On a crazy marathon of 8 movies (new year bash!), I happened to watch two movies quite different from the mainstream cinema, Stanley ka Dabba and I am Kalam, both of them with child protagonists.
Both movies seem to share a common subject - on how kids are denied their chance to experience a normal childhood through the perils of child labour. What's worth mentioning and appreciated is the perspective they offer - How could the child's life have been, given a fair and decent chance?
Both Stanley and Kalam are over-zealous and smart kids, and both movies had a similar issue to be addressed. If so, why is it that Stanley ka Dabba had such a huge effect (on me), compared to I am Kalam? The answer I think, is two-fold - [1] the narrative and [2] depth of characters, primarily the protagonist. In both these aspects, Stanley ka Dabba clearly outruns the latter.
First, the story of Kalam is linear and predictive. Right from the beginning, we (the audience) know what would happen to him, considering the context of indian cinema. And as predicted, he ends up going to school overcoming all social and economic barriers. Stanley's story however, is narrated in a different fashion. We see him going to school already. But, there's something secretive about his life, something the director is yet to reveal - Who is he? What does he do after school? Who are his parents? Why doesn't he get a dabba of his own? All such questions are answered at the very end. The director, Amol Gupte has done a very good job of keeping the suspense alive. This must be appreciated in that film.
But, the narrative all alone couldn't have been the reason why Stanley attracts more sympathy. While Kalam and Stanley's lives are similar, Stanley's character has an 'advantage'. He has to lead a double life. He cloaks himself with one fantasy or another, everytime a question is raised on his dabba's whereabouts. The ordeal he goes through to hide his real life from his close friends is what differenciates him from Kalam - Kalam already has a friend who seems to understand what he is going through.
All in all, both movies deserve a pat on the back.
Having said all this, the cynic in me raises a question - Both Kalam and Stanley are portrayed as very talented. Would we as audience, be equally sympathetic to characters that are not as smart as them, but are equally over-zealous? I don't think so. That's one another ugly side of human nature storytellers tend to exploit.
Both movies seem to share a common subject - on how kids are denied their chance to experience a normal childhood through the perils of child labour. What's worth mentioning and appreciated is the perspective they offer - How could the child's life have been, given a fair and decent chance?
Both Stanley and Kalam are over-zealous and smart kids, and both movies had a similar issue to be addressed. If so, why is it that Stanley ka Dabba had such a huge effect (on me), compared to I am Kalam? The answer I think, is two-fold - [1] the narrative and [2] depth of characters, primarily the protagonist. In both these aspects, Stanley ka Dabba clearly outruns the latter.
First, the story of Kalam is linear and predictive. Right from the beginning, we (the audience) know what would happen to him, considering the context of indian cinema. And as predicted, he ends up going to school overcoming all social and economic barriers. Stanley's story however, is narrated in a different fashion. We see him going to school already. But, there's something secretive about his life, something the director is yet to reveal - Who is he? What does he do after school? Who are his parents? Why doesn't he get a dabba of his own? All such questions are answered at the very end. The director, Amol Gupte has done a very good job of keeping the suspense alive. This must be appreciated in that film.
But, the narrative all alone couldn't have been the reason why Stanley attracts more sympathy. While Kalam and Stanley's lives are similar, Stanley's character has an 'advantage'. He has to lead a double life. He cloaks himself with one fantasy or another, everytime a question is raised on his dabba's whereabouts. The ordeal he goes through to hide his real life from his close friends is what differenciates him from Kalam - Kalam already has a friend who seems to understand what he is going through.
All in all, both movies deserve a pat on the back.
Having said all this, the cynic in me raises a question - Both Kalam and Stanley are portrayed as very talented. Would we as audience, be equally sympathetic to characters that are not as smart as them, but are equally over-zealous? I don't think so. That's one another ugly side of human nature storytellers tend to exploit.
