On Shaoli Mitra's "Nathaboti Onathbot"

After a long time, watched a really interesting Bong play. A play called "Nathboti Onathbot". Its a well known play (at least among Bengalis) by Shaoli Mitra (daughter of Shambhu and Tripti Mitra, the doyens of Bengali theatre). The play is a feminst interpretation of the life of Draupadi. It questions many established orthodoxies:
(a) Why did Kunti allow Draupadi to be married off to her five sons? Although the popular myth is that she did not know what her sons had brought, she could easily have rescimded her order. She did not because she realised that Draupadi was too beautiful to not awaken desire in all her sons which could lead to conflict. Instead of treating Draupadi as a human being, she allowed her to be treated as a thing, a pice of meat (to put it crudely).
(b) While the decision to marry her off to all five brothers was being made, no one even thought of asking her what did she want!!! Although, Hindus tout the Swamvar as a sign of women's emancipation (in those times), the very fact that she had no choice in this matter shows the hollowness of the claim.
(c) Was Yudishthir a real Dharma Putra? Although the shastras forbade games of chance such as dice he agreed to play the game. Not only play the game but decided to put up not only wealth and kingdom but also his brothers as collateral!!!! When he lost all of them (including himself), he pledged Draupadi (obviously without her permission as she was considered his property) and lost her too! When Draupadi was dragged to the court by her hair, he never raised any objections....neither did any of the other brothers except Bhim. The only people to have protested were Vidur and Vikarna (one of the Kaurava brothers).
(d) Was the Kurukshetra war a dharm yudh in the true sense of the term? Both sides played tricks on each other, unfairly deceived their opponents and killed them. While it is understandable that Kauravas would resort to such tactics, the fact that Pandavas also do them with equal panache shows that in reality there was nothing to distinguish between the two.
These are some of the main issues that she raises through her acting and its amazing to watch. For nearly two hours one is mesmerised by her performance.
I just had one small problem. While she has highlighted the plight of Draupadi extremely well, she is not as perfect and blameless as she has been portrayed. Bringing these points up would not have detracted from the story one bit. Instead, it would have humanised her a bit from just being a victim of circumstances and male avarice.
Although she mentions it in passing, Shaoli never explains why Draupadi did not want Karna to win the swyamvar. Now, one can question the very nature of a swyamvar saying its demeaning for a woman to be seen as a prize to be won after performing a task. On the other hand, if that is the rules of the game (winner gets the princess) then she did not play fair. She did not want to marry Karna so even though he was capable of passing the test, he was not allowed to take it. This actually soured Karna towards Draupadi. So, while it is true that he played a pivotal role in her humiliation, it was not totally without basis.
Also, she could have learnt the art of protecting herself rather than depend on her husbands to do so all the time. That might have given her more confiedence. Now, this might sound to some like too much new age feminism, however, it was not entirely unheard of. We have the story of Chitrangada who was not beautiful but was adept at the art of warfare. So why not Draupadi?
Anyways, Shaoli's performance was fantastic and the questions she raises about the role of a woman, a wife and a mother remains pertinent even today.

On Mani Ratnam's "Guru"

Watched Guru today. It was entertaining in its own way but one expects something more from a director of the calibre of Mani Ratnam. I have not watched his Nayakan which everyone has assured me is one of his best ventures but I have watched his other movies like Roja and Bombay. While both movies were good, there is something simplistic about his stories. The characters were generally unidimensional and he generally had one central theme that he flogged endlessly.

Now coming to Guru. I don't know why I had expected it to be a little different but seeing that a movie like Guru is essentially targetted at a multiplex audience I would have thought that Mani Ratnam would make the movie with a little more sophistication or depth. Earlier, mainstream Hindi movies were extremely pedestrian so anything a little more sophisticated won a lot of accolades. But the past few years have seen the rise of an emerging new class of directors who are ready to make good cinema. They are on interesting themes, not preachy like the previous "art house" movies and deal with a lot of middle class issues. Therefore, the audience have also started expecting a certain standard, especially from good directors. We don't expect anything other than silly candy floss romances from a Karan Johar (although his Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna did try to break the mould of the happy "bhartiya parivar" a bit) or a Suraj Bharjatya or a David Dhawan. But Mani Ratnam is a cut above these guys. So the expections are also higher.

First, the songs. They were a complete misfit. The problem with them was not that they were bad. The problem was they were inappropriate. They neither moved the story forward nor were situational. If the essential theme of the movie was the romance between Guru and Sujata then they would still be acceptable. However, the theme was much more complex. It tried to highlight the essentialilty of a businessman in a country.

Second, the movie is supposed to be about the life of Dirubhai Ambani (although Ratnam has been denying it steadfastly!!!). I can't comment on this aspect as I don't really know much about Ambani's life except the most superficial information. Based on that there does seem to be a resemblance. However, one thing struck me. The movie's uncanny resemblance to a book by Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead. In the book, Howard Roark, the hero wins a case in court by refusing to refute any of the charges against him. The movie also has a scene where in an inquiry against Guru's so called questionable means, Guru refuses to put up a defence and ends up winner! The reason both Roark and Guru refuse to put up a defence is because both in their own ways thought the system itself was flawed and to succeed one had to break those rules. Now, Rand's books are generally set in a fictionalised U.S. on the verge of communism. The movie however is a very real and strong statement against India's license-raj system. That to me was a huge surprise. The importance of the movie lies there rather than whether it was Ambani's lifestory or any other businessman's life story. It was I think the first movie that explicitly denounces the license raj system and implicitly absolves all businessmen of their wrongdoings since apparantly it was the system that made them give bribes, break tax laws, import quotas etc. And all this was being done to empower the common man as sharesholders (which the common man could buy through public issues). In the process, the movie made the rest of the characters opposing Guru seem either naive (Madhavan as the journo) or stubborn (Mithun as the editor) or plain corrupt (the IAS officers).

If Guru is seen as a movie to promote economic reforms it does a good job. However, if it is supposed to be a story of a real businessman, it does not do the trick. Are businessmen as virtuous and great as they are shown? Are they as courageous as shown? Is moving towards a capitalist system such a great idea or should we have a welfare state? There are lots of questions the movie leaves unanswered...