A THING or two about SALMAN and the 'Class' assion

Intelligent Cinema is not intelligent because a particular class sees it.Period.It is intelligent because the techniques and the directorial vision that embroiders the fabric of cinema are so metaphoric or symbolic that one needs to be well-read to adjudge the very basis of it. Acting does just helps bring out the director's vision. For example,I saw Blue Velvet today. There is a scene in which the camera zooms into the labyrinth of a sliced human ear and tries entering the labyrinth of it. Now here there can be three scenario:

1.One might just not notice any co-relation of this very symbolic scene with anything else in the world.

2.One might reminisce of a movie Labyrinth released in the same year as Blue Velvet.

3.One might be able to co-relate the attempt to traverse the labyrinth of the sliced ear in Blue Velvet to the labyrinthine ways in the Hotel in The Shining thus be aptly able to chalk out a fact that in this film[Blue Velvet] too,there is an attempt to carve out a definite trajectory to the maze of another world.In The Shining it was the 'Other World'..in Blue Velvet'it was 'The Underworld'.

The result of any of the three observations on watching the movie/experience: NIL.

Who can understand the last two of my examples? Anyone from any Class!! Why? Because apart from a few historical and subject-based movies,all one needs to co-relate many a things,compare and contrast and thus develop a taste is a sense of Cinema and to watch variety of Cinema. Is watching variety of Cinema or having a sense of it necessary'Absolutely No!! The last two of my examples,especially the last one are solely for academic purposes.

The purpose of such an example was to elucidate that Cinema is a form of art ,a visual treat that also entertains.Thus the purpose of Cinema is two pronged.One to gratify the logics of art,other to entertain.Education through Cinema is a very distant thought.Thus being an art form,the 'academic purpose' related to Cinema also creeps in.If anyone tries to negate this 'academic concern' of Cinema by co-relating it with class-associated dysfunctions in the society,then it transcends the horizon of logic by miles. A movie need not present any academic concerns.A movie might be a textbook example of the various tools of Cinema. If one is glued to the entertainment aspect of Cinema,one just cannot blame the other group who devours on Cinema that provides adequate insight into various standards of itself,of being Intellectual or Pseudo-Intellectual or Hypocrites and vice=-versa.

Salman is not at all a curious case. Figure this what i write'" Salman in Wanted recreates the essential Ram who somewhere is in a Vanvaas ,not because someone banished him from his kingdom,but because Ram here himself sets out on a difficult path to meet the 'Raavans' of the society.Ayesha Takia perfectly brings out the quitessential Sita who is surrounded by Raavan at all junctures,thus providing the narrative for Ram to wield his own powers.Salman thus comes out victorious creating an impact no less than Ramayana itself!" It is too easy to present a film as intelligent.But 'intelligence' is not an easy word.It goes beyond the superficial levels of Cinema..and yes there are levels.But there is no shame in being at the superficial level as the men there gratify their hunger for entertainment.Thus they form the part of an essential medium by which one of the objective of Cinema is achieved'that is Entertainment. Salman provides that Entertainment.Intelligence,pathos,grief,emotions are useless here because in the world where 'Bhai's' torn shirt creates ripples,why look out for credentials or any other virtue that is not present. Now this[torn shirt and muscular flexing] again does not prove that Salman is a great actor.Yes it definitely proves that he is a great entertainer. Acting would have come in picture,had the director ever moved ahead of cashing in on Salman's 'bindas' on-screen and off-screen image for the name of entertainment. One just cannot rubbish the multiplex audience for letting him down past decade because the effect of growing access to information over internet,magazines,TV Media along with a wider taste for Western Flicks,Classics too'The Multiplex audience knows and understands what it wants to spend money on.It surprisingly also does not support much,a highly well reviewed film like MNIK thereby clearly showing that : 1. Multiplex Audience is a mix of classes,not only of upper class. 2. That Multiplex Audience has set standards for itself which can change any Friday. And blaming them for anything is exercise in futility!! Of Course once in a while it also endorses Dabangg but a ZNMD always has more chances of being accepted.Now actor is a puppet in the hand of audience.Innovation must be the responsibility of the actor'if the audience is increasingly becoming well-read,it just cannot be mocked or abused for that!!

A Transformers cannot be adjudged a better film than Serpico just because it has raked in more moolah.Moolah does not denote the value of a film.It denotes the 'entertainment value' of a film.But as already said,Entertainment is just one aspect of Cinema.Serpico defines the deeper objectives of Cinema'the extraction of expressions and subjects that are frequently sacrificed to bring out the entertainment part. The toils and the complexity of emotions in Darsheel's eyes in TZP is far greater than many expressions of Salman in Dabangg.And this is not to demean him,because all know that even a strong screenplay embedded with strong emotions would be effectively tampered to appease the fan base of Salman.Then how can you expect anyone to evaluate the movie on any ground beyond entertainment.And if you do not care,why then abuse a particular class.Box Office provides just a part of the narrative. A Shia La Beouf will not become greater than Pacino. Although in Indian Context'Salman is a quitessential superstar without a shred of doubt.But again without the same shred of doubt 'intelligent' Cinema also does exist,which is not intelligent because of a particular class watching it but because of its own virtues.

Its very difficult to sum up things.But effectively every Cinema has its own purpose.Some entertain,so naturally rake in more moolah.Some display strong cinematic virtues and entertain too,thus they are widely hailed. Some are for exploring the depth of an art called Cinema.If one doesn't get them'there is no shame as no one including me atleast on NG gets them'but that also does not mean that since one could not reach the grapes,the grapes are sour. Before i part,it is always a matter of individual assessment that which movie is good or bad..but it must be an unanimous or nearly unanimous decision that which movies deserve to be hailed as classics or even better bones!!How does one calculate the unanimous choice.No footfall or head count would do. A time span for a movie along with a spreading feeling among a society for that movie gradually but strongly helps it to be hailed as a better movie than its contemporary ones. Simple mathematical calculations do not make Cinema..it is more beyond that..a tracking of gradual responses of the audience to a particular piece of art must be done over a period of time and this tracking need not be undertaken,it always starts becoming apparent!! You will feel it!!

And finally,another example'.there is a scene in Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam..Salman crying in the sand and singing 'Tadap Tadap'. A very emphatic portrayal of a heart burning with desire,burning with grief and jealousy entrapped within a body that is crying and allowing tears to fall on a heartless yet hot sand. The cycle of the texture of emotion is complete'but the circle of emotions is never complete!! Salman could have easily carved out a separate niche for himself'Box office would have been still huge,yes one would not have to fight to prove a few things regarding him.Salman is probably the most popular,but certainly the most revered!!

And 'The Blue Velvet' plays on

Milind/Anupam