Every
year there is a wave of
independent films that make a splash in critics’ circuits and at international
film festivals, but only a few manage to make it to a commercial release.
It is a formidable achievement on the part of the makers and the financiers of
the film to bring it to the people it is based on.
As the
multiple-award winning film Court completes
one year since its premiere at the Venice Film Festival, it is time to
look back on what won it the highest Indian honour for feature films – Best
Feature Film at the National Awards.
Narayan
Kamble, a lokashaheer (activist poet and folk singer), is
charged with the abetment of the suicide of a sewer worker. This alleged
abetment comprises of ‘inflammatory’ songs that Kamble sings about the
deplorable condition of sewer workers, amongst other social issues.
The trial
forms a major part of the film, and this columnist believes it succeeds in
bringing to the screen the ground realities of the lower courts. However, after
a few scenes into the movie we realise that the courtroom setting is a gateway
to other important questions raised by the film.
What makes this film more than merely
a realistic portrayal of the Indian judicial system is the humanity it imbues
its characters with – each important character, including the seemingly
infallible judge, is subject to deep-seated prejudices.
On one hand,
the film exposes inefficiencies behind drawn-out court cases and an
interpretation of the law which is true to the letter but not to the spirit. On
the other, it unravels and explores the motivations, hopes, and fears of the
people, and the tedium of their daily jobs. The film is equally interested in
both what happens outside the courtroom and what happens within it.
The three main characters the film
chooses to focus on are Kamble’s defence lawyer, the public prosecutor, and the
presiding judge. While the court-scenes are top-notch, there are also
thoughtful scenes where the film delves into the characters’ personal lives,
often painting a picture counter-intuitive picture to the impression they make
in their workplace.
The defence
lawyer is seen enjoying an active nightlife, shopping for alcohol, and paying
frequent visits to the salon – things which hint at his privileged
background, but could be considered improper for a socially aware lawyer who
provides legal help to the disadvantaged and engages in legal activism. His
tough and powerful arguments, ridiculing various absurdities – such as
antiquated laws dating to the 19th century – are deftly presented alongside a
scene in which he breaks down, sobbing with his back to the camera. One wonders
whether this points to the notion of sentimentality’s apparent incompatibility
with masculinity.
The
director’s keen lens is similarly cast on the gender divide in society through
a seemingly harmless yet extremely insightful scene which shows men and women
from the same family sitting apart and talking about two different sets of
topics.
One can see
the tedious monotony that has crept into her daily life when we see the public
prosecutor go about her daily chores, or chat nonchalantly with her colleagues
about handing out a prison sentence to Kamble and being done with the case.
The film subtly covers a range of
issues in its two-hour runtime. These issues aren’t deliberately inserted in
the narrative to score extra brownie points or to flaunt the label of social
consciousness. They are an organic part of the narrative and help the viewer
understand the characters’ motivations.
The social
and economic backgrounds of the characters are expertly contrasted with one
another, especially those of the two lawyers. Caste divides are silently
commented upon as well – the testimony of thedeceased sewer worker’s wife shows
how many people from backward castes have to undertake dangerous work just to
feed their families. One also sees how linguistic backgrounds are both
connecting factors and barriers. The public prosecutor shares a language
(Marathi) with the judge, which perhaps gives her leeway with her lax
arguments. Kamble’s lawyer, on the other hand, possibly because of his crisp
English and ignorance of Marathi, has to work harder to find his feet, make
himself understood and follow the interrogation of witnesses.
The
greatest strength of the film, which is a credit to Tamhane’s observational
acumen, is the subtle humour that underlines it throughout. Small but important
details include lawyers hunting for clients outside the court, like roadside
sellers who sell their wares to passers-by; the sessions-court judge peppering
her dictation of court proceedings with casual instructions to her typist to
exclude superfluous sentences; or the men who inadvertently interrupt a lecture
by bringing in a fan and fumble around to find a place for it.
These
seemingly insignificant details not only lend credibility to the film but also
allow the viewer to maintain a position of relative objectivity, like a CCTV
camera on a wall. This is helped by lengthy takes, where the camera stays still
for a long period of time or follows the characters around instead of cutting
to another angle, establishing the setting before the characters enter the
frame, and the rolling of the camera long after a scene has ended.
For years, courts have been depicted
as hallowed halls in which lawyers sermonise and deliver eloquent speeches,
spectators break into sporadic applause like audiences at political rallies,
and judges listen mutely to powerful pleas of justice. Court is a film which gives us a more
convincing picture of reality, and, as expected, it is a far cry from regular
cinematic fare.
Intelligent,
funny, and insightful, Court deserves
its National Award.
(The film has been written and directed by Chaitanya Tamhane and is the filmmaker’s debut film.)
First published here: http://theindianeconomist.com/why-court-deserves-its-national-award/Source for image: http://www.hindustantimes.com/movie-reviews/court-review-tamhane-s-film-deals-with-intolerance-and-censorship/story-e44dGAYQQ59vqhv8rjtBiI.html
No comments:
Post a Comment