Let me state for the record that I love Shahrukh Khan. I know his acting skills support him only as far as he plays romantic roles, his attempts at variety are usually disastrous—the prime example of which is Duplicate—and that we are lucky he tries this on rare occasions. So I went to watch Om Shanti Om expecting a ridiculous plot (everyone said it was a remake of Karz), and bad acting — not only from Shahrukh, but this new model-turned actress, Deepika Padukone. I don't remember the last time I was so happy to be wrong. Om Shanti Om is easily one of the better films made in our film industry in a long long time. Farah Khan keeps the promise she made at the time of Main Hoon Na.
First of all, it is not a remake of Karz, unless Karz was a biting irony about itself and the entire film fraternity. Farah Khan picks up the element of rebirth and karma etc from Subhash Ghai's film, only to turn it on its head, not just for the sake of mockery, but to bring attention to the most important element of the relationship between the filmmakers (whether it is the director or the actor) and the audience — a relationship that very easily embeds itself in the willing suspension of disbelief. Farah Khan strategically inserts a dialogue in the film where, through Sandy, she defends what we call ridiculous plotlines and situations. The reality or plausibility of an action or a situation is not what is of the essence, it is whether the audience is engaged with the story. The space of the cinema hall then becomes a transient space that allows the audience to let go of the bounds of rationality that rule their daily lives. Why is it any different from fantasy that has held a proud place in the hallowed world of great literature? It is a way of dealing with reality, a means of escape, and in this case a way of looking inwards and laughing at oneself.
What is creditable about this film is that without the usual tricks of gaining access to the category of experimental cinema, it creates levels and deals with them with great ease, not letting the viewer complain of a single dull, trying-to-be-intellectual moment where the filmmaker along with some scholars revels in the greatness of a single shot while the general audience is left guessing what was so great about a great film. Calling the film within the film Om Shanti Om as well is not unusual and it works very well here, especially in the last song, where Shahrukh (the reincarnated Om, also called Om) retells the story of the first half of the film with clips recreating those scenes. If we pay attention to the lyrics of the song, its heightened self-consciousness at its melodramatic content is evident. Though it hardly matters to the audience, who for all their rationality, are enthralled by the suspense and melodrama of the moment, the film creates levels where the lyrics of the song are simultaneously referring to Om Shanti Om starring Om Kapoor and Om Shanti Om starring Shahrukh Khan. It's meta-fiction, people!!!
Irony directed at oneself is the greatest achievement of this film, and it was heart warming to see so many in industry come out and laugh at themselves. The award ceremony is one such scene where we see industry greats like Amitabh Bachchan, Shabana Azmi, Hrithik Roshan, Rani Mukherjee etc show the persona adopted by filmstars around the media. Shabana Azmi's jab on herself and the long line of leading ladies saying a variety of "We are just good friends" are highlights of this scene. 
There is also a pointed reference to remakes and plagiarism as the film very obviously lifts the climactic scene from Madhumati. The formulaic stories and appearances, the focus on NRI representation in Bollywood, and the annoyingly repetitive gestures between friends add to the mockery riot this film is.
There is also a pointed reference to remakes and plagiarism as the film very obviously lifts the climactic scene from Madhumati. The formulaic stories and appearances, the focus on NRI representation in Bollywood, and the annoyingly repetitive gestures between friends add to the mockery riot this film is.But jokes aside, Arjun Rampal's character isn't around as just the killer, it adds to the complicity of the film and its comment, he shows the side of the industry where relationships are determined by their monetary implications, with secret marriages that are never discussed to keep open the possibility for further relationships, where producers forge ways of draining the insurance company after 'failed' projects, and of course the variations of the casting couch.
In all, Om Shanti Om is a great coming together of intelligent film-making and total masala entertainment. And for those who aren't interested in the self-reflexivity, the irony and the layers, go watch a funny, melodramatic film that will keep you thoroughly entertained. Shahrukh can certainly be a better actor, and the film would be more convincing if he were, Deepika Padukone is a refreshing surprise and Kirron Kher is a delight. And of course, you can see 31 stars dancing!!
8 comments:
Indian cinema has been defined/articulated in many ways:
a) modernity: the non-yet cinema (due to its use of frontality, direct address, fragmented narrative, length). In this formulation, Indian cinema has to ultimately realise a global aesthetic centred around western style realism.
b) truism: cultural specificity (product of the Indian culture)
c) contaminated model: indian cinema is a bastard adaptation of Hollywood/western modes to Indian dramaturgical and other art traditions
d) developmental model: cinema ought to reflect the concerns of the masses (poverty, corruption etc), which it does not.
A new theoretical framework is emerging. It has turned all the theories on their head by arguing that Indian cinema has always followed a post-modern reflexivity, and we can see its heightening in the current cinema.
Except for the development model, others are merely descriptive theories. That is, they pick on a certain approach (sociological/political) and apply it to cinema to describe what they think the specificity of Indian cinema is rather than asking questions about what cinema is. This is of course a negation of grand theorisation, which is quite unfashionable these days. Thus, analysis of cinema is reduced to navel gazing, mapping of cinematic atlases -- what I see a crisis of our times.
Kuhu whilst I agree with your reading to an extent, I'm not totally convinced about it..the film might be ironic and self reflexive, but it reverts to conventional (age-old) parameters within the final schema..for e.g. the classic reincarnation drama being used to market the film, the presence of the linear narrative etc..according to me, Om Shanti Om is eventually a recuperative gesture, not an ironic one!
I agree with Savi, though my critique is that of post-modernity itself. In that sense, I may be unfashionable. But Savi is right because the symbolic order does not go away, i.e., post-modern playfulness reinscribes the pre-modern and modern symbolic order. While Farah Khan may claim playfulness, I don't think the audience views it in an ironical fashion. There lies a great possibility of an audience that gazes the old in a new inscription. Thus, it may actually be advanced conditions of modernity or perhaps mere modernity of the older film form.
I know that the film uses the reincarnation story to attract audiences, but i don't understand the problem with that, it is a commercial set-up not a philanthropic one. And yet, i don't think it takes away from the comment and reflective gaze of the film.
I am very much a part of the audience and I admit i was thoroughly entertained by the dramatic twist of the story. However, if i see it in the context of being an obvious lift of Madhumati, starring Dilip Kumar who isn't only alive, but was probably invited to the premier of the film, the shades become evident to me. I can claim comfortably that it can be ironic and entertaining in the very usual commercial sense at the same time primarily because the irony is directed at the 'commerciality'.
Again, I disagree. The entire critique (or valorisation) of the film rests on the simplistic argument that it is entertainment, commercial etc. Where may I ask is the reflexivity? It is an empty signifier? And this is not the first time films have been self-referential. Pyaasa, Guddi, RGV's films etc. I think RGV's camp reference to the film industry is perhaps Hindi cinema's finest moment of self-reflexivity.
How is it not self-reflexive? Take the award ceremony sequence, the 'nominations' with the names of films, the repetitive names of characters (all played by Shah Rukh Khan), the rivalries of actors, their biases for their sons/daughters etc...and like i said in the review, the acknowledgement of the willing suspension of disbelief in my opinion are self-reflexive. Like I said before, it is ALSO entertainment while being an intelligently made film that satirizes the tropes of the film industry, including it self in the gamut.
Also, I have a lot of respect for RGV, for some early films and for brining a new aesthetics and sensibility to the industry, but i hardly see the two groups as similar or even trying to be so.
Kuhu?!
What a wonderful way to discover you again. Really enjoyed your deconstruction of taare zameen Par, Pan's Labyrinth and Coetzee. Was thrilled to discover that this mystery blogger loved om shanti om as well, and lo and behold...i find that it's you!
This is Nishita from SPV.
Nice fill someone in on and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you for your information.
Post a Comment