Readers Write In #685: Aadujeevitham

By Aadesh Ramaswamy

Aadujeevitham is difficult to criticize cos the normal audience, who are arguably moved by it, will shut u down with the simple fact that it got into production 16 years ago. It happens when the audience is very attached to a film, which is ofc the good thing about social media.

But the thing is that, ultimately, Aadujeevitham is a film, which rather than standing as a document that depicts the trials and tribulations of Najeeb, stands as a document of the stark difference between, literature and cinema.

The difference between the image and the word, is the fact that, even though the photographic image can easily show you information at a simple glance, words with its deceptive nature, easily convey to you, both the external toughness and internal turmoil of man. Here is the major problem of Aadujeevitham.

There is a great deal of focus on Najeeb’s external pain, the physical deformation that he undergoes, visibly and even in un-seeable places, but nowhere do we get the internal pain of how he feels and what he feels. When we see that he is about to escape the hellish desert, we see him say goodbye to the goats and camels. But the moment is the first time that we even see him bond with them. Chronologically, and tragically (for us), it is the last time he is going to be with them. Thus, we only see, but not feel, what he is undergoing.

I haven’t read the book, but have heard about how it captured Najeeb’s internal emotions. For example, we get a moment in the first half where, Najeeb expresses his anger at God, saying he cannot exist, for the real God wouldn’t have pushed into this misery. This could have been an interesting tangent, only to be left apart and abandoned, when we see him performing Namaaz, some other time in the film while escaping. We never see, how this ordeal affected Najeeb internally. All we see are external blisters.

In the beginning sections, there is far too much cutting to the flashback and Najeeb being sad, that it seems quite repetitive. Yes, it could very well be said that, the repetitiveness could be present to make us feel that we are in Najeeb’s shoes. However, here it doesn’t involve us further in the story, rather only makes us feel withdrawn from it. There is also a bit of a time jump, as we see him grow into a very bearded and long haired Najeeb. This decision to me was surprising as we have now effectively broken the single important thing, that could have personally invested us in Najeeb’s story. We could have seen, how he began to warm up to the goats, camels, the desert, sand, wind etc, but we see/feel none of that.

Prithiviraj’s performance is definitely one of the things that keeps us invested in the film, holding it remarkably well. The actors playing, Hakim and Qadri, are also quite good. The cinematography is good. We get some really beautiful wide shots, showcasing the beautiful sunsets and nights. The random cuts to the flashbacks, add the sense of contrast visually, in in terms of how cool it is, and also by showcasing Najeeb being involved in water related situations. The first shows him going underwater. The second flash shows him in rain. The third is again being underwater with his wife. The fourth is when he is leaving town, again when it is raining.

But the problem is that none of this actually, emotionally affects you. It wasn’t surprising to me that, some people were even laughing during some sequences of emotion.

And that brings me to the question that essentially is question at cinema itself and how it is being used: the idea of representing films made on a past that is now not in clear memory.

A discussion arose between my dad and me, when we were randomly watching MS Dhoni The Untold Story. He commented about how it was a bigger success than Sachin: A Billion Dreams. Having recently read an article about why Godard slandered Spielberg so much for making Schindler’s List, I commented a bit off that in this conversation but ultimately ended it by saying it doesn’t matter in the story of MS Dhoni simply because, it isn’t an important subject as such.

(What JLG said was that, by recreating the concentration camps and making a “direct” and “conventional” biopic of Oskar Schindler, Spielberg insults the real emotional and psychological turmoil, that the Jews underwent and hence commercialises the emotional pain of the real Jews by intercutting those images with the ones of Oskar, being in bed with a woman (A single example, to showcase how Oskar was before). It doesn’t depict the real horrors that the Jews faced and only insulted them)

But now, having watched Aadujeevitham, the question once again arises: How do you represent a real-life incident/personality without having to resort to a fictionalisation of the person?

Roger Ebert once said that Films are the medium for emotions and not information. While I understand where he comes from, I wouldn’t deny that whatever lies we say through the image, ultimately, when we all watch a film, there is a belief that what is shown, is ultimately true. I have heard of so many directors telling us not to blindly believe and that makes us seem as if we are little children, but it wouldn’t be wrong to suggest that, just like the present-day Social Media, Cinema too is that one person, who never lies. But unlike Social Media, we haven’t learned to question Cinema.

The problem is thatSocial Media doesn’t give a shit about a person’s emotional or mental state of mind, and reduces everything down to a single piece of information. It is then not a surprising fact that, Cinema is now competing with Social Media for attention, both literally and figuratively.

By making films which falsely present a fictional version of reality of a real-life story, the difficulties portrayed on screen, become a way to suggest that the person could have experienced a particular thing i.e. information rather than making us feel what he felt. We think SSR (MS Dhoni) met Disha Patani (Priyanka Jha) only on the Plane. We think Najeeb walked in the deserts barefoot for so many years. The emergence of the term “torture porn” is fascinating, especially after the recent Caste waves of caste film, showing the atrocities committed on the lower caste people. The first time that such an image was shown, could very well have been the last time that such an image could be shown for that generation (for every generation has its Attakathi) for every image after that would suffer from the weight of being more “impactful”, “engaging” to the audience.

But when we see Sachin, the stock footage used and the idea of recollection, conveys a certain degree of truth by the fact that, we don’t see fictionalised shots. We see his remembrance coupled with evidential footage, as a process of confirmation of the truth. (Here again, the image being used as a propagator of truth).

Just checked that Sachin: A Billion Dreams is a documentary; it makes sense that the film didn’t do as well as MS Dhoni. Its easier to view fictionalised incidents resembling the truth rather than approaching the truth itself.

And similarly, even though the events of Aadujeevitham, the film, may be fake, the images are a simple and permanent confirmation of the fact that: It is a film which just wasn’t done well.