Notes

Last week I finished watching Mandi, the 1983 film. I am writing this post to note a couple of thoughts. Nothing here will remotely resemble a film connoisseur’s writing. 🙂

Watch the movie here – https://youtu.be/lHsPfCaNsXI?si=kRuuWyjpLzLyLOWp

Mandi is a wonderful movie. I will restrict myself to this succint praise since any more praise would be a mere waste of the ink in my pen. My praise is infructuous and unecessary since – better people have watched this film and reviewed it. And in this ocean of reviews, opinions, and praises I do not find any space for my opinion on this film.

Mandi has been directed by Shyam Benegal and boasts a very talented ensemble cast. It conveys its message with a tone of simplicity and optimism. Which is quite atypical for a film trying to convey a message on a “social problem”.

While there is a lot I can speak about the movie, I will restrict my comments to two broad heads. First, some praise on Shabana Azmi, and Naseeruddin Shah’s role; and second, some questions I had as I completed the movie.

Shabana Azmi – Rukmini Bai

I will not call Azmi’s role good, bad etc. Again, more qualified people have provided much better reviews of Azmi’s work rather, I would call it “trendsetting”.

After a little research I found that Mandi is perhaps the first movie in India that took up the theme of prostitution, and brothels as we see them today. Ofcourse there have been films on “tawaifs”, like Pakeezah, and even Umrao Jaan (a little before Mandi was released), but all these depicted only a certain class of prostitution. They were focused on the singing and dancing at “Mehfils” of the nobles, and gentry etc. [think Lakhnawi Tehzeeb etc.] Specifically, movies before Mandi did not focus on common brothels.

What this implies is that, Azmi’s acting is the first example of a commonplace brothel, and its owner or “Bai”. Her character and acting must certainly have set the example and standard for forthcoming movies on the same theme. And my point is proven, by movies like Gangubai Kathiawadi, and Begum Jaan, and many others. The protagonist in all these movies is just Rukimini Bai in different shades. Xerox copies with different amounts of ink. A paan-chewing, badass woman, ready to do whatever it takes.

Although her character is that of a strong woman. I was forced to think why are all of her emotions so animated? All her emotions seemed a little fake, and exaggerated. As I have written later in this post, I found a lot of the “crying”scenes to be “fake”. The only reason I can think of to justify such animated emotions is to keep the screenplay lightweight and easygoing. After all, Mandi has been classified as a satirical comedy.

Naseeruddin Shah as Tungrus

Of all of Naseeruddin Shah’s movies I have watched, this is his best performance. I may be wrong. I am no film critic, and I certainly haven’t watched all of Shah’s movies. However, Shah plays a unique role in Mandi. And it isn’t his dialogue, rather, his silence and naivetyn that draws attention towards him.

Shah plays the role of Tungrus, a servant at the Rukmini Bai’s Brothel. He is a loyal There is very little that Tungrus says in the movie. Counting from my memory, there are a couple of drunk-scenes where he speaks gibberish. There are two other occasions where he speaks, once while saying ‘Hau-Hau’ (sounds of approval) while Rukmini Bai delivers a monologue. And finally, towards the end of the movie, when he shouts to bring Rukmini Bai’s attention to a Shivling he has found. As I pointed out earlier, he simply . His silence, and his servile character is sufficient to draw attention to him.

Measuring by spoken words, Tungrus does not have a very significant role in the movie. In the strict sense of the word, Tungrus has no role to play in moving forward the plot. Once again, his presence or absence in the movie does not really change the story of the movie. However, in the little screen time that Shah has, he drew my attention. His naivety and servility as Tungrus is something different. It drew my attention.

Some Questions

The Parrot?

What does the Parrot keep saying? What does it keep repeating? – Is it, “Tungrus?”, is that what it keeps saying? I understand that it is some kind of representation/symbolism of Zeenat. I read somewhere that both are “caged birds” and want to live a free life. The character of the Darvesh particularly points this out at the end, to Zeenat.

On Zeenat

Why did Rukmini Bai foster Zeenat?; Was it because she truly loved Zeenat? Or, (putting it very crudely) because she wanted some kind of a bargaining/negotiation chip with her interactions with Agarwal saheb. Or, was it because she was, as the Darvesh said, a “golden-bird”, and brought money to Rukmini Bai, with her singing.

Maybe all of this is true. Towards the end two events show that she might actually have a motherly bond for Zeenat. First, when Agarwal saheb and Rukmini speak on the growing bond between Zeenat and Sushil; Rukimini Bai shirks off Agarwal saheb’s proposal- She does not want the money – Zeenat is like a daughter to her. Second, towards the wee end, Rukmini Bai cries when Zeenat is not found. Is it possible that . There atleast two reasons that weaken this theory. First, the “kind-of” secret deal that Rukmini Bai struck with Gupta ji. [Zeenat found out about the deal] Second, the unemotional way in which Rukmini Bai conveyed to Zeenat her relationship with Sushil; and the Zeenat was the daughter of Agarwal sahab.

The second theory has strength. For all practical purposes, as long as Zeenat is alive, she was a living breathing proof of Agarwal saheb’s mistake. The thoery is strengthened, when you notice the way in which Rukimini Bai never fails to bring up the topic of Zeenat in front of Agarwal saheb almost in an attempt to (perhaps) push Agarwal to the wall.

The third theory is also valid. Zeenat sings. And more specifically, she is the only one who sings. Both Zeenat and Vasanti (who dances), are the metaphorical golden-brids for Rukimini Bai. As long as they live, Rukimini Bai’s troupe will be invited to social functions. Without Zeenat and Vasanti her brothel will be devoid of the “Kala” she repeatedly boasts.

Fake Tears?

What is up with the fake tears in the movie? I can not recall a single occasion where any cast member shed “real tears”. All crying scenes seem animated, and unreal. I say this not because the acting was bad, but because all crying scenes have been shot with added “drama”, all of it is extra dramatic. Why is this so?

The reason could have been, perhaps to keep the movie in the nature of a “sattirical comedy.” Of course the movie doesn’t really make anyone laugh out loud anywhere, but it does a bring a smile at places…

Rukmini Bai’s last ditch effort to save her brothel – An orchestrated crying act, clearly… “fake tears.” [The entire brothel breaks into a cry]

Again, when Rukmini Bai tries to comfort Phoolmani, there is fake sadness, and fake tears…

Once again, when Zeenat is no where to be found… fake tears.

Maybe, all the years at the brothel has toughened up Rukmini Bai. She knows where she should cry, or rather, where someone might cry, but she finds herself emotionally hollow, she does not find that sadness inside her anymore.

Finally… slightly outrageous thought; Notice, how Phoolmani is the only “real” person in the film. There is fear in her eyes. She is the only person really crying, when she is crying. And she ends up dying… Is it some kind of symbol that, “realness” died… and fakeness is all that was left?