(Note: If you have not seen “Trance”
you wouldn’t be able to make head or tail of this review as I have
tried my best to refrain from narrating a synopsis)
Starring:
Fahad Fazil, Nazriya Nazim, Sreenath Bhasi, Chemban Vinod, Vinayakan,
Gautam Vasudev, Dileesh Pothan
Direction:
Anwar Rasheed
Religion
is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless
world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the
people.
-
Karl Marx (A Contribution to Hegel’s Philosophy of right)
It
is a cliche, for an atheist to begin a review of a movie which relies
on religious critique as a theme, with the most popular quote by
Marx on religion. A quote, which is often used out of context, far
away from Marxian analysis of religion. I have decided to continue
the long tradition. Forgive me Father, for I have sinned.
The
movie revolves around the life of Viju Prashad/ Joshua Carlton (Fahad
Fazil) as Motivational speaker/ Preacher. This complete reliance on a
single character results in other characters being caricatured/
stereotyped.
The
movie can be neatly divided into three segments, which can be made
into individual movies in their own right. The life of a motivational
speaker with his brother (Sreenath Bhasi), who suffers from bouts of
depression; The life of a preacher who makes quiet a lot of money by
questionable means; The complicated relationship between Joshua
Carlton & Esther Lopez which pops up as an intermittent segment &
ends up as tail of the movie.
Sreenath
Bhasi’s act, though only for a few minutes leaves a lasting
impression in the first short segment. Though short, the segment
makes a point that depression is an illness and cannot be cured by
positivity/will power alone, by juxtaposing Viju Prasad, who is a
motivational speaker vis a vis his brother in depression. While the
segment has time compressed to extreme level, from my imagination as
a viewer, I can feel that, stretched at a movie level, the segment
can make a much wanted movie about mental health issues.
In
particular, the two minutes showing Viju Prashad and his brother in
their younger selves is one of the most intensive tragi-poetic
segment I have seen in recent films.
In
the second segment Viju Prashad is rechristened as Joshua Carlton aka
JC (to resemble Jesus Christ). This is the segment which rakes up a
myriad of questions.
Can
Pentecostalism termed as a cult? No. However, the flexible nature of
Pentecostalism vis a vis other denominations which have been
institutionalized/ ritualized offers a fertile ground for a cult
leader to amass followers in a short span of time.
A
faceless corporate is used as a plot device instead of forming a
narration on cult formation and indoctrination. It would not be far
fetched to say that the faceless corporate is the deus ex machina of
the movie. By doing this and almost cutting directly to Joshua
Carlton on stage, the film has missed out an opportunity to delve
deep into the psyche of believer and preacher.
The
display of flamboyant lifestyle of the new age pastors & the
stress on prosperity gospel (which of course is a blatant capitalist
gospel that stands against liberation theology) had hit the bulls
eye. While I could not find any investigative journalism on Indian
Evangelicals, please see the below video to understand the hold of
Televangelists on believers in US.
While
the film takes enough care to capture the antics of miracle healing,
glossolalia (or gibberish, to be exact), & particularly the
effects of lighting set ups, flooding the floor with music &
other sensations on worshippers, the film fails in analysing the
minds of believer and preacher, thereby ending up as a film lacking
depth.
A
fine example would be Thomas (Vinayakan), who loses his daughter due
to his extreme reliance on faith-healing. He cannot simply afford to
take up arms. As a believer he will rationalise his belief by any
possible way rather than going against it and suffering another
psychological loss. Instead, he too is used as a plot device to tie
up any loose ends.
The
segment with Esther Lopez seems to be a completely unrelated sub
plot, which could have made another, even better film with some
imagination. The tail end of the film, dipped in red, reminds one of
Wong Kar Wai. But one does not become Wong Kar Wai by simply
mimicking his colour palette.
