Dude where’s my theory? Satya and Hindi gangster film
(this post is based on a paper on the Indian gangster film I presented at the annual MeCCSA conference, 2006, Coventry, UK)
Gangster films often exploit the public imagination of crime often circulated through mass media discourse. For example, in Hollywood studios often claimed that the films were based on reality/immediate events – “stories taken from headlines”. Similarly, Satya and RGV too explicitly reference Bombay and the reality of the citizen’s harsh existence. Gangster and criminal representations have appeal due to audiences’ own ambivalence towards the crime and the rewards gained by the hardworking criminal – which resonates with individual enterprise in a capitalist system. I argue here that most film commentators and critics miss the point about Satya by focusing excessively on “realism”. Thus, though it is persuasive that the Mumbai gangland killings brought the gangster into popular imagination through extensive (and dramatic) media coverage, its salience can be located in the rise of late capitalism and the audience’s identification with the fruits of individual labour. I would like to argue that the film is structurally similar to the early Hollywood gangster films such as Little Caesar . The hypothesis I offer is that both the films deal with a society in transition and the filmmakers/scriptwriters must be consciously/subconsciously referencing the time they lived in.
It is instructive to note that following WWII, the criminal became visible for the emotional euphoria of crime, rather than material gain. For example after the end of the war, gangster films were no longer based on the exploits of Capone or Dillinger but on the true to life stories of Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate; Perry Smith and Richard Hickock, the murderers of the Clutter family in cold blood; Albert DeSalvo, the Boston Strangler; Charles Whitman, the Texas tower sniper; San Francisco’s Zodiac Killer; Charles Manson.
The pre-90s gangster/mob/crime films
Films such as Deewar are located around the motif of family. Patriarchal frameworks act as devices for plot organisation and character development. Key elements (or motifs) that we can find in such films are
- Loss of father
- Kinship ties
- Duties and roles – father, mother, brother, son
- City as site of trauma of ideal
- Fate
- Citizenship and state
Organised crime and Mumbai
Organised crime in Mumbai can be divided into the following broad phases:
- 1960s to late 70s: smuggling contraband
- Late 70s–80s: trade unionism
- Late 80s: textile industry collapse
- 1990 and economic liberalisation
- 1992. Hindu nationalism and communalisation of crime
It is interesting to note that the pre-90s gangster film does not exploit the myth/reality of the real-life gangster/mob. Instead the films find parallels in the British post-war gangster films and its relationship with censorship. That is, the gangster is ultimately a good-hearted guy, who reconciles with the state. In comparison, RGV’s gangster films appropriated the mass-mediated myths of the Mumbai gangland scenario.
Deewar
Deewar (The Wall) Yash Chopra, 1975
Contrary to the valorisation of the film around the character of Vijay, critics miss a key point about narrative, plot, and devices. It requires the loss of the father to trigger the plot. The narrative is driven by characters trapped in patriarchal and moral frameworks and the state is introduced to appropriate the abstract citizen (in Ravi), while the feudal order (represented in Vijay and Sumitra Devi) subvert it at the same time. This is neatly packaged in a dramaturgical tradition of melodrama, with resonating motifs of blood ties, fate, citizenship, and duty. The iconography is rested on the triumvirate of Vijay Verma, Sumitra Devi, and Ravi Verma (see poster).
Parinda
Parinda (Pigeons), Vidhu Vinod Chopra, 1989
It is interesting how Parinda signals the beginnings of the shift in the representation of the Mumbai crime scene. The plot in the film is driven by the conflict between citizen subject and criminal and a desire to lead a ‘normal’ life. However, Vidhu Vinod Chopra follows the narrative framework of films before him, though he must be credited with reinterpreting the narrative conventions of Deewar, Trishul — particularly love, fate, and kinship. Chopra should also be credited with the introduction of the criminal psycopath as a motif for the reality of the criminal world, a system obsessed with performance, a system that expects winners at any cost. Free from responsibility, free from guilt, free from anxiety, he pursues his interest without compunction, manipulating others to reach his goals. Corporation president, statesman, educator, physician; his calling is irrelevant: his features are everywhere the same.
Satya and Little Caesar
Satya (1998), Ram Gopal Varma
Cashing in on the myth of the Bombay underworld, Satya introduces new narrative norms. Satya should be examined not just for its elements of film but also the way the RGV primed critics and audiences about the film’s “authenticity”.
The real Don isn’t a gelled hair villain surrounded by bikini-clad women. He isn’t talking on the cellphone sitting in Mauritius. (RGV, 2004)
In my research, I noted that RGV has courted the film critic/journalist to his advantage, exploiting their contempt for “masala” film and setting himself as the “minority auteur”. The film references the economic-reforms era motif of enterprise and market and eschews the earlier traditions of family/kinship ties.
Similarities between Satya and pre-war gangster films
I would like to argue that Satya has more structural similarities to Little Caesar. Like in Caesar the opening of film is a device to establish the character, drive the plot, and form the basis of the story – an irrevocable act of violence that establishes the fatalism of the gangster. The audiences are informed that once a first step has been taken, one’s fate is sealed, there is no turning back. On the other hand, once entered into, mob life is impossible to get out of. In Caesar, the opening scene depicts Rico committing a robbery of a gas station. It is futile to hide, escape the gang, or one’s destiny. Similarly, in Satya, the protagonist’s action of slashing the face of an underling seals his fate. From then on, the plot is more about understanding the individual in a system very similar to capitalism.
They are hard-luck stories of a working class and/or immigrant tough who scrambles his way to the top of the underworld heap. He procures wealth, muscle, women, along with the ire of his rivals and the law. Violence is necessary for the persona of the gangster and the escalation in violence helps in the transition from one level of the mob to the other. The level of violence also serves to contrast his gracious manners and sophistication.
Note the similarities of the iconography of the two films.
The author is a researcher of Indian cinema at the University of Leeds. More.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
release yr of satya was 1998 and not 1989. but a very well written post.
But aren’t these limited to spacialities as determined by mise en scene?I find that when such a film (Satya,Little Caesar) is counterpointed against Branded to Kill(Suzuki) or even Zodiac (Fincher) that the limitations of mise en scene reveal interesting patterns, which although not temporal, do go out of the limits of frame. Thus we can study the medium of information (Delueze) through time-image (Cinema 2) but definitely not through movement-image(Hollywood,mise en scene)
Thanks for pointing that out Tarun. Got the numbers other way round. Have corrected it. Devdutt: I agree with you. However, these are two entirely different approaches. My research into film criticism in India shows that the quality of critique is woeful to say the least. Regurgitating the plot or engaging in innuendo and cultural politics can pass off as film criticism. Thus critics waste opportunities to expand the scope of the debate beyond praising or sledging the film/director/actors.
Devdutt: The point that I am making here is that all discussions about Satya are celebratory — without any reference to, or discussions about, larger cinematic, historical, or philosophical issues. I concede not everybody is interested in “critical” debates, though I have not really understood what the fuss is about besides a lack of patience to look beyond the obvious leading to the hounding off of filmmakers.
YOu have raised a very pertinent point and Deleuze should be applied to readings of Indian films. I will try doing that sometime soon.
Abolutely…I agree with you abt critics in India.Its just that increasingly i Have a problem with the process of reading, a problem accelerated by Kaul’s Duvidha,which I screened yesterday.Well so he says that you must imagine how I have taken this shot (Nazar,decentered vision) instead of reading it:
Mani Kaul: “Log kehte hain ki maine bahut kuch kiya hoga aisa shot lene.Lekin maine to kuch nahin kiya.Agar tumhe jana hain ke yah shot aise kyun hain toh yeh sochna hoga ki shot lete vakt joh maine socha hain”
(Abhed Akash mani Kaul ke saath baat chit)
Therefore I find FILM THEORY AND CRITISCISM (parts of which i had read before being introd to Kaul,Bresson and liked it) very redundant
But then if we go the Delueze way we end up at Bergson:Matter and Memory.Now we are in a space where we ask questions such as ‘What is the force acting on this image?’ somehing which CAN CAN and CAN be completely decontextualized
Devdutt: Could you please post your discussion with Mani Kaul here on PFC. You could use Iview format.
You seem to know his films with depth and why you should not share your thoughts with rest of the readers.
It will be interesting to know about Mani Kaul’s films.
Please do it.
Abt Mani Kaul’s comments: To say that the shots in his films are nothing more than what is placed in front of the camera and how it is cut is expected of him. I am not sure everybody works that way! Different reading strategies can be adopted and all of them make sense — as they reveal to us how we structure knowledge about the world. Even the so-called “illiterate” audience engages in reading. The difference is some people believe it to be absolute truths, while others engage in self-reflexivity.
RK…its a book in Hindi,Abhed Aakash:Mani Kaul ke saath baat chit by Udayan Vajpayee.Published by Madhya Pradesh Film Devpt Corp
Yes well I can tell you that i only struggle with Kaul’s work.The problem is that I find him the very best director.I wouldn’t even dare writing about him.
DevDutt: Thanks for name of the book. why you decide not to write on Mani Kaul or his films, though it will be a good service towards his films if you write about them as then they will be covered here, not many might have seen his films except may be Idiot, but his earlier films like Uski Roti, Duvidha, Asharh ka ek din and ghasiram kotwal and Satah se uthta admi, they need better coverage.
You seem to be deeply connected with his films and perhaps you have access to his films so considering these facts I make a request you to write abt his films, so that we get insight in to his works. Without seeing his work freshly only we can recall some details only but cant assess the work he has done in past.
and if not his films but watching his films might have given you an eye for films made in so called parallel movement of 70s and if you could cover few films from that movement.
It will be good. People will welcome your efforts.
Kishore i am not getting your point on “1992. Hindu nationalism and communalisation of crime”. Plz can you explain it?
The Mumbai underworld has changed in many ways following the Mumbai serial blasts of 1993 that left 257 dead, 713 maimed, and property worth hundreds of crores damaged.
Before 1993, the underworld attracted unemployed youth from Hindu and Muslim communities alike. Alongside the communalisation of Mumbai, its underworld too got communalised. With Dawood
Thanks kishore
While making gangasterfilm none of the film makers reffered by you have taken care of dual nature of CINEMA in potraying reality its effect has produced much voilence and an earge for more voilence in the society