A Passage To India : To NOT From

Director David Lean
Starring Victor Banerjee, Art Malik, Judy Davis, Peggy Ashcroft
Release date December 14, 1984
Running Time 156 minutes

Nothing is significantly new to tell about a 'loyal' movie version of a novel. It doesn't deal with anything further and deeper than the novel dealt with.

The book was published in 1924, and the movie released in 1984. Even after these six long decades 'Sir' David Lean has succeeded to maintain the attitude of his predecessor. Times changed, perspective didn't. His portrayal of Indian people (in general) as superstitious, overwhelmingly politicized, reason-less even sexually overactive (to the extent of perversion), and Indian nature full of ornate elephants, demonic monkeys and venomous snakes - is just another effort to reinforce the discourses prevailing from the days of old glorious British Raj.

In short, the film (so was the book) a stupid and unintelligent attempt to create a colonial narrative behind the mask of liberal humanism. The film is even shallower than the book.

One thing we must remember that this is a Passage 'to' India, not the other way round. And this is a 'passage' that transports not a 'bridge' that connects. So either way its one way. It is meant to satisfy the British desire and nothing else. Even today, I see the DVD cover, and I find, Dr. Aziz (played by our won Mr. Victor Banerjee) couldn't get himself printed. The simple reason: though he is considered to be 'the' protagonist, he is not a British. And the complex reason: this 'intentional fallacy' (probably I am not using a right term) , the characterization of Dr. Aziz is something that the colonialists now want not to be spoken of at large.

One more thing I may mention here. Our old new wave friend François Truffaut once made a valuable comment on Lean's films : describing them as nothing more than "Oscar packages" !

Crash : Reinforcing Discourse ?

Director Paul Haggis
Writers Paul Haggis, Bobby Moresco
Release date September 10, 2004
Running time 122 Min Theatrical

Crash advocates peace, inter-racial harmony and humanity above all.

But, does it try to cover up the hegemonic suppression (by so called wasp Americans) on all minor ethnic groups, by shifting its focus on inter-racial conflict? Does it reinforce the enlightenment discourse that white men acts form reason, and all 'others' from pure instinct? Is it a white-self-written 'confessional' narrative where, it reaches 'realization' though a reasoned path, whereas the others reach 'epiphany' through divine intervention? "Moving at the speed of life, we are bound to collide with each other" – is this tagline a kind of lame excuse to deep rooted ethno-political conflicts? These are the questions came to my mind.

From Persia to Mexico, from China to El Salvador or Puerto Rico, the ethno-geography of the film is too elaborate to discuss each case keeping in mind its exclusive reality. And moreover I don't know whether the collage presented here is made up of real pictures or not.

Wiki reminds, some critics also thought institutionalized, anti-minority racism wasn't evaluated enough in the film, and that by focusing more on individual prejudices it is "self-indulgent" for white Americans who "want to feel victimized".

I can't be sure if it fell victim of the very discourse it intends to fight.

From Dusk Till Dawn : The Postmodern

Director Robert Rodriguez
Story Robert Kurtzman
Screenplay Quentin Tarantino
Starring George Clooney, Tarantino
Release date January 19, 1996
Running time 108 min.

What should be thought of a freaky fantasy: is it a 'free-play' that can be rigorously examined or just an arbitration?

A stereotypical Tarantino-Rodriguez movie – full of excitement and post-watch anxiety. Amusing yet disturbing. Now, not only because of the variety its of motifs and aesthetic schemes, discontinuity and a tendency to surpass probability, embracing possibility, not caring for any 'equalization' among the diverse (and incongruous) types of visual and auditory elements used – one can call it postmodern. It's postmodern (rather a post-structuralism) also because it (or any of its characters) doesn't stay on a permanent statement. After an archetypical struggle of good vs. evil finally the good comes out as a winner, but the film doesn't go anywhere. No truth it can finally offer.

I have tried to figure out if there is any hidden political agenda. I have not thought much though. In the final shot, we can see the evil (?) bar is actually situated on an archaeological remnant of an Aztec temple. What does it signify? Aztecs are grotesque? Or colonizers will someday face the consequence? Vampires are Aztecs who actually take revenge on the living white men (outsiders are not welcome into the bar) or they have no 'rationale' only an evil instinct?

One of the film's tags is "A terrifying evil has been unleashed. And five strangers are our only hope to stop it." Can it be considered as an expression of the collective anxiety of the white men on facing the challenge thrown by the (long-dead perhaps) of the colonized 'other'.

Frank Frazetta

The director originally commissioned one of his favourite painters, Frank Frazetta, to create the one-sheet poster for the film (added here). Although the poster ultimately wasn't used, Rodriguez struck up a friendship with Frazetta and the two planned on working together.

According to Wiki Frank Frazetta (born February 9. 1928) is one of the world's most influential fantasy and science fiction artists. He is one of the most emulated artists of these genres in the world.

(if interested visit www.frazettaartgallery.com)