Desicritics Category: Media: Film - Directors

Indian Movies - Very Much Without Verisimilitude

Cine Cynic — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:52:03 EDT

Last week, I pondered about the director's need to research about a subject that is an important aspect of his or her movie. Extending that thought process, I feel that verisimilitude is a quality that lacks in most of our movies.

Everyone is doing a good job with railway stations. But take a police station, for example. I have only had the opportunity to see them from outside so far, but the friends who have been inside assure me that they are nothing like what they show in our movies. Walls are not painted in red on the lower half, and white/off-white above. Cells are not always visible from the first room where most of the cops sit.

This was perhaps true about stations in the olden days (pre-Independence?). The sets in our studios erected decades back may have been renovated and repainted but not rethought about. Today's stations are usually dilapidated independent houses which have been furnished to suit a work environment for cops. I must say that Bollywood is doing a good job here, considering the sets in the multitude of cop tales being produced. Telugu film industry remains far behind and blissfully ignorant.

And what about the jobs? Novelists and short-story writers take pains to glean tidbits and jargon about various jobs, especially the jobs of their protagonists. Arthur Hailey was hailed for taking years for each novel, and oft-quoted as an epitome for researching.

Film makers, however, are exploiting the 20% rule to satisfy themselves and the audience. The 20% rule, say in animation, suggests developers to ignore 80% of a fast-paced action and to concentrate on the take off and landing of the animation. Like in a sequence where Tom chases Jerry. The chase itself is shown as a blur but the initial and final microseconds are crystal clear.

I recently watched a nondescript movie where the hero repairs a car that broke down. We have all seen it a number of times. The camera shows a closeup of the hands, then a closeup of the heroine waiting, then a longer shot of the sweaty hero collapsing the bonnet, and finally a closeup of getting some water to wash his greasy hands. The entire activity is not glossed over because it is a trivial issue; it is glossed over because our film makers aren't patient enough to clearly define that car problem and find out (theoretically) its solution.

When I learned driving, my driving school skipped the theory class where I was to have learned changing tires, pouring water in the carburetor, and making minor repairs. I always wish one of our movies imparted a little such knowledge.

Showing details about the above activity would make a greater impact when the character has a job of a car mechanic or, umph, engineer. People among the audience who really have that job feel proud and thankful for showing a snippet of their everyday lives, and the remaining who are in obscurity have an 'aha' moment.

Today we take for granted the omniscience of our protagonists whether in driving and fixing vehicles, or wielding and defusing weapons. The conflict, if any, faced by the protagonist no longer carries that high tension among us had we known that the protagonist is like one of us, without all the knowledge about the universe.

Verisimilitude is not an end in itself, rather a means to increase our belief and tension in the story.

Movie Review: The Gold Rush (1925)

DeeptiA — Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:55:56 EDT

I had the chance to watch this classic Charlie Chaplin movie recently on TV, and was pretty impressed, hence writing about it. As you move along this old-movie review, you will find the story start to show up, so you can stop reading at any point further if you don't want the whole storyline.

The Gold Rush is a silent-era movie released in 1925. As with many Chaplin movies, the movie was written and directed by him, and starred him in the lead role. It was another of the 'Little Tramp' roles. As per Charlie Chaplin, The Gold Rush was a movie that he wanted to be remembered by. The movie also starred Mack Swain, Tom Murray, Henry Bergman, Malcolm Waite, and Georgia Hale. Georgia Hale got the role by chance, since Lita Grey was originally selected for the role, but Lita then got married to Charlie Chaplin in 1924, and hence was no longer to be the lead lady for the role. However, ironically, during the making of the film, Charlie's marriage to Grey collapsed, and Hale (who had idolized Chaplin from the beginning) was much more intimate with her leading man by the end of the movie.

The movie was a huge commercial success, earning more than $4 million at that time. In 1942, Chaplin took the movie into the talkie space, re-releasing the movie with a musical score (that was nominated for an Academy Award), adding a personal narration in his own voice, and doing some more editing to reduce the length of the movie by a few minutes.

Chaplin's previous movie A Women of Paris, had failed, and Chaplin was looking to see how he could recoup from that. He wanted to make a great movie, something that he would be remembered for. And then he came on the stories of some of the tragedies of the Great Alaskan Gold Rush; with tales of hardship, struggle and tragedy. The movies takes The Tramp in the Yukon, along with many others like him, heading over the Chilkoot Pass (some spectacular shooting on Hollywood sets). He gets stuck in a remote cabin with little supplies, along with another prospector and an escaped fugitive.

In this setting occurs one of the most iconic scenes from the silent film era - the eating of a leather boot by a starving man. Another iconic shot from the movie is of the cabin tottering on the edge of a cliff while the inhabitants struggle to get out. You also have the betrayal of The Tramp and the other prospector by the fugitive (who in turn meets his end at the hands of an avalanche).

The Tramp becomes very rich after finding gold. Once he reaches the town, The Tramp thinks that he is falling for a dance-hall girl (Hale), but why would she notice him ? She initially snubs him, but they have a happy ending. The movie is now considered an iconic movie, and is surely worth watching.

Movie Review: The X-Files: I Want To Believe

Aaman Lamba — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:20:43 EDT

The X-Philes might not have been waiting breathlessly for a renewed fix of the once exciting series, wishing to relive the excitement of the first movie feature, yet, they surely had higher expectations from the second - expectations that have been barely met in what might have failed even as a direct to video release.

In The X-Files: I Want To Believe, both Fox Mulder and Dana Scully appear far more jaded and disinterested than they should be, even after all these years in the wilderness. Mulder is still searching for answers and meaning while Scully has decided that Our Lady of Sorrows offers better solace than the unwanted FBI unit she gave much of herself to. They spend much time not quite speaking to each other, and while the same might have been true on the television series, a younger, driven Mulder meant the story was moved along despite, or rather, because of their dysfunctional relationship. Their relationship in the film has moved way beyond the occasional pat on the back to a surreptitious living together, which comes as a real surprise.

Chris Carter prefers to explore the characters' motivations more in this film than the trademark unknowables that we might have expected. It seems at times a cross between a police procedural and a medical thriller than a fast-paced supernatural adventure. The tension is still there, though, and this film might pick up a larger following once it is out on DVD, and with much aficionado-driven analysis.

Without giving away too much of the story, it does not revolve around aliens, and does not go too mystic. Even so, the concept is not quite ordinary, yet one can see the resolution a long while before it actually arrives. The journey is as interesting as the end, though, and the snowy hills of Virginia cover more secrets than just secret medical experiments and rabid dogs. The power of the film lies in the secret sharers rather than the secrets they share.

Additional subplots seem pointless, like the treatment of 'difficult' patients in the healthcare system by passing them off to another provider, responded to by Dr. Scully with the highly advanced technique known as Googling. The 'new' Mulder/Scully duo switch roles, with Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) wanting to believe and Mosley Drummy (Xzibit) offering the jaded counterview. The FBI needs to bring a defrocked pedophile priest in because of his supposed psychic abilities rather than a profiler. The nature of his involvement in the larger plot is part of the mystery, but I can say that his history gives us an excellent scene between ASAC Whitney and Father Joe on the nature of self-loathing and forgiveness.

The movie, in short, is a mixed bag of classic X-Files shenanigans and adult emo drama. It works, but only if you're willing to let go of your expectations and ten years of waiting. If you want to believe, in short.

Kismat Konnection, On and Off Screen.

Sakshi Juneja — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:44:02 EDT

Aziz Mirza's on-screen love-meets-fate story, Kismat Konnection, starring the new generation's Jumping Jack aka. Shahid Kapoor and the ever subdued, Ms. Goody Two Shoes aka. Vidya Balan – disappoints miserably. Surely nothing new I am adding here; practically all reviews published seem to be screaming out loud the same stuff.

In terms of storyline, first half is barely bearable and the second half drags on and on and on. Thankfully I watched it in one of those popular lounge-seating-cinemas, so my tusshie didn't bear the brunt and I even managed to catch up on some quality sleep. Acting-wise Shahid Kapoor came across reasonably good; I mean you can't deny that he does a better impression of King Khan than King Khan himself. The other half of the Konnection, Ms. Balan according to me did a so-so jig. The woman seriously needs to display some variety in her role selection process and not repeat the gullible, abla stree kinda-characters.

Overall, Kismat Konnection is more aptly disconnected, predictable and a tad too boring. My advice, skip it.

Now let's move onto a more interesting trivia on off-screen Bollywood Kismat Konnection.

Shahid and Kareena’s last film together (before the break-up) received two thumbs up from all around; the audience, the critics and the box-office. Kareena re-invented herself, whereas Shahid gave his very first mature performance. Needless to say, everyone wished Aditya and Geet to sort things out, have raunchy make-up sex and live happily ever after.

Today however the story is different. Very different.

Both our leading stars have moved on (so they say) and all too quickly replaced each other’s presence with a new set of lovers. Much to the benefit of our gossipy mainstream media, I might add. Kareena adores the much older Saif (and parivaar inclusive) and Shahid seems to be swinging between the tennis star (Sania Mirza) and the “helloooooo Mumbaiiii” lady (Vidya Balan). And while they continue to increase the sale of Bollywood tabloids with their ‘in-love’ antics, their on-screen chemistry (with new partners) seems to lack all luster.

For instance: Kareena and Saif’s very first release and the much-hyped Tashan bombed at the box office and how. So much so lover boy Saifu cried all the way to the producer, Aditya Chopra and Kareena baby was deemed unfit in her size zero image. And while one would think Shahid had the last laugh after being brutally dumped, unfortunately kismat seems to have whacked him once again. His very first release, since the Kareena break up, opposite his rumoured real-life lady love, Vidya Balan – is a definite flop, as the next few days will prove.

So even though their off-screen life with new love in tow may be rocking, their on-screen konnection looks to have fizzled no sooner than it began.

This is not the end.

Here’s another off-screen love story I heard where the outcome has a lot to do with kismat, lucky charm, bad luck and other such related jazz.

Aditya Chopra, the head-honcho behind Yash Raj Films shot to fame with his directorial debut with Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge back in 1995. Since the time he took over the family-run production house from Papa Chopra, it’s been raining money and success.

However the success factor seems to have taken a down turn since his affair with actress Rani Mukherjee and divorce from wife Payal Chopra. If one goes by the popular story doing rounds within the Bollywood fraternity – the ill-faith of most Yash Raj releases at the box-office since the beginning of 2007, has been solely because of Aditya Chopra’s separation from wife Payal.

Apparently before their union (now the validity could be questioned), the Chopras had consulted a few known astrologers and were completely bowled over by the probable enormity of the “luck” factor brought into the Yash Raj household via the Adi-Payal matrimony. On the dark side were also informed of the not-so-good consequence if ever the marriage ended up on the rocks.

So while Aditya and his lady love Ms. Mukherjee go about (discreetly) professing their love with Thoda Pyar Thoda Magic, the weekly box-office tells a different story – Love, okay but magic…zilch.

Interview: Straight Talk With Onir, Director of My Brother Nikhil

Sakshi Juneja — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:59:48 EDT

Not too long ago, I had the opportunity to meet up with Onir, director of My Brother Nilkhil at a coffee shop in Versova. Onir, (who goes only by his first name), arrived a little late and wanted to wrap things up in fast. So without much ado, I went right ahead and asked the first question.

Please tell us something about your creative background?

I always wanted to make films, the only thing I can remember wanting to do is make films. When I joined college I took up literature parallel with film studies. Literature I think is very closely related to films and in India you don't start with film studies after school, you can only after graduation. And then I got my scholarship for Training in Film Making for which I went to Berlin.

And what brought you to Bollywood?

After I trained in Berlin I went back to Kolkata because that's where I did my university and initial training in film studies. I worked there for a while, made some documentary films and all. But anyway my aim was "fiction" and I realized the environment of Kolkata is not where I wanted to work because I was very young and wanted to be respected for what I do. And I found people very patronizing at that point there and it didn't suit me.

I came to Bombay as an editor actually…I started off as an editor. And it took me 10 years to make my first film. But for me it was very clear – I don't come from a film family, I don't come from a family where someone can say, here take 3 crores and make a film. I wanted to do it on my own, on my own terms and make the kind of films I wanted to make. Probably that's one of the reasons why it took that long because I was definite about the kind of films I wanted to make. And for me everything that I was doing while trying to make a film was a step towards that. I mean I produced music, directed music videos, made documentary films and then scripting; basically a whole lot of things.

And all this helped me to be able produce and direct my film within a controlled budget, since I had worked in every possible department.

For your first film, what made you pick a dicey subject like alternate sexuality and HIV?

Actually it became my first film by accident. The first script I wrote was also a dicey subject but it never got made. Hopefully it will someday. It was basically a story of a gigolo and nobody had the guts to finance such a project. And then I wrote my second script but nothing happened and then I wrote my third script. At that time I had just finished editing a documentary script on Dominic D'Souza who was the first known case of HIV in India. And that story kind of stayed with me…you know his photograph haunted me. And at one point I was getting frustrated because every story that I was writing found no one to finance it.

That's when I decided to do it myself. Sanjay Suri is a friend and has complete faith in me. I decided to go ahead with Dominic's story and make it into a docu-fiction and release it on TV. It sounded good and so I started writing. It was something I wrote in 10 days as it had left a lasting impact on me. It just came…just came like that.

And then we started meeting actors and everyone we approached said "yes" so we thought that instead of making it a TV film let's make a feature film.

Actually till I completed the film I never thought that this was a taboo. It was just that this story deeply moved me and the entire crew and cast were doing this for peanuts because they simply loved the story too. It was only after completing the film that I realized – Oh my God! In India, homosexuality is illegal what with Article 377 and there might be problems for release. So I was worried only when the censor time came, luckily that went through smoothly without any controversies.

It became my first film by accident, but all in all, the subjects I generally choose are slightly off the beaten track. Stories, which have already been told do not interest me; I need to tell stories wherein I too grow as a person and not just become a director, that's not my aim.

'Bas Ek Pal' (2006) didn't do well at the box office. According to the tabloids, it didn't appeal to either the critics or the masses. Where do you think the problem lay?

Two things. After My Brother Nikhil I got slotted. People expected My Brother Nikhil Part 2. For me it was however very clear that I didn't want to do that. I wanted to do something totally different which would help me grow as a director. In fact to me I have matured as a director only after Bas Ek Pal. In terms of reception it was a mix. Some critics really raved about the film whereas in print it didn't receive a favourable response.

The first reaction is obviously you get very defensive about everything that you do. But later on I sat down and analysed the film all over again and realized that there were certain things that went against it. The distribution for instance: In Mumbai only 14 prints were released and only two night shows were available in the suburban side. Another thing I believe I messed up with was the execution of the film's climax scene.

Otherwise I think it's a complex, very mature film, which to me was the exciting bit. Unfortunately the current trend involves audience watching comedies and idiotic comedies. And it's very worrying when rubbish films like Welcome, Partner become box-office success. Personally I have nothing against comedies but these are bad films, period. And good, deserving films like Johnny Gaddar and Manorama Six Feet Under are complete washouts.

Sometime in 2006 you were thinking of making an adaptation of Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' starring Hrithik Roshan. Is this project going to see the light of day?

Again, today no one wants to do a dark film. I am talking around, speaking to artists and film banners but everyone is looking for profit. For example Omkara was critically applauded but financially, it didn't do well. Therefore actors are skeptical about taking up such offers. Actors, producers, basically everybody.

You also acted in Schau mir in die Augen, Kleiner (2007) aka Here's looking at You, Boy - The Coming out of Queer Cinema (International: English title). This is a documentary on the history of gay and lesbian film. How was it like acting in an international setting?

No I did not acted in the film. It was a documentary film which featured 14 directors from across the world on the subject of homosexuality. And I was selected as one of the directors and it was featured during the Berlin Film Festival. A fantastic experience overall.

What do you think about the censor board's stand in today's Bollywood?

Honestly speaking I have been very lucky. Like with My Brother Nikhil I thought there will be plenty of issues but it was cleared without any cuts.

But then it was backed by Yash Raj Films.

No. The censor dealing was done before Yash Raj's takeover of the film for distribution. My team consisted of all first timers, including myself. I was literally shaking once the film was given for censorship approval. When I met them they said that we will give the film a 'U' certificate provided you give a statement at the beginning that it's a fictitious film, which I was ready to comply with. And for me this was a huge thing, I mean we live in a country, which is still very outdated in terms of its views on sexuality, especially alternate sexuality.

Do you think there is a lack of good scripts in Bollywood? If so, why?

Yes it's true. Because apart from actors we don't want to pay anyone else. Actors believe they are the film themselves and therefore charge enormous amounts. Then there is no budget left for anything else. Also our copyright laws are weak that it's an easy job to keep making remakes. Plus financiers prefer to stick with the 'tried-and-tested' formulae and our audience goes ahead and approves such re-creations. And at the end of the day everything boils down to the audience.

Which actor/actress you would like to work with in the near future?

Actually I never had this fascination or inclination towards working with any special set of actors. For me the script comes first and whoever suits it best and is within the budget is offered the role. So no wish list for me as of now.

Any recent movie you wish you were part of?

Johnny Gaddar. I thought it was a brilliant film. Sad it didn't do well. Then there was Manorama Six Feet Under and I also liked Chuk De minus the beginning and the end.

Define 'crossover cinema'?

Frankly I really don't know; I mean crossing over to what? Films from India which are screened overseas are mostly big budget films. It has nothing to do with quality but everything to do with who's backing the project (film).

People perceive that films like Page 3 and My Brother Nikhil are crossover films but unfortunately they don't even get released overseas. Especially the US and UK market, the thing is NRI audiences are worse than the audience back home because they are so nostalgic about India that they prefer to watch its glossy image. And therefore you have big banners making films especially to please them by inserting glamorised costumes and bhangra songs.

Where do you see India cinema going over the next decade, given that in recent times we have seen a shift in the kind of movies being made and scripts being written, as well as the willingness of mainstream actors to try different genres other than commercial flicks?

I don't know really. We keep talking about how big is Bollywood but frankly we are living in a make believe world. For example, if you look at the earnings of a biggest grosser of the past couple of years and compare it to a Korean film, which would be looked at as world cinema, ours would be barely 13% of that.

Our films are not world cinema. When we talk about overseas we simply mean NRI audiences. Our films have still not matured with respect to world cinema. The day we are able to get the local audience in cities like New York, London, Sydney maybe then we would qualify as global filmmakers. But then our population is so huge and spread out that we really don't care much about the world market.

Hopefully 10 years from now we will have audiences which are open to all kinds of cinema.

What is your take on depiction of homosexuality in today's Hindi films?

It sickens me honestly. I find it silly mostly the way it is depicted. I find it stupid how actors are insecure; if it's not making fun they wouldn't want to do the character. They are insecure about how they will be perceived but that's really stupid because enacting a homosexual character doesn't make one a homosexual. Even our double standards are put on display. Today one animal rights group will ask for help and the whole Jing-bang will be there to lend a helping hand but when you talk about human rights, basic human rights let alone homosexuality, no one will give you the time of the day.

Similarly our whole society including the film industry is so homophobic. So they'd rather make fun of it. And what is even more depressing is that some of them are closet homosexuals themselves. I mean they don't have to talk about their sexuality but the least they could do is not make a mockery of others and their sexual preference.

I feel it should be dealt with with a certain responsibility; after all you are talking about someone else's life. But I suppose Bollywood specializes in making mockery of those who are 'different'.

Can you tell us something on your new and forthcoming films?

Well I am working on a film called Sorry Bhai. A romantic film with an interesting star cast. I have Shabana Azmi, Boman Irani, Sharman Joshi, Sanjay Suri and Chitrangada Singh is making a comeback with this film. I am looking forward to it because it's a different genre for me, it's a happy film but it also deals with complexities of adult relationships.

Your involvement with HIV/Aids awareness campaign.

After My Brother Nikhil I have been involved in all kinds of campaigns, seminars, conferences dealing with Human Rights. I am also trying to remove time for conducting workshops for Aids infected youth in Shillong, hopefully every year. See the thing is movies and all will keep happening but life also involves personal growth and being part of such activities helps me achieve that.

Straight speak and blunt – Onir was a refreshing change from the run of the mill Bollywood interviewees. Here's looking at you Onir and wish you all the best for your future projects!

Movie Review: Jaane Tu...Ya Jaane Na - Same Same But Different

Just Another Film Critic — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:56:24 EDT

This is not a review of Nagesh Kukunoor’s box office bomb Bombay To Bangkok (2007) but of debutant director Abbas Tyrewala’s Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na. Even before the film was completed, the director had called it a typical Bollywood love story complete with its own quota of songs, fights and even the quintessential over-the-top airport climax. With that kind of a statement from a man who has some very successful scripts behind him, you can’t help but expect the film’s USP to be something completely fresh.

(Spoilers Ahead, yeah right!)

Jai (Imran Khan as a peace loving, meek yet mature guy) and Aditi (Genelia D’Souza in a zealous role) are two very close friends and are part of a small gang of youngsters who have their own share of pubbing, partying, cussing and fooling around. After their college gets over, they try to hook each other up with an apt partner. After they manage to find partners that they think are ideal, they slowly understand that this is not what they desired for. It is not soon when they realize that they have been with their best match all this time. As they struggle to reveal their love to each other, Aditi gets ready to leave for the USA. It is up to Jai to stop her at the airport and reveal his true love to her. Sounds familiar?

(End of already known spoilers)

The film’s almost effortless progress reminds us of the deluge of Korean rom-coms and the screwball comedies of the Clark Gable era. But that just shows how the international cultures have seeped into our own. Right from the generous dose of swearwords to the now-hackneyed dance floors, the movie would look totally outlandish for the village and town dwellers. The best part about the screenplay is that you know you have seen it all a thousand times, but are still attracted towards the film for some reason. That is where the director scores.

What separates Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na from its predecessors is its grey treatment of characters, actions and emotions. There are no extraordinary monologues, fights, melodrama or reactions in the film. Unlike the bickering leads of yesteryear, Jai and Aditi realize each others’ persona and are mature enough to not quarrel with them for that. There is not one false note in the characterization of the cast and their relationships, with the possible exception of Sushant, Aditi’s fiancé, who is handled with a pinch of coldness. Parents who have closed in on the so-called generation gap, a brother who is more sensible than he looks, a protagonist who thinks everything has a non-violent solution, the characters ring true and are omnipresent in the cities. Be it the sibling relationship between Aditi and Amit or the miserable one between Meghna’s parents, there is honesty written all over.

Abbas Tyrewala seems to know that his target audience is miniscule and is unperturbed by that. He has deliberately let some things go over the head of the audience outside his reach and does not care about that. He is quite sure that the young metropolitan crowd, at whom the film is aimed at, will find a page out of their own lives in the film. This confidence is, perhaps, the director’s biggest success in the film. Imran Khan manages well with his small set of expressions and is overpowered by the more experienced Genelia who seems tailored for the role. Arbaaz and Sohail Khan steal the show in the few scenes they are in and the same can be said about veterans Paresh Rawal and Nasseeruddin Shah.

So when do you know it’s love? You do not realize the importance of a commonplace object until it becomes not-so-common. The film handles the same issue handled in Mani Ratnam’s successful flick Alaipayuthey (2000), but gives a totally urban look to the concept. What is more interesting than the film itself is the question that what a confident and clear writer and director, such as Abbas Tyrewala, is going to do in the future where not only would he have the funds to experiment, but also the opportunity to reach a universal crowd. Guess only time will tell. As for now, enjoy this fresh lease of energy amidst stale and pretentious multi-starrers while it lasts in theatres.

Movie Review: The Ruins

Deepti Lamba — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:27:39 EDT

Keeping the message simple often has a far more dramatic effect than trying to create an out of the box thriller. Shyamalan played on American homegrown terror in the The Happening whereas the movie The Ruins brought terror to an obscure Mayan temple where naive ignorant American tourists found themselves dealing with a horror unheard of by the outside world.

Shyamalan could take a few lessons from Carter Smith. The trauma suffered by the victims in The Ruins was far more palpable than by those in The Happening.

While Shyamalan's movies tend to fizzle somewhere in the middle, The Ruins kept a tight rein on the suspense right till the end. There was no hidden subtext in The Ruins unlike Shyamalan who continues to harp on the post-9/11 effects on American psyche.

The ending of Carter Smith's movie was tinged with dry humor, reflecting touristy ignorance whereas Shyamalan's movie ending was oversimplified and illogical, given the human need to take all kinds of preventive measures when faced with an extreme situation which may cause total annihilation of human existence.

The Ruins and The Happening are both about nature turning against man but that's where the similarities between the two movies end.

When Kiran Met Karen : Masterpiece or Titillation Vehicle?

Sakshi Juneja — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:46:49 EDT

It is interesting to watch recent lesbian-themed films with an Indian context. To be precise, watching the (only) two lesbian-themed films from mainstream Hindi cinema was an amusing experience, at least for me. I’m referring to Deepa Mehta’s Fire (1998), and blink-and-you-missed-it, Karan Razdan's Girlfriend (2004). Of course, the two films differed widely in terms of storyline, direction, and other production aspects. The acting was another story altogether.

However the common thread between the two is this: Both films needed a reason for lesbianism. Homosexuality had to be explained and given a valid raison d’etre: the lead characters of both films were abused, sexually and emotionally, by members of the opposite sex, therefore they turned to other women for ‘solace’.

The latest entrant in the Desi lesbian film circuit is Manan Katohora, with When Kiran Met Karen (WKMK), with newbies Chriselle Almeida and Kelli Holsopple playing the respective lead characters. My inbox has been flooded with mails titled, subtitled and signed off with JMD (Jai Mata Di)-invoking PR for the film. If you are a member of those International filmy Yahoo! Groups you’ll know what I’m talking about.

For the dummies, however, here’s a brief on WKMK.

The plot revolves around a popular Bollywood actress, who comes to New York. At her hotel she organizes for a press conference. This is where she meets a lesbian journalist. And the drama begins from here on.

The question is, whether the film will live up to the hype it has been creating, at least, in the American market. From whatever I have seen, this is what I think:

1. The good news is the storyline seems to deal with lesbianism as a normal way of life (at least Karen is an out lesbian) and focuses on bi-racial relationships.

2. The acting doesn't come across all that appealing. No offense, I understand it’s a first-time effort for most of the star cast and I also understand the director’s plight. He did have two ‘known’ faces, namely Perizaad Zorabian and Purva Bedi, bail out on him in the last minute. Hence Chriselle Almeida as Kiran.

3. The direction looked amateurish. But then a two-and-half-minute long promo video shouldn’t really be the judging platform either.

In an interview, Katohora mentions that the film is meant to bring out the nuances of coming out and the hypocrisy surrounding alternate sexuality. I quote:

“I think the movie will raise some good questions. How people have such shallow thinking. How we shouldn’t have a one track mind.”

Clearly the director has got his politics right, and, if we’re lucky, WKMK might just end up being a decent watch without too many stereotypes. All I hope is -

That we allow the film to be screened in our local theatres

That we don’t damn this film just because it doesn’t harp on the abala bharitya naari crap or turn out to be a semi-porn flick meant purely to titillate the (male) audience – something that Fire and Girlfriend, respectively, had done.

Here's a look at one of the promotional music videos from the film

Autotelism Versus "Unity of Art, Use and Beauty."

temporal — Thu, 3 Apr 2008 04:33:39 EDT

Deepti Lamba ends her short story Kindred Spirits with these words: "They wished the childhood abuse had never happened."

In the comments, I suggested the straight forward ending punch was too bare. Perhaps a less showing sentence hinting at the abysmal darkness and gloom could have been more effective in rousing the reader's imagination to the protagonists misfortunes.

Temple Stark had a different take and said: "I like the bluntness of the last line because it's (sic) subject is very blunt. You don't get mysterious about childhood abuse, it's a "show stopping" subject."

And Aditi Nadkarni added: "...like Temple said I too like the bluntness. I don't like poetry in matters like child abuse. It just doesn't sit right and does not deliver the shock it should."

There are as many ways to begin and end a tale as there are genres in writing. As a minor poet I try to play around with words and felt this sublime and powerful short story loses some of its charm when the punch line suddenly explodes towards the end. I also think a challenging O Henry ending could have carried greater finesse and punch.

Deepti had traced the subterranean path of the submarine and brought it nearer the reader. It rose from the depths of the protagonists' despair to very near the surface. Now what to do with the lurking submarine? Should it emerge gracefully out of the watery grave or tentatively shoot up?

The suspicion, fear and the latent guilt of the two protagonists that electrifies the narration throughout the story suddenly dissipates and fizzles from the story ending.

***

In 1935, in England a bunch of Indian Writers got together to launch Progressive Writer's Association. And in 1936, they founded the Indian Progressive Writer's Movement in Calcutta. Why this sudden switch from Dee's short story?

Because this leads to the unresolved argument of art for whose sake? The Progressives considered the primacy of objective above art. As a minor poet I have a different take. Art (broadly speaking) is inspiration meeting paper, canvas or another medium. It flows from the deeper innards and should not be intentionally subjugated to causes, ideals and whims no matter how deeply held or felt. Unobtrusive and unimpeded flow of art is overwhelming by itself.

L'art pour l'art - art for art's sake - divorced from any encumbrances such as morality, didactics, or messages should be the ultimate justification. The Greeks have a word for it Autotelism- (noun -belief that a work of art is an end in itself or its own justification.)

We have taken it into our heads that to write a poem simply for the poem's sake [...] and to acknowledge such to have been our design, would be to confess ourselves radically wanting in the true poetic dignity and force: — but the simple fact is that would we but permit ourselves to look into our own souls we should immediately there discover that under the sun there neither exists nor can exist any work more thoroughly dignified, more supremely noble, than this very poem, this poem per se, this poem which is a poem and nothing more, this poem written solely for the poem's sake. Poe, Edgar Allan (1850). The Poetic Principle.

In the 30s the Indian world was stirring to throw away the yolk of the flickering Raj. This period, sandwiched between the two wars proved to be conducive to the Progressives. Mushir Anwar in Sajjad Zaheer and Progressive Writers' Movement writes:

THAT literature will meet our criteria which has thought, passion for freedom, beauty, a constructive spirit, the light of life's realities; that moves, creates a turmoil and turbulence, makes us restless, does not put us to sleep since it would be akin to death if we sleep more. Thus Munshi Premchand defined the objectives of the Progressive Writers' Movement in his presidential address at the movement's first congress held in 1936. The standard bearer of this movement was Sajjad Zaheer, a scion of nobility who renounced the advantages of his birth to work for the cause of the downtrodden. Sajjad Zaheer saw in literature that force which could bring about a qualitative change in the life and thought of the people since it anticipated the profound and the deep unseen as well as the surface tensions springing from the font of ambition that not only make men dream but goad them to their realisation. But that in effect meant changing the aesthetics of art which some thought to be inflexible.

This is further refined in Progressive Movement and Urdu Poetry, where Ali Sardar Jafri says:

This Progressive Movement was a spectrum of different shades of political and literary opinions with Prem Chand, a confirmed believer in Gandhism at one end, and Sajjad Zaheer, a confirmed marxist, at the other end. In between them were various other shades including non-conformists, but every one of them interested in the freedom of the country and glory of literature.

And this captures the essence of the movement:

The basic and fundamental postulate of the Progressive Writers Movement is the unity of art, use and beauty. It is not a violent departure from the past or an angry revolt against tradition as such, although we did reject certain unhealthy and obscurantist trends. And that is how our path was new. What we tried to do was a reiteration of the values getting lost in modern commercial age, or distorted under the weight of the decaying social systems. It is a rediscovery with a new experience and consciousness, and new artistic additions giving fresh vigour to Urdu poetry and literature as a whole.

I viewed the Kindered Spirit from this perspective and felt the ending was "designed" and restrictive. It did not allow the soaring freedom to the reader's imagination.

Am I perhaps guilty of ignoring the message in the story? No. Deepti, Aditi, Temple, Jawahara and others who grace the pages of Desicritcs are a fine bunch of writers who know and practice their craft well. I just felt the ending could have been done differently.

But if that wish were to come true, then this story would straddle the mid ground between the Progressives and the Purists! Both will lose some and the reader stands to gain.

Movie Review: Jodhaa Akbar - Mystery Solved: Why There Was No Birbal?

Aditi Nadkarni — Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:49:52 EDT

Those who have read my movie reviews know of my unexplained aversion to commercial Hindi films....at least the plot-less, song sprinkled, melodramatic embarrassments that we have to watch dazzling at us from their lofty places on box office charts.

I now have developed significant and upsetting reactions to the Punjabi family of Bollywood, to the melodramatic unmarried uncle (Alok Nath), manic Papa (Anupam Kher), plump and cloying mummy-jis (Reema Lagoo, Farida Jalal), overtly shy, mature bahus (god, there are so many of them) and the immature and tomboyish damsels who continue to roller-skate in the house, eat unexplainable amounts of candy and pull kiddish pranks way into their twenties (usually the leading lady).

More about these characters "here" , but whatever. Since this is Bollywood's treatment of family dramas, I am all the more skeptical about how they would execute the period romances that require intricate detail. But this review is about the one film that I watched in the theater armed with my narrowest and most disapproving gaze and emerged not half as disappointed as I had expected to be.

If it hasn't been said enough, the visuals of Gowariker's Jodha-Akbar were breathtakingly beautiful. Aishwarya's couture stood out and so did Hrithik's brawn.

The actors did what they have always done. Aishwarya looked pretty and wept when she wasn't engaging in occasional bouts of hip-jutting sword duals. Hrithik flexed his biceps and fought wild elephants with his bare hands. Apart from a few notable performances such as Ila Arun as Maham Anga, this film was a director's feat and not really carried by any of the actors' performances. The director's sensitivity can be detected in scenes where the new bride cooks a feast for her husband, where a mother advises her daughter to pick death over humiliation, where a princess first earns her husband-to-be's respect by making known that her faith and beliefs warrant a non-negotiable place in her life and where a great king stands up for his wife and becomes a husband.

With Lagaan, director Ashutosh Gowarikar established that he could tell us a fascinating story, with Swades he demonstrated his prowess at weaving art into the escapist fabric of commercialism and now with Jodha Akbar he proves that he has the finesse to convey the delicacies of a love story.

The redundancy during every intimate scene in all the songs bare his weakest points and that somehow to me makes him seem like a better director than those who are brilliant at the choreography and love scenes but fail at the story-telling.

What is interesting to note is Gowariker's clever use of rich, warm colors that add to the cultural identity of each scene. He used this apparatus in Lagaan for the song "Radha Kaise Na Jale", did it again with Swades and Jodha Akbar is teeming with such cinematographic delights which underscore the cultural richness that a period romance would've been incomplete without. Gowarikar also uses a dash of unexpected humor especially in the Jodha-Akbar sword dual.

The art and creative direction is what truly gives this film its grandeur. The colors surround you and make the film worth watching in a theater rather than on a television screen. The orange and red hues with the dusky backdrop of the desert, the cackling fire set amidst colorful tents, the majestic pink forts and the glorious white robes light up the screen. A.R.Rahman as always delivers and while all his songs are catchy, the "Khwadja Mere Khwadja" number is sublime.

For those who criticized the film for its conspicuous lack of political detail and a sorely missing Birbal, I would just like to point out that the film is called "Jodha Akbar" and not "Akbar the Great" or "Akbar Birbal" or "Akbar and the Navratnas". Any focus on the navratnas or the presence of a witty Birbal would've, I strongly believe, pulled attention from the romance itself. Sure, Jodha's role could've been meatier, Ms.Rai could've sobbed less and Hrithik could've delivered his dialogs in a more believable tone without looking like he was going to sneeze each time.

My only major grouse was with the length of this film. This romance was about the cultural disparities between a couple that had an inter-religious marriage in a time when religious differences were probably more pronounced than they are in the present world.

The film showcased a husband-wife relationship and managed to include snippets of loyalty, trust, identity and respect that form the basis of a successful marriage.

It could've covered all those areas and been wrapped up in lesser time if we wouldn't have to watch Aishwarya riding a horse for ten long minutes only to then fall on Sujamal's chest and do what she does best...weep. We could always do without the classic "running to Krishna idol" scene whenever someone's life is in jeopardy and the listless stream of foreplay poses packed into a never-ending song. If Mr.Gowariker is reading, I would want him to know that with Lagan he changed the acceptable format of commercial cinema and no longer requires to stick to it.

But I am starting to make peace with these lost hours of my life that Bollywood devours and that I will never get back. I tell myself that directors have considerately made these lengthy inclusions just so I can have a samosa and still have time for a leisurely bathroom break.

...and that my friends is probably where Birbal went.