Sunday, April 26, 2015

Deewar - the tattoo as a representation of marginalization

Deewar is the dramatized epic detailing the narrative of an angry young man with postcolonial India as the setting.  The social discord between the upper classes and the underprivileged struggling lower classes is so great that it serves as a driving factor for the climax. Through the social struggles exampled through familial and internal conflicts, Deewar is able to depict the crisis of post-colonial nationalism and disenchantment with the nation. However, the overarching themes are not just displayed in the setting of the film, but also through the interrelatedness of the family and the self. Through examining a reappearing symbol, more specifically the tattoo that Vijay is forced to get as a child, this analysis hopes to introduce the effect of the physical representation of defeat into a mentality that later causes the struggles within the family.
As the village was angry with the father’s actions in settling with the industrialists instead continuing to fight for the workers’ movement, some workers force innocent and young Vijay to bear the malicious words that the village seems to enforce onto him. Mera baap chor hai (My father is a thief) is the resounding and wounding statement that stays with young Vijay on his arm through the rest of his life. It is at this point that his path is already carved in a different way than the uninjured Ravi. Vijay bore the anger of the village that stayed with permanence on an unavoidable location on his body, a manifestation of himself. His body is scarred and wounded in a way that cannot be fixed naturally. As Mazumdar states, “the scar now becomes a signifier for marginality and social displacement, soon taking Bachchan outside the pale of his family” (Making Meaning in Indian Cinema pg. 244). Vijay is left unable to speak as he shows his mother the tattoo. His face is stoic, which serves as a contrast to the previously lively face he had around his father. A transformation is already present. Ravi is otherwise left unharmed, though he is shown to have a fever, a temporary affection that stops as soon as the scene transitions.
Vijay’s tattoo serves as a constant reminder of his social marginality seen amongst the privilege of the upper class that seemingly treats the poor in any way without sympathy. The inscription of his body, while done by the angry but still lower class, is a symbol for the free will of the rich and their ability to, in a way, stamp the poor’s body as if it were cattle, showing little worth. The outward pain is transformed into an internal and mental pain through examples of his marginalization. The tattoo starts to gain more meaning and hatred and oppression than it originally had as his mistreatment continues.  It is the reason for him to pursue opulence with such persistence, though he knows the dishonorable means by which to achieve it.   
Without his tattoo, he is left without a physical representation for his misbehaviors. His actions are left disqualified and out of an unimaginable source of anger rather than as a reaction to oppression. Our ability to sympathize would be severely limited even though the same scenes with mistreatment would have been displayed. When confronted by his brother, “Bachchan uses the tattoo to justify his transition to criminality” and by Parveen Babi, “Bachchan replies that the tattoo had left deep marks on his body, soul, and hand and no plastic surgery in the world could remove it” (Making Meaning in Indian Cinema pg. 248).

The deep and underlying pain that continues throughout the film is outwardly exposed through familial conflicts, and less obviously displayed within the self. The tattoo in the narrative serves the integral role of concretizing the oppression and marginalization. It increases our ability to sympathize. Banerjea states, “the aesthetic techniques as much as the narrative solutions suggested by [the film] allow for the sympathetic construction of ‘rogue’ masculinities—the outlaw, the outsider—at a time when to be an outsider posed considerable political risks” (‘Fight Club’ pg. 166).

No comments:

Post a Comment