The Movie Lane

Behind Bars

2009-05-16T18:42:00.016+05:30

R.I.P., Ingmar Bergman

2007-07-30T23:45:00.000+05:30

Bergman is no more. (Link via India Uncut.) Check out Ingmar Bergman Face to Face, the official site run by Ingmar Bergman Foundation; it has a lot of those wonderful images that Bergman captured in film.

Long, gushing notes on Chennai 600028

2007-05-14T02:00:00.000+05:30

Venkat Prabhu’s Chennai 600028, the latest sleeper hit among Tamil films, is an immensely enjoyable film that makes you ask for more, a rarity in itself. I walked in the theatre with quite a lot of expectations and thoroughly enjoyed the film.

The film blends City Of God-style realism with quintessential Tamil pop cinema, full of frothy fun and humour, with great flourish and comes up trumps overall.
Venkat Prabhu matches his unabashed crowd-pleasing instincts (which he seems to have faithfully inherited from his father, Gangai Amaran), inch for inch, with a strong eye for solidly real backdrops, zany humour, sheer wit and inventiveness. Sample this: A father goes ranting, bashing up his son in the middle of the street, “Unnaya pullayaa pethadhukku…” Cut to a guy talking over the phone, “… second show cinema-kke poyirukkalaam!”

The film starts with SPB’s voiceover introducing us to the protagonists of the film, which sets up the spirit of what is to follow with assuredness. “Kandippaa innum neraiya cricket!” we’re promised. And, cricket, we get. Street cricket, the game that the entire nation plays, with tennis balls and great passion; one guy brings in the bat, another brings in the stumps, and so on.
The story is that of a local cricket team, Sharks, of Vishalatchi Thoattam (a.k.a. “Sunambu Kalwa”) and its players. The movie starts with the Sharks team losing out to Royapuram Rockers in the finals of the fourth edition of the floodlit gully cricket tournament, Radio Mirchi cup ^[1]. As it happens, a key player of the Royapuram Rockers team moves in to Vishalatchi Thoattam (his “encroachment” is one of the primary setup for hilarity in the early sequences), finds himself a place in the Sharks team, as another edition of the tournament is about to start.

But, that’s not all there’s to it; in parallel, runs the stories of individual players of the team, in different threads. The film infuses the stock Chennai elements (or, the elements of any urban or semi-urban place of Tamilnadu, for that matter) with generous doses of masala and fun, but without ever making the mix reek of even a wee bit of fakeness or banality. Be it, the love that develops from cursory glances and courteous smiles, the consequent betrayal that’s felt when the same cursory glances and courteous smiles fall on some other guy, a friend who comes with the thoodhu, the possessive owner of the bat with which the team plays, or that one fellow in a gang who finishes up all the booze, the film reaps rich from real people we’ve known all our life, and serves it all in a refreshing package, that is rich in droll humour and unapologetic willingness to entertain. (Premgi Amaran, Gangai Amaran's second son, dons the mantle of an overt comedian in the film.)
And, mind you, this is the kind of film that could have gone wrong in a hundred ways, could have struck all wrong notes, if it had taken itself seriously, even a wee bit seriously. Recalling all those “youth flicks” of 90s will instantly remind us of this. (As if to elicit the same, there’s even a teasing reference to Kannedhire Thondrinaal.) Those films picked their stock elements from real life too, but handled them in absolutely irredeemable ways, resulting in terrible films. The typical Madras elements – figures, friends, love (the most popular archetypes are here: a guy loving a dear friend’s sister, a coffee shop attendant loving a rich brat girl), the karpu in friendship, et al. surface in this film as well, but the film handles them in such an offhanded manner, and yet with such sensitivity, that, at times, I was positively stunned. The film’s wonderful ending, more than anything else, stands as a testimony to this. (I don’t want to spoil this for the readers, suffice to say that the film has a cracker of an ending and the last shot of the film is the best I’ve seen in years!)

There are just too many delicious moments in the film that one would be more than just inclined to forget the few forgettable moments. (The story of Aravind sticks out like a sore thumb though, there’s not anything much interesting in it, it comes of use only for the song-and-dance routines.) From the pop-culture nods and references to the spoofs of stock elements of Tamil films, even the inserted bits mostly work pretty well, while some of the bits are indeed predictable, but never actually off-putting.
The film has no story arc as such (nor does it contrive ponderous, heavy-handed “insights” into its various themes, individual redemptions or a collective salvation!), but when the scenes themselves are as well fleshed out and funny as this, to hell with story arcs! I must confess, there were moments in the film when I just wanted to watch these fellows talk, gang up, booze together, and play cricket.

A round of applause (ah, cut the stiff-upper-lip tone, add a ‘wow!’) for the spot-on performances, all of them are spontaneous, nonchalant and heavily restrained, even if a bit amateurish at times. You won’t remember the names, but every one of them makes a mark. Even the ones who appear just for a couple of scenes strike a chord – like, say, the Royapuram Rockers team captain (who looks every inch like that). Many such outlier moments are lovely here. The Royapuram team guys call Raghu back to the team for a match over the phone, (the screen splits, first into three, and then settles for two, one for each end) he evades from giving an affirmative answer, and the guy on the other end takes the phone off his ear for a moment and says in a matter-of-fact tone, “semma gaandu-la irukkaan da.” – a simple scene, but well fleshed and strikingly real.
I was especially impressed with Shiva (Radio Mirchi RJ) who plays Karthik, the Sharks team captain, with that quintessential Madras accent you rarely see in films, mixing his restrained persona with wry humour and nice comic timing, Nitin Sathyaa (who was anything but notable in his previous outings) as Palani, and Jai (music director Deva’s son) as Raghu, the new team member, who play the main roles with wonderful spontaneity. Either it’s the spot-on casting that did the trick, or Venkat Prabhu is quite fantastic in extracting spontaneous performances out of his actors.

The soundtrack score reeks a bit of rap and hip-hop, but works pretty well with the film, if one’s willing to overlook that aspect. ^[2] The background score by Premgi Amaran works even better.
The camera work is restless and patchy, pulling every trick (or gimmick, if you will) in the book to keep us engaged, employing “unsteady” cams, jump cuts, ramping shots, freeze frames (the freeze frames in the marina beach side bet match are sidesplitting!), colour tones, etcetera, with no restraint whatsoever. But, much of those doesn’t go in vain, but is rather put to good effect. If not anything else, it packs in all the plethora of detailing in impromptu mode, like in the montage in the title song, or in the scenes of cricket matches.

This is a greatly assured and brilliant debut from Venkat Prabhu. Please take a bow. Three cheers to SP Charan and the entire team as well for giving us such an entertaining film. Just, go watch. This one’s for the ages.

[1] – One of the many brand placements. We’ve Raaga.com, IndiaGlitz.com et al.
[2] – A bit of clarification needed. Isn’t there a guy uttering – spashtamaa – “otha!” a couple of times in the stanzas of the remix version of “Jalsa”? Or, was he going “what the…?”

Not-so-short notes on Paruthiveeran

2007-05-05T01:08:00.000+05:30

Note: Please do yourselves a favor, dear readers. Go watch Chennai 600028, easily the best film of the year, as yet. Saroja, saamaan nikaalo!
Rest of you all, who are still reading this post, this is another dull, “not-so-short” notes on a month-and-half old film – a modified version of a quick write-up (albeit with a lot of additional notes and changes, I’m afraid) on the film I originally wrote soon after I saw the film, but didn’t publish for reasons best known to none.

Ameer’s Paruthiveeran (just like his previous venture, Raam) is yet another of those “new age” films, remarkable in its mise-en-scène, but unremarkable in its aspiration; and spotlessly hollow in its inspiration. In short, insipid filmmaking.
The film is set in Paruthiyoor, right in the heartland of rural Tamilnadu, commendably capturing the characteristically sultry locations, the people and their mud-walled houses, the native dialect and the way of life, with an assured hand. But, that’s all there is to it.

Veeran (Karthi), the protagonist of this film, is a one-dimensional caricature; a stereotype of the sandiyar image, conceived without much sensitivity, the few moments that betray the vulnerability of the character notwithstanding. Ameer establishes his protagonist as an aruvaal-happy, aimless urchin that we perceive through films and media – pleased at ourselves in finding it all senseless – through a series of sketches which in essence pander unreservedly to the audience (curiously enough, pander to both the “urban class” and the “rural class” with equal success here!), but passed off as something more serious and ambitious. Veeran’s ultimate objective is to be serve a term in the Chennai Central Jail. This is digestible if said in wry humour, but the director wants us to take this at face value, as a fact. In a realistic portrayal, we expect protagonist to exist within a real system. But, here, Veeran is, well, a veeran, the hero, even if not in the traditional sense. He can just go sever the ear of a policeman, or knock down a seemingly significant denizen of the village, for petty reasons; well, actually, for the laughs. Honestly, I too laughed at some of the nakkal-naiyyaandi jokes in the beginning, but grew tired of them too soon.

Thankfully, post-interval, the story actually unfolds, and, there are some good moments with Muthazhagu (Priya Mani) – the scene where she’s thrashed by her dad (a moving moment when she scoffs at her paatti asking for more food), and the scene where she tearfully pleads with Veeran work pretty well; the stock, grayish-toned flashback with the kiddies romancing, notwithstanding. But, the love story – after Veeran heeds to Muthazhagu, that is – is developed so hurriedly that there’s little one has had invested on their love as the climax draws near. And, the denouement sticks out like a sore thumb.
Here, I must digress a bit and elicit a problem that I face with a lot of films. (I’d say positively argue that it’s a natural problem with story-telling in general.) A problem with stories that take unexpected turns coming out of nowhere. Yes, it’s so characteristic of fickle human life and all that, but then you expect the filmmaker to reflect on the same, or at least acknowledge that. Else, it’s like a bad television show, as Woody Allen would have put it.
As if this abrupt turn wasn’t enough, the film conveys a silly moral out of this for the story. Muthazhagu says, “Nee senja paavathai ellaam en madiyila aethittiye da…” Now, this can be taken as a dying woman’s rambling, but Ameer is actually serious about it. Ameer’s viewpoint on Veeran is dubious and conflicting in its truest sense. It’s supposed to be a realistic portrayal of a hoodlum, but he is severely censuring of Veeran’s indulgence in petty crimes and hollow bully attitude.

On a positive note, the performances are impressive on the whole (Saravanan warrants special mention). Karthi is pretty good for a debutant, but he’s way too earnest and slightly overdoes his act, constantly “offering” us something, through gestures, body language and a bit exaggerated dialect et al. There’s not one lazy moment where we’re not “told” who he is. Also, I am much ambivalent about the extensive usage of native, amateur actors. The dialect is spot-on, but the dialogue delivery is so hurried (I don’t mean ‘fast’ here), and the acting is shuffled. (So much for the native flavour, the dialect is actually inconsistent at places. Some chaste Chennai slang words pop in the dialogue. Lazy writing.)
More brownie points for Yuvan’s superb music score – “Ariyaadha Vayasu” and “Ayyayyo” stand out among the songs – which works so well for the film.

Baradwaj, in an excellent review (albeit a positive one) as usual, puts forth an excellent set of points, making almost this entire write-up redundant – the movie’s preference to sensationalism (a nice dig at how the hero of today “won’t just switch off the lights, he’ll leap up and break the glass bulbs with his aruvaa!”) over sensitivity (though am surprised that he brackets Pithamagan along with), on how “[t]he infrequent bits of exposition are almost apologetic,” how the last act of the movie was curiously unmoving (not curiously so, in my case).
Well, as for me, I don’t go to theatres determined to see a story unfold per se, but it’s not that bad an idea, I think.

Not-so-short notes on Pachaikkili Muthucharam

2007-04-24T22:10:00.000+05:30

Note: This is a modified version of a quick write-up on the film I originally wrote soon after I saw the film, but didn’t publish for reasons best known to none.

Gautham, in his latest offering has admittedly attempted making a “Balu Mahendra-meets-Quentin Tarantino kind of film.” Even a mere suggestion that a blend of those two eminent filmmakers’ style would result in such a horrendous film is enough to make one wince much. Refrainment from bombarding us with ramping shots and jump-cuts in general, and employing rather serene camera movements, whimsical fade-ins and fade-outs doesn’t automatically qualify as “Balu Mahendra style” of filmmaking.

The first half, on basis of which Gautham has taken the unintentional dig – or so I call it, is as meandering as it gets. Sarath Kumar and Jyothika alight trains, travel, talk to, and sit next to (the sheer number of shots of the two brushing against each other would serve as a lesson to film students), and develop love for each other. (Not to forget their frequent tiffs about paying bills at restaurants, and for the taxi-drives.) Let’s not get into the “Quentin Tarantino half.”
The few moments that actually work in the film – like, the scene with Sarath Kumar and Andrea after they get to know about their kid’s medical ailment, or when Jyothika teases Sarath Kumar saying, “illannaa, ippo dhaan thalai nimindhu paakkareengalo ennavo…” – are so unobtrusively woven into the narrative, in which, otherwise, each moment gets cornier than the last.
Dialogue in Gautham’s films has always touched horrendous standards, but, the dialogue of this film takes the cake. It is one thing to write wannabe-smart lines at the expense of naturalness, realism and suchlike, but it’s something entirely different to write supposed-to-be-keeping-it-real lines that no self-empathetic human being would utter at any moment of one’s life. In a standout scene, Sarath Kumar and Jyothika, coming after a secret date, are bothered by some hoodlums, Sarath stands up to the situation, fights them, (and is also hurt) and saves Jyothika. The lady picks up the man’s hand, looks at the bruise and asks “Enakkaagava?”
[This line takes the top honour for the corniest line of the year, ranking alongside similar jaw-dropping lines from his previous outings like “Freeze!”, “Ilaavukkaaga!”, “Back home, they call it the Raghavan instinct!” I’ve been campaigning for this from day one, by the by.]

No prize for guessing that Harris Jayaraj’s background score must have been unspeakably painful. (The popular violin bit, which I liked until I watched the movie, is played vociferously, almost a dozen times, when the protagonist and the antagonist bump into each other.)
Jyothika doesn’t grate as much as she’s capable of, Sarath Kumar safely keeps out of any sort of “performance,” Andrea is ridiculously young for the role. The one who played the cab driver takes the top acting honours.

I don’t get Gautham’s films, but this is easily his worst film. I’d rather prefer an unpretentiously escapist fare like Minnale, which, in my opinion, is his most interesting work. (The readers may gasp.)

Blue Umbrella Soundtrack

2007-01-18T19:23:00.000+05:30

Fabulous, the soundtrack is. So is the film going to be. There's much to rave on and on about the man. Here's, once again, doffing one's hat to Vishal Bhardwaj and his soon-to-be-released Chatri Chor.

Guru

2007-01-14T00:10:00.000+05:30

I usually take a great share of merit in Mani Ratnam films for granted. Like in Aayidha Ezhuthu, I was quite underwhelmed considering it came from Mani Ratnam. It was naïve, idealistic, I complained. But, when a Selvaraghavan goes on and on, taking almost the whole of Pudhupettai’s running time to establish a gangster for what he is – a ruthless man who will go to any end to preserve himself, I couldn’t help but recall how amazingly Mani Ratnam establishes the same in a few sequences in Aayidha Ezhuthu with characteristic ease and great restraint.
As everyone knows, Guru is about the life of a man who rose from his humble beginnings to a business tycoon, one of biggest national icons, with close parallels to such a real-life personality, Dhirubhai Ambani. Somehow, I didn’t have any great expectations on Guru. The rather pedestrian caption – “Villager, Visionary and A Winner” – didn’t help much either. As I read in some interviews of Mani Ratnam that the intent was to chronicle the times of our nation post-independence in terms of social outlook and progress, I got hooked to it.
And, it turned out to be an enjoyable film of his sensibilities, in his inimitable style. In short, Mani Ratnam in form.

Guru is probably the strongest case, in Indian film history, of showcasing unreserved, all-out self-interest as a virtue. And, this depiction of a protagonist who’s so full of self-interest is one of foremost things I loved in the film. The way the lead character of Gurukant Desai (Abhishek Bachchan in his career-best effort) is conceived and established seamlessly is worth mentioning here. He’s unabashedly capitalistic, completely munafa-oriented. He marries Sujata (Aishwarya Rai) because of the dowry he’ll get in the process will help him setup his first business venture. When Sujata comes to know of it, he doesn’t deny it. That’s what he is, and he is unapologetic about it. And, in his view, this is in no way related to his love for his wife.
He holds no grudges whatsoever against those who despise this trait in him. (“Ab pair padoon, kya?” he asks his brother-in-law-cum-partner, when he accuses him of one for whom money means everything, rather than making his stance.) Much like Mani Ratnam himself, he’s naturally non-judgemental and all he means is bijiness. And, when it comes to bijiness, he has such an air of superiority around himself and he doesn’t quite consider anyone as a rival at any level, in any sense except when it comes to munafa.
Guru chances upon a Gandhian media baron, Nanaji (Mithun Chakraborty), who develops great affection towards Guru and whom Guru thinks of as a father figure. Nanaji consequently becomes instrumental in Guru’s rise up the ladder. When Nanaji later turns against Guru (his affection for Guru notwithstanding), after he comes to know that Guru had exploited his newspaper for his business prospects, he turns very critical of his unethical ways and employs an energetic investigative journo, Shyam Saxena (Madhavan), to expose his unethical and illegal ways. And, like in Iruvar^[1], Mani Ratnam shows finesse in depicting this conflict between these two who’ve great affection for each other. Any lesser filmmaker would take the easy path diligently exposing the ugly side of the protagonist from a moral perspective. But, Mani Ratnam puts them on an even pedestal and wonders if all is fine with the intent and the means one takes to nail down the other.
But, Guru actually is, in many ways, a throwback to Nayagan. Yes, it doesn’t surely scale up to the other in its merit, but it’s hard to miss the similarity in the structures and the protagonists of the two films. It’s strikingly visible in the deliciously well made scene of Guru paying a visit to Shyam’s house only to find that he’s married to Meenu (Vidya Balan), with whom he shares a special relationship; in the scene where a young Guru before he makes it big barges in to the city collector’s (an unidentifiable Prathap Pothen) house with all his cotton goods to give an apt rejoinder to his shutting down the market place of theirs; and in the courtroom penultimate scene. Also, just like in Nayagan, the film romanticizes the larger-than-life “heroic” persona of the protagonist and empathizes with him; which means, the other two men in opposition to Guru’s ways are shown in a much smaller dimension and their characters aren’t developed so much as to stand tall against Guru; thus, deliberately stopping short of Iruvar in its richness of depiction of the conflict faced between the protagonists.

What makes the film really endearing is the way the scenarios and the characters are conceived throughout the film, so full of familiar Mani Ratnam touches. Most of them work, and when they work, they work superbly. Take for example some delightfully written, brilliant scenes like Guru ringing the school bell in response to his father’s refusal to stand by his side on starting business on his own; or, Guru pouring the drink into the glasses of his colleagues at a house party as he charms them into his idea – which they themselves would neither imagine, nor agree to in a sober state – of starting a new polyester factory themselves; or, in depicting the love of Guru and Sujata for each other. Or, the way in which even the smallest of characters (like Guru’s newly-wed, close friend in his village) are so well fleshed out.
The overall mise en scène and the detailing of the different eras (the film posters of Kaagaz Ke Phool, Naya Daur) is spot on, but the political and legal aspects are kept in the background and there is no didactic treatment examining the problems that existed back then with the largely socialistic setup in the early decades post-independence. Nevertheless, there are clear references to License Permit Raj which made it difficult for new entrants to make it big in the market. Guru blames it on this system for his taking ways out of the system to sustain and grow his business.

The onscreen performances and the work by the technical departments (with Mani’s stamp all over) are all top-notch. Rahman’s score works pretty well with the soaring chorus, unrestrainedly infectious beats lending themselves really well during the sequences of Guru’s rise. But, songs, as has been the case in Mani saar films in the recent past, serve as real show stoppers.

The denouement of the film is like the characteristic Mani Ratnam-esque positive ending. But, it’s also real, which is why I don’t have any qualms about it. But, the way it’s staged itself is a bit too congratulatory on the protagonist. Like in Nayagan, Mani Ratnam romanticizes the victory of Gurukant Desai the visionary ^[2] – and I wasn’t surprised at all considering his tendencies to stage such finales – rather than maintaining a stiff upper lip about the protagonist’s strides. (And, the “Sapney Dekho!” bit was really overdone.)
Even here, Guru bhai’s final defence (did we need those flashing camera movements?) in the courtroom in front of the junta is essentially a piece of showing off, a grand speech to garner their support, after calculated silence till then. (Am I the only one who noted that his jaw stops drooping down as he starts his defence and slyly comes back to its drooping position after he finishes his speech?)
And, the denouement is just real; that he is a hero, an icon in the common man’s eyes and that the collapse was just a hiccup. Mani Ratnam doesn’t take a stance on either side in a moral or an ethical respect. He is rather awed at the persona of Gurukant Desai in the junta’s view. Gurukant Desai – take this at its face value – is a winner; and, so it is, even in the real life scenario. And, this story, after all, is the winner’s version.

[1] – In one scene, Sujata is shown to have a mole on her left shoulder, a direct reference to Pushpa, the character she played in Iruvar.

Cross-posted at Naachgaana.com.

2006-11-26T17:27:00.000+05:30

Firstly, RIP Robert Altman. (Well, I am too late into this, but, better late than never.)
Anurag Kashyap, as part of his film diary at Oz's Passion For Cinema, has started writing a series (hopefully) on the making of RGV's contemporary classic Satya. The first post is up and it talks about how it all started, how Kashyap, Saurabh Shukla joined the team, among other things. Do read. For the uninitiated, there's also The No Smoking Diary where Kashyap writes (regularly) about his upcoming film No Smoking with John Abraham.
Among the upcoming movies, we have Mani Rathnam's much-awaited biopic Guru; and, Vasanthabalan's Veyyil on the homefront, which I am eagerly looking forward to. Hope, it's another worthy entry to Shankar's production house. (Bala's Naan Kadavul has been in the soup for a long time now, with rumours afloat about changes in the lead cast et al. Hope it gets made without any further hassles.)
It's been a long time since I wrote something on this blog. Nevertheless, a lot of movies were seen. Just that I've been pointlessly busy, which kept me away from any updates.

Lage Raho Munnabhai

2006-10-24T23:44:00.000+05:30

Note: This one comes really late though I saw the film the day it was released.

When I came out of the theatre after watching Lage Raho Munnabhai, first day matinee show, I could not help but wonder how much of the movie was screwed up so deliberately.

The makers of this film are smart people who know to tell their stories with liberal dose of wit, blending subtlety and goofiness in a rare, seamless fashion.
Take for example, the film’s hilarious start (Boman and Arshad are just superb in this sequence). Or, the brilliant round finish at the end with Lucky Singh posing for a photograph with Gandhi who’s in reality not quite there; just as he usually does, but this time without realizing it, as if to show, he is now acknowledging the presence of Gandhigiri. But, all these moments of wit, craziness and zany humour are just part of a larger canvass – that of the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, as Munna revisits those ideals.
Well, it’s not all that serious, you say. It’s just comfortable storytelling – of the all’s-well-that-ends-well variety. All conveniently delineated secondary characters get the ‘point’ at some point and reform themselves. Agreed, all’s well, but only if it was funny, which it was, but only in patches here and there. And, I couldn’t help but, yawn a bit, cringe awhile, and wait for Circuit or Lucky Singh to crack me up, as the humour took the back seat and one was subjected to profuse pontification.

Agreed, it’s absurd to question the basic premise of the film, that is, Gandhigiri. Not that Gandhigiri, a rather nicely coined term, itself isn’t of any worth. But, it’s the treatment that is shoddy – turning the film into an elaborate sermon, an all-out mush-fest, letting tears flow at every possible moment. It was neither funny, nor honest. In fact, there’s one particular scene in which Munna helps out one Victor D’ Souza over the radio, listening to which everybody cries their heart out. Everybody – a policeman, a barber, Lucky’s daughter, Lucky’s secretary, a gentleman who’s probably the CEO of the FM channel, Circuit – sheds a tear, two or in copious amounts, at some moment or the other in the film, just listening to a radio show.
It was as if we were being subjected to sixth grade moral science lessons in the name of Gandhigiri. And, the film plays all this acute altruism so straight in your face. Not like, say, an Amélie, in which a lonely protagonist goes about fixing others’ problems similarly in a unique eccentric fashion, but in which we see a man being advised to wipe off the pan spit of his neighbour so that his neigbour refrains from doing so.
Quite thankfully, the film doesn’t always look at the Gandhian ideals with stern reverence. It’s the playful wisecracks of the lead characters on Gandhi’s ideals are the moments that brigtens up the proceedings. Like, when Munna quips Gandhi never told what to do after getting slapped on the second cheek – an old joke alright, but it worked. Or, even better, when Circuit asks the astrologer to rise so that he can say “Sorry!” after making him go almost unconscious. But, these bits of light irreverence are too far apart.

I actually liked Munnabhai MBBS despite all the mush and the underlying message, because it underplayed – or, at least, tried to underplay – them quite well, kept them in check (ah, well, only until the climax starts). And, it acknowledged the fact that the message wasn’t an “all-cure”, thus giving us a mix of naïve altruism and modern cynicism, and just asked us to sit back and laugh.
And, more than anything, the film had Circuit and Dr. Asthana. The role of Circuit was essentially a sidekick with not much of space or screen time. But Arshad Warsi was just scintillating in that role. In fact, he did it so incredibly well that the role demanded more screen time in the second edition. Here, he gets more screen presence – and, of course, he’s fantabulous, by and large – evenly throughout the film, alright, but doesn’t leave us with a similar impact every time.

On a positive note, Boman is superb yet again. He plays the same role as in the previous film in spirit, the role that Munnabhai confronts and “heals”. With an awkward looking beard, and nothing short of hurried characterization, what he pulls off as Lucky Singh is just unbelievable - just the casual winks, nods, hugs or the eccentricities. What a fantastic actor he is! One of the very best around.

It was as if the Rajkumar Hirani and Co. thought Munnabhai MBBS worked mainly because it was a “socially relevant entertainer with a message”, and decided to make this film on a larger canvass of the same, in the process making it much less funny. And, they are proved absolutely right at the B.O., all right.

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu

2006-09-10T18:51:00.000+05:30

Though I expected nothing much out of Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu, like any self-respecting Kamal Haasan aficionado would do, I watched the film on the first day. (And like any self-respecting bachelor software engineer would do, I watched the night show.)

Note: Some minor spoilers ahead.

Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu, Gautham’s follow-up to Khaka Khaka, is a grisly thriller about a cop on the hunt for a serial killer, and it turned out just the way I had expected.

Firstly, I knew that I had to come to terms with the Gautham’s idea of an episode in a police officer’s life. An episode of Good vs. Evil battle, a battle between a superhero and an equally powerful villain, while the rest of the helpless souls may fall dead at different times and that’s not really the point ^[1]. Having done that, it still didn’t work as a neat thriller of sorts for me.

The film does start off well, quite serenely, with the investigation of a brutal murder; despite the heroic introduction of DCP Raghavan (Kamal Haasan) and the following “Karka Karka” song sequence filmed with dazzling reverence by Gautham.
But, the script simply fails to sustain enough interest, as the film proceeds on with mayhem of murders, Raghavan travelling to New York to unravel the mystery behind them, an angle of love interest with a divorcee Aradhana (Jyothika), an unnecessary flashback (reusing some elements of Khaka Khaka), every song serving as a hindrance.
Once we are introduced to the serial killer, the film goes completely haywire in the second half with more murders ^[2], as Gautham tries really hard and fails to engage us in a sort of cat-and-mouse game. And, it was surprising to see some of the plot elements of Khaka Khaka being directly reused in these segments of the film.

Technically, the film carries all the baggage that Khakha Khaka did. Among the actors, Kamal Haasan and Prakash Raj are the only face-saving entries. If songs were hindrances, the background score was so mindlessly awful. And what was with those shots that go upside down and then rotate back doing a 360 degrees turn?

Gautham is evidently heavily inspired by a host of Hollywood serial killer films ^[3].
One can see what he is trying to do here. Just like the Indian serial killer in his film (a figure much similar to the ones Gautham and we have seen in many Hollywood films) committing series of murders in their own territory, Gautham, an Indian director, is making a film on “their” genre set in their own place ^[4]. But, like his previous film, this also turned out to be a wannabe-slick film that goes astray instead of an engaging thriller.

[1] - Check out [via] Gautham’s commentary on the alternate ending of Khakha Khaka and why the other “very positive ending” was chosen over it. Well, an ending with Maya (Jyothika) saying, “Ennanga, paathu…” in a “Look! I am so much like Smita Patil in Ardh Satya” manner, just as Anbu Chelvan (Surya) leaves for the day’s work, would have been just as horrible, but killing her just for the sake of “the larger good” is ridiculous.
I’ll definitely become guilty of reading too much into these films, but Gautham’s way of portraying the hero’s suffering by putting his ladylove in a dreaded predicament and the consequent “indifference” towards the woman herself is evident.

[2] - Honestly, how many of you remember one of the Raghavan’s subordinates hanging high tied to a lamp-post or something near a fly-over?

[3] - Here, it’s at least more befitting than Khaka Khaka, where we had a dreaded gangster almost prototyped as a psychopathic serial killer, in a completely undiscerning fashion. (It is one thing to kill one’s parents at an early age and entirely different to sever the head of a policeman’s wife, pack it in a parcel for him to take and place it in a no man’s land, which, of course, was so inappropriately taken from Seven.)

[4] - And, Raghavan, reveals some nuances of Indian police too a couple of times; when he tells his NYPD colleague, “We do this all the time, in India.” and at some other point, “Back home, it’s called the Raghavan instinct.”

2006-08-22T15:34:00.000+05:30

Continuing on Omkara, do read Deepak Dobriyal’s interview on Rediff.
News about the 53rd National Awards are around. Trivia: Amitabh is not winning for Sarkar, which breaks (discounting much horrible retellings of the Coppola classic) the National Awards constant connection with Brando’s Don Corleone.
Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu is finally getting released. I have already expressed my lack of ~~regard~~ expectation for this film. But, let me wait and watch.
“The star cast would comprise big names like Monica Bellucci and Salma Hayek in the lead role,” says Simbhu about his next directorial venture which will “[p]erhaps start by 2007.” And, produced by Warner Bros., perhaps!
It seems Thimiru is a big hit. And, while we are at it, Balaji, where are the good old “bombs”, when we need them the most? Please use them.

Omkara

2006-08-17T21:24:00.000+05:30

Note (slightly modified on Aug 18, 09:26 p.m.): This started more as some rambling notes on Omkara after each viewing (I’ve watched it thrice as of now), but turned out to be quite a long take. Apologies, especially for the beginning note below.

A lot has already been said about the film and I am afraid I won’t be able to add much, except some superlatives (which I am doing); but, better late than never on a lovely film.

Omkara, Vishal Bhardwaj’s follow-up to the wonderful Maqbool, is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Othello set among the outlaws in the wild rustic hinterlands of north India, à la the Wild West of Sergio Leone; but retains its nativity, both Indian and ‘Bollywood’, very much; and an outstanding film embellished with great mise en scène, visual moments, wonderful dialogue ^[1] and fine performances.
Omkara plays on a much bigger canvass than Maqbool, which wasn’t as ‘Bollywood’ as this. Quite clearly, and yet very seamlessly, we can see Vishal Bhardwaj playing it to the gallery. (Much has been said about its fate at B.O. too, contradictory in terms, which makes the B.O. verdict quite murky.)

Scenes that I particularly loved in the film:

1. The bridge scene between Langda Tyagi and Rajju (a brilliant show by Deepak Dobriyal ^[2]; please take a bow!) – The wide landscape, the deserted bridge but for just two drunken men sitting on the middle of it, musing over their respective ill-fates, the reasons of which seem uncannily similar. The setup is striking. It is beautifully shot. It’s just perfect.

2. The “Omkara” title song sequence with a tussle that starts with a leisurely pace and is straight out of a Western.

3. The pooja scene atop a hill where Kesu is chosen over Langda (with nice cuts from shots facing Bhaisaab and Omkara to Langda’s back and later to Kesu’s back), just for Saif’s act.

4. The killing of Inder Singh (?) in a train signal amidst heavy rain. The way the narrative is weaved with killings, which are mostly unrelated to the main plot, but yet serve as an undertone of the characters’ state of mind, is commendable.

5. The climax with the quick fade-outs and fade-ins, ominously portending the imminent tragedy. Not to mention the finely nuanced “ambiguous” act of Kareena Kapoor as Dolly shocked for life at Omkara’s accusation which also appears as if she is trying to save herself now that she is exposed. The way “Jag Ja” song is used here, and the haunting shot with which the film ends.

And, ah, the language! No, I am not going to just call it “appropriate”, “earthy” or “realistic”. It’s all these, but it is too good to be just that.
Call me silly, but it was a real pleasure to hear the characters mouth cusswords in such an unrestrained fashion in an Indian film. (Only a handful of films of the past come to mind that come any close as a precursor.)
Not to forget the classic line with which the film begins – “Bewakoof aur Chutiye mein dhaage bhar ka pharak hota hai, bhaiyya! Dhaage ke unge bewakoof, aur unge chutiya…” (Please correct the spellings.)

Casting Saif Ali Khan as Landga – Though not totally at odds with his image (as many claim to be); he has already played his villain act so well in Sriram Raghavan’s Ek Hasina Thi (The recent Being Cyrus is also worth a mention) – is bang on. In a role which is almost the lead role of the film (so much that the “Tragedy of Omkara” plays in its entirety during the end of the bridge scene), Saif is fantastic as the unruffled and scheming Langda Tyagi, nonchalant (check out the casual way he shoots sitting on his jeep as Omi and Kesu fight it over with Captaan and co.), confidently conniving and unmoved, and walks away with the top acting honours of the film. Konkana Sensharma is just what she can be – impeccable. Ajay Devgan as Omi is an extension of his Malik Bhai in Company, with the characteristic ominous languor and broodiness.
Even the fringe characters turn out be very memorable – Captaan with Omi in the lorry (the one who is “bestowed with a haraam ki kamaai!” Watch out for him) just before the film’s title-song-cum-action-sequence, the old lady in the household.

Vishal, at the surface, stays with the original play (this, I say, from what I garner about the play on hearsay; I haven’t read Shakespeare at all), but adds some very Indian subtexts to his script.
Take, for instance, the gender issues he tackles as passing notes. Captaan places a sharat, or so he says to poke Omkara, with one of his sidekicks that Omkara will ditch Dolly. Omkara silently walks up to the lady who is filling water in a pail from a pump (usage of sound in this sequence and many others are straight out of Leone), fills water for her, places the pail over her head and asks her to tell the village that Captaan has lost his bet.
(This subtext gets more overt later when Indu talks to Omkara on what is pricking his mind and in the film’s climax.)

With such a good soundtrack, it will be quite difficult to place all of them seamlessly in the film, and that shows up. In Maqbool, the songs were almost used as a showcase of the environs in which the film is set. (In this film, if that was the case, the village ladies’ folk songs should have been in the soundtrack.) Where as, this soundtrack, though appropriately rustic, is universally appealing and more mainstream. And hence, some songs play out as independent tracks.

I find it quite surprising that some critics are making a hue and cry over the parts in which the film departs from the original play. Isn’t that part of a reinterpretation? In Maqbool, Mia Maqbool isn’t the lieutenant, consumed by his ambition, who wants to be the king, à la Macbeth, but more consumed by his love for the mistress of his king who is also his father-figure, thus almost giving an oedipal angle to the story; which is, quite simply put, fantastic! But, apparently, it seems, Scorsese can do that to a B-film, but Vishal can’t do the same to Shakespeare.
In one of those many reviews I read on Omkara, Falstaff pointed out a deviation from the original play. Langda Tyagi lets Rajju go and get Dolly even before he is denied the post of Baahubali. This, I think on hindsight, is significant, in the sense that he isn’t particularly keen on Dolly joining hands with Omkara and he is just reluctantly doing his job. Combine this with the effeminate touches he has, it gives a whole new dimension. Langda is very “loyal” to Omkara in his own way, despite betraying him. (Recall what Langda says about his jhoot and sach in the film’s climax.)

Vishal Bhardwaj largely seems to be a self-made filmmaker. (Or, as Tarantino would put it, while some go to film schools, he went to films.) I am saying this because it’s hard to see where Vishal Bhardwaj learnt his art from, as many have wondered already; but for the Urdu lines with a tinge of poetry, which we can attribute to his mentor Gulzar saab.
Here, he was a music director a few years ago. When we heard he is going to make Makdee, it was perceived more as a cineaste’s dabbling effort (at least I did), attempting a new genre quite untouched in India.
But, look at what he is now. This unbelievably amazing transformation is quite baffling given that nobody, and I mean nobody, else around his period has quite made the same impact in Hindi cinema as he has made with his 3 films.

Other random notes:
· Vishal refers to his own shelved film Timbuktu, in a nice terse joke which Bhaisaab, Naseeruddin Shah so effortlessly superb that it’s blinding, cracks.
· Baradwaj Rangan, in his excellent review, wonders if the shot of a fly buzzing around an idling man was homage to Sergio Leone (I think he is talking about a brief shot of Deepak Dobriyal in his house which doesn’t seem to befit the quintessential Leone setup). I was quite oddly reminded of Will Ferrell in Melinda and Melinda as Saif is here playing Iago “with a limp!” which, again, is much more unbefitting a reference :).

The bottom line: Omkara is certainly the best film I have seen this year, and most certainly, will remain so.

[1] – Vishal, may I add, is one of the best dialogue writers in the country today with his sparkling double-act in Maqbool and Omkara.

[2] – He is given an “introducing” card in the credits, though he debuted in Maqbool. And, yeah, definitely watch out for him!

Cross-posted at NaachGaana.com.

Yun Hota To Kya Hota

2006-07-29T20:47:00.000+05:30

Definitive spoilers alert.

Naseeruddin Shah’s directorial debut Yun Hota To Kya Hota is so good, interweaving four unconnected stories, which themselves are well-told, that, I wished there was no 9/11 at first place.
As far as this film is concerned, the 9/11 tragedy is hardly the point ^[1]. The director’s intention that the audience be well aware of the looming tragedy is loud and clear. But, when it eventually happens, it becomes a sort of letdown, (perhaps, because it’s played much too explicitly) that I wished it could have been something else.

The film juggles between four disparate threads, each of which has people at crossroads, vying to go to the U.S.A., for different reasons. Tilottima (Konkona Sensharma), a newly wed, who can’t join her husband to the U.S., as her VISA is not ready yet. Salim (Irrfan Khan), a stockbroker, all set to go to U.S., but, wants his girlfriend to come along with him. Rahul (Ankur Khanna), who has got the admission for an M.S. course, but has to take care of his ailing dad. Rajubhai (Paresh Rawal), an organizer of cultural shows, who, in the process, also smuggles people to the U.S.
It’s nice to see the film judiciously switch between the threads, with well-fleshed out characters and well-conceived sequences. For example, though the Salim-Javed ^[2] story doesn’t play out all that well in its entirety, the sequence of their meeting with the DCP (a superb cameo by Boman Irani) stands out. While, the Tilottima story and Rahul story are sufficiently engaging throughout.

Finally, it’s the individual stories that make the film work. The theme of the impact of blind chance on a person’s life isn’t explored much (though that is supposed to be the film’s central theme). And hence, the film doesn’t come off anywhere close to being a Kieślowskian meditation on chance. (To be one such, perhaps, reflections on multiple paths a person’s life could have taken, à la Blind Chance or Run Lola Run - a masterstroke that Kieślowski “invented” in film - were inevitable).
The films sports an indie look except for the soundtrack. The performances, throughout, are neat and spot-on, not to mention the host of actors in brief roles and cameos (Naseer’s son Imaad who has fun speaking shudh Hindi, Ravi Baswani, Rajat Kapoor, Ranvir Shorey, Makrand Deshpande, etcetera).
Naseer, as the director, deserves applause. I guess the script, by itself, examining the influence of chance incidents and encounters doesn’t have much merit. It’s the drama, humour (the man, sure, hasn’t lost his sense of humour!) and the quirkiness that he brings in, that makes this film worth what it is.

And then there is the fourth story with Paresh Rawal, who has come up with an amazingly nuanced performance, in the lead. Every time the film cuts back to this story, it works wonders. Be it, the man’s ex-ladylove, made up literally as a beggar in a shooting spot, pleading with him, or the “sensual” sequence between him and his love, or the silent shot of the girl, dozing off sitting on a chair, about to fall over her “dad”, this one’s a sheer delight!
Just for that, this film is highly commendable and worth every penny.

[1] - Though, Mr. Taran Adarsh, in his review, says it’s “the first Hindi film that makes an effort to present the 9/11 tragedy that struck America and had repercussions the world over.”
[2] - A cool reference, that one! One can’t help but chuckle when they introduce themselves.

Cross-posted at NaachGaana.com.

Corporate

2006-07-26T18:54:00.000+05:30

Madhur Bhandarkar’s films seem to follow a certain pattern. All his films expose some thing to the audience; exposé on various systems, structures, lives etc.

Exposé. That’s the word. He keeps making film after film exposing something or the other, and he categorically states so, himself.

“Here, I show you the page 3 world as it is,” it was in Page 3.
“Here, I show you the corporate world as it is,” it is in Corporate.
In his next film, it is going to be, “Here, I show you a Traffic Signal, in and out, with all its intricacies.”

In Page 3, Madhur Bhandarkar not only lacked the finesse to portray celebrities for what they are, but was so judgemental on them that it could have given S P Muthuraman’s Sakalakala Vallavan a run for its money. It even had a police inspector telling an upper-class party dude, “First, be a good Indian!” or something to that effect.
Thankfully, Corporate, by and large, stays away from that sort of stuff. (But, just like in Page 3, every now and then, some peon or security guard pops up and tells his associate what and how corporate world is. So disconnected, out-of-place and irritating, to say the least.)

Corporate revolves around the business rivalry between two companies, both of them big players in the food industry. Every element one could think of in this genre - money, power, politics, treachery, foreign investments, and shamefully shady deals – finds a place in the plot.
And, that is all there is. There is no emotional thread that ties the proceedings; nor, is there any revelatory moment that makes us connect to the characters. The result is a dull, long-drawn film that diligently documents the goings-on in the two companies which play it all dirty to beat each other, and goes nowhere else. The corporate log, the politicians, the middlemen, roll their dice on and on, sometimes losing to, sometimes striking back at, and sometimes winning over their counterparts.
It’s late into the film, when the pesticide scandal episode surfaces in the plot, the film engages us, despite the oh-so-naïve ethical stand some characters take in the meeting when the issue comes up.

Among the actors, Rajat Kapoor was really cool, as only he can be. Kay Kay Menon was very good too, but he is getting stereotyped for the role of a brooding man. It’s high time he reinvents himself in some other kind of role.

Towards the end of the film, Atul Kulkarni, in the voice-over, says that, the junta forgot about the pesticide scandal very soon. That is pretty much our reaction to the film too.

Jul 27, 12:08 p.m.: Cross-posted at NaachGaana.com. (Also, slightly modified the post.)

The Swords of Chennai, Now

2006-06-15T20:43:00.000+05:30

I am not sure how much I liked Pudhupettai. After watching the movie twice, that is. The first time I walked in to the theatre to see the film, at the end of a terribly tiring day, I really wanted to like it (Ref: a preview of the film in this blog). But, when I came out, much as I was impressed with some parts of the film, I was disappointed on the whole.

The film is about “Kokki” Kumar, born in the slums of Chennai, who joins the shady world of the city due to adverse circumstances, and eventually rise to dizzying heights of the Chennai underworld. Straight off the bat, Selvaraghavan gets some brownie points for his no-holds-barred depiction of the lead character as a basically ruthless person, a vile man, striking back at his fate blotted by some unpleasant situations with all fury. The complementing red and green color tones suggest that what’s a “red” for some (and for most of the audience) is actually all “green” for him and that conventional morality has no place in this world - The title, “Pudhupettai”, comes up as he runs away from his house, escaping his father who killed his mom accidentally last night and who might possibly kill him. As is Selvaraghavan’s wont, he doesn’t shy away from the brutal reality. Instead, he revels in it, be it the brief scenes silently fading in and out, montage sequences, or the subtle dark humour.

Now that we have acknowledged that Selvaraghavan’s capability and intention of such story-telling, we obviously expect more. But then, he gets a little too self-conscious of what he is doing. Much original as the film is, he throws in all the standard elements, sometimes clichéd, of a “raw, gritty” gangster film. A reason why many sequences appear forcibly thrust into the film and we don’t care much about what’s happening onscreen.
Take for instance the mandatory “Baptism Sequence” in the film. How inappropriate! In Coppola’s masterpiece (or Mani Rathnam’s Nayagan, or even RGV’s Sarkar), the sequence is the high point, a grand climax for the tussle between the protagonist and his foremost enemies/competitors. And here, it’s just a couple of meek men who won’t stand up against him and another local goon (Yes, there is one big-shot, a qualified stronger enemy, but you still wonder why he is clubbed along with the rest.) And to top it all, once all the acts are completed by his men, we see the don doing his hair and muse in a pensive mood, tears in his eyes (when the intermission is declared). We never quite get this “tragedy” of Kumar.
The dark humour that’s strewn throughout the film is commendable and works well for the most part. But, it does get a little too overt or tedious at some points. (Some sequences are – e.g.: the politician scolding his sidekick hurriedly, before starting his senthamizh speech, Kumar assessing his henchman’s slashing skills – amateurish and out-of-place.)

Another problem is that the film tries to tackle multiple genres; a derivative of martial arts genre, for instance. I am not a sucker for realism, but this marriage of martial arts genre with the gangster genre didn’t really work for me. What was with all those swish-swashing of multitude of flashy swords, all of them looking exactly alike? (Or even, the “code of conduct” which Kumar abides to before killing his enemy.)
Why concoct Goodfellas and Kill Bill together?
In RGV’s Satya, Satya points a knife at Bhiku Mhatre, an underworld don and says, “Mauka sabhi ko milta hai!” Here, Kumar has some sort of a magical persona and wins over everyone by his sheer grit and perseverance. Not that I complain, but this “heroic” quality seems quite incompatible with a realistic narrative.

The film starts wandering in the second half further exploring his personal relationships, “love” life (or rather the lack of it) and his rise in politics. In these parts, the film seems to ramble on till the point when Kumar learns about his own progeny and that’s when you see the actual emotional side of the man. (“SeyyaradhukellAm oru artham vennum’la!” he says.) Then again, the film stretches into one long bloody battle between Kumar and his enemies. The denouement, though surprising, rather comes off as a weak trick.

A round of applause for the majority of the cast with some good fresh faces! Be it, Kumar’s father (superb; is he related to Pasupathy?), his mentor (neat), his associates, Balasingh, Azhagam Perumal (superb), all of them play their part well, their looks, dialect and just about everything is flawless. Dhanush, though has given a sincere performance, is miscast. He doesn’t look his part; the lack of age clearly shows up.

Selva knows the medium well and exhibits an exhilarating visual style, but at times when he intends to examine and explain the psyche of a gangster, he does get a little verbose and theatrical. The film is shot very well, and despite using color tones heavily, it didn’t come off as a showy exercise. But, Yuvan’s symphonic background score is, by and large, inappropriate and I wished there were more silent moments or solo pieces. Of the film’s soundtrack, which I immensely liked, only some songs (“Neruppu Vaayinil”) gel well with the film’s narrative while the rest (“Enga Area”, “Varriyaa”) don’t, but are yet enjoyable (“Enga Area”). And the best song of the album, “Oru Naalil”, isn’t even played.

And did anybody notice the numerous instances of Dhanush’s hair (and beard) drastically varying in its length between consecutive shots of the same scene? A case of re-shooting some parts of the film?

Probably, I am taking the good points of Pudhupettai for granted and being picky about its shortcomings. The film had some fine moments - raw, gritty, in-your-face, deadpan, darkly funny, but the film, in its totality, didn’t quite turn out to be a definitive thumbs-up venture.

Some nice stuff

2006-05-02T14:41:00.000+05:30

A note to myself:
I know that it’s been really long since I posted anything new here. But, I myself am surprised that 2 whole months have passed away since my last post was written. In my very first post in this blog, I had a note to myself, in which I had written,
The post will, of course, be a review on any (and that means ANY!) movie(s).
It’s time to read that note again. From now on, I intend to do a little justice to that statement.

At NaachGaana, Rohit has put up an excellent interview he has had with Anurag Kashyap (for whom I have been lamenting for a long time now) in Los Angeles.
Less than a fortnight ago, Oz had met Kashyap (his earlier lament for Kashyap) during an Indian Film Festival which was screening the yet-to-be-released-in-India controversial film “Paanch” and made 2 related posts; one, a nice conversation that he had with Kashyap and the other, his take on “Paanch”.
There is also this post about a theatre workshop by Kashyap and his latest incomplete film, “Gulal”.
George has an assorted list of posts related to Kashyap that he has had made in his blog.
And, here’s my take on Kashyap’s brilliant second film, “Black Friday”. Do read.

Jabberwock revisits Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup. A real good write-up, I suppose. I intend to read this one day; after I watch the movie, I mean!

And finally, there is Baradwaj Rangan’s interview with Shaji N. Karun. Again, I intend to read it after I watch at least one film out of Mr. Karun’s oeuvre.

Last updated, with more nice stuff, on May 3, 2006 at ~~10:13~~ ~~10:35~~ 10:50 a.m.

Mixed Doubles

2006-02-24T17:34:00.000+05:30

Sunil: “Tumne Spiderman – 2 dekhne kyon gayi thi?”
Malti: “because Avi loves it baba!”
Sunil: “See??” [seriously expecting her to understand]
Malti: “See what?”

Here’s a man who is completely convinced that his idea of swapping wives is as much a simple desire (and and act of “copying the west”) as his son wanting to watch Spiderman 2 and also that it’s entirely independent of his love for his wife. (It could definitely be argued that he assumes this naiveté to meet his need.)
Rajat Kapoor’s latest venture Mixed Doubles (after his film-noir debut Private Detective: Two Plus Two Plus One and the black comedy Raghu Romeo) is a largely enjoyable flick, very well written (with imaginative oddball scenarios) and supported by all-round good performances.
The film, which by and large works as a fine comedy, quite deftly explores the love relationship between a man and his wife married for around 10 years and the lackluster entity that sex has become in their lives. The first act of the film, in which the director introduces us to the family and the lack of zest in the mundane daily proceedings, is absolutely hilarious embellished with quirky dialogues (by Anurag Kashyap and the director himself).
Sunil Arora, the husband, in trying to bring back a fresh allure to his sex life, suggests something; which outrages Malti, his wife, to no end. He, by some crooked means (this part is totally unconvincing), has it his way; and the rest of the film is about how the couple handles the situation. As the movie proceeds towards a simple denouement (sans comic exaggerations), it succinctly examines the ramifications of such an idea in the lives of the couple, whose love for each other hasn't diminshed a bit nevertheless.
Ranvir Shorey is fantastic and exhibits superb comic timing (as one might have sensed even in the ads he has acted in; though am not able to recall any particular one) as the quintessential middle-class confused Casanova-wannabe and takes the top honours. Konkona Sensharma, all of 27 years or less, gets to play a variety of roles which nobody else in Hindi cinema could even think of. Needless to say, she has done extremely well here too playing somebody much elder to herself. Rest of them (Vinay Pathak going over-the-top in a hilarious sequence, a calm and clean Saurabh Shukla, Naseer in a very short cameo, Koel Purie and Rajat Kapoor himself) all play their parts very aptly.
The movie does go a little too oddball at times, like some characters behaving eccentrically, to achieve the desired comic effect (also achieved by showing the proceedings in fast-forward Chaplin-esque mode), but is delightfully funny nevertheless.
All in all, Rajat Kapoor remains a director, whose movies this blog will eagerly await for; just as it used to.
P.S.:- I also stumbled upon a blog on the film and later found out it’s the movie’s official blog. Only that it hasn’t got many sensible posts. The Film Diary available in the director's official site (a small part of which is available in the movie's official site) are really worth reading, though!

The Guns of Chennai

2006-01-25T20:30:00.000+05:30

Pudhupettai could well be Selvaraghavan's best flick yet (though I am really wary considering how he botched up much of 7/G Rainbow Colony, and some parts of Kaadhal Kondaen too). The key point in which he differs from many other directors is how well he knows the people from the middle and lower strata of the society. Hence, I expect a realistic portrait of Chennai gangsters, rather than stuff that is insipidly inspired from the Bollywood gangster genre. Chennai mafia is not the same as Mumbai mafia. For example, guns. Chennai mafia, unlike Mumbai underworld, is not equipped with surplus guns. But, we see guns galore in many movies claiming to protray realistic mafia. The case in point, is Gautam's Khaka Khaka. I have argued at length (with my friends and other bloggers; not to forget the long discussions in Lazygeek's blog :)) about the movie lacking the Chennai nativity completely. IMO, Gautam's effort was an over-stylised wannabe-slick flick. As if to echo my thoughts, Selvaraghavan himself tells this here in a Rediff's feature on his new film {Rediff's regular blooper: Selvaraghavan's first movie was mentioned as Kanaa Kandaen instead of Kaadhal Kondaen; now it stands corrected}.

Today, this blog completes a year. This is the 51's post I make :).

Thavamai Thavamirunthu

2006-01-09T22:41:00.000+05:30

[Published sooner than I expected in response to a comment here]
Cheran's last film, Autograph, got rave reviews. AV gave it a high-brow 49. I was not expecting anything great. When I saw the film, I was quite surprised to see him come out of his mould to make his first ever movie which did't carry a "social message". To be fair, Autograph had its moments, mostly in the first story with an earthly narration (I didn't get the Azhagi hang-over then, coz I had not watched the predecessor). Second story was a regular filler love story. The third part was plain boring. The Tamilnadu audience was able to identify itself with the ordinary man reminiscing his various love failures. The movie worked wonders in the B.O. and won the national award for the best popular film (which is dubbed as the "sirandha makkal thiraippadam" in the promos of the Thavamai Thavamirundhu).
Now, he comes up with his next venture structurally very similar to his previous film. And, critics are singing hosannas for this movie (AV gives it 53 this time), discussions on possibile national awards have started rolling...
But when I saw the film last week, I wasn't really surprised that I found it otherwise. Thavamai Thavamirundhu is plain mediocre. Cheran attempts to tell his audience the greatness of fathers. In the beginning, one of the lead characters, Ramalingam(Cheran) asks his car driver about his father. The driver, in a nutshell, says how great his father was (that it's because of his father, he and his siblings are well, blah blah). If you think the driver is taking the question a little too emotionally than required, wait for what Ramalingam (the other son in the car) has to say in the next 3 hours. As this review written by Balaji points out, Cheran leaves no stone unturned. Not a single one.
In the flashback, we see Muthiah(Rajkiran), Ramalingam's father; his efforts and sacrifices in bringing up his sons. It starts with a complete account of one day in the father's life. So far so good. Then, the story rambles on showing various incidents. It's the son reminiscing. But, it's the father in focus. After the sons grow up and attain good positions, they do not return the favour all that well. As against the general opinion that the film works as Muthiah's story, the one moment I found the storyline gripping (for a fleeting moment, that is) was when Ramalingam is helpless, when his brother chooses to leave the house, just after realising that he had committed a much bigger blunder.
Eventually, Ramalingam realises his folly and pays his due respects to his parents. It's really not a bad story, you say. But, it's stretched needlessly as more and more "emotions" are captured and put forth on screen; and the treatment is overtly sentimental and judgemental to the core. The most intriguing part in exploring real relationships across generations is the inherent contradiction in beliefs and interests. But here, the good samaritans don't (and shouldn't) question their fathers.
The actors were mostly adequate. Rajkiran's performance is restrained, but was nowhere near, say, his superb performance in Nandhaa. But the critics are already predicting a national award (Disclaimer: Since things like this do happen often, I am not ruling out the possibility). The woman who plays the first daughter-in-law is simply superb. We could see the director holding the I-show-real-people-in-real-life baton high while capturing her expressions, when she carefully examines her brother-in-law's new plush house. We chuckle, "been there, seen her". But, she had to be shown in bad light. So that you could see how good the second son's family is to the ageing parents.
The areas where Cheran's movies are really improving are in the technical departments. The camera captures the essence of rural life. The movie, at times, falters in reflecting the right period the story is set at different junctures. But, that's hardly a case of concern. Coming to music of the film, Cheran seems to be tone deaf. The lesser said about those elongated pieces of theme music, the better. Same for Cheran's acting skills. He is completely miscast as the college student ogling at "bad" wall-posters (and a strange out-of-place BGM is played when he looks at them, perhaps to suggest the evils of a hostel life).
Things are going so sour for Tamil cinema that we tend to call a movie great just because it doesn't have a hero carrying an aruvaal and heroine showing her navel; also perhaps, because it shows the "real human emotions". Sigh!

2006-01-09T16:19:00.000+05:30

I am quite certainly not doing well in this blog. I have quite a lot of drafts in the pipeline; a bunch of write-ups on Bluffmaster, Kanda Naal Muthal, Thavamai Thavamirunthu and a few other films of the past. Never mind!
Pudhupettai music album rocks, like no other Tamil album did in the recent past.
RGV can sure give us a jolt any day. Here, he does it pretty well. But again, somebody tell me he was making fun of the questionner?
Balaji comes up with the lists of the best and worst of 2005. Needless to say, I have seen none of the films he had picked for the "Worst of 2005". On second thoughts, I remember I was forced to sit through quite a lot of Iyer IPS, a movie which grates on your mind and ear, back home when my dad was seeing the movie. As for the "Best of 2005" are concerned, at least I have seen all of them :). Jokes apart, if Kaadhal is to be considered (it was released in 2004), it will hands down win the top spot in my list. Balaji also tells how much he struggled to come up with 10 movies for the "Best of 2005" list. I would rather have at least 5 spots empty :).
From what I perceive after seeing the club dances and scantily-clad women in the promos, this Fight Club ain't that one. Thankfully!
George nominates one Mr. Shekhar Salkar for the Bharat Ratna award.

Guna

2005-12-22T18:47:00.000+05:30

A 2-minutes long tracking shot takes us through a lower-end brothel in Hyderabad and ends showing Guna on the terrace (shot from below with a 'Godly' respect), standing on one leg. It is a Pournami (full-moon day) and Guna is awaiting the arrival of Abhirami. He sees a bride going through the Jaanavasa ceremony and mistakes her for Abhirami.

So starts Gunaa, one of the best films to have come out of Tamil Cinema in the last decade. This was the first of the twin efforts (the other being the great Mahanadhi) of Kamal Haasan with his friend Santhana Bharathi wielding the megaphone. Kamal packs in a superb team (Venu for Cinematography, Balakumaran for dialogues, and of course Raaja). Yes, it is not a flawless film. But, it is a film of the kind that stays on in your mind.
The film looks at this man Guna, with unconditional sympathy; how he is doomed in this big bad world; and in that sense, it is a cynical film. Guna is a madman (an obsessional psychoneurotic) who is told, by a fellow asylum-inmate (Ananthu), that Abhirami (the Goddess) will marry him on a full moon day and will take him out of all his miseries. There is this sense of Godliness attributed to him in the movie - He can unlock anything like cars, safes etc. and helps his uncle in his thefts. He wants to be cleansed (in the famous scene Guna explaining to the doctor about how Abhirami would 'cleanse' him). He unconditionally believes that he is God, and that only Abhirami can cleanse him. He believes in uniting with Abhirami, the Goddess (an imaginatory sequence shows the formation of the Lingam). So he kidnaps her; takes her along with him to a deserted church on top of a hill and explains his love for her, and their destiny.
The screenplay of the film {written by Sabjaan, a Kamal Haasan associate who wrote Chanakyan and (according to my assumption) played the role of Narasimhan is Kuruthippunal} is of the highest standards w.r.t. Tamil Cinema. It's expertly woven, richly textured, subtle and doesn't scream for our attention. Not to forget the insightful and yet realistic dialogues by Balakumaran. Ilaiyaraaja gives a great background score (most of BGM pieces during chase sequences are liberally borrowed from Kamal Haasan's 2 earlier flicks Aboorva Sagodharagal and MMKR). Kamal Haasan comes up with a truly wonderful performance (before anyone pounces on me, I haven't seen Rain Man yet, which would not change this statement anyway), with all the rest of the cast chipping in accordingly.
What is striking is that the film doesn't melodramatize the state of Guna. It doesn't put him in fake glory. It looks at him with a detached sympathy. Guna is after all, a madman and it never bats an eyelid to put forth the fact to us. He says he is in love with Abhirami and that she can never go leaving him behind. But, he still ties her giving a new reason each time.
Apart from this, the movie also works as a traditional thriller with an (albeit heavily stereo-typed) villain, CBI in chase, and lots of money at stake. As in every other KH film, the subtle humour is unmissable.
Looking at the mythological connections of the story, the keypoint in the film is how the usual assumed gender roles are reversed here. The mythology has this story of Parvathi, the Goddess, who takes human form because of a curse and eventually re-unites with Lord Shiva. We also have other examples like Meera and Aandaal. In Gunaa, the roles are reversed. It's Guna who has taken an earthly form and yearning to unite with Abhirami.
This is apparent in many scenes like,
1. Guna tying the thaali around his neck.
2. Guna, looking reverently at his "thaali" after Abhirami walks out of the car hanging at the edge of a mountain.
3. Guna waiting for Abhirami to complete her meal.
4. Or when Abhirami kisses Guna.
The story also owes the main thread of obsession towards the Goddess to the story of Abhirama Bhattar, who wrote Abhirami Anthathi.
In a beautiful sequence, Rohini and Guna playfully pretend to be bees and buzz around in air (ending with the bees "kissing" each other), and Abhirami asks Guna to tie the Thaali, Guna says they have to wait till Pournami. But, she says "Nila aagasuthalaiya irukku? manasula irukku. Manasu thaan nila. Neranja naal!..". Apart from serving as a point for the culmination of their love (Nilu feels that this is a "must-have-sex" film and I agree; but this sequence does have the desired effect without showing them have sex), it also directly refers to the mythology itself. In the story of Abhirama Bhattar, Abhirami turns an Amavasai into a Pournami by throwing her ear-ring into the sky. Guna recollects the mythological incident and says "aamaam! Abhirami sonna Pournami thaan!".

And when the movie ends (with that divine and strangely soothing theme playing in the background), we see the deserted church in the bird's eye view and the glowing moon behind it. It is the next Pournami (thus completing the cycle) and Guna has joined hands with his Abhirami. Or has he?

Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara

2005-12-08T18:25:00.000+05:30

It's quite late in the movie one would realise (disregarding preconceived notions raised from the movie's interesting title and from what one has heard about the film) that Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara's theme comes very close to being a preachy film. It can be defended that all the talk on current "apathetic" generation is nothing but the ramblings of a senile man and not meant to be preachy. But Prof. Uttam Chaudhary (Anupam Kher), the retired Hindi professor and the protagonist of the movie, does thrust some Gandhian ideals on us and quotes recent examples ranging from bombing the twin towers to some tragic incident in Japan (which I fail to recollect). On how we forgot the Gandhian principles (and how "we all killed him and locked him up in the pictures and statues"); if ever we understood them at first place, that is. This doesn't impact us to any extent because it appears as a late offshoot. A tangential take on contemporary violence/destruction doesn't strike hard as the movie wasn't about Gandhian principles till then. This concern of the professor over the current world situation (though we see passing glimpses of the professor disturbed by newspaper headlines about various crimes) seems plain abrupt.
Apart from this quibble, the movie is well made though appearing quite stagey at times. In the beginning, we are introduced to the retired Prof. Uttam Chaudhary, whose forgetfulness is crossing the normal limits of an old man, and his three children. The movie employs quite a number of regular plot devices here - a daughter torn between her own good (professionally too) and her concern over her dad's mental state, her indifferent boyfriend and a failing love affair, a dude who has 'forgotten his roots' and is unable to connect to his father's concerns - but handles all of them with adeptness. The first half revolves around many incidents revealing the professor's increasing forgetfulness because of which the plot sometimes seems to meander pointlessly (like the sequence with a barber). It also revolves around Trisha (Urmila) and the diffculties she is going through to take care of her old father, and that's told in a compelling fashion. At the end of the first half, we get to the point of concern in Chaudhary's illness. He thinks he has murdered (accidentally) Mahatma Gandhi. From there, the movie proceeds towards how this man is cured from his illusions. In the final minutes, the professor's illness serves as metaphor to the illness of the contemporary "non-idealistic" generation and suggests that we, like the professor, are also ill and need a cure.
Anupam Kher pulls off a crackling performance as the ageing man whose mental balance is getting out of his control - especially in the scene when his daughter comes to his room and apologises to him (which he seems to be unaware of) for being cross with him, he is a class act. Urmila Matondkar gives a decent performance as the caring daughter. Rest of the cast did not have much to do.
Jahnu Barua has written and directed this venture. Overlooking Barua's accomplishments one can say he has done a commendable job. But I wish I could catch his Assamese films which, I presume, must have been much better than this effort.

2005-11-07T13:38:00.000+05:30

Firstly, Kamal Haasan turns 51! Here's wishing him!

In Sivakaasi, the unique mind of Perarasu is not as evident as it was in the inimitable Thirupachi. I found (and vouch for that) that Thirupachi was very very different from a usual Vijay Masala film and went in for Sivakaasi hoping Perarasu will be doing it again. Not quite!
Though, my friend (with whom I watched the film with), who managed to see the similarities between Thirupachi and Sivakaasi, could not help but laud me for finding the talent in Perarasu after watching only the first of his yet-to-complete oeuvré of movies, though.

The good thing about Majaa is that it doesn't have much of the trappings of a usual tamil masala film, if you would disregard the usual round-up of things for a hero of Vikram's stature. But, the overwhelming bad thing is that it has all the trappings (everything in the book) of a usual malayalam masala film. The story skeletally looks much like a marriage of the medievel tales about petty thieves (not so unusual in malluwood, I perceive), and the good old Westerns (but the treatment is so ordinarily done that the thematic similarities might be barely visible). Pasupathy does shine in an ineptly written role. The simple humour is yet commendably done in the initial sequences. When the story goes back to the family feud business, you are better off being a chain-smoker (to use cliché from Aanandha Vikatan reviews).
I am particularly not bought off with Vikram's idea to import movies/ideas from mallu world and he seems to like it to no end.

Taking a cue from here (via George), Abhishek Bachchan starrer, Bluffmaster! (the promos of which are already on all TV channels) seems to have been sourced from Ridley Scott's Matchstick Men; Roy, the name of the protagonist, being intact.

The Man whom nobody deserved! Well, almost.

2005-11-02T15:45:00.000+05:30

The Man whom only a very few of the whole lot actually deserved. Period.

Black Friday

2005-10-12T14:00:00.000+05:30

Finally caught Black Friday; full thanks to vcd piracy.
And the film is path-breaking and brilliant, to say the least. We have heard, many a times, claims about a movie that looks at an event objectively in a non-judgemental way. But, in Black Friday, it's as close as it gets.
The movie, ably supported by the "voyeuristic" screenplay (the movie is based on Hussain Zaidi's eponymous book) written by the director Anurag Kashyap himself, describes the events of the 1993 bomb blasts in Bombay, its precursors and the subsequent investigations by the police, in a non-linear format. The ordering of the events is in line with how they were revealed to the police/public (again emphasizing the voyeuristic and objectival narration) rather than the chronological order. Hence, very correctly, the movie starts with the blast itself and the juggles to the past and present.
The movie itself is more like a docu-drama. Since the events involve numerous characters (mostly unrelated), there is no central character in the movie. Even, many of the significant characters in the movie, don't even share their screen presence (well.. mostly), evoking strong reminiscences of the Steven Soderbergh film "Traffic". This is one of the characteristic qualities the movie wants to maintain as new characters come into the main story (which is about the 1993 blasts and nothing else) and disappear.
But, the same cannot be said of the individual chapters. In fact, the best aspect is the way the movie seamlessly moves focus from one character to others - like the radical shift in one chapter to show what Baadshah Khan (Aditya Srivastava grabbing the top acting honours, after a good number of small roles elsewhere and the unreleased Paanch;please take a bow) one of those involved in the blasts, is going through; rather than introducing him when he is caught by the police, that is.
The film is moderately paced and doesn't try to be a thriller or anything of that sort. A remarkably done chase sequence (ending quite humourously) which was the most close-to-life chase I (perhaps, all) have ever seen stands as a testimony to this statement. There are at least a dozen sequences in the movie which a Scorsese would be proud of; like the sequence of one busy night at the police station when the policemen enquire a friend of one of those who was involved in the bomb blasts, when so many things are happenning in the station (remarkably done with tracking shots to-and-fro from one place to another within the station). Talking about the Cinematography, Nataraja Subramaniam's work is terrific and the red tone used to film the investigation sequences is very effective.
The entire cast is full of the low-key usual suspects (i.e., those who emerged with a strong theatre background and/or worked with the likes of Shekhar Kapur, RGV etc.) each of them chipping in very well; including wonderful performances from Kay Kay as Rakesh Maria, who investigates the case, and good old Pawan Malhotra as Tiger Memon who masterminds the blasts.

Last but not the least, here's doffing my hats a dozen times to Anurag Kashyap, himself.
When will the day come when I will be allowed to see his Paanch?

P.S.:-
1. My reaction after seeing the film about its release is this: The film is too real (and it will be called biased by all the sides) to have a theatrical release in India.2
2. Yesterday had something to do with unreleased films. First, it was Black Friday which I had rented the day before. Next thing I did was to grab a vcd copy of Makrand Deshpande's Hanan (from Crossword when I chanced upon it!) and watch it. So, that's coming next..

Ghajini

2005-10-07T11:39:00.000+05:30

From the discussion I had with Suresh in the the comments section of my rant-post on the Oscar Swindlers, I decided that I will have a neat little write-up on Ghajini. I watched the movie yesterday and I should say that Murugadoss did surprise me in quite some aspects on the genre he was trying to touch upon. I was expecting him to make a 'taut thriller' (a real abused term) in which he will sit back, explain what happenned in every significant scene in the form a stand-in character for the audience, hence making the movie a real bore to watch. Boy, how wrong I was! Not only did the movie come out of the mold of an archetype thriller, it also bowls you over with it's twists.
Firstly, I feel it's quite unfair to say that this movie is ripped off from Memento considering how much of that premise is actually used in the movie. It's very difficult to remake an Indie American movie like Memento maintaining all it's primary elements and still expect the movie to work wonders at the B.O. But, the director goes completely off-track thereby serving the producer's desire (as I hear the movie is doing great business) to see the cash-regsiter ringing as Ghajini is anything but an Indie film. Now, for the actual review.

Ghajini is a film of lost opportunities. With a little care, the director could have sure made an unintentional piece of Altman-esque black comedy. Try revisiting the following sequences and you will know what this movie could have been.
1. The moment in which a Police Officer (played to hilarious effect by Riyaz Khan) desperately looking for the 2003 diary since he is not able to resist his anxiety to know what happenned to their love story on the new year day (reminiscent of Kubrick's idea to have Gen. Turgidson in the toilet when apparently a much significant thing - the bomber wings being sent to U.S.S.R. - happens). This is a recurring theme of the movie. There is also a direct nod to the Kubrick's classic when Nayanthara (again played with remarkable understanding) goes to take bath (mind you, here it doesn't serve as being funny but is a tipping-off-the-hat-act only) after reading the 2002 diary.
2. The hilariously in-your-face death of the Police Officer (Sudhish Kamath points this out in his take as well).
3. The Jyothika-esque Asin helping out handicapped children by helping them swing off the gate entrance floor without stepping on the bars. This seems to be a bold commentary on human being's pleasure (like this review) to indulge in his/her creativity in the name of charity and goodwill. I hope, in the future, this scene find a place in all those black-comedy handbooks.
4. The already much-praised sequence (finding place in every damn review like here, here) as a not-so-intelligent cop (a possible reference to the cops-gone-crazy hollywood flicks) takes his time to find out that the 10-digit tattoos in Sanjay Ramasamy's body must be cellphone numbers.
5. Much has been already said about the BGM by Harris Jeyaraj. All I would like to add is that he gives able support to the proceedings and he has put all the talk, that he could be the next best thing to have happenned to Tamil film music, to rest.

So, is this as entertaining as, say, a Narasimha? Definitely not; It would have been one only if it had completely made sense throughout its duration. But it had those little differences.
1. The stand-alone comedy track in the flashback, involving Surya and Asin as lovers in a strange setup. This would have definitely served very well in some other romantic comedy. But here it was off-track and made one wait helplessly to know what happens to the main story and Riyaz Khan's antics :p.
2. The songs. There are too many of them. These seems to have been added for commercial viability and hinder the film's proceedings in more than one way.
3. If he had completely left behind the rather oblique inspiration from the movie Memento which was rarely put to use (and the little moments when it is put to use, it serves as a spoof of the movie).
4. Surya, in his lone (but failed) crusade trying to make the movie appear like an edge-of-the-seat thriller.

P.S.:- It's too easy for self-professed critics to lampoon Ghajini. Ignore them.
P.P.S:- And for a little saner review, look elsewhere!

The much-necessitated disclaimer

2005-09-29T23:14:00.000+05:30

Well.. with all the hullaballoo going on about the correctness in the choice of Paheli as the official nomination from India (Rediff leading from the front), I wanted to reiterate my stand on this whole Oscar-thing. I mean, this token Oscar nomination has been going on for long time with not much significance (swayed by south Indian films for years including the likes of Jeans) and nobody seemed to care as much as they are doing now!
My previous post was of the rants-kind on a token piece of parody in the name of nominees happenning year after year.
I am not reacting in anger (like the repeated rants here) about what should have been the right choice instead of 'Paheli'. But, surest thing, I would have loved had HKA got selected, though :(.

Oscar Swindlers

2005-09-27T01:55:00.000+05:30

Well, the FFI has chosen Paheli* as the official Indian entry for this year's Oscars. Not that it's going to make some difference. But FFI is so screwed that they do this every year; only once in a blue moon, have they selected one among the worthier efforts of that year.
Otherwise it's all like some parody like this year's nominees list which include Veer-Zaara, Sachein, Anniyan and the likes. Enough said.
Even National Awards falter sometimes to mediocrity. But nowhere near to match FFI!
The grapevine has it that after Jeans, this is the closest chance we might get to clinch the oscars! ;)

* - I haven't seen Paheli myself and hence no comments on the movie itself.

Links thru India Uncut.

Thalapathi

2005-09-06T16:04:00.000+05:30

When Surya, a low-life yet honest man gets released from the jail (convicted for murder), because a sidekick of a big law-breaker in the city claims that he committed the murder, Surya asks him "Why?". He replies, "Deva". An attempt at pithy stylized dialogues. But, it is really funny in its awkwardness nevertheless. Wait, there is more to come. As Surya comes out of the jail doors, he sees Deva standing there, all alone, waiting for Surya's arrival. He expresses his gratitude for Deva and says "En kitta irukkurathu onnu thaan. En Uyir. Adha naa unakku kodukka thayaar'aa irukkaen" [paraphrased]. Deva, in turn, asks him to be his friend, his Thalapathi (Commander-in-chief). And they hug each other heartily, only in a few seconds after their second meeting (and the first doesn't go too well)! This sequence definitely reminds me of what Jabberwock wrote here (in a 'subtle' sense, of course).
Quite obvious that the scene I have sampled is from Thalapathi, Mani Rathnam's attempt in retelling the mythological story of Karna from the epic Mahabharatha. It is worth mentioning that it also has Mani Rathnam writing the dialogues for his movie (An unusual thing; Anybody shed lights on Idhaya Kovil & Pagal Nilavu, please).
The movie could have well been one of MR's fine efforts with its interesting premise (with strong echoes of Benegal's tour-de-force Kalyug). The references to the mythological original are quite straightforward unlike, say a "Hey! Ram", but yet adapted to the contemporary scenario very effectively.
1. Surya, as a child, coming in a small piece of floating pad stuffed with chaff or something.
2. Surya doesn't say "No" to anybody coming to him for help.
3. Placing Arjun on the law's side {and he does come from a place called Pandavapuram (?)} thus placing him in a "war" against the "Kauravas", Deva and Surya.
4. The Shobhana love-angle also suggesting Karna's failed attempt at marrying Draupadi since he was not a Kshatriya. Interestingly, Benegal also suggests that "Draupadi" was once in love with "Karna" in his Kalyug (though, I don't remember any such suggestion in Sage Vyasa's masterpiece. May be, I missed it out thanks largely to the kitsch, good-wins-over-the-evil version of Mahabharatha in Doordarshan).
More higher points are IR's fantastic score and Santosh Sivan's impressive cinematography give a solid support the very bleak atmosphere maintained throughout the movie. MR's affinity to picturise songs with all the aesthetics is all too evident in this movie (and he pays his tribute to Kurosawa in the song Sundari Kannaal Oru Sethi). Inspite of these high points, the misé-en-scene throughout the movie (who are these people who rever Deva and Co. as their Saviours and which city are we in? both of these unanswered deliberately) and an impulsive leaning to go over-the-top in melodrama really pulls the movie down.
The melodrama quotient reaches strange levels when one starts wondering if it was deliberate from the Mani Rathnam's part to equate the story to Mahabharata which had come in T.V. with over-the-top melodramatic setup. So, we have Surya (the name indicating the connection with God Surya, apart from quite a number of shots of Surya standing right in between the twilight sun and the camera giving him a halo effect) crying on his mother's lap the moment he meets her; Arjun, his half-brother (played by a young Aravind Swamy, a MR constant-to-be), calling him "Anna!" and hugging him after Deva's funeral.
Rajini, in his last attempt at shedding off the heroic persona, still gets quite a share of it to appease his fans and we have MR on the other side trying to make Thalapathi as a great film. That conflict shows up in the movie too (and in the film's denouement too, with Surya joining hands with his mother safely, as "there is no evidence against him").
I always maintained (then, perhaps mainly because I was/am an ardent fan of KH) that Guna was a much better effor than Thalapathi (the comparison being for the sole reason that they were released on the same day). I still think so.

Sila Nerangalil Sila Manidhargal

2005-09-05T19:36:00.000+05:30

That this movie got made in the 1970s will be very hard to believe for many many generations to come. This is due to the condescending way with which we look at the older movies and our nonchalant feeling that the newer generations of film-makers are making better movies in the Tamil Cinema arena (I, myself, am guilty of this). The fact, I see on second thoughts, is that such gems get made once in a while. We have gems being made now as well. But, its more like a freaky occurrence. Well, in that sense, this movie is a freaky occurrence too. Perhaps, the freakiest of them all. IMHO, Jayakanthan should have written and directed more movies. He (like Sujatha - who in his screenwriting stint wrote, more often than not, for movies of much lesser worth), is no stranger to Cinema. In the preface of the book on the screenplay of this movie (available in some Tamil bookshops), A. Bhimsingh, the director of the movie [*], beams that working with Jayakanthan was a revelatory experience and he was quite awed at knowing that Jayakanthan was a fantastic screen writer and that he understood the grammar of Cinema very well.
This is a movie about Ganga (Lakshmi in a career-best role; and National Award winning role), a Brahmin girl, who gets sexually 'assaulted' (well, there is a big question mark left here which is an audacious stroke of beauty from the writing department) by a man who gives her a lift on a rainy day, and how that day changes her whole life and how she attempts at getting her life back to normalcy. The movie works at various levels -
1. a searing criticism at the way marriage/sex/women are treated by the bourgeois society.
2. a character study of a lonely woman and loneliness itself
3. an unusual love story (heck, this description sounds terrible; but, hope you get the point)
4. and above all, a movie about relationships.
When Ganga's uncle asks for her pardon, the way the film cuts to the time when Ganga leaves with him to his home and he says "I will show them what's what!" is the clearest testimony for the reason behind the movie's title apart from the study of the lives of the two protagonists.
The movie steers clear of all clichés starting from not being yet another overtly pseudo-feminist fare (which was quite an identity for "good films" of Tamil Cinema in the 80s) with its very non-judgemental look (to such an extent that it even refuses to observe from a typical feminist standpoint, though that might be the most rightful position to take) on that fatal incident. After years, when she decides to meet the man (who is then introduced as Prabhu played by Srikanth) and she even befriends him, it is very strange from her part to catch the man who raped her and ruined her whole life. The girl going after the man who 'raped' her has been the plot of many movies [**], mostly terribly handled, and as if it was a righteous thing for the woman to go for that man. But here, it is not a mere indictment on the woman to go after him; but a willful decision from her part to do so; to prove her "smartness" to her uncle who, quite stupidly, says "she should go get that guy and marry him if she is smart enough" trying to prove she "cannot marry" unlike all other women. Her loneliness and Srikanth's helplessness and guilt plays the main factors in their progressing friendship. When Prabhu says he never forced anybody and asks Ganga if he really forced her that day, it is suggested that it was not a rape at all. In short, when Ganga finally yearns for his love, she no more feels he was the reason for her state of abandonment; rather, its the people around her who disowned her after that fatal incident years ago.
The writing involves many moments breaking many a cinematic cliché. Just to sample, Prabhu is a rich man. But still "his English is not good" (at least he thinks so; portrayed without much emphasis on it by, say, letting him speak horrible English) and admires Ganga for that. Literary references have been mostly absent in the history of Tamil cinema. But here we get references to Chekhov, Wodehouse (in a throw-away scene) etc.
Well, this is the only Jeyakanthan movie (clearly the man behind this fare) I have seen and I am still on the hunt for his other movies.
Also, Check out Baradwaj's take on this movie.

* - A. Bhimsingh collaborated again with JK and made Oru Nadigai Naadagam Paarkkiraal. His son, B. Lenin, adapted JK's "Oorukku Nooru Per" (a very serene, 'art-house' work which won him the National Award for the Best Director.

** - Sirai, a movie made by R. C. Sakthi is quite similar to this movie (and inspired by Benegal's Nishant, perhaps). Only that there we have a self-conscious director telling us that he has tried to tell the story "visually" (being apt to the cinematic medium, that is). But, something awfully goes wrong in its execution and becomes an unbearable piece for most of its running time, thanks in large proportions to the comedy track which in an approximate measurement goes for more than an hour.

2005-09-02T11:31:00.000+05:30

Through George's post, I read Rediff's list of upcoming Hindi movies this week and had one serious question.
What's a Madhavan-style comedy?

2005-08-26T19:46:00.000+05:30

It's high time I did something much better in this blog. I accept this, unconditionally. I should do something. Something.

2005-08-23T18:38:00.000+05:30

The talk on the next movies of the biggies of tamil cinema is around. Kamal Haasan's Dasavatharam and Rajini's Sivaji. I am not too keen on the former and the latter is pretty much out of the scope of this blog, as of now. Not pinning much hopes on Vettaiyaadu Vilaiyaadu either.
It's high time he goes ahead with his own next venture (a Raajkamal Production, that is).
I haven't seen any worthy tamil flicks in recent past (just some half-baked wannabe-cool movies like Arindhum Ariyaamalum and some clearcut B-flicks). The nearest ray of light I see is in the release of Bala's Naan Kadavul.

Of marriages, murders and irreversibility

2005-08-23T12:28:00.000+05:30

Bingo! The Factory can smile! My Wife's Murder is, simply put, a worthier effort (also considering it's much lower profile compared to even the next-to-be-released James; and also for being an honest unpretentious effort) compared to the other efforts from the factory in recent times.
Thankfully and as expected, this movie is not a yet-another-whodunnit. In fact, almost everybody in the movie knows who did it. The obviousness with which the policemen track the criminal behind the murder is what I would say as the singularly striking and applaudable aspect of the movie.
Ravi Patwardhan (played with remarkable understanding and restraint by Anil Kapoor) has been nagged by his wife (Suchitra Krisnamoorthy) ever since he got married to her and after so many years he feels their marriage has not worked out. In one of those unpleasant fights, his wife dies accidentally when he slaps her in a fit of rage.
From then on, his attempts (with able support from his assistant who in an act of utter "bewakoofi" tries to save him) to cover up the murder is rivetingly told by the Jijy Philip, the director, without diluting the credibility of the proceedings (like not allowing the protagonist to be "smart" matching his wits with the cops). Some of Ravi's moves might appear stupid when looked at as a mere game of escaping from the cops (as any other lesser movie will turn out to be). The murderer-by-accident's helplessness and loss of logical reasoning is portrayed as real as it gets. For eg., the way Ravi carefully repositioning the carpet and the draw over it in his bedroom after he uses it to cover up the blood temporarily (who is going to question him on the position of the carpet, anyway?). His deadpan expressions (in an attempt to not show his fear, he does reveal thye truth that he is less upset about the loss of his wife) each time the police investigates him about his wife's death is so apt and yet so convincing that he has to be the murderer, suggesting that tracking the murderer is quite easy, after all, in domestic circumstances. And at the end, all Ravi Patwardhan does, when he hears the first gunshot from the cops is to cry back in agony - "Arreyy.. Yahaan pe bachhe hain.. Dikhaayee nahin deta hai kya?".
The way the undercurrents in the other "marital" relationships in the movie are touched upon is also commendable. Boman Irani is terrific, as always, and walks away with honours for the best performance. All the other performances are first-rate (a usual, for a factory venture). From the technical side, the cinematography by P. S. Vinod is stark, realistic and also renders the necessary claustrophobic environment in the first half of the movie.
Indeed, My Wife's Murder is a small film, but still a rare effort and first of its kind in Bollywood. Don't even read further. Go watch My Wife's Murder before it vanishes out of the theatres.
P.S.:- Add to this my egoistic bliss for having pinned my hopes on an underdog from RGV stable and having a very satisfying experience. A factory product is always awaited by me, but not always with the same inexplicable eagerness I had for this movie.

The talented Mr. Shukla

2005-08-05T21:54:00.000+05:30

Saurabh Shukla is back into the fray, this time, with the participation of his film, Aye Dil [translated as Heart Goes Sha La La], in the Osian's-Cinefan film festival.
Annie has covered about Osian's-Cinefan here where she goes all thumbs-up for Aye Dil. The movie stars his friend Rajat Kapoor [a case of two film makers acting in each other's movies[1]; go here to see more such cases;] and is a comedy about a balding, middle-aged writer [echoing similarties with Shukla himself, as he himself admits; and for which Rajat Kapoor shaved off his hair!], who meets a Miss India finalist on the net.

He is a class apart, as his credits in the writing department of films like Satya, Is Raat Ki Subah Nahin, Dil Pe Mat Le Yaar, Raghu Romeo, etc. would indicate. But, his attempts at direction - namely Mudda and Chehraa - were not well-received and went without much of a response from any circles [and I haven't watched them as well :|].
Aye Dil was to be telecasted in Zee TV. Or, was it already telecasted?
In this interview [early this year], he talks about his new film The Piano, which must have been already telecasted in STAR One on May 29 at 9 pm.
Anybody has got a clue about Aye Dil's telecast?
This RAMLI thread should be watched to see if anybody can come up with more information on this telecast on Zee.

[1] - Update on 6 Aug, 06:00 p.m.: This apparently had been achieved in Mudda, and consequently in Chehraa as well, both of which starred Rajat Kapoor in supporting role/cameo. Blame it on me for being unaware of this; though I did suspect this as they are close buddies and hence this update.

2005-08-02T11:00:00.000+05:30

This post makes no claim that I am the lone challenger to this man or something. I have expressed my admiration openly quite many times about his determination and diligence.
But, of late, I too am going bonkers.
Latest is that I managed to watch Daas [another B-entry - there are so many these days - with some sparks of unintentional satirical take on religious harmony; but the tempo wasn't maintained throughout like, say a Narasimha to enjoy the movie], first-day-night-show; and driving home all the talk that I am Andy Dufresne's alter ego [minus the "hope" factor], I didn't cry once. not once!

Update {Aug 2, 11:50 a.m.}: As an update to the last edition of masochism and its undertones in movie-watching in this blog, here's a simply hilarious interview by one Mr. Hosimin on his film, February 14. I seriously advise you to watch the movie and then read the interview. Or else, you will miss all the humour; like

The film opened well [...] and is a hit, especially in cities. The youth audiences like it and there is a positive talk about the film.

All shows are going full and it is right on top in Sun TV’s ‘Top Ten’.

That his film has been criticized for its slow narration [quite unfairly] {This is the best, isn't it?}

[He] made a honest film straight from [his] heart that can be watched with the entire family.

[the writer/director actually had a script and] finished it about three years back [and thought he could pull it off, even after pondering over it for so long].

[Last, but not the least,] February 14 is way ahead of all competition.

Taking a cue from Mahesh Manjrekar?

2005-07-29T18:34:00.000+05:30

Caught Viruddh yesterday [knowing what it would be like, which I could sense from the promos] and should say, it was ordinary, as expected [But, Mahesh Majrekar did surprise me with those ads for oil, Nerolac paints and Western Union Bank and that unique idea of ghost narration by John Abraham ;)].

Thanks to a visit to T.N. last week, I saw Feb 14 [two words: A bad B-flick and Bharath is done for a couple of years] and Priyasakhi [A Vikraman-meets-V.Sekar-meets-a-pathetic-Visu enterprise] and there is still a debate as to which was worse. My vote goes for Feb 14, though. Hmmm... talk about masochistic tendencies.

Collective Chaos has this Makhmalbaf & family Film Festival this weekend and this a dont-miss alert.

I don't know why. I am eagerly awaiting for My Wife's Murder's release. The interesting promos and Anil Kapoor's interview here [however much I get alerts on possibilities of his desperation and the trend of calling every new movie as the actor's/director's/producer's best, nowadays; or perhaps, from time immemorial] really hooked me on to this.

And the self-advertisements continue. My blog-equivalent of Karna [elder, but abandoned] has some questions. Do answer them.

2005-07-14T19:31:00.000+05:30

Yesterday, I was one of the blessed ones to go through the whole sort of rumours about National Awards [I guessed many of them could be bogus, then; it turned out that only one info, a fatal one at that, about the awards was actually false] as I was updating on a minute-basis. The first link I bumped upon was Rediff's (very) immediate reaction [they had only this link in the main page, then; not even the link to a bigger set of awards] to Aishwarya Rai "winning" the award, where in, a rediff journo was lamenting [of course the link is dead now] if Aishwarya really deserved the award [which I duly linked in the very first question mark in my previous post as that was the biggest joke for me; blame it on my bias]. Thankfully, it was Tara for her lead performance as Haseena in Kasaravalli's Haseena [btw, which was the Kasaravalli movie which didn't win any national award?].
Today, the main rediff page cries that "Ash deserved the award" [agreed, it was actually Rituparno Ghosh and not rediff; But, still something tells me that these guys can't live without references to Ash just as much Kamal Haasan can't make movies without references to Charlie Chaplin].

Update (at Jul 15, 05:11 p.m.):-
Check out Saif's cheeky reaction on receiving the national award! I have quite liked him as an actor since he got his RGV connection [since LKLKBK, that is; as against the general opinion that it was DCH which transformed him into what he is now, I thought it was when there was a refreshing change in his persona and acting skills; the same comic flair was evidently visible in the former too; only that it developed to a great effect in DCH]. But, I am still very much surprised ['surprised' meaning 'not convinced'] with he receiving the national award for best actor. I like all the counter-points as to why the award should not go for a light role and all that. But, the National Award for his effort in "Hum Tum"? Not that there was no such case before. Heck, Anil Kapoor won it for Pukar. Anyways, I haven't seen "Hum Tum". Nor do I remember any exceptional performance [which I've seen] that was outrageously overlooked or something [only some small commendable efforts like that of Madhavan/Abhishek in AE/Yuva; SRK's performance in Swades was sincere, not superb; Did I miss anyone? Alert readers can remind me!]. So, I should rather shut up and see Saif get his national award until then!
As to "Page 3" winning the Best Film award, I will rant on that later.

2005-07-13T16:20:00.000+05:30

Some joke ? ? ? ?
Is it that these are the hot candidates (pointer?) or is it actually announced?
Will be right back.

a little bit of self-advertising

2005-07-12T18:31:00.000+05:30

A small piece of self-advertisement [**]. My post on life (as I would like to put it) originally posted in this blog of mine, features on the blog mela conducted by Nilu.

** - however much I restrict myself to the fact this will always be a movie blog ONLY.

Narasimha - a unique achievement in a unique genre!!

2005-07-11T20:25:00.000+05:30

Yes. You read it right. Narasimha is clearly distinct from, and superior to, most of its contemporaries belonging to various genres. That its part of the folklore for many tamil film connoisseurs, highlights its merit. This is my appreciation of the movie which kinda culminated its genre. The reader must have to understand the breadth of possibilities in cinema as a medium to understand my appreciation of the movie.
Narasimha is a no mean achievement. Regardless of what the critics would like to believe [check this insipid review; I still wonder how the reviewer gives some points to the movie even though he has completely failed to get hold of the spirit of the movie], this is one of the most creative efforts that has come in tamil cinema in recent times and the best secret agent movie to have come in tamil cinema. Pity that the director, Mr. Thirupathisamy, had to die before giving us more such movies.
The so-called intelligent audience, in search of "logic" (I hate the word) and "intellect", to assure themselves that the story is realistic enough and could happen to them on a series of dull and insipid days be theirs as well, would not be able to gauge the amount of inventiveness employed in this movie.
Just because a movie stars an aged, fat, not-so-good-looking actor doesn't mean that one should put down the movie straight away. Why don't we talk about realism in this case? Aren't real cops/secret agents old enough that they can't shake their hips as much as a Mallika Sherawat can? But that, anyway, is NOT the point. In fact, much far from it [and all the talk about fat cops is just my attempt at being neutral to a Vijayakanth starrer]. After all, realism is not the movie's key point. In fact, its humour. I am no Vijayakanth fan. But his performance here really takes the movie to an altogether superior and surreal plane. To claim that he had no sense of humour in the making of the movie is very very hard to believe. The same can be said about every other actor/actress in the movie. What an ensemble cast it was! One careless/less serious actor could have introduced a boring moment in this piece de resistance (A special mention about Venu Aravind, here in a blink-and-you-ll-miss role, who with his deadpan serious face really rocked). In fact, the whole cast look very very serious and still are very very funny (definitely reminds me of Kamal Haasan's claim about Mumbai Xpress; still I would say watching this movie once could have given him more ideas) thus making each of their expressions, intonations all suggestive and subtle. And the writer/director knew exactly where/when/how to cut from one scene to another to give the exact effect and strike the perfect chord, so that the whole first hour of the movie plays like some gung-ho music (Why the hell did I have to leave the house coz of which I am yet to watch the full movie? Though, I will complete it soon).
And what was Vadivelu doing in this movie, bringing down the level of humour and wit? Was a crass comedy track even necessary in such an ambitious effort? Same for the stretched action sequences. There has been a clear underestimation, from the director's side, of the script's merit that he had to go for such commercial compromises.
This might have featured in the elite list of overlooked tamil films along with, Thirupachi [another stunner, put down for the simple reason that it doesn't have a poignant/believable story or understated performances; this was India's answer to Kill Bill, Silence of the Lambs and Taxi Driver all rolled into one, with its visceral depiction of violence; and an analysis of this will be the next to watch in this space], only if Ebert chose to go for an all-Indian list. Anyway, when was the audience smart enough to understand movies in Brechtian format?

Coming up next in this series:
1. Kill Bill, Silence of the Lambs and Taxi Driver all rolled into one - Thirupachi
2. Let us B!! - An analysis of the Rajini's blockbuster movies

P.S.:- This post has been modified since it was first published (on 11 July 2005). Sarcasm, if you find any, in this particular post is clearly a figment of imagination from the reader's side and has got nothing to do with my honest intentions.

There are no goods and bads. only a bland Sarkar.

2005-07-04T18:23:00.000+05:30

If you were one of those who wondered why Godfather HAD to be a movie of 3 hours length to masterfully depict the characters, go watch Sarkar. Not that Sarkar being too short, was its only folly. It was just one of them.
Sarkar (writing credits to newcomer Manish Gupta) was shockingly mediocre, having come from the Factory and more importantly made by the man himself. I found D run-of-the-mill (w.r.t. RGV camp) too. But, I kinda understood that because plainly put, it wasn't made by RGV himself. And, RGV's candour in telling that D has a definitive Hero and is more on lines with Don that Satya/Company was hitting the nail on its head as to what D actually was meant to be. But somehow, many claimed (incl. a not-so-candid/illusioned Varma this time) Sarkar to be RGV's best effort.Hence the shock.
RGV seems to have been not as ambitious as I thought he would have been when he was making Sarkar, that is, remaking The Godfather. Heck, let's not even use the word Ambition, as apparently there wasn't any, unless you count directing Big B as one.
Sarkar is a hip-packaged movie (read as more 'on lines with Don', or 'D' for that matter) relying much more on Amitabh-Abhishek chemistry rather than merits on scripting and directorial departments. I am saying this not by comparing/contrasting it with the Classic. Sarkar, independently as a movie, regardless of where it is inspired from, is a very ordinary effort. That it comes from RGV is what is unacceptable. Hell, we even have a cliched glib-talking villain in Kota Srinivasa Rao as Selvan Mani cracking insipid jokes (that he is going back to Tamilnadu and asking Rashid to go to Dubai) at serious situations that one would expect in superHero flicks when the lamenting villains await for Hero's inevitable arrival to take his revenge on them, and a self-mocking character in the bogus saint played by Jeeva. In the above instances, the audience may have got a few laughs, but at the cost of characterization assassination. Rashid stares, stares, stares and then dies [Chhota Sarkar's words here - "Tujhe marte huae dekhne ki mazaa khona nahi chahta tha" - are some rare points where the movie scores regardless of its plot; Again, contrast this with Michael Corleone who is in the baptism ceremony when the "revenge" is being taken]. And, whats with the heavy noisy background score? Was Amar Mohile thinking he was scoring for a horror flick? There were shades of such heavy BGM scores even in RGV's last directorial attempt Naach. But here it really irked me.
In a scene where some friend reveals to Vishram that Sarkar has got his bail, we hear a big bang on the background. The camera zooms fast towards Vishram for a moment and comes back in sync with the background thud - worthy of inclusion in next Simbhu flick where he would inform an overcaring/rich/powerful father that he just now slept with the latter's daughter. The performances were all competitive. Lesser appreciation because most of them are very much underwritten that some otherwise nice performances like that of Kay Kay's are tarnished.
I never thought I would be panning a RGV movie to this extent. Neither was the movie bad. But much much far away from being a worthy successor to Ramu's previous works on "Crime and Punishment", as he had put it here - "Satya and Company were just preparatory blueprints for SARKAR. With this film, I hope that my trilogy on crime and punishment; within the reality of our country, our city and our neighbourhood; has come a full circle." Hence, I have one question to Ramu. That, what was going on in his mind?
Perhaps, I should have given more thought to/interpretation on what Ramu had said here too.

P.S.:- For all the non-tamil-movie-watching readers, Simbhu is one of the last disasters that struck the tamil moviedom.

Anniyan and Shankar's other super-hero movies

2005-06-20T12:13:00.000+05:30

Steering clear of euphemisms with a nonchalant ease, characteristic of me, when it comes to Shankar, I would like to shout that Anniyan is plain bad. More so because, nobody else seem to be doing it. Not that I had expected anything out of Anniyan. But, Shankar sure seems to have lost his touch at the B.O. and might never repeat the success of his previous movies.
Making use of a big cliche found largely in movie reviews (that so-and-so movie had everything GOING for it) in an opposite context, Anniyan had nothing going for it except for Vikram and loads of money to be spent. A beaten-to-death case of multiple personality (if this was a spoiler for anyone of you, kindly forgive yours truly and write so to me and I will remove it), an escapist plot (now, I am talking only within Shankar's context), a screenplay characteristic of under-development of each character like in those movies made by S. A. Chandrashekhar and likes.
Shankar had mentioned in his recent interview with Hindu on "how he brings realism in his own way within the commercial format" and I was nodding with acknowledgement. Yes. Though all his movies have esssentially been fantasy movies making ways for all possible commercial outlets, he always adds realism and colloquy which not many can match or even sense. Real characters (the ones with smaller screen presence too) and some hard-hitting intelligent dialogues (I will attribute that to Shankar as much as his writers). So in his issue-based commercial potboilers, Shankar had always been a quite good one and more importantly a very sensible one. Leave aside his "light" movies (Kaadhalan, Jeans; Boys being both here and there, but very very bad nevertheless), which were always unworthy though sometimes having that Shankar-kinda-realism in them.
The way Anniyan begins with the Ambi character, for the conformist he is, realising the faulty way in which the society works and his resultant frustration being protrayed in an amateurish way, one begins to wonder if Shankar has lost the touch. In these scenes, we can see how the character of Ambi is used more for the flat humour (which just doesn't work, btw). Ambi receives a spam letter which talks about how one Mr. Anniyan is gonna slay sinners. And thus we are introduced to Anniyan, the second Vikram. As "Anniyan" bashes a bunch of hooligans (Vikram doing a "Dhill" here just didn't work; was it Vikram who was indulging?) kills the sinners using creative methods (a la Se7en) based on a sadistic Sanskrit literature. We get to see a serious-looking Prakash Raj on the trail of Anniyan along with a glib-tongued Vivek. Add to this Ambi's outrageous efforts to win Sada's heart (which makes Siddharth's bear-all-clothes method pale in comparison on degree of plausibility for winning a girl's heart). And bang, we get the other Vikram as Remo and Vikram with his antics manages to be an effective parody of what he intends to be.
You have to see the movie to know how bad Vikram has performed. Add Prakash Raj, Nedumudi Venu, Nasser etc. to the big list of actors with no impact whatsoever. Sada needs no mention unless if you had ever wondered how her navel looked like (which I found was just like anybody else's :p).
Harris Jeyaraj's soundtrack score is so-so (mind you, not the BGM score). At least, had the Keerthanai been played, as it was on the audio release, it would have been nice. But, it seems Shankar wanted to capture the Thiruvaiyaaru scene as it actually happens.
The sole saviour, of course, is Vivek who with his very scarcely scattered one-liners (Kamal aficionados alert: 2 take-offs on him!), had me in splits for some moments.

Rediff's feature on India's Best Films

2005-06-08T15:22:00.000+05:30

Rediff has been publishing this feature of "Top 10 Indian movies of all-time", since Time magazine released a list of what they(Richard Corliss and Richard Schicker) felt was the all-time top 100 movies. That Time's list featured 5 (not 3 as mentioned in many blog circles; a result of viewing Ray's trilogy as a single movie! heck!) Indian movies has been a reason why Indian bloggers have been talking at length (people googling Nayagan-Time connection can go here, here) about the selection. And here is Rediff's share of the talk - Subhash Ghai, Vipul Shah's lists were published. Theodore Bhaskaran, in sync with what I have mentioned elsewhere (to be precise, here) about his time-warp-syndrome, chose "Ezhai Padum Paadu" in all-time top 10 Indian movies.
But, the thing that triggered this post is what Rediff put up today as Mohanlal's list. I opened the page and went through the list and was very surprised to see the movies in Mohanlal's list, many of the ones being films in which he starred. When Subhash Ghai's list was published, Balaji pointed out Ghai's ego inteference resulting in placing his own movie in his list (which was perhaps triggered by Taal's participation in Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival LOL!) I was not WTFing to that extent, after reading about Mohanlal's. But in the same ballpark, nevertheless. And, I should say that the movies mentioned by Mohanlal aren't in the same ballpark as Ghai's Taal as well. But, this is not the Mohanlal we know. Then, I went on to read Mohanlal's "disclaimers" at the top. Taking into account of his disclaimers, Rediff should not even have called this Mohanlal's top ten, as the actor so carefully avoided anything "great" about his list and maintained his humility. But then, is that what we know Rediff for? Probably I should ask George. :) And, yeah! Ghai might have had his own "disclaimers" as well.

Jun 16, 10:00 p.m.
Further updates: Check out more lists from P. C. Sreeram, Sourabh Usha Narang, RGV, Adoor and Amol Palekar.
But, tonight's hot update is an ROTFL material from Pradeep Sarkar (just for the last 2 inclusions)!
And this confirms that Rediff offers a shot of Tequila to everybody (and unsuspecting Ghai & Sarkar seem to have accepted the offer!) before actually asking him/her for the list :D. Or, I am missing some in-joke here. Elsewhere in Rediff, Vidhu Vinod Chopra too seems to have taken a couple of shots before this interview, as well!

Assorted compilation here!

Btw, It is confirmed :(

No "No Smoking" in films, please!

2005-06-03T11:31:00.000+05:30

So I've been hearing about this ban on showing smoking in films, first thru Lazy's post and then thru Balaji, here.
My personal opinion, of course, is that it's a ridiculous thing to do and it would really put the creators of the art in a fix.
That I vehemently oppose this is one thing. But I didn't know until this day that it was Dr. Ramadoss all along, until I read Aamir's letter, thru Gaurav's post, the politically illiterate guy, that I am. And why wasn't there any talk on the Ramadoss-cancerstick connection (after all, the minister is his son) in the blog arena which would have enlightened me even before my self-realisation of the main factor behind this issue. Or, am I being politically incorrect in my suspicion?
That Ramadoss has been taking his personal opinion too far, for quite sometime now, is undeniable. But now, he is also taking his personal duel with Rajinikanth (his accusations on Rajinikanth and all that, about which I won't completely disagree with) too far and trying to make it a law at the national level. And, that precisely is bullsh*t.

Woody Allen

2005-06-02T20:16:00.000+05:30

Why am I yearning (to death) to see movies of Woody Allen, all of a sudden?
I don't remember reading about him anywhere accidentally or something.
I did google about him intensely for a couple of days now (or was it around a week) during day hours in my company. But, all by myself...
I wonder why? Something (currently sub-conscious) must have triggered this....
Oh.. yeah, I saw a book in Crossword which had the complete collection of his writings and I was kinda impressed by its looks (?); and am a big fan of the quotes of his, which I have come across!

And why am I blogging about this? Yeah, I vow I will watch at least half-a-dozen soon.

Read and Relished!!

2005-05-23T19:22:00.000+05:30

Read this (and here too) and Relish!
Yeah, there were scenes inspired/lifted/copied (varies as per one's leaning towards the movie) from multiple Hollywood classics.
But, may I ask, "So What?".. All I know is its a landmark/classic out here, just like say, the first two installments of the Dollar Trilogy in Hollywood.

mid-day bloopers?

2005-04-29T19:56:00.000+05:30

What the heck? "Ram Gopal Varma’s Naina"??

Hazaaron Khwahishen Aisi - Two Thumbs Up!!

2005-04-29T14:37:00.000+05:30

Finally, watched Sudhir Mishra's Hazaaron Khwahishen Aisi after missing it when it was screened by Collective Chaos!

And a lovely movie, it was!

Its great to see Sudhir Mishra, back in his elements, after a couple of off-shoots, namely, "Chameli" and "Calcutta Mail". This time he gifts himself with a wonderful script co-written by Ruchi Narain (who might direct a film soon executive-produced by Mr. Mishra) & Shivkumar Subramaniam.
Back to HKA. Its about three young people, Siddharth, Geeta and Vikram. Siddharth is born with the silver spoon and wants to change the corrupt system with his revolutionary ideas. Geeta is in love with Siddharth and unsure about what she wants to do, and follows the dynamic Siddharth with his revolutionary ideas. Vikram doesn't care a heck about the system and wants to climb up the economic ladder. But, he is hopelessly in love with Geeta. He argues Siddharth has time for this indulgence; but, not him. In this neat setup, echoing similarities with Yuva (Make no mistake, Hazaaron was completed much before Yuva), the movie explores the ideologies, politics, ambitions of the youth of the bygone era of the 60's and 70's. But the story is not about politics. Its a love story, which twirls alongside the political turmoils of the 1970's, serving as an allegory of role of Indian youth in yesteryears politics and more broadly, India. The actual historic incidents and happennings like the emergency period are kept in the backdrop of the plot. The way humour is strewn over the movie is commendable!

Sudhir Mishra doesn't eulogise the way of the revolution; all we see, initially, is a bunch of dopers and their political friends with communist leanings, discussing Marx, Castro, et al. That we find the path of Vikram most agreeable is inevitable and that has been the director's intention. Sudhir Mishra succeeds by showing things as they happenned. People who chased their revolutionaly ideas were either left disillusioned or lost their ideals and the writers do not mince their words on this aspect. That they chased such a quite impossible dream to change the world is by itself a fascinating subject; and is portrayed profoundly, and nostalgically too, by Mr. Mishra. Its the character of Vikram the audience are most likely to identify with; and the character is so seamlessly written that as the movie proceeds, we see his character develop much more than the cliched-selfish cardboard character we are being served with, in movies generally. In the process, its the other male protagonist, the idealistic Siddharth, who appears a bit too upright for the empathy of this generation, but true to those times nevertheless. Thats why we don't see the human side of him, with all its intrinisic flaws, until the very end, where he is left disillusioned and renounces his revolutionary ideas. There is a sequence, in which Vikram, hopelessly in love with Geeta, follows her to a village in Bihar, just to find that Geeta had come to meet Siddharth, who had joined a naxal group. And then, alongside a river, they talk.. That's a miniature setting of the whole story of the lives of the three. In an effort to pacify an angry Siddharth, Vikram says "Long live Revolution!" (with a bottle of beer in his hand; so is Geeta). There is a short silence and then they have a hearty laugh!

Among the onscreen performances, all the three protagonists Kay Kay Menon, Shiney Ahuja and Chitrangada Singh have given clean performances. The scene stealer, of course, is Shiny Ahuja, who as Vikram Malhotra walks away with the top honours. somehow, I felt he is going to be the most under-appreciated, after finding him and his character excellent in the movie. But, was more than happy to find most of the reviews, the precious little that are written, giving due applause to him! Other notable performances include Yashpal Sharma. Saurabh Shukla makes a special appearance.

My only minor grouse (in want of a softer word) is the full-blown use of English in the dialogues of the movies, unlike his earlier movies like Dharavi, Is Raat Ki Subah Nahin (the comparison being somewhat unfair as the settings are different). Agreed, that they are in Delhi, Siddharth can't talk both Bengali and Urdu - his possible mother tongues, and all that. Still, I feel more of Hindi dialogues between the three characters could have been added to make the characters more real. It seems Geeta had been made a south Indian just to be politically correct to assure that they can't get away with Hindi (similar to Mr. and Mrs. Iyer). It looks out-of-place, when Geeta talks to Siddharth in English, even when in absolute panic, after having spent around four years in Bhojpur. Hell, she even puts a few words of English (in clean British accent) into the policeman's ears knowing he would not get a bit of what she meant, but just to vent out her frustrations. Absolutely detailed characterization of all the revolutionaries, relatives, aunts, et al, with smaller screen presence, do not allow them to speak English and their Hindi/regional language befits their characters to T. Only that, the lead characters could have played it a bit less with the English dialogues. Was Mr. Mishra aiming at a wider audience by making it in English? Nothing wrong in this when all he is popular, in Bollywood, is for his substitute-effort in "Chameli".

The soundtrack, by Shantanu Moitra, featuring in the movie is classy with the qawwali number "Mann Yeh Bavra" sung by Ajay Jhingran and Swanand Kirkire being the best pick; "Bawra Mann Dekhne" (female rendition by Shubha Mudgal and male rendition Swanand Kirkire) also stands out among other tracks.

Easily, the best Indian film I have seen this year!!!
Or, am I forgetting any movie here? nope!

Search keywords pointing to my blog

2005-04-22T19:04:00.000+05:30

Top 25 Keywords (via BlogPatrol) used for searches that pointed to my blog (nothing to brag about as far as the actual numbers are concerned :)):

Anurag Kashyap (Google) - 9
Vijay dan Detha Duvidha (Google) - 2
duvidha (Google) - 2
Michael Madhana Kamarajan Movie Review (Google) - 1
mumbai xpress (Google) - 1
pushpak based on hollywood movie (Google) - 1
pushpak tamil film (Google) - 1
rehan ansari 2005 (Google) - 1
sathi leelavathi (Google) - 1
singaravelan kamal crazy mohan (Google) - 1
tamil dvds bama vijayam (Google) - 1
Thirupaachi tamil Movie download (Google) - 1
trois couleurs (Google) - 1
Vijay dan Detha + Duvidha (Google) - 1
avvai shanmugi download (Google) - 1
duvidha film review (Google) - 1
Duvidha Vijay dan Detha (Google) - 1
Duvidha, a novel by Vijay dan Detha (Google) - 1
hazaaron khwahishen aisi pictures (Google) - 1
hazaaron khwahishen aisi soundtrack (Google) - 1
hazaaroN Khwahishen movie (Google) - 1
jyothika (Google) - 1
madhan's thirai paarvai (Google) - 1

So, I am doing quite some publicity work for Anurag Kashyap! The odd ones are of course, the one that says "Thirupaachi tamil Movie download (Google)" and "Jyothika" ( Crying out aloud:((( ). There was only a passing reference on that movie in one of my posts. At least, all the keywords are related to movies ;)

FDES ala Golmaal ala Thillu Mullu!

2005-04-15T15:42:00.000+05:30

No time for a new post now. Caught yesterday's evening show and here is my comments on Lazy's blog.

lazygeek!

i did a FDES (first day evening show) in typical Golmaal-Thillu Mullu style on Mumbai Xpress and almost felt the same way as Ram Murali did except for the Crazy-Mohan-absent-lament part. I feel the second half could have been done much better. First half was absolutely hilarious and all too good. Pasupathy excels! Also, Vaiyapuri provides able support in the first half. Detailed review later. Somehow feeling Hindi version is gonna be better with Saurabh Shukla (Santhana Bharathi role) and Om Puri (Nasser's role) rocking! Not that Nasser was bad. Somehow, they (Santhana Bharathi & Nasser) could not add pep to the second half.

Going for evening show of the hindi version today. brb!

The discovery that made my day!

2005-04-13T18:29:00.000+05:30

I am loving Baradwaj Rangan's blog so much that I went thru more than 80% of his posts within half an hour, flat, during the day hours in the office, most of which were movie reviews. My first spontaneous thought was to download them right away, using some site tracker and save it to relish it for the rest of my life (hey, personal use only! "Relish", I said) :).

P.S.:- [On a more serious note,] I used to do the same for many film reviews/information available on the net during my college days, where in, I had limited access to the net and wasn't always connected. Thats a reason why I got reminded of site-tracking thing when I read this blog. I know it is illegal to use site-tracking applications coz of which I refrained from doing it. Now, since I have free access to the net, it is not even required and this might be the actual reason for the refrainment! :)

Another MMKR in the offing?

2005-04-12T20:26:00.000+05:30

Honestly (and cynically), I don't think Kamal could have recreated in Mumbai Xpress, what he did in MMKR. He himself must be aware of it by now, if my prediction is for real. But, Kamal has been making lofty claims about the movie (here and now, here!) and he seems to be creatively much more satisfied with the movie than any of his recent comedies.
His quotes have ranged from,

With due respect to all my friends involved with that project, "Mumbai Express" is a different league of comedy. This is way above "Vasool Raja".
- in one of his early interviews about the movie.

After `Michael Madhana Kama Rajan,' this has been the most difficult screenplay to conceive.
- in his interview with The Hindu.

But what I feel is that it's hard to get a performance when everybody does so well. Boman Irani is such a fabulous actor that if he does anything less than excellent, the audience will lynch him. So, leaving him out, if you look at Mumbai Xpress, the performances are unanimously far superior.
- in his interview with Rediff.

He doesn't generally do this. He did not say things of this kind for pre-release hype for any of his comedy ventures since MMKR (that he did'nt do it for MMKR was coz he didn't estimate exactly what a wonderful movie he had made along with his team!). He actually means it now! All the more, its directed (co-directed, should I say?) by Singeetham Srinivasa Rao who was behind the best comedies of Kamal.
Thats why I ve been excitedly talking about Mumbai Xpress and have high expectations on this, despite the absence of the genius of Crazy Mohan ( :(((( ) from Kamal's team; more expectations than any of the comedy movies he has done since MMKR!

When I say Kamal's team, I mean Crazy-Kamal writer-duo and the director (Singeetham in this case). Now, some peek into their works (qualitative! qualitative!)

1. Neither one of the three seems to have succeeded alone.
Singeetham - Little John (Singeetham's tryst with SFX).
Crazy Mohan - All duds except the delectable Poikkal Kuthirai (based on Crazy's drama "Marriage made in Saloon" and directed by K.B.) and Kadhanayagan (famous for its "Dubai" sequence!) to quite some extent, largely due to S. Ve. Shekhar's presence. Notable among these were Arunachalam, Aahaa (much praised one, though), Poovellaam Kaettuppaar, Ratchagan and Mr. Romeo. Other lesser-known attempts were Chinna Maappillai (Directed by Santhana Bharathi, a Kamal constant), Vietnam Colony, Thaedinaen Vanthathu (All Prabhu Starrers). Crazy tried his hand at screenplay as well for some of these movies.
Kamal Haasan - All his yesteryear comedies (err.. I mean 80's) and Singaravelan. None of them were written by Kamal.

2. The collaboration of the other two in the absence of Kamal Haasan was a mishit.
Crazy-Singeetham - Chinna Vaathiyaar, another dud with Crazy Mohan as the sole crusader.

3. The other two in the absence of Crazy Mohan collaborated really well in the past.
Kamal-Singeetham - Raaja Paarvai, Pushpak (Absurd quip: No dialogues. No Crazy. ;)).
Both movies were not pure comedies (I mean, humour for the sake of humour!).
... and now Mumbai Xpress.

4. The Crazy-Kamal duo without Singeetham were mostly partially successful. But, most of them ranged from reasonably good to occassionaly OK and weren't in the league of their works alongwith Singeetham. Exceptions were Sathi Leelavathi (notches way above the rest with a fine control on the humour), Avvai Shanmugi (largely because of the inherent set-up for fine comic moments and an ensemble cast with the finest line-up of actors in Tamil cinema, inspite of the absence of a fine director at the helm) which were real treats and not just reasonably good. PKS was immensely likeable in parts, with not much help from a very frivolous plot. Panchathanthiram, like Kaadhala Kaadhala, had sparsely scattered sparks of intellingence, but failed as a movie with its stagey setup and over-dependency on blink-you-will-miss-dialogues by Crazy and marked the saturation of the level to which Crazy Mohan's dialogues could help an otherwise ordinary movie.

5. And there is the fifth category with all the 3 present but
a. still were unable to deliver a patch of their earlier works in Kaadhala Kaadhala (it did have strokes of brilliance from Crazy Mohan), and
b. delivered Magalir Mattum, a very neat (not GREAT) comedy.

Disclaimer:- Though, this analysis does appear pointless, its for the reader to make his own conclusions.

P.S.:- Do check out the review (a tribute, rather!) of MMKR, a post by aNTi. The only comprehensive review of the movie, doing justice to the reviewed material, available on the web!

Anurag Kashyap!

2005-04-07T11:02:00.000+05:30

There is one thing about which I wanted to post for quite sometime and got reminded even today morning before posting about Paheli.
It was about Anurag Kashyap. Its already an old news that Bombay High Court held the release of Black Friday till the 1993 bomb blast case verdict (WTF, gimme a break).
Now, I feel even Paanch might see the light on some day, but not Black Friday. The court has ordered that Black Friday should be released only after the 1993 Bomb Blasts Case is closed. Atrocious. I have never heard of (layman's view there; law pros can clarify) any such controversial/communal/riot cases getting closed. That sadly might mean, its curtains forever for Black Friday. Those who caught it during PIFF (through George and Ramanand) and other festivals are the luckier ones. My tryst with Anurag Kashyap still is limited to those movies he wrote.
He must be damn frustrated. It seems to be more of an instance of Murphy's law. There can be no possible words of consolation for him. But here's Rediff's note on him (seems to be a collection of all his current/old interviews with Rediff, esp. the bits about RGV).
Allwyn Kaalicharan and Gulal may also, probably, not get made :((. His reputation in the industry is also not all that fine, as his very honest opinions are, many a times, at loggerheads (and more loggerheads!) with the big names.

And now its Palekar!

2005-04-07T10:59:00.000+05:30

The talk about Paheli has been goin on for sometime now. The movie is said to be based on Vijay Dan-Detha's novel (or short story?) Duvidha. But didn't Mani Kaul make Duvidha, the movie adapatation of the same novel quite long ago? wonder why there isn't no mention on that!
Though the synopses of the two movies seem to be the same, this one seems to be a very high-profile remake. Heard of some grand and colourful sets and great dance sequences elsewhere.

Now, tell me what's Amol Palekar doing here, after having made some very simple and sobre films!

P.S. :- I am still expecting Paheli to be good, This one is just a sanity-check if it is going the way Thakshak did, with the film's USP being something like Tabu's dance in "Rang De" song!

Mumbai Xpress!!!

2005-03-31T13:29:00.000+05:30

Mumbai Xpress website has been kicked off!
check it out!
Heard some days before that its a kidnap(-gone-awry?) story..
and so it is!
The site looks great!

Some weeks ago, Kamal Haasan said at a news conference organized at the Sahara-One Motion Pictures office that, "Except for the soundtrack, 'Mumbai Xpress' looks like 'Nayakan' or any of my better films". I am expecting a lot this time!

and pleeeeeeze Kamal.. I hope (I really hope this should not happen, and am being damn honest in admitting it) there is no Hollywood inspiration this time...
Though I still would say even most of his hollywood adaptations have been great/good/rarely OK; w.r.t. the standards set by comedy movies from Kamal production house in an otherwise insipid Tamil film industry (save for a few others) as far as comedy is concerned.
no inspired story this time please!

Bala's funny bone!

2005-03-30T00:36:00.000+05:30

The review of Mayaavi at indiaglitz says "Director Singapuli has obviously some flair for comedy and mirth. Unlike his guru Bala (who is the producer of the film), he doesn't reach for your grey cells. But he aims for your funny bone."
Strange the reviewer felt so. I found a lot of Bala in the dialogues and the subtle manner in which the going-on were handled. Just because the stories of Bala are morbid, doesn't say anything about his sense of humour. Given any day, I ll have a hearty laugh seeing the Sriman scenes of Sethu, and Surya scenes (I liked Laila too!) of Pithamagan (the rather famous "lodukku pandi" of Nanda was not up to the standards of the other two). Bala's got his funny bone in tact. Dear reviewer, think again before you make such statements!
I found that the Sishya has picked quite a lesson from his Guru (Could u have said the same on Singapuli's humour sense after having watched "Red"?)

Liked the first-half of the movie, most of the moments predominantly coz of Surya's witty presence and the other commendable performance from Satyan (could not like Jyothika in this too). Second half drag...ged (with quite a number of g's in it and loads of maudlinness). Songs were placed at random moments. The whole concept of a movie star liking/loving the simplicity of a con man's life (beaten to cliche many a times) went without much impact. Inspirations from movies like Mast was unavoidable for the makers I guess :). But they do tip their hat for Varma, as Jyothika's mom tells her "Night, antha Ramgopal Varma padam 'Bhoot' paakaathey!" (now, why did they have to speak tamil. to add to the comic effect?)...
Thank god that Jo didn't have to marry Balayya. Surya called it something like a "grammatic mistake in story-writing" if Jyothika and Balayya married (in Madhan's thirai paarvai) :)).

Watch it for the good humour it provides in the first half!

Update on 13 Apr, 4 p.m.: The objective of this post was actually to emphasize Bala's sense of humour (as against the general myth that he writes morbid stuff) and not a review of Mayaavi. Then I went on telling my opinion on the movie for a few lines, which was not very clear. Hence this update. When I said "Watch it for good humour it provides in the first half!", I meant that "Watch only the first half with some hope" and that the second half did not have an iota of humour (Exception: The Scene in which Satyan explains why he likes Simran and not Jyothika! unable to recall any other moment). And the first half did have a few good (and well-timed by the actors mentioned above) good gags and giggles which made it worth watching, which otherwise was loaded with fights, dances, punch dialogues (oh.. c'mon!), sentiments and all usual distractions (In fact the screenplay and the movie itself is one weird conglomeration of all the distractions with some good humour spread around it) and was not developing a story but showing some vague incidents. I said "Watch it" (it slipped out of my keyboard) to only those (like me) who watch every goddamn quite-known-movie being released, including the likes of the much-dreaded "Thirupaachi"; and am not recommending this dud to anybody.

All ye K.B. fans!!

2005-03-22T17:25:00.000+05:30

There is this ongoing Balachander Film Festival in K TV..
I was continually perplexed to find so many KB movies playing all through the schedule of K TV..
With no exaggerations around 50 % of the movies being shown are that of K.B.'s (with a whole lot of week-level repetitions as well!)

The choice of movies aired on Tamil Satellite Channels make no sense. They dont pick the latest movies. nor the good movies of the past. not even the hit stinking-masala films. but obscure movies of the past and label them as "superhit velli" and likes.

I aint no big KB fan! But he made a lot of sense when nobody else gave a serious thought to cinema!
Anyways, had some good retrospective session on the man and his movies. Though, I dint manage to catch most of the movies, I dug them at google!

Can you people (those who are reading this!) tell me ur favourite K.B. movies and y u liked them??

P.S.:- If you are yet to see some of his movies which you always wanted to see, K TV is in good mood (leave the prime-time movies in weekends. They are the ones that really suck!) and catch them this season on pre-noon, afternoon (There is one 4 p.m. show nowadays which most of office-goers would miss. They showed "Achamillai Achamillai" some days ago at this showtime which i had to miss!) or late-night sessions!!

Art in its own right!(?)

2005-03-22T16:14:00.000+05:30

Check this out to know what Ebert thinks about Taal!!
should I ROTFL/laugh/smile/show pride/cry in knowing what Indian Cinema is famous for?
Is there anything bad about viewing Subhash Ghai's art in its (and his) own way? An unsuspecting Ebert seems to do that and is all praise for the Indian Spielberg (lets hunt the guy who dubbed him as that and execute him!)

This weekend, I continued my fascination on Cinema Kieslowskia by watching Decalogue (7 of them on the same day!). More on this later!

Bose: The Forgotten Hero is up and ready for release soon. Audio is already into the market and my playlist!
Where is Benegal going with this movie? Still deep into commercial cinema where his track record is utterly not good? Though, his choice of Sachin Khedekar doesn't exactly indicate that he is going the Dev-Nihalani way... (sorry for the belittlement there. yet to catch Dev and my opinion on it is mainly based on those vile reviewers whom I seem to believe!)

Kamal - a Plagiariser? Pseudo-intellectual? and other bashings!

2005-03-09T20:52:00.000+05:30

There is this ongoing discussion on Kamal Haasan in the comments section of this post by lazygeek. Would like to write a BIG essay on this topic soon!

----------------------------------------
Update:
Direct link to comments section of the post.

----------------------------------------

Trois Couleurs: Bleu, Blanc and Rouge

2005-03-07T16:32:00.000+05:30

WOW!!!!!!!

Watching movies like this is when u feel what Ebert said in one of his reviews - It's as if European films have a more adult, inward, knowing way of dealing with the emotions, and Hollywood hasn't grown up enough. (that it came from the review of the Blue is pure coincidence. His reviews of movies of Fellini, Tati and likes also tangent towards that suggestion!)
I just love the way he just gives a damn to logic and proceeds and the wonderful use of colours.. and his humanely inward look at the 3 political words (so to say!) Liberty, Equality and Fraternity!
Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rediscovered Godfather : Part II as well!!
and to end this weekend in a grand manner, watched Ran!! but could catch only half of it, as it was time to pack my bags! will finish it soon and I owe a review on it (and some other movies as well!)!!

What a wonderful weekend!

Weekend Planner!

2005-03-03T19:38:00.001+05:30

This weekend, I won't be able to make it to Chitrabharathi 2005 (a seminar following the screenings too! Sudhir Mishra's Hazaaron Khwahishen Aisi being my prime interest in this!) being conducted Suchithra Film Society along with Collective Chaos as I am goin home. But have got a bigggger project - namely, Three Colours Trilogy!!! :)))

has anybody hit my blog already?

2005-03-01T12:04:00.000+05:30

Its so strange if i keep talking to myself in this blog...

has anybody hit it already?

if so, leave a comment..

P.S. :- Today, I took a strange exercise of seeing how other blogs started and was relieved to see it was much the same way as mine. In one of the blogs i frequent nowadays, by Nakul Krishna, he had asked a similar question in his initial blogging days (he had actually given his email id).

To end up with a recursive thought, may be, this exercise (of looking at some bloggers' blogs as to what extent it was frequented at the beginning stage) itself was not so strange and many used to do it and thought it was strange too. Again, the above-mentioned "may-be-everybody-did-it" thought too struck everyone and so on..... :))

oscars... what about Scorsese? - Updated

2005-02-28T10:15:00.000+05:30

So no Scorsese again.. I dont say ":((" coz its pretty odd for Academy not to have credited this man for the last 30 years.. and maintaining their 'legacy'...

I was very curious if he would pick it up for Aviator having not won for movies like Tax Driver (just imagine Rocky getting ahead of it!), Raging Bull and Goodfellas... and somehow feeling upbeat after he dint bag it this time too.. and Scorsese remains in the dubious yet great list along with Hitchcock..

Eastwood wins the director and Million Dollar Baby the best movie too!

oscars... what about Scorsese?

2005-02-28T09:58:00.000+05:30

Though I am yet to see both Aviator and Million Dollar Baby, I am just wondering if Scorsese will win the award this time..

Only four categories yet to be announced..

best actor - i am not predicting (haven't seen any as well)
best actress - ditto
best director - should be Scorsese or Eastwood
best Orig Screenplay - who else but Charlie Kauffman (again without seeing the movie :( hunting for eternal sunshine nowadays....)

Little Terrorist dint win in the short film category... :(((((

coming soon!

2005-02-25T20:13:00.000+05:30

A Review on (I would rather call it an ode to!) "Hey! Ram"....

I don't know why I just love this movie and get peeved when I read something harsh on it. May be, I know the reason. But, I do not admit that as the reason. I confess. I am a fan of Kamal Haasan. But, however much, i detach myself from the fanhood, still this movie definitely captures my admiration every time I try to analyse it.
critics panned it. self-indulgence, they said. Ravi Vasudevan found it aligned with the Hindu Right's unleashing of certain public discourses and as Kamal's (failed?) attempt at the identification with the broader Indian nation-state.
Yet to catch hold of what Khalid Mohammed and likes had to say about it. Precious little information available on the net analysing this film such as this by Rehan Ansari (writes in chowk and mid-day too) and an absolutely wonderful analysis by Philip Lutgendorf whose mention I would save for the review.

My ode will follow..

i just don't know....

2005-02-25T20:10:00.000+05:30

i just don't know the concept of RSS feed etc...

anybody who knows can clarify it to me..
(who will read this blog is a good question!).

reviews are yet to come..
i ll make it "a-post-a-day" soon!

To myself!

2005-01-25T14:40:00.000+05:30

This post is for myself.
I vow I will post at least once in a week.
The post will, of course, be a review on any (and that means ANY!) movie(s).

So, lets see! If I am keeping up this promise....