Home>Possessed>Drohkaal - A movie by Govind Nihalaani

		Govind Nihalani began his career as a cinematographer, after graduating in cinematography from Shree Jaya Chamrajendra polytechnic, Banglore, 1962. The first feature film photographed and co-produced by him was "Shantata! Court Chalu Ahe" (Silence! The Court is in Session) which was co-produced and directed by playwright and stage director Satyadev Dubey. Then followed the highly rewarding association with director Shyam Benegal, for whom he photographed several documentaries (including a feature length documentary on Satyajit Ray) and ten feature films including "Junoon", for which Nihalani received a National Award for Best Color Cinematography in 1979. He also photographed Girish Karnad's celebrated Kannada film "Kadu" (The Forest).  "Aakrosh" (The Cry of the Wounded) was Nihalani's first feature film as director cinematographer. It immediately established his emergence as a serious film-maker. The film shared the Golden Peacock Award at the International Film Festival of India held in New Delhi, 1981. The same year director Richard Attenborough signed Nihalani on as a second unit director cinematographer for "Gandhi". "Vijeyta" (The Victor), set against the backdrop of the Indian Airforce, was Nihalani's second film; It was completed in late 1982  "Ardh Satya" (Half Truth) followed in 1983. It was received with great critical acclaim and won the National Award for the Best Hindi Film. Om Puri, the leading actor of the film, received the Best Actor Award at Korlovy Vary Film Festival, 1984. "Party", Nihalani's fourth film was the official Indian entry to the International Film Festival of India at New Delhi. It won the National Award for the Best Supporting Actress for Rohini Hattangadi at the 32nd National Film Festival of India, 1985 and the Best Actress award for Vijaya Mehta at the Asia Pacific Film Festival "Aghaat" (Blood of Brothers) was Nihalani's fifth film and was the competition entry at Montreal World Film Festival, 1986. "Tamas", a five hour epic set against the background of partition of India, was the sixth directorial venture. The film has participated in several International Film Festivals including at London, Montreal and New Delhi, 1989. Nihalani was invited to be a member of the jury at Montreal World Film Festival. Jazeere" produced for Doordarshan, is based on Henrik Sen's play "Little Eyolf" Nihalani's seventh film. "Pita" his eighth film is based on Stirndberg's play "The Father"(in Hindi for Doordarshan). "Drishti", Nihalani's ninth film received the National Award for the Best Hindi Film 1990, and also participated in the Indian Panorama of the International Film Festival of Inda, Madras 1991. "Rukmavati Ki Haveli" (Rukmavati's Mansion) is Nihalani's tenth film. It is based on the Spanish play "The House of Bernarda Alba" by Federico Garcia Lorca. Apart from films, Nihalani has directed and/or photgraphed a number of documentaries on various subjects. He was invited to serve as member of International Jury for the competiton section at the Montreal Film Festival, 1989."Droohkaal" was awarded the Best Director Award at the 9th Damascus Film Festival, 1995; and the National Award Winner for the Best Supprting Actor. Govind Nihalani was invited to serve as a member of International Jury at the Pyong Yang Film Festival 1996."Sanshodhan", a feature film produced for UNICEF and NFDC in the year 1996."Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa" (Mother of 1084) is Mr. Nihalani's latest feature film. This film is based on Mahasweta Devi's Bengali Novel "Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa". The film won the National Award for the Best Hindi Film, 1997.
	Mita Vashisht

Drohkaal, a time for betyral

On a lazy Sunday afternoon I was flipping through the plethora of television channels, an exercise I rarely get to do because our whole family shares just one single television. My surfing ambulation were wayward to say the least and when I unwittingly stumbled upon this movie, my hands paused on the flick remote. At that moment, there was no method for me to know that the movie which was playing was actually Drohkaal.

I decided to discover which was this movie, which seemed to be quite apparently different. It seemed like a commercial movie (versus what we classify as an art movie, not that I believe too much in these misnomeric classifications, but still there is no other way to convey my idea in common lingo), and yet it was strikingly different. If I have to objectively classify in cinematic terms what was peculiar about the movie was the fact that the texture of the film print. Initially I attributed this difference in texture to an old print or the fact that the cable guys were forcing us to feast on pirated prints. It was only on close observation that I realized that it was most likely not a difference in prints, but instead it was a difference due to very camera which had been originally used to shoot the film. I am not any expert in film theory (far from it, I am not even comfortable with the basics of the same). My limited insight into the same pointed to the fact that the camera used for the same was not of the same bio-scopic quality as the ones used for 'commercial' films. Of course when I use the term 'camera' I broadly mean the lens, the focus and all aspects of the camera. So it is possible that the camera would be a normal film camera, but the lens had a different filter attached to it.

Why am I harping so much on the difference, and what did it actually portend in as such a distinction from normal videos? Well, for one, normal videos tend to be exceedingly glossy and almost tend to caress your eyes with their visuals. The video I was watching had this rough and street like feel, very unglossy. It would have been very normal for me to go out and classify it as some cheap 'B' grade movie where the producer did not have enough to expend into making glossy prints. Yet, I did not, instead I seemed to be liking what I was watching. To put things in perspective, the lack of gloss seemed to be a 'director's' choice rather than the 'producer's', a characteristic driven by the artist's need rather than the commercial squeeze ( that was really putting it very tersely.). The director seemed to have chosen the unglossy, lack of flamboyance approach, and what was being essayed on the screen for the while I was watching seemed to be in complete harmony with his choice. You can't convey harsh realities with slick constructions, and even as part of of the audience I could easily percept it.

I don't even know what part of the movie I had missed, though later on I came to conclude that I missed the initial half hour. The film stars Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Mita Vashishth, Ashish Vidyarthi and Amrish Puri. The central theme of the movie is the dynamics of a society that is co-habitating with terrorism.

To quickly run through the story. Naseeruddin and Om Puri are part of the Indian police force and belong to the anti-terrorist squad. They are at present dealing with this terrorist wing operating under the leadership of Ashish Vidyarthi. The primary premise of terrorism as propounded by these terrorists is the lack of respect for their viewpoint from the government and the society. Their struggle on a planar level is for land, but on a extended platter it transforms itself into a thought struggle as well.

Each character is carefully etched out. Naseer is shown to be a supremely patriotic officer who cant even stand the thought of some 'anti-social' elements playing havoc with his motherland and its society. This undiluted zeal within him channels itself into a volatile temper and extremely radical reactions. Naseer is married (Ila Arun) and is the father of a daughter. (This is the same female who played Shah Rukh Khan's sister in Kabhi Haa Kabhi Naa).

Om Puri is the level headed cop, who is equally patriotic but is relaxed about his job. He is distinguished from Naseer, by not being too radical and being more like a dependable hands on officer. He is married to Mita Vashishth (who by the way is on my list of personal crushes....I freak on her...and sadly that means, I can't post the link of this review to my girl friend, for the possessive bitch she is, she is going to chase me to edge of the equator after reading that admission). Married and having a son, Om puri is part of a youngish family. Mita is not quite pleased with Om's diligence to his job, but that aspect with such a dose of reality, that it is amazing that a director could narrate real life on celluloid. Other than the occasional crib Mita loves and takes care of Om. The director uses short yet extremely subtle messages to convey his point. There is lovely scene which I must admit. In one split scene, they show Om sleeping facing the camera, and his back to Mita. Mita is behind him, her face facing the camera again. Both are shown to be in deep sleep. In some motion in her sleep, her fingers seem to move and linger over Om's face. Slightly disturbed in his sleep(as he ought to), he figures out quite by reflex (strong message) that it is mita, he simply turns faces her(now his back to us) and coddles into the bossom of Mita. This act elicits a sleep-smile from her and the scene ends. Look at it from a director's viewpoint, it has conveyed the whole relationship between the couple all within the space of a few frames.

Ashish Vidyarthi, as the leader of the terror is shown to be a split character, which again is a subtle message from the director. On one hand, he is extremely intelligent and erudite, on the other hand, he has this obstinate obsessive grouse against the society around him. To give his character credit, he is actually shown to be a believer of this grouse, rather than simply in some loop to milk political mileage of the same. His dialogues (two-speak) with Om are possible some of the best scenes of the movie, where each of the protagonists are shown to equally believe in their own view points with complete zeal and fervor.

In the inital part of the movie, Ashish is captured and brought into police lock-ups. Persecution if pending for lack of critical evidence. Both Om and Naseer in operations capture some key witness. What begins is Om's effort to bamboozle the witness to testify against Ashish. The witness knows that he shall be dead if he does so. The methods used to coerce him range from the verbal to the extremely explicit 'third-degree' torture methods (this was the prime reason I think the movie was forced to be for only mature adult audiences). Om cons the witness by promising him a get-a-way from the country alongwith his wife and kid. Ashish who is still is lock-up gets a whiff of the same from his cronies who are part of the senior police team. He forces them to poison the witness, who in effect dies.

Disappointed with the death of the witness, Om roughs up Ashish and decides to take him on a trip to the terrorist's supposed hangout. So begins the journey, where Ashish is all tied up and being cajoled to lead the camp, in the hope of capturing more witnesses. Once near the camp, they all dis-embark from their vehicles and begin to trudge on feet. While they are walking, Ashish starts voicing vituperation against the society in general and almost offering them as justifications for his own act of terrorism. For a few minutes Om ignores all of this, but at a certain point, he begins a ratiocination process with Ashish trying to convince him that terrorism is indeed a big crime. Ashish turns the table completely on Om, and within a few minutes, suggests that Om work for the terrorist force as their inside man within the police force. This suggestion is timed with its abruptness comparable to its audacity. Om refuses to accept the suggestion, and Ashish gives him a clear logical reason (from his point of view) why he should be helping the terrorists. In the end of this dialogue Ashish gives a villainous self-effacing laughter and is pushed into the vehicle by Om again.

In the next few frames, Mita, Om, their son and their pet dog are shown walking causuallly in a city park, with the picture of a balanced family being sought by the director. Quite suddenly a white Maruti pulls around the family, and someone opens the door and shoots at the dog. Around four rounds are shot and there is little chance that dog needed more than one. The brutality of the whole incident is essayed on the face of all three of the family members.

In the evening when Om meets Ashish in the lock-up, Ashish offers a real vieled threat by claiming that it could have been as a easy to have a shot at the son, instead of the dog. From here begins a series of long conversations in all of which Ashish is trying to convince Om that he must shift loyalities towards the terrorists. All through it, Om resists with all his mind's might.

Then one day Mita has taken the kid to the local park. Once again the same sharpshooters pull along, and this time take a shot at the kid's legs. One of the legs is badly hurt as a bullet graces it. Once again Om is assailed in the evening by Ashish who suggests to him that it would not have been difficult to actually aim for the life of the son, instead of his legs. In this sort of weak moment, Ashish plays with the priorities of Om and convinces him that the threat to his personal life is as real as it is near. Finally, in a spate of a weakening moment, Om succumbs to Ashish to coaxes him to help him escape out of the prison. In addition, Ashish forces Om to house two of his terrorists as guests within his house so that Om's family can be closely monitored at all times.

Slow and steady, Ashish forces Om to do things, he would not like to do. The gradual erosion of a person's integrity is almost driven through all courses of its development. It almost is like some kind of treatise on how the human being erodes in face of external pressure. One of the thing Ashish wants to know who is the king pin of the anti-terrorist squad(who we know is Naseer). It takes enough tough talk for him to spit it out, but finally Om does split it out.

The psychological aspect of the whole story is so real, it almost is like you living it yourself. I could immediately relate to the internal strife within a character like Om, because I have fought a losing battle myself and there is no better catalyst for empathy than experience.

In some ways the whole focus of the story has now changed to how even the uprightness of a strong human being can be washed away in the face of sustained pressure. One important scene that comes to my mind repeatedly is as follows. This occurs right after the kid is shot in the leg. Om threatened and opressed by personal conflicts, rushes to meet the DIG, Amrish Puri. He considers Amrish to be some sort of mentor, one who is pristine, clean and has the experince to handle almost all arising situations. With a view of gaining help and some sense of composure from his mentor, Om seeks out Amrish. While he is talking to Amrish, Amrish gets a call from the CBI about his impending arrest. He is extremely cool about it, and this call is unknown to Om, since he cant hear the other side of the conversation. Amrish voices truisms to Om and speaks of occupational hazards. Within some minutes, CBI does arrive at the DIG's house. The DIG excuses himself upstairs for a minute, and then all we hear is a loud gun-shot. The DIG has shot himself. Once again the conflict within the self is brought out with immense panache. A person forced into selling his soul, cannot bear the ignominy of being exposed. He rather just kill himself and thats exactly what Amrish does. The shock on Om's face on hearing the gunshot and the dawning of the realization is a story in itself. 

Naseer is coming down to meet Om the same day, because Om has confessed to being very disturbed. The personal disturbance is due to the immense conflict Om faces within himself, split between his personal ideals and a family to save.

As Naseer is coming down in his vehicle, Ashish's folks hunt him down and kill him. The next few frames capture the burial of Naseer. His wife Ila Arun sobs uncontrollably, and is in a really bad state. Because she is in such a bad state, their daughter is temporarily housed with within Om's family along with Mita and the kid.

One of the terrorist who is housed in Om's house, Anu Kapoor takes fancy for Naseer's daugter, and tries to flirt with her.

Meanwhile the conflict in Naseer's head reaches such a high point and he confesses all his misdeeds to Mita. In a moment of self-retribution he tries to hold gun to his own temple. Its Mita who acts as the soothener, and she advises him to give up on all fear for personal possessions like family and just move onto the path of integrity. She says it is more essential to live life clean than to live life.

From here begins the doom and destruction. Within the span of a few reels, Anu Kapoor has tried to rape Naseer's daughter. In one of the most evocative scenes, Mita offers herself to Anu in exchange for the little girl. There is almost a senseless horror in the eyes of Mita as she submits to pangs of lust. For the reality she brings into the scence, for that alone, she must be a director's delight. This part has to be seen to be believed. Its just too real and too horrible to be true(both at the same time).

At the same time Om has reached Ashish's den and is marauding him, having  a hands to fist fight with him. Enter Milind Gunaji (who is infact a cop who has infiltrated the terrorist rank, and is second in rank to Ashish). In one last scence, Om convinces him to shoot Ashish and Om both, so as to show to the rest of the gang, that he tried to protect the leader from Om and failed. Also, since he failed he could not officially take over the reins of the gang. The film ends on that optimistic note, since now Milind is the leader, and he infact a cop at heart.

The film is bereft of any songs, save a haunting background music. Lack of songs aid the terseness of the story and the extremely racy build up to the climax. Once again the director's message of wanting to convey a serious story comes across loud and clear. The performances are immaculate to say the least, especially from Mita and Ashish. They are easily the pick of the perfomers.

Before the end credits come up, the director winds us back to the scence of Mita. For a brief second, we are shown Mita along with the kid and Naseer's daughter all looking shell-shocked. But worse, Mita is almost completely numb, distraught and ravaged, as if Govind wanted to cap the whole story with the trauma of reality, of having to live on, inspite of the time, even in time of betryal.

October 5th 2001, Sunday - Amitabh Iyer