September 01, 2007
"Vanaja" -- a Telugu Art Film in New YorkFilm
After running at myriad film festivals all over the world, the Telugu film Vanaja is opening as a commercial release in New York this weekend; it will be opening more broadly around the U.S. in the next month.
Vanaja is an art film, which is to say, the director, Rajnesh Domalpalli, doesn’t come out of the “Tollywood” world of commercial Telugu cinema (he actually has an M.F.A. from Columbia, and the script for this film was submitted as his Master’s Thesis). Domalpalli’s primary actors are nearly all amateurs — people he found on the street. Carnatic music and Kuchipudi dance play important, but not overwhelming, roles in the film, and even there, it appears the actors actually spent months training in these rigorous arts.
This is a film about caste and class relations in a village setting, but Domalpalli doesn’t take the familiar route seen in many other films about village life (i.e., villagers are exploited, landowners are inherently evil). Here, the rich people, though they do not always behave sympathetically, are as human and complex as Vanaja herself. I don’t want to get too bogged down in plot, but suffice it to say that the romance in the film follows a surprising course.
Throughout, Domalpalli pays very close attention to details, including sets and staging, and the result is a film that feels very natural, yet is full of visual pleasures. The colors are rich, though not unrealistically so, and the acting is much better than one would expect from an all-amateur cast and a novice director.
I’m very curious to know how this film might be received in India, in particular in Andhra Pradesh. Unlike the films of, say, Deepa Mehta, who I’ve now come to feel makes her movies primarily for western audiences, Domalpalli’s Vanaja might actually be popular with Desi viewers. (My mother-in-law, who is visiting us from Bombay, liked it.)
One other thing, since Anna (rightly) wants us ignorant northies to learn a bit more about South Indian culture, the set of cymbals on the right side of the photo above is called a Nattuvangam. (The word of the day is Nattuvangam. Say it. Good.) Though I’m a little confused, because this site defines Nattuvangam a little differently; I gather that “Nattuvangam” refers both to the cymbals and to the act of conducting the dance by playing the cymbals?
amardeep on September 1, 2007 08:19 AM in Film · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
The Landmark Theater in Boston will be showing it sometime soon. Looking forward to it.
Amardeep,
the act of vocally reproducing the drum sounds (or drum syllables) is called "Nattuvangam" (Nutt-too-VAA-ngum). i.e. the person saying, for example, "thaka num, thaka jum, thaka deem..." in between the expository elements (sung story/parable) of any s. indian classical dance. The person tasked with doing this is the Nattuvanaar. It was a dying art until the late 60s when Adyar K. Lakshman resurrected the position with a ferocity and brio heretofore unseen in s. india. (And here's your (somewhat?) Northie connection, Amardeep, because Lakshman Sir does come from a Marathi family and speaks it at home--even in the oppressively Tamil atmosphere of Chennai!)
I would love to get into a detailed explanation of the history and significance of the still somewhat neglected position of nattuvanaar, but I think that's a bit too far off-topic for this post.
The cymbals, at least in my mother's dance studio, are called referred to as "tala."
Vanaja is one of the better movies I have seen in recent times- - I happened to see it at a special screening in Atlanta while Domalpalli was here and got a chance to discuss it with him. While I am not so sure if western audiences can grasp the complex caste-class and skin color issues raised in the film (partcularly the issues of skin color which are as common and are rarely focussed upon), for someone who is interested in these issues prevalent in various parts of India, I would say it is a must watch. The girl has given a great performance, and some of the other caste is quite decent too. Much better than Kukonoor's first attempt.
I'll also point out that this film came out of Domalpalli's MFA thesis at Columbia. The film at times does come across as confusing and even lacking a straight narrative flow at some points and when I asked Domalpalli about this, he mentioned that since he was working within the constraints of his thesis and advisers, he had to incorporate the opinions of multiple faculty plus his own vision and thus it affected things a little. Still a good first movie from him and I am going to watch out for his next venture.
cymbals too, are important--the nattuvanaar has to be near metronome-perfect as the dancer will rely on the sound of the cymbals for cues to start, stop and keep going. The Mridgangam player will not always track to the beats on which the dancer must move, often doing their own trills and syncopation, so the Nattuvanaar is really doubly important. Typically, you should see a singer and also a nattuvanaar at any classical performance (however, the singer may sometimes take over Nattuvangam duties, which is usually not the greatest idea as singing and conducting are extremely difficult on their own.)
And oh, this northie here has a deep interest in all things South Indian, especially the food and the arts and culture, we are all not so bad :-)
Amardeep,
I can't say enough about the young girl in the lead, Mamata Bhukya. She's amazingly talented and natural. And the director is so immersed in and appreciative of all the arts of Andhra Pradesh that he's a fascinating person to talk to, because you can learn so much and also see the love he has for what he's doing.
I'm posting an interview with Rajnesh Dompalpalli on my blog shortly, but since you mention the subject of release in India, I just thought I'd share that, when referring to the difficulty of identifying a distributor back home, he said "I think it's a crying shame that a film that we should be proud of did not find a distributor and that I had to come abroad to get a Western stamp of approval, before being able to release the film back home."
argh, must not type before first coffee of the morning..... of course I mean to write Rajnesh Domalpalli, minus the superfluous 'p' in the middle
slinking away now....
Amardeep thanks for this post. Ardy, much impressed by your interest in things 'Southie', man!
I was also highly impressed by the background of Rajnesh Domalpalli, especially because he went into film-making on the artistic and directorial side from a pure technical background (relevant in the context of the other thread also):
I couldn't easily see the trailers on the website itself, needed plug-ins. Here are the youtube versions, for any others in the same boat:
'Vanaja' Trailer
Rajnesh Domalpalli introduces 'Vanaja'
Interview with 15-year old Mamata Bhukya, who plays 'Vanaja'
I think 'Vanaja' means 'daughter of the forest'. Also, less confidently, I think 'nattuvangam' refers both to the cymbals themselves and to the art of mimicking them vocally as muralimannered mentions.
which is why I added the afterthought
The director (Rajnesh) and lead actress (Mamatha) are doing Q&As after the evening shows in NYC over the holiday weekend so you can chat with them in person. It's playing at Cinema Village on E 12th near 5th ave. NY Times gave it a good review too.
I don't see any chance of Vanaja having any kind of audience in India. i mean, even Shyam benegal can't get a movie made or screened. Things are changing, yes, but not as radically as you may imagine. all the 'breakout,' 'crossover' 'alternative' movies that have been made so far have largely been, well, not so breakout, crossover, or alternative. Currently, these movies are largely bombay mob flicks that are bad copies of earlier ones, esp Ram Gopal Verma's 'Satya' made in 1998. Or they are on the surface, bold and arty but in reality, poor remakes of Hollywood classics -- as in 'Manorama Six feet Under' which rips Polanski's Chinatown off or 'Bheja Fry' which rips of the French flick "le diner de cons' but did magnificently well at the box office despite featuring two, sometimes three people screaming at each other pretty much for the duration of the movie.....and so on.
The real problem lies in two areas in India.....One, the distributor who won;t touch a movie unless it has star quotient. Two, the audience whose standards have sunk so low that movies like Sanjay Leela Bansali's 'Black' (featuring some unbelievable over acting by Rani Mukherjee and some astonishingly hammy work by the once-great-but-now-cartoonish Amitabh) or Nagesh Kukunoor's prosaic and predictable 'Iqbal' are considered to be great adventures in moviemaking with complex storylines and characters. True, we still have Aparna sen who makes interesting stuff -- but judging by her latest "15 Park Avenue", she might have to go back to the drawing board since the actors--esp Rahul Bose--sound like they're in a bad high school play. And her selections of shots at times make no sense (even from a non-pretentious, gut level of reaction). But if you're a Adoor Gopalakrishnan or a Mani kaul, well, you're fucked.
Audiences here are dumb. Or they've been made dumb by the trash that the industry has been peddling for decades now. (I won't even get into TV) Our brains have regressed and as a newer generation has arrived, we have forgotten the days of Guru Dutt and Bimal Roy, of Ray and Ghatak, of Ramesh Sippy and Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Instead we instinctively herd ourselves towards atrocious fare prompting more atrocious fare to be made. And if there's ever proof that immigrating to another continent, while lining your pockets with silver and aiding in the accumulation of specialised degrees, might not necessarily increase the abundance of those little gray cells that deal with aesthetic sensibilities --- well ladies and gennleman, just look at the NRI market. The only reason that idiots like Karan Johan exist (barring 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, naturally) and that yash Raj Studios seems to be generating more crap than a herd of elephant, is because of desi folk living abroad. While both Johar's and Yaah Raj's films flop over here they consistently make lots of money overseas, especially in the UK and the U.S., more than making up for losses at home.
Maybe we as a culture have totally lost the plot. I mean, back here in des, there's at least some explanation for the abysmal state of Indian cinema, but what the hell are you guys over there doing? If I'm going to have to sit through another 'American Chai' or 'I'm-so-confused with-my-identity-that-this-is-the-only-shit-i-can-think-of movie' I might have to attempt to bite my own jugular. And that's while ignoring the caricature's of FOBS who are always smelly, slobbish, overweight, manical geeks. Plenty of money around. India is nauseatingly popular, everyone talks a big game about art and culture but as far as the film world is concerned, there's been awful stuff, largely.
Maybe that's what you get when engineers and doctors immigrate en mass, only to beget engineers and doctors, and perhaps bankers and consultants. Or at least as far as the U.S. is concerned. At least in the U.K. the south asian immigrant experience was more diverse, initially. You probably do need to come from a certain kind of ghetto, where you get the shit kicked out of you for being brown, where your dad wearing his turban drives his cab to your school to pick you up and the kids again kick the shit out of you. That's why a Hanif kureishi writes a great book which leads to a really good movie. And so on.
Not that there are no posh desis in the U.K. far from it. But at least the voice from the bowels of the immigrant experience bubble up. In the states, it seems like it's Kaavya doing all the work (and plagiarising while she's at it.) I don't know. I mean u could have a perfectly good story about a bong smoking desi trying to grow weed behind his mom's udipi palace in edison NJ or a tortured kid whose artist parents force the kid to study the arts but all he really wants to do is immerse himself in thermodynamics or the experiences of an indian family in small town, rural America. whatever. I'm just, you know, surprised.
I'll stop now. 'Nuff said, that cinematic trouble exists in the motherland and in all desi alcoves out there. Someone step up and represent. Or I might just be forced to fantasize about Rakhi Sawant crawling on the floor with Mallika Sherawat right behind her, while a shirtless Sallu and Govinda paw at each other incessantly.
Oh by the way, Vanaja Rocks.
nubamountain, i do see this movie having more success in the south than in the north. generally, movies/television shows relating to the classical arts (music and dance) have done remarkably well there - sagara sangamam/salangai oli, sankara bharanam, sindhu bhairaivi, vanaprastham, to name a few; and many of these have found success across all four states. i think this has much to do with the fact that the arts are just more existent in everyday life for a lot of people down south, or at least much more than in the north. i don't see this happening as much in the north - the classical arts in film seemed to have petered out a few decades ago, or only appear in period films. i could be wrong, but just looking at modern day film and television, this is what it seems like on the surface.
That's not quite true. Karan Johar's movies, and maudlin sentimental trash like Yash Chopra produces are massive box office in India. Although you do make some interesting points generally, plenty to think about.
Cheer up, Loins of Punjab Presents releases in India later this month.
Maybe with the uptake of pay per view digital cable services and "IP TV" in India there will be a way of economically reaching potential audiences for these types of films. Anyone know if there is the equivalent of US cable channels like "IFC/IFC on Demand" in India ?
Actually, one of the things that occured to me right off the bat was - why didn't he release it over the web? And, since it was a 'thesis film', and the actors are non-professionals, I can't imagine him being in hock to producers who want a large financial return or anything. So, as a corollary, I was wondering why he couldn't just have made it available on the web free.
Oh, but Chachaji, for a first film, and one as visually beautiful as this is, I'm sure he wants people to see it, but in an appropriate setting. Unlike, say Rajshri's Vivah, which released online and in cinemas on the same day, I'd think for an indie "baby" that he's put so much into, there's an element of pride in seeing exhibited in cinemas first, rather than 'just' online. But I'm just guessing...
Oh, another reason to miss NYC. Maybe this will eventually show up at the one "Bollywood" DVD shop in Moscow. That is, after it's screened in Malaysia and pirated here with voice-over. Or I'll have to wait until 2008.
Films like this one make me so much happier than Harold and Kumar, for all the faults of the former, and all the pleasures of the latter.
(Please, nobody need correct me on the Bollywood thing--it's in quotes for a reason.)
Since I haven't seen the film, I can't directly comment. And of course opinion is opinion. But the capsule review from the Village Voice rubbed me the wrong way.
Anyone else uncomfortable with this generalization? I agree that desis wealthy enough to send their kids to tamil/sanskrit/hinduism/bharatanatyam camp are indeed in a very homogeneous SES group--but does this mean that kids who don't grow up in this circumstance will necessarily produce great art?
when i finally started going to a school outside of the community in which I grew up, and received the american, redneck version of , "Fuck you paki! *punch*" treatment, I didn't feel the slightest inclination to write/sing/dance what have you. In fact, when the urge hit me, i turned out some of the most execrable crap ever put down on paper.
I agree, but we are talking about reaching an Indian audience in India. Outside of maybe a few venues in the biggest metros, what theatres will take a chance on screening a non-mainstream film ? Even here in small town USA you would have to go for a long drive to see something "different" like Pan's Labyrinth (wide appeal, but not Hollywood either)
listening to the naatuvanaar = hands down my favorite aspect of attending bharatanatyam performances.
yes! especially if they have a powerful diaphragm and can really punch out all the consonant sounds.
I was driving across the country on Interstate 40 with a Jewish classmate in a beat-up Toyota Corolla during my first American summer, when my friend asked, "What do you wear in India if you want to look chic?"
"A sari of course," I said.
"A sari is not really chic or sexy though, is it?" she said.
You couldn’t fault her for her attitude.
When I first arrived on these shores, Americans had not seen Hindi film actresses or heard of Bollywood; the term had not yet been invented. Americans did not know that Bombay made more movies per year than Hollywood. India to them was a home of snake charmers, swamis, holy cows, and untouchables; a stereotypical Indian was Peter Sellers in The Party.
All that has changed. Bollywood is all the rage now; henna, bindis, and chappals have become mainstream. Indian women, once considered docile and overly feminine—which is to be expected if a boyish Mia Farrow is your ideal—are now hailed as the most beautiful women in the world. Indians are news anchors, reporters for major media outlets, stars on primetime TV, writers for The New Yorker. Gurinder Chadha and Mira Nair are well-known, if not by their names, then by the names of their movies distributed by mainstream outlets.
On the other hand, with cable TV and the world wide web, not to mention over 2.5 million tourists and NRIs who regularly visit India, the Americanization of India, too, is probably at an all-time high.
So it was inevitable that some day the two celebrity capitals of the world would unite to create mega-celebrities.
The Shilpa Shetty-Richard Gere debacle notwithstanding, a Dubai company recently announced that it would produce multiple English language films with major Bollywood stars playing alongside Hollywood talent.
Other deals are in the works. Aishwarya Rai and Colin Firth star in this year's The Last Legion. In 2008, Rai and Michael Douglas will be seen in Racing the Monsoon. Sony Pictures Release of India is collaborating with Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s production house, SLB Films.
I should be elated at such news; after all, the less marginalized we Indians are, the better it is, right?
Wrong.
Behind the news releases and the hype is a stark reality that we should be wary of; Hollywood is about to take over Bollywood.
Once upon a time, Indians were afraid of a new wave of colonization by the U.S. military-industrial complex. So India would not let Coca Cola enter its market, and for good reason. Because today, Coca-Cola is using up India’s scarce resources for its profits while the poor are lining up at trickling taps to collect water for their daily needs.
Superficially, collaboration between Hollywood and Bollywood seems a good thing, at least for the magnates on both sides of the seven seas who will rake in profits. But its devastating effects will be subtle yet far-reaching.
India’s movie industry began in my home state of Maharashtra as an extension of literature and theater. Some of the earliest Indian movies were made in Mumbai in my native tongue, Marathi, and constituted missives for social change. V. Shantaram’s Kunku explored the plight of girl-brides and widows as early as 1937. His other films, like Amar Jyoti, Shekari, and Manoos, focused on daring topics like Hindu-Muslim tensions, feminism, and landlord-peasant relationships. Hindi and Bengali cinema, too, explored social topics such as untouchability through films like Achuta Kanya.
Alas, as the Hindi film industry slowly grew, its movies took on a silly formulaic format. The so-called Art Cinema, exploring new artistic and social horizons, became marginalized.
Now, the industry is on the verge of yet another wave of commercialization, for the worse. Hollywood is smarting from the realization that only four percent of the Indian movie market has been captured by the United States. And it seems to be aiming for at least 90 percent.
What I worry about is not just the commercial exploitation of a homegrown industry, but about cultural invasion as well.
It is said that during the British occupation of India, the cream of India joined forces with the cream of Britain to rule India’s underclass.
It is alleged that the Brahmins of India felt a kinship with the Brahmins of England. Britain and India were two class-oriented societies: ours due to caste; theirs due to the aristocracy. So the Indian upper class vied to learn the Queen’s English, join the civil service, and hobnob with the British upper class at the Brahma Samaj or the Cricket Club, while losing sight of the needs of its masses.
Now, the same tendency can be seen among the celebrities and the elite of India, who, while moving closer to America, are moving further and further away from India’s poor.
During the colonial era, Gandhi’s "Swadeshi" movement struck at the heart of this tendency of Indians to idolize the West and led to the rebirth of our national identity.
Today, the stakes are higher. Hollywood represents a slice of the new media-industrial-governmental complex, which is consolidating power in the hands of a few conglomerates while brainwashing the public and destroying creative, democratic, independent thought.
Today Sony Pictures India, tomorrow Fox-Doordarshan News?
I am terrified at the prospect of India selling its unique Swadeshi industry of Bollywood, which has given pleasure and inspiration to millions for a century, to a Rupert Murdoch or a General Electric. What is in danger is not just our cinema but also perhaps our intellectual freedom.
Nubamountain - I'll let the demographic generalizations pass but you put very well the state of Indian cinema and yes, for whatever reason Black is considered a very good movie and while I can see the reasons (the relativity to the even worse fare out there) it is still a bad movie (and yes, thank you for saying that Mr B was terrible in the movie and also Cheeni Kamm where I think Tabu was quite convincing). Kukunoor has been quite consistent in his ability to not live up to the hype - Iqbal was nothing special and quite predictable, Dor was a bad melodrama better than Karan Johar but still just that. And I have indeed wondered why the fare that the hardly demanding audience in India too rejects actually makes crap loads of money here (yes the Karan Johars, Yash Chopras and their clones) and the only conclusion I have reached is that the desi junta which has migrated here is just too starved for any thing desi plus these movies play on some sort of an immigrant isolation and emotionality and thus these movies manage to get the box office ringing.
I thought the person who did nattuvangam was a nattuvanar.
What is so new and great about it? Ankur (Benegal) is past already. And why being in carnatic music as well. Aint Morning raga bad enough? And then carnatic music isnt that popular in Andhra. Anyways. this coming from Amardeep who thinks Parineeta was good, post no surprise me. I need to throw up.
Nritta-nattuvangam, corresponds to a bol in Kathak, and of course you have to mark tal with your hands in Kathak while the tabalchi memorizes your bol so he can jam with you/the dancer during the performance. I love how cohesive desi culture is. And this lovely young girl, Mamata Bhukya, is such a beautiful dancer!
nubamountain: vanaja is certain to carve a niche in the south, thanks to the successful precedence set (as aK pointed out) by earlier music-dance based films in thamizh and malayAlam; also, how would you explain the non-masala plots yet box-office success of films like:
i) in thamizh: ratnam's "mouna rAgam" / "nAyagan", bharathirAja's "kadalOra kavithaigaL" / "mudhaL mariyAthai",
bAla's "sEthu" + all the movies aK highlighted;
ii) in malayAlam: kariat/ thakazhi's "chemmeen", fazil's "manichithrathAzhu", someone's "akaasha doothu", the recent "achuvintE ammah", etc?
iii) in telugu: vanaja, iA... SM-ers, help?
point being: the multiple-class (definitely south)indian audience may / not comprehend aesthetic expression as typified in the films of benegal, ratnam et al., but that does not make us entirely unappreciative of non-commercial films; the crowds that rushed -- across classes -- to the above titles testify that we are, indeed, finely attuned to the pathos of this art.
No offense to anyone, I am just trying to understand something which I have been unsure of. Looks like the use of 'z' or 'zh' etc is pretty random and dependent on the user. I have seen some people use Tamiz, others Tamizh, etc etc. The fact of the matter is that to the person who is unaware, Tamiz and Tamizh are more unpronounceable than Tamil. Even if we expect that most people would eventually be aware of this, it seems like the actual sound is unreproducible by people who are not trained in speaking Tamil/z/zh and thus Tamil seems to be the closest approximation to the actual sound (or maybe Tamild in terms of what an untrained person can produce based on reading the spelling. Wont a Tamil/z/zhian rather hear the sound being produced as 'l' or as 'zzz' or 'zzzhh'
Can someone please elaborate on the logic of using 'z' or 'zh', I am sure people who use it would want others to use it too and I would be more than happy to use it if it is the logical best choice.
Oops, sorry for the bold above, typo caused bolds to not be closed properly. Maybe SM Intern could help and change a /d to a /b.
Thanks
ARdy: valid point re. zh being easily mistaken for precisely that -- some messed up 'z' word :\ which makes me sad. this was discussed in detail on a recent SM post-comment: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004687.html#comment162335
mayhaps, am on the offensive here with my reasons for using "thamizh" instead of "tamil", so with apologies: i regard 'tamil' as the anglicised -- colonised too -- version of thamizh; hence, i can't bring myself to type the 'l' instead of the 'zh' -- it's near-blasphemous on my tongue :\ but that's just me. most acadamics, linguists, translators, and language-lovers alternate between: tamil, thamizh, and tamizh; so i guess to each her own?
does anyone know if telugu has the 'zh' sound? i know malayAlam does.
25 A cultural invasion of India: a disquisition on Hollywood as the new colonizers
My reply to the fears of new cultural colonization is: so what? Proceeding from specific to the general case:
- Today's bollywood movies are largely formulaic junk. For all the gloating about the largest number of films produced per year, we have pitifully few true masters of cinema to show for those efforts. If hollywood takes over most of the market, the quality of junk might just improve (certainly can't decline), although I am not holding my breath.
- For all the hand wringing about hollywood taking over India, do remember that they will be able to do so only if Indian audiences pay for their product. And if Indian audiences indeed like hollywood films to the exclusion of bollywood nonsense, well then, we would have given up our cultural independence willingly. Not a case of colonization surely; more like capitulation.
- I don't find my connection to my culture so tenuous that a few films can weaken or break it. And I suspect that it is true for a large swath of Desh's population. (No data, alas. But the SM crowd can be quite analytical, so someone might come up with it still. Camille?)
- Lastly, as globalization proceeds apace, societies around the world will inevitably tend towards some homogenization. India will hopefully lose some cultural 'bugs' and gain some 'features' in that process. If hollywood films have to play a part in this, so be it.
Does anyone know if this film will be playing in DC? Amardeep thanks for writing about this - I don't think I would have heard about it otherwise.
ardy, your confusion is genuine ;) i found these two songs that use the phrase "mazhai pozhigirathu" (rain is falling/showering) in their refrain. if you listen to it a few times, you will realise how this sound is very different from most other indian syllables. for instance, the 4 south indian languages all have 'L' (if you know marathi, it is ळ in devanagari)which is the sound 'l' but made when you touch your tongue to the back of your mouth. an extension of that is zh, which is made when you almost touch your tongue to the back top of your mouth. most people spell 'tamil' (or tamiL to be more precise) in english because there is no counterpart for zh, or even L, in the english alphabet. and even in speaking, many people will colloquially say tamiL in their everyday language, and the pronunciation as tamil (small 'l,' and 'a' as in 'mat') is only used by people anglicising it, or some non-tamil speakers. but the official, and proper way - always used when speaking in proper (senthamizh) tamil or when written is tamizh/thamizh (the 't' is soft, as in 'taal'. that's why zainab is so particular about it - hers is the official and correct way that closest approximates the spelling in the native alphabet.
that said, it can be a very difficult sound to pronounce (it took my ABD/telugu tongue awhile to graduate from 'L' to 'zh'). in fact, many in rural areas are unable to even pronounce 'zh,' and just use 'L' instead. so if you can't get your tongue to pronounce 'zh' or even 'L' - don't worry - i think it's just enough that you noticed enough to inform yourself :)
zainab - zh exists in all four south indian languages, but is used minimally in telugu and kannada.
Zainab, AK - thanks for the links, especially since it's been discussed recently. Well, I am quite fluent in Marathi and manage to pronounce the 'l' sound in Marathi. However, much as I have tried to produce the 'z' sound in Tamiz, I have only managed to come close but not get it completely right. I guess 'z' seems as much a deterrent to an abhorric Anglicization than anything reflective of the actual sound which is fair enough. Also, reminds me how many people pronounce telugu as 'tail-gu' with a soft 't' as opposed to the correct partial break between the two sounds and the stress on the 'l'.
Does anyone know if this film will be playing in DC? Amardeep thanks for writing about this - I don't think I would have heard about it otherwise.
PS, it will be in DC on October 5. See this link (click on Wahington DC).
PS: Yeah, it opens in DC on Oct 5 at the Landmark E Street theater. This weekend it opened exclusively in NYC, but on Sep 14 it opens in LA and Chicago. I believe the director will be in LA for that premiere and then Q&As. Then Sep 21 it opens in Boston, Austin, Philly, and Detroit. Oct 5 it opens in SF, DC, Atl, and Dallas. They've got all the theater info on the Vanaja site.
I went yesterday. The theater was packed, a line went down the block, but I got in. It's a very engaging film, the cinematography and performances are excellent, the editing and pacing are good, and I recommend it. The story was fine while I was watching it but afterward I felt something was missing, but I don't want to harp on that, because I definitely enjoyed the film. The director and main actress were on hand for a Q&A afterward. They seemed very happy - the audience response was overwhelmingly positive.
Some dialects of Punjabi have this sound too...it never starts a word, but it comes in the middle or the end of a word...like in 'naaL' (with) or kaaLa (black). Standard Amritsar Punjabi (which is what literary Punjabi is based on) doesn't use it, so it's not really represented in the Gurmukhi alphabet.
cultural invasion of India @ 25,
A suggestion. Suppose we Amreekan Desis show a little respect to Desi Desis? If they choose Hollywood trash over Bollywood trash, let’s say it’s their choice. See butter chicken’s excellent response @ 34.
About the so-called golden age of Indian films. I am sure as a Maharashtrian, you are familiar w/ P. L. Deshpande’s satirical pieces on film industry? For every Kunku there were 20 trashy commercial films. Some of them were, horrors of horrors, Hollywood knock-offs.
Makers of Indian classics weren’t exactly operating in vacuum. Some of our best minds liberally borrowed from the west and gave it their unique spin. C. Ramchandra – Rock ‘n’ Roll. Kishore Kumar – Danny Kaye. Guru Dutt/O. P. Nayyar combo – Bing Crosby, Salil Chodhury – Opera. Just a few examples.
If we can hold on to our Desi identities here, I suspect 1.2 billion Indians living in India will somehow find a way.
Liked 3 Deewarein, but it's pretty strongly "influenced" by Shawshank Redemption.
@ Murli:
I always thought that nattuvangam referred only to the cymbals (and their playing) and that the percussion vocalization was called solakattu/konnakol. Please clarify, thanks.
Vanaja looks to be a good film, I heard good things from its screening at the LA Indian Film Festival.
OOps, almost forgot why i was here :-) A preview of Vanaja played at samosa-time. Looked like a colorful version of a "kurta and shabnam and beedies" director type movie. The young girl may just carry it off, though.
as far I as I have been taught, solakattu is simply a parochial term that refers to the vocalization. The practice of nattuvangam always refers to the cymbals AND vocalization as any real Nattuvanar is considered deficient if they cannot keep time with the cymbals AND vocalize simultaneously.
Again, this is what how the term is deployed and understood in practice--I'm sure there are some armchair critics who have never danced and think that either holding a degree or having an active interest in the fine arts suffices for experience--they might have a different opinion. Good thing they don't dance.
Indianoguy in 43
Well, it depends on whether you consider NK a serious cinema maker or a commercial cinema maker (after the Dor screening I got a chance to talk to him in the Q&A and he was quite assertive that he is a commercial movie maker). But the fact is that the kinds of movies he makes - Iqbal, Dor, Teen Deevarien (which incidentally is my favorite NK too), Rockford, HB-2 and Bollywood calling are either bad, or at best ordinary.
Dor I found beautiful in a cinematographic sense, Gul Panang is to die for and has totally played her character, technically much superior (which he said was due to more money he had for the movie) and probably is his best outright commercial work, but Iqbal and even Teen Deevarien while having their strong points and moments do not match up to quality non mainstream cinema. Dor too had a good basic script but it lost out on the editing table, Talpade plain got on my nerves (I am not saying he is a bad actor, he is great), some scenes could have been done a lot better (the women's reconciliation at the end, etc) and thus I say it is better than a Karan Johar commercial movie but not anywhere close to a tight serious movie. I think he is one of the better movie makers, but I wont put him in the league of the parallel cinema makers of the 80s.
Uh,oh... going to watch it tonight. Already feeling unmotivated. Plus don't have too much respect for SRK.
Many of them are dubbed/remade in Tamil. All of them have excellent music/dance and storylines.
I agree, but its unfair to compare him with the film makers of previous generation. He is one of the best in the Hindi film industry. But, if you compare him with the commercial filmmakers of his generation from regional films, he is pretty mediocre.
BTW, I consider Nagesh Kukunoor as a commercial filmmaker.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004699.html#comment163594
sollu kattu is thamizh and the language that the original sadir dancers spoke before it all became bharata natyam. this is what those calls are called.
nattuvangam is the process/practice of doing this sollu kattu. nuttuvanar is the person who does the nattuvangam and also was the dance instructor. traditionally were men but now women do it as well.
i too want to know what those cymbals are called. tala ot talam is keeping time but these things should have a name.
can someone give a plot summary of Vanaja?
i'm from kerala, hubby is from andhra and he's been trying to say pazham (banana) for 18 years now :-))
i will say this about films in general, no matter what country they come from (and i'm sure i'll get all kinds of mean comments and arguments, but that's OK). i've been somewhat of a 'discriminating film viewer' all these years thinking esp that most of the worst films came out of bollywood, tollywood (telugu), and of course hollywood.
now, having moved to india from the US a few months ago, i realise that both groups of filmmaking (high art and mass commercial appeal) need to exist. i can't honestly think that a day labourer in a village who can't write his/her own name really wants to see dor. or water. i just asked my maid (let's not get into an argument over that either please) and she said, why? they have no songs or anything.
i agree with the person who said that a lot of the "good" indian movies are good by comparison. but the karan johars of the world are the ones who give the average indian his or her entertainment. and seeing what i see here every day, believe me, they sorely need it. so that's OK in my books. and while i find the invasion/success of the lord of the rings, star wars, harry potter, dhoom etc unfathomable, i'm sure many of you out there can elucidate the finer points (and i'm not talking about hritik's or aishu's abs)of these series'.
every movie isn't for everyone. i recently saw 'unni - life is all about friends' and LOVED it (but then, i'm from kerala). and in talking to the director murali nair afterwards and hearing how difficult it is to get any distributer to touch films like this (though his first 2 won prizes at CANNES!, the question would be, how many people can relate to these movies? sure, an educated, well-read, culturally aware crowd, or maybe a malayalee crowd (even that's doubtful), but your average north indian? even your average south indian from another state? it's a small group we're talking about.
that doesn't mean what happens is right. it most certainly is not. and the bollywood crap that's getting so much press ex-india these days is tragic. but all kinds of people exist and someone makes movies for them. and
cb: this is the summary from the film's official website, www.vanajathefilm.com
Set in rural South India, a place where social barriers are built stronger than fort walls, VANAJA explores the chasm that divides classes as a young girl struggles to come of age.
Vanaja (Mamatha Bhukya) is the 14 year-old daughter of a poor, low caste fisherman, struggling with dwindling catches and mounting debt. When a sooth-sayer predicts that she will be a great dancer one day, she goes to work in the house of the local landlady, Rama Devi (Urmila Dammannagari), in hopes of learning Kuchipudi dance while earning a keep.
She is hired as a farmhand, and her vivacious ways and spunk soon catch the landlady’s eye: when she is entrusted with tending the chicken, she’s caught, instead, chasing them into a general pandemonium, and lying unabashedly to conceal her pranks. To keep her out of trouble, Rama Devi promotes her to a kitchen underhand, where she comes up against the old, crusty and extremely loyal Radhamma (Krishnamma Gundimalla) – Rama Devi’s cook.
It isn’t long before Vanaja gets herself invited to play a game of ashta chamma against Rama Devi. Seeing that losing isn’t the mistress’s forte, Vanaja deliberately gives up her game – a fact that doesn’t go unnoticed - and which eventually secures her the landlady’s mentorship – first in music, and then in dance. Vanaja excels at the art, and seems to be on a steadily ascending path when Shekhar (Karan Singh), Rama Devi’s 23 year old son – handsome, muscular and rather insecure, returns from the US to run for local political elections.
Sexual chemistry is ignited between Shekhar and Vanaja (still a minor at 15), as flirtation and innuendo bloom. But, the situation suddenly turns ugly when Vanaja’s superior intellect pits her against Shekhar in a public incident which ultimately humiliates him in front of his mother. Matters escalate, spiraling downwards and she is pitched into a tale of class, family and animus from which there is only one escape.
AMardeep, Jay - thanks for the info on where its playing in DC.
Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy..."you will be a great dancer"..."oh, I guess I better start taking some lessons then"...
Meenu, what's wrong with the Lord of The Rings movies?
like i said, there's something out there for everyone. i don't get it, but that doesn't mean anything.
i love mafia shit (incl shootout at lokhandwala and vikram chandra's sacred games). if you like LOTR, more power to ya!
Well, I have never been a big fan of sports movies due to the predictability of the plot. The plot here too was quite predictable (Chak De India reminded me of Hoosiers), but what I really liked was that he has indeed covered a lot of issues inherent in Indian teams like player jealousy, senior airs, coach nepotism, official disinterest, etc without seeming to trying to do too much or over dramatizing those issues (except at a few places). Plus also he has not been shy about bringing out a lot of Indian stereotypes in a casual way(Madrassi for all South Indians, treating people from the NE as foreigners, people thinking NE women are easy, a belief that Muslims are not loyal to India, treating indigenous adivasi people as second class citizens, male stereotypes of women, all important things which a lot of mainstream movies don't touch upon). I think all this gave the movie an additional depth lacking in most sports movies. I also liked SRK who I am not a big fan of, he was quite reserved and except a few places did not go overboard which was a pleasant surprise and also Shilpa Shukla.
Of course, the movie had issues - some melodrama being the biggest, painting various non main characters quite stereotypically (the cricketer, the husband, the officials, the basti wale), the scenes where they show SRKs issues with his mohalla got on my nerves and seemed too false/immature. But for a commercial movie and a sports one at that bounded by all their constraints, I guess it's decent.
Or maybe like most Indian audiences I have got too dumbed to really expect too much. Thus when out comes a movie like CDI or RDB which is marginally better than the usual crap despite all it's faults, I too think it's not so bad. Plus of course maybe it's hypocritical but I different benchmarks for a mainstream movie (targeted to the masses) and a art house one. Or maybe I went in with expectations that were too low and so when it was not as bad as I imagined, I just came away not feeling too unhappy about it.
The comments on this thread really proved to me : like of dislike a particular film is so totally a matter of individual taste.I loved "Dor " and thought Gul Panag was amazing. After a very long time, "Dor" was one Hindi film that I had no qualms in recommending to others.I can watch LOTR again and again. Karan Johar/Aditya Chopra/Sooraj Barjatya may make weepy sagas but I cannot forget standing in line to buy tickets to DDLJ in Mumbai and coming away deeply satisfied at being entertained for 3 hrs! I am quite unashamedly unapologetic about it.( Yes ,I also watched HAHK and bougth tickets froma scalper to do so !)
Yesterday,"First Blood" was playing on cable for the nth time and my husband was watching it for the "nth" time and I can only wonder for the nth time why that movie was ever made .See,its all a matter of taste !
I forgot to comment about this movie. Though I haven't seen it, after watching the trailers and clips on youtube, I get the feeling that, Rajnesh Domalpalli might have been influenced by the great Telugu Filmmaker K Vishwanath. His film Saptapadhi, dealt Class/Caste issues with classical dance as the backdrop.
Sure. But movies can be considered poorly made independent of their appeal to aam junta. Bollywood films tend to be melodramatic, written by someone with little idea of story telling, poorly directed, poorly shot (although that has improved somewhat lately), and edited by the producer's 6 year old child as a first grade project. And yet they entertain billions of people. Good for them, I say. But please don't classify bollywood crap as good cinema.
Junta has eaten a gazillion hamburgers at McDonald's, but that does not make it good food. Why then should we think that movies with mass appeal have to be good? The bottom line is: Bollywood movies are nonsensical junk, and people like it that way.
Did I really do that? Please read my comment again- at no point did I defend anything as good cinema.However,I do think that context matters .Bollywood is primarily created for the Indian audience.Please don't tell me that you or I have a great understanding of what is "good" or "bad" for the aam junta that you seem to show disdain for. This is an audience that graduated from nautanki/Ram lila /narrative story telling to film .Some carryover of the melodrama is to be expected and yes, appreciated by that audience at least.
Hindi movies are made to entertain. Very, very few of them are made to educate.My point was just that. I don't defend Bollywood as great cinema and I do not turn my nose up at all Bollywood either
I think melodramas are fun and entertaining. The absurd too is fun sometimes (Vijaykant/Rajni/Mithun is quite entertaining when one is in the right mood) However, I think the problem is not that we have melodrama but that a bulk of our movies are of a particular type while other genres are not explored enough. Art being an imitation of life and all that jazz, one would get the impression Indians have a very one track life :-)
melodrama. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.:
A drama, such as a play, film, or television program, characterized by exaggerated emotions, stereotypical characters, and interpersonal conflicts.
Do you mean to say that all us desis display exaggerated emotions etc. 1.2 billion of us and we can find so few stories to tell?
Btw, I have penetrated your clever disguise indianoguy . You are a hollywood flack, aren't you ... :-)
Thank goodness. Because art that is made to educate usually turns out to be neither educational nor very satisfying as art. As for the entertainment value of hindi movies, clearly many, many people find them entertaining, and that's great. It sustains an industry which provides jobs, creates financial value, supports the mafia etc.
None of that answers my question as to why does it have to be that what most people like must be called good? I think my McDonald's example was an apt one. I don't think any less of people if they eat fast food (they may be too poor to buy better food), but that is not good food by any metric.
Which gets to me to role of 'context' in evaluating 'good vs bad'. Unfortunately, in the absence of further explanation context is such a vague word. Here's an example of how argument by context can be misleading. Ray's films are the finest celluloid depictions of des as it really is. You would expect that because of context, no one but desis would get his films. And yet, cinephiles from Japan to Europe consider him to be one of the best humanist filmmakers ever. To say that 'desi villagers have just graduated from nautanki/ram lila to movies so what else do you expect', just sets up low expectations for a pretty big class of people.
You don't defend bollywood as great cinema but you don't turn up your nose at it either. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say that bollywood is crap. Because of a sense of egalitarianism? This sense of identification with aam aadmi is a little misplaced. No one on this board can be considered a 'typical' desi. Among other things, a typical desi does not have a computer, an internet connection, and leisure time to indulge in arguments on cinema.
The nearest parallel I can draw is: I can admire great art ( and do!).But that does not mean my home is decorated with copies of old masters( it is not).Similarly,I can appreciate truly great cinema but I love watching Bollywood.That means I do watch some awful stuff at times but I also watch and enjoy Dor,Sarfarosh, Rang De Basanti and old goldies like Guru Dutt movies,Padosan ,Anand etc etc and those were commerical hits - not art cinema. You may consider it crap - thats your prerogative -but I did enjoy K3G ( along with the rest of the des!.
I think you and I have a basically different approach to this : evidently, you feel that time should not be spent on cinema or food unless its great.I do not.Sometimes a Big Mac fills the spot that a 5 star meal does not
:-)
Interesting discussion. Can't help but copy and paste Jai Arjun Singh's interview w/ Vikram Chandra (link).
in general, though, i think the theatre-going experience is very different for different segments of indian society - for many people, it's not such a frequent event, such that what they value in that experience might be more comfort, or escapist, than anything else. as in shodan's quote, the different strata of classes evaluate their films differently, such that good and bad can truly be subjective. i think a movie is not necessarily bad so long as it succesfully conveys what it set out to; i would never recommend harold & kumar to, say, my parents, nor would i put it on a 'top 10' film list - but it was supposed to make me laugh, and it did a great job. and honestly, humour, or any other sort of entertainment, has a certain value that even the most undeniably 'good' films cannot rival.
ak,
I did not for much the same reasons as you.Infidelity is such a nuanced subject and KJ tramped all over it in hobnailed boots.The characters were completely undeveloped and SK hammed it horribly through the movie.I found it impossible to develop any sort of empathy with any of the characters.
ak, Runa, it sounds like the difference between enjoying high-art films and rom-coms. One can be "crap" from an art perspective, but who cares? Sometimes we all need a good pick-me-up. Runa, you already know that K3G makes me cry, so I'll stop now before I get all misty-eyed :) That said, I do think there are films that are able to touch on both elements -- for example, my parents and I totally love Hustle & Flow. It's hard to call one bad or good unless you've already agreed on the metrics for goodness and badness.
This is profound in its simple truth. I wish more people in India would question the education (or at least its underlying cultural assumptions) they receive.
I always feel this way about Preiti Zinta, gorgeous as she is. And Kajol. Their relentless screeching oh I mean nuanced performances, to me are like someone scratching their nails on a chalkboard. I always end up hating the character they're portraying.
What? Even in "Kya Kehna" or"Laksh"( Preity) or "DDLJ" or "Fanaa" or " Baazigar"( Kaajol)? tsk,tsk ...;-)
I know ... when you have to have a double-double animal style, you can't be satisfied with a single. I eat it and enjoy it but I don't call it good food.
You are mistaking my basic argument so here it is stripped of all subtleties: Enjoy whatever you please, just don't call it good/great unless it meets some standards. And if you think something is good, it makes for good 'adda' if you can provide some solid arguments for it, than saying - 'all of des liked it'.
[ The you in the above para (except the first one) is a generic you; it doesn't address you, Runa. Just so this discussion does not take too personal a turn. ]
See this is what I don't get. Why do we think good masala films have to be crap from an art perspective, or why are art films considered good even if they are unwatchable? There are good films that engage an intelligent viewer, and bad films that don't.
For example, every cinephile has to pay homage at the altar of Godard. I find that most of his films are unwatchable, even if they have some formal innovations in them which make film students go weak in the knees. Similarly, later Fellini's are so self indulgent, but 'good' art film nonetheless.
Then we have masala films such as early Dharmendra rom-coms (you know, the ones set in Simla or such, with a gaggle of yound co-eds ...) which are tightly scripted, unfussily shot, and well paced. 'Jaane Bhi Do Yaro' was another fantastic film which straddled art and comedy successfully. All masala (no education here, Runa ... :-) but such fun to watch.
The only recent desi film I have seen which I can recommend with few reservations is 'Khosla ka Ghonsla'. Needs some editing, but great fun as it is. A little more polish and its director, Dibakar Banerjee, might be another Hrishikesh Mukherjee.
ardy at 72: how could you link that???? i am craving a good old fashioned american burger RIGHT NOW! and indian mcdonald's don't count!
-----Enjoy whatever you please, just don't call it good/great unless it meets some standards.
But who gets to set the standard of what is good/great?
OK, the only one I saw of those was DDLJ....I'm not a huge Bolly fan, watch maybe 3 or 4 'desi fillums' per year, at the most. I do want to see Dor now that you've praised it so much. Last night they were showing Dushman on TV, another piece of crap, but the performance by Ashutosh Rana as the villain was amazing. The talent is definitely there...it just needs the right encouragment. Better writers, better directors, and most of all, a more demanding audience. By the way, Sanjay Dutt has aged tremendously in the past 10 years.
McD in india is much cooler than in ny.
Favorite current male actor: Aamir Khan.
Favorite current female actor: In terms of talent, probably Rani Mukherjee. In terms of looks (I know most of you won't agree) Neha Dhupia and Tabu (yes I like my tagdiyan lammiyan kudiyan).
puli: not if you're craving beef :-)) sad i know, but what to do...
pizza hut here kinda kicks ass! much better than chicago.
fave female actor - nandita das and has been for years...beauty (oh god, she's gorgeous in real life without makeup too) and brains (check out...well, any of her movies)
fave male actor - saifu (check out being cyrus, parineeta) and oh so HOT!
quite a few malayalam films are realistic and the actors look like real people. full of pathos and humour. don't know if that will translate into the subtitles, but worth a shot.
Re Chak De India
Took my daughter, sister, nephew, friend, and his little kids to see Chak De on Sat night. Most fun I had was my 7-year old saying, "that was the best movie of her life".
She said too after being taken to "Ta Ra Pum Pum" two months and I was lying trembling on the couch and my husband was handing me 3 painkillers and a glass of water.
BUT, I didn't have a painful headache after CDI.
sp
Forgot to mention one more thing.
Chak De India is SRK's Lagaan.
But, Lagaan is not touchable in my opinion.
sp
here's an example of nattuvangam from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cSOGfNryD4, 01:23 to 01:28 and 01:31 to 01:45 and 02:00 to 02:33. For northies :-), it is equivalent to a kathak dancer's recital of tabla bols.
correcting the link in previous post
an example of nattuvangam from youtube, from 01:23 to 01:28, 01:31 to 01:45 and 02:00 to 02:33.
we indians are melodramatic. there is too much emphasis in the west on subtlety and nuance. doggie don't roll like that. an example i can use is, when someone dies in the west, people wear a black suit and are sombre and make polite talk. In India, people wail. Like really loudly. And when they are carying the body to a cremation/burial ground, people dance on the street. you get drunk and dance as you walk ur dead relative to their final resting spot cos they got lucky and died and you still got that bitch of a life to live.
looks interesting, i may check it out this weekend. must send the info to my former kuchipudi teacher... i wonder if she's heard about it yet from any other sources? (ohh btw Saagara Sangamam is pretty much a must-see, as has been mentioned) 'cos honestly, most NRIs don't wanna see stuff like this. my mom and her friend had no idea what i was talking about when i brought it up, and they're both verrrry involved with the telugu community around here. perhaps mr. domalpalli (hah! such a telugu name!) could use som