Hero Alom: A revolutionary or a symptom?
In both The Iliad and Odyssey, confronted by the question, "What is a King?" Homer seeks refuge in an ambiguous answer: "the best" of his people. This means a king is simply the best when it comes to speaking, advising, fighting, legislating, planning, and all the other tasks that are there. Thus, on the battlefield, a king has to be "the best" like Achilles or Diomedes. In council, he has to be "the best" like Odysseus or Nestor. And most importantly, in birth, he has to be of the stature of Agamemnon or Piram. This makes for a situation in which the King's birth, valour, vigour, wealth, and wisdom cannot be equal to that of his fellow human beings. In other words, at the same time, he is and is not like them.
Now when it comes to the mass-masala cinema of our subcontinent (or more specifically of our own country), the answer to the question, "What is a hero in a mass-masala film?" is essentially a Homeric one. It portrays a common man who is not common – or rather who is both common and special at the same time – and plays with our unconscious wish of being saved by a messianic figure. This reveals the paradox that "the Hero or the Saviour" will come from among the people, and yet they cannot be him. Thus, the saviour is always imprisoned in the realm of wishes and dreams and nothing more. Hence, here the film is both wish fulfilment and a castration of that wish.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. In this mass-masala world of Heroes, the rules are set. It is told that such worlds tell the stories of common men, yet here the Hero is superior to his fellows and any common man can only be a background dancer or the joker that serves the court (and the story) of the Hero. The most amusing part is that the world which proclaims to reflect the life of the common people and which even more proudly proclaims to be made for consumption by such people has both prohibited the common people from telling their stories and also from playing their own part in their own stories.
But "the times, they are changing" and now the Alom who was prohibited from entering the sacred world of cinema has created his own micro-world. He knows that it is forbidden for him to swim in the sea. Thus, he has created his puddle. In doing so, Alom has successfully murdered "The Hero" (metaphorically, of course) and put himself in his position. And through this act, Hero Alom was truly born.
Till now, this may sound like a story of triumph and victory. But there is a tragic side, too.
There is indeed a sense of triumph in the "murder" and replacement of The Hero, but where the project becomes an upside-down one is when The Hero is replaced by a photocopy of himself. Hero Alom is just an imitation of "The Hero" and his world is only a replica of that forbidden world. Here the common man appears to be in triumph and yet appears to be lost. Thus, Hero Alom becomes an advocate of the sensibilities and values of that sacred world which he can never enter. The cinematic language that he uses is an imitation of that forbidden world's language. But somehow it appears as his language because it has replaced his real language long ago, like a cuckoo bird's egg. The values and the language of that sacred world have already shaped and reshaped the consumer (before the creator) Alom's world. The creator Hero Alom can only replicate that sacred world which is forbidden to him.
Now the work of Hero Alom as a reproduction of that sacred world appears as something laughable and resides in the always-moving realm of aspiration and failure. It becomes a parody. But this parody is essentially an empty one. Someone like Fredric Jameson will identify Hero Alom's work as "pastiche," a kind of blank parody without that ulterior motive or political sting. In this light, Hero Alom's work may appear as a symptom. This means that its existence is symptomatic of something. And this something is the naturalised practice of not letting the common people tell their own stories. The forbidden world which Hero Alom cannot enter is essentially sold as the reflection of Alom's world. It is said to be Alom's world and yet he cannot enter it let alone tell his stories. He is only there for consumption, not for creation. He can only listen to the stories that are told as his stories. And such stories which are told by others gradually shape his worldview. Thus, when he takes the revolutionary opportunity of telling his own stories, it appears as something without a life of its own.
But there is another side to this story; another possibility which we also should entertain. Hero Alom could be more than just a symptom. He could be a revolutionary. It is because Hero Alom's parody is not intentional that it is the most political and effective. The thing is that a joke is always neutralised with laughter, just as a parody is always neutralised with appreciation, and a song is forgotten with applause. But because Hero Alom's work does not presuppose any system, it becomes the most effective. Not having that political bite makes his work even more political. This is why such proclamations of, "Thou shall not make the elites cringe" are everywhere. Here his works are like a fishbone stuck in our throat, and we can neither get it out nor can we swallow it.
Anubhab Adnan is currently doing MA in English Literature and Language from the University of Rajshahi.
Comments