One of the most beloved musicals of all time is sixty years old. And – no surprise – it’s not from here.
One of the more heartwarming YouTube ads of late carried this announcement: “Turner Classic Movies Presents Singin’ in the Rain 60th Anniversary Event in Select Movie Theaters Nationwide on Thursday, July 12 at 7:00 PM (local time).” This is how Hollywood celebrates its history, its heritage. Forget big-screen revivals – most films here do not even get an anniversary mention in print. In 1952, the year of Singin’ in the Rain, we had an equally famous musical in Baiju Bawra. But how many people who aren’t your grandparents still remember it? (Film critics don’t count.) Why hasn’t it slipped into pop culture the way Singin’ in the Rain has? (Even if you haven’t actually seen Singin’ in the Rain, there’s a strong likelihood you’ve at least heard about it, or imbibed its air through osmosis, say, from the song-and-dance homages in K Balachander’s Punnagai Mannan.) Well, maybe Baiju Bawra isn’t the greatest example under these circumstances, for Bharat Bhooshan in full-tilt tragedy mode can be quite hard to digest, but it’s not as if many people remember the other big hits of the year either, like Aan (with Dilip Kumar) or Jaal (Dev Anand).

Why does a film (or a song) shake off the fetters of its time and become immortal, the way Singin’ in the Rain has? One reason is that Hollywood films are seen everywhere, and get written about everywhere (even here, in this column in The Hindu, published in a city far away from Hollywood). So more people know about the film or the song, more people make it a point to seek it out, and more people inherit memories about the film or the song through parents and grandparents. The other reason could be that we, in India (and probably elsewhere in the world), are more inclined to check out a Hollywood film from 1952 or a foreign film from the same year (Max Ophüls’ Le Plaisir, or Akira Kurosawa’s Ikuru) if we are told that that these are “classics,” whereas even if someone labeled Baiju Bawra or Aan or Jaal a classic, we may struggle to find the time and the inclination to investigate what the fuss is about.
I’ll be the first to admit that seeing older films isn’t always easy. It’s one thing to have seen a film (or heard a song) in your youth and locked it away in the memory vault as an exemplar of everything that was good about “those days” – and those films you can see over and over. (In essence, you’re not seeing the film as it is now, but as it was then.) But without nostalgic affections, it becomes more difficult to recalibrate the senses to the filmmaking rhythms of a bygone era, where the acting styles were different, the way they used music was different, the way they spoke was different, and even their clothes (which can sometimes make no sense, all these years later) were different. And yet, in my viewing experience, the older films from outside India seem less dated than the films we make here, which – a few exceptions apart – just don’t seem to last beyond a decade or two. Afterwards, they become curios but not quite classics.
I don’t know if I’d call Singin’ in the Rain a classic, because I’ve always been more a fan of Fred Astaire than Gene Kelly. (Believe me, that’s an important distinction, much like how you’d align yourself with the Beatles or the Stones – you may like both, but you cannot love both.) My transcendent moments of musical cinema include Shine On Your Shoes (from The Band Wagon; now there’s a classic) and Let’s Kiss and Make Up (Funny Face), and none of the numbers in Singin’ in the Rain are that blissed-out – but it’s certainly a marvelously entertaining movie. And the films of that era really knew how to segue to a musical moment. The songs were like perfectly poised ballerinas, taking off at a point in the narrative and landing perfectly at another point where the narrative waits in the wings, ready to take stage again. When we bemoan the loss of the musical, what we’re really mourning is the loss of writers and lyricists who knew how to make a movie sing.
We make the largest number of movies in the world every year, and most of them have songs – and yet, we make very few musicals, in the sense of films that use music organically to shape a situation (as opposed to cutting away to choreography in National Geographic-approved locations). And it doesn’t have to be always about rapture and romance. Mahanadhi is one of the saddest films ever made, grim north to Singin’ in the Rain’s blithe south, but it has an extraordinary musical moment in Peygala nambaadhey, which Kamal Haasan’s character sings, during a power cut, to his children who are scared of the dark. This multifunctional song is (a) a father’s moral instruction to his children (“face your fears”), (b) a bit of levity, (c) a sweet stretch showcasing this family’s dynamics, and (d) a hint that bad things can come at you from everywhere, whether from the television set (featuring terrifyingly distorted musical performers) or even a doting grandmother (who, jokingly, fashions herself into a demon goddess). That’s where the film is headed, into a zone where nothing and no one can be trusted, and this song shapes these themes in a casually understated manner. Fast-forward at your own peril.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
chhotesaab
July 13, 2012
It was great reading this article. That last paragraph is amazing. BTW, which Indian, esp hindi movies have, according to you, aged well. IMHO, first film which comes my mind is ‘Sholay’. QSQT has aged better than MPK. All the Hrishikesh Mukherjee films have aged amazingly well.
Ravi K
July 14, 2012
“…the older films from outside India seem less dated than the films we make here, which – a few exceptions apart – just don’t seem to last beyond a decade or two. Afterwards, they become curios but not quite classics.”
The older mainstream Indian films (not counting Satyajit Ray and his ilk) are remembered more for their songs than for the stories or acting. If you try to actually watch one of the older films, you’ll often see that they’re clunky, overlong, and melodramatic, with lurching tone shifts. Some older films do hold up for me, but even the classics sometimes bore me.
Anu Warrier
July 14, 2012
Don’t know that I agree totally with that conclusion – that we are more likely to term (and re-watch) Hollywood ‘classics’ while ignoring our own. As someone raised by a father who loved movies – period!- I grew up watching more of my father’s generation of films (both theirs and ours) than even that of mine. I’ll wager I’m not unique in having done so.
Perhaps it is because we do not write as much about it, or perhaps it is because we do not preserve our film heritage the way the west does (the fact that Ray and Adoor films have to presented to us by the French is a bit galling!) – but there is a small (and growing) group of people who are interested in that age, and those films.
Now, if we could only mobilise to get the distributors and DVD companies from killing the prints with large logos, or excoriate them for not bothering to get the original print so we actually miss huge chunks in between… is that too much to ask for?
vikram
July 14, 2012
For me , Singin in the Rain iis the ultimate feel-good film….the sheer joy and abandon that is on show when he is splashing about in the puddles during the title song….is just awesome….
And the other point is- if a film industry doesn’t make movies with songs now, naturally those movies from the same industry that had songs become prized….and if almost all films are made with songs, (as in our film industry) none of them would register as extra-special…
Rohit Ramachandran
July 14, 2012
Did you first see Mahanadhi when it came out? Back in 1994?
rameshram
July 15, 2012
(like I told you on facebook.
Shankar
July 15, 2012
@Rohit, I know your comment is addressed to BR, but it frightens me
especially the back in 1994 bit. It’s not that much “back”, is it? I’m dreading to hear what you might say if I said I watched “Uthiripookkal” when it released?
BTW, I did watch Mahanadhi when it released with a friend from UP who had the faintest clue of tamil, but who came out of the film with moist eyes.
Baddy, Mahanadhi is a sad film, but I was watching Guna the other day on TV…despite being a fascinating film in many aspects, it just tore one to shreds. Also, when you mentioned using music to organically shape a situation, a funny thought came to mind. I was reminded of how directors “creatively” used just one song to show Rajini’s rise in prosperity (Annamalai, Padayappa etc)…and thereby a turn in the plot. I’m sure what you intended to say was far far removed form those situations
aandthirtyeights
July 16, 2012
“And yet, in my viewing experience, the older films from outside India seem less dated than the films we make here, which – a few exceptions apart – just don’t seem to last beyond a decade or two. Afterwards, they become curios but not quite classics.”
When we watch old movies from the West, we tend to watch these exceptions, don’t you think? Many movies that come on TCM haven’t aged well at all, for instance. I’ve seen people struggle with even movies like “Some Like it Hot”.
brangan
July 18, 2012
chhotesaab: Actually, “Sholay” has aged very well. The only thing I don’t care for anymore is Sanjeev Kumar’s performance. Otherwise the humour, the character development, the romance, the villainy — I think someone from today will have no trouble watching the film. (Though I think they may fast-forward the songs.)
Ravi K: Reg. “you’ll often see that they’re clunky, overlong, and melodramatic,” I don’t see “melodramatic” as a wrong thing. Yes, melodrama may not appeal to a modern-day viewer, but if you grew up with that style, then those films don’t become dated just because they’re melodramatic. Two very well-done “melodramatic” films of Sivaji — I take his name because it’s instantly connected with melodrama — are “Uyarndha Manidhan” and “Motor Sundaram Pillai.” I have no problem watching these even today.
Anu Warrier: I wasn’t talking about ignoring our own “classics.” Just that we don’t celebrate them as much, and also that a lot of them don’t stand up very well.
Rohit Ramachandran: Yes, I did
Shankar: And “Guru,” which I saw in Chidambaram’s Lena theatre. And “Bhuvana Oru Kelvikkuri,” which I saw in a touring talkies in Thirunelveli. And “Oru Thalai Raagam,” which I saw in Eros. And “Kudiyirundha Koyil,” (my favourite MGR movie) in Theyagaraja (though this was obviously a rerun). I think we’re ancient, by Rohit’s count
aandthirtyeights: I think some sort of mental adjustment does need to be made for older films, whether from here or from there, but once those initial minutes go by, I feel it does become easier to watch Hollywood’s accepted classics than our own. Maybe it’s just me. See something like “Love in the Afternoon,” one of Billy Wilder’s slightly lesser-known films. It’s so fresh even today. But yes, i agree that some of the TCM films do test my patience.
omfgitsrohit
July 18, 2012
I ask because I wanted to estimate how much of nostalgic affection could’ve possibly been attached to it. I saw Mahanadhi only a month back for the first time and I was greatly annoyed by its complete lack of grace, its crude melodrama, the jarring tonal shifts and the continuous shift in central object of focus. I see Mahanadhi brought up here a lot- especially beside films like Kattradhu Thamizh, Easan, Angadi Theru, and while I see (pretty much) where you’re coming from with respect to those films (and disagree), I still don’t understand how you couldn’t consider Mahanadhi a manipulative piece of crap. Lol. Is there a review somewhere?
vijay
July 18, 2012
BR, you have got to admit that watching musicals in contemporary times has to be a bit odd..Hollywood that is. For them musicals are the exception. You can’t help but suppress a giggle when you see big time stars otherwise acting in typical Hollywood movies without songs and supposedly rooted in reality, break into songs in a movie like say, Chicago. The adjustment needed there is higher. Whereas, our films, they all have always had songsand we have grown up watching those and are well associated and familiar with their grammar and rhythms. I mean, How would you even differentiate between musicals and non-musicals in our films? Every 60s Tamil movie was a musical in a sense and most of them had great music. The question of carefully seguing a scene into a song to make it seem organic arises if such films were just a sub-genre in a moviemaking culture like that of Hollywood. But all our films have songs for all kinds of situations(and you can almost predict when the next song is going to be around the corner)at the slightest excuse, and we are used to that as well.So the need for that kind of writing doesnt arise here.
Maybe you are complaining about the fairly recent trend of cutting away to Switzerland for a song when the lead characters would be otherwise from a Chennai slum.If thats the case I agree
Shankar
July 18, 2012
Yeah, I recall watching Uthiripookkal in Madurai at Cinipriya. Also Ram Lakshman at Abirami in Chennai. Those days there were only 2 theatres…Abirami and Bala Abirami. Also a ton of Hindi films, mostly in the first week, in Calicut.
On another note, RIP Rajesh Khanna.
venkatesh
July 18, 2012
Rajesh Khanna RIP
Mambazha Manidhan
July 19, 2012
BR – Thoughts on Billa 2 ? Surely, it warrants a detailed analysis. A write-up perhaps?
rameshram
July 19, 2012
http://rameshram.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/rajesh-khanna-tribute/
brangan
July 20, 2012
vijay: Actually I think “Chicago” is a damn good example of a musical, and it’s not — as you call it — “rooted in reality” at all. The whole thing is an imagined fantasy. Actually, I can’t think of too many “rooted in reality” musicals. Even the dark ones like “Dancer in the Dark” and “Cabaret” (great films both) are very stylised films. I’d venture that a musical in essence can never be “rooted in reality.” (Which is its biggest plus point.)
Mambazha Manidhan: Actually, I’ve been out of the country and haven’t seen anything from that Naan Ee/Bol Bachchan week. And the added shock of Rajesh Khanna’s demise. Will do a column on the latter next week.
vijay
July 20, 2012
“Actually I think “Chicago” is a damn good example of a musical, and it’s not — as you call it — “rooted in reality” at all.’
I didnt say Chicago(or for that matter any Hollywood musical) was rooted in reality. Of course it isnt. I was saying that considering most other films Hollywood makes(which are rooted in reality) and in which these same actors are in, it requires a lot more of mental adjustment to watch them in in a fantasy musical like Chicago. It requires even a certain suspension of disbelief. Back home, thats not a problem since all our films are musicals in a sense. Even Kannathil muthamittaal and Mahanadhi have songs. It has always been an integral part. We dont have or need a separate genre called musicals. Naama kaala kaalama adha thaan pannitrukkom. Our moviemaking grammar evolved from street musicals and stage dramas where there are always going to be songs in the narrative whether the movie is rooted in reality or not.
venkatesh
July 20, 2012
omfgitsrohit: Spot on analysis , i have never understood why BR has such affection for Mahanadi . It came much before the Angadi Theru, Easan etc. and is probably the template for that kind of movie but that”s about it . There is nothing special about it.
BR: The other movie i cannot stand and which you constantly praise is – Hey Ram. I don’t get it – any old reviews of these 2 movies anywhere ?
brangan
July 25, 2012
Mambazha Manidhan: Watched it. Didn’t care for it. It was very well staged (not just shot, but staged). But the film felt pointless. What does this so-called back-story have to do with the other “Billa” movie, which seems to exist on its own quite well? Why introduce your hero as a political refugee if you’re going to nothing with it? All the villains were so blah, so generic. The film felt like just a series of action scenes. And they just rifled through the “Godfather” movies for inspiration.
Though I must certainly appreciate Ajith for taking up these roles, Mankatha and this one, where it’s not just an antihero but a borderline psycho-villain…
venkatesh
July 25, 2012
BR: And Ajith is possibly the only “hero” who now acknowledges his age on screen (at least in Mankatha) – doesnt stop him romancing girls half his age though. Pity he can’t act, dance or do anything else.
Mambazha Manidhan
July 27, 2012
BR – Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with the well-staged part. But, it was zero in all other aspects. I thought it was more of ‘Scarface’ than the Godfather movies they were channeling.
And, this is a technical director whose forte is production value but is unsure when it comes to real people and their motivations.
Also, what do you think of his surname or perhaps, its anagram? How can anybody take him seriously? I mean, if I was his classmate in school, I don’t think I could have gone through one day without giggling during the Attendance Order call. I think he should the best candidate to helm the Delhi Belly remake.