Ki and Ka- Patriarchy and Role Reversal- Power, choice, agency…

Review Ki and Ka

At the premise of it Ki and Ka is an interesting movie, where there is an attempt to show gender role reversal,  ambitious girl wants to have a career, move up the ladder, whereas the boy wants to stay at home and create art through his home-maker skills. A lot of discussions, few inciting moments, few thoughts, melodrama.. and indeed it provokes some thought.

Before going to watch Ki and Ka, I did look for reviews and found almost all of them by “Men” almost writing off the movie, however mentioning that it is an interesting thought. “Interesting thought?”  Hence I decided I have to watch it. Now before I come to reviewing the movie (in fact I am not going to do that, rather express my thoughts on seeing the movie), I am going to mention a couple of interesting anecdotes or real stories.

The first is of my late maternal grandmother. She studied from Eden High in Dhaka, later in Bhrahmo Girl, Calcutta, did her MA from Calcutta University in 1944 (the only girl in the batch), travelled and stayed on her own at Lucknow teaching in a college, married on her own (almost eloped, against her and my grandfather’s family wishes) to a freedom fighter (my grandfather) and later took care of the family since my grandfather didn’t work. My mother and my Masi (her elder sister) often used to speak of the funtimes they spent with their dad, in a small rented house where the family stayed, battling deprivation and denial from the extended family due to such marriage and that too an inter-caste (my Grandmother was a Kayasth from East Bengal (now Bangladesh) and my grandfather a Brahmin, was from this part) and no help. My grandfather, post partition was almost rendered useless for his views and his ego which made him not to fit him either in a job or in a business. He was almost depressed, when my grandmother decided to take the reins of the family in her hand. And so it was. My mother and Masi was happy to see father a home, rather than facing their strict mother (whom any which way they had to deal at school- she was a teacher).  And so was it. There was economic crisis, poverty, lack of resources, but then there were books, stories, love and above all respect and equality. The family was run (which I heard in stories of course) by joint choices and decisions. The salary, a meagre one those days for a school teacher, was handed over to dadu (my grandfather) and dida was busy managing her school, students and ensuring that the daughter had the right education- there would have been no compromise on that. Later when the daughters were to be married, my grandparents were less radical though and opted for arranged marriage, however with a twist. My mother’s maiden last name was Banerjee, taking on her father’s last name (a formality forced upon by school) and so indeed she was a Brahmin, but while seeking alliance, dida (My grandmother) ensured “caste no bar”, something which had put the matchmakers in shock.

It was only after marriage that my mother was exposed to this embarrassment of having an “unsuccessful father” or “a male with no income”… She was reminded by the regressive patriarchy, hidden under the obvious affluence of this family (the family whose last name I still carry on... again a force majeure...). In this family there are two widowed daughters, married at a young age and widowed and reeling under the bitterness and depression of such loss- they lashed it out on my mother, who in her own way tried to engage and question patriarchy- she was reminded of the “spineless-ness” of her father and how she should be grateful that in spite of that she found an affluent family to marry to. Anyways I don’t want to go further in this arena.. Since here too ma made the same mistake of having anguish against these two women (partly quite obvious), and not understanding the patriarchal system as a whole. What she did out of her instinct, is finding education as a turn-around for women, the key ingredient which made her mother carry on with chin up and something which helped her in questioning and something which she thought her daughter should excel in to get the license of her flight… that is another story though..

Interestingly, even with this legacy, when I chose to marry someone who was a student doing his PhD and on stipend (it was a fancy amount though.. nevertheless) and not so called financially stable, my same mother was apprehensive of the success of this alliance. Also she was fearful nevertheless of my fiercely independent and equality-demanding, nature, to come in my way of happily ever after… (read obedience, patriarchy, conformity, things which are often meant to be present to carry on…)

Next coming back to a story which I know more closely. Geeta-didi. She practically runs my house. We call “domestic help” right? But I would call her my home-maker. She cooks, tidies up my pigeon hole of a place and lovingly enquires about my well-being. She works at 4 more houses and manages to earn around 20000-25000 a month. She is married and has two children, both going to a moderately good English Medium private school. Geeta takes care of her household expenses. The husband has irregular income and often does nothing. And shall we assume that Geeta is highly emancipated, has freedom of choice and empowered?

Now we can come back to Ki and Ka. Ka aka Kabir Bansal, son of a business tycoon and IIM-B topper chooses not to pursue the corporate rat-race and a lot of jazzy dialogues are there to convince us why he chooses to opt out. (Do not expect anything against capitalism- Bollywood cannot afford to do that with so many in-movie product promotions) And Ki- Kiya, an ambitious, single-parent child wants to have a great career, see the world and hates marriage lest it anchors and captivates her in its chores and expectations, unsure that will a man be ready to allow the women to fly... taking care of her needs and ambitions. Needless to say, they are an ultimate match, interesting premise and promising…

And here comes the question- Kabir and Kiya both have the choice or agency to choose. And where does this choice and agency come from- class? Their background? If Kabir has ended up being in a B school, it was his experimentation, as unlike many, who may have been forced to join the rat-race as an only option to turn-around their status and be the oppressor rather being the oppressed. (Feel like invoking Paulo Freire here). Class plays an important role there and almost spills water on the noble idea of role reversal and hence it also cannot present a counter-point towards patriarchy- since class itself is the biggest outcome and beneficiary of the patriarchal system. My grandmother may seem to have the agency and steer the family ahead, denying patriarchal norms, but was it at all an option for her, if she had the family support, the family for whom an independent, educated, thinking and above all from another caste woman was abhorring to the point of denying her very existence. In case of Geeta, she may earn and run the household, but can she get rid of her husband? Does she have the agency to do so? She even shudders at the thought of that. The nuisance that will befall on her in absence of a husband, however torturous he may be, is more fearful to her than this known danger. Can we ever at all think from this perspective? The Perspective of choice and agency.  

Also do we not need to ask our consumeristic dreams? Are they dreams at all? To gain what? And what if Kabir would not have had joined business, but also hated to do household chores? Is it necessary to compensate- become one or the other and then weigh powers?  Also Kabir’ s choice here seems to be an informed one- what about another Kabir sitting somewhere in Chhattisgarh or Jharkhand, dreaming to rid himself of the baggage of his background, state, caste, class and wants to join an IIM (we may have our own opinions against this) as a way out, to embrace and taste freedom- that is how he may look at freedom of choice. Does it make him any less liberal or more patriarchal?  Do we understand patriarchy- the patriarchy which comes from the sheer desire of controlling hegemony of power in few hands and not letting that go?  And if a woman does that, she is as much a patriarch as a man. These glossed up stories with role reversal doesn’t challenge that, I doubt whether they even will have an understanding of the same. Here Kiya behaves and has a lifestyle we all have (the people who work out of homes irrespective of sectors--- and isn’t that oppressive at times, letting go of happiness at homes…) Then why is it so great an ambition that Kabir will not counter as a reasonable partner and would cook and clean and take care of the household- that is a seriously flawed stereotype and pretty immatured.

Nevertheless the film has very interesting moments. The one where Swaroop Sampath (still pleasantly charming) speaks about patriarchy and the disguised choice- of why a man or woman chooses each other- the woman doesn’t select the man, but also the assured notion of security that comes from the job and associated social conditioning. And that should be a revelation for men as well-  I have had many male friends who had to let go off relationships unable to meet the demands of the girls of that illusive “settled and stable myth” Whereas by choosing that women get into the captivation themselves, putting everything they want often as secondary.

The other most interesting part of Ki and Ka will be the portion where Amitabh and Jaya Bacchan (making a cameo) come and discusses the alternate if she would have continued working and waving to fans and he looked after home and kids... Amitabh... Reminds her saying, but what about kids and that was her choice to take a break from career and Jaya's answer- "yes it was my choice because there was no other choice..." And that can sum up all... Freedom of choice... Policies, diversity at workplace.. Are they really choices..? Freedom... Or just mere ideas to create subtle coercion, deifying images.., and confinement... Often our choices are not our choices... Since often we are forced to choose few battles rather than raging a war!!! In some bits the movie does raise issues... Though class dominates... Since if it's role reversal... We know women who take care of our domestic chores and run their houses... But are as oppressed as anyone... Again it's power howsoever ways it plays out and the fear to lose that control, the paranoia which makes you oppressive...

In another melodramatic moment in the movie where Kiya hurls at Kabir saying that he is useless, doing nothing and later feels apologetic about it- where again Swaroop Sampath (playing Kiya’s mother) explains what patriarchy does (here tamingly and in a non-political way)- sexual division of labour and also ascertaining price of one kind against another. I have an objection here how she puts- (summarized as the person who pays for the household expenses often thinks him or her to be more powerful than the one who is a home-maker so on and of course pointing down to the capitalism and how it looks at societies and families and the roles)-though Ghar Chalana and Ghar Banana- an euphemism and not going into the political debate- but this is and should be the pivotal point of this movie. And this is not so simple and requires further looking into to understand such movies and their failure to be feminist discussions and remain mere glossed up Bollywoodization..

Here it’s important to invoke Nivedita Menon where she speaks about this Sexual Division of Labour:

“ There is nothing “natural” about sexual division of labour…all the work within the home that women must do-cooking, cleaning, looking after children, and so on (the whole range of work which may call “ domestic labour”)-can equally be done by men. But this work is called as “women’s work”… this sexual division of labour extends even to the “public” arena of paid work and, again it has nothing to do with sex and gender. Certain kinds of work are considered at women’s work and other men’s, however the fact is that whatever work women do, gets lower wages and is less valued………………….at the same time one women’s work are professionalized, there is practically a monopoly on it by men. For instance professional chefs are still largely men in New Delhi or New York. The reason is clear- the sexual division of labour ensures that women will always end up having to prioritize unpaid domestic work over paid work…..

Women’s work thus remains invisible.  The sex based segregation of labor is the key to maintaining not only the family, but also the economy, because economy would collapse like a house of cards if this unpaid domestic labour had to be paid for by somebody, either by the husband or by the employer. Consider this: the employer pays the employee for his or her labour in the workplace. But the fact that he or she can come back to the workplace the next day, depends on somebody else (or herself) doing a whole lot of work the employer doesnot pay for- cooking, cleaning, running the home etc. When you have an entire structure of unpaid labour buttressing the economy, then sexual division of labour cannot be considered to be domestic and private, it is what keeps the economy going. If tomorrow, every woman demanded to be paid for this work that she does, either the husband would have to pay her, or the employer would have to pay the husband. The economy would fall apart. This entire system functions on the assumption that women do housework for love…”

And this is where I have a problem with this movie. It almost deifies this “love” of making a home as a choice and never questions that why would there be a choice for such act of love. And then later Kabir’s rise to fame for embracing such love, is seriously a reason to be angry about for Kiya. However in the movie she is made to feel repentant for his nobility. Most importantly, the point, the sexual division of labour though reversed here, doesnot take away the problem of considering the labour of no value (in real terms) and thereby is the failure to look this movie from a woman’s angle and not at all feminist. 

In fact it fails the Bechdel test as well (here two women hardly talk on any other thing than another man)

Coming back to Kiya, is she liberated? The most important part of the movie is almost a whisper and I doubt whether anyone will notice that. Kiya’s rejection and anxiety to pregnancy was she would not be able to continue with her career, her loans and EMIs would all go for a toss. And this is so oppressive. I cannot even call this capitalistic.  Pregnancy is definitely a choice for her, but the reasons cited here as anxiety, just shocked me. And in fact it is at this moment also shows Kiya, the so called “having her agency”, have-it- all, ambitious woman to be in captivity. And that is indeed a worry. If Kiya would have chosen not to go through the labour of pregnancy- interesting premise (debatable too) by her own account, but here she found pregnancy taking away her career, her prospects and then once again... we come to the same point choice and agency- who has it?

Till then, Ki and Ka will still remain and interesting movie- at least one which raises so many questions and of course urges to believe strongly and cling on to the concept- “ Personal is Political”..

The Lunchbox- A warm and Loving Movie and a typical " Mumbai Film"

The Lunchbox was a refreshing movie. After a long time, watched something which is "epistolary" in nature. Something of this style which comes to my mind is "Tumhari Amrita" a play and of course as a book- "The Color Purple" by Alice Walker. Both of these were significant, poignant and beautiful. However as an Indian Movie, Lunchbox to my memory is the only one of its kind. That is precisely the reason, why after so many years, i am back to blogging about this movie. When i begin to write about "The Lunchbox", it forces me to think about it in layers- just the way Fernandes opens the Lunchbox, tier after tier and the 1st tier of the dabba to be opened at the last- as if this is his attempt to add some sprinkles of surprise and expectation to his otherwise mundane life. The movie indeed has multiple layers-what is stark and yet handled in a subtle manner is that of the hypocrisy or facade of marriage. Ila, her mother and in fact may be her unseen neighbour (present as a brilliant Voice Over by Bharati Achrekar)all shows the bourgeoisie shallow-ness of holding to a decaying relationship merely for social security. Ila has no reason to love her husband, but apparently she stays with him since she has no other place to go apart from may be Bhutan, a metaphorical place for her which her daughter's text-book has revealed to revel in high Gross National Happiness instead of our all encompassing GDP. And that is where i felt though in an extremely light-hearted way, the narrative hints at the failings of this all- consumeristic society in a mega-city. Ila redeems herself through the recognition and attention Fernandez gives to her cooking. This was touching and reminded me of an Iranian movie i had watched and had also written a blog on- Cafe Transit(the story revolves around a young widow managing a cafe defying social norms and remaining inside the kitchen connects with people all across through her food) here too food symbolizes a tool to liberate Ila, a bored and neglected house-wife of all the dull-ness that life has in store for her. Her neighbour Deshpande Aunty is interestingly her accomplice in the beginning- she takes to heart the dull remark on the food-"the food was salty" and that sets the discourse. Even Deshpande Aunty is burdened with a paralytic husband- the only difference is that somehow she holds on to this status with love and there is hardly any bitterness at least from what the voice conveys. Whereas in case of Ila and her mother, both seem to convey the feel of a crumbling relationship, suffocating, yet there is hardly any way out than going on with it. Ila's mother lamments the loss of a son who could have mended the family fortune and catered to the financial needs. Ila being a house-wife is hardly of any help to her. The numbness and futility of marriage and the social security that these women attribute because of this, comes open after Ila's father's death. All her mother feels at that moment is "hunger", not any pain or insecurity. Fernandez is a widower, staying alone at his Bandra home and has almost accepted conformity of a mundane routine. The sudden spark that his taste-buds get through this accidental arrival of lunchbox, spices up his life. A month left for his retirement, he almost for the 1st time in his life gets eager to taste the un-tasted. The reticent Fernandez, almost aloof from even his own lonliness and feelings gets wary when he hears about the suicide of a housewife with her daughter. Ila enters his mindspace. He starts this communication and also withdraws, somehow cautious of over-indulgence. Irrfan Khan was terrific. He mostly had his body and eyes to emote. However the most interesting character in this movie is Sheikh- the street-smart, garrulous, often irritating yet ready-to-please Saudi-returned apprentice that Fernandez gets for hand-over. Sheikh belongs to a different class- and in fact "lower or lower middle', a self-made man, who had been to Saudi, had worked in hotels and now back to India. He stays at Dongri, aspires to break the glass ceiling of class and even after travelling a day in the Mumbai Local 1st class without ticket, buys a 1st class monthly pass the very next day. Sheikh is almost everything that Fernandez is not-he is disturbingly intrusive for Fernandez, not deft at his job, while on his way home, uses files as chopping plate to cut his veggies, forces Fernandez to even defend him and brave and bold in his love for Mehrunissa. He is the alter-ego of Fernandez the ever-cautious accountant. And here somehow the movie opens up the 3rd layer, that of class. Sheikh has no facade to hide behind, no qualms, no ego- he is unabashed in his demand to enjoy life to its fullest, to grab opportunities as and when they come and he is happy. Lunchbox above all is a "Mumbai film". I personally cannot imagine this film to belong to any other city than Mumbai.Fernandez cannot belong to any other place than Bandra-Ila's neighbor, close and yet remaining a voice and still overseeing Ila's kitchen has to be any of the housing societies in the suburban city,the sheer irreverence that Sheikh shows, has to be that of a Mumbaikar. Above all the main link for the narrative-the dabbawalla- they belong only to Mumbai. And how smug they are of the accolades that they have received from Harvard and even from the Monarchs that they will refuse to accept the misplacement of the lunchboxes. However they are extremely rooted and hence their loyalty and devotion to Sant Tukaram is unshaken. And moreover the most vociferous character of the movie- the Mumbai locals with their sounds and cacophony and crowds. The city was used at its fullest and the detail through which the transfer of the lunch-boxes was shown from the suburban homes to the offices mostly at the island city was enjoyable. Lunchbox is a lovely little movie which touches you at all the right cords, makes you ponder over your lonliness in the city. You think about the lovely little moments which may have had come across your life many times and made you feel happy.It definitely reminds me of something which i experience almost everyday. The smell of the cooked food left at my kitchen by my cook, whom i hardly ever see. The movie reminded me of her. How meticulously and honestly she takes care of my home and my kitchen and we have no communication and even donot see each other. I was smiling throughout the movie. Truly the film belongs to Bombay, a city where i so smoothly and casually trust someone i never get to see and one who surprises me everyday.

Educating Rita...wonderful reveleation that more than anything education gives you a CHOICE

Educating Rita
Directed by Lewis Gilbert

Educating Rita is indeed a wonderful revelation. And through Rita's (well her real name is Susan, but she takes up the name of Rita in honor to Rita Mae Brown, one of the few authors she had read)urge to find herself, I discover the real purpose of education.
Rita is a 26 year working-class married girl, who works as a hairdresser and refuses to succumb to the family expectations from her...to have a baby. She decides to educate herself through open university and that brings her to Professor Bryan(Michael Caine). The professors, is initially reluctant to teach Rita. However he finds this self-styled student although tarty-looking creature dressed in a short tight skirt and long black stockings, teetering adorably on her high heels and sporting pink streaks in her dyed blond hair is in all honesty a bundle of spunk and intellectual curiosity. And slowly Rita becomes his protegee. The movie scores high when Rita explains why she has decided to educate herself. Her husband is against her ventire and even burns down her books, she finds herself a misfit in the pub songs with her family,and yet Rita strongly clutches onto her decision to educate herself, to read and to learn when she finds her mother lamenting for "some other song" rather than teh one they sing every time. And Rita understands that its only her education which would give her a chnace to learn "another song", to have a different taste of life, to know herself beyond her role as a hairdresser, a wife or a mother.
And Rita in her own limitations and innocence is indeed dedicated. The sodden, alcoholic professor brooding over his lost social life and relationship, finds streaks of ingenuity, honesty and fresh-air in Rita's presence. At times i felt it is almost Pygmallion in the reverse way. Instead of Higgins' culturally upgrading the country belle Eliza Doolittle, here Bryan in his efforts of educating Rita, realizes that what university prescribed course formats does is to erase honesty and genuine expressions from the minds of pupils and rather tecahes them to think in the ways, already jotted down as others' thoughts. Rita's understanding of assonance as getting the rhyme wrong, impresses him. He understands and even admits that Rita has something more valuable that he can give her. And that is her "own thoughts and ideas" to interpret and understand. Hence Ibsen's production values become insignificant to her, since she thinks, stage was anyways a compromise for Ibsen, who wanted to do it on radio. Such fresh ideas, unscathed by the education system makes Rita Bryan's special student.
However Rita is insistent to be like the othet college students. To argue like them borrowing quotes and thoughts from the books, to be cultured and educated and gets impressed by her new room-mate Trish, who is sophisticated and cultured. This pains Bryan incredibly, finding Rita losing herself, losing her originality to become someone else. He reminds her that she had set out to discover herself and now she has completely lost herself to become someone else.
At this point when you are wondering what literature and books are all about, are they to erase off your originality and fill you up with artificial, borrowed, intellectual banality, the movie enfolds one of its most precious moments.
Rita confronts the professor. She tells him, that today, she might flunk in her exams by expressing her own soulful ideas or she might write the answers as per the university standards, she might accompany her friends to Paris or stay back at London, take up a job or have a movie.. whatever it is SHE HAS A CHOICE. And that is what the professor has helped her in having.
The books have opened a new paradigm for her. Through Blake, Shakespeare, Ibsen...She has indeed tasted a different life. She is not compelled to do anything, be a hairdresser and have a family and baby, just because, she doesnot know what else is there to be done.
And having a "choice" is having power, which has now percolated down to a working class girl like Rita.
This liberating feeling is what thrills and enchants you at the end of the movie.

A must watch

Taking Sides

Taking Sides Directed by Istvan Szabo
How could people, with lofty artistic and intellectual tradition (of even silently listening to Beethoven in soaking rain pouring from a bombed off auditorium roof) go back home and support immense barbarism, in the name of Nazi ideas and in the form of silent hero-worship of Hitler? Surely the entire nation would be involved and would have been perpetrators of Nazism. This is the strong belief with which American Major Steve Arnold (played magnificently by Harvey Keitel) comes to Germany with the purpose of de-nazification. However he has his brief from his boss-the enraging, nauseating video clip showing Nazis mutilating piles of Jew corpses and the motto of bringing Wilhelm Furtwangler, the gifted conductor of Berlin Philharmonic during Nazi regime to trial.
America has taken onto herself to sterilize the society of these barbaric Nazis. And of course they believe entire Germany to be ailing with this Nazi disease. And unfortunately, they cannot bring the entire nation to trial. However to set example and crush the last remains of the creepy disease, they would charge Wilhelm Furtwangler accusing him for taking sides with the Nazis. Furtwangler considered being almost a genius is referred to be Hitler’s band-leader by Major Steve. His appeals to having helped innumerable Jews and having made anti-Semitic comments only in the presence of the Nazis (Goebbels and Goering) are dusted off to be his insurance scheme to later pass off as non-guilty. Furtwangler has played on Hitler’s birthday and that almost sums up his support for the Nazi party.
Furtwangler, according to Steve has preferred to stay back in Germany, when his contemporaries were leaving. And this was solely because he had the internal understanding of his security by the party. To the Nazi party, who became custodians of the German art and culture, kept patronizing Furtwangler, even when he was not a party member. And all these have happened with silent approvals from Furtwangler.
The protests and defence presented by Furtwangler are too feeble and scorned off. And this is where the movie actually brings out the real conflict between the two cultures-The boisterous, all-action Americanism, as against the soft, silent apparently acquiescing German high art sense, which allows Nazism to grow.
The debates of the movie are at times extremely one-sided. During his interrogations of the magisterially courtly conductor, Arnold systematically humiliates him. He keeps Furtwangler waiting for hours, and then forces him to ask permission to sit down. Contemptuously referring to the conductor as ''Hitler's bandleader,'' he reviles him with the same kind of obscene language that Nazi officers in the Gestapo used to address Jews in less-than-human terms. And this never allows the creation of dramatic tension out of our uncertainty over who we should believe. American Arnold Steve was painted with such vulgar spirit and vigour, humiliating the soft, self-acclaimed “naïve and exploited” Furtwangler, that we immediately sympathise with Furtwangler. Adding cues were the feeble protests and supports from Steve’s Jewish assistants, Emmi and David, siding with Furtwangler. Emmi’s support towards Furtwangler is because, she believed that like many Germans, Furtwangler too was unable to comprehend the real game being played by the Nazis at the concentration camp. One remarkable part of the movie comes when Emmi’s father a martyr in plotting against the Nazis is praised by Major Steve as someone who was courageous to have moved against Nazism. And to that Emmi Straube replies that her father did not plot against Nazism, rather he fatally plotted against a losing ruler when he realized that Germany would lose the war. Hence Nazism in question was never fought at.
The predominant tone of the movie was the clash between Major Steve’s moral absolutism, 9who believes there cannot be any grey, only black or white and hence, if Furtwangler had played for the Nazis or shook hands with him, he had sold himself to the Nazi ideas) against Furtwangler’s aestheticism and beliefs of art being separate from politics. This important argument that art is separate from politics could have had more meat. Unfortunately this relationship between art and politics becomes a secondary theme and is snubbed off as too unrealistic by Major Steve. I expected this argument to be the defining tone of the movie.
However it is an excellent movie to stir up several questions in your mind…the most important one being , can you keep art separate from politics, or the former becomes a medium of expression for the latter, or the latter is fought on the basis of the former?
Furtwangler was ultimately cleared of the charges by a de-Nazification court, although he was prevented from conducting in the United States.
At the end of the movie, we see the real footages of Furtwangler, conducting at the Berlin Philharmonic, his much alleged handshake with Hitler and then we see in the footage, his wiping off his hands secretly after the handshake… and he also did not give a Nazi salute(one of the few defences, Furtwangler had)…..that was Furtwangler’s way to condemn Nazism
A must watch, if you ask me… (and another thing, after Makhmalbaf's Silence, another movie where Beethoven's 5th symphony is almost a defining background score for the movie.. da.. da..da..dum)

The Page Turner-the “Class Duel”

The Page Turner
Directed by: Denis Decourt
Well when I think of it, The Page Turner in its garb of a cold, sleek thriller is all about class-conflicts. Of course the disclaimer for such an outrageous inference is-this is completely my very personal understanding and is dependent on how I made sense of the movie.
Melanie Provost (Deborah Francois) is a small French girl, with the innate skill of playing a piano. She belongs to extremely humble working class backgrounds, where her parents work as butchers. And the mere mention of her parents’ background in the movie, according to me, establishes it as a saga of Class-Conflict. A butcher’s daughter, aspiring to become a pianist, is almost challenging the strict societal class stereotypes. Melanie meticulously prepares for her entrance exam at the local piano conservatory, something she covets dearly.
The following day comes and Melanie, accompanied by her mother, travels to the conservatory ready to play and impress the selection jury. As the little girl sits down at the piano and begins playing her piece confidently, an overzealous patron barges into the room and requests an autograph from the jury chairwoman, a famous concert pianist Ariane Fouchecort (Catherine Frot). Ariane basking in the glory of her recognition, without thinking or consideration for the girl, signs the provided picture for her fan. Respectfully, Melanie stops her playing whilst the exchange occurs. However, once the fan leaves, she resumes playing yet the entire event breaks her concentration and she falters. This one callous act destroys Melanie’s dream of being a pianist forever. The next scene we see her locking her piano and putting away the Beethoven bust. Her withdrawal from piano shows her vehement anguish towards the casual attitude of the upper class Fouchecort. It seems Fouchecort, almost representing the elite, upper class, so full with herself, almost shuns away the desperate zeal of this butcher’s daughter to become a pianist. And that is where I too strongly feel the director’s ambition to show class struggle through this unassuming plot of a young girl’s vanquished dreams and her resolve for avengement. Ariane however remains completely oblivious of the damage she has caused.
In a way this anguish against Ariane can also be explained by the eternal class distinction Melanie and her likes constantly suffer from. Melanie’s turn-around from the grips of the social stereotypes, she and her family suffers (a working class butcher’s daughter) could have come through her acceptance in the music school. Through her accidental rejection, seems to set Melanie take up a silent resolve to challenge the very existence of source of upper class arrogance and indifference.
The movie moves forward by few years and we find Melanie, now a diligent internee at a law firm. Her physical appearance has not changed much though with hair still tied up in a ponytail at the back and face wearing the same steely resolve (that she had when she went to appear for the entrance, or had when she put away her piano forever). Soon she pleases her boss and is asked for extension of her duty, to work as a house-keeper to his son. And Melanie appears before Ariane Fouchecort again, the latter being the wife of her boss. Ariane never even recalls someone called Melanie.
This begins an interesting episode in the movie- a chilling suspense where we wait with baited breath, to find how Melanie takes her revenge. Every move of her, her cool silent demeanour suddenly is followed keenly tracing her plan to success.
And Melanie does it in the most unsuspecting way, yet with élan. She gets herself closer to Ariane, already going through a depression. Melanie becomes her confidante, her soul-mate by being her Page Turner. She makes herself indispensible for Ariane, silently being at the background as the insignificant page turner, while Ariane collects the concert accolades. Her chilling cruelty appears in hurting Melanie’s colleague with the cello or in casual chopping of meat in the kitchen. The silent white walls, the fragile vulnerable Ariane and the scheming Melanie set up a thrilling dialect for the movie. Slowly, although through subtle, almost vague hints, we understand Melanie’s plan. She wants to strike hard at Arianne’s apparent source of elite arrogance. The story hints cleverly at the sexual undertones between Ariane and Melanie’s relationship, drawing Ariane desperately close towards Melanie. Ariane is aware of the dangers of this proximity which puts her marital comforts at risk. Yet she is hopelessly trapped within this cob-web of banished, forbidden desire. Finally we find a distraught Ariane losing herself and her class all for Melanie, who leaves silently. No one could ever guess the motive behind her action.
The script is taut, suspenseful and brilliant with both Frot and Francois playing their roles with perfection.
Throughout it is as if a duel between two class strata, where one from the lower stratum, sets on a silent crusade against the completely unsuspecting upper class.
An interesting watch!!!

Pourquoi pas moi? (Why not me?)-A light-hearted take on homosexuality

Pourquoi pas moi?
Directed by Stephanie Giusti
This was in fact the first movie I had borrowed from Alliance François library. The short summary at the back cover instilled my interest and I wanted to check this movie, based on a bunch of young, extremely good-looking homosexual guys and gals, who decide to disclose the truth about their sexuality to their un-suspecting parents.
Well the plot is somewhat predictable. The parents are almost shell-shocked to find that their children are “homosexuals” and not normal. However I still enjoyed the light-hearted comic way the movie moves. How truth of the parents also gets revealed. In fact, in one case, the father of the only girl, whose sexual orientation is “normal” meaning she is heterosexual, expresses his disgust at the other parents’ disappointment. He demands to be a liberal through voting for the communist and having Che posters. Hence true to his liberal thoughts he is open to homosexuality. However few scenes down, he finds it difficult to accept his wife being a homosexual once in her life.
Another girl’s father, a scientist, even thinks of cleansing this sexual anomaly with whatever knowledge he has. According to him, it is genetic disorder and could not be allowed. The bull-fighter ( a short role played by Johny Hallyday)finds her daughter’s homosexuality, a threat to his own image as a virile, strong “man”.
Pourquoi Pas Moi, is not a great film. It has its own shortcomings and at times becomes too preachy. It seems, these guys, heading a publishing house and plagued by lack of funds are too busy discussing their right of sexual emancipation is which so ever way, rather than fighting to fend for their magazine.
However still, I liked the movie for the throughout breezy, light mood and yet highlighting the issues of gender and sexuality in a stark manner. The most interesting part of the movie is where, it brings forth the fact that for a woman, the issue is much more than homo or heterosexuality. For a woman it is sexuality which is almost forbidden. Her consciousness and desire of sexual right seems to be a taboo concept even in a progressive westernised society.
Overall good and no harm in watching…

Tickets-A journey of revelations

Tickets (directed by Ermanno Olmi, Abbas Kiarastomi, Ken Loach)
Tickets in a collection of three stories sewn into one, all juxtaposed inside a European train travelling from Austria to Rome. Well apparently it might look conventional by choosing train-an already overused metaphor for “life going on” as the backdrop for the stories. But further down, you would feel that no better place would have suited the stories.
For me, Tickets is a journey of revelation, a journey of emancipation of your own struggles, ideas and confusions, getting rid of the dilemma, confusion, mistrust, hesitation, which constantly overwhelm us, guised as social mores. Tickets can be a journey for liberation of the “soul” beyond the restriction of your class identity and becoming more “humane.”
Hence, in the first story, by Italian director, Ermanno Olmi, the old, professor, who had been hesitant in even expressing his liking through an e-mail to the Austrian P.A. gets rid of this inertia and reaches out to help the family, caught in the train vestibule. Professor had found the Austrian P.A, who booked him tickets in the train, to be angel of a person. She was thoughtful enough to book two seats for his comfort and also to have timely booked the train for him, due to the sudden cancellation of the flights. However the train becomes an uncomfortable, restless and frightening space with military on board, sniffer dogs and all. It seems the mere terror-freeing agents themselves spread in discomfort and terror throughout, often jolting the professor back from his romantic musings. He struggles hard to write a mail thanking the p.a, but is hesitant even in finding a suitable addressal. In striking contrast to his soft ballad like romantic sojourns, is the scornful military officer. The family with a small kid trapped in the vestibule, having failed to secure reservation, is a nuisance for him. It seems, a piece of ticket becomes the document for legitimising human identity. Without the ticket you are nowhere, you have no class and hence need to be wiped out. The officer has no remorse to spill off the milk for the baby while the other passengers, too polite and too very conditioned in their social class and mores to reach out to this family. It seems their consciousness of the wrong is not strong enough to make them react, lest they lose their safe and secured social identity. Those trapped in between, belong to nowhere it seems. Hence in absence of a specific identity and geography (they are neither first class passengers, nor second, merely dwindling on the vestibule, connecting the two) However the so-far hesitant professor, for the first time gets rid of his hesitation. Ordering a glass of milk, he slowly reaches out to the family, to feed the baby. One, who was groping hard to traverse the distance of his romantic reminiscences for the beautiful p.a. through the electronic mail, finds it easier to reach out to the family. This distance seemed much shorter for him and easier to act out. The other passengers sigh a breath of relief getting rid of their guilt of inaction.
The second story is my Abbas Kiarastomi and is apparently a difficult one. We find a hoity-toity widow getting onto the train with a young boy. The lady is constantly demanding and dictating. In fact she refuses to accept her second class ticket and somehow manipulates her way to the first class. She is most disapproving of the guy’s individuality and jealous for him spending time with two young girls travelling in the train. She is constantly commanding him, ripping him of his minimal individual will and resistance. Apparently he appears to be the lady’s kept -a tom-boy. But it later transpires that he appears to be on some form of national service, and that she is a widow on the way to a memorial service for her army-general husband. We find De Santi (the widow) angry and fuming and constantly abusing the young man helping her out. And slowly we realize that this train journey is a way for her to clutch closely her losing, slowly eroding social class and prestige. She refuses to be a second class passenger. Her constant bickering and shrewd ways in a way is a process of internal re-inforcement of her social power, which she enjoyed while her husband was alive. This was extremely intelligent for Kiarastomi to fit in this story in the same juxtaposition of the train. In the first segment we find the extreme inertia of the first class passengers (except one) to reach out to the “no-class family boarding the vestibule”. In this segment we find the upper class (only in mind) threatened to get demoted to the lower socio-economic strata (symbolized by the second class), is too painfully active in her efforts of sticking to her “First Class”. We find her helper abandoning her in an explosion of rage and the end of the second segment.
The third segment, my absolute favorite is by Ken Loach. And it highlights on the working class. Somehow it seems that the working class is also the directors chosen favorite, agile enough to react on urges of the soul, rather being trapped in dilemma. His protagonists are fans of Celtic Football Club: three of them, all young men, travelling to Rome for a Champions League match. They've brought a huge bag of sandwiches from their Asda workplace to feed themselves along the way. After one of them gives a sandwich to a young Albanian boy they discover the lad has stolen a train ticket from them. There is then a moral struggle as the Scots talk to the family of the boy (who are refugees and the same family the professor had reached out with milk for the baby) and have to make a quick decision about letting them keep the ticket. Is the family genuinely in need, or are they crooks? Finally, and quickly the heartfelt wisdom of the working man shines through. The Celtic fans make the right call, and the fraternity of football fandom gathered at the station in Rome helps the seemingly fare-dodging trio to evade the police.
It was a light-hearted, yet satisfying ending for the movie. For me, it was almost a journey of revelation of the class consciousness, which is inherent in all of us.
Catch up with the movie, in case you still have not watched it.