Picture courtesy: sulekha.com
GENERICALLY SPEAKING…
Is “Ishqiya” noir? Is it a Western? Is it a bastard-hybrid or both, and if so, is it a noirish Western or a Western-shaded noir? Discuss.
FEB 14, 2010 – VIDYA BALAN’S CURVES, AS GLIMPSED in the entrancingly earthy shot that opens Ishqiya, could serve as an engineer’s guide to hewing roadways through unyielding mountain rock – all zigs, zags and rippling hairpin bends. If looks could kill, hers would. Krishna (as the character is named) is truly a dangerous woman, or as the French would have it, a femme fatale. The question I was wrestling with while writing my review, however, was if Krishna was really a femme fatale, in the sense of the term as used in classic film noir to describe – you’ll have to pardon my French here! – a ball-breaking bitch who employs her bosomy charms to ensnare smitten men into carrying out typically baneful biddings. With Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity or Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice or Rita Hayworth in The Lady from Shanghai or even – at a shimmy-stretch – Helen in the Eastman Colour-noir Teesri Manzil, there’s little doubt about the fatality of these femmes.
And on the surface, Krishna does qualify as a wily, worthy descendant. She’s unhesitant about using her beauty to catch the eye of Babban (Arshad Warsi) – she notices this lecherous cad peering through the window as she’s doing up the straps of her backless blouse, and you wonder if she decided to change fully knowing he was around or if she began to change, caught him looking and resolved, on the spot, to not acknowledge his prurient presence, to dangle her body as bait in the hope that he’ll bite. It’s not easy to read her, which is a gold-standard characteristic of the femme fatale. But it’s equally true that her motives are high-minded – if not really straight, at least not self-serving. Krishna isn’t someone you’d want to mess with – she’s a rattlesnake in Rajasthani colours – but like Joan Crawford’s upwardly mobile mother (in service of a much beloved daughter) in Mildred Pierce or Helen’s near-nemesis (in service of a much beloved brother) in the not-quite-noir Don, Krishna’s dispassionate demeanor is merely in service of a much beloved husband. She isn’t truly… evil.
So does that make her a femme fatale and, by extension, is Ishqiya really noir? That was the question vexing me. Noir, as we know, isn’t so much a genre as a style that can be administered across a variety of genres. Elements of this style include a high-contrast Expressionistic mode of cinematography, a bitterly humorous strain of dialogue referred to as “hard-boiled,” and narrative signposts like rampant amorality and double crosses and last-minute rug-pulling and relationships inexorably steeped in doom. Ishqiya is spiced with more than a smattering of these traits – the problem for me, however, was the complete lack of cynical nihilism, the lightheartedness of tone and treatment. I don’t think I’ve ever seen (or even heard of) a “screwball-comedy noir” – namely, the style of noir applied to the genre of screwball comedy – and I wondered if Ishqiya was something of a first in this respect, with comic riffs on a battle-of-the-sexes premise set in a gleefully amoral universe.
Given the pressures of deadline-driven review writing, however, I decided to drop that consideration (which would involve a lot more introspection and hand-wringing), and I defined the film by its predominant genre – as a Western, with the frontier setting transposed to the Indian hinterland. This categorisation was far easier to commit to, for Ishqiya features not just dust-laden cusp-of-nowhere locales, but also a couple of gun-happy outsiders who stumble into a lawless anyplace riven by internecine caste wars, and with horses, sheriffs and bordello belles being substituted by stolen cars, cops, and a fetishistic mistress. And because of the femme fatale flavour from Krishna, Ishqiya – if not screwball-comedy noir – could possibly be viewed as a filtered-through-the-female-gaze noir-Western, hitherto the domain of roiling masculine angst (as most notably limned in the seminal James Stewart-Anthony Mann collaborations, like Winchester ’73 and The Man from Laramie).
The classification of Ishqiya as noir or Western or noir-Western or even (probably) neo-noir was just one of the intents of this article. The other was to muse about how our films are almost always hybrids, sprawled out at the crossroads between auteurist ambitions and entertainment-value considerations (song-and-dance, comedy, ticket-counter-oriented big-name casting). With exceptions like the gangster sagas of Ram Gopal Varma or the eccentrically stylised musicals of Sanjay Leela Bhansali, very rarely to we witness single-minded commitment to a genre. But this isn’t a complaint – indeed, who’d complain when the result is as rollicking as Ishqiya? – so much as a respectful acknowledgement of how unique our filmmaking (and film-watching) culture is. It’s interesting that the multiplexes have thrown open such wide avenues for experimental creators, and it’s intriguing to imagine what we’ll see next. A mash-up of History and Horror? Sci-fi and War? Dance and Western? Bring it on – preferably with a delectable femme fatale thrown in for good measure.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Rahul Tyagi
February 13, 2010
rangan, are the pics that you publish here independent of what are published in the paper (assuming there is some pic published in the paper)? Also, do you just search a pic online and use it on blog? or are there certain sites that allow people to use their pics freely online?
Great piece again, by the way. 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
February 13, 2010
Rahul Tyagi: Yes, I search for pics online and use them. If you position the cursor over the pic, you can see the source acknowledged. Is this not a done thing?
LikeLike
ramesh
February 13, 2010
is there such a genre as mock tarantino? (asked in all seriousness, no snark. ) because thats what ishkiya is.
it has too little selfconcious ironic camp to be a noir and I never bought vishal bharadwaj as a western-er of the john ford variety.he’s more like the banarasi cabbie in VT than a real ganga ghat panvadiya.
LikeLike
Arif Attar
February 13, 2010
There seems to be some Tarantino influence in recent Bhardwaj movies. Even here the moment when the titles and the song ‘Ibn Batuta’ start is exactly the way the titles in Pulp Fiction start.
Also I get a feeling that Vishal Bhardwaj is a much better writer than he is a director.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
February 14, 2010
Wait a minute, why am I not able to see the picture over this post Or is it truly gone?
“filtered-through-the-female-gaze noir-Western”
I wouldn’t be surprised if you add a couple more hyphens and string a few more adjectives. This is a tricky film and, surely, worthy of a second consideration. I’ll get back with a better comment once I become sober. 🙂 Good Night.
LikeLike
brangan
February 14, 2010
JAFB: I removed the picture after getting this mail from Manu.
Manu: You have used an image from desimad for ishqiya. Desimad has been flagged by google for hosting malware. http://bit.ly/9cHRgF Also unless the site owner permitted it, it is bad form to link to the image directly. Because they will pay the for the bandwidth every time someone loads your page. The practise is called hotlinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotlinking
LikeLike
Bala
February 15, 2010
That is one useful bit of info on hotlinking.Who or what is manu though ?
LikeLike
brangan
February 15, 2010
Bala: The guy who wrote in.
LikeLike
Bala
February 15, 2010
Oh ok, asked because it seemed too much of a coincidence that another person wrote in about the same issue as Rahul Tyagi above.
LikeLike
Shankar
February 16, 2010
Generically speaking…does the classification matter really? 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
February 16, 2010
Shankar? In other words, a rose is a roja is a gulaab-ngiriya? 🙂
LikeLike
Rohan
February 16, 2010
“a respectful acknowledgement of how unique our filmmaking (and film-watching) culture is”
To suggest to your reading audience that a film is ‘noir’/’noir-Western’/’neo-noir’ is to suggest that they need to be watching a movie in a certain way, with certain reference points (that are taken from Hollywood). If you do “respectfully acknowledge” that our movies are coming out of our own unique film-making and film-watching culture, then the comparisons you need to be making are with our own settings – both cinematic settings and real-life settings.
Your suggestion that that films such as Ishqiya and Ram Gopal Varma achieve uniqueness by sprawling themselves out between “auteurist ambitions” (a term that suggests Westernness) and “entertainment-value considerations” (a term that suggests Indianness) is not only misleading and simplistic, it doesn’t do justice to the possibility that perhaps these films can germinate organically.
LikeLike
Shankar
February 16, 2010
Well, I don’t see a need to classify. Even our music usually transcends genres from the good old days. Imagine the different genres and styles that RDB, MSV etc incorporated in their compositions. Our films do the same too…we’ve always had various elements (paisa vasool!!) mashed up in our films…This is how we are!! 🙂
LikeLike
KayKay
February 17, 2010
Mr. B, would you agree that after what seems like an eternity in Tamil films, Selvaraghavan’s deeply flawed but nevertheless fascinating Aayirathil Oruvan finally features a true femme fatale in Reema Sen’s character? Deeply committed to her goals, hardly averse to using her sexuality to obtain it and utilising the services of gullible men to realise it?
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 17, 2010
kay kay,
I thought andrea was the femme fatale in ayirattil oruvan. reema was the more aggressive of the two women but andrea displayed all the characteristics of a classic femme fatale.
LikeLike
brangan
February 17, 2010
Shankar / Rohan: There isn’t a *need* to classify, sure, but then there’s no real need to review, discuss or engage with films or music or art or literature either, right? It’s not like eating or breathing. Why do we say such-and-such element was incorporated in some song from jazz and so on? Because it’s interesting to study what something is, what lies under the surface — and as Indian films begin to appropriate sensibilities from Western films, there *will* be Western terminology / vocabulary used (as there’s no equivalent in our cinematic vocabulary).
Reg. “To suggest to your reading audience that a film is ‘noir’/’noir-Western’/’neo-noir’ is to suggest that they need to be watching a movie in a certain way, with certain reference points” — Absolutely not. I’m curious as to why anyone would look at, say, noir a “certain way” and at a Western in another way? It’s all film viewing. The analysis comes only later.
BTW, I don’t know why “auteurist ambitions” should suggest Westernness and “entertainment-value considerations” Indianness, as if Anurag Kashyap, say, isn’t an auteur or Western films aren’t entertaining. The two terms just refer to the things a director *wants* to do versus what he ends up doing in order to make a film appealing audiences.
KayKay/Ramesh: Absolutely. I mean, till the second half, you just thought she was some generic heroine, and then she pulls the rug from under you. I thought Andrea had too little screen time to develop into anything, let alone a femme fatale.
LikeLike
Shankar
February 17, 2010
Baddy, I was coming from the point of view that it was unnecessary to slot or typecast films or music. However as you put it, if it is part of studying the art form, I guess it’s okay. I do like to get beneath the surface to see what influences are being reflected ( say in music) but I’m usually averse to slotting it…especially in the Indian context.
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 17, 2010
oh i wished andrea had more screen time too, but her acting range) at least in spoken tamil was so severely limited that i guess selvaraghavan rewrote the spoiler part to reema sen.
purely as story, it makes more sense for the quiet fem into historical research to turn out the betrayer, instead of the carefree chick that drinks with the boys and does an impromptu butt shake in the mob of drunk men to adho andha paravai pola..
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 17, 2010
“The analysis comes only later.”
not really.This is the real rationale for film crit’s relevance. heres the throwaway line grasshoppa, “the genre you percieve in a work of art completely filters your critical appreciation of it” IOW your mind has already done its analysis BEFORE you walk in to a theater to see a film. The closer a film is to the genre’s logic, (or rules) the more genre reinforced your viewing is. It is a rare film, and a rare critic that goes into a viewing without his mind made up about a film’s genre It is a rarer person who can keep n open mind about a film’s genre(ie ishquiya is a western.. or it is a govind nihalani style art movie..etc) by the end of the film.
LikeLike
brangan
February 17, 2010
Shankar: This isn’t about “slotting” or “typecasting.” It’s about identifying its form and style in order to tackle the viewing experience in a more informed manner. It’s like saying ‘Chinna kannan azhaikiraan’ is based on Reethigowlai — a handle on the piece of work in question that helps you appraise it better. Would you enjoy the song if you didn’t know the raga? Sure! But if you do, it helps freaks like us (to whom a film is not just a film and a piece of music is not just something you play in the background) sit down for discussions such as this one 🙂
Ramesh: Crap! Of course you’re right that the analysis is *part* of the viewing experience. What I was trying to say is that the narrowing down of genre and so on does not hamper the viewing experience of someone who is not into (or who does not want to) these things.
PS: In general, this is not at all what I thought we’d be discussing in the comments. But I guess you win some, lose some 🙂
LikeLike
ramesh
February 17, 2010
true dat Mr Rangan.. 😀
LikeLike
ramesh
February 17, 2010
The Ragalakshana genre theory analogy is an interesting one though..maybe we should discuss further in the comments section of another(yet unwritten) article..(nudge).
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
February 18, 2010
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen (or even heard of) a “screwball-comedy noir” – namely, the style of noir applied to the genre of screwball comedy”
You nailed it just right with this one!
Movies like Ishqiya crush all the arrogance I have built up as a Movie-lover. 🙂 For at one watch, I don’t quite understand what and how exactly to make out of them.
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 18, 2010
‘“I don’t think I’ve ever seen (or even heard of) a “screwball-comedy noir” – namely, the style of noir applied to the genre of screwball comedy”’
james hadley chase: miss shumway waves a wand.
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 18, 2010
LikeLike
Rohan
February 18, 2010
“and as Indian films begin to appropriate sensibilities from Western films, there *will* be Western terminology / vocabulary used”
While I appreciate that terminology-borrowing is sometimes inevitable, it has to be done extremely carefully, otherwise the term oversteps its intended boundary and suggests all sorts of things it shouldn’t be suggesting (even though you as an ‘analyst’ might have satisfactorily made the separation in your head). Words like ‘Western’ have very strong connotations, they suggest certain pictures, moods, tones, and set certain expectations – just as calling a movie a ‘Noir’ or a ‘Screwball Comedy’ does.
‘Engaging with’ or ‘discussing’ a movie or an art form is – imho – at its purest and most rewarding when we’re not talking about it using already-assigned labels.
LikeLike
ramesh
February 19, 2010
rohan,
how?
as a generally buddhist shunyata statement about all concepts being empty, perhaps you are correct.
but as a cinema watcher, even if you don’t say ” im interpreting this movie as a western” how do you watch it without labels?
perhaps you mean you watch it without DISCUSSING or intellectualizing it, which makes sense to me too.
LikeLike
Rohan
February 19, 2010
Ramesh,
Maybe I’m using a slightly roundabout way to answer your question but I hope you see what I’m trying to get at:
The works we love the most – movies, music, whatever – are usually works that we can think about and discuss most “naturally” – how we describe our experience of watching/reading these works relate very closely to our personal feelings, and are very far away from assigned labels and genre approximations.
The challenge (if you can call it a ‘challenge’, because I don’t think it is a deliberate thing) is perhaps to approach all the movies we watch and books we read this way, remembering how we internalised *that* movie or book, and remembering that all art — atleast the works of art that we find worth our time to think about — can be approached this way.
LikeLike
ramesh
February 20, 2010
Rohan,
thus making my point for me. you cannot “force” a natural approach to a film thats bereft of some form of labling. you may not call it labling, and often you may desist conciously from intellectualizing your feeling, but what you DO feel is entirely on the basis of predictable factors that make the movie accesible to you.
this is because , ultimately, watching a film is not an abhyas..or an austerity(I do know a lot of movies that end up being a chore, but films are seldom made to bechallenges, they are made for other very worthy reasons) but as enjoyment of one sort or another.
Im just saying this enjoyment is attached to **some ** labels, even if theyre not analyzed.
LikeLike
Rohan
February 20, 2010
“what you DO feel is entirely on the basis of predictable factors that make the movie accesible to you”
Ramesh, just one question:
Why do you think these factors are ‘predictable’? Predictable to yourself? On what basis? Or predictable to the world at large?
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 20, 2010
rohan,
this example occurred to me last night..
imagine youre watching a game, the bowler keeps bowling full tosses to the batsman who keeps swinging aggressively at the ball and missing …except for when he finally connects and……its a home run.
now knowing the game is baseball and not criket completely changes your percepption of “the bowler” and the”batsman” right?
Im saying,while the nature of film watching often gives you an illusion of”there being no rules” in truth watching a film is often like wtching a “natural player” hitting a century. your appreciation comes from how easily he plays the classic square drive. would you be happy if he ignored all the rules of cricket and still scored a century? of course you would, but I suspect not as happy as if he did so playing more orthodoxly. even if you DIDNT fully understand the correct way of playing.
LikeLike
Rohan
February 20, 2010
Ramesh,
Cricket is an interesting and workable parallel to what we were talking about: there is a whole generation of kids growing up (or being born) now blissfully certain that twenty20 hitting is the default, the best, and the right way of batting – in fifteen years time there will exist teenagers who will be happier if a batsman did (from the pov of our current generation) “ignore all the rules of cricket and still scored a century”!
Umm, so where are we then? 🙂 That people of a certain era/culture/set-of-influences whether they realise it or not all perceive the world around them (movies, cricket…) in certain ways that can be reduced to what you’re calling ‘predictable factors’? I do agree with that. I’m saying there *are* those factors, and then there are certain *other* things, that are *personal* – a lazy example is perhaps that movie you liked because it brought up a particular childhood memory, or something. While these two ‘sets of factors’ are of course not mutually exclusive, I cannot imagine being genuinely moved by a work of art simply because it ticked all the boxes in that first set of larger, ‘predictable’ factors. Even if does tick some of the boxes in the first set it has to filter down to the personal in some way – it is this zone of the personal that I’m referring to as ‘natural’/without labels/etc etc.
LikeLike
Ramesh
February 21, 2010
ok. then we are only talking about differen genres, some of which appeal to you, and others that feel artificial ticking of boxes.
that is fair enough.
LikeLike