Desicritics Category: Media: Films - Bollywood

Movie Review: Karthik Calling Karthik

Pratyush Khaitan — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:06:31 EST

Just about 15-20 people turned up for Karthik Calling Karthik. The multiplex I go to (Inox Swabhumi) has small crowds but this was sparse by even their standards. Every one is still catching up with My Name Is Khan or Three Idiots.

The movie itself was a bit of a disappointment though I didn't expect much. I looked forward to seeing Deepika Padukone in the unorthodox and brave style she usually portrays and Farhan Akhtar in his logical usual because I enjoy both these roles. Deepika was excellent in Love Aaj Kal and Farhan Akhtar was good in Luck By Chance. As much as I love Farhan Akhtar (I placed two of his films in Bollywood decade top 10), I think his acting is good without being close to great. And that's fine, you can't be great at every thing.

Coming to the movie. It had a pleasant first half and an excellent start to the second half. The grip and tension could not be maintained though. It felt like a slow drama evolving in front of you instead of a thriller like it should have been (in the same pace of Johny Gaddar). There was never a moment of pure brilliance or a shot taken which really enthralled you.

The songs except Lehrake Bhalkake were all ok tunes and even though I don't care much about songs, I expected more here. Ram Kapoor of Rakhi Ka Swayamwar fame was good in his role of Farhan Akhtar's boss. The mystery behind the movie was not very complex and I figured it out partially very early into the film. I am watching Teen Patti next and I expect it to be the better bet of the two this weekend.

6/10

Movie Review: Dharm - Unfairly Snubbed

Aditi Nadkarni — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:39:00 EST

Dharm, a Sanskrit word that for some means duty and for yet others signifies religion. We often hear this word used by religious preachers and at other times by leaders of political parties looking to pander to the majority Hindus in India. This term was heard when a mob needed some sort of a philosophy to bind them as they went about adhering to no scripture, driven by fury alone.

This film tells the story of Pandit Chaturvedi (Pankaj Kapur), a well-respected and stringent Hindu priest who adheres strictly to the writ words of Hindu scriptures. The pandit provides key religious advice to the families residing in the holy city of Benaras, at the banks of river Ganga. The touch of a low caste prompts him to bathe in the holy waters and his wife (Supriya Pathak) has to cleanse herself before she prepares his meals. Then one day an orphan left at their doorstep makes his way into their lives and warms the heart of the otherwise stoic and unyielding priest. Little Kartikeya grows up, his adoptive father's pet, performing religious rites, reciting verses alongside his beloved "babuji". His innocence remains untouched by the mounting communal discontent that occasionally disrupts into religious riots between Hindus and Muslims in the city. Amidst these tensions, Kartikeya's birth mother shows up to claim her son. As she walks into the pandit's door clad in a burkha, neighbors and patrons gather to watch, aghast. The boy is sent away with his Muslim birth mother in a heart wrenching scene, his cries are drowned in the enormity of the religious calamity that has fallen upon the priest's family for having adopted a Muslim child. The pandit's home is promptly cleansed, severe religious penances are performed and yet the priest's inner struggle continues, eating him up inside. He is torn between the love he feels for the child he sent away in a heartbeat and his duty towards the religion he represents. As the self-proclaimed protectors of Hinduism crazed with vendetta unleash violence through the city, this Hindu priest defies all that he has valued and reaches a revelation that changes not only his own life but of those that surround him and revere him.

When watching the film, the sensitivity with which each scene had been conducted immediately suggested the touch of a female director. Bhavana Talwar's handling of the characters is remarkable. She seems to have identified real people rather than characters for her film. Whether it be the staunch Pandit, his obedient wife or the child that tugs at your heartstrings, Talwar takes her time with each persona. Pankaj Kapur's performance is a testimony to the neglected and yet prodigious talent our film industry houses. An actor who has given us films like Ek Doctor Ki Maut and Ek Ruka Hua Faisla continues to loyally work in the shadow of a giant, the all consuming commercial film industry that allows little to no platform for performers like him. Hrishita Bhatt, stands out in the role of a young girl who falls in love with a foreigner seeking spiritual guidance under the tutelage of Pandit Chaturvedi.

This film is excruciatingly moving. It forces one to empathize with characters who in our every day lives we could never relate to. The religious discontent juxtaposed with the innocence of a child offers a stark contrast that leaves one emotionally and spiritually exhausted. The blood shed and the inciters of these harrowing incidents that swallow our cities are all revealed, their intentions, insecurities and motives scrutinized. The upholders of religion are exposed and so is the true character of those whose spiritual awakening finally leads us out of darkness. This film is not about the chaos that hatred leads us into but of the humanity that pulls us out of it, unscathed.

I found this film on Netflix after I searched for films starring Pankaj Kapur, one of my favorite actors who I have not seen since the Blue Umbrella. Having watched this film, I was so overcome with curiosity at never having heard about it before, that I did some quick online searches for it and found out what sounded like a joke, an April Fool's prank. How I was not aware of this blunder committed almost three years ago is beyond me. Apparently, this spectacular film about religious relations in India that is especially relevant in today's times was passed over as India's Oscar submission in favor of, get this, a mediocre film called Eklavya starring Amitabh Bachhan and Saif Ali Khan.

Eklavya had all the makings of a commercial film and a story with as many holes in it as Swiss cheese. It was a glossy entertainer with great cinematic visuals and the beautiful backdrop of Rajasthan and yet was most certainly not a moving film with a global appeal. All it had was an established and commercially viable star cast. Yet it beat out a film like Dharm which won our National Award and the Nargis Dutt Award for a film promoting national integration. It is even more shocking that our media and our audience does not create adequate hue and cry over such blatant unfairness by the subcommittee that decides the film that is submitted for an Oscar. In a film fraternity that goes weak in the knees at the mention of the name Bachhan, local awards are hard to come by for such films as well. In the year that Eklavya was sent in as India's official entry to the Oscars, brilliant films such as Dharm, Vanaja and Black Friday stood as major contenders and were duly ignored. I wonder how these filmmakers must feel when their masterpieces are dismissed in this manner by their peers in the arts and performance industry which should ideally define a haven for nurturing talent and relatively devoid of political corruptness. Who are these people on the committee that send out films on behalf of an entire nation? Year after year they send out stories, that to a foreign audience represents us Indians. I do not know enough about the process that goes into nominating a film for Oscar submission but the selection of films such as Heena, Jeans, Devdas and Eklavya would suggest that these members are not qualified to be making decisions about what kind of a film would be appreciated by a universal audience and that at times their decisions seem to be motivated by inexplicable political derivatives. Have of them watched an Oscar winning foreign film?

An Oscar may not define our successes in cinema, but the submission process and the errors, political gaffes or unscrupulous actions committed during the submission process sheds light on why the largest film industry in the world has still failed to make it's mark as far as world cinema is concerned. In Ek Doctor Ki Maut, Pankaj Kapur plays the role of a doctor who through years of hard work comes upon a major medical breakthrough. His elation at having made this groundbreaking discovery however is short lived when he realizes that his jealous and less talented peers have decided to snub him and are making every effort to ensure that he does not receive credit for his work, much like the committee that decided to ignore Talwar's superb effort.

My Name is Khan Mumbai Release - Free Speech or Free Market?

Ruchi — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:23:10 EST

The release of Shahrukh Khan's latest movie, My Name is Khan (MNIK) eclipsed all news for about a week. The biggest story in Saturday's newspapers was without doubt its enthusiastic reception. The story was covered on the front page, various back pages and of course, the op-eds. The general tone was celebratory and unanimously supportive of SRK. The act of watching a movie was extrapolated to taking a stand for independence and free speech. And SRK's refusal to apologize deemed heroic, the one act that would serve as a tipping point for restoring democracy in Mumbai against Shiv Sena's regressive xenophobia and hooliganism. A la, Rosa Parks if you will, whose refusal to give up her seat on the public bus sparked the civil rights movement.

The real story though is not about freedom of speech or democracy or Shiv Sena's violent jingoism. At the heart of this episode is good business - and a little demo of the shape of things to come in an increasingly neo-liberal India.

SRK is a consummate businessman expanding his financial interests from film actor to producer to television, panoramic endorsements and now privatized sport. In 2008, Newsweek named as one of the 50 most powerful people in the world, one of the only two from India (Sonia Gandhi being the other). Despite this, time and again when asked of his political opinions his stock response has been that he wants only to "make people smile". For an intelligent, informed individual with significant money and influence and an alleged believer and proponent of democracy to be so consistently and overtly apolitical has to be a calculated economic decision. In this light, his refusal to retract his IPL statement too has to be deemed a personal economic decision. And the consequences would only have been economic - the money lost due to its limited initial release in Mumbai (no one expected Sena's theater vandalism to extend to the movie goers), akin to the losses incurred by traders/shopkeepers when a political party calls for a bandh against some government policy or inaction.

And yet our national news rallied behind SRK with multiple sympathetic interviews, clips and broadcast of his vaguely messianic tweets. Rajdeep Sardesai, editor of CNN-IBN exhorted every Mumbaiker to "go watch MNIK in the theatres, its a small, but important way of taking a stand" and Barkha Dutt (NDTV) earnestly claimed that "im [sic] standing up for a belief". Mumbai government deployed over 21,000 policemen to guard theatres screening MNIK and preemptively arrested over 900 Shiv Sainiks. Nary a squeak from any of our news networks about this shocking display of state repression and targeting based on political affiliation.

For Shiv Sena, this was a calculated political move - the churlish actions of a regional political party with a fragmented support base after Raj Thackeray's defection. Putting this party in its place requires not Mumbaikers flocking to the theatres to watch MNIK but media blackout. A party of this small size can't rely only on its little official mouthpiece, "Saamna" and needs the media platform for survival. However, the lurching illogic of the Thackerays is good drama, which always translates to good TRPs.

Ratings were the primary interest, not freedom of speech or taking a collective stand against divisive/undemocratic intimidation. There have been numerous other instances of clamps on freedom of speech and nowhere near this kind of sustained coverage to drive public behavior. 94-year old Husain is in exile in Dubai. Taslima Nasrin was expelled from India in 2008. Deepa Mehta's movies, Fire and Water both came under Sena and other Hindu right-wingers' ire. While the above have the right to free speech in common with MNIK's release, they lack easy marketability. And easy marketing is at the heart of this campaign: the effortless connection with India's two loves, cricket and Bollywood, a media savvy celebrity, polarizing Pakistan, a comic book goon and the perception of participation by painless retweets and mere consumption. The Save Our Tiger campaign is another example of a high gloss initiative to distract the public. Yes, there are 1411 tigers left in India and urgent measures are required - but the real solution does not lie in citizen involvement as manifested by the campaign's entreaty of "speak up, blog, sms - every little bit counts". Each is completely useless to curb poaching and/or manage sanctuaries. Neither is tiger conservation hampered by lack of funds since even the allocated funds have not been completely utilized by many sanctuaries.

The real fight for freedom of speech and democracy is the fight against our desperate poverty. Yet there is frighteningly little focus and interest in governance, the prioritization and allocation of the country's resources for its people. And there are serious issues at stake. The Food Security Act (FSA) is on the anvil. What does the FSA say about India? There are people in our country who don't even have enough food for basic sustenance. That their numbers are so large that the States and Center have spent months trying to figure out eligibility criteria and a sharing arrangement that they can afford. We also have the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), which entitles each rural household hundred days of unskilled work at minimum wage. This Act is testimony to the fact that we've taken an entire people of our country and thrown them out of the economy. These two legislations go at the heart of democracy and what it means to live in a just and humane society; both are going through serious upheavals. However, what is the percentage of airtime and column space afforded to either? Even worse, why is there no national passion for them?

We need to reevaluate our national priorities. Arts and sports are the underpinnings of the country's culture, and integral to national consciousness. We should rightly be passionate and proud of both. However, mere consumption cannot drive culture. And we cannot claim to be proud Indians, yet ignore Bharat.

Shiv Sena vs An Actor

Priyank Chandra — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:34:25 EST

Shah Rukh Khan, a Bollywood actor spoke his mind, and a political party went berserk. A movie, My Name is Khan (MNIK) got a lot of attention and the media decided that unity in India had reached the brink of a complete breakdown at the hands of some goons.

While I certainly do not condone the actions of the Shiv Sainiks, I do believe that this controversy has more sides to it than the media has attempted to stuff down our throats.

When two countries are in conflict but not yet at war, the first step that most countries take is to impose a trade embargo. It is a natural step to take because the countries need to make a stand and hurt the other country in the only peaceful way possible.

In this context, not allowing Pakistani cricketers into our country to play a sports tournament is simply an embargo on the export of human labor. A trade embargo which is meant to prove a point. And this is really what Shiv Sena is demanding albeit in a rather disruptive manner. And it does make sense in a twisted sort of way.

Of course we had not 'not allowed' them. They were just not picked by teams who strategized keeping in mind a lot of factors other than brutal nationalism. A lot of business reasons culminated in an auction where the Pakistanis were not picked. It was basic economics at work, without the need for hyperbole or fervent hatred for a country that is our neighbour and the home of these talented cricketers.

The Pakistanis felt insulted, like the cool kids in school who weren't invited to the most happening party in town. Some people attempted to assuage the hurt because they felt bad that the cool kids felt bad. Now the cool kids came from a family that had a few murderers as distant relatives. So the defenders of morality and identity decided that the nice kid had to be punished, because you should not be nice to people who belong to a family that has criminals in it. And amidst all these analogies, let me remind you that all of this was about the game of cricket.

Sports holds a place in our hearts unlike any other source of entertainment. We place it on a pedestal where we search in it all the attributes we wish to exist in our society. We sometimes treat it as war, the players as gladiators who shall fight until there is conquest and defeat and sometimes as means to a greater end, an agent of hope and change, often over-exaggerated. We have complicated a meaningless form of entertainment by imbuing it with the idealistic notions of war and peace.

But in this controversy we have one other important point. Who are these Pakistani cricketers representing in this lucrative tournament? Certainly not Pakistan, but colorful clubs who are but abstract, and rather fuzzy identities that anyone could identify with. If the Pakistanis were not here as a representation of their glorious nation Pakistan, then who could deny them the moral right to play as long as the laws were not broken. It is like banning bearded men from boarding aircrafts because Osama Bin Laden has a long beard. Or almost like some Indians not allowing Australians into the country because some random Australian attacked an Indian. Oh wait! All of this is already happening.

Let me try to bring about the absurdity of generalization with another example. It is like believing that all Maharashtrians are liberal, intelligent philosophers who bring about social change because B. R. Ambedkar was a Marathi. And this has certainly been disproved by the MNS and Shiv Sena.

And my point is made. Shiv Sena had one good idea - trade embargo but they applied it in the wrong context using the wrong methods. The Bollywood star won this round by default, just muttering meaningless statements about how being nice does not make him unpatriotic, while the political parties screamed itself sore in an act of patriotism.

Indian society is a metaphor for the complexities that surround the concept of identity, and the future holds a lot more battles of this sort for us.

Movie Review: Ishqiya - Sex and Sensibilities

PH — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:13:44 EST

Abhishek Chaubey's Ishqiya opens with a shot that will rank among the most sensuous ones in Hindi cinema. The camera zooms in on a half asleep Krishna (Vidya Balan), as Rekha Bharadwaj's husky voice breaks into a couplet on the end of longing. The aesthetic here, as in much of Vishal Bharadwaj's work, is that of the finest Urdu poetry and literature. Indeed, the two male perspectives on love, personified by Babban (Arshad Warsi) and his Khaalujaan (Naseeruddin Shah), respectively mirror the majaazii (figurative/sensual) and haqiiqii (real/spiritual) layers of meaning in Urdu poetry, the name Krishna underscoring the bhakti element.

Babban's sexuality, then, is overtly carnal - he reads Hindi soft-porn, likes catchy numbers, frequents whorehouses, and plays peeping Tom on Krishna (though she knows this, and is simply seducing him). A line in the fly-by-night playfulness of word-czar Gulzar's penned to perfection Ibn-e-Batuta could well be a description of Babban: "uR uR aawe, daane chuge, uR jaawe chiRiyaa phurr" (the sparrow flies in, pecks at the grain, and flies off). It takes an actor of Arshad Warsi's cool and acumen to endear such a character to the audience.

Babban's Khalujaan, by contrast, is a man of refined sensibilities, an old-school romantic who cherishes the Hindi film melodies of Jaidev and Hemant Kumar. The closest he comes to voyeurism is listening in on Krishna's riyaaz. Krishna is something of a goddess to Khaalujaan; he even refers to her as "Krishnajii". His song is "dil to bacchaa hai jii", excellent in its composition (Bharadwaj's use of the accordion gives it that old world charm), its poetry ("saaree jawaanii qatraa ke kaaTii, peerii meN Takraa gaye haiN") and its filming (Chaubey's camera seeks out the beauty in simplicity, the girl on a bus, the cook chopping almonds in a dhaabaa - just the sort of imagery that proves that the Hindi film song can be a thing of beauty when it's done right). So when Khalujaan sees Krishna boogie woogie with Babban to a Mika Singh number, in Babban's clothes at that, it isn't just jealousy he feels; it's also the inevitable disillusionment of a romantic who has seen his ideals in tatters - Krishna's sacrilegious fall from grace. Naseeruddin Shah's finesse as an actor comes through in the expression of this disillusionment and loss on his face. How fitting that the very same tragedy of a hopeless romantic was writ large on the very same face, two mentor-generations ago, in the climax of Gulzar's Ijaazat!

This tug-of-war of sexualities, and its result, are reminiscent of a Manto short, wherein a civil servant's bourgeois double standards on sex prevent him from meeting the advances of a village belle, who is eventually whisked away for a roll in the hay by a truck driver with no such qualms. Like Manto, Chaubey, Bharadwaj and co-writer Sabrina Dhawan subvert Khalujaan's romanticism to expose his attraction to Krishna. "So your love is love, while mine is lust?" asks a justifiably indignant Babban - the haqiiqii is the majaazii, and attraction is attraction even when it's dressed up as poetry. Neither are the writer-trio content with fitting Krishna into one of the male moulds of Eros or Agape - she's a woman with a bit of both and some. When Khalujaan complains, "You can never tell if a woman is a houri or a whore", Krishna shoots back, "Who are you to call me names?"; and later quips to Babban, "(Khaalujaan) can't swallow the truth; it's stuck in his throat". From an iron-willed urban mother in Balki's Paa to an earthy seductress here, Vidya Balan emerges as the most intelligent actress in present day Hindi cinema.

The sexual politics play out in the UP hinterland where politics of another kind is prevalent. In a clever shift of perspective, we're shown how the city world must appear to those outside its privileges. "In the city, you pelt a mongrel with a stone, and hits a billionaire", we're told. Here, too, there is the Mantoesque use of sex (the S&M kind, no less) to expose the seamier side of respectable society. I've said this before but it bears repeating. Bharadwaj's cinema, and Chaubey's in his footsteps, is centered on characters who don't usually figure in the urban viewer's main stream of consciousness. That the proceedings are peppered with top notch humour is simply a result of the meticulous craftsmanship of Chaubey's team of writers. They're well aware of the serious business that comedy is. Sure, the idiomatic wit and the foul language get our laughs, but they also evoke empathy. Thus, unlike most Hindi films, here we're laughing with the characters not at them. In Ishqiya, Bhopalis with kohl-lined eyes aren't comic garnish (who can forget Jagdeep as Soormaa Bhopali ?); they're the dish itself.

In his production house, Vishal Bharadwaj has created an ecosystem where the stories of the dusty landscapes of villages and small towns tend to flourish. To tell such stories is, in itself, a political act. But to do so in a manner that the viewer also gets her money's worth of entertainment takes genius. The Hindi film viewer has for too long been held captive to the mindset that films are either meaningful or entertaining. Ishqiya reminds her that they can be both.

Five Films We Did Not Talk About In The Last Decade

Nishit — Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:46:16 EST

It's that time of the year again where people make lists of the best and the worst, especially about films. Add to it, it's 2009 and hence people get a chance to talk about the best-worst of the decade as well. There are already thousands lists out there about it, so I don't want to add it to the noise. Instead I'll talk about the movies that not only escaped aam junta's attention, but esteemed critics' as well. Movies that I think deserved better.

Haasil: Set mostly in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, this film will be talked about how politics mostly works in rural India from college politics to regional politics to one's personal life. Ironic as it may sound, so-called protagonists of the film, Jimmy Shergill and Hrishita Bhatt, are mere sidekicks. Dialect-based dialogues and witty one-liners are special highlights. Minor characters like Badrishankar Pandey, Inspector Tiwari, Jackson-wa leave their own imprints on this fabric. Most of all, the film will be remembered by power-packed performance from Irfan Khan. Irfan Khan's The Warrior may have won the BAFTA, but this is the role that'll be difficult to overtake even by the Khan himself.

Manorama Six Feet Under: I absolutely hate when any Hindi film-maker uses the word "inspired" loosely, when in fact his movie is straight lift or even frame-to-frame copy of another movie, Korean movies being the latest trend. Navdeep Singh, in the true sense, can use the word inspired. Based on Roman Polanski's classic Chinatown, Manorama is set in the desert state of Rajasthan. With all the elements that define noir cinema; double-cross, twists and turns to false identity; added with underplayed sincerity of Abhay Deol, makes a fitting tribute to the original movie.

Chameli: It'd have never struck me to cast Kareena Kapoor as the title character of the movie that is Chameli, but much to my surprise she plays out just fine. With backdrop of a rainy night, two strangers and soulful melodies (Total respect to Sunidhi Chauhan), Chameli manages to pull-off a superb fable of human emotions.

Hey Ram: No, it's not about the greatness of Mahatma Gandhi, nor it's about off-again-on-again plot to assassinate the father of the nation. Kamal Hassan, one of the most versatile actors of our times in the truest sense, in the role of Saket Ram talks about his partition riots induced, hatred-filled journey to the redemption. The film created curiosity for the wrong reasons (Kissing scene between Rani Mukherjee and Kamal Hassan) than it should have. This is the film that Atul Kulkarni and Shahrukh Khan can boast off in their resume, in spite of their supporting characters.

Zubeidaa: Zubeidaa was most likely Shyam Benegal's first mainstream movie, so critics did not feel the need to put it with Benegal's best of the works. Sad. In momentous role of her career, Karishma Kapoor, which won her the national award, plays the title character Zubeidaa with aplomb. Narrated as the series of memories by her estranged son, Riyaz(Rajit Kapoor), Zubeidaa goes through journey of a girl from her teenage effervescence to a trouble marriage to a queen of a falling empire ends with a quote from her son. आखिर माँ चाहती क्या थी? (What did the mother want after all?)

Obligatory honourable mentions: Waisa bhi hota hai - Part 2, Ek Chaalis ki last local, Aamir

It's Cool To Be Free

KG — Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:08:45 EST

Anonymity is a convenient mask- one which I've desperately sought since I can remember. There's a reassurance in it that's hard to shake aside- this belief that you can just be there in the background observing. And contrary to popular belief, it doesn't make you a follower.

Opinions matter. Even if they are mine. Even if they are in an anonymous blog which will be read by some, commented upon by none and then forgotten.

There are some actions that infuriate you into action. One was a police officer smiling mockingly when he walked out of court having escaped punishment for abetting in a young girl's suicide.

The other was tonight when I watched Uddhav Thackeray eloquently shrug his shoulders on NDTV's 9'O Clock news- in response to a question as to whether the release of My Name is Khan would pass unhindered.

It was an action that repeated tales that I want to believe that my generation has moved on from- the chasm of regionalism.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't find the Shiv Sena's rhetoric preposterous. I do- not only is it utterly reprehensible but also it strikes me as extremely lazy politics. Which is exactly why the Sena is in the state they are in today. Gone are the days when people were taken in by proclamations of nationalism and pride- it has been almost 63 years of independence- and let's face it- to me and my generation, freedom means a good deal more than empty words. Which is exactly why it is lazy. A true opposition would have taken advantage of the woeful apology of a government that is Maharashtra's and swept into power. On real issues which would've made more sense than stopping the screening of a film or calling Chidambaram the Home Minister of Pakistan- a statement so laughably juvenile that you wouldn't hear it even in a school level debate.

Even that is fine- everyone can say what they want. But when you use muscle power to stop the screening of a movie because it's actor has said something to annoy you, you need to take a good look at yourself. And coming from me and my ilk that really is something- we- who are so used to being steeped in cynicism that ideals are far from our thoughts. But even in a generation of cynics, this marks a new low. Open threats on national TV aren't my idea of democracy. Actually they shouldn't be anyone's idea of democracy.

Of course 'Bollywood' (I hate the term, hence the quote marks) has notoriously pandered to the whims of the Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray since- well forever. For some reason they've had a curious hold over the film business. Which in itself is disturbing, not to mention downright wrong. What riles me even more is not that they're against Valentine's Day or lesbianism (read Fire)- but the fact that they take it upon themselves to force that down everyone's throat. And tonight I sat watching amused, but mostly infuriated when the legal chief of the Shiv Sena says that the campaign against the movie is a 'movement' started by the 'people' and he could not guarantee what the 'people' would do when the movie released.

That's such a load of crap.

And they know it. They must be knowing it. Surely they aren't that self deluded to think that 'all people of the country' feel this way. And they're milking the issue for all it is worth. Which would be fine as long as they kept their hands in their pockets instead of on lathis and guns, and not calling up theatre owners threatening them with 'dire consequences' if the movie was screened.
And I've been accused of looking too much into history before- maybe it's a disease- but all this rhetoric about 'people's movement' and 'people's anger' was exactly how Herr Adolf began. Or Mugabe. Or any other dictator.

I'm no admirer of Shah Rukh Khan. But I must say that what he's said is admirable. Even if it is a ploy to sell his film. Even if all he wants to do is to be on the news and even if it is the 'in thing' to hate him- despite all those things, what he's said is admirable. I'm glad he's not going to apologize. I do not want an apology from the Thackerays either. They can say what they like- but coercion is just not done. And the Tiger of the Sena Bal Thackeray should realise he's actually being a mouse. This is the behaviour of cowards not leaders. Cowards who want to cling on to something rather than face oblivion.

The whole question of identity is curious. I am from Karnataka, born in Andhra Pradesh, schooled in Maharashtra, now in Karnataka. And I'm a Hindu and it has been so incidental. I've had-er- have wonderful friends who are Christians, a rather special half Muslim friend and it's never made one bit of difference. And yes I've loathed certain people who happen to be Muslim but not because of it- they were just gutter rats who happened to be Muslim.

Which is why I don't get the Sena appeasement by the likes of even Amitabh Bachchan what with him organising private screenings from the self proclaimed 'Tiger'. Shouldn't he have taken a stand against this war mongering? And when asked as much by Barkha Dutt, a visibly squirming Jaya Bachchan said 'the film industry stands together in a national crisis.' Which implies of course that this isn't one. (More on that here http://blogs.widescreenjournal.org/?p=1806)

And yes, I've been called too liberal although I'm not sure I understand that. It is like saying 'too free'- one is either free or not. Can you be free one day and enslaved the next? One is either liberal or one is not- you cannot grade freedom or liberalism. But the difference is that liberalism is a choice I've made. Freedom isn't- we ARE a free country whether you like it or not.

And that's something.

Movie Review: Ishqiya - A Cinematic Treat

Ankur Bhatia — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:28:07 EST

Out of all the feelings people have in the world, love is easily the most unpredictable. Ishqiya also follows the path of love rather unpredictably. It starts of with Vidya lying on the bed humming 'Ab mujhe koi' sung beautifully by Rekha Bhardwaj, the camera pans to her face and and at that very moment you know you are watching something special.

Arshad and Nasseruddin play small time crooks who are on the run with a loot and end up taking shelter from Vidya Balan who is the wife of one of their friend. What follows is a tale of love, seduction, suspense and thrill driven beautifully by exceptional performances by the three main leads. Nasseruddin Shah as Khaalujaan is sweet, caring and romantic in contrast to Arshad Warsi who is boyish, flirty and cocky. Vidya is one of the unpredictable elments in the film (the other being the story itself). She is vulnerable and seductive yet over powering. She gives another powerhouse performance after Paa and it is easily her finest work.

Abhishek Chaubey shows lot of skill as first time director handling scenes with utmost care. The scene where Khaalu looks through the window to Vidya singing is beautifully done. The camera captures the eyes and the subtle smile on Khaalu's face with perfection. Another scene where Chaubey is superb is the kissing scene between Arshad and Vidya. There is love, seduction and tension in the scene and it is depicted beautifully. Still, the movie bears a clear mark of Chaubey's mentor Vishal Bhardwaj in style and sensibility. Vishal Bhardwaj leaves a big stamp with his witty and rustic dialogue. Dialogues are the life of this film along with the music again composed by Vishal. The timing of the original compositions and old SD Burman and Hemant Kumar classics is just perfect. Vishal uses the music as a way of expressing what the characters are going through and does a top notch job.

On the whole, Ishqiya is a great ride which delivers on almost all fronts. Watch it for the fine performances, quirky dialogues and just as a great piece of cinema. Only a "Sulphate" would want to miss this one.

Rating - 4/5

Phir Mile Sur or Frivolous Mile Sur?

sufferingsocrates — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:13:19 EST

India celebrated its 60th Republic Day yesterday. A moment every Indian, including I, am proud of. India is expressing itself on the global stage, and Indians are becoming confident, self-assured and assertive, all in a positive sense. Perhaps its this freedom of expression that is running deep in all of India. Especially it would seem, among the emboldened and influential television medium.

This Republic Day was more remembered for the spiced and hyped Phir Mile Sur, a rehash of the 1988 original version by Doordarshan. Spiced, because of a skimpily clad Deepika Padukone and banyan clad Salman Khan amongst other Bollywood celebrities (even Karan Johar found a place!), and hyped because it was apparently 'released' by Amitabh Bacchan. Now, what bemuses me no end is what do these esteemed figures stand for? Are they the epitome of Indian patriotism or Indian achievements?

I wish I weren't cynical. But the way the new Phir Mile Sur has been done up, looks very botched, annoyingly long and at times even ridiculous. It looks more like a marketing gimmick to win TRPs for Zoom television. It was good old Doordarshan days which brought about the original Mile Sur Mera Tumhara (see original below). Zoom has been one of the gossip channels promoting everything from Bollywood to Bollywood (pun intended).

In the guise of a fresh new look for an amazingly original and endearing Mile Sur Mera of the 1980s, the new version has been launched with so much of Bollywood emphasis that the Olympics medal winners have been pushed to the very end of the music video. I wonder what is it that Bollywood has done to represent India, unlike Olympic Champions like Abhinav Bindra? Even in the new Mile Sur Mera, Salman has no qualms appearing in his vest. I am thankful he didn't remove it to show his true patriotic colors!

When A.R. Rehman re-created Vande Mataram in 1997, it was truly a magical rendering which was soulful, fresh and pleasing to the eyes. Rehman had re-done the tunes of the original song, and his mastery was clearly on display. Sadly for Phir Mile Sur, neither is it original, nor does the video look pleasing on the eyes. The music tries to retain the original Mile Sur Mera tune, with traditional music and tunes, but keeps losing track and gets completely boring at over 15 minutes. For me, personally the music and the video look more like an advertisement for Bollywood to promote its patriotic self, and what better a platform than Zoom TV?

Come to think of it, the media seems to be playing the devil's advocate. Times of India promoted Aman Ki Asha, as if this was the only hope left for India and Pakistan. It ran ads and then a music concert to promote its idea of a peaceful neighborhood with Pakistan. While the intentions are right, I can't think of one reason why patriotism would be etched in the minds of those who come to music concerts. Yet again, a hypocritical approach to promote patriotism while on its own channel, accusations from and to India and Pakistan are made literally everyday. I wish there was an Aman Ki Asha mission for these debates.

All said and done, the true sense of spreading patriotism can only come from those who have represented the nation. It can certainly not be celebrities who only want to market their own brand and themselves. They can be enablers for the mission, but cannot be the mission itself. It is sportsmen, and most importantly the politicians and ministers themselves who should go around promoting patriotism. It is important for people to feel that they should be as patriotic as their leaders or sportsmen, not be dreaming about acting patriotism for a music video.

You may now ask if I liked the original Mile Sur Mera. Of course I did, because it was pure, original and very well done. The message and the music was short and crisp. There was no attempt to forcefully include all major Bollywood celebrities individually. Sickeningly, the new Mile Sur does just that, and is very much in the face. It is unfortunate that patriotism has gone into the hands of privately owned channels unlike the fading Doordarshan which created the Mile Sur magic. I wonder where is Shiv Sena to protest the skimpily clad Deepika Padukone in Phir Mile Sur now.

The original:

Movie Review: 3 Idiots

Lomi — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:41:52 EST

I was very lucky to get hold of a movie ticket to this movie for almost the first day first show (actually it was second day). The reasons were obviously Aamir and Hirani. Both of them haven’t delivered a flop or a dud at box office for a very long time. I knew the perfectionist that Aamir and the entertainer that Hirani is, this movie is sure to be engrossing if not fulfilling. I have to say that I was more than happy with the outcome of the movie. It was natural, soft and last but not least touching.

The Movie started in all too familiar way of a search for a person. It is not uncommon in Hindi cinema to search for a person. But the difference here in was not the search component but the person they were searching was quite different from any normal person. Well the name itself was very different Ranchoddas Shaymaldas Chajaad. This guy was not either the typical Hindi romantic hero or even the typical action Hero that we come across in each and every Hindi cinema. He was sensible, charismatic, entertaining and also very joyful character. Well I have to say that Aamir fitted in perfectly into this role and it didn’t seem odd at all that a forty plus person was playing a college student.

The other characters in this movie also contribute equally and make a difference to the overall feel of the movie. The work of Sharman Joshi and Madhavan from RDB fame was expected to be good but what caught everyone the most attention and also the real surprise component in this movie was Chatur character. He was well suited to his character and made everyone in the theater to laugh his heart out. His Balatkar scene and his atypical Hindi accent were all the more good moments of the movie. The scene where Chatur impresses the most is when he reminds Madhavan and Sharman of the oath that he took of revenge and here he is delivering a perfect kickback. It sounded too childish and laughable but to think of it that is how a normal elite student of a premium institutes pit against each other nowadays. It is childish for us but that is the dirty world out there in those premium institutes.

The theme of the movie is very much coherent with Taare Zameen Par and the script of the Movie also had the feel of Munnabhai. The difference was the delivery of the whole package by different character with different story, screenplay and direction. The Movie is sure to be loved at first shot by everyone and may be people will not mind spending some more on the repeat viewing too. It is already breaking Sholay records and looks like becoming the all time favorite of Hindi cinema. Even then this Movie had certain shortcomings which needed to be addressed like for example not everyone will be as successful as Madhavan’s character if he goes away from the prescribed path. One example could be the US where every person has the maximum freedom that one can actually wish to have and you now have US president requesting his people to concentrate on Science and Maths. Well in a country like India it becomes doubly difficult to cross the paths.

Kareena Kappor did not have much to do in this Movie and it seemed more of a small role for her and Boman Irani’s character was again like his Munnabhai role where he was the same strict principal albeit in a engineering school. The NASA pencil scene and Balatkar scene is something we have heard of in our emails and school jokes yet it seemed different when it was put in as a movie scene. Javed Jaffrey’s brief stint was a nice gripping moment before interval but unexpectedly he just withers away after the interval.

The music didn’t seem all that great on TV and CD players but when seen in the context of the story and script, it seemed to make the cut. “Give me some sunshine” song had a nice feelings attached to it and seemed to cut across many people’s college days. Aamir’s courage in dealing with sensitive issues like student suicides, Indian education system, youth power, crossing new bridges are positive moments of the Movie. Overall this Movie felt like a complete package of message, music, masala (pregnant scene), sentiment and some non hand fights (between Aamir and Irani).