Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Metaphor in contradiction: The cinematic language of Dance Like a Man


An imposing mansion, A dysfunctional family. Four individuals brought together more by their bondage than bonding; caught in a web of passion, ambition and insecurity. Seeking redemption by their penance-like adherence to Bharatnatyam. The Dance of the Gods.

Mahesh Dattani's eponymous play is a tale of two states. Essayed through well-defined characters, within the claustrophobia of domestic and societal repression. A balanced work, combining the euphoria of creative expression on one hand with the pathos of non-attainment on the other.

Pamela Rooks weaves together the seemingly incompatible realms of dance and despondence in her celluloid adaptation of Dattani's work. Set in the late-90s Bangalore, shot on a hectic three-week schedule, embellished by the histrionic dazzle of Shobana, Mohan Agashe and Arif Zakaria , winner of the 2004 National Award for Best English Film , DLAM has more accolades to its credit than a niche film can afford.


The Plot:

'Dance Like a Man' opens- after a foot-tapping title track- in contemporary Bangalore. Ratna and Jairaj, Bharatnatyam dancers past their prime, are making hectic arrangements for the Arangetram ( debut dance performance) of their daughter Lata. Painstakingly attending to every detail, the menopausal mother Ratna vents her frustrations upon her all-enduring husband Jairaj. The unexpected accident of the mridangist ( drum player, an indispensable accompanist to Bharatnatyam) only makes matters worse, driving Ratna into a fit of perplexed rage. The strained couple are totally unprepared for their guest Vishal, Lata's boyfriend whom the latter has invited home for introducing to her parents. Ratna is too preoccupied with her 'tension' to acknowledge the visitor .Vishal is the ambitious son of a rich businessman whose irresistible charm and tact sustains a visibly embarrassed Lata and eventually wins over Jairaj, (over glasses of alcohol, of course). Ratna agrees to the alliance on the condition that marriage should not foil Lata's career as a dancer.


Lata practises rigorously for her debut; while her parents- Ratna, to be specific- swallows her pride and borrrows a mridangist from her arch-rival Chandrakala, who had shot to fame upon Ratna's premature retirement. As the plot develops through cleverly juxtaposed sequences from past and present, the older dancers' heydays are brought to light:


The year is 1977. Jairaj, the promising young son of a shrewd freedom-fighter Amritlal Parikh, practices dance with his talented bride Ratna. The affluent and popular Parikh resents his son's 'unmanly' interests and often tries to dissuade Jairaj, in vain. Parikh discovers to his chagrin that Ratna has been taking dance lessons from Chenniamma, a veteran Devadasi ( temple dancer, wrongly construed as prostitute). This leads to yet another confrontation between father and son. The latter sticks to his guns and strongly questions his father's apparently progressive ideas of social reform. Things turn sour between Jairaj and his father; Jai walks out from Amritlal's mansion, taking Ratna with him. The young couple seeks refuge in the house of Ratna's uncle, whose lascivious interest in the beautiful Ratna soon becomes evident. Jairaj feels helpless and frustrated at this, but his wife pacifies him. One day, the cunning Parikh steals a conversation with his daughter-in-law. He talks Ratna into trying to dissuade Jairaj from dance; promising her in return, the freedom to pursue her career ambitions.




In what provides a turning point in the film, this scene brings forth Ratna's manipulative character. She acquiesces to Amritlal Parikh's demands while ensuring lucrative offers for foreign performances for herself. Jairaj's pecuniary constraints force the couple to return to Parikh's mansion, where they are permitted to resume their dance sessions. Ratna's superior dancing skills soon become evident; driving Jairaj into despondency.



Cutting back to the present, Vishal courts Lata with an affection bordering on coercion. All his conversations with Lata invariably point to their impending marriage and family life.. Lata finds an outlet for her repressed frustrations in Vishal. She confides in him about her parents' strained relationship, her mother's obsession for making her famous; above all, her gnawing suspicion of how an unpleasant family secret seemed to drive her parents apart. The viewers' suspense also get heightened when, at more than one occasion, Ratna's grating arguments with her husband get abruptly cut short by Jairaj's allusion to their past.


The narrative proceeds, alternating between past and present. In spite of everything- including her rather disapproving prospective in-laws, Lata makes a commendable debut- under her mother's hawk-eyed supervision, unrelenting arrangements for publicity and media attention. All seems to go well, even as Jairaj is forced to resignedly acknowledge Ratna's upper hand in the whole melee. Lata receives compliments for her dance from the glitterati of the town, not to mention rave reviews in leading dailies. Things turn grey when Ratna's discomfiture about her daughter's star status resurfaces in yet another confrontation with her husband. Jairaj argues that Lata's fame can be attributed to her talent alone, much to his wife's frustration. She is about to leave the scene in her characteristic huff, when Jairaj reminds her of their son Shankar. The story flashes years back to a fateful night, one of Ratna's big-ticket performances. The orange- tinted frame has Ratna and Jairaj returning home from a dance performance; the former filled with imperious pride and the latter, with alcohol and apathy. Their baby boy Shankar had been left with the ayah ( baby-sitter) who, unbeknown st to the couple drugs the child with opium. What she doesn't know is that Ratna, too, does the same before handing over the baby to her. They return to see the baby asleep fitfully. Jairaj, more out of exasperation than drunk stupor, accuses Ratna of being a neglectful mother and a scheming woman, who prioritised her ambitions over her dedicated and hardworking spouse. Ratna retaliates telling Jairaj that he never had it in him to make it big; that his failure was his own doing. She tries weakly to assert her motherly concern for her baby, Jairaj in turn informs her of the Ayah's act of drugging the baby on every night of the mother's dance shows. Ratna cries horrified, “ You mean, Shantamma gives Shankar opium, too?!” She collapses out of guilt and dejection.


The present, a few months later. A deeply strained Ratna beside a bed-ridden Jairaj. The situation unfolds in Ratna's narrative.” The demolishers arrive tomorrow, Jairaj... You should see Vishal; he's as excited as a young boy. Sad about the gulmohar tree; it'll have to go too- they say it's blocking the traffic... I had taken Ratna for her medical checkup. She says, if it's a boy, she wants to name him..Shankar. I told her everything; how our lives changed, after Shankar died...She says she doesn't want to dance, Jairaj...Hope she'll change her mind after the baby's born, like I did... Do you remember how we once had a dream- to dance in unison, you and I, not missing a single step, or a beat, to dance with all the grace, all the brilliance, all the magic, to dance.... like the Gods...!


My Take:


Layered, luminous, patchy, pithy... reviewers before mine have been mixed in their judgment of the film. Which, I beleive, is a good thing. I remember the range of responses I received when I screened the film before my MBA students: Rapt attention to indifference to drowsiness... Well, let's face it: DLAM is not everyone's cup of tea. Except, of course, if you are a dancer, or dance lover, or a hard-core fan of Shobana. Well, I'm glad I'm something of the first, and very much the last two! But there's much more to the film than Shobana's presentation of Ratna.


What's it About:


A mix of paradoxes, no doubt! I think it's about Power and abuse , Relationships and conflicts , Ambition and Achievement, the insignificant 'other'... some paradoxes, some metaphors, and more!



Power and Abuse:











The Power Divide reveals itself sometimes vividly; sometimes subtly. Jairaj, for one, is at a clear disadvantage. Indecisive. Emotionally and financially dependent- respectively on his wife and his father- he represents the disempowered; except for his passion for dance. Ratna, on the other hand, revels in her abundace of beauty, talent and admirers. She also had a mean streak, ambition of steel, and an attitude of superiority- bordering on imperious contempt – towards her husband. The senior Parikh- Amritlal- rules the household, the society and his son's life with the iron fist of power, political clout and authority. His principles, self-proclaimed progressive ideas and opportunistic psycophants feed his lust for power. He, too, revels in his absolute control over everything around him. He used his shrewdness to fullest advantage, which convinces even his fiercely individualistic daughter-in-law into reconciliation. He wields his power like a multi- pronged weapon: brandishing, striking- even abusing it at will. He argues with his son and daughter-in-law to the point of driving them out of the house, cunningly bring them back, bribes Ratna with the promise of fame and even watches passively as his son gets consumed by a frustrating sense of inadequacy. He ensures the stability of his social reputation, at the cost of his only son's happiness. In fact, his towering persona haunts the mansion- and Jairaj's mind- as a recurring spectre; an unnerving, unsettling, uncomfortable memory.






The abuse of Emotional Power is too conspicuous throughout the film. Be it the over-maternal Ratna or the uber-manipulative Vishal. Ratna's fiery passion- which met an untimely deterrant in the death of her first child-, resurfaces with more vigour in her attention and affection towards her daughter. She lets herself be consumed by the spirit of dance- the 'divine' in her- and strives to 'conquer the demons outside- those who donot see the beauty of what we do', as she confides in her daughter. She wants Lata to be everything that she could never be; “ my sacrifices should amount to something, no?' she asks her daughter. Her overbearing nature traps Lata into helpless submission, who has no choice but to live her mother's dreams. Which, no doubt, kept her vulnerable to the advances of Vishal. Shrewd and manipulative- albeit generations apart from Amritlal Parikh- he (ab)uses his boyish charm to conceal his disregard for dance, his lust for Lata, his greed for her inheritance. Lata seeks protection in his passionate embraces and finds reassurance in his sales talk.





Less tangible and more impactful are the forces of ambition and disillusionment. The older dancers- Ratna in particular- is driven by ambition. She holds on to fame and recognition too tightly to even let her daughter enjoy her fair share. Ratna dreads the thought of (Lata) being 'an average human being'. She's always ready to read the roster of her efforts and her husband's incapabilities.” We have nothing to worry, because nothing is what we are”, she reminds Jairaj, taunting him with, “ You stopped being a man the day you came back to your father's house... never stepping out of his shadows or standing up on your feet”. Ratna's guilt at Shankar's death, however, gnaws at her all the time. Knowing this, Jairaj 'attacks' and silences her with reminders of Shankar whenever she gets too worked up. Ratna's ambitions put her on a high; while her disillusionment brings her down just as easily.

On Relationships

Idealistic, but with shades of grey. DLAM carefully dissects the relationships between the lead characters. Ratna's role as a mother is smattered more with dominance and ambition than the milk of maternal affection. She feeds her daughter with idealised images of being a dancer,unaware of Lata's need for her own space as an individual and artiste. Ratna comes across as too preoccupied to be an empathetic parent; dependent , in fact, on her daughter for strength and reassurance. Ratna's overbearing demeanour is often a source of embarassment for her daughter- be it in front of her prospective in-laws, or amongst their VIP guests. Ratna's role of a wife takes backseat to that of being a dancer. While one could either love to hate her, it becomes just as easy to feel enraptured by the femme fatale aspect of hers.




She's a far cry from the quintessentially submissive Indian daughter-in-law ; irreverently provoking Amritlal when not displaying her apathy towards him. Jairaj tries to assert his position as a husband, but his own ego- fuelled by his father's insults and reminders of his non-earning status- pull him back. Jairaj is the living image of frustration, insecurity and inadequacy; his relationship with his father is devoid of any warmth. With Ratna, he essays a wry, non-commital exchange; dance being the only thread that binds them together and- paradaoxically- becomes an eventual issue of contention. In his older avtar, he finally seems to have come to terms with his predicament, seeking escape in his affair with the bottle, as well as his affection for his daughter. During their brief moments together, (away from Ratna's meddlesome presence, of course) Lata comes across as a daddy's girl; silent conveying love, warmth and camaraderie for her father.


Lata looks up to her mother with starry-eyed admiration all right, but keeps a wary emotional distance always, especially, when the latter develops 'one of her moods'. The strain of having to live up to her mother's ambitions has a telling effect on the bright youngster, who nurses a sense of rebellion and defiance against everything: the house, it's oppressive secrets and social stereotypes. Watch her closely in the scene soon after her dance debut, when her hyperactive mother showcases her before every other VIP around. Her repressed uneasiness and irritation shows in her uncomfortable posture all along. Nevertheless, she does soften while comforting her aspirin-popping mother; more with a studied graciousness than with any indication of wavelength. Her frustrations unravel through her revelations to her fiancé.





The Father- son duo of Amritlal and Jairaj Parikh share a frigid relationship bordering on animosity. Their absolute disregard for each other's views and principles shows up in almost every scene in the film, although on rare occassions, Amritlal does betray something approaching guilt at having failed as a father.

The conspicuous absence of Romance between the lead couples is as much a welcome relief as a bold attempt at characterisation. Ratna's imperious contempt for her husband contrasts sharply with her daughter's blind dependence upon her fiance. In fact, Vishal's mercenary interest in Lata comes as a sad case of poetic justice against Ratna's the manipulaton of her husband, his desires and ambition.

The strongest bond that comes across in the story is that between art and the artist. The making of Ratna as a dancing diva- and the corresponding relegation of Jairaj into despair and disillusionment- throws light on this kind of passion. The film portrays several other kinds of artists: the veteran Guru, the erstwhile Devdasi, the opportunistic Chandrakala, the bumbling Mridangist- amidst the generationally different wannabe Lata and her have-been mother. The element of devotion of the artist for his vocation becomes evident through he verbal and visual. One cannot miss the larger- than-life image of Lord Nataraja in many sequences.




Conflicts:

The film is as much about conflicts as it's about relationships. DLAM brings together some markedly incompatible individuals through encounters of the odd kind, some of which are discussed here:



Ambitious father Vs. Passionate Son: Amritlal Parikh's political and social interests clash aloud with the passions of his dancer-son. During their confrontations, the duo come across as very irreceptive of each other's views and principles. So stark are their contrasts that a viewer tends to automatically take sides with either of the two Parikhs. Soon, their conflict becomes the viewer's own. I know that's debatable, but...






Mother's dream Vs. daughter's life: No different is the contrast between the two women Lata and Ratna. A Human Resources expert would instinctively detect the Personality Type variation between the two! The recklessly ambitious Ratna somehow gets along with her independent;y- willed daughter, but it's interesting to see how Lata sounds a bit like her grandfather at times: more practical, shrewd in her own way; and certainly just as individualistic. Being young, educated and urbane is a plus as far as Lata's outlook is concerned; she seems to balance her life well with her pursuit of dance.





Watch this clip on a palpably confused Lata:



Talented wife Vs. frustrated husband: At the risk of sounding sexist, here's a case on the Male Ego! The grey area between Ratna and Jairaj becomes ominous with Jairaj's inability to acknowledge his wife's talent. However, he seems to tone it down by blaming Ratna of her negligence to her family. “What wouldn't I do for you?” he bitterly asks his wife- hinting at his self-consuming love for his wife. As a youth, Jairaj was fraught with the tribulations of an artist- a man at that- practising a woman's art-“the craft of a prostitute for displaying her wares”( surely his father's words). He seems to realise that a man who does that – is no man at all! His wife brooks no such nonsense, however, sternly reminding him that he chose not to dance with her since he feared exposing his own mediocrity. Only a minority would opt to sympathise with his predicament; and – don't ask me why- I'm one!








Marriage Vs. Business prospects: The social oddity of disguising a business interest as a wedding proposal emerges during the restaurant scene involving Vishal, Lata and their families. The former's North Indian business-class family ( Marwari?) have no idea about Bharatnatyam; their biggest worry being, whether Lata had any plans of joining the films! At this point, one may also feel inclined to rate Lata as a pampered, impulsive teenager who fell in love the wrong guy. Lata'a parents- who were too picky regarding her career- seemed to care much less when it came to the question of her future ( as echoed in Ratna's only queries “He's well-off no?” and “ He'll let you dance after marriage? )







Excessive Ambition Vs. Elusive Achievement:The question “ Can the price of passion be too high?” repeats itself through more sequences than one. 'Don't take away the one thing that he loves so much; you'll destroy him,” a somewhat concerned Ratna warns Amritlal about his son. At a a later sequence, she snubs her shocked pa-in-law with an accusing ,' You should know- you've finally made a man out of him!” Amritlal couldn't have been in for a worse rude shock than to be reminded of how his plans to 'make a man' out of his son backfired.

The poignant scene where Ratna, dressed in her dancer's finery, collapses on the staircase upon realising her baby's death speaks for personal tragedy at the height of professional triumph. Also, how her passion for the art made her forgo her role in the family.

The history of disillusionment repeats itself when Ratna's ambitions for her daughter fail to fructify either.


Budding artist Vs. confused daughter: Lata is more of a soul-searching individual than a dedicated artist. She practises dance “ in order to please me” than by way of any Sadhana. As an artist, he's undoubtedly New Gen; and like most , is basically a confused teenager- from a troubled family. In general, she epitomizes the dilemma of the contemporary woman, having to choose between career and life.


Sacrifices Vs. Losses:The senior couple had to pay a heavy price for their growth as artists. They faced stiff opposition from Amritlal Parikh, struggled to make a mark, had to prioritise dance over family concerns.. even compromising on the choice of guru ( like when Ratna was forced to stop learning from Chenniyamma). Jairaj sacrificed his talent, desires, even his Self respect in order to let his wife take over his career and his life. In the past, even Amritlal made a compromise: patronising his daughter-in-law's career although it may not have been in the best of his Gandhian interests. However, every sacrifice met with a loss. Ratna and Jairaj could not grow to the heights they had envisaged for themselves; deterred by their guilt at Shankar's death. Lata is assumed to have found peace as a home-maker, at the cost of her growth as an artist. Jairaj's losses as a man who loved and lost- both his wife and hi art- are heavy. Equally bad is Amritlal's case of having come to terms with his son's interests too late; by then, he loses Jairaj to a quagmire of self- destruction.






Recognition Vs. Ridicule:An artist's fall from recognition to ridicule is not unsual, but is quite painful. Jairaj lost even before he started his game. Ratna was forced to make a premature withdrawal from the limelight to which she had become addicted. By the time their daughter was poised for Arangetram, the scene had changed. Gone were the days of admirers; Ratna realises with a shock that that musicians and other artistes are after her money; not calibre. She makes valiant attempts to point out ethical issues in the selection of Indian artists for foreign conventions, in vain.

The elusive nature of success- an artist's craving for it- and the grey shades in the business of art- these are painted in bold strokes in the film.




The insignificant Other:I commend the film for its portrayal of the minority. Many a time, the film essays the trauma of being different from populist interests. “ A Woman in a man's world may be considered progressive; but a man in a woman's world is pathetic” Amritlal Parikh's statement cuts through the narrrative like an unpleasant but painfully true reminder in the film. Jairaj encroaching into forbidden grounds lead to his getting shunned by his father. He never gains his righful place in society. Even his wife adopts a condescending view towards him.

The films also handles a rather touchy issue: the Devdasi tradition. The traditition of young women 'dedicating' their lives to temple deities during the Chola and Pandya era, was questioned on social, legislational and moral grounds during colonial times. This had led to exploitation of the community in various parts of the country. The purported- and on some occasions, true- cases of immoral practices by members of the Devadasi order led to the tradition to be branded as the practice of prostitution. In DLAM, Amritlal Parikh also condemns his daughter-in-law taking dance lessons from a Devadasi. Even as he makes a pact with Ratna, he hastily arranges to pay a sum of Rs 500 ( a princely sum for the 70s) to Chenniyamma as 'compensation for depriving her of a worthy student'. This sequence also brings out the narrow viewpoints of the self-proclaimed 'liberal' social reformer Amritlal.





An artist's family life; how their aspirations differ from those of one not inclined to the arts- emerges in a part-grim, part-humourous manner. Vishal's amusement at the lifestyles and beliefs of Lata's family is indicative of how, the 'masses' perceive an artiste offstage. Another sequence, when Vishal expresses his discomfort over Lata's performance of the erotic 'Ashtapadi' ( choreographed by her father) brings out the same perception. The artist's Creative passion locking horns with the hopelessly materialistic Other is depicted in the darkly humourous restaurant scene featuring Lata's and Vishal's families.


The Metaphor of dance:




The script of 'Dance Like a Man' uses the powerful medium of metaphor. Dance has not been included in the film for visual entertainment alone' it represents Life itself; and how a dancer aspires towards Divinity through his practise of the art.

The fast-paced Nrittya practised by the young Ratna- Jairaj duo symbolises youth and energy. Jairaj's jelousy towards his wife, and their separation- is symbolised beautifully in a sequence where Jairaj misses step while dancing with the twinkle-toed Ratna. With Shankar's death, she slips from her career and attempts at a comeback as a choreographer for her daughter's debut. The occasional references to 'dance' like a man vary with the context. Ratna's ideal of life is to 'Dance like the Gods'; while Jairaj ends up dancing like mere mortals. Amritlal and Lata subscribe to the 'Live Like a Man' philosophy.


As much as dance connects abstraction in space, in the film, it connects stages in time: Ratna's Hi- voltage practice sessions, her sparkling stage show; Lata's preparations, her debut...appear like chapters in the film.


The metaphor itself, gets embroiled in conflict, heightened for good effect by Ratna's closing commentary and her dream-like dance sequence in the closing credits.



Critique:


Niche and specialized, no doubt. Yes, you need reservations for watching this. I don't mean reservations of the mental kind ( they're the last thing you should be carrying!). The film offers a visual treat for connoiseurs of the art. Aesthetically pleasing sets, bright clothes, beautiful people, the works- all subtle. The use of music and dance is well-balanced and timed. Ganesh- Kumaresh's tracks are addictive, to say the least. The film translates the spirit of Dattani's play without stripping it of its soul a bit ( I quote other reviewers here; not having read the original play myself).


As far as performances go, Shobana triumphs in this gem of a role ( incidentally, 'Ratna' means 'gem'). She essays the bold-and-beautiful artist, the strained wife and ambitious mother, all with panache. Her youthfulness, however, make it difficult to visualise her in a mother's avtar. Her dance sequences are a sheer treat to watch; her body language powerful during the other sequences. Her classic South Indian look sits prettily on her character as a plucky Kannadiga. Shobana's South Indain accent also lends credibility to her dialogues as a nervy woman. It's strange that she missed the national award for best actress , although she did make it to the final nominations. Watch her at her mesmerising best in some of the fluid dance sequences in the film. Truly, DLAM is a testimony to Shobana's role as a consummate artist.







Critique:


Niche and specialized, no doubt. Yes, you need reservations for watching this. I don't mean reservations of the mental kind ( they're the last thing you should be carrying!). The film offers a visual treat for connoiseurs of the art. Aesthetically pleasing sets, bright clothes, beautiful people, the works- all subtle. The use of music and dance is well-balanced and timed. Ganesh- Kumaresh's tracks are addictive, to say the least. The film translates the spirit of Dattani's play without stripping it of its soul a bit ( I quote other reviewers here; not having read the original play myself).


As far as performances go, Shobana triumphs in this gem of a role ( incidentally, 'Ratna' means 'gem'). She essays the bold-and-beautiful artist, the strained wife and ambitious mother, all with panache. Her youthfulness, however, make it difficult to visualise her in a mother's avtar. Her dance sequences are a sheer treat to watch; her body language powerful during the other sequences. Her classic South Indian look sits prettily on her character as a plucky Kannadiga. Shobana's South Indain accent also lends credibility to her dialogues as a nervy woman. It's strange that she missed the national award for best actress , although she did make it to the final nominations. Watch her at her mesmerising best in some of the fluid dance sequences in the film. Truly, DLAM is a testimony to Shobana's role as a consummate artist.


Arif Zakaria is not Indian Cinema's poster-boy. However, he is a honest artist. His portrayal of Jairaj is restrained but precise. He is more convincing as the resigned older man than the frustrated youngster. His dialogues give him a certain refinement which his brooding character by itself cannot afford. It's commendable that he trained in Bharatanatyam five months before the film; and in some sequences, he's quite good. He was reportedly signed in after being spotted in the (unmanly) role of a eunuch in Kalpana Lajmi's Darmiyaan. It takes guts to accept such roles in stereotypical Bollywood; and that's where Arif Zakaria scores as a discerning actor!


Anoushka Shankar makes a promising debut as the presentable young Lata. She's cute and vulnerable, and maintains her space even in the sequences with the senior actors; even deserves praise for her arduous dance sequences. Samir Sony is the quintessential Bollywood hero; combining boyish humour with a callous romantic air. As the imposing Amritlal Parikh, Mohan Agashe fits the bill; but doesn't seem to convey much through body language.


Pamela Rooks dedicated the film to Protima Gauri Bedi- dancer, dreamer, visionary. I think the film speaks to all dancers, dreamers and visionaries alike. It addresses them and moves them in a very evocative manner. She has skilfully handled the original play and retold it in a Cinematic language without making it appear stagey. Technically speaking, the film comes a cropper : the cinematography and editing leaves a lot more to be desired. On this aspect, Dattani's Morning Raga scores, thanks to Rajeev Menon!


What Makes it Special For Me:

DLAM appealed to the artist in me. It narrates the trials and tribulations faced by aspiring artists. I watched the film at a time when I was contemplating upon grey shades in relationships; just the thing the film speaks of so well. I've always appreciated bold portrayals of reality which donot spill over the top. Rooks has a gift for craft, which gives DLAM the edge it can boast of.


More so, DLAM always feeds my insatiable appetite for Bharatnatyam, Shobana's in particular. Each viewing of the film energises me in an uncannily manner, thanks to its electrifying dance sequences.Sample the clip below. It begins with Lata's debut performance, and blends into her mother's memory ( watch Shobana at her blazing best here!)




More than being a tribute to the dance, DLAM also stands up for the art form. By not sugar-coating it as a fanciful, ethnic offering.Sometimes, movies based on plays do appear stagey, but that is because the director has yet to master the cinematic language, or has deliberately decided to treat the subject thus.d take on relationships- the grey shades for one- is noteworthy.


I recently viewed Morning Raga ( the film) directed by Mahesh Dattani himself.



Well, despite the verdant outdoor locations, presence of acting talents like Shabana Azmi, Lilette Dubey and Nasser among others and even the new- age musical accompaniment, Morning Raga failed to move me the way Dance Like a Man did. The brooding intensity of DLAM had a charm by itself, which could not be matched by the melodramatic mood of Morning Raga. Read Dattani's views on http://www.rediff.com/movies/2004/oct/26mahesh.htm


As a closing note, the film also evoked the reviewer in me. DLAM is my favourite screening for Movie Workshops in my college. And it works each time: in its ability to engage viewers, stimulate thinking, go beyond the story, read between the lines, and to generate dialogue. So readers, what say you????