Nishaant

Yesterday I saw Nishaant. Again, after a long time. It is one of the better movies I have seen. And hence this post on it.

To give a backdrop it is set up in a village of Andhra of the 1940s with a feudal set up. Its a story of four brothers with the eldest being the patriarch of the family as well as the village. He and the younger two indulge in unlawful activities while the youngest one who is married doesn't have any of those bad habits. The village is oppressed under the tyranny of the three with no courage to raise any voice against it. Then comes a teacher (played by Girish Karnad) to the village along with his wife (Shabana Azmi). The youngest one for the first time sets eyes on a woman other than his own wife. His elder brothers get her kidnapped. The whole village watches but noone comes to the help of the teacher. His wife is repeatedly raped and kept in captivity. After failing to get help from all the institutional set ups responsible for law and order he evokes the conscience of the village priest. He galvanizes the village into a revolt and the brothers are killed in the end.

I would like to share thoughts on two main streams of thoughts that the movie evoked. One the questions it raises and the way it raises. Two the technical part of it.

Questions and Issues: Some of the issues that it poignantly raises have remained with us despite all are claims of "democracy" and "independence". A huge part of our population has remain untouched by these magical terms. But apart from the regular issues related to a feudal set up and the inertia of the populace I would wish to highlight a few which troubled me more.
The portrayal of women in the movie and the cost of leadership one may have to bear in wake of a mob "awakening" or mob "psyche".

There are two primary women characters in the movie, one wife of the teacher as mentioned and wife of the youngest brother (played by Smita Patil). One becomes the cause / (trigger) of the revolt while the other a mute spectator to it. Its interesting to note the transformation of Susheela (Shabana Azmi) from a doting mother and loyal wife to someone who detests her husband and falls in love with her co-captivator. She resists being raped initially, gives in to her fate and then demands her right in a powerful household. And then she dies alongside her lover with the line "jab maut aani he hai toh kaaran kya poochhna" (why ask the reason when death is destined to come). And yet one thing she doesn't lose is her concern for the other woman (Rukmini, the wife of her lover) even while she runs for her life.
Smita Patil (Rukmini) on the other hand detests her owh family except for her husband who she loves coz of the fact that he refuses to indulge in the excesses. However the same woman with whom she empathises with becomes the bane as her husband starts falling for her and gives her rights partially to her. She also dies at the hands of the mob but not beside her husband. She dies alone as she witnesses the death of perpetrators of injustice.
Why I raise this as an issue is that both women die. In their own respective agony. Both deserted by their husbands. And yet they die so differently. They have no other role. As I mentioned earlier as being a cause/trigger and not a reason of the revolt. Neither as leaders in it neither with reason in it. On all accounts they are shown to be the end victims in either case. Is this what we have reduced women to in our society? Is this the only way we have come to treat them?

Second issue would be of the price that leaders pay. The very person who raises the collective conscience loses everything in the mad fury of mob. He loses his wife for whom he does it all. The very cause for him deserts him in the consequence. And thus I ask, is this the price of leadership? Why do we have to have tragedy associated in such leadership. Why is it that the awakening of a society have to be soaked in the blood of a soul coming from their own ranks? What is it that exacts such a huge cost on someone to shake us? People say for every revolution we have a price to pay. But I ask why is it that who take the fruit of it don't have to pay the cost but those who lose all have to be bereft of the benefits.

Technical: Techincally there are also few questions. The pace of the movie is at times too slow. In an attempt to capture the true essence of a village the director spends too much of time on thing that could easily have been sacrificed at the editor's table. Further the deliberate attempt to be more black and white the backdrops are so inert that sometimes you wonder if anything is moving. No wonder the label of Art movies on such pieces delineates a huge part of the audience or rather loses them altogether. Is it essential to be downright "classy" to get the message across?

The language also used is not what is actually used in that terrain perhaps. Unless its in the heart of Hyderabad.

With these questions I ponder more over it .. and hope to "edit" this post of mine as well :)