What Is It About Classical Movies?

There are many reasons why the spectators might not have liked Guru Dutt’s opus, Kaagaz ke phool back in 1959. First its badly-humoured, then its flaunting of proper morals and conventionality; the absence of a satisfying happy end. Many people still think today that the movie drags on, that it’s self-indulgent…

I think its weirdness and self-consciousness are signs of a suffering reality. Honestly, I do prefer less depressing movies, comedies that make you roar with laughter or smile with appreciation. Still, Kaagaz ke phool possesses a soulful charm, a sombre artistry that touches me, and evokes romantic poetry at its destructive best. 

For example, after that country escapade where the heroine and her director are teased by the bunch of youngsters in the hay-filled truck, the scene cuts to the aftermath of a car accident: he has been wounded, while she’s all right, and he has to wear a bandage over his eyes. There is no real need for this accident in the structure of the story: it will not bring the two lovers any closer, thanks to the age-old trick of pitying feelings, or to some cheap physical contact. On the contrary: Sinha is going to chase Shanti away from his presence. The interest of the scene is(I believe) in the introduction of the theme of blindness. Sinha wears his bandage over his eyes to make us understand that he is resisting the attraction which he is feeling for Shanti, and that his cinematographic art isn’t sold out to appearances and superficiality, as his in-laws declare, and as a gossip-mongering press(which his daughter’s friends read at their school) would like to connect him with.

I believe that the black and white cinematography in the movie serves this purpose: the beam of intense white light, that burns through the darkness of the studio, is the artist’s creative dream; his vision, his will and his desire. This laser-like ray of light corresponds to the artistic process of transmutation of the object which the artist perceives as creational material.

Notice how the creative beam of light is also present at that moment.

I’ll just finish by a few words on the actors. I liked Johnny Walker in the film: he’s just hit the right mix of artificially calculated clowniness, to make us understand that, even if he is taking advantage of his social situation, he’s aware of it, and can side with the moral condemnation of a society based on the established hierarchy of money and appearances.

Guru Dutt strikes as the somber and dejected idealist he likes to pose as, yet behind the pose we feel his sadness and his pain: more than in other films, perhaps, the theme of desolation and recreation through art and love beyond the decadent society of men, is present.

Waheeda Rehman, finally, fascinates thanks to her multifaceted talent and grace. She has a persona whom we can cover with affection, and is closer to us, because it is both passionate and naïve, both clever and anxious, both hilarious and ardent. Her femininity is closer to our humanity, perhaps, because she expresses her desires and emotions on a reachable level, where one recognizes a sister and a comrade.