The Epiphany of Spontaneity: August 2012

*I wrote this as a part of my english assignment.*

Directed by: Anurag Kashyap

“Ik bagal mein chand hoga, ik bagal mein rotiyan,

Ik Bagal mein neend hogi, ik bagal mein loriyan.”

Gangs of Wasseypur is story based on real life incidents that happened in Wasseypur and Dhanbad across 30 years and 3 generations. Kashyap has kept the movie undoubtedly real - except for certain stances of dragged unnecessary scenes of humorous action - the ordinariness of it is what makes it extra-ordinary, the unconventional “evilwinsovergood” ending strengthening its ties to reality.

The plot is a very complicated story made simple. Gangs of Wasseypur is a story of revenge across generations. Set in Wasseypur, a village in Bihar, the movie initially revolves around the increasing differences between the Pathans and the Qureshis, while the Zamindars take advantage of this gap and prosper out of it. Ramadhir Singh, the most powerful coal mine contractor in town kills his sidekick Shahid Khan on discovering his plot to overpower and possess his own coal business. A witness to this is his perceived brother – ChachaJi and 7 year old son Sardar Khan. Growing up, Sardar Khan has only one resolve – to seek revenge and kill his father’s murderers – Ramadhir Singh and his aides -the Qureshis. And thus starts a legacy of payback and betrayal. A story expanding over families and sons and sons of sons, till Faizal Khan realizes that it should have all been over with Shahid Khan’s death - this, after he has lost his entire family, except for his pregnant wife and ChachaJi. It has certain masala movie nuances when children from the enemy families fall in love with each other but this can be explained away as an attempt to bring peace. This movie speaks of another important human action – betrayal. The movie ends with Faizal Khan’s half-brother ‘Definite’, this one man he trusted his life on, killing him. The irony however is important to be noted, while on one hand Definite betrays his brother, he does so to keep his mother’s trust. The good man dying while the bad survives- the perceived villain winning while the hero perishes – this ending is avant-garde in Indian cinema, something the audience might have been repulsed by, but it justifies the real life incident this movie is based on. The last scene is Faizal’s wife – Mohsina and their child dreaming away to a beautiful Mumbai Backdrop along with the most consistent character in the movie, ChachaJi.

The acting is at par or I could say above excellent. Richa Chaddha plays Nagma, Sardar Khan’s eccentric 22 turning into 60 year old wife and has stood out. Manoj Bajpai is true to his talent; Huma Qureshi has an important role to play in the second part and is scintillating with her dialogue delivery. The “parmisan lena chahiye tha nah” pierced through many hearts. The cast has done a brilliant job giving in to what Kashyap had expected and there are simply no complaints when it comes to that. The one man proving his worth has however been Siddique, his character going through the most transitions while he effortlessly juggles around. Even his ‘philmi-ness’ has managed to look real.

The movie was released in 2 parts, and unlike the first part, which is ‘perfectly fit’, the second certainly has some extra baggage – these relatively unreal sequences constitute around half-an-hour of the whole movie if put together. The scenes however complement the dialogues and the acting. In spite of the extreme amount of violence, this movie does not hurt the eye. It is explicit in terms of sex and vulgar use of language, extremely overt in the latter in fact, but the language has been used finely to create the required environment. Humour is immense and woven with violence; it adds to the unconventionality of the movie, something only Kashyap is capable is doing of. (Who else would call the characters of his movie Dephinite and Perpendicular?) Intricate human emotions are portrayed through relationships and romance. Although not shot at the original locations, the film will push you into almost similar surroundings of the standard Indian village in Bihar. The movie attracts mixed audiences given its language and outer appearance. This movie has explored unknown territories to emerge as exemplary in case of the “new” in Indian Cinema.

What stands out the most in the movie, apart from brilliant acting, is the sensational music by Sneha Khanwalkar. Khanwalkar has managed to fuse the west with the east, folk with classical, music with noise and create something refreshingly new and original. The explicitly ‘cheap’ innuendos used in the lyrics combined with the electrifying sound effects have given birth to a new genre in Bollywood.

Amidst the backdrop of revenge, betrayal and violence, Gangs of Wasseypur has a much subtler message to offer – the message of resistance and peace. Despite instances of backstabbing, it speaks of being together through difference and of friendships beyond boundaries. And it speaks of love. It speaks of choices and wrong choices and most of all it speaks of human weaknesses and tolerance. Gangs of Wasseypur has no heroes and no villains. It is a story which begins with circumstances and ends with the same.

(Chapter I)

When I talk of social constructs, nothing is right or wrong. Notions that we have learnt unconsciously through our social environment constitute a part of our personal life. Notions like, ‘a woman will always favour her daughter over her daughter in law’, ‘no woman will ever regret experiencing those defining nine months’, etc, I do not wish to assert that they are all correct, but just that there is a possibility of them being wrong also. The idea here is to consider alternatives. These notions pose a problem when they get converted into absolute ideologies which we start practicing in our public and private spheres. I think that these social constructs are what give birth to stereotypes.

What interests me about the study of psychology most is that it studies behaviour from a very subjective perspective. Unlike other sciences, it believes in individual differences. Two people might not have the same reason behind the same action or they might, but that does not prove that the third one will too. In some way I believe, psychology defies the idea of a majoritarian statistics giving space to minorities and exceptions. It is inclusive yet exclusive. It gives space to choice.

Coming back to stereotypes, let us take the example of love, the ‘idea’ is that love is conditional. My point is there is nothing universal about it. It could be conditional and yet ‘true’ love. (Or it could not as the obvious suggests) Life is more about what things are rather than what it should be anyway, right? And when people sign up for their actions attributing different causes to their behaviour, how universality matters, I fail to understand. I am not against generalization. There are a lot of universal laws pertaining to life – Rape is wrong, for example, nothing can justify it. But when I talk of subjectivity, I am talking of things which are more artless and emotional in nature.

No matter how much statistics argue against, we need to look beyond the obvious. We need to look at all possibilities. The general idea is it might make you broad minded, the subtlety lies in its ability to make you close also. See subjectivity?

This post may come off as a paper or textbook material, it may come off as boring, it may come off as a disappointment or a revelation even. Different people might have different things to take from it or nothing at all. Exactly my point, ma’am.