternate medicine etc.. Gandhi is the same man who beat his wife, ate meat, succumbed to carnal desires despite vows of celibacy, failed to rescue his son despite his belief in hydropathy medicine. He discussed his failures elaborately and that is the cornerstone of his fearless character that later came to be referred to as Mahatma. Gandhi's success is not as much about his principles of ahimsa, truthfulness, celibacy, vegetarianism etc as it is about the path he took to experiment, evolve and adhere to these principles. Making Gandhi synonymous with ahimsa and truth is like missing the wood for the trees! There was rationality behind his principles and unless they are understood, Gandhi and his principles can not be understood or appreciated.

For instance, Gandhi advocated ahimsa as the way to achieve independence not just because he wanted to avoid human casualties in the struggle but because it was the only feasible solution to achieve independence. By eschewing violence, Gandhi forced the British too not to use their army and firepower. This was a strategic move that would not just weaken the oppostion (in South Africa and in India) but paves way for a civilian engagement where voices of reason would be heard. The rules of the game were hence changed by Gandhi when he forced the British to discuss the rights of natives over table. The British were denied a chance to violently put down the freedom struggle as the freedom fighters themselves refused to be violent. For all the civilizational glow they painted their empire in, the British had no way but to engage the Indians in a dialogue. In this non-violent struggle, the masses hence followed Gandhi as they realized sooner or latter the numbers would matter and reason would be heard and they were proved right. It is this strategic thinking of Gandhi that influenced leaders of the civil rights movements, including those of Martin Luther King, James Lawson, Nelson Mandela, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Steve Biko, Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi across the world. While Indian media never tires of trumpeting this fact, it hardly finds any time to find the reason for this. Not for nothing was he TIME magazine's man of the year in 1930. He made major achievements through mass moments like Champaran with his principles. Gandhi was a man of action, not words and it is high time we grasp about Gandhi, the agitator to understand the Mahatma halo we are shown around him.

To further strengthen the struggle, shrewd Gandhi went on to use religion as well as the common unifier despite the diverse languages and regional historical backgrounds across the country. Otherwise how would a distant Punjabi or Gujarati find a common cause with a Madrasi in an age where there is no TV or Internet? Gandhi was the think-tank that made it possible. Using the same religion now in politics produces disastrous results. This is an aspect which importantly shows that Gandhi's strategies and principles have to be seen and understood against the age they were designed in. Gandhi was pragmatic and so should we be.

Gandhi's strength is his conviction and his efforts to follow celibacy were to be read to understood what it means to adhere to a principle. He would cut down on all diet that he thinks would contribute to carnal desires in human body. This showed how practical Gandhi was. So when someone tries speaking about Gandhi's principles, it is apt if they explain the logic behind those principles too. If we are not informed, let us learn about them instead of dumbyfying Gandhi into a god.

It is nauseating to repeatedly hear a question like 'Are Gandhi's principles relevant to this age' every year on TV shows on his birthday?. I have only one thing to say - to know if something is relevant, first get to know it! If people are too busy to learn about him, why make a sham about him in discussions and movies?

Mahatma: Krishna Vamshi fails to measure up

Krishna Vamshi's ambitious 'Mahatma' evoked much interest as it is the first Telugu film with Gandhi as central theme. Especially with a top-notch 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' setting the trend, I had some anticipation on what KV has to say. After all here is the guy who is capable of a 'Sindhuram'. Of course he later veered off to produce some insensitive mass stuff like 'Khadgam' and 'Raakhi'. I thought he would be back to his 'Sindhuram' touch with 'Mahatma' but then KV showed he had no such plans. Mahatma as a regular Telugu film is average but as a film about Gandhi will be rated miserable.

KV, unlike lyricist Sitarama Sastry, does not show an understanding of Gandhi's principles. Sastry's lyrics about Gandhi are the high-point of the film and conveys the spirit of Gandhian principles and how we caricatured him in our present age due to our ignorance but KV does not carry forward any of that seriousness from songs into the movie. The hero claims to fight non-violently when in fact he does not even fight. Being non-violent does not mean being inactive and let things happen. Nor did it mean self-immolation! Did Gandhi say things would just fall into place if we just sit there in the middle of the problem non-violently or kill ourselves!? In fact in the climax, the hero refuses to fight the bad guys but gets away with his life purely on luck. That does not in anyway vindicate Gandhi's non-violent principle. Does it? My sky-high admiration for Raju Hirani grew even more after watching this fare. So bland is this one. Ironically, this has bucket loads of blood and a self-immolation scene, which again is supposed to be non-violent. If that's not enough, we have YSR's snap all over in the titles and in the movie. Wow, that's the cherry on the cake..YSR lauded in a movie preaching non-violence. Ultimate tribute i should say. Gandhi would have turned in his grave, that is if he were not cremated.

The biggest negative is that the movie couldn't focus on Gandhi and instead meandered aimlessly touching other topics like politics and Telugu film industry. The duets are misplaced and not even great to bear with. They slow the film down. While 'Mahatma' and non-violence preaching looked half-hearted in execution,the titillating item songs and few gratifying fight sequences are superbly executed! In fact hero Srikanth poured his heart out in these sequences! Maybe they are the only scenes where he is not confused :) Another positive is the casting. The actors suited the roles to the T. The guy who played Dada's (Jayaprakash Reddy's) son was superb as is the lady who plays his sister. The scene where the lady kicks Srikanth from behind is one flash in the pan that speaks eloquently of the creative director. KV also cleverly tries creating some sequences as pointers to real-life events for entertainment. So Ahuti Prasad's appa reminds us of Veerappa Moily sent by 'high-command'. The shooting episode resembles similar one involving congressman KK's son. The Gandhinagar constituency delimitation sequence reminds us of Khairatabad and the subsequent dynastic politics involving election contest of PJR's son and daughter. While the movie is littered with these details which shows that KV keenly follows regular politics, he hardly gives us any new insight or revelation into the affairs which is what we require especially in this serious subject. Even in his previous ventures like 'Raakhi' and 'Khadgam', KV did the same. He emotionally empties himself out but does not coherently say something meanigful at the end of the movie. On the otherhand, he picturized romantic sequences very well even in these otherwise serious movies. It looks KV is much more at ease with light-hearted romatic subjects. 'Ninne Pelladutha' was a trendsetter. I even liked his 'Sasirekha Parinayam' as it looked effortless and subtely gave the message even while entertaining. Here, it is just that this movie is not a honest attempt to understand and unveil the Mahatma, so it does not have a soul and fails in the core.