Our second meeting happened on 14-07-09 in the Mphil Classroom. The numbers dwindled to just five: Aparna, Bipin, Sowmya, Shyma and Viju were present for the meeting
The subject of the discussion was the Bollywood movie, Dev D directed by Anurag Kashyap. The movie was screened the previous friday.
The meeting started off with Aparna initiating the discussion. She compared the multiple adaptation of Devdas something akin to the adaptations of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The indecisive character of Hamlet, the protagonist of Hamlet, the play seems to be reflected in the poster of Dev D too.
Viju commented on the Dev D's characters meeting at the murky depths signifies their temporary stay there.
Shyma said that there is some steering away from the traditional binaries of modern and traditional as well as the london educated devdas and the image of dev d
Sowmya observed that the movie had too much colour and featured a debased hero. The role of chanda by a white woman and the NRI-ness of Dev D was highlighted. Again the movie was not trying to perpetrate that love is all innocent. Rather it is about the self. The inherent macho-ness present in Devadas characters was also commented on. She also tried to make a connection between the character's name, Devdas and the practice of Devadasi system prevalent in India.
Bipin made some amazing observations which seemingly everyone else missed. He said while in the original Devadas Paro is hurt by Devadas and gets a scar on her forehead. here Dev D hasa scar on his face by an accident which he himself is responsible. He also said about the possibility of many loves.
There were minimal discussions after the meeting. There is some uncertainty on tomorrow's meeting. I think Sowmya will update us on that.
Please post your responses as comments for this post below. Sorry for the delay.
- Viju
On Dev D
ReplyDelete14th July, 2009.
I really do not understand the hype that surrounds/surrounded Dev D. I in fact found it as good as or as bad as Devdas-1, II.
I cannot comment on the techniques on how the film was made, its lighting, and so on simply because I don’t know anything about it. In fact, if the conference hall TV had its colour setting right, then Dev D had too much of colour, very much like Bansali’s Colours. OR was Anurag Kashyap making fun of those colours? I don’t know.
Few things I liked about the movie
1. its style of narration that focused on each of its main characters—Paro, Dev, Chanda. But I also think in all these parts, the person fore-grounded was Dev.
2. Though it is the White (half-white woman) who not by her own innate evil-ness (otherwise in most films, u have Christian characters as vamps), but nevertheless by turn of fate ends up as goodness embodied in evil. (Paro while smoking with Dev says it is not her first time!). The thing is the hero ends up with this “evil/debased” white woman and that’s good.
3. Love is not all innocent, it is all about self—endlessly repeated in the movie—too good.
4. Paro—what does she do after she leaves Dev in his room after she washes and cleans his room? That was vague. I thought she went into the night and its life, and she is not beside her husband in their bed when Dev calls her late night. She is not the innocent virgin.
5. The best thing about the movie for me was that it showcased the Indian Hypocrite—who is always gaga about Indian values and culture. The movie says it is all about lust, love of self, greed, murkiness, opportunism—which most of us are not willing to see and definitely the previous two Devdas did not want to see.
6. in fact, it is not Paro but Chanda, the prostitute (I liked the take on different terms used to refer sex workers) whose love somewhere reminds the ideal.
7. but Dev is all macho—the new macho, who is sensitive, who is emotional, vulnerable, yet macho, even Shah Rukh was the same—right?
In all the above ways the movie is different from its predecessors. And its scores are only these. Where are its negatives? I have in fact ended up appreciating it and writing a review. But then I think I expected something else from the hype and therefore was disappointed with the film. But then, I should confess I that I like only romantic, comic movies including PJ movies.
i think i am the one posting too long comments which are quite boring to read. any competetion?
ReplyDeleteHi Friends,
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t able to attend the second reading of our group on film ‘Dev D’. But still I would like to share some discussion on this movie through our blog.
“There are a number of films in Bollywood these days where heroes are playing Sikhs… The Panjabi Cultural and Heritage Board is upset with the stereotyped offensive Sikh images in Bollywood movies.” Why I raised this argument, because, that’s true nowadays; “Bollywood” movies are portraying Sikhs, in a kind of way where Sikhs are having fear of their own Identity.
If, we observe the Bollywood industry, earlier, Urdu words were inflected, now it’s Panjabi. Urdu mixed Hindi language was entertained the spectators in the film ‘Devadas’ (Old & New). But, why the film maker changed the language in this film ‘Dev D’ which was (remade with) the same concept of ‘Devadas’? Where as so many love stories are main subject for Bollywood films but all are not in Panjabi language. Why only few films? And those films are dealing or portraying with what kind subjects & identities?
Ok, we will come back to ‘Dev D’ in particular; this is a typical Bollywood “masala” formula movie. Especially in this movie extreme romance (of course, in real it’s fact but still, in India, film sensor board has some rules and regulations in the interest of Indian audience), extreme colour, lighting etc. these are symbols of so called western culture or we can say “pub culture”.
Issues raised were, very genuine in ‘Dev D’ like, men domination, women in present society, “love”, prostitution, liberty /individuality of youth etc.
I would like to bring out few points on these issues:
• Men domination in society is continuing debate (of course, its fact) in the past and present. But, society is keep changing; now in present situation, women are exploring themselves as equally to men, but, most of the situations in the past and present emotionally and physically women are suppressed, depressed,… why?
• Somehow in present society love became materialistic and practical, where as “LOVE” is always emotional bind.
• What & where is youth representation in present society? If they need liberty, that is in what sense? Is that in their professional life or in the personal life, or in social life?
Every body should agree that, ‘cinema is mirrors the society’, film is a cultural text where it is not only gives us entertainment, but it is communicate to us about our society. So, these issues we should think.
praveen, i think you should have been there on the day of discussion.
ReplyDeleteWell,that Dev D used punjabi and not urdu/hindi despite the director not being a punjabi (or a bong for that matter--both dominate bollywood) is really noteworthy including the stereotyping of sikhs. but does this film agree to such stereotypes? i would think NO.
And,you are right about women, love and liberty, all together and separate. but i thought the moview is saying paro took HER decision, and that if we say love is emotional in the past, now it is practical and material, we are fooling ourselves. love has always been emotional and material and convenient especially for men--and now women are only now openly acknowledging it--to say it is pure in past and corrupt now--is very brahminical hypocrite.
and the kind of liberty movie depicts--it is a sarcastic comment on our degenerated status.
another long comment form me,!
lots of spelling and grammar mistakes, late realisation--apologies
ReplyDelete(I am at my convoluted best here)
ReplyDeleteThe thirteenth filmic adaptation of Devadas, tries to revamp the whole genre of Devadas movies. It tries to adapt the story to the modern times and contexts, producing a melee of different points of contact made to the eponymous central character Devadas.
Devadas’s relationship with women are disastrous, yet his massive ego and self – destructive love seems to win over the women. In its essence, Devadas is a one-man’s journey to find comfort and satisfy his ego.
It does make a difference that he is rich, feudal and wealthy and the constant feeding of self destruction can happen only in such circumstances and prove to be of entertainment value.
The film does involve a breaking point, a literal accident, yet symbolic which jolts Devadas to his own actions. He wakes up clear. He realizes that the guy in the accident could be him, but is not, and he could choose a destiny. This is a breaking point for the genre itself, as Anurag Kashyap tries to reclaim the hero from a pointless tragedy-turned-melodrama to something more affirming. He tries to start a life anew, with a girl who also decides to choose a life for herself, rather than what was offered to her.
This is also a clear rescue for the two protagonists, as their fall from high riches to the filthy low, to the underbelly of Delhi(which became a mere meeting point for two fallen humans), and their subsequent recovery from alcoholism/prostitution turning them into curable illnesses. The rich brats could finally choose each other, even from the murkiest depths of human decadence, leaving that world for the lowliest and the cunning, the real lower class, while their own sojourns in it, merely an aberration or an adventure. This radical ending, while a definite improvement over the slushier versions, is still a problematic one.
I really liked the way this film has been executed both as an adaptation (context, characterization, plot, etc.) and and in terms of its cinematic qualities (cinematography, soundtrack, etc.). Though I haven’t watched any of the previous adaptations of Devdas the novella, or even read the text for that matter, thanks to the vigorous and repeated media coverage of Sanjay Leela Bansali’s “faithful” adaptation, I must admit a substantial familiarity with the plot.
ReplyDeleteAnurag Kashyap’s Dev D I think was extremely well made and what was striking about it was the emphasis on "decadence" with and through technology. This I would like to elaborate upon with respect to the film’s inclusion of those “scandalous” incidents that occurred in the country over the past decade. These controversies include the MMS incident involving a student from the Delhi Public School (DPS) and the BMW hit and run case involving the son of a politician (or some affluent chap). Both incidents caused severe angst within the country over the "degeneration" that apparently afflicts the current youth. This degeneration is of course in the form of technology, globalization and consumerism (let's not forget the mobile phone and the BMW).
Kashyap’s Dev D therefore, I think, capitalizes on this very dilemma. So whether it is in the form of neon “HIV” signboards, drug peddling foreigners, stylized representations of intoxication, the "foreign" whorehouse, etc., the film seems firmly grounded in this very angst.
So basically, I would have to agree with Praveen in that this film being an adaptation, foregrounds issues of representation and consequently, the context.