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

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