
One of my favourite subjects for discussion when I meet first year English students for their first lectures, is one of the themes of Amitav Ghosh’s novel The Shadow Lines – public and private memory. How they relate to each other, how they differ, and what they really are. I make students perform the simplest of exercises: remember where they were, what they were doing and how they reacted when one of the larger news events in recent public memory happened. Even in the three years I have been teaching the novel, the event I have had to pin students’ memories to have always differed with every batch. At first, the conscientious batch said Kargil, next year it was 9/11, sometimes 26/11. These were the options they offered me, but strangely, I always instinctively went for death. Death is what I remember first – where I was when Rajiv Gandhi died, or Princess Di, or Michael Jackson, or even Versace. I know, deep down there is very little intellect separating me from Perez Hilton, you must think. It might be true.
I have an instinct for death. It binds me to the farthest corners of human civilisation. I feel, through death, we participate briefly in the one inevitable, and it is the most comforting moment in celebrity. To know that even the immortals died, somehow, makes this world a little easier to accept.
One of the unlikelier deaths that deeply affected me in my childhood was that of Ayrton Senna. It was 1994 and I was 11 when the three-time world champion Formula One driver, heralded as the great genius of his generation, was killed in a crash at the San Morino Grand Prix. What part of this epic sporting tragedy could possibly touch the life of a silly 11 year old girl, you might wonder. I don’t know. I do not, oddly, remember what I was doing when I heard of Senna’s death. I do not even remember if I knew of Senna as a sporting great before his death. All I now remember clearly is that I must have been moved by the grand scale of the tragedy, the public outburst, the controversy, the loss, and above all, the enigma, even in death, that Senna’s magnetic personality created. I remember thinking how incredibly handsome he was, how beatific he looked. I must have devoured the newspapers and magazines for weeks. The memory of it stayed with me well into my adulthood, where everytime I see a speeding car, or a bird flying into a window pane, I think of Senna. When I look back at it now, I am amazed that someone as silly as me at that age, would have been affected at all by such an event. That must have been the long arm of Senna’s charisma.
It all came back to me this evening as I sat watching Asif Kapadia’s latest film, a documentary named after the legendary driver. This is the thing about documentaries, isn’t it: they always pretend to be dry historical narratives but then that melancholic string section creeps in and the commentary is edited just so, the slow-mo just so, and you find yourself in tears. In the case of this film, I suppose I should have seen it coming, since Kapadia is no documentary-maker and has always had a flair for the dramatic. You will find yourself caught in a web here – the editing and narrative are nothing short of a homage to the fierce mystique that was Senna himself. With no prosaic denotations of name and contributor, no dates and places to watermark the screen and nothing at all in terms of outer frame to draw the viewer away from the sheer beauty of Senna’s character, talent and articulation, you have nowhere to turn.
I think Kapadia chose an easy subject. It is a bit like writing an art essay on The Mona Lisa, there is just so much to be said and so much to work with. Senna was that rare thing: an exceedingly articulate and emotive sportsperson from a non-Anglicized background. I’m sure it has a lot to do with choice and editing, but this film could have you believe Senna was a poet. Every word he says carries its weight in thought; indeed I had to snap myself out of his hypnotic diction and remind myself these would be excerpts from interviews and not scripted narrative. Perfect English grammar, intelligent statements, I am almost depressed that I was so young in his heyday and must now suffer the linguistic torture of the Nadals, the Rooneys and Dhonis. It must have been a different time in sport then.
It was also a different sport. I will say this – I do not and have never liked Formula One racing. It is one of those monotonous masculine sports I have never come to love, though this film might just convert a few lost souls. I have always associated it with moneyed backgrounds and politics, an issue the film highlights sensitively. Ah yes, I was complaining about documentaries, wasn’t I. Senna pitches Ayrton Senna da Silva as moneyed and well-bred, certainly, but basically from struggling third world Brazil. I had to try very hard to read against the grain of the film, to disbelieve that this perfectly articulate and handsome young man was representative of an impoverished populace that needed a hero. I suppose the beatific smile and humble demeanor helped keep up that image a great deal. Senna’s arch-rival Alain Prost emerges an easy villain of the piece with his big French nose and comic accent. We choose our sides too easily in the Senna vs. Prost debate, helped on greatly by some good editing and strong third vs. first world sentimentality.
Kapadia also chooses to portray Senna as deeply religious. While this is factually true, I suspect the director’s and scriptwriter’s Indian backgrounds made it easier for them to tackle an otherwise unpopular subject head-on. Senna’s Catholic devoutness is subtly written into his life story like a well-concealed murder weapon, so we do not question his ‘love of truth’ and justice or his self-fashioned priestly indignance and finally, we gracefully accept that his death was ‘a gift from God’. Hm. As a secret Bible-reader myself, I got carried away with it all.