Hey Ram (2000)

हे राम

Kamal Haasan's daring, intense film Hey Ram draws heavily on the symbology of Hindu myths to tell its story about the spasms surrounding partition.  Even though much of that layered meaning is shamefully lost on me, the film's commentary on sectarian violence - an issue that always gets to me - is both compelling and moving.

Saket Ram (Kamal Haasan) is an archeologist, a scholar and an intellectual.  Though he is a Tamil Brahmin by birth, his own political beliefs are open, progressive, and secular.  Ram's ideology is shaken to the core, though, when, in rioting following the announcement of Partition, his beloved wife Apurna (Rani Mukherjee) is brutally raped and murdered by a Muslim gang.  Ram is distraught to the point of madness, and he wanders the streets of Calcutta in a daze.  He is recognized as a fellow Brahmin by a charismatic Hindu nationalist, Abhyankar (Atul Kulkarni), who tells him that revered hero Mahatma Gandhi is true cause for the violence.  Abhyankar convinces Ram that obliterating Gandhi would solve the "Muslim problem" once and for all and allow the creation of a great Hindu nation.  Ram, traumatized and thirsty to avenge his loss, joins Abhyankar's plot on the revered leader's life, and is selected to be the lone assassin.  His quest to fulfill what he perceives to be his destiny brings him face to face with an old friend - his former colleague, a Muslim, Amjad Ali Khan (Shah Rukh Khan) - and in the heat of battle Ram must decide where his true loyalties lie. 

Ram's arc is driven by his extended case of post-traumatic stress disorder; recurring visions of Apurna's violent demise haunt him and goad him in his descent from humanist man of science to the incarnation of a vengeful impulse.  The film is rife with images of masculinity, as if Ram feels less of a man for having failed to save his beloved wife from the rioters.  The pull of the Hindutva ideology on Ram is presented as a way to restore his manhood.  In his dreams he is beefcakey, bare-chested and strong.  In one arresting sequence, after he makes love to his new wife she transmutes into an enormous rifle in his arms.  And when Ram's Hindutva group plots the assassination, the group's leader (a deposed maharaja whose motivations are closer to bitterness and greed than to ideology) exhorts Ram to show the world that Hindus are "real men," not "effeminate lovers of truth."

While the powerful imagery (as well as the names of some of the characters) suggest analogues to the Ram of mythology that I don't fully understand, I can grasp the film's larger point:  Sectarian violence as a whole, says the film, is a hallucinatory spasm of PTSD, and only real connections with family and friends can stop it.  Indeed, Ram's first attempt on Gandhi's life is interrupted by his father-in-law, and it's the strong pull of his friendship with the Muslim Amjad that finally snaps him out of his Hindutva torpor.  Ram's true ideology seems to be the progressive, humanist one he expresses at the beginning of the film; his Hindutva phase is presented as a trauma-induced hallucination, taken advantage of by the darker forces in the film. 

The film supports all these rich layers of narrative with very good performances by a vast, accomplished cast - in addition to those mentioned above there are brief appearances by the likes of Hema Malini, Girish Karnad, Om Puri, and Naseeruddin Shah as Gandhi.  Ilaiyaraja's soundtrack is memorable too, especially the haunting "Janmon ki jwala," in which Ram reminisces about Apurna.  Even with the limitations of my own inadequate background, Hey Ram is a powerful story, well told. 

Comments

[Joss]

This is another clear and insightful analysis of the film, Carla, and I can remember it more than clearly enough to realise that you have understood it well. I hadn't appreciated the significance of the 'beefcake' sequences when I saw the film, but now I realise how the ideology was helping restore Ram's manhood.

I liked that in the film Shah Rukh Khan was playing a Muslim, for possibly the first time in his career. He has since done so, in Chak de, and will again in My Name is Khan, and I feel hopeful that a figure as globally influential as he is will improve the way that Muslims are perceived in all societies post 9/11. Or maybe I am totally naive and starstruck!

Great posts you have here. I must look up more of the films as I watch them instead of waiting for fresh posts from you. Keep writing. A book would be great! I'd buy it.

[houseinrlyeh]

Sounds like an immensely fascinating film. I know far less about the cultural background than you, but the Indian way of movie-making seems to be a fine way to make metaphors come to life.
(Queue rant against pseudo-realism as the dominating mode of Western film making here)

[carla]

Joss: thank you so much for the kind comments; you don't happen to be in publishing do you? :) Please do browse the archives; I would love to hear your comments on my other posts.

houseinrlyeh: I am trying to parse out your name, is it "House in RL, yeh," implying that you are a real-life version of an obnoxious yet incredibly gifted TV physician? :) At any rate, thanks for your comment. My husband and I were talking just the other day about your point exactly. We agreed that Indian films are, for whatever reason, better at telling allegorical stories. The West seems to have lost the distinction between archetype and stereotype.

[ajnabi]

This is a dumb question, but who plays Ram in the movie?

The story sounds fascinating, but I'm glad to know something of the ending before viewing. I need to know what to expect or I get all heartbroken when things don't occur the way I think they should. ;-)

[carla]

ajnabi: oops! Kamal Haasan is the film's writer, director, and star. His parenthetical mention in the plot summary got excised during an edit; I'll get it back in there.

I try not to spoil too much of the resolution when I write about films, but with some films it's difficult not to. I do hope that on balance you kind folks who read my posts don't mind too much! :)

[Joseph Gonsalves]

Hi Carla,
This film was so good that it bewildered critics and audiences alike.I remember watching it in Jackson Heights NY and the audience was pretty befuddle----almost as if they didn't realize what they'd walked into.

For a detailed anaysis of this film click on the link below.Philip Lungerhoff described it "A bold and complex film that opens old wounds - including Partition and Gandhi's assassination - to challenge contemporary nationalism, directed by and with a South Indian legend."
http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/HEYRAM.html

KamalHassan to me is the most consummate actor in India.If you ever get a chance plz seek out his Tamil Film by Mani Ratnam called 'Nayagan'. Time Magazine rated is as one of the Top 100 Films of all time.It was the only time KH and MR worked together before parting ways.
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/0,23220,nayakan,00.html
His Hindi Movies, sadly were terrible for the most part except for Sadma w/Sridevi.That one is worth checking out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadma

[A Hindu person]

"Abhyankar convinces Ram that obliterating Gandhi would solve the "Muslim problem" once and for all and allow the creation of a great Hindu nation."

This is purely false and an attempt to perpetuate a myth about why Gandhi was killed and an attempt to force a supremacist idea onto Hindutva that simply isn't true. Please read your history and understand the reasons behind his assassination. Hindutva is an unadulterated defensive idea against the torture that Islam is putting India through since the 13th century, simply because we refuse to cow down and convert. But keep repeating what passes as tolerance and moderation.. and meanwhile, we'll keep subscribing to these ideas. After all, it's not you in America who's ever suffered under the Islamic injunction to convert the world.

[A Hindu person]

Don't bother banning me for mouthing 'extremist' rhetoric. I've been there before and won't be posting again.

[maxqnz]

What a fascinating review, Carla. I shall have to find this film, with my own personal interest in Partition stories. Surprised to see that you've only managed to trigger one RSS response so far, though. :-)

[suresh]

Hindu Person,

Is it too much to expect you to understand that Carla is summarizing what is said in the movie, not giving her own opinion of Hindutva? If you object to what is said in the movie, go after Kamalahasan.

Incidentally, do you have anything to say about the movie itself? Thought not.

Carla, I'd also recommend Philip *Lutgendorf*'s analysis in the link posted by Joseph. Philip is a Professor of Hindi and is thus well-qualified to point out the links to mythology.

[A Hindu Person]

Suresh, fyi Carla is interpreting in the line that I quoted. That isn't what the movie says. Thanks.

[suresh]

I know I'll regret this, but Philip Lutgendorf's detailed analysis more-or-less agrees with what Carla has written. To quote, "And like the epic Ram, the film’s hero battles “demons” throughout much of the story: those of his own madness and grief; the innocent (and guilty) Muslims he kills in revenge for his first wife’s death; and Gandhi, on whom he eventually focuses as the Ravana or arch-demon, the “poison tree” (in Abhyankar’s words) behind the whole “Muslim problem.”" Note the last part where Abhyankar's words are quoted. How, then, is the sentence you quote an "interpretation" - whatever that means?

Damn. Trust you to sidetrack the whole discussion. Anyway, please feel free to hate but please, please spare us your bullshit.

[carla]

Hindu Person, I've never banned anyone from commenting on this blog and so far I don't see any reason to start now. Films like *Hey Ram* raise issues that are controversial and close to many people's hearts. I am not interested in shutting down varied perspectives; quite the opposite, I would very much like to be exposed to them, as long as it is done respectfully and politely.

As Suresh pointed out, my intention was to paraphrase what the film presented. Although I freely admit to oversimplifying - I write 750-word reviews, not extensively-researched theses - I don't think I have grossly misstated what the film says. If you think my interpretation of the film is wrong, though, please feel free to provide your own thoughts and alternative readings.

I was quite forthright in qualifying my comments by stating up front the limitations of my own knowledge. I'm not here to state authoritative opinions; I'm here to do the best I can, and to learn from everyone who is kind enough to take an interest in what I have to say.

Joseph and Suresh: I have read Philip Lutgendorf's comments; actually I read them several times before I prepared my own comments because I was quite overwhelmed by this film and wasn't sure how to approach writing about it. I was remiss in not linking to him, as I often do; I was so relieved to have finally finished the piece that I overlooked it. Thanks for mentioning him.

[yves]

Hi Carla,
Nice review of a film I wasn't sure myself what to think about (and I appreciate your delicate handling of the freedom of speech issue in the previous comment). I was stunned by Kamal Hassan's intense (as you say) role-playing, but really put off by SRK's role - found him very bad to put it bluntly. There were SO many other actors that could have graced the part.
Then there's the ambiguous presentation of the opponents's point of view to Gandhi's message, which I must say I was discovering. Over here in France we don't learn much at school by way of Indian history, and the event of Gandhi's death is to the best of my memory alluded as obscurantist fanaticism. Not long ago I read what Nirvana posted concerning Nathuram Godse, Gandhi's assassin, and this made me wonder a little more (http://nirvana73.blogspot.com/2008/06/gandhis-assassin-nathuram-godse.html) If only I had time to learn more about all that!
bye for now.

[maxqnz]

Thanks for the link, yves. Unfortunately that closing parenthesis is being treated as part of the URL. :)

The article itself does raise some very valid points. If SRK is as bad as you say in this, maybe I'll give it a pass after all.

[HP]

I see the labeling and deprecating has already begun (RSS, bullshit etc) by our esteemed so-called "liberal" guests here. Why do I ever bother?! Carla, you are perfect and this is a perfect review while I'm hate-filled and suffering from PTSD and speaking bs :). Thanks.

Hi Carla

I haven't seen this film and so will not post any comments on it.

Some one above has mentioned Kamal Hasan's "Sadma". As i said before Kamal acted in the original tamil version with sridevi and the movie was called "Muraam Perai". The tamil version was really good.

The hindi version "sadma" had Amol Palekar and Sri Devi in it.

It would be really nice if people post their views on this blog without any name calling!

cheers

Meera

[Joseph Gonsalves]

Meera,
I'm afraid you're wrong about Sadma featuring Amol Palekar.I've seen the film and it does in fact star Kamalhassan ! He acted in both the Tamil film Moondram Pirai and it's Hindi version Sadma, both directed by Balu Mahendra.Don't believe me----- but IMDB doesn't lie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086230/

[carla]

max: Shah Rukh Khan is himself in this movie, no more, no less. Some people have said this is a more subdued or quality performance of his; I didn't see it that way. It's pretty much what one would expect from him. He doesn't have a ton of screen time, though he is part of a crucial turning point in the film. I wouldn't consider him a reason to stay away, given all of the other very interesting things about the film.

Hindu Person / HP: I've invited you to offer your interpretation of *Hey Ram*, but you don't seem to want to do that. If you don't agree with something you see here, you can present your side, or you can just move on and read something else. Why the sarcasm? I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

Finally, let me point out the obvious: I am responsible only for what I say, not for the comments left by others. I once again ask everyone to please speak respectfully to one another. It's obvious that *Hey Ram* raises some difficult points and we can't all expect to agree on it. It is in topics like these that it is most important to tread carefully, and consider the tone with which one presents one's views. And that statement applies to everyone, whatever viewpoint you happen to be expressing.

[maxqnz]

Thanks for the tip, Carla. I think I'll be giving it a miss after reading the description of Apurna's death scene. My ability to watch graphic violence has withered, so if this were a book, I could read it, but I'm thinking I'd be flinching away from the screen too often in this one.

[Amit]

Over here in France we don't learn much at school by way of Indian history, and the event of Gandhi's death is to the best of my memory alluded as obscurantist fanaticism.

Yves, it's not any different from what I learned in Indian school. Any criticism of Gandhi's policies, actions etc. is still taboo among many, who place him on a pedestal as a demi-god who could do no wrong. We can also thank Attenborough for this saintly version of Gandhi living in many people's minds. I also think there isn't a conducive environment for this debate in India without some nasty labels flying. But c'est la vie, and it is that way with any political/social topic that people have strong feelings about and each side thinks they are right.

[Shalini]

I haven't seen Hey Ram and thanks to this excellent, insightful and descriptive review, I don't have to. The wimp in me thanks you profusely.:-)

Btw, Carla, I really admire your openness and welcome of differing viewpoints on your blog. May your tribe increase!

[Sanket]

Movies that have anything remotely associated with Partition are of a great personal interest to me. Growing up in a secular Brahmin household (lived in American since I was 3) I really don't have a good grasp of how the 'average' Indian views that period in history. I remain both horrified and fascinated by that summer in 1947 like nothing else I have ever read about. My parents have close friends that are Indian Hindus, Indian Muslims as well as Pakistanis and through their example I have never seen any difference in the three. Although that may sound a bit naive it is my reality and maybe a bit of naivety will do the world better rather than the hatred & violence that has come out of the whole ordeal.

'Hey Ram' was much better & deeper than I ever expected it to be and I actually saw the film in Ahmedabad, India during it's initial run there. My grandmother warned me to be careful when going to the cinema hall as there were rumors circulating that there would be riots around the area. There were a few police officers milling about the theater but the thing I most remembered were the lack of people in the theater itself. Whether it was the threat of riots that kept people away or simply a lack of interest in the subject matter I don't know but this movie deserved better. I read somewhere that KH lost alot of money on this project and that he would think twice before making such a heady film again, he deserved better for this.

[HP]

>My parents have close friends that are Indian Hindus, Indian Muslims as well as Pakistanis and through their
>example I have never seen any difference in the three.

There is a difference that becomes evident when their particular ethnic group are in the majority in any society. Muslims in a majority behave and treat others completely different from when they're just one of the crowd. Pakistan, Kashmir and soon Uttar Pradesh and UK are cases in point. If you want India to continue as a country that allows various religions to coexist (Buddhism, Christianity, whatever), we need to call out Quranic ideology of special treatment for Muslims and Muslims needing their own land with Shariah Law etc, for what it is. Otherwise, you will continue to see separatism whenever Muslims reach critical mass anywhere. And you will not understand why India keeps losing territory to Muslims while still allowing them access to more. Anyway, this is all irrelevant to this discussion.

Carla, I've already made my point in my first comment. The "Great Hindu Nation" thing you've cooked up isn't part of the movie at all - it's just you trying to impose supremacist notions onto this idea of Abhyankar's that Hindus need to avenge themselves.

[carla]

HP: Thank you for explaining which part of my comment you objected to, because it really wasn't clear to me before.

You have attributed more intent to me than is really there; I am not "trying to impose" anything upon anything. I only stated what I understood the film to be saying about Abhyankar's motivations. In your view, my understanding was incorrect, though other commenters have upheld my interpretation. Either way, the discussion is helpful, so that anyone who reads it can draw their own conclusions.

I hope everyone's said what they have to say now. My next reviews, I promise, will not touch upon such weighty subjects. My poor little blog can use a little levity. :)