Khoya Khoya Chaand

Ek bikhari bikhari si arthheen celluloid kahani
(A meandering and meaningless celluloid tale)

It is an exploration of  nothing. It is a badly written, enacted, lighted, shot, and edited caricature of the ‘filmi duniya’ of the past. One does not even get a whiff of the bygone era from its frames in spite of all those pieces of chor bazaar furniture, vintage cars, and dinner jackets of film stars - expensive elements of production design.

Its music makes a mockery of the lyrics, songs, and dances of the Indian cinema of yore. Shantanu Moitra replays his Parinita themes like a stuck record, betraying his poor knowledge of Hindi film music and its unique importance in our cinema. The guy cannot even compose something as classically simple as a qawali. The lyrics by Kirkire are childish ‘tukbandis’. He borrows words and phrases from old film songs and puts them together. These upstarts try to camouflage their mediocrity without honing their poetic skills, following their guru Gulzar’s methods and means. There is nothing romantic, heart-warming, or elevating here, the hallmark of our films of the fifties and the sixties. Even B-grade movies would have great music and songs in those days. And those actresses were ‘adakaras’ in the true sense of the term.

It is irresponsible filmmaking as it is a criminal waste of precious resources. Sudheer Mishra is a past master at this. Yet, he always gets moneybags to back his films. That is the key to success these days. Is anyone really seeking talent in the film industry? How do obviously bad projects get the backing of stars, and well-connected and established producers?

Here is a case study.

The other day this writer met a well-known filmmaker who was one of the backers of Anurag Kashyap’s film No Smoking. I had complimented his brave act in a khullamkhulla review. Surprisingly, he didn’t seem to be happy about the way the film had finally turned out. Did he not read the script of the film before producing it? He said what was shot was not all there in the story he had approved and it might have worked well commercially had the film been shorter in length. What we know is that Anurag had made a three-hour long film, which was brutally edited to its final cut. It means the film was backed even in the absence of a complete script. Anurag got John to do the film and that must have been good enough a reason. We know the rest of the story. Kumar Mangat, the main backer, thought that it was a film with a message that informed the public how injurious and dangerous smoking could be.

He would fine anyone who smoked on the sets during the shoot. He admitted this in his pre-release interviews to the media. On the other hand, Anurag Kashyap proudly wrote a passionate article on PFC.com after the film’s release that the film was about his right to smoke. What an existential dilemma and dichotomy? But why?  Are these people not sensible enough? Are they? Where is the proof?  Had they been sensible, they should have known that the film had no commercial value. It does not seem to have stirred and excited the rest of the world and aficionados of art house cinema either, simply because existential and surrealistic themes may be uncommon in India, but not elsewhere. The first film of a graduating student of cinema in Europe invariably deals with such themes. There are four reasons behind this phenomenon. Marijuana, carnal obsessions, sleeplessness, and an inspiration overdose due to extreme exposure to the works of academically inclined philosopher filmmakers.

Now let us look at Khoya Khoya Chand as our next case study. The film was obviously backed for reasons other than the artistic and commercial possibilities inherent in its script. I doubt if a script existed in the first place. Shiny and Soha must have signed on the project firstly because it was a Sudheer Mishra film and secondly they were told that they were playing Guru Dutt and Waheeda Rehman respectively, the roles of their lifetime. Now, begins the script assembling process, in bits and pieces; an assortment of stereotypical characters, scenes, and jokes are picked up from here, there and everywhere. The shooting follows the same pattern. Nobody knows what is happening. It is the director’s call. During the shoot, the director and the rest of the unit laugh at the jokes and pat their own backs for great takes and shots. All this footage is dumped on to the film’s editor who tries his/her best to add things up into something. It does not add up though. The film ultimately reflects these disintegrated processes. The audience rejects it. A filmmaker like Sudheer Mishra exults in this rejection. Is it not the ultimate proof of his genius?  He refuses to acknowledge the fact that he has botched it up. Does he know that he has a problem that needs to be resolved? He may. He need not address the issue though. He will always find a backer, somehow, somewhere, and survive. There will always be someone to pick up his bills. He is part of the establishment. He is media savvy as well. Talent or no talent, he is there to stay.

How can you achieve any breakthroughs in a scenario like this? Some may not agree with this writer but it is a fact that nothing significant has happened in Indian cinema in the last ten years, barring a few comedies that were smart adaptations of successful Hollywood flicks, and films like Lagaan, Munnabhai MBBS, and Maqbool. And the blame squarely lies with the people who are at the helm. They don’t take pains to judge a film idea. They don’t even read scripts, though they claim and proclaim otherwise and shed croc tears over the dearth of good writers. They start their conversation with a wannabe filmmaker with the question, ‘have you got stars?’. Ironically, five years ago Saif Ali Khan, John Abraham, Govinda, and a whole lot of saleable stars of today were no good for them to back a project. Yet they fail to see through their moronic approach. Why cannot they do the first thing first?  Why cannot they read scripts and listen to ideas?  Why cannot they invest a little bit of their time and money in development of ideas and scripts? It will cost them peanuts and a little reading of the written word may sharpen their wit, eyesight, and evaluation skills.