"There are only two ways to live life. One, let whatever is happening happen and tolerate everything. Second, take responsibility and try to change it." - Rang De Basanti (2006)
Prasoon Joshi wrote the dialogues and songs of the film 'Rang De Basanti'.
When the songs of this film were becoming popular again in the student movements, questions were raised on the censor board headed by Joshi, because the film Satluj, released on OTT, was removed.
2010s film star Imran Khan supported the students. After this he got a lot of love from people on Instagram.
People also openly expressed their feelings in support of Prakash Raj, who often plays villain roles in films. This was an interesting contradiction in itself.
Slogans echoing in college campuses, people holding placards, lighting candles and cameras capturing these scenes. This picture has appeared many times in Indian public life in the last two decades.
But who shaped this kind of image?
One answer to this question is cinema.
The relationship between movement and cinema has never been one-sided. Cinema both reflects movements and sometimes also shapes them.
Cinema has played a big role in shaping the language of movements, their visual style, the image of their heroes and their opponents.
But this relationship is actually not as simple as it appears.
Relationship between film and movement
Each film presents its own interpretation of the movement.
Only by understanding the contradictions between these different interpretations does the true complexity of the relationship between movement and cinema emerge.
At present, students are seen taking to the streets in many parts of the country. In such a situation, there is a need to understand this relationship once again.
The most fundamental difference between these interpretations is how the movement is viewed. Is the movement a natural reaction arising from moral consciousness?
Or is it part of a planned and organized political process?
In Rakesh Omprakash Mehra's film Rang De Basanti (2006), the story of Bhagat Singh and his comrades comes before today's youth through a documentary.
Gradually the distance between past and present starts disappearing. After the death of a friend, these youth murder a corrupt defense minister.
This is a story of sudden anger born out of personal grief and loss. This is not the result of any organized political ideology or long political process.
The scene of the candle march taken out in front of Parliament in Rang De Basanti was reflected in real movements many times in subsequent years.
Many critics believe that this film gave the movement a strong visual identity. But he did not do a deep political analysis of the movement.
The film also does not deeply raise the question whether murder can be a solution to any problem.
It is not even asked how dangerous it can be to turn moral anger into direct action by bypassing institutional processes.
In complete contrast to this is Gillo Pontecorvo's film The Battle of Algiers (1966).
This film shows Algeria's independence struggle against French colonialism.
In this the movement has been presented as an organized and disciplined political structure. Secret communication networks, small organizational groups and strategic decisions play an important role in the film.
Shot in a newsreel or dialogue-like style, the film shows the story from a relatively unbiased perspective. It also highlights the blurring of lines between terrorism and counter-terrorism operations.
The film avoids making any one party the hero. French military officer Colonel Mathieu is shown to be cruel. But his thinking and arguments have been presented in a systematic framework.
At the same time, Algerian resistance fighters are shown to be brave. Yet innocent people also die at their hands. This difference is not just in the style of film making.
It also shows two different approaches to understanding the politics of the movement. One point of view considers movement as a phenomenon arising from a sudden surge of emotions.
The second view sees it as a long political battle born out of the analysis of power and system. The interesting thing is that the impact of these two films was also different.
One of these films became a source of inspiration during many movements. His songs were sung in the streets and protests.
The second film was shown in America's Pentagon. There it was used as a study to understand the strategies to crush the rebellion.
Cinema images and reality
To understand the relationship between cinema and reality, it is not enough to simply accept that cinema imitates life. This idea is very limited.
American philosopher Judith Butler has said an important thing on gender identity and identity. According to him, no public action is completely new or arises suddenly.
Be it any behavior or political protest. Whatever we do has been done many times before in some form or the other.
We often repeat the same things unknowingly. Butler has called it 'citability' or citationality.
In simple words, every action of ours is an echo of some previous action. This happens even when we do not remember its original source.
The same thing applies to movements also.
Shouting slogans with clenched fists. Walking with a candle in hand. Writing messages on placards in a special style. All this seems very natural and easy to us. But in reality it is not so.
Cinema has also been a major source of these expressions.
However, this effect does not work in just one direction. Filmmakers also take inspiration from these social and public memories.
After all, there have been movements even before the film was made. That means cinema learns from reality. And real movements are also learned from cinema.
In this sense the relationship between cinema and life is like a cycle. Both keep influencing each other continuously. Both repeat each other's images and symbols again and again.
The second and more political aspect of this relationship is related to the battle of narratives. There is no fixed meaning for any event.
Its meaning is determined by how it is told. In which story framework is it placed?
The same incident can be presented as a love story, tragedy, comedy or satire.
Every style gives a different meaning to that event. Gives him a different moral direction. For this reason, the conflict between the movement and the government always goes on at two levels. A conflict appears on the streets.
There are slogans in it. There is police. There is lathi charge. But along with this another struggle also goes on.
This conflict takes place over the interpretation of that incident.
The question is in what form that incident should be presented. Should it be called a story of bravery?
Should it be called anarchy? Or make fun of it.
This can be understood better from the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci's theory of 'domination' or hegemony.
Gramsci said that power does not exist only on the basis of police and law. It also depends on which ideas and stories the society accepts.
This can be understood with an example.
Rang De Basanti presents the revolution in a romantic style. The story in the film starts with emotional anger. And it is accomplished through self-sacrifice.
In contrast, Peepli Live (2010) and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani (2000) show such situations from a satirical perspective.
In these films, the hero's sorrow sometimes turns into a farce or irony. This difference is not just of style.
It also reflects fundamental disagreement about the political meaning of the movement. Which story becomes more influential in the society, its impact also goes far.
This decides which movements will get respect and moral support. And which movements will, over time, be considered suspicious, ridiculous or dangerous.
Rang De Basanti/Swades vs Dhurandhar: Direction of Story Telling
Another question can be asked in this context.
How did the images and symbols of Rang De Basanti and Swades so easily become part of the language of the protests?
At the same time, why could the visual style of the recent film Dhurandhar not leave such an impact? This is when Dhurandhar was equally or even more successful commercially.
Popularity alone does not seem to be the reason behind this. Dhurandhar made record earnings at the box office.
Its title song and visual style were also much talked about.
The real difference is in the direction of storytelling of these films.
Rang De Basanti and Swades can be called citizen-centric films in simple words. Their hero is a common citizen outside the system.
He struggles with the shortcomings of the system. And tries to make it better from inside or outside.
The youth of Rang De Basanti rebel against the corrupt system. At the same time, Mohan Bhargava of Swades leaves a good job in America and returns to his village.
He tries to solve the problems of the village through his labor and efforts. In both these films, the relationship between the hero and the government is in need of improvement.
Sometimes it also becomes confrontational. But this relationship is always shown from the perspective of a common citizen. This is the reason why the language and symbols of these films easily find a place in movements.
After all, movements are also a form of tension between citizens and power. These films show the same tension on screen.
Dhurandhar is completely different from this. This is a state-centric story. Its protagonist Hamza is an official representative of the Indian intelligence system. He works on behalf of the state.
And on the orders of the state, conducts secret operations against external enemies.
There is a struggle here. But this is not a struggle between citizens versus power. This is a conflict between state versus state.
The hero of this story is not a voice of dissent. He appears as an instrument of power. For this reason such stories cannot become the language of movements.
Because this language is not created to challenge power, but to support it.
There is another aspect to this difference as well. That's the structure of the songs and the visual style.
The songs of Rang De Basanti and Swades are meant to be sung collectively.
People can sing them together. His tunes are relatively simple. Words are also easy. And his emotional message is collective.
For this reason these songs easily resonate in rallies and protests. They have been created to connect people together.
In contrast, Dhurandhar's musical and visual world is based on a different logic. Its purpose is to show the courage and bravery of the hero.
He wants to surprise the viewer. Its goal is not mass participation. The fanatic keeps the viewer a passive spectator.
At the same time, films like Rang De Basanti and Swades invite the viewer to be a part of the story. Movements need such visual language. A language that includes people.
Language that is compelling just by looking at it is not useful in the movement.
This is the reason why the grammar of protest is not taken seriously. She comes from films like Rang De Basanti and Swades.
From films that keep the citizen at the center. And inspire people for active participation.
