Showing posts with label Siddharth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Siddharth. Show all posts

Friday, July 5, 2019

FEATURE ON THE NETFLIX SERIES LEILA

Leila and the world of Aryavarta: The future is here and now, and it is scary as hell 

* A man in Jharkhand died after he was thrashed by a mob on suspicions of theft and forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram”, “Jai Hanuman” when they discovered he was Muslim. According to India Today, he was held for 18 hours by the gathering.
 
* An activist inTamil Nadu was beaten to death for objecting to a neighbour storing large quantities of water unmindful of the rest of the locality. Elsewhere in the state, a woman was stabbed in a clash over a water sump.

 
Right-wing organisations in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, announced a boycott of all Muslim artistes in Hindu religious functions. They pledged to henceforth “promote Hindu artistes”, The Times of India reported.
 
* In Maharashtra, a Dalit boy was beaten up, stripped and made to sit on hot tiles as punishment for entering a temple space. Meanwhile, in a parched Uttar Pradesh district, water tankers are being sent only to upper-caste settlements where lathi-wielding men are preventing Dalits from approaching water pumps.
 
* A Muslim man was killed by the authorities and his Hindu wife tortured as retribution for marrying him. Their only child is rumoured to have been sent to a camp where organs are harvested from the offspring of inter-community marriages.
 
Wait.
 
Hold on.

That final snippet, authentic as it sounds, is a precis of the Netflix series Leila, a fictional work set in a hypothetical land. The rest are all actual incidents reported from across India in the past month.

In a country where today’s hyperbole mirrors tomorrow’s reality though, “dystopian” is an inadequate adjective for the story of that last-mentioned Hindu-Muslim couple who are at the heart of Leila, which is now streaming online.
 
Based on Prayaag Akbar’s 2017 English novel of the same name, Leila has been written for the screen – in a smooth blend of Hindi and English – by Urmi Juvekar with Suhani Kanwar and Patrick Graham. It revolves around Shalini Rizwan Chowdhury nee Pathak, an upper-caste Hindu who married Rizwan, a Muslim, before segregation was rigidly enforced during the reign of the despotic Joshiji.
 
In the show’s opening scene set in the year 2047, Shalini (played by Huma Qureshi) is watching with affectionate indulgence as Riz (Rahul Khanna) and their little girl Leila frolic in their swimming pool. That the couple has a private pool is evidence of their wealth, as is the largeness of their house where the maid Sapna hovers in the background. This seemingly idyllic visual is disrupted by the arrival of violent intruders who rip the family apart, purportedly as reprisal for their misuse of a scarce resource – water – but in truth for another reason. In this place known as Aryavarta where water is indeed a luxury the rich can afford while the poor battle over it, citizens must now live in housing complexes strictly earmarked for specific castes and religious groups, inter-marrying is forbidden and “mischrit bachche” (children of mixed parentage) like Leila are viewed as undesirables.
 
Leila is about Shalini’s search for her daughter while being forced to live in humiliating, squalid conditions like all women who married outside their community.
 
The show is helmed by the India-born Canada-based Oscar-nominated filmmaker Deepa Mehta who is the series’ creative executive producer and has directed the first two of Season 1’s six episodes. The remaining four are directed by Pawan Kumar, maker of the acclaimed Kannada films Lifeu Ishtene, Lucia and U-Turn, and National Award winning cinematographer Shanker Raman who debuted as a director with 2017’s Hindi-Haryanvi feature Gurgaon.
 
On a warm summer afternoon in Mumbai, Mehta joins me for a conversation about Leila. Doesn’t the compulsory segregation in the story mirror the way Indians of certain social groups already choose to keep away from certain others, I ask? In that sense, is it not as much about the present as it is about a terrifying possible future? “I think every dystopian novel is actually about that time, and the extreme of that becomes dystopia,” Mehta replies, before mentioning the Canadian literary classic many critics cited while reviewing Akbar’s novel: “That’s the great thing about Gilead in Handmaid’s Tale – the seed of Gilead, the sexploitation and patriarchy is set in the ’80s when Margaret Atwood wrote the book.” In the iconic British novel 1984, Mehta reminds me, George Orwell wrote “exactly what was happening, the Cold War was on when he wrote it in the 1950s and he thought 1984 would be totalitarian, for him it was what happened in Russia”.

In a separate meeting at the same venue, Huma Qureshi dips into her stage background to describe her notion of dystopia. “In theatre,” she explains, “you do something called a clown workshop. You have a smile and you keep smiling smiling smiling, at some point that smile becomes grotesque.” The actor best known for Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs Of Wasseypur films physically demonstrates the exercise as she speaks, stretching her lips incrementally with each “smiling” until the edges of her mouth reach as close to her ears as is possible. “That is what dystopia is. The idea or thought could be quite harmless, it could be small but if you keep stretching that thought it can become extreme.” 
 
In this context, Qureshi highlights a scene from Leila in which Shalini chides Sapna for washing her face at what looks like the kitchen sink. The mistress’ objection is not to the unsanitary use of a basin reserved for cleaning dishes (which would be a fair point, in my view), the objection she articulates is that Sapna is wasting expensive water but her subsequent actions imply an additional concern: she sprays a purifier on the area.
 
Qureshi says the scene prompted her to introspect. “I was talking to my Mum,” she explains, “and I was like, it’s so strange that we still keep the cups, saucers and plates of our servants who work in our house, our domestic workforce, separately. She of course had her own logic, that ‘no no, we do it because they break things or they get dirty or they don’t clean it properly’, and I said, ‘No, actually you know where it comes from? It comes from a very deep ingrained sense of untouchability.’ And my mother who is actually quite progressive was like, ‘oh my God I did not even realise that’.”
 
In a short interview sandwiched between my appointments with Mehta and Qureshi, in response to a question about Shalini’s prejudice, Akbar says one of his book’s intentions was “to show all of our complicity in this system, it’s not just a top-down thing”. He explains: “The reason we live in these sort of segregated towers you know like, I am talking metaphorically like, the reason we are constantly searching to isolate ourselves is because we are complicit in, you know like if you look out of this window it’s kind of a perfect Leila visual – there’s this slum, and our hotel pool is down there, just beyond it there is a, when I came in in the morning these two boys were running into the ocean and out, and that was when I saw that it was like, god, these are inescapable realities of our urban living in India.” He is referring to the geography of Mumbai where swish residential complexes and five-star hotels stand contiguous with sprawling slums, a geography “that fed into the book while I was writing it”.
 
Mehta quotes this comment from the legendary Spanish filmmaker Luis Bunuel that she has repeated in interviews for years: The minute you’re particular is the very minute you become universal. Leila, she says, “is very particular but very universal.”
 
The universality of Leila comes from several particulars it has drawn from reality. In a scene featuring child slaves in a filthy, mammoth slum on the show, Mehta intentionally referenced the cages in which Donald Trump’s administration has been placing migrant children crossing into the US.
 
“In the script, the children were tied to little posts,” she recalls. “And I said, ‘no no no, let’s make cages for them’ because that’s the time the immigration happened and these kids were put in cages. So you borrow from the horrific nature of what’s happening in the world and bring it to the particular place, that’s when it becomes universal.”
 
Context counts for everything. Half a decade back, Leila’s cage children would not have had the global currency they have today because of America’s “Mad King”. In the India of 2019, Joshiji whose image is ubiquitous across Aryavarta, who appears as a gigantic hologram in a mall, whose childhood as Bal Joshi is chronicled in animation form, and whose devotee says her baby is already Joshiji’s “bhakt” resonates with a meaning these motifs did not have five years back.
 
Obviously those associated with Leila are aware of the risk such a series entails. When I meet them I am briefly frazzled by what I interpret as defensiveness on their part: both Qureshi and Akbar do not want to comment on the show’s approach to the book, and at first I assume they are being diplomatic to avoid offending each other or anyone involved, until my interview with Mehta gets me wondering if their hesitation to speak on even relevant subjects is just a sign of the team’s overall caution. The realisation dawns when Mehta suddenly, in the middle of a pleasant conversation, goes on the backfoot when I ask if she felt any trepidation before signing up for Leila considering her encounters with India’s fundamentalists so far. (Her 1996 film Fire, a story of lesbian love, was greeted with violence by Shiv Sena protestors claiming that homosexuality is against Indian culture. Following vandalism and threats from extremists, Water – a film about Hindu widows in Varanasi – was delayed for four years and ultimately shot in Sri Lanka with a new cast.) 

“I don’t think (there is any risk in Leila). Is there? What way?” she shoots back in response to my question, following that up with, “So you think I should be scared? Is that what you are asking me?” She finally settles into a long answer that suggests she interpreted “Did you feel any trepidation...?” as an accusation and/or an effort to start a fire – actually, social media Hindutvavaadis were already up in arms against Leila’s trailer when we met before the show’s June 14 premiere.
 
“The conscience has to be clear, no?” says Mehta. “Why would I want to do anything that would put me in that kind of jeopardy again? If I felt it even smelt of controversy, or put me into anything, I am not interested. Whether it does or not, who knows, I hope not, and you should hope not either because it kills discussion.” She becomes progressively less guarded as she adds, “Aren’t we a democracy in India? We are. The death of democracy is the death of dialogue. So I like the idea of dialogue. Some people might say it (Leila) is anti-Hindu, some might say it isn’t, but then have a dialogue. Band na karo (just don’t stop it).”

In the days since its premiere, Leila has drawn strong reactions on both sides of the ideological divide. Liberals have praised it for its courage and relevance, and some on social media are adopting the show’s “Jai Aryavarta” slogan to denote present-day newsbreaks so bizarre that they feel like something out of a dystopian future. Meanwhile, conservatives have trended the hashtags #Hinduphobia and #Hinduphobic on social media and circulated false claims that Leila reserves its criticism for Hindus alone, when in truth it is a denunciation of all orthodoxy and discrimination expressed most starkly through the portrayal of Aryavarta’s efforts to control women’s uteruses and marginalise “doosh”, the equivalent of India’s Dalits.

In a country where an overwhelming majority belongs to a single religion, chances are that stories will by and large be dominated by that community from among whom will emerge most heroes, victims and villains of fiction – thin-skinned conservatives avoid noting that if a Joshiji is the despot-in-chief of Aryavarta, its most prominent victim is a Shalini, and they coincidentally fail to mention the significant role played in the plot by the self-destructive, self-defeating bigotry of Shalini’s brother-in-law Naz. If anything, Naz is a reminder that majority and minority fundamentalism feed off each other, with each making the other the excuse for its existence.


At a creative level, Leila is not flawless. The first two episodes are impeccable but Episode 3 and the finale abruptly take on the air of a thriller by ending on needless cliffhangers. The leeway that Shalini and the labour camp inspector Bhanu (Siddharth) get in the last two episodes are not entirely convincing either. And slip-ups arise from what seems like the writers’ assumption that every viewer has read the novel. For instance, late in the season Bhanu uses the word “repeaters” out of the blue for the “pavitra paltan” (purity squad), the government-employed thugs who abducted Leila – “repeaters” is the book’s term for them.

If a second season is commissioned, these rough edges need to be smoothened out. Because the otherwise fascinating Orwellian, Atwoodian apocalypse of Akbar and Team Juvekar’s imagination is definitely worth returning to.

At a time when many mainstream entertainers are bowing and scraping before the government, Leila is a much-needed indictment of rabid nationalism and patriarchy, a condemnation of caste and class exploitation, a warning bell against ecological devastation and authoritarianism, and an envisioning of what could happen if, instead of equality, rebellion leads to an inversion of circumstances between the oppressors and the oppressed. Under this totalitarian regime, even dominance does not buy peace of mind. No one seems happy and completely secure in Aryavarta, not the Faiz Ahmed Faiz loving Mr Rao who is Joshiji’s No. 2, not Sapna the former maid, not Shalini the former mistress, and not Mrs Dixit her present employer with the terrified, constantly watchful saucer-like eyes.

Huma Qureshi is still in an introspective mood as we wind up our interview. Leila brought up questions that disturbed her greatly, she says. “I enjoy many privileges. I have had a comforting caring protective family, the privilege of education, a certain amount of wealth, now what if something were to happen and all this was taken away from me? Would I stop being me and become some animalistic version of me? Or would I be able to retain my humanity?”
 
A glance at this morning’s newspapers suggests that the future she worries about is closer than it seems.

This article was published on Firstpost on July 4, 2019:


Photographs courtesy: IMDB

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

REVIEW 590: KAMMARA SAMBHAVAM


Release date:
April 14, 2018
Director:
Rathish Ambat
Cast:





Language:
Dileep, Siddharth, Namitha Pramod, Murali Gopy, Andy Von Eich, Divya Prabha, Bobby Simha, Shweta Menon, Indrans, Vijayaraghavan, Vinay Forrt, Siddique, Baiju, Sudheer Karamana, Simarjeet Singh Nagra
Malayalam


A film within this film falsely lionises a politician and ends up boosting his party’s electoral fortunes.

At a conceptual level, writer Murali Gopy’s Kammara Sambhavam directed by Rathish Ambat, is apt for our troubled times. The saga of a contemporary neta/party untruthfully claiming to have played a pivotal role in the Indian Independence movement rings a bell loud and clear. Napoleon Bonaparte’s words flashing on screen right at the end – “History is a set of lies agreed upon” – perfectly encapsulate the point made by the storyline until then, about a victor peddling his version of the past to the hapless masses.

The value of a message is greatly dependent on the sincerity of those delivering it though. And by slipping its own insensitive insinuation into a conversation in its closing moments, Kammara Sambhavam vastly dilutes its worth.

In that crucial scene, Kammaran Vishwambaran Nambiar (Dileep) – a traitor who has just recently been hero-ised on the big screen – tells his cohorts that they can quietly work on their agenda if they distract the public by getting a woman to accuse a high-profile man of sexual violence. The throwaway remark sans qualifiers would have been distasteful in any context, considering how the bogey of false cases has long been used to muddy the waters for millions of victims of rape, molestation and harassment. It is particularly disgusting in this specific context because of the real-life case in which Dileep is currently embroiled, in which he is charged with orchestrating an attack on a female colleague.

Dileep makes it tough for viewers to separate the artist from his art when he blatantly sneaks a potshot at his accuser into a fictional film.

Now make of that what you will.

Kammara Sambhavam is divided into two distinct halves. Pre-interval, in the present day, the members of the Indian Liberation Party, ILP (played by Vijayaraghavan, Sudheer Karamana, Baiju and Vinay Forrt) approach the hit Tamil director Pulikesi (Bobby Simha) to make a film on their ageing party patriarch Kammaran. ILP was a small armed force set up by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to fight the British colonisers, but it is now a political party.

(Possible spoilers ahead)

In this portion, Kammaran recalls his story during World War II, complete with his lies and machinations among the people of his village, his obsequiousness towards the British, his extreme caste prejudice, his longing for the beautiful Bhanumathi (Namitha Pramod) who does not reciprocate his feelings and his raging, all-consuming, well-disguised simmering jealousy towards the man she loves, ILP leader Othenan Nambiar (Siddharth) who is the son of another man Kammaran hates, the cruel and exploitative Kelu Nambiar (played by Gopy himself).

Despite the grim proceedings, this part is often amusing and sometimes outright hilarious as the protagonist’s ignorance, biases and manipulations are gradually revealed. It is also made evident here that Kammaran has zero interest in India’s freedom.

Post-interval, we sit with an audience in a hall viewing Pulikesi’s propaganda biopic on the man. The filmmaker paints a portrait of Kammaran that even Kammaran cannot recognise. Since those who know the truth are either dead or complicit in the lie, the public is successfully deceived.

(Spoiler alert ends)


Overall, Kammara Sambhavam is a reasonably entertaining film, not the least because Ambat more or less controls Dileep’s hammy tendencies and manages to use the actor’s naturally bland personality well. Dileep is therefore convincing as the slimy Kammaran of the first half. And when called upon to play the glamorous Kammaran of the second, he is given a thick beard, dark glasses, an attention-getting quirk and swish attire to build him up to being someone the actor and the character are not.

The rest of the cast needs no such crutches. Namitha Pramod is both striking to look at and a subtle performer. Gopy is convincing as an evil fellow you cannot even briefly sympathise with despite the ugly villainy of his bête noir. In a comparatively tiny role, Indrans displays his acting chops when he steals a scene in which the casting of Kammaran’s biopic is being discussed.

Tamil-Telugu star Siddharth, making his Malayalam debut here, is a pleasantly polished contrast to Dileep. His Malayalam diction needs improvement, but the fact that he dubbed for himself is worth commending since it shows a willingness to take risks and a desire to evolve. Besides, Siddharth is always easy on the eye.

There is an interesting tonal split in Kammara Sambhavam between fact and its distorted, fictionalised depiction. The film within the film is intentionally farcical, energetic and spiced up, and every actor featured in it (Dileep, Siddharth, Shweta Menon) is required to be over the top. Outside that celluloid take on events, the tone is more understated.

However, that romantic song and dance interlude with Bhanu in Kammaran’s imagination jars when it is forced into the first half. If Ambat’s goal is to laugh at commercial cinema even while participating in it himself, he cannot expect to be excused for resorting to one of the country’s most worn-out cinematic clichés. Besides, the director does not manage to entirely pull off the effort at relative understatement before the interval. To make matters worse, the sub-par European actor playing the British officer stationed in Kammaran’s village (his name is Andy Von Eich) robs the narrative of finesse whenever he is around, which is a lot.

The production design too is inexplicably inconsistent. On the one hand, we get some sophisticated battle scenes shot in low light, including a neatly done sequence where a bunch of men are seen in silhouette in the night fighting each other against a backdrop of a blue-back sky. On the other hand, the village settlement looks too glaringly set-like and artificial, which takes the punch out of an important passage where the paths of the story’s multiple players – the locals, the ILP, the British and Kelu Nambiar – intersect during an uncontrollable blaze.

Kammara Sambhavan remains fairly engaging despite these weak patches, which could perhaps have been forgiven in favour of its purportedly hard-hitting theme. It is impossible though to ignore the film’s lack of commitment to its own cause. Let us spell it out for Rathish Ambat and Murali Gopy: you cannot mock propaganda while being a vehicle for it yourself.

Rating (out of five stars): *1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
Running time:
182 minutes 

This review has also been published on Firstpost: