Dil Dhadakne Do Scene Analysis - The Advantageous Use of Context

(1110 words)

Film - Dil Dhadakne Do (2015)

Director - Zoya Akhtar

Scene - The Butter Knife Scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0rsRJXftPk)

Spoiler Alert!

A Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis? Well, that brings to mind numerous scenes that have made us laugh, cry and ponder. However, there's one particular scene that stands out from the rest. For those of you that haven't watched the film yet, please do. Until then, this short description should work.

Dil Dhadakne Do is a film about a wealthy, dysfunctional family that is forced to face their relationships with each, other thanks to a shipboard holiday.

Why a ship? As mentioned by Zoya in an interview, the ship sets the tone for the entire film as it brings about the feeling of being trapped. The Mehras have nowhere to go now, the flawless facade won't serve as an escape for long. 

The 'butter knife' scene barely lasts for three minutes, still managing to take you on an emotional rollercoaster. However, the scene wouldn't have been as impactful if not for the previous meeting between the two families.

In this Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis, I'll be covering how Zoya Akhtar plays with visuals and familiarity.

Let's talk about the context we are provided with and its implications on the 'butter knife' scene.  

The above snapshot is from the initial meeting between the two families. This is when Ayesha first brings up a divorce with Manav. It is important to note two things here. 
1. The nature of conversation. Manav's mother, Smita, speaks to Ayesha in a concerned, respectful way, trying to understand why their relationship has deteriorated. Mindful that she is confronting Ayesha in front of her entire family on a cruise trip sponsored by her own parents, she puts Ayesha's interests before her own son's. However, Ayesha's own family humiliates her and warns her that they won't let a divorce taint their reputation. 
2. The character blocking. Blocking is the positioning and movements of characters, used to tell the story in visual terms. The placement of characters in this scene is crucial. Ayesha sits alone, facing every other member in the room. The other members, facing her, almost seem like they are attacking her. It's clear that Ayesha has no support in this scene. 

Cut to the butter knife scene, where we can already notice major differences in the same room that the previous scene was shot in. It is important to note that this setting is used only twice in the entire film, both to discuss Ayesha's marriage. Zoya, thus, establishes this as the confrontation room. In comparison to the previous scene, we notice the following:

1. The nature of conversation. By now, Smita has realised that Ayesha has no support from her family regarding the divorce. Owing to this, she takes the liberty of raising her voice and openly disrespecting Ayesha's decision. If it weren't for the events that preceded this scene, Smita's aggressive tone would seem overly dramatic and confuse the audience. 
2. The character blocking. Ayesha now sits with her family, but is still at a distance from her mother. Kabir is now a more active part of the conversation.

Most importantly, Manav exchanges seats with Kamal from the previous scene, while Kamal does so with Ayesha.

As the scene progresses, we see that this shift in seating has managed to shift the way we perceive these characters. We begin the scene with the perception that Manav has more control now, while Kamal is simply helpless. 

Quite literally, Kamal is in Ayesha's place this time.

 

Although the scene begins with a furious Smita rebuking Ayesha, we manage to find refuge in two defining moves made by the filmmaker. The first is a short exchange of glances between Kamal and Neelam, indicating that they've understood the mess Ayesha is stuck in.

Zoya doesn't waste time converting this realisation into action, and the audience is left feeling empowered once again when Neelam holds her daughter's hand. These shots are defining moments as we can finally identify with Kamal and Neelam. The Mehras are now seeing what we have been seeing throughout the film. This time, we're on the same team.
Once more, context plays a key role. The only real relationships we have seen these characters share are that of Ayesha and Kabir, Kamal and his brother, and debatably, Neelam and Kabir. For the first time in the entire film, we see all four of these characters express heartfelt affection towards each other. Zoya finally gives us what we've been longing for.   

The scene progresses with Smita threatening to cut herself, followed by Kabir slyly pointing out that she is holding a butter knife. This particular moment is an audience favourite as it boldly incorporates humour during a serious situation. 

The urge to laugh inappropriately is a common feeling, and has a reason behind it. We laugh harder when we are expected not to do so. This is because we are resistant to control and according to Psychology Today, are "evolved to pursue self-interest." Besides, laughter is a coping mechanism for most people during a socially tense moment. Through laughter, they are able to regain a sense of control over these situations. However in the scene, Zoya uses comedy to build up the intensity, and while the audience is left with a split second of relief, we know that this has only triggered something worse. 

Manav now begins to exert power. Interestingly, he does so only when his mother is ridiculed. This simply serves as a reminder of Ayesha's dying marriage. The display, however, acts as a breaking point for Kamal. This segment displays immediate cuts from Manav's harsh behaviour to Kamal's regretful expressions. We are now provided with glimpses of Kamal's strong character breaking, reminding us that deep down, he is still a father. 

The scene concludes with Kamal pinning Manav to the wall, threatening him not to cross his limits. This is a cathartic moment, as we finally watch the entire family's relationships take a joint step towards resolution. Zoya Akhtar beautifully builds this up, pushing not only Kamal but also the audience to their limit through Manav's use of physical force on Ayesha

Delightfully portrayed, we finally get the answer to our Why. From the start, we are left rooting for the family to drop the facade and connect with each other on a deeper level. This moment justifies our need, as we see how strong the family can be once they join forces. . 

The scene would not have succeeded if not for the correct use of context and the gradual buildup. Arguably the best scene in the film, it steadily resolves most of the conflict we are faced with since we met the Mehras. In addition to Zoya Akhtar and Reema Kagti's masterful writing, the deep visuals and impeccable acting is what makes this scene successful. The clever use of multiple OTS shots (Over the shoulder shots - used to show character's perspective and emotional connect) leads to an active involvement in the flow of the scene. 

With an array of emotions, the butter knife scene truly delivers to the expectations of an audience that loves drama with a touch of realism. 

P.S. Honestly, one isn't enough for a Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis. Filled with wholesome scenes about life and love, this movie always manages to bring a smile to my face. Hopefully, we'll have another Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis soon.

 

Inglourious Basterds Scene Analysis - Revealing Information Smartly

(718 words)

Film - Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Director - Quentin Tarantino 
Scene - The Jew Hunter (Opening Scene) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig0815OI9Lg

Spoiler Alert!

When we talk about attraction, we often act according to two principles - the reciprocity principle (eg. people like people who like them), widely discussed in social psychology, and the uncertainty principle (eg. people like people who might like them).
Suspense in films concerns itself with the latter. What drives most films is closure - a quest, an unresolved problem, will the character manage to achieve his goals? However, the onerous task here is to periodically reveal enough information to keep audiences engaged, something that Quentin Tarantino has undoubtedly mastered.

The scene, almost twenty minutes long, begins with LaPadite's seemingly mundane day being disturbed by the arrival of German soldiers. LaPadite does not seem surprised by their arrival, though, as he puts on a calm face and signals his daughters to head inside. 
Tarantino already establishes the existing power dynamic through his closeup of Colonel Hans Landa's firm handshake. However, it is not until Landa grabs LaPadite's daughter by the hand that this dynamic begins to unsettle us.
We now begin to realise that Landa is here to cause harm.

This is followed by the detective requesting for a glass of milk instead of wine. A peculiar but harmless request, we aren't forced to read much into it until we see Landa gulp the entire glass in one go. Tarantino has now begun to reveal the nature of the harm Landa is about to cause.
Through the simple use of milk, Tarantino portrays that Landa has no inhibitions; he's a brute and cannot be stopped from taking what he wants. Who drinks a glass of plain milk in one go?

As the scene progresses, Tarantino gradually reveals the reason for Landa's visit. Despite his loud body language and his surface level politeness, LaPadite's composed facade remains, giving us some respite. Although he is powerless, his cooperation leads us to believe that he has nothing to hide.

The respite, however, does not last for long as Tarantino intentionally breaks one of the most essential rules of filmmaking - the 180 degree rule - whilst LaPadite discusses the Dreyfuses. 
According to StudioBinder, "the 180 degree rule sets an imaginary axis between two characters. By keeping the camera on one side of this imaginary axis, the characters maintain the same left/right relationship to each other."
Here, breaking the rule or "crossing the line" has been intentionally done to disorient the viewers.
It's almost as if LaPadite's excessive knowledge of the Dreyfuses has lead to the scene taking a new turn. 

The wait does not last for long, and Tarantino confirms our worst fears immediately after, by slowly revealing the Dreyfuses beneath the floorboards. The entire scene revolved around this, and Tarantino chooses the perfect time for his reveal. This acts as a breath of fresh air into an already tense scene. Instead of revealing this at the end, Tarantino now burdens his viewers with this information, forcing them to sit through an extremely uncomfortable conversation and drastically rising the stakes. 

As we watch Landa complete his questioning and getting ready to leave, our short-lived relief is crushed when he asks for another glass of milk. The metaphorical discussion that follows only indicates that we're not ready for what is to come. Landa, the Jew Hunter, boasts about his nickname and has already established himself as someone that lives up to it. 

We know he knows.
LaPadite knows he knows.
Tarantino has managed to reveal his information gradually and stylishly, and we're still longing for more.

Once he lets the above knowledge sink in, he jumps from answering "Does Landa know?" to "What will he do, now that he knows?" In a sudden, straightforward exchange, Tarantino kills any doubt regarding the former question, thus adding the finishing touches to one of Hollywood's most gripping scenes. 

What makes this scene an interesting study is the timing and fashion in which Tarantino reveals information. It's noteworthy, how a distant exchange between a dairy farmer and a Nazi detective is built up to a point where we are at the edge of our seats. Through Christoph Waltz' irresistible acting, Tarantino plays mind games with his viewers, occasionally teasing them.
We are completely at the writer's mercy by the end, begging for a worthwhile resolution. 

Tarantino does not fail to give us one. 

What's The Point?

(602 words)

A group of friends were having lunch at a crowded restaurant. The beverages, served without ice, and the butter chicken, too sweet; they had given up on the food a while ago. 
Conversations were the only possible way to make their outing meaningful. 
Aryan, realising this, took the onus of keeping the group entertained. 
"So this one time, I went to McDonald's with my family and there was no place to sit. We waited for almost half an hour, after which we finally saw someone get up from their table. Now, relieved as we were, it was unsaid that the table was ours. But before we could reach, a young couple, that had just entered, grabbed the table and made themselves comfortable. My mother lost it. She opened her purse, removed her - "
"Guys, I cannot drink this anymore. Warm Pepsi is the worst," interrupted Riya, her face contorted. She was fed up of forcing herself to avoid wasting it. 
Her comment was quickly met with nods of approval and similar complaints by the others. 
"I know right? How could they? I'm never coming here again," said Sachin. 
They paid the bill and left.
The End. 


What just happened leads us to debate over two possibilities - Either Aryan's friends were assholes or there was something missing in his story. Let's understand this analogy from the latter perspective. 
I have witnessed incidents like this a number of times, and I've been on both sides. When I look back, I can safely say that I've learnt a valuable lesson:
What makes a story interesting is not just its content, but the manner in which it is told.

The above incident might indicate a number of reasons why the story failed to generate interest, some being that he took too long to cut to the chase and that his friends, already bored, were more enticed by Riya's comment, something that actually made a difference to them. 
A lot of audiences tend to be selfish when it comes to stories, yes. 

And before my own article starts losing its purpose, let me get to the point.

How on earth do filmmakers manage to tell us captivating stories?

Films with extremely high budgets have been disasters. Films with star-studded casts have flopped. What's the secret to a good film?

Emotions. The ability of a filmmaker to tap into the emotions of their viewer determines the experience of a film. Contrary to popular belief, films need not always have the "relatability" factor. However, there's a lot more planning involved when you need to get viewers to empathize through other factors.
Expressive body language and an interesting plot are the bare minimum for a successful story, but over the years, filmmakers have evolved to generate interest not just through these basic requirements, but through a thorough understanding of what works for audiences and what doesn't.

In this blog, I will attempt to analyse scenes from films that manage to touch upon elements of human behaviour; elements that make for a riveting story. While I'm simply trying to understand why I call some of my favourite scenes from cinema so, I will also attempt to explore the "science" of storytelling and the successful tactics employed in order to evoke emotions. While my articles will primarily revolve around the unravelling of layers, those that produce compelling storytelling, I intend for this to be a discussion. 
Any kind of feedback or conversation regarding my writings is highly appreciated. Please feel free to comment or personally message me if there is a particular scene you'd want me to study. 

Happy Reading!