(Puneet writes)
It was on a Sunday that the letter arrived.
The post man rarely came to their door. It wasn’t very usual for them to be receiving anything by mail. Unless of course you discount the monthly money order that Malathi amma’s son used to send her from Dubai. But this humid morning, it was Charushila’s name that Cheembu called out. His shirt was clinging to his lean, tanned frame and even the half-blind Malathi amma could tell his want for a pitcher of cold water. But Charushila just stood there, with the letter in her hand, staring at it as if words would start speaking for themselves. It was surely not a letter that she had expected to receive.
After Cheembu had bid adieus, Charushila retreated to her room, her sanctum that she shared with Parul. She felt grateful for Parul’s absence for the first time in her stay there at Malathi Niwaas, so christened by Malathi amma’s late husband - Krishnan Sir as everyone in the village called him, for he had been the teacher in the only school in the area.
“She must be out in the village with her brooms and masks, telling everyone about the plusses of sanitation. I would never understand what she gets out of all this community work! Such a misfit she appears some times, fumbling with the dialect and struggling with food…” wondered Charushila as she neatly and cautiously tore through the glues and heavily stapled brown envelope.
It had been five months since Charushila arrived in the village, with her worn-out brown suitcase. It had not been easy for her, especially because she had to leave her husband of three years to fend for himself. Months before she finally left home, she had told him about her plans, and he had given in to her wish after many failed attempts to convince her otherwise. She had called him from the village a few times, but the probing eyes of the village men at the tea stall with the STD booth made conversation a challenge. The letter from her husband was not only the first he had written to her, but also the only real communication she had had with him in a very long time. With anticipation, she straightened the creases on the letter and started to read.
(Suja writes)
Dear Charu
I have resigned from my job and decided to travel to Bombay or beyond. I am not sure. I shall be leaving the keys with our neighbors. The fridge has been emptied out. All the bills are paid. I have deposited three months rent in advance, after which you can decide what is to be done with all the things in the house. The scooter was giving a lot of trouble, so I sold it. The bank papers ration card and other documents are in the green suitcase. It’s just not the same since you left. My cooking is still pathetic. I could take your constant tirade but not this silence. I ask myself how I could have kept you with me but still have no answers. I hope you are happy there. I don’t have any contact number to give you. I don’t think it makes much of a difference, in any case.
By the way, on my last day at work, I received an STD call from some army chap posted in Pathankot, I think. One Girish Kunnath. An invitation to marriage, said he knew you from school. I could not collect your casserole from Raghavans. That woman is never at home. Monu asks about his Charu aunty everyday. I kept making stories about how all your attempts to reach this side of Nagercoil are thwarted by some calamity or the other. The trouble is, I was convincing myself more than him.
Wish me luck, some peace and lot of sense.
Yours,
Balan
Charushila neatly folded the letter along the lines and put it at the bottom of her pile of freshly starched sarees in the almirah. She turned the keys, making doubly sure it was locked and sat at the edge of the bed. She kept all thoughts at bay, conscious of the hands of the old wall clock moving towards the hourly chime. Her music students would be here in a matter of minutes and she did not want anything in her voice to give away.
(Puneet writes)
Despite her earnest attempt to wring out the name from her mind, Charushila continued to be distracted throughout that morning's music lessons. Gayathri, one of her students, almost her own age, even asked if anything was amiss. Charushila fumbled and blurted something about her periods. After a while, she dismissed the class stating she was feeling dizzy and retired back to her room.
Malathi amma was confounded by her behavior. She very well knew that music meant the most to Charushila, enough to have been the cause for her to leave her husband. And it was only last week that Charushila had skipped her kitchen duties on the account of her menstruation hallows, a practice that she herself had no need to follow any longer. Malathi amma knew something was wrong. But Charushila gave her no opportunity to find out what it was, and Malathi amma knew well to keep her distance.
Back in her room, Charushila unlocked the almirah and pulled out the letter from underneath the sarees, upsetting the neat pile on to the floor, into disarray. She stayed in her bed for most of the morning and early noon. She read the letter again. She lay on her bed, teary eyed, her hands stroking the crescent around her navel, staring at the ceiling. Unable to find any solace, she started to sob, her fists clenched, her nails tearing into the letter and a heart pouring out anguish out on the starched white sheets. "I should have told him... He should have known... He should have asked... why did this all happen?"
At about two, Malathi amma called out from the kitchen, ""Charu... The food is ready. I have made olen and kallappam, with upperi. And fresh pachadi. Come and have it while it’s hot...," called out. She didn’t get any reply. A few minutes later Charushila walked into the kitchen and had her meals, not saying a word to Malathi amma, who tried to chatter away the awkward silences by relating gossips from the neighborhood.
As she was leaving, Charushila turned back hesitantly. Her eyes lowered, and with hands knotting the hem of her saree, she asked, "Malathi amma, tell me something. Is it a sin to love someone? Is it wrong to desire something that you know may never be yours? Krishnan Sir used to read the vedas and you too have read the upanishads. What do they say about this? I want to know... "
_______
How do you want the story to move forward? Get the horses of your imagination galloping and the fingers typing! Your contributions are eagerly awaited at bookmark.newsletter@gmail.com
December 30, 2006
August 21, 2006
Amu: Movie Review
Rating: ****
Ever since I started writing movie reviews, I have been starved for a good film. Not even once have I been inclined to give any film more than three or three+1/2 stars, and usually had to look for points to defend my rating. Well, the drought has finally coem to an end, and I am more than happy with the film that has broken the barrier. Yes, Amu is an excellent film, coming straight from the heart of the debutante director Shonali Bose from Bengal.
Starring Konkonasen Sharma as the protagonist (oddly called Kaju in the film), this film is a truly wonderful experience, and the first thing that comes to mind the superb quality of direction and screenplay. The charcaters are so close to real life, so very believable and anyone and everyone would empathise with the cast - be it anyone. Shonali has imbued crdibility into a story that could have easily gone haywire with inept handling.
On the surface, Amu is the story of an NRI girl Kaju who comes to India for a vacation to her mother's family and also trying to get to know her past - she knows she is an adopted child but does not know anything about her parents. The story uncovers the various sweet and bitter truths that her journey has in store for her. Her path crosses with a guy called Kabir, who helps her in her mission. And she finds herself in utter confusion and helplessness as she gets tangled in a mesh of the history of riots that shook India in 1984 after Indira Gandhi's assasination. How the story unfolds and what she finds out and how is the crux of the story. Although I usually refrain from giving any idea of the storyline in my reviews, I am assuring that I havent revealed that you would hamper your viewing. I just had to narrate this much to make my point in the review ahead. To stress how commendable Shonali Bose is for her work.
After Mr and Mrs Iyer, Konkona has not really delivered any strong performance to compare. Her Page 3 was very average if anything. But Amu reaffirms my faith in her. She is truly wonderful in her role. She has worked hard on her accent, and it pais off, because she does "sound like" an NRI - very much so. Not only that, her acting overall is first rate, and she lends a lot of credibility to her character. Yashpal Sharma (a.k.a. Laakha from Lagaan) and Brinda Karat (famous left party politician) also do full justice to their roles. And all the other artistes make you feel that you are watching 'real people'. The Bengali family that Amu's mother belongs to is a pure delight to watch. No fancy dresses or flashy make up or gay cousins (these days it has become a fad to have a gay character in the film) or stupid romances in the background - just a simple family. And there are several moments in the film where you would think (or may be even say it aloud) - "Oh God! I do the same thing." or "Wow! Feels like my family" or "Hey, I act like that when I go to. ..blah blah blah". And thats the screenplay's forte. It makes the whole story look so believable. No wonder that Shonali Bose admits (had the honor to attend a Q&A session after the film) that a lot of this has been derived from real life stories that she has learnt about from her numerous encounters with the victims of the 1984 riots.
Not even for one moment that I feel glamorization of any character or situation. Everything seemed 'normal'. The turbulence of the situation hasbeen conveyed very subtly, without any meloframa. No wailing or shouting scenes to show that the actors can act. No exy dudes or dudettes, no item numbers, no barechesting and no villains. There is ample symbolic fixtures and scenes, and you see people doing things that they really do - take a train, buy a pack of biscuits, eat choley-bhatoora, talk, walk and talk on phone. The props and art direction is very appropriate for the film. No lavish sets or grand eye candy locales. And yet the film holds your attention completely.
The film tells a story, holds a message and still does not get preachy or overdone. The various subtle facets of the 1984 riots and the after effects have been beautifully captured. No fingers are pointed, but it is very clear what the director'sintentions are. State sponsored terrorism is hinted at, but no names mentioned. What government officials, IAS officers did/did not do is shown, but no sides taken. Wha goons and thugs did is referred to, but the good and bad in their actions is left open for people to think about. Violence is indicated and portrayed, but the visualization ot graphic.
I am not sure how to express several other thoughts that race through my head after seeing the movie, but it sure was an experience to take back home, and think about later.
A must watch for all those who like meaningful cinema.
Ever since I started writing movie reviews, I have been starved for a good film. Not even once have I been inclined to give any film more than three or three+1/2 stars, and usually had to look for points to defend my rating. Well, the drought has finally coem to an end, and I am more than happy with the film that has broken the barrier. Yes, Amu is an excellent film, coming straight from the heart of the debutante director Shonali Bose from Bengal.
Starring Konkonasen Sharma as the protagonist (oddly called Kaju in the film), this film is a truly wonderful experience, and the first thing that comes to mind the superb quality of direction and screenplay. The charcaters are so close to real life, so very believable and anyone and everyone would empathise with the cast - be it anyone. Shonali has imbued crdibility into a story that could have easily gone haywire with inept handling.
On the surface, Amu is the story of an NRI girl Kaju who comes to India for a vacation to her mother's family and also trying to get to know her past - she knows she is an adopted child but does not know anything about her parents. The story uncovers the various sweet and bitter truths that her journey has in store for her. Her path crosses with a guy called Kabir, who helps her in her mission. And she finds herself in utter confusion and helplessness as she gets tangled in a mesh of the history of riots that shook India in 1984 after Indira Gandhi's assasination. How the story unfolds and what she finds out and how is the crux of the story. Although I usually refrain from giving any idea of the storyline in my reviews, I am assuring that I havent revealed that you would hamper your viewing. I just had to narrate this much to make my point in the review ahead. To stress how commendable Shonali Bose is for her work.
After Mr and Mrs Iyer, Konkona has not really delivered any strong performance to compare. Her Page 3 was very average if anything. But Amu reaffirms my faith in her. She is truly wonderful in her role. She has worked hard on her accent, and it pais off, because she does "sound like" an NRI - very much so. Not only that, her acting overall is first rate, and she lends a lot of credibility to her character. Yashpal Sharma (a.k.a. Laakha from Lagaan) and Brinda Karat (famous left party politician) also do full justice to their roles. And all the other artistes make you feel that you are watching 'real people'. The Bengali family that Amu's mother belongs to is a pure delight to watch. No fancy dresses or flashy make up or gay cousins (these days it has become a fad to have a gay character in the film) or stupid romances in the background - just a simple family. And there are several moments in the film where you would think (or may be even say it aloud) - "Oh God! I do the same thing." or "Wow! Feels like my family" or "Hey, I act like that when I go to. ..blah blah blah". And thats the screenplay's forte. It makes the whole story look so believable. No wonder that Shonali Bose admits (had the honor to attend a Q&A session after the film) that a lot of this has been derived from real life stories that she has learnt about from her numerous encounters with the victims of the 1984 riots.
Not even for one moment that I feel glamorization of any character or situation. Everything seemed 'normal'. The turbulence of the situation hasbeen conveyed very subtly, without any meloframa. No wailing or shouting scenes to show that the actors can act. No exy dudes or dudettes, no item numbers, no barechesting and no villains. There is ample symbolic fixtures and scenes, and you see people doing things that they really do - take a train, buy a pack of biscuits, eat choley-bhatoora, talk, walk and talk on phone. The props and art direction is very appropriate for the film. No lavish sets or grand eye candy locales. And yet the film holds your attention completely.
The film tells a story, holds a message and still does not get preachy or overdone. The various subtle facets of the 1984 riots and the after effects have been beautifully captured. No fingers are pointed, but it is very clear what the director'sintentions are. State sponsored terrorism is hinted at, but no names mentioned. What government officials, IAS officers did/did not do is shown, but no sides taken. Wha goons and thugs did is referred to, but the good and bad in their actions is left open for people to think about. Violence is indicated and portrayed, but the visualization ot graphic.
I am not sure how to express several other thoughts that race through my head after seeing the movie, but it sure was an experience to take back home, and think about later.
A must watch for all those who like meaningful cinema.
July 16, 2006
Rang de Basanti: Movie Review
Rating: ***
"Mera rang de Basanti Chola, mai rang de basanti chola" is a not a jingle from the past. It carries a meaning - its a mantra that many a die hard freedom fighters, the revolutionaries of the early and mid nineties chanted as they waged a battle against the East India Company, and sacrificed their lives as true martyrs for the cause of Indian independece. Sukhdev, Rajguru, Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad are just a few names in the roster of such rather unsung heros of the Indian freedom movement. One of the films characters says "I have seen people behave in two ways when faced with death - total silence or utter belligerence. But the likes of Bhagat Singh belonged to either category. These men had an air of sheer normalcy even as if they draped the black cloth around their face before being hanged to death!
Rang De Basanti (RDB) is not yet another movie about the Indian freedom struggle. And good for the director, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, the maker of the well received 'Aks', since there have been dozens of such films in the recent past which have failed enormously at the task of invoking any patriotism or appreciation for our freedom fighters. Something which RDB has managed to do - in part. Not very constructively, but it has.
My RDB experience was a mixed one. For when I watch a movie, its not only the characters and the story, but also the execution of the film as a form of art that matter tremendously. And thats precisely the reason why I had a tough time rating this one. While there are several issues I have with the script, I was floored by the production values of the entire enterprise.
As one of my friends aptly described, "Rang De Basanti = Dil Chahta Hai + Yuva". And I would have to agree with him on that front. RDB has an air - the air of DCH youth about it, but has the soul of Yuva. To say that it is a teenager's movie would however be somewhat unjust to the filmmaker. During my research of the idea behind the film, I have come to the understanding that Rakeysh Mehra had a single agenda in the film - inspire with caution. The sense of belonging to India, the feeling of optimism for what the future holds, and the drive to do something to help the nation progress are totally missing in the youth today. Instead, there is hopelessness, and even shame that many Indians feel for being an Indian. I have seen it in campus students for whom the glamour of the West still rocks, and in the middle aged who watch news with a roaring levels of frustration about status quo, and in the sheer nonchalance of the urban middle class. The character of DJ sums it up very succintly - "We have one leg on the future, and another is on the past, thats why we are pissing on the present". But what are we doing about it?
The point is that Rakeysh Mehra does not set out on a preaching mission to change all that. Instead he chooses to narrate a story about a few young people to get his point across. Each one of us can either accept the way things are, or can attempt to change it. The director has illustrated a particularly unsettling situation that this particular group of friends is faced with, and what they do to overcome the same. In the process, each of them is transformed in a way they never imagined. As he has beeen himself stressing vehemently in all the interviews, he does not subscribe to the manner in which these young people reddem themselves. Neither does he believe that it is the solution to the many problems that plagiarize the India of today. But unfortunately, though probabbly unwittingly, he has ended up gloriying the very premise that he set out to refute.
Violence is not the end solution to fight the wrong doers - is what Reakeysh has supposedly set out to showcase. The characters played by the cast of Rang De Dasanti are faced with a predicament. And they choose violence as the solution. Eventually, they end up being a puppet on their own stage. What they achieved is shadowed by what they lose. They fall at the hands of the bloodshed they start to avenge their cause. Still, the audience is never in doubt about the righteousness of these men (and women). The sole reason is that the picture is too black and white. The 'other side' has been painted in total black that screams 'THEY DESERVE TO DIE", and thats why the audience applauds when the gang of friends decides to do away with 'the others'.
That revolutions are necessary to bring about changes and reforms has been proved umpteen number of times by the world history. But the way you bring it about is even more important, for it sets precedents and benchmarks. Each effort, notwithstanding of its enormity or minisculeness, counts. What path we decide to tread is ones' own decision. Rakeysh Mehra set out on a noble mission, but he, just like the characters in his movie, completely misses the point. Instead, he ends up glorifying violence by showcasing the cast as martyrs for some great cause. But his parallels between Aamir Khan and his friends and the legends of Indian freedom struggle result in achieving precisely that effect. Yet, I dont believe that Rakeysh has completely missed the bus. Even with faults in his script, he does manage to bring about one point very strongly - Eacdh of us can be a Bhagat Singh or Chandrashekhar Azad if we believe that we can turn the course of events. That each one of us can bring about a revolution. Only if the script had chosen to showcase the same parallel in a manner that could have fed back more constructively. Nonetheless, full credit to the screenplay for blending in the two sets of stories so well. The transitions that these young men and women go through are shown in such a progressive manner that the viewer automatically relates the two stories without any explicit mention. I would however admit that after a point, the parallelism lost its verity due to the reasons I already talked about.
If you however watch the movie as a narration os a story, Rang De Basanti may not appear so disconcerting though. The stroy is about a few friends - (DJ) Aamir Khan, Sonia (Soha Ali Khan), Kunal (Siddharth), Aslam (Kunal Kapoor) and Sukhi(Sharman Joshi), Sonia's fiancee Ajay (Madhavan). Add to the group a political novice youth leader Laxman (Atul Kulkarni). And an outsider who becomes a part of the group - Sue (Alice Patten). They find themselves in a tight situation, and they choose what seems to be the best way out. What happens to these characters is what forms the crux of the story that this film narrates.
Talking of characters, the direction and screenplay desrve full merit. Contrary to popular notion, RDB is not an Aamir Khan film. The film does not belong less to Sharman Joshi or Siddharth or even Alice Patten. Each person has a part to play, and the characters sketch for each is well defined. Aamir Khan, as usual (disregarding the recent Mangal Pandey fiasco), delivers an awesome performance, although he looks a tad too old for the part. The rest of the cast including Kunal Kapoor, Sharman Joshi, Alice Patton look their part and lend a fair amount of credulity to the characters. It is a great relief to see that the director stays true to the story and does not veer into any sidetracks or flashbacks on each of the characters. In comparison with the rest of the cast, however, Soha Ali Khan looks very inept. She does not leavy any impression whatsoever. I fail to understand why she is being made into the new generation Sharmila tagore on the block. Anupam Kher, Waheeda Rehman and Kirron Kher have small roles that stay small and to the point. Atul Kulkarni is a fine actor, but he does not have much arsenal in his repertoire. His acting seems to be very sterotyped to his acting style. As I have already stated, all the characters are easy to relate to. And they bring different perspectives to the table about the issue that they are faced with.
Just like 'Aks', that was better known for its 'novelty value' than as a good film, Rang De Basanti is also novel. That does not necessarily translate it to calling it a great film. It is surely an out-of-the-box concept, that has been exceptionally well executed in terms of technical departments like editing, cinemetography and camera work. Chorography is also something that a normal person can rerlate to and it does make you feel like getting up on your feet and swaying with the music. A. R. Rehman, after a long gap, has given a musical complement to the film. On a stand alone basis, the music is not the same scale as 'Lagaan', but it surely does capture the spirit of the film to the core and exudes the same energy and attitude that the Indian youth will surely identify with. The flashback sequences are shot very aesthetically and are set in the right mood, without over-glamourising the locales or the characters. The dialogues are very crisp and appropriate, with very contemporary depiction of the youth in India. Not to mention the simplicity of daily life about them while being witty in many a places.
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra may not have made an exceptional film, but he has done what most directors in Indian films dont - and that is called EXPERIMENTATION. As a film lover and as a critic, I would wish him good luck and surely watch out for his next one. As for Rang De Basanti, it surely is a movie worth a watch! It does not INSPIRE, but it does provoke thoughts, some sort of a rarity with Hindi films. You may agree or disagree with the perspective shown in the film, but you surely would form an opinion, you surely would think, and most likely exclain out aloud. I would say that, for me, it means a good film!
"Mera rang de Basanti Chola, mai rang de basanti chola" is a not a jingle from the past. It carries a meaning - its a mantra that many a die hard freedom fighters, the revolutionaries of the early and mid nineties chanted as they waged a battle against the East India Company, and sacrificed their lives as true martyrs for the cause of Indian independece. Sukhdev, Rajguru, Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad are just a few names in the roster of such rather unsung heros of the Indian freedom movement. One of the films characters says "I have seen people behave in two ways when faced with death - total silence or utter belligerence. But the likes of Bhagat Singh belonged to either category. These men had an air of sheer normalcy even as if they draped the black cloth around their face before being hanged to death!
Rang De Basanti (RDB) is not yet another movie about the Indian freedom struggle. And good for the director, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, the maker of the well received 'Aks', since there have been dozens of such films in the recent past which have failed enormously at the task of invoking any patriotism or appreciation for our freedom fighters. Something which RDB has managed to do - in part. Not very constructively, but it has.
My RDB experience was a mixed one. For when I watch a movie, its not only the characters and the story, but also the execution of the film as a form of art that matter tremendously. And thats precisely the reason why I had a tough time rating this one. While there are several issues I have with the script, I was floored by the production values of the entire enterprise.
As one of my friends aptly described, "Rang De Basanti = Dil Chahta Hai + Yuva". And I would have to agree with him on that front. RDB has an air - the air of DCH youth about it, but has the soul of Yuva. To say that it is a teenager's movie would however be somewhat unjust to the filmmaker. During my research of the idea behind the film, I have come to the understanding that Rakeysh Mehra had a single agenda in the film - inspire with caution. The sense of belonging to India, the feeling of optimism for what the future holds, and the drive to do something to help the nation progress are totally missing in the youth today. Instead, there is hopelessness, and even shame that many Indians feel for being an Indian. I have seen it in campus students for whom the glamour of the West still rocks, and in the middle aged who watch news with a roaring levels of frustration about status quo, and in the sheer nonchalance of the urban middle class. The character of DJ sums it up very succintly - "We have one leg on the future, and another is on the past, thats why we are pissing on the present". But what are we doing about it?
The point is that Rakeysh Mehra does not set out on a preaching mission to change all that. Instead he chooses to narrate a story about a few young people to get his point across. Each one of us can either accept the way things are, or can attempt to change it. The director has illustrated a particularly unsettling situation that this particular group of friends is faced with, and what they do to overcome the same. In the process, each of them is transformed in a way they never imagined. As he has beeen himself stressing vehemently in all the interviews, he does not subscribe to the manner in which these young people reddem themselves. Neither does he believe that it is the solution to the many problems that plagiarize the India of today. But unfortunately, though probabbly unwittingly, he has ended up gloriying the very premise that he set out to refute.
Violence is not the end solution to fight the wrong doers - is what Reakeysh has supposedly set out to showcase. The characters played by the cast of Rang De Dasanti are faced with a predicament. And they choose violence as the solution. Eventually, they end up being a puppet on their own stage. What they achieved is shadowed by what they lose. They fall at the hands of the bloodshed they start to avenge their cause. Still, the audience is never in doubt about the righteousness of these men (and women). The sole reason is that the picture is too black and white. The 'other side' has been painted in total black that screams 'THEY DESERVE TO DIE", and thats why the audience applauds when the gang of friends decides to do away with 'the others'.
That revolutions are necessary to bring about changes and reforms has been proved umpteen number of times by the world history. But the way you bring it about is even more important, for it sets precedents and benchmarks. Each effort, notwithstanding of its enormity or minisculeness, counts. What path we decide to tread is ones' own decision. Rakeysh Mehra set out on a noble mission, but he, just like the characters in his movie, completely misses the point. Instead, he ends up glorifying violence by showcasing the cast as martyrs for some great cause. But his parallels between Aamir Khan and his friends and the legends of Indian freedom struggle result in achieving precisely that effect. Yet, I dont believe that Rakeysh has completely missed the bus. Even with faults in his script, he does manage to bring about one point very strongly - Eacdh of us can be a Bhagat Singh or Chandrashekhar Azad if we believe that we can turn the course of events. That each one of us can bring about a revolution. Only if the script had chosen to showcase the same parallel in a manner that could have fed back more constructively. Nonetheless, full credit to the screenplay for blending in the two sets of stories so well. The transitions that these young men and women go through are shown in such a progressive manner that the viewer automatically relates the two stories without any explicit mention. I would however admit that after a point, the parallelism lost its verity due to the reasons I already talked about.
If you however watch the movie as a narration os a story, Rang De Basanti may not appear so disconcerting though. The stroy is about a few friends - (DJ) Aamir Khan, Sonia (Soha Ali Khan), Kunal (Siddharth), Aslam (Kunal Kapoor) and Sukhi(Sharman Joshi), Sonia's fiancee Ajay (Madhavan). Add to the group a political novice youth leader Laxman (Atul Kulkarni). And an outsider who becomes a part of the group - Sue (Alice Patten). They find themselves in a tight situation, and they choose what seems to be the best way out. What happens to these characters is what forms the crux of the story that this film narrates.
Talking of characters, the direction and screenplay desrve full merit. Contrary to popular notion, RDB is not an Aamir Khan film. The film does not belong less to Sharman Joshi or Siddharth or even Alice Patten. Each person has a part to play, and the characters sketch for each is well defined. Aamir Khan, as usual (disregarding the recent Mangal Pandey fiasco), delivers an awesome performance, although he looks a tad too old for the part. The rest of the cast including Kunal Kapoor, Sharman Joshi, Alice Patton look their part and lend a fair amount of credulity to the characters. It is a great relief to see that the director stays true to the story and does not veer into any sidetracks or flashbacks on each of the characters. In comparison with the rest of the cast, however, Soha Ali Khan looks very inept. She does not leavy any impression whatsoever. I fail to understand why she is being made into the new generation Sharmila tagore on the block. Anupam Kher, Waheeda Rehman and Kirron Kher have small roles that stay small and to the point. Atul Kulkarni is a fine actor, but he does not have much arsenal in his repertoire. His acting seems to be very sterotyped to his acting style. As I have already stated, all the characters are easy to relate to. And they bring different perspectives to the table about the issue that they are faced with.
Just like 'Aks', that was better known for its 'novelty value' than as a good film, Rang De Basanti is also novel. That does not necessarily translate it to calling it a great film. It is surely an out-of-the-box concept, that has been exceptionally well executed in terms of technical departments like editing, cinemetography and camera work. Chorography is also something that a normal person can rerlate to and it does make you feel like getting up on your feet and swaying with the music. A. R. Rehman, after a long gap, has given a musical complement to the film. On a stand alone basis, the music is not the same scale as 'Lagaan', but it surely does capture the spirit of the film to the core and exudes the same energy and attitude that the Indian youth will surely identify with. The flashback sequences are shot very aesthetically and are set in the right mood, without over-glamourising the locales or the characters. The dialogues are very crisp and appropriate, with very contemporary depiction of the youth in India. Not to mention the simplicity of daily life about them while being witty in many a places.
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra may not have made an exceptional film, but he has done what most directors in Indian films dont - and that is called EXPERIMENTATION. As a film lover and as a critic, I would wish him good luck and surely watch out for his next one. As for Rang De Basanti, it surely is a movie worth a watch! It does not INSPIRE, but it does provoke thoughts, some sort of a rarity with Hindi films. You may agree or disagree with the perspective shown in the film, but you surely would form an opinion, you surely would think, and most likely exclain out aloud. I would say that, for me, it means a good film!
June 12, 2006
Being Cyrus: Movie review
Most of the reviewers in town have gone ahead and painted the twon read with descriptions of Being Cyrus as a "dark comedy". But I am pretty sure that not even ten percent of them even know what a dark comedy actually is. Being Cyrus has been wrongly categorized as a comedy in the first place. Yes, it has its moments of comedy and laughter, but its more of an adventure or thriller than anything else. Having said that, I must add, that it is not a typical potboiler that Bollywood keeps on churning out. I woulnt go as far as saying that the movie is not "inspired" by any other film, but surely is a refreshing departure from the run-of-the-mill, sleazy, tacky special effects laden, trashy adaptations of Hollywood flicks that are served to the Indian viewers these days in the name of a thriller or an action film.
The best thing about Being Cyrus is that the director knows his story and knows how to tell it without letting the viewer's attention falter for even a minute. The tale is crisp and the narration equally concise. In all the film is just about an hour and thirty minutes, less than half of some of the recent Bollywood blockbusters. Homi Adajania, the first time director of this film, is the latest addition to the list of debutant directors that have donned the director's hat in recent times. And just like Shimit Amin, Parvati Balagopalan and Pradeek Sarkar, he brings to the table a whole new style of film-making, hitherto unknown to many of the "established" names in the business. Barring Ram Gopal Verma, I havent seen many directors use the camera angles and cinematography uses as simply, yet superbly as in this film. The mantra here is - be simple, yet captivating, something that the likes of Karan Johar or Yash Chopra can never dream of attaining.
The story principally involes five or six characters, the cast led by Saif Ali Khan and Dimple Kapadia. They portray a plethora of Parsee characters in the movie, and its a welcome respite not to see the stereotypical and caricaturized Parsee matrons or 'vadee-baba' or "pappad-khao-sain" characters in the plot. The characters are very well defined and played with utmost conviction by most people. Naseeruddin Shah, after Iqbal, returns to another commercial film, but had very little to do. Yet, in his less than five minute role, he showcases the enormous treasure of talent he has. The slightest nuances of the senile, withering, demented Dinsha are superbly captured by him, something that a "seasoned actress" like Dimple Kapadia fails to garner in her portrayal of the gaming and conniving Katie, Dinshaa's wife in this film. She gets overtly loud in the film at a lot of times, not in terms of her volume, but in terms of the amount of effort she seems to be putting into expressing every emotion that she is feeling. Something that I have often felt while seeing Urmila Matondkar act. There is a feel to method - something I cant describe in words. But appears as if she has rehearsed the scene over and over again to get to where she is. Something so contrary to Naseeruddin Shah and even Saif Ali Khan. The latter, is rediscovering himself in author backed roles. Saif is the protagonist of the movie and deserves all the attention. Although his role didnt require much of emoting, he comes across sincerely. His role required underplaying emotions, and he hold the reigns of the character perfectly. Nowhere does he seem made up or unbelievable. He was "so not larger than life", as Chandler from "Friends" would have described it as. Simone Singh gets a brief but important role in this film, and does full justice to it. She looks and feels tha character that she essays. Boman Irani is also very authentic in his portrayal, although he needs to re-think his choice of roles. Ever since Munna Bhai MBBS days, he seems to be playing the same, eccentric man, albeit in a different get up.
The best thing about Being Cyrus is that the director knows his story and knows how to tell it without letting the viewer's attention falter for even a minute. The tale is crisp and the narration equally concise. In all the film is just about an hour and thirty minutes, less than half of some of the recent Bollywood blockbusters. Homi Adajania, the first time director of this film, is the latest addition to the list of debutant directors that have donned the director's hat in recent times. And just like Shimit Amin, Parvati Balagopalan and Pradeek Sarkar, he brings to the table a whole new style of film-making, hitherto unknown to many of the "established" names in the business. Barring Ram Gopal Verma, I havent seen many directors use the camera angles and cinematography uses as simply, yet superbly as in this film. The mantra here is - be simple, yet captivating, something that the likes of Karan Johar or Yash Chopra can never dream of attaining.
The story principally involes five or six characters, the cast led by Saif Ali Khan and Dimple Kapadia. They portray a plethora of Parsee characters in the movie, and its a welcome respite not to see the stereotypical and caricaturized Parsee matrons or 'vadee-baba' or "pappad-khao-sain" characters in the plot. The characters are very well defined and played with utmost conviction by most people. Naseeruddin Shah, after Iqbal, returns to another commercial film, but had very little to do. Yet, in his less than five minute role, he showcases the enormous treasure of talent he has. The slightest nuances of the senile, withering, demented Dinsha are superbly captured by him, something that a "seasoned actress" like Dimple Kapadia fails to garner in her portrayal of the gaming and conniving Katie, Dinshaa's wife in this film. She gets overtly loud in the film at a lot of times, not in terms of her volume, but in terms of the amount of effort she seems to be putting into expressing every emotion that she is feeling. Something that I have often felt while seeing Urmila Matondkar act. There is a feel to method - something I cant describe in words. But appears as if she has rehearsed the scene over and over again to get to where she is. Something so contrary to Naseeruddin Shah and even Saif Ali Khan. The latter, is rediscovering himself in author backed roles. Saif is the protagonist of the movie and deserves all the attention. Although his role didnt require much of emoting, he comes across sincerely. His role required underplaying emotions, and he hold the reigns of the character perfectly. Nowhere does he seem made up or unbelievable. He was "so not larger than life", as Chandler from "Friends" would have described it as. Simone Singh gets a brief but important role in this film, and does full justice to it. She looks and feels tha character that she essays. Boman Irani is also very authentic in his portrayal, although he needs to re-think his choice of roles. Ever since Munna Bhai MBBS days, he seems to be playing the same, eccentric man, albeit in a different get up.
May 09, 2006
Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Maara: Movie Review
Rating: ***
When it comes to abstract cinematic themes, Bollywood usually prefersto stay away. Numerous friends and sworn critics of Hindi films wouldnt think before agreeing, and unfortunately they are right. Butif you look carefully enough through the quagmire of the 800 or so odd films the Bollywood churns out every year, I am sure you would be ableto find around a dozen or so that would clearly stand out in terms oftheir plot. These are films by people who have enough conviction to weave a tale that are novel and refreshing, but at the same time,usually too gloomy or abstract for the common Indian man/woman to comprehend or relate to. MGKNM is another such film, although it ismeant for each and every Indian to watch, think about and introspect.
Although not a cinematic masterpiece, MGKNM is definitely worth applauding for a very novel idea. I am not aware of this has been inspired by some other story or not, but the script surely scores a few brownie points. I wont say as far as saying that the plot, scriptor the screenplay are without flaws, but it definitely is a sincere attempt.Anupam Kher plays a character who suffers from a disease similar toAlzhiemer's disease, and manages to enact the role pretty well. His work is not monumental in any sense, and it definitely is not his best erformance. 'Saaraansh' and 'Daddy' were far more superior than this. But its surely a welcome change to see him in something other than slapstic after over a decade! Anupam Kher' body language is probably okay and his expressions fine, but he does not succeed in evoking much sympathy or tears. Although I could understand what was going on, and interested in knowing what happens next, I never ever felt that pull at the strings of my emotions. And thats where I think he failed! Though comparisons are unfair, I cannot forget the splendid work done by Dame Judi Dench in her Oscar nominated role of 'Iris', who alsohappens to be an Alzhiemer's patient. I cried while watching themovie, and a couple of hours after that as well. Anupam Kher's performance, in that sense, seems somewhat shallow - good, but surely not brilliant! After all, tugging at his hair, looking at wierd angles and crying like a kid doesnt necessarily translate into fine acting! But he is not alone to blame. A lot of this could have been avoided ifhe had better make up, ad less perfect clothes all the time. He lookstoo prim and proper (in some scenes) to be taken as seriously suffering from a syndrome like this. And his voice seems to defy his anguish and suffering too! But, once again, I must re-iterate that Anupam Kher is just under-utilized and could have delivered a much better performance, given the screenplay and direction did more than what they have managed to do.
Urmila Matondkar, who plays the daughter of Anupam Kher in the movie,also delivers as per the role demands. Well, almost. For one, Urmila comes across as a method actress, with a lot of her facial expressions seen too many times already in many movies. Not to say that she is a bad actress or anything, but her repertoire of expressions sometimes looks limited. Irrespective of the fact, she does stand out in thecast of the film. Her role is perhaps the best in terms of character sketch. And she plays it with conviction, and really impresses in a few sequences. Her makeup and costumes seem a bit too loud, and make up too perfect, but I wont complain too much about that. Her anger, helplessness, fatigue, duty and guilt are portrayed very well and one could try to ignore these more 'technical' aspects. Among other artists, Parvin Dabas, Waheeda Rehman, Prem Chopra are all really not needed. Any junior artist could have played those roles as well. Addyas Urmila's brother is good, but Rajit Kapoor seems like a "perfect miscast" in his role!
Many a sequences show that the director Jahnu Barua is a very capable director. He definitely has a very easy narrative and deserves applause for the sensitive handling of the film, without being melodramatic or preachy. But his offering sometimes seems to have gaps and loopholes that do make you wonder WHY? or HOW? The director also misses out on the climax - the point of the movie which actually forms the crux of what the film is all about! But that impact, though noticeable, does not linger on. The way the climax is brought about seems somewhat unripe or premature. But what is said and conveyed is actually very valid and very impressive. Who killed Gandhi? Was it Nathuram Godse? No, it was not. Nathuram only killed a man, a body! But the spirit of Gandhi is killed everyday by every Indian in morethan one way. What has Gandhi been reduced to - just a couple of national holidays and occasions to unfurl a flag or shower some flower petals on his grave? The Father of the Nation adorning all currency notes! What does Gandhi, if anything, mean in today's India? WHAT?... This and many more questions are raised in the film, and it iswhere that the film and the filmmaker score. Barua is a welcome addition to the bevy of new directors that are making their mark in tinsel town, but he needs more experience and maturity to do complete justice to films like Maine Gandhi ko Nahin Mara!On the whole, the concept is appealing, the script fresh and interesting and the performances competent. Yet it is not a masterpiece. Those who love alternatives to the usual corny cocktails that Bollywood serves would surely like the experience.
When it comes to abstract cinematic themes, Bollywood usually prefersto stay away. Numerous friends and sworn critics of Hindi films wouldnt think before agreeing, and unfortunately they are right. Butif you look carefully enough through the quagmire of the 800 or so odd films the Bollywood churns out every year, I am sure you would be ableto find around a dozen or so that would clearly stand out in terms oftheir plot. These are films by people who have enough conviction to weave a tale that are novel and refreshing, but at the same time,usually too gloomy or abstract for the common Indian man/woman to comprehend or relate to. MGKNM is another such film, although it ismeant for each and every Indian to watch, think about and introspect.
Although not a cinematic masterpiece, MGKNM is definitely worth applauding for a very novel idea. I am not aware of this has been inspired by some other story or not, but the script surely scores a few brownie points. I wont say as far as saying that the plot, scriptor the screenplay are without flaws, but it definitely is a sincere attempt.Anupam Kher plays a character who suffers from a disease similar toAlzhiemer's disease, and manages to enact the role pretty well. His work is not monumental in any sense, and it definitely is not his best erformance. 'Saaraansh' and 'Daddy' were far more superior than this. But its surely a welcome change to see him in something other than slapstic after over a decade! Anupam Kher' body language is probably okay and his expressions fine, but he does not succeed in evoking much sympathy or tears. Although I could understand what was going on, and interested in knowing what happens next, I never ever felt that pull at the strings of my emotions. And thats where I think he failed! Though comparisons are unfair, I cannot forget the splendid work done by Dame Judi Dench in her Oscar nominated role of 'Iris', who alsohappens to be an Alzhiemer's patient. I cried while watching themovie, and a couple of hours after that as well. Anupam Kher's performance, in that sense, seems somewhat shallow - good, but surely not brilliant! After all, tugging at his hair, looking at wierd angles and crying like a kid doesnt necessarily translate into fine acting! But he is not alone to blame. A lot of this could have been avoided ifhe had better make up, ad less perfect clothes all the time. He lookstoo prim and proper (in some scenes) to be taken as seriously suffering from a syndrome like this. And his voice seems to defy his anguish and suffering too! But, once again, I must re-iterate that Anupam Kher is just under-utilized and could have delivered a much better performance, given the screenplay and direction did more than what they have managed to do.
Urmila Matondkar, who plays the daughter of Anupam Kher in the movie,also delivers as per the role demands. Well, almost. For one, Urmila comes across as a method actress, with a lot of her facial expressions seen too many times already in many movies. Not to say that she is a bad actress or anything, but her repertoire of expressions sometimes looks limited. Irrespective of the fact, she does stand out in thecast of the film. Her role is perhaps the best in terms of character sketch. And she plays it with conviction, and really impresses in a few sequences. Her makeup and costumes seem a bit too loud, and make up too perfect, but I wont complain too much about that. Her anger, helplessness, fatigue, duty and guilt are portrayed very well and one could try to ignore these more 'technical' aspects. Among other artists, Parvin Dabas, Waheeda Rehman, Prem Chopra are all really not needed. Any junior artist could have played those roles as well. Addyas Urmila's brother is good, but Rajit Kapoor seems like a "perfect miscast" in his role!
Many a sequences show that the director Jahnu Barua is a very capable director. He definitely has a very easy narrative and deserves applause for the sensitive handling of the film, without being melodramatic or preachy. But his offering sometimes seems to have gaps and loopholes that do make you wonder WHY? or HOW? The director also misses out on the climax - the point of the movie which actually forms the crux of what the film is all about! But that impact, though noticeable, does not linger on. The way the climax is brought about seems somewhat unripe or premature. But what is said and conveyed is actually very valid and very impressive. Who killed Gandhi? Was it Nathuram Godse? No, it was not. Nathuram only killed a man, a body! But the spirit of Gandhi is killed everyday by every Indian in morethan one way. What has Gandhi been reduced to - just a couple of national holidays and occasions to unfurl a flag or shower some flower petals on his grave? The Father of the Nation adorning all currency notes! What does Gandhi, if anything, mean in today's India? WHAT?... This and many more questions are raised in the film, and it iswhere that the film and the filmmaker score. Barua is a welcome addition to the bevy of new directors that are making their mark in tinsel town, but he needs more experience and maturity to do complete justice to films like Maine Gandhi ko Nahin Mara!On the whole, the concept is appealing, the script fresh and interesting and the performances competent. Yet it is not a masterpiece. Those who love alternatives to the usual corny cocktails that Bollywood serves would surely like the experience.
April 15, 2006
Viruddh: Movie Review
Rating: **1/2
Mahesh Manjarekar has given us two very good movies in recent memory - Astitva (which happens to be one of my favorites) and Vaastav (Sanjay Dutt's second claim to fame) - in that order. And after watching the latter, I was happy that Bollywood has another talented director added to its dwindling list of such names. My happiness was however shattered by a deluge of non-sensical films from Mr Manjarekar - including the likes of Pran Jaye Par Shaan Na Jaaye, Hathyar and Padamshree Laloo Prasad Yadav. With the exception of a rare Tera Mera Saath Rahe (Ajay Devgan), I rarely saw his brilliance again. It was an utter disappointment. And then came Viruddh, coproduced by AB Corp Private Limited. And surely, The director is back in form. Although I would not rate this movie as his best creation, it is very reminiscent of what he promised in Astitva and Vaastav.
The story involves a happy family, with parents Amitabh and Sarmila and their son John Abrahim, who plays the sutradhaar of the film. People have likened it to Saaransh, but I dont think that there is any similarity other than the old parents losing their only son to death. I would give merit to Mahesh manjarekar for coming up with novelty in the idea, but the script lets you down overall. The build up of the story is amazing, with the characters winning you over with their mirth and realistic portrayal. And you find yourself smiling as the characters talk and go about their lives. But the story tends to become jittery and unstable after John dies. A plot like this should cause your eyes to tear, your handkerchiefs to be drawn out of pockets (something that 'Saaransh' and the recent 'Dhoop' did marvellously well). But Viruddh just fails to do that. The pathos does not come across, though I did feel a lump in my throat in a few scenes. The climax is the biggest let down. The idea again ia good, but execution is poor. What could have been a really awesome finale seems to be as cliched as it gets. Really disappointing.
Relationships are tricky, especially when they have to be portrayed realistically on celluloid. But in this film, Mahesh hproves that he has the knack for doing that with ease. Unlike the recent Baghban, where Amitabh and Hema were shown romancing like idiots, this film captures the "chemistry" (and "physics" I would like to add) in a very subtle and natural way. When you see Amitabh and Sharmila Tagore on screen playing the old couple, you see a couple and not two film stars. Neither of them has been unnecessarily glamorised or overplayed. I could feel that they were a normal couple which you could see in any house. To be fair, I did find a few things a bit over the top, but on the whole, the direction held the characters in place. And it is this reason that I liked the movie.
Performance wise, I think John Abrahim does okay as the son and as the sutradhar. Anusha Dhandekar maker her debut in the movie and suits her character, though she overdoes her 'acting' at times. Sharmila Tagore is great as the mother and looks very dignified throughout the movie. I would like to see more of her in such good roles. She doesnt played the overaged dream girl and looks the character. Her hair color does not seem to be consistent in the movie, but thats a small error I think. Amitabh Bachchan delivers yet another very likeable performance after Black and Sarkar. He should do more such roles that have their roots in a good script. He is very down to earth, natural and very much someone who you could relate to. Not a larger than life character at all.
Technically, the film is just alright. Though the sets and art direction doesnt seem to be that great. The jail looks like a hotel resort and the bright yellow dhoti which Amitabh wears makes you shudder. The home where Amitabh and Sharmila live is another designer house - it would have helped to use less garish colors on the walls and some lesser perfection in the interiors and the decor. And the blatant publicity for Elf Engine Oil, Western Union Bank, Nerolac Paints, and so many more seems awkward at times.
Anyhow, I would still recommend people to see the film, given that it is a sincere attempt with a half decent script and screenplay, with some very enjoyable moments in the film's first half.
Mahesh Manjarekar has given us two very good movies in recent memory - Astitva (which happens to be one of my favorites) and Vaastav (Sanjay Dutt's second claim to fame) - in that order. And after watching the latter, I was happy that Bollywood has another talented director added to its dwindling list of such names. My happiness was however shattered by a deluge of non-sensical films from Mr Manjarekar - including the likes of Pran Jaye Par Shaan Na Jaaye, Hathyar and Padamshree Laloo Prasad Yadav. With the exception of a rare Tera Mera Saath Rahe (Ajay Devgan), I rarely saw his brilliance again. It was an utter disappointment. And then came Viruddh, coproduced by AB Corp Private Limited. And surely, The director is back in form. Although I would not rate this movie as his best creation, it is very reminiscent of what he promised in Astitva and Vaastav.
The story involves a happy family, with parents Amitabh and Sarmila and their son John Abrahim, who plays the sutradhaar of the film. People have likened it to Saaransh, but I dont think that there is any similarity other than the old parents losing their only son to death. I would give merit to Mahesh manjarekar for coming up with novelty in the idea, but the script lets you down overall. The build up of the story is amazing, with the characters winning you over with their mirth and realistic portrayal. And you find yourself smiling as the characters talk and go about their lives. But the story tends to become jittery and unstable after John dies. A plot like this should cause your eyes to tear, your handkerchiefs to be drawn out of pockets (something that 'Saaransh' and the recent 'Dhoop' did marvellously well). But Viruddh just fails to do that. The pathos does not come across, though I did feel a lump in my throat in a few scenes. The climax is the biggest let down. The idea again ia good, but execution is poor. What could have been a really awesome finale seems to be as cliched as it gets. Really disappointing.
Relationships are tricky, especially when they have to be portrayed realistically on celluloid. But in this film, Mahesh hproves that he has the knack for doing that with ease. Unlike the recent Baghban, where Amitabh and Hema were shown romancing like idiots, this film captures the "chemistry" (and "physics" I would like to add) in a very subtle and natural way. When you see Amitabh and Sharmila Tagore on screen playing the old couple, you see a couple and not two film stars. Neither of them has been unnecessarily glamorised or overplayed. I could feel that they were a normal couple which you could see in any house. To be fair, I did find a few things a bit over the top, but on the whole, the direction held the characters in place. And it is this reason that I liked the movie.
Performance wise, I think John Abrahim does okay as the son and as the sutradhar. Anusha Dhandekar maker her debut in the movie and suits her character, though she overdoes her 'acting' at times. Sharmila Tagore is great as the mother and looks very dignified throughout the movie. I would like to see more of her in such good roles. She doesnt played the overaged dream girl and looks the character. Her hair color does not seem to be consistent in the movie, but thats a small error I think. Amitabh Bachchan delivers yet another very likeable performance after Black and Sarkar. He should do more such roles that have their roots in a good script. He is very down to earth, natural and very much someone who you could relate to. Not a larger than life character at all.
Technically, the film is just alright. Though the sets and art direction doesnt seem to be that great. The jail looks like a hotel resort and the bright yellow dhoti which Amitabh wears makes you shudder. The home where Amitabh and Sharmila live is another designer house - it would have helped to use less garish colors on the walls and some lesser perfection in the interiors and the decor. And the blatant publicity for Elf Engine Oil, Western Union Bank, Nerolac Paints, and so many more seems awkward at times.
Anyhow, I would still recommend people to see the film, given that it is a sincere attempt with a half decent script and screenplay, with some very enjoyable moments in the film's first half.
April 14, 2006
Mangal Pandey - The Rising: Movie Review
Rating: **
When Aamir Khan acts in a film, there are expectations! When Ketan Mehta dons the mantle of the director of a film, there are expectations (remember Kabhie Haan Kabhie Na - one of Shahrukh Khan'sbest films to date)! When A.R. Rehman scores music for a period film,there are expectations (remember Lagaan, inarguably Rahman's most soulful compositions)! When some film takes four years to complete,there are even more expectations. When someone spends Rs 32 crores ona film, there are expectations. And 'Mangal Pandey - The Rising' (will refer to the film as MP-TR for sake of convenience) lets you down on almost all fronts. However unpleasant this may sound to all us Aamir Khan fans, but this time around, his choice of project has been more or less a disaster.The movie is based on a historical character of gargantuan importance in India's freedom struggle. 1857 marks a very important year in Indian history. The fact that the struggle of Mangal Pandey against the East India Company ignited the first sparks of freedom movement all over India is awe-inspiring. And when you go to watch a movie based on characters and incidents of such importance, one thing that you would most definitely want to feel is a heavy rush of patriotism and inspiration. Yes, 'inspired' is something I wanted to feel when I total disappointment. The film totally misses the target, and by a huge margin. Not even once do I empathise with any character of the film, if you leave alone Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan) and Captain Gordon (Toby Stephens). I excluded these two principal characters for the prime reason that they do evoke some emotions 'intermittently'. The fault is not with the actors though. It is a directorial disaster forsuch a shabby handling of what could have been a truly great film. Based on what I have read, there are not many historical records or annals that document what exactly happened during the uprising byMangal Pandey against the British. Who he was, what his life was like,what kind of a person he was, his family or fiancee, or anything else.To make a three hour long movie based on such a character whose life is known to you just in form of one solitary incident (irrespective ofhow important that incident might have been) would have been a challenge for anyone. But the fact that a decision was made to do so was made automatically endowed the producers to 'weave' those remaining pieces of story around the core. And the script writers seem to have gone somewhat beserk while doing the same. They tried to patch several pieces of different jigsaw puzzles together to create one mosaic, and the effect is 'jarring'. For instance, the characters played by Rani Mukherjee (Heera) and Amisha Patel (Jwala) were completely irrelevant to the complete plot.
Cliches are aplenty in the film - gori chamdee and kali chamdee, the maang-bharo-sajna scene in jail, the horse riding and revenge seeking flashes of Heera (in a turban and punjabi dhoti), the Holi song, the dosti - trust - betrayal, the dance in the English parties, theuntouchability angle, and the list goes on.
The songs are another fiasco. Except for the 'Mangal Mangal' track, placement of the songs too. The kothe wala song (picturised on a somewhat over-exposed, yet beautiful looking Rani), the Holi song and worst of them all, the one picturised on some banjara women... The last of these songs deserve soem special mention - the two principal dancers in the song dance like an overtly gay couple with all touching and oomphing and slithering in an obnoxious manner, and one wonders how and when those women, clearly from Rajasthan, appeared in Bengal where the movie is set! Just atrocious. The 'Mangal Mangal' track alsok eeps popping up here and there without warning. The men on the elephant backs just strom into the scene without any rhyme or reason.Worst part is when they break into a seemingly happy song immediately in the scene next to Mangal Pandey's public hanging (from where hislove Heera is surprisingly missing, specially after she has \'got hermaang filled with sindoor from him in the jail). Aamir Khan does well in his role as the protagonist, but the script does no justice to his character. There is absulutely no depth in his chancaterisation - it is very sketchy and vague. You dont know Mangal Pandey better as a person more than how well you knew him before walking into the theater. A big let down. And Aamir Khan seriously hould have worked harder on getting the script into place rather than obsessing about his hair and moustache. Not sure how much value they added to the film. Aamir is a great actor, but he can deliver onlywhen there is some meat in the script. The other principal character Captain Gordon (played by Toby Stephens) is much more likeable and better written. And the actor does a very good job of it, and his dialogue delivery in Hindi is not bad at all. He comes up with a brave performance, although in some scenes he looks somewhat stilted. But Iwont blame himt oo much given that he is acting in a foreign medium." His angle with Amisha Patel was though totally uncalled for. Theinterplay of emotions between Gordon and Mangal Pandey is very poorlywritten and could have been the strongest point of the film.
Rani Mukherjee plays her part well, although she has too many prototypes to follow in playing her part. No novelty in what she did,and seriously, one could have done without that uncalled for exposure on her part. Seemed really forced and out of place, and in not very good taste either. She does look well and emotes well in her few scenes, but that does not justify her being there in the first place.
About Amisha Patel, the less said the better. She should seriously think about quitting films and making better of her talent in economics (not many know that she is a gold medalist in economy from Tufts University, USA). In one word, she was 'horrendous' - she just can not act. MP-TR does not need heavy emoting from her, yet she successfully shows that she can overact (again!). I wonder why at some point of time Aishwarya Rai had accepted such a ridiculous role in thefilm at all!
The sets are not impressive either. The 32 crores that have been spent (7 crores allegedly taken by Aaamir as his fee) are not 'visible' anywhere. It is claimed that the uniforms of all soldiers were specially stictched - a wasteful expense if the clains are true. Because it would have done equally well if they rented uniforms fromsome wedding bands. The podium where the generals stand and give orders seemed like was built yesterday - surely not something that avillage would ever have. The village, the villagers are still okay,but nothing what Lagaan could create. The authenticity does not transpire from the scenes. Special effects are not used wisely, andused very sparingly. Worst of all, the most important incident - the so called 'Rising' - is so inanely shown that I almost laughed. It looks so insignificant - really. It looks trivial, and something so uninspired that it is hard to accept that something like that inspired the whole India to struggle for independence.
Overall, as everyone would have guessed, I would not recommend this movie to people. There are a very few good things about the movie. ButI am being somewhat harsher than I usually am, given the fact that the expectations from the fil were really sky high!
You could watch it for being an Aamir Khan fan. I see no other reason to do so!
When Aamir Khan acts in a film, there are expectations! When Ketan Mehta dons the mantle of the director of a film, there are expectations (remember Kabhie Haan Kabhie Na - one of Shahrukh Khan'sbest films to date)! When A.R. Rehman scores music for a period film,there are expectations (remember Lagaan, inarguably Rahman's most soulful compositions)! When some film takes four years to complete,there are even more expectations. When someone spends Rs 32 crores ona film, there are expectations. And 'Mangal Pandey - The Rising' (will refer to the film as MP-TR for sake of convenience) lets you down on almost all fronts. However unpleasant this may sound to all us Aamir Khan fans, but this time around, his choice of project has been more or less a disaster.The movie is based on a historical character of gargantuan importance in India's freedom struggle. 1857 marks a very important year in Indian history. The fact that the struggle of Mangal Pandey against the East India Company ignited the first sparks of freedom movement all over India is awe-inspiring. And when you go to watch a movie based on characters and incidents of such importance, one thing that you would most definitely want to feel is a heavy rush of patriotism and inspiration. Yes, 'inspired' is something I wanted to feel when I total disappointment. The film totally misses the target, and by a huge margin. Not even once do I empathise with any character of the film, if you leave alone Mangal Pandey (Aamir Khan) and Captain Gordon (Toby Stephens). I excluded these two principal characters for the prime reason that they do evoke some emotions 'intermittently'. The fault is not with the actors though. It is a directorial disaster forsuch a shabby handling of what could have been a truly great film. Based on what I have read, there are not many historical records or annals that document what exactly happened during the uprising byMangal Pandey against the British. Who he was, what his life was like,what kind of a person he was, his family or fiancee, or anything else.To make a three hour long movie based on such a character whose life is known to you just in form of one solitary incident (irrespective ofhow important that incident might have been) would have been a challenge for anyone. But the fact that a decision was made to do so was made automatically endowed the producers to 'weave' those remaining pieces of story around the core. And the script writers seem to have gone somewhat beserk while doing the same. They tried to patch several pieces of different jigsaw puzzles together to create one mosaic, and the effect is 'jarring'. For instance, the characters played by Rani Mukherjee (Heera) and Amisha Patel (Jwala) were completely irrelevant to the complete plot.
Cliches are aplenty in the film - gori chamdee and kali chamdee, the maang-bharo-sajna scene in jail, the horse riding and revenge seeking flashes of Heera (in a turban and punjabi dhoti), the Holi song, the dosti - trust - betrayal, the dance in the English parties, theuntouchability angle, and the list goes on.
The songs are another fiasco. Except for the 'Mangal Mangal' track, placement of the songs too. The kothe wala song (picturised on a somewhat over-exposed, yet beautiful looking Rani), the Holi song and worst of them all, the one picturised on some banjara women... The last of these songs deserve soem special mention - the two principal dancers in the song dance like an overtly gay couple with all touching and oomphing and slithering in an obnoxious manner, and one wonders how and when those women, clearly from Rajasthan, appeared in Bengal where the movie is set! Just atrocious. The 'Mangal Mangal' track alsok eeps popping up here and there without warning. The men on the elephant backs just strom into the scene without any rhyme or reason.Worst part is when they break into a seemingly happy song immediately in the scene next to Mangal Pandey's public hanging (from where hislove Heera is surprisingly missing, specially after she has \'got hermaang filled with sindoor from him in the jail). Aamir Khan does well in his role as the protagonist, but the script does no justice to his character. There is absulutely no depth in his chancaterisation - it is very sketchy and vague. You dont know Mangal Pandey better as a person more than how well you knew him before walking into the theater. A big let down. And Aamir Khan seriously hould have worked harder on getting the script into place rather than obsessing about his hair and moustache. Not sure how much value they added to the film. Aamir is a great actor, but he can deliver onlywhen there is some meat in the script. The other principal character Captain Gordon (played by Toby Stephens) is much more likeable and better written. And the actor does a very good job of it, and his dialogue delivery in Hindi is not bad at all. He comes up with a brave performance, although in some scenes he looks somewhat stilted. But Iwont blame himt oo much given that he is acting in a foreign medium." His angle with Amisha Patel was though totally uncalled for. Theinterplay of emotions between Gordon and Mangal Pandey is very poorlywritten and could have been the strongest point of the film.
Rani Mukherjee plays her part well, although she has too many prototypes to follow in playing her part. No novelty in what she did,and seriously, one could have done without that uncalled for exposure on her part. Seemed really forced and out of place, and in not very good taste either. She does look well and emotes well in her few scenes, but that does not justify her being there in the first place.
About Amisha Patel, the less said the better. She should seriously think about quitting films and making better of her talent in economics (not many know that she is a gold medalist in economy from Tufts University, USA). In one word, she was 'horrendous' - she just can not act. MP-TR does not need heavy emoting from her, yet she successfully shows that she can overact (again!). I wonder why at some point of time Aishwarya Rai had accepted such a ridiculous role in thefilm at all!
The sets are not impressive either. The 32 crores that have been spent (7 crores allegedly taken by Aaamir as his fee) are not 'visible' anywhere. It is claimed that the uniforms of all soldiers were specially stictched - a wasteful expense if the clains are true. Because it would have done equally well if they rented uniforms fromsome wedding bands. The podium where the generals stand and give orders seemed like was built yesterday - surely not something that avillage would ever have. The village, the villagers are still okay,but nothing what Lagaan could create. The authenticity does not transpire from the scenes. Special effects are not used wisely, andused very sparingly. Worst of all, the most important incident - the so called 'Rising' - is so inanely shown that I almost laughed. It looks so insignificant - really. It looks trivial, and something so uninspired that it is hard to accept that something like that inspired the whole India to struggle for independence.
Overall, as everyone would have guessed, I would not recommend this movie to people. There are a very few good things about the movie. ButI am being somewhat harsher than I usually am, given the fact that the expectations from the fil were really sky high!
You could watch it for being an Aamir Khan fan. I see no other reason to do so!
March 11, 2006
Iqbal: Movie Review
Rating: ****1/2
Nagesg Kukkunoor - the name deserves a mention before I start with my review of his new movie Iqbal. An ex-engineer and a terrific filmmaker. He has made five films so far - Hyderbad Blues, Rockford, Bolllywood Calling, Teen Deewarein and Hyderabad Blues II. Iqbal is his sixtn directorial venture. Worth mentioning is the fact that he usually writes the story of almost all of his films himself besides directing it. And I think thats the reason why his characterization and direction is so much more effective. And without doubt, I have seen all his films (with the exception of HB II), and loved them all. Interestingly, except for the HBI and HB II series, he has not repeated any story ideas. All his films have a unique theme, some distint identity of their own, not only amongst themselves, but wven when you compare these across all the films that are made in Bollywood.
Iqbal is a story about a simple village boy called Iqbal, played by the newcomer Shreyas Talpade. He is a deaf and mute guy whose life begins and ends on cricket. And his dream is to play for the Indian team one day. An excellent bowler and a dedicated individual, this film narrates for us his journey towards his dreams. As aptly stated in the film's publicity slogans, it is a film 'beyond cricket'. And I could not agree more. It really is. It is a film about human spirit, about dreams and about making them come true. Now something like that could get really melodramatic or prophetic. But Nagesh has managed to completely steer clear of either. His direction is so very sophisticated and yet so simple that you never feel that yu are watching actors playing parts of some characters. rather you feel that you are watching real people and almost as if you are in the village with them. Nagesh's last film Teen Deewarein has already proven beyond doubt how an amazing storyteller he is. Iqbal does nothing but reaffirm my faith in him. The director, and more so the writer in him is in stupendous form this time as well. Kudos to him for writing such a wonderfully simple but beautiful story. I wish there were more like him in the Indian film industry.
Shreyas who plays the protagonist Iqbal, is a very good actor. Mostly underplaying his emotions, emoting a lot through his eyes and face, he is a pure delight to watch. Rani Mukherjee played a deaf and dumb character in Black recently and got all the media attention for her portrayal. Well, although I admired her performance, having watched Shreyas in a similar role, I would say that this actor has clearly outdone Rani. While the actress looked too theatrical and overdoing her bits of sign language, Shreyas puts in such a performance that made me wonder if he really was deaf and mute. Simply amazing. Not only that, his body language, his demeanour, his whole personna seems so very believable. Not even once did I feel that he was acting. And thats what actual talent is about. I sincerely hope that he gets the right roles henceforth, and does great cinema for years to come. Contrast him with the new breed of 'actors' ranging from Mohit Ahlawat (Ram Gopal Verma's find in James), Emran Hasmi (the eternal sex maniac), Zayed Khan (the so called hot rising khan) and a whole bevy of them - and you will see the difference.
Its not only Shreyas who is wonderful, but Nasseruddin Shah is just fabulous in his portrayal of a drunkard. Without disclosing what role he plays in Iqbal reaching his goal, I must say that this is one actor who never ceases to amaze me. He is so believable and so authentic in hos he walks and talks and sleeps and laughs and smiles or shouts that you instantly connect to him onscreen. Simply awesome. And the role does full justice to him as well. Its not a half baked script that he has to abide by. The director has done his homework, and so the actors have a gala time enacting the script out, and the results cleary show for everyone to behold.
Although the film has these two principal characters, the role played by Shweta Prasad (who played a role in Vishal Bharadwaj's 'Makdee' a couple of years back), Iqbal's sister, is not less important or impressive. In some sense, she is the voice of Iqbal. Her unselfish and pure love for his elder brother, her deep concern for him attaining his gaols, her undying faith in her brother and her total understanding for him without ever exchanging a single word with her is just brilliant. She is so infectious and likeable that I doubt anyone who watches the movie would stay unaffected by her charm. She plays a 14-15 year old girl, does so perfectly and arouses such emotions that I would not thin for most 'child-artists' to bring out. I am so glad that her role is written logically, unlike most films where children are either shown be to so dumb (that you wonder 'are there children like that?') or so extra smart for their age (that makes you shudder at the thought of ever having such kids of your own). Amongst other characters, all the rest of the supporting cast has also put in very natural performances.
In terms of art direction, sets and costumes, there is not much to talk about. the film does not boast of grand sets like Devdas or special effects like Dus or weird camera work like most TV soap operas and films these days. It is a simple story, told in a simple manner. The fim is shot in an actual village and stays true to the spirit of the story. Not glamourization and no item songs either. The music of the film is so very appropriate that one has to say - "hats-off". The music will charge you up, and is so in keeping with the theme of the film. Very apt. All ths songs are relegated to the background, and thats a welcome break. Thank god Iqbal does not have a crush on some village belle that he thinks about serenading in Swiss Alps croning a Sonu nigam number!
One would think that a movie on a subject like this would be slow paced and dull, almost gloomy (like Black, Khamoshi, etc). But wonderfully enough, it is just the opposite. It is a joy ride from the start till the very end. The gamut of emotions that you go through do involve some amount of grief for Iqbal, especially when he fails or falters somewhere. But the experience does not end there. It is a very positive, very optimistic and a very jubiliant mood that you leave the theater with. Its the story of victory of the human spirit over fate or destiny which people decide for themselves in most cases. Its the story about not conforming to stereotypes. Its a story about not taking things lying down, not bending your back for the destiny to ride on, but about standing upright and taking all challenges in your won stride. As Paulo Coehlo aptly stated in his book 'The Alchemist' (also quoted in the film'), "If you decide to follow your dreams, the whole world conspires to help to make them come true".
Needless to say, Iqbal was the best film I have seen in a long time. Its a must watch for everyone. Your love for cricket has nothing to do with it. You love cricket or hate cricket - love Hindi movies or hate them - this is one you MUST NOT MISS.
Nagesg Kukkunoor - the name deserves a mention before I start with my review of his new movie Iqbal. An ex-engineer and a terrific filmmaker. He has made five films so far - Hyderbad Blues, Rockford, Bolllywood Calling, Teen Deewarein and Hyderabad Blues II. Iqbal is his sixtn directorial venture. Worth mentioning is the fact that he usually writes the story of almost all of his films himself besides directing it. And I think thats the reason why his characterization and direction is so much more effective. And without doubt, I have seen all his films (with the exception of HB II), and loved them all. Interestingly, except for the HBI and HB II series, he has not repeated any story ideas. All his films have a unique theme, some distint identity of their own, not only amongst themselves, but wven when you compare these across all the films that are made in Bollywood.
Iqbal is a story about a simple village boy called Iqbal, played by the newcomer Shreyas Talpade. He is a deaf and mute guy whose life begins and ends on cricket. And his dream is to play for the Indian team one day. An excellent bowler and a dedicated individual, this film narrates for us his journey towards his dreams. As aptly stated in the film's publicity slogans, it is a film 'beyond cricket'. And I could not agree more. It really is. It is a film about human spirit, about dreams and about making them come true. Now something like that could get really melodramatic or prophetic. But Nagesh has managed to completely steer clear of either. His direction is so very sophisticated and yet so simple that you never feel that yu are watching actors playing parts of some characters. rather you feel that you are watching real people and almost as if you are in the village with them. Nagesh's last film Teen Deewarein has already proven beyond doubt how an amazing storyteller he is. Iqbal does nothing but reaffirm my faith in him. The director, and more so the writer in him is in stupendous form this time as well. Kudos to him for writing such a wonderfully simple but beautiful story. I wish there were more like him in the Indian film industry.
Shreyas who plays the protagonist Iqbal, is a very good actor. Mostly underplaying his emotions, emoting a lot through his eyes and face, he is a pure delight to watch. Rani Mukherjee played a deaf and dumb character in Black recently and got all the media attention for her portrayal. Well, although I admired her performance, having watched Shreyas in a similar role, I would say that this actor has clearly outdone Rani. While the actress looked too theatrical and overdoing her bits of sign language, Shreyas puts in such a performance that made me wonder if he really was deaf and mute. Simply amazing. Not only that, his body language, his demeanour, his whole personna seems so very believable. Not even once did I feel that he was acting. And thats what actual talent is about. I sincerely hope that he gets the right roles henceforth, and does great cinema for years to come. Contrast him with the new breed of 'actors' ranging from Mohit Ahlawat (Ram Gopal Verma's find in James), Emran Hasmi (the eternal sex maniac), Zayed Khan (the so called hot rising khan) and a whole bevy of them - and you will see the difference.
Its not only Shreyas who is wonderful, but Nasseruddin Shah is just fabulous in his portrayal of a drunkard. Without disclosing what role he plays in Iqbal reaching his goal, I must say that this is one actor who never ceases to amaze me. He is so believable and so authentic in hos he walks and talks and sleeps and laughs and smiles or shouts that you instantly connect to him onscreen. Simply awesome. And the role does full justice to him as well. Its not a half baked script that he has to abide by. The director has done his homework, and so the actors have a gala time enacting the script out, and the results cleary show for everyone to behold.
Although the film has these two principal characters, the role played by Shweta Prasad (who played a role in Vishal Bharadwaj's 'Makdee' a couple of years back), Iqbal's sister, is not less important or impressive. In some sense, she is the voice of Iqbal. Her unselfish and pure love for his elder brother, her deep concern for him attaining his gaols, her undying faith in her brother and her total understanding for him without ever exchanging a single word with her is just brilliant. She is so infectious and likeable that I doubt anyone who watches the movie would stay unaffected by her charm. She plays a 14-15 year old girl, does so perfectly and arouses such emotions that I would not thin for most 'child-artists' to bring out. I am so glad that her role is written logically, unlike most films where children are either shown be to so dumb (that you wonder 'are there children like that?') or so extra smart for their age (that makes you shudder at the thought of ever having such kids of your own). Amongst other characters, all the rest of the supporting cast has also put in very natural performances.
In terms of art direction, sets and costumes, there is not much to talk about. the film does not boast of grand sets like Devdas or special effects like Dus or weird camera work like most TV soap operas and films these days. It is a simple story, told in a simple manner. The fim is shot in an actual village and stays true to the spirit of the story. Not glamourization and no item songs either. The music of the film is so very appropriate that one has to say - "hats-off". The music will charge you up, and is so in keeping with the theme of the film. Very apt. All ths songs are relegated to the background, and thats a welcome break. Thank god Iqbal does not have a crush on some village belle that he thinks about serenading in Swiss Alps croning a Sonu nigam number!
One would think that a movie on a subject like this would be slow paced and dull, almost gloomy (like Black, Khamoshi, etc). But wonderfully enough, it is just the opposite. It is a joy ride from the start till the very end. The gamut of emotions that you go through do involve some amount of grief for Iqbal, especially when he fails or falters somewhere. But the experience does not end there. It is a very positive, very optimistic and a very jubiliant mood that you leave the theater with. Its the story of victory of the human spirit over fate or destiny which people decide for themselves in most cases. Its the story about not conforming to stereotypes. Its a story about not taking things lying down, not bending your back for the destiny to ride on, but about standing upright and taking all challenges in your won stride. As Paulo Coehlo aptly stated in his book 'The Alchemist' (also quoted in the film'), "If you decide to follow your dreams, the whole world conspires to help to make them come true".
Needless to say, Iqbal was the best film I have seen in a long time. Its a must watch for everyone. Your love for cricket has nothing to do with it. You love cricket or hate cricket - love Hindi movies or hate them - this is one you MUST NOT MISS.
February 21, 2006
Sarkar: Movie Review
Rating: ***
A lot has been written about Sarkar, Ram Gopal Verma's dream project. About connections of the film with Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackerey, and about how the father son duo of AB Senior and AB junior are working together. And of course about the adaptation of Mario Puzo's acclaimed bestselling novel The Godfather. Well, I think that there has been too much of talking without anyone actually fairly reviewing this movie as a movie - not as a dream or an adaptation. And I hope to do so now.
To be honest, I liked the movie. Yes, I did. But I didnt love it. It definitely has the RGV stamp and grooming, and I would say it is much better than some of RGV's latest projects like Naach. Technically, the film is awesome, and the shots have been called in a manner that is not very typical. Innovative camera angles and amazing sense of lighting and shadows is superb. The background music and chanting of "Govinda Govinda" is used very effectively. Although, at points the use of sitar in the background somehow doesnt gel too well with whats happening in the frame. The setting of the movie is well chosen, and the haveli that RGV has used looks very authentic and well chosen. Costumes and make up suit the setting and ambience. RGV has used mostly black, grey, white and rather earthy shaed in most of the movie, and that sets the mood for this film very aptly. There are no songs and the editing is very crisp. The fact that the movie is less than 2.5 hrs is also a welcome change. All in all, I would say that the movie is technically near its best.
Let us now talk about the characters. They are very well defined and casting is very convincing. Amitabh Bachchan has once again, given a restrained performance after his recent role in Black. And he does a very good job at playing this role. The camera mostly focusses on the faces and eyes of most characters in the movie, and that makes it very very important that everyone delivers a good performance. And indeed, everyone does. To my surprise, even Katrina Kaif does a pretty decent job of her small role (not to mention the loud whistles every time she came on the screen). Tanisha seems okay and quite likable in her role, though the way her dialogues were written didnt impress me. Supriya Pathak looks every bit a marathi housewife, with serene and uncomplaining eyes. A typical mother (NO, not a typical Bollywood mother, but a real life mother). Rukhsaar, playing Kay Kay's wife doesnt get any scope to act at all. Abhishek Bachchan delivers in yet another good role, although he isnt quite as impressive as he was in Yuva. But his fan following is definitely going to increase after this role. And last but not the least, Kay Kay is the scene stealer in the movie. Playing the elder son of Sarkar, he imbues his role with such emotion that it almost pours out of the screen. And in the real close ups with just his face or eyes in the entire frame, you can see what a marvellous actor he is.
So far so good! But it is not that rosy a picture after all... Although Sarkar has everything going for it, I think there are some things that go to make it less than phenomenal. Some of them are probably to subtle to explain in words. But it feels that RGV has used some sterotypes in his film that he has used in most of his gangster or underworld movies. The dilemma of Abhishek Bacchan when he decides between going back to America and helping out his father could have been focussed more on. Amitabh's character, Sarkar, is unnecessarily shown to be too-white - meaning that he is shown as a do gooder to people and not doing any evil deals against the people or the country... though there is a mention of his illegal activities, but not even one instance of that is shown. I would have preferred a picture that was more grey than Colgate white. Besides, the revenge of Abhishek Bacchan on his father's enemies is shown so fast and rapid that the impact doesnt register. Particularly, how Abhishek manmages to know who the kingpin in the whole enemy gang is beyond me! RGV has certainly tried to make a quality product, and I would also say that he succeeds to a certain extent. But to call this another Godfather would be a mistake. The characters are not as strong and the whole movie does not have the kind of impact The Godfather had. Actually, the two are so different, that we must actually not even try to compare the two. And yes, there is no resemblamce between Sarkar and Bal Thackerey except for the rosary beads that Sarkar carries all the time.
A good film and well directed venture. Worth a see!
A lot has been written about Sarkar, Ram Gopal Verma's dream project. About connections of the film with Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackerey, and about how the father son duo of AB Senior and AB junior are working together. And of course about the adaptation of Mario Puzo's acclaimed bestselling novel The Godfather. Well, I think that there has been too much of talking without anyone actually fairly reviewing this movie as a movie - not as a dream or an adaptation. And I hope to do so now.
To be honest, I liked the movie. Yes, I did. But I didnt love it. It definitely has the RGV stamp and grooming, and I would say it is much better than some of RGV's latest projects like Naach. Technically, the film is awesome, and the shots have been called in a manner that is not very typical. Innovative camera angles and amazing sense of lighting and shadows is superb. The background music and chanting of "Govinda Govinda" is used very effectively. Although, at points the use of sitar in the background somehow doesnt gel too well with whats happening in the frame. The setting of the movie is well chosen, and the haveli that RGV has used looks very authentic and well chosen. Costumes and make up suit the setting and ambience. RGV has used mostly black, grey, white and rather earthy shaed in most of the movie, and that sets the mood for this film very aptly. There are no songs and the editing is very crisp. The fact that the movie is less than 2.5 hrs is also a welcome change. All in all, I would say that the movie is technically near its best.
Let us now talk about the characters. They are very well defined and casting is very convincing. Amitabh Bachchan has once again, given a restrained performance after his recent role in Black. And he does a very good job at playing this role. The camera mostly focusses on the faces and eyes of most characters in the movie, and that makes it very very important that everyone delivers a good performance. And indeed, everyone does. To my surprise, even Katrina Kaif does a pretty decent job of her small role (not to mention the loud whistles every time she came on the screen). Tanisha seems okay and quite likable in her role, though the way her dialogues were written didnt impress me. Supriya Pathak looks every bit a marathi housewife, with serene and uncomplaining eyes. A typical mother (NO, not a typical Bollywood mother, but a real life mother). Rukhsaar, playing Kay Kay's wife doesnt get any scope to act at all. Abhishek Bachchan delivers in yet another good role, although he isnt quite as impressive as he was in Yuva. But his fan following is definitely going to increase after this role. And last but not the least, Kay Kay is the scene stealer in the movie. Playing the elder son of Sarkar, he imbues his role with such emotion that it almost pours out of the screen. And in the real close ups with just his face or eyes in the entire frame, you can see what a marvellous actor he is.
So far so good! But it is not that rosy a picture after all... Although Sarkar has everything going for it, I think there are some things that go to make it less than phenomenal. Some of them are probably to subtle to explain in words. But it feels that RGV has used some sterotypes in his film that he has used in most of his gangster or underworld movies. The dilemma of Abhishek Bacchan when he decides between going back to America and helping out his father could have been focussed more on. Amitabh's character, Sarkar, is unnecessarily shown to be too-white - meaning that he is shown as a do gooder to people and not doing any evil deals against the people or the country... though there is a mention of his illegal activities, but not even one instance of that is shown. I would have preferred a picture that was more grey than Colgate white. Besides, the revenge of Abhishek Bacchan on his father's enemies is shown so fast and rapid that the impact doesnt register. Particularly, how Abhishek manmages to know who the kingpin in the whole enemy gang is beyond me! RGV has certainly tried to make a quality product, and I would also say that he succeeds to a certain extent. But to call this another Godfather would be a mistake. The characters are not as strong and the whole movie does not have the kind of impact The Godfather had. Actually, the two are so different, that we must actually not even try to compare the two. And yes, there is no resemblamce between Sarkar and Bal Thackerey except for the rosary beads that Sarkar carries all the time.
A good film and well directed venture. Worth a see!
February 08, 2006
Paheli: Movie Review
Rating: *
Although not exactly the Webster's definition for the word, Paheli literally translates to 'riddle'. And it stands true to its name. The million dollar question is 'How?'. And I would earnetsly try to answer the quesion here in this review.
This is a story about love - I know that you have heard this one before, but please be a bit more patient before you jump to any conclusions. Based on a famous Rajasthani folk tale 'Duvidha', this movie's story looked very promising at the very onset - not the usual la-la-hoo love story, but a more sensible and interesting one. After the previews, I expected nothing but an awesome movie. My hopes were however, completely quashed.
The film boasts of a mammoth star cast - Shahrukh 'The King' Khan and Bollywood's erstwhile numero uno Rani Mukherjee, not to mention the cameos by Amitabh Bachchan, Juhi Chawla and Sunil Shetty, and the narrators Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah. This film is the story of Lachi (Rani) and Kishna (Shah Rukh), the latter leaves her the night after wedding without having so much as touched her, Lachi is distressed, a ghost who in love with Lachi arrives to her in-laws' home in the guise of her husband, and expresses his love. So far so good!
Just about then, he reveals to her the truth. And just about then, the film also starts faltering, and there is no redemption till the very end of the film. Amol Palekar, a very experienced and critically acclaimed director is holding the directorial baton. But this time, he fails, and fails by a long margin. I would not say that the idea of a ghost and his muse in love is not interesting enough. No. But the director totally and utterly has missed the point! What could have been an engrossing story about love and relationships, about the moral dilemma of right and wrong, about individuality and society turns out to be a sheer disappointing potboiler.
The setting is supposed to be in Rajasthan - yet there is not even a single actor in the film who can speak Rajasthani without making a mockery of it. Just like adding an 'o' to all words does not turn Hindi into Bengali; Rajsthani is not just about making the 'n's in all words more nasal and glottal. I was not expecting a perfection la Meryl Streep - her near perfect adoption of Australian, British and Texan accents in her films - but the dialogue delivery in Paheli is just pathetic! Absolutely no homework has been put into training the actors how to look or feel the part.
Sharukh Khan proves yet again that King Kong can act better than King Khan. He is truly a revelation - a shocking one! Abyssmal would be my description of his entire presentation - he is evidently uncomfortable in the dhoti, has no body language to convey his emotions, has butchered the Rajasthani language to shreds and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity in his performance. Right from the first frame till the very end of the film, you see Shahrukh Khan and not Kishna - the husband or Kishna - the ghost. So different from his Mohan Bhargav act in Swades.
Rani Mukherjee, as always, looks very beautiful and lends some credibility to her part. But given the plot, a better characterization and control over the subtle nuances of the situation would have made all the difference. Here again, the director is entirely to blame.
One wonders why Amitabh Bachchan was added to play the role of the old shepherd. Not only was his presence unnecessary, but the part was too insignificant and inconsequential that it would hev been played by just anyone. Moreover, the character just seems too unwordly to make any sense in the already trouble enterprise that Paheli is. Likewise, Juhi Chawla and Suniel Shetty are completely out of place and have no significance in the entire movie whatsoever. Even if all their frames are edited out of the movie, the movie would remain just the same. Coming from the man who has given us amazing films in the past, not to fogret the recent Marathi film Anahat, this one is a huge disappointment. To the extent that great orators like Naseeruddin Shan and Ratna Pathak Shah sound jaded and fail to arouse either humor or emotion in the viewer.
The single * that I have given the movie is surely because of the visual treat that it was to see the colors of Rajsathan in their full glory. The costumes are vibrant and the art direction is surely a treat for the eyes. The songs are like a huge canvas of paintings that has been very aesthetically crafted. But the songs, though superbly shot, are far too many and appear everywhere in the movie out of nowhere. Although this time, they do bring relief from the other atrocities that the film inflicts on its viewers.
To conclude it all, Paheli is a great film to promote Rajasthan tourism. But why the director felt so strongly about the story to make it into a film remains a paheli to me. The whole controversy about Paheli being sent as India's entry for academy awards seems moot. The judgement is clear - Paheli doesnt have anything that would qualify it even for the roadside cine-awards in Matunga or Church Street, let alone the Academy Awards. The choices that our jury makes for official entries to Oscars are surely getting worse with each passing year. While an entry like Iqbal could have given us a respectable representation, Paheli makes sure that we definitely miss the bus this time, and make it difficult to catch it in the near future either!
Although not exactly the Webster's definition for the word, Paheli literally translates to 'riddle'. And it stands true to its name. The million dollar question is 'How?'. And I would earnetsly try to answer the quesion here in this review.
This is a story about love - I know that you have heard this one before, but please be a bit more patient before you jump to any conclusions. Based on a famous Rajasthani folk tale 'Duvidha', this movie's story looked very promising at the very onset - not the usual la-la-hoo love story, but a more sensible and interesting one. After the previews, I expected nothing but an awesome movie. My hopes were however, completely quashed.
The film boasts of a mammoth star cast - Shahrukh 'The King' Khan and Bollywood's erstwhile numero uno Rani Mukherjee, not to mention the cameos by Amitabh Bachchan, Juhi Chawla and Sunil Shetty, and the narrators Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah. This film is the story of Lachi (Rani) and Kishna (Shah Rukh), the latter leaves her the night after wedding without having so much as touched her, Lachi is distressed, a ghost who in love with Lachi arrives to her in-laws' home in the guise of her husband, and expresses his love. So far so good!
Just about then, he reveals to her the truth. And just about then, the film also starts faltering, and there is no redemption till the very end of the film. Amol Palekar, a very experienced and critically acclaimed director is holding the directorial baton. But this time, he fails, and fails by a long margin. I would not say that the idea of a ghost and his muse in love is not interesting enough. No. But the director totally and utterly has missed the point! What could have been an engrossing story about love and relationships, about the moral dilemma of right and wrong, about individuality and society turns out to be a sheer disappointing potboiler.
The setting is supposed to be in Rajasthan - yet there is not even a single actor in the film who can speak Rajasthani without making a mockery of it. Just like adding an 'o' to all words does not turn Hindi into Bengali; Rajsthani is not just about making the 'n's in all words more nasal and glottal. I was not expecting a perfection la Meryl Streep - her near perfect adoption of Australian, British and Texan accents in her films - but the dialogue delivery in Paheli is just pathetic! Absolutely no homework has been put into training the actors how to look or feel the part.
Sharukh Khan proves yet again that King Kong can act better than King Khan. He is truly a revelation - a shocking one! Abyssmal would be my description of his entire presentation - he is evidently uncomfortable in the dhoti, has no body language to convey his emotions, has butchered the Rajasthani language to shreds and exhibits complete lack of sensitivity in his performance. Right from the first frame till the very end of the film, you see Shahrukh Khan and not Kishna - the husband or Kishna - the ghost. So different from his Mohan Bhargav act in Swades.
Rani Mukherjee, as always, looks very beautiful and lends some credibility to her part. But given the plot, a better characterization and control over the subtle nuances of the situation would have made all the difference. Here again, the director is entirely to blame.
One wonders why Amitabh Bachchan was added to play the role of the old shepherd. Not only was his presence unnecessary, but the part was too insignificant and inconsequential that it would hev been played by just anyone. Moreover, the character just seems too unwordly to make any sense in the already trouble enterprise that Paheli is. Likewise, Juhi Chawla and Suniel Shetty are completely out of place and have no significance in the entire movie whatsoever. Even if all their frames are edited out of the movie, the movie would remain just the same. Coming from the man who has given us amazing films in the past, not to fogret the recent Marathi film Anahat, this one is a huge disappointment. To the extent that great orators like Naseeruddin Shan and Ratna Pathak Shah sound jaded and fail to arouse either humor or emotion in the viewer.
The single * that I have given the movie is surely because of the visual treat that it was to see the colors of Rajsathan in their full glory. The costumes are vibrant and the art direction is surely a treat for the eyes. The songs are like a huge canvas of paintings that has been very aesthetically crafted. But the songs, though superbly shot, are far too many and appear everywhere in the movie out of nowhere. Although this time, they do bring relief from the other atrocities that the film inflicts on its viewers.
To conclude it all, Paheli is a great film to promote Rajasthan tourism. But why the director felt so strongly about the story to make it into a film remains a paheli to me. The whole controversy about Paheli being sent as India's entry for academy awards seems moot. The judgement is clear - Paheli doesnt have anything that would qualify it even for the roadside cine-awards in Matunga or Church Street, let alone the Academy Awards. The choices that our jury makes for official entries to Oscars are surely getting worse with each passing year. While an entry like Iqbal could have given us a respectable representation, Paheli makes sure that we definitely miss the bus this time, and make it difficult to catch it in the near future either!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)