<aside> 💡 How was your experience of viewing Devdas (2002) different from other, say Hollywood films, beyond the question of length? What did you find the most interesting/striking aspect of the film? Did you find the song sequences to be "interruptions" in the narrative? The story of Devdas has been made and remade dozens of times in India, across languages since the 1930s--indeed the character has become something of an archetype. What do you think accounts for its enduring appeal?

</aside>

The drama aspect in Devdas is much more emphasized compared to Hollywood films. The characters, emotions, and storyline were overly dramatized, which may be for entertainment reasons and a heavier cinematic experience. Most Hollywood films from the early 2000s were more urbanized and "modern", per se. However, Devdas gave us more of what we would define now as a Bollywood cliche: the impeccable love story, the dancing, and the extravagant costumes. The cinematography and eloquence of the film are incomparable to anything in Hollywood. The characters' display of emotions was extremely intriguing, and the presentation of love and anguish was beautiful. However, some parts of the storyline were questionable. Devdas had an open opportunity to take Paro with him as he left, or he could have stood up to his family, but he dismissed both options and immersed himself in anguish. Another scene that appalled me was when Devdas hit Paro with her necklace, leaving a scar on her forehead before her wedding. Despite this, her anger towards him vanished. There were other questionable scenes, but this all makes me interpret it as a way of the director depicting all aspects of love one might encounter.

Regarding the song sequences, they were used to aid the emotions displayed in the movie. The lyrics, expressions of the dancers, and dance form all displayed the current emotional state of the characters and unspoken tension. The song sequences also gave us a cinematic tribute to classical Indian culture and movies, which is one of the major reasons why this movie is iconic. The story of the self-destructive lover or forbidden love has been glorified and considered excellent since the time of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Devdas, being an adaptation that incorporates Indian culture, is what makes it so appealing. The cinematic display of emotions and the sad ending make the movie a piece of art and a classic and iconic love story.

<aside> 💡 Sumita Chakravarty argues that a particular notion of realism was used by Bombay filmmakers in the 1950s as a "nation building tool". So, while Do Bigha Zameen incorporates the typical pleasures of Hindi commercial cinema like songs and stars, it also fulfills the demands of "realistic cinema" as articulated within the industry at the time. Comment on the film's invocation of "realism", especially in terms of locations and performances. Does the inclusion of songs detract from its realistic appeal? What is Do Bigha Zameen's stance on the newly independent nation state? What is this film's relationship to melodrama?

</aside>

Do Bigha Zameen thoroughly depicted the life of a farmer's family and their struggles, it gave us a realistic insight into their lifestyle within the village and in the city. Bimal Roy showed us how Sambhu and his family lived within the village, he used the scenery of the fields with other farmers working and the narrow dirt alleyways to give us proper realistic visualization. When Sambhu said he was going to sell everything he had, and went into his house and took the few utensils and items he owned really emphasized the financial status of people in the area. The ripped shirts, the dirt on Sambhu, Kanhaiya, and Paro's face, and their clothes enhanced their difficult and strenuous lifestyle; however, we don't see them having ever complained or broken down. Despite this lifestyle, Roy showed us how down to earth and wholehearted farmers through the dialogues of Sambhu, Paro, and Kanhaiya,  at the same time we get a portrayal of their innocence and strong moral values. Roy cleverly gives us a drastic change in scenery to urban life. However he does not sway away from Shambu's lifestyle, instead of farmers, we see how they are associated with poverty and how the city treats poverty. We start to see the drastic split between financial classes. The inclusion of songs definitely doesn't detract from the realistic appeal, it just enhances the mood, it helps incorporate a subtle melodramatic aspect while allowing the realism to dominate. Some of the acting, especially of Paro with her shyness and Kanhaiya during his interactions with others added to the melodramatic tone, however at the same time it gave us the feeling of innocence and truthfulness. Coming to the movie's stance on the newly independent nation-state, Roy incorporated numerous symbolistic scenes of unspoken oppression. The biggest one being when Shambu ran the rickshaw against the horse, Roy showed the lad tapping Shambu to go faster at the same time the hayorse was being whipped. Shambu, already exhausted, was told he would get 6 rupees extra and without chance starts speeding away past the horse but shortly after encounters an accident. This scene shows us the burden is nonending on the oppressed even though the nation is now independent. Their illiterateness also shows us how much they are taken advantage of and unfairly treated. Roy brings this symbolism and ties it back to his realism by showing how the morality of the oppressed is greater than the morality of the people who oppress. We see this through Shambu dropping the girls to school without taking a fare, and Shambu being given numerous opportunities to earn the 235 rupees through Kanhaiya's stolen money, however despite his desperateness he beat Kanhaiya and told him to return the money. Those from lower financial status were more content than those from higher status.

<aside> 💡 Awaara (The Vagabond, 1951) established Raj Kapoor as one of the foremost filmmakers of Hindi cinema. With special attention to the film and Chatterjee's book of the same name, write 2 paragraphs on any TWO of the following: 1)  Comment on the film's presentation of its socio-political context. In what ways does Awaara offer a comment on or a critique of postcolonial, modernizing India 2) Discuss the representation of gender, heterosexual romance and sexuality in Awaara. 3) How does Awaara include psychoanalytic resonances narratively and visually? Comment specifically on the Oedipal subtext, the subject of incest and the dream sequence. 4) Comment on Awaara's representation of paternity, patriarchy, the family and inter-generational conflict.

</aside>

In Raj Kapoor's Awaara, the idea of the corporate lifestyle and materialistic wealth of the new capitalistic society was heavily emphasized through Raj's, played by Raj Kapoor, life, and struggles. It's clear that those from a lower societal class have no way up the social ladder; they are not accepted From a young age, they are forced into immoral careers such as stealing and pickpocketing out of desperateness, and once they are in a better position and wish to start honest work, they are denied the opportunity to do so, leaving them in the same condition. This was shown when Raj was fired from the factory because of his theft background, and his dialogue " Would you rather let a theft go back to stealing" emphasizes that there is no notion for development in society. The same concept was seen in Roy's Do Bigha Zameen, Kanhaiya had no other option than to steal to help his father. A person's worth is all boiled down to their background. Those from the upper class are so hungry power and social validation that nothing else concerns them. Seth Raghunath threw out his own wife who was pregnant because he adhered to what the society was saying about his wife instead of believing her. He was too afraid his reputation would be tarnished no matter what the truth was. His wife was also a widow, this is another representation of how those who are looked down upon in society are never accepted and will forever be looked down upon. Wealth and power rule, the idea of creating wealth and better opportunities for the needy is crushed by human selfishness. The government enforces the very same idea, Roy was locked up for attempting to steal some food for his staring mother, and for that, he was thrown in jail, that to he was just a child. The idea of being treated equally does not exist and this social structure allows for no room for growth. Despite the deprivation of resources, these 'vagabonds' are the ones who instill humanity wherever they go, but they are the same people rejected from society and deemed worthless. owever, ironically Raj Kapoor portrayed Raj in such a way that he has no class of his own, he's basically the son of a lawyer, but started out living a poor life, and since then he's never belonged to a single class, the concept of class does not exist for him. Chatterjee mentions this in Awaara 1. The idea of being an Awaara is symbolistic to what an ideal society should look like, no class structure. Raj Kapoor shows the problems of post-colonial India were demonstrated and also at the same time he suggests how some change can be implemented. He introduced the concept that love, compassion, and acceptance is needed for society to develop independently. This concept was demonstrated through Rita's character, played by Nargis, she accepted him without acknowledging his background and pushed Raj to develop himself, however, he could not because of social disapproval. Coming to the representation of paternity and patriarchy, Awaara showed us that one is judged based on most of their father's image. Raj was looked down upon because he said he didn't have a father and automatically deemed untrustworthy. This concept was established when the Dacoit, in the beginning, was wrongfully convicted by  Ragunath because his father and grandfather were Dacoits. The treatment one receives is based on their father's actions. There was also a scene where Raj slaps Rita multiple times for joking and based on her reaction, it seemed completely normal that he did, and she apologized for angering him. This small scene itself shows the power of the patriarchy in society. At the end of the story, Leela only wished to die after shes 'forgiven' by Ragunath even though she never committed a crime. Another point that depicts the unspoken power patriarchy has in society.

<aside> 💡 **BASED ON YOUR VIEWING OF PYAASA, RESPOND TO ANY 2 OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. The individual and the collective--how does the film locate Vijay's anomie on a broader social canvas?
2. The society and the city--what vision of newly independent India does Guru Dutt project? How can we understand him in comparison to other filmmakers of the period?
3. Heterosexual romance and gender--how can we understand Dutt's portrayal of masculinity and femininity as interventions into socially constructed gender norms?
4. Comment on Guru Dutt's signature style--fluid, mobile camera, a certain lyrical quality, a rich dynamic between light and shade, use of music, characterization etc.
5. Comment on Pyaasa’s complex conclusion. What kind of answers does the film leave us with?**

</aside>

Pyaasa’s complex conclusion left us with the question of “why do we as a society let wealth control the way we act, even to the extent that humanity no longer exists?” The anomie We see that everyone in Vijay’s life turns on him for the sake of money. The film depicts that the only ones with morals are the outcasts of society, Vijay, played by Guru Dutt, and Gulabo, played by Waheeda Rehman. Guru Dutt’s moral values are completely different from the collective society, he knows he’s standing in his world. Dutt fails to judge anyone and treats everyone as humans, unlike the rest of society. We see this when he without a thought lends his jacket to the freezing man at the train station and when he calls Gulabo his wife and respects her, something she’s never been exposed to as shes deemed lowly in society for being a prostitute. However, during his life Vijay endures these immoral acts towards him, he doesn’t blame them, he blames the society that they have been brought up in. His brothers only acknowledged him after he was considered dead so they can get their share from his success. His first love, Meena, played by Mala Sinha, only saw his financial status instead of him as a human and declared that he isn’t financially stable, leading her to marry someone with more money. Coming to Gulabo, she always looked down upon for being a prostitute, however, Vijay never took that into consideration, he was the only one who acknowledged her as a human. Through the songs, we were able to understand the unspoken tension and problems in society through Vijay’s perspective. In contrast to Bimal Roy and Raj Kapoor, Guru Dutt shows us the struggles of the other society where the upper class faces some discrimination as well, not just the poor. Vijay being an educated young man struggles to survive in society and is automatically considered to be useless just because he wishes to pursue a creative career and is not able to earn money. If you don’t earn money you are considered useless. Being educated is associated with working a job that is respected, we see this concept when the man who asks for a coolie comments on the face that “educated men will do any job”. Though Dutt is educated he’s not respected because he's an aspiring poet. The biggest irony we see in this anomie is that they will worship the work of someone after they are dead but treat them unworthy when they are alive. This happens in todays world as well, we see this a lot after a celebrity’s death. Their following and views go up significantly after they die and are more known, even when they weren’t acknowledged when they were alive. This is a major area where we as a society fail to accept humans and their talent. I also found that Pyaasa was almost a representation of Dutt’s life and even foreshadowed some events in his life. His depression, suicide attempt, and major acknowledgment after his death.

We expect a very distinct and sad ending however the very end, Vijay and Gulabo walk into the distance happily. From the set tone of the last 30 minutes of the movie, we are in an intense mood where Vijay is explicitly exposing the society of being full of greedy humans that obtain no human morals and how he doesn’t wish to be a part of society that has no room for creativity and acceptance. We are indulged in felt that this ending was very abrupt and wasn’t originally supposed to be a part of the story. We learn in Kabeer’s “Guru Dutt: A life in cinema”, that this ending was in fact added in to make the cliche happy ending that would please the distributors. I felt that this was a very hypocritical move of Guru Dutt to make, as his entire film is about not conforming to societies’ norms to earn money, however, in real life he ended up doing just that.

<aside> 💡 You must answer question 1 and any one of the others: "The boundaries between the external and the internal, so cherished by the fifties hero...collapse in the new heroic image. All is surface; surface is all. The sixties hero is most comfortable straddling--and thereby eliminating--the distinctions between different social and national worlds. He moves effortlessly between the palace and the hut...these distinctions are no longer significant or worth signifying.." (Chakravarty, 208) 1950s cinema is especially sensitive to questions of social realism and to larger issues of nationhood and citizenship. Do you agree that 60s cinema is more "individualistic" and represents a retreat from these larger concerns that dominated films of the previous decade? Would you characterize this film as "escapist entertainment"? Why/Why not.

</aside>

Shyam, played by Shammi Kapoor, gave us a lot of different personalities based on the situation he was in. We can clearly see that at points the way he portrays himself is very exaggerated. He’s like a carefree child full of wants which he is after to fulfill. According to Chakravarty, the concept of the hero changed from the 1950 from Guru Dutt being a soft spoken poet and Raj Kapoor being a poor and joyful man, Shammi Kapoor here is wild and is in need of “taming”. We see that he is constantly after Deepa, Sharmilla Tagore, even though she’s rejected him multiple times, he even followed her to Switzerland. His only focus is her. It's come to the point where I can classify him as a stalker and harassing her. However Indian Cinema made it seem romantic, and as a way of winning your true love. We see the “masquerade” as he takes up different roles such as acting as a magician, french man, or just a pure indian man to woo Deepa, but at the same time, the way he acts towards her overall stays constant despite knowing/not knowing her social class. He destroys the sense of social structure usually seen in Indian cinema. After we see that he finally is able to form a relationship with Deepa, we see a switch in his personality, he changed from a carefree and joyful persona to a detective almost with more seriousness. This shows a development from a childlike character to a serious lover.

An Evening in Paris gives us something we would never really expect for a 1960 film. Especially since it's only made a decade after movies such as Bimal Roy’s Do Bigha Zameen and Guru Dutt’s Pyaasa. Both films tackled issues of society and post colonial India. Contrasting the previous movies, An Evening in Paris is not even based in India, as the title suggests, and is a completely different genre. I believe that the movie was made more for enjoyment and entertainment during the tough times India was facing during the 1960s. This film was all about the characters instead about the society they reside in. I would agree along the lines that this film is a form of “escapist entertainment” as it's a film just packed with fun, color, and love. Especially for the 1960s, for a movie to be shot in a whole separate country, I assume must be a big deal; Indian cinema has never seen anything like that. We see a heavy deal of western culture and sort of an ideal representation of how it is to live abroad. The clothes, dancing, location were all western, this is the first time we are seeing music and dance that have somewhat of a western touch to it. This is definitely to give the audience something they could never imagine of and experience a dreamy and idealistic world. Compared to films a decade back, we see more gender neutral roles and equality. An interesting concept I noticed is that we usually expect girls to go after rich men, instead we see that Shekhar (played by Pran) was after Deepa (played by Sharmilla Tagore) because of her money. Most of the women were independent and had a voice of their own. Deepa was shown to always stand up for herself when needed to. Even though this was great to see, this film being all idealistic, this notion of women being independent could easily be interpreted as idealistic and not realistic.

Madhava Prasad has noted that Deewar ( The Wall, Yash Chopra, 1974) is "one  of the few film epics produced by the Bombay industry" (152). In light of Prasad's reading of the Bachchan films as an "aesthetic of mobilization", discuss any two of the following: