"If I had a message to convey, why would I make a movie? I would have gone to post-office."
- Naseeruddin Shah to a journalist who asked what message he was trying to send in his new film Yun Hota To Kya Hota.
This, I think, was a very suitable reply to such a stupid question. I wonder how can a journalist dare to face an actor like Naseer with such a glaringly pathetic (mis)understanding of movies and art! And I pity people like Naseer who have to put up with such jackasses.
People with towering IQs are likely to conclude, logically and naively, that movies don't carry any messages. Isn't what Naseer is saying?
No. I believe Naseer is not saying that. What he precisely wants to say is that if he had any message to say in words, he would have said that in words. He would have written it and published it somewhere. He would not have done anything else in that case.
But he chose to make a movie because the matter he wanted to send across could be achieved in the best possible manner by the medium of cinema only. He wanted to give a cinematic experience to people and that can be accomplished by no other means but movies.
Artists know the fundamental fact that there must be a consistency between the content and the form in a work of art. Also, it is the content(what is to be said) that chooses the form(how it is said) for its best representation and not the other way round. (courtesy Akshaya)
They master a form or two of their preference but they don't have confusion about its inherent limitations. Ustad Bismillah Khan, being a maestro, must have been aware that there are moods that can not be created by the use of Shehnai.
They don't play the nonsense and snobbish 'let's write a Haiku' games. And if they do, they don't take themselves very seriously.
I think they know very well what to write in prose and what in poetry, when to make a play and when a movie. Of course there are people in world who say 'let's make a movie' and make it. But we are talking about artists here and not businessmen. And I also admit, though not unreservedly, that an artist can have a business perspective too. But that becomes another case.
Let's come back to the question. On what basis do you think Tagore decided whether he should write a novel or a poem, or he should make a painting, or he should compose a piece of music to give expression to his feelings and thoughts? Did he decide that arbitrarily? Quite unlikely a case as per my understanding. It would be like deciding a name for the kid before his/her gender is known. Tagore wrote Geetanjali to express a thought that was essentially poetic in nature. He couldn't choose any other form because only poetry can carry the beauty, with all its subtlety and fragility, without staining it, without robbing of its dignity. He didn't write Gora, for example, in verse. Similarly, Kant couldn't write Critique for Pure Reason in verse and Descartes couldn't expound his Cartesian Coordinate System through the ethereal media of poetry. Art doesn't tolerate reason. It's hands are too feathery to lift the weight of heavy thoughts. A treatise of philosophy can only be written in a well-structured prose. To make sense, the manner must mind the matter. You can't do anything in any way you fancy without being frivolous about it. And this goes even beyond the realm of art. Can you swear someone musically without looking ridiculous?
There might be some areas of intersection between forms and contents. I don't deny that. It does happen that sometimes listening to music endenders an array of pictures in our mind. And sometimes a painting seems to contain a story in it. Arguably, there exists a hierarchy of forms as well. But I don't intend to go into the technicalities here. Nor I want to feel pedantic or puritanical. I am not feeling stimulated enough to commit glaring claims without even having a conviction in them. But the fundamental remains the same.
Those who understood what I said above would surely understand this - If I like Lata Mangeshkar and feel that she is the best, and if someone challenges my opinion or taste, then I would never argue a single word in order to prove that she is the best . I will just keep on listening to her.
Also, I refuse to accept that somebody was a great musician because his music was so powerful that it mobilized the masses against war and consequently, at the face of such massive a protest, the government of USA had to withdraw its troops from Vietnam.
- Naseeruddin Shah to a journalist who asked what message he was trying to send in his new film Yun Hota To Kya Hota.
This, I think, was a very suitable reply to such a stupid question. I wonder how can a journalist dare to face an actor like Naseer with such a glaringly pathetic (mis)understanding of movies and art! And I pity people like Naseer who have to put up with such jackasses.
People with towering IQs are likely to conclude, logically and naively, that movies don't carry any messages. Isn't what Naseer is saying?
No. I believe Naseer is not saying that. What he precisely wants to say is that if he had any message to say in words, he would have said that in words. He would have written it and published it somewhere. He would not have done anything else in that case.
But he chose to make a movie because the matter he wanted to send across could be achieved in the best possible manner by the medium of cinema only. He wanted to give a cinematic experience to people and that can be accomplished by no other means but movies.
Artists know the fundamental fact that there must be a consistency between the content and the form in a work of art. Also, it is the content(what is to be said) that chooses the form(how it is said) for its best representation and not the other way round. (courtesy Akshaya)
They master a form or two of their preference but they don't have confusion about its inherent limitations. Ustad Bismillah Khan, being a maestro, must have been aware that there are moods that can not be created by the use of Shehnai.
They don't play the nonsense and snobbish 'let's write a Haiku' games. And if they do, they don't take themselves very seriously.
I think they know very well what to write in prose and what in poetry, when to make a play and when a movie. Of course there are people in world who say 'let's make a movie' and make it. But we are talking about artists here and not businessmen. And I also admit, though not unreservedly, that an artist can have a business perspective too. But that becomes another case.
Let's come back to the question. On what basis do you think Tagore decided whether he should write a novel or a poem, or he should make a painting, or he should compose a piece of music to give expression to his feelings and thoughts? Did he decide that arbitrarily? Quite unlikely a case as per my understanding. It would be like deciding a name for the kid before his/her gender is known. Tagore wrote Geetanjali to express a thought that was essentially poetic in nature. He couldn't choose any other form because only poetry can carry the beauty, with all its subtlety and fragility, without staining it, without robbing of its dignity. He didn't write Gora, for example, in verse. Similarly, Kant couldn't write Critique for Pure Reason in verse and Descartes couldn't expound his Cartesian Coordinate System through the ethereal media of poetry. Art doesn't tolerate reason. It's hands are too feathery to lift the weight of heavy thoughts. A treatise of philosophy can only be written in a well-structured prose. To make sense, the manner must mind the matter. You can't do anything in any way you fancy without being frivolous about it. And this goes even beyond the realm of art. Can you swear someone musically without looking ridiculous?
There might be some areas of intersection between forms and contents. I don't deny that. It does happen that sometimes listening to music endenders an array of pictures in our mind. And sometimes a painting seems to contain a story in it. Arguably, there exists a hierarchy of forms as well. But I don't intend to go into the technicalities here. Nor I want to feel pedantic or puritanical. I am not feeling stimulated enough to commit glaring claims without even having a conviction in them. But the fundamental remains the same.
Those who understood what I said above would surely understand this - If I like Lata Mangeshkar and feel that she is the best, and if someone challenges my opinion or taste, then I would never argue a single word in order to prove that she is the best . I will just keep on listening to her.
Also, I refuse to accept that somebody was a great musician because his music was so powerful that it mobilized the masses against war and consequently, at the face of such massive a protest, the government of USA had to withdraw its troops from Vietnam.
No comments:
Post a Comment