Originally published on Passionforcinema.com: The Virgin Marys of Cinema
My immediate reaction to “The Hurt Locker” was confined to a mere 140 characters. It was not because I was too overwhelmed and was at a loss for words, nor because the film didn’t deserve any lengthier mention. Swept over I was, totally. But what prevented me from writing about it then was that someone had already done it with so much elegance. The revered old boy didn’t even stop there, but carried on his effusive praises in a blog entry too. Now, what more can one say than that! But, hey! I did do something- recommended the movie to lot of people, +1-d whenever someone praised it on Twitter, prayed for it to sweep the Oscars…
And on this Women’s day, Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman director to hold the golden statuette. Coincidentally, it was exactly an year ago, I came across a brilliant creation of another wonderful woman- “Sita Sings the Blues” by cartoonist Nina Paley. In my rather short blog entry on that day, I had expressed my awe for the film – not only for its art, but for the impact it could make on the economic equations of film making. Thus for me, both of these amazing women lighted up the day named after them, a year apart. Moreover, the similarities between personal and creative courses of Kathryn and Nina seem really uncanny. Both were already established artists when their husbands left them. Both preferred to remain unmarried, caressing their pets and their creativity. In art, both took up topics which were very unlikely for them- be it the Explosive Ordnance Disposal team in Iraq or the Indian epic, Ramayana. But most remarkably, both were able to finish their works with minimum interference on their creativity.
Leaving aside the above trivia, both films are unique and original works that are poles apart in every aspect. The soul of Hurt Locker is Mark Boal’s Academy award-winning screenplay, which is largely based on his first hand experience as a journalist in Iraq. Bigelow’s versatility was in imbibing Boal’s script and adapting it to screen in a way no one else could have done. I won’t qualify as a big fan of the war movie genre. Nor have I seen many films of that kind. For me, “The Hurt Locker” is far more than a war film. It’s a very personal film, about how one man goes about with his profession. It lacks the political statements, jingoism and heroism that characterizes a war movie. The film just observes some typical personalities at every work place- some for whom it’s just a means of living, some for whom it’s a dangerous chore they want to avoid and for a scarce few, a true passion.
For Hurt Locker’s hero, every day at work is a new challenge- to his intelligence, experience, speed and courage. It’s a game which has only two outcomes. And if you look closely, James is also aware of the fact that this job is the sole thing that he is good at. He is a disaster at anything remotely civilian he tries his hands on- be it finding a street boy’s whereabouts or picking out a cereal pack from the supermarket rack- however earnestly he wants to help. It’s the richness of realism in each frame that makes each moment in the movie grippingly tense (When was the last time that we prayed with such baited breath for bombs to not go off?). I’m not talking about factual correctness, but artistic realism. It’s not difficult to find where that came from. As film’s editor Bob Murawski mentioned in his acceptance speech, it’s because the movie was “made without compromise. We didn’t have any preview screenings or focus groups or studio notes. Everybody made the movie we wanted to make and it turned out great”. Should we look for any other formula for success?
On the other hand, Nina’s source- in part- is rather ancient. But the other part was her life itself. Thus her entanglement with the plot would have been more consuming. For her, making the film was above everything, a vent out, an attempt to find the answer to a question that nagged her (which turned out to be one that has remained unanswered for thousands of years). She found her plight surprisingly similar to Sita’s. The movie is the confluence of the tears of two women, and many more like them. I believe that Nina has internalised Ramayana more than many Indians who have ever adapted it. The happiest person to see the film would have been Valmiki himself, to find how his chef-d’oeuvre has stood the test of time and to realise (may be, to his despair) that the wound he saw and the pain he witnessed is still fresh. The movie makes use of a plurality of styles of story telling and art (mostly Indian) passed down over centuries to narrate the much-retold story with 21st century freshness.
Of the many things that makes “Sita Sings the Blues” special as a film, the most notable is that it is a completely one- woman attempt. Now, which film maker can claim more freedom over his/ her craft? While Kathryn showed the power of a true Indie production, Nina’s work is all about being free (both as in free beer and freedom). See how she presents the film to its audience: “I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes.” In the last one year after Sita, Nina has tried prove the absurdity of copyrighting art and how giving away a creation for free (both as in free beer-without charging and freedom- allowing to modify) can reward the artist (monetarily and otherwise). She has allowed for an entire ecosystem of merchandise and derived works to spring up around her movie.
Guess I am doing injustice to both these masterpieces by squeezing them into one short writeup. But, just felt like jotting down something about the beguiling creations by these ladies. Do I sound like I’m getting carried away by this gender thing? Have I passed a Reservation Bill inside my mind? I would argue against that. At least about “The Hurt Locker” which had no opening credits. I was so enchanted by it’s artistic honesty that in between I had to look up the Wiki page and had the pleasant surprise. (By the way, this experience is nothing new. A number of random pieces of writing that has inspired and moved me over the years have later turned out to be written by female authors) So, do women really have an upper hand as creators? Is it that men (of all times) denied them chances to show their mettle? Well, the Kathryn Bigelows, Nina Paleys, Sofia Coppolas, Julie Delpys, Mira Nairs, Samira Makhmalbafs, Aparna Sens, Revathis and Anjali Menons of the world make a strong point, at least to me...
And on this Women’s day, Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman director to hold the golden statuette. Coincidentally, it was exactly an year ago, I came across a brilliant creation of another wonderful woman- “Sita Sings the Blues” by cartoonist Nina Paley. In my rather short blog entry on that day, I had expressed my awe for the film – not only for its art, but for the impact it could make on the economic equations of film making. Thus for me, both of these amazing women lighted up the day named after them, a year apart. Moreover, the similarities between personal and creative courses of Kathryn and Nina seem really uncanny. Both were already established artists when their husbands left them. Both preferred to remain unmarried, caressing their pets and their creativity. In art, both took up topics which were very unlikely for them- be it the Explosive Ordnance Disposal team in Iraq or the Indian epic, Ramayana. But most remarkably, both were able to finish their works with minimum interference on their creativity.
Leaving aside the above trivia, both films are unique and original works that are poles apart in every aspect. The soul of Hurt Locker is Mark Boal’s Academy award-winning screenplay, which is largely based on his first hand experience as a journalist in Iraq. Bigelow’s versatility was in imbibing Boal’s script and adapting it to screen in a way no one else could have done. I won’t qualify as a big fan of the war movie genre. Nor have I seen many films of that kind. For me, “The Hurt Locker” is far more than a war film. It’s a very personal film, about how one man goes about with his profession. It lacks the political statements, jingoism and heroism that characterizes a war movie. The film just observes some typical personalities at every work place- some for whom it’s just a means of living, some for whom it’s a dangerous chore they want to avoid and for a scarce few, a true passion.
For Hurt Locker’s hero, every day at work is a new challenge- to his intelligence, experience, speed and courage. It’s a game which has only two outcomes. And if you look closely, James is also aware of the fact that this job is the sole thing that he is good at. He is a disaster at anything remotely civilian he tries his hands on- be it finding a street boy’s whereabouts or picking out a cereal pack from the supermarket rack- however earnestly he wants to help. It’s the richness of realism in each frame that makes each moment in the movie grippingly tense (When was the last time that we prayed with such baited breath for bombs to not go off?). I’m not talking about factual correctness, but artistic realism. It’s not difficult to find where that came from. As film’s editor Bob Murawski mentioned in his acceptance speech, it’s because the movie was “made without compromise. We didn’t have any preview screenings or focus groups or studio notes. Everybody made the movie we wanted to make and it turned out great”. Should we look for any other formula for success?
On the other hand, Nina’s source- in part- is rather ancient. But the other part was her life itself. Thus her entanglement with the plot would have been more consuming. For her, making the film was above everything, a vent out, an attempt to find the answer to a question that nagged her (which turned out to be one that has remained unanswered for thousands of years). She found her plight surprisingly similar to Sita’s. The movie is the confluence of the tears of two women, and many more like them. I believe that Nina has internalised Ramayana more than many Indians who have ever adapted it. The happiest person to see the film would have been Valmiki himself, to find how his chef-d’oeuvre has stood the test of time and to realise (may be, to his despair) that the wound he saw and the pain he witnessed is still fresh. The movie makes use of a plurality of styles of story telling and art (mostly Indian) passed down over centuries to narrate the much-retold story with 21st century freshness.
Of the many things that makes “Sita Sings the Blues” special as a film, the most notable is that it is a completely one- woman attempt. Now, which film maker can claim more freedom over his/ her craft? While Kathryn showed the power of a true Indie production, Nina’s work is all about being free (both as in free beer and freedom). See how she presents the film to its audience: “I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes.” In the last one year after Sita, Nina has tried prove the absurdity of copyrighting art and how giving away a creation for free (both as in free beer-without charging and freedom- allowing to modify) can reward the artist (monetarily and otherwise). She has allowed for an entire ecosystem of merchandise and derived works to spring up around her movie.
Guess I am doing injustice to both these masterpieces by squeezing them into one short writeup. But, just felt like jotting down something about the beguiling creations by these ladies. Do I sound like I’m getting carried away by this gender thing? Have I passed a Reservation Bill inside my mind? I would argue against that. At least about “The Hurt Locker” which had no opening credits. I was so enchanted by it’s artistic honesty that in between I had to look up the Wiki page and had the pleasant surprise. (By the way, this experience is nothing new. A number of random pieces of writing that has inspired and moved me over the years have later turned out to be written by female authors) So, do women really have an upper hand as creators? Is it that men (of all times) denied them chances to show their mettle? Well, the Kathryn Bigelows, Nina Paleys, Sofia Coppolas, Julie Delpys, Mira Nairs, Samira Makhmalbafs, Aparna Sens, Revathis and Anjali Menons of the world make a strong point, at least to me...
This article was the "Editor's Pick" in Passion For Cinema for March 2010
This entry was posted
on Thursday, March 11, 2010
and is filed under
cinema,
creative commons,
nina paley,
pfc,
sita sings the blues,
womens day
.
You can leave a response
and follow any responses to this entry through the
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.
0 comments