Last night at the insistence of my
father, I managed to wander into a screening of what was being billed
an “Indian Auteur” series for the film “Pyaasa” by the much
revered Guru Dutt.
Being an avid fan of film, and with
extensive training in film and literary theory I was really quite
skeptical of the word “Auteur.” After all, I had studied the
works of Bergman, Kurisawa, Ford and extensively studied the works of
Polanski and Kubrick and had never even heard of Guru Dutt , despite
my Indian heritage.
I was quite pleasantly surprised that
not only is Guru Dutt a true Auteur worthy of the same level of
praise as the previously mentioned directors, but likely influenced
Kubrick in the great film “Barry Lyndon” and almost certainly
influenced Polanski in the masterpiece “Chinatown.” Whether you
are bringing “civility” to the new world, water to Los Angeles or
democracy to India there comes very complex social and moral
questions that the leaders in society must answer for, and Dutt
explores this in “Pyaasa” with all the elegance, candor and
complexity with which a subject like this deserves.
A true deconstruction of the film would
require multiple viewings picking apart all the elements that go into
crafting a scene, but as there are only a handful of watchable copies
left, I will attempt to deconstruct only some of the more complex
social issues from a film theory perspective from memory and only
after one viewing.
On the surface, “Pyaasa” is a movie
about the promise that India gave to its people in 1947, and had not
delivered on by the time the film was completed in 1957. However,
the way in which this messaging was achieved by influencing form
rather than content is nothing short of brilliant.
Every character in the film is
carefully crafted. The writing for each character is flawless and
the acting magnificent (despite the melodrama and many songs that may
turn off certain western audiences) to represent a piece of
contemporary Indian society.
The character of Vijay represents
India’s “Everyman.” Dutt’s acting is neutral, and with every
facial expression of simultaneous concern and acceptance he conveys
the conscience of the masses in India. He is adrift in a democracy
that values wealth over art, and the accumulation of objects to
reflect social status over the natural beauty that surrounds them.
The opening scene finds Vijay contemplating the beauty that surrounds
him and the natural innocence of his surroundings represented in a
bee that lands on the soft ground, only to be crushed by the western
shoe of a passer-by. This sets the theme for the rest of the movie
that India is losing its inner and outer beauty to the crushing
commercialization of it society.
Early on in the movie, Vijay’s family
is carefully constructed to represent a metaphor for the contrasting
nature of India’s transition. While I don’t believe that Dutt
was calling for a return to the old ways before independence, Vijay’s
mother clearly represents the loving mother India that could once
produce Vijay who represents art, culture and the pursuit of loftier
emotions and expression that is clearly being extinguished in the new
India. Vijay’s brothers on the other hand represent the new India.
Greedy, corrupt, without morals. They continually refer to Vijay as
a “good for nothing” with no place, or prospects in society.
Truly he is meant to be unemployed. His brother sells his collection
of works entitled “Shadows” for 10 annas to be used as waste
paper. Vijay never fights back against his brothers. On the
surface, one could see that perhaps Vijay is depressed and too weak
to fight back; however, Dutt deliberately shows his own face in
shimmering light throughout this scene and there is no ambiguity in
reading his acting as anything but neutral. He feels that he cannot
fight back, so his paralysis imposed upon him by his brothers is the
same as the paralysis imposed upon the artistic and cultured
individuals in Indian society that may not attach a monetary value to
everything, particularly art.
The women in Vijay’s life present an
interesting insight into Dutt’s motivation for the film. On the
one hand he found love one time with Meena. She inspired him to
write the most beautiful poetry that ended up becoming his great work
“Shadows.” In fact, I believe that the reason that Dutt called
the collection “Shadows” is because Meena represents the India
that Vijay was in love with. The one that is being crushed under the
boot of commercial success. The substance is gone and only the
shadow remains. Meena herself, full of youth and beauty “sold out”
and chased wealth and economic security instead of taking a chance on
a beautiful soul such as Vijay. There is an underlying understanding
between them that if she (the potential that India had from ’48-’52)
had explored how to nurture and love the likes of Vijay there could
have been true happiness between them, but instead she sold out to
the new form that India was taking represented by the reprehensible
Mr. Gosh. Mr. Gosh represents everything that his wrong with India
today. He has crushed and manipulated the beautiful soul of Meena
and now uses his power and economic influence to craft society the
way he sees fit. In the new Indian democracy he is what is wrong,
and Dutt brilliantly foreshadows the next six decades of corruption
at the highest levels of government in one scene where Vijay’s
childhood friend asks if Mr. Gosh will bribe everyone, and he answers
that he will use all of his wealth to keep himself from ruin at the
expense of Vijay.
The character of Sreeram?? Played by
Johnny Walker it serves two purposes. In a film with such heavy
themes, a little comic relief is necessary to serve as a spoonful of
sugar to wash down the socio-political lessons that come with the
film. However, the song that he sings is also representative of the
innocent fools in India. The ones that can contently drink or
massage themselves with oil to distract themselves from the economic
oppression that they feel on a day to day basis. The very words of
his song demonstrate this. “Take my oil massage and you will feel
good.” I believe that Dutt is showing here that massages, alcohol
and the lighter side of society act like the proverbial opiate for
the masses of Indian society. While they may have been similar films
with as much artistry as Piyassa in the coming years, Bollywood
became much more known for their light hearted love stories that did
not touch on such critical social themes.
Finally, in any film theory
deconstruction you cannot avoid is speaking about structure. Order,
disorder and order restored. The way that order is restored gives
the most clear understanding of the social and political motivations
of the director. This is also true in Pyaasa. Order – Vijay is
adrift in poverty, unemployment and heart break. Despite his
considerable skill as a poet there is no place for him in society.
Vijay meets a prostitute who is very cunning, but buys his poems and
recognizes the beauty in them immediately. Disorder – The educated
are put to work as coolies. Despite Vijay’s brilliance as a poet
he is forced into labour so that he can feed himself and works for
the detestable Mr. Gosh. He is forced into an undignified position
as there is no place for him in modern society. Gulab is left to
pine for a man who she has fallen in love with, but because of her
social station she is dismissed and not taken seriously. Her life is
continuously in danger and she is pursued ominously by traditional
sites of authority like the police. Only Vijay can save her or show
her a kindness, but a separation still exists because of her social
station in life. During this time Vijay’s mother (mother India)
has drawn her last breath and the Vijay is sent into chaos. Feeling
he has nowhere to turn he goes to kill himself, and performs one last
act of kindness for a poverty-stricken beggar. The beggar having no
face or station follows Vijay blindly but Vijay leads him to
annihilation as there is no escaping the trappings or the coming wave
(represented by a ceaseless train) of economic oppression for the
poor. Order-restored – In presumed death, Vijay achieves the kind
of success that he could never achieve when everyone thought he was
alive. He is a prisoner in a mental asylum (the very makeup of
Indian society) but the people close to him are getting wealthy on
the back of his genius. He exposes himself to the public and should
now have all that he lacked before in money and fame, but he rejects
all of it. Seeing the trappings of the new commercial India where
loyalty and friendship mean nothing and the commercialization of art
is more important the art itself, Vijay rejects and admonishes his
new fame. Meena (India’s potential) asks him reconsider, and he
can only look upon her with pity as she was so quick to sell out that
she will never understand why he cannot.
The final scene is reminiscent of what
would become feminist film theory in the 1970’s. Similar to the
theory that a woman can only be an angel or a whore, there is only
one option from both Vijay and Gulab. There is no place in Indian
society for a brilliant poet that can hold a mirror up to society and
ask it to be morally accountable. There is no place in Indian
society for a hooker, no matter how golden her heart is. The only
alternative they have is annihilation. Vijay says he will go to a
faraway place where he can go no further, and in a mystical sequence
calls Gulab down to come with him so that they can both walk into the
clouds and die. “This world is yours, you can have it” is
Vijay’s final suicide note that comes with the hope that he will
find a place in the next life beyond all of the greed and corruption
that has infected India since the hope and potential directly
following independence.
A truly great film, Dutt explores the
complex social issues of his time and presents them with such
poignancy that he truly deserves to be mentioned as an all-time great
on this one film alone. It is extremely rare that a director can
convey with such mastery such complex themes by form rather than
content, and Dutt truly deserves the title of Auteur.
Alex Zachariah
