Maachis: questions it ignited
Set against the backdrop of the dying secessionist movement in Punjab, Maachis undoubtedly has a powerful and potent story idea at its heart and Tabu’s and Om Puri’s excellent portrayal of their respective characters makes it difficult not to like this film. Not to forget the brilliant songs.
The villages of Punjab and snow covered landscapes of the small town/village in Himachal are beautifully shot. Some of the scenes just stay with you…like the moonlit blue background of the river and rocks behind Tabu and Chandrachur Singh when she tells him what she and her family had to go through after he left, also the scene where Om Puri is talking to Chandrachur Singh sitting next to the railway track just above a small bridge telling him why and how they ought to fight, the shot of their small abode in Himachal amidst snow and tall trees, the scene where Chandrachur realizes that Jimmy Shergill is the same Jimmy cops were looking for, the last scene when Tabu goes to meet Chandrachur Singh in prison and the scenes that follow….all these scenes leave an impact sometimes due to the aesthetics and sometimes due to the balance of subtlety and sensitivity.
Inspite of all these plus points, what didn’t go through well with me in the film was the end, more precisely, the events preceding it.
First of all, without judging the people of Punjab by the methods of fighting adapted by them, the film from the look of it, clearly sets out to show their side of the story. How their discontent and anger is, to some extent, justified and so is their fight against a government that seems to have wronged them. Agreed that the movie is set at the time when the movement is breaking down but even then the entire sequence showing people involved in an organised struggle against a common enemy (the Indian state), ending up fighting and killing their enemies only for their personal agendas and to avenge their personal loss kills the spirit that seems to be building up in the first half. I also agree that most of the people involved in such movements are drawn to it because of a personal tragedy but then they are moulded, taught to think and fight for a cause that incorporates and at the same time stands taller than the ‘revenge for personal loss’. Otherwise what’s the point of showing Om Puri lecturing them on how they have been cheated and why they should fight etc.?
Towards the end Tabu, for no good reason, kills Om Puri. Looking at the way it is shot: Tabu pointing the gun at him looking angry and his voice, telling others to kill Chandrachur Singh because he had turned them in, echoing in her mind….is that reason enough to kill someone who happens to fight for a cause that concerns all of them? Not only that, he also happens to be the person they turn to for guidance. She, herself was forced to pick up arms due to what happened to her brother, her family, her love and here was a man fighting for people like her… guiding them, teaching them, motivating them to fight…why should she kill him? Does not seem right for a person who has gone through so much, has spent time getting trained for a struggle she identifies with, understands the importance of sustaining the struggle and is into it to the point where she is ready to give up her own life.
Maachis, unfortunately, takes an easy way out in depicting the process of falling apart of the movement.
Irrespective of whether one stands against their cause or sympathises with them, such a treatment which tends to dilute the seriousness of the movement is unacceptable.
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
Personal turmoil is what leads chandruchur, tabu is lead by the blindness of love. What Gulzar sahaab wants to say is every body starts off with vice and begins through internal rage and personal grief. That’s what propels fundamentalism, terrorism and yes, war too.. Sum of all fears is personal reflection, compounded in to metamorhosis of man into evil
First of all, aspiring to capture mass movements against the state into celluloid is a very difficult task owing to the limitations to details and length and story building that the format imposes. Secondly, it takes a lot of study, research and analytical breakdown to come up with a non judgemental, analytical and yet humane representation of the same. It is here, that You’ll see films like Black Friday or Hazaron Khwahishe succeed. The point is, at layer zero, you need a very unemotional and reasoned account which has to be cushioned with human emotions and their interplay. Moreover, even such movements, are rather the result of falacies and escapism of the ideologies rather than the offshoot of impassioned reasoning. Machis was good to quite an extent. But the basic premise was fraught at multiple layers.
everyone has their side of the story don’t they?….its upto you to decide who to believe
*whom to believe
Maachis was an honest movie.It showed one side of the story and it showed correctly.It was released around 1996.
I agree with the writer that it diluted the effect in the end when it appears that charaters doing thing for themselves rather than a larger cause. But then it was movie about ordinary people who are forced to adopt violence due to circumstances they don’t have their own hardcore opinion or a thought process.
TO Gulzar sahab’s credit he did not try to balance out the movie by giving other side of the story. He stuck with a terrorists point of view and remained honest.
Movies like Bombay / Roja / Dil Se / Mission Kashmir etc were confused movies ( I am only referring names which were released before 9/11). Where the maker did not know how to handle the subject. These movies also lacked soul. Maachis was much better comparatively, It might not have the best of camera work or technical stuff but still it was good effort.
@Neerja,
a Coinicidence, I had written yesterday evening on Maachis, (to continue on Gulzarian films)
Saw your post and now I will post after some days .
But I do feel that Film gives answer to many questions.
Though in some cases its not told in dialogues but by doings of Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Om Puri and Kanwal Jeet Singh.
More later.
@Subhasish
“Moreover, even such movements, are rather the result of falacies and escapism of the ideologies rather than the offshoot of impassioned reasoning.”
I don’t agree. This might be true for individuals involved at different levels but the it is difficult for an entire mass movement to be ideologically hollow. Even if it is triggered off by ‘fallacies and escapism’, it needs to develop an ideological base to sustain itself.
@Abhay
Which side to take or which side does Gulzar saab take is not the question. I repeat “Irrespective of whether one stands against their cause or sympathises with them, such a treatment which tends to dilute the seriousness of the movement is unacceptable.”
@Neeraj
blindness of love? what is this a yash raj flick?
I agree that things begin at personal level (I already said that in the post) but they do not remain so forever.
@Zaid
If he wanted to stick to the terrorist point of view, why show their life stories, police atrocities and bring in the sentiments that made them pick up arms? Why show Om Puri telling them how the educated people do not have jobs, how they did not get what was promised and how they were cheated by the Indian state? Why show all that?
To me, Maachis appears more confused than Bombay, Roja or Dil se.
@RK
looking forward to reading your views on the film.