|
WSWS
: Arts Review
: Film
Festivals
Sydney Film Festival
A critical look at aspects of life in contemporary India
By Richard Phillips
7 July 2000
Use
this version to print
Two films from India The Lady of the House, written
and directed by Rituparno Ghosh, and The Throne of Death
by Murali Nairwere shown at the Sydney festival. Warmly
received by festival audiences around the world, these well-crafted
filmsthe first about a lonely spinster, the other about
the frame-up and execution of a peasant labourertake a critical
look at aspects of life in contemporary India.
The subject matter of these films is significant. The extreme
right wing Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP), which heads India's
coalition government, is acutely sensitive to any artistic work
exploring the plight of women or the lower castes. Hindu communalist
forces, encouraged by the rise to power of the BJP, have harassed
artists, filmmakers and writers who dare to challenge the government's
political agenda or artistically explore the reality of social
life in India.
In January this year, Indian born director Deepa Mehta, came
under attack, in particular from the fascistic Rastriya Swayangsevak
Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Shiva Sena and the Kashi Sanskriti
Raksha Sangharsh Samithi, because she attempted to make Water,
a film about the plight of widows in India in the 1930s. Mehta's
set was destroyed by rioting Hindu chauvinists and the BJP state
government in Uttar Pradesh banned production of the film claiming
she was responsible for provoking the riots. Mehta, who plans
to resume production at another location later this year, was
subjected to death threats, denounced as anti-Hindu and falsely
accused in the media of plagiarism.
This is the situation confronting serious artists today in
India. It is commendable therefore that the relatively young directors
of The Lady of the House and The Throne of Death have
refused to be intimidated and produced films that attempt to examine
important social issues. Hopefully their work will encourage others.
The Lady of the House (Bariwali), which was made on
a shoestring budget and released in February this year, is Ghosh's
fourth feature film and regarded by many critics as his most accomplished
work. The film deals with several weeks in the life of Banalata
(Kiron Kher), a lonely middle-aged woman. Banalata, who is intensely
shy, has never recovered emotionally from the unfortunate death
of her husband-to-be years earlier. The young man died after being
bitten by a snake, the night before the couple was to be married.
Banalata has never married, had little contact with men and
as the years have rolled by, become more and more withdrawn. She
is cared for by a loyal family retainer and rarely leaves the
house. She has so little self-confidence that even Malati (Sudipta
Chakraborty), her cheeky maidservant, bosses her around. Banalata
cannot afford to properly maintain the rambling old house in which
she lives, but an opportunity for some income, and perhaps a change
in her life, arises when a film crew offers to rent the property
as a movie location.
The house is soon filled with cameras, lights and glamorous
actors. Banalata, who previously insisted that the house be partitioned
to restrict contact between householders and the crew, becomes
infatuated with Deepanakar (Chiranjeet Chakraborty), the director,
and gradually becomes involved in the production. Although Banalata
knows that Deepanakar is married and that one of the actresses
is attempting to re-establish a relationship with him, she cannot
stop herself being drawn towards him. He seems to represent the
sort of man she has dreamed aboutworldly, charming and cultured.
And when the director persuades her to play a small role in the
film, she begins to dream of a new dawn in her life.
These aspirations are dashed when shooting ends, the crew departs
and the crumbling old house and Banalata's life resume their quiet,
monotonous existence. Banalata's letters to the director remain
unanswered and any hope of discovery through her small
role in the film is crushed when she learns it has been edited
out of the movie. The manipulative Deepanakar, having extracted
what he required from Banalata for the film, has moved on to other
projects.
The basic plot line of The Lady of the House sounds
rather commonplace, almost banal. But what might appear to be
a fairly simple story about Banalata's life becomes a sensitive
and moving exploration of the loneliness of a middle aged unmarried
woman. Although Banalata is not formally defined as a widow because
she never married, she is still subject to social conventions
that make her a second-class citizen. In India today, poorer widows
and unmarried middle-age women are looked upon as burdens on their
families and it is not unusual for some to be forced out of their
family homes to eke out an existence as beggars.
Banalata is not poverty stricken but she is not taken seriously
by those closest to her and has little authority in her own home.
Her vulnerability to high-profile films stars and to Deepanakar's
demands, and her shy, solitary existence are not personality traits
but legacies of the oppressed position of widows in Indian society.
Ghosh's film, which is clearly influenced by the work of Satyajit
Ray, one of India's greatest directors, subtly alludes to these
social pressures.
Throne of Death (Marana Simhasanam) by 34-year-old Murali
Nair is a disturbing 57-minute film about class oppression and
political manipulation in Kerala, India. This darkly ironic film,
which tells the story of the frame-up and execution of Krishnan,
an agricultural labourer, graphically captures the soul-destroying
poverty and backwardness that confronts a large proportion of
the state's population. The film's real achievement, however,
is its biting portrait of the complacent and cynical functionaries
and careerists of the Stalinist Communist Party of India [Marxist]
(CPM), the party which has governed Kerala on and off for decades.
Nair begins his film, which has a simple folk tale quality
to it, with a series of tightly framed shots of Krishnan (Vishwas
Njavakkal) preparing the land for rice planting. Within a few
minutes the film provides a rich portrait of the difficult situation
confronting Krishnan, his wife and young son.
While Krishnan works the fields, the landowner lounges on a
porch sipping tea and complaining that the planting is taking
too long. Krishnan and his wife (Lakshmi Raman), who have suffered
years of hard work and a semi starvation diet, look old enough
to be the boy's grandparents. After a sparse meal Krishnan complains
there is never enough money to live and decides to steal some
coconuts from the landowner's property. He is caught red-handed
and humiliated by the landlord, who sends him to jail the next
day.
Krishnan's wife attempts to secure his release but learns that
he is being accused of an unsolved murder and other crimes. She
visits the landlord, now regretful of his actions, who explains
that it is election time and suggests that she approach the local
Communist party branch to secure its support. The officials make
some assurances and some days later call a rally to protest the
labourer's arrest. A local party leader (Suhas Thayat) demagogically
declares that the party will fight fearlessly for Krishnan's release.
It will be a long battle, he explains, but the Indian people have
a proud record of fighting colonial oppression and will succeed.
The Throne of Death takes a sharp turn when party officials
discover in the local newspaper that Kerala, assisted by World
Bank loans, will soon be equipped with an electric chair. This,
they declare, would be a leap towards the 21st century
and of great benefit to the state. The Stalinist officials do
not discuss how the possession of an execution machine will assist
anyone, let alone the workers and rural poor they claim to represent.
And in line with the introduction of other World Bank aid
projects these officials feel no obligation to justify their
actions. All questions are brushed aside with phrases about the
march of progress.
After hearing this news, party officials, who, like Krishnan's
landlord spend most of their time sipping tea, decide that the
campaign to secure Krishnan's release should end, replaced with
demands for the labourer to become the first Indian to die in
the electric chair. The film's satiric tension intensifies even
further when a party official begins a hunger strike to demand
Krishnan's execution. Naturally the government agrees and Krishnan's
disoriented wife is reluctantly brought in by officials to urge
the hunger striker to end his fast. With breathtaking gall officials
compare Krishnan to Mahatma Gandhi.
Krishnan, who is told that the new technology will provide
him with a blissful departure to another life, is overjoyed with
the decision. His life is so miserable that the promise of a new
heavenly existence is something to look forward to, his feelings
reinforced by the fact that his wife and son will be provided
for by a government pension.
The villagers are informed that the execution is another clear
indication that the government is bringing electricity to the
regionsomething desperately needed. Krishnan's death, according
to party officials, is a worthy and necessary sacrifice in this
process and one that will ultimately benefit everyone. Krishnan's
wife is suspicious and confused. She knows there is something
deeply wrong but is defenceless. She has no answer to the arguments
and is dragged along in the wake of this horrible agenda. Life
is so unbearable for the villagers and they are so desperate for
any relief that, no matter how terrible the cost, any prospect
of a change for the better even if very slender and distant appears
attractive.
The family are given a sumptuous meal, Krishnan's last, and
a victory rally and public execution organised. His wife is hailed
as a woman of great courage and carried through the village on
a cart decorated in red banners. A senior government official
is brought in to carry out the execution. With this new
tool of the 21st century, more and more people will have an easy
death, the official says. Our nation, he continues,
is making great progress and the village and Krishnan will
achieve international fame.
The Throne of Death, which has minimal dialogue, concludes
with Krishnan's execution. A voice-over explains that Krishnan
is now regarded as one of Kerala's great heroes for his contribution
to progress in the state and that a film is planned about his
life.
Nair's low-budget film resonates precisely because it draws
attention to the cynicism of the CPM bureaucrats and the ease
with which they are able to espouse the struggle against imperialism
one day, only to drop their rhetoric and declare that the demands
of international finance capital are progressive and have to be
introduced, the next. In fact, the film simply highlights the
modus operandi of the CPM, which regularly proclaims to the oppressed
masses its opposition to the profit system while convincing them
to accept programs and projects that destroy their very lives.
Nair studied communications in Bombay before working in television
and as an assistant to director Mani Kaul. In 1993 he achieved
international recognition for his documentary, Tragedy of an
Indian Farmer, based on a poem by the poet Changampuzha Krishna
Pillai. Coronations, his next film, explored the impact
of advanced military technology on an Indian town and A Long
Journey, made in 1996, uses the story of a group of people
on a bus journey to depict the impact of communalisation on Indian
society.
While Nair has been decidedly vague about his own political
outlook, avoiding journalists' questions on the subject, The
Throne of Death is a clear protest against the CPM and the
powers-that-be in Kerala. And like Arundhati Roy's novel The
God of Small Things, which includes a damning portrait of
a CPM functionary in Kerala, Nair's film is an expression of the
contempt felt by wide layers to this ossified and corrupt political
apparatus. The Throne of Death won the Camera D'Or prize
at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival. It deserves the widest audience.
See Also:
"The only appropriate response
is to make the film"
An interview with filmmaker Deepa Mehta
[6 July 2000]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |