Ship of Theseus

There are some movies that compel us to think, while there are others which makes us emotionally involved and attached. Ship of Theseus does both - in the most effortless and poignant manner possible. Anand Gandhi presents us with the most appealing blend of artistic cinematography, intelligent dialogues, captivating music and gripping stories. For me, watching the movie was an emotional as well as intellectual experience.

PC: Facebook

Having won international acclaim, the movie is a fine testament of intelligent Indian cinema. The most incredible aspect of the film is the sheer ease with which the characters are built and the stories told. Simple, direct and moving! The film’s title and theme draws its premise from the ancient Greek paradox that asks if every part of a ship is changed over time, whether the ship would remain the same? And if the replaced parts are used to make a new ship, will that be the original ship?

The movie talks of profound philosophies, of life and death, of ideologies and beliefs. But never does the movie try to preach or be sanctimonious. The film follows the lives of three very different people. As blind photographer, who struggles with her photography and art after gaining her eyesight back, Aida Elkashef is so convincing in her character that one can feel her restlessness. We feel for her, empathise with her but not once do we feel sorry  for her and that’s the victory of her character.

The second story revolves around a monk suffering from liver cirrhosis who is fighting for animal rights. Neeraj Kabi plays this role so deftly that he evokes thoughts and questions of morality in our minds while we watch him deny taking medication because of his ideologies and beliefs. His deteriorating condition doesn’t come in way of his will power and he stands by his convictions even when his ailing body is giving up. The thought provoking conversations with his young protégé are very entertaining and amusing. The simplicity of his ideas makes us wonder. The monk is assertive yet he never preaches his ideas. The sect he belongs to is a fictitious one (created for the film so as to avoid any kind of political or religious issues) and it is intrinsically designed to appeal to our reason than to sentiment.

The third story is of a money minded stockbroker who believes being motivated to earn money doesn’t make one a lesser mortal. All one needs in life is respect and a little compassion for people around. His unusual journey to a foreign land just to get justice for a fellow human being makes us discover a hero in the common man. He isn’t successful in his motives but he tries his best. That’s the whole point of a life, as his activist and driven grand mom tells him, “This is as good as it gets.” The stockbroker’s character is a complex in a very endearing way. His idea of living is simple and he has no high morals or a sense of duty towards society, unlike his grandmother. However, he does have the moral fabric of a compassionate human being which makes us bow down to him.

All these characters are so real that they seem surreal, filling us with a sense of respect and love for them. They are all cleverly united in the end, with a climax that we never see coming as we’re too engrossed in the narrative. But when we ponder, it was quite an obvious and perfect ending with all these three lives intertwined. Taking all of us along in a voyage, the director explores the ideas of identity, justice, morals, life and death. Ship of Theseus certainly strikes a chord in our heart with its beautiful imagery. A film that stirs the soul and incites us to reflect upon our lives. A film not to be missed!

Note: This review was first published in India Opines.
Link: http://indiaopines.com/ship-of-theseus-review/

Journey of Journalism: From The Killing Fields of Cambodia to Peepli Live

The Killing Fields and Peepli Live are a reflection of their times in terms of media principles and the ethics involved in it. The Killing Fields is set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War while Peepli Live is the manifestation of the Indian electronic media of today. There is a huge difference in the way media principles were treated during the 70’s as in The Killing Fields as compared to the present day scenario. The treatment also differs due to demographic reasons and the sensitivities of the people in a particular country and their preconceived notions for society at large. The media today is more ruthless and aggressive with regard to getting the story. On the contrary, The Killing Fields also tries to showcase the humane element in a journalist. In sharp contrast to this, the journalists of Peepli Live show no compassion for a person who has declared to commit suicide due to the atrocities of his life as a farmer. They are only concerned about getting ‘live coverage’ of such a sensational piece of news, even at the cost of compromising media ethics. Both Schanberg (journalist in The Killing Fields) and Nandita (journalist in Peepli Live) try desperate measures in terms of getting their stories but Schanberg is more ethical in his manner.

Dith Pran & Schanberg in The Killing Fields

The journalist's equation with its sources can be traced by analysing Schanberg and Nandita's dealing with their associates. Sydney Schanberg’s relationship with Dith Pran and Nandita’s relationship with Rakesh are similar in a way because both Dith Pran and Rakesh are locals of the place where these journalists had landed because of their stories. Dith Pran was all the more vital in Schanberg’s journalistic venture as he acted as a translator and guide for him in an alien country. Rakesh, for Nandita was the source of her Peepli story. Schanberg treated Pran with humility but also exploited him for his purpose to the extent that he was left back in Cambodia in a very disturbed state of affairs. Dith Pran had great reverence for Schanberg, just as Rakesh admired Nandita and aspired to become a journalist. Unlike Schanberg, who earnestly kept searching for Pran till he found him, Nandita left the village of Peepli after her story is over, without even realising that Rakesh is dead.

TV Journalist Nandita in Peepli Live

For Schanberg, Cambodia was the highlight of his existence, was peepli similarly important for Nandita? Errr...No!
Reporting from the killing fields of Cambodia was not just the job of Schanberg as a journalist, but also the very essence of his existence. His involvement in the social and political life of the country and his in depth understanding of the subject and plight of the people made him the voice of the country. His life revolved around the people of the country he inhabited during that period. He tried to do justice to his profession in his endeavor to bring out the blatant truth behind the bombings in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. But for Nandita, Peepli was just “another brick in the wall”. Nandita, as a journalist doesn’t connect with the people of Peepli nor does she show the empathy that is exhibited in Schanberg’s character.

The Killing Fields establishes media as a responsible organisation which takes into account the agony of people by investigating in situations where keeping a watch over authority is required. Schanberg, a journalist brings out the loopholes in the US war strategy which turned nightmarish for the people of Cambodia because of the mistaken bombings on the country. Schanberg, by addressing this issue through the power of Press sets an example for journalists and his quest is also rewarded in the end. On the other hand, the television journalists (in Peepli Live) who come to cover a farmer’s (Natha) suicide show no sense of compassion towards him. Natha is just a subject of their story and they reduce journalism to mere sensationalism. Also, Peepli Live emphasises the accepted norm that the print media serves as the source of news or lays down the premises of a story. As far as the perception of media is concerned, print is considered a more serious form of journalism than the popular television journalism which thrives on “Yellow Journalism”, as shown in Peepli Live. 

I think both the films are successful films about journalism and they give a fair idea of their times. The Killing Fields focuses more on the life of Schanberg as a journalist in the backdrop of the effect of the Vietnam War in Cambodia. While Peepli Live adequately presents the nuances of the world of television journalism in India today. Peepli Live comes alive in its portrayal of the real world of the media industry, especially television. The unending quest for ‘breaking news’ every other minute, the race for Television Rating Points (TRPs) among channels, the lack of empathy, unethical practices for getting a story, sensationalism in news, concocting of stories by journalists are some of the aspects of journalism brought out brilliantly in the course of the film. 

From the time of Schanberg (70’s) when we also had journalists who were very respected, to the present time when public perception of media seems to have reached an all time low, what went wrong? Journalism is considered to be a noble profession. When we talk about the time of Schanberg (70’s), journalists were respected because of the work they did and the general perception was that journalists are empathetic people who served as a link between the public and the authority. Journalists were like watchdogs of government and media was a platform for the redressal of people’s grievances. As time passed, journalism gained momentum more as a commercial venture and journalists turned into propagandists of government and administrative bodies. Thus, the respect once commanded by them is coming down. The practice of unethical means has resulted in the overall deterioration of the media community. But generalising on this basis is not right since journalists still play a pivotal role in any country.

Synthesis of Cinema and Literature

We have always heard people say things like "The book is better than the movie" or "The film didn't do justice to the novel." Many a times even I have put across such opinions. But I sometimes even wonder that books and films are two very different mediums and they convey the idea in totally different ways. So, why make such comparisons!

Cinema and literature are both creative texts and both require a thorough study for the understanding of the medium. Cinema, as commonly perceived is not only a form of entertainment, but also an art form which transcends to evoke a range of emotions in its viewers. Unlike literature, films are considered less serious art form. But with the magnitude of the growth in the industry and its reach, films have widened their horizon not only as an entertainment medium but also as arts of expression.

Literature and cinema differ in their style of storytelling. With a rich literary heritage at our disposal, film makers have always been fascinated and inspired to give expression to their understanding of the literary texts. Film adaptations of literary work are not a new phenomenon. Films adaptations of Jane Austen and Shakespeare’s works are testimony to such a trend. Now we have before us a plethora of options for films – from classic works of literature to modern novels written by young writers.

Films are an expression of the literary work by the director. It is his/her way of interpreting the written text. Roman Polanski’s Macbeth and Vishal Bhardwaj’s Maqbool derive their story from Shakespeare’s play Macbeth. Both films are adapted from the same literary text but still the films are completely different in terms of the backdrop in which they are set. A director takes cinematic liberty in order to devise a distinct narrative strategy. Such creative (cinematic) liberty may at times, enrich the essence of the original work by adding new layers of meaning to the writer’s vision. At other times, it may dilute the effect as well. 

Nevertheless, film adaptations serve a great purpose when it comes to understanding of literature. They not only interpret literature through a new medium but in some cases, also encourage people to read the original text.