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.
Friday, June 4, 2010
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)