Mdeii Life - Anand Krishnamoorthi's blog
This is a post page, visit the
blog mainpagePreviously
Psephologists, anti-incumberency and other excessi...
Eat my words Indian bowlers have done a better job...
Interesting work I have been keeping my sleepy, la...
Ungal Rock Nadikkum... The latest Hollywood action...
Nocturnal Every time life gets easy and the big wo...
Ultraviolence and the Bureau of Certification I st...
Pithamagan As I said earlier, a very violent film....
Post Post Script with the FCPAPPNLEEDLAVIthingy To...
Post Script Why the heck is my writing too serious...
Violence on screen How often have you heard elderl...
Saturday, December 06, 2003
Phaseology
I first saw Dhalapathi before I became the over-analytic ideocrat I now am. So here is my over-analytic ideocracy on this movie I saw again this afternoon. A rather �Scorsese�esque take on the Mahabharatha. Why Scorsese: The same episodic, sporadically sentimental and extremely violent handling of a classical theme. The style is termed Scorsese-esque just because Scorsese used it first. For all in India, this style is called Mani Ratnam-esque.
I have to admit, that though what we have quickly called the Mani Ratnam style is there to see, Mani Ratnam is stylistically more dynamic and evolving than most Indian directors. Probably Dhalapathy was the Scorsese �phase� of Mani Ratnam. There is also the hint of the Kurosawa phase, the Coppola phase, the Sergio Leone phase. Again, these phases are named after directors because most of their films were in that style and not because they claim authorship or sole propriety of it. Godfather showed an Arthur Penn phase, Sam Peckinpah and Sergio Leone showed a Kurosawa phase, Kurosawa showed a John Ford phase and a Shakespeare phase. Etc etc.
An interesting aside is how Coppola (in the context of The Godfather) explains the �depiction of violence� lineage and traces it to Shakespeare in western literature. I wonder whom Shakespeare attributes his style to.
No director has a distinct style to claim authorship over. What can truly be named a director�s original trademark? I have no answer now. But I do know that a truly good director is dynamic and evolving. K Balachandar still uses the same techniques he used 30 years ago. KB went through a Goddard phase, but both KB and Goddard seem to be stuck there.
Probably the most original (a misnomer) a director will ever get, is in his early movies. This afternoon I also saw scenes from Pandiyarajan�s AaN Paavam. Pandiyarajan is someone nobody today would call a master director, but AaN Paavam had some amazingly raw and fresh storytelling.
Today I happen to be in a �theorist� phase. That explains two very academic posts. Just the other day I was in wisecrack phase, and another day in a Woody Allan-esque mood. The day someone says to somebody, �Hey! That is very Anand-esque� is the day that term is born.
Kingley�s recent post about bloggers cutting heir nails is an exercise in Kirubasing, Anitaising, Jivhaising an event. Bajji had a Kingleyising and an Anandising of nail cutting. So, Anand-esque as a style is already there. We just have to call it that.
Comments