Film Appreciation Assignment

Social realism is the term used for work produced by painters, printmakers,
photographers, writers and filmmakers that aims to draw attention to the
real socio-political conditions of the working class as a means to critique of
the power structures behind these conditions. While the movement's char-
acteristics vary from nation to nation, it almost always utilizes a form of de-
scriptive or critical realism.Taking its roots from European Realism, Social
Realism aims to reveal tensions between an oppressive, hegemonic force,
and its victims.

MOVIES OF SOCIAL REALISM.

1. AAKROSH

2. FANDRY

AAKROSH

When Salim Javed were busy providing poetic justice in three hours, Vijay Tendulkar was grap-
pling with the oppressive State machinery without any sugar coating. Besides being an accom-
plished playwright and script writer, his consistent engagement with human aggression made
him a distinguished social scientist, who peeled the causes and impact of violence in our soci-
ety.

His scripts, combined with Shyam Benegal and Govind Nihalani’s direction and Satyadev
Dubey’s dialogues exploded bombs under the audience’s chairs. Like social scientist Ashis
Nandy once wrote, Tendulkar never guarantees a good bedtime read…He never fails to make
you feel that you have entered a dentist’s chamber with an undiagnosed abscess in the molars.

Drawn from a real life incident, “Aakrosh” is one of the best examples of his potent writing that
can make you peel off the arm rest in disgust and frustration at the state of affairs. Here vio-
lence perpetrates violence not to seek revenge but as the last resort to avoid further humiliation.
It is not meant for people who judge a film as fast or slow, it is for an audience who look for cin-
ema as an uncompromised reflection of reality. Watching it today, when the country is on the
cusp of change, it makes you feel that not much has changed for Lahaniya Bhikus of the soci-
ety. It cuts through the conspiracy of silence, the politics of accident.

Bhiku (Om Puri) is a self respecting tribal who doesn’t bow down to the diktats of the lascivious
forest contractor (Achyut Potdar). To teach him a lesson, the contractor together with his friends
(Arvind Deshpande, Mohan Agashe…), from the top echelons of the adminsitration, violates the
chastity of Bhiku’s wife Nagi (Smita Patil) and kills her. They pass on the blame on Bhiku and
the wretched soul goes silent to save his father and sister from the wrath of the so-called social
contractors.

Bhaskar Kulkarni (Naseeruddin Shah), a fresh law graduate fights his case against his mentor
Dusane (Amrish Puri). Interestingly, Bhaskar is from the higher caste while Dusane is a tribal
who has found partial acceptance in the social circle. He plays bridge with the local politician,
police officer and the sarkari doctor but still gets threatening calls for trying to break caste barri-
ers. Dusane’s ambivalence towards the case is disturbing and unravels the complexities of the
cast system. To Dusane the truth is something that can be legally proved with proof. But we are
placed in a system where those who can afford to buy can have the witness. When Bhaskar
talks of human dignity, Dusane shrugs him off. In fact he is more confident than Bhaskar about
the futility of fighting it out.

It was Nihalani’s first film as a director and you can sense certain rawness in treatment, a film
school approach in shot taking but more often than not raw appeal is better than polished ap-
proach on celluloid. His immersive cinematography adds a new dimension to the narrative. He
doesn’t gloss over the potholes on Om Puri’s visage but never overplays them ensuring that his
silence does all the talking. In fact for the first 10 minutes of the film there is no dialogue but it
doesn’t get into the way of storytelling. The half-lit face of Smita stays with you long after the
credits roll. So is the interplay of light and shadows in the bylanes of a village where Bhaskar
finds himself fighting a lonely battle.

The narrative is interspersed with metaphors making sure that it never gets didactic. On the
morning walk the aging judge is hesitant about being touched by the raging sea waves while the
young lawyer takes the plunge. It establishes the contrast between the old and the new order
and prepares us for the New Wave. In another scene when Bhaskar is reading about the killing
of a Naxal woman the radio news in the background says the Vinoba Bhave is going to protest
again cow slaughter. It establishes the priorities of the leaders of the time. It has a contemporary
zing to it.

When Bhaskar feels helpless in front of persistent silence from the side of Lahanya’s family, the
social worker in the village whom Bhaskar labels as Marxist, tells Bhaskar that you pity these
people and move on. You want them to speak out when the system is not letting them even
breath. He wants to change the system while Bhaskar is eager to help an individual. At the end
of the conversation the social worker calls Bhaskar an idealist, which is again a label.

Nihalani is not oblivious to the Bollywood presence in the society. You can see a horse cart pro-
moting “Don” with “Khaike Paan Benaras Wala Khul Jaye Band Akal Ka Tala” blaring going past
Bhaskar. The contrast is clear. While Amitabh Bachchan was doing stunts with bike, Naseer,
equally angry, was peddling his way into Indian reality on a cycle. Similarly, when the two ‘re-
spected men’ are undecided as who will take the dancer home for the night, one suggests going
for head and tail, the “Sholay” way. He is threatened, he is attacked, but Bhaskar doesn’t take
law in his hands. In fact in the lavani number the dancer (Reema Lagoo) makes a dig at his cold
ways but the boy doesn’t give up his pursuit of truth. And when Bhiku actually picks an axe dur-
ing the climax it is not to cut the contractor to pieces, but to avoid further disgrace. It leaves you
stunned, provoked

Aakrosh (1980) by Govind Nihalani (whose first film it was, and who had won acclaim as Shyam
Benegal’s photographer) is a sparsely told parable about the foundation of justice: should mfol-
low the law at the expense of truth, or should they seek truth at the expense of the law? Here’s
the story, told by rAjOo (gunwanti@hotmail.com) at IMDB (many thanks to him!):

“After working with his mentor and Public Prosecutor Dushane (Amrish Puri) for many years,
Advocate Bhaskar Kulkarni (Nasseruddin Shah) is assigned a legal aid case of Bhiku Lahanya
(Om Puri), who is accused of brutally killing his wife, Nagi (Smita Patil) (1). Bhiku remains silent
when asked to plead guilty or otherwise. Bhaskar's efforts to get him to subsequently confide in
him prove in vain. Even when Bhaskar goes to talk to Lahanya's dad and sister, he is shunned.
When he persists his window panes are broken, then one night he is attacked and knifed. He
gets Police protection through the courts and persists with his questions - only to run into noth-
ing but a wall of silence. Then he is contacted by a Social Worker who tells him what really hap-
pened. Before Bhaskar could do anything, the Social Worker goes missing, & Bhiku's dad
passes away. When Bhiku is permitted to attend his funeral - this is where Bhiku will break his
silence - a silence that will see him face another charge of cold-blooded murder!!”

We have to add to this summary the essential fact that Bhaskar is a brahmin, whereas Dushane
is a “tribal” (or adivasi, believed to be the aboriginal ethnic minority of India), like Lahanya,
whom he is commissioned to prosecute. Adivasis are not normally considered as a caste, but
their inferiority is clear. Attorney Bhaskar too is assigned, but contrary to his mentor, he is at the
beginning of his career, and has still ideals and his generosity equals his sense of justice. An-
other thing: the “social worker” mentioned above (played by Mahesh Elkunchwar) must be iden-
tified as belonging to the maoist Naxalites, activists who, during the 1960s and 1970s, were in-
tent on educating and leading to revolt the illiterate adivasi.

Then we shouldn’t omit from this background information the social circle to whom Prosecutor
Dushane belongs, and with whom he plays cards of afternoons. This is the elite of the little
neighbourhood: Ganpat Rao, local member of the legislative assembly; Bhonsle, President of
the District Committee; the well-established Dr Patil, and the Deputy Superintendant of Police.
This enumeration is nice to do because Nihalani’s movie is a bandook targeted mainly at such
social façades of respectability: these bridge-playing and cigar-smoking sarkari karmchari are in
fact nothing more than corrupt and hypocritical criminals, who take advantage of their position to
exploit their fellow human beings and earn witness-buying money to protect their comfort and di-
vert the course of justice.

The prosecutor, brilliantly played by Amrish Puri, is a rather different case. He hobnobs with the
cultivated circle, true, but as a tribal who has managed to rise to the level of the local landed
gentry, he is blinded by his status, and refuses to admit that down deep, he is still an underdog.
This is the meaning of his silence when he gets repetitive and anonymous insult phone calls.
Whoever it is at the other end sees him, not as a respectable officer of justice, but as a member
of this detestable tribe of adivasis, who cannot be trusted to “work properly, and are born use-
less”, as one dignified official declares. During one bridge game, the way Dusshane is mocked
by his peers for failing to use the right strategy is a good sign of his efforts to reach (and remain
at) their level, but is in fact subtly kept where he belongs. The subtext of the conversation which
takes place after the game is revealing, too, because the losing Dusshane, rationalist as always,
is arguing over his partner’s management of the tricks, but this one (the Doctor) points out to
him “Don’t you need a support to continue your call?”, and Dusshane says: “At least I wouldn’t
have lost in a vulnerable position then.” A clear comment of the balance of power played out in
real life.
During the trial, Bhaskar comes to him several times, trying to sort out the muddle he’s in. There
is a genuine affection between the two men, and a clear distinction between professional and
personal levels. Dusshane encourages his pupil to fight him fairly in the courtroom, for example.
He won’t begrudge him if he wins the case, but for him, there’s no doubt about Lahanya’s guilt.
On the other hand, he too will fight for what he believes is the law: Bhaskar knows he will re-
ceive no encouragement based on humane considerations. Dusshane will be his opponent in
court. Outside India, such staunch service of the truth and of the law, independent of personal
ties, would be rare and commendable. But, as Bhaskar will realize, Dusshane is a victim of the
very system he tries to uphold thanks to his strict loyalty to justice. And the worst is that he
doesn’t see he is manipulated by those who know he is prejudiced. Until the end, he remains a
tragically faithful soldier of a civil army that is corrupt and criminal.

For Dusshane, there can be nothing outside the rules of the law, and too bad for those who, in-
nocent, cannot be proven so. Proving the case works for him as it should do for a scientist per-
forming an experiment: a hypothesis cannot be accepted unless it has indisputable proof that
must convince all observers. A sort of totalitarian rationalism is at work here. Because even if in-
deed for a scientist, proving is part of the truth-forming process, all real scientists know that the
first rule of the validity of a theory is the acceptance by the community of specialists, who regard
the proof as valid within the theoretical frame. The same scientists know (and the history of sci-
ences shows only too well, alas) that certain so-called proofs are nothing but subjective or party-
built constructions put forward to maintain a class interest or partisan stronghold.

Bhaskar learns that he must submit to this oppressive rule of proving his defence arguments,
something that nobody but he (and Dusshane) care about. He knows that in human affairs,
there are other realities than tangible proof which can influence a jury, and say the law. The law
is in human hands, vulnerable to interpretation and power. But he is confronted to the likes of
Ganpat Rao, who is above the laws, and Dusshane, who is under them. He also knows that
even if he produced proper proof (which everybody makes sure he will not lay his hands on:
even Lahanya is silenced), he would not necessarily win the day: the case could be won, but
then he knows his life would be in danger. So we have the classic situation where the proof is
not any longer a convincing chain of demonstrative arguments, but rests on the sacrifice of
someone’s life, as far more precious than words. And yet, the honour of civilised humanity lies
on the accepted use of reason and language, as opposed to that of force and intimidation

It is interesting to notice that the voice of the oppressed, the Naxalite “social worker”, who
comes by night to tell him the truth about Lahanya, refuses to testify at the trial, but also tells
Bhaskar it’s his job to find proof to defend Lahanya. He knows very well that Bhaskar, inexperi-
enced as he is, has no access to any proof whatsoever: that’s why he comes to tell him what he
knows. Yet he leaves Bhaskar alone with his proof-searching. Being alone is already daunting,
but Bhaskar will also have to pay for being obstinate, and then proving Lahanya’s defence will
be complicated by proving that he is harassed and attacked himself! (I don’t know if Nihalani
was consciously referring to the Gospel: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of
righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”!)

What Bhaskar would have needed is less language as opposed to the sickening silence that he
confronts everywhere (and which forms one of Aakrosh’s main narrative assets), but a language
in which people would trust and believe in (for Christians, Jesus-Christ, precisely, is such a
“Word” to believe in . In fact, what people believe in, in the movie, is action and silence. Or
rather, not silence, but hushing. Indeed, silence is a language, the language beyond words

What we have in Aakrosh – translated as “the cry of the wounded” – is a muteness, a disbelief
in the powers of language to perform its tasks of truth setter and community builder. Crying (in
the sense of screaming) is not properly human, but half beastly still. Hushing goes beyond lying:
those in power do more than lie. They have understood that language is their enemy, that po-
tentially it transmits the truth that could lead to their fall from power and self-satisfaction. And
they have successfully instilled in other users of language the distrust that will help them reach
their aim. Whereas in normal humanity, language means life, community and transmission, they
have established a jungle of silence and death.

(There is one soothing fact about Lahanya’s silence: it is the one he displays with his wife, dur-
ing their love-making. It’s swift, it’s only a memory, but it’s there, and it softens this otherwise
dour movie. Note how, nevertheless, there is a sort of painful quality to that moment, perhaps,
because of Lahanya’s present pain. We can add here, too, the tremendous use of Om Puri’s fa-
cial skin texture: to me it seemed like a silent scream of horror).

The end of the movie brings a twofold conclusion to this appalling situation: Lahanya’s reaction
to his doomed fate is first dictated by what his tormentors have dictated: he kills for real this
time. But by killing he somehow frees himself from the trap he was in: depriving the lustful
landowners of their probable future prey, he hopes to punish them and protect her. In doing
what he does, of course, he in fact punishes no one but himself his unfortunate tribe, because
even Dusshane has his version ready: it is only an accident; but nevertheless, it is acting rather
than submitting. Even if the curse repeats dramatically itself.

With Aakrosh Govind Nihalani has created a powerful weapon of denunciation, directed not only
at the petty and despicable profiteers, but at a system which, under the name of democracy and
freedom, satisfies itself with organising injustice. What is better? Following the Naxalites’ call for
total revolution? Or like Bhaskar, try and do at least justice to one man? The first option needs
historical circumstances that are rarely united: all revolutionary efforts have not succeeded, by a
long shot. And their justification comes only after their success, anyhow. But sticking to the law,
in the hope of righting individual situations, even if it seems futile at the scale of such a huge
country, is that better? Focussing on individuals or small groups claims the advantage of real-
ism, as opposed to the flimsy idealism of changing all of society. Yet, one can hear the criticism
immediately: such action won’t reform a sick democracy, where the strength of parties can con-
spire with money interests to help maintain a system of injustice. It is clear that both actions are
indispensable. The question as to whether violence is needed to achieve that goal is also part of
the history of India.

Our summarizer adds here “for disobeying him and refusing to have sex with other men”, but
this is a misunderstanding of the film’s story. It is the opposite: Nagi is abused and killed by
powerful landowners, and Lahanya is blackmailed into accepting guilt of her death on pain of
having his family (father, sister and nephew) undergoing the same fate if he speaks. If he
doesn’t, they are allowed work for his exploiters. Hence the Naxalite revolutionary attempts.
FILMIC TECHNIQUES AND OBSERVATION
The movie starts with an unknown incident it is very unconventional

There is absolutely no background music giving the scene a feeling of reality

The chotu chai waala is intentional

The editing of the film is way ahead of its time ...it uses jumpcuts l and j cuts smash cut
match cut so effortlessly !!

The chela tries to hit on om puris sister

Contrasty and low lighting techniques like film noir

The Dalit drinks taari

The scene where advocate bhaskar goes to interrogate the dalit ..in that scene the ten-
sion is created by the slow background score and the expression of the other dalits
gathed there

The privileged upper class and the lower caste both has their own shauk (nasha) im-
ported cigarette and cigars and cheap taari respectively

The scene at 48 mins when the forest officers are having a conversation ...this scene
describe the thought process of the upper caste towards the lower caste ..more the for-
est contractor says " kaam karane ke liye agar zara sa inhe hadak(hurting)dia toh bad-
nami hojati hai ....aur inhe bhadkane ke liye nacxalite kaha se bhj dete h

Shooting on real location rather then on sets

When the attackers attack on advocate bhaskar naseeruddin there only the sound of
the surrounding there is no background

##The scene at 1.05 the whole shot is one take and hanheld at the same time so the
need of hanheld shot was a motivated and intentional decision by the filmmaker be-
cause this is the point where our protagonist bhaskar the advocate comes to know
about the problems and exploitation faced by the dalit . And understands that these
problms are real and should be taken care of and stands by it.

The lavani dance was setup to show bhaskar what kind of men the officers really are.

The movie tries to tell how dalits are treated by the upper caste they don't think them as
humans they assault them they treat them like their slaves

The film also uses intercutting from one timeline to another timeline too

The dalit lahania in frustation and rage (toward the inequal system ) kills his sister be-
cause he knows he is helpless, the same that happened to his wife will also happen to
his sister he knows that he can't do anything to stop that ...it is and has always been like
that and will be like that ..the privilege upper caste who exploits the lower caste will al-
ways continue to do so ...The movie ends on a very unconventional note which tells us
that there are many events like this which keeps on occuring there is no end to it ...And
the worst part is that , that the lower caste itself has accepted themselves like this be-
cause they know nothing can be done they are helpless..and will always remain to
be...There is a ending dialouge of amrish puri who also belongs from a lower caste
which talks about the situation of the lower caste " yaha pe sachai sirf wo hai jo thos sa-
boot ke zariye kanoonan sabit ki jaa sake " and then he say to nassurudins
character .."ki agar tumhe kch hogyaa , toh mere liye wo sirf ek durghatna hogi ,it will
only be an accident "

FANDRY
PLOT:
Fandry is a story set in the background of caste discrimination depicting the love of a 13-year-old
boy.

Jambhuvant Kachru Mane (nickname: Jabya) (Somnath Awghade), a pre-teen lives in a

makeshift house on the outskirts of a caste segregated village with his parents and 2 sisters (one a
widow with a toddler). The family belongs to an Oppressed-caste community (Kaikadi) and
earns its living by doing menial jobs. Owing to the caste-ridden power structure of the village so-
ciety, the boy's father has a fearful and submissive personality which is exploited by the upper-
caste villagers.

Jabya is disillusioned by the predicament of his family and shows interest in school where he has
also fallen in one-sided love with a forward caste girl named Shalini (nickname: Shalu) (Rajesh-
wari Kharat) who he has never talked to but tries desperately to get her to notice him.

The plot opens with Jabya and his school friend Pirya (Suraj Pawar) armed with a slingshot try-
ing to catch a bird (the Black Sparrow) in the wilderness. However, the bird call that punctuates
the film is that of the Red Wattled Lapwing (Titawi), which is supposed to bring bad luck. The
black sparrow, with its distinctive forked tail, and the call of the red wattled lapwing occur re-
peatedly throughout the film. The duo keep trying to catch the bird in the entire film for an un-
known reason which is later explained in the film. According to a local legend, it is believed that
when the ash obtained by burning the black sparrow is sprinkled on someone, it hypnotizes them
to fall in love with the person sprinkling it.
Jabya also befriends a bicycle mechanic named Chankya (Nagraj Manjule) who sees his young
self in the boy. Chankya had once gotten married to a girl but she was soon forcefully taken
away by her brother and left him beaten very badly. Since then he has renounced family life and
taken up refuge in spirituality, mysticism and liquor. Jabya seeks support from Chankya in his
quest to obtain his love, which Chankya readily extends. Perhaps the idea of sprinkling the ash of
black sparrow on Shalu is suggested to Jabya by Chankya himself. The idea, however, is exe-
cuted only in Jabya's dream.

Back in the village, Jabya's family members comply as they are exploited and dehumanized by
the villagers over and over again. In the film's climax, Jabya finally understands the nature of the
kingdom and realizes that he himself is the odd one out. He understands that he himself has al-
lowed the others(castes) to exploit his family because he refused(or ignored) to secure his bound-
aries. He reaches his tipping point and suddenly explodes in a rage against the others(oppres-
sors). He throws stones(ie, he finally erects his boundaries) at them and establishes a clear revolt.
The stone is seen fast approaching towards the audience and the film ends. The closing scene de-
liberately aims the stone at the audience, which is not only a victim but also a carrier of the ex-
ploitative caste-based social system.

FILMIC TECHNIQUES AND OBSERVATIONS:

Not using big actors

The mother of Fandry's friend marks fandry as the untouchable son

If you are touched by the pig then its a bad omen

If an untouchable touches a brahmin bird then the other birds will ban the bird from tha flock
and will kill it

The family are the only untouchables in the village

The villager do not touch the pig only the untouchables

Not only untouchables but the movie also shows some illegal traditions like dowry and some-
where racism too

When Jabya and his family are chasing the pigs whole village has come together to enjoy for
them it is a show but on the other side they are getting embarrassed mostly Jabya because he is
insecure about that he do not want that the girls seeing her doung the thing the whole village is
commenting on them everyone is enjoying also the girl who jabya likes when they finally catch
the pig they take it tying on a bamboo...there is beautiful tracking shot of the dead pig which is
passing by the photo of dr Ambedkar and sant gandge maharaj who are a very important bodies
of the ideologies of the caste system , in the movie jabya and his family are called pigs repeat-
edly ...for the society they are nothing more than pigs so in that shot the filmmaker is referencing
that , that is the conditions of the Dalit in our society the constitution has forgotten them ..and the
thing is no one cares about that ..so here the photo of the imp bodies is referencing to the society,
system , constitution and the dead pig is jabya and his family ( the dalits)(untouchables)