Sponsor PFCOne
(8 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading ...
Against ‘No’ To Smoking
iView Author: Manash Bhattacharjee
(New Delhi, India)
EMAIL: withheld
Against ‘No’ To Smoking
————————————————–
“The bewildered and shallow reception to Anurag Kashyap’s film ‘No Smoking’ by both viewers and reviewers alike has been deplorable.”
This interpretation of the film is in defense of Anurag’s effort and against all those who failed to understand the film’s profoundly provocative and avant-garde content.
In a direct reference to Kafka, Anurag’s main protagonist is called ‘K’. But K’s Kafkaesque introduction is in the form of a reference not to K in Kafka’s The Trial, but to Gregor Samsa in Metamorphosis. Anurag’s K however doesn’t wake up from an uneasy dream metamorphosed into an insect. He is rather dreamily transposed into the icy terrains of erstwhile Russia, under the communist regime. As the scene unfolds, we are immediately introduced to the familiar Orwellian picture where individual life is under surveillance and human privacy has been ruthlessly usurped. This is Anurag’s motif – A Kafkan character caught in an Orwellian world. Anurag’s K is the double of Kafka’s characters who constantly suffer “the violation of solitude”, to use Milan Kundera’s phrase. But the world around K fits Orwell’s description of a totalitarian network where human life is monitored and tossed around by numerous invisible agents of power. The existential angst of Anurag’s K is Kafkan, while the political predicament of the character is Orwellian. What is unique about Anurag’s attempt is not merely this innovative fusing of Kafka and Orwell, but the elements he adds to the story.
Anurag’s K, to begin with, is neither an incomprehensible victim of an unknown offense like Kafka’s K, nor is he 1984’s Winston Smith, an inner party member, out to expose the party’s fraudulent myths. He is a narcissistic smoker. Smoking is K’s passion and the cigarette is the symbol of (his) desire. There is of course an almost adolescent obsession in K about his passion. But K hurts no one, and there is nothing to conclude he doesn’t love his wife or neglects her sexually. Yet his wife gets jealously vehement against his smoking habit. K’s wife symbolizes the prohibitory family member. Of course she has a point against smoking - it is injurious to health. But in a health-conscious society where everyone is paranoid about falling ill, anything which subverts this phobia can well be treated as injurious. This creates an ironical paradox – desires like smoking are seen as irrational while the paranoia against such desires is argued as rational. This paranoia thus ends up exposing the irrational basis of its own rationality. But since elite/middle class conservatism lives in denial, all so-called irrational desires are attacked in the name of rationality. In this way, rationality is unleashed over human desires like a ruthless lie. It was in protest against this dangerous and ridiculous middle-class attitude towards desire that the surrealist movement came to flaunt the excesses of desire. So Anurag adopts smoking as a metaphor for all excessive desires against society’s own phobic mental condition. He of course issues the statutory warning in the beginning against smoking. But such a warning can be read as provocatively as Nabokov’s introductory condemnation of Humbert-Humbert in Lolita.
When K’s wife in the film threatens to leave him for good, he decides to visit the Baba’s anti-smoking laboratory at his friend’s persuasion. K immediately finds himself trapped in a bizarrely coercive world. Anurag has juxtaposed innovative contrasts to portray the Baba’s world. A poor old Muslim guards the entrance disinterestedly with a thumb-print machine. Burqa clad women manage the laboratory’s call centre. There is something sinisterly out-of-place about these people. When K demands one of the burqa clad women to reveal her status, he also asks it on the audience’s behalf. But K doesn’t receive any answer except a slight panic in the woman’s eyes. This is deliberately done to keep the audience’s suspicions alive. Are these women from the minority community kept there by force? Why use them to run the call centre? What is the larger symbolic meaning of their presence? These questions persist in the audience’s mind. The laboratory becomes reminiscent of Joseph K’s discovery of the castle as a place where, “(e)verything doesn’t seem to be the way it is”. The play of dissimilar images fused together gives the laboratory its distinct surreal ambience. It is the surrealism of oppression.
The Baba is a tilak-adorned Hindu. His basic mantra is, “Aatma hai to shareer eeshwar hai, warna sab nashwar hai!” (If there is soul, god dwells in the body. Or else, everything is perishable). This mantra is contrasted with the Baba’s agenda of taking control over the body of his victims. In the name of the soul, the Baba carries the prisoners off at will and beats them into submission. In the near end of the film, the Baba parades the prisoners bare bodied to a crematorium-like place where they turn into smoke. This brings Hitler’s gas chambers to mind. The film of course makes two references to Hitler. Before K goes to visit the Baba the first time, his wife who forces him for it is ironically moved watching a film on Hitler. Later the Baba says how he had learnt a few coercive tricks from Hitler. It also brings to mind Stalin, who was called ‘the engineer of souls’. The two leaders were 20th century replications of the spirit of the Inquisition, where human desires were literally put to flames in the name of a horrible ideal. What Anurag highlights is how the propaganda of the soul is used to gain control over people’s bodies, but once that happens, the soul is automatically subordinated. In fact, a delusion is deliberately created by trying to differentiate the two. The chopped fingers of the victims as a symbol of their truncated individuality and freedom appear as a psychotic rather than a real event to highlight this delusion.
The Baba’s underground laboratory as hell is counterpoised with the farcical promises of liberation. A very capitalist enterprise is seen at work under religious garbs. This phenomenon raises questions on the modern day mushrooming of guru-centric salvation-gatherings. Hence, an anti-smoking laboratory can be seen as a metaphor for all prohibitory propagandas against human desire. And Anurag’s point is unequivocally clear – all prohibitions are fascist in nature. The film, in true Orwellian fashion, is certainly framed in the dystopian mode. But the surreal mode of the story helps it avoid a straightforward realistic portrayal.
K’s life becomes farcical and painful as he simply cannot get out of his ridiculous and coercive situation. After he begins to supposedly enjoy his break from smoking, his wife turns into a seductive secretary. This sudden shift (and rift) in the wife’s image is reminiscent of Bunuel. This shift however happens in K’s dream. It highlights the larger and deeper surreal crisis of K’s life. He is only apparently free from the laboratory. The Baba keeps track of his every move. There is no place on earth where he can be free from surveillance. The distinction between dream and reality disappears before his very eyes. We slowly find K in a schizophrenic mess. He can no longer tell between his secretary and his wife, between spies and guards at office, between strangers and friends. Using virtual-reality techniques, Anurag shows how the lines between K’s dreams and reality get blurred as he stumbles deeper into a hallucinatory experience. The dream where he’s transposed to the Russian snow-land is reminiscent of Tarkovsky. But Anurag’s treatment is different. The scene looks a little alien and far-fetched but Anurag perhaps wanted to make certain obvious historical connections to his theme.
In the end, the whole film leaves us with an excess of surreal contrasts between dream and reality. It also leaves us with profound questions. Was K’s whole experience a dream? Did he dream it all up? Or was it part dream and part reality? Where does the dividing line between dream and reality lie? Under what circumstances and conditions does such a phenomenon occur in life? Is the blurring of lines between dream and reality what we call a nightmare?
The film is no doubt abstruse. But since Anurag self-confessedly wanted to be so, he must have consciously chosen a limited audience to appreciate his efforts. But the audience seems to have limited itself further. Most reviewers in the mainstream media banged their heads on imaginary walls. They proved to be unworthy of K’s story. Rather, they sounded like deluded victims straight out of the Baba’s laboratory. Even the viewers found the film everything from disappointing to vague. People seem to have hardly noticed the myriad political issues the film raised. This is a serious proof of how the audience has been successfully sterilized over the years to accept and reject films like consumerist invalids.
65 Responses to “Against ‘No’ To Smoking”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- A Week With Anjum Rajabali, Sriram Raghavan and Anurag Kashyap
- Wednesday - and why I don’t read reviews !!!
- Two Dollops of Hope, Too Many Sprinklings of the Unreal
- When Naseeruddin Shah and Anupam Kher met on A WEDNESDAY
- Wednesday Review
- Review of A Wedn
- Wednesday - and why I don’t read review
- A Wednesday R
- Two Dollops of Hope, Too Many Sprinklings of the U
- A Week With Anjum Rajabali, Sriram Raghavan and Anurag Ka
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
Saw No Smoking……and honestly didn’t see what the fuss was about…..and far too much has been written on PFC on this movie ,we are losing one of the basic tenets of criticism on this site w.r.t No Smoking which is “Objectivity”.
Pseudo-Intellectuals sometimes build their castles in the air and refer to anyone who opposes them as unworthy of attention or posessing low intelligence. Yes it’s good cinema but it’s also highly complex cinema ,dunno why people expect the masses to like it ,it’s not even close to what can be called popular cinema ,it’s rather the antithesis of it.
To be frank films like Bheja Fry, Khosla Ka Ghosla ,Dor ,Iqbal hold far more potential for transforming the Indian Cinemascape compared to works like No Smoking.
Amazing write-up man. Your relation of the film with path-breaking works of literature of the 20th century (Kafka’s novels) is mindblowing. It proves that Indian cinema has begun to make films that can have a universal significance, not only temporally but conceptually. This is quite a read and that is quite a film.
And, Vineet,
“This interpretation of the film is in defense of Anurag’s effort and against all those who failed to understand the film’s profoundly provocative and avant-garde content.”
I think the writer made it very clear why he wrote this piece. It is for an in-depth analysis and throwing open the possible interpretations to a complex film. If you still didn’t get what the ‘fuss’ is about, you probably need to see the film again & read the article again till you do. And don’t refer to just about anyone who is trying to understand/explain something as a ‘pseudo-intellectual’ just coz you don’t have much intellect to begin with. And please note your usage of words like ‘masses’ which is degrading in itself, whereas the writer implied the well-read movie reviewers of our revered print & news media as the viewers who dismissed the film without engaging with it.
And I doubt if Bheja Fry can be put in the same realm as the other three names (which too are very different films). I didn’t see any potential for transforming the Indian cinemascape in that film at all.
Agree Vineet, whoever has written this article, has got plenty of free time:))in the life.
People dont spend here watching boring, complicated,with everybody in the team struggling except theguys on the musci side trying & trying to make it big… and it was a leading to nowhere movie. Although if entertaining audience bearing any complexities everytime:)
Vineet, the problem with your comment is that it doesn’t stand up to the so called pseudo-intellectual discussion that has been placed to explain “no smoking”. i think your comment stands invalid and quite unreasonable. you must not watch films that are not meant for you because you’ll never get it and compare it to other kinds of art which fit into a different genre.
please note the reference here is not to intellectual-ism but to make a distinction between dream and reality. like mentioned by the author, abstruse
Superbly written, indepth and comprehensive analysis, easy flow of thought.
I doubt if Anurag could have done better!
Keep writing, you have a fan…
@Dazed&Confused
Thanks. Your impression will keep me encouraged. Let us all keep writing. Cheers!
superb article Manash! Just had a quick look through it while sitting in office..the initial impression is immense… plan to go through it again in detail tonight.. An article worthy of it’s subject..
that’ll be its (misplaced apostrophe).. hehe
On reading some of the comments I must confess that I am inclined to say “I will watch any movie I want and comment on anything I want” ,but again as I said questing other people’s intellect is the job of a pseudo-intellectual and the responses to my comment only prove that……
anyways I stand firm by what I said…..maybe the word masses is wrong….but certainly the director made the movie so that a “very large audience” sees it…….or else making movies doesn’t make business sense .So in that way the director should have anticipated that kind of response. There has been too much whining on this “No Smoking” thing on the net and especially on PFC ,true intellectuals never whine or complain , they do their stuff and sit quietly ,don’t ask for recognition or good reviews.
Still don’t understand …..look at the old greats….I don’t think I need to name anyone here.
@Sanya…..
I understood the movie thank you…..I don’t need anyone’s guidebook for it…
What I also understood is the reason behind the “Public” dismissal of this movie….maybe you failed to understand that.
Great post …. will have to read it again .. :)
printo error it’s “questioning” instead of “questing”.
Exceptionally brilliant.
i am one among the three who gave it 5/5 rating.
As far as I can remember your interpretation of movie was much better than others and as good as Anurag’s.
I liked no smoking on its face value, i.e. without bothering much about its “Pseudo-Intellectualism”. But after reading its deeper interpretation by Anurag and others and knowing what actually it is, liked it more.
Please continue writing.
@FaltuTimePass
Your pseudonym is very ironic - there are others who deserve it; not you certainly!
Anyway, thanks for your generous reaction to the review. I missed reading Anurag’s own writing on the film but will make-up for it now and read it immediately.
of cause one can watch what one may want to but we are all aware that the director does not always make films for the masses or else we would have films with handbooks and slap-stick expressions running the shows & winning critical awards too. i am sure the film “no smoking” wasn’t about “business sense”. if every artist began to think alike then this world would have no artist.
“bewildered and shallow reception to Anurag Kashyap’s film ‘No Smoking’ by both viewers and reviewers alike has been deplorable”…
WHO ARE YOU to deplore the reception of others ? And WHO ARE YOU to comment that its shallow ? …you are welcome to vent your psuedo-intellect as much as you desire,…but let not your stupidity offend others … others have as much a right to their opinion as do you.
@Playback
Har ek baat pe kehete ho tum ke tu kya hai
Tum hi kaho ke ye andaaz-e-guftagu kya hai…
@PLAYBACK
well said…
arre bhai seedhi si baat hai…agar tumhe film achhi lagi to lagi…..kisi ko nahi lagi to use gaali kyun de rahe ho….
@sanho
If No Smoking was not about business sense then why did AK pick John Abraham …why not say Rajat Kapoor or Shreyas Talpade(don’t say that no one but John could have played that role)….and why that item number “Phoonk De” with Bips? ,people in PFC deride Item numbers and don’t say anything when it’s used by Anurag Kashyap……height of hypocrisy.
btw good analysis of the movie….itne saare comments likhe aur ye likhna hi bhool gaya….how silly…
Do you guys really believe No Smoking is so good !!
I salute you.
Nice write-up Manash!
Nice write up but it can only be useful as a treatise..critical appreciation.Too much dissection does not help either.I think to go beyond what is apparent could be a bit psuedo..in all a good read.
@ the belligerent playback is back..hehe
irrespective of labelling movies as ‘mainstream’,'multiplex’.'off beat’..what I personally believe is that if u hv to make the viewer understand your film then you have failed as a filmmaker coz u r unable to communicate..Im no one to comment on a man like Anurag Kashyap who I believe is extremely talented & am sure will give some of the most powerful films of indian cinema..i really admire the man..but to me No Smoking seemed arrogant (i didnt get the film even after AK posted his blog few days after the release explaining his film but i do try to watch it whenever i can coz somewhere i believe in the filmmaker AK n thats why I say that he will give us some of the best cinema in comin years)..he just needs to transform his anger into a weapon & zip up the mouths of his detractors..All the Best AK..tc.God Bless!
I tried to sit and watch this movie 3-4 times, did complete couple of times, even more, everytime i read someone’s explanation, i thought maybe i am the only one not getting it.
Anyway, i loved manash explanation better than AK, good that you explained it to me, but i dont know even after reading this I want to watch this movie again.
AK did make an incredible movie, really great movie. Somehow it didnt gel with me….
Thanks manash for this writeup.
I m in same line as Vineet and PLAYBACK. I watched this movie last week only. I cud not gather courage to watch it earlier.And after watching it, i wanted to post my comments on the movie too.
U can try to create several theories to explain something. So here writer is giving his theory.But the simple fact is, movie lost its track once baba bengali entered.Lot of things happened, which till now are unexplained(I can not read such a leanghty post to understand a movie).And same must be true with rest of the public/reviewer.
U can be as abstract as u wish to depict something, but i will accept it only when i understand it.We may not be in the same intellectual level as Anurag K but we r the public and we didnt liked this movie.
Agree with Vineet and Munis Syed’s following comment.
“What I personally believe is that if u have to make the viewer understand your film then you have failed as a filmmaker coz u r unable to communicate”.
Black Friday was a great movie and AK is an exceptional director. In time, he’ll prove it. However with No Smoking I felt he took his viewers for granted and indulged too much.
Very well-written the thorough analysis.
I like how you introduced Orwellian concept into the mix (of authoritarian, anti-libertarian, existentialism, “Kafkaesque” surrealism etc.). Although I don’t think there’s any explicit reference to Orwell in No Smoking - your comment about “individual life under surveillance” does make it relevant. (I wish that the room where the souls were trapped - and eventually evaporated into the air - by Baba Bengali were shown as Room 101!)
By the way, I think you meant “all prohibitions are authoritarian in nature” instead of what you wrote “all prohibitions are fascist in nature”, right?
I wrote some of my thoughts (they are not very well composed and clear though) about No Smoking right after I watched it for the first time (link below).
http://vishal12.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/no-smoking-movie-review/
my simple feedback
you made sense of the movie to me but not every one might understand your choice of words.
well written,finally i see some sense in no smoking
@playback
i dont think you have to be somebody before you have false opinons re
journos do it all the time :)
keep it coming manash
@vishal
Fascism is right-wing authoritarianism, and we have by now come to broadly understand any kind of coercive method of rule to be fascist. This is why Mahashweta Devi (and later other independent left intellectuals)called the West Bengal govt.’s action in Nandigram, fascist.
I read your review. Your clarity about the film puts reviews of the same i had read in magazines and newspapers to shame. You got it right and made all the proper connections. The “spoon-fed” point is crucial. How long will Indian audiences remain lazy entertainment-watchers? And the ineptness of film reviewers will be an understatement. Khalid Mohammad heads the list. And Raja Sen and others follow him. Their use of language is as corrupt as the banality of their understanding of films.
i dunt understand why there is so much of fussy about “No smoking”..It is not at all a great film by any standards. I think it is a self indulgent film made by an egoistic director who does not know how to make an offbeat film entertaining. Dude, go and watch “Kanathil muthamital”, “iqbal”, “maqbool” or “omkara” to see how this kind of movies are actually been made. All these movies may not have been sucesful but they are still talked about for it’s Quality in story and treatment.
Anurag ur a great script writer and i think that u should just stick to that and let other direct ur stories…
@skanda
If you are so sure about the shortcomings of No Smoking, then why bother about the fuss? I wonder why it makes you uncomfortable. You shouldn’t lose sleep over why your judgment of the film isn’t shared by others. I have watched all the other Hindi films you mentioned and I feel their directors have as much to learn (despite the good job) as Anurag would have to. So what’s the big deal?!
I feel, the film has suddenly risen from the ashes, like a Phoenix, and is threatening to take people by storm (after the lull). The most unusual ideas take time, and gather more difficulties, before being born. Let the fuss prevail and raise more dust.
Manash, agree with you completely..this will be a movie that will keep people arguing even 30 years down the line..the same arguments that you and I see here in this forum..and like all classic works of art shall have its admirers and detractors..suffice to say it was never intended to be a run of the mill film and it has succeeded in its purpose..as you say “Phoenix” (BTW my company’s name)
@Indraneel
I agree back!
Dear MANASH,
I really loved the write up, as much as I loved movie. It gave me new points which I never realisd when I first saw the film.
Thank you very much.
I would say one thing for sure, maybe PLAYBACK is right when he says, who are we to deplore reception of others. It is obvious to think of any point or turn any point into own defense, benifit if we are out to support something. But still, as a write up. KUDOS! Really well done & Thanks again!
We are used to being spoon fed, in the name of the aforementioned, masses of course. There are certain things which are implied and come forth in a movie but our filmmakers who like to ‘communicate’ with the masses, work it out as a dialogue in the film.
The fact that films can have very voices/styles, is a idea that still has to take roots.
And you are very right in deploring the reaction of the film critics to No Smoking, it is their business to be aware of the arts, film and literature, not to forget that all art flows out of or in opposition to hegemonic culture and therefore, should also be politically aware.
For me it was a excellent exposition of the many strands in the film, the Orwellian, the Kafkan and I think it was a great script to carry forth Anurag’s own experiences in the industry. This essay helped me make sense of a lot of issues that had been in my mind.
I particularly look forward to more such sumptuously informed pieces from you, that delicate intermixing of politics, culture and society, to explain a work of art or the aims (informed or assimilated) of the artist.
This brings me to the point of the pseudo-intellectuals. Since, Advani started off with the pseudo word, it has entered into our limited Indian lexicon. But sometimes one wonders, if the critics of ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ understand that struggle against authoritarianism. In cinema, directly represented by the censor board and the ‘popular’ scale of success. Had the pseudo-intellectuals of the era gone by shirked from their responsibility and taken the ‘easy to digest’ popular path, I wonder what world we would be living in.
Manash, are you trying to pull a Subrat on the unsuspecting pfc readers.Anyone keen can manufacture creative associations with a hodge podge of sophisticated ideas and make any bollywood movie sound like timeless masterpieces.
Kafka’s K metamorphosing into John abraham in an orwelian world …you must be kidding.Apart from explicit Kafka references all the other laboured mumbo jumbo you have expounded has got nothing to do with the movie. Although its worth a good chuckle.
After your excellent analysis of Ramu, you have completely missed the mark here.
You are reading too much into No smoking when this is only a very personal movie Anurag made just because he can.
@Indypendy
If you believe me, am particularly glad of your response. Because I have questioned myself on over-interpreting this film. But you know what, no writer or painter or film-maker, exhaust the meanings that their viewers (may) draw from it. That is why the moment a work of creation is out of the creator’s hand - it is at the critical mercy of the receiver. Even god has been questioned in a similar fashion in history, forget about mortals! So, the point is - the “misreadings” are allowed, because misreadings can anyway happen to great art and literature, the way Umberto Eco “misread” Lolita. Any great work of creativity opens itself up to interpretations. But crap doesn’t. Old film makers had more respect for the aesthetic sensibilities of the viewer than modern film makers do. But maybe not. Because most film directors today believe that a non-thinking, easily tickled, popcorn crowd is the real appreciator of cinema. Well, I am glad we get a break sometimes. I thank Anurag, among a very few others, for that break.
@ indypendy -
i agree with your #35 wholeheartedly. surprising.
Indypendy: Every Bollywood movie is a timeless classic. None of my PFC readers are unsuspecting.
I’ll leave you with one creative association from Tashan. The song ‘Dil Haara Re, Dil Haara’ is actually about how Sri Lankan medium pacer Dilhaara Fernando lost the crucial IPL match for Mumbai Indian while bowling the death over. Saif had a premonition about all of this and he actually sang this song for Sachin which is why it went ‘Dil Haara Re, Mein Haara, Mein Haara’. Unfortunately, Sachin didn’t notice till it was too late. Tashan is a timeless masterpiece
@subrat
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
…
@comment 36
Eco wrote that for his Rose and in so many lines!
changing indian cinemascape?
i read the chairman or director(really sorry i don’t remember) of national school of drama said one thing for me in words which i think i long knew…an artist is one man who doesn’t bow down in thought to tell people what he wants to say…he says it in such a way that people are forced by the art itself to raise their mental level or at least try..he was asked about raja ravi varma and tagore and he said while ravi varma was great in his own way, he was more of a romantic while tagore’s realm went beyond.
i just wanted to say that you may comment on any thing any which way, thats your right as you may not get what the fuss is all about with the masses not liking it but my point is what the hell is your point..
i agree one may read too much into a work of art, meaning getting out of it what the author never intended but isn’t that the source of creation if one stays as honest as one can with oneself..
how long do you want to watch the same pattern of movies, that dont dare to go beyond in technique and have something to say thats already being said…how does one say something thats already so twisted that you being a part of it, watching it daily, going through the motions as if nothing is wrong, don’t see it when you’ve got your own eyes for that purpose..
everything that is worth saying according to oneself, by staying honest with oneself, can be said through any medium, one’s gotta know how to say it n say it in such a manner that according to oneself is the way to convey..
when i 1st saw no smoking i got tired near the end, i had tried so hard to understand it n still couldn’t grasp it…i was angry, i thought if AK had something to say why couldn’t he say it in a simpler manner, why couldn’t he say so what he meant.
a friend of mine, understood it all-his theory, he explained it to me, i wasn’t at all satisfied, then we read AK’s blog and I thought how great for Indian Cinema that AK made this kind of movie now and not years later so as to say now wasnt the right time for people
+
i also asked myself how amazing it would have been to make sense of it in the first place and i blame myself for that, one can’t blame creators for our own inability, like i have read people asking bhavani iyer to write in a manner that could be understood and not use heavy words etc(….one may complain only when he/she knows the meaning of the words used and still it doesn’t make sense!)
my friend read the blogs too and said,” when i saw it i got what was no smoking, now after reading the blogs i know why no smoking.”
Since then I have seen No Smoking three times and I love it…absolutely, totally.
now you may say or ask, the movie does not stand on its own and whats the point of the movie, instead of it just give your story as an explanation…but point my dear earthmates is that “its not for the masses” is too lame an excuse for the masses not to try, for the masses to remain masses…asking the filmaker to change when you yourself want to remain the so called masses.
@bossDK
Sorry for not responding earlier - I wish more people share your understanding of aesthetic politics with regard to (popular) cinema. And yes, the word “pseudo” is being attached to any value or attitude which forces people to think, be sensitive and take a stand against corrupt and unethical practices. The practices include everything from vulgar film-making to being jingoistic. Thanks for the post.
I am surprised my pseudo-intellectual comment generated so much interest ,anyways the need for the word arose because sometimes the intellectuals can be as dogmatic and stubborn as the “masses”.
Anyways keeping all the kafaesque and orwellian fantasies apart I think when the critics dismissed the movie they were speaking from the general population’s point of view ,after all it’s the people who will be spending 150/- bucks on the movie ticket and not any intellectual. So when I find that I am unable to understand/comprehend a movie that the critic has rated so highly……I will obviously never refer to the critics comments again.
So In the end it all boils down to economic sense ,in earlier days when the price of a ticket was 15 - 30 bucks a person could afford to go to cinema without bothering about the movie but now when the premiere show costs 270/-(PVR Bengalooru) a person obviously wants to take in the general opinion before he spends that amount…..
aur phir india mein kitne logon ne kafka aur orwell padhi hui hai ??
@vineet
Pseudo intellects are those who pretend to be intellects but aren’t grounded enough to claim that status. But unfortunately the word is mostly thrust upon people in India even if those poor guys haven’t claimed it for themselves. Being dogmatic and stubborn is another matter.
But let us come to your point. You have fuzzed all the issues. One, just because someone interprets the movie like I did, through a Kafkaesque and Orwellian reading, doesn’t mean others have to follow this very course to understand the movie. Am sure I can produce other ways of interpreting the movie as well. Any good film will open up easily to multiple entry points of understanding. Two, just because people may find it difficult to understand the movie doesn’t mean critics - who are supposed to get what the film’s about - don’t make a distinction between talking about the film in a way it deserves and, if they choose, also make the point to the reader that the film may be abstruse or difficult, etc. But if the so-called critic lampoons the movie only one thing is clear - the great critic didn’t understand shit about the movie. If you read, for example, Khalid Mohammad’s and Raja Sen’s reviews of ‘No Smoking’, you will find how they exposed themselves. By trying to make fun of the film, they ended up making fun of their own limited understanding.
One last thing - the word “masses” is really a bastard sociological word made infamous by Bollywood. “This film is for the classes!”; “That film is for the masses!”. Who are the classes? Do they include the working class? Does it mean people who have “class”? So does it mean, people who have more money have more “class”? What does this “class” mean - those who are culturally superior? more intellectually stimulating? Do these attributes come with money? And what the hell does “masses” mean? Yes, it is defined as the body of common people or people of low socioeconomic status. But that doesn’t mean we turn it into a prejudiced and essentialist word where everything which is below par is thrust upon them. I don’t think the “masses” understand less of a film than those who are rich. Maybe we should take time out to ask them about a film. I have seen the way middle class and the elite in general respond to films both inside and outside theaters. It makes me wonder which “class” of brains they possess.
All of it ultimately boils down to one thing…..what many people have already suggested…that we need a new means of distributing movies apart from the multiplexes and cinema halls which are not favourable to “zara hat ke” movies like “No Smoking” as they are controlled by business houses and large enterprises who are averse to taking risks since they have their shareholders to answer to……….this is the age of web 2.0 and certainly we can deliver movies through internet directly to the user cutting down on middlemen costs and other unnecessary expenditures .
I heard the movie “Hancock” will be delivered directly to viewers in US who have a sony bravia television with a web connection…..well that’s the way to go….so that the AK’s ,Shyam Benegals and Jahnu Baruas can also make money while making good movies.
appreciating a movie is damned hard work these days :(
keep it up guys
(About economic sense): The films that make it only to the cineplexes, not the cheaper cinema halls, are meant for an audience that a) has money & b) has supposedly undergone education up to a certain level. I would just like to reiterate that these films are made for an audience that is (supposed to be) clued in into reading, movements of art, etc., by virtue of their having the means to do so. If they only spend money on watching films worth Rs 150/- or 300/- and don’t buy books for that much (or haven’t followed some art movement, or are unaware of a genre of music), it’s their loss when a film throws up meanings that can be understood through a connection with other forms of art. As cinema in a turbulent world is not supposed to be merely entertainment, its scope has broadened and should be given credence and respected. Even in India.
And like bossDK said, it is the film critics’ job, and I would add, the film-goers’ as well, to be aware of other art forms to be able to relate to see the film in its different meanings (not just for a cathartic experience of laughing or crying or getting angry & forgetting about it).
And those who can afford to spend (have enough disposable income) that amount of money on films, surely don’t fall in the category of ‘masses’. That’s just something to hide behind to avoid taking responsibility for an individual lacuna.
@Manash
The hatred you bear towards the term “masses” reflects your ideological leaning which equates caterozing people into groups as a crime ,however it is not ideology which shapes business but pure reality ,the reason films like Partner and Welcome ring the cash-registers is because they connect at some level with the audience in general .True that movies are open to interpretations…..but to interpret you have to understand first and foremost and I am sorry to say that No Smoking is beyond most of the people who cannot understand the eccentricities the director has indulged in.
Moreover the word “masses” is a marketing term and is used mostly by the marketing executives to divide the society into categories so that identifying the target audience is easy ,it’s unlike the divide and rule policy followed by the british so your frustation is not justified.
The opium for the masses theory is actually a leftist ideology which stems from the assumption that at any point of time 24×7 there is always some kind of industrial or aristrocratic cartel of some kind hell-bent on keeping the general public in a semi-sleep state so that they can be milked for money……this may be true for the 19th and 20th century but not for the 21st…..and certainly doesn’t hold true for the film industry…..they serve what we like rather than the opposite.
I like honesty and I am sorry to say that I find the aam aadmi walking on the street far more honest in voicing his opinion than the intellectual janta…for me the self claimed authority or divine right over what is intelligent and what is un-intelligent claimed by the intellectuals equates to left-wing fascism.
@Sanya
you are so naive when you assume that anyone who is able to spend 300 bucks in PVR is equally capable in understanding No Smoking…..
most of the modernism in the urban areas is just pocket modernism which involves spending money on things like multiplexes and gadgets……true blue modernism which involves understanding concepts like feminism and universal human rights still eludes the aam junta….
Let me give you a simple example……
A person X is from region Y where education is scarce and incomes are low but through self-sacrifice and extreme toil for which Indians parents are famous X’s parents managed to send X to an IIT or an engineering institute of repute ….and hence X ended up earning 60k per month……to celebrate his new found economic status X decided to bring his entire family to say Bangalore and takes them to the multiplex say PVR and ends up watching “No Smoking”……now just imagine as to what that guy X and his family will think after watching the movie …..who will enjoy the movie ………?
X who never read a book outside his syllabus because he could not afford to or his family who never managed to think about such things in life because they were busy bringing up their son….you will find that the new urban India is full of such X’s and his families……so stop living in your white castles and come down to the ground….I would much rather have X’s family watch Khosla Ka Ghosla which mixes art and entertainment both.
@vineet
You don’t know what you are talking about. I wonder where you gather your opinions from. Am glad however that you spend time to respond. It’s a good exercise of the mind. I rest my case.
@Manash
one more thing
Art is unlike a mathematical equation……..which has only one interpretation and only one solution………so you cannot claim that a certain person is an idiot simply because he likes Mithun’s movies(Sorry Mithunda am a big fan of yours) …..so if even a certain critic doesn’t interpret No Smoking properly doesn’t mean that you start lampooning them ,Some people question me as to what is so special about the painting Mona-Lisa ? or the painter Pablo Picasso….many a times I indeed wonder as to what is so special or are they so good or are we simply succumbing to pressure….
i saw the movie and have never read kafka or orwell but i found it entertaining / sickly humorous i dont know what is so difficult to watch a movie just watch it and follow it scene by scene i m pretty sure the ‘masses’ would have got atleast 60% of the movie … i did not get most of tashan … honest and neither krazzy 4… i feel no smoking is a victim of lampooning critics and the people never went to see the movie. my question is if the box office did not go crazy then how can one decide that the people did not like the movie (no viewers watched the movie right?)most movie goers, sadly, go by anything wat these two bit critics have to say.
@ canned_productions
You put it very correctly friend. These peanut critics sway public reception with their moronic reviews. But that is the point - the stupid “classes” read shit reviews and decide upon films to watch and not watch. The “masses” aren’t victims of such media politics. Like a contemporary French philosopher said, “We are all born ignorant, but not stupid. Education makes us stupid”.
@vineet
Am an old fan of Mithun da too but most of his films are pieces of shit which I enjoyed seeing in my adolescence. Part of growing up is looking back at the past critically. Mithun a good actor no doubt. But you can also count on your fingers, his sober, commercial movies - Disco Dancer, Hum Paanch, Pasand Apni Apni, Pyar Jhukta Nahi, Boxer, Bepanaah, Rukhsat and Prem Pratigya.
I didn’t say anything about art which you are thrusting upon me. Don’t be in a hurry to simply say what you want. Reading is a meticulous and patient job.
@vineet,
your problem is not a unique one vineet..
mujhe bhi hua tha bahut pehle…
its called ignorance…
same pinch!!
Is it true that NOSMOKING is a rip off from Quitter’s inc coz this surely bring down AK’s image in my mind….I hope not….coz I think Black Friday is the best movie ever made in the cinema history.. let hollywood learn something from AK.
My God..Kitna lamba discussion No Smoking pe..Sadly the fact will always remain that very few people watched it.
The movie was quite good but I wouldn’t classify it as a movie meant for only intelligent people.
Incidentally, this is what I thought of ‘No Smoking’ critics..
http://passionforcinema.com/mortal-smoking-with-khalid-nikhat-and-hegde/
In the movie Idiocracy a man Pvt. Joe Bowers, an average American, awakes 500 years in the future, goes to a cinema hall and sees people are really enjoying a movie which has an ass farting for whole 90 minutes…in a future where people’s IQ is zero…as it happens out to be Pvt. Joe Bowers becomes the president and and here’s his address to the congress-
Pvt. Joe Bowers: [addressing Congress] There was a time when reading wasn’t just for fags. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies. Movies with stories, that made you care about whose ass it was and why it was farting. And I believe that time can come again!
hahahaha…..i mean, i hope the masses tag thrust upon people doesn’t come out to be this true anywhere in future….lol
I give up…….and as they say rest my case :-)
@Dpac
I like this ignorance……wanna stay with the “masses”…..coz that’s where my heart and soul is……
I liked No Smoking for personal reasons but felt it was not well defined for everyone to understand and predicted the movie will be dismissed. But hope that it is appreciated in the future. Good post and liked everyone’s arguments including Vineet’s.
@vineet,
alaas!! we take different routes..
Kshitij, why 500 years, even now the audience cries while watching KJo movies, which are just the metaphorical ass farting for three hours without reason (over and over again)!
hmmm…metaphorical asses are better than Welcome(and no it wasn’t slapstick!)
When asses turn metaphorical, metaphors touch rock bottom.