[Reader-list] Analysis of 3 mythological films in the light of the field work

[VISHNU VARDHAN]

Hi, in the last one month's duration I looked at various magazines like Roopavani, Andhra Pratrika, Telugu Swatantra and so on.  There is a lot more to be explored.  But for the moment, I though it would be better if I can formulate an argument based on the field work I did, rather than give translations of some of these writings.  I try to formulate my argument about mythologicals using three films Bhookailas (1940, Telugu), Bhookailas (1958, Telugu) and Daana Veera Shura Karna (1977, Telugu).  There are some visuals I worked with but I could not send them with the same mail.  
 
In terms of similarities.
The above three mythological films share certain similarities.  The narrative in all the three films is centered on a negative character in the epics, namely Ravana, Dhuryodhana and Karna.  Bhookailas (1940 and 1958) is based on the Ramayana story that tells us how Ravana, the king of Lanka, does penance twice to obtain Shiva�s atma-lingam as a boon.  However, he fails to achieve his selfish motive, both the times, because of the divine intervention of Narada and Vishnu.  During his first attempt he gets married to Mandodari, mistaking her for Parvathi (Shiva�s wife).  Condemned by his mother he sets out to get atma-lingam again.  He succeeds in getting the atma-lingam, which is given on the condition that it will never be kept down on the earth.  Ravana fails to fulfil the condition as he entrusts the atma-lingam to a cowherd (lord Ganesha in disguise), in order to perform his evening ritual of sandhyavandanam, who keeps it on the ground.  Thus the film ends telling the viewers
 about the failed attempts of Ravana, which is the itihasic (hi)story of the birth of the pilgrim place, Bhookailas or Gokarna Mahabaleshwar as we know it today, where the atma-lingam was kept on the ground by Ganesha.  
Daana Veera Shura Karna (1977) deals with the life of, one of the bad characters in Mahabharatha, Karna born to Kunti.  Karna becomes good friend of Dhuryodhana and joins Kauravas in the great battle between Pandavas and Kauravas.  The film valorizes Karna�s bigheartedness, bravery and greatness, which is reflected in the film title by the words Daana, Veera and Shura.  But Arjuna eventually kills Karna, the mighty hero, in the great battle when his chariot wheel gets stuck in the ground because of a curse.  Also important in the film is the characterization of the other bad character Dhuryodhana to which I will come back later.
Though the negative character is central in all the three films, it is only Bhookailas (1958) and Daana Veera Shura Karna, which present this negative character as a �protagonist�.  Further, the protagonist in both these films is N.T. Rama Rao .  In spite of dealing with and to some extent elevating a negative or �not god� or �anti god� character, these three films were successful in drawing audiences .   Moreover, these three films represent the three phases, if one were to think about the timeline, of Telugu mythological films.  The earlier version of Bhookailas forms part of the early Indian cinema and the 1958 version represents the continuity of mythological films in Telugu cinema, in spite of the �public� criticism and in contrast to the death of mythologicals in Hindi, Bengali, Marathi film industries.  And Daana Veera Shura Karna shares the declining period of mythologicals in Telugu cinema.  Taking this timeline into consideration I would like to ask and attempt to answer
 the question, what does this timeline signify about mythologicals?  In other words, what was (the role of) mythological(s) in these three contexts of Telugu cinema?  
 
Text and the Context: An Analysis of the Three Films 
I periodise 1940 Bhookailas as early Indian (and also Telugu) cinema, which covers the silent films and Telugu films made till 1940s.  Most of the films during this period were mythologicals.  It has been argued by some that it was because of mythologicals that cinema became popular in India during the formative period.  Bhaskaran�s description gives an idea of this context.
       "When one considers the many obstacles faced by filmmakers during this period, it is a wonder that the industry survived at all.  Most of the films screened were from the United States, where they were produced in large numbers with many prints being made of each film.  So, the rental for these films was, typically, much less than that for Indian films, of which only a few prints were in circulation.  Moreover, the stunts and special effects in imported films were far superior to those possible in indigenous productions, and therefore imported films were more popular and enjoyed better patronage.  Often, it was difficult to lease a theatre to screen films made in Madras.  In the face of this unequal competition, Indian filmmakers decided that one sure way to attract local audiences was to offer films depicting episodes from the Puranas"  (Bhaskaran, S. Theodore 1996, 6-7).

Whatever the case may be mythologicals faced severe criticism around 1940.  Though there are various strands of criticism against mythologicals, I will focus on Kodavatiganti Kutumbarao�s writings on the subject and analyse the films in that light.  Kutumbarao is a famous writer and essayist.  He has written extensively in Telugu on various aspects pertaining to human life and cinema is not an exception.  Though he did not take an active part in the film-world, he is one of the few people who closely observed the growth of Telugu film industry during the initial five decades.  In writing about the film he deals with various aspects like technological advancements, question of genre, history of film, studios, stars, cinema journalism, cultural impact of films, politics, language and/in cinema, theatre and cinema, etc.  He is one of the few critics of Telugu cinema who analyses the film text along with an understanding of the film industry.  Thus he gives us an outsider�s view with an
 insider�s knowledge of Telugu (Madras) film industry  . 
 
I would like to list a few comments Kutumbarao makes about early Telugu mythologicals.  Writing about film plots and acting in film in different contexts he remarks about C. Pullaiah�s Satynarayana Vratam (Telugu, 1938) and Mohini Bhasmasura (Telugu, 1938) in the following way.

"See the film Satyanarayana Vratam, made by C. Pullaiah.  No other person who made a talkie has taken so much of effort as he did, to make us believe in the film.  But he failed.  We will probe into some of the faults.  In this talkie we can identify most of the characters without any introduction as they look like common people.  Given this situation, the minimum requisite is to make us believe that Satyanarayana Swamy has incarnated amongst these common looking people.  Contrary to this Satyanarayana Swamy also appears as a common man.  No effort is taken to show him as different from others� Further, the characters behave with the god as though he is a common man.  All these hardly make us believe that we have seen the god or a mythological story "(Mahathi, August 1938).
 
"It is only because of the source of the story by which we can categorize C. Pullaiah�s Satyanarayana Vratam, released in the same year along with Nala Damayanti, as a mythological.  Otherwise it entirely looks like a social film.  A better example than this is the next film Mohini Bhasmasura.  In this film Bhasmasura, Shiva, Mohini and other characters have even spoken in vyavaharikam/day-to-day language" (Andhra Patrika, November 1950).
 
"�it will look same as the Bhasmasura character saying �O lord! �I am your devotee� in Godavari dialect, in Pullaiah�s Mohini Bhasmasura" (Telugu Swatantra, March 1952).

Writing about the increasing popularity of socials in 1940 Kutumbarao gives us an idea of what is expected of a mythological film.  He says,

"We all know the recent uproar the critics and others have created against mythologicals, demanding for more social films� There is no doubt that we � Telugus � have ventured into making socials because we did not know how to make mythologicals.  No mythological film will ever work, with less standard figure behaviour, diction and settings.  We almost lost respect for the epic characters because of these mythologicals.  It is funny to see these puranic characters speaking common man�s language (jeeva basha).  It is atmost impossible to see them using grandhik language or grandhika basha "(Prajamitra, April 1940) .

Taking stock of the Telugu film industry in 1950 (Andhra Patrika, November 1950), Kutumbarao expresses the same views about the early Telugu mythologicals.  Further, in some of his articles written during 1940 to 1953, he expresses the view that mythologicals have lost their popularity by 1940 to socials initially and later to folklore films.  Looking back at the history of Telugu cinema, in an article (Andhra Prabha, October 1953) he categorizes 1931-38 as the age of Mythologicals, 1938-46 as the age of Socials and from 1946 onwards as the age of folklore films .  However, in less than a year�s time Kutumbarao writes about the �comeback' of mythologicals in Telugu film industry (Telugu Swatantra, 13 August 1954). 
 
Criticising the then existing system of film censorship, at the tenth anniversary of the Cine Technicians Association of South India on 9th August 1954, Mr. S.S. Vasan (President, Film Federation of India) reasons that it is because of censorship rules that there was a swing back to mythological films .  Writing about the same event Kutumbarao disagrees with Vasan�s remark with regard to the popularity of mythologicals (Telugu Swatantra, 20 August 1954).  In another article he talks about the context, which enabled mythologicals to regain popularity (Telugu Swatantra, 27 August 1954).  According to him, the film industry is in crisis and there is a need for a udyamam/revolution.  And only two types of films can bring this revolution � one is that of tourism (like in Italy) and the other is jatiyata/�nationalism�.  Further he feels, directors are not capable of using the tourism aspect.  However the �nationalism�, which was present in mythologicals is not to be seen in socials and
 folklore films.  Thus the only way out, according to Kutumbarao, was to get back to making more pouranica chitralu/mythological films.  It has to be noted that Kutumbarao talks about jatiyata/�nationalism�, telugu tanam/Teluguness and telugu jatiyata/Telugu nationalism to indicate the latter.  This aspect is reflected in his writing time and again, which predate Andhra Pradesh state formation and even independence .  The identity of a culture primarily through language, explains the anxiety Kutumbarao had with the regard to the use of language in early mythologicals as stated above.  With regard to the increase in the number of mythologicals in 1950s, Kutumbarao does not see it as though the Telugu film industry (also the spectators) is going back 20 years, as the critics of the time pointed out, but he rather finds that mythologicals are coming forward twenty years. Other than the political context of state formation, the come back of mythologicals should also be seen in the
 industrial context of the increasing popularity of male actors.  
 
If we compare both the versions of Bhookailas it will become clear, how some of the above-mentioned points are correct.  The story and even the dialogues of the 1940 version are a direct adoption of a theatre play by SSS Nataka Mandali of Mysore, says one of the credit titles.  The figure behaviour and the framing resemble a stage play. On the other hand, the narrative techniques are a lot improved in the later version.  I will discuss this aspect in detail further below.  The very introduction of the film with Ravana entering the court has many camera angles and shots.  Ravana (N.T. Rama Rao) walks towards the camera (see Pic 1.1) , whereas in the 1940 version Ravana enters the frame from the left and walks to the thrown in the right, which is a theatrical convention.  Even at the level of costumes there is tremendous change.  For instance Ravana in the earlier version hardly has any �ornaments� when compared to the 1958 film.  Pic. 1.2 is a frame of Ravana from the 1958 Bhookailas,
 which gives an idea of the costumes used.  Except for wearing conch shells the costumes of the other important characters like Mandodari (Ravana�s wife), Kaikasi (Ravana�s mother) look �common�/similar to other women characters who stand/dance in the background.  Similarly one can also see the difference in the characterization of Ravana.  Pic 1.3 to 1.8 are continuous shots from the first scene of the 1958 film, which will give a sense of the number of close-up shots that are used to characterize Ravana unlike the 1940 adaptation.  Further, figure behaviour like Parvathi playing pachchees  when Narada visits her is an instance of �common behaviour� that changes in the 1958 Bhookailas, where Parvathi is shown as doing penance.  The less standard figure behaviour in the early mythologicals, which Kutumbarao has problems with, reaches a peak in 1940 Bhookailas when Ganesh Bhattu (lord Ganesha in disguise) blows a whistle to call Ravana.  One can list many such changes.
  
But the most striking aspect is that of the change in the use of language in both the films.  Most of the dialogues in earlier Bhookailas are in day-to-day Telugu or what Kutumbarao calls vyavaharikamu, which he lists as one of faults in early mythologicals.  Following are few such dialogues.
ori veeni durasha kaala.
bhagavanthudu bhaktuni pareekshinchu kalam poyindi, bhaktulu bhagavantuni pareekshinche rojulu vachchayi. 
aa matranike endukamma.
thatha muththathala naati chuttama.

And a whole song between Narada and Ravana ide kada parvathi�is a good instance to sight.  On the other hand, the language in the later version is more refined or grandhicized.  Further, Ravana after realising that he was deceived to marry Mandodari instead of Paravathi, mistreats Mandodari by saying words like idi, dinni (very commonly used words) in 1940 film, whereas he says chalu ni adhika prasangam, vanchaki (very much grandhic) in the later one.  
 
This �refined� language in the mythological can be seen reaching a peak in Daana Veera Shura Karna.  It is NTR�s best-known film as a director and is a hugely budgeted film.  NTR plays three roles in this movie  � Dhuryodhana, Karna and Krishna.  In this film the dialogues play an important role in complementing the valorisation of negative characters Karna and Dhuryodhana.  Most of the dialogues are lengthy and poetic.  The valorisation of these characters, played by the Star, is done primarily raising voice against �caste discrimination� and Brahmins, in turn addressing the socio-political context of the period.  For that end, one could see the Star using �language of democracy� like sarvamanava samanatha (universal equality) prajalu (people) praja palana (democracy). There are many lengthy dialogues uttered by the Star in a frontal image similar to that of a lecture or speech on the atrocities of caste discrimination, misuse of ritual knowledge by Brahmins, etc.  For instance, the
 narrative starts with the scene depicting the injustice done to Ekalavya (popularly believed as belonging to erukala � a lower caste) by Dronacharya and Pandavas into which Karna enters criticising the act as caste discrimination.  Some dialogues from the scene will give a sense of the grandhik language and how it is used to criticise caste discrimination and Brahmins.

Dronacharya � emitee anacharamu � gurudakshina sweekaram gurukula sadacharam � evadu guruvu evadu shishyudu � kulaheenudu kulaheenudu ani koosi koosi � gurukula praveshaniki anarhudani veli vesi�
oyi kuchitapu bapana � amayakudaina ee atavikuni vanchinchatanki neekela manasoppindi�
eee tunigina velu nee jatyahankaraniki nidarshanam � nee pakshapata bhuddiki shaashvata satya pramanam
The words in bold specifically indicate the voice against caste discrimination, which occur frequently through out the film.  In another scene, where Dhuryodhana is introduced the same can be seen happening, in which the star NTR, playing the role of Dhuryodhana, goes on for almost two minutes raising objection to caste discrimination against Karna by Dronacharya.  The following are few dialogues from the scene where Dhuryodhana speaks for almost 4 minutes.
Dronacharya: nee kulamu
Karna: nenu suthudanu � suthakulamu
Dronacharya: suthakula sanjatulu bhootakula sanjatulatho yediri nilva anarhulu 
Dhuryodhana: agagu � acharyadeva � emantivi emantivi � jatinepamukinda suthasuthulakindu nilva arhataledanduva � enta maata enta maata � idi kshatra pareekshakani kshyatriya pareekshakade � kaadu kaakoodadu idi kula pareekshaye anduva�matti kundalo puttithivigada needi ye kulamu � yinta yela asmat pithamahudu gurukula vrudhudayina ee shantanavudu shivasamudra bharyayagu ganga gharbamuna janiyinchaleda � eeyanade kulamu� sandarbhavasaramulanu batti kshetrabeeja pradaanyamulatho sankaramaina maa kuru vamshamu � yenado kulaheenamainadi � kaaga nedu kulamu kulamu anu vyardhavaadamendulaku�neni sakalamahajana samakshamuna � pandita parisamadhyamuna � sarvada sarvada � shatada sahasrada � eee kulakalanka maha pankilamunu shashvatamuga prakshalana kaavinchedanu
 
The motives behind this allegorical reading of epics or epic characters becomes crystal clear as this film was later resurrected as part of the propaganda for NTR�s Telugu Desam Party in 1982, which, within a year�s time, unseated Congress party in Andhra Pradesh for the first time after independence.  The role of the Star in the film is obvious.  But it should be reflected upon keeping in view of a cursory remark Kutumbarao makes about the come back of the mythologicals during 1950s.  Taking stock of the films released in 1954 he says,

"During the days when Telugu talkies began, actors and actresses achieved star status through mythological films.  In today�s context stars are essential to re-make mythologicals" (Telugu Swatantra, January 1955).

That is to say, initially mythologicals made stars, whereas by1950s mythologicals needed stars.  But the Star (NTR) in 1970s mythologicals is not just playing a character but is doing something more, which probably the mythologicals could not hold.  That is to bring in the then �existing� socio-political problems, which can be easily dealt with (and resolved) in social films, and try and address them within the realm of mythologicals.  The crucial characteristic of a Star is to address �political problems�, which indicates the complex cinema-politics relationship and needs a much deeper understanding.  


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20050224/42102374/attachment.html