What goes inside…

When I first started writing the Ticket to Fame column, I never knew it would be so much fun. My first objective then was to give an insider’s account to the wannabe entrants, for them to benefit from my experiences. Theorizing Cinema and understanding its paradigms has been very fascinating to say the least and it helped me in seeing things in a lot clearer form. Writing about them is even more wonderful considering that when you say someone you admire is great (even if your conclusions are largely borne out of scientific reasoning), people most obligingly punch you left, right, up and down with venom and power. Thanks but no thanks! I finally stand understanding the power of words…my stance more or less remains the same though, upper cut or left hook notwithstanding! I take recourse in stating that there is much humility in agreeing to disagree about scripts, Film-makers and life in general.

I think it is Alan A. Armer who first said that a script is about ‘a person with a problem’. When I first read that definition, I was very interested, for I knew where to begin, it got me started. Later I read in a few more books that there are two kinds of screenplays, character centered screenplays and plot-oriented screenplays. After some reading I surmised that you need both for an effective screenplay. This knowledge led me to more writing sessions. I wasn’t still happy though. I then happened to read Syd Field who theorized that successful cinema is all about 3 act structures. His books more or less preach that one should start writing in terms of 3 acts and 2 plot points. I just could not agree with that. For me, it didn’t make sense that any form of art could be compartmentalized like the way he did. For me, art is very carnivalistic, it has to evolve like most good things in life do, like wine or women. Slowly I began to understand that the 3 act structure is a very natural structure that a story many times constructs itself into. I deduced that in a way the converse is actually true, in other words, many successful and good stories fall into 3 act structures. A sensible man would avoid purposefully constructing his script into 3 act structure though; for it is my experience and personal belief that every story brings with itself its own structure. It is the creator’s job to find it. I also understood over a period of time that understanding Hollywood cinema takes me nowhere if I am trying to make Indian Films really. If you are in Rome, make Italian Films, not English.

Telugu cinema is its own animal and has its own character. It is my observation that characterization here pays you much more than the plot. If your lead character is strong in content, he would keep the audiences interested in the plot. Remove Chanti’s characterization from the Film Idiot and look at it, it is really drab and boring. Chanti was one path breaking SOB. That brings us to the question, ‘what is characterization?’. A quirky guy doesn’t make for characterization. A quirky guy fighting for his beliefs in his own methods makes for characterization. Get it? Okkadu is another striking example of strong characterization, the entire Film was based on hero Mahesh Babu’s pov(point of view), the decision he takes, realizing that rescuing the hapless stranger girl from the impending danger is far more important than fulfilling his dream of winning the kabaddi game and getting into the Police Force through sports quota. That is humanity at its best expression, that, is a reflection of director Gunasekhar’s perspective through the hero’s character. It is very similar to RGV’s Shiva, who thinks that if everyone leaves it to the others to fight the system, the system would never change; so he takes a decision and starts fighting. A lot of times, life is really about the decisions that we make. Why should Film be any different? After all, Cinema is nothing but an eventful reflection of life itself. That got me into further thinking. I should put a person X in a not so common a situation and see how he reacts! What are the decisions he makes and takes! How does it affect the rest of his life and others’? THAT my friends, is more or less what script-writing is all about, “Character defined through actions. Character in turn defining the remaining events of the Film”. A seamless marriage of character centered writing with plot-orientation. Kamlesh Pandey, the writer of Rang De Basanti said in an interview to Man’s World that the genesis of his script was based on one simple question, “What would Bhagat Singh do, if he were to live in these times? what decisions would he make?”. It is my guess that Sekhar Kammula was exploring a similar idea in his Godavari, “What would Lord Rama do if he were to live in current day”. Reminds me of Savage Garden and their song ‘I’ll bet he was cool’, the lyrics go something like “…what would happen if Jesus passed you by? Would you be scared? Would you believe in him? …well, I bet he’d be cool…I bet he’d be damn good looking…what would he wear? would he wear Tommy Hilfiger?”..and so on…fascinating! Art has always been largely about unconventional thinking. Art is getting to be even more about being ruthless in breaking stereotypes. While on Sekhar, Film Anand interested me a lot too. Kamlinee’s character was very modern, but it is my opinion that Anand works more because of its adorable sensibilities than anything else. Sekhar Kammula is a very different guy, you gotta love the chap for his sensibilities. I can’t wait to bathe in his Godavari…’cos its getting hot in here,..Do I hear Nelly singing…so take off all your clothes…and be different…

Other Ticket to fame articles:
An Ode to Honesty
Riding the movie express
Flirting with Mallika Sherawat
I am gonna be next Mani Rathnam