By Vishnu Mahesh Sharma
Many a times, in his interviews, Imtiaz Ali has shown his reverence and respect for Shyam Benegal’s filmmaking. In fact, at one instance he even moderated a discussion about Benegal’s Junoon. Hence, if one finds impressions of Benegal School of Filming in Ali’s work then it should not a surprise. These impressions can be, both, conscious or sub-conscious.
Hence, I would like to discuss one such very much visible impression. A sequence, which was employed by both the filmmakers in their films, however, in spite of being very similar in its visual grammar the sentiments they convey are of contrasting nature. While, in Benegal’s film the scene,just for a moment, conveys a sense very similar to what Ali conveys through his execution, but once eventuality hits, Benegal’s scene becomes more of a red herring in hindsight and shows its true form in the climax.
I am referring to scenes, what I would like to term as “Aloof frame vs Frame aloof”, in Kalyug (by Shyam Benegal) and Tamasha (by Imtiaz Ali).
Minds are lost in oblivion not souls-
The setting of the sequence is similar in both the films. Partners or lovers are in close proximity yet at a distance and they are indulged in their own activities. They are in one frame but not in one mindset.
In Shyam Benegal’s Kalyug, Dharam Raj (Raj Babbar) and Supriya (Rekha)are shown on two beds reading two different books.In fact, one character in the film comments as well that the understanding between the couple is so deep and sound that they do not need words. Without being entangled in each other’s body, they can entangle in each other’s thoughts. They can be lost in their books but still a connection, warmth and togetherness is there. The scene (cunningly enough) iterates that they are not our conventional “Do Jism Ek Jaan” couple. Their love is not only practical but also liberating enough to respect each other’s ‘Me-Time’.
The similar scene is there, towards the end, in Tamasha. Here, both Tara (Deepika Padukone) and Ved (Ranbir Kapoor) have put up their headphones. They are listening to different music
(The rhythmic mismatch between their dancing moves are suggestive that both are moving their bodies to different beats). Thus the trope of “the same activity but within the activity different choices” is used here as well. Moreover, the sequence hints that their love is also liberating. The entitlement of togetherness does not encroach the entitlement of individuality; the love has transcended physical boundaries and the oneness is psychological.
Were souls even there in the frame, in the first place?
Irrespective of the visual similarities, the fact remains that Benegal and Ali were operating in two different times and making two films of varied sensibilities. These differences are too powerful to be ignored and hence respective, sensible screenplays dictate the outcome of these sequences, in respective films.
In Kalyug, every now and then, a chemistry between Supriya and Bharat Raj (Anant Nag)is hinted upon. At first, the bond between them appears to be of a jovial bond between devar-bhabhi (brother-in-law and sister-in-law). This jolliness is also in line with their Mahabharat counterparts where Draupadi feels more close to Yudhdhisthira as guardian and Arjuna as friend. The relationship is more formal with former and informal with latter. Nevertheless, in one of the boldest climaxes of Indian Cinema, everything is turned on its head. Bharat Raj is on verge of a mental break down when Supriya asks his wife to leave and herself takes care of Bharat. She puts his head in her lap. A subtle hint that the jovialness was more than friendly. This shatters all our previous understanding of relationships between these characters.
Now, we see that in one room Supriya and Dharam read two different books on two different beds because in one marriage they are not only two different bodies but also two different minds and souls. For Tara and Ved, the physical distance of the frame is compensated by soulful togetherness but for Supriya and Dharam, it is the soulful disconnect that manifests itself as physical distance in the frame. For Tara and Ved, aloofness is at surface; the tangible difference is an intangible harmony. Whereas for Supriya and Dharam, the aloofness is as much in psyche as much it is on surface; the tangible difference is also the intangible discord.
It is also interesting to note that as both directors eventually wanted to convey extreme opposite undertones, their timing of the sequence, in the films, is also different. Thus, Ali utilizes the scene in the end. By this time, we have seen the graph and journey of Tara and Ved. Hence, no room for doubt is left. We get the essence of the film in the essence of the concluding scene. The scene endorses the idea of modern day ideal relationship without being verbose and preachy. On the other hand, Benegal, in Kalyug, uses the sequence very early in the film to disguise the real intent. We are yet not aware of character arcs; we have to believe what we are told. Which means that the essence of the scene is the essence of the surroundings (not the essence of the film, not yet). Though once, complemented by the climax, the scene is stripped off we see the essence of scene and film merging i.e. nothing is what it seems at the surface.
Advertent or inadvertent, worth study nonetheless-
I, obviously, cannot comment if Ali consciously re-imagined the sequence as per his film’s suitability but any which way, it is good to study that how two passionate filmmakers use similar visuals to convey ideas poles apart. While one uses it to reinforce a bond developed between two souls and two bodies, other uses it to demolish a myth of a bond between two bodies and two souls. Superficial aloofness leads to deeper a-loop-ness for Imtiaz while superficial a-loop-ness leads to deeper aloofness for Benegal.