in a year is because there are only that many famous faces to
green-light such projects. The big money and phony (or fairly decent)
screenplays floating about only need to be seen to be sat and counted.
Movie-stars are the medium to deliver mainstream films. A dozen of
them can spin around only that many sets at a given time. They don't
simultaneously sign up too movies, and reject several potentially good
ones out of pure fickleness or commercial fears. There are many they
could have still considered but for "date problems".
Imagine if the audiences had entirely warmed up to animation films
as their staple genre. You could do away entirely with starry whims.
Directors would have greater control over their stories and could even
correct mistakes while their movies were being made (you needn't
rebuild sets or call the actors back in). You need only work up
machines and dish out films after films. It'd be so much easier to
expand choices of movie entertainment.
Unfortunately, this city has largely perceived animation as a
filmgenre for mythology, which is still fair-play. They're still
looking at children to warm up seats. Fantasy in India has largely
been a domain of religion; there are hardly any significant works from
more modern fable writers. Likewise, we've seen a couple of animation
versions of Hanuman, a Ganesh or two (and more such). This one is
called Ghatotkatch, named after the gigantic protagonist, the son of
the 'Pandav' Bheem and his unlikely wife, a demon or 'rakshasi'
Hidimba. The source is clearly Ved Vyasa's Mahabharat, which has many
versions, including Amar Chitra Katha's. This is one of them, we're
told.
A bit of the research, you can see, also comes from BR Chopra's
Mahabharat as the wily Shakuni goes "Bhanje bhanje" to Duryodhan's
stern and husky response, "Nahin, mamajee". Little Ghatotkatch is
supposed to be Duryodhan's nemesis. The Kaurav king tries to have the
infant killed right after birth. The baby, half-man, half-demon, a
super-hero already, survives. Little Ghatotkatch is a master magician,
who plays around with baby elephants. He grows up to look a taller
Obelix from the Asterix series. You would think this is a story of his
valour. It isn't.
Ghattu rescues instead his cousin Abhimanyu. The son of Arjun and
Subhadra is engaged to his childhood sweetheart whose parents decide
against the wedding, since the famous Pandav family is in exile now,
and no longer the heirs to Hastinapur. Ghattu gets into action with
his disguises and magic potions and settles this minor matter of
matrimony. The screen abruptly fades to roll out the closing credits.
That's it. Really? Really.
You can sense at once the entire film was in fact a set-up for a
sequel. If only the makers weren't so interested in a franchise
already. That comes so much later.
Mythology as a genre in any case perhaps limits the
contemporariness of a film. Over that, animation in general has
progressed to levels where a new kind of stylised realism even in a
Playstation game can shockingly convince you, without taking away the
wonderful element of fantasy.
I'm not sure if this sort of lowscale, low-grade work, both on
animation and screenplay, can fire up a child's imagination to look
for more. It certainly doesn't mine.
Rao, the filmmaker in his late 70s now, has directed over 40 films
down South. I'm unfamiliar with his work. His last, Mumbai Express
(2005) is hardly much to go by. But if you recall Pushpak, that
incredibly sweet, soundless, rom-com back in the '80s, you'd treat
Rao's talents with respect. This review may well be a subtle excuse to
recommend that chintzy classic, which makes it to several moviebuffs'
list of top-ten films. That silent comedy would have done even Chaplin
proud. Evidently Rao isn't as much a Disney fan.
Source...
0 comments:
Post a Comment