Film & Book Club

Lyricism and Drama in Pather Panchali

2011-10-13T16:12:00.004+05:30

Pather Panchali, inspite of its stark depiction of extreme poverty is never morbid. Nor is it ever dull. And the reason for this is its lyrical treatment of the beauty of rural Bengal, and its dramatic and humourous interludes. The director takes care to show that even midst severe deprivation, life can be intensely enjoyable, and that love can add sparkle to the most humdrum existence.

Pastoral Lyricism

Durga is introduced through a long shot. We barely catch a glimpse of her as she scampers off. She skips through the bamboo grove, almost like a spirit of the grove, one with nature,as she hides behind a lotus leaf, peering surreptitiously at her mother. The background score, lilting and sweet, establishes the lyrical nature of the film. The music underscores Durga’s carefree nature.

The next time Durga appears as a child of nature, she is older and now a didi. Apu, she and the dog follow the sweet-seller through the village. As they pass the pond, their reflection merges with that of the trees on the embankment. A wind ripples through the pond. They traverse through fields, a composite trio, scattering the ducks that flock around the arched gateway of sejo-thakrun’s house.

A dusk sequence best illustrates the lyrical quality of the film. As dusk falls, the cows come home.Women in the village pay obeisance to the tulsi; the camera tracks to Harihar and Apu studying under the light of the lamp. Indir tries stitching together her threadbare shawl. Sarbojaya ties Durga’s hair. And then...Apu asks Durga about the train. The entire sequence showcases the quiet harmony that settles down on a village household once night falls.

Indir singing a bhajan in the hushed stillness of the night is another poignant moment of lyrical beauty.

Lyricism in the film reaches a climax in the rain sequence. First there is the roll of thunder, followed by a rapidly darkening sky. Banana leaves start swaying the in the breeze. Apu rushes home to fling his books through the window and race out into the open fields. Lotus leaves start dancing in the pond. The first drop of rain falls on the bald pate of a man who had dozed off while fishing in the pond. This is immediately followed by a rapid pitter-patter of raindrops on the pond. We see the dog running home and shaking himself dry. In direct contrast Durga rushes outside and revels getting drenched to her skin. Soon the rain comes down in a torrential downpour. Brother and sister huddle together under the tree. Sarbojaya returns home and on the sly picks up a coconut that had fallen to the ground in the rain (ironical since she had repeatedly rebuked her daughter for the very same act). The sequence communicates solely through visuals and Ravi Shankar's background score, based on raga Desh.

Love

Durga and her old pishi Indir, share a most deep, abiding love that defies threats of severe disciplining by Sarbojaya. Durga steals for her pishi because she knows her mother grudges her any extra delicacies from the kitchen store. The warmth of the smile that lights up pishi’s face when she discovers the guava that Durga has got for her envelops the little girl. When pishi has a hearty meal, Durga watches her with a quiet contentment. There is so much unspoken camaraderie between the two, seen most when pishi rushes to defend Durga from her mother’s blows.

When pishi returns the first time, after a quarrel with Sarbojaya, Durga keeps Pishi’s belongings in her room with a proprietary air about her. Pishi is back where she belongs. Pishi and Durga are a pair, communicated visually as two faces framed together as pishi looks down at her new born nephew. When Sarbojaya beats up Durga and throws her out of the house, it is pishi who gathers the useless baubles that lie scattered on the floor, all of Durga’s worldly possessions.

Ranu, of the Mukherjee household, and Durga’s friend lights up Durga’s life with her sweetness and compassion. She never begrudges Durga a tasty titbit and acts peacemaker when the children start squabbling at the picnic. When she gets married, Durga weeps at losing her closest friend. Her bond with Durga is the only close relationship that Durga has with someone of her age. Her other two closest relationships are separated by considerable years; one with Apu, and the other with the doddering Indir.

Drama

The first scene begins with a theft; minor no doubt, but it generates sufficient drama. The wealthy and irate sejo-thakrun tries to intercept the little thief but fails.The object stolen is a guava, which will bring such joy to Indir Pishi, but will eventually lead up to the confrontation scene between Sejo-thakrun and Sarbojaya, climaxing in the terrifying thrashing that Durga receives from her mother.
The scene in which Durga is dragged by her hair and beaten for stealing begins with a most dramatic entry. Apu is playing with his bow and arrow. His arrow falls near the main door. As he runs to pick it up the door is violently pushed open and sejo-thakrun is framed by the door. The impact is almost menacing – as if an ogre is about to descend on the peaceful inhabitants of this hut. Sarbojaya’s anger at Durga is particularly frightening because it is such a cold fury. Each person’s response to her fury makes the scene all the more dramatic. Durga cowers in fear and pain; Indir hobbles across desperately trying to protect her niece from the merciless blows that are raining down on her; Apu watches numb with terror. After Durga is thrown out, Indir quietly gathers Durga’s baubles lying scattered on the ground, giving us a much needed breather, a lull after the storm has blown over.
Interestingly the incident of stealing the fruit, introduced so early in the film, is also a critical plot point. Other than Hariharan’s uncertain employment, it is Durga’s reputation as a thief that causes the most upheavals in the story. It is what causes Sarbojaya to drive out the old and frail Inder from her house, for it is she, so feels Sarbojoya, who is corrupting her daughter. The movie ends with Apu discovering the necklace Durga had been accusing of stealing. An innocent,childish act of wanting to possess someone’s else’s pretty trinket, but it bookends the film as it were: the film started with Durga being accused of theft; it ends with Apu, and with him, us, the audience discovering, that Durga is indeed what the nasty sejo-thakrun had accused her of being, a petty thief.
A recurring motif in the film is one of the thrill of discovery. Whether it be Durga’s little treasure troves, or Durga prying Apu’s eyes open through a tear in the sheet,or the most magical of them all, the wonder of a train whistling and chugging along through a field full of kaash phool, the joy of discovery casts a veil of romanticism over the lives of Durga, Apu and their old pishi. Durga’s various hidden treasures are shot in a manner that make them appear mysterious. Whether it be her pishi’s earthen bowl, or the recess in which she hides the kittens or the coconut shell, each of them reveal their secrets with a heightened sense of drama. The earthen bowl just holds a few bananas and a guava, but the camera dwells on its dark, cavernous interiors, piquing our interest and curiosity – what was it about to reveal!

When Durga peers into the earthern jar, in which she had kept the kittens, there is an extreme close up of her face. We don’t see what it is she is smiling at.When she pulls out the kittens, for a moment one fears she might be nursing something dangerous. Would she be pulling out snakes from within the dark, humid earthen jar tucked away in the corner of the garden patch? As she brings out the kittens, the sky is projected in the background, a perfectly poetic pastoral composition– child, animal, nature, in one tightly shot frame.
The first shot of the grown up Apu is through the tear in the bedsheet. We see only his one eye first and then when Durga tickles him and pulls away the sheet, the bright, fully awake face of the young Apu. This time the discovery is the audience’s alone-we wonder what the older Apu looks like; our curiosity is aroused by the close up of that single eye and then in a swift movement, Apu isrevealed!
Again when Durga hears the sweet-seller’s bell, she peers out of a hole in the wall. Yet again there is a treasure waiting to be discovered, this time delicious savouries hidden in his matka. The framing of the shot, seen through Durga’s point of view, through the hole in the walls conveys the sense of the treasure being just out of reach.

Train scene

In Act I, Durga and her pishi are accomplices in crime, enjoying the joys of forbidden fruit! In Act 2, Apu replaces pishi as Durga’s co-conspirator. Together they lick some tamarind paste, prepared in secrecy by Durga. Their many surreptitious escapades break the monotony of their otherwise humdrum lives. Thus, they trail the sweet-seller, through the bamboo grove, across the fields and the village pond, right up to the sejo-thakrun’s mansion, another day well-spent for they end up getting a free sweet and get to play with their friends in the mansion. Their most exciting adventure is the day spent in the fields when the spot the train for the first time. In the story-telling scene, all three, pishi, Durga and Apu escape together to an imaginary world of princes and demons, pishi’s shadow looming ominously over them, while she whispers the story to them in exaggerated, conspiratorial over tones.

The rhythm of the film is slow, with deliberate long pauses, but it never sinks into dullness for Ray interjects joyous rapid activities to dispel any feeling of torpor. One such scene is when Durga chases Apu for stealing her tinsel paper to make himself a crown. In and out they weave out of the broken-down wall, each outsmarting the other, until Durga finally catches Apu and hits him. To teach him a lesson she runs off into the fields, leaving him behind. Not being able to bear the thought of losing his closest companion, Apu runs after his sister.Another scene of similar sprightliness is the bioscope scene in which the children crowd round the bioscope man to see the wonders of India.

Indir’s comings and goings mark moments of heightened emotional drama in the story. The first time she leaves, it is because Sarbojaya accuses her of spoiling her daughter.She returns to celebrate the birth of her nephew, Apu. The second time she leaves it is because of another scathing verbal onslaught by Sarbajoya who resents that Indir had begged a shawl from her other relative. Couldn’t she have waited until her nephew got her one, she rebukes Indir? Did she care only about her own comforts? The third time she returns, it is to die. She begs for a place to rest her tired, ailing bones.Sarbojaya turns her out of the house. Indir dies all alone, without a soul to ease her intense discomfort as she takes her last gasp of breath.
Durga discovering her dead aunt is one of the most dramatic moments in the film, more so because it contrasts so strikingly with the preceding scene, the train scene. The train scene is magnificent – larger than life, both visually and aurally, beyond comprehension to the children. Indir’s death scene is very intimate and after the thundering of the train, very still and silent, and yet it is equally dramatic in its impact. Durga thinks her aunt has fallen asleep in the bamboo grove. She shakes her gently and then more vigorously. The audience waits with baited breath – at which moment would Durga realize her beloved pishi was no more? Indir falls with a thud on the ground. Her water pitcher, her only constant worldly possession, other than the tattered mattress she carried with her everywhere, rolls off the grove and drifts away into the pond. A beautifully composed scene that combines drama, lyricism and symbolism, an example of how Ray weaves magic around his scenarios.

Humour

Gentle humour interlaces and uplifts the sombre mood of the film. Instances such as:

When Indir leaves in a huff she quickly gathers her meager belongings and throws them out of her room. They land in a heap on a hapless little kitten who is squashed under the onslaught of her wounded pride and self-esteem.
Pishi's shadow looming over the walls, with her silhouette showing her hooked nose blown up in exaggerated proportion.
The grocery-cum-local teacher who petrifies his students but is comical in his appearance
The three old men who listen with rapt attention to the wedding band at Mukherjee's residence. Each of their faces are so marvellously mobile! One old man is voluble and over-excited. The second is toothless and opens his mouth wide to shout out “what? What?” The third nods sagaciously.His physiognomy is so in keeping with his wise, patient nodding.

Though Aparajito is considered a greater film, my personal favourite is Pather Panchali. Aparajito lacks the myriad hues of Pather Panchali. The lyricism of the beauty of rural Bengal, the joy of discovery and the poignancy of unrestrained love among children and sorrow that is mitigated by the innocent forgetfulness of childhood, all this makes Pather Panchali linger on in our minds and hearts, long after the film has ceased to play.

Satyajit Ray's Nayak. A scene by scene analysis

2011-09-21T13:53:00.014+05:30

Year: 1966
Credit sequence: bars, symbolizing the actor being caged by his own stardom, with silhouette of head superimposed on the bars. The sequence ends with the bars moving away and a close up of the head. We do not see the person’s face for the next few shots.

Scene 1: The first scene is packed with details. As a point of entry it establishes the actor’s stature (he is being felicitated by a prestigious award by the government); the dramatic situation – he will be sharing his coupe with strangers because he couldn’t get flight tickets and his manager wasn’t able to book a separate coupe for him. Immediately we can anticipate the drama – a superstar in close proximity with the public, for the entire length of the journey. Other details established, each of which serves as an important plot point later in the film:

• He says he will pop in some sleeping pills. A “plant” which is paid off later when we see him having frequent nightmares. He can’t sleep without medication
• He takes out some loose wads of cash. The cash is staked in a briefcase. Quite obviously “black money” – a comment on the film industry. Also a “plant” which is paid off in the first nightmare sequence in which he wades through mounds of cash.
• He enquires about the box office opening of his latest movie. Told not too favourable. “Plant” which is paid off subsequently in the frequent references to his market value while conversing with the Sharmilla Tagore character. He is constantly worrying about what if his bajarer dor pore jaye (his films flop and his market value vanishes). Which is why he is initially reluctant to give an interview to Sharmilla – stars should remain an enigma. Which is why he asks her what she thought would be the fate of his latest movie. Which is why he remembers the yesteryear star Mukund Lahiri who came down to begging for the role of a durwan.
• His manager says times are changing – what was there in his latest movie that hadn’t been seen before. The Nayak retorts “I am there. Isn’t that enough!” This foreshadows the cliché he has become. What his mentor Shankar da had warned him about – that films were more about commerce and the mirage of glamourous trappings and less about the art of acting.
• Uttam Kumar thrusts the news report about his late night brawl before his manager. A “plant” which is paid off in the flashback about the actress who is involved in the brawl. She is blatant about her desire to become an actress and is even more forward in her willingness to do what it takes to get that role. Remembering how easily he was ensnared and how ugly the affair had turned into, he downs an entire whisky bottle. Drunk, and, to his fellow passengers, now the image of the proverbial immoral filmy personality, he bares his fangs. He is as rotten as they all imagine him to be.

Scene 2: Marwari producer who tries to lure Arindam Mukherjee, the hero, with an advance payment.

Scene 3: Linked directly to first scene. The lady who caused the brawl rings up. From phone conversation we can deduce the two are intimate, and probably in an illicit relationship (close up of cigarette smoke, dark glasses – signifying something murky in the relationship).
From the moment Arindam (Uttam Kumar) boards the train, all the secondary characters who are to play critical parts in the plot are introduced in rapid succession. The characters have been carefully chosen. Some are ardent fans (Mrs Bose, her daughter Bulbul, Sefalika (Sharmila Tagore’s travelling companion); others are vociferous critics (Haren Bose, Chatterjee) and cynics (Aditi Sengupta or Sharmilla Tagore). One (Molly Sarkar) is an aspiring actress on the rebound, as it were! Fans, critics, aspiring actresses, the people Arindam meets on the train are a slice out of Arindam’s life – the kind of people who make him who he is, the people who adore him and make him the star he is; those who make him realize his inadequacies by criticizing his acting and those who throw themselves at him, begging for a foothold in the film industry.

Scene 4: Haren Bose, the rich industrialist introduced.

Scene 5: Pritish Sarkar, the advertising professional and his wife, Molly, introduced. Sarkar informs his wife that Haren Bose’s company had an advertising budget of five lakhs. Should he succeed in pitching himself successfully, he could be made for life. An account as big as Haren Bose was every advertising company’s dream.

Scene 6: Arindam boards the train.

Scene 7: Arindam is informed his coupe has Chatterjee as his fellow passenger. Chatterjee had made it his mission to educate readers on the evils of cinema by writing regularly to the Statesman. In the next scene Arindam hastily takes his leave from Chatterjee and shifts to another coupe. Chatterjee provides comic relief and is along the lines of the grocery store keeper who doubles up as a school teacher in Pather Panchali, or the madman in Postmaster, eccentric minor characters who stand out in their authenticity and quirkiness.

Scene 8: Arindam is on his best behavior. He is affable, quite willing to indulge a critic. He is self-deprecating, almost a little embarrassed by his drinking habit. This is a nicely structured scene because it serves as a direct, very dramatic contrast to the scene towards the end, when drunk and filled with self-loathing, Arindam staggers drunkenly into Chatterjee’s coupe, almost reveling in the old man’s revulsion towards his drunken stupor. Shorn of all the gilded trappings of stardom he reveals his lowest nature.

Scene 8: Haren Bose’s family in the coupe. Haren Bose quickly establishes his distaste for the tackiness of Bengali films and his own moral superiority to the word inhabited by film stars. His self-righteous façade will be soon ripped apart.

Scene 8: Fans wave at Arindam.

Scene 9: Interlinking scene.

Scene 10: First interaction of the star with his fans. Mrs Bose and her daughter Bulbul are both ardent Arindam Mukherjee fans. Haren Bose quickly tries to snub the star by saying Bengali films paid no attention to quality – "produce more and more rubbish". Arindam has a quick rejoinder - that is why our population was so high. Mrs Bose smiles triumphantly at her husband. He couldn't snub the great Arindam Mukherjee and get away with it!

Scene 11: Introduced to Sharmilla Tagore character. Aditi Sengupta, editor of a serious woman’s magazine. The lady sitting next to her is a die-hard Arindam fan, making it reasonable for her to egg Aditi on, to interview Arindam for her magazine.
Arindam enters the dining car.
Aditi asks for his autograph, stating it was her for cousin sister, clearly establishing the fact that she was certainly not a fan! Arindam takes it in good humour. He is used to people who turn their nose up at him and his films. But even then he is taken aback when she says he should not try to establish through his films that he was god, with no imperfections whatsoever (debtullya).

Scene 12: Interlinking scene

Scene 13: Pritwish Sarkar, the advertising professional tries to convince Haren Bose to recruit his agency for his company’s advertising requirements. Sarkar is very well etched out. Obsequious, eager to drop names to show his familiarity with people of stature within the industry, Sarkar is perfect as a small time businessman, anxious to land this one big contract. He is quick to figure out where his prospective client’s real interest lies and is not averse to some moral compromises to lure his client.

Scene 14: Inciting incident: Sefalika, who is sitting next to Aditi, eggs her on to interview Arindam for her woman’s magazine. This propels the story forward into Act II wherein Arindam reveals his past, his insecurities and we learn of him as a person, behind the mask of stardom.

Scene 15: Seeing Aditi approach him a second time, Arindam asks wryly “for whom do you want an autograph now? Another cousin?” Quick repartee from Aditi follows. He is not interested in giving an interview. It appears he is only whiling away time with an attractive woman. He is even mildly flirtatious. When Aditi says "since I’ve got you (here on the train for an interview)", he raises his eyebrows and asks her "since you’ve got me!" That flusters her quite a bit!
He refuses to give an interview along the lines Aditi proposes, saying it would harm his image. Ironic "set up" for later he will bare his soul to her and in the final scenes even dare her to publish it all, not caring what the public thought of him after reading the interview.

Scenes 16-17: Interlinking scenes

Scene 18: Arindam pulls Robert Chatterjee’s leg. "When you say marriage, do you mean legal or…?" Chatterjee is scandalized! Arindam shocks him further by saying "I’ll have to go for my cocaine injection."

Scene 19: Interlinking scenes

Scene 20: Sarkar says of his wife Molly "she is a perfect housewife." Ironic since later in the film she will want to join films. In her one can see a Promilla Chatterjee in the making.

Scenes 21-22: Interlinking scenes

Scene 23: First nightmare. Quicksand of money. Initially bright lighting to give the effect of what every man actually dreams of – piles and piles of money, literally swimming in cash! Lighting changes. Becomes overcast. The mounds of money now suddenly resemble scrap heaps. Wind starts howling. Ringing of phone. The ringing gets louder and louder. He stumbles upon a skeletal hand holding the receiver. The hands are everywhere. In the background one can hear hari bol a rather too-obvious a symbolism. He starts sinking. We see Shankar da as a decaying corprse (skin flaking off).

Scenes 24-25: Interlinking scenes

Scene 26: Sarkar is ready to pimp his wife. "Be a little nice to him". The man dressed in religious robes, who is travelling with Sarkar and his wife hears the conversation.

Scene 27: Molly locks herself in the toilet

Scene 28: Arindam gets down from the train for some fresh air and a cup of tea. He needs to dust the cobwebs off his mind. He spots Aditi at a window. Natural progression of scenes. Next scene – goes up to her and talks about the nightmare he’s just had.

Scene 29: Well orchestrated action: She went up to him the first time. He had rebuffed her. Subsequently she snubbed him. Now he seems to be making the next move of reconciliation. He comes to her because she is not a fan. She isn’t curious about him or his life. He feels he can talk to her freely.

Reveals his past (Flashback One):
• Shankar da was his mentor. He came from a theatre background. First movie offier – Devi Choudhurani. Shankar da was absolutely against him joining films. Art vs commerce. Voice of conscience

Scene 30: Flashback – Shankar da dies suddenly while installing the Goddess Durga’s statue at a pandal.

Scene 31: Flashback – cremation. Realisation dawns only one lifetime, only once chance to do what one wanted to do. Resolves his conflict on theatre vs cinema. His friend, who becomes his manager lures him with money. Ultimately it is his hunger for riches that prompts him to become a cinema actor.

Scene 32: Present times. First signs of perhaps some sort of attraction between Arindam and Aditi. He seems surprised that she looks so attractive without her glasses. She quickly puts them back on.
How different their lives are. She hates the crowd clamoring on the train window pane when the train halts at a station. He enjoys the attention, she cringes. He offers her a chance to act in movies. She declines.

Scene 33: Flashback Sequence two: Mukund Lahiri, then a great star. Arindam in his first role in Devi Choudhurani. Eager to please – offers to massage Lahiri’s stiff neck.

Scene 34: Flashback – shooting of first film.

Scene 35: Present

Scene 36: Flashback sequence three: First film’s release. Nerves on edge. Takes his first drink to steady himself. Now addicted to alcohol. An honest actor – knows that his scenes with Lahiri are not authentic. Frets against not performing his best. Here we get a glimpse of the actor he was, finicky about his art, not complacent about his talent (sneers at stars who never study their character but perform with the same mannerisms and dialogue delivery in film after film).

Scene 37: Present

Scene 38: Fate of a star whose career is on a downswing. Instead of showing rise and fall of Arindam Mukherjee, the star, Ray chooses to show the rise of Arindam and the fall of Mukund Lahiri. Very succinctly, just within 4 brief scenes. Lahiri appears at midnight, drunk, begging for a role, any role, even the role of a durwan.

Scene 39: Present

Scene 40: Flashback Sequence Four. Biresh. Arindam’s childhood friend. Now a labour leader.

Scene 41: Flashback Sequence Four cont. Arindam now a star. Surrounded by his coterie. Biren appears after four years.
Scene 42: Flashback cont. Biren takes him to a labour strike.

Scene 43: Present. Agitated by all that he is remembering of his past. Can’t sleep. Takes some sleeping pills. We know now he cannot sleep without medication, presumably consumed by guilt for abandoning his idealism and for taking to vices.

Scene 44: Flashback Sequence Five: Promilla Chatterjee, the unscrupulous aspiring actress who throws herself at Arindam to get a role.

Scene 45: Nightmare about his scuffle. Like in nightmares sees himself surrounded by strangers all looking at him accusingly. Gets up sweating. Downs whisky to soothe his nerves.

Scene 46: Deliberately staggers into Chatterjee’s coupe. Not concerned about keeping up appearances any more. Rudely addresses him as buro or old man. Tries to scare him with his drunken act.

Scene 47: Debtullya nayak he taunts Aditi. He doesn’t care that she should see him drunk. Yes he is a god with feet of clay. He doesn’t care if she tells the whole world that he is a drunkard. He loathes himself and doesn’t want to keep up appearances any more. He asks Aditi why did she think his latest movie would flop. She answers intuitively, because he hadn’t put his heart in it.

Scene 48: The debtullya nayak staggers into his coupe before the horrified eyes of Mrs Bose and her daughter, both ardent fans of the Nayak. Bulbul, the girl starts crying softly. Mrs Bose, though shocked, is sympathetic. When Arindam collapses on his berth, she gently puts his feet up on the bed. In the next scene we see his shoes and socks have been taken off, presumably by Mrs Bose.

Resolution:

1. Religious man wants advertisement strategy for his organization wwww. Offers Lahiri thirty thousand. What a come down from the five lakhs Lahiri had been eyeing.
2. Haren Bose brushes off Lahiri’s overtures since Lahiri’s wife is obviously not willing to oblige
3. Aditi Sengupta, the editor of Adhunika tears off the interview she had written on Bengal’s top star
4. At the beginning of the film she had been seated in the train, and he had entered later. Now she leaves the train first (leaving him rather flummoxed).

Ending:
• Arindam Mukherjee greets his fans
• Aditi Sengupta greets her uncle who was to help her get a grant for her magazine
• She passes Arindam without a backward glance. He cranes his neck to look at her (one always hopes he will contact her – after all it is easy to contact the editor of a magazine!)

Flashbacks:

1. Shankar da. Theatre. Decision to join films
2. Mukund Lahiri – first day of shooting. Insulted by Lahiri
3. Release of first movie. Takes his first drink. Scornful of actors who do not prepare for their role
4. Abandons ideals/friend – Biren the labour leader (not sure what Ray exactly achieved through this character)
5. Promila Chatterjee -> how women hungry for fame and glamour prostitute themselves for a role. Arindam’s culpability. Though we are told that he didn’t know Promilla was married.

Postscript
• Letter by Ray to Marie Seton, author of “Portrait of a Director”.
“I wanted a relationship to develop between the Matinee Idol and a girl on the train. Romance was out – the time being so short – but I wanted something with an interesting development. The transition from apathy mixed with a certain dislike, to sympathetic understanding, seemed a promising one. So I made Aditi a slightly snooty sophisticate who questions and resists the easy charm, good looks, sangfroid, etc etc. of the Idol, until she discovers there’s an area where he is helpless, lonely, and in need of guidance. From the point where he begins to unburden himself, Aditi can ignore his façade because she’s had a glimpse of what lies beneath. At first he is ‘material’ for her for a journalistic probe, until the process of unbarring reaches a point where she realizes it would be unethical to exploit it. Sympathy and desire to help is the next step. The bond between the two is tenuous, but real. Intellectually clearly above him, her goodness consists in providing him with the small area of contact that exists between them…”

Senna: The man who lived

2011-09-16T16:07:00.002+05:30

"Because in a split second, its gone"-Aryton Senna

Yesterday I found my hero and God knows that in this time of difficulty, I need a hero.
I was very excited about watching the eponymous docu-drama on Ayrton Senna. I thought it would be an effusive narrative about a man who fought all his life to reach the top and then fate dealt him an unlucky hand. Never did I think that an hour and forty minutes of press footage and stitched clips from the onboard camera in the racing car, would have me so entranced by a personality, so engaged in a life that was lived, so invested in a man who drove. Needless to say, he did not have to fight in the usual sense of the term. He came from wealth; he had supportive parents and all the luck in the world. He was a God fearing mortal who would get riled up over pettiness of politics on the tracks. He was not driven by an unearthly passion and was altogether a perfect human specimen-immoral and imperfect.
Senna, is a beautifully orchestrated piece of film that brings out the nuances of Ayrton’s life on the track. It doesn’t dwell on his personal life and is formal and deferential. I would urge everyone to watch it, if they get the opportunity because it showcases the best things about being human and is a reminder that you live only once in this form so you might as well take a shot at happiness.

Nemo or "No One" intrigues us in "Agantuk"

2011-03-01T15:01:00.008+05:30

First published in Passionforcinema.com

The first time I watched Agantuk, I was intrigued by the manner in which Satyajit Ray captured the audience’s interest from the opening shot itself. Why was Anila so perplexed reading the letter? Why did she not answer her husband and her son who keep asking her who the letter was from? Even when we are told the letter is from her uncle, the suspense is not dissipated. He had disappeared thirty-five years earlier. He had been academically brilliant, a favourite of the family, and yet, we learn later, he preferred living in forests, with tribes, eating field rats and snakes and presumably even the meat of the armadillo!

The movie engages at many levels. It captures the daily rhythm of a cultured, upper-middle class Bengali household very subtly and perceptively. Their bhadralok complacency is abruptly shaken with the arrival of the mysterious uncle, who may, or may not be the person he claims he is. Their placid, content domesticity seems to spin out of control, throbbing with the undercurrents of a sinister mystery and the excitement of strange, almost wild house-guest, who has lived with cannibals, and who bursts into song, reciting the 108 names of Lord Krishna, while reminiscing about travelling to Macchu Picchu on a muleback!

The film is so intriguingly engaging because it constantly juxtaposes adult cynicism with childlike innocence; dry logic with magic; hard boiled practicality with whimsical idealism, measured affection with unconditional love.

So, while Bablu, the ten-year old son of Sudhindra and Anila Bose, is transported into the world of primeval charging bisons, Inca civilizations and the mysterious workings of the cosmos, his parents only notice that their guest is close fisted, because he hasn’t brought with him a customary gift for his hosts. The Boses have antiques worth lakhs in their drawing room but fret about having to spend at least fifty rupees a day on feeding their uncle (and after all that what if he wasn’t their uncle!). Prithwish, the no-nonsense lawyer who has been invited by Sudhindranath Bose to gauge the uncle’s intentions, prides himself for being a modern, well-educated man. He is offended by the very idea of primitive tribes being the repository of art, culture and, (this is what affronts his sensibilities most) science! He thinks the Voyager beaming back images of Neptune is the pinnacle of scientific achievement. The uncle thinks Eskimos building igloos out of opaque ice (for their roof) and transparent ice (for their windows) is a marvel of science.

Bablu loves his grand-uncle unconditionally. He is the first person to say “I know who you are”. Bablu’s mother wants to love her uncle, but cannot, until she is very sure of his intentions. Has he returned because of blood ties, or to claim his legacy? Bablu’s father, the cynic in the family, tolerates his in-law, for his wife’s sake. He is not too sure if he isn’t an imposter. Maybe he will abscond with all the priceless artifacts in the house?

At the other end of the spectrum is Anila’s deceased grand-father, who has left a substantial part of his wealth to the “prodigal” son, who left home, never to return. Even though the son never fulfilled his duties towards his father, the father did not begrudge him his inheritance. That is unalloyed, selfless love. As is the uncle’s last gesture, when he leaves his entire inheritance to Anila, his niece, dismissing it as a gesture “of little, or no value”.

This constant juxtaposition of opposites structures the plot as well. The plot opens with Anila wondering if Manamohan Mitra was indeed her “mama”. It ends with Manomohan Mitra saying that all this while he had been in doubt - was this straight laced, bound –by- conventions woman truly his niece? Seeing her abandon her inhibitions and joining the Santhals in their dance, he laughs and says, now he knows for sure, she is indeed his niece.

Satyajit Ray’s characteristic gentle humour permeates the story and livens up the mood of the socio-drama. Sudhindranath Bose’s interchange with the ancient deaf family lawyer is delightful, especially when he changes tactics and instead of shouting at the top of his lungs, whispers his query. And, the audience is as surprised as Sudhindranath Bose himself, when the lawyer replies instantly! Then there is Ranjan, the actor’s spontaneous stand-up show – a witty play on English usage in Bengali conversations.

At the heart of the movie is the relationship between Sudhindranath and Anila Bose. Sudhindranath gently ribs his wife, reminding her from time to time that she had better keep her kulo ready, to sweep her uncle out of the house. When she is struck by the thought that perhaps her uncle had returned to claim his legacy, and silently ruminates over it, he teases and lovingly cajoles her into revealing what it was that was worrying her. Sudhindranath obviously loves his wife and respects her wishes, for inspite of all his resistance towards entertaining their house-guest, he eventually comes around and supports his wife, complying with each and every wish of hers, from doing pranam, to introducing their guest as Anila’s “uncle”, to eventually rushing off to Shantiniketan, to apologise to their uncle, and to bring him back. Conversely, Anila is unable to address her uncle as “mama” simply because her husband’s suspicions have influenced her. The comfortable harmony of their conjugal relationship is like a gentle melody, playing softly in the background, amidst the apparent turmoil that threatens to disrupt their peace.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case anyone would like to study the film in greater detail, here are my notes - stuff I jotted down while watching the film. Hope it helps!

NOTES:

Point of Entry: Unknown “mama” is arriving, throwing the household in a tizzy. The opening shot shows Anila Bose reading a letter and her husband, Sudhindranath Bose asking his wife Anila repeatedly who had sent the letter. Her obvious consternation piques our interest. She is so absorbed in the letter that she ignores her ten-year old son, Bablu’s query about the letter as well.

Time: Sudhindranath Bose reads from the newspaper that there will not be any power cuts during Durga Puja. The arrival of the mama is all the more bothersome because his puja vacations will go for a toss. Who wants a stranger intruding on their privacy during the puja holidays!

Characterisation:
1. Manomohan Mitra (the mama): Air of mystery surrounds the “mama” who ran away from home thirty-five years ago. He never wrote to anyone. Anila remembers her mother saying that her “mama” had been academically brilliant. He had been a favourite of the family. Then what made him run away? On one hand he sprouts German and Latin, is passionate about the Inca civilization and admires the ancient Greeks for their gymnasium culture; on the other hand he recites the 108 names of Lord Krishna, sings kirtans and writes and speaks flawless Bengali. As his niece Anila says, she is in awe of his intellectual prowess and the depth (and width) of his knowledge. He has lived with the Santhals, Kols, Bhils, Nagas and then traversed the entire globe and stayed for years with the Red Indian tribes and with those who eat the flesh of the armadillo.
But inspite of all is erudition and strange, savage experiences, he becomes ten-year old Bablu’s best friend, joking to him about Popeye the Sailor and firing his imagination with tales of adventure. He takes Bablu out with all his friends, for a day in the maidan, enthralling them with stories about Macchu Picchu and the wonder of eclipses. They share a wonderful rapport, and “Dadu” takes no offense when Bablu says guilelessly that he knows for sure he is indeed his grandfather – and not an imposter.
He leaves behind five lakhs to his niece, and to his neice’s son, a priceless 1500 year old artifact, a terracotta figurine made by the people who eat the meat of the armadillo.

Manomohan Mitra is eccentric, an idealist who left home to discover if civilization resides in cities or in the prehistoric caves of Spain. Inspite of being a first ranker in all his academic pursuits (including winning a scholarship to America), when he decides to adopt a pseudonym for his writings, he chooses Captain Nemo, from “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea”. For he is like Nemo, “no one”. A free-spirited wanderer who refused to be a koopmanduk”.

The “mama” also enjoys playing a cat-and-mouse game with his hosts. When Sudhindranath checks his passport he sportingly points out his “distinguishing mark” on his cheek. He good humouredly lets Ranjan carry out his elaborate deception, and just when everyone’s guard was down, asks them point blank, so “how do you find me?” He refuses to let Prithwish, Sudhindranath’s ill-mannered lawyer friend, break down his defenses. He teases him by breaking into a song, a kirtan infact whose words were “be patient…be patient”. When Prithwish persists, he says it won’t be so easy to peel off the layers of this onion!

2. Anila Bose: The gracious hostess who makes “goyna bodi” (crispy fried lentils in fantastic shapes) for her guests; whose biscuits are famous; who sings beautifully, and, but we learn this only towards the end of the film, dances gracefully too; who would like to welcome her estranged “mama” with open arms but her adult wariness cautions her.

3. Sudhindranath Bose: Worldly wise, hence cynical. When his wife tells him that their uncle was perhaps genuine, for he knew German and had given their son foreign coins, he dismisses these facts as not being foolproof. Foreign coins could be purchased from dealers, German could be learned in any crash course – he himself could speak a few phrases! He has inherited considerable wealth from his father, and his lifestyle is one of comfortable prosperity, and yet he begrudges having to spend “fifty rupees” on a man who might not be a blood relation.

Sudhindranath enjoys teasing his wife. He is humming a Rabindrasangeet while taking his bath, when his wife knocks and tells him that their friends Chanda and her husband Ranjan were coming over (to gawk over the imposter uncle). The song he had been humming was on seasonal flowers, “sandhya belar chameli go…shakal belar mallika”. Hearing that his wife had gossiped about their guest to her friend, he jokes, why not invite “chameli, shefali, juthika and mallika” as well.
It is Prithwish’s offensive behavior with their “mama” that brings about a change of heart in Sudhindra. For the first time he is contrite about his ungracious, mean behavior. To show he is truly sorry he concedes to his wife and says he will not have any objection whatsoever if she addresses him as “mama”.

Plot
1. Dramatic premise: Manomohan Mitra’s identity - The plot progresses with the unraveling of Manomohan Mitra’s identity. How can someone who has left his motherland thirty-five years ago write such flawless Bengali? Mitra says that if one wanted one could forget one’s mother tongue in three months. Mitra not only remembers his mother tongue, he remembers Lord Krishna’s 108 names; Sudhindranath, living in Calcutta for his entire life is not aware that Ma Durga killed Mahishasura three times, but Manomohan Mitra knows his mythology. Has he truly been living in Europe and the Americas? Or is he lying! Sudhindranath asks his wife to check Manomohan Mitra’s passport. She refuses, but before he can steel himself to demand to see their guest’s passport, their guest literally throws the passport at his face! And then promptly heightens the confusion, which Sudhindranath had momentarily thought had been cleared, by saying a passport can be easily forged!
Ranjan, the Boses’ friend, hints at the Bhawal Sanyasi case. Is Anila’s “mama” too laying claim to any inheritance? Much later, we learn there is a legacy of considerable value, lying tucked away for three decades. Does that mean the uncle is here only to claim his money?

2. No loose ends: should the audience wonder how Manomohan Mitra provided for himself, all these years in the wilderness, Nemo, the eternal wanderer, shares that his grandmother gifted him three thousand rupees for having consistently topped his school and college exams. This helped him set off on his adventure. Once the money got over he backpacked across Europe, paying his way through odd jobs. And studying, till he got himself a scholarship to America, to study the Indian tribes.

3. Sheetala Babu is introduced in the first scene itself. Anila says her “mama” only wrote to Sheetala babu every six, seven years, but never left behind a forwarding address. Sheetala Babu being Anila’s grandfather’s neighbor. Sudhindranath remembers the gentlemen, casually mentioning that hadn’t he retired and settled in Shantiniketan? Sheetala babu and Shantiniketan will play a crucial role in the penultimate scene.

4. The mysterious “mama” craftily mentions in his letter the age-old custom of welcoming guests, even if they were strangers. How can Anila possibly turn him away after such a request? This is what makes the Boses welcome their mama into their household (albeit extremely reluctantly!).

5. Set Up and Pay- Off: Sudhindranath suspects the guest’s intentions. He could be a thief impersonating as an uncle! What if he made away with the antique curios? Anila hides some of the most valuable curios in her cupboard. Slowly when she starts believing this stranger is indeed her uncle, she replaces the curios on the mantelpiece. In a superb touch of humour, this does not go unnoticed by Manomohan Mitra. He comments innocently (we wonder if it is indeed so!) that these artifacts hadn’t been there the previous day.

6. Resolution: The story started with Anila suspecting if Manomohan Mitra was indeed her uncle. It ends with Manomohan Mitra claiming that if he had had any doubts about Anila being his niece, seeing her dancing with such gay abandon, removed all his suspicions. The man whom Sudhindra had accused of being too close fisted to get even a token gift for his niece, gifts his niece his entire legacy.

Theme
1. Barbarism versus civilization: Satyajit Ray said that Manomohan Mitra was in many ways his spokesperson and through him the auteur voices his concerns about society. Is cannibalism barbaric or annihilating millions through a single atom bomb? Were space shuttles the symbols of scientific advancement or the advent of agriculture, weaving and architecture at the dawn of civilization? Was New York really a modern civilized city, when it had homeless lying on its streets? Prithwish scorns at the promiscuity displayed by tribals. Manomohan sees it as a truly holy wedlock, a union of mind, body and soul. Sudhindra asks his son Bablu to say thank you, for having received the terracotta artifact. Manomohan quickly retorts that Bablu’s smile was worth far more than a civilized, barren “thank you”. When Manomohan leaves behind five lakhs for his niece he dismisses it as ‘floccinaucinihilpilification” (incidentally the longest word in the English language!) – something of “little or no value”. And then, Manomohan sardonically comments – a word of 29 letters that means “setting little or no value”. If this wasn’t “civilization” what was!

2. Culture permeates the film’s sets and conversations. The Bose household has a large kalamkari draped on its wall. Valuable artifacts decorate their drawing room. An extensive book cabinet with well-thumbed books grace one end of their drawing room. A tanpura is discreetly propped up on a divan. Anila is a trained singer (and dancer). She enjoys reading. Which also acts as a plot device – it is while reading an Agatha Christie that it strikes her that perhaps her uncle had returned to claim his inheritance. Manomohan Mitra’s conversations are peppered with references to Indian mythology, Greek history and literature, art, both popular (comics and cartoons) and ancient. He asks Bablu does he address his parents as “mummy” and “daddy” (has he lost his Bengali-ness?)

3. Wanderlust. Manomohan Mitra warns his grandson Bablu to never be a koopmanduk. Explore the world, marvel at the beauty and wonder of the unexplored. Manomohan instills the wanderlust spirit in Bablu, urging him to explore – how else would he eat the meat of the armadillo! If there is an afterlife beyond the final scene of the movie, it is in Bablu, carrying forth Manomohan’s thirst for adventure. Manomohan says as much – that now Bablu would come visiting his “Dadu”.

Subtlety missing in We Are Family

2011-03-01T14:53:00.005+05:30

First published in Passionforcinema.com

The movie title says “We Are Family”. But just in case the audience forgot what the theme was all about, Kajol right at the beginning mimes “family” when her youngest daughter forgets her lines on stage. The adorable little girl says with a flourish “FAMILY” and, I cringed. Not because of the girl, who is quite an accomplished little actress, and very sweet too, but for the over-emphatic screenplay which obviously believes that nothing should be left implied.

Worried at shocking the audience’s sensibilities – was the hero a philanderer – here he was romancing a lissome Kareena, cavorting with her on the beach, and in the next scene he is a dutiful husband and father, attending his children’s school function – the director quickly sets about establishing the moral status quo. No, he is not having an extra-marital relationship. He explains so to his girlfriend, in clear terms – I’ve been separated from my ex-wife for three years. As if she didn’t know already!

The eldest daughter was frankly obnoxious. Is any child so badly brought up that she will deliberately fling food at – not someone her own age, but someone old enough to be her parent? Even if she resents her? Or maliciously spill coffee all over her work? Did the director have to portray her in such exaggerated strokes?

Where the director tries to get subtle, as when Arjun Rampal refuses to share with his lady love why he is moving back with his ex-wife, his behavior seems implausible. Why will he not discuss his wife’s critical condition with his girlfriend? Wouldn’t that have been the most natural thing to do?

What irked me most was the emotional high point of the movie – when Kajol hands over jewellery she had kept aside for her daughters’ marriage, to Kareena, the to-be step-mom. If you have a daughter who is five or six and another who is thirteen, would you really ever be planning for when they would get married? All the mothers I know of are worrying about their daughter’s education and career. Marriage enters the picture only once they are in their twenties. I understand that Kajol is handing over the family jewels, but what she said struck false. She could have said – “these were given by my mother and I wore these on my wedding, give them to my daughters”. She did say that, but prefaced it by saying – “I had kept these aside for when my daughters would get married”. And to wring out an extra tear from the audience, added, “please tell my daughter she is the prettiest bride”.

The directly neatly bookends the film with a family photograph being taken. Kajol emphasizes twice that it’s a family photograph, and holds out her arms to Kareena. And so, Kareena is now officially “we are family”!

Footnote: In the last scene when the daughter is getting married and Kareena recalls Kajol’s motherly prophecy, did she have to literally look over her shoulder to indicate Kajol’s ethereal benevolent presence all around?

The new year in pictures

2011-02-07T01:48:00.012+05:30

I thought that perhaps the hiatus I took from writing on this blog should end with a bang. Before you think I am overselling my writing, let me explain that I am merely referring to the films I will talk about in this post and not, by any means, anything more. As the award season draws to a close with the upcoming Oscars, I would like to discuss four films from the list of ten that have been nominated for best picture this year. Given that I am an extremely biased movie goer, I doubt that I will ever, willingly, watch the other six. However, I am told that they too have their own merits. No, I speak only of; Black Swan, The Social Network, The King’s Speech and Inception. (The other six are: Toy Story 3, The kids are alright, True Grit, Winter’s Bones, The Fighter and 127 Hours).

Let me start with Inception. I watched this on my birthday, in December. As you can imagine, by the time I got around to watching it, I had heard more about it than I would have liked. In fact, everyone else who had been kind enough to accompany me for it, were watching it for the second time. To be honest, I was expecting a lesson in philosophy by Jung but I got an ABC guide for dummies with wonderful graphics and actions scenes. The solipsistic idea of living what we perceive is one that Nolan is clearly obsessed about. In Matrix, he explored it positively through measured realities and algorithms and yet he could not break from the assumptions of a collective reality at some level(The grim coded world of the matrix). With Inception, his thought experiment was normative and basically arguments in contradiction. I bet, they were more or less using the same technology as in The Matrix. Again, it failed to conclude about the existence of a shared reality. Did Inception blow my mind? I will certainly watch it again because it had more entertainment value to me than a Bond movie from the bygone days; but I have read too much Wittgenstein to let my mind be blown by it. (Sorry for the smugness, I don’t go to the pictures to learn philosophy. There are enough musty books to do that.) Next comes, ‘The Social Network’. Another movie I will certainly watch again and that by itself says that I liked it very much. It was very docudrama and the performances were very good. Andrew Garfield, playing Eduardo Saverin and Jesse Eisenberg playing, Mark Zuckerberg, were outstanding and who knew, the lead singer of NSYNC and ex-boyfriend of Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, had enough sense in him to pull off a character in a film, tolerably well. The movie really makes you think about what this civilization’s social interface has come to and whether we should hero-worship Mr. Zuckerberg or soul search in shame. Yes, we are THAT keen on vegetating in hedonism.
The King’s Speech was funny. If anyone was wondering where the good old rye British humour has gone to, well, I think some of it has been resurrected in this movie. It is a very British yet oddly heart-warming movie. The chemistry between Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth is, for want of a better phrase, cute as a button. It is definitely worth several viewings because of its light heated nature even though it ends at the wake of World War II and ironically, the referred to successfully delivered speech is one of comfort to the British people as Britain prepares for war against the Germans.

Finally, the piece de résistance, The Black Swan; now, do not let yourself be swayed by my views. I am in no way trying to influence you into going for this one but I am all praise about it because it, for me personally, was a gem. I think what I enjoyed most about it was the story and the way the moods were captured. In fact, at some point, the players were inconsequential and I think entirely overshadowed by the intensity of the shot. Daren Aronofsky is clearly an intellectual (and he is the real deal, he graduated from Harvard). Embellished by a refreshing and gritty take on Tchaikovsky’s dramatic pieces for the story, infusing the ethos of Swan Lake into the disintegrating psychology of the obsessive perfectionist ballerina, Aronofsky puts the audience through two hours of hard work on the ballet scales. Black Swan most certainly goes down on my hit list. It made me feel like I was high on psychedelic music and hallucinogens and as we all know, that is never a bad feeling.
Thus it looks to be a promising new year from the Western front, purely in terms of motion pictures, of course, everything else is a discussion for another day and perhaps another blog.

Gata Rahe Mera Dil says the irrepresible Dev Anand

2010-09-30T09:39:00.027+05:30

Dev Anand was named Dev Dharam Anand by his parents. But those who loved him most and whom he was closest to called him Dev. “Just ‘Dev’, short and sweet and possessive, godly and sexy, and intimate to the extreme, in bedrooms, in drawing rooms…”

Dev Anand’s autobiography titled Romancing With Life is a candid series of reminiscences, replete with a star’s love of himself and the great adventure he embarked on six decades ago.

Dev Anand’s father was a prominent lawyer in Gurdaspur, now in Pakistan. When still a young boy Dev inadvertently sees a young girl exploring her body. The description is voyeuristic and sets the tone of the entire autobiography. I felt there was too much lingering over sexual beauty and sexual episodes and too little discussion about his craft and his colleagues.

It is intriguing to see how an actor decides that he wants to become an actor. Here’s how Dev Anand himself remembers this defining moment in his life:

Dev had just been accosted by this young girl on whom he had a crush. And before that another school mate had kissed him (that shows how wrong I was in thinking of our grandparents’ generation as prudish!). Euphoric with his twin conquests he splashes water on his face and looks at himself in the mirror.

“Beads of water were trickling down my face, assuring me – ‘Isn’t this face pleasantly presentable? Didn’t Usha confess she likes me? Didn’t Florence kiss me hard? There is something about me – I am going to present myself to the world. I want the world to see me, to admire me. I am going to be an actor. Not just an actor – I am going to be a star! I am going to steer myself towards that goal. I am going to Bombay, the Mecca of films. The glamorous world of show business awaits me. I am going to grab the limelight.”

His heady euphoria is almost palpable – the reader can imagine what a 20-something dashingly handsome Dev Anand must have felt just at that very moment.

“I was dancing with excitement. I took a quick joyful twirl and punched my fist hard into the mirror. Then laughed heartily at my own reflection and saw it laughing too.”

Days of Struggle

Before getting his first break he worked in the War Censorship office where he censored letters from Indian and British Army personnel posted in India on army bases and those were who were fighting the war abroad. Every morning he would “dress to kill” in his “best casuals, groom my hair properly with an accentuated puff on the right that everybody in the office seemed to admire” and jauntily walk down to the Pali Hill bus station.

First Break

Someone tells him that Prabhat Film Company is looking for a fresh face to cast in their new film. He is able to get an appointment with the top boss the very next day. And this is how he gave his sales pitch:

‘What’s your name?’
‘Dev Anand, sir. ‘I said very respectfully.
‘Just Dev Anand! No surname?’ He was curious.
‘Anand is my surname, sir – and Dev is the first name.’
‘Very short and sweet…’
‘It was longer and more complicate, for Dharam was added before Dev by my parents. They named me Dharav Dev, but seeing many problem that religious faiths create in the world, I eliminated the Dharam part of it from my personality, and am happy to be just Dev now,’ I said smilingly.
He laughed heartily, looking into my eyes.
‘But that does not mean I am not religious. I am. But in a moderate way. Religion is in my heart, not necessarily in temples, or mosques or churches.’
‘I like you attitude and philosophy,’…
‘What can I do for you?’
‘I am sure by now you know why I am here sir.’
‘I want you to say it, go on,’ he encouraged me.
‘You are looking for a young lead player in your new film, and there cannot be a better choice than me…”

The next day Dev Anand is asked to meet the director PL Santoshi. The director seems to take an instant liking for him and asks him to come for audition the next day.

‘Where do you live in Bombay’ – asked the director.
‘Pali Hill. A very peaceful and exclusive place, ‘ I said in style.
‘You speak good English. Where were you tutored?” the director wanted to know.
‘In the best college this side of the Suez, sir! Lahore Government College’, said Dev Anand with style.

It seems both the producer and director were suitably impressed with these credentials and that was that! He passed the audition with flying colours (the only hitch being the gap between his teeth!) and Dev Anand got his first break! Before he left the studios that day he was handed a three-year contract at four hundred rupees a month. The move was “Hum Ek Hain” in 1946, directed by PL Santoshi, with Durga Khote, Kamla Kotnis, Rehana and Rehman.

Dev Anand never doubted his destiny. He says though he had no formal training in acting, he always knew he had that indescribable quality in him…the “mirror always told me with a chorus of angelic voices, ‘Wow, let the world see you!’

Taxi Driver

A friend suggested a film on a taxi driver, saying such a character was bound to go down well with the masses. Goldie or Vijay Anand, his brother, who was then studying in St. Xavier college, was asked to prepare the script and Chetan Anand, whose earlier directorial ventures had bombed at the box office, was persuaded to take on the film as his next project. The film, a Navketan production, was shot on a shoe-string budget. “Survival of the company was the motivating factor, and lack of funds drove us to work at breakneck speed.”

The movie was Navketan’s first superhit and the film in which Dev Anand tied the knot with Kalpana Kartik. After his innumerable flirtatious rendezvous which are described in such provocative detail, his run-away married with his sweetheart comes across as a somewhat dull interlude (which is perhaps what it was…)

Guide

Perhaps Dev Anand’s most remarkable film, the autobiography thankfully sheds light on the making of the film. The actor was in Berlin attending the Berlin Film Festival (Hum Dono was India’s official entry at the 1962 Berlin Film Festival) when he was told about the book The Guide. He finished reading it in London, in his hotel room balcony that overlooked the Hyde Park and then flew down to New York to discuss the book with Pearl S Buck (interesting bit of trivia here about how Buck had to formally send an invitation to Anand to allow him to travel to the US. Government regulations did not permit overseas travel without an invitation from someone abroad).

The English and Hindi versions were shot separately. Earlier they were being shot simultaneously to save on costs. But that created a lot of tension between Chetan Anand who was directing the Hindi version and Tad Danielewski who was directing the English movie. While the English movie was being shot, Goldie replaced Chetan and the Hindi Guide went on to become one of Goldie’s greatest movies.
Dev Anand who was producing the movie rightly decided that since the sensibilities of the audiences for the two movies were diametrically opposite, the treatment and event the script had to be different. So the screenplay for the English film was written from scratch. This of course skyrocketed the budget of the movie to astronomical levels.

There is a nice little anecdote of how once the English shooting of the film was over writer Pearl S Buck hugged Waheeda Rehman and kissed her, pleased that she had delivered her lines in English with the proper accent!

When the shooting of the climax scene was taking place at the dry river bed of the river Baramati in Gujrat, thousands of people started congregating at the site to see the shooting. Most of them thought he was actually a sadhu doing his tapasya. “Men and women, tramping barefoot on burning parched earth, travelling on bicycles and motorbikes, covering miles and miles on bullock carts, whipping their animals to go faster, packing into overcrowded buses, hanging outside or clutching on to their rooftops, truck loads of humanity from neighbouring villages and towns, converged and gathered on the spot where their ‘Mahatma’ was fasting, to sit at his feet and touch them…”

And then the narcissistic streak in Dev Anand takes over.
“I had transcended all human emotions, making the ‘self’ in me the sole conqueror. The ascetic in me was totally in tune with my performance during those glorious days of my own discovery.”

Guide left the audience bewildered. As Dev Anand explains it, they could not accept their matinee idol, the carefree lover boy Dev Anand as a saint and a martyr. And how could he love another man’s wife – that too was a completely shocking new theme for the audiences. While the movie opened with great fanfare, with the entire Indian cabinet coming for the premier, reports of audience reactions were not very encouraging. As the actor puts it, “usually after a premier, there is a plethora of telephone calls, congratulating or criticizing the producer. But this time, calls there were none. It was as if all our telephones were dead, and the wire had been pulled out.”

Never one to feel despondent over box office failure, Dev Anand gives an optimistic spin to his Guide venture. “Though not much money in terms of hard cash flowed in, the film kept sending gold to the coffers of our jubilant minds, in terms of recognition of our artistic achievement. As time passed, people found more and more meaning in it, and enjoyed seeing it again and again.”
Guide was India’s official entry for the Oscars in the foreign language category (it was shortened considerably and most of its songs were deleted).

Hare Ram Hare Krishna
It was while he was visiting The Bakery, a famous hippie joint in Kathmandu, that the idea for Hare Ram Hare Krishna came to Dev Anand. His narration of his visit to the bakery has a strange sense of déjà vu for the reader – for what he saw there is what he replicates so memorably in the movie.

The place was filled with young hippies in various stages of drug induced intoxication and undress, lying in each other’s arms, kissing, engaging in foreplay and more. And midst all of them is a lovely young girl, who misplaces her glasses.
“Bob, mera chashma,” she asks her companion.

This is Janice or Jasbir. Her parents were divorced. She was from Montreal. She had run away from home because of the constant fights and disharmony at home.

Dev Anand was so excited with the new story idea that was forming in his mind that he immediately met the king of Nepal to seek his permission to shoot his next film in Nepal.

The King readily granted his permission and suggested he put up at his brother’s hotel, The Fish Tail, situated picturesquely against the towering Annapurna mountains, to write his script. And that is where Hare Ram Hare Krishna was born.

When Dev Anand returned to Bombay and announced his next project everyone thought he was talking of a mythological movie! At that time he was already working with Mumtaz for Tere Mere Sapne. “We made a good-looking pair. She was friendly, very amiable, an easy-going, uninhibited co-star.” She showed her keenness to be in Hare Ram…however, after hearing the basic plot, she realized she couldn’t really be Dev’s sister!

“Am I in your picture?” she asked.
“You need to change your style to get into the shoes of Janice in my film Mumsy, “ I said. That’s what I called Mumtaz.
“My feet can get adjusted to all types of shoes, and of all sizes!” she said. “I must do you film – tell me the part.”
I gave her a brief narration of the story.
“It’s a hell of a role for any girl who does it, “ she said, “but I don’t think I want to play your sister.”
“Why not?” I asked her.
“For I don’t feel like one, when you are with me,” she explained.
We both laughed.
…”Would you agree to do the smaller and less significant part?” I asked.
“Only if it is the romantic one,” she replied.
“In that case, let me have the privilege of asking you, ‘Will you be the romantic leading lady opposite me, Mumsy, in my film Hare Rama Hare Krishna?”’ I said in great style.
“Privilege granted!”

And so the hunt started for the leading lady of Hare Rama Hare Krishna. He met Zeenat Aman, freshly crowned Miss Asia at a party. Their first meeting has already been discussed in countless interviews before. And yet, hearing it from Dev Anand himself, is riveting. The kind of stuff that makes for Bollywood legends.

As she sat in front of me, she was a picture of self-confidence, radiating a devil-may-care attitude. She was wearing a broad belt round her waist over a pack of slacks, a small purse hanging from it in front. I was wondering what was inside it, when her hand went there. She took out a pack of expensive cigarettes. Her other hand went into her handbag to take out a gold lighter. She had a style of her own, not bothering who was looking at her. She took out a cigarette and put it between her lips. That was the moment her eyes met mine, for I was constantly watching her and her bearing. She smiled an attractive girlish smile, and stretched her hand towards me, offering me a cigarette as well. Before I could pull out a cigarette from the pack, she had already taken one out for me. I put it straight into my mouth, still looking at her. She now ignited the lighter with a single flick, and put its flame on my cigarette, looking straight into my eyes. The flame of the lighter lit up her smiling eyes…

“I am your Janice, Dev.”

Dev went on to make several more movies with Zeenat. They had a fall out when he discovered she was moving over to the RK Banner camp and was pitching for the lead role for Satyam Shivam Sundaram. Quite ironically he had been planning to propose to her after a party when he found Raj Kapoor flirting with her and asking her why she had worn anything other than a white sari. “You are breaking your promise, “ he heard Raj Kapoor say to Zeenat. “…that you will always be seen by me only in a white sari.”

That broke Dev Anand’s heart.

During the shooting of Hare Rama Hare Krishna in Nepal, one day after pack up, after Dev Anand had returned to the hotel he realized he had misplaced the complete script of the movie. He then remembered he had left it on top of a mountain, where they had been shooting earlier. The only helicopter available then, since it was already night, was the king’s. The king graciously sent over the royal helicopter, and quite miraculously the complete script was found lying on the ground, entwined in twigs.

Goldie introduced

When still in Gurdaspur, Dev Anand, then in his teens had picked up a fight with another boy over his marble collection, then his most precious possession. The other boy hit him hard and he fell down on the gravel. As he got up to punch him back, Goldie, eight years his junior clung to his legs, begging him not to fight. Goldie was terrified that something would happen to his dear elder brother and broke into tears, entreating him not to go after the other boy.

“He looked at me, tears rolling down his cheeks…His eyes shone, his long golden hair, with the evening sun directly falling upon them, looked absolutely mesmerizing with a particular ray enhancing the yellow gold of its colour. He seemed like an angel who had appeared straight out of a fairy tale.”

Dev Anand’s father had named Vijay Anand Goldilocks because of his golden long curls!

Chetan Anand
His elder brother Chetan, was Dev Anand’s role model: “He was a model of everything I admired, handsome, intellectual, fashionable.” Chetan Anand had taught in Doon School before plunging into the world of films. A tennis player, an excellent swimmer, and a graduate of Lahore Government College, he had gone to England to apply for the Indian Civil Service Exams.

The autobiography has an amusing account of how impeccably ‘propah’ Chetan’s English upbringing was. He taught Dev Anand that when someone asked “How do you do?” you had to reply with a “How do you do?” and not, as most of us are wont to do – with an account of how we were!

Chetan Anand taught Dev Anand the nuances of acting – which helped him start of his career “though later, as I became a star, and then a superstar, I outgrew it, and went far ahead of everybody else around me, to evolve a style that was hailed as unique and as entirely my own.”

The brothers then went on to make movies for their own banner, Navketan, Taxi Driver being one of their biggest hits together. However Chetan Anand’s creative sensibilities were not in tandem with that of his younger brother. And the bitter fallout happened when one day Dev Anand came across a letter written by Chetan Anand to his wife. “There is a lot I would like to do in this company, but Dev is my problem”, wrote Chetan. Thereafter Dev Anand gradually started to prepare Goldie to take on the director’s mantle from Chetan. With Nau Do Gyarah,Navketan entered a new phase with Goldie or Vijay Anand coming into his own as one of Navketan’s most brilliant directors and the Dev Anand – Vijay Anand duo forming one of the most creative in-house teams in Hindi film history.

Chetan Anand’s first movie Neecha Nagar won the Golden Palm in the very first year of the Cannes Film Festival.

Marriage
Dev Anand never really seems very passionate about his lady love Mona Singh (Kalpana Kartik). From his reminiscences, it appears it was she who was very keen for a commitment.

“Make me a commitment – and I am yours, not only for now, but for all times.” She meant professionally, that she would not work for banners outside Navketan, but it was quite obviously meant to prod the footloose and fancy free Dev Anand to hang up his philandering boots! The poor man dithered, throwing pebbles into the sea, but Mona was adamant.
“How long will you take to decide?”
She refused to let me return until he had given his answer.
“What if I don’t decide now”, he asked .
A flood of tears sealed the issue. They decided to get married without any official announcement. “No fuss in our marriage…No music except that of the dancing in our hearts…” said Dev. And exactly after a fortnight, while on the sets of Taxi Driver they walked across to the Registrar of Marriages and came back for the shooting as husband and wife.

Not quite the heady elopement one had always imagined it to be!
Amusingly enough the cameraman spotted Mona with a ring and pointed out that the ring hadn’t been there in the previous shot.

Mona completely disappears from his narrative, never once making her presence felt even when he fell head over heels in love with Zeenat Aman. She only reappears towards the end, when Dev Anand says that she preferred to seclude herself with her Jewish friends and her beautician friend and would keep herself busy with religious rituals.

Guru Dutt
How Dev Anand met Guru Dutt for the very first time makes for a great anecdote! Dev Anand and Guru Dutt shared the same dhobi, without them knowing it, of course. One day as he put on his shirt, he realized the shirt wasn’t his. When he entered the studios he met a young man who introduced himself as Guru Dutt, who was then working as an assistant director. As they were about to go on to their respective studios, both of them realized they were wearing each other’s shirts! “We both laughed like we had never laughed before. We hugged each other, wearing each other’s shirts, and became the greatest of pals, for all times.”

Guru Dutt and he shared the same wavelength. They would watch film classics together, cycle through the streets of Pune (where they were both shooting) looking for books and magazines that excited them.

When Dev Anand’s first movie Hum Ek Hain was to be released, he was travelling with Guru Dutt on the local train and he spotted posters of his movie with his face on it, on the platforms. Guru Dutt understood how Dev Anand must be feeling and went up to a few girls who were looking at the poster to ask them what they thought of the new hero on the poster. They all said he looked very good! That made Dev Anand’s day!

One day, on the sets of Teen Deviyan, he got the news that Guru Dutt was no more. He drove right away to Guru Dutt’s house. He was the only visitor then. Guru Dutt face, says Dev Anand, had turned blue. There was a blue liquid in a glass lying next to him on his bedside table.

“My heart tore into shred. I silently walked back to my car. As I drove away, I saw the two of us together on the Poona hilltop where we had first dreamt our dreams by the fading light of the setting sun.

As Ra j Kapoor, with a sad smile, stroked Guru Dutt’s face, his body wrapped in white, waiting to be lit on the funeral pyre, I bade my last farewell to the greatest friend I have ever had in the movie industry.”

Ashok Kumar

When Dev Anand first arrived in Mumbai it had been his dream to meet Ashok Kumar one day. In fact he remembers seeing Ashok Kumar’s posters on the railway platforms and hoping that maybe one day his posters would be displayed alongside the great man’s!

One day Dev Anand was summoned by Ashok Kumar to the studies where he offered Dev Anand a film with Bombay Talkies and asked him how much he would like as remuneration. Dev Anand replied “Just make a good actor out of me. That is the price I want to charge for the film”. The film was Ziddi, which catapulted Dev Anand into the big league.

Years later, Dev Anand returned the favour by casting Ashok Kumar in an interesting negative role in Jewel Thief. It seems Dadamoni was quite reluctant to play the villain and it took a lot of persuasion on Goldie’s part to finally convince him.

As he was leaving the studio he met Nasir Khan, who had been hoping to bag the lead man’s role for Ziddi. They got talking and it turned out both of them lived in Pali Hill. Nasir Khan’s father was a fruit merchant at Crawford market and was from Peshawar. Every other evening the two of them would sit by the sea side and gaze at the sunset, wondering what the future held in store for them. One day, as they were returning home together, they met Nasir’s elder brother.

“One day, outside his home, he introduced me to his elder brother, who stood there looking very striking in a white shirt and white pants. He was doing his first film for Bombay Talkies at the time. His name was Yusuf Khan. The world knows him better as Dilip Kumar, the biggest and the most charismatic star of the Indian screen.”
(Coming as it does from Dev Anand, that is indeed very generous praise)

Dev Anand meets Gregory Peck

Dev Anand had first met Gregory Peck in Willingdon Club, in Bombay, at a party hosted by JC Jain, of the Times of India. Some years later when he was travelling in Rome, he found Peck shooting for a movie in the city. Being a fan, Dev Anand was eager to meet Peck. Their encounter comes across a starry-eyed fan’s brush with a Hollywood celebrity. The star writes quite candidly –

“He casually looked at me. I waved. He nodded in the same casual way as he would at any other in the crowd and looked away. I got hold of the girl with a copy of the script in her hand…and said to her in an undertone, ‘I know Mr. Peck. Can I have a word with him?”

“I am afraid not here – he cannot be disturbed,” was her curt reply.

Eventually he does get to meet Peck.

“The Willingdon Club meeting was remembered, the present meeting welcomed and a future one, whenever, looked forward to by both of us. All this happened in precisely a couple of minutes.”

Also on the shoot was the “extraordinarily beautiful Audrey Hepburn”.

Meeting Pandit ji

Dev Anand comes across as slightly miffed by Pandit ji’s nonchalant attitude towards him, the reigning star of movies! He had carried a special red rose to gift to the Prime Minister. Panditji bestowed “just a casual half-smile on me, the other half preoccupied, with a certain superior air, he looked away toward the idolizing screams of ‘Panditji ki jai’, to which he seemed addicted.”

It’s funny how Dev Anand disapproves of Nehru’s vanity, considering the entire book is an extended fan mail to himself! When Nehru smiles with a “touch of ‘I –am-bigger-than-you” smile or when he basks in the adoration of those clamouring to meet him, it is met with a disapproving sniff from the star!

Another encounter between our first Prime Minister and the ruling trio at the box office is particularly enlightening! It seems all that the stars asked the Prime Minister was about his romantic trysts!

Here’s an extract:

Raj asked him, ‘We hear you used to be very popular and amorously attracted to ladies wherever you went, Panditji!’

‘Not as popular as you fellows are!’ was his quick retort with his very famous smile.

I had read that he owned the most charming smile and was hailed as the owner of the most photogenic face (Comment: Do we sense some envy here?) So I asked, ‘Your devastating smile stole the heart of Lady Mountbatten – is it true, sir?’

He blushed, enjoying my question and laughing it away saying, ‘I love all those stories about me!’

‘But they all say she herself confessed her weakness for you!’; Dilip joined in, in a very humorous strain.

Hollywood Calling

We all know Guide was India’s first international collaboration, with a premier in New York. While in New York Dev Anand was approached to collaborate with David Selznick (of the Gone With The Wind fame) on a film to be shot in Kashmir. Dev Anand recalls in a wistful tone “Clark Gable in Gone With The Wind and now Dev Anand, from India, both in David Selznick’s films…” Alas, it was not to be. Unfortunately Selznick suddenly died of a massive heart attack and the project died with him.

Afterwards Dev Anand thought of launching an international film based on the novel The Princess by Manohar Malgonkar. He even met Sir Alec Guinness, for the role of the Maharaja in the movie. But the project got shelved – due to reasons not divulged!

The Amorous Dev!

For those of us who associate the 1940s with decorous propriety and modesty, Dev Anand’s autobiography is quite a revelation. In his book ladies, and in particular married ladies, seem ready and willing for sexual dalliances at the flash of a toothy smile!

While still new to Bombay, Dev Anand one day finds himself instantly attracted to a beautiful young woman on a suburban train: “Beautiful and innocent, like a blossoming flower, ready to reach the peak of its glory…Like the sweet smell of freshness, or the flavor of a delicious chocolate…”

Dev Anand makes the first move asking her where she was going. Here’s how the rakish debonair pataod girls (sorry for the crudity of language!):

“Where are you going?” I asked.
She guardedly looked into my eyes…
“Where?” I repeated, taking the best smile out of my arsenal.
She now smiled, but looked away again.
“I am sorry if I offended you…”
…She seemed friendly now and asked me back, “Where are you going?”
“I don’t know,” was my answer.
“You don’t know where you are going!” she laughed…
“It all depends on where you are going!” My confidence was growing.
She smiled…
“Has anybody ever told you that you are the most beautiful girl on this earth”?
Finally, as they said in films, “ladki phasi”!

Dev Anand gets down with the girl at Churchgate and then walks with her to her house! Fast work! There (and here one h as to admit that the star does have a good sense of humour) he finds the girl’s boyfriend waiting for her at the gate. The boyfriend turned out to be muscular with “an extra-thin waistline. He graciously concedes defeat, charmingly relinquishing his momentary conquest with the words “He certainly deserves you” (!)

Obviously the defeat rankled a bit for he compares himself to the beefy boyfriend.

“Blowing her a goodbye kiss, I compared myself, a skinny, frail-looking, gentle guy, always shy of baring his chest to the world, his shirt buttoned up to the neck to hide his delicate slimness (*), sensitive to the core, with a heart as soft as a lamb’s, to the strong He-Man, the gym going male, who she professed to be her boyfriend…”

(*Now we know the history behind the buttoned up collars!)

At times things seem too pat. He meets this same girl years later, “when I wore the crown of stardom on my head”. He was ambushed by a group of hysterical girls as he came out of a premier of a film. One of the girls screaming for his autograph was this same girl! As he autographed her book, she grabbed the star and kissed him.

The star comes across as someone who enjoys playing to the gallery. It seems he remembers this incident so vividly because of how it must have played out on the glossies. Her kiss was photographed as she reminded him who she was. Dev Anand gallantly kissed her back, saying with a flourish “I too owe you a kiss in return. And I kissed her in the full glare of the flashbulbs, before the cheering crowd.” Is it some kind of wish fulfillment that by this time the girl should have divorced her muscular boyfriend! And then there is the inevitable request “Will you cast me as your heroine?”

Decades later when he receives the Padma Bhushan he is acutely aware of the press photographing the moment – and he seems to be regaling in the media glare: “I tried to hide my tears lest they be caught by the cameras lined up in front of me. But the camera lenses are great spies. They clicked as I wiped a tear. They clicked as I took out a hanky to blow my nose. They clicked as I closed y eyes in the ecstasy of the moment…”

Coming back to his amorous escapes - Another time when he was reporting to Pune for his first film he had a rather passionate interlude in the night train. A voluptuous lady in a bright pink sari propositioned him as the train left Lonavla. ‘You are a very lovely young boy’ said the lady in the pink sari. Their tryst is narrated in erotic detail, with the lady apparently a trifle disappointed in Dev Anand’s prowess! “You young boys of today!” she gasped frustratedly. “Did you see that man who got off that last station (her male companion with whom she had a quickie before he alighted from the train)? They are strong. What a capacity. And you…But you will learn fast. You were strong, as I held you.” The lady disappears as the train drew into the station, “her expensive high-heeled shoes clicking away into the darkness”.

While shooting for Hum Ek Hain he was put at a guest house in Pune. Here he got attracted to a young lady who would have dinner with him in the dining hall every night. One night she invites Dev Anand to her room, sending a message through the bearer that she had cooked something special for him.

Dev Anand then goes on to describe in vivid intimate detail their night of pleasure. “Man is born for that pleasure” he says! “Next to us on the table lay our dinner in the trays. But it was left untouched. We were hungry only for each other.”
As long as the shooting continued, the two of them would meet in the sugar cane fields and make love.

On an aside – were women really so uninhibited in that era? I read with increased incredulity as the star recounts that on her birthday this lady requested him to wear his best shirt as she would be wearing her best sari. And then she goes on to say, very matter-of-factly, that afterwards she would have to spend the evening with her husband. It turns out she was the mother of a five year old child.!

Celeb Spotting

• Mysterious Lady

When staying with Chetan Anand in Pali Hill, Dev Anand recalls how he would wake up to the tunes of a tanpura being played by his beautiful neighbor from the flat next door. The melody she played would waft through the windows with the morning breeze. Fair with golden bangles on her hands, a bright red bindi on her forhead, the lady had been the secretary of the most powerful film critic of those days and had later married him. She wielded enormous power in deciding which film personality to promote or to destroy. Infact it was rumoured she did most of the critic’s writings for him.

• Motilal - Chetan Anand lived closed to where Motilal, a ruling star then, lived. Dev Anand once bumped into Motilal who asked him “what brings you to Bombay from Lahore, young man?” When Dev Anand replied he too wanted to be a star (interesting that choice of word. Not an actor, but a star) – Motilal generously said “why not better than I am”. Dev Anand watched the star drive away his convertible and dreamt of someday owning a car too! The star then gives himself a self-congratulatory pat on the back by recalling how the same star would once play a character role (a euphemism for a minor role) in Asli Naqli with Dev Anand as the hero of the film. Years later Motilal would visit Dev Anand at his home requesting him to star in a film he wanted to direct. By then Dev Anand was too big a star, with too many date commitments to be able to oblige him.

• Yash Johar was Navketan’s production controller.

• Shekhar Kapoor, Dev Anand’s nephew starred in Dev Anand’s Ishq Ishq Ishq , Navketan’s biggest box office disaster. The film also had Shabana Azmi, Zeenat Aman and Kabir Bedi.

• Tina Munim – was introduced as a bar girl in Des Pardes. In one of the sequences she had to sit in a bikini inside a huge rotating beer barrel filled with alcohol. Dev Anand describes her as “naughty mischievous and frivolous…She was quite shy, but when she gave her shots, the camera loved her.”

• Tabu is introduced in Hum Naujawan. She plays the role of a college principal’s teenage daughter who is raped by the son of a politician.

• Meenakshi Sheshadri, who engages in some flirtatious telephonic tete a tete (or is it only in Dev Anand’s imagination?) When she got married Dev Anand was one of the first to know.

• MF Hussain visits him at his home and draws a sketch of Dev Anand, saying, “I see a part of you in me, Dev saab…Your carefree creative restlessness – all very colourful.”

• Amitabh Bacchan – who was the chief guest at the music launch of Main Solah Bara Ki. He came wearing a check shirt, his collar buttoned up! Dev Anand feels this was Amitabh’s silent tribute to him (since the buttoned up collar is Dev Anand’s trademark look)

A touch of Vanity

Everywhere in his memoirs he writes about flashing his “most attractive smile” to fans and celebrities and how fans would swoon and get hysterical seeing him. While all of it is obviously true, his regaling us his readers with how his fans treated him as a demi god is a trifle embarrassing.

Sample this: “..women swooned as I smiled, and secretly made love to me in their thoughts, as I ran around my leading ladies, romancing with them….I was ‘the ultimate romantic’, in whom they saw everything they dreamt about romance in their own lives.”

Or – “Girls who loved me and longed for me after seeing my films have now become mothers, and have, in turn, passed their own dream to their daughters, who come and see me now with the same feeling and adoration.”

And – “I chose a second-class compartment for my journey, for it meant that all my fans, many of them poor, could sit next to me, and swarm around me with eager eyes of adulation and affection…”

When he is diagnosed with hernia in 1998 he worries about how this will affect his fans. “..the grapevine would spread shock waves across the country, saying that the evergreen, forever young man of unstinted energy, gifted by the gods with eternal youth, in the minds of his countrymen, was not, after all, what they took him to be, but an ordinary mortal like them all, who could be laid low by a mere hernia.”

Selective Memory

Nothing is mentioned of some of his greatest costars – Waheeda Rehman, Madhubala (both only in fleeting), Nutan, Vyjayantimala, Hema Malini, of his enduring partnership with SD Burman. I was quite puzzled by the fact that he has devoted chapters to Mink, Shaista or Sarina (who follows him around, starstruck. And when Dev asks her mother’s permission to allow her to star in his next movie, the mother says – she had brought her up all these years, only for him), and other recent debutants and none to the legends of yore.

He has devoted a chapter to his relationship with Suraiya though.

One also wonders that when he says “fans screamed in delight” and “the crowds went berserk with hysteria” while watching Awwal Number (remember – Aamir Khan’s ‘cricket’ movie – before Lagaan!) –what else in his autobiography is coloured with his ever optimistic perception of life, himself and his movies! He is a trifle disappointed when his movie Censor does not make it to the Oscar’s official entry for foreign language films and neither does it do well in the box office. But he good humouredly brushes it aside as a movie that “gave the thinking, analytical, intelligent section of the audience sumptuous food for thought for a serious, meaningful debate.”

The reader also can’t help but be curious about why Dev Anand and Mona Singh did not separate when the magic had so obviously gone from their relationship a long long time ago. He never mentions his wife again except for a few stray incidents regarding international visits. When he fell madly in love with Zeenat, and decided to propose to her, did he not think it was more appropriate to bring a closure to his earlier legal relationship? His entire marital relationship has been glossed over or rather swept under the carpet. Which he is completely justified in doing – but considering he has been so candid about everything else, this comes across as a mysterious omission.

Memorably quotes

After Taxi Driver became a resounding hit: “A good story is the soul of a good film, not the artificial glamour surrounding it. A great thought can be worth a million, but millions without a great though are like so many pieces of diamonds hidden in rubble.”

On Guide overshooting its budget and the adverse gossip surrounding its box office fate. “The man that the world was predicting would end up as a bankrupt was playing with the inner reserves of his own spiritual finances, to tell the world that it is not always billion-dollar budgets alone that produce the best, most soul-satisfying entertainment.”

ROMANCING WITH LIFE. AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. DEV ANAND
Publisher: Penguin Viking
Pages: 438

KANOON – A LEGAL WHODUNIT (AND HINDI FILM’S FIRST SONGLESS MOVIE)

2010-08-27T13:33:00.016+05:30

Originally published on Passionforcinema.com

The movie starts with a bang, literally! The first scene opens with a chase and a gunshot and MURDER! The premise of the movie unfolds rapidly in the next 8 minutes: that the law is blind and punishes an innocent on the basis of evidence that might well be false. And that on the basis of that evidence what right has kanoon to take away what it cannot give back – the years spent in captivity, the ignominy of being branded a criminal, the lost years of youth, the complete loss of hope and faith in justice and humanity. Kalidas is a poor man who got sentenced for killing Ganpat even though he was innocent. Ten years later (a somewhat weak link here – why ten years, how did he escape from jail or was he released and if so why?) he comes back to murder Ganpat because by know he too is wise in the ways of the law and knows that he cannot be convicted for the same murder twice.
For a moment the audience might presume that the story that is about to unfold will be about double jeopardy. That there will be a murder, twice, of the same man. However that is not the fulcrum on which the story revolves.
***Please be aware that there are spoilers ahead***
Within 12 minutes the stage is set for the actual drama to unfold – prompted by the bet placed between the two judges – Badriprasad (Ashok Kumar) and Jha (Moolchand) – that even the most honest man can succumb to falsehood and be forced to give false evidence, if it involves those he loves most – and that hence, passing sentence simply on the basis of evidence, was a fatal lacunae in the legal system. Jha dares him “khoon karo aur bach ke dikhao” and Sawalkar (Iftekhar) jokes that it would make for sensational news - “session judge committed to session”, the exact headlines that will be splashed across newspapers in one of the most climactic scenes in the second half.
The audience is subtly informed that romance is not going to be the focus of this story. How? In the first scene that Nanda is introduced (she visits Rajendra Kumar in his bachelor pad), she calls him a buddhu for not being able to find his shirt. He replies – of course he was dumb, otherwise how is it that inspite of having a good job, a nice house and one’s betrothed right before him, he still was a bachelor? So we know that the two are already in love; this is not going to be about their courtship but about something else.
In what must be considered truly unique is that the movie does not have any songs. It has two musical pieces, one the extended ballet, and the other, Mehmood’s buffoonery at the club. The first is really a red herring: Shubha Khote, the MC of the performance announces that the ballet is about the deewangi of a lover, who is so besotted by his lady love that he agrees to kill someone to get her what she wants.
During the ballet we are taken aback to find the respectable judge Badriprasad (Ashok Kumar) cozying up to an unknown lady in the dress circle seats (private, hence removed from where his daughter Nanda and Rajendra Kumar are sitting). Since this is soon followed by Ashok Kumar stabbing the baniya who was blackmailing this mysterious lady, we presume the ballet set the tone for this ugly tale of lust and violence. Not until the climax do we realize the ballet deliberately made us jump to the wrong conclusions about Badriprasad and about everything else that unfolded.

In a well constructed plot, and this applies particularly to thrillers (Kanoon is after all a legal whodunit) the writer sets up certain objects for the specific requirement of a later pay-off. When Rajendra Kumar meets Om Prakash to persuade him to hand over the blank page with Mehmood’s signature on it, with which the moneylender was blackmailing Mehmood, Om Prakash at that time was about to have his night cap, a glass of milk! At that moment it seems like a perfectly innocuous detail, but it is this very milk which will seal thief, Kaalia’s fate. Kaalia creeps into Dhaniram’s house, slips over the spilt milk and trips over Dhaniram’s corpse, and just as luck (and the screenplay) would have it, clutches the knife stuck into the corpse.
Kaalia’s footprints in the milk and his fingerprints on the knife are the seemingly irrefutable proof on the basis of which the police frame him as Ghaniram’s murder.
Another set up in this critical murder scene are the two glasses in which Om Prakash serves Rajendra Kumar refreshments. While the murder is the first Turning Point in the movie, the scene in which the two glasses are presented as evidence in court, is the second Turning Point. Till then the court believed there had been no witnesses to the crime.
Climax: The climax is well constructed. Just as the sentence is about to be pronounced on Badriprasad, what looks like a wheelchair is wheeled in. The camera deliberately shows us only the lower half of the supposed wheelchair. Since we can’t seen anyone sitting on it, (no legs), we guess it cannot be a wheelchair. Only when the object is brought right in front of the presiding judge does the audience get to see that it is a trolley with a corpse on it. The scene has intrigue, suspense, and at the climactic moment – shock. Just what a good climax in a thriller should be!
Resolution: The ending neatly ties up with the beginning of the film. Ashok Kumar emphasizes how unjust and inadequate kanoon can be because it decides only on the basis of evidence, which as seen here can be completely false. Evidence showed Kaalia was the murderer. Because Kailash (Rajendra Kumar) happened to be there during the murder he knew the evidence was wrong. And so he could fight for Kaalia’s justice. But then neither was his evidence as eyewitness accurate. Because, he hadn’t really seen Badriprasad, but someone else, stabbing Dhaniram. Had Badriprasad’s look-alike’s body not been found, the wrong man would have been sentenced to death (just as Kalidas had been at the beginning of the movie).
ON AN ASIDE
• The movie’s associate director is Yash Chopra. The two brothers made such different films! Does anyone know if they had a fallout? I don’t find Yash Chopra ever mentioning his brother in any of his interviews.
• There is a very good dance ballet by Vera Botcharova, Madhuri, Gopi Krishna
• Probably Hindi film’s first songless movie. Background score and music by Salil Choudhury
• It was nice to find women lawyers in extras. I thought that was quite a progressive touch!
• Sets: all the doors open inwards. I wonder why!

CHARACTERS
• Parallel characters: 1st murderer is poor and has TB. So does the 2nd murderer.
• Within first five minutes main protagonists have been introduced – Ashok Kumar, the highly respected judge and Rajendra Kumar, the young, idealistic lawyer.
• Om Prakash: Quite an unusual role for the normally benign avuncular Om Prakash. He is a shrewd moneylender who, as Ashok Kumar says, never lets his victims escape from his clutches. On the side, he does a little bit of blackmailing should his debtors fail to pay up.
It is interesting to note that even in the Shashikala subplot, which at first seems almost irrelevant to the main story, the theme of kanoon is stressed. Om Prakash tells Shashikala – that “ek mard ke hote huye, doosre mard se shaadi karna, kanoon ke khilaph hai”.
The peephole he uses to check out his visitors adds that element of suspicion and quirkiness to his character (it’s an unusual peephole!) and to the overall mood of the film.
Something that Om Prakash says to Shashikala is a recurring theme in the movie. “Aadmi ki bahar ki zindagi kuch aur hoti hai, andar ki kuch aur”. Is Badriprasad the respectable judge and family man he looks on the outside or…?
• Mohanlal: Cameo role as Kalidas, the man who is convicted for a murder he did not commit. Very dramatic (bordering and sometimes slipping into melodrama, but can be excused for his histrionics – the social films of that age demanded that the message be spelt out loud and clear)
• Iftikhar has a miniscule role as a junior judge. He has very little lines to say.
• Shashikala – she is the adulterous who incites her lover to kill the baniya. Coquettish, arch, the typical Hindi movie temptress.
• Shobha Khote – a young Shobha Khote with a 5-second appearance as the MC of a ballet programme that Nanda and Rajendra Kumar attend.
• Rajendra Kumar as Kailash Khanna – Public Prosecutor/Defense Lawyer. We’ve become so used to and immune to the attractions of a shirtless hero that when Rajendra Kumar grabs a towel to modestly drape over his vest, before opening the door to his lady love, I found myself smiling! Rajendra Kumar is given plenty of scope to display his histrionic skills. His impassioned pleas for justice, the scene in which he entreats Kaalia to tell him why he had confessed to a crime he did not commit and the confrontation scene in which in front of a full court he accuses presiding judge Badriprasad of murder are very dramatic and stirring!
On an aside, little less lipstick and lipgloss in close ups would have been more aesthetic!
• Ashok Kumar – as the Judge Badriprasad, he is upright, conscientious and sympathetic. The trappings of power have not blunted his sensitivity. He realizes only too well that the legal system can err more often than not. In fact, believing that the system has loopholes, he never delivers a death sentence. He has a wry sense of humour, as when he listens to Rajendra Kumar’s defense of Kaalia, admitting “kahani acchi hai” with a smile playing on his lips. Is he toying with Rajendra Kumar or simply indulging his future son-in-law in letting him dazzle the court with his legal pyrotechnics.
As a father he is kind, affectionate, and enjoys ragging his daughter now and then over her fiancé.
Spoiler ahead
As the “other” man, Ashok Kumar introduces such subtle nuances in his personality, that even though the audience is as yet not aware of the double role, they still wonder how the two personalities can be so different. The difference is very understated – such as his gesture of stroking, then almost grabbing Shashikala’s hair and brushing it aside. This is something you absolutely cannot expect out of Badriprasad. Murder, maybe, if he is provoked enough, but that kind of a leering gesture, never! Then there is this business of wearing gloves. There is something nefarious about the way he puts on the gloves (in the Ballet scene and then in the prelude to the murder scene). What we’ve seen of Badriprasad, his body language is self-assured and dignified. Nothing sleazy about him!
• Mehmood – the good-for-nothing son who really doesn’t have much to do in the film except some exaggerated buffoonery. His expressions and gestures in court when he takes an oath were hardly comic. Instead he almost appeared mentally challenged – which I don’t think is what the director intended 
• Nanda – well…I’m afraid I really don’t have anything to add. She was very good as a giggly, much-in-love teenager who is thrown into an impossible situation in which she has first tries to save her fiancé from the gallows and then finds him accusing her father of murder. She matures rapidly in her role and portrays the helplessness and anguish of her character rather well.

Issues raised in the movie:
1. The legitimacy of the death penalty. Iftekhar questions how can one man can sentence another to death when the evidence on the basis of which the convicted man was being sentenced might not be true. In support of the death penalty, the senior-most judge Moolchand argues that it is only the fear of death that reins in man – who otherwise might let loose his bestial instincts and society would then descend into jungle raaj.
As the story unfolds we are shown how man might be forced to give false evidence or not even realize that he is giving false evidence. It is very succinctly put across by Ashok Kumar as ”insaan ka kabhi aankh dokha khata hai to kahbi dil”. Bringing us back to what he had argued with his senior colleague Jha right after the Kalidas case. That man is too intricately enmeshed in relationships and situations to give completely objective, accurate evidence. So what right does law have to take away a man’s life based on another man’s evidence, when it cannot restore life should the evidence be proven wrong. Why take what you cannot give, declaims Ashok Kumar in a truly impassioned plea for doing away with the death sentence. Only God has the right to take life. Not man.
“Jaan ke badle jaan. Yeh insaaf nahi, inteqaam hai!” I almost clapped as Ashok Kumar thundered this line!
Incidentally, it is interesting to watch how two actors present a similar scene. Both Rajendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar had to deliver impassioned speeches in court on the meaning of justice and truth (evidence). Both are at one time being charged with murder. Their life is at stake. And they enact the scenes so differently. Ashok Kumar is so much more nuanced in his delivery. More restrained. More elegant. In comparison, Rajendra Kumar at times slip into melodrama.
2. A man’s vocation and status in society should not bias a jury. Kaalia is a Peshawar chor. But, as Rajendra Kumar, his lawyer argues, that should not prejudice the jury against him. Just because he was a thief, did not mean he would also commit murder. Quite the obverse happens in the second half. Badriprasad is an eminent judge. That, says his defense lawyer, is adequate reason for him to be regarded as incapable of having committed a heinous crime.

Directorial touches
- Lengthy dialogues or discussions can get a little tedious, so the director introduces some element of motion, physical activity, to relieve the static nature of two people just talking. For instance, when Jha and Sawalkar (Iftekhar) the two judges are having a serious debate about the death sentence, they pour themselves tea, walk around a little. Similarly Ashok Kumar has this little quirk of playing with his diamond ring, turning it around his finger whenever he is delivering a long speech. It relieves the monotony of just talking.
- Rajendra Kumar produces a letter from a person who says he has witnessed the murder taking place. He then reads out the letter in which the eye-witness very passionately appeals to the guilty person to give himself up, before the court, within the next five minutes. Ashok Kumar agrees to suspend the proceedings of the court for five minutes. The ticking of the pendulum clock ups the suspense. And then suddenly one can hear footsteps. Even the usually unflappable Badriprasad (Ashok Kumar) seems spooked. Everyone in court looks towards the entrance wondering who was about to make an appearance. And then, the lawyer sitting next to Rajendra Kumar gives him a hard shove! Without realizing what he was doing, Rajendra Kumar had been tapping his feet, as he focused all his thoughts and energies in somehow telepathically convincing Badriprasad to confess. A completely unexpected twist dispels the crackling tension in the scene. In the completely still and silent court room, where the only sound one could hear was of the clock ticking, there is suddenly a raucous, bleating laughter. Kaalia announces, laughing apologetically that he had been lying all along, and that he was in fact guilty of the crime after all.
Footnotes: Everyone smokes so much in the movie – wonder what the Censor Board would think of it! Rajendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar are smoking in practically every scene.
Some Loopholes in the plot
- One of the crucial evidences that turned the case against Kaalia in his favour was the Sub Inspector’s watch. Kaalia was arrested at 11.55 pm, escaping from Dhaniram’s house. The murder was committed between 11.30 – 12. Rajendra Kumar asks the Sub Inspector the time. It turns out his watch was fast. How on earth did Rajendra Kumar know his watch was fast and that this evidence could be used effectively in court?
- Why did Badriprasad look at Shashikala when entering the court as an accused? Agreed this is nothing but a red herring, but there had to be some logical explanation for this action. When he didn’t know her from Adam, why should he glance at her specifically?

Aisha or Emma: Much Ado about...

2010-08-24T11:48:00.012+05:30

When a film is publicized as being ‘loosely’ based, even, on a book, one harbors certain expectations. If said book has been adapted on screen before, the expectations rise and if the book is a classic with multiple film adaptations and a formidable fanfare, then expectations treble.

Thus when I first found out about an Emma adaptation in Bollywood , I was quite excited about it. I felt that here was a story that could not be botched up by our tendency towards melodrama because in every so ever way, the society of a cloistered yet affluent village etched out by Jane Austin in Emma is very much representative of modern day urban India and the pockets of astronomical affluence it affords. Unlike the more nuanced interactions, emotions and social structures discussed in Austin’s other novels : Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion and Mansfield Park; Emma, is circumstantially less complicated and hence easier to contextualize. The story of a young woman of wealth in want of an intelligent pass time, Emma is possibly Jane Austin’s least likable character which is also why many would be open to her sacrilege in the form of Aisha, her Bollywood counter part. I, for one, did not sit in the theater with such a view; I was truly looking forward to watching it. There is little doubt, I thought, that Bollywood has gotten over its phase where hackneyed characters cropped up like acne on teenage skin; technology combined with youthful film-makers who were in synch with the times and certainly intelligent, would make for a good combination of chic- a quality much needed in a project such as this. Arguably, I was being too optimistic as I had no idea what film I was referring to. Most that I had seen in the recent past, the notional crème of Bollywood, were the same old banal with a silky gloss.
Austin’s ‘incandesant marriages’ and witty quips have been good companions, indeed, in times of need. With innumerable film adaptations, I find myself wanting to watch the latest interpretation of her characters just because one knows that there will always be a happy ending. Sometimes, even though I can not boast dramatic suffering (touch wood), one needs a dose of happy ending in the midst of intensity such as: ‘The train went over him and went onto Pakistan’ . Having watched every possible screen interpretation of Emma, I can honestly say, that Aisha was the worst. What was tragic about the film was the fact that it had great potential especially because of its supporting caste. The greatest disappointment was Aisha herself who had no chemistry with her Knightley, for one and no alacrity that characterizes her literary counterpart right from the start: ‘Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her’. Aisha, on the other hand clueless and has no talent in squirming out of tight situations with her charm and blame it on the actor rather than the film makers; where you are taken by sympathy for Gwyneth Paltrows Emma or Romola Garai’s Emma you are simply annoyed by Sonam Kapoor’s Aisha. She can, at no point endear herself to the audience; her ‘bonhomie’ with Abhay Deol’s Arjun Burman is never more than that- there is no passionate exchange between the two, just impassioned and banal bickering. The subtle change in the Emma/Knightley equation, that which makes the story a romantic favorite, could possibly be ranked in the tail end of a negative calibration. In fact, save for the music and the supporting characters, the film looks like an extended L’Oreal advert- one never knows, it could crop up as a hidden investment in the Bettencourt heiress’s check book.
In conlcusion, and my humble opinion for which I may be relegated to the ranks of the flippant, Aisha simply wore expensive clothes and faded into oblivion while Emma shined on for the poor little rich girl that she is.

Chupa Rustam- a Vijay Anand potboiler that lacks finese

2010-05-24T14:25:00.007+05:30

Teesri Manzil started with a woman running and then falling from the teesri manzil. Jewel Thief began with a shadowy figure dexterously removing jewellery worth lakhs from showrooms and jewellery stores.

Vijay Anand has a flair for dramatic beginnings. Chupa Rustam begins dramatically enough - in a blinding snow storm, but the director seems to have strangely forgotten to show the snow falling! We have Hangal, an archeologist, stuck in the snow, making a distress call to his son. He keeps saying everyone is dead (and we are shown bodies lying scattered on the snow) and that it is unlikely that he will survive the snowstorm. We see snow everywhere, but where is the storm?

Unlike his masterpieces, and I am particularly biased towards Jewel Thief and Teesri Manzil, in Chupa Rustam the director seems to have lost his flair for elegant romantic thrillers. The Prem Chopra - Bindu sequences are crass and distasteful, especially the one in which he tears apart her dress with her teeth. Since that scene was on the cover of the disc as well, I presume it was highlighted as the most provocative scene in the film! When Bindu mouths cliches like "tum mere laash ke saath khel sakte ho" I couldn't beleive my ears! A Vijay Anand movie with such uninspired lines?

The story is about an archeologist, Hangal, who has discovered a hidden civilization of gold in the Himalayas. He is kept prisoner by Ajit and Prem Chopra who torture him to dislose the whereabouts of this lost world. Hangal's son is Dev Anand, who seems to have had a bad hair day throughout the movie! He has hair flopping on his forehead - which made me wonder if it was a wig!

To continue...Dev Ananad is an undercover agent, who kidnaps Hema Malini, the daughter of a millionaire, who is to receive a Padmashree, but who is being blackmailed by Ajit to pour crores and crores of money into Nagra Valley, to unearth the city of gold. Dev Anand kidnaps her as a quawali singer - turned dacoit, and strangely enough she doesn't seem too upset nor very scared about her fate in the hands of a criminal.

Hema is initially to be married off to Prem Chopra (Ajit's son). But Dev Anand persuades Ajit that he alone can decipher archeologist Hangal's coded map to the city of gold. In return he asks for Hema Malini's hand. So now Hema and he are a couple, and yet Dev Anand asks Hema to woo Prem Chopra. Why? To find out where they have hidden Hema's mother and brother.

The story has too many sub plots:
Main plot: Dev Anand is out to nab the "gaddars" who are plotting to siphon away kilotons of gold to Tibet!
Subplot 1: Bindu- Prem Chopra - Vijay ANand triangle. Bindu and Prem Chopra are lovers, but Prem Chopra is attracted to Hema Malini and her wealth. She warns Prem Chopra that a scorned woman is not to be taken lightly, the bornfire burning outside a not-so-subtle metaphor for the fire burning within her, as she dances in the snow in a ridiculous slit skirt. Prem Chopra does what he seems to be best at - he comes and rips apart her shirt. Vijay Anand, a chor, who is actually Dev Anand's partner, covers her modesty by offering her his coat and thereby wins her heart.

There follows another provocative scene in which Vijay Anand hides beneath Bindu's bed and watches her undress. Wonder what provocation caused a director of Vijay Anand's class and style to add such generous dollops of sleaze in his film?

Sub Plot 2: Rescue Hema Malini's mother and brother

Sub Plot 3: Dev Anand - Hema Malini romance

Sub Plot 4: Rescue Dev Anand's father - who is sustained throughout the length of th movie, only to be killed quite needlessly in a shower of bullets. Vijay Anand, Dev Anand's partner, counts the number of bullets (eighteen he pronounces significantly)- making one wonder if Dev Anand would exact revenge with the same number of gun shots.

Sub Plot 5: Hema Malini's father - is he worthy of receiving the padmashree or is he hand in gloves with the villains

Ofcourse most Hindi movies have two to three subplots, but here the story seems to meander and digress too much to be a taut thriller.

And what on earth happened to the S.D.Burman - Vijay Anand magic? The songs of Jewel Thief are a superb mix of haunting melodies (dil pukare aa re), evergreen favourites like "raat akeli hai" and "yeh dil na hota bechara" and foot tapping numbers like "hoton mein aisi baat". Chupa Rustam does not have a single hummable song other than "dheere se jana khatiyan mein" which is a paradoy of S.D.'s own song. The lyrics by Neeraj are completely uninspired and dull.

The villains, Ajit and Prem Chopra are caricatures. They are neither menacing nor grotesque. Prem CHopra is like a mad dog, tearing Bindu's clothes with his teeth, and then shooting an old, senile Hangal with a sten gun without any provocation. YEt he fails to evoke any sort of fear. He comes across as a bumbling buffoon dancing to Hema Malini's tune.

Ajit and Prem CHopra are Prem Nath's hirelings. Prem Nath seems to be some sort of Russian gangster, or an Indian who speaks Russian gibberish. There are lots of green bulbs flashing to indicate a crime den and he is surrounded by an outrageous menangerie of international goons, black Africans, bedraggled whites dressed in ankle length homespun tunics, who for some strange reason walk like zombies, with flaxen shoulder length hair, Oriental villains who only grin wickedly and snarl. They all pounce on Hema Malini like a pack of wild dogs, smacking their lips, one even sticks his tongue out, pinching her cheeks. I guess Vijay Anand meant it to be revolting - but did he have to be so laughable? Prem Nath as the Top Boss, gets the girl. Dressed only in a dressing gown, with his legs showing, he pats his thigh and leers at Hema, asking her to sit in his lap. Hema ofcourse breaks into a song, to evade his lecherous touch.

The only saving grace in the entire movie was Vijay ANand as Jimmy. He seemed to have enjoyed his role of a happy-go-lucky rakish rascal quite thoroughly. He wears blue glares, a cowboy stetson hat, leather gloves, boots, and yellow striped pants! He sports long sideburns, twirls a cigar from his lips and glints flirtatiously at Bindu. He is the only one in the film who does not take himself seriously. His one liners are the only lively dialogues in the film and his duet with Bindu ("jo mein hota") the only memorable song. I loved the way he broke into a caper, foot tapping on roof of the car as he sung his way into Bindu's capricious heart.

I have a feeling that had Vijay Anand reappraised his role and done away wiht Dev Anand's character, the movie might have been far more enjoyable!

The Immortals of Meluha

2010-05-16T15:27:00.007+05:30

Baba, who has a deep abiding love (bordering on obsession) for mythology, especially Indian mythology, gave me a very interesting book to read this summer. Called "The Immortals of Meluha", it is the story about Shiva and his heroic exploits - not as god, but as a Tibetan tribal hero, who quite unwittingly, becomes Neelkanth, and is forced to don the garb of a Savior, or Mahadev, vanquishing the evil Chandravanshis, for the greater glory of the Suryavanshis.

The story is set in the Indus Valley Civilization era and there is that piquant sense of delight that comes from recognizing cities that you had read in detail in your school history books. The kingdowm of Meluha is ruled by Daksha and its cities are meticulously planned in grid ike structures, with superb sanitation facilities. The people of Meluha, the Suryavanshis are a superior race, governed by the high ideals of Sri Ram, their greatest king. Unlike the lascivious Chandravanshis who dress provocatively, and are uninhibited in their sexuality, the Suryavanshis are always restrained, calm and noble in their demeanour.

The most interesting aspect of the Meluhan way of life is their fastidious adherence to a caste system based on merit. At childbirth all Meluhan children are handed over to the state. The state brings them up, giving them the best of opportunities. When the child reaches his teens, he is assessed. Based on a thorough evaluation which is completely unbiased and fair, he is given his varna. So if a child does not display any inclination towards agression or any interest in warfare, he is not given the kshatriya varna.

A couple can adopt a child from their same varna, but never their own biological child.

In this fantastically ordered society arrives Shiva, a tall, agile, lithe tribal hero. He is given a mysterious drink to cleanse his body of infections. The potion turns his throat a deep blue. This galvanizes the entire nation - for according to an ancient legend, their saviour will come from a far off land and will have a "neelkanth" or blue throat.

How Shiva agrees to take on the mantle of the Savior, and the battles he fights to protect his people, is what the story is all about.

The premise is definitely original. As is Shiva's love story with Sati, a warrior princess, cursed as a "vikarma" to lead a solitary life. There are many interesting twists to the age-old myths - such as Sati being consumed by fire - here being interpretted as an agni-vaan consuming her organs from within. Nandi, Shiva's "vahan" is a Meluha's ambassador who persuades Shiva to leave Mansarovar and to migrate with his tribe to Meluha. Heavy, a little slow because of his gigantic proportions, he loves eating and is Shiva's most loyal follower.

You also have an explanation of what makes somras the elixir of life, THE potion of IMMORTALITY.Somras is manufactured by Brihaspati, one of the very few men in this story who are not in awe of Shiva,nor is he taken in by the Neelkanth legend. He treats Shiva as an equal, and as their camaraderie grows, (Shiva enjoys Brihaspati's wry wit and respects his intelligence), they become as close as brothers.

The villains in the story are the Nagas. Ferocious and cruel, they attack Sati twice. Yet, there is obviously more to their story than just a stereotype. The leader of the Nagas is mysterious and repeatedly reins in his men from unnecessary bloodshed. He saves two village women from the jaws of death (literally), putting his life at risk by rescuing them from a river croc.He also has some game plan up his sleeve - which is not revealed in this book (the book appears to be the first of a trilogy).

The story ends rather abrubtly with Sati being attacked yet again, by a Naga. What happens will be revealed in the sequel.

The background of the author AMISH is quite untypical of a writer of the tales of Shiva! An IIM (C) graduate, he is a finance professional, who is "fascinated by history, philosophy and the future of the human civilization" (excerpt from book blurb). Interesting, to say the least! Perhaps because of his non-literary background I am tempted to gloss over some of the inadequacies in the book. The most glaring - a somewhat simplistic use of language, with frequent use of expletives like "Shit". When Lord Shiva himself curses "shit", it is difficult for the reader to remain immersed in the epical grandeur of Meluha! One would have expected a primitive tribal war lord, on his way to divinity, to mutter something less prosaic!

Iron Man 2: Privatization of peace and Americanization of heroism

2010-05-02T18:40:00.006+05:30

I must confess that I once was a great fan of the Marvel comic superhero. It was a very naïve appreciation and I did not indulge enough to become a bona fide expert but when I watched them up to their antics, I was able to suspend, willingly, my knowledge of reality and judgment and simply enjoy the ‘good guy beat the crap out of the bad guy’. It has been a while since I have given way to this childhood weakness; nevertheless, I have admittedly never been particularly ashamed of having this eccentric fancy. It always made for a good conversation piece, I found. However, it was when I was coaxed into watching Iron Man 2 that I realized that I could not, any longer, submit myself to willing absolution from intellectual reality. Let me illustrate what I mean by intellectual reality, lest I sound arrogant; by this phrase, I mean knowledge of the realities of the world. The realities of the world being a system in crisis, a system pandering to the whims of American Republicanism and a system, if not corrected, is bound to destroy the rudiments of civilization as we know it. It is really when American superheroes vouch to save the whole world that things get personal and my enjoyment of them stops.
Iron Man 2 was a disgusting republican propaganda peppered with patronizing admissions to racial equality, female empowerment and the rest of the world. The ‘Iron Man’ is the fabulously rich son of an American state of the art military weapons mogul. He and his institution typify what is wrong in the world today. It is when he regales in the senate and shouts that he is ‘privatizing world peace’ that I wanted to hurl. Then there is the African American best friend who fights along side the strong white man but does slightly worse than the latter; the female CEO who can’t handle the pressure of leading the team and needs her Iron Man by her side always. But what took the cake was the fact that the villain is a Russian physicist and spawn of an indignant cold war scientist.
I did not expect to be floored by Iron Man 2 but I did not think I would be so violated.

Googling Casablanca

2010-04-07T13:15:00.027+05:30

This is not a review of the movie. I wanted to read up whatever was available on the Net on Casablanca and this is a summary of whatever I found interesting.
Incidentally the movie did not move me the way it has touched millions of fans for over half a century. I am quite a sentimentalist at heart, so really don't know why I wasn't transfixed by the movie. Have I become too jaded? Maybe I should re-watch some of my all time favourite romantic movies like The Sound of Music and Roman Holiday to check if I have indeed become a mildewed cynic!

Well, whatever be it, here is some interesting trivia on the movie. You will also find some in-depth analysis of the movie, its characters and plot.

A handful of writers worked on Casablanca. Julius J and Philip G Epstein, brothers, can be credited with the following major contribution to the script:
• the transformation of Captain Renault from a minor, rather unpleasant, womanizer into a superbly witty, sophisticated friend of Rick
• the transformation of Rick from a self-pitying, adulterous lawyer into a tough, cynical man with unsuspected resources of tenderness, consideration, and strength
• the marvelous banter between Rick and Captain Renault
• all the scenes which take place before Rick is introduced
• the humor.

When the Epsteins gave Wallis (the producer) the first third of the movie in April, Wallis immediately turned around and gave it to another writer, Howard Koch, for his suggestions, while having the Epsteins continue to work on Part II. Koch was younger, more political. (Later, during the McCarthy era, he would be blacklisted.) He gave Wallis 19 pages of "Suggestions for a Revised Story".

"There is also a danger that Rick's sacrifice in the end will seem theatrical and phony unless, early in the story, we suggest the side of his nature that makes his final decision in character.

• It would be interesting to have Renault penetrate the mystery in the first scene with Rick when he guesses that the cynical American is underneath, a sentimentalist. Rick laughs at the idea, then Renault produces his record--'ran guns to Ethiopia,' 'fought for the Loyalists in the Spanish War.' Rick says he got well paid on both occasions. Renault replies that the winning side would have paid him better. Strange that he always happens to be on the side of the under-dog. Rick dismisses the implication, but through-out the picture we see evidence of his humanity, which he does his best to cover up."
• Koch makes the man Rick bars from his gambling room--who was an English cad in the play--into a representative of the Deutschbank.
• Koch solved the unworkable subplot by having Rick allow the young Bulgarian couple to win at roulette.

In their script the Epsteins had incorporated a real-life incident. Phil's (the writer) wife, Lilian, had played 25-cent roulette in Palm Springs and lost. "She was moaning and complaining about losing. Finally the croupier told her put her chips on 22. She won, and he told her to get out and never come back." The Epsteins created a refugee who had been saving for three years enough money to leave Casablanca and was now gambling away his stake. Rick told him to put his money on 24 [sic], and he won.
• Koch zeroed in on this scene as a way of showing Rick's humanity:

"Why not make this a much bigger situation--for instance, it might be the way he rescues Annina and her husband from Renault? The Prefect has named a price for the visa too high for the couple to pay. In his most gracious manner, he suggests to Annina that she can pay in another way. . . . Annina comes for advice to Rick, who enables Jan to win at roulette, thus defeating the intention of his friend Renault. The Prefect, when he learns, should not resent this action of Rick's, but accept it as a sporting loss--and also as proof of his argument that Rick is a sentimentalist."

Koch rewrote the Epsteins to give the movie more weight and significance, and the Epsteins then rewrote Koch to erase his most ponderous symbols and to lighten his earnestness.

As the late-May date for the start of production neared, most of the script was in pretty good shape. But Wallis felt that there were still problems with the Ilsa character and the ending. He called in Casey Robinson. On May 20, Robinson sent Wallis seven pages of notes. They began: "Again, as before, my impression about CASABLANCA is that the melodrama is well done, the humor excellent, but the love story deficient."

A specific example:

In place of this scene, I would play the scene where Ilsa tries to find out from Sam where Rick is. Think a minute of the facts of the love story and you will see why this scene is necessary. The girl has just one thing in mind, that she must get to Rick and tell him why she didn't catch the train in Paris. Loving him as she does, and suspecting what he thinks about her, she must clear this up. Now, she need not disclose this motive to Sam, in fact, shouldn't but the audience will realize it later. In the meantime, this business serves as a very good buildup for the love story and will pique the audience's interest and make the first meeting between Ilsa and Rick tremendously effective.

DIRECTOR MICHAEL CURTIZ
Mihaly Kertesz was born in Hungary on December 24, 1888. By the time he came to Los Angeles and Warner Bros. from Austria in June, 1926, he had already made sixty-two silent movies. The studio person assigned the task of meeting him at the train station was publicity man Hal Wallis. During the decade between 1930 and 1940, he [Curtiz] directed forty-five talking pictures. They may have been a goulash of melodramas, horror films, swashbucklers, westerns and gangster movies . . . but his movies had three things in common. They were brought in on time, they rarely went over budget, and they almost always made money.

Mike didn't have much time to think about Casablanca that spring; he was busy finishing Yankee Doodle Dandy (--not a bad picture in its own right).
Generally Curtiz respected the wishes of Wallis and the writers but, of course, they weren't actually on the set. It was Curtiz who had Ilsa pound the table with her fist, knocking over the wine glass, in the climactic scene between her and Rick in Paris.

Wallis was quite upset about other changes:

"The transition from driving down the Champs-Elysees to the country road means nothing because you left out the dialogue. . . . For the balance of the picture I will greatly appreciate it if you will call me on the telephone when you drop dialogue out of a scene, or make changes, as it will be far simpler, and considerably less expensive for us to discuss these things before you do them than to go back and retake scenes later."

As we can see, however, these scenes were not re-shot and remained without dialogue.

The line "Here's good luck to you" was changed during shooting to "Here's looking at you, kid" -- apparently at the suggestion of Bogart himself.

ILSA/INGRID BERGMAN

In Everybody Comes to Rick's the Ilsa character is "an American tramp named Lois Meredith, whose affair with Rick ended when she casually cheated on him with another man and whose renewed affair with Rick in Casablanca emasculates her current lover, Laszlo. Casey Robinson, Wallis' favorite - and Warner Bros.' highest paid - screenwriter had the idea that the heroine should be European. Michele Morgan, an actress of French descent, and Ingrid Bergman quickly became the two main contenders. They were about the same age, each had made several successful movies, and they seemed about equally promising. But the studio would have had to have paid Morgan $55,000, while they could get Bergman for $25,000. The deal with David O. Selznick/Paramount Studios to lend Ingrid Bergman to Warner Bros. for eight weeks was finalized in late April.

Ingrid Bergman was born in Sweden, on August 29, 1915. Her mother died when she was three; her father, when she was twelve. After attending Stockholm's Royal Dramatic Theater School for a year, she had been offered a film contract. David Selznick had seen her in the 1936 Swedish film Intermezzo and, in 1939, had brought her to America to star in his English-language version. She made several movies in 1940-1 but things had gone dry by 1942. Her husband, Petter Lindstrom, had been a dentist in Sweden and they were now living in Rochester, New York, where he was studying to be a neurosurgeon. She was not happy. She wrote to her friend and dialogue coach Ruth Roberts in January 1942:

". . . Having a home, husband, and child ought to be enough for any woman's life. I mean, that's what we are meant for, isn't it? But still I think every day is a lost day. As if only half of me is alive. The other half is pressed down in a bag and suffocated." [quoted in Harmetz, p. 90]

On April 22, after learning she had gotten the role in Casablanca, she again wrote Roberts:

“I was warm and cold at the same time. Then I got such chills I thought I must go to bed and of course a terrific headache into the bargain. . . . I tried to get drunk for celebration at dinner, but I could not. I tried to cry. I tried to laugh, but I could do nothing. I went to bed three times and went down again because Petter couldn't sleep either with me kicking around in bed. But now it is morning and I am calmed down. The picture is called Casablanca and I really don't know what it's all about.” [quoted in Harmetz, p. 95]

One of the most endearing elements of the film is Ilsa’s ambiguity and confusion about her own future. She does not know if she will live happily ever after with her husband or with her one true love. It is said that during the shooting of the film Bergman truly did not know how the film would end. The last scene had yet to be written so she did not know whether she ought to be hopelessly devoted to Rick or to Laszlo. It seems she repeatedly asked the director Michael Curtiz for clarification but was left in the dark, probably because the director himself had yet to decide how the movie would end!

RICK'S Character

• Rick refuses to allow a German from Deutsche Bank to play in his casino
• Ugarte trusts him with the letters of transit, knowing full well that Rick is no friend of his.
• Sam the piano player refuses Ferrari’s offer of a hundred percent hike in salary for playing at Ferrari’s place. So Rick’s employees love him and some are fiercely loyal to him.

UMBERTO ECO'S analysis of Casablanca as a medley of clichés: http://www.vincasa.com/indexeco.html
Themes in Casablanca (Source: Spark Notes: http://www.sparknotes.com/film/casablanca/canalysis.html)
• The Difficulty of Neutrality
In love and in war, neutrality is difficult for Rick, Ilsa, and Louis to maintain. Rick makes a point of not being involved in politics. He refuses to discuss the war, shuts up Carl's attempts to tell him about meetings of the underground, and does everything in his power to present himself as nonpartisan. Later on, though, just as the United States abandoned neutrality in December 1941, Rick shifts from neutrality to commitment. His sympathy for the Allies has always been evident in small acts, such as his refusal to allow the Deutsche Bank employee entry into the back room of his casino, but his partisanship grows more overt as the film proceeds. Louis undergoes a similar transformation, and by the end of the film, neutrality seems an untenable position. Rick's Café, as well as Casablanca itself, is an oasis in the desert, a paradise far removed from the troubles of the world. Yet the underground and black market activities that take place at Rick's belie these qualities. The battle of German and French anthems that erupts in the bar shows that Rick's actually teems with political passion.
When Ilsa visits Rick in his apartment and confesses that she still loves him, she does her best to be neutral in the undeclared war between the two men who love her. For as long as she can, she tries to deny the dilemma she faces. When she finally acknowledges the dilemma and realizes she has to decide between Rick and Laszlo, she leaves the choice in Rick's hands. No clean, painless resolution is possible, and a choice must be made. In war as in love, Casablanca suggests, neutrality is unsustainable.

• The Power of Lady Luck
Luck figures prominently in Casablanca, especially in Rick's Café. One of the bar's most popular activities is gambling, and one of Sam's most popular songs is "Knock on Wood."

Mr. and Mrs. Brandel, the young Bulgarian couple, demonstrate how luck functions in the movie. "How is lady luck treating you?" Louis asks Mrs. Brandel as Mr. Brandel gambles at the roulette table. Mr. Brandel is trying to win enough money to buy two exit visas. For Louis, luck is the force that brings a beautiful woman like Mrs. Brandel to him and allows him to try to take advantage of her desperate situation. For him, luck is a lady, a sexualized concept that implies both seduction and powerlessness.

Rick has a different view of luck, and he intervenes to help the unlucky Brandels, rigging the roulette game so the couple hits the jackpot twice, "miraculously" gaining the amount they need. When Mrs. Brandel approaches Rick to thank him for his generous deed, he dismisses her thanks by saying her husband is "just a lucky guy." This line has a double meaning. The literal meaning is that Brandel is just a lucky guy at the roulette table, which obviously isn't true. The metaphorical, and true, meaning is that he is lucky to have such a courageous, loving wife.

Particular people in Casablanca can bring both good and bad luck to each other. When Ilsa and Sam first speak, Sam tells Ilsa she should stay away from Rick because she's "bad luck" to him. But this statement isn't entirely true. Ilsa broke Rick's heart so tremendously that over a year later he still hasn't recovered, but, in this case, heartbreak has nothing to do with luck. "Luck" is simply a word used to cover up a more painful truth. Luck in Casablanca is also not entirely free of human influence. Ugarte is arrested while gambling, which suggests that he is unlucky to have been caught. The truth is that his own actions of murdering and stealing, rather than bad fortune, are the cause of his arrest.

Motifs
• Exile and Travel
The city of Casablanca is filled with foreigners, most of whom are exiles. Among the characters in the film, only the doorman Abdul is actually Moroccan. Though some characters, such as the colonialist French or the conquering Germans, are not in Casablanca as exiles, the majority are. Rick appears at first to be just another disenchanted American expatriate, but he is actually an exile from America, to which he cannot return, and also from France, where he cannot return as long as the Germans still occupy it. An exile is someone who can never return home.
Along with the idea of exile comes the idea of travel. The movie opens with a montage of various means of transport, including ships, trains, cars, and planes, that refugees use on their way to Casablanca. These images of hurried travel contrast with images of leisurely voyage, such as a car ride through Paris and a boat ride down the Seine, both of which Rick and Ilsa share during the Paris flashback. Travel can be both a means, as in the case of the refugee, and an end in itself, as in the case of a tourist, but for the exile, it is never-ending. Unlike both the refugee going to a new home and the tourist soon to return home, the exile is perpetually homeless, traveling forever.

• Dreaming of America in Africa
Related to the motif of exile is the motif of America, which is where all of Casablanca's refugees hope to go. If Casablanca is the oasis in the desert, America is the promised land on the desert's far side. America offers itself not as a place of temporary exile, but as a new home, even for foreigners. The difference between the refugee and the perpetual exile is determined by the ability to go to America, because America represents the final stop on the refugee path, where exile ends and an actual new life begins. Only Rick cannot go to America. Instead, he must remain in Africa. At the end of the film, he leaves Casablanca, which is on the eastern edge of Africa, for Brazzaville, which lies at the country's heart. Neither desert nor promised land, Brazzaville is pure jungle. If America represents what is known and desired, Brazzaville represents all that is uncertain. For Rick, the journey has just begun.

• Spotlight
The spotlight that shines from a tall tower and lights up the city of Casablanca reminds people that they are always being watched. The spotlight is a constant presence at Rick's, regularly circling past the front doors.

- The spotlight first swings past the doors immediately after Louis has assured Strasser that the murderer of the German couriers will be found at Rick's, as if to stress the relationship between government authority and the invasive, spying light.
- The spotlight crosses Laszlo's path as he leaves Rick's with Ilsa, underscoring the fragility of Laszlo's safety and the fact that he is constantly being watched.
- Later that evening, Ilsa returns to Rick's and opens the front door just as the spotlight passes by, backlighting her brilliantly in the doorframe. This dramatic image is important for several reasons. First, it marks the first time the light actually pierces the front doors and enters Rick's. The image also makes Ilsa look like an angel, and lets us see her as her lovers see her. The use of light here is also a meta-filmic comment about the artificiality of the cinematic lighting.
- The spotlight reappears as Rick gazes out his window after he and Ilsa kiss in his apartment. Even Rick and Ilsa's romance, the device suggests, is being watched, and the war has completely altered the conditions of their love. This change could partly explain Rick's self-sacrifice at the end of the film. In order for Ilsa to escape the eye of the spotlight, Rick realizes, he must let her escape to America.

Symbols
• Sam's Piano
Sam's piano is the symbolic heart and soul of Rick's Café. All the guests want to sit beside it, in part because they want to be close to Sam, who is one of the most untainted characters in the film. The piano itself suggests purity, which may be why Louis doesn't even think to look there for the missing letters of transit. The music from the piano functions as an opiate, a drug that allows visitors to forget their worries. All is well at Rick's, at least on the surface, when Sam is playing. Sam's resumed playing after Ugarte's arrest, for instance, signals that everything has returned to normal, while his closing down of the piano when Rick and Ilsa first see each other signals that the club's peaceful innocence has been interrupted by painful memories. When the German soldiers take over the piano to play their national anthem, the bar's patrons rise in revolt and defiantly sing "La Marseillaise." More than the arrest of Ugarte, this singing proves the biggest disturbance in the bar, and Louis is forced to shut the place down.

Casablanca is a tale of two songs. The first song, "La Marseillaise," is the French national anthem, written during the era of the French Revolution about fighting for freedom from political repression. In Casablanca, it represents a free France, and, by extension, the Allied side in World War II. The song plays many times throughout Casablanca, most significantly when almost all the patrons at Rick's join in a stirring rendition intended to overwhelm the sound of the Nazi anthem that a few German soldiers are singing. In this dramatic scene, World War II shifts from geopolitical contest to ideological and cultural battle. The war is not only between the Allies and the Axis, but also between the ideals of the French Revolution, liberté, egalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, brotherhood), and the rights of man, and the darker obsessions of the Nazis, including evil, tyranny, and death. In this scene, the patrons of Rick's show themselves to be fiercely pro-Allies. Even the cynically promiscuous Yvonne, who just that evening has shown up with a new German beau, sings with passion and conviction.

"La Marseillaise" may win an easy battle with the Nazi anthem, but it has a harder time defeating the other song that is central to Casablanca, "As Time Goes By." In World War II, the conflict is between the Axis and Allies, while in Casablanca, the struggle is between the public and private. Whenever "La Marseillaise" plays, including as a voiceover describing the plight of political refugees during World War II in the movie's opening and when Louis and Rick walk down the empty runway together with their friendship linked by a new political bond, Casablanca is a film about politics and war. When "As Time Goes By" plays, the film becomes the love story of Ilsa and Rick.

Unlike "La Marseillaise," whose meaning never changes, "As Time Goes By" has many roles in the film, each with a different slant. In Paris, "As Time Goes By" was Rick and Ilsa's song, a symbol of their love. In Casablanca, it is a forbidden song that Rick fears will remind him of Ilsa, but which by its absence has come to represent her. When Ilsa does arrive in Casablanca, the song takes on a third meaning. Sam plays the song at both Ilsa's and Rick's request, and it suggests both halves of their relationship: the Parisian idyll and the train station betrayal, as well as the possibility of the love story beginning anew in Casablanca.

"La Marseillaise" isn't played in Rick's Café until after Sam plays "As Time Goes By," and this ordering is significant because we can see that Rick's political apathy relates to his disenchantment with all forms of commitment, both political and personal. Only after Ilsa reawakens his heart by coming to the bar can Rick become politically engaged again. At the same time, the fact that Casablanca begins and ends with "La Marseillaise" suggests that the political is the foundation upon which all things personal happen, including Rick and Ilsa's love story. The actual words of "As Time Goes By" argue that the one timeless truth is love, but in Casablanca, the political ultimately triumphs. Ilsa's return to Rick's life lasts only a few days. When she leaves Casablanca, she leaves Rick forever, but the war is still far from over for them both.

• Laszlo
Laszlo is both a character and a symbol in Casablanca. His symbolic elements are rooted in his upstanding, moral personality. Before Laszlo arrives in Casablanca, Rick stirs from apathy at the mention of his name. Laszlo is a symbol of resistance to the Nazis, and his personal conflict of whether or not he can escape Casablanca represents a much larger struggle for power and control. The Nazis officially control the city, but the underground resistance has the support of the majority of the people. The balance of power teeters precariously between the two groups. Laszlo's ability to escape Casablanca will be a sign as to which group may ultimately prevail. That Laszlo was able to escape from a concentration camp and then make his way to Casablanca indicates that the Nazi control over the European mainland is not absolute. If Laszlo can find his way to America, his escape will be a symbol of the power of resistance to Nazi rule. What happens to Laszlo himself is important, but the implications of his fate make up Casablanca's broader themes.

•The Plane to Lisbon and the Letters of Transit
The plane to Lisbon is the best way to leave Casablanca, and it represents the possibility of escape from war-torn Europe and the first, most difficult step of the journey to America and freedom. The letters of transit are the golden tickets out, the exit visas that cannot be refused. Throughout the movie these letters are what everyone wants, and whoever controls or holds the letters has tremendous power. As Casablanca proceeds, the power shifts hands. At first, the civic authority of Casablanca, in the person of Louis, controls the plane's flights, and Rick, who possesses the letters, wields this power and has control of people's fates. Later, Rick transfers the letters to Ilsa and Laszlo, allowing them to depart on the plane. As a result of this exchange, the escaping refugees gain a powerful status as political symbols, while Louis and Rick's own power in Casablanca is weakened. The two self-sacrificing heroes have no choice but to leave the city and start over elsewhere.

Foreshadowing
• The plane to Lisbon that passes over Louis and Rick as they sit outside Rick's Café on the first evening foreshadows the end of the movie, when the two friends again watch a plane depart for Lisbon, this one carrying Ilsa and Laszlo.
• Ferrari's attempt to purchase Rick's Café in the beginning foreshadows the eventual sale of the Café when Rick decides to leave Casablanca.
• The gunfight in the Casablanca market at the beginning of the movie foreshadows the gunfight between Rick and Strasser at the end, though in the latter fight the good guy wins.

The Ending

Despite myths to the contrary, there was never really any question that Casablanca would end with Ilsa accompanying Victor to Lisbon. The question was how to make it work.

In Everybody Comes to Rick's (the original play from which the movie was adapted), as in Casablanca, Rick tricks Renault into calling off his watchdogs, then pulls a gun on him in order to allow Laszlo and Lois to escape . . . Just as the Lisbon plane is taking off, Strasser rushes into the cafe. Rick holds the gun on Strasser as long as necessary, then throws it contemptuously on the table. As he walks out, under arrest, Renault . . . asks, 'Why did you do it, Rick?' Rick reminds the policeman that he won his bet that Laszlo would escape. 'For the folding money, Luis. You owe me five thousand francs.'"

With America now at war, an ending in which the Gestapo have any sort of triumph at all was out of the question. The confrontation was moved to the airport; Strasser draws his gun on Rick and is shot; Renault, hesitating only an instant, issues the command to "round up the usual suspects".

There was also, however, the equally large problem of making Ilsa's departure with Laszlo believable. "In the play a thoroughly disagreeable Lois insisted on staying with Rick. 'That, my dear, is entirely up to you,' a humiliated Laszlo answered.

'Get her out of here, Victor, for God's sake,' said Rick. To add to the unpalatability, Laszlo was grateful to Rick for giving him a woman who didn't want to be with him."

In a July 6 memo to Curtiz, Wallis (the producer) expresses his frustration:
"It was practically impossible to write a convincing scene between the two people in which Rick could sell Ilsa on the idea of leaving without him. No arguments that Rick could put up would be sufficient to sway her from her decision to remain, . . ."

But by moving this scene too to the airport and having Laszlo present, Ilsa is taken by surprise and convincingly overwhelmed.

Beautifully constructed conclusion
One of the reasons Casablanca is such an all-time favourite is because of its last scene. Analyse it a little closely and you realize it ties up all the loose ends, brings all the major players together and promises a life after the movie ends, even though the hero does not get the girl.

Obviously as soon as the romantic triangle is established - when Ilsa and Victor Laszlo show up at Rick's cafe – it is inevitable that the climax will have to resolve the conflict – of who gets the girl? So all throughout Act II and into Act III, no matter what is happening in any given scene, that dramatic tension is present, either close to the surface of the dialogue and action or suppressed due to events, but always present. That's one of the values of a story having a strong end point.

The last scene resolves the fate of each of the five principle characters in the story. (1) Rick – the hero or protagonist. He redeems himself by sacrificing his one true love for a greater cause (2) The villain – the Nazi Major, Strasser. He is shot dea (3) Ilsa- the romantic angle. She sacrifices her love for a greater cause (4) Victor – the idealist patriot, fighting for freedom. He escapes from the Nazis and (5) Renault – the comic relief/foil to Rick’s character/even eventually a friend to Rick. He too redeems himself by allying himself with the forces of “good”.

The scene, as all good scenes should be, has its own beginning, middle and end:

-Beginning: Arrival at the airport with the big plot point -- Rick insisting to Renault that Ilsa and Victor use the letters of transit.

- Middle: Rick dealing with the couple -- convincing Ilsa she has to go with Victor and his 'confession' to Victor.

- Ending: Rick's confrontation with Strasser and the plane takes off.

There's even a nice denouement: Rick and Renault concocting a plan to head off together to the

Casablanca – a war time movie
(http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/55/casablanca.php)
Although World War II began on September 1, 1939, as late as the beginning of December 1941, the time at which Casablanca is set, most Americans believed that the United States "should stay out of that phony war in Europe." In fact, a Gallup Poll taken during the first year of the war indicated that an overwhelming ninety-six percent of all Americans wanted the country to remain neutral.

However, by the time Casablanca premiered in November 1942, the bombing of Pearl Harbor had already occurred, and the United States had been at war for almost a year. Nevertheless, many Americans continued to support an isolationist foreign policy, and were uneasy about U.S. participation in a war that was thousands of miles away.

To counteract this negative public sentiment towards American military participation in WWII, the Department of War established a "War Films" division, and hired filmmakers John Ford, Frank Capra, and Casablanca's screenwriters, Julius and Philip Epstein, to travel to Washington, D.C. to create a series of seven American war propaganda films, grouped under the umbrella title of Why We Fight. Warner Brothers also produced some six hundred training and propaganda films under the supervision of Owen Crump, a member of the studio's shorts department.

Between 1942 and 1945, Hollywood released 1,700 features, 500 of which dealt directly with war-related material. The U.S. government took an active roll in the screening (and of course the censorship) of these films through its Office of War Information, and went as far as creating a production rubric which the studios were compelled to follow. This rubric included a "suggested" list of six feature film themes which would "benefit American morale." Washington suggested producing films that would: glorify the "American way of life;" "depict the enemy and their philosophy;" "reflect well on our allies;" "portray the industrial war effort at home;" "illustrate what individuals could do on the home front to support the war effort," and show "our fighting forces at work."3 As intended, the films produced under these guidelines (Casablanca included) not only provided the masses with popular entertainment but also reinforced the nation's support for the Allied war effort.

In an attempt to ensure its successful approval by the Hollywood censorship system (i.e., the Bureau of Motion Pictures), producer Hal Wallis, who was hired by Warner Brothers to oversee the project, assigned Casablanca one of these prescribed themes: "III B (United Nations — Conquered Nations) Drama." The secondary, or "minor," theme was officially declared "II C 3 (Enemy — Military) Drama." Specifically, Casablanca was designed to illustrate "that personal desires must be subordinated to the task of defeating fascism" (this theme, of course, was embodied in the character of Richard, or "Rick" Blaine, which was played by Humphrey Bogart). With the assistance of Howard Koch, the Epstein brothers translated this patriotic duty onto the screen by "graphically illustrating the chaos and misery which fascism and the war had brought."4 The United States served as a foil to the evils of fascism, and was portrayed as a virtuous "safe haven for the oppressed and homeless" — a nation of fearless refuge that anti-Nazi Germans, such as Casablanca's Leuchtegs, could honor with a champagne toast.

In order to place the Nazi threat close to home, Koch and the Epsteins saturated Casablanca with powerful assertions of German dominance. Nazi solders were given the best tables at Rick's café because they were "German and would take [them] anyway," just like they annexed most of Europe. Major Heinrich Strasser's duty was to expand the domain of the Third Reich (i.e., through the German social and political policy of Lebensraum). Strasser, Casablanca's most potent villain, made his intentions clear through his first statement in the film: "We [the Germans] have to become accustomed to all climates — from Russia to the Sahara." This sense of foreboding Nazi control was brought to the shores of the United States when Strasser explained to Rick that the Germans planned on invading London and New York.12 Rick, the defensive American, refused to appease the Germans as most of Europe had done, and warned the autocratic Strasser that even the Nazis could not handle certain sections of New York.13 Rick's response not only reaffirmed Allied strength, but also helped boost American morale by proclaiming that even the arrogant Nazis could never defeat the idealism, patriotism and spirit of the democratic United States.

The noir theme of foreboding Nazi domination was once again echoed by Rick when he inquired: "If it is December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York." Although Sam replied that his watch had stopped a long time ago, Rick proceeded to answer his own question: "I bet they're asleep in New York. I bet they're asleep all across America." Clearly, Rick did not mean "asleep" in the literal sense; he meant it in the political sense. While this might have been true on December 6, 1941, by the evening of December 7, it was clear that Americans could no longer afford turn a blind eye to the "phony war in Europe." Pearl Harbor had been bombed the morning of December 7, and scores of American casualties served as a rude awakening to the anger and violence that was raging half way around the world. The fact that Rick chose to focus on New York, the most powerful city in the world, only heightened the vulnerability of the United States. It implied that if Americans did not begin to take the war effort seriously, they could become the denizens of Casablanca: prisoners in a German-Vichy protectorate, surrounded by an omni-present Nazi search light. This horrifying image was probably enough to scare many Americans into increasing their support of the war effort.

Sources:
http://www.filmsite.org/casa.html
http://www.sparknotes.com/film/casablanca/
http://www.gointothestory.com/2008/08/great-scene-analysis-casablanca.html
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com

Moonlight & Valentino: Just because it sounds so good

2010-03-28T03:15:00.003+05:30

I watched Moonlight and Valentino quite by accident. I may or may not watch it again. But I found it quite appealing. First of all, the name: ‘Moonlight and Valentino’ has a special ring to it. Secondly, the ensemble cast of Elizabeth Perkins, Kathleen Turner, Whoopi Goldberg and Gwyneth Paltrow is interesting. Finally, Bon Jovi was a (pleasant) surprise and yes, he does have a great a**.

Moonlight and Valentino is about a woman struggling to come to terms with the death of her husband. A rather unfortunate death it was too; he got run over by a car while he was out on an early morning jog. She is assisted by her neurotic neighbor, socio-path sister and megalomaniac step mother.

The importance of this film is the fact that it is actually a play: an all American play. Why I think it is vital to note this fact is because American plays are quite genius. Barring Beckett, Chekov and Ibsen, American playwrights are my favorite. I enjoy the affair between playwrights and the silver screen. It somehow makes the silver screen shine with a deeper zing. Depth is needed sometimes even en route to escapism. (Reason 1 for my equal distaste for present day Hindi films: don’t flog me please)

In the moonlight, Valentino paints. Conceptually, I find that beautiful: In the moonlight Valentino paints but he is asked to leave by a grieving widow.

Crimes and Misdemeanors: A love story for the wicked

2010-03-19T04:36:00.007+05:30

“We're all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale, most of these choices are on lesser points. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are, in fact, the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. it is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even try to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.”

I loved this particular installment from M. Allen. Naturally, it had the usual wit and charming simplicity in presentation that is characteristic to Allen and it was not one made out of his comfort zone of topics. In fact, it basically covered all ground in terms of the issues he was tackling in that part of his career: Jewish identity, the psychology of love and life, religious philosophy, failing relationships, a confused view on marriage and conformity and irony.
Judah Rosenthal is a successful ophthalmologist whose father was a Rabbi and brother is a black market man. Judah has an affair with neurotic flight attendant Dolores but runs into trouble when Dolores persistently threatens to tell all to his wife such that she may leave him and he may marry her. Judah, of course, is happy with his perfect life and perfect family who worship him and almost perfect philandering.
On the flip side is Clifford Stern, the underdog film-maker who is too intelligent for his own good. Stern is married but not happily. His wife has two successful brothers one of whom is a Rabbi who is going blind and the other is a popular television person, Lester. Clifford loathes Lester and everything he stands for. Grapes are sour, thinks Mrs. Stern who is on the precipice of leaving her husband for another man. However, Stern’s antipathy towards Lester is fully understandable. How many of us consider ourselves to be better and more intelligent than someone who, perhaps not as adept at the Shakespeare, is clearly doing better than us? (Don’t be annoying and lash back with some philosophical quip. The truth is we are all carnal and envious of success) Stern meets Hayley, a television documentary producer who shares his views of the world and appreciates his love for existentialists and avant-garde notions on people.
Events come to a head when the good doctor Judah is driven to take desperate measures in order to hides his roguish affair; and Stern falls in love with Hayley who, in turn, breaks his heart by engaging herself to Lester. The drama is soothed by a wedding scene where all the characters congregate and watch the blessed union while dwelling in the shadows of their own life: heartbreak, betrayal and oming to trems with the sore penalty that is reality.
There is not much one can ever say about the actors as an Allen film is usually so organic, it is stripped of glamour. I will make mention of the use of music in this film. As most may well know, Woody Allen is a talented musician himself. He plays the clarinet to a jazz artist’s perfection. In this film, he used Schubert‘s overtures to mark scenes of heightened passion. He likened the doctor to be a sophisticated classicalist cocooned in his world of luxury. The poor documentary maker, on the other hand, was a Indian take out eating, ancient champagne drinking, 1920s blues crammed in a dark corner of a overloaded projection room full of reels on a philosopher who committed suicide upon completing his musings on love.
It was caviar that won at the end.

Taxi Driver

2010-03-16T17:57:00.004+05:30

An insomniac, dysfunctional young man takes to driving a cab at night unable to sleep and do little else with himself except watch x-rated films in sleazy theatres at other times. The film directed by Martin Scorsese, written by Paul Schrader and released in 1976 is not about Travis Bickle’s life but just a slice of his journey in life. He is introduced right at the beginning and it is through his interaction with others that we get to learn about him. His first stop is at the cab licensing office where he tells the man on being interrogated that he didn’t have much education in him and that he was discharged from the marines. Marines ring a bell as the man behind the desk was an ex marine himself. Travis gets his cab and begins his trips through the streets and lanes of New York. He drives the entire night and a little bit in the morning before returning to the hovel that he calls his home. Every day, he writes a page in an exercise book, putting down his thoughts in a scrawl.
One morning, while hanging around a street corner, he sees a young woman in white, looking beautiful, pure and virtuous walking into a door that turns out to be the campaign office of Senator Charles Palantine who is running for the Oval office. Travis watches Betsy, the young woman who is campaigning for the President whose tag line is We are for the People. Travis even succeeds in taking Betsy out for coffee and then a movie. But the last date turns horribly wrong when he takes her to see a film on sex education. Horrified Betsy leaves the hall and subsequently snubs all his overtures. The flowers he sends are returned and lie in a heap in his unkempt home. She also refuses to take his calls. Travis is forced to move on and in this case just carry on driving.
On his nightly sojourn, he encounters several people but two remain with the film- a young prostitute who one evening climbs into his cab and asks him to drive her away. He doesn’t move when another man forcibly takes her back down the road into darkness. Travis keeps returning to the street to find the girl who is oblivious of his existence. But her youth and signs of her unfinished childhood continue to haunt him. The other character is a man who stops before an apartment house and pays to keep the taxi waiting while he watches the shadow of a woman who he says is his wife and whom he intends to kill to take revenge for her philandering.
Something snaps in Travis and we see him changing completely. He acquires four pistols of different calibres from the black market and takes to strenuous physical exercise and body building, all the time talking to himself. Then one evening he visits the young prostitute who calls herself Easy but in reality is named Iris. He tries to counsel her to leave New York and go home. He meets her again for breakfast the following morning. But she remains resolute in her determination to be free, and liberated. ‘Haven’t you heard of women’s liberation?’ she quips. Meanwhile, he prepares himself for the grand project. Hurriedly he scribbles a note on a card for his parents. Through that act and his reading aloud what he had written we learn that it is July and that his parents live up north, that he is insensitive and has been lying to them about what he does and how he lives. He refuses to give them his address.
Once he is adequately trained he undertakes elaborate preparations to have his guns and a knife well hidden underneath his shirt sleeves and folds of his trousers. He shaves his hair to don a Mohawk look and walks into a rally of Senator Palantine, intending to kill him. But the security men get suspicious and chase him away. Failed in this, he goes to look for Iris, and what follows is a mayhem of blood and gore. Travis kills three men, and is seriously wounded. We see him lying in a pool of blood taken for dead. Travis doesn’t die. In a strange twist of fate, his acts of crime are redeemed as Iris goes back home and to school. Her grateful parents sent him a note of heartfelt thanks. Travis goes back to driving his cab and his journey continues.
Robert Di Nero, I thought, was superb as Travis, controlled, low keyed, sufficiently maverick yet never over the top. His body language and his diction only added to the credibility of the character he was portraying. I was really surprised to learn that he lost the Oscar to Peter Finch in Network. Jodie Foster as the child prostitute was quite faded but then this was her first film. The greatness of the film was the symbolism employed not to narrate the story of one man but an entire generation lost and defeated, disenchanted and disoriented, trying to find its ground in a welter of contrary politics of struggle and domination, of deliverance and damnation. It may have missed awards but Taxi Driver certainly deserves a place amidst the best that were conceived in Hollywood.

UP - the Movie: Analysis of Plot Structure, Characterization and other Elements

2010-02-25T11:35:00.015+05:30

This will be kind of boring for Roshni and Raina - this isn't a film review. Up is a beautiful movie. But since it's so recent, everyone must be quite familiar with its reviews - so I saw no point in writing yet another review. Instead I will be analysing the movie from its over-all structure and characterisation.
I have this template for all movies I like. A template to analyse what makes a movie so interesting, and entertaining. So here goes...

(1) You know you'll like a movie within the first 10 minutes. Usually the first ten minutes should have:
(a) Introduced the main character. Here we are introduced to three main characters - Carl, the protagonist, his wife Ellie, whose memory acts as the driving force for the entire movie and Charles Muntz, the villain
(b) Introduced the dramatic premise of the story > Charles Muntz will capture the "monster of Paradise Falls" alive/Carl will take their house to Paradise Falls
(c) introduced the dramatic situation (circumstances surrounding the action) > Carl and Ellie met as Muntz's most die-hard fans and devoted their lives to adventure. But never found the time nor the money for adventure. Now that his wife Ellie is no more, Carl is determined to fly their house down to Paradise Falls - as a tribute to his wife.

Syd Field defines a screenplay as: The story of a character who is emotionally engaging and who at the beginning of the screenplay is confronted with a problem which creates an inescapable need to reach a specific goal. The attempt to do so inevitably generates almost overwhelming obstacles which are finally overcome by the transformation and growth of that character.

Can we analyse Up on the basis of the above definition?
-Emotionally engaging: Carl is NOT but his complete devotion to his wife and his single minded determination to reach Paradise Falls makes him likable. Small touches such as dusting his house - he treasures every nook and corner of the house because it has Ellie's touch in it.
- Confronted with a problem: will be evicted from his house and made to live in a retirement home
- Goal: Reach Paradise Falls WITH his house
- Overwhelming obstacles: Old age; a crazy melange of a young boy, a monster bird and a talking dog as stowaways
- Transformation of character: from living in the past he learns to enjoy life with Russels; also from being a grumpy unsocial old man who refuses to reach out to others, he welcomes close to fifty dogs and a young boy into his home and life.

THREE ACT LINEAR STRUCTURE:
I know a lot of people say Syd Field's plot structure is outdated. But it helps me! So here it is!
Act I: SET UP AND INFORMATION
(i) Point of Entry: Carl as a child hooked onto adventure
(ii) Exposition: News clip on Charles Muntz
Montage on Carl & Ellie - meeting, growing up together, marriage, growing old together
(iii) Inciting Incident 1 (again from Syd Field!)
- a moment or scene that confronts the protagonist with a problem and creates a crisis. This crisis forces the protagonist into a decision or choice which then causes a change in that character or story (ultimately leading to the climax at the end of Act I).
- the Inciting Incident is Carl is to be taken to an old age home the next day and his home will probably be seized/sold off.
(iv) Turning Point 1
- It grabs the story, turns it around and catapults it into a new direction by setting up a problem that your protagonist must resolve over the course of the screenplay
- It pushes the story forward towards the Act climax (which will then push it into the next Act)
- It raises the stakes of the story (increasing risk, danger, level of commitment etc)
- It increases momentum by raising the stakes, by pushing the story into a new and ‘dangerous’ direction, by making the achievement of the dramatic need, goal or intention more uncertain
- It is a crisis point that generates in the audience a ‘what are we going to do now?’ feeling
- It dramatically alters your protagonist’s motivation.
The Turning Point 1 in the movie is Russel as a stow-away. It completely changes the dynamics of the movie. Carl had thought of fading away into the horizon (literally). He was a grumpy old man who wanted to live with his memories. As his house lifts up into the sunny clear skies he smiles contentedly, kisses his wife's photograph, runs his fingers across the balloon strings, just like one would play a musical instrument, and settles down comfortably in his favourite arm chair. This is obviously his last journey on earth, a tranquil floating away into the clouds. Just then Russel makes an entry:
> Russel's entry raises the stakes: increases the risk of Carl never making it to Paradise Falls
> Increases Carl's commitment level. He wanted to have nothing to do with others. His memories of Ellie were his only and constant companion and that is how he wanted it. Now he was stuck with a 8 year old boy - and though he would have loved to just drop him off at the nearest bus-stop, (how much more convenient if the boy could simply be swung down a rope and air dropped on the next highrise rooftop), a raging storm takes matters completely out of his hands.
(v) Climax Act I: Is it the storm?
(vi) Set Ups and Pay Offs:
- The vacuum cleaner used to clean Carl's letterbox in the beginning of the movie is used by Russel to fly off to the Spirit of Adventure Flying Ship, to rescue Kevin, the monster bird.
- Carl is shown taking great care of their favourite armchairs. He adjusts them so that they are placed just so. Whenever his sits down to rest, its almost as if he can feel Ellie sitting next to him, in her chair. When the storm throws everything in the house in chaotic disarray, one of the first things he re-arranges are the two chairs. So when he finally throws away the two chairs, just so that he can rescue Russel, we know Carl is finally willing to let go of the past, to build and sustain new relationships.
(vii) Pet the dog: Show a vulnerable side to your hero, early in the movie. This helps forge a bond between the hero and the audience
- Carl is a grumpy old man. He can even get fierce if his territory (his possessions) is encroached upon - as seen when he hits the man who quite by mistake breaks his and Ellie's letterbox.
But the audience grows to like him because of his complete, unquestioning devotion to his wife. His is a tender, nurturing love. Never demonstrative, but very caring. And who cannot but love a man who is willing to tie thousands of balloons to his house so that he can fly off to Venezuela, just so that he can place the house on that exact spot that his wife Ellie had always dreamt of - atop Paradise Falls.

ACT II - Development and Momentum:
(i) Development and Momentum: Act II starts with a timeline - Carl HAS to reach Paradise Falls within three days or the helium from his balloons will all leak out and the house will get stranded.
Beginning of Act II: Carl has reached Paradise Falls.
- The Monster Bird is introduced
- Dogs are chasing the bird - its a menacing chase, almost like predators going in for a kill.
- Doug the dog is introduced -who later becomes Carl's most loyal pet
(ii) Focus Point 1 is a scene which:
• Tightens the storyline action
• Reminds the audience of the ‘problem’
• Pushes the story forward helping to keep it on track
• May indicate the first beginnings of character change or growth in the protagonist
> In Up it is when Carl "crosses his heart" - promises Russel he will not leave Kevin the bird behind. This is the first big change in Carl - that he is no longer cocooned within himself, obsessed with his all-consuming passion to take their house to Paradise Falls as quickly as possible.
(iii) Focus Point 2: Carl turns back to return Kevin to his babies - even though this means a critical delay in reaching Paradise Falls.
(iv) Climax Act II: Carl meets Charles Muntz the adventurer, his childhood hero
(v) Turning Point 2: the rotagonist will usually experience a sense of failure – which will be the crisis point for the whole film. It leads logically to and ‘causes’ the final confrontation scene.
In Up > Muntz burns down Carl's house. The balloons atop the house start bursting in the heat.
(vi) Point of No Return or Half Way Point: Here, something happens which causes the protagonist to reassess and consider giving up his quest or journey. Should they give up or push on?
The main purpose of this scene is:
• To force the protagonist to reassess their quest
• To make the protagonist consider giving up
• To make the protagonist decide to continue on
• To make them formulate a new set of more specific or focused goals
• To make them commit to that new goal totally in a way they cannot back out of
> This is when Carl discards all his furniture, including his precious armchairs, just so that he can lighten the weight of the house so that he can fly off to save Russel.

ACT III
(i) Climax: Escape with Kevin…Muntz falls to his death…house floats away into nonthingness
(ii) Resolution:
(a) Bird finds her babies
(b) Russel gets his coveted badge for Wilderness Expert for Helping the Elderly
(c) Carl bestows on Russel the Ellie badge. With this life comes a full circle for Carl - he had got to know Ellie when she had pinned that badge on to him - as children. They had had a wonderful life together, dreaming of flying to the thrilling wilds of South America, but the pressures of domestic life had always pushed their dream further and further away. When Carl finally reaches Paradise Falls and meets their hero, Charles Muntz, he thinks he has had the adventure of his lifetime and there is nothing more to look forward to. It's the END. But then he discovers Ellie's parting words to him in her scrapbook, urging him to go forward, to embrace life and all its adventures, and this time without her. So when he gives the Ellie badge to Russel, it's Carl handing over the mantle to Russel. But that does not mean Carl is going to retire. The Ellie badge was of comradeship. So the eighty year old Carl and the eight year old Russel are now going to embark on fresh adventures, together.
(d) Carles flies the "Spirit of Adventure" ship - could Ellie have imagined even in her wildest dreams that they would one day fly Charles Muntz's ship!
(iv) Afterlife: at the conclusion of your movie, there should be a sense of an afterlife for your protagonist > The Credit sequence which shows Carl and Russel going on picnics, visiting the museum, Carl living in his flying ship with hundred of dogs. Life continues to be a beautiful adventure

CHARACTERIZATION:
We learn about a character from the decisions they make > Carl decides to fly to South America. Is he a crazy old man? Someone so blinded by his sorrow at having lost his wife, that he thinks he will be able to pay tribute to her dearest wish by flying his house to Paradise Falls!

(i) Backstory of characters: Montage on Carl and Ellie
(ii) Character Motivation Flowchart:
- What does the character want? To land their house atop Paradise Falls
- Why? Conscious + Subsconscious reasons > Because he loves Ellie, misses her terribly. Since the authorities plant to put him away and take away his house, he decides to defy them all by flying to the place Ellie and he had always dreamt of
- What is he willing to do to get what he wants? Fly a house with balloons!
- What could he lose if he fails? He can die
- What he wants - does this change over the course of the story? Yes. At first he simply wants to land his house atop Paradise Falls, no matter what. Later he realises reaching an exotic, rare bird to her brood is important too. As is saving Russel who flies off to rescue the bird.
- What he wants -> how does it create conflict in the story? He wants to get to Paradise Falls as quickly as possible. But he is interrupted in his journey by a stow away, eight year old boy, an exotic wild bird, a talking dog and a vicious adventurer who almost burns down his house
(iii) Character Flaws - that help us understand him better. He is grumpy, unsocial. Because he was always a shy child. His best friend helped him interact with the world. His whole world was centred around her. When she dies, he withdraws into his own cocoon.
(iv) Audience Identification: how does audience identify with protagonist > His love for his dead wife redeems him. Also his frailties as an old man. Creaking bones, false teeth, partially deaf, walks with a walking aide. Yes he is grumpy, but the audience understands and forgives him his grumpiness for we empathise with his loss.
(v) Transformational Arc > From a grumpy man who hates company to a still grumpy man who takes on a talkative eight year old, a whimsical exotic bird and a talking dog as companions. He had only one aim - to set his house atop Paradise Falls and he wouldn't let anything or anybody get in his way. But over the course of the movie he takes several detours and endures considerable delay (that might have caused his mission to fail) to help Kevin the bird reach her young ones, and to save Russel from sure death. In the end he lets go of his past. The man who hit the construction worker who broke his letterbox, willingly throws out his most precious possessions, a lifetime of memories associated with his and Ellie's armchairs, to rescue Russel. He also bestows the Ellie badge, his most prized possession to Russel and welcomes Russel and a hundred odd dogs into his life.

SEQUENCE:
(i) Carl - Ellie - meet for the first time (intro), they grow up together, get married (middle), they grow old together and Ellie dies (climax)
(ii) The house flies for the first time: Spectacular take off - with thousands of irridiscent balloons lifting up the house against a crystal blue sky. The house floating over highrises, accompanied by a dreamy waltz composition as background score; passerby's and onlookers looking at this floating apparition with amazement; Russel makes an entry; the storm; the house is thrown in complete disarray; the house makes a sudden landing in South America - surrounded by mists, ominous landscapes and then, the mist lifts.
(iii) The final escape sequence - with Muntz chasing Carl on the top of "The Spirit of Adventure"

PACING:
All drama needs variety within its overall structural unity; moments of crisis, confrontation and climax need to be interspersed with moments of quieter reflection – pauses. Audiences need those lulls when characters open up and reveal themselves, when a mood is established, so an audience can catch its breath before being taken to another high.

- One minute the house is gently floating down through white fluffy clouds and a clear blue sky. The next minute there's mist that shrouds everything and suddenly they see eerie structures ahead of them. They kind of look like highrises, but not quite. They appear far more foreboding, grey and crooked. The house bumps down, skids and rushes down at breakneck speed, almost certainly heading for a fatal crash.

- They've escaped from The Spirit of Adventure. There's been a high-adrenalin chase with scores of dogs chasing them. They've crossed a gorge to escape the dogs and are now finally breathing easy - they've almost made it - and are close to Kevin's home. When suddenly there is a spot light on Kevin and a net is thrown from the skies and he is captured.

- Carl saves his house from being burnt down and drags it all by himself all the way to the top of Paradise Falls. He finally reaches the exact spot Ellie had drawn in her scrapbook. It's been excruciating, back breaking (literally) labour. He finally eases himself down into his favourite armchair, takes out Ellie's scrapbook and settles down into his first moment of repose and peacefulness, ever since he embarked on this adventure. But the quiet stillness is immediately interrupted by Russel flying off, all by himself, to rescue Kevin. It's back to action!

TRANSITIONS:
Transitions bridge time and move the action forward quickly, visually.
There are four major ways to make transitions: cutting from picture to picture, sound to sound, music to music, or special effect to special effect. There can be dissolves, fadeouts and smash cuts.
(1) Documentary on Charles Muntz: close up of Carl in goggles, sitting in the theatre auditorium. Sharp cut to next scene - close focus on face and goggles -same close up in fact. But now in his playing outside, in his neighbourhood.
(2) Balloon bursts as young Carl gazes out of his bedroom window at Ellie. Same sound and light effect in next scene - as scene opens with Carls now a young man getting married to Ellie and camera bulbs flashing.

TRANSITIONS MONTAGE:
A montage is a sequence, a series of scenes connected by one single idea with a definite beginning, middle and end. The purpose of a montage is to cover a lot of time, or a lot of events, in a very short period of time.
The montage of Carl and Ellie growing up together, marrying, growing old together, beautifully captures their relationship of complete and happy understanding, companionship and togetherness.

POSTSCRIPT
The DVD has some excellent footage on the crew visiting South America to get a feel of the landscape they wished to capture in their movie.
They trek up these spectacular table top mountains called tepuis - which are some of the oldest rocks found on our planet - formed when South America and Africa seperated during the formation of the Atlantic Ocean. I believe the tallest tepuis inspired Conan Doyle's Lost World. Paradise Falls itself is Angel Falls, the highest waterfall in the world, so high that the water evaporates before it reaches the sheer drop below.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist

2010-02-19T10:14:00.003+05:30

Hi all! Have started reading The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid. I attended an Indo-Pak peace initiative talk by him - and that's when I heard about the book. So, will be writing on it sometime soon!

Coco before Chanel: the history of fashion

2010-02-08T04:57:00.012+05:30

I have just seen Coco avant Chanel (Coco before Chanel) for the second time. There is a pile of clothes staring at me on my couch cushions, waiting to be folded; a report I should be working on for work; job applications to be filled in; University placements to worry about and all of life’s worries caving in but still, I choose to write about the film for the blog because it’s the weekend and my creative impetus is at its height.
For anyone who is not familiar with Coco Chanel’s life and what she did to become an iconic figure, it would be useful to read up a little before watching the film. This is not a biopic; it’s a product of French film making genius and a story that could very well have been about any individual lost in the recesses of time.
Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel was the woman who defined modern day fashion. Ever wonder who began the trend of wearing trousers among women? Liberated Europe from her corset? Well, Chanel is your answer. She never married because she lost her true love to a road accident when she was 26 and also because she felt that there will be several baronesses and duchesses or so and so but ‘only one Chanel’ and she, bless her soul, was right. Chanel’s long life spanned from 1883 to 1971. Having lived for 86 years through some the most eventful decades in the history of the Western world, she redefined fashion and cultured society through her style and string of high profile, often controversial, affairs (interesting ones are with a German officer during the second world war and with composer Igor Stravinsky ). Her place in history was marked by TIME magazine in their list of 100 most influential people of the 20th century (where Albert Einstein was named 1)
Her life has always been a popular topic of portrayal on film, television and on stage with Katherine Hepburn depicting the designer in the Broadway musical Coco and Shirley MacLaine playing her at a later stage for a television production. The latest installment on Chanel’s early life, Coco before Chanel, which was released in Autumn 2009, stars the, oh-so beautiful, Audrey Tautou in the lead. Like all French films, it is a feast for the eye both in terms of the nuanced cinematography and in terms of the handsomeness of the players. While watching it for the second time (the first being at a theater where I was overwhelmed by the excitement of an evening out), I noticed how intricately planned each scene had been. This was a film that imparted its story and meaning through sticking symbolism; the dialogue being perfunctory yet thoughtful, meshed well with the shots without overpowering the images. Some of the shots were so poignant that they were worth freezing. One can not but expect such outstanding adroitness from a French film but considering that this one was produced by the Warner Brother’s studio, it was surprising that it had been allowed to remain unblemished from the ‘Hollywood-esque’ sheen.
The cast was alluring. Ms Tautou never fails to impress and was, as one can imagine, made up to look very much like Chanel (although she did appear too gaunt and hard in some scenes, she was nonetheless beautiful and elegant).The two leading men were Benoit Poelvoorde as Chanel’s first lover and life long friend, Etienne Blasan and Alessandro Nivola as Chanel’s only true love, Arthur ‘Boy’ Capel. Both were delightful and at least one of them was very handsome. This is the first time I am watching Poelvoorde, a Belgian actor, on screen and he plays a very loveable Blasan who you can’t help but feel sorry for. I am a great fan of Nivola. I first saw him as the lecherous Mr. Henry Crawford in the 1999 production of Mansfield Park (“I suppose it could have all turned out very differently…but it didn’t”) and as I am prone to look up the IMDB profiles of actors who catch my eye, I was astound to find that this man who had a perfect Victorian accent was actually American. My respects for him grew when I found that he was educated at Yale (yes, famous Universities turn me on) but when I found he spoke fluent French- which incidentally he learnt for the film- I was floored. Not only was he good looking with a charming smile in spite of the moustache he had to sport for the film, he was also smart!
Such bliss!
It is half eleven at night; the pile of clothes remain; I start work early tomorrow but this post is ready and I am happy to have shared the experience.
A Château Margaux perhaps?

Citizen Kane - does it have a Three-Act Plot Structure?

2010-01-28T11:06:00.001+05:30

Hi! Am currently analysing Citizen Kane. Stuck - since I can't plot it against the conventional Three-Act Structure followed by most films. Does it have a Three Act Structure (Act 1: Set Up & Information; Act II > Development + Momentum; Act III > Climax + Resolution). The movie falls a non-linear narrative, so kind of confused about the Act I and Act II climaxes.

Rajkumar Hirani - All Izz truly WELL in your films!

2010-01-19T22:15:00.012+05:30

Three Idiots is the kind of movie I believe in. Completely! I am an ardent fan of the Bimal Roy, Hrishikesh Mukherjee school of movies. Which means I enjoy films that are entertaining, with a message. While Lage Raho Munnabhai was a work of sheer genius in its story conceptualization, Three Idiots, while not so startlingly unique, is marvellous for being so well intentioned.

The story line is predictable. I just knew that the camera-helicopter like contraption that was flying up to the student's room - would reveal a tragic sight.
And that the brilliant Funsook Wangdoo with 17 patents to his name would be...well...I won't give away the ending...!

But to be fair, the pre-interval climax was a nice twist to the tale. I for one definitely did not expect it. Madhavan and Sharman have been trying to contact Aamir ever since they passed out of college. Five years have gone by and they've finally traced him to Shimla. They reach his house and find the person they knew through five years of college, is not who he said he was. And moreover, no one knows where he has disappeared.

What has touched millions of moviegoers across the country is the film's theme - chase excellence and success will follow. Quite like the Munnabhai series, Three Idiots is almost radiantly simple in its story telling. Three engineering students follow their heart and learn what it is to be happy in a bitterly competitive environment. They don't just survive, they undergo a metamorphosis. They dare to be different, at the cost of losing out on job offers at the campus recruitment, and being the only unemployed graduates in their batch.

I won't say anything more, because that would be giving the story away. With this movie Hirani establishes his brand of film making. If Karan Johar movies are glossy, emotionally hyperbolic, and NRI-centric, Hirani, with Three Idiots shows us that his movies will be uplifting, visionary (in a pop-profound way, humourous and very middle-class in its entertainment appeal.

What's nice about his movies is that he never loses his sense of humour, even when showcasing the struggles of a lower-middle class family in educating their only son. Sharman Joshi's family is straight out of a 1950's movie, with a paralytic father, a tubercular mother and a sad sister who is wasting away because no one will marry her. The father has a bad case of eczema and motions to his wife that he urgently needs a back scratch. The wife absent-mindedly eases his itching with the belan with which she was making rotis for Aamir, Madhavan and Sharman, not once pausing in her incessant coughing.

Coming back to the Hirani trademark, a recurrent theme appears to be superstitions and how we allow it to govern our lives, and our sense of self-worth. In Lage Raho it was Boman Irani's fixation with a specific alphabet; in Three Idiots it's Sharman Joshi's dependence on rings to get him through exams.
Boman Irani appears to be a constant favourite. Boman Irani as the Principal of the College was excellent as always. He is so eccentric that he comes across as a caricature, but that doesn't mean Hirani slipped in his direction. Hirani probably wanted to contrast the wholesomeness of the Three Idiots, against the obsessiveness of Irani and the NRI student "chatur". Both of them pursue academic excellence with a tunnel vision, never once pausing to marvel at the wonders of science. They hate anyone who is different. Their spirit of competitiveness is destructive, in contrast to Aamir's who doesn't think twice about taking time out of his own grueling schedule to help out a fellow student with his project.

I can't remember the last time a Hindi movie showed what fun learning can be. Three Idiots is a little like Dead Poet's Society and Mona Lisa Smile in that it gives wings to education, freeing it from the boredom of dry theory. Who would have thought the fact that saline water is an excellent conductor of electricty could have been put to such good use!

The Three Idiots, Aamir Khan, Madhavan and Sharman Joshi were very competent in their respective roles. Aamir has completely reinvented himself, yet again, after Gajini. Gone are the six-pack-abs. He looks slim, not lean (no taut muscles), young and fresh. And convincing as a fresher. Madhavan as the reluctant engineer, and Sharman as the harried, superstitious son whose entire family depended on him succeeding in college, were good foils to the happy-go-lucky Aamir, who didn't give a damn to academic curriculum and yet managed to top his class, year after year.

Kareena didn't have much of a role. But she made a pleasant pair with Aamir. I had read so much about their sizzling chemistry, but that's just in one song. Anyway, the romance wasn't the focus of the film.

Sure the film did well because of its star cast, but at the end of the day, it's the story and the screenplay that is the true star of the movie. And I have to say this, the screenplay is a huge improvement on the original story. I had read "Five Point Someone" years back, when it was first published and had been quite disappointed with it. It made for a fast read, but was neither gripping, nor humorous and definitely did not offer any profound take-aways, which is what has made this movie so memorable.

With movies like Munnabhai and now Three Idiots, all is truly well with Rajkumar Hirani's creations.

Who is the most gruesome of them all?

2010-01-03T21:19:00.007+05:30

This is a film that I will, under normal circumstances, dissuade people from watching. I write about it because it is disturbing to the point of losing balance and there have been few movies that have shaken me like this.
‘Seven’ is a crime thriller involving a string of murders that were committed on the basis of Dante’s (Divine Comedy) seven deadly sins, Greed, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Pride, Wrath and Gluttony. All very cerebral you think, well it was quite I think; so much so that you were bound to question the mind (a Andrew Kevin Walker from UPenn) that produced this masterpiece (?). The questioning grows more and more into wonderment when one is shown the manner in which the acts are committed-each more gruesome than the other.

Gluttony-victim is fed to death
Greed- victim is bled to death
Lust-victim is … lets not get into it
Pride-victim’s nose is cut off
…

At this point, for want of a better phrase, the audience is ‘freaking out’ to even try and conceive of what will happen next. When the film reaches its head and only two sins are left, one is introduced to the killer; a creepy little man who has no identity because he cuts off the top layer of the skin on his fingers to erase himself from forensic records-a regular John Doe and probably the right hand of the Devil himself. The man offers a full confession with the condition that he will personally bring the two detectives investigating the case to the two last bodies. The condition is fulfilled and what proves to be the conclusion of this film gives the audience a nauseating feeling of sorrow mixed with a concentration of shock and horror and this feeling lingers into the night after you have switched of the telly giving you a sense of trauma for some hours and the morning after. Indeed this movie is not for the faint hearted and I think the rest of the audience that was watching it with me will corroborate this statement. I think I was most impressed by the way the story ended. It was horrible but ingenious at the same time.
Seven shot Brad Pitt and Kevin Spacey to fame. It was nominated for the Academy awards for most of the top spots and it grossed a $13.9 million in its opening weekend.

Who is the most gruesome of them all?

2010-01-03T21:13:00.001+05:30

Gulal - the most forgettable experience

2009-12-23T19:19:00.004+05:30

The film Gulal by Anurag Kashyap left me wondering why ever such a film was made and/or the purpose it was intended to serve. Hindi movies are known essentially to entertain with the strong links they still maintain with other performative art forms like theatre and dance. A crucial component of a Hindi film is that it has to narrate a story within certain familiar frameworks using prescribed tropes that the viewers recognize and relate to. Except for some select film makers who consciously venture into making realistic films based on credible, authentic situations, portrayal of an actual event as it unfolds in life has never been the hallmark of films made in Bombay. On the contrary, there is always a moving away from hard reality as reliefs are inserted in the form of music, dance or an irrelevant comic setting.
Gulal even by the wildest stretch of imagination is not entertaining unless one has some morbid penchant for blood and gore that dominate the film in the most mindless fashion. The central protagonist of the film is crude, crass, cruel violence that eventually levels down everybody-victims and perpetrators alike and the screen turns into a large canvas of red. When I wonder about the purpose, Gulal isn’t intended to help people find relief from their humdrum existence nor seek solace in the empowerment of the underdog. It is absurd, unreal, untrue and quite annoyingly so. It is based in Jaipur the capital of Rajasthan where one Dukey Bana, a scion of an erstwhile princely state wants to revive the Rajputana party. His speech reeks of hatred, intolerance and jingoism and the actions that support his intentions are predictably unscrupulous. He is lecherous, dishonest, manipulator and single-mindedly unkind. Yet, the platform on which he, the powerful Rajput dreams of leading the clan to a new future, is a narrow college election. The college seems modest given that the only students who appear on the screen are the ones involved in the tussle for the seat of the general secretary. On a liberal count never did the college appear to have more than 30 students. The campaign, the behind the scene manipulation are so simplistic, naïve and absurdly linear that one wonders if the film maker was even remotely serious in what he was trying to depict. Women, of course, are all victims, unrelieved in the trauma they have to bear and equally so are the vulnerable men. The supposedly central character, a new law student who as a Rajput earns the ire of the non Rajput party and ends up being beaten badly and left stripped of all his clothes in a room with a woman who is also naked. She turns out to be a lecturer of the college. Where in India does this happen and why portray such brutality? In the end, the resolution to the story is provided by a generous use of bullets. And yet, the situation never moves beyond petty college politics. If it is intended to be allegorical then the effect falls flat.
The only purpose of the film, it seems, was to make a fetish of violence and brutality and overwhelm viewers with large helpings of the colour red. For, everyone who had a face and a character in the film dies in bloodbaths often unrealistically staged. And, in that single tone of red and black, the narrative gets tedious and drags endlessly on. The actors including the talented Kay Kay Menon had little to do except appear angry, cruel and coarse. The songs-unavoidable even in such a grim tale- were sung to the traditional rural stage performance. They were the best feature of the film.
What did the film claim to show? That suburban India is crude, uncivil, oppressive and meaninglessly cruel and chauvinistic? Then, it should have had situations which were more authentic. If it was intended to titillate the viewers, it certainly succeeds in evoking a lot of disgust at the immature portrayal of contemporary India. Film makers in Mumbai must attempt at a more nuanced story telling and not pander to cheap thrills. Fortunately, viewers have matured and they don’t buy it, as they didn’t in the case of Gulal.

Babel

2009-12-09T05:00:00.006+05:30

Babel was a film that I had procrastinated watching for a long time. My reason for doing so was basically mental laziness; in University I did not feel like a serious politically charged film (a mistaken assumptions I assure you) where I know Cate Blanchett will get shot (don’t complain at me for divulging the story line for Babel is a film to watch not to just know about) after a long hard day of reading economic literature (for those who are not aware, I major in economics). In doing so, I missed my opportunity of watching it in the theater.
However, recently, the 9:00pm movie time on channel five gave me a second chance and the film proved to be spectacular in every respect.
It being the last of the film trilogy known as the‘death trilogy’ (includes Amoros Perros and 21 grams which are both highly recommended) directed by Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu and written by another Mexican, Guillermo Arriaga Jordán, Babel is based on a series of events that flaccidly connect different lives that pan across the globe. There are nine major characters in the film and their lives are connected; some emotionally and others circumstantially.
Events unfold in Morocco when two poor shepherd boys are given a medium range shot-gun by their father to kill jackals and keep their flock safe. While testing the weapon, the boys shoot at a tourist bus that was passing by and when nothing happens, they decide that the shot gun is of no use.
Then the audience is introduced to an American couple (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) on a holiday in Morocco; they have two children and have recently lost their third child in a crib death accident. Their children have been left with a Mexican nanny back home. The nanny is a middle aged woman whose son is getting married in her homeland and she desperately wanted to leave to attend the ceremony. Having been given permission to leave the children with their aunt for the weekend, she was preparing for her journey.
Across the Pacific lived a lonely deaf and dumb Japanese teenager in Osaka. Her mother had committed suicide and her relationship with her father was strained. These lives get thrown together due to the pot shot taken by one of the shepherd boys. The shot hits the wife of the travelling American and it is immediately understood that this was an act of terrorism. Naturally the police get involved and they mange to trace the gun through the shells of its bullets. It so happened that the gun once belonged to the father of the Japanese teenager. Back in the USA, owing to the circumstances, the American refuses permission for the nanny to leave the children but she goes anyway and takes them along with her. The film takes a full turn and concludes, like life, ambivalently; it is tragic in some cases and happy in others.
Babel is a beautifully crafted film that makes a very poignant statement about the sufferings in the world. It shows that not only is their economic disparity in the world but also disparity in the way people of rich and poor countries are treated. For instance, in the movie, there were two sets of policemen dealing with the same event and similar purpose. The first set belonged to the Moroccan government and nearly battered to death an old man to gain information. Later the same policemen shot dead one of the shepherd boys because they suspected them to be terrorists. On the other hand, the Japanese police went to the home of the owner of the gun and showed extreme courtesy in finding out the relevant information. Having cleared the air of suspicion (he hunted for a passion before the death of his wife), they let the man returned to his own troubled life. On the other hand, the injured American tourist was given publicity enough to stir the globe and had she died (she did not), America could very well have attacked Morocco as part of their campaign of the ‘War on Terror’. But because their nanny did not have a letter from her employer allowing her to take the children to her son’s wedding, she got deported from the United States because of illegal immigration.. Who is the victim then?
The best thing about Babel is that while there isn’t a light moment in sight, it is quite entertaining and extremely fast paced. The emotional complexities of the characters involved are projected with class. The whole orchestration is a dramatic overture and yet the narrative is balanced and quiet.
Babel then is an extremely sensitive film that deserves respect, an audience and perhaps some whiskey.

Kagaz Ke Phool, an unforgettable tale of love

2009-11-12T22:05:00.005+05:30

A widely appreciated film, Kagaz ke Phool had a second life of sorts in the 1980s when it came to be regarded as a cult film by post modern scholars and film aficionados following a poor performance at the box office in its own time. Released in 1959, it was officially Guru Dutt’s last directorial venture and came fairly close to his unforeseen and unfortunate death, five years later.
In retrospect, there were similarities between the tragedy of Suresh Sinha the protagonist in the movie and the untimely death of director Dutt but it would be an exaggeration to say that it foreshadowed the latter. After all, some of Dutt’s finest performances as an actor in Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam and Chaudhvin Ka Chand followed Kagaz ke Phool even if it symbolically signalled the end of his career as a director.
The movie has been and will always be regarded as a tragedy not because Suresh Sinha the talented director dies an old man, impoverished and forgotten but because he was unable to carry on at the height of his career and let life slip by. It was his personal failure to live in any meaningful way after he lost custody of his daughter and was unable to hold back the young actress whose presence had given a purpose to his lonely life. The story of this tragedy is not the best of tales nor has it been presented in the best of ways.
I see Kagaz ke Phool as an unforgettable love story that speaks of a relationship that is so subtle and fragile that it could only be depicted as a piece of poetic fantasy, remote and unachievable. Lest it shattered at the touch of reality, it was removed from the frame and emptiness took over. The iconic song Waqt ne Kiya can lay claims to be one of the best lyrics and music to be created in Bombay and certainly the best to be portrayed on celluloid.

Waheeda Rehman, as the young actress, Shanti and Guru Dutt, the director, Suresh, stand apart in the darkness of the studio as a shaft of white light from the ceiling cuts through the black and show them in silhouette. The atmosphere is charged with proximity and sensuality, so palpable and affective though they don’t even come close enough to touch. That is the only scene that gives away the relationship that both come to realise as being fundamental to their existence. It is so delicately etched and yet so unmistakably stark but fleeting. The two women Geeta Dutt through her voice and Waheeda Rehman by her looks lend their deep emotions for a perfect rendition. In many ways, Guru Dutt pales before the intensity of their performance. This is where if the grapevine is to be believed the film comes close to the lives of the Dutts. The only dialogue in which Suresh talks of their love is when he tells Shanti as she is about to leave that they understand each other so well that they can doubt one another. He repeats this several times. Both knew they can not be together. Its perfection made their relationship so delicate and beyond blemish. Perhaps for this reason Shanti and Suresh and the poignancy of their attachment are focused in sharp contrast to the fake, theatrical presence of the secondary characters, like the wife and daughter.
Guru Dutt was right later to admit that the audience could not appreciate the movie, used as they were to singing around the trees by actors portraying persons in love. But it was also a movie that dragged on endlessly till death. Like the love it depicted so beautifully, it should have been cut short much earlier. Such love can never end in death; it has to be scattered to the winds for its fragrance to remain long after it fades away.

Canone Inverso: Making Love

2009-11-11T04:30:00.011+05:30

I have been meaning to write about several movies I have seen of late such as Almadovar’s latest installment, Broken Embraces or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button but I must confess that none of these have moved me enough to dwell upon them. (Don’t get me wrong, I will recommend these movies to anyone who is interested.)
However, a few days ago, I chanced upon a film that I just can not get out of my mind. In fact, I can not find words to describe the deep impact it had on me. I think this is a fairly rear movie and quite a novel one since its valuation on Amazon is £27/- but if you like music and if you like history then its worth making an effort to find this one. The Canone Inverso was a piece of music which sounded the same when played backwards. It was a piece that was specially written by Italian composer Ennio Morricone for an epynomous Italian film, Canone Inverso: Making Love directed by Ricky Tognazzi. The film was released in 2000 and the most popular name in its caste list is perhaps Gabriel Byrnes (Fredrich Bhaer in Little Women 1994).
This film revolves around a poor Jewish fiddle player, Jeno Varga, from a pig farm in Czechoslovakia who is deemed to be a bastard of a First World War veteran. Jeno grows up with his much loved mother and step father at a time when the world is close to the precipice of another war, deadlier and much more frightening. Czechoslovakia, yet unhinged by Nazi abomination, was hitherto enjoying a prosperous time for culture and secularism. The environment in Prague was such that even our poor farm boy protagonist, who had a passion for music and the talent of an artist, could aspire to become a part of the distinguished Collegium Musicum and garner friendship among the rich, elite and talented.
As the story unfolds, one is touched by several aspects of human nature and its capability of loving however, the most striking feature of this film and the story it tells is the music. There it lies in the background and in the foreground and in the memory. The film is a truly brilliant composition that ultimately culminates to being the tale of the canone inverso and its survival through the ravages of time.
A good wine and an open heart, I think, will go very well with this movie.

Shakespeare Revisited: Twelfth Night

2009-10-28T23:01:00.016+05:30

The idea of revisiting (rather in our case ‘beginning’ to read again) Shakespeare was suggested in a recent discussion of this blog.

And so...
My mother and I decided to start with reading all the plays of Shakespeare we have not read and then to return to the ones we have read in the past.

By some fortuitous fancy, we chose ‘The Twelfth Night’ as our first play. However, by the end of the first act we decided that we could not make a Vanessa Redgrave out of ourselves and without proper 'reading' the dialogue was lost on us. Thus we turned to the trusty BBC production house and managed to salvage the 1996 TV production of the play in question from YouTube (god save Hurley, Chen and Karim) to help us do a ‘dramatic read along’(As you can see our activity was very quick and efficient as per the precepts of the 21st century).

Shakespeare's works are so intricately layered that there can be no absolute discussion of them. Therefore, bear with me if my review sounds too limited in perception for I can’t possibly cover the surfeit of angles that come into the particular play.

I think that there is unanimous agreement that Shakespeare is timeless; not only in terms of the ‘free-for-all’ yen philosophy he makes his players enunciate but also in terms of the characters he creates through these speeches. One may argue that the two characteristics have a simultaneous causation such that one can not be divorced from the other but I think otherwise. You may supplant the characters (defined by their situation and not speech) into a modern circumstance (as does several all American teen movies) and still achieve a modern boy meet girl story without having to change Shakespeare’s original mesh. You may even inject in your speech a little of the Elizabethan lingo composed by the great man (hence, free-for –all) to make an impact

“…so please you,
We will bestow ourselves.-Read on this book…” (Old Polonius to Ophelia, Hamlet Act III scene I)

The twelfth night in the Christian calendar marks the eve of the coming of the ‘Epiphany’(revelation that Jesus Christ if God in human form) hence completing the 12 days of Christmas. However, in Tudor England, the ‘Twelfth Night’ was celebrated as all hallows eve when everything in the world turns upside down such that the King becomes a peasant and the peasant rules all (kind of like democracy). The festivities of 2nd February 1602 involved the performance of William Shakespeare’s play ‘Twelfth Night or What you will’.

The characters in this play failed to comply by a lot of rules of the world thus capturing the essence of the twelfth day of Christmas. First, a woman dresses up as a man and manages to not only seduce another woman but also a man. Then, a servant forgets his place and dreams of being a Duke. The clown turns to philosophy and the elders are wont of sense. By the end of the place some things fall into place but Shakespeare prudently leaves a few questions unanswered (perhaps anticipating the 21st century audience). For instance one never finds out how Duke Orsino falls so quickly in love with the newly identified Viola.

“Be not amaz’d; right noble is his blood. If this be so, as yet the glass seems true, I shall have share in this most happy wreck”(Act V Scene I)

The fact that Shakespeare’s characters are known to fall in and out of love quite quickly can not be disputed but the Duke was different in that he was convinced that his love for Olivia was so dear to him that he took care to constantly feed it with music (which, of course we all know that free-for-all philosophy has stated, is the food of love)

“If music is the food of love,
play on,
Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken and die.” Act I Scene I
He also felt later in the play that his passion for Olivia was so strong that
“There is no woman’s sides; Can bide the beating of so strong a passion; As love doth give my heart…” (Act 2 Scene 4)

The only other possibility is that Orsino was actually getting (sexually) attracted to the male version of Viola (Cesario) all along. Indeed, Feste the clown insinuates this when he sings for the pair and leaves unpaid stating instead: (or at least this is what I gathered from the metaphore)

“Now the melancholy god protect thee; and the tailor make thy doublet of changeable taffeta, for thy mind is a very opal. I would have men of such constancy put to sea, that their intent everywhere; for that’s it that always makes good voyage of nothing…”

There is evidently a very strong homosexual overture in this play. in fact, we contested a debate over whether this was considered as an aberration in Elizabethan society or whether it was simply a norm.
Perhaps the English men and women were liberated from the prudish conditionality that they later constructed (we shall leave that for the social historians to decide) but I believe that Shakespeare, through the character of Viola was trying to make a greater political statement for the time. He was trying to 'exonerate' womenkind from being considered fickle and incapable of depth. (I am certain he would not get along well with the feminists)

Another interesting aspect of the play is the role of the minor characters especially those in service. I was especially fascinated by the character Feste, the clown (played by Ben Kingsley- an absolute delight to watch) who was the only one who knew the truth about everyone’s identity. He was also the only one who spoke to all the characters alone in different circumstances and because he was considered a fool, he was also taken into confidence. It was as if he was a sort of dumb-witness except he was far from it all because he did not need to be told the truth for him to know it because his knowledge preceded everyone else’s. Could he be the voice of the playwright? Could he be the first mover? Could he be the one who sets the world right on the day of epiphany-the twelfth night?
I think he is and he is also the primary supplier of this play’s yen philosophy.

Apart from Feste, there is poor Malvolio, who is played beautifully by Nigel Hawthorn in the BBC production. To a citizen of the democratic state, Shakespeare’s treatment of Malvolio is undoubtedly unjust. He is proven quite mad at the end of the play for having ambitions for a life of luxury ,of course, he is tricked into it and for which he promises to seek revenge, but by making him mad, the playwright sidelines him as the butt of all jokes (civil as they may have been). Here lay, I thought a clear reflections of the feudal state. How could an ordinary man, doomed to a life of servitude have aspirations to property and wealth? However, when Malvolio promises to take revenge on his deceivers, he is taken seriously and this is a remarkable moment for the democratic reader- the common man is allowed a voice!

According to me the genius of Shakespeare lay not only in his wit and ability to create fantastic (literally)characters but also in his foresight. I understood from this play that he understood the latent moods of the people and although it wasn’t until another 70 years for the Glorious Revolution, I believe William Shakespeare had sensed that Malvolio’s revenge was not far in sight.

Wake Up Sid - wonderfully fresh & realistic

2009-10-26T22:12:00.005+05:30

Do you know Ayan Mukherjee, the director of Wake Up Sid! is just 24 years old! And that he has been an assistant director for Swades! He must have been in his teens then!
The movie is wonderfully fresh - and that comes from being directed by someone as young as the main protagonist in the film. Wake Up Sid is a coming of age movie, a little like Dil Chahta Hai, but treated very differently.
What's so endearing about the film is that it rings so true. The dialogues, the acting - everything is finely nuanced. It's everyday speech, everyday sentiments, without being trite or boring.
Konkona Sen Sharma was marvellous. Her eyes are so startlingly expressive - her eyes really do speak and the director knows they are her best assets. He takes several close shots of her eyes - and they say so much - I love it when she painstakingly tries to establish that she was ok with just being friends - and Ranbir should not read anything more into it. She is so delightfully plain speaking, honest without sounding rude, endearing without sounding childish or a simpering coquette.
Ayan has subtly interwoven a historical background to his characters- which makes them so believable. For example - ofcourse Sid is a spoilt rich kid, but we realise the reason his parents gave him so much, so easily, is because they led a life of deprivation and struggle, and so wanted their son to enjoy himself.
Supriya Pathak, Sid's mother isn't just a caricature, spouting outrageous English. Just one sentence so beautifully explains why she insists on speaking the language, even when her son so cruelly makes fun of her. Her son and his friends speak English -so she thought -maybe if she spoke their language, her son too would treat her as a friend. It's interesting to see the way she dresses up. In spite of their wealth, she dresses up in very ordinary salwar kameezes. She adores her son (you are so handsome, she says. You should be in movies!) but that doesn't mean she is immune to his faults or that she doesn't feel hurt when he snubs her or even out rightly insults her. Not once does she plead with her husband Anupam Kher to let Sid remain in the house, once Sid misbehaves with both her and Anupam Kher and Anupam Kher throws him out of the house.
Anupam Kher could have easily been a cardboard figure -the business tycoon who throws out his prodigal son when he refuses to mend his ways. But there is more to him than just someone who makes money making flower showers for bathrooms! He takes pride in his products (they are number 1 in India - "we've taught India to bathe in style!") and more interestingly was an avid photographer in his younger days, documenting his son's every mood and milestone. When Sid asks him much later in the film why he hadn't pursued his hobby, Anupam Kher replies, his muse/ the subject of all his photos lost interest in being photographed!
The most interesting character in the movie is Konkona Sen Sharma. I was delighted to find Bengali touches to the film - reminded me of the time when Hrishikesh Mukherjee's movies and some of Shakti Samant movies had Rabindranath Tagore's books or portraits in the interior sets. Konkona or Aisha is from Kolkata. I thought her very middle class prudishness was very Bengali, as was her love for books and old Hindi film songs (Hemanta Mukherjee songs in particular!). I loved the way her fingers glide over her books, once her parcel arrives from her home - she is so happy to have her favourite possessions with her.
She is mature, independent, intelligent, poised, very articulate and a romantic at heart. But unknown to herself, she is also a child at heart (which her editor, Rahul Khanna points out) and in some ways, even immature - as when she lashes out at Sid for washing and cleaning her clothes, for cooking for her - I hate it when someone does things for me - I like doing things on my own - and I hate it when someone invites female friends over to my apartment without informing me! She is unable to hide her feelings, her illogical jealousy (for she definitely does not like an immature kid like Sid - so she claims!) and is so disarmingly candid and flustered for being inadvertently candid - its such a delight watching her. An interesting touch to her characterization was the tattoo on her neck, hidden by her hair. Looking at her, one would have never imagined she was the tattoo kind of girl.
Ranbir Kapoor made a very interesting co-star. I didn't think he could match Konkona's superb acting, but he did! He was equally natural, very spontaneous, restrained, downright callow and yet lovable at the same time!
The music was very hummable. My son keeps singing "Wake up Frills" (I am quite worried because he pronounces Six as Fix!) and the "Ektara" son is very lyrical as well.
Among the several memorable scenes from the film - one that's a personal favourite is when Konkona's run-down shabby apartment is transformed. The brightly lit bird cage was such an innovative prop. I've never seen anything like that before, in any movie. It's an empty birdcage with diwali lights wound inside. It looked lovely as a nightlamp.
There were only two inconsistencies in the movie. Both somewhat glaring.
(1) Konkona is 27 - 28 years old. She is independent, well educated. But she hardly has any work experience. She has just worked 2 years as a librarian - but says she is very ambitious and wants to become a journalist/writer. The director should have simply given her some more work experience - and in a newspaper/media house.
(2) She wants to make it on her own in Mumbai. And she comes from a middle class family - which is why she chooses a decrepit flat rather than a posh one. But she way she does up her house - obviously implies money was not a problem. She immediately purchases a fridge, paints the house, Sid's friends have a blast splashing buckets of paint on the wall (my instinctive reaction was - gosh what a waste of paint and money!), decorates the house really prettily. But maybe I am being unreasonable - for she does purchase everything second hand and the director does point out that she doesn't have any air conditioner in her house!
Until now Imtiaz Ali didn't have any competition - not in the genre of contemporary romances. Looks like he's in for some stiff competition!
Also saw Dev D (on DVD) and Blue (as a pre-Diwali outing) in the theatres. Dev D deserves all the rave reviews it got. Blue was a DISASTER. Will write soon about why Blue - with such an interesting theme and enticing scene-scenery (as Bengalis sometimes say) - was such a dampener.

Film Noir - Bollywood examples

2009-10-26T18:22:00.001+05:30

Can anyone suggest some Bollywood films that fall into the Film Noir category? I can't think of any. Need it for an article I am writing. Thanks!

Sunset Boulevard - among the top 100 greatest movies of all times

2009-10-12T12:38:00.020+05:30

Sunset Boulevard is one of the greatest movies ever made. A black-and-white gem of a movie by Billy Wilder, the same man who made "The Seven Year Itch" and "Sabrina". Sunset Boulevard is an insider's take on Hollywood - Hollywood shorn of the glamour, or rather a glamour that's gone putrid.
The story is about a down and out script writer who lands up, by mistake in Norma Desmond's mansion. Norma Desmond is the greatest star of the silent era. What unfolds is a fascinating tale of how time stands still for an aging star and her greatest fan, her butler, who dutifully keeps writing hundreds of fan letters to her - every day, just so that she can bask in the glory of her stardom, that has long since set, infact which has faded twenty years ago.
The screenplay has also been judged as among the top screenplays to be ever written. It's strange to think that the screenwriter (and director) Billy Wilder actually did not know English when he immigrated to America. Wilder once said: "My English is a mixture between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Archbishop Desmond Tutu." (Wilder was a German speaking PolishJew. His family had perished in the Auschwitz concentration camp.)
The movie is a rich mix of pathos, sardonic humour, realism and the burlesque. What impresses the viewer right away is the magnificent sets - the rambling mansion covered in dust. The film's cinematographer was John F. Seitz who sprinkled dust in front of the camera to give the effect of a musty, mouldy interior. The outrageous swan bed - which I believe was actually some great yesteryear star's bed that was later purchased by the studio as a prop. The solid teak furniture, the thick Turkish carpets and the dimly rooms with hardly any sunlight, with tall standing lamps lit during the day. And most of all - the photographs of Norma Desmond gracing every available surface, tables, mantelpieces, walls, dressing tables - its marvellous how each one of them has the actress in a different pose, in different costumes and expressions.
But what I liked most was the sardonic humour that ensured the movie never slipped into maudlin sentimentality. Here are some of my personal favourites.
(1) When the hero, scriptwriter Gillis meets Norma Desmond, the greatest star ever, for the first time, and she is affronted by his matter of fact reaction to her identity, he says, as he is leaving - "Next time I'll come with my autograph book or maybe a hunk of cement for your footprints."
(2) Norma Desmond is crushed by the death of her pet, a chimpanzee and has organized for a burial fit for a king (with a coffin lined with satin and velvet). Gillis who observes the burial from a room above says - "He was one important chimp, the great grandson of King Kong maybe. "
(3) Norma Desmond's tragedy is that she could not make the transition from silent to talking pictures. She keeps the myth of her everlasting popularity alive by watching her own movies twice a week. On one such occasion she tells Gillis who has by then moved in with her - "There was a time when this business had the eyes of the whole wide world. But that wasn't good enough. Oh, no They wanted the ears of the world, too. So they opened their big mouths, and out came talk, talk, talk..."
GILLIS: "That's where the popcorn business comes in. You buy yourself a bag and plug up your ears."
(4) To counteract Gillis' complete cynicism and disenchantment with Hollywood, there is Betty Schaefer, a fresh, young Reader (Readers read the script submitted by scriptwriters to the Studios and decide whether they are any good) who believes movies should say something. She reprimands Gillis for wasting his talent and not writing something really meaningful. Gillis retaliates with - "Oh, you're one of the message kids. Just a story won't do. You'd have turned down Gone With the Wind."
On that the Studio executive (the producer probably) quips, "No, that was me. I said, Who wants to see a Civil War picture?"
(5) Assistant to Cecil d Mille about Norma Desmond - when Norma comes visiting Paramount Studios - "She must be a hundred years old." DeMille replies wryly - "I hate to think where that puts me. I could be her father."
The movie has some extremely dramatic moments. From the first scene when the credits are rolling, with police cars racing down Sunset Boulevard, to the last, when Norma Desmond makes her grand exit as Salome, the movie moves at a relentless pace, which is by itself quite an achievement considering there are no high voltage action sequences. My favourite dramatic scenes are:
(1) Gillis enters Norma Desmond's bedroom for the very first time. Norma thinks he is the undertaker. Gillis has no clue who has died. She gestures towards a small body that's covered in a rich Spanish shawl. And suddenly a chimpanzee's hair arm slips lifelessly from below the covering.
(2) Gillis recognizes Norma Desmond and quite thoughtlessly says he knows who she is. She used to be big once. Norma draws herself up and haughtily exclaims like royalty- "I AM big. It's the movies that got small".
(3) Seeing one of her own silent movies in her living room she suddenly gets up agitated and exclaims what fools present day producers were to ignore an immortal beauty like her. "I'll show them" she thunders. "I'll be up there again". Her eyes gleam fanatically, she unconsciously adopts a melodramatic posture of the silent movies era, hand outstretched, fingers like claws, raised dramatically, one shoulder raised at an elegant angle, her chin thrust out. It's so easy to see that she forgets she is not enacting a scene.
(4) And ofcourse Wilder's and Swanson's tour de force - the last scene - in which Nora descends the staircase, thinking she is Salome, in Paramount Studios. She is surrounded by journalists who are furiously clicking photographs of a murderess. She thinks they are cameramen at the studio. She walks down the stairs, like a queen, her head held high, her face towards the arc lights, with wild makeup (she has poweder smothering her face), and an even wilder get up (spangled glitters all over her gown, an over-the-top hat, glitters on her arms) and stops at the last stair and says - eyes staring madly and at the same time quite luminescent in its expressiveness, "Mr. deMille, I'm ready for my close up." Its one of the most macabre climaxes I have ever seen in any movie.
Now about the characters. The three main characters, Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond, William Holden as Gillis and Erich Von Stroheim as Max the butler, are so different from one another, and so very complicated as characters. I found it very interesting the manner in which the director decides to "hint" to the audience that Gillis was unconsciously slipping into the role of a gigolo.
Norma is showing playing cards with her friends and she asks Gillis to empty the ashtray. A second later when his car is being towed away by the car financiers he begs her for some money - so that he can pay of the car loan people and retain his car. That's the instance when we get an inkling of how things are going to be from now onwards. She keeps him on leash - withholding any payments. Her card companion looks at Gillis meaningfully as he whisperingly pleads with Norma for some money. That looks says so much - already people are looking at him as a toy boy. She gives him food, expensive food - champagne and caviar included, buys him designer clothes, lets him stay in her house (wants him to stay) but doesn't pay him any hard cash. the only money he ever gets is from her winnings at her card games.
Then there is Max - blindly loyal and devoted. A love that is so servile and yet strangely not pathetic- he loves her so determinedly that he is willing to be her bulter, servant, chauffeur just so that he can be with her, take care of her. In the scene in which he is driving Norma to Paramount Studios to meet Cecil deMille, for her great comeback, he studies her reflection in the rear mirror of the car (he is driving naturally - he is the chaffeur) and apologetically tells her that her eye shadow wasn't quite right. He obviously still believes she is the diva she once was 20 years back and that is still as beautiful as when an Indian Maharajah stole her stockings and then hanged himself with it. He painstakingly writes her hundreds of fan letters everyday just so that her fragile sanity does not snap. The scene is which he quietly tells Gillis that he was her director, it was he who had discovered her, and that is actually her first husband - is Wilder's most brilliant touch as a screenplay writer.
While watching Sunset Boulevard I was remembering some of our own movies on Bollywood. The most obvious ones are Rangeela, Khoya Khoya Chand and to some extent Guddi. Guddi had Bollywood as a backdrop but none of its main characters were from Bollywood. But the other two were about the movie industry - about stars and extras, about those who make it big, and the unsung heroes. And yet neither of them had the gripping realistic feel of Sunset Boulevard, a movie made almost 50 years before. The characters in Sunset Boulevard are flesh and blood characters, with the richness and depth of actual people. Jackie Shroff in Rangeela was simply a flamboyant hero who falls in love. There weren't any layers to his character. Verma didn't bother much about understanding what makes him tick psychologically. Khoya Khoya Chand is a more complex movie, but as is typical of some good Bollywood movies, does not give that feeling of completeness, of a perfection in conception and execution that say a Sunset Boulevard does. Soha's character was definitely not memorable, nor was Shiney's. In fact I can't recollect a single scene or dialogue from the movie! Fashion - though a realistic take on glamour lacks the heart of Billy Wilder's Sunset Boulevard.
For though Sunset Boulevard looks at Hollywood unflinchingly, with all its warts, it also shows one of Hollywood's most legendary director-producer - Cecil deMille, in a redeeming golden glow. Infact deMille is the nicest, most likable character in the entire movie. He is kind, almost paternal, treats an aging delusional star with respect and he is honest, something most other characters in the plot are not (he tries his best to tell Norma that there had been a mistake. His studio hadn't called her up to sign her up for a movie, but to rent her car as a prop). When he sees how much making a grand comeback means to her, he refrains from telling her that her Salome script was trash and that they couldn't possibly make a movie together. "I would if it were possible" - he leaves it at that - which she takes as a "yes"!
In fact when Norma comes visiting him he is in the middle of a shooting. His assistant quite reasonably asks should he just tell her that the director is busy, should he give her the "brush"? DeMille replies, "isn't it enough 30 million fans have already given her the brush"
Some questions that were left unanswered. If any of you have seen this movie or plan to see it, please let me know why -
(1) Why did the butler Max do up the bed that afternoon - even before Gillis landed up at the mansion?
(2) Can anyone tell me what this dialogue means?
NORMA
Salome -- what a woman! What a part! The Princess in love with a Holy man. She dances the Dance of the Seven Veils. He rejects her, so she demands his head on a golden tray, kissing his cold, dead lips.
GILLIS
They'll love it in Pomona.
NORMA
(Taking it straight)
They will love it every place.
------x--------------------------
I understand Gillis is being sarcastic when he says "they'll love it in Pomona" but what does it mean really?

Sunset Boulevard won Academy Awards in the categories of:
(1) Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White (Hans Dreier, John Meehan, Sam Comer and Ray Moyer)
(2) Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (Franz Waxman)
(3) Best Writing, Story and Screenplay (Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder and D.M. Marshman Jr.) It was also nominated in the categories of:
(1) Best Picture
(2) Best Director (Billy Wilder)
(3) Best Actor in a Leading Role (William Holden)
(4) Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Erich von Stroheim)
(5) Best Actress in a Leading Role (Gloria Swanson)
(6) Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Nancy Olson)
(7) Best Cinematography, Black-and-White (John F. Seitz)
(8) Best Film Editing (Arthur P. Schmidt and Doane Harrison)
That's an awful lot of nominations! So, as they say on TV film promos, go watch it!

What are we reading?

2009-09-28T15:42:00.003+05:30

I recently finished a modern day mystery that is doing its rounds in the bookstores all over. It is by Stieg Larsson called, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The blurb of the book describes Larsson as 'one of the world's leading experts on anti-democratic, right-wing extremist and Nazi organisations, (who) was often consulted on that account. He died suddenly and unexpectedly in November 2004, soon after delivering the manuscripts for three crime novels to his Swedish publisher. These novels make up the Millennium Trilogy, which has gone on to sell more than 3 million copies in Sweden alone. Tragically, Larsson did not live to see the worldwise phenomenon his work has become.' He was born in 1954 and was too young to die.
Has anyone else read it? Can we compare our list of readings - finished, in the process and intending to? We could recommend a book that we all read and then start an informed dialogue. Any suggestions?

Love Aaj Kal

2009-08-12T17:40:00.009+05:30

My mother-in-law really liked it! And she doesn't like most new Hindi movies - finds them "rubbish"!

I'm afraid I cannot give an impartial review of the movie, because as mentioned in my previous blog, I am a die-hard fan of Jab We Met and every scene that unfolded, and as the characters developed, was constantly compared to my enjoyment of Jab We Met.

So here goes...a comparative analysis of the two! I realise that's unfair. One should NOT compare one movie with another, specially if both are by the same director, with similar themes (LOVE) but totally different treatment, but I can't be impartial!

JWM was so natural. LAK felt more laboured. I was actually quite disappointed to see UK and USA - it felt so Yash Chopra-ish or KJoish. It didn't have the earthy appeal of Imtiaz Ali's earlier two movies. For example - that scene in JWM when Kareena and Shahid jump into the lake. If you compare that to Deepika and Saif drunk, sitting atop the taxi...isn't JWM so much more endearing and believable?

There was a sense of gay abandonment in JWM. I know, I know - that's not supposed to be there in LAK - since its a more mature love story. But I believe any love story should arouse a sense of wonderment in the viewer. If the magic is missing - can you really enjoy a love story? JWM had wonder dust sprinkled all over it, in the most unpretentious situations, in witty exchanges between the hero and heroine.

In LAK, all reviewers are admiring the scene in which after the break up, Deepika and Saif are finally honest with each other (she hates his sister-in-law; his red sneakers. He hates her playlists on her ipod; warns her against getting easily drunk) - as being so true to life. But why did I feel detached? I never felt that warm, gushy feeling that comes when watching a scene that connects with your subconsciousness, giving you that sense of "I recognize this! Its happened to me!"

Another problem I had with the movie was Saif's character. Was he at all likeable? Or I am terriby biased. I just couldn't fathom why Deepika loved him! He's not the loveable, goofy casanova Samir of Dil Chahta Hai; he is not the character - I forget his name - in Namaste London, footloose, fancyfree, scared of commitments. I mean yes he IS, but then the Namaste London Saif was much more likeable than the LAK Saif. I guess another reason I didn't like him in the movie was because he's done this role to death in all his movies. A kind of shallow, flirtatious, rich, social guy, who can't make up his mind. Who doesn't have any firm convictions about anything.
He did a decent job as the 1960s Sardarji, but again, their romance left me unmoved. I wonder why!
I like Deepika, and I know a lot of people don't. She did a fairly decent job in the movie. But one scene where her histrionics were glaringly called to question was when she confesses to her 1 day old husband that she actually loves another guy. Rahul Khanna's face is full of consternation, shock, bewilderment. Deepika's face is blank-trying-her-best-to-look-appropriately-guilty/anguished!
Rishi Kapoor was wasted in the movie. Anyone could have done the role. Rishi Kapoor is an excellent actor, he could have done so much more! Also one thing I didn't understand - why did he look tragic all the time? I thought he lost Harleen, the one great love in his life. But he married her! So why was he always sighing and looking as if he nursed this terribly hearbreak!
One last comparison with JWM. I really liked its songs. Not so with LAK. I guess I am not terribly partial to Punjabi songs...!

Love Aj Kal

2009-08-03T18:28:00.002+05:30

I am a BIG fan of Imtiaz Ali. So had to see 'Love Aj Kal'. Will write the review tomorrow.
And everyone...our blog is languishing! Please write in - isn't anyone watching any movies or reading any books?

Three Interesting Movies to WATCH out for!

2009-07-07T16:42:00.002+05:30

A good preview by Anurag Kashyap. Take a look.
http://passionforcinema.com/three-filmmakers-three-films/

I Confess: Gripping Psychological Drama

2009-07-02T14:12:00.004+05:30

I watched "I Confess" some days back. Though not a vintage Hitchcock, the movie is definitely worth watching. First the story.
A man who does odd-jobs at a local Church in Quebec robs and murders a lawyer. Wracked by guilt he confesses to his priest, Father Logan, the priest in the very same church where this man is employed.
The entire drama of the film revolves around the priest being bound by the confession. By Christian law/doctrines he cannot share the guilty man's confession with the police. Ironically the police start suspecting the priest because witnesses saw a priest leaving the murdered man's house, late at night. That was in fact the murderer Otto Kellar, dressed in a priest's robes.
You know right at the beginning who is the guilty person. So the suspense of the movie is quite obviously not a whodunit, but a moral, psychological issue - what do you do if you know who the murderer is but are bound by oath to keep silent about it, even if it means being hanged for the other man's crime.
The movie can be called a psychological thriller. Multiple characters are wracked by their own demons and transformed during the course of the movie, from seemingly innocuous persons to sly, downright wicked people and others who redeem themselves by rising above personal passions.
There is Otto Kellar, the murderer. At the beginning he is a scared, simple man. Poor, desperate to grab a few dollars. Guilty and scared. But gradually, he gains power over the priest as he comes to realize that bound by his Christian vows, the priest can never give him up to the police. So at first Kellar pleads with the priest, begging him to maintain the sanctity of his confession. Then over the days, as he realises that the priest is too honourable to betray his trust, he starts taunting him, challenging him to reveal the murderer's identity to the police.
Even when he realizes that the priest himself was being suspsected for the murder and might even be convincted for it, he feels no guilt. By that time he has become completely ruthless. He takes a gun with him to court, determined that if the priest at any time breaks down and reveals who the true murderer is, he will shoot him.
Agatha Christie always says in her novels that once a murderer has killed once, killing becomes a game/even a habit. His conscience is killed by the first crime. The crimes that follow do not mean anything to him, just something that's necessary to save himself.
Towards the end of the movie Kellar too does not hesitate to kill. Not just the priest, but innocent bystanders who are in his way.
The other main characters who are caught in a "tangle web" of emotional compulsions are the priest, Logan, his ex-girlfriend, and her husband.
Logan, a hot-blooded, upright young man, volunteers for the army and comes back transformed. He decides to become a Catholic priest. While he cares deeply for Ruth, he will not let her distract him from his higher calling. His dilemma is - honouring the confession, protecting Ruth's reputation at the risk of being suspected of being the murderer, and being a silent spectator to Ruth's anguish, as she longs to be with him, forever.
Ruth loved Logn passionately, and waited for months, years...for him to return from the war. Then she got tired of waiting and married her sympathetic boss. But when Logan does return, she realises she still loves him and arranges to meet him clandestinely (Logan does not know she is married). She is unable to supress her mad passion for Logan and confesses to her husband.
Her husband loves her dearly, even though he is painfully aware that she does not love him. He accompanies her to the police station and bravely sits through her confession - that she had been with Logan on the night of the murder.
The movie is in black and white and captures the beauty of Quebec wonderfully.
The hero, Father Logan, is Montgomery Clift. An extremely handsom man! I haven't seen any of his other movies. Has anyone else?
The heroine, Ruth is Anne Baxter, beautiful, winsome!
Otto Keller has been enacted by OE Hasse - a deft handling of a needy, weak man, turning into an unscruplous rogue. His wife is Dolly Hass - who portrays the scared, helpless good wife, extremely well.
And...don't miss Hitchcock in the first scene, as the credits roll by!

Sliding Doors

2009-06-08T22:02:00.003+05:30

An extremely interesting way to narrate a plot which changes as two possible options to its development are explored and then run in parallel. Helen misses the train and a set of events happen as a result and another set of events don’t happen, at least not right away. She does not for example discover that her live-in boy friend is cheating on her that she finds out when she boards the train. In the second event, she meets someone else as well. What if she were on the train and what if she wasn’t give the plot two possibilities and makes for quite a unique story telling.
n a nutshell, the story is that of an ordinary woman who wakes up in the morning, rushes to work to find that she has been fired thanks to her mean, prejudiced bosses. She is on her way home when she misses the underground and decides to take a cab when she is mugged. The delay in reaching home is just about enough for her boyfriend to have a round with another woman who used to be his childhood girlfriend and is trying to get him back. In this narrative Helen has a brief encounter with another man who merely picks up her earrings in the lift.
The frame is rolled back and she actually wedges her way into the underground to find the same man who picked her earrings sitting. They get talking and one thing leads to another and all of them lead inexorably to bed. In this sequence the trigger is that she walks into the apartment to find another woman over her boyfriend who is gasping and panting both literally and metaphorically. In fact, this poor boyfriend Gerry who is a wimp, generally looks a loser is supposed to be writing a book in the hope of winning millions in royalty. Meanwhile, left to himself he spends the morning keeping the bed warm for the two women but doesn’t quite know who he wants to be with. John Lynch plays the role very well, leaving the viewers in no doubt what the outcome of his fate is going to be.
The other man, James, played by John Hannah, with an unmistakable Scottish intonation is something of a knight in shining armour till a chink appears and another set of circumstances have to be rolled out to make amends. But his story unfolds in the event of Helen getting the train, not when she misses.
All of these are framed within a simple love story of trust and its breach, of hope and disillusionment and of death and fresh life. All the variations, however, have to do with the central character, Helen played by Gwyneth Paltrow with her slightly absentminded but beautifully sensitive looks. She has to die in one to be able to live in another. In the event of her living the possibility of her and James coming together just begins. It could very well go another way.
It is quite a reflection of life that is made of so many coincidences, small accidents, little blessings, some ill luck, never predictable but always possible. Wonder how Aditya Chopra or Karan Johar would have adapted it! I enjoyed watching this very British film and certainly recommend to those who haven’t seen it yet.

In Love with Amelie

2009-05-24T18:36:00.003+05:30

Can one fall in love with a movie? The characters, the actors playing the characters, the little residential bylanes of the Montmarte area in Paris, the cinematography, the poignance of the plot, the sheer wicked genius that created such a brilliant piece of magic on screen.

I think I am in love, with Amelie.

It’s not because I adore Audrey Tatou, or have lived in and around the same locality in Paris for a few days, frequented a similar bar with people who have been there all their lives, travelled in the Paris metros and rail incessantly.

To even begin to outline this movie would be a waste of time, every little sound and colour of this journey has to be experienced, a little understanding of French helps but the lack of it does not take away the brilliance.

I would though like to list my favourite moments:

Little Amelie on the roof disrupting her neighbour’s football game at just the right moment. Wicked.

The moment when Dominique Bredoteau seemingly accidentally finds his childhood treasure box. Tissue Box please!

The intricate treasure hunt plot Amelie draws up for Nino to return his scrapbook. I remember the stairs leading up to the Sacre Couer and the viewing telescopes – but never imagined how it could be used in the plot so effectively.

The idea of people watching other people all the time through their binoculars, I did that too when I stayed in Montmarte, saw the folks queue up for the evening baguette, saw them eat or cook depending on which window was lit up and then hang out for a chat at the bar down the street.

And there are so many more…

What I want to know is why aren’t there more movies like this? Why does Hollywood and Bollywood continue to make mind numbingly painful movies with blood and gore or excessive emotional rants. And lastly why do we even pay good money to watch these.

I am certain most of you are already familiar with this little gem, so tell me more if you know, other works by the same director, other movies with Audrey Tatou ? I am hungry for more.

Rab De Bana Di Jodi

2009-05-23T12:46:00.005+05:30

It's funny how someone with Aditya Chopra's credentials ends up making a Rab De Bana Di Jodi. I guess he is awfully busy in his role as a producer, so doesn't really get that much time to mull over his subject...but because he came back as a director after a period of so many years - I guess 8 long years after Mohabbatein, shouldn't the movie have been more memorable?
I've got into this nasty habit of simply listing what I liked and did not like about a movie! And since this is a blog, I guess its ok! :)
The Good Stuff:

The theme - a shy passionate husband tries to woo over his wife.
Vinay Pathak as Shah Rukh's yuppy friend from Amritsar. So different from Das Vedaniya and Bheja Fry - I am quite blown away by his versatility. Very real, very likable. He was Shah Rukh's langotia yaar. Loud, boisterous, affectionate and an outrageous sense of fashion (btw thought the fashion was too mofussil-ish. I'm sure Amritsar-ians have a much better sense of fashion!)

The Disappointing Stuff:

SHah Rukh. Or to be more fair - Aditya Chopra's direction/perception of what a shy husband should be like and conversely how a shy, goody goody, seedha sadha chap should behave when he tries to become a cool dude. Shah Rukh was completely unconvincing in both roles. He wasn't very likable as the shy chap - though I am sure Aditya wanted him to be endearing. He was terribly unattractive and somehow lacked sweetness. He was an amazingly considerate husband, not forcing his wife to meet his office colleagues when they barged into his house, not even minding that she refused to share the same room with him, day after day. But even then, he seems wooden, a two dimensional person.
The cool dude Shah Rukh was soo over the top - he was ridiculous and a little slimy. I'm sure he was meant to be a little unfashionable (hence the loud clothes) but how could the heroine fall in love with him if he is constantly scratching his crotch? That was gross!
Couldn't help but remember Golmal. True the theme was completely different - but Amol Palekar was so very likable both as the kurta clad Ram Prasad and the dark glasses, toodle do Lucky! It was easy to fall in love with either/both of them!
The heroine Anushka Sharma was the biggest disappointment. I believe there was a nation wide hunt for the next Yash Raj heroine. What made Adi decide on her? I think debutante's can be excused for not being good actors, but they should at least be drop dead gorgeous or deliciously charming or have something about them - that 'x' factor that makes them stand out. As for her acting - she shut herself in her room to mourn her lover's death and her father's death, but nothing in her demeanour or expressions conveyed the terrible tragedy that had come upon her. One can understand she wanted to come out of her depression and so eagerly signed up for dancing classes. But the minute she got the money to pay for her classes, it is as if she completely forgot she had just lost two of the people she loved most. Her happiness was completely unstained by past sorrow. It would have been more believable if Adi had shown her slipping into depression once in a while - would have been more natural.
Music - not of the quality one expects from a Yash Chopra/Aditya Chopra movie
Little practicalities like - there is not a single servant in the huge kothi that the couple live in. Anuksha does the jharoo-poncha herself. A little tough to swallow!

Have I been too harsh? Would love to hear from all of you who liked the movie! Maybe I've been biased!
Do write in!

Luck By Chance - Sensible but Slightly Dull

2009-04-27T10:09:00.006+05:30

The characterizations were deftly done, especially that of Konkona Sen Sharma- a struggling wannabe star. Farhan as the ambitious, practical go-getter was well done too - there are no simplistic black and white characters here. He is talented, but he knows he has to make the most of every opportunity that comes his way - so what if its not really ethical. That doesn't make him an immoral person. It's not that he uses sex to find his foothold in the industry. He just obliges a superstar's aspiring starlet daughter and does a fine balancing act of keeping both mother (Dimple Kapadia, as the aging superstar of yesteryears) and daughter (Isha Sharvani) happy. In a way he is the male counterpart of Priyanka Chopra, in "Fashion", but a more pleasant likeable person than the hard-as-nails leading lady of "Fashion".
Juhi as Rishi Kapoor, the talented aging director's wife, was completely wasted. I personally am a BIG fan of Juhi, so was disappointed to find her simply sweet and inconsequential. Rishi Kapoor was good, but slightly over the top. Dimple was very good - she had the vanity and the airs of a diva, but also subtly portrayed the effect that years in the industry had had on her psyche. In fact her face too portrayed the ravages of time, and the effect of too much of harsh make up, over the decades.
Isha was...I am not sure if she was meant to be so irritating. Maybe she was. She is shrill, brainless, and quite without any charm. Also, high on libido!
I had had huge expectations out of the movie. The story had seemed interesting. And then you invariably think that with a lineage like hers, Zoya cannot go wrong. But...in the end...I was disappointed. The movie was strangely very flat. There was no climax or crisis to speak of, so no catharsis or resolution. Also while Konkona was superb, I don't think she fit into the role of the audience's conception of a struggling Bollywood C-grade actress, waiting for that one big break. She seemed too much of a plain Jane to even dream of making it big. And too brainy and sensible!
Incidentally I liked the bit about Konkona's relationship with a small-time producer. Very subtle, shorn of any moralistic judgements. I thought that was very maturely handled. She knows he is married with kids, but knows he is the only person who can give her that big break. The difference between her and Farhan is that her motives are very transparent. She doesn't pretend she is in love with the sleazeball. Farhan on the other hand is much more opportunistic. He disguises his intentions, making love to Isha and flatters Dimple, winning them over with his passion and charm. While Konkona ends up a victim (the small time producer had no intentions of ever launching her), Farhan becomes the predator, victimising Isha and in a lesser way, Dimple.
Also, the end was too prosaic. Farhan goes on to become a huge star, by compromising on his principles, while Konkona remains true to herself and misses the bus, but makes it big on television. So the last scene shifts the focus from the hero, to the heroine, who by taking a principled stand, appears to be the true hero of the movie. Good ending - but too lame. Would have been fun if there had been some kind of climax in the end.
The same can be said of the Farhan- Konkona romance. Too flat. No sparks flying. I am again not sure if that's how it was meant to be. Was it meant to be a friendship with some companiable sex thrown in, or was it meant to be more? Since Konkona did truly love Farhan, I presume it was meant to be a little more passionate than was shown!
Was also very very disappointed with the music. Not a single hummable number.

The allure of Bandini

2009-04-10T20:32:00.006+05:30

Bandini, made in 1963 was Bimal Roy’s last movie before his death three years later. It is widely known for some stellar performance by Nutan, Ashok Kumar and still relatively new Dharmendra and for some memorable songs composed by S.D Burman with lyrics by Shailendra and one by Gulzar. I don’t wish to repeat what has been written in various renditions about the quality of the production.
What struck me was the multi layered meanings and metaphors that it evoked through the telling of its story and the songs. The celebrated lines of the last song by the inimitable S.D.Burman are repeatedly quoted as expressing the conflict and its eventual resolution. It also refers back to the beginning-the title ‘Bandini.’ Abiding by the conventions of Hindi films in which there has to be at least one song using the title as both a metaphor and a descriptive category, the famous line of the song appears to mark the moment when Kalyani realises what she must do. ‘Main Bandini piya ki, sangini hoon sajan ki.,’ sums up her existence and designates the moment when she turns back and thus closes the narrative. The trail of dark smoke that spews from the engine of the steamer as it moves away, leaving a strange contrast of differing shades of blackness of the sky, the smoke, the water and the vessel signifies the outcome and the end.
The movie begins in a prison where Kalyani, a young woman is brought as one of the detainees. From the first frame in which she appears, Kalyani is projected as beautiful and instantly attractive to the gaze. Her beauty is not sensuous but the affection she invokes is deeply underlined by sexuality and here Roy uses the songs brilliantly. Even though they are relatively less acknowledged in the ensemble of creative profusion, the lyricists have been outstanding in the movie. Kalyani was charged by her own confession, convicted of murder and sentenced to prolonged imprisonment. But the walls of the prison cannot make her any more of a bandini than she already is of her body and her affections. In fact, she prefers to stay on in prison amidst other women detainees because she hopes to escape the fetters of her sexuality. But she fails as the young doctor Deven played by Dharmendra is captivated by her beauty. He proposes to her and when she declines he leaves his job and the prison. But that doesn’t free Kalyani. She is encased in her past, her memories and her emotions.
Kalyani had loved a freedom fighter, Bikash Ghosh played by Ashok Kumar who had been kept in house arrest in her village. She was attracted to him because his act of defiance and his internment excited romance in her just as they evoked fear and awe among the locals. But it is only when Kalyani and Bikash Ghosh look at one another that there is an immediate connection. From then onwards the narrative is told on a completely different register. Kalyani’s father is a scholar of Vaishnav poetry and poetics and his scholarship is unravelled in parallel with the evolving of their relationship. It is one of the recitations of her father’s that prompts the celebratory song, ‘mera gora anga leyile, mora shyam a rang a deyide.’ This is Radha’s song in which shaym is both Krishna and the colour of the skin that would help her blend with darkness of the night as she goes on her rendezvous. Her visits are both trangressive and compulsive. And this is what Kalyani says, articulating her conflict in terms most familiar to the Indian sensibility: laaj roke painya, moha khiche bainya –shame holds my legs back while enchantment pulls my arms. It is this allurement that turns into her fetters and makes her the Bandini. The jailer refers to another bondage that he arranges for her-that of domesticity and home. She runs away from that to submit to the one captivity she is unable to break free from that of an attraction defined subtly but repeatedly through metaphors of the body. The fine semantic difference between piya and sajan underline the stand she has to take. The doctor was captivated by her but for her it had to be the piya to whom she would surrender her body since she had already given him her heart.
Bandini is a love story that is told with all the refinement and delicacy available to the cinematic medium of the time. In very good print, it is easily available in DVDs. Anyone keen to find out how romance and relationships have been portrayed over the years in Hindi films, Bandini would be un-missable.

For one more day, not one more time

2009-03-27T15:55:00.004+05:30

For one more day is Mitch Albom's third novel after tuesdays with Morrie and the five people you meet in heaven. All his titles are in lower case, signifying perhaps the ordinariness of the theme that becomes exceptional and celebratory through the lens of the of author’s mind, captured in words. Tuesdays with Morrie was truly exceptional in the way the most depressing moments of life are turned into its commemoration. By doing so Albom takes away the element of tragedy from death and the inevitable wait for it.
The theme of death is the overriding motif of ‘for one more day’ too. The reader is never allowed any moment of respite from the chasing shadow of the end. In fact, the book starts at the end not only because it is narrated in the form of a reminiscence but because the ‘absence’ of a person and the ‘loss’ that is suffered by another has a ubiquitous presence in even the most happy, light-hearted instances. This is because the book has been prompted by self-reproach experienced by two sets of children for having wronged their parents. The lingering feeling of guilt unites three generations and it is this negative sentiment that helps them discover their love for one another.
Yet, in this relationship of three people from three age band, one is put above the others and beyond any blame. She is the mother to whom this book is dedicated. (How a Bengali man would empathise with it!) But I have problems with such a one sided, single dimensional paean of praise to the mother. The author records a string of vignettes from the protagonist’s past through which the latter traces his guilt, self reproof and repentance. The mother appears as the wronged, nymph like person who has gone through the experience of life by remaining strangely unscathed by them.
As a mother and a daughter, I know this is a lie that is being romanticised and disseminated for making good reading. I was therefore disappointed to discover that Albom has fallen in step with producing Coelho-vian kind of quick, pretentious reading that purports to uphold and valorise an emotion to the point of absurdness in an effort to make it seem like an abstract, timeless idea. In reality, it is a shallow apprehension of life’s intricate and nuanced journey in which both the parent and the child are made of flesh and blood. The book I felt does not address life but is written for gullible readers who love to read something smart that triggers another smart thought without much effort. The post modern masala for popular pulp!

Passions Fly High in Delhi 6!

2009-03-26T12:28:00.006+05:30

I've married into a very large joint family and Delhi 6 reminded me of my experiences as a new bride! So much happening all the time! A lot of warmth and affection, loads of gossip (there's always something to bitch about :), a crisis brewing every second day which is collectively resolved over umpteen cups of tea ... and then, amidst all the backslapping and bonhomie, boom, one careless remark or inconsiderate act and the house suddenly becomes a war zone! Everybody takes sides for or against the aggrieved person!
To Abhishek, an NRI on his first visit to Chandni Chowk, Delhi 6 is a Discovery Channel Reality Show. No running water in the loo - no problem! A pregnant cow giving birth to a calf in the middle of the road and blocking all the traffic, is crazily exasperating, but taken in good spirit.
Neighbours come pouring in, everyone is laughing and crying at the same time, almost delirious with happiness and excitement at Waheeda Rehman, their dear neighbour, having returned from the USA after many years. Abhishek is the dutiful grandson, having come to return his dadi to her home. Everyone in the mohalla is eager to make Abhishek feel at home.
Muslism and Hindus live in perfect harmony, with a Muslim chai-wala welcoming Abhishek to Chandni Chowk with garam garam jalebis. The same man will later be consumed by hatred and shoot down Abhishek.
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra has quite obviously made this film with a lot of love. He is a Delhi 6 boy and it shows. The hustle-bustle of Chandni Chowk, the old-world charm, the tu-tu-mei - mei that's so peculiar to a close knit, what we Bengalis call, a para (neighbourhood where people drop into each other's houses throughout the day and hang around on the streets chatting!), it's all been captured very effectively.
There is a lot of warmth in the movie. And what I particularly liked - the director has shown restraint in portraying the friendliness of the people of Chandi Chowk. There is very little maudlin sentimentality, like in a Sooraj Barjatiya film. And..unlike a Karan Johar film, who had also portrayed Chandni Chowk in Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, he hasn't gone overboard with stereotyping Chandni Chowk residents as simple people.
The flash point in the movie is the monkey man which terrorized Delhi-ites some years back. A fake sadhu claims the monkey man is harassing Chandni Chowk because the masjid that's been there for 300 years was actually built over a temple. Bus...Chandni Chowk errupts. Muslims claim the monkey man is a Hindu invention, especially since it ransacks the Muslim jalebi man's shop (who interestingly has photos of Kaba alongside Hanuman-ji in his shop!)
I liked the way Rakeysh Mehra showed the transition - from good-humoured men and women enjoying the simple pleasures of life (a jalebi, watching the Ram Leela, surreptitiously passing on pakoras through a hole in the wall) to an inflamed mob spitting hatred and venom. The editing made the drastic change very believable, as did the director's deft characterisation.
Like Rang De Basanti the movie had quite a few social homilies. But I personally forgave him for pontificating - I feel our audiences needs to be made aware of how easily it is manipulated by those with vested interests. Also, when he juxtaposed Ram eating jhootha ber from Sabari with the safai karamchari who is not allowed to attend a jagran, doesn't he capture a bitter social dichotomy - that we Indians rarely practice what we preach, especially in matters of religion?
Now for the actors. I personally don't like Abhishek, but he did a good job in Delhi 6. He was charming, sincere, gentle and - his eyes spoke!
Waheeda Rehman must be a Rakeysh Mehra favourite! She was also there in Rang De Basanti. She was perfect as the vulnerable dadi, loved by one and all, graceful, beautiful and gentle.
Sonam was a big disappointment. I hate to be harsh but she was wooden. She couldn't make her character - a girl with dreams in a conservative lower-middle class family, very convincing. Soha would have been a far better choice!
Rishi Kapoor was good, but seemed a repetition of his Fanaa role as a grieving widower, a loner. This time he has lost his lady love to another and lives in a picturesque house.
The music wasn't very memorable, a disappointment after the evocative songs of Rang De Basanti.
At the end of it all, I would say, go watch it!
P.S. Forgot to add - I was quite disappointed by the romance in the movie. There wasn't any! So was taken aback when Abhishek suddenly realises he loves Bittu. How did that happen one wonders? And Bittu certainly never showed any special liking for Rohan (I think that's what Abhishek's name was in the movie). Would have been nice to see some sparks fly between the two of them.

Barcelona and other stories

2009-03-12T16:55:00.014+05:30

A few days ago, I saw Woody Allen’s latest film, Vicky Christina Barcelona.

At the onset let me say that I am a great fan of Mr. Allen. I love the delicious simplicity of his movies and the neurotic characters he plays. I always enjoy the quirkiness of his style. Also, to appreciate the art of it, I have had to relate the entire plot of the film (NYtimes review style). Rest asured, the true delight of the film is ones own experience of it and not the story as you shall soon discover.

M.Allen’s latest is beautifully crafted with some elaborate characters and mesmerizing music for embellishment. The story revolves around the antics of two friends, Vicky and Christina who live in New York and are on holiday for two months in Barcelona. They are put up by Vicky’s distant relatives, Judy and Mark Nash.

Five minutes into the movie one becomes aware that the characters belong to the society of the rich and famous. The Nashes have a beautiful Spanish villa and they serve wines that possess a perfect blush. (This is very important for me because I like to suspend my disbelief a little closer to home. Most films, including this one, makes money look unbelievably easy to come by and it’s just sad when you are shaken out of that illusion practically everyday of your life.)
Vicky is engaged to Doug, the high flying corporate to whom wealth and happiness go hand in hand. Vicky, like Doug, has chosen to be very rooted to sensibility although she betrays her romantic edge more often than not. She is, for instance, doing her Masters in Catalan culture and has no answer for Mark Nash when he asks her what she proposes to do with such a degree. (If Vicky had been Indian, then her family and society would not know what to do with her.) She also finds that the resonant music of the Spanish guitar has a deep impact on her.
Christina, on the other hand, is a free spirit (she learned Chinese because it sounded pretty). She doesn’t know what she is looking for from life but knows she can never settle for the kind of life Vicky has in mind. Christina tries to be impulsive but tires easily; she tries to be artistic but has no passion for it; she tries to be open minded but just ends up appearing pretentious; she tries but not enough so at the end of the day, she is just a stupid white American. Of course, Scarlett Johansson makes Christina appear to be more of an imbecile than was intended.
To me Christina was devised by Allen out of boredom (a pretty face to take to bed) and the fact that he chose Johansson for is testament to the end of his stint of working with her.
Among the many field trips the Nashes organize for their guests, was a visit to the art gallery they bought from. Here the two girls spot Juan Antonio Gonzalo, a rugged young artist looking very out of place among all the rich folks who chugged champagne and made shallow conversations. As a contrast to the glitzy whites and gold sported by most of the crowd, Juan wore a red shirt, an awkward posture and a tint from a curious gossip involving him and his ex-wife; this afforded surreptitious glances and snitches of tensed whispers about him.
After the gallery, the two friends, without having had the chance to meet Juan Gonzalo, go out for a very late supper. During their meal, they notice Juan on an adjoining table. Christina, with her flirtatious glances, manages to attract him towards their table and they strike up a conversation. With a forwardness that seems stoic but vehement at the same time, Juan invites them to the little town of Oviedo for the weekend.
Much to Vicky’s outrage and shock, he made his intentions very clear, they were to eat well, drink well, and see the beautiful sites; then all three of them were to make love because life should be embraced and enjoyed.
Of course, they did go with him to Oviedo (to Vicky’s dismay and Christina’s glee). The weekend didn’t go as planned as Christina fell ill and Vicky was left by herself with Juan Antonio. The love making thus involved Vicky and Juan drunk from wine and a plaintive tune played by a distant guitarist. The ambience was enough to make anyone warm up to the moment.
Vicky, being the passionate sole that she was, quickly fell in love with Juan but her practicality kept her back from revealing her feelings to Christina. Soon, things fell into place for her with Doug paying a ‘surprise’ visit and proposing a court marriage in Barcelona so they had a great story to tell their kids.
Christina, on the other hand, picked up photography, rekindled her friendship with Juan and ends up moving in with him as his lover and muse.
The silky rhythm of Catalan life is disturbed with the entry of Marie Elena, Juan Antonio’s neurotic ex- wife. Marie Elena is a goddess and not merely because she is played by Penelope Cruz. She is too zealous for the world; too artistic for art and too much in love with Juan Antonio to be married to him. Christina pales in front of Marie Elena just as Johansson shrivels next to Cruz. Marie Elena breaks the cycle of her husband’s arrangement with the ‘American tourist’ but eventually befriends Christina in her fiery and psychotic way. The bond between Marie Elena and Juan Antonio is electrifying and Christina’s presence doesn’t crowd out even a smidgen of their ardor. Eventually, although having enjoyed the three to tango arrangement, Christina gets bored and flies of to France leaving Juan Antonio disappointed and Marie Elena furious. She soon returns to Vicky as the summer comes to an end and they decide to leave for home.
Vicky gets to spend an afternoon with Juan Antonio before she leaves but this is disturbed when Marie Elena walks in with a gun. Terrified of the despicable madness of the relationship between the two Catalan artists and infuriated with the injury caused to her from one of the stray shots from Marie Elena’s gun, Vicky walks out and closes this frenzied chapter of her life forever. At the end of the summer, nothing much changes except Vicky’s realization that the life she had chosen for herself was going to be irksome and staid.

This film is delightfully tragic and very true to life to a certain extent. It has beautiful shots of Barcelona and Gaudi’s eccentric architecture that are tinted in the pallid ocher of the Catalan sun. Also, the use of music is very interesting ; very Shakespearean. It stops when the dream is over but starts again when a new equilibrium sets in. In a way it tells its own story.

As I walked back home after the movie, on a windy spring night, I remembered the warmth of the sun, the taste of a cool, spiced Rioja running down my throat,the salty perfume of the sea and a far away guitar playing a flamenco. It made me smile as did Woody Allen.

Sea of Poppies

2009-03-03T17:07:00.002+05:30

Let me start by saying that I am a great admirer of Amitav Ghosh and the singular manner in which he fuses the crafts of a social scientist with that of a novelist to great effect. The fictive element always predominates and the spirit of the novel is never lost under the weight of research notes. Some times sections in Ghosh’s books appear straight out of archival manuscripts but he always manages to keep them of a length that does not take away the reader’s interest.
Sea of Poppies was clearly a different endeavour. It is I am sure meant to be very visual, fast paced and therefore is peopled with a lot of characters who have all rather unusual lives that intersect at various moments in time and then meet in one shared space-the ship, on the journey, on waters. At the ontological level, this remains unimpaired. But at the level of actors, circumstances and events that make the larger narrative possible, it appears like a stage with very poor props. What had poppy growing to do with Deeti’s fortunes on the deck? She could have been growing potatoes or pumpkins. The only relevance to poppies seems to be the description of the cavernous opium factory in some details and a little about how balls of opium were used to smoke. Opium trade and its significance, the links it forged and the lives it touched in India and China were huge. But the lives in the book could have been determined by any field, not necessarily those raising poppies.
That brings me to the second point of unhappiness. If there is one single mood that underlies the novel it is that of grim violence unleashed on bodies, on the ground, on water, on fates. The perpetrators and victims are all in shades of black and white and events overwhelmingly drenched in blood and gore. A classic reconstruction of the orient that one would find in the colonial accounts, imagined and/or real. Once again, the visual potential is very hugely important. The rape of Deeti, her escape from fire, her journey on water, her drawings on the wall would make for a wonderful Hollywood depiction. Was it written with that in mind? One wonders. But that I am certain (after Slumdog Millionaire) was one of the reasons for the book being shortlisted for Booker.
A lot is made of the different dialects and dictions that Ghosh has dished out of his research notes. But suddenly, he makes one character stand up and pontificate in a manner and with words totally at variance with his or her upbringing (Paulette to Zachary). She is trained in Bengali and Botany. How did she acquire such discerning philosophical mind to be able to hold a discourse on lofty principles?
One is also tempted to think that every character is stereotyped to fit into a category rather than one singe life – the vulnerable Indian peasant woman, the ingenious, smart white girl, the good black man, the ugly white one, the benign brown low caste, the brutal high caste, the high spirited, harmless young boatman, the crafty, cynical sailor. One can go on and one. In the end, the good prevails over the evil.
Amitav Ghosh must have done these deliberately. Perhaps the sequel will tell us why.

Jai Ho, Bollywood's Anthem was actually composed for Yuvraj!

2009-03-02T13:35:00.004+05:30

A very interesting article here: http://passionforcinema.com/one-mans-no-is-anothers-jai-ho/

Tuesdays with Morrie by Mitch Albom .

2009-02-28T23:13:00.002+05:30

To the look of it, its a very tiny book but with undecipherable depths. The relationship between a professor & a student has been etched brilliantly. Morrie , the professor acts as a guide for his student Mitch. He helps him combat his own dungeons of remorse & pain to which Mitch was bear witness to when his uncle died. Morrie with his wisdom & loads of experience backing him helps Mitch find his own answers .The special bond which they used to share when Mitch was studying is revived once again when Mitch somehow by fluke learns later in life that his mentor is walking on the path of the inevitable. The Last dregs of life, its trials & tribulations have been taken with a tinge of optimism and foresight . Tuesday, the 2nd day of every week plays a significant role in the lives of the protagonists of the novel. It’s an extraordinary masterpiece which will make you get back to the book till one reaches the end. Life and its intricacies with a backdrop of simple questions stir the reader and grips him. With an awesome menu of humor, realism, wisdom, equations with no set parameters enthralls the reader in a big way. Every page has an intrinsic appeal with the dance of death having its own tune.

Grab a copy and see if Mitch is able to meet his mentor on the last Tuesday of his life. Does he make it or he misses it ? Is he able to make a conversation or the talk gets lost forever in the emptiness of the soul. This book is one of the favourites.

Will Karan Johar ever be able to make "different" movies?

2009-02-26T16:45:00.004+05:30

Poor Karan Johar has been shouting from the rooftops that he has matured dramatically since his over-the-top "Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham" days. When he promoted "Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna" as being radically different - we had all thought it was a mature love story. It turned out to be a weird mishmash of louder-than-ever KJ sensibilities (colour coordinated song sequences in New York where all the extras wear pink and blue!) and very unconvincing relationship dynamics. It left me completely cold - and made me fight with my husband!
Anyway, why I've suddenly brought this up is that the other day he was on Farhan Akhtar's chat show (Oye its Friday on NDTV Imagine). [btw - i really like Farhan Akhtar! He is one cool dude. Intelligent, seems sensitive and I really like his ability to mock himself). And this time he was looking very smug about having REALLY pushed the envelope with "Dostana".
Did any one of you like Dostana? Please let me know if you did because I just cannot understand how it did so well!
I hated it! I felt it was criminal spending so much of money (i don't know how many crores) on just making Priyanka wear minmal clothes, and having a meaningless plot. It wasn't funny. It wasn't entertaining. And most mystifying - at least that's what really bothered me - where was the Dostana? KJ never tires of saying how much Bollywood runs in his blood *. He's grown up on a diet of Amitabh-Dharmendra - Vinod Khanna movies. He must have watched and liked Dil Chahta Hai. How could he not insist his director try and put together at least some dialogues/sequences that reflected the bonhomie between the friends.
Anyway, to get back to my grouse! The movie was neither radical (it still made fun of gays! And the humour was plain slapstick. Did any of you find it witty?) nor a mature/intelligent romantic comedy (Priyanka falls for her boss. Where is the chemistry between the two?). So...WHAT EXACTLY IS KARAN JOHAR so proud of??
Do you think he'll ever be able to make a "Tare Zameen Par"?
I'd like to end by listing some movies in recent times which I feel have been pathbreaking. Would love to hear you agree/disagree (violently :) )

Tare Zameen Par: sensitve, mature, beautiful editing. Could have been such a boring movie - but was deeply endearing.
Khosla Ka Ghosla - tongue-in-cheek. A dark comedy that was so full of gentle understanding of human foibles that it left no bitter aftermath.
Johnny Gaddar - good action -thriller

Will add more in my next post! Have got to go! btw haven't seen "Dasvedaniya", "Luck By Chance" and "Dev D" which I am told are definite contenders for this post!

* PS: When we were all new to KJ and KJ was new to the media, his anecdotes which invariably centre around all the star-sons he grew up with, were entertaining and kind of voyeuristic. It was fun to hear about Abhishek's antics as a teenager. But now...I feel like telling him - we know your background. You've proven yourself - you are now an integral part of the star brigade. You don't need to prove your lineage by constantly referring to Adi Chopra, Abhishek Bacchan and all the rest. His projection of "we are one big happy family" makes me cringe - simply because it reminds me of Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham! Maybe if he dared to step out of the comfortable coterie of SRK, Kajol, Rani, Chopras and Bacchans and tried out fresh talent, it would give him a fresh perspective to life and films!

PPS: Just realised there is a new law - in which blogs are liable to be sued! Oops!

Q. Who or what tickles your funny bone?

2009-02-24T18:31:00.003+05:30

A. Pink Panther of course.
It was one of those weekend nights in these times of budgeting and ‘frivolous cost’ control. The usual dilemma go out (movie, dinner at a nice place) or stay in (cook at home and air the home theatre system). The movie option looked really good with Delhi 6 out in the halls. But even at 12 midnight there were no tickets at the multiplex! Next best option, one that made my little boy jump up and down in delight and the husband groan (do I really need this?). Armed with enough popcorn to feed a family of four (us!) we went into the theatre to watch the latest Pink Panther.
The plot? The same as all the others, the outcome completely known, but as the wise ones say ‘sometimes the journey is more important than the destination’.
Which brings me back to question, “Who or what tickles your funny bone?”
Here’s my six year old’s list:
· Steve Martin
· Funny French Accent
· All the action packed very physical slapstick gags
· The Mancini classic Pink Panther tune
· The Pink Panther toon itself.
· He doesn’t get the plot too much, and most of the jokes and innuendoes are lost on him, but yet its his favourite film of the moment and his laughs were the loudest in the hall.

Here’s the husband’s reaction:
He smiled sometimes and a few scenes incited laughter, but mostly he was genuinely perplexed that there was a hall full of people laughing really loudly.
Here’s mine:
· Love Steve Martin – fake accent and all.
· There’s a new love rivalry angle with Andy Garcia’s Italian detective character – really funny.
· The close circuit TV scene, with Insp. Clouseau tumbling in and out of rooms, a classic.
· Clouseau driving for practice and unknowingly causing mayhem in the bargain – how difficult that scene must have been to film.
· The interrogation of the Pope in the Vatican.
· The ethics lessons that Clouseau receives on how to talk to women, (don’t tell a woman she is sexy), other nationalities (don’t address a Japanese person as yellow).
· The male bonding angle with Jay Reno.
· The poignant romantic moments, Clouseau lists all of his lady love Nicollete’s favourite things, including the names of her various cats.
· The biggest disappointment in the movie was of course, Ms Rai Bachan. Too much bronzer, she looked as dusky as Bipasha, why did they do that to her is beyond me.
· She really needs a dialogue coach, an expressions coach well, a complete acting makeover if that is possible.

All said and done, this is really the nicest time I’ve had laughing in a theatre, since Kung Fu Panda.

The Reader – The Movie

2009-02-23T14:24:00.002+05:30

As with any movie based on a book, it’s difficult to judge the movie without having experienced the book. And having seen this movie I am not curious enough to look for the book. What’s left to read?
The story begins with 15 year old Michael‘s chance encounter with 36 year old Hanna Schmitz, that turns into a very intense and intimate physical relationship. The emotional aspect of their affair takes off when she gets him to read to her before they make love and that almost becomes a ritual with them.
Her abrupt disappearance marks the end of that chapter of his life and she crosses his path once again many years later as one of the accused at a trial that interrogates guards at a Holocaust camp – accused of mass murder.
I am a huge fan of Kate Winslet, for her choice of off-beat movies and her strong portrayals of characters, but I simply cannot understand the awards and the hype she’s generating for this movie. Yes Hanna Schmitz is a very complex character, but just how much appreciation is due for being realistically naked and simulating fornication in different positions.
She has her moments of course, her emotional reaction to the church choir, her courtroom scenes, where she does not completely comprehend the implications of the accusations against her.
The actor who plays the young Michael Berg stands out, his anguish, his passion and thereafter the lack of it once he experiences Hanna’s reality. R Fiennes immense talent is wasted in this movie, how much of staring into space can you watch . By the end of the movie, its difficult not to imagine the Holocaust and its horrors and pause to think about what is ethical and what is not and whether all the camp officials were just human beings doing their job or Nazis with a plan. But something takes away from the impact, the lack of a dramatic ending, maybe the expected emotional reaction from Michael, I can’t put a finger on it.
The friend who recommended this movie said watch it for Kate (and all ‘the action’). For all the awards and the attention on the Holocaust subject – I am afraid all that remains in the memory is ‘the action’.

The Age of Hypocrisy

2009-02-22T03:00:00.010+05:30

And with this I start my first post on this blog (I am a bit nervous so humour me while you can).
I don't smoke and I asure you that I never will. This was one of the reasons why I did not get particularly intrigued by the film 'Thank you for smoking' when it first released in 2005. That and also I am part of the flippant mass who judges a film by its title and some times a book by its cover too. Four years later, our Prof. of economic regulations said in class that this film was highly recommended by him and so I watched it and I am very glad that I did.

Thank you for smoking is about the exploits of smooth talking lobbyist Nick Naylor. He is the suave American salesman smiling,relaxed, well dressed and almost always right not because he knows everything but because he can turn an argument too quickly and too well.

"If you argue correctly, you are never wrong"

He is also the most despised man in America. He is the man who speaks in favour of the cigarette industry. He is the man who devises methods to brain wash the masses such that they continue smoking in spite of the consequences. The man who will do anything to keep the children of America alive just so they can buy another pack of cigaretes. He will buy his son his first pack if he really wants it. He will bribe a man dying of a cancer ridden lung to save the tobacco industry a few millions in litigation. He fronts an organisation that kills 12200 people a day and is an active member of the MOD(Merchent of Death) squad.

For what? To pay the mortgage, of course.

Yet, its impossible to hate Nick Naylor, played by the curiously handsome Aaron Eckhart. Nick Naylor is just doing his job and we can't judge him for it. He does it very well and the only reason one can feel a sense of antagonism towards him is because of jealousy.

It is not hard to find a reason for why a film like thank you for smoking was made. At face value it is witty, and itelligently executed. But underneath the chique exterior and the corny title, lies a depth of reason. To fill one man's belly, 10,000 odd people must die each day yet there is no conclusive evidence of it and precisely because of this,there exists, what us economists call, pareto efficiency (to make someone better off, someone else must be made worse off).This film is a satire; a satire on the hypocrisy embedded in society. Such that the average American senator makes a big hue and cry about smoking tobacco while effectively enjecting the massess blood with copious amounts of cholestorel through the cheese their state produces. The stakes are high and its a dubious trade off where the mass is always made worse off and the best thing is, they all know it!

Thank you for smoking makes a delightful watch and should be enjoyed with a glass of 1982 Château Margaux.

Who is the vamp in Hindi films?

2009-02-18T15:16:00.003+05:30

I am curious to retrace the journey that Helen on the hotel floor has taken to become Aishwarya Rai in Kajra Re or Bipasha in Omkara or Rakhi Sawant all over? The evolving of the dancing girls. But they arent the vamps, not always. So who are they and what is their role in the cinematic narrative, what kind of interlude are they supposed to provide? They can never be the herione even when leading actors choose to dance. The etymology of 'item number.' What does it mean?
Would love to have your thoughts. Also hope to have more of the members write and share their views. Thanks for the information on Madhubala. We have a die hard fan!

Madhubala

2009-02-18T14:17:00.002+05:30

For all those who are Madhubala fans - a nice write-up on her at Passionforcinema.com. Here's the url: http://passionforcinema.com/and-god-created-madhubala/

Reflections on The Name of the Rose

2009-02-17T00:01:00.002+05:30

I haven't read anything so absorbing recently. Umberto Eco reminisces in a short 80 page account of how he came to write the book, using the opportunity to respond to some of his readers' and reviewers' comments. What it turns into, given his brilliant insights into the craft of writing, is morphology of the book. He talks about his motivation and his research, how he imagined an ideal reader as all authors do, the critics, post modern literary conventions. All these may seem right for dense, abstruse writing. But not with Eco. Here he wasn’t addressing the academic community in the world of language and semiotics, even though he refers to it too. You have to be something of a genius to be able to write intense stuff simply and make the reading interesting as this unputdownable book is.
I marvel at his imagination, depth of reading and limitless knowledge.
I am not sure how easily it is available in lay libraries but please look for it and read it. Trust me; it will not take you more than a couple of hours and they will be hours of sheer joy and excitement!
Cheers!!

A Tale of Two Cities

2009-02-11T10:43:00.004+05:30

I know - I know - its pretty scandalous to admit I'd never read the book until now! I had read the abridged version as a kid, but never got down to reading the original. Well...I just finished reading in - in a mad rush - simply because it was so engrossing. I would have liked to re-read it, to write an enlightened, meaningful review of the book here - after all it wouldn't do to repeat what everyone already knows, would it! But couldn't re-read it - had to return it to the library! :(

But, I LOVED it! Makes you realize why its been such a best-seller down the ages. Even today, it could give any Ridley Scott screenplay a run for its money! It's gripping, full of action, racing towards its inevitable tragic end. The action is nicely interspersed with pathos. The two scenes I found most moving - Dr. Alexander Mannette's recollection of his imprisonment; and the scene in which the Marquis, Darnay's uncle, runs over a little boy and tosses a coin to make do for the loss. Some of the most dramatic scenes: Dr Mannette slipping back into his psychotic depression and only remembering his cell (prison cell!) number - when he realises that his daughter is about to marry into the family that had ruined his life. OR when Lucie sees her father for the first time - frenetically hammering away with his cobbler tools.

Ofcourse, Charles Darnay and Lucie Mannette are very one-dimensional characterisations, too goody-goody, and Lucie particulary, too angelic to be interesting. But that's quite typcial of Charles Dickens. SOme of his good characters are very boring (ofcourse there are exceptions like Joe in Great Expectations).
I was reading the book and thinking all along how it had all the ingredients of an out-and-out blockbuster, ala Hollyood or even Bollyood style. There is unbridled lust - the peasant girl being molested by the nobleman (remember "Madhumati"?). His act would put Pran to shame - for he ravages her, even as she is heavily pregnant. Then her chanting - "one, two, three, four, five..." right upto "twelve" and shrieking "save him!" - is bloodcurlingly intriguing.
One of the reasons why this novel is so gripping is because there are so many intriguing teasers interlaced throughout the novel. Starting from "Recalled to life", to Dr. Mannette's crime - the reader is not informed the reason for his 19 years of imprisonment in the most dreaded of prisions - the Bastille - until more than half-way through the book, to Dr. Mannette's denunciation of the Evremonde dynasty...what was written in that scrap of paper that he had hidden in his cell? - none of its is revealed in totality, until much later.
SOme very pleasing coincidences (neatly ties up the plot - something Gajni maker could learn!):
(1) Madame Defarge is the sister of the peasant girl who was raped by Evermonde. So she denounces the last of the Evermondes - who is none other than our hero, Charles Darnay.
(2) Mr. Pross, the funny Miss Pross' brother (Miss Pross is Lucie's "ayah" and adores her. She is fiercely loyal to the family and full of Dickensian exaggerations) manipulates Darnay's escape. We kept hearing about Miss Pross' brother throughout the novel - never thinking he would make an appearance. Miss Pross had once harboured hopes of Lucie and her brother marrying!
Apologies for a clumsy appreciation of the classic! But I HAD to write something in appreciation of the book!
Looking forward to comments, and more insights in to the book!

David Suchet - Quintessentially English - Hercule Poirot - Quintessentially Belgian

2009-01-31T03:24:00.004+05:30

Agatha Christie's Hercule Poriot has fascinated millions of viewers for years on end. ITV 3 the English TV channel has recently been running Hercule Poirot weeks during the Christmas and New Year break, sometimes two, three episodes a day. A treat for Poirot lovers. While most Poirot fans revelled in repeats of "Death on the Nile", I found the little Belgian somewhat stereotyped and indeed, at times, quite boring. After a couple of times he tended to be very predictable.

Undoubtedly,David Suchet has been the most popular 'Poirot' and his flawless acting highly comendable. Suchet has put in painstakingly hard work to achieve unbeatable perfection. Not until I saw ITV's live interviews with Suchet did I realise how quintessentially English he was. It was hard to believe that he was not of Belgian origin. The accent, the gestures, the movements and indeed everything was so typically Belgian. Such was the perfection achieved by this man. His transformation into Poirot, the quintessentail Belgian, is certainy some thing to be admired and almost unbelievable. The finesse achieved by Suchet shows the dedication to the role and the seriousness of the performance.

I now find every Hercule Poirot episode engrossing and can't stop admiring the talent that is Suchet. In fact I wouldn' t like it if he wasn't his Belgian self and so predictable !

Gajini, the kavya

2009-01-30T17:00:00.003+05:30

Once upon a time, not too far long ago a young Prince in the celestial world of Gods made the fatal mistake of annoying Ganesh, who has finally made it to the top slot of the blockbusting chart. Ganesh cursed the Prince that he must live his time on earth, to witness the power of Siddhidata, repent his sins and do something constructive too, destroy Gajini! And what is Ghajini guilty of? He is an important patron of Ganesh but has got it all wrong. He has been doing something disgusting (not quite clear about the finer points of human anatomy) to young girls much to the ire of Ma, who still dotes on the elder son.

In the recounting of the tale, years of the cursed Prince’s birth and nurturing are rapidly brought forward to his being a handsome youthful man who has a kingdom and a dedicated lieutenant (who deserves to be with him up there!) and no family because he is on a mission with a passion and no emotion. But then no tale will hold the audience’s attention if there is no romance, the adi rasa of all rasas, sringara. Here comes a young woman, who lives alone in a forest of beasts but is totally untouched by any sin or sense. She is born to reach out to those suffering, disabled children, a hero who is a loser, possibly dyslexic too. Here there is any interesting motif, underlying most traditional myths-mistaken identity. In the first place, it is playful when the woman being totally scatterbrained thinks she can dupe the whole world which is one TV channel, some newspapers by claiming to be betrothed to the only rich business/prince in this fictitious place that by accident looks like a modern Indian city. The hero, protagonist sets his eyes with this flower like innocent, nubile, yet untouched by all the possible taints around her, woman who takes his breath and mind away. He stops running his empire and starts chasing her.
This young woman also cursed my some God was destined to a life among mortals with more brains. Her sin seems to be trifle less serious which is why in a completely fantastic situation she gets herself embroiled to come face to face with the villain, Gajini who in the fun and frolic had been forgotten. Like Durvasa, he curses her and she is promptly taken back to heaven by her protector (ess) who thinks enough is enough of her silly pranks.
The rest of the tale is then hurriedly ended. The hero loses his memory, another trope indispensable to increase the intensity of the climax in a myth. He is aided by another young woman who has the brain of a bird even though she is a med student. In the end, all is set right. The bad man is killed; the good man redeems the death of the woman he loved and lost and goes back to innocence among children. He sits looking at the setting sun, praying to Ganesh to take him back. He doesn’t care what happens to his kingdom that has faded away in any case together with the tale. He is glad he made this journey to earth. He found the woman he would love to spend the rest of his time with wherever he may be. With her brains, she will never be a threat and doesn’t that make all men in India happy!
Moral of the story – all Indian men, with battered or delicate egos must watch Gajini

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-27T15:12:00.002+05:30

I enjoyed the book "Q & A". It was quite ingenious in its twists and turns. You kept guessing how the slumdog could have possible known the answer to the next question. But it was a one-time read. No memorable characters nor any particularly vivid descriptions (the movie scored better on both counts). It was a feel-good story about an underdog surviving against all odds.
Quite ironically, even though the movie has been touted as the "feel-good movie of the decade", it was anything but. I cringed as the little boy jumped into waist high shit to reach Amitabh. I felt acutely embarrassed as the boys, a little older, picked up used mineral water bottles from the dustbin and filled it with tap water to serve customers at their restaurant. I guess if an Indian had directed the movie, I wouldn't have felt embarrassed. I hated the thought of the entire world looking at India as a vast ocean of shit, muck and poverty.
Even the one thing most foreigners would be familiar with - the Indian Call Centre Executive - was skillfully debunked. I am not questioning Danny Boyle's labour of love (he claims to be mesmerized by Mumbai's frenetic activity); it's just that its so obviously such a novelty for him. We've all had our fair share of avoiding shit and muck in our daily commute, in our neighbourhoods, in our marketplaces. I definitely didn't enjoy seeing it all enarlged on 70mm!