The naturalistic and harsh narrative is not so much about the god from the cremation sites on the banks of the Ganges as about people whose world is darker and scarier than the world of the Aghori. The hopeless existence of cripples (dark in a much worse and literal sense: a blind girl lives in the darkness of her mutilation and in the criminal world of human trafficking) is the dark quintessence of understanding human life as four types of suffering: birth, disease, old age and death. The Aghori free the dead from their sins and, by special grace, from new birth, hence new suffering. This is exactly what the blind girl asks.
The viewer, who is not familiar with Hinduism, may wonder why the blind woman asks for liberation from a new birth, but the trained viewer will understand what a great blessing God has bestowed on her.
When the Aghori punished criminals, I remembered the saying, “God has no hands but yours.” The main character became the hands of God, punishing evil. When the main villain beat the poor blind woman, none of the cripples stood up for her, they are not gods, these little and grown-up freaks. Not only their bodies, but also their souls. Maybe that's why the director shows us the magnificent Aghori figure. He is God because he violates the unjust laws of man.
In addition to the philosophical component, I would like to note the excellent camerawork. And acting, apparently, real beggars with injuries. Those who have been to India have seen such poor people in any tourist or resort town.
Start from afar. Why, in fact, "I am God"? On the one hand, the answer is obvious: the main character considers himself the embodiment of one of the Indian deities - here he is. However! Take the initial scenes of the main character’s presentation, and we see that, firstly, the main character’s guru pronounces the mysterious “Aham brahmasmi”, and secondly, the colorful aghori (the main character) himself pronounces the fascinating “Aham brahmasmi”.
What kind of spell is that? We go out on the Internet with this question, go to Wikipedia and read that this is one of Mahavaki:
Mahavakya (Sanskrit Mah;v;kya IAST) are the four “great sayings” of the Upanishads, the sacred texts that form the basis of Vedanta. Each Mahakavya is associated with one of the four Vedas. It is said that in each of the sayings Vedantic mysticism presents in a concise form the basic meaning of one of the Vedas. All four sayings are traditionally interpreted in the context of the unity of the individual atman with the impersonal Brahman.
Pragyanam Brahma – “Consciousness is Brahman” (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 Rig Veda)
- Ayam atma brahma – “atman is Brahman” (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 Atharvaveda)
- Tat twam asi – “you are” (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 Samaveda)
- Aham Brahmasmi – “I am Brahman” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 Yajurveda)
Let's try in simple language:
Human consciousness is the Absolute God (or at least his manifestation).
The soul of man is God the Absolute (or at least his manifestation).
- You are equal to Him (God is Absolute);
- I'm God.
Let us try schematically: True Self = Soul = Consciousness = God. Greetings to George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel!
Therefore, when the protagonist declares himself a god, he declares himself not just a being who has the right to decide the fate of others, as would be the case with a pagan deity. He declares himself a being who follows the highest divine principle; is outside the circle of rebirth (Sansara) because he is aware of himself as a part of the Absolute; and grants the same deliverance to those whom he considers worthy (the meaningful load of the film’s climax).
In my opinion, this is an important “prism”, through which only one can consistently perceive the image of the main character.
The social aspect
In the Russian segment, the film, in my opinion, was perceived rather as a demonstration of Shaktist exoticism unknown in our latitudes - in fact, Aghor. However, it seems to me that the authors of the film were conceived more of a social drama: without embellishment, the hellish living conditions of poor beggars (cripples) and the cruelty they face every day – from their “guards”, from the police, from society, in general are demonstrated. It shows how frighteningly closed a community the Aghori themselves live, performing eerie funeral rituals, consuming opium and capable of killing without any hesitation (take the same initial scenes).
If we dig a little deeper, then the very formulation of the question, when the only salvation for the “humiliated and insulted” is death, albeit framed by the necessary religious interpretation, is a hard blow to the existing social order.
The aesthetic aspect of
The film is very difficult to watch in terms of visual images. The subject dictates naturalism, however, you need to be prepared in advance.
In the film, to my taste, just beautiful music - lively, sincere, atmospheric.
The acting work is also pleasing. Of course, you still feel a different from the usual (European) cultural imprint in facial expressions, gestures and spoken texts - however, this fact is quite expected.
The directorial work, in my opinion, in some places still turned out to be not quite smooth: scenes are unnecessarily drawn out somewhere, and the image of the main character could be shown more contradictory (showing more human in it).
I have seen this picture several times, but I would not advise anyone and everyone. You need to come to it yourself and preferably prepared.
7 out of 10
The film tells the story of a child, a parent who, believing astrologers, left his son in a temple. Returning 14 years later, he found a son among the Aghori ascetic sect, who calls himself a god. For me, this story is about a choice in life that determines future fate. He lost his son and that is his karma. The son, having accepted the choice that life itself gave him without choice, became the embodiment of a god who is free from all the conventions of people.
And these are two parallel universes that intersect at the point where death is supposed to occur.
Shocking India in the film is only for those who weren't in it. And those who were, hardly surprised by the naturalism of the scenes.
The scene in the court where the judge evaded the duty to judge God pleased.
In general, everything is logical, and the scene with the heroine is quite humane in the context of Indian reality and spiritual traditions.
I recommend watching before traveling to India, especially in Varanasi, where such gods can be found on the waterfront of the Ganges.
It turns out there's an Indian movie without endless songs and dances? Did you know?
For example, this film by the director of Bali (that’s his name, not from the island he is) is a bit not typical representative of Indian cinema. Moreover, the film shows the underside of India, where there is cruelty and ugliness.
In the center of the story is a young Aghori, who was abandoned as a child by his parents. After 14 years, his father came to take home, but everything is not so simple. Not only did he become an ascetic, but he also called himself God.
For reference, the Aghori are representatives of the most sinister religious cell that worships Shiva. The Aghori have erased the concept of good and evil, they smoke opium and hang out near the funeral pyres. That's short. And this is a strange guy his parents are trying to bring home. And in parallel, the story of beggars working for bandits begins to develop. Only they are not just beggars, because in India the beggars will not surprise anyone, but real disabled people with mutilated bodies, etc. Because of this, the film is hard to watch. It is hard to look at both the bodies tormented by nature and the cruelty of people who profit from the poor.
If there are almost no dances in the film, then there are still songs, one of the beggars sings perfectly. The music throughout the film is amazing. Especially in the exhibition, when we were shown the main character. The clip montage to the music conveys a frightening and mystical atmosphere, and shows the harsh and sinister protagonist, who is also strong and can spread enemies.
Not to say that the film is full of cruelty, gloom and dirt. No, the director skillfully mixes the colors of India and plays on the contrasts of the beautiful and the terrible. There is a lot of realism in the film, but there is also a lot of artistic, which makes it really a film-film, not documentary.
We all know Indian cinema as something expressive, a feature that is difficult for Western viewers to understand. There is almost no expressiveness (for example, super-duper fights with flights), but the flavor of Indian cinema is felt, and there are fights, but more realistic.
I think he got what the director wanted to say. He played on contrasts, didn't change the color, didn't make everything absurd. It turned out a realistic-artistic drama-action, the movie equally contains this.
And as if in the end, I recommend the film to those who like or are not alien to Indian culture, and those who are ready to see the “hard things”.
Personally, I liked the film very much, I highly appreciate and advise.
Terrible movie! Very scary and therefore very realistic! I wish everything was wrong, but alas! The theme of the picture is a closed religious sect of admirers of Shiva – Aghor and her adepts – Aghori. And their existence in the human world. The boy, abandoned by his parents as a child, is raised by the Aghori and grows up in contempt for the human world with little-understood customs. Including the family ties from which he considers himself liberated. Half-fogged hashish, his mind ambiguously perceives reality, which gives the hero the right to declare himself the supreme truth and God. A guy with a divine essence, although cruel, but aptly characterizes the members of his family who once left him and just as cruelly punishes villains in the world of beggars that accidentally touched him.
As a last chance for salvation, he is approached by a tormented heroine for liberation, and he gives it in an unimaginable way. The uninitiated were terrified, and for the incarnate god, our hero, this is the usual method of delivering from suffering, quite legitimate. Of course, for representatives of the European mentality, the ideas of the picture are incomprehensible and unacceptable in the main, but you just need to understand this situation and these people. And then both the plot depicted and the terrible ending become explainable. And if you put the whole picture on the Indian reality, the mystery becomes even less. I read about Aghori. In light of what we've learned, it's clear. The grade is highest.
I thought for a long time what rating this movie deserves, and this is really a difficult decision. The film is horrifying and shocking, it is definitely not unambiguous. For a person who is not ready to meet all the background of the real India, viewing can be difficult.
Impressions are really multifaceted, the movie is heavy to perception, but not without a kind of attraction. In some places it was disgusting and nauseating, sometimes defiant, and in some places despite everything it amazed with incredible beauty and wit. From the first minutes, it unwittingly immerses in the atmosphere of cultural entourage, recreated with amazing liveliness and crushing details. And then it is impossible to get rid of the realization of how tightly we are stuffed with a variety of pops regarding the “charm of India”, which only from the facade resembles the real picture.
The director skillfully plays on contrasts, interspersing images of beauty in all its forms with images of no less pronounced ugliness, and concludes this in the vessel of each specific person. The compensation of the crippled physical body with an awakened consciousness and a sensitive view of the world is very clearly indicated. At the same time, a lot of pain and suffering is shown, and to tell the truth, I think it's questionable to say that watching a movie can leave you with light, bright, positive memories. The film penetrates into the guts, lowers from the vanilla sky to the mortal earth, although it leaves a window for salvation from painful rebirths. How willing are we to accept the idea that everything is one and that white and black are the essence of one phenomenon? How can we claim to know beauty when we deny ugliness? It seems that these questions are posed to us by the creator of the work.
Regarding the main character, it can be noted that he is incredibly charismatic and mad, his behavior is eccentric, free from any frameworks and stereotypes, it can not be calculated. It seems that he lives under completely different laws. It contains a great force - violent, punishing, but decisive and just. He calls himself a god, and the way he does it betrays some vanity in him, but the power that Brahman gives him and passes through him is truly colossal, and it strikes a fierce terror at all people around him, both righteous and sinners, because in his image in this world the face of Death itself is reflected.
In general, Aghori ascetics are known for their shocking rituals and customs, they practice cannibalism, meditate in cemeteries and smoke hashish. In the film itself, for example, nothing was said about cannibalism, but the very mention of this religious sect automatically evokes certain associations. Did the director want to say that being like an Aghori is a good thing? Is it necessary to reach the same level of consciousness? Not like that. Rather, he wanted to show that there is a power in the world that transcends our understanding, that is capable of creating and destroying, and since it is in its competence to control high-order matter, both the entities with which it interacts and the methods of embodying the “God’s will” are fundamentally different from the usual ethical, “human” norm of behavior.
And, of course, the law of karma is presented in the best traditions, and evil necessarily gets what it deserves, while good is rewarded sooner or later. And here is the only thing, it is important to determine what is good and what is evil.
Summarizing the above, I am God makes you think about a lot of things, maybe even have to break yourself somewhere, and find the missing piece of the puzzle somewhere. If you have enough courage, the movie is bright and memorable.
Yes, and by the way, the music is amazing!
7 out of 10
There will be no indifferent. After viewing, the review about “bad parents and the divine boy” will be very funny.
In this film, "God" is beautiful, passionate, furiously sexy. And beggars and cripples here are really the most spiritually healthy and self-sufficient characters.
I watched the movie Bombay by the same director many years ago. The film cut into memory, and now to watch “I am God!” immediately unmistakably determined whose hands this case, without even remembering the name of the author. Bala somehow amazingly knows how to create “Indian cinema” according to all the rules that we give this term (music, dance, separated children), while getting very deep into our souls.
Despite the cruelty and pain in this film, it has delayed and left a very strong aftertaste. For several days I walked, going through the moments of the film in my mind, reviewing the pieces.
An exciting film on an unbearable subject ...
It is one of those films that cannot leave anyone indifferent. Actors’ play, complex philosophical questions, realism on the verge of absurdity and amazing healthy humor of physically ill, but spiritually healthy people.
Despite the complexity of the topic and the unfunny plot, there remains some easy feeling. Something similar can be seen in Salaam Bombay or in The City of Joy. But after watching them somehow sad and want to cry, and here on the contrary – to laugh together with the heroes-cripples, orphans and lepers. Yes, this is India, this is life.
But it was particularly interesting to look into the life of the part of India that is not filmed in Bollywood - the life of the Indian ascetics, the Aghori. The main character (stunningly terrible) is just one of those who practice extreme forms of tantrism, bordering on necrophilia and cannibalism, and imagine themselves gods. But despite their immense pride, they are the ones who are able to change the world around them by creating spiritual justice. How plausibly removed – I do not dare to judge, because it is better not to meet with the “gods” – so safer.