Godfather VS Sarkar

The two movies that I have analysed  are:

1. Sarkar a movie by Ram Gopal Verma; and

2. The Godfather a movie by Francis Ford Coppola

The basis for my analysis in both the movies is Patriarchy as a system, the concept of a parallel system and family values. And both of these movies provide us with a lot of stereotypes when it comes down to Patriarchy and ‘family values’.

As Ram Gopal Verma’s ‘Sarkar’ starts playing, the first thing that you notice is his so called ‘tribute’ to The Godfather. Firstly his style of making a Bollywood movie and Francis Ford Coppola’s style of making a Hollywood classic are poles apart. Their audience base is different, their sense of dramatising the plot is different and the music... Nino Rota for The Godfather and Bapi and Tutul for Sarkar, tells us how dramatic even the background music for Sarkar is, in comparison to that of The Godfather.  

One of the first ideas that come across as one watches the two movies is the concept of a parallel system.  A parallel system in the sense where one man is the head of a powerful family, who controls a plethora of people, who are in turn ready to do anything that the head of the family demands. Why I can’t call this man a dictator is because it is a parallel system and not a parallel Government.  Both Sarkar and The Godfather have Amitabh Bachchan and Marlon Brando respectively as heads of their families, who believe that they can provide justice to people in need, mostly by violence. For example when in the movie Sarkar Virendra Saxena comes to Subhash Nagre played by Amitabh Bachchan with the case where his daughter has been raped by a boy named Bhooshan, Sarkar tells his subordinate to ‘take care’ of it. Similarly, in The Godfather, when Johnny Fontane played by Al Martino who is Vito Corleone’s (played by Marlon Brando) Godson comes to him with a problem where he isn’t being given the role in a movie, Vito Corleone tells his lawyer to ‘take care’ of it. And in both the cases, there is violence for revenge and violence to get what they want. Now the question of ‘right or wrong’ arises. Realistically, one man controlling a mob who is ready to kill on his demand is bizarre and horrifying. Their idea of being moral or immoral and of a particular situation being right or wrong is just one way of thinking, and their decisions in these matters are not questioned.  For one man to think that his thinking is right and that he will stick to it, even if it goes against the people, the system, or anybody for that matter of fact, makes him extremely dangerous. However, in both these movies, Vito Corleone and Subhash Nagre have been shown to have higher ethics when it comes to them using their power. But then they have their sons, the elder ones in particular because they are the ones who are spoiled, who are careless, and hot tempered, who make all the wrong choices and get killed in the end.  This shows, ‘realistically’, that if they were to succeed their fathers, there would be chaos and corruption. But in the movie and especially in Sarkar, we see how Subhash Nagre throws Vishnu Nagre( played by Kay Kay Menon) out of the house because the latter kills a man for no reason that can be well accepted by Subhash Nagre. Here he is shown to have a high moral ground.  All of this is candy coated and is a little difficult to digest.

What is Patriarchy?

Patriarchy literally means rule of the father in a male dominated family. It is a social and ideological construct which considers men (who are the patriarchs) as superior to women.

The other concept that I wanted to discuss in this project is that of Patriarchy and family values.

Patriarchy is something that catches the viewer’s eye in many scenes of both the movies.

In The Godfather, when Johnny Fontane goes to Vito Corleone to ask his help in getting the role in the movie, he begins to cry. Vito Corleone gets furious and immediately rebukes him and tells him to act like a ‘man’. He says, “Is this how you turn out? A Hollywood finnochio that cries like a woman?”

Another example is where we see none of the women involved in the so called ‘family business.’

In The Godfather, we see how Carlo played by Gianni Russo beats up his wife who he thinks he needs to straighten out because she is a brat, and because she yells and screams at him. He thinks that he has the power over her, that he can treat her in any way, because she is HIS wife now. This is Patriarchy. In Ram Gopal Verma’s Sarkar we see how all the men in the house sit together for meals and how the women are standing at the side waiting to serve them more and more food. We see how in both the movies the women are not working, all they do is sit at home and serve their husbands and sons dinner and worry about them and generally are considered lower than the men in power and thinking. And in both the movies the working independent woman is ditched for women who are “traditional” in that sense. In The Godfather Kay Adams played by Diane Keaton is first ditched by Michael played by Al Pacino and then when Michael comes back from Sicily he decides to propose to Kay Adams again and she agrees! And then we see her at the end of the movie not working, and dependent. These are in built stereotypes in our society. Women are considered “traditional” if they wear a sari, get married at the age of twenty one, give birth, stay at home and take care of the family, which includes the children, the elders, make good Indian food, and generally just spend their entire life in service of the family. And this idea has been propagated in both these movies.  The concept of family values is also put forward in both The Godfather and Sarkar. In Sarkar, Subhash Nagre gets furious when Vishnu uses inappropriate language infront of children.  Love for the family, family blessing, traditional household, all of these are stereotypes in our society that have been passed on from generation to generation. We live in a Patriarchal society where even women believe in the system of Patriarchy. Where even women support the men when it comes down to being authoritative, demanding. We live in a society where family values are considered important. These stereotypes are extremely difficult to break.  And the very concept of a parallel system run by one man, who believes that violence is the answer to all the problems, because the police, or the actual system can’t take care of the injustice is horrendous.

Ram Gopal Verma’s Sarkar and Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather are very good representations of these stereotypes.

India's Modi or Modi's Gujarat?

In recent news, the BJP Prime Ministerial candidate, and the Chief Minister of Gujarat- Narendra Modi, has apparently saved '15,000 Gujaratis' from the flood affected areas of Uttarakhand.
Now, I have two basic issues with this so-called rescue. Firstly, I do not believe that he could have even logistically saved 15,000 'Gujaratis' within two days. According to news, Narendra Modi, had five IAS, one IPS, one IFS, and two GAS (Gujarat Administrative Service) officers. Two DSP's and five police inspectors have also been reported to have gone along. There were apparently 80 Innovas on standby, and 4 Boeings, to help the Gujaratis stranded in the flood affected zone. Let us, for a brief period of time, even try and believe that these figures are correct. But he must have some sense of judgement of nit picking Gujaratis from about a million people. 15,000 to be exact. And within 'TWO-THREE' days. It seems very interesting, but honestly, it defies common sense. This could well be a campaign, to promote his case, as well, "the elections are coming", to show to the citizens of this country, that during times of need, he is the 'man who takes things under direct control.' But doesn't a man, who is standing for the post of Prime Minister, need to be more national in his approach? Is his duty only restricted to save 'Gujaratis?' ( Even if we believe for about an iota of a second, that he did save anybody).

I think there is only one thing that can be said to such a comment, it is that even if you want to manipulate the thought process of the readers that you are targeting, at least make the news worth believing in.

Asaram Bapu: 'Voice' of God

"The girl should have taken God's name and could have held the hand of one of the men and said, 'I consider you my brother' and to the other two, she should have said, 'Brothers, I am helpless. You are my brothers, my religious brothers'. Then the misconduct wouldn't have happened”- Asaram Bapu

This is what a self-proclaimed spiritual leader, whom we have all unfortunately heard of, stated in the wake of the Dehi rape incident that took place on the 16th of December 2012. This is a clear example of the chauvinism in our country and an entire belief system that compels  women into the category of ‘the weaker sex’. Asaram Bapu dismisses the brutal act of rape as mere “misconduct”. We are talking about dehumanising sexual violation and murder here, and not some petty misdemeanour. This statement valourises the entire derogatory concept of how women should wear “decent” clothes and “cover up” and only then will they not be sexually harassed.  More importantly, it assumes that the victim in any instance of brutality can control and change the perpetrator’s bestial behaviour simply by appealing to their apparent innate humanity.

This supposed spiritual leader has been charged with sexual assault, murder and what-else-have-you, and yet he has the utter audacity to say that the victim who was beaten with a rod, raped not by one man, but by four, and succumbed to the most gruesome injuries, was actually also to be blamed for the incident because she was on a bus at 9:30pm with a male companion, and that means that she was of loose moral character! I think we are all intelligent enough to judge whose character and reasoning is flawed here.