JunkMakers

JunkMakers Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from JunkMakers, Film/Television studio, Siliguri.

We are pleased to announce our collaboration with .co located at Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi. Come join us at the beaut...
09/08/2024

We are pleased to announce our collaboration with .co located at Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi.

Come join us at the beautiful bookstore tomorrow and find the latest graphic t-shirts on your favourite writers/philosophers.

Adieu Godard!Created by - Atmadeep Das
14/09/2022

Adieu Godard!

Created by - Atmadeep Das

'শ্রীকান্ত'র একাল : সিনেমার মাপকাঠিতে চারিত্রিক পুনর্গঠন"তুমি যদি script-এর literary value নিয়ে মাতামাতি কর, তাহলে কিন্ত...
21/11/2021

'শ্রীকান্ত'র একাল : সিনেমার মাপকাঠিতে চারিত্রিক পুনর্গঠন

"তুমি যদি script-এর literary value নিয়ে মাতামাতি কর, তাহলে কিন্তু আমাকে উপন্যাসের cinematic value-এর ওপর জোড় দিতেই হয়। আসলে দুটোই অর্থহীন।" --- সমকালীন সাহিত্য ও সাহিত্য নির্ভর সিনেমা সংক্রান্ত বাগবিতন্ডায় সত্যজিৎ রায় এই জবাবই দিয়েছিলেন বুদ্ধদেব বসুকে। আসলে, একে অপরের ছিটে ফোটা লক্ষন বহন করলেও দুই মাধ্যম সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন কিন্তু পরিপূরক এবং এটাই এদের নমনীয়তা, যাকে যেই আধারে ঢালা হোক রসোত্তীর্ণ হলেই তার সার্থকতা। তাই বইয়ের শ্রীকান্ত ধুতি ছেড়ে সটান জিন্স প্যান্টে পিরিয়ড ড্রামার বেড়া টপকে এযুগেও সাবলীল।

প্রদীপ্ত ভট্টাচার্যের "রাজলক্ষী ও শ্রীকান্ত" (২০১৯) ছবিতে শ্রীকান্ত'র ভূমিকায় ঋত্বিক (যুবক শ্রীকান্ত) ও সোহম মৈত্র (কিশোর শ্রীকান্ত) পর্যায়ভিত্তিক ভাবে অস্তিত্বকে জানান দিয়েছে। বাংলার উপকূলীয় গ্রাম্য জীবনে বেড়েছে ইন্দ্রনাথ (সায়ন ঘোষ) ও তার চ্যালা শ্রীকান্ত । শ্রীকান্ত-এর কৈশাের থেকেই যে ব্যক্তি তার ওপর প্রভাব ফেলেছে, তার চরিত্রকে বিকশিত হতে সাহায্য করেছে সে হল ইন্দ্রনাথ। শ্রীকান্ত, ইন্দ্রনাথের সংস্পর্শে সাধারণ নাগরিক জীবনের অধিকারী হয়েও অস্তিত্ববাদের আদর্শে চালিত। এই রিক্ততার আদর্শ আসলে এক ধরনের রােমান্টিক নির্লিপ্ততা যা জীবনের সুলভ সুখ আর আনন্দ পেয়েই পরিতৃপ্ত নয়। জীবনের কোনো অজানা মহত্তর প্রাপ্তি কোথায় লুকিয়ে আছে তারই সন্ধানে ঘুরে বেড়ানোর সুখ।

সুন্দরবনের পটে সিনেকথনে যে গ্রাম বর্ণিত হয়েছে তার নাম নিশ্চিন্দিপুর। যার মোহনায় বিভূতিভূষন ও শরৎচন্দ্র এক তরঙ্গে মিশেছে। দৈনন্দিনে বেঁচে থাকতে কখন তারা চুরি করছে মাছ, কখনও গভীর রাতে কবরস্থানে হাড়গোড়। তবে যুবক শ্রীকান্ত (ঋত্বিক) চাকরিজীবী, সে চাকরি বেছে নেয়। "টিকে থাকা আর বেঁচে থাকায়..." আপত্তি তার। এমন নির্ভীক নাগরিক জীবন কত যুবকই না কল্পনা করে। তবে সাহস আর দুঃসাহসের মাঝে রূপালি রেখা খুঁজে পায় না। এরম সাহসী চরিত্রের জন্ম, তার বেড়ে ওঠা দর্শকের কাছে পূর্ব নির্ধারিত কিছু ট্র্যেট-মাফিকই এগিয়ে চলেছে ক্লাসিক ধরে।

অতীত-বর্তমানের দোলাচালে এগিয়েছে সিনেমা। যুবক শ্রীকান্ত এখন যে সমাজে রয়েছে সেখানে পরিশ্রম ও রোজগার ব্যস্তানুপাতিক। কর্পোরেট জীবনেই আচমকা তার কাছে ডাক আসে কলেজ বন্ধু হুকুমচাঁদের (রাহুল ব্যানার্জী)। চাকরিকে বুড়ো আঙুল দেখিয়ে সে অজানা প্রাপ্তির নেশায় ছুটে যায় পুরুলিয়ার জঙ্গলে। এই বোহেমিয়ান শেকড়ের টান তাকে হাজির করেছে তার পুরোনো প্রেমিকা রাজলক্ষ্মীর (জ্যোতিকা জ্যোতি) সামনে। শ্রীকান্তর অসংখ্য নির্ভীক পদচারনায় একটি মাত্র থমকে যাওয়ার ভীত পদক্ষেপ ছিল রাজলক্ষ্মীকে দেওয়া কথার খেলাপ। যার পরিণতি আজ রাজলক্ষ্মীকে পেয়ারীবাইতে পরিণত করেছে। পেয়ারী এখন হুকুমচাঁদের রক্ষিতা, পয়সার বিনিময়ে কেনা। ঠিক যেমন গুনিন শাহুজী, অন্নদাদিদিকে (অপরাজিতা ঘোষ দাস) পন্য হিসেবে যেকোনো দিন বেচে দিতে পারতো। রক্ষা করেছিল ইন্দ্রনাথ। মেকি প্রোগ্রেসিভ সমাজে নারির স্থান প্রশ্নে জর্জরিত। তার সাথে, পেয়ারীকে ব্যক্তি মর্যাদায় শিকার করা বা না করার প্রবণতাও ব্যক্তি শ্রীকান্তর অন্তর্বর্তি দ্বন্দ্ব পর্দায় স্পষ্ট করেছে বাস্তবকে। বহু পরুষের ললুপ দৃষ্টি নিয়ে বয়ে চলা বহমান শরীর, যা কখনও বাজির দাও হয়েছে তাতেও লুকিয়ে থাকা প্রেমিকা হৃদয় আবিষ্কার করেছে শ্রীকান্ত। পতিতাবৃত্তি আসলে শ্রমের বিনিময়, ভালোবাসার নয়। তাইতো আজও রাজলক্ষী তার শ্রীকান্তদা কে পেলে, তার সাথে চলে যেতে রাজি। একই ব্যক্তির মননে এই ধরনের মনস্তাত্ত্বিক দ্বন্দ্ব খুলে দিয়েছে পরা-বাস্তবতার জগৎ, যেখানে পেয়ারী বা রাজলক্ষ্মী, সংসারধর্মী অন্নদাদিদির অনুরূপা হয়েও বিপরীত।

ইন্দ্রনাথের অন্নদাদিদির প্রতি অকৃত্রিম টান কোথাও কোথাও ছাপিয়ে গিয়েছে শ্রীকান্ত-রাজলক্ষ্মীর সাহসী ভালবাসাকে। মিলন-বিচ্ছেদ, অতীত আর বর্তমানকে সমান্তরালে টেনেছেন পরিচালক। পাখির চোখে রাস্তার অনেক মোড় ঘুরে শেষ বেলায় পরা-বাস্তব কল্পকাহিনির উপসংহার মৃত্যু ও টিকে থাকায় জাক্সটাপোস্ড। তিনখানা খোলা দরজা, চৌকাঠ পেরোলেই তিন সম্ভাব্য বিপরীত দুনিয়া। কিসলোস্কি'র 'ব্লাইন্ড চান্স'(১৯৮৭)এর কথা মনে করায়। কিসলোস্কি তার ছবিতে তিনবার তুলে ধরেছেন এক চিকিৎসকের ট্রেন ধরার দৃশ্য। তিন বারই যা আলাদা এবং এই বাহন আসলে জীবনবাহক, যা তিন আলাদা উপসংহারে উপনীত হয়। মূলত, ব্যক্তির রাজনৈতিক মনস্তাত্বিক অবস্থানের ওপর ভিত্তি করে এই সমান্তরাল কল্পকাহিনি। কিন্তু প্রদীপ্তবাবু তার ছবিতে সুচারু মন্তাজে ব্যক্ত করেছেন সুক্ষজীবনিচেতনা, যা শরৎচন্দ্রের অনুপস্থিতিতেও তার পরিচায়ক। কবি রাধারাণী দেবীর মূল্যায়ণে, "শরৎ সাহিত্যের বিশেষত্বই হচ্ছে জীবনের কঠোর বাস্তবতার সাথে সুষমা, স্নিগ্ধকল্পনার অপুর্ব সুসঙ্গতি।" এই ছবির এক অন্তে শাহুজীকে খুন করে পালানোর পথেই ইন্দ্র-অন্নদাদিদি, শাহুজীর লোকেদের দ্বারা নিহত। আরেক অন্তে পেয়ারীকে নিয়ে পালানোর পথে শ্রীকান্ত-রাজলক্ষী, হুকুমচাঁদের লোকেদের দ্বারা নিহত এবং শেষ প্রান্তে তাদের জীবন নদী আবার একধারায় মিশেছে। কিন্তু শ্রীকান্ত নাগরিক জীবনে তরী ভাসিয়েছে, অর্থাৎ ঘটেছে তার বোহেমিয়ান অস্তিত্বের ইচ্ছামৃত্যু।

মানসিক, সামাজিক সমস্যার মধ্যেও মানবজীবনের কাঠামো অপরিবর্তিত রেখে ছবিতে এসেছে আধিভৌতিক ড্রিম সিকোয়েন্স। পরা-বাস্তবতা এবং যাদু-বাস্তবতাকে বাংলা চলচিত্রে এত সুন্দর পরিবেশন হাতে গোনা কিছু পরিচালকরাই করেছেন। প্রদীপ্ত ভট্টাচার্যের 'বাকিটা ব্যক্তিগত…'(২০১৩) এবং স্বল্পখ্যাত এক্সপেরিমেন্টাল 'পরশুরাম', 'পিঙ্কি, আই লাভ ইউ', 'বিশ্বাস নাও করতে পারেন' এই তালিকায় পরবে। পরিচালক এই ধারার নাম দিয়েছেন "আশ্চর্য বাস্তব"। গল্পকথনের পাশাপাশি গানের কথকতাও ক্যাসকেডের মত ছবিকে এগিয়ে নিয়ে গেছে ও চরিত্রের অন্তর্গত দ্বন্দ্বকে ফুটিয়ে তুলেছে। ধ্রুপদী, বাঊল, আধুনিক, দ্বীজেন্দ্রগীতি মিলিয়ে অদ্ভুত ঘোর রয়েছে গানগুলোতে। অনির্বাণ দাস, তন্ময় সরকারের গানের কথা, গল্প এবং সাত্যকি ব্যানার্জীর নেপথ্য সংগীত এক সুতোয় গেথে একাত্ম হয়েছে। গানে বারবার এসেছে 'দোয়েল পাখি'র কথা। "দেখো শহুরে এই বাঁচা, মৃত দোয়েল পাখির খাঁচা", "দগ্ধ দেশে ধংস স্তুপে পুষছি দোয়েল পাখি।" 'দোয়েল পাখি' বস্তুত অধরা প্রেমের স্বরূপ।

অতীতের আয়নায় চরিত্রের মূল্যায়ন, বর্তমানের মূল্যবোধ ও স্বপ্নের সাথে খাপ খাবে না সেটাই স্বাভাবিক। তাই এযুগের প্রতিফলক ও মাপকাঠি প্রয়োজন। উপন্যাস ও সিনেমার সমাপতন অনিবার্য কখনই নয়, তার জলজ্যান্ত প্রমাণ শরৎচন্দ্রের 'শ্রীকান্ত'(প্রথম খন্ড)-এর আধারে তৈরী প্রদীপ্ত ভট্টাচার্যের এই ছবি। মূল কাহিনী ভেঙেচুরেও চারিত্রিক গঠন অক্ষুন্ন থেকেছে প্রায় প্রত্যেক চরিত্রের। জন্ম হয়েছে জীবন নিংড়ে বাঁচতে চাওয়া অধুনা 'শ্রীকান্ত'র, যা পরিচালকের একান্তই নিজের এবং যার "শেষে এটুক থাকে চাওয়া, ভরা দীঘির জলে নাওয়া, বট-অশথ পাতায় ছাওয়া কৃপণ শেষ বসন্ত হাওয়া.... আর অস্তমিত কবরখানায় শরীর রেখে যাওয়া।"

Written by: Arumoy Das
(Junkyard 1.0- 2nd rank)

Movie by: Pradipta Bhattacharya
Painting by: Dan Benett

Disconnected and Doomed -the silent beauty of Lost in TranslationA pink wig leaning on a black coat in the country of ch...
15/11/2021

Disconnected and Doomed -the silent beauty of Lost in Translation

A pink wig leaning on a black coat in the country of cherry blossoms - that's what seduced me at first sight, The poster. The premise, the location. the idea of two strangers falling in love in a foreign country. But then I watched the film. I realised I needed it badly now, in my early 20s than ever. Bob is a washed off movie star who comes to japan for a whiskey commercial, a man not ready to embrace his impending obscurity and gone youth. Charlotte - a philosophy major who accompanies her husband to Japan, a lost, uncertain, old soul. It's definitely not a meet-cute. But a recognition, a connection that grows from subtle creeping fondness to tender intimacy as they lock eyes in the hotel's elevators, crowded halls, midnight bars and get lost in the noisy nightlife of Tokyo streets and cultural scenes. There is a deeply unflattering stereotypical depiction of Japanese culture and its people, caricature characters and the only moment of respite the audience finds, is in the sense of disconnection, that lurks from the calmness of a Zen temple to the dazzlingly rainbowy -neon streets of Shinjuku or the clamour of a Karaoke bar.
I heard this phrase somewhere, 'things people never say stay in their eyes' For me the entire beauty of this film lies in the scenes where they're looking nowhere, their eyes screaming their sense of alienation, when they're alone, subdued, sitting with nothing but their basket of modern loneliness, staring out of the window, or dispassionately looking at things that will never mean anything to them, knowing pretty well that their life won't just swell into a climatic happy ending. In this fast-moving world that desires excesses and fast-paced easy experiences, the intimate moments that they have with their own selves, their thrilling disconnect to everything around them, their constantly unsatisfied expression, where they feel like they will never be enough, struck a chord with my slowly diminishing teenage dreams, and half beaten adulthood Desires. Bob and Charlotte don't actually meet until we're introduced to their individual colour of loneliness. Bob's misadventures in translation with s*x workers and ad-directors result in his decision to get the hell out of a country he's still not used to, but this inability to understand someone is shown even when he talks to his wife, or while he comes across his past on a tv set. Charlotte is lost too, she can't feel anything at all, chaos or peace and every time the camera zooms on her sitting by the window and a glamorous view in a big hotel room, we cannot romanticize it but only relate to it on some level.
“𝑰 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒍 𝒔𝒐 𝒂𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒆, 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝑰'𝒎 𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒚 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆"
In romantic dramas, we see expectations being met. it begins with a lonely girl, in almost wretched circumstances- nothing a prince couldn't conquer. She never expects a prince to show up but they do show up, all charming, embracing stereotypes of what defines a man, romance and attractiveness, money-making story dipped and fried inside copied formulas. And they do it, they conquer each other's demons and stitch things up in the right places to get us, the audience into that happy place. One that makes us feel disconnected from our own selves for a while, as we try to live vicariously in between two worlds that eventually tires us. But this film took me to that place of courage, told me not to have any expectations. Told me to be satisfied with it, all of it- the heaviness of the human heart and the Mysterious burden it carries. It takes immense courage to make meaningful connections. Even more so when you know it won't come to a fruitful end, a pleasant unexpected thing happens to Bob and Charlotte and they find this connection in each other, while also acknowledging the other person's loneliness and that there's nothing they can do about it. They overcome the language barriers, turn exotic experiences, cultural shock and jetlag, together into genuine communications and mellow, compassionate love. They recognise each other and that's enough. Their relationship is spirituality consummated one night in a hotel room when they stay up all night, revealing their heart while basking into the absurdities of life.
𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦: "𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐'𝘮 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦"
Sometimes I think it's unfair, the fact that I am not the only one who's lonely, that everyone around me has that same card called loneliness lurking in the background of their long list of sublime stories that may or may not have occurred in life. It's an unpleasant thought but it keeps fiddling with my head nevertheless - nothing can ever make us complete, that all those myths about invisible strings and soulmates are just made up games meant for gullible teens and as we grow up something about life teaches us otherwise. This movie is meant for us all, the one who claims they can never find anything or anyone good enough. The ones who have found it but suddenly don't know what to do with it, the ones who are too late, or not ready, ones who are too romantic and keep waiting. Everyone gets some elements in the film that echoes their situation in life. You can cherry-pick the beautiful romance and dwell on it or you can pick the ending and try to explain it to yourself in a rational way. They have to meet. They will. You will end up coming back to one truth. That things end. But they're beautiful nevertheless. Does it get easier? Probably. Probably not but as Bob says -
"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶."
The climax is a whisper not meant for the audience. Instead of connecting the dots and rewinding the ending to make sense of it, I choose to accept this absence. of dialogue. Whatever he whispered to her, really must have meant something because it was a look of content as they walked away from each other. As if the bond was sealed as a real experience not as an ill-fated encounter resulting in regret but a genuine thing that mattered in the world of trivialities and it would remain so forever, It's just not for us now. Maybe we should find something or someone that will give us the same moment of peace in the world of fury and rapid change. If not, we always have ourselves and it works, most of our time. “𝑬𝒏𝒋𝒐𝒚 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕.”

Written by: Nimisha Tiwari
(Junkyard 1.0- 3rd Rank)

Movie by Sophia Coppola
Painting by Holly Warburton

Sardar Udham: Forming of a Gyre from the Divergent Lines of British ImperialismWhile walking on the streets of Amritsar ...
25/10/2021

Sardar Udham: Forming of a Gyre from the Divergent Lines of British Imperialism

While walking on the streets of Amritsar on a 13th April, Shoojit Sircar, among the locals, experienced the grotesque trauma of the massacre that occurred almost a century ago. Generations passed, crowns changed, people left places—places abandoned people, but the trauma follows families and alleys like a haunting shadow from past, it remained as a scar that is hard to not-remember even though none of the witnesses is alive anymore and the trauma is shared by the second and third generations of the witnesses. In the history of British imperialism Jallianwala Bagh massacre is one of the most horrific form of genocide that shook the entire world. Many freedom fighters, revolutionists, and Indian politicians were influenced by the legacy of the tragedy as historian VN Dutta remarked, “Jallianwala Bagh changed the idiom of Indian nationalism” and there would have been no Bhagat Singh and no Udham Singh had there been no Jallianwala Bagh massacre. It introduced the turning point in the history of Indian freedom struggle where the radical voice of resistance through revolutionary ‘terrorism’ destabilised the empire over and over again through the members of HSRA or such other extremist groups. This massacre remains in the locus of the biopic Sardar Udham and is addressed by the director Shoojit Sircar in the last cycle of the narrative.
Set in the cold and foggy backdrop of London, the narrative of Sardar Udham is a complex one. It is non-linear and three cycles can be located on the chronological framework from his imprisonment to hanging during the 160 minutes long runtime. The film begins when Udham Singh is freed from jail in 1931 and meeting his fellow revolutionists to get out of India and to form support outside the country for the independence. It is the beginning of the first cycle which ends almost in 30 minutes when he shoots Michael O’Dwyer at Caxton Hall in London on 13th March 1940. This cycle in the shortest presents the entire circle of his journey which will be redefined again and again in the next two cycles. The second and third cycles are brought through flashbacks using several devices, sometimes juxtaposing scenes of present with past, sometimes through the interrogation of his associates, and sometimes forcing him to remember. Such non-linear narrative is not new in Indian films, but such complexity in non-linear pattern is quite rare specially when it is a biopic of a historical figure. In the fictional biography Barfi (2012), Anurag Basu exploited the narrative by forging several interviews, flashbacks, and POVs in it and presenting three different timelines accordingly that run in parallel with one another. In Sardar Udham there is one primary timeline, if we avoid the first 25 minutes it is emplaced in the year of 1940 throughout and the cycles over this timeline moving back and forth in time forms the wholesomeness for the sake of history.
In the article for the Tribune ‘Why I Made Sardar Udham’, Shoojit Sircar expressed his desire to capture the radical form of revolution of Punjab, for almost twenty years he had been researching and drawing the plot based on the struggles of Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh and the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. He found the possibility of capturing the movement as well as the massacre by centring his plot around Udham Singh, but to do so he did not limit himself. Sardar Udham, like Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra’s Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013), becomes another cinematic excellence that not only picturizes the life of a legend but successfully portrays the time and turmoil. In the beginning of the second cycle Udham Singh meets Eileen Palmer, a member of the Communist Party, who keeps in touch with him till the end and helps him in forming several connections. In a subtle and deliberate way Shoojit Sircar brings out the condition of communism in the heart of England along with the contour of Irish Nationalist Movement. We see protests around the city conducted by the Communist Party and the raid of British troop in a hideout of Irish Nationalist group. The tension between several anti-imperialist groups and British imperialism brings out the images of fearful shallowness and brutal repression of the British government that form the anti-colonial consciousness. This cycle is important to understand the persona of Udham Singh which was deeply influenced by Bhagat Singh. He takes us back in time when Bhagat Singh and Udhan Singh worked together and discusses their ideology—why they were different from ‘terrorists’. In support, the character of Bhagat Singh articulates in the film, “There is a difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary, a significant difference. A revolutionary action is symbolic, meant to register protest. Their motive is not to create fear. On the contrary they inspire to fight for rights…for freedom.” A revolutionary guide to freedom struggle soon turns into the projection of actions where Udham Singh is trying to make allies and of dialogues in the court room or in several meetings with fellow nationalists/revolutionaries where his rage and anguish brings up the shared trauma and depression of an entire country. With vivid detailing, this cycle again ends in His final action of violence which is also a consequence of the counter current that grew separately and supportlessly from the ashes of lost hopes and negotiations formulated by the Congress leaders. With these, scenes containing the British imperialistic motifs are juxtaposed at various places i.e., mostly to frame the revenge of Udham Singh as an act of mania to keep peace in British Indian army and get support for the WWII just like before. All these divergent lines of British imperialism are explored and further exemplified by Sircar to conceptualise the broader scenario of the time. The most significant instance of imperialistic violence is recreated in the last cycle of the film; it takes back to 1919, to the traumatic event that shaped the nation’s history, also ignited the fire in Udham Singh to lead the life as a revolutionary and to take revenge in the heart of England.
Previously in Gandhi (1982) Richard Attenborough visualised the massacre of Amritsar with great detail and sympathy, but certainly it lacked the empathy of the colonised. In Shoojit Sircar’s forty minutes long portrayal, it is not just a mere event, ‘a footnote’ in history, but a tragedy shared by many. The onscreen brutality and bloodshed is undoubtedly gross, however, it becomes our own. Sircar allotted exactly ten minutes for the shooting as it occurred under the order of General Dyer. The horror and impact of the scenes are close to the portrayal of partition in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, but at points Sardar Udham takes the gruesomeness to another extent. In the fictional tale of Mehra’s Rang De Basanti (2005), the ideals of Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Shivaram Rajguru, Ashfaqulla Khan, and Ram Prasad Bismil came to the carefree protagonists as symbols. Their stories of suffering and bravery made them share the collecting pain and struggle, and further motivated them to take the final stand and form a resistance unknowingly. This psychological transformation through trauma is dealt with viable effort in the film Sardar Udham to confer the growing of a legend Ram Mohammad Singh Azad from Udham Singh. The direct association of Udham Singh in the massacre functions as a bridge to share the same experiences of pain and hopelessness for viewers. This cycle is verbally concluded by Udham Singh as he clarifies his motive behind the assassination after the narration of events from 13th April 1919. After his hanging, the aftermath of the massacre is revisited—it is daybreak, dead bodies are being covered and cremated, twenty years old Udham rises from the water of Golden Temple—a new beginning.

Nakamura Hiroshi X Sardar Udham

Direction: Shoojit Sircar

Write-up & Pop-art:

Little Things: Bouncing off an aspirational romance as the relatable one.The loved one walks in. The room seems literall...
21/10/2021

Little Things: Bouncing off an aspirational romance as the relatable one.

The loved one walks in. The room seems literally to light up. Love gilds and stains everything with its colours. The sun shines more brightly, the birds sing more sweetly, and the most mundane objects are radiant with significance—the toothbrush, the earrings, the biryani. Love with all its misadventures- the little things always had it.

It starts aspirational and it ends aspirational. Those little things lie in between. From a short sketch on a couple to just a small rom-com show on Youtube to a multi-season episodaire on Netflix- The journey of “Little Things” has ended and it ended presumably sweet(not surprising). In 2016, I was fresh into college, deeply in love and gullible enough to believe the first relationship in my life with my school sweetheart will sustain forever. I was brave enough to dream of a dream-like love and bold enough to stick through any toxicity. Already the Indian Youtube scene was booming and the relatable sugarcoated romance Mikesh- Tanya ensured there is a huge surge for rom-com content there. The mushy live-in couple romances were a huge aspirational hit with “Ok Kanmani” and “Permanent Roommates” helming the crusade, so the arrival of Little Things stuck gold. At the core, the “Little Things” elevator pitch would be the littlest- a show choosing to navigate through the unremarkable stages of urban companionship with a lot of heart. The first season was pre-conceived as longer sketches where mundane conflicts arise between the couple and a resolution is found soon with one of the partners playing cute on another. It was designed for people mentioning their partners and crushes in the comment section as a hint to take their relationship forward in such an aspirational way. I might have done the same with my then-partner, whatsapping the link of the first episode, the way you would coyly sneak a mix-tape in your sweetheart’s bag. I surely did this with later partners in my life too, hoping a reference of how Dhruv and Kavya solved problems together in their relationships can act as a blueprint for “us” as well (in the last episode, Dhruv pronounces the secret sauce to their “successful” relationship: ‘Maybe because we like to solve things’). The deductive skills of “Little Things” worked in my relationship at times, the success rate was as much as any other show would have. The first season thus looks more packaged, something that you can watch and forget after having a few laughs and blushes. But it was the second and third season which really gets the subtlety and complexities of Modern Day Urban relationships right and makes you recommend it to everyone because it is relatable, not aspirational. The show starts focusing on the little conflicts which don’t have life-altering consequences but are heavy enough to not let go off easily- something that adds nuance to the apparently one-dimensional personalities of the protagonists in Season 1.
The sudden matured tone the show imbibes as soon as it migrates to Netflix startles you but towards the mid-third season, it becomes quite clear that Little Things is a commitment saga. Written in an almost hopelessly romantic way, the 2nd and 3rd seasons meditatively investigate the hurdles in Dhruv and Kavya’s life which can, in turn, break them apart, eventually Super Mario-ing through all of them to the predictable big little step forward at the end of season 4- marriage. Love is entirely a projection, it is a clumsy and erroneous form of perception which places everything in the object. Anyone who has been in love has firsthand acquaintance with the transformation in feeling or “internal sentiment” that brings with it a transformation in one’s perception of the world. Dhruv and Kavya feed off each other as the show mostly revolves around how they find new ways to love each other despite the mundane routine. The show rests heavily on the chemistry and effortlessness of the leads Dhruv Sehgal and Mithila Palkar- and it works throughout. The writers of season 4 depend largely on them to carry empty scenes with dialogues that would sound very typical of the characters. The two lead characters are designed with less depth and more dependence on each other; often it gets monotonous when the show focuses on only these two having big talks over love and life. The show really shines best when the couple is left alone individually to deal with their demons- their past relationship traumas, upbringing issues, career politics. The undercurrents of societal judgements, gender politics are all here but never too volatile tear them apart. We see multiple instances of Dhruv getting awkward at the prospect of Kavya earning more money than him, as people around him keep teasing about it and Kavya time and again wondering is there a better soulmate somewhere around the corner for her. Love is supposed to be a relationship between individuals and one which is rightly taken to have moral significance. Almost in a Kantian way Dhruv and Kavya’s friendship and romantic love are alike. Friends care for each others’ happiness, and so do lovers. Friends confide in each other, and so do lovers. Love, whether it is for a spouse or a friend wants to communicate itself completely, and it expects of its respondent a similar sharing of the heart. Dhruv and Kavya do the herculean task of keeping open communication alive throughout the series, enticing all the ‘no fight is bigger than the love’ posts all over social media right now.

With the supporting parents, and strong moral core of the couple, the hardest hurdle the writers could have pulled off is the long-distance, and they use the trope twice in the show- once to test the bond and later to bind them tighter. In long-term relationships, being alone suddenly throws a lot of questions because you hardly have the habit of being alone. You fear the stagnation of love, you “fight, you figure it out, fight again and then go around the same circles”, as Dhruv wonders after the completion of their longest long-distance relationship phase- “how do you move forward?”
The writing is at its best when the couple is getting on with their life with the quintessential moving-on tone the show has from at the start and starts focusing on the people around them. The writing has immense empathy while dealing with the character of the househelp’s kid who steals, or the security guard whom everyone forgot to invite to Kavya’s father’s farewell. The conversations hold ground as Dhruv deals with his Delhi mates and cousins having mixed emotions of annoyance and affection for them. Dhruv struggles to unlearn the Delhiwala attitudes lurking in him while Kavya struggles to hide herself from Pune her attachments. My favourite aspect of “Little Things” is how it depicts the cultural values deep within our Indian-ness while we balance career, parents and partners. While watching “Normal People” or “Before Trilogy”, I found myself wondering how different the stories would have been if there was the very Indian fabric of taking care of ageing parents in this equation. How would a rom-com deal with a live-in couple moving back with their parents to support them? “Little Things” explores this with a lot of earnestness. It reserves a decent stretch for Dhruv and Kavya to go back to their parents as they struggle with retirement, migration and illness. There is a sense of urgency and liability in how they carry out the act, finding it awkward with this change of house partners. The writing here is smart, never showing the parents as helpless or in dire distress; beautifully letting their own little problems flourish as they suddenly have their kid moving in.
The show peaked with 3rd season finale as Dhruv and Kavya find themselves at crossroads. As they have grown through the bigger arguments in season 2 and decided- “No matter what happens, This stays”, I had no doubt that their marrying is the endgame. Marriage is a big step and it took them and the writers time to fabricate little steps for them to take that grand leap of faith. It feels seamless too. But the very act in itself makes the title dichotomous, and the whole final season is written towards the culmination of the successful relationship of the internet’s favourite couple. And this cute sacrifice/ creative choice makes the last season quite bland. I can never come to terms with an ending that the very anatomy of a show like this doesn’t allow in itself. Imagine your little show that started with the boyfriend finding it hard to choose a saree for his girlfriend to wear, ending with a confident premise of marriage. The soul is lost in translation. For me, long ago “Little Things” stopped being a show about a love I can’t have. It was a show about the little moments and memories all of us will have down the road of love and can learn to cherish. It shouldn’t have ended like a show trying to convert the cynics into romantics. It should have been a show grounded enough to give a little hug to the hopeless romantics in all of us. “Little Things” ended aspirational, it wants us to seek the love we deserve. But as I am watching this dude on Insta tag his 3rd Girlfriend in 12 months on a “Little Things” quote, I know we(I) don’t “deserve” perfect endings, we just get the draw of the day.

Holly Warburton X Little Things

Write-up & Pop-art:

Address

Siliguri

Telephone

+918016753716

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when JunkMakers posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to JunkMakers:

Share