Fahrenheit 451: Fear of books!

Consider a situation where books are banned or it is illegal to possess books. What would be the condition of such a society? That is exactly what director Francois Truffaut tries to show in his 1966 film Fahrenheit 451. The subject of the film might look a little exaggerated. However, it should be taken as a satire on states and societies that in different ways and means have repeatedly attempted, and at times succeeded, in subduing and silencing the voice of people.  

Director: Francois Truffaut

Film Clip

The film is loosely based on the 1953 novel of the same name by Ray Bradbury. The title apparently means the auto-ignition point temperature of paper. He wrote the novel keeping in mind the draconian censorship laws of McCarthy in the United States that attempted to silence people. In the film, a law enforcing agency goes about unearthing hideouts where books are hidden and setting them on fire. Possessing books in houses is against the law and as such can attract the ire of the state. Hence, anyone who knows of people in possession of books is supposed to report the matter to the authorities so that the agency can come and ‘deal’ with people who go against the law.

However, there is this leader of the agency by name Montag, who somehow becomes aware of the danger and implication of his action. He realises the worth of books and somehow cannot carry on destroying them. But the law catches up with him and he has nowhere to go, except to a community of book people. Book people are none other than those who preserve a book each in the most unlikely of places – their memory; and they are able to pass them on to their posterity. Such an exercise goes on to show that the state cannot really destroy books from people’s memory.

The film is indeed a masterpiece in terms of its message and delivery. Nowhere does Truffaut attempt to be preachy. The visuals speak for themselves.  

- Melwyn Pinto SJ

Wadjda: The little rebel!

Wadjda is the first film from Saudi Arabia to be nominated for Oscars award this year. It is the official entry in the Best Foreign Film Category. The film should be called a bold attempt given the Saudi Arabian conservative circumstances.

Director: Hafeesa al-Mansour

Film Clip

The film is about Wadjda, an 11-year old girl, whose life desire is to buy a cycle for herself. It is near impossible for a girl to ride cycles in Saudi Arabia, given the religious patriarchy. But Wadjda is little bit of a rebel and wants to get it at any cost. In depicting Wadjda’s pursuit to buy a cycle, the director brilliantly presents before us different facets of a Saudi woman. Wadjda’s mother has her own daily anxieties to deal with. Her husband is out to marry another woman, and sadly, she has no control over it. Then there is the over-disciplinary and ultra conservative school headmistress who seems to have internalised the Islamic conservatism to perfection. While the director Haifaa al-Mansour suggests that it is only women who can liberate women, she also seems to send across a message that women can at times be the biggest hurdles on the way of their own liberation.

The story of the film is seen through the eyes of the protagonist Wadjda, played sensitively by the highly talented Waad Mohammed. The typical Middle-Eastern music adds colour to the narration. What makes this film important is the context in which it is narrated. Women have been fighting hard in Saudi Arabia to drive cars on the roads. The Muslim clergy is yet to be reconciled with such a demand. But, women are violating all ‘norms’ and are driving their private vehicles. This ‘revolt’ is symbolic of the greater freedom that Saudi women are demanding. Wadjda , incidentally, makes a similar, yet bold, statement en route to women’s liberation.

- Melwyn Pinto SJ

The Past: Struggle to pass over

In his recent French film The Past (2013), Academy award winning Iranian director Asghar Faradhi, carefully constructs a world of conflicted characters and fragmented relationships. Reminiscent of the Oscar award winning A Separation, this movie delves into the lives of a soon-to-be-divorced couple and explores the ripples created by their estrangement.

In the film, a French woman, Marie (Berenice Bejo) and an Iranian man, Ahmed (Ali Mosaffa), have been separated for four years.  The impetus to finalise their divorce occurs when Marie starts a new relationship with an Arab man, Samir (Tahar Rahim). While the relationship between Marie and Ahmad shows the flickering sparks of being an old married couple who have grown apart, the relatively nascent romance between Marie and Samir is tenuous and fraught with uncertainty. 

The strained dynamic between these three individuals is compounded by the fact that Samir is married and his wife is comatose. Furthermore, Marie’s daughters from a previous marriage (preceding her marriage to Ahmed) and Samir’s son are caught in the fray, struggling to grapple with the choices of their parents.  As the characters in the film negotiate their present realities, they are paralysed by their own pasts.

Faradhi peels off the layers of every character to expose the fears and truths that lie at their core. The characters in the film are inextricably bound to each other and their seemingly simple acts prove to have catastrophic consequences.  The director skilfully offers the audience a vantage point from which to explore these individuals and their revelations.

The French-Argentine actress Berenice Bejo (who gained renown for her role in The Artist) displays her versatility as the distraught and melancholic Marie. Ali Mosaffa’s character Ahmed is eager for resolution and evokes sympathy, becoming the perfect foil to Bejo. Elyes Aguis, who plays Samir’s young son Faoud, also delivers a heart-wrenching and noteworthy performance.

Director: Asghar Farhadi

Farhadi is a masterful storyteller with a flair for showcasing the nuances of human sentiments. What differentiates Faradhi’s film from the works of his directorial predecessors of the Iranian New Wave like Majidi or Kirostami, is that he extracts his protagonist (Ahmed) from the Iranian homeland. The movie unfolds in a quaintly French setting but maintains Iran as a motif. Farhadi creates a world where he explores the ideas of love, loss, remorse, tragedy and hope. His camera work, like that of Jon-Luc Godard, is unobtrusive. His portrayal of characters, like the films of Jon Renoir, is deeply humanist.

Subtle symbolism punctuates the movie. An ongoing renovation takes place in Marie’s home throughout the film, symbolic of the repairs that are due in her own personal life. In another scene, glass chandeliers jolt precariously in the back seat as Marie and Samir drive their car, representing the fragility of their relationship. Lastly, as Samir visits his wife in the hospital, her life hangs in the balance, as does the future of all the relationships between the various characters in the film.

Film clip

The Past fortifies Farhadi’s position as a ground-breaking film-maker with a definitive perspective on the human condition. It is Iran’s entry to the 86th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Whether or not it earns Farhadi his second Oscar award, it remains a testament to his directorial prowess.   

- Parinitha Shinde

The Lunchbox: Striking a chord through dabba!

There has been a lot of heartbreak among film critics that a simple, yet heartwarming film like The Lunchbox has not been selected by India for the Oscars competition this year. Understandably, there is quite a bit of sense in such heartbreak, if one compares this film to the one that is selected The Good Road. Definitely, The Lunchbox would have given a tough competition, which one doubts The Good Road will. 

Director: Ritesh Batra

Film Clip

So what is so special about The Lunchbox? Nothing really! Except that it seems a story that can be felt unfolding on a daily basis in the lives of many in busy crowded cities like Mumbai. Loneliness is a strong theme in the film. But, the way the protagonists try to deal with loneliness by communicating with each other in the most unconventional way possible, seems a very amusing aspect of the film.

Mr Fernandes (Irfan Khan) and Ila (Nimrat Kaur) have both problems unique to them, yet what is common to both is a heavy heart. Perhaps it is this that helps them vibrate with each other, even without actually meeting personally.

The film has some very interesting and imaginative traits such as the unseen but understanding aunty, whose voice we (and Ila) hear all the time. Then there is Ila herself who finds out unconventionally, but quite certainly, that her husband is being unfaithful to her. The way the director presents each character sans any complexities is a credit to his insight into humans. While the two protagonists would like to meet, the director seems certain that a predictable end would only spoil the beauty of the film. What makes the film work, besides its storyline, is the amazing performances of Irfan, Namita and, of course, the talkative Nawazuddin.

Sad that it didn’t make it to Oscars!

- Melwyn Pinto SJ

The Accused: Victim is the accused!

The recent verdict of death sentence by the Fast Track court in Delhi slapped on the rapists brings back memories of this 1988 film The Accused. The situation seems somewhat similar, except that the real incident that inspired this film had a victim who survived the gang rape and fought till the end in the court and ensure that the rapists got their punishment, unlike the Delhi gang rape victim who succumbed to her gruesome injuries.

Director: Jonathan Kaplan

Film Clip

The film brings forth many issues related to legal system that handles rape cases. It is not easy at all for a rape victim to narrate her horror stories in the court, especially when the other party (the accused) is out to insensitively destroy her. That is exactly what happens to Sarah Tobias when the lawyer of the accused asks her whether ‘she is sure who were witnessing her being raped at a time when there was such a big noise in the bar’. As though that was highly important when the issue at hand was violence against a hapless victim!

The legal system all over the world has a history of being very insensitive to the victims. And India is no exception. And when the perpetrators of crime are powerful and influential, they can even buy the judges and what you have is just a travesty of justice. But for public outcry, even the Delhi rape case too would have turned out to be just another ‘incident’. While there are discussions whether death sentence to rapists would bring down the rate of crime in the country, the protagonist of the film Sarah Tobias sets the standards for the victims and for all those who care not to give up fighting till the end for justice. Jodie Foster as the rape victim does justice to her character. The title The Accused is indeed a misnomer as it actually refers to the victim who is made to look like an accused.

- Melwyn Pinto SJ

The Bang Bang Club: Duty vs humanity

What comes first to a journalist, photographer or such other media person? Is it his/her duty as a professional or humanity? This is not an easy question to answer. The famous case is that of Kevin Carter and his Pulitzer Prize winning picture of a Sudanese girl and the vulture that was waiting to devour her. The picture, even as it won the coveted award, raised many questions as to the ethics of journalism in general and photo journalism in particular. Apparently, Kevin Carter made sure not to disturb the vulture, lest it should fly and he lose a ‘precious moment’. 

 Kevin Carter's Pulitzer Prize winning picture

Kevin Carter

Director: Steven Silver

Film Clip

Kevin Carter’s story is part of the film The Bang Bang Club (2010). The film as such is about a group of press photographers who covered the South African ethnic violence in the early 1990s. They were exceptional photographers who made news all over the world with their rare pictures taken in highly dangerous terrains of human violence. The film quite simply portrays the risk that a committed photo journalist takes just to get that ‘precious picture’. At the same time, of course, it raises questions in the minds of the audience as to why one has to push himself so hard – is it for the glory that his work would eventually bring or genuine concern for humanity? The girlfriend of one of the photographers puts it depressingly straight across to him: “May be you have to be like that to do what you do. I think you have to forget that they are real people!” Do journalists, press photographers, broadcast journalists lose their humanity in the din of getting those crucial bites and moments? The film might just throw some light on the subject. The film, though, is quite engaging and full of action throughout. 

- Melwyn Pinto SJ