Not too sure if this hypothesis holds, but it's worth hypothesising. Is there an inverse relationship between good/great art and money? Is the penniless artist struggling for survival just a stereotype? Is tragedy a part of an artist's life, mostly?
The hypothesis is inspired by a movie I saw on TV after maybe two decades. The movie is Rajnigandha. It was made by Basu Chatterjee in the early seventies and remains one of my favourite films. The budget would have been modest, no big stars, sets or ostentation of any sort. It had lovely music, good technique (Vidya Sinha speaking with herself often, imagining or re-imagining herself alternately with the two men in her life, symbolism through the bouquet of flowers) and a simple, riveting story. If you compare it with expensive, crass extravaganzas churned out by the dozen, this one warms your heart (at least mine) any day.
Another movie made in the same period was Anand, by Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Rajesh Khanna was paid a limited amount though he was a star of sorts, and the tight screenplay, wonderful dialogue, great acting from all the actors (I remember Ramesh Deo and Seema speaking some homely Marathi-mixed dialogue, Lalita Pawar in the role of a lifetime, Johny Walker likewise). Absolutely brilliant!
A third example, and I will rest my case. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro from the eighties. Ravi Baswani and Naseeruddin Shah, Satish Shah and Om Puri, Bhakti Barve or any of the other characters, they all were just right, Neena Gupta added the oomph without any effort, and it made for wonderful viewing. A top-class comedy. Kundan Shah never directed anything better.
Now I will await your views.
The hypothesis is inspired by a movie I saw on TV after maybe two decades. The movie is Rajnigandha. It was made by Basu Chatterjee in the early seventies and remains one of my favourite films. The budget would have been modest, no big stars, sets or ostentation of any sort. It had lovely music, good technique (Vidya Sinha speaking with herself often, imagining or re-imagining herself alternately with the two men in her life, symbolism through the bouquet of flowers) and a simple, riveting story. If you compare it with expensive, crass extravaganzas churned out by the dozen, this one warms your heart (at least mine) any day.
Another movie made in the same period was Anand, by Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Rajesh Khanna was paid a limited amount though he was a star of sorts, and the tight screenplay, wonderful dialogue, great acting from all the actors (I remember Ramesh Deo and Seema speaking some homely Marathi-mixed dialogue, Lalita Pawar in the role of a lifetime, Johny Walker likewise). Absolutely brilliant!
A third example, and I will rest my case. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro from the eighties. Ravi Baswani and Naseeruddin Shah, Satish Shah and Om Puri, Bhakti Barve or any of the other characters, they all were just right, Neena Gupta added the oomph without any effort, and it made for wonderful viewing. A top-class comedy. Kundan Shah never directed anything better.
Now I will await your views.
1 comment:
The simplicity of the idea appears to appeal to the artists you have mentioned and truly it is the universality and simplicity of their words, paintings and creations that make their works timeless. On the other hand we have the rather loud marketers who shock and awe and create a flutter and one knows not whether it is art or something else, and they pass by, having made their money. Cannot say for sure, but its perhaps a choice the simple artist makes to stay true to his thought - or maybe because each does not know or comprehend the other. Money, as with most people I would assume, would favor the more dangerous and exciting brother.
Post a Comment