In search of an addictive narrative

I like telling stories. I like writing stories. And I like showing stories. I believe that the key element which should be present invariably in all these forms is what I call ‘the connect’. When I tell you a story, I should be able to make you feel the story. I wish to think I am capable of it even though I don’t know for sure.

While orally telling a story, the impact of the story depends on the voice modulation ability of the narrator and also his ability to conceal his excitation towards the coming events of the story. He should be able to give peeks in to the future but not telegraph the twists. This will enable the audience to be interested in the story till the end. There must always be a hook which holds their attention.

Same goes when writing down a story. Here the voice modulation factor is replaced by the range of words the author uses to communicate the idea. It must connect with the reader and should not make him feel as though something is odd with the narration. But visually showing a story is a whole different story!

Unlike the two other forms, there is no strong factor that makes a good visual story. It could well be a cliché - no good story can be spoiled by the storyteller when narrated or a writer when written (unless they are so ridiculously bad) but there are very many good stories spoiled completely in visuals when adapted into theatre or a movie.

Still there are a few who have mastered the art of visual storytelling. Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Akira Kurosowa, Satyajit Ray, James Cameroon, Xavier, Rajkumar Hirani, Martin Scorsese (no particular order intended!) and the list goes on… And there is MANI RATNAM. A master of a kind.

I always believe that there are basically two kinds of masters. One are those who are the best and irreplaceable in their trade. They are so excellent in their kind of cinema. They make the same kind but each one of their work sets new benchmark in their genre. Alfred Hitchcock was the master of suspense. He was so good in his craft of mystery thrillers. Christopher Nolan is the master of psychological drama. He creates varieties of movies but each one with a strong psychological spine. Nevertheless, each of his movies are excellent, intelligent and sets the gold standard for Hollywood productions of the kind. Rajkumar Hirani, could undoubtedly be called the king of feel good movies in India. He makes movies that satirically states the lows of Indian mind-set which are both thought provocative and entertaining.

And then comes the next kind of masters. They show streaks of excellence in a variety of genres. Steven Spielberg for example, could effortlessly make a switch from a mind blowing sci-fi flick to a period epic or a masterpiece like Schindler’s List. Stanley Kubrick, maker of the space epic of the century was a truly versatile director who made many masterpieces in a variety of genres including his last “Eyes wide Shut”.

Indian filmmakers are arguably the most creative of all in the world. Indian films are a blend of melodrama and musicals. It involves a lot of complex art forms like dance and songs which both are individual storytelling methods. The Indian film style of using songs to move the story is not found anywhere across the world. Although there are a lot of parallel filmmakers who claim to make world class movies sans songs come up every day across the nation, there are a few who still keep up the Indian spirit in their world class productions.

Mani Ratnam surely is one of a kind who did not lose his Indian roots trying to emulate western style. Instead he made flicks high on desi spirit and at the same time set higher standards by being bold enough to experiment both on the technicalities of filmmaking and the methods of storytelling. He brought back the twin epics of India into celluloid not as such but through his own interpretations.

His movies stand out being exceptional in characterisation of the characters. Combined with free spirited music, excellent cinematography and razor sharp editing his film often make examples for the best productions in India. I like his dialogues so much may be because it resembles my style of conversation – crisp and to the point. He never compromises on getting accents right.

Another distinction that Mani Ratnam proudly dons is that he seldom shoots outside India. And that is another blow to the western frenzied Indian filmmakers who never bother inserting a stupid foreign romance duet in a rural melodrama. All his songs are pictured in the most beautiful manner exploring all possible Indian Landscapes sometimes repeating the same spot but with different tones.

An example of his superb use of the same spot in different tones is the use of the same location for “rakamma kaya thatu” song from Thalapathy, “nanare” song from Guru and “kodupotta” song from Ravanan. If you haven’t noticed it, take a second look and you’ll be amazed at the varied interpretation of the same location. It is cleverly pictured during different seasons or may be the seasonal changes were fabricated (I do not know the ways of genius). The location looks sultry in Thalapathy and cloudy and drizzling in Guru and its rain drenched in Ravanan.

If you watch a lot of movies coming these days, you will be familiar with what I call “manufactured feelings”. May be an extraordinary act of patriotism by the protagonist or romance that defies every logic on earth, most of the emotional content on films are manufactured for the screen by the makers. They may stick well with the so called ‘mass’ audience but the substance lovers will hate them. Mani Ratnam has kept his scripts away from most of these manufactured feelings. His films and characters appear so real and down to earth that it feels natural to watch them.

I have a lot more to share what I feel about the Master of moviemaking. Let this be my first post dedicated to him on his birthday.

(To be continued...)