Kaagaz Ke Phool

I'm still slowly developing my appreciation for "Bollywood" although this film certainly does not fit the prototype for what I've seen and expected thusfar. Instead of sassiness and splash, this epic traverses seriousness and shadow.

I'm certainly glad that I saw it, but truth be told I'm happier having seen it, than I was while actually watching it. By renting the DVD, I was able to watch a 3-part special on Guru Dutt that I highly recommend. His colleagues still speak so fondly and insightfully of him, very touching. It might be worth watching that special before the main feature. The film is from 1959 and thus has elements that are timeless, yet also elements that are quite dated.

First off, it is in black and white, and several scenes (not only those involving knitting) screamed for color, but alas what can you do? Is there a Ted Turner in India?? Kidding!! The camera work and shots however are often remarkable, shadows just don't look as stark in color. On the extras, V.K. Murthy discussed the light beams and lenses he created for Dutt. Speaking of Murthy, he was so very compelling on the DVD extras...why does IMDB list him working so rarely? I suspect it is just an incomplete filmography??

Dutt and he also used overlapping images that I still enjoy, but I don't think anyone uses these now since they were probably overused at one point in the 60's. Bring 'em back, the sliding limelights and later sliding martinis worked very well. There's a great scene of a throng of adoring film fans where the camera takes on a boat-like rocking that caught my eye. The camera often moves, and shots usually are not interrupted with so many alternative angles as we are used to today. Personally that's one of my favorite aspects of older films, the lingering shot.

There was a pivotal scene where I guess they needed two different takes, spliced from nearly the same location after the "sofa" reunion of our two starcrossed lovers. It may be footage was just lost there (other moments during songs for example it was clear this has happened). The sudden change in that scene almost right at that abrupt camera perspective change in the takes used, didn't translate to me in the US in 2004. But I'm usually one to encourage lovers to "requit," damn it!

Another significant problem comes with what we an audience, and Dutt/Sinha as a character, allow his daughter to get away with. Again, I'm nothing more than an acolyte in appreciating these Indi films, but it seems a common theme is the man is with one woman, but in love with another. How to construct this barrier in a sassy film that will hypnotize with eye-popping dance scenes over ear-popular music is very different than how to construct a barrier in a serious film such as this.

I don't really care in the first case, but here the impudence of the daughter just put me off, and made the unrequited love seem sort of senseless. One of Guru Dutt's contemporaries talked about how in real life, he could love...but not state his love. This is a more interesting divide, and it is presented somewhat here, generally with the enchanting Chanti saying "Listen..." (well that's what the subtitles said...) Three times at least... Winds also pick up at key moments.

The film is well constructed with devices like that, and the aforementioned beams of light. The ingenue and the auteur love story works well, a Pygmalion with another pigment. Naivete and innocence are not only what draw Sinha to Chanti, but they are also what some people will like about this film quite a bit.

For me, I might be a bit too jaded. The "Rocky" comedic relief (is his name really Johnny Walker...that's like a character out of "Alien Nation") while sorta funny in ways, at the same time got on my nerves a bit. Although for a moment I thought he was going to be well ahead of time and be a gay character on screen in the 50's. Indeed any scene involving any one from his family tended to bring the film down in a broad fashion. We get it, the aristocracy are horrible to the poor and lowly millionaire film mavericks, not willing to give them the compassion they shower upon their dogs. Another clue to dislike them, the fact that they use the English language.

I still don't know why at one point the estranged Mrs. Sinha says "If he needs me, put him on the next flight." If she were too sickly to go to her husband in his need, or if a monsoon made it prohibitive to go to Bombay...that might have been better from my point of view.

The fact that this is a film about the film industry may put some folks off, but like Altman's "The Player" this film I think benefits from such self-reflection. The notion of a director's struggle for art and control, when the bets are switching to the actors and actresses as workhorses evidently paralleled Dutt's own struggles. Ultimately I think Dutt's own life is more interesting than the role he created and portrayed here. It seems in the artificial cinema sunlight, he felt rootless and never blossomed amidst all the paper flowers.

Back at school, I saw some of Sergei Eisenstein's films as part of being a Rhetoric major, I wish we had seen and discussed this film. I'd be curious to know if others found some of the women when speaking looking awkwardly askance? In today's era of reality TV and hand-held documentary style film fiction, I sort of miss stylized movies as an art ...although I'm certainly glad car footage can be shot on real roads and not sound stages these days. ;>

Overall I think "Kaagaz Ke Phool" has as much going for it as other film school classics (and being appreciated with a sense of history would help). Although even as a "stand-alone" film I found it entertaining. Not sure I would have said the same of "Battleship Potemkin" sitting at home on a Thursday night.

7/10

"Kaagaz ke Phool" (Paper Flowers) is an agonizing, self-reflexive look at a filmmaker who, because of martial, societal and economic pressures dissolves into alchoholism. It's a common theme among Indian movies, but in this film, there's autobiography to back it up. From what I understand, the course of this film paralells Guru Dutt's life who died by his own hand.

Geeta Gutt and Mohammad Rafi sing on the soundtrack penned by S.D. Burman, which is wonderful as can be expected considering the people involved (and, if anyone has a lead on where I can find it on lp or cd, be in touch!) The movie is beautifully shot, and the play of light on Guru Dutt's face (he acts in the lead role, as well as directing) as he enters an alchoholic stupor will bring a grown man to tears (I've seen it happen.)

There's more misery and abjection here this side of Fassbinder or Jerry Lewis, so this is perfect for a cold, rainy, lonely evening.

This is really a milestone in world cinema - not just Indian cinema. The story, the lyrics, songs, music, photography, editing and above all class act. Everyone has poured their heart in this film. This indeed is a poetry in form of a film. Though the topic is very depressing it but reflects reality from eyes of a defeatist, maybe the only flaw I see in the picture, and perhaps the reason why the film never saw a good box office record. However, it may have a lot to do with personal struggles of Guru Dutt at the time of making of this film. Only if the film had been about triumph of human struggle to overcome all odds, outcomes could have been different. A lot of credit is given to Guru Dutt alone, however I feel the classic nature of this film has a lot to do with contribution of everyone - the music is touching today as I suppose it might have been then. One who has never seen Wahida Rehman in younger days is dazed at her beauty and innocence. Guru Dutt himself looks rather handsome. Kaifi Azmi's lyrics are just inimitable. Photography is great - considering it was done in 50a. I came up with the DVD by chance and I'm now going to see more of Guru Dutt's work. I not for a moment want to deny Guru Dutt his share of glory, however one must also acknowledge other geniuses who made this movie a classic!

This movie sums up the genius of Guru Dutt. A reclusive and introvert man portrayed in the movie was Dutt himself. Too bad the movie went over the heads of Audience in the 50s, however, its charisma has given it the status of a cult classic. Waheeda Rahman was beautiful as ever and acted much better than she did in Pyaasa. I rate this movie better than Pyaasa personally. Kaifi Azmi's lyrics are at their best with "Waqt ne kiya" song topping everything out! I think the beginning is extremely maudlin and same for the ending. He enters the studio as an old and broken man, only to be jeered at by his ex colleagues. A must watch with outstanding Music!!!!

Kaagaz ke Phool (KKP), along with Gurudutt's other film Pyaasa, stands for the film maker Gurudutt. It is more of a painting or a poetry in motion. These are films where story is the main actor each and every detail of which is done up to a fine precision. This film is now regarded by many as a classic and I wonder if it was appreciated as much when the film was released. Surely this film is one dimension less compared to the infinite dimensional Pyaasa; and perhaps this is a reason for its commercial failure. On the other hand, Pyaasa has impressed so many that it was also remade in Telugu (a south Indian language) by name "Mallepoovu" starring Shobhanbabu and Lakshmi. In comparison, the failure of KKP made Gurudutt further direct such artistry later. Of course, a film maker should make films close to his heart than worrying its saleability; but at the same time an appreciation would make him doubly sure that there are people supporting him in his works. Thus I feel that appreciating a work of art much later is no less criminal compared to killing the art itself. Sometimes people escape by saying "it was ahead of its times". My sincere request to anyone reading this review, is to appreciate things at the right time.

KKP is a film where director plays the main role; i mean the main character in the film is a director. It is easy now to guess that the story revolves around film industry. The story is set in the period where anything in the film industry was considered a taboo; particularly in 'high society' people. The director in those days is the final authority with respect to the choice of location, story and the crew (acting and technical) and the producer is limited to money matters. Our director in the film, Suresh Sinha is one such. He made lot of successful films that earned lots of money for the production company.

Suresh is now making a film Devdas and is looking for an actor for the role Paro. On one fateful rainy evening, he meets Shanti, an young girl shivering with cold. Suresh gives his warm coat to her and he leaves in hurry to Bombay. Shanti comes to Bombay to return his coat and is also searching for a job. He offers the Paro role to her and both get on well and they understand each other. They admire each other. Suresh is married and his wife stays away from him since he is a filmy person; also he is not allowed to meet his daughter, Pammi, who is in a boarding school at Dehradun. Once Suresh is hurt badly in an accident, on listening to this the reaction of his wife is "if he needs me,then send him to Delhi (from Bombay, where the Hindi film industry is based)" and this best describes their relation. Suresh sees her daughter in the doll belonging to her. Pammi's friends in school tells her that his father is involved with an actress (I wonder how small girls are even allowed to read such film magazines in those times! perhaps in boarding schools it is possible? keep my fingers crossed!). Then this small girl Pammi runs from the school and reaches Bombay. She meets Shanti and takes a promise from her that Shanti would leave all her work in Bombay and go away from Suresh's life. Shanti leaves Bombay, leaving behind her memories in a sweater that she made for Suresh.

With a suffering heart like the river longing for the fish that has been separated from it, Suresh has become a dried ocean. people refuse to give him any work and some of them say "you are not fit for direction!" Suresh loses all his wealth in next two years and his house auctioned and he leaves his house with two cherished things that he would not lose till he lost his life: the doll and the sweater.

The fate again brings Shanti to work, having lost the court case with the production company. She agrees to work provided Suresh is back as director. She meets Suresh and he tells her "I lost everything and I sold everything but not self-respect" and thus denying her proposal. But she bound by her contract continues. What happens later, should be seen oneself. I promise you that it is worth watching it.

The film is nicely supported by its music, the song "Dekhi zamaane ki

yaari" captures the theme of the film and "Waqt ne kiya kya haseen

sitam" captures the relation of Shanti and Suresh. Its photography is well-talked about and VK Murthy is responsible for it. If you are interested in knowing more about Gurudutt's works and this film in particular, then I have two suggestions. Get yourself a copy of any of Gurudutts films released by Yashraj Films. This DVD comes with a documentary taken by Nasreen Munni Kabir that was shot for a TV channel earlier. Otherwise, one could read a book written by Nasreen Munni Kabir (apparently,it is based on the work she did for the documentary) entitled "Gurudtutt: A life in cinema" published by Oxford press.

Finally an interpretation of the title Kaagaz ke phool (exact translation means "Paper flowers". Bees are looking for honey and hunt for flowers. The song "Dekhi zamaane ki yaari" says "Oh thirsty bees, fly away from here these are all Paper flowers (naturally they don't have what the bees are searching for!)". I interpret it as saying/requesting/asking the people not to look for wealth/success (in the popular meaning) and do not expect anything from this society in return of what you are doing. Do your job, simply!