I won't say it is impossible, but it is certainly rare for all the film critics to unanimously & profusely appreciate a film. They would not do so without a reason. So indeed it was imperative for me to watch it- even if that meant sacrificing Sunday afternoon siesta, venturing out in rains, travelling from one end of the city to another & searching a parking place in the winding parking section of the mall where PVR cinema is located, buying 1st row tickets(only those were left!) at a little bit higher price (tickets for YJHD costed Rs. 230. This one was Rs.250) & above all risking wife's negative comments- "Where have you brought me & why?" But I am glad that all my risk paid off & all the efforts were indeed worth it.
Although I had read the basic story line of the movie, I would still say, I was unprepared for what unfolded in front of me. As an ordinary spectator, who is used to being fed by a Hindi movie, this was something different. You had to be actively involved & actually think during the movie. When was the last time that such a thing happened ? 'Being fed' is an important phrase here. As that's what we, as audience, are used to. I had actually liked 'Kahaani'. But Outlook's film critic- Namrata Joshi, I remember, had written that the director simplifies everything for the audience to make understand, leaving nothing for imagination.In that sense, 'Ship of Theseus' is like a classic book- to which you relate with as per your sensitivity, your disposition & your life experiences. There are no ready made answers like Navneet guides. Also, like a book, it doesn't leave you.. In fact it comes back to you time & again.
Each of the three stories is engaging. The idea of a visually challenged person clicking photos & holding exhibitions for the blind in itself is amazing.I empathized more with the story of the monk-who on one hand fights a court case against the use of animals in drug trials as that amounts to violence & fights with a firm resolve to refuse any treatment for himself as that would have meant he was not walking the talk. But movingly & paradoxically , he succumbs this fight to his instinct to survive. That is also made possible because of a conflict /clash of ideas & thoughts that he has with a young lawyer- Charvaka. This guy comes up with such penetrating questions that even the monk is left speechless. For instance he asks the monk- how was his act of refusing to take medicine not equivalent to violence he was committing on himself & how was his choice not different from that of a suicide bomber who is so convinced about his political & religious thoughts.Being so used to gradual build up of a scene,air of anticipation & then dramatic dialogue delivery over the years( Remember- Deewar- Kya hai tumhare paas? or Sholay- Kitne aadmi thhe?) or being used to rhetorical questions like- Hum aapke hai kaun?, these type of confronting questions in SoT, simply come out of nowhere, at a very rapid pace catching you unawares. The third story of Navin- who has undergone renal transplant & one fine day is confronted with the possibility of he receiving the kidney via organ transplant racket. Pricked by his conscience, he wants to return his kidney- an absurd idea which takes him to try & deal with a problem which is actually not his. But he tries his best even if that means going all the way to Stockholm & finding the recipient of 'stolen kidney'. Finally, he obviously can't retrieve that kidney & return it to its owner. But ironically, the donor too doesn't want it back. He is happy with lakhs of rupees deposited by the Swede in his bank! What I liked about this story is the way in which he earnestly narrates this to his grand mother saying he tried his best but nothing happened. To which she says- Itna hi hota hai! There is a fine humor in this story. And then the manner in which these stories are connected in the end is really wonderful.
The movie not just blew me away as spectator, but also as a doctor. The questions - is it possible for a 'life element'(if I may use such word) from one person to get transferred to another? What changes take place in that person who receives such foreign part?-are really intriguing. This is of course no excuse, but being a doctor from alternative medicine, I was not confronted with such questions. The film has brought to fore moral, ethical, philosophical, humane aspects of transplant in such an unassuming manner. There is no posturing, no pomp about it.
I heard that the writer & director Anand Gandhi is the same person who wrote episodes for the daily soap- ' ' Kyu ki saans bhi kabhi bahu thi.' If that is so, then this guy has evolved unbelievably. I would now certainly look forward to more such work from him.
After coming home, there were run of the mill movies - Sagar & Shaan on TV. In normal circumstances, I could have watched them over & over again. But now.. I was not interested. Does that graduate me to becoming an audience of a different type? I would like to say yes. But the fact is, I have a long way to go. But SoT has showed the way, that's for sure...
