state. significance. satire.
a detailed review of the movie - ‘PARTY’ (1984)
“if the artist isn’t politically committed, their art is irrelevant. ”
I never saw Indian cinema quite like this – unique, classy and suburban. Rich and dense with detail, this movie while running parallel with the hero-villain films popular in the 80s, would have carved a niche of its own – one that coaxes people to think fluidly and self-reflect.
A bold and authentic narrative, and dare I say one of the most radical and incisive Indian film of all times – it truly made me respect Indian cinema much more. It’s quite surprising that this social satire was produced almost 40 years ago and is still quite relevant and a very worthy study.
the movie:
Party has a perfect accumulation of an exemplary set of actors including Om Puri, Naseerudin Shah, and Amrish Puri, while the performance of Rohini Hattangadi as Mohini Barve is simply laudable.
The whole satire is confined mostly to a single set where a party is being hosted by Damyanti Rane, an affluent middle-age widow known to be a philanthropist and lover of arts in the city of Mumbai. An invite from her seems to be a rather coveted thing, which leads our cast to line up and attend the event.
The gala is organized for intellectuals to celebrate one Barve (Manohar Singh), a well-known and critically-acclaimed writer. We see right in the beginning of the movie the estranged relationship he shares with his lover (Rohini Hattangadi as Mohini) and their uneasy encounter with each other, an early glimpse into their problematic relationship.
This is followed by a string of events that time and again scream ‘jo dikhta hai, wo hota nai hai.’ However, this cliche was never so cleverly done, in my humble opinion. As glasses of whiskey were poured into, secrets and vulnerable moments of self-awareness were poured out. Discussion, debates and despair fill in the gaps of smoke puffs and perfectly articulated dialogue is sprinkled through the evening that would be termed as catty had they not been so poignant.
We hear Amrit being mentioned time and again only to truly understand that he was the hero of the movie without even being in it (apart from the gut wrenching 1 minute ending). ‘Ironic’ seems to be the theme of the movie. Conversations about him that were strung masterfully through the dialogue exchange in the party painted a clear picture of the person that he was. Amrit is a celebrated and highly talented poet and writer who found the farce of politics weren’t for him so he instead went off to fend for a tribal community. However, when he stands up to deceiving government tactics made to get tribals off their rightful land, he is beaten up, tortured and ultimately murdered – what seems to be at the same time the party was going on. No one knew that as they sung his praises, he was being mercilessly killed.
the writing:
Govind Nihalani is attributed to adapting this play into a screenplay that never saw a dull moment. The crispness of dialogue and the progression of the story certainly shows that there are many lessons to be learned from this film – a masterpiece of its own kind.
The depth with which the dialogues are written, yet the maintenance of air of an intellectual superiority complex that plagues people of the art world, was almost too real and did not hold back in any scene.
It was clear that Nihalani used his sensibilities as a director and his skill as a writer, both, to carefully craft and chisel this film. The question is that if the film itself is art but convinces one that art is irrelevant, then is the film irrelevant too? Sets one is a warp, doesn’t it?
cinematography:
When the writing is this good, the cinematography has to be built around it as simple and agile as possible, like a shrine that allows the beauty of craftsmanship to come alive.
It seems like the director, writer and cinematographer shared the single aim of the story to shine through – because they were actually the same person!
Govind Nihalani was also the cinematographer in addition to being the writer and director of the film – talk about One Man Army!
He made sure that the pace of the movie never skips a beat and he filled each shot with intention. It was a treat to see how he managed to let his audiences explore the lavish home of Damyanti frame by frame, while using each space as a special corner for a special subject, never overlapping and never overstepping.
adaptation from play:
When a play is adapted to the big screen, a few things need to be considered that are unique to plays.
- A play will have more exaggerated characters for more on-stage impact
- A play will have tighter dialogue for a shorter run time
- A play will have no considerations for angles and frames
Party too, is based on Marathi Play by Mahesh Elkuchwar. Here are a few things that Nihalani and his team seem to have taken into his scrutiny for this timeless political and social satire adaptation:
- Use the set as a stage:
The placement of the characters was stage-like and theatrical, while the use of space and time was done as it would be in a film. This harmony really strung the right cords in the creation of this symphony. - Reharse if they were play:
This dialogue heavy narrative clearly shows the amount of effort put in by the cast to be able to nonchalantly delve in complicated debates gracefully the way that they did. Never once did anyone feel off character nor did their quirks seem forced. - Tone down the loud:
Theatre requires a louder, bolder version of characters so that the impact reaches the audience. However, for a movie version, this can be toned down to be palatable to suit film audiences, as with this film.
message:
The discussions about purposeful and intentional art that speaks for those whose voice can not be heard needs more people talking about it, even in 2024; or dare I say, especially in 2024.
The economic boom has also impacted art, as we are witnessing what they call deglobalization. We are coming to a place where culture and its representation is finding new and larger audiences. Art itself has crossed borders, literally and figuratively.
Unfortunately, what started as the premise of this movie has lived out its reality now. The tribal people and their sustainable forms of art are rare and coveted. First, we preached modernism and looked down upon the tribal way pushing them into oblivion, and now we hopelessly look for their limited grounds and appreciate their simple sustainable ways.
So while we come with a more open mind as we view art, sometimes going as far as to even romance with the meaninglessness of it, we also hold responsibility to promote art that speaks for those that do not have accessibility to places where their art can be appreciated. Quasi-intellectualism and a superficial appreciation for art aren’t going to cut it.
Beautiful Indian art forms are dying because of the lack of appreciation and approachability like Paitkar, Manjusha, Kalighat and Roghan – all of which once added to the richness of our culture. Ironically, they come from tribal backgrounds – the same ones we removed to give way to industrialization, and the same ones we try to reproduce with machines and end up saying – “acha toh hai, par isme wo baat nahi hai.” There is also the slow and sustainable handwoven tribal textile that has a decreasing number of skilled artisans for the lack of earning that their skills bring forth.
What is most impactful about the film is that it points issues living its after effects right now, and sadly cries of people like Amrit were slowly and cunningly buried and the growing tsunami of industrialization and capitalism went on to consume us.
As educated individuals of the art world, we can together build change – this movie implores us to think our actions through and do what’s in our power to help the art of living itself thrive. To not devoid our art of pointing out sly or solid political agendas in our own way should be one of our goals.
Have you seen this film? What is your take on it? Tell us, we are all ears.
share
