DANCING TO NEW TUNES

A WIDE CANVAS

DANCING TO NEW TUNES

Painting, sculpture, poetry,drama, music- these have been the traditional arts of mankind down the ages. These have served as the vehicles of self-expression, and also as medium through which society transmitted its culture to the secceeding generations. Poetry- almost all ancient literature of all cultures is in this form- is the largest source from which we learn about the course of human life on earth, more ancient, and more reliable than even archaeology, though it is also subjected to varied interpretations.

Literary tradition was almost entirely oral. It meant that people were mostly unlettered, though they could understand and appreciate poetry. There were people to write down the literature, and they were limited in number. Most people were content with hearing, and eager to do so. We learn that Ramcharit Manas of Tulsidas was read in public places like road junctions, and those who could, wrote it down as it was being recited. This could account for the differences in the versions of some stanzas.Even in the 19th century, we learn that inslaments of the novels of Charles Dickens were read in pubs and taverns by literate persons, and were eagerly listened to by the illiterate admirers. Literacy was no guarantee of interest in the subject, and illiteracy did not mean indifference to a fine story or song- it was no barrier to learning. It is the modern age which has mistaken  literacy for education.

With the invention of printing, and the spread of literacy through mass education, and the medium of newspapers and periodical magazines, the reading habit spread through the 19th and 20th centuries. But this has now been overtaken by the visual media. However, the quality of what is printed and circulated has steadily fallen. Lewis Mumford pointed out one glaring feature of the reign of technology: while printing technology has advanced far, most of our press coverage and writing is "lurid". He said:

On the one side there is the gigantic printing press, a miracle of fine articulation... on the other the contents of the papers themselves recording the most vulgar and elementary emotional states.....There the impersonal, the cooperative, the objective; here the limited, the subjective, the recalcitrant, the ego, violent and full of hatred and fear,etc.

Lewis Mumford, with a quatation from one of his famous books.
By R.W.Kenny (Own Work) CC BY SA.4 Creative commons. Wikimedia.org.html

This was written more than 40 years ago. Now, the situation is much worse. Just today (25 May 2015) the Times of India, Bangalore reports on the front page the news of the death of John Nash, the Nobel Laureate mathematician in a car crash; the deails are provided on page 12. But on both pages, there appear  stamp-sized pictures of Nash. But go to the last pages of the paper, you have big pictures of some sports persons, in cluding one of a bloke opening a champagne bottle!. And an advertisement for some fashion item,showing a woman, displaying something about the 'Blenders Pride' brand of liquor by Seagram- a neat way to cicumvent the rule that liquor advertisements should not be carried! And we are told there:"taste life in style"! (Of the total 20 pages of the main section, 6 carry advertisements. The 6 page supplement carries mainly information about  filmdom, pictures of some stars and starlets, and advertisements.)In Bharat, a Nobel Laureate is nobody before a filmstar, or cricketer, or local politician. That is the scale of values of....well, the learned editor!

John Forbes Nash Jr.
Received the Nobel memorial prize ,1994 in Economics.
By Peter Badge/Typo/ (OTRS submission by way of Jimmy Wales.
CC BY-SA 3.0 Creative commons via Wikimedia Commons.

But the newspaper has been overtaken by the visual media.I have not watched TV or any of the Channels for 20 years and so, cannot comment on their coverage or contents, except saying that it is even more lurid than the newspaper.

The mother (or father) of all visual media is the cinema. Even in this age of home theatre, Blue Ray, etc, people say the thrill of watching a movie like Deewar,Sholay, Sarkar or Chandramukhi in a theatre is unmatched.

The Lumiere Brothers who invented the motion picture.

There is no doubt that cinema started out as a cultural medium of our age. It afforded unmatched opportunities for fusing several other art forms- dramatics, music, poetry, literature in the form of dialogues, etc. It could bring to life historical eras or personalities through period costume, language and sets. It could take the audience to historic and beautiful locales. The directors were artistic, employed other artists, developed techniques of visual presentation and dramatisation. But like the print media, it has also lost its way and landed in a world of 'what will sell'.So, it focuses on woman and violence.

Cinema in its development has been influenced by growth of technology, and the innate grammar or 'fix' that has grown with it.On one side are purely technical things like the wide screen, Dolby sound, colour, camera, etc. On the other are the  factors which silently influence and seriously alter our sense of morality and even decency. Showing nudity, public kissing, scenes of intimacy, use of words with double meanings, obscene gestures and expressions, wanton violence,etc have become the norm. 

Three of  our greatest film makers and directors. They were idealistic,artistic and never vulgar or cheap. They chose great stories and presented them with fine music and artistic embellishment.
I resort to the postage stamps, as other fine pictures involve copyright hassles.

Even so, there have been individual artistes who refuse to compromise with moral standards. A star like Gregory Peck would not accept a role that violated conventional morality- a feature that made his role as Atticus Finch so perfect. A singer like Talat Mahmood would not sing  unless he felt the lyrics to be inoffensive. And public too would not accept compromise with morality, or a hero being shown as morally questionable. In all the so called Westerns in Hollywood, a bad man is never shown as winning, in the end. Clint Eastwood who figured in so many Spaghetti Westerns celebrating violence, produced a movie 'Unforgiven' showing that violence does not win or pay. 

In the 50s, Alfred Hitchcock produced a movie 'Rear Window.' The hero is a press photographer, who is injured and incapacitated for some time, confined to his wheelchair.With his camera, he scans the neighbours' apartments in his complex, and unearths a murder. It was a thrilling movie. But the audience did not accept it. They asked how a director like Hitchcock could indulge in or extol invasion of privacy- a cardinal western value. And they asked the star- James Stewart, who again had a reputation for playing straight characters- how he could agree to act such a role. Those were the fifties, of course, and now no such questions would be asked.

But even now, some actors are particular. Before agreeing to star in 'Road to Perdition' (2002), Tom Hanks demanded that violence  should be cut to the minimum. And this movie is a modern gem- it essays the nature of gang violence, with the message that violence does not pay. But more than that, it deals delicately with the subject of father-son relationship, and shows the anxiety of the father to prevent his son from taking to violence. The film is developed by visuals, more than dialogue.

Tom Hanks.

 Years earlier, John Wayne had likewise insisted on altering the story to ensure that  he would not be shown shooting someone in the back; nor would he consent to a young boy, his admirer, indulging in shooting. He in fact makes the boy toss away the gun. And he showed his love for his horse,which he had had for ten years, by bringing it into the film in a memorable way.  This was in his last appearance in the movies- " The Shootist" (1976). Well, with all the muck in the industry, individual artists can be great people.

John Wayne- the Duke, always appeared larger than life!

We also see such greatness in Indian film personalities, especially singers. Mohammad Rafi would  not seek royalty, once he was paid for singing. And he would sing for free for indigent producers. Talat Mahmood once found Mukesh without work- and he told the Music directors to give the songs meant for him to Mukesh. That was in Madhumati (1958). Mukesh's fortunes rose with it. Once, Mukesh was to record a song  but he could not, due to indisposition. Not wanting to wait, the producers made  dummy recording in the voice of Manhar Udhas, brother of Pankaj Udhas. When Mukesh turned up for the final recording,and listened to this version, he found it to be quite nice and asked that it be retained! When Roshan adapted a tune from S.D.Burman, he openly told him he had done so!

But such things are exceptional.Every industry, every art form, every technology brings with it its own logic, grammar and norms. And only those who succumb to or master them can ride the wave. Today the film industry, like the print media, represents the basest instincts of the most depraved kind. No force on earth can change it for the better. Official censorship only sharpens the offenders. Money is the language that unites all arts and artists today.All else is show, and  excuse.

But let us not close this with sad thoughts. Even the dark cloud has a silver lining. The movie Deewar is about two brothers. One becomes a goon and rich. The other becomes a (straight) police official. Once the goon brother confronts the younger one and reels off all that he has acquired by joining the underworld and asks the younger one what he has got by being honest. He simply replies: "I have got my mother with me" -mere paas Ma hai.This must be considered the greatest of all dialogues in our Hindi film history.

Mere paas Maa hai!
What magic words in a counry which regards mother as God and worships God as mother!
Picture taken from Filmfare. Thanks.


 Likewise, in the movie "The Road To Perdition" the boy is asked whether Sullivan (his father) was good or bad. The boy simply replies: "He was my father".

  

• I saw then that my father's only fear was that his son would follow the same road. And that was the last time I ever held a gun. People always thought I grew up on a farm. And I guess, in a way, I did. But I lived a lifetime before that, in those six weeks on the road in the winter of 1931. When people ask me if Michael Sullivan was a good man, or if there was just no good in him at all, I always give the same answer. I just tell them... he was my father.

Like the lotus blooming in muddy waters, we have such gems even in the film world!