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.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Mediocrity
I read somebody's views on mediocrity yesterday. And I agreed with her. The main point that she was driving was that there's nobody who can truly judge mediocrity. The intellectual elite of the society have made it a norm that whatever is popular is mediocre. And this is what she was vehemently arguing against.
Although I agreed with her in the spirit of the argument, I have certain views of my own on the subject.
Mediocrity does exist. And I do feel that a certain amount of taste and intelligence is required to see mediocrity when it happens. This doesn't mean that only obscure and pseudo-intellectual stuff is non-mediocre. Even popular stuff is mediocre and most often is.
The sole reason for art to exist is for the artist to leave an impression (of any kind) on the viewer/listener. It is a manner in which the artist leaves a bit of him or her onto the recipient of the art. If that happens, then no matter what the subject matter of the art is, it is not mediocre.
The best illustration of my point is of course, Mark Knopfler. He always writes songs on the most mundane things in the world. But they affect him. And he conveys his own feelings through his songs in a manner that doesn't fail to touch the listeners.
Another example is Calvin & Hobbes. A simple cartoon strip but with huge insights into human nature and can almost give one a philosophy to live by.
There are countless such examples. All in all, according to me, mediocrity in art happens when the artists try to please someone or anyone other than themselves while producing the art. To that extent popularity if sought for the sake of popularity leads to mediocrity. However, everything that is popular if termed as mediocre would reek of pseudo-intellectualism. And that is as bad as or worse than being mediocre in the first place.
Although I agreed with her in the spirit of the argument, I have certain views of my own on the subject.
Mediocrity does exist. And I do feel that a certain amount of taste and intelligence is required to see mediocrity when it happens. This doesn't mean that only obscure and pseudo-intellectual stuff is non-mediocre. Even popular stuff is mediocre and most often is.
The sole reason for art to exist is for the artist to leave an impression (of any kind) on the viewer/listener. It is a manner in which the artist leaves a bit of him or her onto the recipient of the art. If that happens, then no matter what the subject matter of the art is, it is not mediocre.
The best illustration of my point is of course, Mark Knopfler. He always writes songs on the most mundane things in the world. But they affect him. And he conveys his own feelings through his songs in a manner that doesn't fail to touch the listeners.
Another example is Calvin & Hobbes. A simple cartoon strip but with huge insights into human nature and can almost give one a philosophy to live by.
There are countless such examples. All in all, according to me, mediocrity in art happens when the artists try to please someone or anyone other than themselves while producing the art. To that extent popularity if sought for the sake of popularity leads to mediocrity. However, everything that is popular if termed as mediocre would reek of pseudo-intellectualism. And that is as bad as or worse than being mediocre in the first place.
The Guardian Angel
Yesterday was a lousy day. The whole world was irritating me. Ok not the whole world, but you get the drift. One generalizes to make a point.
Without going into the details of sordid meetings, it's worthwhile to dwell on something much more beautiful. I might be getting really repetitive here but my day got redeemed when I got back home and watched Mark perform. I put on the DVD of One night in London and got carried away by the sight and sound of genius. Genius that doesn't have to try. At all. Effortless Genius is the term that I would like to use. How the guy manages to belt out melodies of that order as if he's waiting for a bus beats me.
Everything about Mark is fabulous. His guitar picking style. His voice. His chemistry with the other musicians. His chemistry with the audience. His words. His expressions. The whole package is so amazing that it has the ability to elevate any mood. Listening to him reaffirms my faith in humanity. There is hope after all. Somewhere I had mentioned that apart from a select few who can be put on a pedestal, general humanity deserves disdain. How true! Yesterday confirmed that in many ways.
This morning I got up and was bracing myself for another lousy day at work. Then before even brushing my teeth, I communed with my God. And all's right with the world again.
Now I've discovered something new. I can listen to Mark all day on my Bluetooth headset. Even though it's a single speaker in one ear and it doesn't give a great sound, I can have him going while going through the day. And no one needs to know. This is perfect. It helps me be with Mark in the background like a guardian angel who constantly reminds me to rise above the crap around me and not get affected by it.
Life is good today.
Without going into the details of sordid meetings, it's worthwhile to dwell on something much more beautiful. I might be getting really repetitive here but my day got redeemed when I got back home and watched Mark perform. I put on the DVD of One night in London and got carried away by the sight and sound of genius. Genius that doesn't have to try. At all. Effortless Genius is the term that I would like to use. How the guy manages to belt out melodies of that order as if he's waiting for a bus beats me.
Everything about Mark is fabulous. His guitar picking style. His voice. His chemistry with the other musicians. His chemistry with the audience. His words. His expressions. The whole package is so amazing that it has the ability to elevate any mood. Listening to him reaffirms my faith in humanity. There is hope after all. Somewhere I had mentioned that apart from a select few who can be put on a pedestal, general humanity deserves disdain. How true! Yesterday confirmed that in many ways.
This morning I got up and was bracing myself for another lousy day at work. Then before even brushing my teeth, I communed with my God. And all's right with the world again.
Now I've discovered something new. I can listen to Mark all day on my Bluetooth headset. Even though it's a single speaker in one ear and it doesn't give a great sound, I can have him going while going through the day. And no one needs to know. This is perfect. It helps me be with Mark in the background like a guardian angel who constantly reminds me to rise above the crap around me and not get affected by it.
Life is good today.
Knopfler, Wodehouse and Majidi
When asked about who my favourite author is, I normally tend to clam up a bit and then suddenly rattle out five or six names. I like to think of myself as someone who has a varied taste in reading and therefore, I am careful to give names of writers across genres – Michael Crichton, Ayn Rand, Desmond Morris, Richard Bach, James Hadley Chase, Agatha Christie, JK Rowling, etc. etc. Most often Wodehouse doesn’t even feature in my list. But at the bottom of it all, he will always remain my most favourite.
Similarly Pink Floyd, Beatles, Jethro Tull, U2, Cat Stevens, Shakti and several others, would be some of my favourite musicians. But hand on heart, the guy who really makes me rock is Mark Knopfler.
Coming to movies. This is a lot tougher than books or music. There are several film-makers who truly are extremely worthy. Frank Darabont, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, Wachowski brothers, Christopher Nolan, Sidney Lumet, Giuseppe Tornatore, etc. And then there is Majid Majidi.
These here are the three people whose work I admire the most. There is something common to these three guys that puts them in a league that is totally apart from others who might be a lot more talented, accomplished or regarded.
All three of them are great mood-elevators. Even if I am in the greatest of depressions (which I never am, but I do get pretty crotchety at times), I can count on any of these three to be there for me. They are my best friends whose company can uplift my spirits any time.
Knopfler’s work, especially his solo albums, talks about absolutely common place themes like migrant labour, circus freaks, shoe salesmen and autograph hunters. No one can ever think of writing songs about these things. But the guy’s music can really start making magic. Even his live shows are nothing but Knopfler standing and playing his guitar effortlessly and singing as if he’s just talking. His shows are never over-the-top with flashy pyrotechnics and special effects. It’s about the music.
Take a look at Majidi. If you haven’t already seen ‘Children of Heaven’, you should go out and watch it tonight if possible. Knopfler has simplicity in his themes, but Majidi is simplicity personified. There is nothing but the story and the story-teller in his movies. I’ll probably dedicate another post only for this movie. It is so good that it warrants it.
Now coming to Wodehouse. Here’s a guy in whose fairy-tale world nobody ever is unhappy. Well that’s not entirely true. There are people who are worried, stressed, angry and all of those things. But they are all these things for really trivial reasons. Something as trivial as winning a wager in a village sports event or how one can get out of a sticky situation like being engaged to your best friend’s love interest. And there’s always Jeeves to solve the problem.
Why do I rate Knopfler over Pink Floyd, Majidi over Copolla and Wodehouse over Ayn Rand? The only reason I can attribute to this is that all three of them are artists who are extremely unpretentious about their work. Their work is an end in itself. It is not the means to some esoteric higher end or philosophy. It is extremely evident that their art is purely a source of joy for no one else but themselves. This faithfulness to self gives rise to such creativity that their fans experience it at a deep-rooted level in their own lives. At least this fan does.
I am sure that there are some people sent on this Earth only to spread joy of such a kind – the joy of just being. And I thank these three great souls for always being there for me.
Similarly Pink Floyd, Beatles, Jethro Tull, U2, Cat Stevens, Shakti and several others, would be some of my favourite musicians. But hand on heart, the guy who really makes me rock is Mark Knopfler.
Coming to movies. This is a lot tougher than books or music. There are several film-makers who truly are extremely worthy. Frank Darabont, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, Wachowski brothers, Christopher Nolan, Sidney Lumet, Giuseppe Tornatore, etc. And then there is Majid Majidi.
These here are the three people whose work I admire the most. There is something common to these three guys that puts them in a league that is totally apart from others who might be a lot more talented, accomplished or regarded.
All three of them are great mood-elevators. Even if I am in the greatest of depressions (which I never am, but I do get pretty crotchety at times), I can count on any of these three to be there for me. They are my best friends whose company can uplift my spirits any time.
Knopfler’s work, especially his solo albums, talks about absolutely common place themes like migrant labour, circus freaks, shoe salesmen and autograph hunters. No one can ever think of writing songs about these things. But the guy’s music can really start making magic. Even his live shows are nothing but Knopfler standing and playing his guitar effortlessly and singing as if he’s just talking. His shows are never over-the-top with flashy pyrotechnics and special effects. It’s about the music.
Take a look at Majidi. If you haven’t already seen ‘Children of Heaven’, you should go out and watch it tonight if possible. Knopfler has simplicity in his themes, but Majidi is simplicity personified. There is nothing but the story and the story-teller in his movies. I’ll probably dedicate another post only for this movie. It is so good that it warrants it.
Now coming to Wodehouse. Here’s a guy in whose fairy-tale world nobody ever is unhappy. Well that’s not entirely true. There are people who are worried, stressed, angry and all of those things. But they are all these things for really trivial reasons. Something as trivial as winning a wager in a village sports event or how one can get out of a sticky situation like being engaged to your best friend’s love interest. And there’s always Jeeves to solve the problem.
Why do I rate Knopfler over Pink Floyd, Majidi over Copolla and Wodehouse over Ayn Rand? The only reason I can attribute to this is that all three of them are artists who are extremely unpretentious about their work. Their work is an end in itself. It is not the means to some esoteric higher end or philosophy. It is extremely evident that their art is purely a source of joy for no one else but themselves. This faithfulness to self gives rise to such creativity that their fans experience it at a deep-rooted level in their own lives. At least this fan does.
I am sure that there are some people sent on this Earth only to spread joy of such a kind – the joy of just being. And I thank these three great souls for always being there for me.
Remakes
I love remakes. Sometimes I think watching a remake is even more enjoyable than watching an original movie. As a viewer, I feel a special excitement in establishing parallels between the original and the remake and identifying the manner in which the basic story line is being delivered in an entirely different time and space.
But I can imagine how making a remake is far more difficult than it seems. For one, there are the inevitable comparisons with the original. And if the original is a classic, the task becomes even more ominous.
I recently saw Ram Gopal Varma ki Aag – a remake of Sholay. My first reaction (which was 10 minutes into the movie) was to write a scathing blog about how bad the movie was. I saw the rest of the movie with the sole intention of gathering material for what I was going to write. But the next day, I saw several reviews and blogs on the movie which were voicing exactly what my thoughts were. So then there was no point in repeating the same sentiments. Instead, why not talk about a remake that did work?
Maqbool. A remake of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, made by Vishal Bhardwaj. Right from the name itself, we can see the parallels of a classic remake. Shakespeare’s classic tale of a man’s ambition and passion ultimately allowing his dark side to take over with the inevitably disastrous consequences. The story is about kings and lords of Scotland in the 1400s. The remake is about ganglords and gangsters set in the underworld of Mumbai in the 1990s.
Having known that the movie is a remake of Macbeth, I was extremely curious about several things about the storyline. How, for example, would he portray the pivotal characters of the three witches? Mr Bhardwaj’s masterstroke can be seen in just this example – it is played by two cops – Om Puri and Naseeruddin Shah who keep dabbling in astrology and making predictions about Maqbool which systematically fuel the evil inside him.
Another classic example is towards the end of the film – the part where the witches make a cryptic prophecy about how Macbeth will meet his downfall. They predict that he will "never vanquish'd be until Great Birnam Wood to High Dunsinane Hill shall come against him". And towards the end, the enemy army does camouflage itself with trees cut from Birnam wood and reach his castle, ultimately leading to his death.
The parallel of this incident in Maqbool is also a mark of genius. The prediction in the movie is that no harm can come to Maqbool until the “sea enters his house”. And then there is a beautifully crafted scene of white uniformed coast guard men entering Maqbool’s house to arrest him.
There are several such instances in the movie which are nothing short of brilliant. The movie is absolutely loyal to the original story and at the same time it is extremely relevant in its own time and space. I can’t think of another remake which has managed to achieve this, bar Omkara, which is again by the same auteur and a remake of another Shakespeare tragedy – Othello.
Coming back to Aag. Just how could Ram Gopal Varma do this? It would have been a relatively simpler job to remake Sholay in an urban setting. But he has failed miserably. I for one, had such high expectations from this film and this director. All the ingredients are there – a brilliant story, an extremely talented cast, a setting that is his own personal trademark and above all the sheer talent that he himself has as a director. Maybe he just got too overwhelmed by the task and let it all go to pieces. It probably would have worked better as a spoof – at least one expects the inspiration to be torn apart.
It really is tempting to go for the movie’s jugular and rip it apart piece by piece. But then I don’t have the heart to do so. Maybe I will just wait for the next Shakespearian remake by Vishal Bharadwaj. I believe it is going to be Julius Caesar.
But I can imagine how making a remake is far more difficult than it seems. For one, there are the inevitable comparisons with the original. And if the original is a classic, the task becomes even more ominous.
I recently saw Ram Gopal Varma ki Aag – a remake of Sholay. My first reaction (which was 10 minutes into the movie) was to write a scathing blog about how bad the movie was. I saw the rest of the movie with the sole intention of gathering material for what I was going to write. But the next day, I saw several reviews and blogs on the movie which were voicing exactly what my thoughts were. So then there was no point in repeating the same sentiments. Instead, why not talk about a remake that did work?
Maqbool. A remake of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, made by Vishal Bhardwaj. Right from the name itself, we can see the parallels of a classic remake. Shakespeare’s classic tale of a man’s ambition and passion ultimately allowing his dark side to take over with the inevitably disastrous consequences. The story is about kings and lords of Scotland in the 1400s. The remake is about ganglords and gangsters set in the underworld of Mumbai in the 1990s.
Having known that the movie is a remake of Macbeth, I was extremely curious about several things about the storyline. How, for example, would he portray the pivotal characters of the three witches? Mr Bhardwaj’s masterstroke can be seen in just this example – it is played by two cops – Om Puri and Naseeruddin Shah who keep dabbling in astrology and making predictions about Maqbool which systematically fuel the evil inside him.
Another classic example is towards the end of the film – the part where the witches make a cryptic prophecy about how Macbeth will meet his downfall. They predict that he will "never vanquish'd be until Great Birnam Wood to High Dunsinane Hill shall come against him". And towards the end, the enemy army does camouflage itself with trees cut from Birnam wood and reach his castle, ultimately leading to his death.
The parallel of this incident in Maqbool is also a mark of genius. The prediction in the movie is that no harm can come to Maqbool until the “sea enters his house”. And then there is a beautifully crafted scene of white uniformed coast guard men entering Maqbool’s house to arrest him.
There are several such instances in the movie which are nothing short of brilliant. The movie is absolutely loyal to the original story and at the same time it is extremely relevant in its own time and space. I can’t think of another remake which has managed to achieve this, bar Omkara, which is again by the same auteur and a remake of another Shakespeare tragedy – Othello.
Coming back to Aag. Just how could Ram Gopal Varma do this? It would have been a relatively simpler job to remake Sholay in an urban setting. But he has failed miserably. I for one, had such high expectations from this film and this director. All the ingredients are there – a brilliant story, an extremely talented cast, a setting that is his own personal trademark and above all the sheer talent that he himself has as a director. Maybe he just got too overwhelmed by the task and let it all go to pieces. It probably would have worked better as a spoof – at least one expects the inspiration to be torn apart.
It really is tempting to go for the movie’s jugular and rip it apart piece by piece. But then I don’t have the heart to do so. Maybe I will just wait for the next Shakespearian remake by Vishal Bharadwaj. I believe it is going to be Julius Caesar.
Movie magic
Some scenes which bring out the magic of movies. Strictly in the order of them coming to mind.
1. The opening sequence of Sound of Music. Sweeping aerial shots of the Alps slowly taking in the entire countryside. The music slowly builds up and reaches a crescendo as we fly to Maria singing "The Hills are alive..." We have already experienced (more than seen) how the hills are alive and the whole scene is simply amazing.
2. Mohan takes his first sip of water in India in Swades. Returning from a village where he's been subjected to abject poverty for the first time, the NRI NASA scientist, Mohan Bhargava, realises for the first time what most of India lives like. Till this point in the movie, he only drinks bottled water of Kinley (an American product, obviously) because the Indian water is likely to be too contaminated for him. As the train stops at a halt, a young boy is selling water at 50p to the travellers. Mohan takes the glass and drinks the water symbolising a lot more than just that. He has gone through a life-altering experience and the simple act of drinking the water means so much. Executed to perfection by Sharukh Khan without a single word of dialogue.
3. Tevye's dance with the Fiddler after the captain tells him to expect a pogrom on his daughter's wedding in Fiddler on the Roof. Tevye is in the best of spirits as he has just found an excellent match for Tzeitel. And having drunk away in the village inn, he is returning home. That's when the Christian police captain informs him that there has to be some symbolic Jewish persecution soon. But all this is just the setup. Now a little low, Tevye does his little complaint to God and turns to face the Fiddler. He teases Tevye a bit with a few notes on the fiddle and soon Tevye starts dancing with him on the street again. He has not just accepted his fate, he has embraced it and started finding joy again. One of my all-time favourites.
4. Anna's killing in Parinda. Kishan burns the pyrophobic Anna alive in a closed room for having murdered his brother, Karan and sister-in-law, Paro. Jackie Shroff as Kishan has probably delivered his career best scene with absolutely no dialogue. Masterpiece in editing, writing and direction.
5. Ali and his sister exchanging surreptitious notes while his father is breaking sugar and having an argument with their mother in Children of Heaven. We understand that the family is in economic dire straits from the conversation. But Ali's sister is upset as he has lost the only pair of shoes she has. Ali is desperately trying to convince her to use his shoes and all this happens through an exchange of notes. The scene ends with Ali bribing his sister with a shiny new pencil to buy her silence. Story-telling simplicity like never seen before.
6. The climax of Usual Suspects. Verbal Kint has managed to fool the interrogator right through his grueling encounter. He has continuously made up stories based on the overcrowded notice-board right in front of him. At the end of it all, he leaves the room limping. And then there are intercuts of the inspector gazing at the notice-board and piecing together the lies that he has been fed so far with Verbal walking out of the station slowly overcoming his limp and back to normalcy. One of the best revelations I've ever seen. The movie ends with Verbal saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is to convince people that he doesn't exist. And like this , he's gone." On come the theater lights at the moment, and he really is gone. Fantastic, to say the least.
1. The opening sequence of Sound of Music. Sweeping aerial shots of the Alps slowly taking in the entire countryside. The music slowly builds up and reaches a crescendo as we fly to Maria singing "The Hills are alive..." We have already experienced (more than seen) how the hills are alive and the whole scene is simply amazing.
2. Mohan takes his first sip of water in India in Swades. Returning from a village where he's been subjected to abject poverty for the first time, the NRI NASA scientist, Mohan Bhargava, realises for the first time what most of India lives like. Till this point in the movie, he only drinks bottled water of Kinley (an American product, obviously) because the Indian water is likely to be too contaminated for him. As the train stops at a halt, a young boy is selling water at 50p to the travellers. Mohan takes the glass and drinks the water symbolising a lot more than just that. He has gone through a life-altering experience and the simple act of drinking the water means so much. Executed to perfection by Sharukh Khan without a single word of dialogue.
3. Tevye's dance with the Fiddler after the captain tells him to expect a pogrom on his daughter's wedding in Fiddler on the Roof. Tevye is in the best of spirits as he has just found an excellent match for Tzeitel. And having drunk away in the village inn, he is returning home. That's when the Christian police captain informs him that there has to be some symbolic Jewish persecution soon. But all this is just the setup. Now a little low, Tevye does his little complaint to God and turns to face the Fiddler. He teases Tevye a bit with a few notes on the fiddle and soon Tevye starts dancing with him on the street again. He has not just accepted his fate, he has embraced it and started finding joy again. One of my all-time favourites.
4. Anna's killing in Parinda. Kishan burns the pyrophobic Anna alive in a closed room for having murdered his brother, Karan and sister-in-law, Paro. Jackie Shroff as Kishan has probably delivered his career best scene with absolutely no dialogue. Masterpiece in editing, writing and direction.
5. Ali and his sister exchanging surreptitious notes while his father is breaking sugar and having an argument with their mother in Children of Heaven. We understand that the family is in economic dire straits from the conversation. But Ali's sister is upset as he has lost the only pair of shoes she has. Ali is desperately trying to convince her to use his shoes and all this happens through an exchange of notes. The scene ends with Ali bribing his sister with a shiny new pencil to buy her silence. Story-telling simplicity like never seen before.
6. The climax of Usual Suspects. Verbal Kint has managed to fool the interrogator right through his grueling encounter. He has continuously made up stories based on the overcrowded notice-board right in front of him. At the end of it all, he leaves the room limping. And then there are intercuts of the inspector gazing at the notice-board and piecing together the lies that he has been fed so far with Verbal walking out of the station slowly overcoming his limp and back to normalcy. One of the best revelations I've ever seen. The movie ends with Verbal saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is to convince people that he doesn't exist. And like this , he's gone." On come the theater lights at the moment, and he really is gone. Fantastic, to say the least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)