Original Copy - Thoughts on 'Ek Phool Char Kaante'

I believe that literature is the most resonant creative form. So much of what we see in a movie, or read in a newspaper article, or even experience in our lives, seems to be familair because we remember it from a book. I experienced an instance of this resonance recently when I picked up a copy of a book called Major Voices: 18th Century Women Playwrights by Michael Cains. Now this book was a revelation to me. I had no idea that women wrote plays in the 18th century, much less staged them. The introduction of the book informs me that some of these plays had to fight to see the light of day, and when they did they went unnoticed or flopped. A few of them did receive critical and commercial success. Some of them even had to be released anonymously, as theatre in those days in England was "corruptible" and not considered the "proper" occupation, especially for malleable-minded women!

The very first play in this collection is one called A Bold Stroke for a Wife by Susannah Centlivre, written in early 18th century. The play tells the story of a girl by the name of Anne Lovely, who is rich and of marriageable age. She is courted by Colonel Fainwell, whose overtures she reciprocates. Her deceased father's will leaves four guardians incharge of her. Moreover, the will stipulates that she can only get married to the man who her four guardians approve of. The catch is that all four are poles apart from and fiercly derisive of each other, not to mention difficult to please. One is a preacher, the second a stockbroker, the third a pseudo-connoseur, and the fourth is a rich fancy pants. So Fainwell sets out to impress all four guardians by morphing into the type of man each one would like for his ward.

To those of you who have seen the 1960 Waheeda Rehman-Sunil Dutt starer Ek Phool Char Kante (dir: Bhappi Sonie), this plot will sound very familiar. I always thought that this film had a very interesting story line, and it is one of my most favourite romantic comedies. And now, after reading this play, I come to know it's not original. Anyway, I'm not disappointed - I still love the film. It's entertaining and Sunil Dutt is the best part of the film. What prompted me to write this blog is the way in which both the play and the film use this 'four guardians-one female ward' structure and the ideologies they bring forth.

Susannah Centlivre is writing out of a strict patriarchal set-up which even frowns upon her writing. It seems to me that this is her inspiration for creating a character srtucture of this type, which replicates the claustrophobia of the soceity she lives in. The men have total control - the father of Anne Lovely, even after his death does not leave her free to marry a man of her choice. Her guardians do not only track her actions, but also expect her to do what they tell her when she is with them. In fact, she even has to dress according to their whims - in a unrevealing head-to-toe dress when she is in the care of the preacher, and in bright, fashinable clothes when she is with the fancy pants. So obviously it is Fainwell's job (another man!) to rescue her from her constricited existence, and make her his wife. We are also told that she has thirty thousand pounds at her disposal after her marriage, which means that anyone who marries her will be that much richer. Fainwell clearly mentions in the play that he is marrying her not only because she's pretty, but also because she is rich.

Centlivre satirises every patriarchal convention and manifestation in this play. She ridicules the traditional male occupations into which women were not allowed entry at that time, like preaching and trade. She ridicules men who have money, but no taste, and cover up their lack of intellect with expensive clothes and possessions. She does not even spare her hero, Fainwell, who is gallant and clever enough to "rescue" our maiden, but whose motivation for wanting to marry her seems shallow and superficial. The structure of the play itself is a indictment of the system of patriarchy and the manner in which it tries to bind and mould women. And I also feel that a criticism of patriarchy is an inherent quality of the structure - it has been designed for this purpose.

What happens when this structure is transposed onto a Hindi film made in the 1960s? The film also could easily have been a similar critique of patriarchy, since male oppression of women is not an unfamiliar concept even to our culture. Instead the film changes genres and what we get is a romantic comedy in place of a satire. The film does lose the political edge of the play here, but does not fail to make subtle comments on the man-woman relations in society. Take, for example, the very first scene, where the film mocks the manner in which some women may feign helplessness to be dependent on men to get things done from them. The man is question, Sanjeev (Sunil Dutt), refuses to be chivalrous when Sushma (Waheeda Rehman) asks his help in changing a flat tire. Instead, he says that he would help, but only with instructions - she would have to do the actual dirty work herself.

The relation between Sushma and her four uncles is harmonious - she willingly, not forcibly, changes herself according to the preferences of each uncle. They genuinely love her and care for her happiness. Here, the film inverts another custom of our society were women have to prove themselves to be sarvagun sampann to be accepted as brides. It is the man in this film who has to prove himself to be religious, physically strong, social and flamboyant all at the same time. The film needs to be seen for the performances of the four uncles - David, Johnny Lever, Dhumal and Rashid Khan (who in fact are quite "theatrical" in their acting styles), and for Sunil Dutt.

The film and the play are both equally funny and enjoyable to watch/read. It does not matter that the film isn't original - it brings its own unique take on the structure that Centlivre creates. This unique quality is what differentiates a mere copy from what I termed "resonance" at the beginning of this blog.