Deconstructing “Wall” symbolism and social implications in Deewar

(Also posted in Coursework dropbox in case it isn't properly rendered here / it is easier to read in paper format)

Deconstructing “Wall” symbolism and social implications in Deewar 
(Film + Reading Response)

Released amidst the sociopolitical turmoil affecting India in the 1970’s, Yash Chopra’s classic film Deewar tells the story of two brothers, a cop (Ravi) and a smuggler (Vijay), and how their relationship evolves over time, ultimately ending in the Vijay’s tragic death. Though the story itself is focused on these two main characters and the titular deewar that forms between them, by analyzing the presence of the physical and metaphorical “wall” throughout the film and synthesizing this with the readings, we can observe strong social themes emerge from the film’s narrative. Indeed, by deconstructing this “wall” symbolism—of both physical and metaphorical walls present in the film—we can explore themes of social importance such as the role of social labeling, education, and economic status on crime, and the understanding the morality of crime in a corrupted society.

From the title sequence itself it is clear that the idea of the “wall” is a key element to the storyline, since Deewar translates directly to “the wall”. On one level, it represents "the wall" that is the growing divide between the two brothers, as one pursues a corrupt path to wealth and the other pursues a more traditionally ethical path to justice. We can trace this evolution throughout the film: At the start of the film, the two brothers are shown to be very close together — as evident in the scene where the two boys are sleeping on their mother’s lap under a bridge; Later in the film, during the first scene after they are grown up, we notice the two brothers physically going on two different paths in a fork in the road, foreshadowing how much the two will diverge eventually; Towards the end, this relationship diverges completely as illustrated in the key “mere paas ma hai” scene, where the two are juxtaposed with their backs together and the conflict is highlighted in a a dramatic fashion through the fast cuts/pacing between close-up face shots, the dramatic contrast in lighting, and the choice of setting, which was the same bridge where they slept under as children.

However, this "walled" relationship between them contains much greater social implications for the turbulent 1970's in Indian history, with regard to socio political issues. Though they were raised together under that bridge, their divergence in paths starts with the "your father is a thief" branding itself — a traumatic experience which only Vijay undergoes, and Ravi is spared from. Such traumatic events often leave victims feeling shock and isolation, as evidenced by Vijay’s speechlessness after the event; his actions thereafter serve to build a sort of defensive emotional wall. More broadly, this branding and the subsequent actions Vijay takes in pursuit of this wall could metaphorically represent how the label of "being a thief" can eventually lead one to become one, and further elucidates the impact of intergenerational relationships on crime. The "tattoo as a scar" is a recurring motif throughout the film, and can also be interpreted as a symbol of the impact of what happens when the sanctified barrier/wall of a stable home is broken and the implications that last through adulthood (Mazmudar 248). 

This wall is further developed and constructed with the presence of the wall that separates the nearby school grounds from the street. As a child, Vijay makes sacrifices so Ravi is able to cross this wall and gain an education. Furthermore, by having the patriotic song “Saare Jahaan Se Achaa, Hindustan Amaara” we associate obtaining this education with patriotism and the virtuous path; the “extra-diegetic” nature of this is noted in the reading (Banerjea 171). In fact, this patriotic song is also present in the same extra-diegetic form prior to the key “mere paas ma hai” scene, when Ravi is waiting for his brother to meet him and promptly fades when Vijay arrives in the car, further drawing the contrast between the two. The social implications of this are perhaps best realized when Ravi visits the family of the boy he shot and the mother berates him while the father calmly agrees with him, saying that his wife is "uneducated" and doesn't understand that the smaller crimes cannot be justified by the bigger ones. The father states, “Theft is a theft. Whether of a penny or 1,00,000/-!…Millions die of hunger in India. Should they all become thieves?” Thus, the physical wall/gate present at the school metaphorically represents the wall between those who are educated and those who aren't, and that though it may seem fine to justify a crime in a corrupt society, it is morally wrong and unpatriotic to do so. 

This idea of a wall as a separation between actions of different morality is particularly developed in the key scene from the climax, where Vijay’s badge labeled “786” falls across the wall/gate at the climax, and this wall prevents Vijay from regaining possession of it. The badge and the number itself have religious implications, and could suggest that honest work (such as laboring in the shipyard, where he originally obtained it) is sanctified. One question that comes to mind here is, why then did the badge save Vijay’s life several times during his descent into the crime world? In the reading, Mazmudar mentions that this symbol is a "fetish" which is characteristic of a psychotic hero (here, Vijay), and represents how his link with the past protects him, until this final break (Mazmudar 249). However, this interpretation doesn’t directly factor in the significance of a major turning point in the plot: when Vijay asks God to save his mother and have Vijay pay for his own sins, rather than making his mother do so. Considering this, an additional interpretation of this scene could be that Vijay, a sympathetic character representing what the audience idealizes as the empowered common man (endowed with a “masculine”, superhero-like charisma as noted in the reading (Banerjea)), should in fact suffer his burden and not have his mother (which could symbolize the country as a whole) pay for his crimes — that the wall is definitively separating Vijay’s crimes and murder of Samant as inexcusable, though they may seem “right” in his mind, and perhaps even our own. Several parallels drawn in the academic literature and in class between Deewar and Mother India further strengthen this interpretation. Thus, the wall in this scene further cements its symbolic power as something which serves as a moral divide.

The “wall” and its symbolic value are truly well-integrated and utilized throughout the film. In each instance, whether the wall is physically present in the mise-en-scène (as it is in the climax scene), or symbolically present (as it is in the divide between generations, emotions, and familial relationships), its presence has tremendous potential for social commentary on India’s turbulent 70’s era — one in which questions of morality and impact of societal labeling were being questioned by all strata of society. Indeed, there are additional aspects to this imagery which are not directly discussed here, but are saved for perhaps the in-class discussion — one such being the wall as a symbol for separation between different socioeconomic classes in India, and whether it represents a protective barrier or an inescapable prison wall. Regardless, Chopra’s integration of this symbolism is a powerful rhetorical and film-making strategy, and enables widespread understanding of his key messages.