The story of making of Black is something like this (as against the one given by SLB that he got this idea while making Khamoshee, a film he wanted to make since he'd seen Gulzar's Koshish): Screenwriter Prakash Kapadia (Devdas, Black) met Bhansali at the premiere of P Kapadia's Gujarati film Dariya Chhoru (directed by Vipul Shah of Aankhen fame). Bhansali was invited to the screening by Aatish Kapadia (writer of Aankhen and the then screenwriter of Devdas). Bhansali came up to Prakash Kapadia after the screening and told him, "You are the real hero of the film." Of course, a few days later, Aatish Kapadia was replaced by Prakash Kapadia to write Devdas for SLB. During the making of Devdas and later, Prakash Kapadia would discuss all his plays (some 20 great stories that he made in his 20 year long illustrious theatre career). Among these, were two plays: one was a story called "Aatam Vinjhe Paankh", a Gujarati play inspired straight from "The Miracle Worker" and the other was a story of an ageing teacher suffering from the Alzheimer's. Post Devdas, Bhansali asked PK to render the story of Bajirao and Mastani for him. While PK was busy with that, Bhansali clubbed the two stories of Miracle Worker and Alzhiemer's, with the help of co-writer Bhavani Iyer and developed a complete English script titled "Black". When he sent the script to PK, PK rejected most of the screenplay as dry and dull. With PK entering the scene, it was decided that SLB will make a bilingual film instead of an out-and-out English film. SLB approached the Helen Keller Institute for rights and assistance. He was denied the rights, but was offered the assistance. So the secondary level problem had now become a primary one. They had to deviate from Helen Keller's life and The Miracle Worker as much as they could. They gave a thank you note to the institute in the film, but couldn't mention anywhere that Black is indeed inspired from the Miracle Worker or Keller's life. Problem 2 was they had to expand the role of Debraj's character because it was going to be played by Amitabh Bachhan. In this confusion of events, they ended up creating a mess out of a great story. They maintained Anne Sullivan's character of a half blind teacher (Bachhan getting the eye drops from Ms. Nayar), but added Alzhiemer's to it for further drama and forced sensitivity. They maintained most of the other characters, but couldn't use the real names, though they ended up using the same costume, setting and make-up. They didn't use the same education techniques of Anne Sullivan and because of their lack of imagination, they ended up making a 60-year old frustrated compulsive brute instead of a compassionate imaginative teacher. They still used the high points in Keller's life like the fountain "water" scene. For those who defend this kind of plagiarism by saying that remakes are made all the time, are forgetting a basic priciple - remakes are made after acquiring the rights from the original. SLB and PK didn't research through archives and works of Keller, but instead just relied on an artiste's rendering of her life "The Miracle Worker". Several films are made with Gandhi in it, but they do not show a man named "McNally" getting thrown out of a train for being brown and inventing satyagraha. Get my point?
Upward downward arrogant pretentious cinema designed for awards and critical appreciation in a country which has had very little collective self analysis in the last 50 years. I think that pretty much defines Black. It makes the semi-intellectual and pseudo-sensitive life forms to feel important and profound for having the ability to identify and appreciate "great" cinema. I'll compare this feeling to the way the English speaking Indian elite feel about themselves. Though they won't admit it, deep down they still carry the genes of slavery, and feel proud to be on the same level as the "international" (read American) English speaking communities. That's precisely the problem with this kind of contorted cinema. Just because a film looks like a Hollywood Oscar winning film, doesn't mean that it's a good film. Black is empty of substance. It doesn't make any attempt in understanding the inner world of a person born deaf and blind, while creating an illusion that it's in fact doing so.
Good stepping stone for just out-of-the-cocoon-self-proclaimed-film-analysts-and-intellectuals, though.
Upward downward arrogant pretentious cinema designed for awards and critical appreciation in a country which has had very little collective self analysis in the last 50 years. I think that pretty much defines Black. It makes the semi-intellectual and pseudo-sensitive life forms to feel important and profound for having the ability to identify and appreciate "great" cinema. I'll compare this feeling to the way the English speaking Indian elite feel about themselves. Though they won't admit it, deep down they still carry the genes of slavery, and feel proud to be on the same level as the "international" (read American) English speaking communities. That's precisely the problem with this kind of contorted cinema. Just because a film looks like a Hollywood Oscar winning film, doesn't mean that it's a good film. Black is empty of substance. It doesn't make any attempt in understanding the inner world of a person born deaf and blind, while creating an illusion that it's in fact doing so.
Good stepping stone for just out-of-the-cocoon-self-proclaimed-film-analysts-and-intellectuals, though.