Dil Chahta Hai - a scary thought

Almost eight years on, watching this film it seems that most of my fears have come true. I do not like it anymore. These are the people I was worried will take over the world.

Don't get me wrong. I had watched it 5 times when it was released. So in a way I have contributed to this conspiracy.

While going to college in the 90's, I always had this vague theory that the generation younger to me was more conservative - they would be interested in returning to traditional values, higher salaries would drive their lives, not interesting projects and they would not shirk from spending big on their weddings a far cry from their parents. And if they failed in their first career of choice, they would have no hesitation in joining their family business.

When the film was released, an editorial had appeared in a newspaper which had claimed that the film represented a new India - its characters a young generation confident about their abilities, not afraid to flaunt their richness and ready to take on the opportunities in global village. Really?

Aamir is the rich kid who joins his father after playing the loafer for some time. Akshaye is the artist. He can afford it since it seems his mother (and family) seem to have a lot of money. We never really know what Saif does but this does not matter since in most films of the 90's what the hero does for a living is not important. How is this film any different from those ones? The guys do not want to strike out and try something different. Except go to Goa on a Merc.

The girls in the film do not have a career. Forget about working, all they interested in falling in love and getting married. Coming at the beginning of the 21st century this is a scary thought. Whatever happened to the fight started by their mothers in the 1980s when they went out to work? Preity and Sonali have no thoughts beyond the men and loves in their lives. Of course everyone is open about their dreams but their dreams are very conservative and boring.

The climax of the film with the showdown at the marriage is again a celebration of that institution with the emphasis that this is the most important day of your life. Something that other films have been singing for decades.

Dil Chahta Hai was never a fresh breeze of cinema. It just packaged the old values and passed it onto the next generation with songs, designer houses and funky hair styling. What more the young embraced it since they knew what they would become. Now that I can see it coming true all around me I'm scared.

Read More

Bonded

Bond is now the most successful movie franchise in the world. Considering that half the world's population has seen a Bond flick, every now and then the people behind Bond update the super spy. This time around the change-over so mesmerizing that no one remembers the change Pierce Brosnan got to Bond. While Casino Royale was a truly phenomenal makeover for the famed agent, I can't help but think that Quantum of Solace (read review) kind of loses the plot somewhere. This is the first time in my Bond experience that I couldn't get the story. I know…you are going what the hell…Bond and story. Who gives a fish about things like plot, narrative, screenplay and other such cinematic terminology when you view something like a James Bond film?

That's exactly the thing the producers changed with Casino Royale. They really worked their gray cells and came up with a structure that doesn't follow the norm. They worked on a story and other things like characters and arc and what have you. After all here was a Bond who showed his softer side when he just hugged the girl under a shower after a bloody battle. He was so, for the lack of any other semi-worthy word, metrosexual. He fell in love with a woman who could match up to him and he wasn't going to let the villains get away when they eliminated the love of his life. So much so that he comes back in Quantum of Solace and parades a parallel plot wherein his search for Vesper's assassins doesn't stop till he avenges. It's a different story that he looks lost as a schoolboy while pursuing his tormentor but hey this is more than what one would ever expect from a Bond.

Daniel Craig is a strange choice to portray Bond. He isn't like Sean Connery or Roger Moore or even Brosnan but it wouldn't be totally incorrect to say that he dons a little of all his predecessors. He is mega physical and doesn't miss Q's zany inventions; he'd rather jump across the screen chasing the bad guys. Every ten minutes he gets into a fistfight with someone and every ten minutes you see a shot of him bleeding. I don't recall any Bond with blood on him besides Brosnan being tortured by the North Koreans in Die Another Day.

Has the effort of the Bond producers to rework Bond since Casino Royale gone a little too far? Casino Royale had no suggestion of him being a charmer. Maybe they were setting up the man for a newer, different world and with so much happening Bond never really gave a darn about charm. You think that by the time Quantum of Solace hit the screen he'd cultivate some charm. No go. This time around he's not even interested in the opposite sex. He is forever looking for a scuffle, a fight, an argument some bang, bang, some boom, boom.

This would also be the very first Bond flick wherein the famed Bond gals are missing. Bond isn’t interested in even seducing the first one. She meets him at some airport and commands him to stay put at some hotel rather than go looking for trouble. It’s not even like he suggests that they get cozy; the woman is more than eager to get it done with. It seems like she was briefed about the older Bond and she’d find it insulting if the things she heard weren’t true. The other woman is some secret agent who is on a mission of her own and is really busy standing up for herself rather than Bond. Even at the very end of the film she coyly suggests that she wishes she could take away his pain and all our man does is awkwardly kiss her. That kiss was so forced, so uncomfortable that I forgot all about it. It was only when a friend came up with her analysis of James Bond/ Daniel Craig that I was forced to think about it.

This is a changing world. We’ve had a white man rapping the blacks out and a black golfer acing the records. We now have a black US president and Bond is soft, caring, and too metrosexual. Daniel Craig suggested that he’d love the idea of an African-American portraying Bond…we still have some stops before that. Quantum of Solace managed to convince me that Bond’s could be more than just a recovering misogynist, he could be gay. If the next Bond has him doing the same stuff- jumping around like a teenager out of the West Side Story I’d be certain that Bond’s more than just a straight man.

Read More

Madhur Bhandarkar's Fashion

The basic formula for any Madhur Bhandarkar film is as straight as it gets and his latest Fashion continues the tradition. Even though the film is laced with stupidity, Fashion manages to work on a lot of levels.

(Click here to read a review of Fashion)

The underdog usually comes from some godforsaken small town to the biggest baddest city in the world called Mumbai. Here the protagonist, usually a woman, starts to work in some fancy setting- a page three news desk, a traffic signal, some corporate outfit. As she is exposed to the workings of the business she is told that no one, absolutely no one can make it to the top without bartering a piece of their soul. She, being the idealistic woman, refuses but for how long. Somewhere in the middle she comes across people who are sympathetic and nice to her. Watch out she will hurt them eventually. Going thorough the throes of mundane existence she trades her morals for success. She is aware that even though she might do what is doesn’t believe in, this is just temporary. Predictably she changes into just the thing she loathes. Then something will go wrong, really wrong. In the bargain this person would be forwarded as a compromise candidate. This person will come a full circle and that will be the end of it. Their confidence would be shattered and they won’t believe in anything and continue with their lives.

Madhur Bhandarkar always finds a microcosm of the world in the premise of his films. Hence the traffic signal would become a mini India; the corporate entity would be just like the current world situation. He takes pot shots at the people of these worlds, he lampoons them. Everyone is caricatured in his films and his phobias are fueled. He tattles on the setting and fulfills the basic skewed notion that people have of a certain lifestyle. This works as everyone is a voyeur and who doesn’t love seeing someone fall. I was in Delhi when the fabled 1 MG Road mall was razed to the ground under the strange land ceiling act. There was such a show that was put up. The fashionistas cried hoarse saying that ‘middle class’ was jealous of their air kissing life and hence they were being singled out. This is exactly the kind of mindset that Bhandarkar operates on. He is one for headlines. He is the archetypal person who feeds on the Aaj Tak like sensationalism- follow headlines and don't bother with the main story.

Bhandarkar's characters are very black and white. His definition of gray is really slightly black or off-white and nothing more than that. Characters in Bhandarkar films don't really do anything but take a semi-stand. This largely reflects the director's own stance. In a recent television interview when pressed to reveal his personal take on issues that laced his films, Bhandarkar refused to say anything. The man was so scared that all he said was he was an observer who brings up an issue and once the film is over he moves on. He also confessed that the issue be it gay marriage or marital rape and other such 'sensational' ideas were his weapons only for a short span of time (he implied this) for once he is done with them the issue 'dies' for him (he said this).

This is rather sad and unfortunate for Madhur Bhandarkar fails to realize his own reach. There are people who wait for his films and take them a little to seriously at times. All my corporate friends used to sing his praises till he made a film on their supposed world. Now they had a problem with him as he showed nothing but lies! Here is a man who makes use of current affairs and doesn't even have the guts to voice his opinion.

Read More

(No) Thank You for the Music

First a question. Where the hell was the bass guitarist? No seriously, where was he hiding? Or was the band Magic modeled after The Doors? Definitely the music did not sound that good.

Rock On pretends to be a journey of four members of a band that used to play together in college and then split up due to "ego" problems that are never really explained. The story begins in the present and we travel back and forth as the band tries to come together 10 years later. In the finale they perform on stage one last time.

Then why did they split up in the first place? During the band's college phase there is no build up of tension between the band members. All of a sudden when they are on the verge of signing a contract things go wrong. Maybe the reasons were vague but when they get back it seems all to easy. There is no conversation, no shouting sessions behind closed doors, no hearts are opened.

A quick comparison with That Thing You Do - a similar movie based on a band that comes apart on the verge of success, will make us realise where Rock On went wrong. First the music. There is no song that one can remember as one walks out of the hall. A film on a rock band and no good music? Jhankaar Beats had better music - both foot tapping and sing along stuff too.

Next the tension between the characters is not built up. In fact, Farhan (Akhtar) and Arjun (Rampal) have no chemistry between them. They are just not able to bring out the love/hate relationship that drives the band apart. The minor characters - Purab Kohli, Luke Kenny, Shahana Goswami (Arjun' wife) actually end up doing a better job.

What works in the films favour is the production design where each character's house/workplace is distinct thus showing how far they have grown apart. Everytime we see the houses, we are reminded that Arjun has been left to pick up the pieces of his life whereas Farhan has made it big in the financial world. Purab is busy with his father's jewelery business while Luke peddles his talent in under lit music studios.

For once the women characters seem to have something to do. It is Farhan's wife who actually manages to get the band members to meet again. And Arjun's wife keeps busy managing her in-laws fish business and her family always reminding her husband of how the band was a bad idea.

The scene where Farhan meets his ex girlfriend was the only takeaway. She tells him that when he left the music video shoot with a note saying that he would come back she knew he would not return. Farhan replies that in that case she understood him better. Later when he introduces his wife there are no histrionics. They smile since its all water under the bridge.

If only the same intensity was there in the rest of the film.

Read More

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight is everything you'd expect from a summer blockbuster and then some. In addition the film is unlike a 'regular' superhero film. In any case one look at films like Iron Man and The Dark Knight and you know that superhero films aren’t' what they used to be.

The Dark Knight continues the adventures of millionaire Bruce Wayne and his crime fighting vigilante alter ego The Batman. Gotham is safer by the night as every criminal fears the looming presence of Batman. The new DA Harvey Dent promises to be the perfect Ying to Batman’s Yang. While the ‘White’ Knight hauls up almost all the goons off the streets, The ‘Dark’ Knight contemplates weather the day when Gotham won’t need Batman is almost there. He starts looking forward to a life where he won't have to fight crime and be with the love of his Rachel Dawes. He doesn't know that its not just his job that Harvey Dent could take up but also his love.

Just when things seemed to settle down the Joker turns everything around. The perfect nemesis for Batman, the Joker is a psychopath extraordinaire who doesn’t know when to stop for he has no limits. The DA, Batman and Gordon all join forces to get rid of the Joker but it is nothing short of the fight of their lives. Through many tribulations the Dark Knight does save the day for Gotham but not before he corrupts the soul of Gotham in the form of DA Harvey Dent.

Batman Begins might have been the perfect vehicle to infuse life in a dying franchise and change things around for superhero films but The Dark Knight takes comic book films to an entirely different plane. Gone are the days of Batman and Robin, gone are the cool one-liners, this film does away with cardboard villains and depth less characters. The Dark Knight could arguably be the greatest superhero film ever made. What is surprising is the all around praises showered on the film and its crew. Christopher Nolan takes things up right from the word go; imagine a superhero film based on a comic book which is inspired by modern day classics such as Michael Mann’s Heat and William Friedkin’s The French Connection.

This would be always remembered for being the last completed assignment of the late Heath Ledger. The image of Jack Nicholson as the The Joker is ingrained beyond reproach in our subconscious. Heath Ledger has managed to do away with Nicholson and painted the Joker in his color. His Joker is sinister, cool and unstoppable who enjoys doing what he does- wreaking havoc. By the end of the film you realize that this film could have been called The Joker Cometh for Ledger dominates the proceedings beyond your wildest thoughts. Sadly a huge part of the praise for his work would naturally result from his untimely death looming large on the film but trust me the performance doesn’t need any parameters to evoke such reaction.

Perter Bart of Variety has argued that Christian Bale would be the only solo expression actor in the world to enjoy such success. Bale as The Batman was a welcome relief but there is something about him in this film that just doesn't click. Could it that we see more of the Batman and less of Bruce Wayne? The change in his voice that Bale incorporates for Batman is somewhat funny considering that everything else in the film tries to be uncomic book like. Or could it be that Batman is supposed to be wooden and with the death of Rachel Dawes even Bruce Wayne has lost all reason to go beyond the solo expression?

The film doesn't go into the origins of the Joker (like Batman) and never really explores Two Face (like Batman Forever) as much as his transformation, which I think was a very good idea. The great thing about the 'new' superhero films like Iron Man and The Dark Knight is that they don't idiot proof the film for the viewer. The safe haven of fantasy films is now over.

Image- Ninth Avenue

Read More

Mission Istanbul

I’m tired of believing in things and then being taken for a royal ride. The promos and poster of Apoorva Lakhia’s debut feature Mumbai Se Aaya Mera Dost managed to rouse my curiosity. After watching the film I vowed never to see a Lakhia film. God save us for such a world where there is an Apoorva Lakhi film! Some promises were meant to be broken albeit unknowingly but some how I have ended up watching every film of his since his debut.

I tortured myself by enduring Mission Istanbul for no real reason. There is some hidden sadist in me who just wanted to see how bad the film could be. This is the same sadist who auto piloted me to Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag just to find out how stupid could the flick be. Mission Istanbul is a non-stop ride on the stupid side of a serious global menace called terrorism. Here there is no research and everything is loud and fast. Will someone please tell Lakhia that loud, cheesy and jarring sampled background score doesn’t make a film pacy. Imagine a scene where a character is talking about his dead wife and one showing two guys running from terrorists having the same earsplitting music.

As far as the acting is concerned Zayed Khan's longest role ever and he makes a hash out of it. I don't mind Vivek Oberoi for he tries hard. He was called great in Shootout but according to me he hammed his way through Lokhandwala. Here he tries to be restrained in the first few minutes and that could have been a yardstick for the character but watch him take off as a cocksure college senior leading Zayed. Shreya is Zayed's wife in the film and has precisely six scenes in the film and a song. She looks miscast and behaves like one. The other woman, the one called Liza Lobo, well let's just leave it there. Suneil Shetty is Suneil Shetty and the villian is someone who can play Hulk without the special effects!

If you think this is all then there is more. After a mind numbing chase sequence the character opens her car’s boot and takes out Mountain Dew. The goons finally catch up with out Dew sipping dudes; Vivek Oberoi looks at Zayed Khan and says, Darr Lag Raha Hain (Are you afraid?)…and Zayed offers the Mountain Dew answer, Darr Ke Aage Jeet Hai…(Victory after fear).

That’s not all.

The awesome threesome with the woman strutting her stuff in a tighter than tight jeans beat the crap out of the goons, who by the way are henchmen of a terrorist and come with baseball bats! There is the customary special appearance by good friend Abhishek Bachchan in an item number, which needless to say has no connection with the film. There is no hope in hell to survive this mission for whatever is left of your brain dies thanks to Amar Mohile's third-rate background music. Imagine a film set in Istanbul and there not a single trace of some local music. So much so that be it Srinagar, a love scene, a chase, a disco, a news office any place, any scene Mohile's music sounds the same.

Then there is a scene of a George Bush look alike inside Air Force One telling his people to leave India alone for they can’t attack everyone! The main villain is introduced as the head of a TV channel who wears a tuxedo to work!!!

Need I say more?

(As a matter of fact I have said more about this film at twitch film.)

Image: www.chakpak.com

Read More

One More Kiss

I remember watching Kiss of the Spider Woman in college almost 20 years ago. Even then I was mesmerized by the images although I never understood many of the sub plots or contexts for the film. The funny thing was that unlike other films this one was never available on DVD, so I could not revisit it. Therefore all that remained were the images in a distant memory.

Watching the film again last week two things were reinforced. One is still impressed how the project was completed given its unique, non mainstream narrative and the second is the coming together of the various talents who made the story believable.

Almost 70 percent of the film is set in a jail and by the time one of the protagonists steps out, you are almost relieved that the ordeal is over. Over a discussion post the film screening, the producer of the film mentioned that the film took almost a year to edit. Whatever the explanation, this feeling of isolation is beautifully captured and you feel what the characters feel trapped in a prison cell.

There is also the film within a film where one of the characters is either telling stories that he remembers from films he has seen or is making them up. This is very similar to stories that inmates tell each other to pass time. However here the "films" have another significance. In these "films" the characters are more black and white - the vulnerable woman, the strong man - something that apparently the writer of the novel (on which the book is based) uses to explain homosexuality.

While the film offers a critique of the dictatorial regimes it does not go overboard with its argument or resort to propaganda. Instead it looks at the nuances of being forced to live in a situation that may be beyond your control. The homosexual is an outsider both in the dictatorship or the socialist regime that the rebels are trying to set up. In fact most of us would be a misfit in any system that takes ideologies to the extreme. The film is in sharp contrast to something like Persepolis which simply assumes that everything that happens in Iran post the Islamic Revolution is bad. In this sense the film does not glorify a personal story of suffering and use it to criticize the society.

What places the film above many others on such subjects (persecution, repression, homosexuality) is the use of the film medium combining them with dreams and reality. Very few films use cinema as a part of their narrative. A character may refer to a film or a character from a film but images from a film are only shown when the characters are in a hall. The Kiss of the Spider Woman leaves us with many questions. What is reality? What is a dream? And what is a film? A projection of reality? Or our fantasies?

Read More

Samira's Garden

At the core of it Samira's Garden is a very basic idea and thankfully the execution is minimalist as well. Samira is coerced into marrying a middle aged widower. Her mother convinces her that perhaps some times in life one just has to do what has been planned out for them. This couldn't be truer for a girl coming of age in Morocco. Samira has no qualms about what she has walked into for she has no major expectations. All she wants of her husband is to love her and understand her. Things couldn't be further away from the truth for her.

Samira's husband choses to ignore her and utilize her as a maid. He makes it very clear to her that she would be responsible for the health of his ailing father. Samira dutifully plays the role of a loving daughter to her father in law, the dutiful wife to her husband as well as a friend to Farouk, her husbands nephew who stays with them.

Stuck in a farm cut off from the rest of the civilization and her husband's impotency in addition to his complete apathy towards her adds to Samira's alienation. She can't help but recall instances from her personal life before marriage and cry herself to sleep. Samira finds herself drawn to the boyish charms of Farouk and before she knows they end up having an affair. Farouk's companionship brings some kind of relief to her life. Just when she convinces herself that she could end up living her entire life the way destiny planed for her, Samira's husband gets a whiff of her fling with Farouk. The husband forces Farouk to leave. The parting image of the film is what sums up the entire story in a single shot; a lonely Samira sitting in her garden all by herself as the camera reveals how lonely she really ends up.

Directed by Latif Lahlou, Samira's Garden resembles Satyajit Ray's Charulata at places. Lahlou uses the setting of a farm away from city to convey most of the thought rather than rely on lines that run the risk of sounding stupid in such films. The screenplay puts Farouk and Samira in situations where sparks are bound to fly such as both of them bathing the old father in law. The sparse use of dialogue, the engrossing setting and the ponderous pacing of the film make it more than just a film about repressed sexual passion which it starts out to be.

Samira is portrayed by Sanaa Mouziane who manages to get the nuances of the girl-woman just correct for majority of the film. The sumptuous actress has a good sense of comic timing and adorns a free and easy habitation for the role but at times tends to go a little overboard. Sanaa Mouziane displays with aplomb a character who pays the price of personal freedom in the name of tradition in a Muslim society.

Image: www.tangierstehranfilm.org

Read More

Two Paul Schraders

Paul Schrader's two lectures at Cinefan Film Festival were clubbed with the screening of two of most well known works- Mishima and Taxi Driver. After attending the two lectures I realized that they were perhaps given by two different people.

The lecture that followed Mishima was about the New Media and The Death of Cinema. Schrader joked about how the organizers very nattily omitted mentioning the Death of Cinema part on the program! The lecture was supposed to be an insight on the new emerging media trends where in anyone could make a film. I gathered that perhaps Schrader had just used the new technology to color correct a few scenes for Mishima’s DVD release and he might have been mega-impressed with the whole deal.

The lecture turned out to be an anti-climax. By the end of it I realized that Schrader was only to pissed off at the big players losing millions of bucks thanks to new media aka piracy. He was impressed by the reach of the Internet but rather than talking how someone like him could adapt this new technology, ended up sounding rather morose at the prospect of people downloading movies and not paying for them. It was a bit of a let down because one expected an old hand like Paul Schrader to talk more about the threat that new media poses to creativity rather than the business angle of it.

Isn’t Schrader worried about the fact that now directors could add ‘emotions’ like a tear on a character’s face in post-production (Blood Diamond) or use dead people’s unfinished work (John Lenon and the goodies hidden in his closet) by making computers do the needful and bring them back to life. Or the thing done in Beowulf where muscles were added in post on the main character! If one looks at the other end of the argument, then someone like Robert Altman would have really used the 'new media' and done some wonderful work with it. Mr. Schrader sounded like a big studio emissary who came to the East to show how worried they were about the threat of a free uncontrolled Internet.

The other lecture was on screenwriting and it was much better. A few minutes into this one I was convinced that the first lecture wasn’t half as interesting because it was delivered by someone who didn’t really understand the subject. In stark contrast if there was someone who knew a thing or two about screenwriting then it would sure as hell be Paul Schrader.

The Master Class was a quick run through of what Mr. Schrader teaches at UCLA. It gave a rare insight into the mind and the style of a screenwriter whose credits are nothing short of case studies. Schrader had some very interesting take on writing for screen and one wonders why the hell did he have to deliver the first lecture? He made no qualms about making writing a very personal journey, nothing short of therapy. he came across as a someone who knew his contribution to the world of cinema but didn’t make too much of a deal about it. When asked how different would Taxi Driver be had he directed it? He replied that he was glad he never directed it for he would have made a mess of it. He revealed that his script was tampered around with too much save a few omissions here and there, and was happy when Martin Scorsese decided to cut some bits about Travis talking about loneliness. He said that this convinced him that the metaphor he came up with for loneliness, a big yellow metallic box of a taxicab, worked for the film.

Schrader talked briefly about his new script- a meeting between a CIA agent, who has lost faith in his work and is diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and his former interrogator, who, surprise surprise, had lost his will to carry on as a terrorist! He calls this his old man film and is looking forward to starting work on it soon.

Image: www.observer.com

Read More

A personal history of a Revolution

How does one judge a film that one has read as a book? We know the story of the little girl and her family in Iran during the 70's and the 80's. But what the two directors are able to bring to the movie is a certain sense of community and the several layers of life which I felt the book lacked.

The best scenes visually are the war scenes, groups running out during an air raid and also when the protagonist's uncle treks across the country to escape arrest. Although in black and white, these scenes come alive and actually complement the original art work in the graphic novel. The sound design and music actually work here. That said in term of writing I enjoyed the "Punk is not ded" scene where the little girl cooks up a story of her evil step mother to escape the moral police.

The most endearing character is the grandmother who often refers to how the society was when she was young. The funny thing is that she is always claims that during earlier times people (in Iran) were more open minded. This is in direct contrast to arguments in the West who see any history as a progress towards a more open society. I have often felt that in the last ten years our societies have become more conservative and boring compared to the 90's.

The problem with the film is the same as the book. The history of a nation cannot be judged through the eyes of one person. Often such stories exaggerate the pain that a small group went through and force us to pass judgment on the country or its people based on those emotions.

There is a scene in the film where a woman has to go to a hospital administrator to ask permission to take her husband out of the country for an operation. She realizes that this is her former window cleaner and is horrified but she pretends not to recognize him. But since she has to plead her case with him she is very angry. This is a typical middle class reaction to political changes in society. They just cannot accept the fact that "illiterate" or "lower class" people can take over power and choose for others. Something the elites have been doing for centuries and created a problem in the first place.

One last point. The two times the protagonist steps into Europe the film turns into colour. After all the good stuff in black & white that just did not work for me.

Read More

What Just Happened!??!

There he goes again! M. Night Shyamalan has done it again. Just saw The Happening and couldn't help but feel confused by the end of it. Usually when I end up watching a bad film, especially in a movie hall, I am besieged with a horrendous headache and am irritable. This is a sure shot way of finding out if the film was bad. This time around I couldn't figure out if I should have a headache or not. The question that I have been asking myself since I got out of the darkened theater is WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

M. Night Shyamalan comes across as a man who seems to know a thing or two about the things we don't. Anyone who has seen The Sixth Sense would vouch for this. I mean who thought of making a film about a child who reveals to a doctor that he sees dead people? And all this while no one talks to the bloody doctor! But since The Sixth Sense every Shyamalan film has been a let down in one manner or the other. Here is a guy who might have stretched his single rubber-band of an idea a little too far.

The Happening is a film about a paranoid family that is on the run from god knows what, which is killing people in a manner most cinematic. The man and the woman have hit a rough patch in their marriage. I don't blame them for what do you expect if the woman's idea of cheating on her husband is having a tiramisu with someone called joey from work!? The man's best friend keeps making faces and telling him that something is wrong with the woman and the woman can't take it that the man has told their 'secrets' to the world. Come on lady! If you act like a wide-eyed mare every time the camera is on ya, what do you expect the people to make of it! The Happening is about something that no one knows. Methinks if so be the case then maybe the bloody thing isn't happening!!!!!!

In case you are planning to watch the film go with very low expectations. There are really good moments in The Happening but nothing more than that. The best thing about The Happening is that thankfully M. Night Shyamalan isn't acting in it! We are saved for if we could have survived whatever it was killing the people in The Happening and the bad acting by the lead, we wouldn't have survived M. Night in an extended walk on role. (Read my review of The Happening here)

I think Shyamalan should get around making a film out of Life With Pi, something that he was planning to do. This would give him an opportunity to get away from his 'genre' and allow people to see a different shade of him. After all if you believed that being #1 in the field of 1 was a win-win situation then take a closer look.

Image: www.startv.com

Read More

The Sound of 80's

What is the one big difference between the films of 1980’s and any other time?

The music.
Barring a handful of films most stand out films made in the 1980’s have really bad music. Noting could substantiate my claim better than William Friedkin’s To Live and Die in LA (1985).

Most of us don’t think of William Friedkin beyond The French Connection and The Exorcist and many of us wouldn’t have had the opportunity to experience the last big film he made, Crusing, featuring Al Pacino. Friedkin’s LA is almost like a precursor to most of the action stuff that we were subjected to in the mid and late 1980’s.

The story might come across as very straight and simple but in the hands of Friedkin it is anything but that. A cop loses his partner while pursuing a master counterfeiter and his one point short-term aim in life is to put the guy in jail. He and his new partner approach the fraudster with a job but can’t raise the advance needed to get the task going. The cops end up robbing a diamond dealer who eventually dies in the bargain. They soon learn that the dealer was actually an undercover cop. The guilt starts taking its toll on one of the cops but the other one couldn’t care less for he is only interested in avenging his partner’s death. At the trade off things go bad and everyone cops it barring the guilt-ridden cop. If you thought the seemingly upright police officer would change his ways, you couldn’t be more wrong. He carries on as if nothing ever happened and moreover he becomes someone who, after seeing it all, doesn’t really mind pushing the limits.

The film stands and delivers even after two decades and you have to see the chase scene here to believe that Friedkin could better the one from The French Connection. Shot in gang territory the film successfully depicts Los Angeles as never before. So much so that a lot of John Woo films that eventually inspired Tarantino might have taken in a lot from this underrated Friedkin gem. It’s the then contemporary music of Wang Chung that fails To Live and Die in LA. According to film trivia Friedkin zeroed in on them as he felt that the band stood out from the rest of contemporary music! There’s even a title track with cheesy vocals. Something that Friedkin had specially instructed to avoid but changed his mind when he heard the track!

The second example would be Michael Mann’s Manhunter. A fantastic film that still beats the crap out of the Brett Ratner version any day of the week; only the music sounds dated. Even the soundtracks of Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack seems jarring today. Many would consider the soundtrack of the cult classic The Blade Runner by Vangelies a mismatch today.

A majority of the filmmakers who were calling the shots in the 1980’s were the hot shots of 1970’s whose clout was lessening thanks to the failing Michael Cinimo’s Heavens Gates. I think this is what pushed them to include what was fashionable then when it came to music. In any case a decade besieged with sequels expecting anything good would have been a difficult thing! Let’s be grateful for a handful of films that turned out to be great movies for what’d film viewing be without a Raging Bull (1980), The Shining (1985), Amadeus (1984) and The Blade Runner (1982).

Image: www.amazon.com

Read More

Ishtyle Bhai

What do you do when the film you labored over for months turns out to be an unmitigated disaster at the box office?

Some times people blame shift and accuse the audiences’ incapacity to crack it. Sanjay Leela Bhansali is an old hand at this. Thanks to a film called Khamoshi-The Musical and its dismal performance, Mr. Bhansali is ready to fight it out with everyone and then some. Mr. Bhansali went to the extent of saying that people weren’t ready to understand the suggested nuances of whatever-the-hell-he-was-trying-to-do-in-any-case in the name of Saawariya. Others like Vinod Chopra refuse to believe that their film is bad. He still thinks that Eklavya- The Royal Guard is the long lost twin of some hidden-from-the-world David Lean masterpiece.

In the recent past I endured an interview of the Vijay Krishna Acharya, the director of the Tashan on the telly. The film in itself is an experience that words can’t capture. Many of you must be familiar with my take on the film and in case you missed out then read it here. The stupid thing about the interview was that it was too soon after the tanking of the film as the poor guy had such a confused looked plasters on his face. This futile PR exercise convinced me that Vijay Krishna Acharya still hadn’t gotten over the shock of its failure. Or maybe he was still not over the shock that he was actually greenlit by Aditya Chopra to make Tashan.

No.

Wait a minute.

I think it looked as if Acharya were still in shock that he managed to get a Grade A cast for Tashan.

No.

I think it was more to do with the fact that his film had released. He was trying to recall the faces of his buddies whose films never released.

Whatever was the exact reason he was not comfy and in such places mere mortals such as us usually end up thinking that attack is the best form of defense. So off he went and even suggested that perhaps people didn’t accept the amorality of his character. Hence some blokes in Kanpur or Katwaria Sarai couldn’t connect with them and expectantly the film tanked. The interviewer, Ms. Anupama Chopra, could have interjected that the same people happily embraced the same production houses Bunty Aur Babli with all their imperfections. Ms. Chopra didn’t ask as she was in shock that Aditya Chopra called her and asked her to interview Mr. Tashan for (a) she was grinning from ear-to-ear and (b) the interview was interspersed with promos of the film!

The big question here is how much time does a director need to get over a failure? Is there a thing called getting over failure for many of Mumbai’s finest never forget. Ram Gopal Verma rehashed Drohi and gave us Satya, repackaged Raat and made it Bhoot while Mr. Bhansali married Khamoshi and The Mircale Worker to offer Black.

Almost a month after Tashan’s release I bumped into Vijay Krishna Acharya at a café in Delhi. He was very recognizable thanks to my elephantine memory and his serpentine moustache. To be doubly sure I asked him if he were who I thought he was; he nodded in affirmation. I told him that I loved Akshay Kumar’s Ramlila-Ravan-on-a-Bajaj-Scooter entry in his film. He shook my hand and thanked me. He went out for a smoke (my guess). He had his customary confused look back. My friend told me that no one would have told him that anything good about the film and maybe he thinks I was being sarcastic. Once he came back to finally leave the café, he looked at me and flashed a smile. As he got out his look was threatening to come back.

I really liked the Akshay Kumar’s entry.

I did. I did!

Read More

Iron Man

Iron Man might be the latest comic book infused with life but it's unlike any superhero film. That's largely because it doesn't treat the protagonist as a superhero with the weight of the world on his shoulders. The film is as straight as an arrow. I never read Iron Man comic and in a way I'm glad that I missed out. For starters I don't know how different the film is from the comic and therein lies my reason for being blown over by the film.

Tony Stark is a wealthy genius, who inherits an arms manufacturing company from his father. Stark is supported by Obadiah Stane, his father's trusted lieutenant and has Jim Rhodes, an air force colonel, for his best friend. Stark is busy living it up- making the weapons that kill millions of people in an instance, winning awards, blowing money in casinos and enjoying beautiful company. Surrounded by people all the time, Stark might be hugely popular but the only person he can truly call his own is Pepper Potts, his assistant and confidant. Pepper does everything for Stark including throwing out the trash (that is what she tells one of Tony's one night stands). Things go wrong for Tony when he goes to Afghanistan to demonstrate a new missile. Abducted by the bad guys, he is forced to make a missile for the militants. A nutty scientist saves Tony's life by installing an electromagnet in his chest to keep the suspended pieces of shrapnel from reaching his heart. Tony and his sidekick use the time to invent an iron armor that would help him get out.

Tony finally escapes and returns to America. He is a changed man and wants to stop weapons production as he has realized that even the bad guys use his weapons. He wants to dedicate time to more humanitarian work. Tony’s board doesn’t appreciate this. In spite of issues with his new thought process, Stane promises Tony to convince the board. Tony soon realizes that it was Stane who moved the board against him and also ordered the hit on him. Not only that but under the aegis of Stane, the terrorists are receiving Stark weapons. Tony decides to work on the iron armor and fight the bad guys himself.

The interesting thing about Iron Man is that director Jon Favreau, has made it very believable. Unlike other superheroes, Tony Stark lives in a very real world and has to deal to with 'real' problems. Till the climax of the film, where Iron Man and Iron Monger (Stane in a bigger iron suit) fight it out on the streets, the film doesn’t have a single scene that plays like a typical superhero fare. Stark is portrayed as a rich spoilt genius, Stane comes across as a business tycoon looking to maximize his interest, Pepper Potts plays the Plain Jane to the hilt. The film does have special effects and the usual proverbial superhero moments but nothing over the top. It's all very mature, for the lack of any other word and the actors attached to the film only add to this claim. The cast of Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges and Terrance Howard makes it look like some indie film. Jeff Bridges shines as the bald bad guy!

The funny thing is that I was watching Ang Lee's Hulk a couple of days later. Hulk has extended scenes where one see’s the DNA mutation, Bruce getting nightmares without an end and the seemingly never-ending build-up; it was all so predictable. Iron Man has given us a new-age superhero who would rather tell people directly that he is who he is than flying around in an red iron suit!

Image: www.toxicshock.tv

Read More

Meenaxi- Making Sense Now

Some times you watch a film and just don’t get it. Is it that difficult to understand a film? Is it really necessary to ‘get’ it? Not understanding a film can mean so many different things. I didn't understand Meenaxi- A Tale of 3 Cities and while we are at it, I didn’t decipher Anurag Kashyap’s No Smoking, Saawariya and Tashan but it's not the same thing!

I’m not of the opinion that Meenaxi is the second greatest piece of filmmaking after Sholay but at least there was something in it. To call Meenaxi a celebration of life, an amalgamation of art forms would be slightly over the top but not completely incorrect. To call No Smoking a surreal exploration on the part of the filmmaker to venture into hitherto uncharted areas as far as popular Hindi cinema is concerned would be a load of crap.

The follow-up to the hugely disappointing Gajagamini, Meenaxi shows the sheer brilliance of M.F. Hussain. The film is about Nawab, a writer identified solely thanks to the biggest writers block that seems to tag along with him, bumping into the beautiful Meenaxi at his sisters wedding. Meenaxi dares Nawab to use her as a muse and finally get around writing his novel. Bustling with new ideas ever since Meenaxi stepped into his life, Nawab forges ahead. He starts writing the story and sets it in Jaisalmer. The local foul-mouthed mechanic, Kunal, too finds a place in Nawab’s book. Fed up with Meenaxi’s constant bickering when, in the book, things start getting boring in Jaiselmer; Nawab turns the story around and sets it Prague. Obsessed with Meenaxi, Nawab can’t help but enter his story. The line between reality, myth, dream and fiction blur with Nawab dying before finishing his work. But is he dead in the book or in reality? Is Meenaxi really there or is it just Nawab’s personification of the ultimate woman?

Confused, aren’t you?

To say the least the ending left me wondering as well. Under normal circumstances I should have been livid for the trick played by Hussain on me. But I wasn’t angry. Two of my friends (thanks Sudhesh and Ravinder) always talked highly of Meenaxi and I always wondered if the trials of life had finally gotten to them. I was pleasantly surprised by Meenaxi and why not.

The film is beautifully shot and by that I don’t mean just setting up the shot or shooting gorgeous locales. The composition of shots, the production design and just about everything in the film gives you an insight into the mind of M.F. Hussain. Another great thing about Meenaxi is that Mr. Hussain made it at the age of 89 (give or take a year or two) and the sheer fact that he learnt from his mistakes as a filmmaker on Gajagamini to come up with something as eclectic as Meenaxi is an achievement in itself. Apart from writing, prodcuing and directing the film, Mr. Hussain has penned the awesome Noor Un Ala, which is one the better Qawaalis from Hindi films. Hundreds of films are set in various cities of the world but only a few use them as a character. Hyderabad and Prague are almost as important as the lead players of the Meenaxi. Tabu shines as the Meenaxi and Raghubir Yadav is really used well for the first time since Massey Sahib (bet many of you won't remember the film!). Kunal Kapoor portrays Mary's lost lamb to the hilt. The film could have used better editing and a general overhauling of the script but still manages to impress. I can’t say the same about No Smoking or Saawariya!

Is the inability to ‘understand’ a film, a failure of the filmmaker?

Are we completely supposed to understand a film or is there a window that shouldn’t really open as much as promised?

The idea of a film should be to add that something extra to what you have to, perhaps, come up with something extraordinary. I mean one can’t rely on interpretation every time, now can we...Mr. Bhansali… Mr. Kashyap?

Read More

The Evil That Stays Within Us

Apt Pupil(1998) was the follow up by Bryan Singer after the highly acclaimed The Usual Suspects. He later went on to do such commercial stuff like the X-Men series and Superman Returns, but none of them have the touch of the earlier films.

When a student (Brad Renfro) discovers that an old man staying in their town was a Nazi War criminal, he confronts him and blackmails him. However he does not need money in return but just wants to listen to the man's story and understand what made him do it. Initially the old man is reluctant but then he gives in.

There is a scene where the student makes the old man wear a Nazi uniform and march around the house - both of them getting a sense of what it means to have unlimited power. Playing the old man is Ian McKellen who does a brilliant portrayal of a war criminal who starts reliving his evil past.

As the story unfolds, the student and the old man try to control each other. This is no struggle of Good vs Evil. While the boy is curious and innocent in the beginning, soon he also enjoys the power he has in different situations. Being older, the war criminal is able to manipulate the situations to his advantage and finally he gains the upper hand.

The other characters - the boy's parents, teachers and friends are shown as typical WASPs who are as innocent as Adam and Eve. They think that once Hitler was defeated we have rooted out Evil from this world. (How come there are never proper black characters in such films? The only token black appears towards the end and he is from the FBI - therefore behaves more or less like a white.)

Finally the war criminal is traced out but instead of surrendering he decides to kill himself. In any other film that would be the proper ending - the evil is now dead and forgotten. But this film is about how Evil survives and is passed on through generations. The scene of the old man dying is intercut with a sequence of the boy threatening a teacher (who is inquiring about the boy's evil deeds) using the same language the old man would use to threaten him. The boy has learnt his lesson and become the Evil.

In that sense the film contradicts the theory that the crimes committed in Germany (or other places like Cambodia) are done by people who are different. We cannot be like them. This film seems to say that big or small, evil minds are the same.

The film reminded me of Lord of the Flies - a brilliant study of a group of boys abandoned on an island after a nuclear war. Left alone, they have an opportunity to start a new community and not repeat the mistakes of their fathers. But slowly they descend into savagery and end up creating a world more horrifying. Apt Pupil reinforces the message that even children can become just as cruel as adults.

Read More

Tashan

The thing with Tashan is that no one spent time on the script. The film could have been made interestingly only if the screenplay existed. Filled with loopholes bigger than the one in ozone layer, Tashan is really a let down considering that it’s been directed by a writer and produced by someone who possesses wonderful script acumen.

The film is about everyone living life with tashan, which in the parlance of our times means style. Everyone in Tashan wears strange clothes and talks in a stranger way. The film is about Jimmy, a call center executive, who is hired by Puja to teach her boss Bhaiyaji to pass off as an angrez. The problem is that Jimmy doesn’t really have enough blood to make both ends of his body work at the same time. He falls hard for Puja who narrates a sob story of how her father owed Bhaiyaji a lot of money and now she is tired to paying back. Jimmy is convinced by her to rob Bhaiyaji’s booty and start a new life. Jimmy does that but it’s Puja who runs off living him behind. Jimmy is caught up Bhaiyaji, who summons Bachchan Pande, a recovery specialist, to hunt hi money and Puja down. Jimmy and Pande set off a la Tom & Jerry. Somewhere along the line Puja joins them and suggests that they get away with the money. Just when Pande is being smooth talked by Puja, Bhaiyaji enters the picture. He gives the woman seven days to get the money back. A road journey across the vibrant country ensues. Pande and Puja get to know that they were childhood sweethearts. Pande is told to kill Jimmy and Puja but he decides to return Bhaiyaji’s money but let the two go. Once Pande leaves, but not before Jimmy switches the money, Puja reveals how Bhaiyaji killed her father and this is all about revenge. Pissed off at being taken for a ride by just about everyone, Bhaiyaji’s wrath targets Pande. Jimmy and Puja come to save the day. Some confusion and double-crossing later, Puja kills Bhaiyaji and all ends well.

Is that all that’s wrong with Tashan?

Nope.

The acting is bad. Saif Ali Khan tries to be cool and succeeds sparingly but that’s because of who he is (off screen) and not what he does (on screen). Kareena Kapoor does the same Jab We Met bit but only with an urban sheen. If Akshay Kumar is the best thing about Tashan then Anil Kapoor is the worst. Kumar plays the small town bumpkin like an affable gorilla who looses it every once in a while. He gets the same lines as everyone else but trust Kumar to take them to a new level. Anil Kapoor on the other hand is the same Munna or Lakhan. He speaks Hindi laced with english words like a cowboy and ends up looking like an idiot. He mouths the famous Mandir sceen (aaj khush to bahut hoge) from Deewar in his Bhaiyaji hinglish style in the first half hour of the film and you know that you are in for a strange trip. Kapoor wears bad clothes; looks tired, sounds like a nut job amongst other things. After watching Tashan one can’t help but think that in front of three heavyweights- Akshay, Saif and Kareena- maybe someone new or understated would have worked better. Someone like Irrfan Khan could have really added resonance to the role but this is Yash Raj Films we are talking about!

Don’t the producers watch their films before releasing them?

This is the exact question that haunts you while you endure Tashan. The film is too long. Just because the director hit big time with the Dhoom series, he ensures that film is filled with twists and turns like some interesting road undertaken for some interesting journey to some interesting destination. Only that this road is potholed beyond repair and the end ain’t half as exciting as promised. The fact that the screenplay lacks any sense of purpose is acceptable now days as gloss can tide over any shortcoming.

Just because the film fails to divulge the slightest traces of intelligence, doesn’t make it an ode to the films 1970’s or 80’s as suggested by some people. Some wise people even called it regressive. Come on now! Tashan is plain stupid and infantile. In Tashan just because you have a mighty star-cast you can’t do stupid things and think that it works. The climax has Anil Kapoor using a water canon on Kareena, Akshay jumps his way to save her but is shot at by Kapoor but suddenly Saif Ali Khan comes on a jet ski to save the day. If this wasn’t enough then a few minutes later Anil Kapoor comes out on a cycle rickshaw with two swords on the handle to get rid of Akshay and Saif.

Much has been written about Yash Raj Films looses it’s touch, etc. but is that really the case? I don’t think so. Simply put they need to give a little more attention to things like script and less to their tashan. Start making films based on stories and not ideas. Also give Aki Nirula, the man behind the hideous costumes of Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now Tashan, a break.

Read More

My Blueberry Nights

There was a great deal of enthusiasm surrounding My Blueberry Nights. This was Wong Kar Wai's first American film. Some years ago this move would have meant that he has 'sold' out but that argument doesn't hold water anymore. Wong's reputation of being a master filmmaker precedes him. His demigod stature and cult following have made him one of the most closely watched filmmaker of recent times. So much so that Cannes had no problem showcasing a 20-minute version of his then work in progress 2046. Wong Kar Wai mesmerized the world with an extended trailer of a film that he had been working on for almost 4 years.

My Blueberry Nights is the second Wong Kar Wai film that I have left midway. My brother had gone to China and upon his return he got a bunch of DVDs. His yardstick, when in doubt, was to pick up any DVD that had the festival wreath on the cover! He got 2046 but the DVD justified its cheap price, Rs. 40, and didn't have any English subtitles. Nevertheless the lush images were enough to whet one's appetite. A year or so later I finally laid my hands on 2046, I started watching it with great anticipation. This was Wong Kar Wai after In the Mood for Love. This was the film that was in the making for years and was shrouded in intrigue and mystery just like any Wong Kar Wai film. Twenty minutes into the film and I'd had enough of his bizarreness! It's been years now and I still haven't completed the film.

Watching My Blueberry Nights was like 2046 all over. It’s the story of a woman whose boyfriend starts cheating on her. She finds a kindred spirit in a man who runs a diner and offers her advice along with a slice of blueberry pie. She suddenly (like most Wong Kar Wai characters) suddenly takes off to Memphis and starts working as a waitress. She meets a cop who just can't get over his ex-wife. The cop and the waitress indulge in some banter and that's where I gave up. The review says that she goes on to Reno and interacts with a poker player. She is, of course, doing all this to look for herself.

My Blueberry Nights is laced with the typical markings of a Wong Kar Wai film- vivid colors, lushness, great camerawork and characters who are unable to live through the night. Herein lies the catch. Post 2046, for me, all these come across as usual WKW trappings. The first giveaway is the camerawork. Even though it's Darius Khondji who photographs the film instead of Wong regular Christopher Doyle, the cinematography could easily pass off as Doyale's. You would argue that Chris Doyle style is actually Wong Kar Wai signature. Maybe it's Wong Kar Wai, the auteur, at work but one can't help but get a feeling that it's the same film all over again. The characters still move in slow motion, the haunting music (Ry Cooder) seems like leftovers, the framing, the movement of the camera, the conversations, nothing seems good anymore!

Is this a sign?

Wong Kar Wai is definitely one of the most influential filmmakers. He made the mundane look exciting. He works without a script in the true sense; he takes his own sweet time to finish a film. The question one really needs to ask is weather it's possible for WKW to go on doing the same thing and yet not bore me to death? Revisiting the older Wong Kar Wai films, namely In The Mood for Love, Chunking Express, Happy Together, Days of Being Wild, Ashes of Time and Fallen Angels, I have come to the conclusion that barring In The Mood For Love and Happy Together none have the same impact on me. The thing I understood while trying to watch My Blueberry Nights is that one shouldn't attempt the same thing again. More importantly something that works in one country and language might not really work in another. Why didn't this film work? Maybe because everyone swears by In the Mood for Love and even a blind person could make out it's the same film. Would this work if it were made in Cantonese or Mandarin? No. The same reason stands- they have already seen and loved In The Mood for Love.

Ang Lee could have remade Brokeback Mountain for China but he didn't. Just as he'd not remake Lust, Caution in the US! One of the most respected filmmakers operating today, Lee can make a killing by remaking his English films in China and vice-versa. Imagine transporting 1970's American suburbia of The Ice Storm to 1960's Hong Kong. Lee would rather 'sell' out and do a Hulk instead of living the same nightmare again!

As for Wong Kar Wai...give me a Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung walking in slow motion in rain to get some chow instead of a cocky Jude Law forcing a blueberry pie down Norah Jones's throat!

Read More

Juno or the Art of the giving away your child

The first thing that strikes you about Juno is that there is hardly any background score. I mean there are songs and the lead character is part of a band in school. But when Juno announces to her parents that she is pregnant, you are treated to normal sounds of her pacing around the room. Another place where she breaks down in the car and you are hearing traffic sounds.

A well written script that hardly lets you feel the "normal" emotions that films line up with a subject such as this. Juno's reaction when she finds out that she is pregnant is that she is stunned but she does not really break down - just gets back home to call her close friend. From then on you are constantly surprised by the reactions of those around her. They are surprised (parents), embarrassed, guilty (boyfriend), amused (classmates) but all of them behave in a muted way.

The film then takes an interesting turn when the girl decides to give away her child to a well to do suburban couple. The scene where she meets them for the first time with her father is funny. As their car drives past a series of suburban houses the film jumps from normal comedy to a comment on the class divide in America. The entire scene with the cautious lawyer and the tentative adopted parents contrasted with Juno's behavior killed me to laughter. The other scene was the Asian girl picketing the abortion clinic. She keeps saying - Every Baby wants to be Borned.

Years ago, Preity Zinta proved her acting credentials in Kya Kehna (where she has a child from a boyfriend) but her character suffers so much in the film that you were left wondering that whether it was possible for a single woman to ever keep her child. Juno does not really go there. It is not a big problem that the girl is having her baby. What is important is what she is going thru. In that sense the film strikes a new ground. Juno actually realizes that she is in love with the guy she slept with in the first place.

The film ends up with almost everyone happier than before. Juno hooks up with the love of her life. Her parents are happy that they are over this crisis. Her step mother has new dogs for pets. The adoptive couple break up but the wife decides to keep the child.

But as the camera pulls away in the end with Juno jamming with her boyfriend the scene was too perfect. A little too perfect. Can life for a 16 year old actually be like that? Or is it just that movies make us feel like that?

Read More

Human Error- 2001: A Space Odyssey

Arthur C Clarke once famously claimed, 'if you understood 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered." When Stanley Kubrick decided to make a science fiction he picked up a short story, The Sentinel, by Clarke to serve as the skeletal outline for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick wrote the screenplay in tandem with Clarke while the author penned a novel based on the screenplay.

I first saw 2001 in 2000. I was blown by the sheer genius that went into the making of the film. I revisited the film some three years ago and the dawn of man sequence gave me goosebumps all over again. The second time the film felt a tad slow and the acting wasn't too great. When I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey some time I realized that barring the Dawn of Man and HAL everything else in the film is a space filler. Agreed that when the film came out in the 1960's it must have take people some time to realize that they just witnessed one of the greatest films ever made. Now when I see the film i wonder what the hell was Kubrick thinking while shooting the long, seemingly never-ending sequences in which nothing happens besides futuristic space ships flying across the skies!

Even by the most conservative standards the long drawn scenes manage to convey a sense of loneliness and despair but there is hardly any drama in them anymore. I couldn't take my eyes off when Dave tries to manually dock his ship as HAL is pissed off with him and he has to let go off his partner but everything else seems a little boring and might slow now. The entire Stargate and Juipterscape sequences are no match for simple conversations between the humans and HAL. I wonder if Kubrick knew that HAL would become such a great character; would he have increased HAl's presence in the film in any case? Was it intentional that in order to have the desired impact Kubrick decided to rely on shots that would completely catch the audience off guard rather than a more conventional approach? Sure enough the laborious shots of a space ships, space travellers, futuristic telephone and cuisine, computers and what have you would make people sit up and it has the same effect, though in varying degree, even after 40 years; but I couldn't help but wonder...

2001: A Space Odyssey sure left an impression on future filmmakers who attempted science fiction. To me the basic plot of Solaris seems to be inspired by an exchange of dialogue between Floyd and the people he meets at the moon station. The excellent human-machine interaction of HAL and Dave could be the very element that subsequent science fiction films seem to have taken a shine to. The basic essence of Bladerunner and Minority Report have a greater human-machine interaction than effects and glitz.

Every time I see the film I find something new to look at. This time it was the sheer icy approach of HAL and Dave's unwillingness to give up. Though the end still seems very vague to me. Does it have something to do with the notion that most Arthur C. Clarke stories have great premises but the ending usually peters out? MAybe but if I had understood then both Kubrick and Clarke would have failed. Am not sure about Clarke but Stanley Kubrick sure as hell doesn't fail!

Check out www.kubrick2001.com in order to understand the cult to some extent.

Read More

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

There was one question that I kept asking myself while watching Sidney Lumet's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Is talent timeless?

The superb crime thriller proves that the Sidney Lumet, 84, still delivers. Taking its title from an Irish toast, May you be 40 years in heaven before the devil knows you are dead, the film deals with two brothers, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke who decide to rob their father's store in order to get their lives back on track. It was supposed to be a simple in-and-out kind of a deal in which no one was supposed to get hurt but like in all good movies, someone does get hurt and everything falls apart. The film also features Albert Finney as the father and Marisa Tomei as Hoffman's troubled wife. Lumet skillfully intercuts between parallel stories that keep converging throughout the film. Some might find the pacing of the film a little tedious but that shouldn't really bother as you'd be rewarded many a times. My moment came an hour and twenty minutes in the film where Hoffman and Finney open up with the son so pissed off with his father that he actually asks him if here were really his son.

For anyone who has followed Sidney Lumet's career Before the Devil Knows shouldn't come as a surprise. The film has all the essential Lumet markings- a great cast, excellent interplay between characters and lot of moments. What is surprising is that the legendary filmmaker has used HD technology for this film and reportedly enjoyed the freedom that video has to offer so much that he has decided not to touch film again. Lumet's film always give the actors ample opportunity to let it all out and this one's no exception. Never in the recent past has Ethan Hawke got such a complicated character and he is picture-perfect as the loser of a baby brother to Hoffman. Albert Finney hams it a bit but then I always believed that Mr. Finney couldn’t perform unless he has a spotlight following him. Hoffman, who of late has been grunting through his performances like Marlon Brando's ghost (Charlie Wilson's War being the latest), is perfect as the cocksure planner who looses it by the end.

Sidney Lumet always came across as a craftsman more than an artist and this film is executed with much vigor and enthusiasm. The multi-layered screenplay gets Lumet to observe his characters from a distance and real close as if they were some animals trapped in a cage. The film convinces me that talent has the potential to be timeless. Most filmmakers, as they age, start to believe that they know the craft better. Hell some start thinking that they are the craft! One can still do the same number provided one makes certain considerations with the passage of time. Look at Lumet, Clint Eastwood and to a great extent Martin Scorsese; these guys are doing exactly what they want and the only thing is that they keep up with times.

Closer home barring Yash Chopra everyone who is more than 5 films old refuses to move with the times. The last few outings of Subhash Ghai, Rajkumar Santoshi, Vinod Chopra, Ram Gopal Verma, Feroz Khan amongst others look like they are still churning them as if we were still in the 20th century!

Image: www.iwatchstuff.com

Read More