[from my Mint Lounge series on song sequences]
It’s hard to shrug off the ideas you form as a child. When I first watched the classic “Ek Chatur Naar” sequence from Padosan, I remained convinced for a time that the words were “ek chatur anaar”, and that Saira Banu was indeed a clever pomegranate. She was sharp and knowing in the song, she looked great (even if the heavy eye-liner threatened to breach the Fourth Wall during her close-ups), and watching her may have been as good for one’s health as drinking anaar juice each day.
Without overlooking the splendid performances of Mehmood, Sunil Dutt and Kishore Kumar in that scene, Banu is vital to its effect: swaying unselfconsciously to the music; elbowing her music teacher when he is in danger of losing the jugalbandi against their competitors; preening in semi-comical fashion when the lyrics describe her beauty. How refreshing it was to see a glamorous 1960s leading lady (as opposed to a sidekick-comedienne) participating wholeheartedly in such a scene with a group of bumbling men.
But then Banu was one of those performers who could be impish even in a more formulaic song situation, such as the one where lovers make up after a spat: watch her perform the opening lines of “Woh Hain Zara Khafa Khafa” in Shagird. Though credible within the narrative context, she gives the impression that she knows how silly this whole premise is. (Why sing for five minutes to woo Joy Mukherjee, when an eyelash-flutter should be enough to get him cartwheeling back?)
If she seems in on the joke in “Ek Chatur Naar”, an example of an actress playing the part of the Muse dead straight – so that it becomes unintentionally funny – is Mala Sinha, rapt in self-worship, in the fantasy interludes of “Chaand Aahein Bharega” (from Phool Bane Angaarey). You have to sympathize with Sinha here. She is basically the statue to whom Pygmalion sings hosannas, and Pygmalion is Raaj Kumar! As if that weren’t enough of a test for any woman, she is also made a guinea pig in the gruesome laboratory of Cinematic Inventiveness. The lyric “Aankh naajuk si kaliyan” (“eyes like delicate flower-buds”) comes with a terrifying visual – an extreme close-up of Sinha’s eyes with white flowers superimposed on the pupils, making her look not at all alluring but like something out of a Kaneto Shindo horror film.
To give Sinha some credit, at least she does something in this scene. (As a sage pointed out once, if you’re overacting, it means you know how to act.) In too many other song sequences of this type, actresses simply glide around in chiffon saris, looking like they hope the director will yell “Cut!” very soon.
Heroines in old mainstream films were required to be beautiful, aloof and dignified all at once, and such expectations can become a prison – in much the same way that women in a conservative society are expected not to laugh openly at men’s jokes (“hasee toh phasee”), the heroine had to be careful not to express much emotion. Leave the comedy to the supporting staff (from Shubha Khote to Farida Jalal), and the open expression of desire to the vamps; content yourself with pursing your lips, twitching your nose, refusing to make eye contact with the hero, or going “Nahin, Nahin, Nahin”.
Which is why I’m a big fan of the well-done song sequence where a charming actress gets to be (intentionally) funny. This sometimes happens when you don’t expect it. Look at Waheeda Rehman – a superb dramatic actress but no one’s idea of a great comedienne – perform “Bhawra Bada Nadaan Hai” in Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, her sardonic expressions and exaggerated gestures perfectly in tune with Asha Bhosle’s rendition of the song. Shakeel Badayuni’s lyrics take a familiar metaphor – the hero as the bee buzzing around the flower-like heroine – but the roles are flipped, with the “flower” slyly singing about the “bee” being tongue-tied in her presence (“Saamne aaye, Nain milaaye, Mukh dekhe, Kuch bole na”). While Bhootnath (Guru Dutt) scurries about, watching Jaba (Rehman), she comments on him watching her – it’s a wonderfully executed reversal of the Gaze, and very apt in a film that is about the conflict between old and new ways of life. Jaba is the forward-looking character here, leading the reticent Bhootnath into the modern world.
The scene makes me wonder if this avatar of Rehman would have emerged more often if she had worked frequently with actors like Kishore Kumar or Shammi Kapoor. It sometimes took a madcap co-star to get an elegant actress into the swing of things – as you can see when you watch Nutan in “Cat Maane Billi” (Dilli ka Thug) or Madhubala in “Paanch Rupaiya Baarah Aana” (Chalti ka Naam Gaadi).
All rules governing filmi boy-girl behaviour fly quickly out the window in these songs. In both, it can seem like the women are playing second fiddle to Kumar; he is the one who defines the tone of the scene and does the craziest things (yowling “Cat Maane MEEOW!”, for instance, in a moment that could only have been improvised). Yet his craziness frees them to explore new dimensions too, and the results are among the most magical in our films: an ethereal beauty and a jester occupy the same frame, parrying and playing off each other until you’re no longer sure who is the clown and who the foil.
---------------------------------------
[More on that Chalti ka Naam Gaadi scene here. And earlier posts about song sequences on this page]
It’s hard to shrug off the ideas you form as a child. When I first watched the classic “Ek Chatur Naar” sequence from Padosan, I remained convinced for a time that the words were “ek chatur anaar”, and that Saira Banu was indeed a clever pomegranate. She was sharp and knowing in the song, she looked great (even if the heavy eye-liner threatened to breach the Fourth Wall during her close-ups), and watching her may have been as good for one’s health as drinking anaar juice each day.
Without overlooking the splendid performances of Mehmood, Sunil Dutt and Kishore Kumar in that scene, Banu is vital to its effect: swaying unselfconsciously to the music; elbowing her music teacher when he is in danger of losing the jugalbandi against their competitors; preening in semi-comical fashion when the lyrics describe her beauty. How refreshing it was to see a glamorous 1960s leading lady (as opposed to a sidekick-comedienne) participating wholeheartedly in such a scene with a group of bumbling men.
But then Banu was one of those performers who could be impish even in a more formulaic song situation, such as the one where lovers make up after a spat: watch her perform the opening lines of “Woh Hain Zara Khafa Khafa” in Shagird. Though credible within the narrative context, she gives the impression that she knows how silly this whole premise is. (Why sing for five minutes to woo Joy Mukherjee, when an eyelash-flutter should be enough to get him cartwheeling back?)
If she seems in on the joke in “Ek Chatur Naar”, an example of an actress playing the part of the Muse dead straight – so that it becomes unintentionally funny – is Mala Sinha, rapt in self-worship, in the fantasy interludes of “Chaand Aahein Bharega” (from Phool Bane Angaarey). You have to sympathize with Sinha here. She is basically the statue to whom Pygmalion sings hosannas, and Pygmalion is Raaj Kumar! As if that weren’t enough of a test for any woman, she is also made a guinea pig in the gruesome laboratory of Cinematic Inventiveness. The lyric “Aankh naajuk si kaliyan” (“eyes like delicate flower-buds”) comes with a terrifying visual – an extreme close-up of Sinha’s eyes with white flowers superimposed on the pupils, making her look not at all alluring but like something out of a Kaneto Shindo horror film.
To give Sinha some credit, at least she does something in this scene. (As a sage pointed out once, if you’re overacting, it means you know how to act.) In too many other song sequences of this type, actresses simply glide around in chiffon saris, looking like they hope the director will yell “Cut!” very soon.
Heroines in old mainstream films were required to be beautiful, aloof and dignified all at once, and such expectations can become a prison – in much the same way that women in a conservative society are expected not to laugh openly at men’s jokes (“hasee toh phasee”), the heroine had to be careful not to express much emotion. Leave the comedy to the supporting staff (from Shubha Khote to Farida Jalal), and the open expression of desire to the vamps; content yourself with pursing your lips, twitching your nose, refusing to make eye contact with the hero, or going “Nahin, Nahin, Nahin”.
Which is why I’m a big fan of the well-done song sequence where a charming actress gets to be (intentionally) funny. This sometimes happens when you don’t expect it. Look at Waheeda Rehman – a superb dramatic actress but no one’s idea of a great comedienne – perform “Bhawra Bada Nadaan Hai” in Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam, her sardonic expressions and exaggerated gestures perfectly in tune with Asha Bhosle’s rendition of the song. Shakeel Badayuni’s lyrics take a familiar metaphor – the hero as the bee buzzing around the flower-like heroine – but the roles are flipped, with the “flower” slyly singing about the “bee” being tongue-tied in her presence (“Saamne aaye, Nain milaaye, Mukh dekhe, Kuch bole na”). While Bhootnath (Guru Dutt) scurries about, watching Jaba (Rehman), she comments on him watching her – it’s a wonderfully executed reversal of the Gaze, and very apt in a film that is about the conflict between old and new ways of life. Jaba is the forward-looking character here, leading the reticent Bhootnath into the modern world.
The scene makes me wonder if this avatar of Rehman would have emerged more often if she had worked frequently with actors like Kishore Kumar or Shammi Kapoor. It sometimes took a madcap co-star to get an elegant actress into the swing of things – as you can see when you watch Nutan in “Cat Maane Billi” (Dilli ka Thug) or Madhubala in “Paanch Rupaiya Baarah Aana” (Chalti ka Naam Gaadi).
All rules governing filmi boy-girl behaviour fly quickly out the window in these songs. In both, it can seem like the women are playing second fiddle to Kumar; he is the one who defines the tone of the scene and does the craziest things (yowling “Cat Maane MEEOW!”, for instance, in a moment that could only have been improvised). Yet his craziness frees them to explore new dimensions too, and the results are among the most magical in our films: an ethereal beauty and a jester occupy the same frame, parrying and playing off each other until you’re no longer sure who is the clown and who the foil.
---------------------------------------
[More on that Chalti ka Naam Gaadi scene here. And earlier posts about song sequences on this page]
I have got to see Phool Bane Aangaare now, despite everything. You have piqued my interest. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnother actress who I thought did a fairly good job of being utterly madcap was Asha Parekh in Daiyya yeh main kahaan aa phansi - she rarely got the chance to act nutty, but she's pretty funny there.
Madhulika: you haven't seen that film?! I thought you had seen everything there was to see, twice over. In fact, any time I write one of these posts about old Hindi films that I discovered relatively late in life, one of my first thoughts is "I hope Madhulika doesn't disapprove of this."
DeleteWill check that Asha Parekh song. Again, based on very limited evidence, she isn't one of my favourite performers, but I can well imagine her doing fun things under the right direction and in the right film.
DeleteHehe. No, I've never seen this one, though I've come across the name now and then. And Youtube keeps recommending it to me (among dozens of others, most of which I have seen).
ReplyDeleteAsha Parekh is for me one of those good-but-I-won't-miss-her actresses. As Anu Warrier recently remarked, it's not as if when I watch another actress in a role, I think, "How great it would've been if Asha Parekh had been in this role."
Hey, how about Sharmila Tagore in Chupke Chupke? Glam and comedy - I thought she would be exhibit 1A
ReplyDeleteKGB: yup. And many others. Needless to say, this isn't a comprehensive list - just a mention of a few such roles/songs that I worked into a 900-word column.
DeleteWhat about Sridevi? She is a glamorous actress with a great flair for comedy.
ReplyDelete"in much the same way that women in a conservative society are expected not to laugh openly at men’s jokes (“hasee toh phasee”), the heroine had to be careful not to express much emotion. Leave the comedy to the supporting staff (from Shubha Khote to Farida Jalal), and the open expression of desire to the vamps; content yourself with pursing your lips, twitching your nose, refusing to make eye contact with the hero, or going “Nahin, Nahin, Nahin”. "
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing "conservative" about the "hansee tho phasee" guideline. It's mere pragmatism. By maintaining reserve and distance, you portray a "hard to get" persona and force men vying for your attention to persevere and behave themselves. By having that reserve, you attract the "right" kind of men.
If you mingle too easily and don't make yourself "prized", then every other Lothario feels he has a chance with you. So you end up with the Prem Chopras or the Ranjeets of the world as your lover. That's what Helen usually ended up with. Because she mingled too fast.
If it's cheap to enjoy your company, you end up with the wrong company. Invariably. Instead, if you play a goddess, you will end up with a God for a husband.
This great lesson of pragmatism is driven home very well in that Manoj Kumar classic Dr Vidya.
"Asha Parekh is for me one of those good-but-I-won't-miss-her actresses. "
ReplyDeleteI think Parekh was arguably the first heroine who doubled up as a comedienne. That makes her somewhat unique in Hindi cinema. This is particularly true in some of her early work. Take Gharana for instance, where she lends the much needed levity to an otherwise overwrought family drama.
Heroines like Meena Kumari, Nutan or Vyjayanthimala, did not approach Parekh in this respect. With those women, you always needed a separate female comedienne (like for instance Shubha Khote) to infuse some levity in the film. Parekh could provide that herself. One could dispense with the Shubha Khote characters if the film had Parekh in it.
Another heroine of those years who had this quality is Rajshree (Shantaram's daughter). One of the most beautiful and gracious actresses of that era. But unfortunately she didn't feature in too many movies.
"how about Sharmila Tagore in Chupke Chupke?"
ReplyDeleteThat is a strained film. And Tagore is a strenuous actor. I don't find her too funny. She is one of those actresses who exudes artifice. But that's ok.
The star of the early-mid 50s Nalini Jayawant had some comic potential in my view. Not sure if it was adequately explored. But definitely someone with a lot of potential.
"As Anu Warrier recently remarked, it's not as if when I watch another actress in a role, I think, "How great it would've been if Asha Parekh had been in this role."
ReplyDeleteActually I find her very underappreciated arguably because of her down to earth demeanour and lack of cant.
Let's compare Sharmila Tagore in Aradhana with Asha Parekh in Kati Patang. Two similar films in both of which the heroine has to undergo a lot of ordeals because of some terrible luck. Tagore plays the tragedienne in the former film and cries for pity. Parekh in Kati Patang takes her misfortune in her stride and resists from feeling sorry for herself. A far more earthier and robust character than the Tagore character in Aradhana.
I do wish Parekh had played opposite RK in Aradhana.
"If you mingle too easily and don't make yourself "prized", then every other Lothario feels he has a chance with you. So you end up with the Prem Chopras or the Ranjeets of the world as your lover. That's what Helen usually ended up with. Because she mingled too fast.
ReplyDeleteIf it's cheap to enjoy your company, you end up with the wrong company. Invariably. Instead, if you play a goddess, you will end up with a God for a husband."
- And Shrikanth is back, as expected...:D.
"- And Shrikanth is back, as expected...:D"
ReplyDeleteI was never away!
And yes, I know how feminists would be reacting to this remark of mine.
"Oh. This guy is so nauseating. Does he think we women have no agency? Don't we have the discrimination to distinguish the Dharmendras from the Prem Chopras? Aren't we intelligent? Aren't we capable of having casual friendships / relationships with the not-so-good men and settle down with the really good ones?"
Fair points in theory. But not in practice. Relationships of any kind involve hormones. And both men and women under the influence of hormones are not rational. They are not much better than animals in fact. While liberal theory starts with the assumption of a "rational man", tradition starts with a dim view of human nature and prescribes behavioral guidelines to limit the damage human beings can do to themselves.
"Hansee tho phasee" was a universal widely accepted guideline in the West prior to 1960. But it has been set aside post 1960 in favor of new-fangled ideas of dating do's and don'ts. Check out US divorce rates over time and see how they change post late 60s. You will find the abandonment of "Hansee tho Phasee" was a very strong trigger of a spike in Western divorce rates post 60s.
Hard to identify a single event that can be regarded as the end of the "Hansee tho phasee" era. I'd go with the revocation of Hays code in 1967. And the release of those two amoral films - "The Graduate" and "Bonnie and Clyde" in that fateful year.
Shrikanth:" If it's cheap to enjoy your company, you end up with the wrong company. Invariably. Instead, if you play a goddess, you will end up with a God for a husband."
ReplyDelete- Funny, then, how genuinely coy and mostly virgin women end up with abusive husbands in arranged marriages in India?
Please do not try to bring feminism into this. Use logic.
"Use logic"
ReplyDeleteMy whole argument was based on logic. BUt yes, if you don't like logic let's try data.
The last time I checked Indian divorce rates are a very small fraction of the divorce rates in US. Half of the marriages in US appear to end in divorce, so the "Love" marriages don't seem to be working too well. And "divorced" women have divorced mainly on account of husband desertion and abuse. So "love" hasn't really helped these women in picking the right men. If data is anything to go by, their choices are worse than the choices based on "Kula", "gotra", "family background" and other "obnoxious" criteria used by parents in India. Haha.
I am not in favor of or against love marriages. I am just looking at the data. The numbers don't seem to be making a strong case for the robustness of "love" marriages. Sure, that's no argument against "love". People should still feel free to fall in love. But then, the data provides you no argument against "arranged" marriages either. Infact the data is pointing in the opposite direction.
If divorce rates are anything to go by, maybe there is merit in arranged marriages, where parents filter out boys with questionable background and families (no matter how "handsome" and "sexy" they are). Maybe we should pay greater attention to cold reason and less to our hormones?
"If divorce rates are anything to go by.." - they're not, and hence your own postulation is more or less garbage - the old adage 'garbage in garbage out' applies. Rising divorce rates have more to do with increase in individualism, empowerment of women and feminism. There is no need to be stuck in a bad, abusive marriage or even a loveless one for fear of society, family and the children's future.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyway, your larger point implies that robust marriages are something to aim or aspire for. Who cares? People can stay together as long as it makes sense and leave and find other partners when it doesn't.
But finally, based on this sentence I honestly couldn't tell if you're serious, "This great lesson of pragmatism is driven home very well in that Manoj Kumar classic Dr Vidya."
Shrikanth: please take a break for a while - or at least take a couple of days off before posting your next long comment and then consider if you really want to post it.
ReplyDeleteAs I have told you many times before: I respect many of your positions, even conditionally agree with a few of them, and at any rate find them a refreshing change from the often blindly well-intentioned "liberal/progressive" ideas I come across elsewhere. But you do have a few blind spots of your own, and one of them is your glossing over the very real history of gender oppression. I know privilege and unprivilege aren't watertight categories, and that someone who is privileged in one context can be deeply unprivileged in another. But many of your comments about gender come across as very smug and condescending, and I wish you would try to see that.