Fooperb !

Kaminey gets get it right. A crime noir film shot against the grey and grime of Mumbai it takes you on a ride that keeps you riveted till the end.

Initially it is the twin characters that Shahid Kapoor plays. One of the brothers lisps and the other stutters. Normally Hindi cinema deals with stories of twins in a typical way. One of them is cool while the other is an imbecile. But not in Kaminey.

Not since Kaho Na Pyar Hai has an actor pulled off twin roles so well working on subtle differences in each persona. Both brothers lead lives which are at the opposite ends of the spectrum - Charlie is part of a gang that fixes horse races while Guddu works for an NGO popularizing HIV messaging in the city.

Slowly we are sucked to their worlds. As their lives get more and more complicated we encounter characters from the city - the aggressive girlfriend, the gun crazy bosses, the Jai Maharashtra politician, corrupt police officers and expat criminals. A Tibetan. And two Angolans. Characters talking in Bengali and Marathi. Full scenes without subtitles.That's how weird it gets. And yet you believe it all. The songs in the film are complemented by a brilliant background score that keeps the pace moving.

As the many stories and sub plots are revealed, the director is able to weave a world of pulp crime writing similar to the cheap paperbacks in Hindi. Charlie's ambition is to become a bookie. His troubles begin when he sets out recover money he lost in a race. Guddu's world is turned upside down when his girlfriend tells him that she is pregnant.

Any film based on the crime world could have been reduced to guns and gore. But not Kaminey. Like Satya or Sholay or Pulp Fiction it alternates between violence, romance and humour.

And well written humour. The kind you would rarely see in cinema. Shahid desperately looking for a condom when he finally gets to be alone with Priyanka Chopra. The policemen interrogating Guddu realise that he stammers, so they get him to sing out the information. The politician trying to bribe his little boy to keep mum about his plans to kill his sister's fiance.

All characters feel that they are in control of their decisions but one by one each of them get trapped in a hopeless situation. And each decision taken by a character affects something else much like the butterfly effect theory. Initially, nothing connects the characters to one another. But as the pieces fall they come together for the gun fight at the climax .

As Charlie would say - Fooperb !

Read More

Public Enemies

Its 1933, John Dillinger is bought to a state prisoner by a cop who is actually his partner John Hamiltion to help him free some members of his gang. Like most bad men, Dillinger lives by principles strong enough to kill one his own men who cause a shootout that results in the death of his mentor.

Tired with Dillinger FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover entrusts Melvin Purvis, one of their finest to nab America’s public enemy # 1. After a failed first attempt to nab Dillinger, Purvis convinces Hoover to bring in more muscle power in the form of some old fashioned lawmen from Texas. A few false starts later Purvis nabs Dillinger but the flashy robber escapes from the Indiana prison where he was to be tried. Dillinger tries to get back with Billie Frenchette, the simple girl who loves him in spite of the reality, but FBI’s constant surveillance keeps the lovers apart. The mob too, which helped him previously, refuses to be party as Dillinger’s wayward ways attracts too much heat.

Dillinger puts together a gang but the score hardly gets them anything instead Purvis nabs one of the members who spills the beans on his whereabouts. All alone and wounded Dillinger eludes Purvis and finally meets Billie. He plans that one last job which would set him up for life but before the job can go down the cops nab Billie. The police interrogate Billie but she never gives up on Dillinger. Going for the kill Purvis forces Anna Sage, a madam, to help nab Dillinger who is hiding in her house. A few hours later Dillinger walks into a movie hall with Sage and another acquaintance. He gets out only to be greeted by FBI agents, one of whose bullets finally finds him.

From the face of it Public Enemies isn’t anything new and tries to work on the same level as Brain De Palma’s Untouchables but lacks its operatic melodrama. Bad men are always loved by the films but Dillinger isn’t Clyde or Butch Cassidy or any nameless gunslinger from some Western. The problem with the film is that even though it’s a true account of real people it is boringly straight. The cardboard cutouts in the name characters never engross beyond the basic and Michael Mann approaches them rather simplistically. He is also let down by the substandard writing that is replete with cheesy lines such as Purvis challenging Dillinger, ‘The only way you're walking out of this jail cell is when we take you out to execute you’ and Dillinger’s retort, ‘Well, we'll see about that.’

Presenting any old wine in a new bottle is one thing but Michael Mann’s Public Enemies is nothing more than a sorry relocation of his previous film, Heat. John Dillinger is Depression era’s Neil McCauley and even mouths the same lines as he leaves some customer’s money for he’s there to rob the bank’s money. The set piece which made Heat stand out some 14 years ago like the getaway after robbing the banks creeps its way into Public Enemies on more than one occasion. Even the cutting pattern of the scene where Billie’s nabbed by FBI agents and John Dillinger helplessly looks on reminds you of Ashley Judd saving Val Kilmer in Heat.

Many times performances by seasoned actors can attach some semblance of purpose to many things stupid. I remember how Heat was sold to us in 1995- Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. Together. Imagine the wow factor. What we got instead was a one four minute scene featuring them together and everyone cried hoarse. A few years’ later people discovered the genius of the screenplay and the set pieces that made Heat a cult classic. It remains one of my favorite films but on some levels it’s the actors who made it possible. Both the leads Johnny Depp and Christian Bale fail in Public Enemies. To be fair to Bale he has always been a one expression actor and that works for him at times but that’s not the case with Depp. He has a huge persona attached to him since the Pirates of the Caribbean series and that is what mars things here. He seems to be unconvinced with the character and everything that he does looks easy. The scene where he charms Billie for dance is just regular tough peppered with some wisecracks. His Dillinger is very rushed and for the most part of it Depp sleepwalks. As for Christian Bale, well anyone could have done that role. Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover is good but the real steal of a deal is Marion Cotillard as Billie Frenchette. The woman is so good that her presence makes us believe that everyone else was probably real but we caught them on their day off.

Perhaps the biggest letdown of the film was the High Definition digital cinematography of the film. This isn’t the first time Mann has gone digital but I fail to comprehend what made him choose the format. Collateral was about one crazy night in the city of lights and maybe that’s why the Thomson VIPER camera complimented the storytelling. Miami Vice was about the war on drugs fought on high waves in Latin America, bars and exotic getaways in between sipping mojitos so the SONY HDW F900 worked as a charm. But Public Enemies is different film. This is a film that is set in the era of gangsters, molls, FBI agents in fine suits, hats, Tommy guns, smoke filled restaurants, cinema halls that played newsreels, trains bellowing steam and the incandescent light bulbs- how can you think of flat digital look? The detailing of the CineAlta might be great but Dante Spinotti’s handheld jerky tight close-ups’ digital look is a failure. High Def kills the film so much that the scenes where Dillinger is being pursued in the woods looks like unused footage from The Blair Witch Project.

There is a raging debate about film being on its way out and high def digital being the future and I’m all game for it but I think each story demands the medium it should be told in. Since Collateral Michael Mann seems to be hell bent on going digital but would the same Michael Mann shoot Last of the Mohicans on digital if he were to shoot it today? Blessed with some great production design, the film could have benefited from some classic camerawork considering the story wasn’t that great. Digital surely adds a sense of realism to the proceedings but this is story set in the 1930’s so how about some real realism? Or are we so used to the images that any deviation and we cry foul…?

Image: www.cinemaverdict.com

Read More

Waltz with Bashir

WwB starts with an empty street under a threatening sky. Suddenly we see a dog running towards the camera. It is joined by other dogs. The tension keeps building as their numbers increase. The music strikes an ominous note and the beat builds up as a prologue to a climax. One keeps watching in anticipation to find out what is it that they are chasing.

Of course one has seen such openings. Films start with a bang. Bullets flying. Explosion. Extreme action. Special effects. But animation? You think this is just the opening credits. The real film will start soon. But it doesn’t. The animation sequence continues. Except this is not any other animation film. This is a memoir, a documentary, a story – all kneaded into a graphic novel meets a war comic.

The film tells round the story of a group of soldiers who were part of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon of 1982. The protagonist has problems trying to remember his role and what he was doing on a fateful night – when Lebanese militia with the support of Israeli forces massacred thousands of Palestinian refugees.

But the story is told in layers and as you meet several soldiers who were part of the invasion tell their version of the story. Most of them refuse to discuss the massacre and like the protagonist want to pretend that they were not responsible for it. They discuss the horrors of the war and their first response to killings and gunfire. The sequence where they are singing as they cross over the Lebanon and their celebrations are brought to an end with a single bullet is telling.

The film uses various techniques to reveal the story. Interviews, discussions, “war footage” played with the audio of someone relating his version of the invasion. However this is not a documentary. In between there are surreal moments where a lady emerges from the sea to put one of the young soldiers to sleep.

The centrepiece of the film is the scene where one of the soldiers grabs a gun and starts firing randomly, dancing around like a waltz since they cannot spot the snipers who are killing the soldiers in the dark. This soldier gets scared that he will not make it with a smaller gun and snatches a machine gun and runs into the line of bullets. The narrator describes the dance as a poetic event but we are never too far away from the horror.

Usually an animation film strips emotions to the basics. Often we assume that one cannot use animation to depict events or complex emotions. However WwB discusses the nature of war and how helpless one feels when faced with its horrors. The reaction of the soldiers’ to the massacre is either helplessness or innocence. The film does not condemn their attitude but tries to look at why they behaved that way and how they continue to avoid facing the truth even today.

Waltz with Bashir does not prepare you for what you are about to see. When was the last time you saw a film where the story and the style flowed one into the other and yet shocked you in the end? This is one such film.

Read More

Love Aaj Kal

*Spoiler Alert! Read at your own risk.

Love Aaj Kal is a very well crafted tale of modern love which this reviewer greatly enjoyed. Barring a couple of instances where I was let down, by and large this is a good film. Yes, people know when the soul mate light goes off but ladies and gentlemen people aren’t stupid enough to live life by some light, now are they? Jai and Meera meet in London and start living out a relationship. Two years later when Meera has the opportunity to come back to India to work, Jai refuses to let go of his ambition of moving to San Francisco. So they both break-up as it seems to be the only practical possibility.

Isn’t very obvious from the break-up scene that Meera isn’t as kicked about it as Jai seems to be? From that point onwards Jai leads a life based on living it for the moment but Meera starts operating on two planes. Therein one knows that this is going to be one long tale of the woman realizing something that she knew three years ago!

Jai meets Veer Singh, a friendly restaurateur, who takes it upon himself to make Jai realize that love can’t be practical. Through parallel stories of Veer Singh in the 1960’s and Jai in the 2000’s we see the things people do for love. Jai and Meera continue to keep in touch and even end up coaxing each other to move on. Jai meets a foreigner and Meera falls for her boss. Jai surprises Meera by landing in Delhi and in the time they spend together they both realizes that some where they need to end the bond if life has to go on.

A year later Meera is all set to marry and Jai becomes a part of the festivity. Just before the marriage Jai realizes that he can’t go on without Meera but perhaps it’s a little too late. Meera doesn’t think so for she too realizes that Jai means more than the past to her. She calls him to from her honeymoon to confess but Jai breaks the news of finally moving to San Francisco. Meera gives up and returns to her marriage.

Why?

Even at the airport when Jai is forced by Veer Singh to see her off, Meera is happy to see her now ex boyfriend and yet chooses not to say anything that will go against the break up. Is she doing all this to send some message to her boy-trapped-in-a-man’s-body boyfriend?

Meera and Jai continue to keep in touch and in some respect of the term do carry out a long distance relationship, the one reason they broke up for. Meera is angry when he meets someone new and he isn’t too keen that some other man would be holding what was ‘his’. Even when they meet in Delhi while trying to relive the olden days without performance anxiety they are clearly still into each other. When he boyfriend proposes marriage to her Meera asks for Jai’s approval of sorts. Why couldn’t she just tell him how she felt?

Looking at Meera it’s hard to believe that someone would be in a relationship for two years, break-up when marriage is all over mind, then keep in touch with the ex, spend time with the ex as if the clock were turned back a few years, marry someone else when she is clearly still hopelessly in love and tell her husband that she wants to solve the thing with her ex-boyfriend? Meera is still not over Jai whereas he comes across as someone who is still in love with Meera. Some of you might see that as a sexist take on the whole thing but the fact that the lead actor happens to be the producer of the film might just about exercise more than some control over the setting.

Of course, this is a film to showcase Saif Ali Khan’s all round talent and to this reviewer he doesn’t fail. I was having a conversation with a friend who was of the opinion that perhaps Imtiaz Ali had to rewrite the story once Saif Ali came on as producer and maybe that’s why some times in the film the nuances on the character feel forced. That could be the case but this is something that could happen with a lot of scripts. You rarely get everything that you desire and the stars, the celestial variety, are never too crazy about alignment. Some people might also want to see the flavors of the season like Abhay Deol or Shahid Kapur play Jai but this is a character that needs a very wide range of acting flair and at the same time not be too distinct; this is something that a younger Aamir Khan or Shah Rukh Khan would have managed. This is something that Saif Ali Khan does with much ease. Jai is Saif and Saif is Jai. Sadly I don’t share the same sentiments when it comes to Deepika Padukone. Love Aaj Kal is like a blessing for the lady for it will save her from being considered a one trick pony. Not that she is the best thing since Sridevi when it comes to performing but Love Aaj Kal gives her ample space but there are a few scenes where she goofs up big time. The conversation on the phone when Meera and Jai are bitchin’ each other out loses some of its fizz due to Deepika Padukone not-trying-to-act acting.

The strangest thing about the screenplay is that even though it is spread over some five years none of the characters grow beyond a point. That is a disappointment as the entire exercise is about turning over and realizing the worth of what one has and appreciating before it dissipates.

What is the point then of the parallel stories, two generations, two different times and people? By the end of the whole thing if both the stories were to culminate on similar lines why does Veer Singh go on harping about times being different now? If Harleen didn’t have any say in her marriage and if Meera feels let down when Jai suggests breaking up instead of marriage why does she agree? Why would Meera go on forcing to live her life in the opposite direction of what her heart desires? Why would wait all these years only for Jai to ‘grow up’ for things to get right? On one hand she will be modern woman enough and not tell him how she feels and on the other hand she doesn’t mind telling her husband in the divorce court that she will wait for Jai to show up once he realizes her value. It’s like saying 40 years later women have a choice but if and when they exercise freewill it will be a wrong deal! Also the only thing apparent in this day and age is that people in love are egoistical and won’t say what they feel and go on doing what they don’t want.

Am I being naïve in seeing things so simply? At the end Love Aaj Kal the only thing that was as clear as the sunlight that greeted me outside was that internet and cellphones have convinced us that even though we break up, we will always be close to an inbox to set things right. In the mean time we twist!

Read More

Ice Storm

Revisiting Ang Lee’s Ice Storm is almost like hearing the same story but only from a different perspective. Lee’s brilliant adaptation of the Rick Moody novel by the same name is a tale of the Hood family in 1970’s suburban America. Released in 1997, Ice Storm was Ang Lee follow up to his breakthrough film, Sense and Sensibility. Critics and audiences, alike, were in for a pleasant surprise after realizing that a Chinese had helmed Jane Austen with such astute knowledge. Announcing his arrival on the international film scene lather loudly, Lee would then go on to do a complete 180 degree turn with his somber and ponderous tale of 1970’s when everything was turning out to be an experiment.

It’s that time of 1973 in America when everything was undergoing a change. As the whole Watergate scandal unfolds in the background, the residents of New Canaan Connecticut find their lives spiraling away. While Ben Hood frets from drink to drink trying to ease the pressure of work, his wife Elena spurns her husband in bed but accepts his lies about his affair with the Janey Carver, the seductive neighbor. Their teenage daughter Wendy is tired of people lying and not being appreciative enough of the suffering in the world. She is reciprocal of Mikey Carver’s advances but entices his younger brother Sandy. Her brother Paul Hood studies in the city and can’t wait to escape the drab Thanksgiving weekend with his family to pursue the rich Park Avenue gal Libbets Casey.

While the film deals with the moral disintegration of the modern family but in the hands of Ang Lee it doesn’t remain that simple. Coming from a stronger background when it comes to family and traditions, Lee infuses a strong semblance of togetherness being tested. In addition he juxtaposes an undercurrent of rebellion on the part of every character. Remember this is a time when their President didn’t shy away from lying and this, maybe, pushes each character to cheat, lie and hurt perhaps just to test the limits. There is experimentation in every sphere possible- Wendy is kissing Mikey but can’t help think how would Sandy be as an experience; Janey doesn’t mind sleeping with Ben but won’t take his ranting about life for she isn’t his wife; Ben can’t stop cheating even when he knows Elena suspects him; Elena wants to be the girl again so much that she even tries to shoplift like her daughter. These are people who were created by the society and yet they come across as commentators on the decay. Every one here wants a change and is willing to pay the price but it’s the weather that decides to change things for them. A night with the worst possible ice storm pushes them into a corner where they have no choice but to confront their fears.

Ice Storm is confusing and clear, uncomfortable and yet deeply rewarding at the same time. The film holds even 12 years after its release as each character is agonizingly believable, which makes what they say and believe as relevant today as it was a decade ago. What struck me as I watched the film for the second time in ten years was how similar Lee finds the adults and the children; it’s almost like there are two parallel universes and they meet only while having dinner. The problems of grown-ups and children come across as same to the extent that at numerous times in the film the adults behave like kids. This translates the period and the atmosphere of the film beautifully. In addition to top notch production design that transports you right into the era, the seamless camerawork and excruciatingly evocative background score, Ice Storm has a bunch of very talented actors who are brilliantly cast- Kevin Kline (Ben Hood), Joan Allen (Elena Hood), Sigourney Weaver (Janey Carver), Tobey Maguire (Paul Hood), Christina Ricci (Wendy Hood), Elijah Wood (Mikey Carver) and Adam Hann-Byrd (Sandy Carver).

The other thing that hits you about Ice Storm is how much of a precursor it ends up being for American Beauty. Released just two years after Ice Storm, American Beauty might be set in the similar suburbs and although it’s set in the 1990’s there are strikingly similarities. The execution of American Beauty is daringly different from the ponderous confrontation of Ice Storm but the milieu is surprisingly similar. Are the characters in Ang Lee’s world simply more believable or did we miss out on some thing in the twenty years that that the world inhabited by American Beauty come across as fantasy?

Read More

A Small Gem

Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye chronicles the life of a real crook who made headlines about five years ago. He would steal everything and anything - expensive cutlery to washing machines - possessions that were considered to be symbols of the rich in the India of the 90's.

In the beginning of the film, we are introduced to a young Lucky and his domineering father who is a small businessman. When his father accuses him of keeping back some money from the day's profits, Lucky angrily returns the money and walks away to the next room. Here he steals some money from his father's shirt hanging on a peg before running out to meet with his friends. That scene sums up Lucky and the director's style - the nonchalance with which he has learn to steal and the tongue in cheek humour story telling.

Not since Chasme Badoor has Delhi been captured so well in a film and not since Satya has the urban landscape been such an integral part of storytelling. Of course the Delhi shown in Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye is different from the images one identifies Delhi with - India Gate or Red Fort/Chandni Chowk. This is West Delhi - full of cramped lanes and unauthorised constructions. The houses are one or two room sets with a shared courtyard. Where garages abut greeting card stores. Where telephone and cable lines crowd your view. Here boys impress the girls with a borrowed bike. And then end up running a huge bill at a fancy restaurant. They are living on the fringes of the New Economy.

However the rich are never far away and everyone wants to be like them. They all want the imported cars, the flashy watches and television sets. Lucky is no different. This starts him on a journey - to acquire things that the rich have. Since he knows that others too want them, he starts stealing and selling them. Initially he is working for other people but soon he realises that he is better off alone. The entire story of his rise into this world is told as a fun tale. Once when he is caught he starts telling the police about his crimes and they initially find it unbelievable but start writing it down. After two three hours they are bored. When they take a break, he escapes using the police officer's bike.

But the biggest difference between Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye and many other films on Delhi is that it has been able to create the mileu from where the protagonist emerges. This is mainly done through the clothes they wear and how they speak - a version of Hindi which has Punjabi and English words twisted around and spoken with a Jat accent. The attention to detail is amazing. The film is able to capture the exact tone and pace of speech of a sub culture much like Trainspotting.

The director achieves a balance between making the protagonist neither a hero or a villain. Abhay Deol who plays Lucky has that mischievous look everytime he comes on screen - whether he is plotting his next crime, talking to a police man or charming a girl. He is not evil but he is not good either. While the law catches up with him twice in the film, the story also make us see things from his point of view. However there is no analysis or even a resolution at the end. Lucky is caught. There is a huge press conference to celebrate the police's success. But he escapes once again.

What is the message? There is none. It is rare for a film to take that stand.

Read More

Gran Torino

One of the greatest stars of all times, Clint Eastwood is truly a one trick pony when it comes to acting. His latest Gran Torino confirms the same without a shred of doubt. While the film has Eastwood playing Walt Kowalski, a disillusioned Korean War vet, he is actually the same man without a name or ‘Dirty’ Harry Callhan or Frankie Dunn. The only thing different here is that Eastwood growls every time he has to convey contempt scorn. Yes. He actually growls.

Kowalski’s wife dies at the beginning of the film and we see the estrangement he has with his two sons and their families. If the strained relationship is a sign of the changed times then the multi-ethnic neighborhood with an Asian kids fighting the Mexicans completes the sorry picture for the hard as nails old world Kowalski. Kowalski is a man whose time is surely up. It’s quite evident from the way he conducts himself. He might not like the Hmong family staying next door and spits every time he sees anyone of them across the fence but he is a principled man. When a couple of African American kids try to get fresh with Sue, the Hmong girl, he walks up to them and fires an imaginary gun. That is enough to scare the kids off and enough to make Sue realize that Walt isn’t as nuts as he claims to be. She invites him over for a family gathering and even though Walt is trying to be amicable you can make out that he sticks out like a sore thumb. The only thing that gives his life some sort of emotional connect it’s the 1972 vintage Gran Tornio, which not only possess a place of pride in his garage but his existence. Sue’s brother Thao tries to steal the car in order to make his bones as a gang member but Kowalski thwarts the plan. As a penance Sue’s mother insists that Thao work for Kowalski for some time.

Soon a friendship brews between the odd couple and some how Kowalski realizes that times are a changing. Thao gets a grip on his life as Kowalski ordains him into the ‘real’ world. He gets him a job, he lends him his tools, he allows him to drive his Gran Torino to a date that he fixes up so much so that he even takes the kid to his barber and shows him how ‘men’ used to talk in the good ole days! Things take an ugly turn when Thao is beaten up by the Hmong gang members who can’t take Thao trying to live a regular ‘American’ job. Kowalski looses it and bashes up the tormentor. The gang retorts by brutally raping Sue. Realizing that things will never change until some thing drastic happens, Kowalski prepares himself for a suicide mission.

The climax might be some sort of a let down but in the true sense of the word plays out like the high point of the tragedy that Kowalski’s life turns out to be. This would perhaps be the weakest of recent Eastwood films as far as the screenplay goes. Always one to take up simple tales and lace them with heightened acting and screenplay, Eastwood fails with Gran Torino. The film is a throwback at the character driven fare from the 1970’s but the problem is that the kind of violence that Kowalski is subjected to has been done to death on film a million times. The vigilante super hero of a common man is Charles Bronson area and we all know how people laughed him out with each passing film. What makes Eastwood tread on such territory?

This film has been the highest grossing film of his career and this is also the last film that he will ever act in. It’s a nice send off as far as the commercial success of the film goes but some where the first frame of Kowalski makes you want to time travel and pop the Dirty Harry DVD.

Read More

Glumdog

Now that AR Rahman has won the Golden Globe for his original score in Slumdog Millionaire the press is going to pump up "Slumdog" as the greatest thing since Gandhi. Triumph of the underdog India. Well Indians will always be the underdog especially when it comes to Hollywood. Like many of us I still haven’t seen the film and unlike many of us I have a few issues with the film.

Don't get too perturbed this is a common Indian phenomenon to have problems with things that we haven't experienced. Just like you accept feeling happy when anything that is remotely Indian wins some thing anywhere in the world, you must understand why some of us don't share the enthusiasm. First and foremost the biggest thing "Slumdog" got it wrong was the language. This is a story about the underdog in the most 'underdogest' place anywhere in the universe. Welcome to Dharavi. Everything smells here (according to Anil Kapoor on some excerpt I saw or heard a few days ago.) and yet the promo is full of people from all walks of life conversing in English. Would it have been too much for Danny Boyle to make this thing in Hindi and insert English subtitles? Or am I expecting too much for Boyle ain't no Alejandro González Iñárritu and this ain't Amores Perrros? Or couldn't he do an Ang Lee; make it Mandarin (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) and release a dubbed version for Hollywood. I just feel that the essence would have been captured better.

One can look past this with some effort. Remember I haven't seen the film yet so appreciate my efforts. What I can't get over is that Boyle for some NRI actor to play the central character. In a country that has a film culture unlike any other and in a country of a billion people couldn't Team Slumdog and captain Boyle find one actor to fit the bill? You get an NRI to play a character from the world’s biggest slum and his English sounds beter than the host for the evening, Mr. Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor)! Bernardo Bertolucci sold so many magazine copies thanks to his interaction with Raju the slum dweller from Delhi when he was making Little Buddha. It's funny for Boyle decided to get master craftspeople from the Hindi film industry as companions on this journey of a lifetime but how could he get this little detail wrong beats me. All he needed to do was to sit at Cafe Coffee Day in Lokhandwala and he would have caused a riot of aspirants to portray Jamal. This in no way means disrespect to strugglers of Lokhandwala, of course.

Many people fear that, mirroring Attenborough’s Gandhi, the stupendous success of Slumdog would spark off a mad rush of foreigners rushing to the Indian shores to make a film or two about us. I don't fear that but one needs to realize that Sir Richard had this idea in the 1960's and nurtured the thought for twenty years before finally getting around immortalizing the Mahatma on celluloid. Danny Boyle also came down to Mumbai and experienced the Maximum City before embarking on Slumdog Millionaire. But there is a difference. Times have changed. No studio would have touched Sir Richard if he had decided to make the film in Hindi. I am willing to accept that studios could have influenced him to choose an unknown Indian-Brit called Ben Kingsley over a pucca desi Naseerudin Shah to play Gandhiji. Kingsley might be a royal pain to work with now (he insists on being addressed as Sir Ben while shooting) but this was before time. I don't think Boyle would have faced any problem putting "Slumdog" together. On the contrary the goras would have loved such an idea and had he been a little adamant he would have gotten some unknown Mumbaikar to play Jamal. Boyle was adamant at other places. He adamantly gave a Co-Director credit to Lovleen Tandon, the casting director, for the great work she did on Slumdog Millionaire. She couldn't find one Indian actor to play a slum dweller....

Oh what am I cribbing about...get over it!

Read More