Desicritics Category: Media: Films - Hindi

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.

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

Movie Review: Road To Sangam - Best Gandhi Film I have seen

Pratyush Khaitan — Thu, 4 Feb 2010 18:56:05 EST

*this review contains no spoilers*

I went to watch Road to Sangam only knowing that it was a film with a connection with Gandhi and had won some awards. What transpired on the screen in the next 135 minutes changed my perception of Gandhi and changed me as a person. I am someone who did not regard Gandhi in the high esteem a lot of people regard him in. He, to me, was some one who was adamant and threatened the nation with his blackmails which were carried out promptly by his followers. What I did not understand was that it was the power of Gandhi's thoughts which made people act the way they did. It had reason, it had logic.

Coming to the film. We are given a rationale and the film makes a strong case for it. You almost start believing in the thinking behind it. Then, there is a slow process of change which is so slow and gradual. It is not some thing which happens right away or through a flash bulb of genius. It is realization in process. The way the change is shown is convincing enough for some one to believe in the Gandhian principle.

The film has many layers to it. It is a film which asks 'what defines Karma'. It is a film about holding upright the faith Gandhi showed in the muslims of India. It is a film about how a person be it a muslim or a person of any religion (or even an agnostic or atheist for that matter) should behave. That's the bigger picture.

Then the film touches on tough subjects like partition and the role of an Indian Muslim. Many layers and subjects touched, all given due space.

Paresh Rawal is excellent in the role of a man who works based on logic and is principled at the same time. I can't think of a better actor to carry out the role. The part of a Muslim from the state of Uttar Pradesh, perfect with the local accent, who has his own little mannerisms and characteristics is played perfectly. The facial expressions are not exaggerated. The lines are spoken with a calm balance about them, exactly how the character would say it.

The pace of the movie is neither fast, nor slow. It has it's own rhythm and flows rather than moves. The cinematography is excellent with aspects of small town India (the city Allahabad in this case) shown. There are panoramic views and then there is attention to detail. A man making aloo tikki is shown for instance to capture the flavour of the chaat which is so popular in small town India.

Coming to Gandhi films, I have seen quite a few. Gandhi was a great biographical sketch. Gandhi My Father shows the flaws of Gandhi - the father of his son. Lage Raho Munnabhai which was so popular tries to explain the Gandhi way of thinking and does a fair job of it. It has the bollywood masala mixed in it, was perfectly marketed and was a huge success. Gandhigiri became a trend. Sardar, again starring Paresh Rawal (as Sardar Patel), paints Gandhi as a principled, yet stubborn man whose will might have cost India There are umpteenth movies which are presented as documentaries on Gandhi, most of which are holistic. No movie portrays Gandhism, like Road To Sangam does. At least none I have seen.

The show I went for was almost canceled as only one other person showed up at the ticket counter. In the end, just five of us came to watch the movie which they did screen thankfully. One engineer who had studied from Allahabad itself remarked that Gandhism is dead as no one turned up for this movie. I remarked that Munnabhai was a huge success. So it is a marketing flaw and lack of funds which meant audiences didn't come to watch this film. There is another aspect to it. It isn't a masala flick like many other bollywood flicks or like Munnabhai. It is not boring in any way, mind.

I give the movie a perfect 10/10. Don't think it could have been made better.

I just hope more people see it. So go see it and spread the word!

Movie Review: 3 Idiots

Kaushik Chatterji — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:55:36 EST

Disclaimer: This review may be biased, given that this reviewer happens to be going through something eerily similar. Or maybe not - please ignore this and move on.

I really hate these kind of films. They have every ingredient in just the right measure, but not a bit more - so whether those tears are of khushi or of gham, you are never really sure (think Rang De Basanti). You can see shades of your favourite films from all over the globe in them. Shawshank Redemption springs to mind in this case for more than one reason, as does Dil Chahta Hai, among a host of others. You just wait for the moment which lets you point your finger at the screen and scream - 'A-ha! Plagiarism!' but sadly, that moment never arrives (remember Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, right?) - not for a frame can you accuse the makers of 'lifting' content here and form there, and even then they manage to ooze a style which is totally their own. If you take them literally, they seem to be giving out the wrong kind of message (think RDB, again). But above all, these are those rare films that successfully manage to balance cinematic brilliance without compromising an inch when it comes to mainstream appeal (and now, for one final time - think RDB).

The above list is not at all exhaustive - I am out of words. Yes, there are songs being actually sung by characters - but not only do they actually take the narrative forward (that's true in the case of every half-decent film nowadays), the situations actually seem vaguely believable, so much so that you can't possibly skip to the loo, my darlin'. Yes, the number of borderline unrealistic scenarios are possibly one too many for it to be passed off as a mere string of coincidences (and I say borderline because taken one at a time, they can happen) but given the target audience, such creative liberty is more than acceptable - and if you find this to be escapism, then that cynic within you needs to be put on a leash. Just think about this - when was the last time you heard such words during a cheesy rain-song-dance? When was an emergency delivery handled with such precision so as to actually make it seem real?

I read Five Point Someone 5 years ago and don't remember much of it except for the basic outline, so comparisons with the novel go out the window - although from what little I remember, the plot seemed fresh enough. R Madhavan and Sharman Joshi excel as Farhan and Raju, and for the first time in many, many blue moons, I have something positive to say about Kareena - she was good as Pia. Heck, praises are in order for everyone, be it Boman Irani as the khadoos director of the Imperial College of Engineering Viru, the rest of the cast or, for that matter, the entire music department - from the wordsmith Swanand Kirkire to the master composer Shantanu Moitra, with all the playback singers in between - Shaan, Sonu, Shreya, Suraj...hey, what's with the 'S' obsession? Ah, never mind - although I mussst mention that I didn't misss the lisssp (or whatever it is that this speech impediment is called) either.

And finally, the stars of the show. Mr. Rajkumar Hirani, take a bow! It is amazing how you are successfully able to sell genuine human goodness in this kalyug over and over again. If it takes 3 years for you to ensure perfection, then so be it - let Munnabhai not reach Amrika before 2012. And Aamir, please don't let hiccups like Ghajini ruin your average - you are so much more convincing as a twenty-something, and not at all so as a desi Hulk! But thanks to both of you - ever since 2007, many of us (including myself) had been hoping for a marriage between RDB and Lage Raho Munnabhai. And while comparisons are both inevitable as well as immaterial (and on a strictly personal note, absolutely inexcusable) - this is that big fat wedding. Do yourself a favour and go watch it NOW.

Movie Review: Paa - The Self-Absorbedness Of Bachchanalia

IdeaSmith — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:05:56 EST

HT Cafe's summary of Paa goes as follows:

Auro (Amitabh Bachchan) is an intelligent, witty 13-year-old boy with an extremely rare genetic defect that causes accelerated ageing. Mentally he is 13, but physically he looks five times older. He lives with his mother Vidya (Vidya Balan), who is a gynaecologist. Amol Arte (Abhishek Bachchan), is a progressive politician. Paa is the story about a father-son.

I should have read that summary thoroughly. Or perhaps, by some inspired stroke of genius, read only the last line. Because the only thing that's been on my mind, this past hour (I walked out of the hall roughly an hour ago), has been,

What was that movie about?

To be fair, I only focussed on the first two sentences of the description, which made me immediately think of another movie, more than a decade older - Robin Williams' Jack. That was a movie about a genetic condition, one that was almost Daliesque in how surreal the patient's life became. Robin Williams essayed the role of a 'regular boy with a body 4 times its age' to perfection.

That was the only thing that intrigued me about Paa. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that 'it's Bollywood so leave your brains behind'. This is the industry that has given us Iqbal , Prem Rog, Taare Zameen Pe, Amar Prem and Khamoshi (the 1969 one as well as the 1996 one). If you're wondering what the above have in common, they are all stories of people in difficult circumstances - social, mental and physical. All of these movies were mainstream cinema, they had commercial actors and they were portrayed realistically,boldly but also sensitively. And they all enjoyed varying degrees of commercial success as well.

I think it is quite fair to expect that the same industry provide good entertainment and if, a 'serious' topic is taken on, it be dealt with sensitivity, intelligence and maturity. Sadly I found none of the above in Paa.

To return to the story itself, was this a story about progeria? The introduction shows a lengthy description of the disease with some statistics thrown in and illustrated with photographs of victims to make the disease come alive, so to speak, for the audience. And then, abruptly there ceases to be any further mention of the problem, other than to provide convenient hiccups in the plot (a holiday on a whim, a 12-yr-old boy falling sick in the middle of the ground suddenly).

Meetu points out the over-simplification of various critical points in the movie:

Like the overall compassion with which people from all ages and backgrounds treat an abnormal child. Also, the social acceptance of an illegitimate child and his mother was a tad too uneasy to digest. It is obvious that these issues were intentionally left out of the equation to help focus on the characters and their relationships. But these issues are conspicuous by their absence.

Similarly, the whole comment on parents' complete disregard to anything creative as a source of living was in bad taste. A wee bit exaggerated it was, in order to get those extra laughs. Also, the maturity that 12-13 year olds show seems a bit beyond their age. The climax too seems a little too melodramatic compared to the tone of the rest of the film.

I agree with WOGMA's analysis as far as this. But it stops right there.

If the story wasn't supposed to be about the disease itself, then why bring it in? It seems contrived and hence insensitive to toss in a word like 'progeria' just to build up the intensity of the plot. Most of the movie revolves around Auro's relationship with Amol.

If then, the movie was supposed to be about the father-son relationship, then why not a regular child actor to play Auro?

I came out of Paa feeling like I had been subjected to the extremely self-absorbed whim of Amitabh Bachchan to play a 'different' role. Just the way I felt forced by Sanjay Leela Bansali to believe that making Black made him a 'sensitive' story-teller. Or for that matter, Madhur Bhandarkar for making Jail.

All of these reek of people trying too hard. My tweet-review elicited an immediate response from Bolly-blogger Sakshi, who asks me,

Why not AB?

The point is because he is not a 12-year-old boy with progeria. And more importantly, he didn't depict Auro to tell a story about the disease. It was an attempt at blatant self-glorification and it came off in bad taste.

Maybe, as Sakshi points out, he is a box-office success. But then so was Lata Mangeshkar. And it is also a fact that no other talent (not even her own sister Asha Bhosale) was permitted to flourish as long as Latatai ruled the roost. The distinction I'm making here is that there is no dearth of talent. But such self-promotional antics come across as crass and materialistic. Really, there's no need to mask all that under the garb of artistic greatness.

At the end of the movie I'm left with a feeling that I wasted 300 bucks and three hours of my time watching an extremely self-centered old man trying to prove that he has talent. Like decades of showcasing it and all the adulation of this country haven't been enough.

Bolly Saga: The Case Of The Missing Brain

Arundhati Thapar — Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:05:57 EST

As I sat watching the very somber moments in the movie Paa, I could hear a couple of sobs around me in the theatre. The atmosphere was generally muted, fraught with sympathy for the protagonist in the movie (namely AB) . And then, out of the blue, a chuckle escaped me...attracting a few angry glances. I said a sheepish 'sorry' and sank into my seat.

Right then! Granted there has been a massive improvement in the quality of movies doled out by bollywood in the last few years. But one thing that has remained consistent is the misplaced ideology surrounding how medical problems should be depicted. Giving rise to several very humorous moments.

The precise scene in Paa that caused me to lose the emotional flow of the movie is when Auro is in a hospital and suddenly becomes quite agitated. The doctor rushes in, puts a stethoscope to his chest and exclaims- he's had a stroke! As to how he reached that conclusion is completely beyond me...no one else has ever been able to do it, even after spending a lifetime in stroke research!

On the way back, another scene came to mind, from the recent release, Kurbaan. Now, I did enjoy the movie and in many ways, the subject treatment was above average. But remember the bit where Saif comes back after being hit by a bullet in a major police encounter? So, here's the diminutive Ms. Kapoor, at his side with a first aid box, hands trembling. Which is all very well. But then, she has a go...and...hold your breath...gouges the bullet out with eyebrow tweezers! Which of course was very considerately, floating just beneath the skin. She then stitches the impeccable wound with hand held suture (which I presume must be part of every first aid kit in the US just for such an event). And post surgery, everything is instantly well..and the macho Khan goes back to doing his fight sequences..come on guys! I don't expect you to put in hours researching trauma management, but at least something believable would be good. You don't have to be remotely connected to medicine to appreciate that you're being taken for a ride here...a little bit of common sense will do.

Anyway, I'm sure nothing in these movies will ever compare to our classic gems of yesteryears. One scene that instantly comes to mind, and I'm sure every bollywood fanatic will remember this, is from that mother of all blockbusters, Amar Akbar Anthony. Fabulous movie, bollywood drama at its epitome, immensely enjoyable. But then Nirupa Roy gets hit by a car, lands in a hospital where the gorgeous Nitu Singh is sitting at a desk pondering over cosmic events, while her bleeding patient lies in a bed next doors. The even more gorgeous (I always thought that, looking at this pair) Rishi Kapoor comes in for a casual chat, and she says 'arrey, tumhara blood bhi to wo negative wala hai na?' and straps him to a charpoy with a needle stuck to his arm. And then the wonder of all wonders happens......three people simultaneously strapped to giving sets, a common line leading to a bottle, and the collective blood being transfused into a, growing pinker every minute, NR. Of course, the other two people happen to be the other two lost sons...hilarious stuff. I can picture some poor hematologist throwing a major convulsion watching this...But then bollywood wouldn't be the same without some melodrama, tears, lost and found and major medical mishaps.

We've seen countless number of movies with identical twins, making you wonder if some extra-terrestrial intervention had caused the rate of identical twinning to suddenly jump up in India by a thousand percent? And then there are scores of movies with the sequence - hit his head, got amnesia, hit it again, got his memory back...Lovely! Or what about the ones where the old woman would lose her eyesight at some point in the movie, and in the climax squeal with delight - 'beta, mujhe sab kuchh nazar aa raha hai...' super lovely!

But, do you know which is the undoubted winner, and by a wide margin? It has got to be Clerk....now I'd forgive you all for a collective case of amnesia on this...it happens to be the most eminently forgettable movie of the last few decades...but a real gem if you consider the entertainment value.

And you've got to watch this clip I found on youtube (where else!):
Pitaji having a heart attack, greedy doctor refuses to come. So what do we do? Play patriotic songs of course. And lo and behold, Pitaji starts to stomp around throwing his arms around for special effect. Priceless! It defies not only medical science but common sense, sanity and all those tiny slivers of art and aesthetics that may have escaped unharmed in the rest of the movie.

All said and done, I remain a devout fan of bollywood. There is something quite endearing, even in the most naively shot sequences, something that appeals to the heart, provides an outlet for emotional outburst, lets us all cry and laugh at the same time and brings a touch of hilarity in otherwise glum surroundings. Long live bollywood.

(BTW, you are all welcome to add your own favourite to the list.)

Movie Review: Paa

Rakesh — Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:05:08 EST

"A Hindi movie about a kid with a rare disease wherein his body ages much faster than his age"; This synopsis would any day give me an idea about a melodramatic tissue fest and actually did turn me off even before I saw Paa. But I guess it was the lure of watching it on a huge screen under the winter sky was what made me go for it. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised. Giving credit to R. Balki, Paa is surprisingly humorous and witty, two adjectives that you’d never expect reading the synopsis. The last 30 minutes or so become a little melodramatic but it is still far from the regular sentimental over the top treatment that such a subject would get from any other director. In that sense, the movie is a winner.

The movie starts off with Jaya Bachchan narrating the titles and this got me real confused. I mean, what were those expressions; somewhere between giggling on an adult joke and trying to suppress the urge to go to the loo. ABCL seems to be hard selling their family package – Sign any two people in the family and the third comes as a guest appearance absolutely free.

Enter Amitabh as Auro and my fears of him being over the top were whisked away after watching him on screen for just ten minutes. It is a relief that he gives a constrained performance. He is obviously not as cute as his class mates (and is not supposed to be either) but the good part is that he’s not repelling and he sort of grows on you through the movie. I’m not sure however about his mannerisms and the way he bends his arms while walking. But overall, he doesn’t seem to overshadow the story and that is good in a way. The other good thing is that the movie is not only about Auro and his disease or what he goes through. The harsh parts of his life have been done away with. The movie is more about his innocence, his friends and the story of his parents and that is what helps it to be refreshing rather than tiresome. It is indeed wonderful that the story focuses on the bright moments in an otherwise supposedly hard life. The best parts of the movie however are not the ones by Amitabh. The take on the media, I thought, was very comical and especially, the character of Auro’s best friend Vishnu – He has the best (funniest) lines in the movie. Children are such natural actors, they don’t really have to worry about comic timing. I wish they had more screen time.

Unfortunately then, the story tries to get serious and the love story between Abhishek and Vidya Balan stretches for a tad too long. When you have to wait for the obvious ending, it really gets boring (especially when you’re not in the cozy cinema seats but in straight back chairs in a lawn). The music isn’t all that great and considering that it is by Illaiyaraaja, it is a huge disappointment.

R. Balakrishnan (R. Balki – the writer and director) comes across as a very mature film maker. His is a unique brand of subtle humour that stems from serious issues and situations; be it the age difference in Cheeni Kum or the rare condition of a little ‘old’ boy in Paa. His stories tend to be positive, always looking at the lighter side. I guess, that is what eventually saves Paa.

Movie Review: Kurbaan

Rakesh — Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:27:33 EST

I think this concept of the suave and sexy Muslim terrorist luring an unsuspecting demure damsel to further his ends of blowing up a few more people has been done to death now; and ya, even the premise of another Muslim coming to the rescue; Obviously. Kurbaan uses the clichéd modern day plot of Islamic terrorism against the US but then they throw in the love angle which is as absurd as Vinod Kambli in reality TV.

The problem begins with the very first shot. Saif and Kareena have been together for so long that no matter how hard they try to act like strangers; they come across as a couple having a love tiff. It took me a few minutes to realize that they actually were strangers in the movie. But a few coffees and an awkward smooch later, they are in love. But by this time, they actually look like they’re actors just pretending to be in love. I couldn’t really get it whether it was plain bad acting or it was me.

And then since you do not feel any love between them, you do not feel any pain when Kareena discovers that her handsome husband is a member of a terrorist sleeper cell, unlike Fanaa where the initial love story was so sweet that it was hard, not to feel sorry for Kajol. Throughout the rest of the movie, the director seems unsure whether Kareena loves him or loves him not. And given that Saif was playing a most wanted terrorist, how easily did he give up his objective of blowing up people for saving the girl whom he used to get to the US. The entire premise is so messed up, it doesn’t make any sense.

Saif and Kareena together sure make the hottest couple on and off screen and after the first few minutes, you do start appreciating Kareena’s new designer look and Saif’s royal lineage but if that’s what we wanted to see, we could pick-up any movie magazine and they’re splashed all over the pages like some bad curry stain. And Viveik Ouberoioiooio (why take chances) – man, he clearly is the most grating actor on screen; even more than John Abraham. (Yeah, now imagine how did the world survive Kaal). Simply put, he’s got a weird hairdo, zero acting skills, and expressions that resemble a toad. Add to that, he’s given brains of a toad (I’m really enjoying this) in the movie. He doesn’t call the police or the FBI when he gets information about suspects behind a bomb but in true 70s style, he goes after the terrorists himself… singlehandedly, infiltrates their group and comes out a winner. And oh ya, he does call the FBI at the end anyways.

Clichéd characters – all terrorists wear pathanis and their wives are Abaya adorning dumb figures; Clichéd dialogues – do people still argue about who is the real terrorist – US or the Taliban? Or how many people died in 9/11 vis-à-vis how many people died in Iraq?; Clichéd acting – the guys playing terrorists speak less and are always angry, the lady terrorist has a pashto accent. Actually this reminds me, what a misfit the Saif seemed in their group wearing Italian cut suits and smart ties.

So I guess, in spite of the screwed up review (if I could call it that), you do get the drift. Thankfully, it is now time for some seriously nice cinema. Dubai International Film Festival begins on 9th December.

Movie Review: Paa

Kaushik Chatterji — Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:41:48 EST

The plot of Paa is predictable, more so the end and especially if you have bothered to look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria">progeria on Wikipedia</a>. It has holes, is unbelievable in parts, sheds some unwanted light on unneeded details and can be, on the whole, termed inconsistent which, under normal circumstances and also given Balki, the writer-director's past track record (he seems to have a fetish for Big B in abnormal roles - remember Cheeni Kum?), is a perfect recipe for disaster. For some odd reason, Paa isn't one. While it isn't exactly a gem, it has just about enough going for it.

So Amitabh Bachchan is too tall even when it comes to fully grown adult roles. The camerawork need to be out of the world in order to be convincing - sadly, it's not. And those of you expecting to see some tricks out of Appu Raja's book (remember Kamal Hassan's dwarf act?) will be disappointed. Then we have the unnecessary political details that are conveniently forgotten later in the film, which might be considered by some as a blessing in disguise, given that the politico-media rhetoric is not well done at all (a dynamic young MP from Uttar Pradesh who happens to be from a political family which may or may not be holier than thou - surprise!)

Inclusion of some form of political commentary seems to have become a filmmaker's benchmark of sorts and Balki fails miserably on this count, since it is obvious he could not decide what he exactly wanted to portray - the rise, fall and subsequent rise of an over-idealistic Amol (Abhishek) all of which happens within a very short span of time, doubts regarding his father's wealth and thereby honesty (thus questioning the foundation of Abhishek's 'politics is not a dirty world') or a snapshot of the sleazy reality and the associated cynicism fuelled by the opportunistic media. Also, if strained personal equations take time to heal, public perception and the media's stance does not switch overnight either.

Then we have Vidya Balan - now here's another actress who looks gorgeous but cannot act to save her life. Worse, she chooses to reprise a role from a film which owes its success to the humour, not to her wooden act (I'm obviously talking about Hey Babyy here) - the angry, young and unforgiving single mother who will obviously relent at the very end. End result - she reaffirms the faith reposed in her by her critics. The latter part of the second half where she is required to emote and hams every time she tries to do so is a pain and takes away the good memories of the part leading up till then.

So what's good? Well, Amitabh owns! Leave alone the height issue, and what we have here is a gem of a performance - the make-up not only helped in disguising him, but also enabled him to deliver the dialogues in an almost perfect child-like accent (I say almost perfect because you just know that it is Mr. Bachchan - which is hardly surprising given that his is one of the most easily recognizable voices). Every scene with him in it, inevitably cracking a smart-alec comment or two, or behaving only like a schoolkid does is a gem, so much so that the second half seems to drag only because all the melodrama hardly ever gets Auro involved directly.

His weird dance might seem repetitive after a few times, but as far as Auro's wisecracks go, while a few of them may have been a bit too mature for a 13-year-old, most of them are the kind of things a middle school-goer would say - and it's the way that they're said that seals it. Abhishek, in spite of a somewhat weakly written and insufficient role, performs adequately, as do the supporting actors Paresh Rawal and especially Arundathi Nag as "Bum" (watch it to find out why). Overall, the first half is a breeze while the second half drags - and while the music is nice, the later songs seem to have been force-fed into the scheme of things - but that's alright.

Granted, that there are many chinks in the armour - and as a viewer, you should keep that in mind while you go watch this one. And go watch this one you should (exactly once, of course) if only to relive what we left behind way back on the platform of that unknown little station called 8th standard - an uncared-for piece of baggage full of silly jokes, laughter, mannerisms along, sadly, with our innocence.