“The past, future and the ‘present’ all can exist together.” Mr. Ashok Kaul, director of the movie Bhagmati, said to me.
He read my earlier posting on the same topic and was impressed so much so that he called me up to clarify some of my primitive doubts about the movie. And he did clarify it. What I didn’t understand earlier was ‘the fundamental premise of the movie’ that the past, future and the present all can exist together.
I know this is hard-to-grasp-concept. But, for a moment, shed your framework, your boundaries, your physical margins, and think: what is time? And how do you calculate it? If there were no ‘time’ would you have any past, or any present, or even any future?
This man, Director Ashok Kaul, had a real mature thought before he went further into making a movie out of it. The girl who seemed to be the reincarnation of queen Bhagmati wasn’t actually a reincarnation, because at the same time, the queen Bhagmati also lived, in some other time frame – in Stephen Hawkin’s word, a conflict between two time-frames – and both, the girl and the queen, meet each other, in the conflict zone. The queen is about to die, after living a happy life with the one she loved the most; and the girl is about to find the love of her life. The king, Quli Qutub Shah, sitting by the bed, staring at his dying love, talks to the girl and urges her to let go of her reluctance and live a life. Living is the most difficult thing.
This was a little confusing at first. Later, I took it somewhat abstract. Then, after talking to the Director, and after he elucidated the concept, and the basic premise, I understood it.
And today, I re-watched the movie and everything seemed to fall on places.
He was right. It’s all in our own brain; all the limitations are only in our brain.
This was not physics; this was metaphysics.
Yesterday, I watched ‘Banaras – a mystic love story’. Here was a babaji, played by Nasir, died a hundreds years ago, but the main protagonists of the movie could see him, and converse with him. The past and the present together lived in unison. And they created a future.
But both movies didn’t click. Why?
“May be, because the movie was made for a target audience and couldn’t reach them; may be, because the movie was vilified by the word of mouth, may be it was done intentionally; may be, the movie couldn’t explain itself properly…” the Director said.
1 >> If a book was written, I mean a melodramatic sort of book, before releasing the movie, making the target audience understand the basic premise, things would have improved. In a book, you can say things more easily – words are more puissant than anything under the sun.
2 >> If the movie was made in English, the untargeted audience could have been separated out, and with little marketing things would have improved.
I understand that, like a book, a movie – at least of such kind – is a very personal thing. Made for oneself, for similar souls, not like family drama for the masses! But still, if no one reads what you have written; your efforts are wasted, ignored. The worst thing to face in this universe is ignorance. Either love me, or hate me; never ignore me.
This movie has stood for the ‘past’ which we are ignoring for so long.
There is so much to write on it. But I am at a loss of words. Some ideas are better not be explained, since they need the first hand experience.
Not everything can be written down on a paper and read by others.
It was very nice, and enlightening to talk to a man of such pure, mature and grave thoughts.
Thanks for calling Ashok.