Introduction
Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie[a] FRSL (born 19 June 1947) is an Indian-born British-American novelist and essayist.[3] His work, combining magical realism with historical fiction, is primarily concerned with the many connections, disruptions, and migrations between Eastern and Western civilizations, with much of his fiction being set on the Indian subcontinent.
His second novel, Midnight's Children (1981), won the Booker Prize in 1981 and was deemed to be "the best novel of all winners" on two occasions, marking the 25th and the 40th anniversary of the prize. His fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), was the subject of a major controversy, provoking protests from Muslims in several countries. Death threats were made against him, including a fatwā calling for his assassination issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989. The British government put Rushdie under police protection.
Also, Today we are going to discuss about the Novel vs film Adaption that which are the characters and style quite different from both the things..
1. Narrative technique (changes made in film adaptation - for eg. absence of Padma, the Nati, the listener, the commenter - What is your interpretation?)
A film adaptation of Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel Midnight’s Children may not be screened in India due to its sensitive political content, according to its director, though others point to a simple lack of commercial interest.
The film’s Canadian-Indian director, Deepa Mehta, blamed “insecure politicians” for its failing to attract a distributor, as the rights have been purchased by 40 other countries.
Published in 1981, Midnight’s Children follows the life of a boy born at the exact moment when India gained independence from Britain, and through the 1975-77 period known in India as “The Emergency”, when prime minister Indira Gandhi effectively suspended democracy and was able to rule by decree.
"Salman [Rushdie] has often said that the book was his love letter to India. I think the film reflects that love," Mehta told the Hindustan Times in Toronto.
"What a pity if insecure politicians deprive the people of India to make up their own minds about what the film means," she added.
Literary critic Nilanjana Roy, speaking to the Daily Telegraph today, said she believed Rushdie and Mehta rather than the content of Midnight’s Children were the cause of the film’s problems in India.
“Rushdie is seen as controversial, Mehta is seen as controversial, and some political party will cause a fuss,” she said. “One thing that has silenced people in the last few years has been the threat of violence.”
“I think that official and unofficial censorship has risen sharply in the last two decades, though the debate surrounding the issue has also become mainstream too. [With] works of art in particular there is often a demand they be shut down, almost as a kneejerk reaction.”
“We have this idea that minorities should bow to the interests of the majority.”
Mehta is no stranger to controversy. Her 2005 film Water suffered setbacks when violent protests shut down production, including burning of sets. Cinemas showing the film were also picketed by fundamentalists who disliked the film’s negative portrayal of conservative Hindu values, and the filming of Midnight’s Children was completed in Sri Lanka for this reason.
The widow of Indira Gandhi's late son Rajiv, Sonia Gandhi, is the president of the ruling Congress party. Her own son, Rahul, is considered a future prospect for prime minister as a member of the long-running Indian political dynasty.
But the film would not be expected to sell, its political problems aside. “It wouldn’t make a profit,” Roy conceded. Films popular in the West that are set in India such as Slumdog Millionaire often fail to make an impact among audiences at home, who prefer the aesthetic and storylines of Bollywood cinema.
Writer and historian William Dalrymple believes that while the distributors would be anxious about the reactions of politicians, the film's high brow literary nature would not make it an easy sell in India:
"I loved the movie, and it is full of some fabulous performances by a whole range of young Indian actors. But Indian movie distributors are even more philistine than their western counterparts, and there are sadly very few cinemas which will show art house movies- its all singing-and-dancing Bollywood masala, or politicians and mafiosi gunning each other down in shoot outs," he said.
"Even if Salman has never offended a single politician I fear a movie as complex and intelligent as this one would sadly struggle to find the audience it deserves here."
"There is a complete disconnect between Western and Indian tastes," he told the Daily Telegraph. "Nobody has bridged the taste gap.
"There are a lot more Western films than there were in India, but anything 'arty' gets a pretty bumpy ride. Bollywood is what sells well in India, as well as in China and the Middle East."
2. Characters (how many included, how many left out - Why? What is your interpretation?)
There are some characters are included or some are left out from the film. Satya Bhabha as Saleem Sinai, Shriya Saran as Parvati, Siddharth Narayan as Shiva, Darsheel Safary as Saleem Sinai (as a child), Anupam Kher as Ghani, Shabana Azmi as Naseem, Neha Mahajan as Young Naseem, Seema Biswas as Mary, Charles Dance as William Methwold, Samrat Chakrabarti as Wee Willie Winkie, Rajat Kapoor as Aadam Aziz, Soha Ali Khan as Jamila, Rahul Bose as Zulfikar, Anita Majumdar as Emerald, Shahana Goswami as Amina, Chandan Roy Sanyal as Joseph D'Costa, Ronit Roy as Ahmed Sinai, Kulbhushan Kharbanda as Picture Singh, Shikha Talsania as Alia, Zaib Shaikh as Nadir Khan, Sarita Choudhury as Indira Gandhi, Vinay Pathak as Hardy, Kapila Jayawardena as Governor, Ranvir Shorey as Laurel, Suresh Menon as Field Marshal and padma.
3. Themes and Symbols (if film adaptation able to capture themes and symbols?)
symbolic perception:
In the movie two symbol effected more like Spitton and Taj Mahal broken symbol. One scene when Saleem mother leave by her first husband Nadir at that time Ahmed to give personal to her for marriage with her at movement Taj Mahal broken because Amina's sister wanted to marry with him but Alia's dream like taj Mahal it broken and situation became completely different. Tik tok is other symbols when Ahmed and his wife Amina check one pot and say everything is Tik Tok. It means perfect. Film one scene Mother India poster image is symbol of mother image broken when Amina went to meet her first husband during Saleem follow his mother.
*Filed Marxism ideas like Rich and Poor*
In the movie two child born at same hospital one is Vanita and William Methon poor family belonging child other Ahmed Sinai and Amina child rich family belonging child and nurse Mary exchanged that child each other according to Joe. And she changed destiny of there child one name Saleem and other name Shiva. But she filled to that ideas and she felt guilty. But here I noticed one thing she has sympathy with Saleem, she said Saleem's mother died but after her exchanging children situation completely change then Shiva became without mother child so Mary has more sympathy for Saleem not for Shiva, actually Shiva is without mother child.
*View as Religious perspection*
Film central Religious is Muslim. Mary one mistake it became changing two children destiny. Actually Saleem has hybrid ideatity mixed of Hindu and Christine son. While Shiva identity as Hindu but really he is son of Muslim. But entire I can not see Masjid and Temple but only I see their religious faith. Parvati character portrait as Indian Hindu girl , she has more faith in God that sign portrait and otherhand Amina mother as Muslim she has more faith in God that scene portrait. And one action also remarkable Saleem as Muslim and he is married with Hindu girl Parvati. Because nowadays is highly problematic around Gujarat, If Muslim boy married with Hindu girl so it become “Love- Zehad” cases. Here one thing also remarkable Rushdie selected hero as Muslim and heroine as hindu. So may be it called religious set as patriarchal mind. Because Rushdie belong to Muslim so he portrait Muslim as hero and hindu as heroine.
*Hybrid identity*
*Magical realism-*
Rushdie used magic realism in his novel. It is like metaphor on society, Saleem born at 15 August 1947 midnight so he has magical power in his nose, he can listen voice which born at same night. Saleem has telephetic power and Shiva power in his knees and Parvati called Parvati the witch. Here I has suprising thing is they all have power but they don’t use for good purpose most of they fight each other.
4. What is your aesthetic experience after watching the screening?
It is remarkable that what many consider as Salman Rushdie’s landmark work in fiction, Midnight’s Children, was first adapted to film only in 2012, 31 years after its publication. It was also the first of his works to be filmed. This is noteworthy given the novel’s cinematic self-awareness and the writer’s overt interest in acting and cinema, which he has reiterated over the years. Cinema, as a subject matter and a distinctive artistic language, resurfaces time and again in the pages of Rushdie’s essays, short stories, novels, and other writings. As many critics have pointed out, the writer’s emotional connection to cinema has translated into cinema itself being put to work as a mediating device in his oeuvre, with his characters often making sense of themselves and the world — and coming to terms with their own place in it — through cinema. In this article, we examine the three existing adaptations of Midnight’s Children, with particular emphasis on the 2012 film, in view of their discursively constructed audiences. We consider these adaptations from the point of view of the audience, and how they engage with the spectator/reader. Our analysis is supplemented by Rushdie’s essays on the acts of adaptation and translation from one artistic medium to another. Our purpose is not to measure the failure or success of Rushdie’s and Mehta’s adaptation (although an aesthetic evaluation would indeed be of interest); we argue instead that the film adaptation is a protracted creative project that has taken into consideration, more than previous adaptations of the novel, not only new forms of representation and new ways of reading, but also new ways of engaging its constructed audiences.
Thanks😊
No comments:
Post a Comment