The difference between art and masterpiece
iView Author: Arpan Malviya (Noida, India)
Email: withheld
The difference between art and masterpiece
I remember when I watched Sarkar on VCD, I felt so indignant and violated. This was supposed to be a remake of the Godfather, which legions of fans around the world uphold as some sort of a holy grail in the world of moviemaking.
Then I tripped back a few years, to the day I actually saw the Godfather on TV. I realised that then, after watching the movie my reaction was pretty subdued. I had had exactly the same problem with the movie – in my eyes, it fell short of the original book. (It is another matter that after several repeat watchings of the film, it became my favorite film of all time).
But then, it is a standard complaint of book lovers, that their favorite tomes are mercilessly chopped down and twisted to conform to the limit of 3 hours on screen. It is a kind of gordian knot, which can never be solved unless you cut it away altogether.
I suppose Ram Gopal Verma had something similar in mind when he set out to adapt his inspiration into a bollywood film. I admit that this is a valid(only?) way of getting inspired – you only take the basic premise of the movie and develop it to your own vision henceforth. Many filmmakers have tried it and earned critical and commercial success. Cases in point: Sholay(Shinchin no samurai), Maqbool and Omkara(Shakespeare’s plays), Qayamat se Qayamat tak(Romeo and Juliet) and so on. You certainly cannot accuse Sarkar to be a ripoff of Godfather.
But its not plagiarism I am talking about.
It is one matter when you take a movie and sneakily adapt it into something else that audience will love without ever knowing they have watched it before.
It is another thing altogether, when you go all out to the press and in the manner of a chest thumping gorilla announce your intentions to the world of remaking the no.1 movie of all time (sources: IMDB). Then you announce Amitabh Bachchan is going to play the role of the aging patriarch. And his son is going to play Michael. And you still have credit as a maverick and a promising director.
What happens? Expectations skyrocket. People like me had a lot of hope from the movie for what it could be. They were dashed unceremoniously.
Let me tell you why. I will do this by listing out the points which made the Godfather (book/movie) a classic.
1. It is about a man who escapes to a foreign country, with no one to call his own and goes on to create a world for himself in which he “refuses to play the fool”. It is about the power of a man against the society.
2. It is about the cunning and deceit of that man who ruled over the underworld. He was feared because he was a “ruthless tyrant, a blackmailer, a racketeer”.
3. It was about fate. It is a single sentence that Sonny utters at a meeting that leads to the events of the coming years.
4. It was about passing the baton. Of inheriting the father’s traits. Indeed much of the finer parts of the book detail how Michael started acting like Vito.
5. It is a sprawling, engaging movie filled with likeable and disgusting characters. It is like reality, where everyone is playing a part in the giant contraption of life. There is never a dull moment in the movie, and perhaps that is the reason that the soundtrack of the film is very toned down. Where it is used however, it is magical and haunting.
6. Above all other aspects, the central core of a Godfather is a little tragic story. It tells the story of a man with the capacity to break free of his family legacy. That he ends up as a Mafia Don more powerful than any other may seem like a rise to some, but for Michael himself it is a deliberate fall, one that he saw and chose because he simply could not accept the alternative. It is heartbreaking to see Pacino’s haunted eyes in the final scene (and in the second movie throughout).
There are many more, but it would be infinitely better to just say that Godfather is a classic, and its themes and story play a huge part in making it that.
Now which of the points listed above were present in the RGV version?
1. Sarkar is Maharashtrian. He is fucking Bal Thackeray in a french cut. He has lived here all his life. How did he begin his career. We are never told. It is not even hinted. He is just “some” don. The neighbourhood goon who became a mafia.
2. Did I say mafia? Where do we see that happening? He never engages in ‘galat dhanda’. He only exists to help poor people out of misery. He is some kind of a Robin Hood figure who care so much for people that he has hired an army of goons to go out and help them any time some injustice occurs. What is never explained is that how did he acquire that respect in the eyes of public? If he never engaged in unsocial acts how come he was feared by people. Or was it just respect? He never engages in bonhomie with other dons. He in fact treats them like his pet servants. It is a wonder he wasn’t killed in all his previous years of public service.
3. There is no fate involved. There is just a ragtag gang of goons who decide to drop off Sarkar uncle and then see what happens.
4. Yes Abhishek looks like Amitabh. (Surprise!). He also speaks like him. But in the end, his efforts to play calm ferocity comes across as insipidness. He fails to emulate Amitabh’s anger and his intensity. He instead goes for that kind of acting which has never been his strength – underplaying. I liked Abhishek in Yuva, where he was bursting with life and impulses. Here he is playing it so cool that you feel you are watching a documentary.
5. Sarkar is a dark movie. I mean that literally. The shots are all yellow lights and black shadows, which is poor imitation of the original’s contrasting shots. The music is omnious and blaring and starts every single time a close up occurs (thats every five minutes, so…). I don’t know why Govinda was chosen as the title track. It is strangely funny to hear it going like a train’s engine in the background everytime something dramatic happens. The characters in the movie are mostly caricatures, esp. the South Indians. The don from Dubai, wants desperately to be intense (thats another question, why is everyone so intense throughout the movie), so he clenches his teeth and glares at people throughout the movie relentlessly. Also poorly written is damsel in distress Tanisha, who seems to exist for Abhishek. How is that possible. Are there still girls who wait years for their love (one sided at that) to come home from abroad?
6. I don’t need to say this. Sarkar is hardly a tragedy. It is here that RGV totally goofs it up. In his vision, Abhishek’s rise to power is not unfortunate. In the opening scenes of the movie, Abhishek’s character openly declares that his father is in the right. He fights for his father with his brother. He is basically itching to don his father’s mantle from the very start. Contrast this with the Godfather, where Michael disappeared from his father’s side to join the army and tells his girlfriend right away that he is not like his family. He even toasted his father once, in full attendance of guests, to the wish “I wish that I never become like you”.
And his father said : “I wish that too.”
In Sarkar, everything ends up fine. He listens to old woman’s woes and becomes the new don.
If you haven’t seen the Godfather, you will probably wonder whats all the fuss about. As a standalone film, Sarkar was a decent film, with a decent fan following. But if you have, and if you liked it (like 90% of the people who have), you are never going to be able to see the movie in isolation. It will always appear to be a half hearted copy of the film that is revered in the world.
PS: If you really need to know some movies that have nailed the adaptation part, I will choose two – Gardish and Virasat. Gardish is largely an independent film that shares some plot points with the Godfather. Virasat is the more complete, and delightfully original adaptation of the classic that captures almost every theme perfectly. Go for it if you already haven’t.
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
‘But then, it is a standard complaint of book lovers, that their favorite tomes are mercilessly chopped down and twisted to conform to the limit of 3 hours on screen. ‘:Truly said; adaptation,plagiarism and Remakes are witty terms for discussion sake.Sarkar was a decent effort by RGV.You cann’t judge bollywood film by Truffaut’s technique.These movies are caught between evolving stage of entertainment industry into cinematic industry.godfather is applauded by both viewers and critics.for adapted version,It is the personal touch to the original displays the quality of final relaunched product and maker.
To compare Sarkar with Godfather and pointing out the shortcomings is not fair to RGV in my opinion. RGV made a bollywood entertainer and a good one at that (and compared to Sarkar raj, it *is* a masterpiece!!)… he took some of the basic themes from Godfather (mafia patriarch, foreign returned son entering the underworld in crictical time etc etc) dished out in his own style. If he had not mentioned Godfather, we would have accused him of stealing, if he mentions, we tell it falls short…!!
Very Nice Article…. Could not agree more… At least someone out there believes that Gardish was one of the most underrated movies of Bollywood
Virasat was an adaptation? of the godfather?
@amrita,virasat was remake of thevar magan who was adapted from godfather (in my knowledge)
@ Arpan : Good observations. And I agree with you to an extent. Books actually have an unfair advantage over movies. Emotions can be described explicitly in a book, whereas in a movie, it is either limited by the director’s vision or the viewer’s imagination or both. However, there have been some adaptations that have transcended even the original source in terms of impact on the viewer/reader. Godfather is the first name that comes to mind. Another shining example is Brian dePalma’s Carlito’s Way. Can’t think of many just off the cuff though.
@Avik : Well…I don’t think its unfair. He adapted a classic and showed it in his own style. However, at many places the the adaptation looks forced. Also, any adaptation or inspiration needs to be prepared for comparisons with the source. And if it falls short of the source, it should also be prepared for criticism. Its not a question of whatever he does, he gets slighted. Not mentioning Godfather would’ve been wrong on his part since he so obviously borrowed from it. On the other hand, his product was not upto the mark in the eyes of the author when he compared the two. So the criticism was in order.
@Amrita/Yayaver : What Arpan means to say is that Virasat was a spin on the central theme of Godfather. Even I was surprised to begin with. But think about it for a minute and you’ll be surprised at the parallels.
Sarkar and Sarkar Raj were both dismall attempts at copying a classic. I have watched the godfather trilogy a number of times, I have even managed to watch all 3 parts in one sitting.
Ramu probably did the same, he watched all 3 parts. He obviously didn’t take it from the book. hence the adaptation isn’t as powerful enough.
The screenplay was alot like the third part, the cinematography was “edgy” but forced and totally fails to capture the mood that the classic does without being apparant.
I agree with you, some classics are best left alone, but then Godfather the book is far superior than the movies, if we can forgive Francis Ford Copolla…RGV deserves some mercy.
In my humble opinion I think Fools Die by Mario Puzo is a far more superior and complex story. I would love to see Anurag Kashtap adapt it, its got all the ingredients for a great film. I think India is ready for Fools Die
i think sarkar was a very good adaptation of Godfather. the way the camera panned and the screenplay was written for current day mumbai was pretty apt. i think ramu retained the spirit of the movie, he did tamper with the body though
@Cliff and Arpan: if you are talking about a different spin on godfather then loads of other movies have done so. in fact, ferzo khan has done it thrice … dharmatma, jaanbaaz and yalgaar
Cliff,
I completely agree with you regarding ‘Fools die.’ It’s one of the most underrated novels. A reason may be that Mario Puzo became famous with Godfather and a self deprecating introspective narrative like ‘Fools die’ is not something that Mario Puzo fans may expect.
Arpan-
I disagree to a large extent with what you’ve written.RGV did not go around town saying Sarkar is a remake of Godfather.He just happened to admit that its an inspiration.Before people could point out the same, he was quick to admit it himself.So when its just his inspiration, whats the point of comparing the two movies & asking if all the elements of the original are retained or not?
And coming to your examples- both Virasat & Gardish really have nothing much to be complimented.Virasat is a faithful adaptation by Priyadarshan of Kamalhaasan/Bharathan’s Thevar Magan.and Gardish is again Priyadarshan’s faithful adaptation of Kireedom – a brilliant malayalam movieby Sibi Malayil.If at all any Indian movie has captured Godfather’s essence the best IMO it has to be Manirathnam’s Nayagan.Though Kamal Haasan was playing a real life character- a tribute to Wodeyar – the reference to Godfather was very loud & clear.
1. Kamal Haasan comes from TamilNadu to Mumbai.
2. There is a lot of galat dhanda like smuggling,murder etc happening
3. Element of fate is very strong- Velu Nayagan
( Kamal) kills the brutal cop- Pradeep & in a feeling of remorse brings up his retarted son
( Tinnu Anand) and in the end he is killed by Tinnu Anand himself-ironic
4.Of course no passing of the baton- his son dies in an accident
5. The music- both songs & BG by Ilayaraja is haunting & captivating
6. Nayagan is a tragedy- when you finish the movie- you have a lump in your throat for sure.
Please do watch the movie if you haven’t watched it already.
I believe that great cinema creates a literature of it’s own.
The source of it’s adaptation(either literary or otherwise) then becomes almost a pointless entity.
So, if I believe that Maqbool was great cinema, I do so cos it created a literature of it’s own. The word “literature” itself to me encompasses lot of implied attributes. Omkara to me was never great cinema. I think it’s only when a film fails to stand on it’s own do we need to go searching for it’s conception point.
sarkar and sarkar raj were examples of how people waste money on things they think are strokes of genius.i’m also facinated by underworld but i do not make shitty movies and throw them at people’s face to satisfy my mediocre ego…maybe because i can’t afford it. its best described as rgv’s mercedes…probably he’d driving too many of them.
If its a copy of a film, you would rant & call it a disgraceful copy…if its a adaptation you would give no credits…if its a remake, you will laugh and say ‘goodluck’….if its a hit, you will say bullshit…if someone speaks out in favor, your favor is the real favor…if its not favor, its always your calibre….
Finally, if you have a problem….it really a problem…and you spew in return by a favor(comment or a post)…yes, no difference….
Sarkar movies are not a copy of the Godfather trilogy, but they are inspired by it. My problem is not the inspiration, the execution was pathetic to say the least. Subhash Nagre is potrayed as this all powerful peoples hero, but I have a problem when there is absolutely no explanation for his position. How does a man who is not corrupt, wont deal with the underworld, is not a politician, is not a former office holder, does’nt have any ‘goondas’, hardly has any charisma, hardly has any mass appeal, how does this man become so powerful? what is his source of power? hes the peoples messiah, a robin hood of sorts…but who is he stealing from?
staring into a tea cup might scare a few people, but i dont think he earns u absolute power.
throughout the movie he fails to decipher the most obvious of plots against him and his family. how does a man with so little intelligence, absolutely no muscle power (by this i mean goondas) become so powerful? why should we even believe he is?
I agree mostly with the 6th comment by Narcissist
But a very interesting comment by Arpan
——-
“in my eyes, it fell short of the original book”
——
Incidentally Bergman advocated against adaptation of existing literature
—–
“There are many reasons why we ought to avoid filming existing literature, but the most important is that the irrational dimension, which is the heart of a literary work, is often untranslatable and that in its turn kills the special dimension of the film. If despite this we wish to translate something literary into filmic terms, we are obliged to make an infinite number of complicated transformations which most often give limited or non-existent results in relation to the efforts expended.”
———–
you can read whole article here
http://www.bergmanorama.com/bergman_eachfilm59.htm
scroll down to sub heading The script and fourth-fifth paragraph
Some interesting comments here.
Will respond to the negatives.
1. I never said I expected a faithful adaptation. I expected an honest adaptation of the themes. That didn’t happen. The film did not capture the gist of the original. Thats not innovation, its sloppiness.
2. And no its not a dead end to make an adaptation. Some of the best known films in the world are adaptations of literary works: Gone with the wind, Apocalypse Now and many others were literary works before they were adapted and wowed people again. Look no further than Vishal Bhardwaj to find the Indian answer. His work is brilliant and original.
3. If you liked the film, no big deal. I am not “insulting your intelligence”. Many people like Sarkar, its a matter of personal taste. I just pointed out the shortcomings of the film in relation to its original, which it did not dare to surpass. Had it tried to do so, who knows… maybe RGV had another Satya on his hands.
It could be my ignorace but I never heard that Sarkar was announced to be the remake or Godfather. Its a decent movie and Abhishek was nothing less than in Yuva.
But I agree with the ‘difference between art and masterpiece’ which you’ve figured out.