Yun Hota Toh Kya Hota

Naseeruddin Shah directs a film. It is a momentous event in his professional life as an artiste. He has been characteristically candid in the pre-release interviews of the film and has given himself five points out of ten for his directorial debut.

What can you say further to someone who can seemingly look at his work with such dispassionate and disarming objectivity? Yet he has strong prejudices, preferences, obsessions, and opinions and he lives in a comforting and warm cocoon, surrounded by these.

When a highly accomplished and experienced film actor, thinker, a first class human being, and a theatre director like Naseer takes to film direction, you expect a breakthrough to happen. Why should he take the big plunge if he does not intend to dive deep to the bottom of the ocean in search of truly precious pearls?
 

That is the problem with YHTKH. It is not a breakthrough film. It does not actually achieve anything commercially or artistically and will at best be considered an inconsequential footnote in the history of Indian cinema.

There is one thing in this film that really rankles me. Naseer has done great injustice to his actors. The screenplay of the film and the shot divisions do not provide the precious moments and motivations that can make it a worthwhile experience for them. This was the least Naseer could have done, building up the scenes from an actor's perspective. The stereotypical characterizations and dialogues do not help either. It is sheer waste of film footage. Some of the senior actors like Irfaan and Boman go bonkers as if they were told to improvise the scenes on their own. There are obviously redundant and ‘out of order’ scenes, probably included to dramatize the plight of various characters. This mars the integrity of the film.

It is certainly not the story of those who want to live the American dream. This has been promoted as the main premise of the film. None of the characters have such aspirations. They are the victims of circumstances and not enthusiastic participants in the process. They do not have an American dream. It is not as if all their sacrifices, hard work, and perseverance come to a not in the end. Does the film wish to convey and dramatize the harmless fact that some ordinary Indians died in the 9/11 plane crash and among them were a kabootarbaaz and his daughter, a student, and a share broker who is jilted in love? Why is the newly married saas ki satayee hui bahu saved then?
 

 

Or is the filmmaker trying to say something really profound by connecting the lives of his film's characters with the 9/11 incidents? What is it? Is it the ‘shattered American dream premise’? For that, you needed the characters to have some American dream, which they don't have. Or is it a film about four loving couples of various age groups? Had Naseer opened his film with 9/11 and traced back the lives of a disparate bunch of ordinary Indians who died in the plane crash, it might have made some sense. Ab yahi afsos rah jata hai ki ‘Yun hota toh kya hota?’  Bahut kuch to nahin hota phir bhi kuch kaamchalau ho jata.

What does the film explore then? Complex relationships? It might have, had Naseer controlled his obsessive urge to overstuff it with his usual brand of cynical and hackneyed humour, and to depict and establish stereotypical and commonplace characters so elaborately. He also goes overboard on ‘funny’ stuff like a brother telling his sister if she would like to see his thing, and  a detailed narration of  a man's problems with hagna. These are the usual tricks used by lowly playwrights to pack a play with what they presume is a novel way of delivering startling comedy punches. The anxiety to draw laughter from the audience is too acute and intense in such cases. It is a typical phobia amateur actors suffer from. ‘Did the audience laugh? No. Oh my God, it is not working. If I could have more of ‘hagna’ (shitting), ‘mootna’ (pissing), and ‘pelna’ (fucking), it might have worked. So, put them into the script.’
 

When one hears Naseer talk, one marvels at his reasonableness, objectivity, and intelligence. He is so exact in his opinions and expressions. However, when it comes to his film, his personal obsessions are in command and he fails to evaluate, dissect, and analyse his work objectively at its very first stage - the script.

Look at Dev Saab. He too sounds so reasonable, and intelligent in his interviews. He has his 'my point of view argument' to defend his insipid non- films like 'Mr. Prime Minister'. He has become a self obsessed actor and filmmaker. He exists because he keeps making films to play a hero's role. He doesn't want to leave the centre stage even after his lines are over, and the audiences have applauded enough and left the theatre. He cannot do without the whirring of the camera, the lights, the sets, the spot boys, the whole paraphernalia and the hubbub associated with the film making process.

You must be passionate about film making or any other artistic activity including lovemaking. The moment this passion starts turning into an obsession, it is time to hold back and withdraw.

Self obsession spells the doom of a filmmaker. He must have something to express that he feels strongly about and can dissolve his ‘self’ in this process. It could be anything, a joke, a romantic tale, or a recreation of a profound reality. He should also be convinced that his work would make a significant contribution to the art, science, and commerce of cinema.

‘ I want to make a film. I have been an actor for so long. It is high time I become a filmmaker. Will someone give me a funny script?’ This is a bad cause to get into film making and its effect is a film like YHTKH.

RKS

Archive of Film Reviews & Other Issues