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!
July 16, 2006
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)