Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Munna and Circuit

The institution of friendship has been delineated to some extent by the movies we’ve seen; while such portrayals carry much meaning, when looked through the prism of our everyday lives, they are difficult to be duplicated. This being true, the purport of the message conveyed assumes greater significance.

Jai-Veeru, since 1975, have triggered billions of tear ducts into action. Their acts were the epitome of companionship. And before you only notice, and infer from, the male bonding there are female duos as well. Like Thelma and Louise. It’s because male camaraderie, while being more visible, is easier to be captured on screen while girl bonhomie in movies is usually typecasted under the genre of chick flicks.

Munna-Circuit, bond terrifically - and decidedly so - on screen; though, it’s very unlikely, if not unpalatable, in reality. It's one way: Circuit giving, Munna taking. The absolute selflessness of Circuit makes Munna’s self-interests stand out a little grotesquely. Imagine what could’ve happened instead.

Circuit comes to Munna and vents out, “It’s always your life, your problems, your worries. Only you, you, you. You know what? I’m done. I’m through with this. I can’t take anymore of your shit.”

Camera focuses on the sheepish expression of Munna – that expression of sudden realization; that ‘Damn! I must be a real piss-off’ look - and then zooms out and the viewer sees an aerial shot that shows Circuit turn away. But of course you also notice the growing distance (figurative) between the two as Circuit walks away (physically apart). Cinematic brilliance. You nurse biting pangs and take out your handkerchief.

Lamenting that finding true friends today is a rarity, and a matter of luck, is a matter of emphatic convenience. It's as if you've nothing to do with finding a true friend. You've sinned as much as you've been sinned against.

Reel altruism is there to make a statement. It’s better to fathom this and not try to measure real friends by that yardstick. To take, without giving, is asking for the moon, and, to be true, the taker deserves it much less than the friend who gives.

7 comments:

Ruchika said...

Well, good to see that my post has triggered off a debate in your mind! :-)

But I think you have mis-interpreted my version and hence concluded about selfishness, sinning etc etc (I am sure you don't mean it personally, though!).. Well the thing is this:

1. As I have mentioned in the post, friendship is always mutual and not one-way... hence if your friend is all those things to you, you are ALSO ALL those things to them.. its give AND take.. so when one marvels at the selflessness shown by Circuit, its not to say I want someone to selflessly love me and in turn, I'll pursue the man of my dreams and forget about my friend (as shown in the movie).. that's not reality... one should be mature enough to understand how on-screen friendships (or even love relationships) can be translated into real life..

2. By saying that such friends are rare does not mean that they are not there! It means that since they are rare, they should be treasured and appreciated, and not taken for granted! It's all a matter of looking at it globally from the perspective of today's fast paced, urban, self-absorbed lives, and not from the miopic point of view of yours or my or someone else's life in particular..

3. Perspective is shaped by a person's current situation.. if someone is in college/school, they spend all their time with their friends, and it's easy to misinterpret true friendship for companionship (mutual though it may be).. but as you grow older, move to different cities, work in high pressure jobs, get married, go to different countries etc etc.. you find less and less time to spend with your loved ones.. so those friends who are there for you at THIS stage, when everyone is leading busy lives and can hardly spare a moment for their own families.. at this stage the friends you have, the ones who really care.. are the 'REAL' friends..

So as you grow up, you find your perspective on the same thing changing drastically.. and like I said, no one wants a chamcha.. just a friend who is willing to put everything else aside for you, and for whom you are willing to do the same!

Also, in particular reference to my post.. the tone is a positive one and not a lamenting one where I am complaining about not having friends! If you read the last line, it says I DO have genuine (and mutual, if the point has to be driven in) frienships with a few people, and treasure them!

Btw, I agree with what you said about stereo-typing films showing friendships between females as chick-flicks!

satyajit said...

Hey Ruchika, while I agree I wouldn't have written this post had I not come across yours today, I hope to make it clear that my post wasn't a rejoinder to yours.

what I felt strongly about was that so many of us say 'aaj kal kahaan milte hain aise dost' like its someone else's business to be a true friend. unless you sow you wont reap. Your post just triggered a chain of thought and all that I wrote was in no way a counter argument.

I was more concerned how we should realise the basic difference in the portrayal of friendship on screen and the way it actually is. The selflessness shown in Munnabhai is totally one-sided and it'll never happen like that. Eventually there'll be a short- Circuit.

I'm glad you show so much enthu in making your point :-) and it's upto you to decide if I meant anything personal

satyajit said...

and the whole point of sinning was that we can expect true friends only if we make the efforts ourselves...if u stick with someone he's bound to stick his neck out for u..and wen someone says that finding genuine friends is very rare it means that he hasn't, in all probability, stood by someone long enough

Ruchika said...

Yes, agreed.. one has to know how to separate fantasy from reality.. so def I didn't mean one needs to emulate their friendship, but the movie basically triggered off the thought that many a times one's ego comes in the way of reaching out to their friends, and so being as selfless as Circuit was would be such a boon..

And the more rare a thing, the more precious it is! So I cherish those friends who not only have I been around for, but have also been around for me.. see the thing is that its not always that you stick your neck out for someone that they will automatically reciprocate.. or will do it repeatedly... at the end of the day, one can count on their fingers how many such people are there in your life.. (and this is true for most people I know)

Of course our perspectives may differ due to our past experiences, both good and bad..

And I know its nothing personal!:-)

Oh, and yes, I love making my point! Hehehe..

PritS said...

Isn't cinema a dream world most of the times?
They show what they could not live in reality.
And sometimes dreams do come true.
So Munna and Circuit are just like dreams.

Suhas said...

Read this neat article in TOI recently about how the definition of friendship in cinemas reflected the social ethos of the times down the ages. In "Sholay" it was more about loyalty and being there to bail the friend out of trouble while nearly three decades later in DCH it came to signify camarederie and having laughs/ a good time together. very poignant stuff on the otherwise drab page of Sunday times ..

satyajit said...

while cinema does reflect the social ethos of the times things will be put in perspective better if we take into account that Sholay and DCH were movies in different genres altogether. While the jai-veeru was somewhat larger than life and on a grander scale, sameer-akash-sid were more real. I'm curious as to how different portrayals would be if we analyse two films of the same genre from different eras with the same/similar theme of friendship. the definition of camarederie and the avenues for it have changed and hence depictions r bound to be different