Frame explores a rarely seen sub-set of the media: newspaper photographers. Vikram Patwardhan’s Marathi film, which is out on Zee5, explores the dynamic between Chandu, the chief photographer of a Pune newspaper, and new team member Sidharth. The young man idolises the veteran, but differs from him in one crucial aspect.
Chandu (Nagraj Manjule) believes that a photojournalist’s job is to document rather than intervene, report on an event or even a tragedy rather than rushing in to help. Sidharth (Amey Wagh) has the opposite viewpoint, and is troubled by Chandu’s cynicism.
Yet, they work well together. Chandu gives Sidharth important insights into the trade – what makes for a decisive moment or a newsworthy image, how some professionals stage their images just to win awards. Sidharth also learns to steer clear of Chandu’s troubled personal life and ignores his boss’s worrying tendency to cart a hip flask around.
A terrible misjudgement pits the men against each other. This comes amidst personal and workplace pressures. The fear of redundancy is enhanced by the growing realisation that anybody with a cellphone camera can become a photographer. What then makes photojournalists special?
Frame, also written by Vikram Patwardhan, is business-like in its staging and visuals. Patwardhan has a well-rounded understanding of the pressures and dilemmas of journalism.
The newsroom actually feels like one, just as the conduct of the reporters and photographers is on point. The film has used the work of real-life photographers Apurva Gupte, Sandeep Rasal and Sumedh Marathe, which enhances the authenticity.
The actors look and behave like newsroom creatures, with Nagraj Manjule especially effective as a plain-speaking pragmatist. Manjule’s Chandu has more shades than Amey Wagh’s Sidharth, but not enough to justify the final act.
The 116-minute movie feels threadbare as it wears on, focusing a bit too much on Chandu’s travails. The climactic scene is as much of a misstep as the ethical crisis that the film explores.
No self-respecting jury would reward the photograph that eventually wins a coveted honour. The director might have wanted to make an emphatic point about the slipperiness of morals in a ruthlessly competitive and increasingly unstable profession, but he picked the wrong frame.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!