It may not entirely be an over-statement, if one were to say that of late, particularly during the last decade or so, watching a movie, or rather sitting through the reels of celluloid that unwind before us, has become more of an agony than excitement, pleasure, or even a positive jolt, which it used to be previously. On many an occasion, the scenario gets to such decadent a level that one would be forced to leave his or her brain back home and go through this anguish with a kind of clinical blankness. In a majority of cases, by the time he or she gets up from the seat for the drive back home, most of the scenes would have gone amiss from his or her mind anyway..
It was after a fair bit of time gap (possibly more than 5-6 months since the last movie at a movie hall) that I went to see a movie - the much acclaimed Dark Knight - at a multiplex ten or so days ago. The trigger was a text message that my son sent me after he'd been to see that movie. The message read something like this. "Dad, forgot to tell you yesterday - Dark Knight is running in the movie halls in Doha; why don't you and mom go see it - surely you will like it". In his Orkut page, I also saw some comments of his about Chris Nolan's (director of the movie) genius and a quote from the Joker - the villain, or rather the actor in a negative role, in the movie.
These things might have raised my expectancy level several notches up from the normal 'blankness', when I decided to be a part of the Dark Knight audience. Alas, I should say that expectations belied on me, one more time (and to my son I should say that I record my disagreement with his opinion on the movie).
While sitting through the reels, my memories went back to my childhood days - about the first few movies that I saw when I was, say, 5 or 6 years old. The movie hall nearest to my house was Kodungore Nirmala 'talkies'. It was a 'C' class theatre, or what we used to call 'ola (ഓല)theatre', or a movie hall which has thatched roof and bamboo-matted walls. During matinee shows, the sun-god used to make his presence felt inside the hall - several lighted circles used to come in from outside and adore the silvery screen, I remember. There were a few RCC theatres in the immediate vicintiy such as Ponkunnam Srikrishna and Kanjirapply Baby, and of course in Kottayam there used to be Raj Mahal and Star. Anand came later, followed by Abhilash & Asha (twin theatres) and Anupama. Trips to those theatres were far and few in between, though. Nirmala used to be the main destination, most of the times..
Coming back to 'Dark Knight', yes, on my exit from the multiplex screen, my mind quietly made a compare of what I'd just seen with what I saw in my childhood days. I still remember a film called 'Nadodi', a Prem Nazir starrer. The villain (could have been Jose Prakash - can't remember ) is all powerful, negatively omni-potent, omni-present, capable of wreaking havoc wherever whenever at the beck of a finger, and remains one-up on the 'detective' until the very last minute. Thieves plant bombs at will, including inside the Police Station with not even God being aware. The 'sada' policeman as usual is one who slips in the mud at every two minutes, and the police team (at those time wearing shorts, and not trousers) joins in after the detective catches the culprits through a thrilling archery session or 'vaal-plate', as it used to be called by the public. And finally the detective acknowledges the support given by the lady detective (who in most cases used to be Sheelamma), and the side-kick (who used to be Adoor Bhasichettan). In those days, there used to be 'Jana Gana Mana' too, at the end, and thereafter it was "Shubham" :-)
My good god - how many times have we seen this formula being enacted and re-enacted ad nauseum, the same wine with only the bottles changed? Isn't high time that the tinsel world put some sort of an end to this? Aren't those who pay from their pockets fed up of these yet? Or just because the production standards are superb, where unbelievable things are made to happen in a credible, technologically sophisticated manner, is it that the movie will still be accepted by the public the world over? Does increasing sophistication in the use of technology including the use of IMAX cameras (the bank robbery shots in DK were shot by IMAX cameras) make a film 'more equal'? I'm told Dark Knight has broken one too many a box-office record, and I'm amazed, to say the least.
What does this film offer you? What do you take home with, after sitting through the reels for 152 minutes - other than possibly having witnessed a different kind of villainy being exhibited by Heath Ledger ? Incidentally he had put up a commendable performance - the only one worthy of a special mention in this movie - to my mind. Have you seen anything which you haven't seen before - I wonder? In James Bond movies, at least the story line changes, the setting changes, the scenario changes - but what about this? Supposedly, the car and later the mobike used by Bruce Waynes are technological marvel, it seems - so what? Do such things make a god movie? Have you ever seen a villain who can rob a bank but in the process kill a score of his accomplices, yet manage to have thousands of his gang-members still ready to lend life for him, one who can plant hundreds of bombs in a city where there are expected to be thousands of surveillance cameras fixed, does not get tired even after getting "questioned" by several top-notch investigation officers who use third degree torture methods, and after all these several rounds of third degree torture, even "seduce" a trained senior police officer into questioning him with absolutely no protection around, so much so that the police officer then gets into the hands of the villain and....finally the villain escapes from the high security prison, and then plants hundreds of bombs in a hospital....
Sir, I thought the world of the celluloid was a world of "make-believe"..but wasn't this a bit too far?
Time out, time out sir,... and that takes us to cardinal issue - what should movie do to the viewer as a minimum. To my mind, a movie should in some way relate to a viewer, as a base line. Just as a reader of a book relates to the text that he reads (lest he or she will stop reading it). Just as we look at a smiling baby. Just as we look at a blooming flower, or a speck of sunlight that comes out of a dew drop....The moment an artistic creation becomes devoid of such a connect, then it no longer belongs there - it ceases to be itself. Such a disconnect divorces the movie from the viewer, and what is called a "loss-of-specie" happens, which is what happens in many cases. However, here we're only talking about the basic requirement. The level of greatness, the level of quality, the level of largeness of a creation increases with the intensity of such a relationship. It can reach out to your inner self, it can touch your heart, it can connect to your intellect, it can overwhelm you, it can overtake you, it can identify with you, it can make you think, laugh or cry... else it can make you wish you were the creator of that work...
I think this also answers the question of when does a viewer start relating to a movie? There should be something in it that reaches out to you, to the inner chords of your heart. Emotionally, intellectually, aesthetically, artistically, there should be a vibration within you...When the bow of a violin touches its strings, music comes out. When air is blown through the empty space of a flute, melody flows out. The work of art should, in a similar manner, resonate within you... and that happens, as the laws of physics stipulate, when the other body's frequency of vibration reaches your natural frequency. When that happens, you identify with that work, and it remains with you, sometimes for ever. To name a few, just a few - think of the he famous staircase scene in the greatest of movies 'Batteleship Potemkin', the scenes from 'Bicycle thieves', scenes from 'Padher Panchaali', the scenes from 'Swayamavaram', scenes from 'Elippathayam', scenes from 'Esthappan', scenes from 'Kireedom'..they will not leave your mind, as long as you are able to think, remember...
It is not that this movie was ever expected in that level of class at all. No, far from it. But sir, while coming back from the temple festival, shouldn't there be at least a broken piece of bangle that I should be able to take back...?
*********************************
The credit titles read as under:
Directed by: Christopher Nolan; screenplay by Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan; photographed by Wally Pfister; production design by Nathan Crowley; edited by Lee Smith; music by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer; produced by Charles Roven, Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan. A Warner Bros. Pictures release.
Actors: Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman); Heath Ledger* (The Joker); Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent); Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes); Gary Oldman (Lt. Jim Gordon); Michael Caine (Alfred); Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox).
*Note: While checking some reviews, I learned, with deep sorrow, of this 28-year-old Australian actor's death earlier this year (January 2008) due to an accidental overdose of prescription medicines for insomnia and anxiety.
PS: You can see a couple of other reviews which I stumbled upon
here or
here,
