CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION So, why films for this research? Films have shaped the society in a way that we do not realise immediately. How does one tell the past? How is that vanished world of events and people rendered in the present? How can we (try to) understand the human generations who came before us? In an attempt to answer such questions, this research has utilised both film theory and historical theory. History in film is not that of the past but ‘history’ as that which signifies the changes in the present. As a student of history, the presence of history in cinema is understood as being of importance. But it is not the historical accuracy which is sought, but the change of the contemporary society which is seen from each film of the different periods (made on the same era). What happened and why is less important, than the meaning created by the story on screen. Cinema as we know it is the mode of representation of the contemporary society. Every film represents the ideologies of the period it was made in rather than the period it is made on. The data for the past counts less; the themes embodied in the characters, stories, and genres as well as cinematography, production design, editing, colour, music, and acting count for more. In the same way that the historian is subjective, when he comprehends his sources to bring out a ‘history’, so is the film-maker, who cannot remain aloof from his personal biases, his ideologies and the consciousness that surrounds a particular event/person. In a history, the book (written by the historian) is simply a means, where it is left to the audience to imagine the scenario, based on the description, provided. However, the film does not leave that scope, instead it is the film makers’ imagination/version of the particular era/person/event which is shown and the audience receives that. The scope for imagination lessens yet still the perception of the audience (of each individual) changes from region/religion/personal experiences - all these too, comprise ‘history’. 147 The point is, film and history does not merely comprise of how history is dealt in films (accurate or distorted; nor does it imply only on whether it can be seen as a source of the past. History refers to the contemporaineity of the society within the given times and space, and also the presentation and perception of the subject by the film maker and the audience. Visualising History through Film Film Representations or reconstructions are complex and involve many fields of study. Naturally, the complex first thing, we need to know in order to make a representation is exactly what we are trying to represent. A historic representation, in other words, requires through investigation of the conditions of that time. But how can we be sure about what happened in the past? “Already a fictitious past occupies in our memories the place of another, a past of which we know nothing with certainty—not even that is false.” - Jorge Luis Borges, Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius."^ According to heritage theorist, David Lowenthal, historical knowledge can be derived from three sources: memory, history and relics."^ Some of what we know we remember fi"om our experiences or those that people have shared of their memories. Other parts belong to the collective written history; and then there are old artefacts and buildings which remain as witnesses to the past. These three sources of knowledge fill in for each other and listening to what all have to say, we get close as possible of knowing the past. However, this knowledge is limited. Of all the things that have happened, we only remember a selection of events. Most artefacts break or disappear with time, and descriptions of the past events- which we term as ‘sources’ (archival primary sources) Jorge Luis Borges, Tlon, Uqbar, Orhis Tertius, Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings, 1962, p.16. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 187. 148 cannot bring them back, simply because they are descriptions and not the events themselves. Furthermore, story about an event will always be subjective, both for the story teller and the listener, and it will be coloured by the experiences we have at the time. This goes for any type of representation, abstract or visual. Every time we make a new statement about an artefact or an event, we are making a new interpretation, and then something new is bom, different from the original happening. In this sense we always change the past. Therefore it is possible to conclude that the past really doesn’t exist, at least not in the way we think it does. What we know about the past is mostly based on interpretations; and cannot ultimately be proved. The past is a cultural construction. In the similar way, the films are also a new interpretation of the past and if we can accept sources why then can’t we accept films? Some of the knowledge derived passes on from one generation to the next generation. It can be mediated through various expressions representing the knowledge or message, such as speech, writing and pictures. When making a representation we have the opportunity to tell a story the way we want it to be told, so how do we decide what parts to represent? When history is the issue, there is not always enough information available about the object we want to reconstruct. How can we solve this problem? The balance between fact and fiction is a dilemma for the directors. The balance between fact and fiction is where films and popular combine with the history. A traditional problem in the field of representation, in films is the question of authenticity. A copy should be as close to the original as possible. A representation is based on a selection and therefore it reduces the original setting. The models cannot include the whole original experience; the director/story writer must extract certain characteristics in order to make a representation. Does this imply that the ‘film’ is of less value than the original or the academic history? It is not a new thought that representations can give us experiences we would not have otherwise. Culture expressions like painting and theatres serve as the best examples. Hermeneutic aesthetics 149 is consistent in arguing that it is the subject matter which makes the work an art work. The image should not be thought of just the visualization of an object but should also make people understand larger connections - Identity or Historical identity, the identity with their popular consciousness. As was discussed earlier in the thesis, visual experiences leave more impact on the memory of the larger audience, than the books which reached only to a few. ‘History’ that is taken in films like those mentioned earlier, is that which is popular, not just in academic field but popularly accepted. It is wrong to put forth that history ignores certain eras or dynasties or regions, but it will be right to say, that though it is not avoided, there is an absence of recognition. Like stated earlier, that histories of particular eras are lesser than others, and hence we see more material available for it, in the form of books. It is because of this that even a film-maker would make a film on not only the history he knows most about, but which he can easily glorify and fictionalise for the audience to find meaning in and accept. There was not a lack of kings, love-sagas in the ancient or pre-Mughal period, but film makers are unwilling to experiment with them, not only due to lack of sources (in the form of books by academicians) but also as they will not gain a popular support from the masses. For the common Indian mind, Mughals have been reflected as ‘great lovers’ and it is this why Mughal stories and Rajput stories (for the availability of folktales valorising their bravery and love) are commonly accepted. This lack of sources (that has been mentioned) does not refer to the avoidance of history by historians but for a historian, history would not comprise about how a ruler became a ‘great’ ruler, and what were the forces behind it or how his relations with his concubines or queens. However, we carmot say that this is not history, it is history of a kind, a different type, more interpersonal in nature. Here, if we look at the commentary on the article of Dr. Anirudh Deshpande by Maansi Parpiani, Parpiani goes on to state: “Positivist and structuralist ideas have dominated the practice of history by placing too much faith in concepts of absolute facts that are removed from context and upheld as unquestionable truths. Questioning of these ideas and Robert Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History. Pearson. New York, 2006. (2"'^ ed. 2012) pp. xi-24. 150 the incorporation of multiplicity and subjectivity in history are steps towards a reorientation and expansion of the idea of “doing history”."* If we look at the female characters of the specific studied films, we have a lot to compare and study how women of the past (characters) are shaped by the contemporary ideas. In the films selected for the study, two movies are based on the lives of legendary characters: Amrapali (Amrapali) and Anarkali (Mughal-e-Azam). Their existence in history is unknown and uncertain, yet the Director has weaved a plot around them passing a social message. Both Amrapali and Anarkali, though of different times, have one thing in common- they are court dancers.