Beautification of Violence in Hindi Film: A Study of Gangs of Wasseypur
Abstract:
From the very outset of the
filmic-genre, violence has been manifested as one of the major negative
qualitative human traits; which has secured an important position in the world
of cinema for itself. Therefore, the use of violence in film is not new. Hence,
a cinema artist always makes it a point to exploit this particular human
attribute to its extreme in order to make it seem terrifying and a life like
view to the cinemagoers. This study attempts to analyze the process of
aestheticization of violence in
Hindi cinema and to
identify the tools which are used to intensify this ruthlessness of the human world.
The work particularly offers an analysis of
Bollywood director Anurag Kayshap’s Gangs of
Wasseypur. Further,
filmicmodes like, narrative, unreal nature of narrative, the representation of
weapons and language
which have been very craftly used as the tools of aestheticization of violence
and the process of
characterization in the film.
Keywords:
Aestheticization, violence.
Introduction
The study attempts first; to identify
the elements used to aestheticize violence and secondly; analyze the role of
these individual elements in stylizing the contained violence. To show the
unnatural application of certain filmic elements which together mould the
violence into so lifelike that it succeeds in giving goose bumps to its
viewers. So, what is it that makes violence so special? Is there an art to make
it look beautiful? If yes, then, what are the tools? The researcher intends to
answer these questions through the research and identify as to how beautiful. The
study attempts first; to identify the elements used to aestheticize violence
and secondly;analyze the role of these individual elements in stylizing the
contained violence. To show the unnatural application of certain filmic
elements which together mould the violence into so lifelike that it succeeds
in giving goose bumps to its viewers. So, what is it that makes violence so
special? Is there an art to make it look beautiful? If yes, then, what are the
tools? The researcher intends to answer these questions through the research
and identify as to how beautiful, stylized, or simply, ‘aestheticized’, is the
violence in Hindi cinema.
Violence can be termed as any physical harm
inflicted upon an individual. Violence is thus an essential part in a human society; without
which the society would die down. The spirit of aggression is not bad in
itself. However, it is not good either. So, it can be said that, in film; “a
great deal depends upon how we define violence”. (Berger 1994)
Violence
and creativity share an integral relationship. When a sculptor cuts through a
stone or moulds clay, when an actor
becomes other than what h/she is, there is violence; which means the any change
in the natural order or state of being of things is violence. There is violence
in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, in the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and in
Homer’s Illiad, in Tendulkar’s plays and O’ Neil’s Thirst and so on and
on.
Violence has been a major part of
cinematic experience from the very outset of cinema. There is violence in
Alfred Hitchock’s Psycho (1960),
S.Leone’s Dollars trilogy, in S. Kubrick’s Clockwork Orange (1971) and
lately in the beautified violence in the works of Q. Tarantino. “Violence in
the movies...has arguably been of central importance for the popular appeal of
film.” (Prince, 2000).
Now, films
showcasing violence have a market for themselves. Roger Ebert regarded Mel
Gibson’s directed The Passion the Christ (2004) as the most violent film ever
seen by him. However, the violent content of the film did not keep the
moviegoers from viewing it. The film earned more than
$370 million in U.S.
market. The same thing can be said about Tarantino’s Kill Bill (volume
I&II). Some of the Hindi cinemas (mainly Bollywood) also fall under this
list; films like Ghajini (2008) earning more than Rs. 200 crores , R.G. Verma’s
Satya (1998), Mahesh Manjerkar’s Vaastav (1999).
All of these films have
violence as an integral part of the narrative.
However, the genre has been criticized for
having unfavorable and undesirable effects on those consuming the content. On
one hand Stimulation theory states that prolonged exposure to violence may
result in stimulating the tendencies of violence among the viewers. While,
Catharsis and
Desensitization talk
about the audience using violent films
as an outlet for the pentup anger.
The aforementioned
theories talk about the result of violence film produces but very little is
discussed about the actual violence depicted; as to what value does violence
possess. The research deals with
the aesthetization of violence and not the glorification of it. Glorification
aims at projecting the violent content as grand and thing of admiration while
aestheticization (not in a narrow sense
of the word) deals with beautification or stylization of violence projected,
disregarding it being good or bad in
nature, in order to achieve the goal of making the visual more appealing,
convincing, and effective , but it is
exclusively for the entertainment purpose only.
“Aestheticized violence is not merely the
excessive use of violence in a film” (Bruder).Both inside and outside films,
violence is often a culturespecific aspect. It is determined by the cultural space
of the society within which it is located. It can thus be seen that, an act of
cutting a tree may be condemned by a particular school of thought regarding it
as an act of violence; while another may approve of killing an animal as an
offering to God. Serving death penalty to a criminal is violence. However, it
serves justice in various societies. Hence, it is quite understandable that,
the process of aestheticization is used in film to enhance the intensity of a
particular scene; while at other times, it may be used to grab the audience’s
attention by making a particular scene stand out from all the others in a
narrative.
Violence
and Culture
So David prevailed over
the Philistine with a sling and a stone striking down the Philistine and
killing
him; there was no sword
in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; he grabbed
his sword, drew it out
of its sheath and killed him; then cut off his head with it. When the
Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. (1 Samuel 17:5051).
The verses from the Old
Testament give an account of how David defeated Goliath. David had managed to
bring the Philistine down without a weapon to his aide. But once the giant
fell, David seized the opportunity to grab the Philistine’s sword, and killed him,
thus making it a Godwilled triumph over the mighty and the proud.
Interestingly, in order to serve justice, David had to lift the sword and
behead Goliath. It was, without a doubt, an act of violence. However, slaying
of Goliath is justified by the outcome of the act. Similar tales can be easily
found in the religious and cultural literatures throughout the world. Violence
is a part of these narratives. However, it does not always cause harm to the
society.
Violence is also
used in self defence, to wipe off evil, and also to avenge for any harm
inflicted. Violence simply exists. In fact, even the word ‘nonviolence’
presumes the existence of violence. Whether an act of violence is acceptable or
not depends heavily upon the acceptability of the outcome of the violence by
the culture it is situated in. In the Shrimad Bhagavad Gita 2:1718, Krishna
educates Arjuna that the soul is indestructible and imperishable. No living
being can cause any harm to it, and that its existence is eternal and infinite.
And this is how Krishna tries to convince the warrior prince to fight and free
the soul from the material body. (bhagavadgita.org) The Shrimad Bhagavad Gita
has been a source of inspiration for centuries, and has been considered by many
as a textbook preaching the ideal way of life. Countless thinkers,
philosophers, and even revolutionaries like Mahatma Gandhi have been inspired
by the text. However, even the sacred text has special mention of events or
acts which may be countered with violence. In fact, even Mahatma Gandhi, who is
considered to be by many as the epitome of nonviolence, advocates that, “where
there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise
violence...” (mkgandhi.org)
The
Indian culture is full of such stories where acts of violence have been used to
serve justice. These acts have also been justified owing to the reasons which
resulted in one resorting to them. In a recent infamous incident involving a
young girl who was gangraped in the capital, the culprits have been punished
with death penalty. Others like Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru have undergone the
same fate.
Violence
and Films
Violence and films share an old
relationship. Screen violence is as old as the medium of cinema itself, and
that it has been “of central importance for the popular appeal of film.”.
(Prince, 2000). One reason for the popularity of violence is that it is
universal. Directors like Quentin Tarantino having a market for his films
across the globe and Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur being acclaimed at
the Cannes Film Festival along with
receiving critical and commercial acclaim in India.
Researches
discuss the increase of violence in cinema; that its presence is greater than
it ever was, and it is only going up.
Studies on the violence in movie sequels highlight them as being packed with
much more violence than the original film. According to (Jhally, 1994), in the
first Rambo film, the protagonist kills
62 people. However, the number soars to 111 in Rambo III. Even in the critically acclaimed Francis Ford Coppola
directed The godgather trilogy the death toll rises from 12 in the first film to 53 in the final
instalment. (Sparks, 2012)
Human beings are
species motivated with the desire to make or associate meanings to things and
treat them as signs. A sign is anything that stands for something else; it may
stand for an object or concept.
According to (Saussure, 1966) a sign
is composed of a signifier and a signified, and it is the association between
them that helps in associating meaning to the sign. A signifier may be a sound
or an image whereas the signified may be the concept or content it stands for.
The signifier may thus be expressed in the form of words, pictures, sound,
smell, or gesture. For example, if we see the image of a cigarette with an X
marked across it in a restaurant, we easily understand that it is a nosmoking
zone. Here, the visual acts as the signifier to imply ‘No Smoking’. No doubt
film being a visual medium; however, linguistics too, plays an important role.
The models factors like Narrative, unreal nature of the narrative, language
owing to the anime and exaggeration, and the representation of violence through
the use of signs like weapons.
Human society is largely based on the
communication, and various means of it. One such means of communication is the
narrative. Narrative derives from the Latin verb ‘narrare’ which means ‘to
tell. Thus, Every form of artmedia viz. books, songs, plays, paintings, films,
news, video games; all of these have a narrative, which hypothetically convey
or tell us or certain aspect of life itself. The visual, verbal and non verbal
means in are important to the narrative. Both of these have a profound effect
on the audience.
French New Wave director JeanLuc
Godard had once said, “The narrative must have a beginning, a middle and an
end, but not necessarily in that order.” Therefore, every film has a story and
every story needs a narrative.
The methodology for the study adopts
qualitative and multimodal approaches. The film selected for the study is
Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur. The violence in the film has been praised
and discussed by critics throughout the country and overseas. Also, along with
receiving the Filmfare Award for Best Film (Critic), the film was appreciated
by the masses with the boxoffice collections for nine weeks in the domestic
market being as high as US $4.5 million when the cost of production of the film
was mere US $1.5 million. The researcher chose this film for its
artisticaestheticization of
violence and
also being an outoftrack type; very unlike the mainstream cinema in the
history
of Indian
cinema.
Eight scenes
have been chosen to study only the four tools of aestheticization of violence:
1) Opening
scene: 03:05 – 10:47
2) Nassir’s
voice over (Montage): 10:48 – 12:40
3) Shahid
Khan killing the muscleman: 24:51 – 26:04
4) Sardar
Khan’s wedding night: 36:06 – 36:37
5) The
Katta scene: 1:19:59 – 1:21:02
6) Sultan
meeting Ramadhir Singh for the first time: 1:36:11 – 1:37:54
7) Faizal
Khan killing Yadavji: 2:03:55 – 2:06:49
8) Sardar
Khan being ambushed : 02:27:01o2:31:11
(Time mentioned according to the occurrence of
the scenes on the timeline of the film’s Gangs of Wasseypur. mediafile)
Some of the elements which made the
violent scenes interesting enough for the researcher to study are: 1) Narrative
, 2) Unreal nature of the narrative ,3) Representation of weapons and 4)
Language. The scenes from the film were analyzed based on these four elements
to study as to what role they play in aestheticizing violence.
Narrative
A majority of violent
narratives involve transgression followed by retribution. Gangs of
Wasseypur is a bloody tale of revenge;
which very meticulously showcases the age old and never ending spirit of
revenge. The hostility among the three families in the Wasseypur , a place in
Bihar (presently in
Jharkhand), prospering
with the coalmines in post independent India and a notorious place of coal
mafia. The entire film is about one motif;‘baadla’(revenge) that very
importantly keeps the plot of the film running till the end of its sequel. It
was in the very beginning of the film young
Sardar Khan shaves his head and makes vow not to grow his hair until he
avenges his father by finishing Ramadhir Singh. Again in 36 minutes from starting of the film Sardar Khan tells his
wife on their wedding night; ‘hamara zindigi ka ek hi maakshad hai;
baadla’(There is only one aim in my life; revenge). (My Translation) These
words of the character wraps up the film for the audience.
Unrealistic
nature of the narrative
Cinema has its own set of rules and
forms of beauty. As one does not view the world around him in a slowmotion or
closeup. Therefore it would be fair to say that cinema has its own way of
representing
the reality before the
audience reminding them of the forthwall existing between them and the
reality and the image
viewed on the screen. And this unrealistic nature of projection that makes the
filmwatching pleasurable. This trait can be observed also
in Gangs of Wasseypur. Whether it is the
voiceover by Nasir’s
character that helps the story takes a leap of decades, or the gory closeups
of
characters when they are
engaged in a duel; all of these point towards the unreality of the
narrative.
The extreme lowangles,
dragged forward by the fastpaced tracking of the camera emphasized with
slowmotion move.
Backgroundscore also pays a pivotal role in increasing the tension of the
action
and the narrative of a
particular scene. The extremely violent opening scene, where a gang of heavily
armed men arrive in an
Omni and start firing on a house; their
bullets crack the windowpanes and
walls. Viewers are
surprised with a freezeframe of the screen and introduced with Nassir the
narrator
of the entire corpus.
His voice takes over the montage shown which takes us back to almost six
decades when the
complexities of all these ongoing feuds and conflicts had started, even before
India
gaining its ‘Swaraj’.
The narrative voice of Nassir unravels through telling the true motif and the
reasons behind the all
this violence of today Wasseypur.
Cinematography the single most important tool
of filmmaking that can change the entire lookout of a film. And this is
witnessed when Shahid Khan thrashes the minemuscleman with a stone to death or
when Sardar Khan is firedupon at the petrol pump in the climax scene . In
both the scenes camera moves in slowmotion and a rustictype music being
played in the background which adds to intensity of the scene. The killing of
the muscleman moves the camera from closeup shots which makes the crowd cheer
for Shahid Khan and a longshot of Ramadhir Singh, watching the entire moment
from a high pulpit. The cinematographer makes use of this shot to state the
economic and social status of Ramadhir Singh and his superiority over all this
crowd of people.
The seen wherein the
ambushing of Sardar Khan at the climax scene when the Sultan Khan
gang rain bullets on
his car. After they escape he comes out of the car, a bullet hole is noticed at
the side of his forehead and his shirt with numberless bullet holes and his
left hand holding a revolver. He then falls on threewheeled trolley. The
entire sequence is in slowmotion with the song “Jio re Bihar ka lala, jiye tu
hazar sala” in the background. The scene brings a halt to the narrative by
demanding the attention of the public. Thus, arriving at a conclusion that it
is the unrealistic and artificial nature of the narrative that makes the film
watching more pleasurable.
Representation of weapons
Weapons are one of the most
frequently used signs to denote or depict violence in cinema. Gangs of
Wasseypur is no exception. In
fact, the film starts exhibiting; rather flaunting weapons in the opening
scene itself. In a villageshop,
people can be seen watching a soapopera on the television when a gang
of heavily armed men arrive in a
car and start firing bullets. The television is shot at; people are
terrified; the shops are forced
to be shut; and any person on the street apart from those belonging to the
gang are threatened to be killed
by aiming the gun towards them. In addition, bullets are also fired
aimlessly in the air and three
people are killed as the gang zeroes down on one of the houses and start
bombarding it with countless
bullets and grenades. The destruction of the house from more than one
direction continues for more than
two minutes of screentime wherein the gunmen can be seen blowing
up the doors with grenades and
then firing bullets from the holes caused by the blasts. And they are
seen leaving only when they are
convinced that all those present in the house have been killed. The
opening scene says a lot about
the film. No reason or cause has been mentioned regarding the act of
violence. Also, the identity of
the gunmen or those in the house is not revealed. However, what can be
deciphered from the scene is that
the film tells a gory tale; and that these are violent characters. It is the
representation of weapons and to
what effect it has been used in the film which plays an important role
in bringing one to this
conclusion.
Interestingly
enough, weapons have not just been used to depict violence; but also to
highlight
violence in the narrative. Also,
they have been used as a part of the narrative in the film almost as much
as the narrative itself. Apart
from the scenes wherein weapons have been actually used by the
characters, weapons have also
been used as a mere property to add value to a scene or reveal things
about a character. For instance,
even on his wedding night, Sardar Khan is seen leaving his wife alone
in a room with a butcher knife
hidden in his trouser. He leaves to loot Ramadhir Singh’s loaded trucks.
A similar knife can be seen with
Sardar Khan’s pregnant wife, Nagma; ; when she enters a brothel
searching for her husband. In
both the scenes, the weapon has not been used. However, the mere
presence of it adds drama to the
scene. In another scene, when Faizal Khan, Sardar Khan’s younger
son, engages
himself in his father’s unlawful activities for the first time; he does so by
travelling to
Varanasi to
purchase pistols being sold at throwaway prices. In fact, in one of his
conversations with Ramadhir Singh, Sultan requests for better arms and
ammunitions; preferably ‘automatic’. Sultan urges that the requests be met as
soon as possible as he finds it difficult to answer Sardar Khan’s bombings with
knives and swords. And in the climax of the film, Sultan and his men can be
seen using these sophisticated, ‘automatiic’
arms to kill Sardar Khan.
Language is
another tool which has been used to intensify and beautify the violent on
screen. The statement can be backed by one of the famous line ; “I will make
him an offer he can’t refuse”(Godfather)
, wherein Vito Corloyone ,
is actually referring to the killing of his rival. Language is very much
exploited by Anurag Kashyap’s films. In fact, his films are markded with
infamous cuss words and abusives which can be heard throughout the films.About
half a through the film, where Sultan Khan threaten the police officer; “yeh
Wasseypur hai…yahan kabutar bhi ek pankh se udta hai, aur dusre se apni ijjata
bachata hai…” (This is Wassepur…here, even a pegion flies with one wing and
saves its dignity with the other). (My Translation) This statement is rather a
threat and explains the notorious business in Wasseypur.
The dialect used
in the film is a rustic one, compared to the Hindi language used in other Hindi
films. At times, it becomes
difficult for the viewers not attuned to the local tongue grasp the
implications of it. For example; Where Sardar and his friend are being taken to
the jail he says’
“Vidhayak J.P
Singh ko koot diye, S.P affice
main…” (I thrashed M.L.A J.P Singh ..in the office of S.P) (My Translation)
This dialect is mainly spoken in the sates of Bihar and some parts of Uttar
Pradesh. Thus, if a person is not well exposed to word ‘koot’ he will surely
find it a hard job to decipher the meaning of it.
It is noticeable that, the mode of music has
been very craftly applied to bring out the violent intention in a character. A
song from the film; “keh ke lunga…” (I’ll inform you and take away your
dignity/kill you) (My Translation) in
the example. The character to whom the song is directed is helpless as he very
will can see his fate going to befall him and this feeling is further
elasticized with the lyrics like; “Saanson ko saanp sunghaa ke, junglee
tilchattaa laa ke... Keh ke lunga... Bichhu se honth kataa ke, lori zehreelee
gaa ke... Keh ke lunga...” (I’ll make your breath freeze... I’ll get a wild
cockroach... I’ll inform you and take away your dignity... I’ll get my lips
bitten by a scorpion... And sing a poisonous lullaby... I’ll inform you and
take away your dignity...), (My translation) it is almost evident that the
violence will be quite gory whenever it occurs. And it is the language which is
used to achieve this in anticipation.
Discussion
Film is not only
a mixedmedium but it is a prototype for a medium existing and working in the
space that lies in between other media; viz. narrative, cinematography,
editing, lighting , music sound and actors etc. The process of filmmaking requires
a manipulation of these cinematic elements. It is this manipulation on the part
of the filmmaker which makes the audiences aware of a lot of things e.g. who
is the ‘good’ guy, who is the ‘bad’ guy. But for this manipulation the
recognition of the hero and villain take place without which it would just be a
web of characters in a story. The miseenscène (the arrangement of things)
another aspect which makes a film come real.
In the opening
scene, after bombarding Faizal Khan’s house one of the shooters makes a phone
call to one of the family members of Faizal Khan to find out if they have all
been finished. In the following shot characters are seen hiding in one place
and the caller tune playing the famous song form the film; Khalnayak; “Nayak
nahi khalnayak hoon main…”(I’m not a hero; but the villain…) (My Translation)
The expression fills the all the characters with terror and the growing tension
adds to the beautification of the scene.
A similar
example can also be stated from Ramesh Sippy’s Sholay (1975). The sound of the
swing when the child comes running out of the house after Gabbar Singh and his
men have killed his entire family is an aestheticization of violence using the
background score as a tool. The purpose of aestheticization of violence,
however, is not just to beautify a gory act; but also to add value to the
film. As a result Anurag Kayshap’s Gangs of Wasseypur (2011), J.Cameroon’s The Terminator (1984), Quintin
Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994), all of these films have achieved the heights
of cult film and become a trend for the other filmmakers.
Weapons are
signs which are frequently used to denote violence. Even if not in use, the
sheer presence of a weapon implies violence. And hence, the representation of
weapons as a tool to stylize violence seems almost obvious. “Gunworship is a
key factor of crime films, film noir and gangster epics”, (Fulwood, 2003). The
obsession of filmmakers with weapons is not new. In addition, language is a
tool, which not only serves in film to provide exposition but also the insight
of a character, story, time and space of the narrative itself. In fact, it is
the most used tool in the process of characterization.
It can concluded
that, the elements discussed side by side adding aesthetic value the violence
in film, also affects the characterization process. The tools of
aestheticization is manipulated by filmmakers. A narrative has multiple
characters and the heights of their violence may vary from each other. However,
the manner in which they express or resist the violence reveal a lot about
them. For example; 36 minutes from the start of the film Sardar Khans’s
statement; “Ramadhir Singh ko badappan ka seedhhi chadhhte dekha nahin jaata...”
(It is very difficult for me to see Ramadhir Singh climb the ladders of
success)” (My Translation) reveals the revengeful spirit he possesses and the
position of Ramadhir Singh in his life. Therefore, it can be assumed that
violence is aestheticized differently for different characters in order to
bring out the nature of their character.
Conclusions
The first question that
resulted in this research is whether Indian directors aestheticize violence in
films; if yes; then what are the tools and how are they utilized? In the study,
the questions stands answered as ‘Yes’ through the analysis of Kashyap’s Gangs
of Wasseypur . Indeed violence has been beautified by the mentioned director
through the usage of cinematic tools; narrative, unreal nature of narrative,
representation of weapons and language which render the physical violence look
alive and keeps on captivating the viewers throughout the course of the movie.
.
Works Cited
Albert,
A. Pierce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,2010. Standford
Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Web. 23 Jul. 2018
Barthes,
Roland. Image Music Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. London: Fontana Press,
1997. Print.
Berger,
A. A. “General Semantics: An Evolving (Critical)
System”. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics.
51. 3 .(1994): 42-45. Jstor. Web. 28 Jul. 2018
Carter,
Cynthia and C. Kay. Weaver. Violence and the Media. Philadelphia: Open
UP, 2003. Google
Books Search. Web. 31 Jul. 2018
Graham,
G. Philosophy of the Arts: A Introduction to Aesthetics. London: Routledge,
2000. Google
Books Search. Web. 15 Apr. 2018
The Holy Bible. Bangalore:
Theological Publication in India, 2012. Print.
Kashyap,
Anurag. Dir.Gangs of Wasseypur I. Perf. Manoj Bajpai,Jaideep Ahlawat and
Tigmanshu
Dhulia. Viacom 18 Motion Picture,
22 Jun. 2012. Film.
Prince,
S. ed. Screening Violence.London: Athlone Press, 2000. Google Books
Search.Web. 20 May
2018
Srimad Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad-gita.org.N.p.1998.
Web. 30 Jul. 2018
<http://www.bhagavad-gita.org>
Author: Albart Mardy
0 Comments