Grizzly Man makes me Reconsider Herzog

A week since I saw Grizzly man. Questions and questions: has Godard moved in his later years to more impassable and Herzog more accessible? Herzog's fascination with "inner turmoil".

Next step: revist all Herzog I saw earlier starting with Best Fiend and compare. What is the essence that carries on?

Got a director to solve. Has this man deliberatley made this film - Grizzly Man more accesible? Need to revisit all those I saw before and dismissed as indulgent exercises. Need to re-locate Herzog in ze tiny brain that i have.

Turtles Can Fly

Iraq. War. A story revolving around children in a refugee camp. Dread of gloom and melodrama (maybe for someone who grew up on Bollywood) descends. Its none of that, its not even the exact opposite .

I found this storytelling very powerful. Maybe because Coetzee's writing-caused-wow is still in my head, but i think this film reminds me of the way he writes. Not stopping to dwell or elaborate on emotions and struggles, taking you through a quick tour of people's lives. Where it departs from his writing stems from the cultural ground from which it is born. It does tell a very poignant tale injected with humour skirting off cliches. Rather it makes me think of cliches we don't register. Picture this, kids strolling through an ammunition bazaar, trading mines they dug out for rifles and ammunition. What emotion would you expect to accompany this visual? The first time i saw it i was sharing the sense of excitement and fun the kids are having at getting their new stuff.

I am replicating a very succinct and apt commentary on the film:
Heartbreak in the High Hills of No Man's Land., 13 March 2006
10/10
Author: PizzicatoFishCrouch from United Kingdom

"The trauma of war has been an issue much covered in cinema, but in this film, we are shown the impact that it has on those who are most innocent of all – the children. The orphaned children are a range of interesting characters presented to us here, from Satellite, a sharp TV programmer to Pashow, an armless but still doggedly determined boy. The supporting children are shown as bright eyed watchers of war, eagerly awaiting it so that they can try their hand at the missiles, which, at first sounds amusing, but then escalates into something much more horrific, and we follow their misadventures through grainy camera-work, improvised dialogue and flashbacks.

The performances delivered by the children are nothing short of astounding. In the lead, Soran Ebrahim is in parts a mixture of caprice, zest and energy, and it is he who grasps our heart and makes for the first, slightly more light-hearted part of the film. In a completely different role, Avaz Latif is the film's heartbreak, and the one that endures the worst. Her performance is wordless, but she manages to portray all her deepest emotions through a look or gesture. When we delve deeper into the plot to realise exactly how much her character has suffered, it is then that the horror of war kicks in.

Turtles Can Fly is not one for the easily depressed. Truth be told, after watching it, I was still in tears for several minutes, utterly helpless and wishing that something could be done about the constant loss of innocence. Its message is blatant, and though a bleak one, presented in a harsh, disturbing war, makes a welcome change from all the Left, Right and Centre propaganda given to us in the Media. Turtles is a film that speaks for itself; no advertising needed."

Avatar in 2D

I feel let down. My thoughts on Avatar 2D. My disappointment stems from the fact that I was geared up for an experience rivaling LOTR and Star Wars (both mentioned in Roger Ebert’s review though in my quick look at the review I missed the context) and the fact that I was watching Tarkovsky’s Solaris a day before I saw Avatar and that I saw it in 2D! Though I did go from Varanasi to Lucknow just to see the film at least in English.

Seen stripped of its 3D wonder I am sure lot of people will dismiss as just another special effects war story which people might have trouble remembering in few years. But the fact is, it is in 3D and from what I have read I am still pretty sure it’s a spectacular experience. And that made me realize what technical advances in filmmaking had led to. Rather the word “film” itself might be becoming obsolete anytime now. The more we advance in visual, sound excellence the less effort required on drama and story. A different kind of effort , not a purist’s effort.

And that’s what cinema has done(in comparison to theatre), shifted the burden of engagement from story to visual maneuvers. I can see myself over the school years never never letting up my love for theatre and barely being gripped by films until Jurassic Park. And then in college when I started running to movie halls it was an escape that I sought and yet amidst that passivity the thought struck loud and clear. My beloved theatre did not have an fractional influence that cinema had over zillions of people huddling into movie halls to escape the tedium of their lives. And after seeing Avatar I realized it all over again that before anything films are an experiential, immediate, far-reaching but diluted medium. Though in past and people still try to treat it with reverence and passion of an artist , they are the marginal beings in the movie industry and apart from that I don’t know how many would even consider them to be an artist. The sort of artist a painter can be.

I am not dismissing Avatar, though that was my first reaction and I have let weeks go by to wholly say that it is not so. I would love to see this 3D wonder and be swept into another world, like LOTR and Star Wars did. Though these epics and Avatar are not comparable when it comes to the story and character. These two are epics with characters who get trilogies to show their shades, for struggles to persist while Avatar is much much barer when it comes to a layered script or complex characters. Jake Sully who is not exactly Frodo, or an Anakin who is given quite a lot of years before he jumps into the evil bandwagon. The three months span for Jake to make his decision that also without very much as second thoughts made me lose my connect to the character.

So now I dismiss the epic comparision , it is unsuitable . Its not an epic , not a great story of human drama. So I recall to me Hellboy, which if I had seen stripped of its imaginative characters would be quite not the Hellboy I love. Having watched Avatar in 2D made me think though I love epics how much of a fan would I have been if I had watched those with lesser enthralling visuals. The landscapes that one is treated to while watching LOTR, the entirely different world in Star Wars.

How oblivious I have been to the impact of production design, location and photography to films! Avatar has opened led me to quite a few outstanding specimens from my ignorance galores. So hoping a chance to view Avatar in 3D works out and then I can re-think it all.

Yet …. It did bother me the story and let me make just one point to assuage my viewing displeasure.
The protagonist's paraplegia makes me think his conflict is not there. The second life that his new legs have gotten him, the life that he has experienced in Pandora, where he commands the attention of everybody in Otacamaya clan, he is the "chosen one" why would he give it back. Of course he is offered new legs as a human. But for someone who lives very mcuh in the moment, has no fear, has no contemplative bend of nature this was the natural decision. The story does not afford a view into if he had a reason to want to be a human. So it is not surprising or aggrandizing when we see our hero choose to be a Na'avi. Of course he makes the choice after he has burnt his bridge to human race and has established himself almost like the king of the clan. Choosing to stay in a fairytale world of Na'avi who seem to be living so peacefully. There are other things too, but I think I will be waging an unfair criticism. This bit is enough to exorcise my demons of disappointment.

I did like Zoe Saldana's performance or maybe the Na'avi having big eyes (the wide eyed thing that Disney heavily employed for its female lead animation characters) worked in her character's favour.

Mindwalk

A film, a long conversation. Yikes reminds of Before Sunrise!
A politician hopeful working on the candidacy of the US president, going through a mid-life disillusionment of sorts. An old friend who happens to be a poet invites him to come spend time where he is. And they bump into a physicist on a sabbatical.


Strange ways in which the human mind works, this film had such a reassuring effect on me.


Reminded me of a heated argument i once had with my Russian colleague of how technological advancements befuddle me, is it really development ? etc. I conceded and bent my extra biased view later over some time and observations.


Some talks can be so beautiful, and some can become such pain to bear and put up with. Most we perform as social enactments.


The poet has the last word. The poet was my favourite character, or rather would have been my favourite person if i was there too :). Liv Ullman as Sonia is enchanting. All the characters are endearing in their own ways. I loved the unusual reaction shots.

The Good Night

A film whose DVD was accidentally sent to me among a bunch of DVDs returned to me.

Penelope Cruz says at a point , "Jeez i barely know you and you are making me feel like i am breaking up with you". Ever get that feeling and had been smart enough to articulate it too? If not aloud at least to yourself.

Beam me up Scotty

2 roomies back, my roomie had a Tee, which she wore more frequently than ever.A bright lively yellow. It had a stick figure kinda girl raising her hands up to a UFO "Beam Me Up Scotty". Well those who know, know, i didnt. Saw Star Trek yesterday and i want one T too, which goes "Beam me up scotty" :). Loved the film. Brings me back one full circle to "movies should entertain". Movies are everything right; from art, industry and yesterday .. before anything ... entertainment.



Actors are taking their jobs just as seriously as can be possible without overwhelming the audience with character portrayal. Whats with me! This film is veering me away from "arty" films.

And HellBoy tata, i have another to replace you in Masala Fantasy, Full Paisa Vasool, Low Brainer-Entertainer category. It beats you more in the Low Brainer, lighter-on-character-sketches hence more appeal category for entertainment.

When you have seen a movie thrice in a year since the first time you saw it, you got to admit there is something going on here (3 is a biggie for me, even the movies I rave about seldom I see them again so quickly). And when there is something going on, I try to define it. So what could it be; 10 things I like about this film. More personal than critical reasons. I have tried and tried but I cant think with a clear rational head for this:
1. The opening track, including the visuals.
2. Bond: Mr. Daniel Craig & his wardrobe.
3. M: Judi Dench
4. Le Chiffre: Mads Mikkelsen
5. The opening cranes etc chase sequence concluding at the embassy.
6. The “I will not let the aircraft be blown”, sequence.
7. The “Bond is about to die of Cardiac Arrest”, sequence.
8. The look on Daniel Craig’s face, when he realizes Vesper is no more.
9. The short but lovely chemistry between M and Bond. Vesper could learn form them.
James Bond: I always thought M was a randomly assigned initial, I had no idea it stood for...
M: Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed.
10. Every time Bond comes out of water like a Barbie doll :). Thank you(the makers) for keeping the female audience in mind.

Honestly, I have tried and just snickered at all the contemporary Bond flicks which have passed us by. They are brain numbingly dumb. But the Bond fans are disappointed by this Casino Roylae. “Where are the gadgets?” they ask..Bond without his gadgets and his guns should still be Bond. It should look like the physical skirmishes and the chases he gets into is what he is capable of. Pierce Brosnan? Nope.

The plot, the sub plots are good. The story tight and the dialogues, the quips with their well timed humour apt. No doubt well cast. Except Vesper, who irritated me the third time I saw it till then she was perfect. Here we get to see Bond, a human Bond before he learns his last lesson of betrayal. When in one of the final scenes M says, “You don't trust anyone, do you?”

Oh and there is something of the old Bond here, what a way to end the film.
“The name’s Bond. James Bond.”

Sur Mes lèvres : Read My Lips

She is lonely and desperate. He is a crook out on parole.

She leads a mundane existence as a secretary and is desperately seeking a man. To an extent that even while requesting for a trainee to help her out in doing the menial work, she says she would prefer a man, his age, physical characteristics. And she is deaf, but manages with hearing aid.

In walks the first applicant to the job, claiming he knows everything. She is more than glad to take him. Though, his being straight out of jail worries her at first.

Then begins their story, she heaps help after help on him. She makes him pull through, helping him learn the chores. He doesn’t seem as interested in keeping the job as she is.

A paradoxically intriguing character, how she wants a companion, only when she is alone or only when she is in public, but never when she is with him. You keep wondering what she has up her sleeve. What is she thinking now?

They have interesting things coming their way. The story unfolds in an unusual fashion. By the end of it you might feel the gist of it is nothing all you hadn’t seen so many times before. Though while it’s unfolding you can’t predict what will happen next. The rate at which they rush into one thing then another keeps you busy wondering.

It makes me admire the French. How easily they can make a movie which is entertaining as well as very close to the lives of somebody real somewhere.

Ridicule

Delightful ! Delightful!

The story of an estate owner in the times of Louis the XVI, whose estate is impoverished and people plagued with disease all because of the water which stagnates on their lands. Seeing no way out but to seek assistance, he decides to plead his case with the king at Versailles.

And so takes place a delightfully entertaining adventure of this man out to help his people out of their misery. But to get the help he has to literally put his wits to test. Because in those times to move up the social and ladder and be in the king's sight would have been the easiest if you were a master of the wits.

Naturally then the movie is resplendent with “quips”, “paradoxes” and “repartees” classified as different play of words by one of the characters.

Humour and curiosity keep the tone of this period film so light and fascinating that you realise period films can be so much more than a sombre narration. Must watch, changes your expectation of a period film.

Nani Cinematheque and the New French Film Festival

No one does it like the way French do.

The New French Cinema is here in Bangalore. Thanks to people like Prakash Belawadi and Alliance Francaise and many more. A lovely and interesting mix of movies of our contemporaries is being screened. No Goddard, no Truffaut. Strange but contemporary cinema should have come to us more naturally than the classics. But, then as the Alliance director said, “The fraction of the world cinema which is available in a city like Bangalore is too insignificantly small”. Another observation of his which he shared with the audience was that in a city full of book stores, of the books which are easily available and celebrated in France all he sees is one or two. “One or two”: a very small number.

I pledge my ignorance to French literary achievements. But, a nation which has produced so many cinema wizards should definitely be ruling a proud chunk of the movie market anywhere in the world. And why should they be only the movies which have won the test of decades of critical approbation. Why not what’s being served fresh and hot be shared with us.

I thank Nani cinematheque and Bangalore Bias for this opportunity. May there be more to come! Will keep you posted on all that was & would be revealed.

ChinaTown – Roman Polanski

(In the world of deep slumber) Shreds of Chinatown fused with random visual figments float in my head. I see Mr. Noah Cross, he is trying to say something. I am trying to put pieces together, justify the events. A clue still evades me. My head is spinning trying to retrace my steps. I hear a friend laugh, then I see her, she is happy, she says she knows it all.

How come I had never heard of this movie? I chanced to buy it on a whim. Is it that i am too ignorant or has this movie not received the publicity and fame of gigantic proportions which it should have.

The movie is such a rewarding experience. The story telling is crisp. Nothing is out of place in this movie. What most of the movies don’t even dare to become, it has attained. This movie paled so many other movies I had seen before. They could have been entertaining, funny, majestic, provoking. But, what they were not was this perfect a movie that Chinatown is.

The unique atmosphere of the movie is achieved by an unerring eye to detail, unflinching originality in these minute details and a million more things which I can not put a finger on. Another remarkable and rare thing: the sparing use of soundtrack. Most of the time it has silence mixed with the environmental sounds.

Its perfection also stems from the characters; to every scene to every conversational intercourse, every gesture. It is acceptable even for the greatest of movies to have a little leeway when employing characters who have a very short screen presence. You don’t have the luxury of developing characters, and in such cases clichés rescue you by providing a device handy to use anywhere. You can use them for plugging story telling loopholes or to move the story forward quicker than it can. Not to mention by detailing out too many characters (which are not central to the story) one risks losing audience’ interest.

Jack Nicholson’s character Jake is frill free. And so is Faye Dunaway’s. Brilliant performance, both of them. They have created two people who are a nice mix of very real and very cinematic. Their performances are outstanding. Jack Nicholson's character is drawn out very well in the opening scenes of the movie. The economy of space and time that has been practiced here is impressive. As the rivetting plot opens up and unfolds in front of you, at the same time in those same moments you get introduced to Jake and his world. And his cahracter just goes on acquiring more shades as the movie progresses. Faye Dunaway has also her share of spell to cast on the audience. As the wife of one of the cities rich and powerful men. The drawl in her voice, The dead pan yet strangely enigmatic look she bears on her face just heighten the sense of mystery surrounding everything and her.

The movie’s trivial-est characters are also sharp. I mean every one of them. From the woman pretending to be Mrs Mulwray to Roman Polanski’s brief part as the man who slits Jake’s (Jack Nicholson) nose, to the officer accompanying Lou who does nothing but snicker.

You watch Jack Nicholson in this movie, and you marvel at the expert dexterity with which he has brough the character to life. You can revisit this movie just to study his character (and few more for other reasons), and his magnificent performance. Unlike the "teeth baring", "raised eyebrow" specimen he has become. The numerous characters he has done in the last few years, one seems an evil twin of another. The Jack Nicholson typecast that had crept into his character reminds me of the woe of Nana Patekar. Both fine actors, victims of gruesome typecast.

This man Roman Polanski is a master craftsman. This movie can be treated as an example what cinema achieves for you, how it should be treated; and in Roman’s hand it’s a toy. He has made this movie so compact, not even a whiff of air from the world around would seep into it. No moment in it has been put callously. No turn careless. While you are watching it, you are seeing a beautifully well knit story.Though it is a plot driven thriller, its greatness lies in the perfect execution of this film. Even a thesis on this movie might not be able to cover, all that this film has achieved. And what others should look up to, before daring to think they are filmmakers.

The Dreamers

There is this new rating in movies I have been introduced to: NC17. It is for arty porn. Or as Wikipedia says, “that MPAA rated NC-17 films were legitimate motion pictures with actual stories and developed characters, as with the first such film, Universal Pictures' Henry & June (1990), rather than merely prurient/pornographic fare.”

Henry and June is highly pretentious crap. It might as well have been awarded X rating or well there was no point in exploiting the NC17 rating. Oh yeah they didn’t have a story but then they were bland too. And they had better production values, better paid actors who just shammed at their jobs in this movie.

As for dreamers, the three characters are adorable, especially Isa (played by Eva Green of Casino Royale). They are amusing, till their twisted selves are revealed. Isa captures your heart when she declares the first word she ever spoke, “New York Herald Tribunes”. The abrupt cuts to older movies, like for “New York Herald Tribunes” the cut from Breathless. I was smiling all over. Bernardo jumps to these scenes intermittently. It seems a sort of loving tribute to the worthwhile cinema that has been. The trio’s run through Louvre, just like in the movie Bande a part. Their delightful cheering at the end of it, “We accept him, one of us!”

Exactly five minutes from the moment Matthew is stripped, the movie loses the level it had promised. Matthew’s character doesn’t come out strong. Looks like both the script and the actor had to contribute for that. The God’s hand appears in this one as when the filmmakers could not decide how to justify the change in Matthew’s attitude from violent protests to active derivation of pleasure. So suddenly he is made to faint, and when he regains his consciousness a few seconds letter he is all eager for the act to begin. This bit was too damn insipid.

Matthew seems a big misfit, he is with the twins but he is not with them. He plays along with them, till he has had enough and then starts talking as if he just walked in form the world outside and is startled by their prurient ploys. Matthew’s character leaves too much in want. His sudden outbursts and speech would make you suspect that maybe he was just pretending to be like them, understand them. Not what I felt while reading the book. Matthew’s is a very weakly developed, under justified character and Michael Pitt does no wonder to hide it or pull it off some how.

Hats off to the actors, the amount of time they are naked is appalling. I don’t know how they could have been so comfortably rattling off the dialogues, it was awesome. Maybe the least the rest of the crew could have done for them to be comfortable was be naked themselves.

Apart from the glaring flaws in Matthew’s character, and the casting of Michael Pitt as Matthew, the movie is watchable if you can down an NC-17. Or rather if you haven’t seen one, and want to see what the fuss is all about. Actually what else would you want to watch it for, it becomes a drag once the first half an hour has passed by. Maybe you can keep a book by your side, or a su-do-ku to go along with it.

Its all about the Star Wars.

Love this shot. The crinkling of the brow. The red tinge to parts of the skin. The coarseness of the cloak. The sahdows under the eyes. The folds of the hood hiding his face. You know eveil lurks under it.

What can i say ? The mania has me in the grips. Star wars rules. After having stared enough at this shot at my desk top, i needed another proclamation. Fantasy films are so my thing. I wonder if i had seen star wars before lord of the rings, would i have gotten so crazy as i did about LOTR. Or maybe if i hadnt seen LOTR, i might be thousand times crazier right now.

Whew! Saved! Love the whole story about Darth Vader.

One day me and my roomie were wondering out loud why star wars is such a huge phenomenon and why despite all that we never felt compelled to watch it. Then i fell sick. Then i was a bed ridden. Then i was watching TV, as i couldnt even get DVDs for myself. Then i end up seeing STAR WARS episode -I. Then rest just followed.

Anakin Skywalker as the little kid is what caught my fancy first. I have watched first three episodes only to find out what happens to him. And well i found out. And wouldnt you agree, this is the story which moves the episodes forward. Frankly i dont care about the republic or the separatists, all i care about is what happened to the cute little Ani.

Girl Interrupted

You know how we never eat cake with khichdi, or chicken shashlik with aloo-chat. The way we are told not to mix drinks. In the same fashion, you should layer up your movies carefully.

Girl Interrupted followed by Breathless, very hard to swallow. It seemed so pretentious. Also the expectations were high somehow. I expected to be a revelation. It comes off as a cheap thriller. They were trying to pass Angelina and Winona as crazy people, where the fact is they look less crazy than half the people I meet everyday.

The movie revolves around the lives of few loonies living in an asylum. There is one specimen each of the commonly understood psychiatric disorders. It’s a pathetic attempt to explain the psyche of mentally disturbed. The characters caricatured. It has bits and pieces of “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”, floating all over it. Its like a remake, there is nothing new.

It moves on cheap gimmicks. For quite some time, it builds a threatening tone of wardens and nurses trying to prove you mad. The whole world abandoning you. The second gimmick when they suddenly unravel the seemingly sane Lisa’s (Angelina Jolie) diagnoses simplified to the world. Boiled down to few statements she makes at Daisy’s apartment. And the most pathetic of it all, how Susanna shines a ray of hope and triggers the realization for all the crazy people out there that they don’t want to be like that, they want to be normal.

A movie which mocks the vagaries of mind, and shows in gaunty shades those who have lost their sanity.

But then it can be called mildly entertaining, which this subject shouldn’t be. Especially projected in this fashion. And all said, mix your movies well.

Breathless

“It's silly, but I love you. I wanted to see you, to see if I'd want to see you.”


Its funny, its witty, its adorable. I picked it at random from the DVD shop. I though I should see a Goddard, I knew I had to see a Goddard from long time now. I knew I was going to like it, but forgot why. I also picked up Girl Interrupted as friend had once mentioned it reminded her of me, so it stuck.

As I walk away from the DVD shop, I am thinking to myself I should stop seeing disturbing movies. It was earlier me which liked them. I never liked “My life to live”. It was boring, I was being pretentious, and I never really liked it.

Funny I enjoyed breathless so, it is still with me and will continue to do. And I have realized I had already seen a Goddard. And I might want to see, “My life to live” again. And yes I definitely really liked it when I saw it. I was stumped. “This is how movies should be. You don’t need people then.”

“We're hiding like elephants when they're happy.” – Its happy.

It always confuses me when anybody screams at me “You can’t be serious! How can you not like ‘Before Sunrise’!!!?” I came to conclusion that I find a couple boring each other to death, boring. But, Michel and Pat are not your conventional mopey pair. If ‘before sunshine/sunset’ bored you and you don’t think you are not that cynical, you love romantic movies, then this one is for you. In addition there is a cop-chasing a criminal story at the base of it.



It talks of the confusion you face when weighing your emotions. It introduces you two different people. It introduces you to them. Above all it makes you believe, it is no pretense. It talks of relationships. I love the fact that it talks so much in 90 minutes.

“When we talked, I talked about me, you talked about you, when we should have talked about each other.”

Oh by the way, this movie is credited for the beginning of French New Wave and the birth of phenomenon that Goddard was going to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathless. But that’s secondary.

My favorite is the scene where Michel makes those three expressions. They can not be named, they can just be revisited.

I loved all of these quotes.

Crazy day with the Ballad of Jack and Rose

It was a weird day. After a long time I was probed out of my shell. I was wondering who I am again. Who we are? Why we seek friendship? Why the need to share? Why are we mistaken? Why all that is important never absolute? Why do we compromise on affection? Why it hurts? Why we cry?

Anyway after having moped enough, as my plans were suddenly revised, I when back to my initial plan. Picked a DVD. The Ballad of Jack and Rose. Not a happy movie. Disturbing father daughter relation, always threatening to careen towards incest.

I hated to see Daniel Day Lewis like this. I know he was acting, but I felt bad for him. True actor. Not to the magnitude of Marlon Brando in “A streetcar named desire”, but still. Camilla Belle was good too as his daughter. But I didn’t feel rewarded by a beautiful performance, something was missing. Or maybe something was overpowering, “the sympathy for the eccentricities”.

It’s the same, “sympathy for eccentricities” which didn’t come out right. Somehow I just couldn’t see their (father-daughter) point of view. I mean I could maybe, but by turning my wheels, no help from Rebecca Miller. The effort tired me.

By the end, I was glad to cry, awful day it was. Jack died. Daniel Day Lewis flaunted all the bones in his body. Gave me a perfect excuse to vent it out. It was an unstable end, just like the movie.

The story too ambitious, Rebecca fell short of her devices. Still I take away what the story couldn’t say built on maybe by my own imagination. Makes you wish it was otherwise.

Don & Dor

I have taken time, as I wasn’t sure. It is nearing a week since I saw these two fantastic movies. I have been thinking on and off about them. There are two parameters of evaluating the success of any work of art, anything at all. How much do the masses like it, and how good the movie is. Well I guess there is more to it, and that is where I come to Don. The movie was entertaining though the story was juvenile, maybe because I already knew the story.

I enjoyed the movie Don, as I had told myself I am going to. You wait for two years for a Farhan Akhtar movie to come out; you will not take disappointment for an experience. Since I had heard there were mixed reviews of the movie I prepared myself to see the good parts only, zero on them and then don’t lose focus. How can you not enjoy the movie? What about SRK? Well that I have been brainwashing myself for a long time now, I guess more than a year no since I heard that he is going to be the Don. And once the trailers hit the screen, I guess that’s where my blindness started visibly hiking.

I remember, the memory is faded, thanks to my self triggered brainwashing. I remember disliking the trailers in the beginning, yes and I think I can coax out more memories. Lets see yes there is one more; of a highly opinionated person telling me the trailers look horrible, and I blocking all those voices out. The Farhan chant starts in my brain; yes no one tells me Farhan Akhtar churns out a bad movie, no one. The chants float around in my brain. I am submerged whole heartedly. I am eager, I am on my knees waiting to be delivered.

So finally I am sitting in the hall on a weekday, it was only possibility of getting a ticket, the good thing is it costs 50 bucks less on a weekday. Well they could have kept those 50 bucks as well, as for half an hour we were tortured with ads. No exaggeration in the previous statement. Enough you imbecile, it is about Don not PVRs desperate money making schemes. So the movie starts, suave paris, suavely dressed shahrukh who pays 20 euros for a cup of coffee. Nice, cool. Drives through Paris, sorry driven through Paris. Then the movie continues slick is one move after the other. Its not loud, not it is slick, its not boring, no it is, well entertaining.

Now as to where to place the movie, I will go in the order of appearance. The Kareena K song seemed to be rudely in bad taste. If you are going for a more realistic touch, you don’t want the girl to dance, then so be it, but looks like electricity courses thorugh her vein and makes her shake and tremble uncontrollably. Or if you want her to dance, teach her to dance, or get somebody who can dance. Poor Kareena, I feel she has really come up well as an actress (wonderful in Omkara) even the anger of the character comes out well in the brief scenes she has. So why am I cribbing about a mere song, because when you make a song dance movie, then the song dance take 50% onus of making the movie a success.

Speaking of song dance, I just loved the two party songs, especially “Main hoon Don”. They were fantastic. Let’s talk about action. Well we are still imitators; we are still aping what Hollywood had achieved decades back. The level is better than usual bollywood stuff, but nothing original. We put all that we have seen in other movies in this one. It feels nice to have Indians doing all those stunts, its fun. Yeah our heroes skydive too, fight mid-air. But, they don’t do anything that hasn’t already been done in the movies of the Hollywood. Don is not the first to try to get at par with the world when it comes to car chases, but it just reaffirms the push to the standard. It makes Don looklike a wannabe James Bond. The car chases, the fights nothing is riveting enough. I was just cheering a kid on his attempt to bring it out, being a very sympathetic audience. Patronising.

The commendable part about the movie is the number of characters which have been thrown to move the movie forward, rather you can see, plot point one gone, bring the next character in, then the next. “Sir, I have run out characters”. Fine, give the existing character another shade, a darker side. One character which falls comically short of expectations is De Silva, Boman Irani fails miserably to give the cop feel.

For that matter the first scene where the cops are standing holding coffee cups, looking at Ramesh’s body. Om Puri and Boman Irani’s first conversation makes me feel as if I am witnessing all this on the sets. Translated, the scene seems so plastic. The intended suaveness is falling flat for our chief cops.

How do I sum it in one, I see it in fragments, the flaws and the efforts which went waste. The story was plain silly story, where its so bollywoodish in making. Don’s story is cent per cent meant only for screen, it cant be anything else. Every character can exist nowhere but on Bollywood screen. This is not a movie which will appeal to you for its freshness, for its insight or empathy for a character. This is not what the previous two Farhan Akhtar movies did to me. I loved them so much; they were so surreal to me, in terms of everything that I guess I was expecting another sensational revelation. But, I guess this time this guy just decided to let his hair down, and indulge.

I enjoyed the movie, but it didn’t have the pounce and the force with which the previous two movies had grabbed me. I didn’t get bored when the movie was playing. It is just when I came back I realized, I felt pretty empty handed over the days. The delight and pleasure I experienced in revisting Lakshya in my head and on screen was missing. Don was entertaining; I hope I will grow to love it, but that’s a foolish hope, as I have nothing to savor now.

I was so dying for Lakshya experience to happen again. To me Lakshya stood bold and proud above all Indian movies. It had cleared the slate of pretentious melodramatic assembly of war movies. To me there is only one Indian army movie to be spoken of.

When I had come back from Lakshya I was rattling off to various people I met, especially one person in particular the nuances of the film. I was happy with Don. I said, “Oh it was lovely”. But I had run out of words. I enjoyed the movie that was to it. And, I guess that was all there was intended to become of it. After all it was Don, cop-robber story which can fascinate the minds for centuries to come, just keep adding twists in the end till it becomes twisted.

I am not disappointed with Don, I have just revised my expectations. What else could I have expected from Don. Don was supposed to be a nice popcorn flick, blockbuster. And I guess that is what it was aimed to be. Why did I imagine something new to happen? Sigh ! :-(


As for Dor. Frankly I was not even considering viewing it. Again maybe I have a lot to learn. This I guess is too early in the career of these directos to think you know what they have to deliver. Before anyone, before any other director there was Nagesh Kukunoor. I wanted to be him. I loved him for Bolllywood Calling. I know people would hail Hyderabd Blues and RockFord as better examples of his ingenuity. To me Kukunoor ruled because he bashed up everything bollywood that I hated, and that is so much in face and still the masses enjoy it and classify as light hearted Indian comedies.

Teen Deewarein was great. Then there was Iqbal. Then Farhan came with Lakshya. I pushed Kukunoor hands down to the second spot. I have another to worship. I guess part of the reason was Iqbal. It scared me, I know it was great, the storytelling was more smoothed out than ever. There was nice music, beautiful backdrops thrown in once a while. The mother-daughter pair as well as the village setting. But I had to hate it by end, it reeked of stereotypical bad guy. Somehow ending was so rushed through and predictable. I am not against happing endings, or bad guy vs. good guy thing but I hate in your face storytelling. The biggest reason of it all was I thought there was nothing new here, to me that was death of what kukunoor stood for. I might as well go back to not looking at Indian movies with any expectation.

Then someone over the last weekend told me how different Dor was. I could not agree more with her. She was right. She said this is the first Hindi film to be made having women as the central character. There are sometimes stories which happen to women also and they generally bring in an unexplored fresh angle, mostly internal conflicts. Conflicts with society.

This movie does have some social bearings, but it is such a delight to see them delivered subtly. I am always scared that whenever there is a social evil to be brought to light, the bollywood directors take the easy way out. You have somebody in the cast get up, choking with sentiment, depicted through red eyes or moist eyes or steely eyes or flaring noses or raised finger. Everybody stands still and listens to the monologue waiting for him/her to conclude.

The compositions were beautiful. The landscapes of Rajasthan and the north are beautifully transported to the screen. So many frames are just sitting in my mind as picture postcards.

The strength of the movie lies in the fact that it hasn’t given in to the usual stereoypes in our popular cinema. The supporting cast except for Shreyas character is there only for the purpose they are, not to hog the screenspace unnecessarily. There is no fear that our filmmakers seem to be paralyzed with. The fear that works against giving due attention to the prime characters, rest should fall around it.

The movie leaves nothing to be desired. It satisfies with its placid sweet natured maturity of the story and the story-telling as well as delights with the reserved understanding it offers to every character.

Full Metal Jacket - Joker

Yeah Joker is a really lovable character, not a stereotyoe and i love it.

One of my favourite stills, the picture speaks a lot. I love this one, every face speaks volumes, look at the onlooker with his palm one on one, like monalisa, such dumb expression, totally out of sync with the tension between the other two, I love the way they are loaded with ammo and camera, the black guy in the corner, the way he has bent forward, even the specky in the corner of the frame.

The ciggies on the helmet ... The scribbling on the helmet


Another thing i even love the conversation, i love the way juggle it around, how the weight is thrown form one character to the other. In the screenplay book i was reading as part of my course, they had asked the writer to visualise these conversations as if the actors are separated by two sticks joined at palms, and by pushing the stick ahead you throw your weight, by relenting force you draw back. This physical energy should be perceivable from words.

Omkara re Omakara

Lovely Dobriyaal , I would say. His face , his expressions were a delight, he is so damn good, he can teach everybody a damn good acting lesson. What with bigies like Naseeruddin Shah doing every other role. I forget the last time Naseer enacted a character, he was so bound in Iqbaal as well. I just remember masoom, and all these Krish and every other forgettable role he does, helps me forget the magic of Masoom.

I don’t know why good acting is so rare in movies, it leaves you thirsty for a performance and every time one comes by I cling to the memory and impressions of it created by it in my head for as long as possible. Last I remember was Rajapal Yadav in Main meri Patni, I treasure Indian characters more as I identify naturally with them…

As for Devgan , nothing outstanding, but better than Apaharan , he was the sore point in Apaharan. Apaharan was more entertaining when I saw it, because of such fast paced entertaining reporting of those incidents in Bihar, but the characters not well sketched or well enacted, Ajay was flailing embarrassingly with his make do Bhojpuri, even Bipasha was better than him.

As for Saif, this is his best role ever, but I hope he doesn’t get a national award for this one cause he already got one where he didn’t deserve; for some candy floss.

Kareeena was good, not that she had much to do I guess, but for whatver she had , she did it considering that she is the POOOOO from Kabhi khushi …….., big diff, unrecognizable.

Vivek ya , as it is his role was supposed to be just another gullible idiot I guess, then i guess he can be forgiven.

But man is Saif lucky … lovely character, and he does it so well, the scene where he is swaying his palms in front of Raju, loveable character. You know we were told the protagonist is the one who moves the story forward, I think it is Saif in this case. If it weren’t to the beautiful establishment of this one character, everything would have collapsed, or become just another conniving villain aka Pran, Prem etc. Its true this movie is about Omakra, but very quietly Langda Tyagi shoulders Omakara’s onus.

Dancer in the Dark

This is one movie which took me completely unawares, all my guards down. I completely forgot I was watching a movie. As a rule I never forget that, even if the subject appeals to me , there is a part of my brain which sits back stone-faced and slices and dices the stuff on the screen, toys with it wondering where to place it.

The movie walked around me like a person, a person who draws you unto them with their never seen before openness, everything, every gesture is just right, you just take the hand which is offered to you without a question and start walking the trail they walk, forgetting for those few minutes who you are, what you are. I forgot the fact that I am just a person sitting in a chair watching the goings on of the screen, surrounded by strangers in a cinephiles club.

I feel a little weird admitting it. I know the movie was very different than any movie I had seen till date, in a lot of ways. But what was the diferentest was the way I reacted, I thought I didn’t know myself that day, I didn’t know I was so pliable, so touchy. And I am so scared to admit my opinion of it, because this one crossed the lines of being another film with the revelations it brought alongside.

The strangest thing of is all the way I was that day, the way I reacted, the way I felt muted after the movie, the deep dull weight in my head and in my chest , how when I was finally in bed again the thought of wretched poverty would get me crying again.
First of all, tears started streaming down my face somewhere mid-way through the movie. Ok my eyes do get little moist once in a while when watching a movie. But this was strange, they seemed to be streaming down as if a sudden excess of fluid had been detected in my body and had to be urgently released. But generally in every movie there are one or two such phases. But bro this movie was nothing of phases it was one helluva experience, they rocked, the filmmakers shook me up, till I forgot all restraints and was crying openly I was beyond all sense of control. Here I was sitting among strangers, by the end I had stopped wiping my face, and in the last few minutes I almost crumbled into me, and was very aware of an unknown pressing ache in my chest, I thought it was because of the uncomfortable chairs, but later I realized it was nothing but weight of the sadness thrown off the screen.

Spoiler- plot give away follows ........
The movie is heartbreaking. It transports you to this forsaken land of innocence.
Selma (Björk) is this naive, honest factory worker, who is saving money scrupulously for her son’s eye surgery to save him from falling prey to impending blindness, which has already advanced upon her as she moves to middle age. Everyday when she steps out of work there you find Jeff waiting for her hoping she would accept his offer of a lift back home. With time her blindness becomes apparent to those close to her, and their concern for her rises to anxiety, but Selma smilingly casts aside their worries and admits to have no need for eyes anymore, she has seen all she ever wanted. A beautiful song ensues where Jeff is telling what all is left to see, where Selma is happy simply recounting all she has come to see.

Though the movie is not a feel-good candy floss even from the beginning, what with Selma and her kids life in a foreign land, her saving money, her kid’s running away from school every now and then, and her foggy sight. But, there is this pure warmth that one feels for some time in the beginning, which is lost as Selma’s naiveté is cruelly punished for by the neighbor and the owner of her trailer, when she confides in him about her illness and the fact that she is saving money to protect her kid from the same sickness. And what hurts the more is because she did this just to ease him of his debt-related worries.

Bill is brilliantly acted out by David Morse. I loved this character so much because there is a lot of ambiguity in defining it just they way you can never really pen down a person as one discrete entity. I love the way Bill is shown as this usual nice caring husband, friendly neighbour, generous landowner. But once he learns of Selma’s stashed away fortune and her near-blind eyesight how he stands in a corner one day to learn the place where she keeps her money and eventually takes it. The character Bill before resorting to stealing also tries to emotionally coax her into giving him the money, by offer of quick return, by telling her that he has been thinking of killing himself. Even in the sequence of last struggle between these two before he dies, I was not sure whether some part of him is actually resorting to death as an escape to this problem, as well as hoping that her blindness might fool her into giving up, thinking he has been hurt.

It’s a story told with a purity of unbiased unopinionated view. It made me a child again, how I would read a story and be swept into the world opened up before me, unwarily, how my happiness would depend on how happy everybody in the story ends up.

Recently i came upon this review of Dancer in the Dark, and i think this one says it so much better and echoes what all i couldnt express but agree with.

Here: