My task ... is by the power of the written word, to make you hear, to make you feel - it is before all, to make you see.
- Joseph Conrad (1897)
To make the mind see ... That is the definition of good literature ... It is also a definition of the ideal film.
- Herbert Read (1945)
When I write,I try to capture in words, the half etched thoughts, the unformed silences ,the vaguely understood swirl of emotions all entangled with and undifferentiated from the chaotic images that flash and disappear.
When I visualize, I try to capture,in images this time, those half etched thoughts, those unformed silences,those vaguely understood swirls of emotions entangled with and undifferentiated from the chaotic words that flash and disappear.
An image, that has never been a word before except vaguely, while it was evolving in the mind, or, a word that has been an image only in the same conditions, stands by itself as the first representation of a reality(or fantasy) that has till then seen only the world of the mind from which it evolved.It is individualistic, unique and beyond judgement , like a new born baby.
But what happens when someone tries to capture, reinterpret or redefine,through the medium of cinema, something that exists from before,and not just exists, but,like famous works of literature ,has already lent itself to a process of being read,talked about,analyzed,criticized and finally,deconstructed? From being a creation, it has gone on to create more meanings and has often, like the plays of Shakespeare, cast its influences down generations of literary works and loomed large on literary thought. We begin to view it then, as an ‘adaptation’, and that invites comparison,not just with the ‘original’ but also with the other adaptations that have come before.
Often, such films are judged by the degree to which they adhere to or diverge from their literary source material - the film seen either as 'a remarkably faithful adaptation' or one that 'fails to capture the spirit of the original.’But what is it that they are supposed to be faithful to?If there are potentially as many interpretations of a text as there are readers,even a film adaptation can be seen as one of these ‘readings’.Is it fair then,to view an adaptation as ‘fundamentally flawed’ only because it is not original,considering the fact that when meaning gets lost or changed even in a lingual translation,a cinematic adaptation is a complete change of medium? Is it fair to be disappointed at casting decisions or dismayed by the inevitable compression of certain scenes or incidents?
However, “Fair is foul,and foul is fair”,chant the three witches in Macbeth and the language of contradiction that Shakespeare has them speak in throughout the play adds to the sense of ambiguity and confusion. Are the witches merely mouthpieces of fate or do they have any real power to be the agents of change?Similarly,are film adaptations of literary texts merely ‘adaptations’ or mouthpieces of the original,to be judged similarly or are they works of art in their own right,influenced by but also influencing streams of thought around them?
"At each juncture in the history of the cinematic image, it is Shakespeare who is brought in to test the limits of representation and to address questions of art, value, and meaning”,
- Starks and Lehmann, Post Script: Essays in Film and the Humanities
This might or might not be an important juncture in the history of the cinematic image,but since it is a juncture in the history of my movement in between and within literature and cinema, I too, choose to bring in the Bard to address my questions.
In Act 4, Scene 1 of Macbeth, the witches show Macbeth a procession of eight kings,the eighth of whom holds a mirror in his hand. This mirror carries the effect of doubling into the audience as well; suddenly creating confusion as to whether the world of the play or the world of the audience is reality, blurring the lines between reality and an ‘adaptation’ of it.This is how Shakespeare himself opened up his plays to further interpretations, perhaps also justifying any appropriations to a different reality.
Which is what both Akira Kurosawa and Vishal Bhardwaj do,in different ways.While Kurosawa sets Throne of Blood in medieval Japan, a time when feudal Japan was undergoing civil war (1392-1568) and the Samurai were a doomed class, Bhardwaj carries Macbeth across cultures into the Mumbai underworld,and goes beyond gang wars and corruption,into the psyche of the protagonists lodged within a world of ambition,guilt and denial of desires.
The main theme of Macbeth, the destruction wrought when ambition goes unchecked by moral constraints, finds its most powerful expression in the play’s two main characters, Macbeth, a Scottish General who is not naturally inclined towards evil but harbours within himself desires of advancement, and Lady Macbeth, who spurs her husband mercilessly to kill the king but who is less capable of withstanding the repercussions of her acts.Unchecked ambition can be said to be the tragic flaw in Macbeth’s character that leads to his fall,but there is also an obsession with the possibility of being king that is played upon by his wife and the three witches,that overrides his keen awareness about the consequences of his actions.
Throne of blood is set in a society on the edges of its fall into chaos, trying to sustain the Samurai code that has already become corrupt and a lifestyle that is fundamentally doomed no matter what action the hero chooses.It is this setting that contributes to not just a distancing from but also a reinterpretation of the original work.Macbeth is a tragedy brought about by a tragic flaw in an individual , but Throne of blood replaces it with an entire society plagued by a tragic flaw that is feudalism. Washizu murders his Lord, who had himself murdered his Lord,and it is less ambition,and more his survival instinct and fear that spurs him on. This changes the entire feeling of the story. There is no obvious moral successor to the Cobweb castle, because all the Lords must take this throne with some degree of violence. Washiju is different from Macbeth because his immorality is more a product of his times, his tragedy is more inevitable because it is the tragedy of a society,not of an individual.
The regicide of 11th century Scotland and the struggle that ensued between regional lords and kings,that much of Macbeth derives from, is appropriated into a completely different world in Maqbool, which is set not just in another culture in another time,but in a culture that lies on the fringes of and is buried within this mainstream culture.The underworld is defined in opposition to the values that a mainstream society supposedly upholds. It is a world defined by a lack of any moral order rather than an order in itself.How does this affect the main themes of the play?On what basis do we judge ambition,treachery and deceit in a character who is probably a creation of a world of which all these are an inherent part?Murder is not something new or morally repulsive to Maqbool,his very reputation and his status as the right hand man of Abbaji probably derive from his skillfulness at his work.It is more about a betrayal of the values that a community holds,which in this case, is loyalty to Abbaji and the order established by him.It is not adherence to any universal ideas of good and evil that inform the tragedy of the protagonist, rather, it is a betrayal of the personal values that he has set out for himself.
Unlike Macbeth, where the protagonist is killed by the morally righteous Macduff,Kurosawa completely does away with him,opting instead, for a mass assassination of Washiju, a device that emphasizes the society, rather than an individual, as an agent of change. Maqbool,however,meets his death at the hands of the enemy,although by that time,he seems resigned to his fate and unwilling to fight.There is nothing righteous about his death,coming as it is,from a party seeking revenge and power,but it still remains the tragedy of an individual,because unlike Shakespeare,where moral order is restored and also unlike Kurosawa where an entire system falls,the underworld is little affected by the death of this tragic hero. Another gang will rise to dominion and according to Pandit and Purohit,the witches of this adaptation,the balance of power will be regained.
Thematic reinterpretations apart, an adaptation also needs to find a distinctive visual language to underpin, and often replace, the theatrical methods of the original play and the rich poetry that is created through words. One way in which filmic adaptation of Shakespeare's plays deal with this issue is to replace the verbal with the visual, or reinforce the verbal with visual or sound.
Kurosawa’s film rarely makes use of the poetic dialogue of the original play.Instead,it is interesting how he has chosen to make use of the Japanese Noh Theatre,a tradition that emerged in the 14th century and was patronised by the Samurai Lords. Noh elements include the music (the flute, for example), the bare sets, and especially the stylized performances by the main actors.Although the story is compressed ,it is the sparseness of the sets that seems to stretch out time and space.Many images that Kurosawa uses are inspired by the play,the screeches of the birds,for instance,which many characters of the play claim to hear before the murder of Duncan.Later in the film, birds fly into Cobweb Castle as the forest actually seems to move,and finally mist rolls in to reclaim the land that it enveloped even in the beginning.Macbeth is a dark play, where the hidden sides of human nature are replicated in the motifs and the imagery the play uses.Thunder and lightning,wind and rain,blood,visions and hallucinations all set to establish a mood that permeates the entire play.Similarly,the bleached skies, the fog, the barren plains of the film and characters going adrift within these spaces create much of the mood in Throne of Blood that dialogues create in Macbeth.The eerie laughter that echoes in the forest made gloomier by rain and mist leads Washiju and Miki to a witch who seems wiser and more powerful than Shakespeare’s witches,because she sings of human follies and spins the wheel of fate.What is interesting is how her blank stare,her stillness, her mumbling voice is very similar to Asaji’s and how that creates a parallel between the two characters. This makes Washiju even less a master of his own destiny,and while this adds to the point that “ tragedy is not an individual’s fate in this film,but a society’s heritage”, coupled with the stylized acting,it does take away from the psychological explorations of a character’s mind.
Characters are more threshed out in Maqbool, which even provides an insight into the character of Abbaji,the counterpart of King Duncan of Macbeth,who is hardly more than a well loved ruler in the original. The relationship between him and Maqbool goes beyond that of a patriarch and his general ,it almost becomes a father son relationship.Not only does that add to the intensity of the sin,it also adds to the intensity of the decision making process.While the themes of ambition,treachery and the power of prophecy have their parts to play,what becomes the final motivation for the murder is Maqbool’s relationship with Nimmi. This adds a completely new dimension to the plot,and also complicates it in a way that there can be no pinpointing at any one motivation.At the same time,it also allows us to view Maqbool sympathetically,torn apart by his love and his loyalties.Nimmi is as scheming and a shrewd as any of her counterparts but unlike them,she is given a history that provides an explanation for her character.Outcast from her home,a mistress who’s power lasts only as long as Abbaji’s interest in her lasts,her actions can be read more as acts of desperation than evil.
The recurring images of the play are the recurring images of this film too,and thunder and lightening,set the scene for the appearance of the witches.And in what is perhaps the most interesting bit of reimagination,the witches turn out to be two corrupt police officials, with a penchant for prophecy.The witches of Macbeth are essential manifestations of the moral atmosphere of Macbeth’s world ,constant reminders of the potential for evil in the human imagination who respond to the deepest desires of anyone ready to let them flirt with his imagination.Similarly,Pandit and Purohit,can also be seen as manifestations of their world. A culture with an inherent belief in the power of destiny and a society whose systems of law and order,trade and commerce, politics and entertainment are intertwined with the underworld can easily give rise to inscrutable ‘witches’ like these two police officers. As representatives of supernatural,of mainstream society and of the underworld,they occupy a unique position in the film.If the question is still to asked,whether the witches are merely mouthpieces of fate or whether they have the power to affect that fate,the film seems to answer this question a little more clearly.Not only do they ‘double,double,toil and trouble’ with the character’s minds and with words,they also become agents of change by taking one side and then another and trying to maintain the balance of power. Macbeth is characterized by ambiguity at every stage brought out through its motifs of reflections,double meanings and doubling.Nothing is what it seems.And the lines blur even more in the film.Who’s child is it that Abbaji’s daughter and son in law adopt at the end? Maqbool’s or Abbaji’s? Noone knows.And in that not knowingness lies the final comment of the film.
Whose creation is an ‘adaptation’ then? Evolving from a history that has its lines merging with and also originating from movements in literature,art and cinema,a history reshaped every time a new reading, another interpretation or a different adaptation is brought out,a filmic adaptation cannot be looked at in isolation.But,inspite of the heritage it carries,it is yet,a new being,that speaks its own language.And I am learning to listen to that language.
Jan 2006
