Thoughts on grief

After months of pondering about it, when I finally decided that I'll post something about Grief, I made myself a promise that I will not write about the parallels that grief has with love. Why did i make such a stupid promise to myself that to not mention the structural similarities between the two emotions, which are so forcefully interlinked with each other, because it gives me an opportunity to read, think and write about grief in a more broader perspective, comparing it with love will make me write about it in a constricted manner, which I have observed I have been doing (in some form or other) in all the post I have written over the last year. Not that I am deliberately ignoring the symbiotic relationship between Love and Grief, it's just that I want to test myself whether I can put up something worth reading about Grief without anyone thinking merely about its association with love.

You must have read about the law of conservation of energy, which simply states that energy can neither be created nor it can be destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. Grief, almost works on the same principle. To classify it under as a form of emotional state does lay restrictions on its reach to our daily lives, and to be honest it seems a bit unfair on how we treat a person going through a state of grief, because grief is too big an experience to be classified under simply as an emotional state. 

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

It's better we label it as some source of energy, positive or negative, that totally depends on our own individual perceptions, but energy in any form is what triggers the person to gradually fall into that state of mind, so instead of caring about the end result, why don't we think more broadly about the source from which it has arrived. Perhaps, the answer to this lies in the question itself, we are so fixated with the destination rather the experience of the journey and not giving too much importance about the exact point which initiates that journey. Let's just assume for moment that we can't do anything about the source from which grief has originated, but the least we can do on our part is not neglect it, I am not telling you to acknowledge it's omnipotent presence, but don't deny the fact that our thoughts and actions are not surrounded entirely by its presence.

Since, energy is a quantitative property, Grief can also be considered reckonable in nature, no, it cannot be quantified literally, but by identifying the duration of the impact that source of energy which had preoccupied our minds for a specific time period might help us quantify it to some extent, however, a more important aspect is not how do we quantify grief, but how do we identify it in ourselves and respect it gracefully.

Grief could possibly be best described as a physical as well as a psychological experience that changes our outlook towards life, and force us to believe that the feeling of emptiness that has resided inside us is far deeper than what we actually thought it to be. An experience that at times will make you realize that it's something far more complicated, and the most ruthless nature is it's timing in our lives, because grief strikes us in our most vulnerable form, so in a sense the core power of grief lies entirely on the timing of its occurrence, and once it has taken over our mind and thoughts, we are left with no choice but to embrace it, initially with some kind of reluctance, but with time, as it grow on us, that acceptance is found with more humility, because by that time we should understand the scenario that particular energy in the form of grief is a far bigger entity than us, and cannot be destroyed or created, it will spend some quality moments with us, and when the right time comes, it will transfer itself into another form, and no we don't get to decide that 'Right' time. 

I remember someone telling me that grief is like the last station before we reach the destination of our catharsis, I didn't had any strong reason to disregard the idea, perhaps now I get what that meant, before we get to our closures, we are tested by life itself, that are we even ready for it, and the strongest parameter to judge that mental state is that life puts us through a period of grief. It's simply to make sure, that we'll be well prepared to handle such a vast range emotions when we reach to that end point.

So, coming back to my confused loophole of grief, I am still not able to properly articulate what grief means in a broader perspective, an idea, an illusion that everything around us is empty, or a story that we start telling ourselves that through this period we are going to find our true identity, that something magical is going to happen in our lives which will correct all the problems. It doesn't appear to be that simple, the beauty of grief lies solely on its origin. Grief arises due to incomplete desires, loss of irreplaceable proportions, but the twist arises due to quite a strange phenomenon, when we slowly fall into that pit of grief, and after some time, when we refuse to come out of it, and start questioning the existence of our lives, and several other abstract thoughts starts jumping inside our head which we fear will not make any sense if we try and share them with other people. Often, in last few months I found myself tweeting that we live in a cynical world, I wonder is that primarily because of the fact that we are in a sad state of life or from the fact that the world around us is unnerved by our sadness, that refusal to come out of our grief respectfully is probably because of the cold behavior we might receive from the people around us. That fear of what people might assume about our behavior is what has directed to this cynical thought process. 

An example of this situation is when we are questioned "How are you doing?", Now how do we respond to this common question which grief might give an illusion to be in the form of philosophical question, do we actually reply how are we doing from our heart, and convey the chain of random thoughts that we are feeling. C'mon, please tell me that the answer to this depends at what time of the day you are asked this question, I think the most positive responses will be in the favor of late nights, when there is complete silence, and we are desperately trying to be in peace with our mind.

The respect that I have been mentioning from the start, which is generated inside us via grief, is hard earned, because when grief in any form strikes us, and commands complete control over our existence, then it starts to unravel our life, and that respect and humility arises naturally in response to that action. This is what we get back in return, that respect teaches us responsiveness. The resistance to accept it respectfully is what suffering means, because then Grief will be in a more vicious form, it will weaken our knees forcefully at any point of the time during the day in any form. It will trigger more reactions from us in the form of anger, frustration, irritations, anxiety and eventually bitterness. To think that it can be figured out without realizing the larger consequences is a grave mistake on our part, which a lot of us do (at least I confirm about myself)

In that crucial moment which almost feels like a true cinematic adaptation of an opera, when we surrender ourselves to it totally, we take ourselves back in a more dignified form. Grief is that beautiful mirage we will reflect two extreme versions of us, no matter if we accept it or deny it, the mirage will make us see an illusion of images, which will be thought provoking in their nature. One will make us see the larger picture; it will help us make peace with our heart, while the other will give us glimpse of our own future, where we will be suffering because of our own indecisiveness.  

You might feel that this post is just a pretentious attempt on my part to write about grief or rather romanticize it, that's purely my lack of ability to articulate my thoughts properly. Grief is much more enormous in its dimensions to affect us than what we actually think it to be.....it’s your own individual decision how you treat it, just do not restrict it…………

Of Aanand L Rai's Cinema, Single Screens and Shahrukh Khan

While watching the trailer of the much anticipated Shahrukh Khan starrer 'Zero', I noticed the scene where the character of Bauua Singh is seen dancing enthusiastically on Chikni Chameli, he then throws his hat towards the screen. That reminded me of the way Aanand L Rai has been depicting single screen theaters in his films, which in some way I feel reflects a symbolic attitude along with the cultural influences of cinema on his characters, which are small town people with conflicts, people with desires, people who are looking for love, people who are trying to make it big in their life, people who wants stability, people who desires to live their life, and not merely let it pass away, as Bauua Singh says "Zindagi Katni kisse thi, Hame toh Jeeni thi". The scenes where characters are seen watching a movie in a single screen are not necessarily plot changing scenes; they are added merely as a subtle tribute to the impact of cinema on the lives of people coming from a small town.

I am quite intrigued by the collaboration between Shahrukh Khan and Aanand L Rai, simply because we have an icon, who has shaped an entire country's perception towards romance for the last three decades, along with a man who has successfully portrayed the nuances of small town stories and its people through his films. When I saw Shahrukh Khan's character dancing inside a single screen theatre, I found that moment amusing, because Mr. Rai will now be directing a man, who has given dreams and hope to millions of people over the years that life and love are meant to be larger than life and cinematic in its representation, that man will now be seen as a character which might have originated out of those of millions of people. Surely, it's not happening for the first time, but I can sense a poetic ecstasy in this collaboration.

In Tanu Weds Manu, We see Jassi and group watch Sooraj Barjatya's "Hum Saath Saath Hain", where Tanu asks Manu out for a date, it's a small conversation but it's depicting the importance of going to watch a movie in small town, and that too when a wedding is around the corner. The very essence of Kapurthala is captured beautifully in the film. Tanu at one point asks Manu to shake a leg like Hrithik, while in the sequel we see Manu sarcastically refers to himself as Hrithik Roshan. 

In Raanjhanaa, Kundan and Murari watch Lawrence D'Souza's "Saajan" in a single theatre, and while Kundan is thinking about the kind of sacrifice Sanjay Dutt is making on the big screen, he is brought back to reality by Murari, who then shouts on top of his voice "Sanju", there is certain relatable feeling in that scene, we have been a part of that screaming protagonist name process, while drawing parallel to the scene or situation of that character to our own lives, there is nothing melodramatic about that, that is just the power and influence cinema has constructed over the time in our minds about expressing our love to someone. In "Tanu Weds Manu Returns", we see Raja and Tanu getting back together, they go and watch Sanjay Leela Bhansali's "Ram Leela" in a single theatre, and later on Chintu mentions it to Tanu's father that a matinee show of Aashiqui 2 is being watched at Gunjan Theater.

The impact that quintessential Hindi films has made on the mindset of people living in a small town is without a doubt infectious. For example, in Tanu Weds Manu Returns, there are two instances I found where Datto and Pappi refer to Manu as Shahrukh Khan, whereas in Raanjhanaa we see Kundan comparing Zoya with Katrina Kaif, it's almost as if these actors represent that reference point of larger than life romance, and hence that's probably why every single romantic move coming out from a small town guy is bound to label him as Shahrukh Khan. These little instances does indicate the fact that Aanand L Rai’s characters originated from small town should convey some part of their daily lives through the references of popular Hindi films.

Single screen theaters constituted an important part of my upbringing, for small town people like me, going to a single screen meant an event like feel. The dark hall provided a sort of rescue from the cynicism and despair of the outer world, once the darkness of the hall took over, there was no other distraction to attribute our mind to, there used to be a certain aura in that dark hall, a feeling of complete encapsulation by what we saw on the big screen. The whistles, hooting and clapping at punchlines, and Aanand L Rai has perfectly captured that madness in his films. The series of clipart narrating the film, and specifically highlighting the interval point, when the lights turned on during the interval, it almost felt that we are taken back to reality very abruptly.

Not that Shahrukh Khan hasn't played the small town common guy before, remember Sunil from Kundan Shah's “Kabhi Haan Kabhi Naa”, yes that Sunil with whom we can so easily relate with, he had imperfections, flaws, had certain daydream driven notions about love. The Raj, Rahul came much later, and became cult, and during the time period that those characters were becoming the important part of mainstream Hindi films, we became so fascinated with those charming, larger than life personalities, that we have forgotten that he could so effortlessly transform himself into Sunil. This is no way reflects that I am trying to draw a parallel line between Sunil and Bauua, he might and should definitely turn out into an altogether different character, my point is that I am trying to connect certain dots between the cinematic world of Aanand L Rai, Small town people, Single Screens, and Shahrukh Khan, (if it exists) and I might not present a perfect rationale to this theory, but just the idea of it sounds so interesting, and worth discussing. A writer, whom I follow on Twitter (@AbbakkaHypatia) told me few months back that the way Sunil looks at Anna during the 'Ae Kash Ke Hum' song is kind of reflective of our own romantic side, and that sense of relativity is what makes him a superstar of its own kind, because a common man can certainly be a Shahrukh Khan of his own world, that discussion somehow stayed with me, and it made me think how valuable and precious the presence of Shahrukh Khan has been in our lives.

The trailer of Zero gives me that hope that once I am done watching the film, I’ll be able to connect the missing points in between these entities.