Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Coimbatore
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
Madurai
Thiruvananthapuram
Visakhapatnam
Stumbling over IT
|
Like all new ideas, Prakash Belawadi's film Stumble invited both cheers and jeers. This landmark film, driven by contemporary economics, makes forays into the untrodden realm of new middle-class experience. DEEPA GANESH talks to the film-maker about the market economy in conflict with old values.
|
IT IS, perhaps, easier to watch a film that can be clearly categorised as either a commercial or an art film. Like Deveeri, that talks about poverty, or a feel-good Dil Chahta Hai. And then there are Hinglish films that adopt a tone of mockery when they talk of Indian circumstances.
Amidst these formulae, when there is an attempt like Stumble, a Kannada-English film (Kanglish?), which talks seriously about "us", the middle class, we don't have the tools to evaluate it. Last weekend's reviews are testimony to this. One reviewer sweepingly dismissed it saying the film sounds like a "seminar" and like an Abbaiah Naidu tearjerker. How, pray, can it be both? One also wonders if the problem arises from the film being a totally "local" fare. The story of Stumble is driven by the much-hyped IT, fraudulent mutual fund schemes, the vulnerability of co-operative bank sector in the globalised scenario, the angst of the middle class, and a youth bereft of values in a country that has no icon, a generation that has, no doubt, heard about Baba Amte, Medha Patkar, and Sudarshan, but has been witness to swindlers in Bofors, hawala, and a thousand other scams. So, when Reddy, an upright board member in a co-op bank in the film, in a passionate outburst, expresses anxiety about investing money in a multinational enterprise because most of the bank's depositors are poor farmers, many in the audience laughed!
So, it was in a manner of unburdening oneself and grappling with a film that defies clear classifications that I had to meet Prakash Belawadi, the maker of Stumble. Prakash has been associated with theatre and films as an actor, designer, and scriptwriter. This is his first film venture.
Indian English films are a new breed which talk about taboo tales of incest, gay relationships, religious intolerance... There are studies that say these productions are cashing in on the growth of a large urban elite. While the use of a foreign language in Hindi cinema is accepted, why is it that such an attempt, a first of its kind in Kannada, not accepted? Are we feeling culturally ambushed?
The central problem is one of finding narratives. Narratives are collective stories of human abstractions. Nationhood, for instance, could be a narrative. Globalisation is not a movement or the narrative of Indian people. It is the story of the developed world imposed on India, as is the IT revolution. Hindi film music, for instance, a great defining narrative of the Indian people, is slowly dying. In that sense, even Rahman has worked against this narrative and not enhanced it in any way. We are actually being ambushed in every sense. The attack on us is a harsher attack than what has happened to the United States. The US has been ambushed for the first time in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. So they are vocal about it. But what is happening to us is more insidious, a longer-term thing, and it has to be challenged. It is because of the loss of narratives that we have a loss of leadership in this country. There are no cultural leaders, no young icons.
One can see it happening in cinema too. Upendra is doing what villains do to heroines. And the villain has lost his evil and has become a metaphysical clown! He has no reason to be bad anymore. He wants to destroy India, destroy little children... he doesn't have any "secular" ambitions like making money anymore. The heroine has eaten up the vamp. It has become respectful to supplement the vamp nature of the heroine with an item number, done by somebody else, because there is a contradiction in the heroine's role. The moment the love relationship is accepted, she has to mainly become the traditional heroine. Even a Maniratnam film doesn't escape this.
Why did you choose English?
We agonised over this. The press has been very mocking. Had I done this in Kannada, they would have said I should have done it in English. I think the jury should still be out on this case and not make a decision so quickly. The defining thing about the film is that it is in English, and addresses the middle class. It does not address the elite and that is why I would say the film is being mocked at — Boregowda is speaking in English and is being mocked at. They would have mocked at him even if he was not! What we have done through the film is to ambush the English language. It is no longer the domain of the elite and that I suppose is the problem.
Are you, through the role of Reddy, trying to break the myths that surround IT and the likes of Narayan Murthy?
What does Infosys make that can be used in our primary sector, agriculture? What does Infosys do to make production more efficient in our secondary sector, the industry? What is it that they have done to improve our third sector, banking, railways, and roads? What is of interest to them has been openly stated by their chief mentor, which is the "creation of wealth".
Belawadi: `The middle-class is aggressive and greedy.'
In Gujarat, during Narendra Modi's election, 430 co-operative banks went bankrupt. Isn't it an irony for Gujarat, the leader of co-operative movement? Some Rs. 5,000 crore was siphoned off. It was an issue neither for the Congress nor the Parivar. The research we did for the film saddened us so much. We should have an economic movement in this country. In some ways, the loan melas were more honest than this. These people have occupied centre stage and they don't talk about India at all. Narayan Murthy talks about English education, corporate governance, and privatising education... even as ideas they are terrifying!
The cultural impact of the Internet is far greater than its economic impact. The middle class now sees itself as part of a globalised, worldwide, developed economy. Are you trying to say that there is an emergence of a new middle class?
There is definitely an emergence of a new middle class. It is trying to become vocal, because it has no window to the world anymore. There is a typical way of representing the middle class, which I would call the Kyunki Saans Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi way, or the suffering art cinema way, or the commercial cinema way. This is not true, because the middle class is not like that anymore. Middle class needs a new voice and new representation. It is aggressive, greedy, and looking for new values because it has lost all the old ones. In fact, Stumble is an attempt to show, to represent, and to address the new middle class.
Technology by itself is valueless. It would be ridiculous to deny that the Internet is a tremendous, radical, revolutionary advantage. India can be changed tremendously with it. But the sad thing is that it has been hijacked, which is also what we are trying to say in the film.
The solution the film has to offer is a problem. The victims of the IT crash, finally, decide to set up their own call centre. Wouldn't that, finally, make them victimisers themselves? Maybe in a '70s film, the victims would have fought from outside the system. But here, they want to battle from within. Does this kind of a mock-funny resolution come from the fact that we are unable to grapple with the huge and evolving problem of globalisation?
Well, this is the new ethos, the Narayan Murthy ethos. What is their software going to do? They are not bothered. This has been a huge change from 15 years ago, and nobody talks about it. All these youngsters are eventually willing to go by the politicians. Many of them have said it is a feel-good ending, but how can it be that? It is an amoral ending, perpetuation of another rotten thing. If you deal with a contemporary problem, you can't give a happy ending. And so, as an ending, it is not honest. This is the problem with our narratives. If we don't have heroes, how can there be triumph of good over evil? But that is also the new middle-class ethos. If they must speak, they must speak for values. We have to look inwards and occupy some decision making position in this country. We have to shape the Indian economy to our needs.
The film has feminist undertones. Even the CM's wife, who appears briefly, is a woman of strength. But why have you made Suhasini and Priya Ganapathy stereotypes?
By inclination, I feel upset about depicting women as weak. But women are among the promoters of the new greed. I don't deny that in most cases they are the victims. In the case of young Madhu in the film, the mother feels bad for her, but doesn't take up her case. Otherwise, she is a sensible mother, doesn't believe in get-rich-quick schemes, and also retains her indignation. She does hold the family together in a very uncomplaining way.
About Priya, I am actually cruel. Bangalore has been taken over by these society women. And they just make me mad. Can you imagine that they took part in a fashion show called "Women of Substance". These bleeding heart socialites talk like they are always doing something for society. And Priya does represent this breed. Isn't it true that non-working, rich, young mothers make a big deal about their homes, kids?
Is Madhu's role trying to subvert the stereotypes perpetrated by Fair and Lovely ads which equate success with fair skin?
This colour thing is the most important feminist issue of the middle class. You never get to read a matrimonial ad that says "Kayastha girl seeks fair-skinned man". How come Fair and Lovely is not an issue with men? It really makes me angry.
One of the reviews talks about the film as a cross between a TV serial and an art film. Doesn't such observations delegitimise rigorous attempts such as Stumble? This new genre of films neither has the masala of a commercial film nor does it have the pace of a Hollywood film. Does it require of the audience a certain unlearning?
It is a long road and we shouldn't get disheartened so quickly. The positive reviews have been consistent in what they say, but the funny thing about the negative ones is that they are on two ends of the spectrum. Somebody says that it is an extension of Garva. Any artiste of responsibility should continue to endorse and walk the path he has chosen. Why shouldn't it be a continuum of Garva? What kind of criticism is that? Each individual chooses his genre. Chekov wrote only about the decay of aristocracy and the how old feudal values struggled to find meaning in old Russia. You cannot say this play is like that one. The only parallel to Garva is the narrative style and that it is contemporary. It is irresponsible criticism and lacks depth. One can't even blame the critics too harshly, because the instruments they have are of the quality of raw material available to them. They are dealing with formless, soft, dirty, original material. It is clear that the local critics are happy with the kind of films that are coming. They are reactionary and resist change. They are also the people we have to battle with. They practise their art on that. Now, if you give them something new, they will only go by the old templates. Where do you expect great critics to come from if no great films are being made?
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Coimbatore
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
Madurai
Thiruvananthapuram
Visakhapatnam
|
