The 1960 Madhubala and Dilip Kumar film is in theaters today in the US. It has been restored to its technicolor glory, and one of the best examples of “Mughal nostalgia/historical extravaganza” for the lack of a better word. Umrao Jaan and Razia Sultan was probably the dying gasp of that genre. Though Umrao Jaan should technically be considered the last gasp, since it had memorable songs, a defining feature of these films. I suppose making films replete with Urdu poetry and idealized visions of “Mughal” culture wouldn’t be possible today. Who wants the Hindutva goons to go on a rampage on your set for being “anti-Indian”? The historical/nostalgia films seem to be currently situated in Bengal, what with Devdas and Chokher Bali (though not so much). I wonder if we’ll start seeing “nationalistically correct” extravaganzas with stories set in Baji Rao or Shivaji’s court. Films like Lagaan don’t really fit the bill, they don’t have the right tone of melancholy that these films require.

Update: We saw it. Its excellent! the colorization really works, (I was wrong about it being originally in technicolor, just portions of it were in color). Not everything has been colorized in the frame. Eschewing realism, the restoration leans towards expression, a good choice for a film where the aesthetic is one of tableau vivant, with characters striking stylized poses and declaiming elaborate and literary dialogue. Unfortunately, some songs have been cut from this version, bringing the three and a half version to three hours.

The winner of the short documentary Mighty Times: The Children’s March is being criticized for using dramatic recreations that merge seamlessly with archival footage. Frieda Lee Mock, the chairperson of the prize committee is quoted in the New York Times:

“Ultimately, it’s an issue of credibility. And the question is, why wasn’t it disclosed to us, the academy members voting?”

The filmmakers claim on their website:

In order to distinguish ‘faux doc’ from archival footage, we stripe the borders of reenactment scenes with film sprockets. The net result is honorable both artistically and historically, making very clear which footage is new and which is not.

The academy received enough complaints that it got John Else (producer of Eyes on the Prize) to examine the film. NPR has an interview with him. It seems that the copies that the academy got did not have those tell-all sprocket holes.

Re-enactments have been used by documentary filmmakers since the time of Flaherty, and in our own times, news is faked with impunity, with male prostitutes posing as journalists, so its hardly shocking that two very successful “documentarians” would do the same, not to equate the “truth value” of this documentary with deceptions of the Bush administration, but it does bring up some very interesting questions about certain forms (the news report, archival footage) becoming the repository of credibility . I haven’t seen this film yet, but from the film’s website it looks as if the filmmakers are much more concerned with producing a very effective and glossy piece of work, rather than having something to say about history and its representation, or the practice of faux documentaries, which has a venerable history from Zelig to This is Spinal Tap.

We saw The Devil Doll by the incomparable Tod Browning today. I am a big fan of Browning’s Freaks, and this is the third film I’ve seen by him. Its got a bizarre premise: A man wronged by his partners seeks to revenge himself by using people shrunk to a doll’s size who do his bidding.

I suppose there is something pure about revenge. One is willing to believe that a character can think of nothing else but revenge for seventeen years, and the Gods or in the movie’s case, a mad scientist will send an instrument along for the purposes of justice. He seems to have been among the early directors who used double exposure in his films (A technique pioneered by Melies) and the film is a wonderful example of this technique. Devil Doll has a great performance by Lionel Barrymore as a transvestite avenger. The film’s merry disregard for realism and its grotesque flair are vintage Browning.

Wikipedia has a good entry on Browning, including an account of his last years, which were spent in seclusion, he even refused to meet family member’s at his brother’s funeral. I also found an odd site, which has a copy of his death certificate and a picture of his gravestone. Browning was born in 1880 and really did run away from home to join a circus, unlike Fellini who claims he did. And you can tell the difference. Browning is at home with his carnies and “freaks” and doesn’t actually dwell on their grotesquerie, unlike Fellini whose circus freaks are usually outside the the main character’s self, and become images of their internal dialogues.