A string of pretty pictures is not the same as good cinematography, but that isn’t the only reason our colour films remain less impressive than those shot in black and white.
News of the demise of Ashok Mehta made me flashback, quickly, through the story of Indian cinematography, which is a strange one. On the one hand, we have cause to celebrate genuine innovators like Subrata Mitra, but on the other, so many of our films are well-packaged and glossy but made without a cinematographer’s investment of mind and soul. (And most of what get labeled in reviews as “good cinematography” is essentially a series of pretty pictures. You and I could learn a few tricks of the trade, get behind a camera, and make mountains and seas and sunsets look breathtaking.) When I see older films, I’m left with the feeling that the work of our cinematographers in black and white is far superior to their work in colour – at least till the 1970s ushered in a parallel Hindi cinema (it’s due to his work in these films that Ashok Mehta began to get noticed), and subtle talents like Balu Mahendra and Ashok Kumar began garnering attention in Tamil.
This is no accident. Good cinematography (like almost everything else in a film) is the result of a director who’s clear about what he wants, and a good cinematographer executes that vision, either by envisioning a look all on his own or by collaborating with the filmmaker. (Whether the film itself ends up good or bad is irrelevant; the point is than an attempt was made by the director and the cinematographer to impart this kind of look to this kind of story. There are a lot of well-intentioned films that end up bad but are, at the same time, extraordinarily shot – the badness is due to other things like the script and the acting.) And in the 1970s, a great many directors with vision set about making movies. They wanted to tell new kinds of stories, with a new kind of pace, and with new kinds of faces – and they needed a new breed of cinematographers, craftsmen who’d studied the work of world masters and looked beyond capturing a frame that could be mounted on museum walls.
Before the 1970s, most of the visionary cinematography was confined to black-and-white films. Compare, for instance, Radhu Karmarkar’s work for Raj Kapoor in Shree 420 versus his work in Sangam. The former has mood, texture, emotion, while the latter simply has sumptuous colour. At least, that’s how it seems to us today, and the reason is that we do not know, for sure, what these colour films really looked like when first released. Black-and-white cinema, for some reason, doesn’t lose much of its look even when watched on cruddy copies on DVD, but colour films lose a lot of detail and end up looking garish, gaudy. The heroines (and sometimes even the heroes) seem to be wearing too much makeup. The sun is always a little too golden, the reds and the blues a little too red and blue. To truly evaluate the work of early Indian cinematographers who worked in colour, we have to rely on the word of those who saw these films on screen, or else wait for remastered DVDs to make their way to the market.
Remastered versions of a few parallel-cinema staples have made their way to stores, but there’s nothing from mainstream cinema. Why, you may want to ask, aren’t they remastering Mera Naam Joker (an extremely problematic film, I agree, but given its ambition and scope, aren’t you curious to see what it really looked like?), or Gunga Jumna (with its earthy evocation of rural India), or even Johny Mera Naam (if only for the way Hema Malini’s face is lit up when she sees those diamonds)? But I doubt they will, because spruced-up “art cinema” is a saleable proposition, locally and worldwide, while those who want to see commercial films will do so uncomplainingly, watching bad prints on TV or through DVDs. Entire generations of colour cinematography (from the pre-digital era) is lost to us – and even Ashok Mehta’s greatness lies more in my mind, from my memories of his films watched on the screen, than in the evidence proffered by DVDs of 36 Chowringhee Lane or Trikal.
Of his films, I remember Utsav best. The circumstances in which I watched this A-rated drama (with classmates, at Chennai’s now-regrettably-demolished Safire theatre) have no doubt contributed to the vividness of the memory, but even as a film, it was breathtaking, a retelling of Sudraka’s Sanskrit play Mrichchakatikam that was suffused with an extraordinarily elegant kind of glamour – the lighting was so muted and evocative, it was as if we’d entered the erotic world of Vasantasena and Charudutta. The film, based on their lustful affair, is full of jewelry and sets and rich costumes and flesh, and yet, Mehta (and, of course, the director Girish Karnad) chose not to highlight these “items.” Rather, they opted to blend them into the story being told. To make an invisible (i.e. real, lived-in) kind of movie with the most eye-blinding of props requires a special talent. Thanks to these frames, at least in some memories Ashok Mehta will be remembered the way he ought to be.
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.
rameshram
August 17, 2012
first RIP Ashok Mehta,
second, I was standing in line once at the american embassy (er..indian embassy) for some visa stuff in Artesia in LA when the guy that turned out to stand behind me was (is) my now good friend and production designer John Mhyre(won a few dozen oscars but does anybody else know his name!?) waiting to go to a meeting with shekar kapur’s people for a multi gazillion dollar production planning meeting for the Buddha (this is a defunct project which was actively in discussion in the time period between the releases of the two lord of the rings films.) . He asks me (as a stranger with an indian background that can speak a word or two in english) if I knew of some well designed Indian films., and I do the most logical thing in the world and pull out my Archos media player which is loaded with some 200 art films and of course the second most logical thing to do is to show him Devdas, (the fountains attracted him) and utsav.
He termed utsav a cinematographer’s film, because it achieved so much atmosphere with so little production design.Lighting ALONE evoked period aristocracy. “That’s a technique they use in stage a lot” he said. your cinematographer(he did not seem to recognize mr mehta’s name) has transplanted it successfully to film”.
LikeLike
Ravi K
August 17, 2012
India has produced some gorgeously shot black-and-white films, filmed by cinematographers like Fali Mistry, VK Murthy, and Marcus Bartley. When color came around for a while it filmmakers just wanted to use every color possible, as garishly as possible. In the color era it seemed as if filmmakers were content to give us some stars and lots of color.
In the past 10 years or so there have been some fantastic looking films. Lagaan, with its wonderful framing and blocking and earthy browns, Meenaxi, with its artfully elegant shots. Even a film like Vettai, which at times had unusually moody cinematography for a Tamil masala film.
LikeLike
soniajoseph
August 18, 2012
@rameshram: That was a great anecdote. And sort of articulated something I have been trying to express for a long time. There is a sort of “Nair tharavadu” atmosphere that is generated in many Malayalam films of the 80s and 90s. “it achieved so much atmosphere with so little production design. Lighting ALONE evoked period aristocracy.” That’s exactly what it was.:)
I get a queasy feeling when people describe modern cinematographers like Amal Neerad (in Malayalam) and Santhosh Shivan (for Urumi) as geniuses (including “critics”). Strings of pretty pictures that leave you with zero motivation to continue seeing the movie.
On a related note, my parents always waxed eloquently about the brilliance of the Malayalam movie “Chemeen” which was a landmark film where cinematic technique etc were concerned at the time. All the re-runs on TV however look extraordinarily vulgar and scratchy. I once approached a state film society about the restoration some of my favourite films from the 80s. They said they had lost many of the original prints. Many tears were shed that day.
LikeLike
venkatesh
August 18, 2012
first RIP Ashok Mehta.
I know completely inappropriate but Rekha in Utsav …..oooooh
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
@soniajoseph, Santosh’s Problem is more that he has too much to say and tries to compose it all into one shot. The Ideal santosh sivan is when he works with a “sparse” cinematographer/ director…for instance his work with renato berta in vanaprastham was exemplery and evocative.
Shaji Karun is a great malayalam cinematographer (have you seen any G Aravindan films? Pookuveiyil was my favoriteSK/GA collaboration..)
But coming back to Ashok Mehta, did you know he was also the genius behind Choli ke peeche kya hai? 😀
LikeLike
brangan
August 18, 2012
rameshram: So you *are* capable of contributing to a meaningful discussion without sarcasm and condescension. Good to know. Really.
soniajoseph: DD used to screen a lot of Mallu art cinema — and very good prints. (I think these were the prints that went to international festivals.) Saw “Piravi” one afternoon. Post DD, seeing regional language films with subtitles has become impossible. Even the subtitled prints that are made for festivals seem to vanish after the festival rounds are over.
And speaking of lighting, I’m a big fan of Ashok Kumar’s work. A lot of Tamil film fans speak of Balu Mahendra, but not many speak of AK in the same breath. Also, Barun Mukherjee shot “Rajaparvai” beautifully. You can see remnants of what he achieved even in the cruddy copies today.
venkatesh: Yeah. She really looked that part, and her old-world voluptuousness had a lot to do with it. Of course, today they’d call her fat. If they remade the film, I wonder who they’d cast. None of out actresses has any curves 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
So you *are* capable of contributing to a meaningful discussion without sarcasm and condescension. Good to know. Really.
thank you teacher!
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
for one second it actually appeared that someone would discuss some actual cinema…not the ragtag creative writing about kamal and maniratnam that goes on in this blogspace…then rangudu spoke.
LikeLike
brangan
August 18, 2012
rameshram: Well, things are what they are. This is all the cinema we’re capable of discussing. Surely there’s space for all kinds… Instead of trying to elevate us mere mortals, why not propagate The Word about “actual cinema” from *your* blog?
LikeLike
Rameshram
August 18, 2012
Isn’t that what I Am doing? I never use your blog to go beyond your ….level….except when the incompetence hurts……once in a loonnnng while…..
LikeLike
Rameshram
August 18, 2012
I mean are you sincerely proud of your work on this post?
LikeLike
brangan
August 18, 2012
rameshram: It is not a question of being “proud.” (And if you know me, you will never ask this question.) This is a weekly column that’s meant to riff off happenings in cinema — these posts are not meant as authoritative, definitive analyses or the last word on the subject. Most readers realise this and treat these posts that way, as a casual (yet hopefully not *too* casual) read, a springboard for discussions — if they think of something to contribute, they’ll leave that thought in a comment.
If you’re so appalled about what I’ve written here, then you may want to show the world how it’s really done by writing something on your blog. Instead of pointing out how it’s *not* done, in your opinion. That’s a constructive way of going about things. This is the easy way out. I understand that you think I know nothing. But hearing you say that endlessly becomes a bit tiring after a point, and it contributes nothing to the discussion.
It’s not just me. It’s the condescension with which you treat all my readers. I’m confused whether or not to let some of your comments through (the tone you adopted with utkal in the “Cocktail” review, for instance), because on the one hand there’s free speech and all that, but on the other hand, there’s only so many times you want someone to come into your living room and keep taking a dump. After a while, the stench becomes a real problem.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
Rangan,
That would pass (just a weekly column in cinema) if youre just another I don’t know malini krishnaswamy writing for the Hindu. But to float down to some level you are comfortable with is your choice.
From my perspective, a post on Ashok mehta bore the telling of a good story…which somehow seemed to attract ire from you…I’m not sure why. over time I have started to wonder if you don’t LIKE a disruptive rameshram more than you like a rameshram that writes serious stuff(even in one or five line dribblets on your blog. I seemed to get attacked more, by you or Kay Kay when I do write stuff thats cogent and articulate.
Often my role on your blog has been , if I see it fit, be a counterweight to the unthinking fulsome praise that comes on it for your writing. Im hoping that i am interjecting only when there IS merit in my (how do you say it…..) condescension. I DO have my own writing space and DO make as much use of it as I see fit. often there ISN’T much you CAN say about the arts scene which to me seems very compromised. And yes without a weekly obligation to write a column, I don’t feel pressured to come up with a thousand words on some….stuff each week.
As regards Utkal mohanty, there was Baiting (of me) going on, and it was obvious for everyone to see…except people wearing the blinkers in a particular fashion.
There are occasions when I do behave like an asshole (I see it as doing a man’s job to defend my opinion…say about A R Rahman/ Ilayarja) with some posters, with utkal the roles were reversed. Utkal uncle was laying a thick bait.
I don’t take a dump on your blog.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
Often, Ive taken your side against posters that write scrolling irrelevances *cough*mohan*cough* by asking them to go to their own blog space to do so. I usually keep my opinions on here pithy and relevant. Quite deliberately so. If THAT comes acros as condescending, then that’s too bad. I don’t write for a lowest common denomenator common man. I usually write for me.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
and it’s too bad that I don’t think more of you than I do, but apart from sheer evaluation of your work as a writer, there’s much human stuff such as shared experiences and films …and writing about them that are things we have in common….which is what keeps me looking….for redemption…..for you….in all that….stuff you say. 😀
LikeLike
brangan
August 18, 2012
rameshram: It’s not a question of what you think of me. If I were the kind of person who couldn’t take criticism, I’d just need to use my powers of moderation and disallow anything unflattering that comes my way. This is not about taking sides either. But given that Ashok Mehta seems to mean so much to you, why not write something expansive? Why pick on a column that’s only fleetingly about him?
Do you know how newspapers work? How editors want their stories? How difficult it is to push a story about a Tamil film/personality before the Delhi edition folks start complaining about carrying that column? This is an intentionally light column, and I try to keep it chatty. At least if you criticised my reviews, I’d understand — for that’s something I write for the blog and the way I want.
And yes, I sense condescension in your tone. See your response to one little dig I made at you:
“for one second it actually appeared that someone would discuss some actual cinema…not the ragtag creative writing about kamal and maniratnam that goes on in this blogspace…then rangudu spoke.”
What does this even mean? Anyway… I think I made my point earlier. I wanted to vent. I vented. I’m back in Zen mode. I’m outta here.
LikeLike
Rameshram
August 18, 2012
Rangudu , there was condescension in that remark. You know why( you held back aa post I made at Sonia Joseph Until you could get all your bile out…thus ruining a promising conversation about cinema. I do have to spell things out to people not in the know of what you zwere doing) but lets put that behind us….
I never said I wasn’t condescending to you (in all my writing above) only hoped that the condescension was deserved.
Ashok Mehta meant precisely as muCh space as I gave him…no more no less…considering I didnt know the man.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 18, 2012
Here’s a big word for your more mass minded audience. (ramsu run for your thesaurus. You’re being disingenuous.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 18, 2012
I was content to be a passive observer to this little exchange, but if you insist on pulling my name into this…..
See, Prof, I don’t SET OUT to attack you by default. Trust me, only I know the number of times I’ve actually stayed my hand, hovering over my keyboard, itching to type out a rebuttal to some of your outrageous comments.
This may come as a surprise to you, but I do respect most of your opinions, in spite of some of the tactics you choose to adopt in voicing them:
You accuse a poster of baiting you, when a good many of your comments set out to do the same thing. It’s ok to hate TDKR, but to suggest a 2-bit hack like Murugadoss can do a better version (seriously??) can’t be anything but an attempt at shit-stirring for the sake of it.
I TOTALLY respect your loathing of ARR’s music, although your descent into personal and oft-times ludicrous attacks on the man, is strange to say the least. This whole “I gotta show my love for Raja by kicking ARR in the nuts” approach isn’t my style, but hey, different strokes for different folks, eh?
I can even, through clenched teeth, accept that you believe you’re a better writer than B…ok screw that, I can’t. That’s my line in the sand. You’re not a better writer than him, no way, uh-uh, not in this lifetime, sorry.
And so on, and so forth, ad infinitum……but I digress…
You’re a guy with an elevated sense of his own importance, ok I get that. You also think that gives you a license to layer a heaping helping of scorn and disdain in your comments against B and other posters who have a different view. Fine, I get that too. And I even respect your right to do it. But here’s where you need to take the blinders off, son.
Your self-appointment as a sort of Agent Smith in these parts , unbalancing the equation in a Matrix you perceive to be one of universal acceptance of everything B writes is a miscalculation. Read some of the views here again. You’ll be surprised to find quite a few dissenting ones. But they’re usually delivered with a modicum of restraint and (sit down for this, because this is going to come as a shock) RESPECT to others and especially the author of this blog, because…I don’t know….we’re actually being accorded the hospitality of swimming in his backyard, although a few of us almost always end up pissing in the pool?
Here’s a suggestion (not that there’s a ghost of a chance you’ll take it): Mix it up a little, bro. Try impressing us with your cogent and articulate views sans the God Complex once in awhile, so when you do occassionally tell us what a bunch of cine-illiterates we all are, we might actually listen.
Humping a single note of condecension over and over again can be, dare I say, a tad dull?
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
August 19, 2012
Anyway, to bring this back to the late Ashok Mehta and Utsav in particular, Shashi Kapoor (the producer) was furious when he saw the film projected after it was developed in a Bombay lab. It was dark and grungy and the beauty was totally lost. He chewed Mehta’s ear off. Mehta went to London and got the film redeveloped at his own cost and the result was amazing – a heaven and hell difference. He showed this to Kapoor who duly apologised. Apparently it was a difference in the ‘wash’ used in India and the one used in London. Indian labs had the habit of using the same wash for multiple films and UK and Hollywood labs used to routinely throw the chemicals away after one pass on a film.
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
August 19, 2012
To quote Jennifer Lopez (or more accurately, Scott Frank) from Out of Sight: “You wanted to tussle. We tussled.”
LikeLike
soniajoseph
August 19, 2012
Looks like things got heated here while I was away. I hope that everyone is good now.
@brangan: I feel terribly that I don’t get to see the DD Sunday afternoon regional films anymore. Also about the fact that my 10 year old self didn’t consider jotting down names of the films she liked. And yes, where do those prints go after the festival rounds? It is insanely difficult to get hold of any of them.
I am personally more familiar with Balu Mehendra. The few Ashok Kumar films that I remember seeing, I can’t be too sure if my affection for them come from childhood nostalgia or real skill. (“Daisy” and ” Manjil virinja pookal” off the top of my head). “Rajaparvai”:must see again. I think I was too young to pick up on the style when I did see it.
I agree about the old-world female and male aesthetic though. * preparing myself for blows from feminazis* What Sumalatha gave to Padmarajan’s “thoovanathumbikal” or Suparna and Geetha to Bharathan’s “Vaishali” are difficult to replicate. The same thing goes for Mammootty’s and Mohanlal’s mustachioed rawness reflecting in their characters in “Vaddakan Veeragatha” and various Padmarajan and Bharathan movies.
On a related note, it has also become increasingly difficult to connect to the women and men we see on screen. With Russian models playing Punjabis and Brits playing Mallus in brown face, mainstream cinema feels extremely disconnected from the way we look and feel. Sure Sumalatha and Rekha were gorgeous, but authentic representations of beautiful women from our Indian landscape: Statuesque, dominating the camera and flawed. All at once.
I have a lot of hope in Parineeti though. Not as gorgeous as Rekha but what a captivating face. And what an adorable physical presence, baby fat and petiteness included. 🙂
@ rameshram: big fan of Karun. I like to think he was entirely responsible for the brilliance of “Vanaprastham” but grudgingly concede your point about Shivan. With the right directorial leash, perhaps, perhaps. Ever got a chance to check out “Kutty Shranku”? I can’t stop gushing about that movie.
G. Aravindan. I really liked “Kanchana Seeta” and “Chidambaram.” I haven’t seen anything else recently. I must have watched some of his work with my dad but I don’t think my impressions at that point are worth discussing.:) Both of these movies were poetic, for lack of a better word.
Absolutely no idea about the Mehta-Choli link. I’m not very sure if I should care.
LikeLike
brangan
August 19, 2012
rameshram: Uh, sometimes I do happen to be away from the comp (or sometimes someone else is doing the moderating). And comments happen to pile up (or “held back” as you call it). I think this happens with everybody who runs a blog. I don’t think you should attribute motives to such things, otherwise, in addition to what Kay Kay calls a God Complex, we may think there’s a Persecution Complex — like the time you accused me of stealing from your blog.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 19, 2012
persecution complexa? nalla kathaia irukku! (not that it bears repeatign but you weren’t Busy” when you “held that post back” but were fighting a fullfledged flame war with me (above)…over a period of three hours.(must have been 3 AM last night when I finally went to sleep…it wasn’t you I was doing some really serious head going stuff.
@soniajoseph kutysranku is a very nice film . Ashok mehta was the cinematographer for Khal nayak.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 19, 2012
hide above comment? yes. ignore poster…sure ok..report poster? naah he’s just too insignificant a henchman to report…
LikeLike
brangan
August 19, 2012
rameshram: You must not get out on the net a lot, if this is your idea of a “fighting a fullfledged flame war” 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
August 19, 2012
dei,…. 😀 (Kaundamani talking to sendhil)
forget it. It was already said…
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
August 19, 2012
adadadadadaaaaa, namma Doctorukkum, Professorukkum orreeyyy sanndey!
rathhamaa kottudu.
comedy-aa arambichhu, adi-thadiyaa maari…ippadaan konja tevala.
yennave sollunga, comedy illada, villain illada panchayathu-scene oru panchayathu-scene-aa?
why so serious?
“podumda…pongadaa, poyi blog-vyavasayam parungada…pulla-kuttingala film studies padikka vayingadadei…podumdaa”
😉
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
August 19, 2012
Anna, intha sandaile nozhanju, neenga tirumbiyum Kandukondain + Thevar introduce pannitteengle. Thevaya?
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
August 20, 2012
brother Dassu,
since thiru Kashyap has gracefully acknowledged the debt he owes to new tamizh cinema in the opening credits of Gangs of Wasseypur (which a shocking numbers of audience seem to have not noticed), i thought it necessary to stay in context even while indulging in some nakkal regarding thiru Professor and thiru Doctor.
yenna irundaalum, pazhaya dialaak, pazhayarusi maathiri-thaan.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
August 20, 2012
Congratulations to Rameshram on successfully finishing what he started….a couple of years ago?
Among the recent ones that had a well thought of visual palette in the mainstream are Raavan, Aayitha Ezhuthu. Of course the former for most people might come under the “only extraordinarily shot” category. The common factor here might again piss off Rameshram but what is there. The other guy who has been consistently interesting is Ravi K. Chandran. Even DCH – with three story arcs again – ushered in that glossy multiplex feel that now, after 11 years, has begun to grate. He has been associated with many of these mainstream films where you can see there was an idea to give a unique flavor to the visuals right at the start – Paheli, Black, Saawariya. And Kamal (Hi Ramesh!), in his LV Prasad convocation speech last week spoke about how Marudhanayagam and whatever they shot of it is Ravi K Chandran’s best!
Among the Hollywood ones, I think it has to go to The Social Network and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The things they did with the depth of field and the characters in these films are mind blowing. And especially in the latter film, it needs multiple viewings to shine through. You didn’t review this one, did you? Also, on the shots and visual style of Tinker, Tailor, this terrific article: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/01/23/tinker-tailor-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
LikeLike
vijay
August 21, 2012
BR, not sure why you should get so worked up over anybody’s comments here. Not quite worth it. And I trust people here are adults enough to handle any sort of comment , condescending or otherwise. It is not going to stop the flow of traffic to this site. Certain characters here just add spice to the proceedings. Give them too much attention and you have a problem(which is probably what you did earlier). Give them a little ignore treatment now and then and they’ll be fine.
LikeLike
vijay
August 21, 2012
BR, greatness in cinematography is a bit difficult to gauge.It is also difficult to express in words I guess. And maybe a lot more subjective than great cinema.Kind of like background music. Its standalone ability is often misinterpreted as greatness where its main purpose is to enhance the cinematic content.
I am also curious, when you write something like this, do you get to re-watch some of the works of the artist in question, or is everything from memory? Because with the number of films you get to watch those memories could keep getting a lot fuzzier. Not to mention that back in the time you watched Utsav you might not have known(or cared for) who the hell Mehta was. Requires a re-watch to see if you hadn’t missed anything
LikeLike
brangan
August 21, 2012
Gradwolf: Ah, Ravi K. I was astounded by how he shot “Anjaana Anjaani.” It’s not a great movie, and it’s crippled by cliches, but his photography really made each scene burst to life — the way he shot the close-ups, everything. Definitely a big screen movie, even though the subject is strictly small screen.
Why do you call DCH “glossy,” BTW? I feel it’s the reverse, actually. Very unfussy, laidback, lots of natural light kinda thing. And of course his collaboration with Bhansali is one for the ages, especially “Saawariya.” I still feel like hitting my head on a wall when I recall how people mocked the cinematography there. Seriously? I mean, I can understand that Bhansali style of filmmaking is not for everyone, but how can you not marvel at how the bloody thing was shot?
vijay: “BR, not sure why you should get so worked up over anybody’s comments here.”
Not sure? I think you should try running a blog sometime 🙂 There’ll come a time, every once in a while, when you’ll have had enough 🙂
And it is not about stopping the flow of traffic. Sometimes, I also fear the sort of tone here may scare people from leaving comments (or make them feel it’s not worth it).
And about this article, I did catch “Utsav” fairly recently, but even otherwise, I guess one of the things about being a “specialist” (quotes intentional) in something is that there’s a lot of related data stored in your head. Just like I guess someone who writes consistently about cricket can just pull out a memory of a great shot at will. I think I’ve said this earlier, but ask me what I read in the newspaper this morning and I’ll draw a blank, but ask me where I was when I first heard the teaser of “Kakki Chattai” songs and I’ll tell you (in my parents’ bedroom, on the “vilambaradhaarar nigazhchi” on radio, and the song was “poo potta dhavani’). Some of us are very weird like that 🙂
Speaking of “new music,” was anyone else grinning at the tribute to “Annakili” in the “Mugamoodi” album? And does anyone else feel Imman is not getting the respect is deserves? Heard the “Kumki” songs?
LikeLike
rameshram
August 21, 2012
“Why do you call DCH “glossy,” BTW? ”
because it is shot like a gloosy magazine starshoot. it’s realistic the way an issue of star and style is realistic.
I think the Bollywood establishment has it in for the guys from FTII pune. VVC was being destroyed until he came up with a distributorproof film (3I) Sanjay leela bhansali is mocked for making stylized artistic films (Black was a bit much tho)…and now theyre going after santosh … It’s the mumbai antiintellectual streak.
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
August 21, 2012
Dil Chahta Hai was a bit quease-inducing back then for it was one of the first south-bombay, english speaking mainstream hindi movies. the ‘gloss’ factor was too self-conscious and overdone esp in the art direction/propping of the interiors of the homes.
(the farhan akhtar school of ad-film art direction preens unabashedly at us subsequently even in Rock On etc; so does some of the over-propped interiors in Balki’s films and the ‘masterpiece’-lighting in Bhansali’s Black etc., then, of course, this leaks on to the next gen movies like Wake Up Sid…).
choice of locations, propping, colour-schemes, costumes and sometimes even background score influences the ‘glossy’ness factor.
let’s not single out only the cinematographers like Ravi K in this regard.
LikeLike
Gradwolf
August 21, 2012
Glossy is probably the wrong word, I did mean that in a positive way actually. Yes, what they did with lighting was noteworthy. Especially the Saif-Sonali initial scenes I imagine.
Mumbai Anti-Intellectual streak is a good one. Something that has to be acknowledged I am sure.
But there is also a Mumbai snobbish intellectual streak that is in development. You’ll see this across Twitter whenever a film endorsed by Kashyap is around. The movie builds up great word of mouth by Kashyap and his tards, which is sometimes justified but can be irritating beyond a point. Mostly because this is text book definition of tard-ness as these guys are of the kind that aren’t willing to hear an alternate viewpoint. It happened with Shaitan. I was quite disappointed with the film but this gang made it look like it was a colossal achievement and as a film that was trying to change the face of Bollywood or something. Heck, Kashyap himself made Paanch long long ago. And then next to face the ire was Rockstar, Kashyap endorsed but the reception was polarizing to say the least. They are the ones to talk about lesser known films like Kshay, Supermen of Malegaon, Peddlers etc etc. Their intentions are noble alright, but I am always a little skeptical towards that gang.
LikeLike
vijay
August 21, 2012
“but even otherwise, I guess one of the things about being a “specialist” (quotes intentional) in something is that there’s a lot of related data stored in your head.”
BR, that’s there for a lot of people, those kind of associated memories you are talking about, but usually spanning a certain time period(say your formative years or the era you are most nostalgic about) or concerning certain artists. Not everybody from every era. I can recall junk shankar-ganesh songs from the early 80s easier than I could jot down Yuvan shankar raja’s hits from the early 2000s.
On Imaan, I think he turned the corner a bit with Mynaa. Havent checked out Kumki yet.
LikeLike
backgroundscore
August 21, 2012
Regd, Imman. Yes. He is in fine form. Listen to the song Sahayanae sung by Shreya Ghosal from yet to be released Saattai
LikeLike
rameshram
August 22, 2012
” there is also a Mumbai snobbish intellectual streak that is in development. ”
for this I blame mumbai ramki.
But more seriously? I think someone like kay kay would be the perfect representation of the ‘Mumbai snob” streak. Its a raja-sen-ish (slavish) devotion to the hollywood style industry theory, where your film’s value is measured like real estate (ie location location location) and very seldom by message craft or substance.
My view is that these are like film gossip mags(or film glossies) I may READ them with a lot of relish but I wouldn’t be caught dead being counted as the in crowd in one of them. I’m too Intellectually introspective to want to be anywhere near there.
LikeLike
brangan
August 22, 2012
Vasisht Das: These are insanely rich people and if you go to their homes you’ll find the interiors looking like that — with not a thing out of place. And, ulp, you’re saying Farhan Akhtar’s influence is seen in Bhansali? OMG 🙂
Gradwolf: See, that’s why you should just post your links on Twitter and get out, the way I do 🙂 It’s a really harmful platform in a lot of ways.
When I think “glossy,” I think about the way, for instance, Karan Johar shoots his songs, with all that lighting and stuff. With DCH, I thought it was a lighter kind of cinematography, which suited the characters perfectly.
vijay: Okay, I’m talking about a little more than just memories, about more specific things like remembering shots and acting moments and background bits and cuts…
backgroundscore: Thanks. Lovely song. Though it didn’t grab me instantly the way “ayyayyao aandandhame”. I rarely respond to songs the first time like this. In some ways, I feel Haricharan’s version is even better. What Imman is doing is nothing new — he’s just following the basic principles of song-making. A solid tune backed by good (if not great) orchestration. Nice to know it still works 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
August 22, 2012
imman: underwhelmed
Maragathamani (MMkreem) was the last great find of tamil cinema.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 22, 2012
“When I think “glossy,” I think about the way, for instance, Karan Johar shoots his songs, with all that lighting and stuff. With DCH, I thought it was a lighter kind of cinematography, which suited the characters perfectly.”
When I think glossy I think the first fifteen minutes of hunger games..which is a fashion photographer version of west virginia..
this..
LikeLike
R.Narendar
August 22, 2012
A pretty good article, but still does not give a reason y cinematography has changed. For the past 5 years we have seen very few movies on human drama and a lot of masala films with a very loose plot or story hence u need larger than life visuals for these kind of films. I dont blame the cinematographers but the directors cliché in visualization. A lot of Hollywood cinematographers dont want the audience to feel the presence of a great shot cause it takes the attention away from the story.
LikeLike
Rahul
August 22, 2012
Gradwolf , I picked up Supermen of Malegaon from your comment and really enjoyed it. So, can one stay in touch with Anurag’s recommendations without being on twitter?
LikeLike
Suganth
August 23, 2012
Pretty pictures, yes, but there is no way you can escape the poetry in these visuals… And, it is shot in 70 mm film! http://bit.ly/NZnctg
LikeLike
Gradwolf
August 23, 2012
You picked up?! Where?! They kept promising they’ll bring it to Madras but hasn’t shown up yet.
Well, I am not so sure. I am guessing you can but not sure how 🙂 Twitter just seems like a more accessible medium.
Also, to be clear, it’s not like everything mentioned in the comment is “Anurag endorsed”. I was talking about the mostly discerning cinema lovers who also sometimes tend to overemphasize these things. Just subsets. The small films you get to know about etc. is of course the good thing here.
LikeLike
rameshram
August 23, 2012
not as pretty as my pictures. shot in fullframe.
LikeLike
Rahul
August 23, 2012
@gradwolf
Here is the movie . I absolutely loved it.
LikeLike
Rameshram
August 27, 2012
Nice profile / memorium by Rajiv Menon in the Hindu, of Ashok Mehta,
LikeLike
Venkatesh
October 21, 2015
Ashok Mehta was indeed a brilliant cinematographer. In his obituary to Ashok Kumar (which I think was published in Hindu), Mahendran told when they both were among the panelists of NFA in 1995, AK refused to eat when he came to know that a cinematographer, whose film he had sought recognition for, was not given the honour at that year’s ceremony. I’m guessing it might be Ashok Mehta for Bandit Queen. With due respect to Santosh Sivan, he certainly deserved the recognition that year.
AK, on he other hand, was constantly overshadowed by Balu Mahendra during their hey days. Happened to watch a few clips of Bharathan’s Aravam for which AK did the cinematography. All I can say is, it was definitely different (should I say far more superior?) from the Tamil and Telugu films that came around the same time. I personally think, AK gelled well with Mahendran; Uthiripookkal, Nenjathai Killathey, and Poottadha Poottukkal (haven’t seen much of it though) are testimonies of their brilliance. Except for Mahendran nobody utilised his talents properly in Tamil. When he passed away last year (22 Oct), everybody was busy celebrating Diwali that it reached the mainstream audience only after a couple of days. It was really sad that even somebody like a Suhasini could never come up with an obituary.
LikeLike
Venkatesh
October 22, 2015
In his obituary to Ashok Kumar (which I think was published in Hindu), Mahendran recalled an instance when they both were among the panelists of the NFA, AK refused to eat when he came to know that a cinematographer, whose film he had sought the recognition for, was not given the award. I’m guessing it had to be Ashok Mehta (for Bandit Queen). With due respect to Santosh Sivan, AM deserved that year’s award!
Coming to AK, I think he was constantly overshadowed by Balu Mahendra during their heydays. Just to know about his earlier works in Malayalam, watched a few clips of Bharathan’s Aravam. All I can say is, the visuals were stunningly different from the films made in Tamil and Telugu back then. He is one of the few cinematographers who was able to capture the beauty of nature very well. I think he gelled very well with Mahendran. Uthiripookkal, Poottaadha Poottukkal, Johnny, and Nenjathai Killathe bear testimonies to their combined brilliance. I personally think he was more flexible than BM as he worked for a number of directors; think of the difference in frames used in Mundhanai Mudichu, Nadigan, Suriyan, and Jeans!
When he passed away last year (exactly a year ago!), everybody was busy celebrating Diwali that the news reached the mainstream audience only after a couple of days. It was very sad that even somebody like a Suhasini could never come up with an obituary for her mentor. Wish you write an article on him!
LikeLike