Trendsetter or run-of-the-mill?

Deepa Gahlot

We are so starved of good films, that it is perfectly understandable when people go overboard over a slightly superior product.

Of course, if the film is made by a young filmmaker, a warm reception, heartfelt appreciation and unstinted support is healthy. But there is something called balance which, of late, the media seems to have overlooked.

The giddy-headed, highly exaggerated praise some films have got in the last few years would not have been accorded to, say, a Satyajit Ray when he made the unarguably great, internationally acclaimed Pather Panchali.

It's surprising that the people at the receiving end of such over-the-top gushing are not embarrassed by it. On the contrary, they fuel it by giving incredibly boastful interviews, wearing immodestly smug expressions. And these interviews are so awfully starry-eyed, of the 'please tell us how come you are so great' kind.

Sure, self-aggrandisement is part of the showbiz game, but some 'hey-guys-enough-is-enough' honesty never hurt anybody. In fact, the more a film or personality is puffed up, the harder it becomes to come up with an encore. It is pertinent to note that superstars like Amitabh Bachchan and directors like Yash Chopra are also the most humble, something the Johnny-come-lately types have to learn. In fact Bachchan is often startlingly self-effacing.

'Masterpiece', 'mind-blowing' and 'trendsetter' are the three terms most commonly bandied about these days.

'Masterpiece' depends on the framework decided upon to judge excellence. This can be subjective, so one can't argue with the possibility that today's flop is tomorrow's classic. Kaagaz Ke Phool and Mera Naam Joker being relevant examples.

'Mind-blowing' would depend on the capacity of the mind being blown, and that could vary wildly!

It is 'trendsetter' that can be questioned. Just as one swallow does not make a summer, one historical or youth film or whatever does not constitute a trend.

Whenever a particular kind of film is successful, other films with similar subject or style follow. The industry is known for its herd mentality. Most remain at the announcement stage, a few may get made and a couple of well-done imitations may even click. But there are very few mindless copycat films which have done well. (And we are not talking assembly line formula product here, but the few that try variations on the popular masala mix).

However, certain characters, plot devices, dialogues, style of lighting, sound or visual effects pass on into future filmmaking traditions. That is what makes a film a trendsetter, and such a 'leader' is almost always recognised in retrospect.

For instance, Aurat and Mother India set the mould for the portrayal of the ideal Indian woman. The speech and gait of Ganga Jamuna's rustic hero (Dilip Kumar) is still copied by actors. The streetsmart hero of Guru Dutt's films like Baazi and Aar Paar is still a mainstream staple. The star-crossed lovers of Achut Kanya and Rattan turn up regularly in new garb. Ardh Satya inspired several gritty cop-and-gangster flicks. Those films dictated frends, which are timeless classicals, not seasonal fashion fads.

More recently, Sooraj Barjatya's Hum Aapke Hain Kaun undoubtedly revived and refurbished the family social and created a new formula, which was then picked up by other filmmakers and built upon. And whatever differences one may have with it, there is a distinct Yash Chopra school of filmmaking with is copied indiscriminately by directors with far less flamboyance to carry it off.

Till at least a dozen films have been triggered off by a particular film or character, it can't be called a trendsetter, no matter what the PR machinery churns out in eulogy!

There is no doubt that stars and filmmakers exploit the media to their advantage. But why is such a large section of the media so susceptible to manipulation?

Hard to believe that all you need to do, to make people believe that you are the best actor or director born, is to say it loud and often enough to turn into unshakeable truth. Once a star gets the reputation of being a great actor, or a director of being a great filmmaker, nobody questions it.

The big film personalities, stuffed with adulation and feeding on vanity, will not even have the clear-sightedness to tell genuine praise apart from flattery. Or have the sense to take frank dissent seriously because they are so used to sycophancy.

The petulance of successful filmmakers, like Subhash Ghai and Ramgopal Varma, in the face of criticism and failure (at the box office) can only be read with amused exasperation.

But in all fairness, filmmakers and actors should be allowed to go about their work without overburdening them with heightened expectations. Calling a marginally offbeat piece of work a landmark and arbitrarily using labels like masterpiece doesn't help any creative artiste grow. It just traps them in a prison of arrogance and puts them at greater risk of getting bogged down in mediocrity.

The function of the media is to inform, highlight and encourage -- not to go about gilding plastic lilies.