Will we ever be able to see Deepa Mehta’s new film in our theatres? Never mind. We can still talk about it – or, more relevantly, around it.
So Midnight’s Children may not visit us after all. I must say I’m a little disappointed, despite not being the world’s biggest fan of Deepa Mehta. Her most well-known works haven’t always reconciled their ambitions with their achievements, and they have always seemed constructed to elicit much sympathetic clucking from a bleeding-heart, Western audience. Watching Fire, they could clap their hands on their cheeks and exclaim: “Oh, look at those poor housewives, nudged into Sapphic sisterhood by distant husbands.” With Water, they could say, “Oh, look at those widows, sentenced to a life of abstinence for no fault of their own.” Fire at least had a capable cast, led by Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das. Water, on the other hand, submerged us in a parallel universe where the redemption of a ridiculously beautiful Lisa Ray lay in the hands of John Abraham, who wrapped himself in a dhoti and prattled on about kadamba flowers. How could you not laugh?
But the foreign press looked at these films differently. No less a personage than Andrew Sarris – the recently deceased critic who championed the cult of the auteur in America – placed Water third in his list of the top ten foreign films of 2006, below Pedro Almodóvar’s Volver and above the Dardenne brothers’ L’Enfant. In a review for the New York Observer, Sarris wrote that “the institutional horror and spiritual grandeur of the film creep up on you slowly, like the inexorable currents of the Ganges,” and that the film was “quite possibly the best picture of the year thus far, with no fewer than three of the most luminous female performances I have ever seen onscreen.” Well, to each his own. The exception in Mehta’s “elements trilogy” is 1947: Earth, which, like Fire and Water, was thematically ambitious, but it also managed to be dramatically satisfying – and this makes us wonder, idly, if Mehta may have been playing to her strengths when her sights landed on Midnight’s Children, whose snot-nosed protagonist, of course, was born the same year that the earlier film advertised in its title.
The attraction of Midnight’s Children, to me, is threefold. Firstly, its screenplay is by the author Salman Rushdie, which will give us an opportunity to find out if his psychedelic artistry in a medium that values words will extend to one that values images. Secondly, as is the case with any book that we’ve read and formed pictures of inside our heads, there’s the element of surprise: which parts will they keep, and which ones will they throw out? But most importantly, there’s the question of how this novel will find its footing on screen. The power of Midnight’s Children lies not so much in what’s being narrated as how. It’s the kind of book where one chapter ends with the lines: “On the same day, Earl Mountbatten of Burma held a press conference at which he announced the Partition of India, and hung his countdown calendar on the wall: seventy days to go to the transfer of power… sixty-nine… sixty-eight… tick, tock.” And the next chapter features an Englishman who pronounces, “Sabkuch ticktock hai.”
We smile, while reading, because of the cleverness of the writer’s imagination that has fused the sounds of a clock with pidgin Hindi. This is the sort of thing that cannot be shown on screen. Even if a voiceover read out those lines about Mountbatten, we would not connect them with the Englishman’s pronouncement. He would sound just like any other foreigner attempting to say “theek-thaak” – there would be no flashback to the tick-tock of Mountbatten’s countdown. And this is not an isolated instance. The novel is filled with wordplay and wit, and surreal imagery that’s best experienced as vaguely formed approximations in our minds. (When the protagonist discovers that he can read the thoughts of others, he says, “I leaped into the heads of film stars and cricketers – I learned the truth behind the Filmfare gossip about the dancer Vyjayantimala, and I was at the crease with Polly Umrigar at the Brabourne Stadium.”) When literalised through specific and detailed special effects, these leaps of imagination could be ground into kitsch.
And yet, we wait in hope because many so-called “unfilmable” novels have found their way to screen with great success. Michael Ondaatje’s sprawling, non-linear narrative in The English Patient was transformed into an Oscar-feted film that found favour with critics as well as audiences. And more recently, Ian McEwan’s Atonement – with its central conceit of a tale being told not by the author but by his creation, and with its meta questions about the very nature of writing – was made into an impressive movie. But these books are based on a handful of characters, whereas Midnight’s Children, like India, is crammed with individuals and incidents. It’s not surprising that the film’s Toronto premiere has resulted in less-than-ecstatic reviews. Tim Robey, the critic for The Telegraph, called it an “earnest slog of a movie, biting off the book’s whole span over an inevitably episodic two and a half hours, [and] feels like sumptuously illustrated Cliffs Notes rather than fluid cinema” Where’s Andrew Sarris when you need him?
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.
venkatesh
September 21, 2012
“The English Patient was transformed into an Oscar-feted film that found favour with critics as well as audiences.” – Oh god , favour with audiences !!!. Just die already was my reaction to the movie.
As Elaine so memorably said :
LikeLike
brangan
September 21, 2012
venkatesh: haha – I love that film!
LikeLike
vijay
September 21, 2012
“But the foreign press looked at these films differently. No less a personage than Andrew Sarris – the recently deceased critic who championed the cult of the auteur in America – placed Water third in his list of the top ten foreign films of 2006, below Pedro Almodóvar’s Volver and above the Dardenne brothers’ L’Enfant. ”
which is why reviewing movies of a culture/language you don’t belong to can get tricky sometimes,going back to one of my earlier comments. Slumdog Millionaire music’kku Oscar kudutha kadha dhaan. Whereas we here would have given a couple of national awards just for 2-3 songs in Delhi-6 instead. Of course opinions differ and all that, but still the calibration curves are a little too far apart sometimes, when such a cultural gap exists.
LikeLike
aneek
September 22, 2012
@BR one movie that dissapointed me was “love in the time of cholera”.such talent at disposal?with mike newell at the helm and javier bardem ,i thought the movie could be a classic.what a waste!
LikeLike
venkatesh
September 22, 2012
BR: I bet it was an event film for you and you went in multiple times loaded with handy tear-wipe tissues :-).
LikeLike
Rahul
September 22, 2012
Deepa Mehta has always been refreshingly mediocre.
LikeLike
brangan
September 22, 2012
aneek: I never saw that film. And someone Mike Newell didn’t seem like the kind of guy to make “Cholera” — and I say this as a fan of “Donnie Brasco.”
venkatesh: You make it sound like a soapy chick flick. It has those elements, yes, but treatment is everything, and this is just one of the most ravishing films I’ve seen. It’s not just the photography, but the intensity of filmmaking, right from the calligraphic images in flickering light at the beginning. You rarely see a mature-yet-kidding-themselves pair of lovers like Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott-Thomas on screen. And the way their doomed romance was back-and-forthed with the no-nonsense Williem Dafoe/Juliette Binoche parts was just masterful. They caught not just the themes/story in the book, but also its cadences and resonances. Maybe I should just write a column about this film 🙂
LikeLike
venkatesh
September 22, 2012
BR : That comment did not convince me – get ze column out and there is a slim chance that may be i will change my mind 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
September 22, 2012
venkatesh: Er, I wasn’t trying to convince you. Please feel free to hate it all you want. I’m not in the business of changing people’s minds about movies (or even recommending them for that matter) 🙂
LikeLike
Shaneem Mohammed (@Shaneem)
September 23, 2012
Another award-winning novel is adapted to film here.Life of Pi trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o6BXfBgWLU This novel is very much film-able I’d say.And the movie seems to keep the promise.What do you think?
LikeLike
venkatesh
September 23, 2012
BR : Come on’ lets fight. You bring the column – i will troll like ze old Professor . On a serious note , it would be interesting to read a column on The English Patient and why you think its not a “soapy chick flick”
LikeLike
brangan
September 24, 2012
Shaneem Mohammed: Unfortunately, haven’t read “Life of Pi.” I think I exceeded my quota of literary fiction that year and settled for some good, old-fashioned genre fiction. I’m a bit of a heathen that way 🙂
LikeLike
Vikram
September 27, 2012
BR, considering who’s directing this one, I would rather re-read the book than risk a trip to the movie hall…and to think that once upon a time, Terry Gilliam was associated with an attempt at adapting ‘Haroun and sea of stories’….besides, there is the new book of memoirs ‘Joseph Anton’ that one can get a Rushdie fix from…
LikeLike
UPN EarnesTaster
September 27, 2012
It does not matter that much ,what Andrew Sarris thinks about a film’s content ,and for that matter this comment applies to all critics. What is important is their style and technique of dissection. Thats why I wouldn’t care what the early brigade thinks about Deepa Mehta’s wildly ambitious bid to craft an outstanding film out of Midnight’s Children, I’ll watch the movie anyway. Who knows, Mehta might have hiding in her, a cheeky but oblique French-style director with a taste for fashioning flabbergasting epics.’Atonement’ and ‘English Patient’ were no doubt rendered with exquisite visual canvas and sensibility,but they do not have (nor do they urgently need) the dazzling abstraction that Rushdie’s MC (!) cries out for,which is why I wouldn’t include the former films in a discussion about the latter. But I will indulge in the liberty of coasting off on a partially unrelated note to say that if the great Ang Lee realizes the vastly difficult challenge later this year, of transferring on-screen Life of Pi, with high-fidelity, it will be a feat equal to what Mehta hoped to accomplish.
LikeLike