Saw a fairly recently released and immediately forgotten movie called Striker. I thought the movie was brilliant and generally after seeing a good piece of cinema, one would feel good. But seeing this movie saddened me, only because it did nothing to gain anything from the critics or the box-office while it ran, predictably, for a very short while.
I was surfing channels yesterday and came across this movie on Sahara One. It was about twenty minutes done. But just the sight and sound of the movie was so arresting that I was sucked into it. Soon, I was intrigued enough to stop watching it with the irritating commercial breaks and hired a DVD.
The movie is about a champion carrom player from the slums of Mumbai. Carrom itself is an obscure game in the larger scheme of things. It requires considerable skill and mental fortitude to master. But there definitely is no glamour in the game and serious passion for it is probably only seen in the lower strata of the urban society. And the movie is just the same - no glamour, all passion.
I loved the way the movie has been shot. Realism without pretension. The narrative is beautifully lucid and extremely well told. And so are the performances.
There's no point in going into the details of the storyline because that would only raise expectations or give away some of it. This is less of a review of the film and more a request to go watch Striker. I'm sure it will be time well-spent.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Aisha
Someone asks Melvin in the brilliant movie, 'As good as it gets', "How do you write women so well?" His ever insightful answer: "I think of a man and take away reason and accountability."
I read a tweet somewhere that 'Aisha' was a 'Dil Chahta Hai' of girls. The setting and the characters might be similar, and probably so were the ambitions of the makers. But sadly lacking in reason and accountability.
This is true for the writing, the characters, the story and the direction. The film is set in the super-rich society of Delhi where young socialites seem to be doing nothing better than fill their days with mundane things like polo matches and river-rafting. But unlike Dil Chahta Hai where the characters were aspirational, these just turn out to be jokes.
Speaking of jokes, Dil Chahta Hai was a laugh riot. It brought on nostalgia and even moved you to tears in places. The chemistry between the three guys was nothing short of amazing and they came alive on screen as people you would adore to be with. Aisha's jokes are so wannabe funny that you only end up wincing at them.
There are a lot of things that you've seen before and rendered much better than they have been in this film. Clever repartees, a punch to defend a woman's honour, pranks, public confessions of love, childhood friends not knowing they are in love, fights among close friends, self-realizations, among other things are all mixed together in a story supposedly inspired by Jane Austen's Emma. You've seen it all before in Dil Chahta Hai, Jaane tu ya jaane na, Kal ho na ho, and even I hate luv storys. So the story is a sequence of such happenings strung together with neither originality nor effectiveness.
Coming to individual characters, the smaller characters and actors impress a lot more than the leading pair. One due to too much screen time and the other due to too little. Sonam Kapoor in the title role is practically present in every frame of the film and I used to like her before I watched it. She knows what makes her look cute and she keeps batting the eyelids and flashing the pearlies in the same way over and over again. Tiresome. On the other hand, Abhay Deol could have had a lot more substance in the role and would have been able to do justice to it too. Sadly, he is sidelined with too many others around and comes across as half-heartedly there.
Ira Dubey and Cyrus Sahukar as Pinky and Randhir are superb in their roles. But the saving grace of the film is Amrita Puri as Shefali. She is simply outstanding in the way she has delivered her character of a small-town middle-class girl trying to live up to the high society of Delhi.
All in all, Aisha turns out to be a huge disappointment. Would have been better off seeing Dil Chahta Hai for the ninety-seventh time on the DVD.
I read a tweet somewhere that 'Aisha' was a 'Dil Chahta Hai' of girls. The setting and the characters might be similar, and probably so were the ambitions of the makers. But sadly lacking in reason and accountability.
This is true for the writing, the characters, the story and the direction. The film is set in the super-rich society of Delhi where young socialites seem to be doing nothing better than fill their days with mundane things like polo matches and river-rafting. But unlike Dil Chahta Hai where the characters were aspirational, these just turn out to be jokes.
Speaking of jokes, Dil Chahta Hai was a laugh riot. It brought on nostalgia and even moved you to tears in places. The chemistry between the three guys was nothing short of amazing and they came alive on screen as people you would adore to be with. Aisha's jokes are so wannabe funny that you only end up wincing at them.
There are a lot of things that you've seen before and rendered much better than they have been in this film. Clever repartees, a punch to defend a woman's honour, pranks, public confessions of love, childhood friends not knowing they are in love, fights among close friends, self-realizations, among other things are all mixed together in a story supposedly inspired by Jane Austen's Emma. You've seen it all before in Dil Chahta Hai, Jaane tu ya jaane na, Kal ho na ho, and even I hate luv storys. So the story is a sequence of such happenings strung together with neither originality nor effectiveness.
Coming to individual characters, the smaller characters and actors impress a lot more than the leading pair. One due to too much screen time and the other due to too little. Sonam Kapoor in the title role is practically present in every frame of the film and I used to like her before I watched it. She knows what makes her look cute and she keeps batting the eyelids and flashing the pearlies in the same way over and over again. Tiresome. On the other hand, Abhay Deol could have had a lot more substance in the role and would have been able to do justice to it too. Sadly, he is sidelined with too many others around and comes across as half-heartedly there.
Ira Dubey and Cyrus Sahukar as Pinky and Randhir are superb in their roles. But the saving grace of the film is Amrita Puri as Shefali. She is simply outstanding in the way she has delivered her character of a small-town middle-class girl trying to live up to the high society of Delhi.
All in all, Aisha turns out to be a huge disappointment. Would have been better off seeing Dil Chahta Hai for the ninety-seventh time on the DVD.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Once upon a time in Mumbai - That 70s (flop) show
So here is a gangster with a heart of gold who loves the city where he grows up and becomes its self-appointed safe-keeper. And there is another gangster, who is more ambitious than conscientious, who ultimately manages to overthrow the first guy and take over the city while ruining it completely. That in a nutshell, is what Once upon... is all about.
The film's attention to detail is amazing. Not only are the clothes and cars from the 70s, but every poster on the wall, every doorknob and every newspaper shown seems authentic. It is evident that the city has changed so much since those days that too many location shoots wouldn't have been possible. But there's an overdose of the 70s atmosphere in the indoor sequences. For instance, rather than focusing on the lead pair at a restaurant table, there are several unnecessary long and wide shots to show inconsequential extras dressed up to create the atmosphere. Yeah, we get it guys, you're showing us a movie set in the 70s. Don't hit us on the head with it.
The story which could have had a lot of drama built around it, ends up being a damp squib. It starts well but then gets spoilt by the overly dramatic sequences to establish the strength of the characters (Ajay Devgn and the train, Emraan Hashmi and his initiation into the gang). So you're getting used to Hindi films which are realistic? Don't. Here's a film set in the 70s, or didn't you know?
The dialogues are totally corny. "Iske bare mein sochunga to usko bura lag jayega" and versions of the same sprinkled around the script. I thought that went out with Pran and Ajit about four decades ago! No wait, it's a 70s movie guys.
The women are always ready with the water-works. The men are always spouting macho lines. Where have we seen that before? Right! In the films made in the 70s.
The plot becomes intricate and then suddenly implodes like a house of cards. Worse, it makes you wonder what the point of it all was in the first place. Such unforgivable writing was okay 40 years ago. But we have to be considerate and take those leaps of faith even today. Why? You know why.
There is a cartoon strip where Calvin asks his father about why the photographs in olden days were black and white. His father tells him that the world used to be black and white then and gradually became coloured sometime in the sixties. In the same way, the makers of the film seem to be confused between the reality and way it was portrayed in the 70s. What we sign up for is to see a movie set in the 70s not made in the 70s. And that's what ends up being disappointing.
Once upon a time, these things happened in Mumbai. And once upon a time such filmy movies were made in Bollywood. Wish we were just given an accurate rendition of the events without the corniness of the movie-making.
The film's attention to detail is amazing. Not only are the clothes and cars from the 70s, but every poster on the wall, every doorknob and every newspaper shown seems authentic. It is evident that the city has changed so much since those days that too many location shoots wouldn't have been possible. But there's an overdose of the 70s atmosphere in the indoor sequences. For instance, rather than focusing on the lead pair at a restaurant table, there are several unnecessary long and wide shots to show inconsequential extras dressed up to create the atmosphere. Yeah, we get it guys, you're showing us a movie set in the 70s. Don't hit us on the head with it.
The story which could have had a lot of drama built around it, ends up being a damp squib. It starts well but then gets spoilt by the overly dramatic sequences to establish the strength of the characters (Ajay Devgn and the train, Emraan Hashmi and his initiation into the gang). So you're getting used to Hindi films which are realistic? Don't. Here's a film set in the 70s, or didn't you know?
The dialogues are totally corny. "Iske bare mein sochunga to usko bura lag jayega" and versions of the same sprinkled around the script. I thought that went out with Pran and Ajit about four decades ago! No wait, it's a 70s movie guys.
The women are always ready with the water-works. The men are always spouting macho lines. Where have we seen that before? Right! In the films made in the 70s.
The plot becomes intricate and then suddenly implodes like a house of cards. Worse, it makes you wonder what the point of it all was in the first place. Such unforgivable writing was okay 40 years ago. But we have to be considerate and take those leaps of faith even today. Why? You know why.
There is a cartoon strip where Calvin asks his father about why the photographs in olden days were black and white. His father tells him that the world used to be black and white then and gradually became coloured sometime in the sixties. In the same way, the makers of the film seem to be confused between the reality and way it was portrayed in the 70s. What we sign up for is to see a movie set in the 70s not made in the 70s. And that's what ends up being disappointing.
Once upon a time, these things happened in Mumbai. And once upon a time such filmy movies were made in Bollywood. Wish we were just given an accurate rendition of the events without the corniness of the movie-making.
Roll on Geordie Boy, roll
As most people I'm acquainted with already know, I am a devotee of Mark Knopfler. Apart from his amazing guitar work and his voice, he is also an amazing live performer. The way he interacts with the audience and the fellow musicians while on stage is an example of a Zen state-of-mind where the music and the musician are one. He makes genius seem so effortless and that is where he can truly connect and make your world worries just drop off by the wayside.
One of his least acclaimed talents is his song-writing. Mark writes about ordinary things, events and people. Autograph hunters, Circus freaks, Shoe salesmen, Migrant labourers, Truck drivers, Beat cops, Hookers, Junkies, Tattoo artists, Has-been war veterans and so many other commonplace themes. These are people which make up the real world and only Mark has the ability to find poetry and music in them.
On the other hand, he also writes about forgotten legends and historical events. Napoleon's defeat, The Mason-Dixon line, Imelda Marcos, Sonny Liston, Ray Kroc, Elvis Presley, Lonnie Donegan, etc. Each of these people and events were important contributors to the shaping of the world and have somewhere been forgotten down the line.
And then there are the songs which are pure emotion. It would be a pity to call them 'love-songs' because they are a lot more than that. They rise above that genre in their depth and pathos that they portray and evoke.
Here are just some of his lines that I have grown to love over the years.
This empty kitchen's where
I'd while away the hours
Just next to my old chair
You'd usually have some flowers
The shelves of books
Even the picture hooks
Everything is gone
But my heart is hanging on
- A place where we used to live; The Ragpicker's Dream.
A song reminiscing about a broken marriage.
Around the time of 'Clambake'
that old dream's still rolling on
Sometimes there'll be the feeling
things are going wrong
The morning star is fading
lord, the mississippi's cold
You can still be Marlon Brando
and the king of rock and roll
- Back to Tupelo; Shangri-La.
A song about Elvis and his unfulfilled dream of becoming as big a movie star as he was a singer.
The lord is my shepherd
He leadeth me in pastures green
He gave us this day
Our daily bread and gasoline
Go under the willow
Park her up beside the stream
Shoulders for pillows
Lay down your head and dream
Shoulders for pillows
Lay down your head and dream
- Baloney Again; Sailing to Philadelphia.
A song about black evangelists and their unending struggle against racism in America in the 50s.
Well this crumpet’s past it’s sell-by-date
but they all would qualify
They’re going to be lonely
and be happy to comply
She knows that I’m a chancer
coming on like a gent
but I’m behind, behind
with the rent
Yes, I’m behind, behind
with the rent
- Behind with the rent; Kill to get crimson.
A song about a war veteran struggling to cope with his life.
Well we build it up and I buy 'em out
but, man they made me grind it out, now
they open up a new place flipping meat
so I do too, right across the street
I got the name I need the town
they sell up in the end and it all shuts down
sometimes you gotta be an s.o.b.
you wanna make a dream reality
Competition? Send 'em south
If they're gonna drown put a hose in their mouth
do not pass 'GO', go straight to hell
I smell that meat hook smell
or my name's not Kroc, that's Kroc with a 'K'
like 'crocodile' but not spelt that way, now
it's dog eat dog rat eat rat
Oh, it's dog eat dog rat eat rat
Kroc-style - boom, like that
- Boom, like that; Shangri-La.
A song about Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's. He was also a ruthless capitalist who unethically took over a mom-and-pop diner and made it a world-wide brand, while driving them out of business.
Just like a castaway
Lost upon an endless sea
I saw you far away
Come to rescue me
- Darling Pretty; Golden Heart.
A love-song.
I pray for her who prays for me
A safe return to my belle France
We prayed these wars would end all wars
In war we know is no romance
And I pray our child will never see
A little Corporal again
Point toward a foreign shore
Captivate the hearts of men
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I`ll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I`m done with Bonaparte
- Done with Bonaparte; Golden Heart.
A song about a soldier in Napoleon's army which was routed in Russia.
My heart beats for my streets and alley
Longs to dwell in the borderlands
The North-East shore and the river valleys
Fare thee well Northumberland
I may not stay, I'm bound for leaving
I'm bound to ramble and to roam
I only say my heart is grieving
I would not gamble on my coming home
- Fare thee well, Northumberland; The Ragpicker's Dream.
A song about a migrant labourer from the northern provinces of England.
And every time I'm thinking of you from a distant shore
And all the time I sleep
I will have a reminder that my baby wore
A part of you to keep
And I'll send you all my promises across the sea
And while we are apart
I will carry the wonder that you gave to me
I'll wear your golden heart
I'll wear your golden heart
- Golden Heart; Golden Heart.
A song about a casual romance in a carnival fair.
She's going shopping shopping for shoes
She wants them in magenta and caribbean blue
Platinum and buttercup lilac and black
They fill a bucket up and laugh behind her back
Imelda baby Imelda baby what to do
All the poor people saying that they gotta quit paying for you
- Imelda; Golden Heart.
A song on Imelda Marcos and her extravagance exemplified by her fetish for footwear.
The chisels are calling, it's time to make sawdust
Steely reminders of things left to do
Monteleone, a mandolin's waiting for you
My fingerplane's working, gentle persuasion
I bend to the wood and I coax it to sing
Monteleone, your new one and only will ring
- Monteleone; Get Lucky.
A song about Monteleone, the legendary guitar maker.
Now some were grown up unlike me
And were dealing with reality
I was spittin' sulkin' smokin' shirkin'
While a lady from Jamaica was singing and working
I had everyone but me to blame
And every day was just the same
Well nobody ever said it was a righteous world
But if they did they never said it like a Southsea girl
- No can do; Golden Heart.
A song about a youth having to do odd jobs to make ends meet while chasing a dream.
Now I wish you sunny skies
And happiness wherever you may go
But you got to realise
There'll be wind, there'll be rain
And occasional snow
You're gonna want to smile in them
If you're gonna walk a mile in them
There'll be times when you`ll be blue
To laugh at rainy days and then
Make your getaways in them
You're gonna need a quality shoe
- Quality Shoe; The Ragpicker's Dream.
A song about a shoe salesman trying his hand at philosophy.
Rudiger waits at the hall in Berlin
He waits there all night
Security's tight
They know who he is but they don't let him in
Rudiger waits in the dark by the stair
His fingers are shaking
His feet they are aching
But your name's in the paper so Rudiger's there
- Rudiger; Golden Heart.
A song about Rudiger, the avid autograph-hunter who leads an uneventful life otherwise.
A silver dawn steals over the docks
A truck with no wheels up on the cinderblocks
Men with no dreams around a fire in a drum
Scrap metal schemes rusted over and done
- Silvertown Blues; Sailing to Philadelphia.
A song about a forgotten scrapyard on the verge of redevelopment.
They pull off her cables and hack off her hatches
Too poor to be wasteful with pity or time
They swarm on her carcass with torches and axes
Like a whale on the bloody shoreline
- So far from the Clyde; Get Lucky.
A song about a proud ship built in Clyde in England being broken in a ship-wrecking yard far away in India.
They never could be sure about the day he was born
A motherless child set to working on the farm
And they never could be sure about the day he died
The bear was the king they cast aside
- Song for Sonny Liston; Shangri-La.
A song about the life and death of Sonny Liston, the legendary and controversial boxer.
Well the Brickyard's there to crucify anyone who will not learn
I climbed the mountain to qualify went flat through the turn
But I was down in the might-have-beens and an old pal good as died
And I sat down in Gasoline Alley and I cried
- Speedway at Nazareth; Sailing to Philadelphia.
A song about a racing car driver in the racing season of 2001
Dark is the night
I need a guiding light to keep me
From foundering on the rocks
My only prayer is just to see you there
At the end of my wandering
Back in the dock
- The Trawlerman's Song; Shangri-La.
A song about a fisherman.
I don't know what brought you to me
That was up to you
There's so many come to see me
Who want their own tattoo
I fixed a needle in the holder
Laid my hand upon your spine
And there upon your shoulder
I drew the picture as your sign
When I think about us
I see the picture that we made
The picture to remind us
True love will never fade
- True love will never fade; Kill to get crimson.
A song about a tattoo artist finding and losing the love of his life.
So that's Mark for you. Ordinary lives, ordinary themes and extraordinary poetry!
One of his least acclaimed talents is his song-writing. Mark writes about ordinary things, events and people. Autograph hunters, Circus freaks, Shoe salesmen, Migrant labourers, Truck drivers, Beat cops, Hookers, Junkies, Tattoo artists, Has-been war veterans and so many other commonplace themes. These are people which make up the real world and only Mark has the ability to find poetry and music in them.
On the other hand, he also writes about forgotten legends and historical events. Napoleon's defeat, The Mason-Dixon line, Imelda Marcos, Sonny Liston, Ray Kroc, Elvis Presley, Lonnie Donegan, etc. Each of these people and events were important contributors to the shaping of the world and have somewhere been forgotten down the line.
And then there are the songs which are pure emotion. It would be a pity to call them 'love-songs' because they are a lot more than that. They rise above that genre in their depth and pathos that they portray and evoke.
Here are just some of his lines that I have grown to love over the years.
This empty kitchen's where
I'd while away the hours
Just next to my old chair
You'd usually have some flowers
The shelves of books
Even the picture hooks
Everything is gone
But my heart is hanging on
- A place where we used to live; The Ragpicker's Dream.
A song reminiscing about a broken marriage.
Around the time of 'Clambake'
that old dream's still rolling on
Sometimes there'll be the feeling
things are going wrong
The morning star is fading
lord, the mississippi's cold
You can still be Marlon Brando
and the king of rock and roll
- Back to Tupelo; Shangri-La.
A song about Elvis and his unfulfilled dream of becoming as big a movie star as he was a singer.
The lord is my shepherd
He leadeth me in pastures green
He gave us this day
Our daily bread and gasoline
Go under the willow
Park her up beside the stream
Shoulders for pillows
Lay down your head and dream
Shoulders for pillows
Lay down your head and dream
- Baloney Again; Sailing to Philadelphia.
A song about black evangelists and their unending struggle against racism in America in the 50s.
Well this crumpet’s past it’s sell-by-date
but they all would qualify
They’re going to be lonely
and be happy to comply
She knows that I’m a chancer
coming on like a gent
but I’m behind, behind
with the rent
Yes, I’m behind, behind
with the rent
- Behind with the rent; Kill to get crimson.
A song about a war veteran struggling to cope with his life.
Well we build it up and I buy 'em out
but, man they made me grind it out, now
they open up a new place flipping meat
so I do too, right across the street
I got the name I need the town
they sell up in the end and it all shuts down
sometimes you gotta be an s.o.b.
you wanna make a dream reality
Competition? Send 'em south
If they're gonna drown put a hose in their mouth
do not pass 'GO', go straight to hell
I smell that meat hook smell
or my name's not Kroc, that's Kroc with a 'K'
like 'crocodile' but not spelt that way, now
it's dog eat dog rat eat rat
Oh, it's dog eat dog rat eat rat
Kroc-style - boom, like that
- Boom, like that; Shangri-La.
A song about Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's. He was also a ruthless capitalist who unethically took over a mom-and-pop diner and made it a world-wide brand, while driving them out of business.
Just like a castaway
Lost upon an endless sea
I saw you far away
Come to rescue me
- Darling Pretty; Golden Heart.
A love-song.
I pray for her who prays for me
A safe return to my belle France
We prayed these wars would end all wars
In war we know is no romance
And I pray our child will never see
A little Corporal again
Point toward a foreign shore
Captivate the hearts of men
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I`ll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I`m done with Bonaparte
- Done with Bonaparte; Golden Heart.
A song about a soldier in Napoleon's army which was routed in Russia.
My heart beats for my streets and alley
Longs to dwell in the borderlands
The North-East shore and the river valleys
Fare thee well Northumberland
I may not stay, I'm bound for leaving
I'm bound to ramble and to roam
I only say my heart is grieving
I would not gamble on my coming home
- Fare thee well, Northumberland; The Ragpicker's Dream.
A song about a migrant labourer from the northern provinces of England.
And every time I'm thinking of you from a distant shore
And all the time I sleep
I will have a reminder that my baby wore
A part of you to keep
And I'll send you all my promises across the sea
And while we are apart
I will carry the wonder that you gave to me
I'll wear your golden heart
I'll wear your golden heart
- Golden Heart; Golden Heart.
A song about a casual romance in a carnival fair.
She's going shopping shopping for shoes
She wants them in magenta and caribbean blue
Platinum and buttercup lilac and black
They fill a bucket up and laugh behind her back
Imelda baby Imelda baby what to do
All the poor people saying that they gotta quit paying for you
- Imelda; Golden Heart.
A song on Imelda Marcos and her extravagance exemplified by her fetish for footwear.
The chisels are calling, it's time to make sawdust
Steely reminders of things left to do
Monteleone, a mandolin's waiting for you
My fingerplane's working, gentle persuasion
I bend to the wood and I coax it to sing
Monteleone, your new one and only will ring
- Monteleone; Get Lucky.
A song about Monteleone, the legendary guitar maker.
Now some were grown up unlike me
And were dealing with reality
I was spittin' sulkin' smokin' shirkin'
While a lady from Jamaica was singing and working
I had everyone but me to blame
And every day was just the same
Well nobody ever said it was a righteous world
But if they did they never said it like a Southsea girl
- No can do; Golden Heart.
A song about a youth having to do odd jobs to make ends meet while chasing a dream.
Now I wish you sunny skies
And happiness wherever you may go
But you got to realise
There'll be wind, there'll be rain
And occasional snow
You're gonna want to smile in them
If you're gonna walk a mile in them
There'll be times when you`ll be blue
To laugh at rainy days and then
Make your getaways in them
You're gonna need a quality shoe
- Quality Shoe; The Ragpicker's Dream.
A song about a shoe salesman trying his hand at philosophy.
Rudiger waits at the hall in Berlin
He waits there all night
Security's tight
They know who he is but they don't let him in
Rudiger waits in the dark by the stair
His fingers are shaking
His feet they are aching
But your name's in the paper so Rudiger's there
- Rudiger; Golden Heart.
A song about Rudiger, the avid autograph-hunter who leads an uneventful life otherwise.
A silver dawn steals over the docks
A truck with no wheels up on the cinderblocks
Men with no dreams around a fire in a drum
Scrap metal schemes rusted over and done
- Silvertown Blues; Sailing to Philadelphia.
A song about a forgotten scrapyard on the verge of redevelopment.
They pull off her cables and hack off her hatches
Too poor to be wasteful with pity or time
They swarm on her carcass with torches and axes
Like a whale on the bloody shoreline
- So far from the Clyde; Get Lucky.
A song about a proud ship built in Clyde in England being broken in a ship-wrecking yard far away in India.
They never could be sure about the day he was born
A motherless child set to working on the farm
And they never could be sure about the day he died
The bear was the king they cast aside
- Song for Sonny Liston; Shangri-La.
A song about the life and death of Sonny Liston, the legendary and controversial boxer.
Well the Brickyard's there to crucify anyone who will not learn
I climbed the mountain to qualify went flat through the turn
But I was down in the might-have-beens and an old pal good as died
And I sat down in Gasoline Alley and I cried
- Speedway at Nazareth; Sailing to Philadelphia.
A song about a racing car driver in the racing season of 2001
Dark is the night
I need a guiding light to keep me
From foundering on the rocks
My only prayer is just to see you there
At the end of my wandering
Back in the dock
- The Trawlerman's Song; Shangri-La.
A song about a fisherman.
I don't know what brought you to me
That was up to you
There's so many come to see me
Who want their own tattoo
I fixed a needle in the holder
Laid my hand upon your spine
And there upon your shoulder
I drew the picture as your sign
When I think about us
I see the picture that we made
The picture to remind us
True love will never fade
- True love will never fade; Kill to get crimson.
A song about a tattoo artist finding and losing the love of his life.
So that's Mark for you. Ordinary lives, ordinary themes and extraordinary poetry!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Inception
Christopher Nolan makes predictable movies. You know before you even get in the hall that it is going to be a story told in a manner you have never experienced before. Likewise you know that the performances will be amazing. And what's more you also know for sure that the plot will be deliciously complex and at the same time so well told that you would end up feeling intelligent that you got it all.
I saw Inception and I was expecting a movie experience that will sweep me off my feet. But somewhere I was also ready to be a little disappointed because that's what always happens when you expect too much.
In fact, Inception literally blew my mind. It is a film about pushing things to the limit. And true to the theme of the film, it has pushed every single skill involved in film-making to the ultimate limit possible.
It is important that you catch every frame and hear every line of the movie. Every second of the film pushes the story ahead, layering it further and further in complexity. But the storytelling is done with such finesse that it grips you more and more. Right down to the last frame till the fade to black.
I just can't find words to express how awestruck I'm feeling after seeing this movie. If there's just one film that you will be watching this whole year, please please let it be this one.
I saw Inception and I was expecting a movie experience that will sweep me off my feet. But somewhere I was also ready to be a little disappointed because that's what always happens when you expect too much.
In fact, Inception literally blew my mind. It is a film about pushing things to the limit. And true to the theme of the film, it has pushed every single skill involved in film-making to the ultimate limit possible.
It is important that you catch every frame and hear every line of the movie. Every second of the film pushes the story ahead, layering it further and further in complexity. But the storytelling is done with such finesse that it grips you more and more. Right down to the last frame till the fade to black.
I just can't find words to express how awestruck I'm feeling after seeing this movie. If there's just one film that you will be watching this whole year, please please let it be this one.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
I hate luv storys
There are movies that are so good that one feels like writing about them. Then there are movies that are so bad that one feels like writing about them even more. And then there are movies that are so unremarkable that there is nothing to write about. And I Hate Luv Storys is one such. To use a cliche, it's not a movie to write home about.
Speaking of cliches, the movie has a lot of them. In fact the underlying message of the movie can be best stated with yet another cliche: A cliche is a cliche because it works.
So when boy meets girl-girl hates boy-boy likes girl-girl likes boy-girl loves boy-girl confuses boy-boy rejects girl-boy loves girl-boy runs back to girl drama unfolds, we go through it with the usual groans.
But unfortunately, there isn't even much else in the execution of the humdrum storyline. The situations seem tired and hackneyed. The characters are boring and the writing is pedestrian. One would have expected a lot more from a KJo movie.
There are only two saving graces for me. One was the beautiful presence of Sonam Kapoor. And the other was the ability of KJo to laugh at himself. Though it could have been a lot funnier in the spoofs, at least the intention seems in the right direction.
There really isn't too much else to comment about. Watch it or not, won't make much difference.
Speaking of cliches, the movie has a lot of them. In fact the underlying message of the movie can be best stated with yet another cliche: A cliche is a cliche because it works.
So when boy meets girl-girl hates boy-boy likes girl-girl likes boy-girl loves boy-girl confuses boy-boy rejects girl-boy loves girl-boy runs back to girl drama unfolds, we go through it with the usual groans.
But unfortunately, there isn't even much else in the execution of the humdrum storyline. The situations seem tired and hackneyed. The characters are boring and the writing is pedestrian. One would have expected a lot more from a KJo movie.
There are only two saving graces for me. One was the beautiful presence of Sonam Kapoor. And the other was the ability of KJo to laugh at himself. Though it could have been a lot funnier in the spoofs, at least the intention seems in the right direction.
There really isn't too much else to comment about. Watch it or not, won't make much difference.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Raavan - The Good, The Bad and The Beautiful
Let me begin by stating the moral of the story: There's good in everything that's bad and there's bad in everything that's good. I haven't really stated a spoiler here. This is something that everyone would probably know and expect from the movie by now.
Raavan is a testimony to the validity of that statement.
A modern-day Ramayan, a remake yet again - Good. Rendered in a manner that makes a mockery of the plot - Bad.
Fantastic cinematography, probably the best that one has seen in a long time - Good. Continuously hyperactive camera movements that leave you with motion-sickness - Bad.
A superbly talented director with some scenes that have been delivered to brilliant performances - Good. Losing the plot and the bigger picture in the screenplay and storytelling - Bad.
The intention to portray an extremely strong protagonist - Good. Abhishek's performance going over-the-top and caricaturish - Bad.
Shooting in exotic locales in apparently impossible shoot conditions - Good. The total inability of maintaining consistency and continuity in the changing geography - Bad.
Works the other way round too.
Unnecessary songs which are long-winding and end up hampering the storyline - Bad. Rahman and Gulzar's talent - Good.
Aishwarya Rai's character ending up being just a woman who just screams pointlessly - Bad. Her being extremely easy on the eye - Good.
Not having enough meat for the roles of the supporting cast - Bad. Ravi Kishan's and Priyamani's brilliant performances, despite that - Good.
All in all, Raavan seems to be a film that has been sacrificed at the altar of micro-management. In the attempt to make every frame a work of art, the overall film has gaping holes. In the attempt to capture every lip-quiver in slo-mo and extreme close-up, the characters end up being uni-dimensional and boring.
Better to see Shrek, if you want to see an ogre with a golden heart.
Better to see National Geographic at home, if you want to see stunning locales.
Better to see Yuva, if you want to see Abhishek doing an anti-hero with impact.
Better to see Roja, if you want to see what Mani Ratnam is capable of.
Better to see Jodha Akbar, if you want to see Aishwarya Rai looking gorgeous.
Raavan is a testimony to the validity of that statement.
A modern-day Ramayan, a remake yet again - Good. Rendered in a manner that makes a mockery of the plot - Bad.
Fantastic cinematography, probably the best that one has seen in a long time - Good. Continuously hyperactive camera movements that leave you with motion-sickness - Bad.
A superbly talented director with some scenes that have been delivered to brilliant performances - Good. Losing the plot and the bigger picture in the screenplay and storytelling - Bad.
The intention to portray an extremely strong protagonist - Good. Abhishek's performance going over-the-top and caricaturish - Bad.
Shooting in exotic locales in apparently impossible shoot conditions - Good. The total inability of maintaining consistency and continuity in the changing geography - Bad.
Works the other way round too.
Unnecessary songs which are long-winding and end up hampering the storyline - Bad. Rahman and Gulzar's talent - Good.
Aishwarya Rai's character ending up being just a woman who just screams pointlessly - Bad. Her being extremely easy on the eye - Good.
Not having enough meat for the roles of the supporting cast - Bad. Ravi Kishan's and Priyamani's brilliant performances, despite that - Good.
All in all, Raavan seems to be a film that has been sacrificed at the altar of micro-management. In the attempt to make every frame a work of art, the overall film has gaping holes. In the attempt to capture every lip-quiver in slo-mo and extreme close-up, the characters end up being uni-dimensional and boring.
Better to see Shrek, if you want to see an ogre with a golden heart.
Better to see National Geographic at home, if you want to see stunning locales.
Better to see Yuva, if you want to see Abhishek doing an anti-hero with impact.
Better to see Roja, if you want to see what Mani Ratnam is capable of.
Better to see Jodha Akbar, if you want to see Aishwarya Rai looking gorgeous.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Raajneeti - A tragedy at the end of it all
There are some stories that are so timeless that they can be retold endlessly. You can set these stories in any time and any place, but these tales based on intrinsic human insights and interactions still endure. And the Mahabharata is one such.
I'm sure there are hundreds of adaptations of the great epic and Raajneeti is the latest to join the list. I am always a sucker for adaptations. I thoroughly enjoy the creativity that goes into the retelling of individual plot points and interpretations of characters in a totally different time and place. And considering the stellar cast and the proven director, I was really looking forward for this movie. So I saw it alone on the first day against all odds.
Was it really worth the trouble?
A difficult question to answer. The movie begins well and the plot unfolds beautifully. Though it is predictable because you know what it is based on, you still want to go through it to figure out just how exactly is each twist and turn going to be handled. Most of it is good. But it could have been a lot better.
As anyone can guess by the promo material, the story is set in the political scenario of the cow-belt region of India. And the crux of the story is about the power struggle between cousins for gaining party leadership and subsequently winning the elections. What begins as a simple rivalry soon escalates into a bloody war where morals and ethics are completely cast aside, and revenge and victory become the only driving forces. As is inevitable, it only leads to disaster.
That's about the story. But however good the story itself is, it is ultimately delivered only by the director, through the actors. And here is where the grey areas of the movie come into play. There are certain scenes which are crafted fabulously - notably the one where Samar Pratap (Ranbir) transforms on seeing his father dying in front of him and drinks a glass of water. And there are others which are laughable in how ludicrously they have been delivered - like when Bharti Pratap (Nikhila Trikha), the mother meets Suraj (Ajay Devgan), her abandoned son (Kunti and Karna respectively) to tell him the truth of his birth.
The same is true about the casting. Arjun Rampal in the role of Prithvi Pratap the modern day Yudhisthir gets some unintended titters from the audience thanks to his deliveries in certain scenes but has also managed to look sensitive, charming and full of human weaknesses in others. Ajay Devgan cast in the character of Karna too has given similar mixed performances.
I wish the editing of the film was a lot better than what it is. Even to a lay movie-watcher like me, some of the jerky scene transitions were too jarring. I also wish that the art direction would have been a little more realistic. The sets of party offices and election mandaps are a little too cliched and end up caricature-like. But most of all, I wish the screenplay was a little tighter. There seemed to be a lot of promise when the movie began and progressed, but it got too convoluted and out of control towards the end. The climax, especially stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed pretty unrealistic.
Two actors deserve a special mention. The first is of course Nana Patekar. There are some roles which are written for him and he can fit into them like a glove - Parinda, Prahaar, Ab Tak Chhappan. In Raajneeti too, he has done enormous justice to the character of Brijgopal (Krishna), the mentor and guide to the family and to Samar personally.
The second is Ranbir himself. The hero of the film in the midst of so many huge actors and characters. He is simply fabulous and is without doubt the next legend in Hindi cinema. Controlled and expressive without any overt histrionics - its almost predictable that he will shine in any role he will take on.
Katrina is superb. For once, her accent is justified by her character. Naseeruddin Shah should have had a bigger role. Manoj Bajpai looks like he is desperately trying to make a comeback and ends up overdoing it. Nikhila Trikha is awful. And the rest are average.
All in all, the movie is worth a watch, but only if you meet certain criteria. These are:
1. You should be enough of a movie-buff to want to watch the adaptation of Mahabharata sprinkled with some parts of The Godfather in it - only for the sake of seeing how it has been done.
2. You should have been brought up on a steady diet of Amar Chitra Kathas from childhood to be able to understand and appreciate the intricacies of the storyline and be able to draw the parallels with Mahabharata.
3. You should have the patience to endure the chaste north-Indian Hindi dialect that has been liberally used in the movie, which could make it difficult to follow.
4. You should be a die-hard fan of Ranbir Kapoor. Actually you can scratch that one - you will turn into one at the end of the movie anyway.
And here, I can't help but plug one of my most favourite Hindi movies ever - Kalyug, directed by Shyam Benegal. If at the end of watching Raajneeti, you too like me are disappointed, just rent or buy this DVD and enjoy Mahabharata retold in the modern day without any flaws whatsoever. And reinforce your faith in the power of an adapted storyline.
I'm sure there are hundreds of adaptations of the great epic and Raajneeti is the latest to join the list. I am always a sucker for adaptations. I thoroughly enjoy the creativity that goes into the retelling of individual plot points and interpretations of characters in a totally different time and place. And considering the stellar cast and the proven director, I was really looking forward for this movie. So I saw it alone on the first day against all odds.
Was it really worth the trouble?
A difficult question to answer. The movie begins well and the plot unfolds beautifully. Though it is predictable because you know what it is based on, you still want to go through it to figure out just how exactly is each twist and turn going to be handled. Most of it is good. But it could have been a lot better.
As anyone can guess by the promo material, the story is set in the political scenario of the cow-belt region of India. And the crux of the story is about the power struggle between cousins for gaining party leadership and subsequently winning the elections. What begins as a simple rivalry soon escalates into a bloody war where morals and ethics are completely cast aside, and revenge and victory become the only driving forces. As is inevitable, it only leads to disaster.
That's about the story. But however good the story itself is, it is ultimately delivered only by the director, through the actors. And here is where the grey areas of the movie come into play. There are certain scenes which are crafted fabulously - notably the one where Samar Pratap (Ranbir) transforms on seeing his father dying in front of him and drinks a glass of water. And there are others which are laughable in how ludicrously they have been delivered - like when Bharti Pratap (Nikhila Trikha), the mother meets Suraj (Ajay Devgan), her abandoned son (Kunti and Karna respectively) to tell him the truth of his birth.
The same is true about the casting. Arjun Rampal in the role of Prithvi Pratap the modern day Yudhisthir gets some unintended titters from the audience thanks to his deliveries in certain scenes but has also managed to look sensitive, charming and full of human weaknesses in others. Ajay Devgan cast in the character of Karna too has given similar mixed performances.
I wish the editing of the film was a lot better than what it is. Even to a lay movie-watcher like me, some of the jerky scene transitions were too jarring. I also wish that the art direction would have been a little more realistic. The sets of party offices and election mandaps are a little too cliched and end up caricature-like. But most of all, I wish the screenplay was a little tighter. There seemed to be a lot of promise when the movie began and progressed, but it got too convoluted and out of control towards the end. The climax, especially stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed pretty unrealistic.
Two actors deserve a special mention. The first is of course Nana Patekar. There are some roles which are written for him and he can fit into them like a glove - Parinda, Prahaar, Ab Tak Chhappan. In Raajneeti too, he has done enormous justice to the character of Brijgopal (Krishna), the mentor and guide to the family and to Samar personally.
The second is Ranbir himself. The hero of the film in the midst of so many huge actors and characters. He is simply fabulous and is without doubt the next legend in Hindi cinema. Controlled and expressive without any overt histrionics - its almost predictable that he will shine in any role he will take on.
Katrina is superb. For once, her accent is justified by her character. Naseeruddin Shah should have had a bigger role. Manoj Bajpai looks like he is desperately trying to make a comeback and ends up overdoing it. Nikhila Trikha is awful. And the rest are average.
All in all, the movie is worth a watch, but only if you meet certain criteria. These are:
1. You should be enough of a movie-buff to want to watch the adaptation of Mahabharata sprinkled with some parts of The Godfather in it - only for the sake of seeing how it has been done.
2. You should have been brought up on a steady diet of Amar Chitra Kathas from childhood to be able to understand and appreciate the intricacies of the storyline and be able to draw the parallels with Mahabharata.
3. You should have the patience to endure the chaste north-Indian Hindi dialect that has been liberally used in the movie, which could make it difficult to follow.
4. You should be a die-hard fan of Ranbir Kapoor. Actually you can scratch that one - you will turn into one at the end of the movie anyway.
And here, I can't help but plug one of my most favourite Hindi movies ever - Kalyug, directed by Shyam Benegal. If at the end of watching Raajneeti, you too like me are disappointed, just rent or buy this DVD and enjoy Mahabharata retold in the modern day without any flaws whatsoever. And reinforce your faith in the power of an adapted storyline.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Kites
From the moment I heard that the next big Hrithik movie is called Kites, I was intrigued. The title itself was totally unlike a Bollywood film, let alone one from the Rakesh Roshan camp.
Today I saw the movie. And I must admit that I am even more intrigued about the choice of the title. Of course, one can justify it as how it is the story of two lovers who get entangled in each other’s lives and then cut themselves off and lose control and eventually spiral downwards and blah, blah...
But coming to think of it, I can think of several other titles for the movie which could have been more apt.
It could have been called Sights. Apart from looking at Hrithik, Barbara, Vegas and the countrysides of US and Mexico, there is nothing else commendable about the movie. And yes, it is slickly shot too.
It could have been called Frights. The movie scares you by making plain the horrors of wasted effort, time and money.
It could have been called Heights. Height of absurdity. Height of predictability. Height of pretentiousness.
It could have been called Flights. Things are just flying all over the place. Cars off trucks, Gangsters off their handles, Hero and Heroine off in a hot air balloon. And of course, the flights of fancy of the writer deserve a special mention.
It could have been called Slights. It slights the talent of the leading star. It slights the expectation from the director. And worst of all, it slights the intelligence of the audience.
It could have been called Fights. Not that it is not a love story. But the elongated and boring sequences make sure the audience is fighting to stay awake.
And finally, it could have been called Plights. That’s just so obvious, it does not even require an explanation.
Today I saw the movie. And I must admit that I am even more intrigued about the choice of the title. Of course, one can justify it as how it is the story of two lovers who get entangled in each other’s lives and then cut themselves off and lose control and eventually spiral downwards and blah, blah...
But coming to think of it, I can think of several other titles for the movie which could have been more apt.
It could have been called Sights. Apart from looking at Hrithik, Barbara, Vegas and the countrysides of US and Mexico, there is nothing else commendable about the movie. And yes, it is slickly shot too.
It could have been called Frights. The movie scares you by making plain the horrors of wasted effort, time and money.
It could have been called Heights. Height of absurdity. Height of predictability. Height of pretentiousness.
It could have been called Flights. Things are just flying all over the place. Cars off trucks, Gangsters off their handles, Hero and Heroine off in a hot air balloon. And of course, the flights of fancy of the writer deserve a special mention.
It could have been called Slights. It slights the talent of the leading star. It slights the expectation from the director. And worst of all, it slights the intelligence of the audience.
It could have been called Fights. Not that it is not a love story. But the elongated and boring sequences make sure the audience is fighting to stay awake.
And finally, it could have been called Plights. That’s just so obvious, it does not even require an explanation.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Karthik calling Karthik
The problem with reviewing a film is writing about it without spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it yet. Suspense and twist-in-the-tale stories are therefore a little tricky to write about. And Karthik calling Karthik, especially so, because the twist-in-the-tale seems to be the only hook on which the entire film is hanging from.
Farhan Akhtar plays Karthik a total loser, working in a mundane job. And like the tagline of the film suggests, ‘A call can change everything’, it does. He receives a mysterious phone call early in the morning and it transforms him, literally overnight, into a dude - clothes, attitude and everything. All is well till things start turning a little nasty and Karthik has to figure out how to get his life back in order.
The entire film is dominated by Farhan. He is there in 9 out of 10 frames of the movie and he is absolutely fabulous - whether the loser or the winner. The sudden transformations in him are extremely well executed too. And as usual, an understated performance without overt histrionics. But two scenes stood out for me in particular: The scene in which he breaks down while talking to the mysterious caller and the scene in which he surprises himself at how easily he could assert himself at his workplace.
Deepika Padukone plays the love interest. Initially she seems to be just eye-candy but ends up playing a crucial role in the storyline. Thankfully, her vernacular accent seems to be fading and some semblance of acting can be seen. At this rate, we could probably expect more than just sweet smiles and Bambi-eyes from her in her movies soon.
The film has its moments. It makes you cringe when the loser is getting the shitty end of the stick in his life. It makes you smile when the winner wins. It makes you tense when the telephone bell rings. But it still isn’t in the league of a real psychological thriller which I’m sure it wanted to be or maybe could have been.
The film scored for me when what was seeming predictable was suddenly shot to bits right before the intermission and also in the manner in which the final twist in the end gets unravelled. This makes me think, that if the screenplay was edgier and the pace faster, it might have turned out to be a real thriller.
A must-watch only for Farhan Akhtar fans.
A should-see for movie buffs.
A can-give-it-a-miss-till-it’s-out-on-DVD for the rest.
Farhan Akhtar plays Karthik a total loser, working in a mundane job. And like the tagline of the film suggests, ‘A call can change everything’, it does. He receives a mysterious phone call early in the morning and it transforms him, literally overnight, into a dude - clothes, attitude and everything. All is well till things start turning a little nasty and Karthik has to figure out how to get his life back in order.
The entire film is dominated by Farhan. He is there in 9 out of 10 frames of the movie and he is absolutely fabulous - whether the loser or the winner. The sudden transformations in him are extremely well executed too. And as usual, an understated performance without overt histrionics. But two scenes stood out for me in particular: The scene in which he breaks down while talking to the mysterious caller and the scene in which he surprises himself at how easily he could assert himself at his workplace.
Deepika Padukone plays the love interest. Initially she seems to be just eye-candy but ends up playing a crucial role in the storyline. Thankfully, her vernacular accent seems to be fading and some semblance of acting can be seen. At this rate, we could probably expect more than just sweet smiles and Bambi-eyes from her in her movies soon.
The film has its moments. It makes you cringe when the loser is getting the shitty end of the stick in his life. It makes you smile when the winner wins. It makes you tense when the telephone bell rings. But it still isn’t in the league of a real psychological thriller which I’m sure it wanted to be or maybe could have been.
The film scored for me when what was seeming predictable was suddenly shot to bits right before the intermission and also in the manner in which the final twist in the end gets unravelled. This makes me think, that if the screenplay was edgier and the pace faster, it might have turned out to be a real thriller.
A must-watch only for Farhan Akhtar fans.
A should-see for movie buffs.
A can-give-it-a-miss-till-it’s-out-on-DVD for the rest.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
If Sharukh Khan't, who can?
Last night I saw My Name is Khan. Finally. Thanks to Mumbai's answer to the SchutzStaffel, our very own SS, I couldn't see it on the first day, as the last show was cancelled by all the multiplexes around where I live.
Be that as it may, in the last week, I was receiving very mixed reviews about the movie. Some were liking it a lot, while others were hating it. The explanation given by those who liked it was that the others didn't like it because they only expect KJo and SRK to deliver song-and-dance, mush routines. So the former lot felt that the movie was a lot more meaningful than their usual fare. On the other hand, the set who didn't like the movie felt that it was a repetition of the same theme now seen for the fourth time in just over a year - started by Khuda kay liye, then New York, Kurbaan and now My Name is Khan.
I like Karan Johar movies. They entertain and I find them pretty well-written. The scale is always large, the performances are good and ultimately he does touch you with a little bit of pop-corn sentiment.
And I like Shahrukh Khan too. He may not be the finest actor alive, but he's undoubtedly a superstar. He has the screen presence and the charisma which is hard to match.
Consider the plot. Our hero, Rizwan Khan, suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a kind of autism that makes him incapable of displaying emotions, even though he feels them. So, he can't cry, but he sure does laugh sometimes. He is incapable of understanding jokes, metaphors or figures of speech and is doomed to take everything in its literal sense. That does create some problems for others in understanding him. But he trundles along life in his own way, thanks to the invaluable lessons that his mother taught him as a child. One of these was that there are only two types of people in the world - good and bad - and that is the only difference between people. Since he takes everything literally, this remains his world-view for the rest of his life.
There is a bit of Forrest Gump in there in terms of the premise of the story. There is also a bit of Rain Man in terms of the mannerisms and acting. But unlike those two great movies, this one is close, but no cigar.
Coming back to the story - he goes along repairing things till his mother's death and then finds his way to USA thanks to his younger brother who has settled there. There too he manages somehow till one day falls in love with a single mother and gets married. All is seemingly well till 9/11 happens and a lot of lives are changed.
The first half of the movie is a little boring and tedious. Somehow the pace just doesn't pick up and the story moves along without much magic. The second half gets more interesting but not much. The son gets killed because of racial prejudice and this creates a huge rift between the couple. In a fit of anger, she accuses him and his name as the cause of her son's death and drives him out of her life. Thus begins his journey to meet the President to tell him, "My name is Khan, and I'm not a terrorist."
The movie then gets predictable. He is misunderstood, falsely accused, tortured and finally stabbed for one reason or another, either by Homeland Security or by Muslim terrorists in turn. But he does manage to create a nationwide stir for his cause thanks to a couple of rookie journalists and a news channel. What's more, he acts the hero and saves an entire village from a flood, even when the authorities have left them for dead. You know how it is - our hero can achieve the impossible with his attitude of love conquers all.
So all's well that ends well. The hero meets the President. The kid's killers are booked. The couple is reunited. And religious tolerance starts prevailing again in the United States, thanks to the one and only Rizwan Khan.
I am honestly still trying to figure out what was not right in the movie. Like I said, I like KJo and SRK both. But they should do what they are best at doing. It's not enough to just dispense with the marriage songs, the bubble-gum romance, the blonde dancers in discotheques and reconciled misunderstandings. MNIK, an attempt to be realistic and give out a message, etc. is all very well but it still falls short, thanks to the leaps of logic and unrealism that creep in unannounced.
Be that as it may, in the last week, I was receiving very mixed reviews about the movie. Some were liking it a lot, while others were hating it. The explanation given by those who liked it was that the others didn't like it because they only expect KJo and SRK to deliver song-and-dance, mush routines. So the former lot felt that the movie was a lot more meaningful than their usual fare. On the other hand, the set who didn't like the movie felt that it was a repetition of the same theme now seen for the fourth time in just over a year - started by Khuda kay liye, then New York, Kurbaan and now My Name is Khan.
I like Karan Johar movies. They entertain and I find them pretty well-written. The scale is always large, the performances are good and ultimately he does touch you with a little bit of pop-corn sentiment.
And I like Shahrukh Khan too. He may not be the finest actor alive, but he's undoubtedly a superstar. He has the screen presence and the charisma which is hard to match.
Consider the plot. Our hero, Rizwan Khan, suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a kind of autism that makes him incapable of displaying emotions, even though he feels them. So, he can't cry, but he sure does laugh sometimes. He is incapable of understanding jokes, metaphors or figures of speech and is doomed to take everything in its literal sense. That does create some problems for others in understanding him. But he trundles along life in his own way, thanks to the invaluable lessons that his mother taught him as a child. One of these was that there are only two types of people in the world - good and bad - and that is the only difference between people. Since he takes everything literally, this remains his world-view for the rest of his life.
There is a bit of Forrest Gump in there in terms of the premise of the story. There is also a bit of Rain Man in terms of the mannerisms and acting. But unlike those two great movies, this one is close, but no cigar.
Coming back to the story - he goes along repairing things till his mother's death and then finds his way to USA thanks to his younger brother who has settled there. There too he manages somehow till one day falls in love with a single mother and gets married. All is seemingly well till 9/11 happens and a lot of lives are changed.
The first half of the movie is a little boring and tedious. Somehow the pace just doesn't pick up and the story moves along without much magic. The second half gets more interesting but not much. The son gets killed because of racial prejudice and this creates a huge rift between the couple. In a fit of anger, she accuses him and his name as the cause of her son's death and drives him out of her life. Thus begins his journey to meet the President to tell him, "My name is Khan, and I'm not a terrorist."
The movie then gets predictable. He is misunderstood, falsely accused, tortured and finally stabbed for one reason or another, either by Homeland Security or by Muslim terrorists in turn. But he does manage to create a nationwide stir for his cause thanks to a couple of rookie journalists and a news channel. What's more, he acts the hero and saves an entire village from a flood, even when the authorities have left them for dead. You know how it is - our hero can achieve the impossible with his attitude of love conquers all.
So all's well that ends well. The hero meets the President. The kid's killers are booked. The couple is reunited. And religious tolerance starts prevailing again in the United States, thanks to the one and only Rizwan Khan.
I am honestly still trying to figure out what was not right in the movie. Like I said, I like KJo and SRK both. But they should do what they are best at doing. It's not enough to just dispense with the marriage songs, the bubble-gum romance, the blonde dancers in discotheques and reconciled misunderstandings. MNIK, an attempt to be realistic and give out a message, etc. is all very well but it still falls short, thanks to the leaps of logic and unrealism that creep in unannounced.
SRK's outstretched arms, flying shirts, raised head and crooked smiles are replaced by stoops, awkward walks, squints and stammers. The trace of hamming is still there.
Kajol is squeaky.
The rest are inconsequential, with one notable exception of Zareena Wahab. She has a miniscule role and she has done it to perfection.
So, just like Rizwan Khan, the movie is a bit slow, has its heart in the right place, but is incapable of really interacting and reaching out to touch you. I would recommend watching it only for the sake of completion - its a movie that has to be watched, even if to just assert your right to watch a movie.
Some questions still remain though:
If the movie wouldn't have received all the publicity, would it have received different reviews or box-office collections?
If Ashutosh Gowarikar or Shimit Amin would have been the director, would SRK have still been the same?
And finally, even if you take KJo out of a dream-world, can you ever take the dream-world out of KJo?
Monday, February 15, 2010
On writing
That's the title of a Stephen King book that I haven't read. Yet.
I have the book with me. It's lying on the shelf with all his others - neatly covered and in pristine, unopened condition. Someone had even borrowed it to read for some time (I don't normally lend my books, but that's another story), before returning it to me without reading it (that's yet another story).
But coming back to Stephen King.
I am currently reading his book called, 'Four past midnight'. It is a set of four short novels - The Langoliers, Secret Window Secret Garden, The Library Policeman, and The Sun Dog. I've finished the first one and is halfway through the second. The second short novel has been made into a movie starring Johnny Depp (I don't like him, while some others do and that's yet another story).
The first book I read of Stephen King's was Misery. Then I read The Shining. Then Different Seasons which had The Shawshank Redemption as one of the stories. Then Green Mile. Then Cell. And now I'm reading Four past midnight.
The most amazing aspect of his writing is his ability to narrate the thoughts of his characters. Somehow, he manages to get not just their dialogues and thoughts on paper, but exactly what they are feeling. That too in a manner that you start feeling it yourself as a reader.
And he doesn't write about prosaic themes either. There is nothing preachy or high-art in his characters, settings or plots. On the contrary, they are extremely gory and macabre. And his characters are either downright insane, or they display the streak of insanity that is hidden in all of us - the so-called sane ones. And I guess, that's the secret of his ability to connect at such deep levels.
As much as his books themselves, I thoroughly enjoy his prefaces to his books too. This is where he tells us about how the idea for the book or story came to him and most often it is from absolutely inconspicuous events or people in his life. But that sparked off a huge story somewhere in his mind and he then had the ability and discipline to put it down on paper (or laptop) and get it out for us. So there you have it - the two most important prerequisites for good writing - imagination and discipline.
I will surely be reading every book he's written and very soon. I unfortunately started reading him too late in my life - just about five years ago. But every book I've read has convinced me that he is one of the finest writers going today.
And I will also be reading 'On Writing'. That, I hope, gives some real insights into how such great work takes birth.
I have the book with me. It's lying on the shelf with all his others - neatly covered and in pristine, unopened condition. Someone had even borrowed it to read for some time (I don't normally lend my books, but that's another story), before returning it to me without reading it (that's yet another story).
But coming back to Stephen King.
I am currently reading his book called, 'Four past midnight'. It is a set of four short novels - The Langoliers, Secret Window Secret Garden, The Library Policeman, and The Sun Dog. I've finished the first one and is halfway through the second. The second short novel has been made into a movie starring Johnny Depp (I don't like him, while some others do and that's yet another story).
The first book I read of Stephen King's was Misery. Then I read The Shining. Then Different Seasons which had The Shawshank Redemption as one of the stories. Then Green Mile. Then Cell. And now I'm reading Four past midnight.
The most amazing aspect of his writing is his ability to narrate the thoughts of his characters. Somehow, he manages to get not just their dialogues and thoughts on paper, but exactly what they are feeling. That too in a manner that you start feeling it yourself as a reader.
And he doesn't write about prosaic themes either. There is nothing preachy or high-art in his characters, settings or plots. On the contrary, they are extremely gory and macabre. And his characters are either downright insane, or they display the streak of insanity that is hidden in all of us - the so-called sane ones. And I guess, that's the secret of his ability to connect at such deep levels.
As much as his books themselves, I thoroughly enjoy his prefaces to his books too. This is where he tells us about how the idea for the book or story came to him and most often it is from absolutely inconspicuous events or people in his life. But that sparked off a huge story somewhere in his mind and he then had the ability and discipline to put it down on paper (or laptop) and get it out for us. So there you have it - the two most important prerequisites for good writing - imagination and discipline.
I will surely be reading every book he's written and very soon. I unfortunately started reading him too late in my life - just about five years ago. But every book I've read has convinced me that he is one of the finest writers going today.
And I will also be reading 'On Writing'. That, I hope, gives some real insights into how such great work takes birth.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Rann
RGV is back in all his glory. Weird camera angles. Loud background music. Intense dialogue. Extreme close-ups. Jerky edit patterns. The full treatment. But hey - that's his style and he does that best. So no complaints on that front. I love RGV movies for precisely these reasons and criticising him for doing what he does best is like saying that Picasso should learn to draw with the correct perspective.
He hasn't changed his style from Raat, Shiva, Kaun?, Satya, Company, Sarkar and sequel, and now with Rann. In fact his style is the same even in Aag, Bhoot, Phoonk, etc. which have been considerably less enjoyable to watch. The difference between his good movies and bad is that the good ones have a script, a story, characters and a statement. And these are sorely lacking in his bad ones.
So where does Rann fall? After a lot of thought, I would tend to tip it over in the good basket.
The film definitely has a message. True courage of conviction involves paying a price. So what if it means destroying your loved ones and even yourself for the sake of the truth? And this becomes even more poignant if you have to do it in front of millions of viewers on live national television, coupled with the fact that being the owner of that channel, you could have easily chosen to cover it up.
What struck me most about the movie was that in terms of screentime, the good guys get about a fourth of that of the bad guys. Even in terms of dialogue, the bad guys out-speak, out-shout and out-ham the good ones by a factor of 4. However, you don't need too much time and lines to establish the strength of a character. Inherent strength does shine through and wins over all. And Vijay Malik, the owner of a national news channel along with Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist of the same channel bring this out brilliantly.
Mr Bachchan is absolutely fabulous. He plays Vijay Malik, the owner. Principled to the core to the point of being a bad businessman. Ritiesh Deshmukh is Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist. Starry-eyed about his idol and extremely idealistic and prinicipled too. Both work towards keeping up the strong ethic of their channel. But as Vijay Malik gets trapped into a web of deceit spun by the closest people in his family that ends up overthrowing the government itself, Purab is left standing by the sidelines feeling confused and disgusted.
Both have delivered brilliantly on their characters. Understated and credible.
Now about the bad guys. They disappoint hugely. Sudeep, playing Jay Malik, the young, US-MBA qualified, chain-smoking son of Vijay mostly hams and speaks Hindi with a funny accent. If he is not snorting in extreme close-ups, then he's ranting his guts out in sweeping low angle shots. Got a little tiresome.
Paresh Rawal as Mohan Pandey, the ruthless opposition leader is a caricature of the same evil politician that we see even in B-grade Hindi movies. He had done a better job in Shiva for sure.
Everyone else is adequate. But Mohnish Bahl was pretty good in the role of Kakkar, the owner of a rival news channel. The women are totally inconsequential. Gul Panag was completely wasted, which was a pity. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, which is to be expected.
Rann could've easily fallen into the bad basket for me, if it wouldn't have been for Mr Bachchan. His speech in the climax is simply brilliant to the extent of being flawless. And that is what gave meaning to the film and left you feeling that it was time well spent.
One point to nitpick - the politics is portrayed as if it is a simple two-party democracy like in the US rather than the complex mess that it actually is in India. But I guess it was to avoid unnecessary complexities in the storyline.
End of it all, watch Rann if you're an RGV fan and you'll love it. Otherwise it would be a 50-50 chance. I felt it wasn't one of his best but I liked it anyway.
He hasn't changed his style from Raat, Shiva, Kaun?, Satya, Company, Sarkar and sequel, and now with Rann. In fact his style is the same even in Aag, Bhoot, Phoonk, etc. which have been considerably less enjoyable to watch. The difference between his good movies and bad is that the good ones have a script, a story, characters and a statement. And these are sorely lacking in his bad ones.
So where does Rann fall? After a lot of thought, I would tend to tip it over in the good basket.
The film definitely has a message. True courage of conviction involves paying a price. So what if it means destroying your loved ones and even yourself for the sake of the truth? And this becomes even more poignant if you have to do it in front of millions of viewers on live national television, coupled with the fact that being the owner of that channel, you could have easily chosen to cover it up.
What struck me most about the movie was that in terms of screentime, the good guys get about a fourth of that of the bad guys. Even in terms of dialogue, the bad guys out-speak, out-shout and out-ham the good ones by a factor of 4. However, you don't need too much time and lines to establish the strength of a character. Inherent strength does shine through and wins over all. And Vijay Malik, the owner of a national news channel along with Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist of the same channel bring this out brilliantly.
Mr Bachchan is absolutely fabulous. He plays Vijay Malik, the owner. Principled to the core to the point of being a bad businessman. Ritiesh Deshmukh is Purab Shastri, the rookie journalist. Starry-eyed about his idol and extremely idealistic and prinicipled too. Both work towards keeping up the strong ethic of their channel. But as Vijay Malik gets trapped into a web of deceit spun by the closest people in his family that ends up overthrowing the government itself, Purab is left standing by the sidelines feeling confused and disgusted.
Both have delivered brilliantly on their characters. Understated and credible.
Now about the bad guys. They disappoint hugely. Sudeep, playing Jay Malik, the young, US-MBA qualified, chain-smoking son of Vijay mostly hams and speaks Hindi with a funny accent. If he is not snorting in extreme close-ups, then he's ranting his guts out in sweeping low angle shots. Got a little tiresome.
Paresh Rawal as Mohan Pandey, the ruthless opposition leader is a caricature of the same evil politician that we see even in B-grade Hindi movies. He had done a better job in Shiva for sure.
Everyone else is adequate. But Mohnish Bahl was pretty good in the role of Kakkar, the owner of a rival news channel. The women are totally inconsequential. Gul Panag was completely wasted, which was a pity. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, which is to be expected.
Rann could've easily fallen into the bad basket for me, if it wouldn't have been for Mr Bachchan. His speech in the climax is simply brilliant to the extent of being flawless. And that is what gave meaning to the film and left you feeling that it was time well spent.
One point to nitpick - the politics is portrayed as if it is a simple two-party democracy like in the US rather than the complex mess that it actually is in India. But I guess it was to avoid unnecessary complexities in the storyline.
End of it all, watch Rann if you're an RGV fan and you'll love it. Otherwise it would be a 50-50 chance. I felt it wasn't one of his best but I liked it anyway.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Ishqiya
Begins on a dark screen with the opening of a song hummed by Krishna, the sexy UP village wife. As the lights slowly come on, we see her silhoutte filling the screen stretched on a bed. Soon we understand more of her surroundings and the other elements of the scene.
That sets the tone for Ishqiya, the new Vishal Bharadwaj production, directed by Abhishek Chaubey. The story of Ishqiya unfolds lovingly, at an unhurried pace. It slowly gets deeper and deeper into the plot and the character motivations like peeling off an onion.
Vidya Balan plays Krishna, a young woman widowed by the death of her criminal husband. At first we think of her as a vulnerable victim of society and circumstance, till the time that fate sends her two small-time thieves. As the movie unfolds, we find that there is a lot more to her than a mere victim. She effectively seduces both men - alternating between sweetness for the old romantic and raw sexuality for the young lech - to use them as pawns for her own nefarious purposes. She has done a fabulous job handling the various different facets of her character.
Naseeruddin Shah plays Khalujaan, the older thief. He is a romantic at heart who still carries the picture of his first love in his wallet. He easily falls for Krishna's guiles and starts fancying himself as the protector that she so badly needs in her life. Arshad Warsi plays Babban, the young, hot-blooded skirt-chaser. He too falls prey to Krishna's seductions and finds himself falling in love with her.
The characters are extremely well developed. But more importantly, the chemistries between all three of them are very well etched out. We feel as convinced about Krishna's innocence portrayed to Khalujaan as we feel the seduction that she doles out to Babban. At the same time, we are left wondering about the real Krishna. Is she a desperate victim, or a manipulative bitch?
Khalujaan and Babban too are best of friends who find a rift developing between them over the newfound loves of their life. Their teamwork and chemistry comes out beautifully throughout the movie. The best part is that all of this has been achieved through realistic dialogue and acting without any monologues or drama.
There is absolutely nothing to comment about the performances, except to say that they are near flawless. So is the direction. I personally felt, the climax was a little too overtly dramatic for the rest of the movie, but one can pass that.
The other characters have also done a superb job as the packing in the film. But the main merchandise comprises the three principal characters and they don't disappoint in the least.
The music is brilliant too. And just like the movie, grows slowly on you. A perfect blend of lyrics, music and vocals. With Gulzar, Vishal Bhardwaj, Rekha Bhardwaj, Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, Sukhwinder Singh and Mika, you cannot go wrong anyway.
All in all, Ishqiya is a must-watch. There's a lot more that can be said but that would end up spoiling the movie for those who haven't yet watched it.
The year has begun well. Let's hope we get to see more of such intelligent cinema in 2010.
That sets the tone for Ishqiya, the new Vishal Bharadwaj production, directed by Abhishek Chaubey. The story of Ishqiya unfolds lovingly, at an unhurried pace. It slowly gets deeper and deeper into the plot and the character motivations like peeling off an onion.
Vidya Balan plays Krishna, a young woman widowed by the death of her criminal husband. At first we think of her as a vulnerable victim of society and circumstance, till the time that fate sends her two small-time thieves. As the movie unfolds, we find that there is a lot more to her than a mere victim. She effectively seduces both men - alternating between sweetness for the old romantic and raw sexuality for the young lech - to use them as pawns for her own nefarious purposes. She has done a fabulous job handling the various different facets of her character.
Naseeruddin Shah plays Khalujaan, the older thief. He is a romantic at heart who still carries the picture of his first love in his wallet. He easily falls for Krishna's guiles and starts fancying himself as the protector that she so badly needs in her life. Arshad Warsi plays Babban, the young, hot-blooded skirt-chaser. He too falls prey to Krishna's seductions and finds himself falling in love with her.
The characters are extremely well developed. But more importantly, the chemistries between all three of them are very well etched out. We feel as convinced about Krishna's innocence portrayed to Khalujaan as we feel the seduction that she doles out to Babban. At the same time, we are left wondering about the real Krishna. Is she a desperate victim, or a manipulative bitch?
Khalujaan and Babban too are best of friends who find a rift developing between them over the newfound loves of their life. Their teamwork and chemistry comes out beautifully throughout the movie. The best part is that all of this has been achieved through realistic dialogue and acting without any monologues or drama.
There is absolutely nothing to comment about the performances, except to say that they are near flawless. So is the direction. I personally felt, the climax was a little too overtly dramatic for the rest of the movie, but one can pass that.
The other characters have also done a superb job as the packing in the film. But the main merchandise comprises the three principal characters and they don't disappoint in the least.
The music is brilliant too. And just like the movie, grows slowly on you. A perfect blend of lyrics, music and vocals. With Gulzar, Vishal Bhardwaj, Rekha Bhardwaj, Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, Sukhwinder Singh and Mika, you cannot go wrong anyway.
All in all, Ishqiya is a must-watch. There's a lot more that can be said but that would end up spoiling the movie for those who haven't yet watched it.
The year has begun well. Let's hope we get to see more of such intelligent cinema in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)