Wednesday, December 27, 2017

The business of art

One of the Tamil movies that I watched during my late teenage years was Yarukkaaga Azhudhaan (For whom did he cry?)  Of course, it was not during its original theatrical release but much later when the government television channel telecast the movie.

Unlike the typical movies, this one had no song-dance sequences.  No songs, period.  It was an up close drama.  I loved it.  The fact that it was written and directed by Jayakanthan was a bonus.

But, such movies never became commercial successes.  The movies that hit the box office jackpot were the formulaic ones with a clearly defined hero, a much younger and attractive heroine, a designated bad guy, and a bunch of songs.  The poetic art of the theatre died out in the face of crass commercial cinema.

I have no idea about the contemporary state of "art" movies in the old country.  I hope there are still a couple of people who create meaningful art.

In the adopted home country, art (indie) movies continue to flourish, even as Hollywood itself makes interesting offbeat movies once in a while that sometimes are also commercial successes.  There is one big reason that Hollywood continues to pump up its formulaic movies with action, sex, special effects, CGI, and whatever else.  These can be sold all over the world, whereas the indie movies cannot for one simple reason: There is a lot of talking involved in the art movies.  The language and the slang are distractions for the foreign market.

All these are reflected in the list of English movies playing in Chennai.  There is only one art/commercial crossover that is playing in town--Coco.  But, some of my other favorites from this year may not ever come to town.  Like Lady Bird.

Lady Bird was on my list ever since I read the buzz about it and its writer/director Greta Gerwig, whose performance as an actor I have appreciated in a few movies.  And, when the moment came, the companion and I went to the movie hall.

Like many reviewers, I too was awed by one scene in particular.  The protagonist, Lady Bird, goes to shop for a prom dress with her mother Marion (played by Laurie Metcalf).  The entire conversation, the facial expressions, and the body language, offered wonderful insights into the human that we all are.  Here's a lengthy excerpt from a review about the movie and about this particular scene:
“It’s too tight, fuck!” Lady Bird cries as she tries on one dress. “Well, I suggested you not have that second helping of pasta,” Marion replies through the door. “Honey, you seem upset about it, and I’m trying to help,” she adds as her daughter cries out in protest, “You’re giving me an eating disorder!” Throughout the scene, Gerwig never cuts to inside the dressing room; the camera stays on Marion (with Lady Bird occasionally emerging in a new dress), with Metcalf registering the tiniest facial twinges every time she realizes she’s said something that goes too far. Finally, Lady Bird emerges in a pink, slightly sparkly number. “I love it,” she sighs. “Is it too pink?” Marion replies.
In Marion’s eyes, there’s a fine line between being critical and being helpful, and she’s straddling it, but to her daughter, every criticism is another stab in the heart, an attack on her individuality from which she can’t recover. They’re both wrong, and that’s what’s so wonderful about Gerwig’s script; it lets its characters be wrong without the viewer losing affection for them. “Why can’t you say I look nice?” Lady Bird asks. “I thought you didn’t even care what I think,” Marion counters. “I’m sorry, I was telling you the truth. Do you want me to lie?”
“I just wish … I wish that you liked me,” Lady Bird says sorrowfully. “Of course I love you.” “But do you like me?” Marion can only reply with that most stiflingly parental of philosophies: “I want you to be the very best version of yourself that you can be.” “What if this is the best version?” Lady Bird asks. Marion looks at her askance, saying more in a glance than any piece of dialogue could. Believe me, it’s not, she’s thinking. But also, It had better not be. It’s simultaneously heartbreaking and heartfelt, an entire relationship captured in a look, for better or worse.
Everything in that scene will be lost in translation, unlike a visual spectacle of the ticking clock and the macho hero jumping into action in order to rescue the damsel in distress.  Though, Hollywood has started creating female action characters as well--as long as they have well proportioned breasts and legs that will attract the male audience too.

Yarukkaaga Azhudhaan?

4 comments:

Ramesh said...

I take issue with terming commercial cinema "crass".

Everybody has different tastes and for each guy, the others' tastes will seem odd. That doesn't mean anybody's tastes are any lesser or greater. The majority of the people presumably love "commercial" cinema. So what ? Its not our calling to say their tastes are any less than our own tastes. This coming from a guy who does not watch cinema at all and can therefore be considered "neutral".

One of the wonderful things business teaches you is that the consumer is always right. Your own prejudices and fancies as a marketer is not one bit relevant. If the consumer wants something that might seem ugh to you, you will damn well giver her exactly what she wants.

Sriram Khé said...

Whether we openly admit it or not, all of us rate various aspects of our existence. We rate restaurants with Michelin stars. The auto industry rates cars. Rasikas rate kutcheris.
The ratings means that something is better than some other, even though that "some other" might appeal to many.
With movies, the best picture or actor awards do not go automatically to the box office champs. Meryl Streep hasn't generated gazillion dollars but has gathered quite some awards.

If you prefer that I merely state all those without using descriptors like "crass" I can at least recognize your point. But, you seem to equate my discussion of art and commercial movies with business practices. That is an entirely different discussion altogether, and it belongs to business-ethics, as much as an oxymoron that is. I have a hard time imagining how anybody willingly works for businesses like tobacco and actively sells it even by lying about tobacco. Or how in the past, companies like Nestle actively marketed the "formula" milk for infants as superior to the mother's breast milk. The "success" of tobacco is then not really a question of customer preference alone and the customer being right.
In my approach to life, money is not the be-all and end-all of life.

mahesh said...

Dear Sriram Sir,

Are you in Madras now?

Regards,
Mahesh

Sriram Khé said...

Hey, yes, I was. Your comment was in the spam folder and I just rescued it!