Guru Dutt : Genius ?
iView Author: Ritu Chandra (New Jersey, USA)
Email: rituchandra0972@gmail.com
Guru Dutt : Genius ?
At the outset let me lay out my disclaimers bold and clear. I am not a journalist, I am not a film critic and I am not student of cinema. And however much I would have loved to, I never took a course on film appreciation either. Hence my opinions are all the unfettered rambling of an average film-goer and are based purely on instinct and observation.
The month of October marks the death anniversary of Guru Dutt. It was on 10th of October 1964 that the sensitive actor-director abandoned life in a late night over-dose of sleeping pills. Guru Dutt Shivshankar Padukone or Guru Dutt as he is better known has been widely acknowledged as a path-breaking genius who gave Indian Cinema some of its genre defining classics.
The Burden of Genius
Genius.. it is a mantle that sits heavy on the shoulder it chooses to adorn. Not only for the restlessness and turmoil that is inherent to its constitution but also for the back-bending load of myths and legends that the world tends to heap on it. Guru Dutt’s shoulder has been exceptionally burdened, with the legends of his genius and with the myths of his checkered life.
His was a life that chillingly imitated art, its own art….
I have often wondered how much of the world’s evaluation of artists like Guru Dutt is colored by the tragic nature of their life stories. Would KL Saigal have been as big a legend as he is if he had lived till his voice starting faltering, a la Lata Mangeshkar? Or conversely imagine if Lata had not lived beyond the 1970s (may God bless her with a long life!), I daresay her legend would have surpassed even that of Miyan Tansen. On second thoughts, maybe not… The legend of Tansen after all is fuelled by imagination and in today’s age live recordings ensure that imagination does not have as free a run. Yet, it is suffice to say the myth of Lata Mangeshkar would have been far greater than Lata Mangeshkar herself.
In similar vein, Guru Dutt’s myth has been largely fuelled by his life story. It is difficult for even the most objective reviewer to sit through ‘Jaane woh kaise log the’ and not associate it with his checkered love life, or to watch a broken director slump into eternal sleep in Kagaz Ke Phool and not think his suicide a couple of years later. The critical opinion on Guru Dutt has witnessed a maniacal swing over the decades. From the times when his films were written off as pieces of self-indulgent celluloid trash to the times today when even his lesser films are heaped with superlatives, the pendulum has only seen the extremes. In such circumstances the truth and hyperbole often mesh into one single gooey mix making it difficult to navigate the true strengths and weakness of an artist.
Even though world regularly doles it out like easy alms, the truth is that genius needs to be acknowledged with care. Talent and genius are as similar as innovation and invention. Not every great talent is a genius. It is a good practice to sometimes stand back and question genius, sacrilegious as it many seem. It is almost always an eye-opening exercise. Thus here is that attempt to look at Guru Dutt the artist, without letting the legend of Guru Dutt color the mission.
Contribution
Guru Dutt contributed to Indian cinema in the capacities of an actor, director, producer, choreographer and writer. While his entry into the film world was as a choreographer in the film ‘Lakhrani’, his output as an actor/director/producer is his real claim to fame. Film historians largely remember Dutt for spear-heading the noir movement in Indian cinema, for pioneering works in the field of cinematography, for his sensitive performances and mostly for the lyrical treatment of all the subjects that he chose to explore.
Let us examine each these roles in some detail
Actor
As an actor, Guru Dutt acted in about 16 films, most of them for directors other than himself. His acting career was a product of frustration. Tired of trying to get Dev Anand, (his lead actor of his earlier films) to abandon his mannerisms and skeptical of pushing him too hard and ruining their friendship Dutt decided to don the greasepaint himself. It is a record that for all his films, he had another actor in mind before he took on the role himself.
Being an actor by compulsion, he never really excelled in the craft. His performances can be rated as adequate at best. He did well with the brooding roles that immortalized him however it can be argued that films like ‘Baaz.’ ‘Aar Paar’ and ‘Mrs and Mrs 55′ would have benefited with a more suitable actor(read extrovert) playing the lead role. One has to admit that acting was not where Guru Dutt’s genius lay. We need to turn to his role as a director to justify the accolades heaped upon him.
Noir
As a director, Guru Dutt is largely identified with his semi-autobiographical brooding classics ‘Pyaasa’ and ‘Kagaz ke Phool’ and over the years they have come to be the brand ambassadors of his cinema. However any half-serious student of cinema also knows that this characterization is not completely accurate. Dutt’s repertoire boasts of a decent variety of genres. There is the swashbuckling high sea drama (Baaz), the dark love story(Jaal), the social satire (Mr and Mrs 55) and most prolifically the desi noir (Baazi, Jaal, Aar Paar).
Noir was introduced to India in the early 50s. Even though this genre evolved in the Hollywood of the 1940s, it was not before post-independence that Indians found a social context for its adaptation. Sangram (1950) was one of the first few films that ventured into the territory. However it was Guru Dutt’s 1951 debut -Baazi that is best remembered for blowing the bugle of noir in India.. The birth pangs of a newly independent nation saw a large scale migration to cities and young-men placed out of their social context and protection often took to crime in desperation. These films introduced a sympathetic outlook towards this underdog which was a marked digression from upright and moralistic stance of pre-independence India.
It was legendary actor Balraj Sahni who co-scripted Baazi along with Guru Dutt. The film admirably entwined the song-dance format into a genre that is genetically dark and brooding. It can be argued that the elements of noir stayed with Guru Dutt long after he moved onto other subjects, particularly in the lighting of his shots. However, despite the memorable output and pioneering adaptation, Dutt’s contribution to the noir movement was essentially in the successful ‘parathasizing’ of the pancake, a skill that Indian cinema has mastered to a perfect art over the years. It is also a credit he shares with other directors like Raj Khosla and Vijay Anand.
To be continued in part 2
Filed Under
Movies, PROJEKT iVIEW, Thoughts
 9 readers recommend this post  Loading ... |
 Email This Post To Friends
|
|
Related Posts | |
30 Responses to “Guru Dutt : Genius ?”
Leave a Reply
(Ref smilies)
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.
-
Advertisement
-
- Random thoughts on Yuv
- Dev.D- Emosional Aty
- An Interview With Oye Lucky Lucky Oye’s Dolly - Richa C
- SORRY
- The story of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi Reve
- Ada Music Review
- Ajay TG- Man With A Camera.
- Maharathi: Murder is in the Details (Zero Spoiler Review)
- Mukhbiir Versus Chamku – A toss-up between two lone rangers
- Random thoughts on Yuvvraaj
-
Advertisement
Hottest Today:
Recent Posts:
Nice post Ritu… looking forward to part 2…!
One of the enduring posts on PFC. The dignity of your expression is a fitting tribute to the greatness of Guru Dutt.
“It can be argued that the elements of noir stayed with Guru Dutt long after he moved onto other subjects, particularly in the lighting of his shots”
very insightful comment - would be great if you can elaborate on this…may be Part 2 carries a more analytical treasure.
Your disclaimers make your post even more special - long live such unassuming instinct and observation.
Warm regards
Sudhir
Thank you Sudhir and Jahan..I was actually expecting to get a shower of brickbats for challenging Guru Dutt’s genius. Thus the disclaimer
Yes, the second part does explore his cinematography though in the very limited cinematic vocabulary I have. I should have that out in a day or two.
One reason for putting this out to a group like PFC is to see the opinions that come up. Guru Dutt is worshiped by almost all in sundry, but questioning is always interesting.
Thanks
Ritu, I am waiting for the next part. Though I am not satisfied with your analysis, yet I am eager to read the second part. “Guru Dutt is worshiped by almost all in sundry” such comment is painful to read.
Utpal,
I would be interested to know why it is painful. It is quite an innocous statement by itself. And yes, would welcome your views on what fails to satisfy you in this part.
Warm Regards,
Ritu
Unhesitatingly i would say that he is the ‘Orson Welles’ of India.
Ritu…
that’s a very confident article. And some nice insightful analysis - esp. the assumption that his lighting techniques evolved through noir (Though that would need some deeper corroboration with specific examples…as in Black and White, it’s really difficult to tell how much light was intended and how much accidental. In a way, many of them ‘looked’ noir. Truer for Indian b&w cinema than for Hollywood.) Hope you complete the ‘question mark’ in the second part.
@Ritu, well written and a lot of thought must have gone into this article..
But i dont agree partially to it..your article borders upon many “Ifs”..we can judge Guru Dutt, without referencing him to Noir..i am not sure, he even intended it to be noir..
As far as an actor goes..he was not the best, but, then he hardly did many movies..no actor is a good actor untill he finds foor-hold and starts knowing a bit more of the craft, and history gawa hain…so, if he was good in 5-6 movies of his 16..the ratio is still good for a “new” actor, aint it?
Anyways..i like your writing style, eagerly waiting for second part..
@Om: Thanks for your comments. Since we have pretty much covered his acting skills in this edition, let me address that now. We don’t have to wait for the second part for that :). I say that he was a limited actor. An actor can have breath or he can have depth. The real good ones have both. If someone is to be considered a genius in the field of acting then having both is just the beginning. Guru Dutt was not a bad actor. He was adequate. But to my mind he had a small bag of tricks. My main point is acting is not an area on the basis of which you could grant Guru Dutt ‘geniusship’
On the topic of noir. Do you really think Baazi and Aar Paar were incidental?
@ Varun.. the original plan was not to go indepth with that issue but since it has sparked interest I will surely try to explain myself to be best of my abilities.
Cheers
Ritu
I think his genius lay elsewhere. I agree with you when you call Guru Dutt an ‘adequate’ actor. Even in his autobiographical works like Pyasaa and KKP, his character seems overwrought. In Sahib Biwi Aur Ghulam, you can see how difficult it was to imagine his urbane persona in the role of village bumpkin.
Cinematography (which you have mentioned) and song piturization (inclduing choreography) were areas where he was cut above the rest. Something like ‘aye ji dil pe hua’ (Mr & Mrs 55) just comes out of nowhere in the film, no prelude, no setting up for a song. In this respect, he, Bimal Roy and Raj Kapoor set the standards.
Ritu, congrats for having the courage to begin this debate. I always felt that the reason for his suicide may also be the frustration with his own mediocrity along with other personal reasons. I remember his sister saying in a TV interview that after watching Pather Panchali Guru Dutt told his mother that this man (Ray)had the courage that he himself did not possess. He’d wished to make Pyaasa in such a manner. But, was scared of its commercial fate, so he watered it down.
Anyways, if he was a real genius as we’d like to believe now, he should’ve gone on to make more films to prove himself.
In my view, he was a defeatist full of self-doubt, who strived a little to achieve greatness and failed.
I liked your write-up, Ritu. There are some valid points here and I’m not able to put that down in words well right now. If you could elucidiate / substantiate his work and your take on it in more depth I guess I’ll get it more clear then.
Waiting for part 2…
@Subrat : Let me add Vijay Anand to that list as well. Very imaginative, though can be argued that gimmicky at times but extremely engaging
The second part has got derailed for a bit because a job interview has presented it self over the horizon. I will be back as soon as I have it out of my way
@Ritu…
I never liked Vijay Anand as an actor, he had limited emotions he could project which he superbly captured in the serial ” Tehqiqat”
@ Om : I was talking of Vijay Anand wrt to song picturisation skills. I was responding to Subrat’s assesement that Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy and Guru Dutt formed a league in that arena. I think Vijay Anand belong there was well.
I agree with you on his acting skills. Very limited. He lacked the x factor completely. The problem with Navketan started when the Anand brothers decided to swtich roles. Vijay Anand was useless as a hero and Dev Anand, behind the camera… we all know the horror
Ooops..my bad, but then hey, we brought up another topic for discussion….Good Directors who were average actors…eh? any names?
Guru Dutt!
I would actually put Raj Kapoor in there as well. He was far greater a director. His acting got onto my nerves.
@16 : How about Farhan Akhtar?
The Narcissist…infact i liked Farhan’ acting. He was pretty solid for a first time actor…moreover, it would be gross injustice if we start judging him as an actor on the basis of just one movie..i always maintain that, actors take more time to grow and know their craft than directors…directors burn out faster than an actor
Interesting you say that directors burn out faster… on the flip side don’t you think that all actors reach a point of diminishing returns after a couple years and become prisoners of their images. The greatest actors end up as the greatest hammers.
Would add Rakesh Roshan to the list, as an actor he was plain average, but as a director he has done pretty well. Yeah his movies are not classics, but then he seeks to entertain audiences and he does it well. I did like Koi Mil Gaya, though Kkrish sucked.
Manoj Kumar was one of the few who did well both as an actor and director. I am talking about his pre Clerk movies.I thought the direction in Upkar, Purab Aur Paschim was really good, especially his shot taking.
As an actor, he was not bad, though most of his performances had that major Dilip Kumar hangover.
Clint Eastwood i think is one of the best examples, as an actor plain average, but as a director, he is just exemplary. Unforgiven, Bridges of Madison County, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, what a track record.
Mel Gibson too was again pretty much average as an actor, but as a director his Braveheart, Passion of Christ and Apocalypto have all been great movies.
Robert Redford i think is one of the very few who was a great actor as well as director. He was brilliant as an actor in Butch Cassidy, The Sting, All The Presidents Men, and as a director too with movies like The Quiz Show, Ordinary People, A River Runs Through It.
@ Ratnakar: Rakesh Roshan is a good observation. Yes, he is a much better and successful director than actor. I would reserve my comments about Manoj Kumar though. Shaheed, Shor and to some extent Upkaar are decent. But beyond that it is pure jingoism. I find his tendency to focus the camera on mid-riffs and skirt hems hardly good shot taking. There was something very vulgar about the way he photographed women. Just my opinion.
P.S I agree with you on Clint Eastwood as well.
@ Ritu, yes post Purab Aur Paschim, he became totally voyeuristic, focussing entirely on the female anatomy. I remember seeing Kranti, and all those heaving cleavage shots of Hema, Parveen.
And i did watch parts of Kalyug ki Ramayan, was terrible.
I felt Roti, Kapda Aur Makaan was quite well made though it had the obligatory shots of Zeenat soaked in the rain.
Randhir Kapoor did a fairly good job with Henna, but dont know why, he has not directed any movie after that.
Rajeev Kapoor’s Prem Granth was terrbible though.
Rishi Kapoor again did a decent job with Aa Ab Laut Chalen, but again has not directed any movies.
i am sorry but i quite disagree with the fact that u call guru dutt an actor by compulsion bcoz delivering a masterpiece like pyaasa or kaagaz ke phool requires intense thought and careful potrayal of jus the kinda character he wanted in the movie and not something borne out of frustration. he might have wished someone else 2 b fit 4 the role but 2day we cant imagine ny1 else doin them and if many like me think so, he must hav done justice to them.
but then,to each his own. this post had a place to comment n so i did!
thx
@ Harita: I am not disputing his performances in KKP and Pyaasa. I have admitted he did well with the brooding roles. but beyond that he could never get into the skin of any other type of character. He was limited as an actor.
[...] Part I Subjects and [...]