'Silk' without worms preferred!
Can you guess the
best asset of Vidya Balan? Yes, not her 'assets', but her mature and suggestive
looks that make her beautiful yet completely misfit for doing a character like
'Silk'. In the last two days, I watched Silk Smitha extensively on Youtube,
right from 'Sadma' to 'Reshma Ki Jawani' (and a horrible song with Shakti
Kapoor titled Bango Bango Bango) and believe me, the basic problem with TDP comes
out to be the cultural difference that creates a Vidya Balan and a Silk Smitha!
Let me explain it!
It's not at all
about acting because we expect it by default from Nasiruddeen Shah, Vidya Balan
and a little bit from Imran Hashmi too (Sorry, can't lie about Tushaar)! TDP is
all about acting and recreating the 80's Tamil cinema, but when you have
resources and good actors, then this can't be the decisive factor. Just recall the
Madrasi characters of Ramgopal Verma (Silver Mani in 'Sarkar' and a Tamil film
producer in 'Agyaat', who continously keeps his mouth open saying bizarre ayyoda).
Or for that matter the south Indian gangster of Anurag Kashyap in 'The Girl in
Yellow Boots'. Yes, nakamaka, nakamaka... gives pace and ambience to
kickstart a south based story, but it's not all about jumbling words; neither
asking for dosa everytime you feel like eating something. It's
essentially about the language, the accent that justifies costumes, locations, dark faces, vermillion and other cultural
symbols etc. Just think for a moment who connects with TDP? Is he/she a Tamil?
No, because the film is in Hindi. So? A viewer from Hindi belt? Never, because
the space-time is South Indian, except language! How pathetic it was to hear 'aapattijanak'
from Tamil storywriter Ramakant's (Tushar) mouth? Or, the Hindustani diction
of Tamil superstar Suryakant (Nasiruddeen Shah)? This may fit into a Hyderabadi
landscape at most, but not in the Dravidian socio-cultural scenario that has
witnessed a strong anti-Hindi movement over years. And in fact, the same movement has at times
proved to be the catalyst for South Indian film industry!
So, neither north
Indians nor south Indians have a logic to connect with TDP. Then why people are
rushing towards it? That's just for the same reason that made a Reshma 'Silk'.
Combined with a powerful promo campaign and colorful Savita bhabhi type posters,
with a catchy title, convincing faces and a loud music score, (that's
downloadability is almost as sure as the mobile phones' penetration into urban
India) it's not hard to realise 30 crores before release. The story that
started Friday was just topping, and people gustling towards cinemas with their
families to watch an 'A' rated movie were lured with the same elements that had
recovered the production cost before the first show. Rest is just subjectivity,
if you may like to call it thus. Everyone just repeating classy dialogues (the
same ones that were shown in promos) after the show, but none talking about
those "hot" and "dirty" scenes that lured them to cinemas!
It's because....it's because....what I
said at the start... best assets of Vidya Balan are her mature and suggestive
looks that make her beautiful yet completely misfit for doing a character like
'Silk'. What may be called the really bold scene (where 'Silk' in hot chilly red
costumes is trying to seduce herself on a bed) looks like a classic 'Lux' ad!
Throughout the film, camera focusses on Silk's assets, beeline etc., but the
film viewer has a different focal point. In fact, the focal point of a viewer
keeps on changing so rapidly that the camera fails to convince him and Vidya
Balan constantly dominates over her character. If she is now thinking of an
image makeover after TDP, someone must come to her rescue. Because it will not
be the masters like Nasiruddeen Shah next time! And moreover, if it is true
that "filmein sirf ek hi wajah se chalti hain...entertainment,
entertainment, entertainment...", then the other side too, that Vidya
Balan is not entertainment!
So this was all
about actor Vs. character. Now come to the storyline. I, as a common
filmviewer, do not know about 'Silk'
before her star life. Whatever is told to me on the screen makes an initial
impression of what the character is all about. A girl, fled away from her home
one day before her marriage, entering into a metropolitan city is a situation
that needs some detailing and description. Instead, the director leads us to a
bedroom where a middle-aged couple is engaged in sex and the central character
working as their maid is giving background music. Now, this is something like
representative pleasure, a vice that instantly hits the viewers' mind! Wasn't
this avoidable? Another shot just after that where Reshma says to Amma,
"Amma, tumhaari imarat dekh kar lagta hai ki kitne mazdooron ne is par
kaam kiya hoga". What does the director wants to portray? What's his
priority? Dialogue or character? Remember both are correlated. So the
representative sex scene and these type of 'bold' dialogues form the initial
character of Reshma. And remember, all this before entering the film
indusry!
So, when the celeb
magazine editor Naila choses to write her as 'beemaari' instead
of 'bechaari'; when Suryakant says, 'aisi ladkiyan ghar mein
le jaane layak nahin hoti hain'; when her mother shuts the door in front of
her; or she has to hide in the bathroom when Suryakant's wife Radhika
comes in abruptly; we don't feel bad, we don't feel sympathetic too. It's
rather pathetic, for the simple reason that the director didn't left any space
for the viewers to feel senti. This is due to the faulty character building of Reshma,
where 'Silk' could never justify her claim, if it is, that she was the victim
of that dirt and filth prevalent in the industry, that provoked Silk Smitha to
commit suicide. A conscious viewer will naturally compare this situation with
that of Fashion, where there is no such crisis because the character
building of protagonist is strong, full of attitude, ambitious and "never
say die" sort of thing, that leads her back into normalcy after a long
spell of depression. Here it is not so (firstly due to the story that is based on
reality, which is by default), but at least the suicide must be made
justifiable for viewers. Just one weird incident and lo! Why should not we
prefer the convincing death of Shonali (Kangna Ranaut) over Silk?
The process through which an individual reaches to the conclusion of suicide is
portrayed at its best in Fashion, and then the burden lies with the
system that has watched silently. How can we morally shift the burden of Silk's
suicide on the system (here film industry) if there is nothing to be put up in
contrast?
There is always a
question of morality embedded within. If the suicide of central character does
not arouse rage towards the system in a common viewer, then that death is a
waste. Although, here is a point! This also may be the central idea and a very
strong one too, that a character remains cursed after its death. But proving a
death meaningless and waste requires mettle of a different nature that you
can't expect from the Luthria-Kapoor combo (And these two are not even
responsible for that, when Imtiyaz Ali can create a confusion named
"Rockstar"). Everything else has been said elsewhere in reviews.
"The Dirty Picture", if it is all about acting (that is very much
expected of such a strong crew), dialogues (expected Luthria style) and Vidya
Balan's beauty (don't utter a word), is I think an average act in wholesome.
Imagine a situation
where you have just Nasiruddeen Shah, Imraan Hashmi and Vidya Balan standing on
heaps of dollars. Do we need then a Milan Luthria or Ekta Kapoor, or for that
matter any 'Silk' to make a nice film? Morale of the story: 'Silk' without worms preferred!
(Abhishek Srivastava)
