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.

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.

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?

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.