we use words to create a reality of our own

films are truth 24 frames per second- Jon Luc Godard

Rashomon: Akira Kurosawa, 1950

“I do not care if it’s a lie, as long as it’s entertaining”: Commoner in the film

The film deals with the questions related to truth, reality
and selfishness. 
Subtext to the film is the fact that we see the world the way we are and not the way it is.

The killing and a rape which takes place in the film are narrated by four people. 
The fact that the killing took place has been retold in form of different stories by people.
 It is set in layers as people talk about a ‘flashback’ in the flashback of the film.

The woman’s truth is that the husband killed himself after going through the trauma of seeing her being raped.

Her husband’s ghost adds to her story by saying that he killed himself after she told Tojamoru that he must kill her husband or lose his life that she will go with the winner.

Tojamoru’s truth is different; he says he killed the man only after she begged that she will go with the winner. He killed her husband with honor but never tied him with the intention of killing him.

It was only after the woman suggested the same; he ended up killing the man. The woman runs away afterwards.


The woodcutter reveals in the end that he had seen the whole happening and the husband had refused to take the ownership of the wife after she was raped. 

The woman then instigates both of them into the fight. 
Her husband is killed in the fight, and she runs away.

In the woman and her husband’s story the death of the husband is a suicide, inspite of the fact that their representations have distinct details.

Whereas, the death of the husband, is a murder committed by Tojamoru in the stories told by the bandit himself and the woodcutter.

The viewer tends to wonder how exactly the death took place and whom should one believe or should one believe in any story at all, because beneath the stories rests a selfish motive.

 One then asks a larger question, whether being selfish under given circumstances is justified for one whereas, not so much in the right stance in another situation. 
For example, when the woodcutter says that he lied in the court because he did not want to get involved, in the end it is revealed that he has 6 children to feed. 
Hence, his hiding the sword or selling it is seen in a given context and one tends to accept it as a reason enough to be selfish and thus think about one’s own good?


 A counter argument has been given by the commoner who says “If you are not selfish, you cannot survive”. The commoner too is selfish, but he does not share the same context like the woodcutter’s. Is anyone here right or wrong?

Why would the wife and the husband’s story speak of a suicide and that of Tojamoru and the woodcutter that of a murder by the bandit?

I found it easier to believe in Tojamoru and the woodcutter’s story because the woodcutter was not a part of the crime and hence would not lie by the fear of the outcome outside the court, before the commoner and the priest. Tojamoru’s story reveals his selfishness because he does not mention that he begged the woman to marry him, and instead also says that he himself set the husband free, perhaps to suit his own ego and image. Contradictory to this, the woodcutter says that the wife had freed her husband to seek respite and that Tojamoru had begged that she would marry him. Either of them could be right or wrong or both right and both wrong!

William Shakespeare had said that nothing is right or wrong, it’s the thinking which makes it so.

Did the wife lie in saying that the husband committed the suicide in order to save herself from the blame of instigating two men into the fight, leading to the murder?

Did the ghost of the husband really talk through the medium or was it the wife, who added a few details to morph the truth a little bit and yet keep some of it the same to suit herself?
Re-viewing the film, it made me think that the stories are not all that open-ended because the commoner gives away a lot of answers indirectly to the audience.

In a way he does speak critically of the situation because he is an outsider completely and hence can look at it from a detached point of view, but the way he poses these questions sounded as if he was trying to justify the open-endedness of the stories and thus give away a lot of answers instead of making the viewer wonder.

Would the commoner respond in the same way had he been a part of the court sequence or the crime itself?

He says:

“But is there anyone who is really good? Maybe goodness is just a make-believe. Man just wants to believe in the bad stuff and believe in the mad up stuff. It’s easier that way.”

“No one lies after he says he is going to do so”.

 When the priest says that he would believe the dead man’s story because the dead men don’t lie,
 commoner says “suit yourself”, implying that we make our minds up based on what we believe.

Other lines in the film almost justify and define lying as a human tendency. 
They say, “It’s human to lie, most of the times we cannot even be honest with ourselves. 
But it’s because men are weak that they lie, even to themselves”.

The resolution connotes hope as the child is accepted by the woodcutter.

He warns about the woman’s story clearly saying that, “women use their tears to fool everyone, even themselves”.

So what is reality? The film questions the same and in a way projects one interpretation in itself.

In my opinion giving away a wee bit of the answer like the above mentioned lines would itself create a reality of a different kind in the audiences mind, and is being controlled more or less by the story-teller. I therefore interestingly realized and conclude that the film, in a very curious way is an anti-thesis to itself.

 “in the end you cannot understand the things men do”-Rashomon.

 Rashomon's crew lived together for the time period the film was shot.

The Graduate-A film by Mike Nicholas

Mrs. Robinson, I think you are trying to seduce me.” –Benjamin

The film is about the search for meaning about what a 21 year old Benjamin wants out of his life.

Much unlike his parents, Benjamin does not want to follow the usually trodden path of joining the family business. In the beginning of the film Benjamin, the protagonist's luggage is shown passing by the airport aile followed by a shot of Benjamin move from right to left in the screen like the luggage itself.

Amidst his anxiety he is carried away by the lust of his father’s partners’ spouse, Mrs.Robinson and he loses direction of his life completely. While Benjamin becomes nothing but a residual of his affair with Mrs.Robinson and with no idea of what he wants to do, he runs into Elaine.Anne Bancroft and Dustin Hoffman who played,

Mrs.Robinson and Ben respectively have executed  their characters with such in depth understanding that one connects to young Benjamin and his troubles immediately.

Benjamin’s first kiss to Mrs.Robinson as she puffed the cigarette and her cold response shows how indifferent she was.

His nervousness is shown the moment he checks into the hotel room and brushes his teeth

Elaine is Robinsons only child and Mrs. Robinson has warned Benjamin to stay away from his daughter. On one of his dates with Elaine, Benjamin discovers that he has not been as happy as he has been with Elaine in a short time spent with her.

Benjamin finds that Elaine is able to connect to his inner conflict, because he almost resolves his problem when he says that for no reason at all he found that he felt like he should be rude with others. The most prominent reason being people older to him just wanted him to do things their way.

When he continues to see Elaine, notwithstanding Mrs. Robinson’s warning, he finds himself confessing the truth before Elaine.An immediate distance between Benjamin and Mrs.Robinson has been shown through a tele lens shot as soon as he confesses before Elaine, of his affair with her mother.

Elaine leaves the place shortly after being heartbroken. Benjamin finds that he has his answers for first time since he has been out of Graduate school and realizes that he must do everything in his power to get back with Elaine.

Inspite of a lot of trouble on Benjamin’s part he proposes Elaine in Berkeley, where she studied.

When Elaine’s family forces her into a marriage with another groom, Benjamin breaks into the marriage and steals the bride.The cross which has been used at the end of the film to stop the crowd from coming in Benjamin’s elucidates their resistance against conformist ideas and concepts.

An expression of ease and a sense of calmness are depicted as they catch a bus.

Water has been used as a powerful metaphor to show the inner dilemma and search.He is forced into a diving suit by his parents on his birthday, after which he seeks reprise by wanting to spend time with Mrs.Robinson.

Almost an anti thesis in the films context, Benjamin when confronts an immense emotional or mental ordeal, swims into the pool. 

During his affair with her, he is unable to experience healthy conversations like talking about simple experiences.

After meeting Elaine, Benjamin is shown at a distance from the swimming pool, outside it, from a distance.

Benjamin has been shot with a lot of close-ups such that his dilemma is depicted.

The age difference between both of them has been depicted with such precision that it is evident of how their meeting each other only has a physical association. When Benjamin tries to talk, the idea is brushed off by Mrs.Robinson.


 The songs have been sung by Paul Simon.
 Mrs.Robinson challenges him saying its a little too late for him to catch up Elaine, Benjamin proves to be indefatigable in his attempts.These lines are added when Benjamine decides that he will marry Elaine and leave his past behind.

        And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson 

        Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo 

        Stand up tall, Mrs. Robinson 

        God in Heaven smiles on those who pray, hey hey hey 

        hey hey

In the film Benjamin repeats several times that he is worried about his future, but nobody pays attention to his being truthful about his feelings.

          and in the naked light I saw 

        ten thousand people maybe more
        people talking without speaking
        people hearing without listening
        people writing songs that voices never shared
        no one dared
        disturb the sound of silence- sound of silence

United States went through a Hippy socio-cultural movement when young people retaliated against the conformist rules laid by the society by wearing long hair(both genders), listening to rock music and having relationships outside the marriage structure.Through their appearance, hippies declared their willingness to question the set rules. Benjamin, inspite of being a genuine person is looked at by his landlord in Berkeley as well as by Elaine’s father as a ‘scum’ as they call him.

The film was made by Mike Nicholas in the year 1967, when the movement had reached its height.

Throughout  the film the feelings of a 21 year old and how the life unfolds during the change which takes place as one graduates from school has been dealt with such understanding that almost everyone who went through the similar questions, feelings, associations and dilemmas of sorts will be able to connect with film.

script reading

Charandas today's script reading:
The script is bilingual in nature. Apart from experimenting with more than one language, I want it sound like our college conversations, which are multilingual in nature.
the team of collaborators were asked to provide their views and feedback on the script.
we pasted short clips of improvised hindi and it was some synergy!

about charandas today

an image which reveals

my theatre production's

nature.

Charandas today is a conflict

resolution text written by me adapted

from Veteran theatre director

Habeeb Tanveer's production,

Charandas Chor.

The play is an adaptation of Charandas Chor written and directed by Late Shree Habib Tanveer.
A conflict resolution text based on the theme of voice, questions why altering points of view are resisted in form of bans, which are led on several films, books and plays.

Charandas Chor was banned on 8^th July 2009, led by the Chhattisgarh state government, on the grounds that the word Ghasidas used for the Guru, was considered offensive by the current Satnami community.

The ban is used as a starting point to seek an answer to the larger question: why are voices suppressed? Is there any way in which they can be expressed and listened to? Is their space for such voices?

In Charandas Chor, Charandas meets death as he fulfills vows he had given to Guruji. He has promised that he would never lie, and the virtue itself becomes a reason for his death.

Charandas comes back today and meets the people he had lived with. The woman he had tried to rob off her jewellery has been harassed by a group of men who try to molest her. She is in a dilemma of her own sorts, whether she should make noise, rooted in past experiences of her own and those of other people, thus fearing the consequences.

She runs into Charandas and shares her fears.

What would Guruji’s conflict be like when he meets Charandas again? After Charandas’ death
would he wish that had he not given Charandas vows of not marrying the queen, of not eating from the golden plate, of not attending the royal procession, Charandas would have led a better life?

Havaldar has come around too and he has remained the same unlike Guruji, who has changed and become a residual of questions he has asked himself, after listening of Charandas’ death.

The work further explores whether while change is constant, does what matter the most ever change?

Charandas was killed in Habib Tanvir’s play and today, he fades in a more subtle way, through the ban.
What if there is no answer?