Quantcast
Channel: annavetticadgoes2themovies
Viewing all 572 articles
Browse latest View live

REVIEW 441: SHIVAAY

$
0
0

Release date:
October 28, 2016
Director:
Ajay Devgn
Cast:



Language:
Ajay Devgn, Abigail Eames, Erika Kaar, Sayyeshaa, Vir Das, Girish Karnad, Saurabh Shukla, Markus Ertelt, Miroslav Pashov, Swen Raschka
Hindi


She: So your name is Shivaay, that’s Shiva with a “y”. What do you have that Lord Shiva has? Where is the long hair?

He: (wordlessly reveals a tattoo of the handsome deity on his bulging masculine breast)

She: (her next question a gesture indicating a cobra’s hooded head)

He: (wordlessly reveals a tattoo of a serpent on his muscular forearm)

She: Trishul?

He: (wordlessly reveals a tattoo of the three-pronged weapon on his back)

She: (suddenly falling coyly silent)

He speaks up helpfully: ********? (the word is muted in the film)

He does not offer her a verbal answer. However, since they indulge in many rounds of coital activity soon afterwards, one assumes he proves to her that he is in possession of his very own ******** and not a mere tattoo of (what many believe to be) the phallic symbol associated famously with the most intriguing member of the Hindu Holy Trinity.

And so it goes…

Who would have dreamt that such an overtly sexual conversation derived from the mythology of Lord Shiva would emerge from staid, conservative Ajay Devgn and the rarely adventurous Hindi film industry. Yet, that is what you get in Shivaay, Devgn’s second directorial venture, which is the story of a modern-day Indian resident of the upper reaches of the Himalayas, mountaineer, guide to foreign tourists and chillum-smoking fount of indomitable strength.

In those early portions, when the full blast of Himalayan beauty hits us through Aseem Bajaj’s camerawork at some of the world’s most stunning, snow-laden, high-altitude locations, the film holds out great promise. Devgn – who also plays the leading man – is, after all, a dependable actor who does rage, deep affection and pain like few of his colleagues can. And Shiva is, without question, the most fascinating being in the Hindu pantheon of many crore gods.

(Spoiler alert: begins) Our hero Shivaay meets a pretty Bulgarian tourist on a trek through treacherous terrain. They flirt, they copulate, they part. In between they have a child. The film is about his relationship with his daughter and how it tears him away from his beloved mountains to a foreign land where men prove to be far more dangerous than any craggy, slippery cliff will ever be. (Spoiler alert: ends)

The pre-interval portion is filled with rich visuals, nail-biting action and the potential for an interesting contemporary take on the Shiva lore. Post-interval though, the poor writing (credited to Robin Bhatt and Sandeep Shrivastav) and sub-par acting overwhelm everything else as it becomes clear that all Shivaay’s references to Hindu mythology arepainfully literal, and beyond a point, it is not an ode to the deity as much as it is a self-indulgent ode to the leading man.

Devgn, who is also this film’s producer, has in the past managed to pull off vintage Bollywood over-statement in films like Singham without appearing foolish. In Shivaay he is in almost every frame and the strain shows with scenes in which he over-acts in – I cannot believe I am saying this about him! – Sunny Deol style. There is a passage in the plot when tragedy strikes and we see his face in relief, the muscles in the space between his left eye and left cheek twitching visibly in a reminder of Deol junior and his dad Dharmendra’s flaring nostrils of yore.

Devgn here is Deol with less screaming. He does not get a hand pump a la Gadar, but he does get a wooden table to uproot and shred to bits.

The screenplay does not build up any of the other characters sufficiently to match him, and the intensity becomes amusing after a while. A raging hero is only as good as his adversary and Shivaay’s antagonists (played by Markus Ertelt, Miroslav Pashov and Swen Raschka) are so thinly sketched that they are damp squibs. Actually, so are his lover Olga (Erika Kaar), his irritating daughter Gaura Maheshwari (Abigail Eames) and his ally at the Indian Embassy in Bulgaria, Anushka (Sayyeshaa).

Hindi films have often been guilty of hiring terrible actors to play Caucasian characters. Devgn gets around that problem by limiting our opportunities to judge his foreign actors – they have little to do, and even less to say. Gaura is even born mute.

Actually, those seemingly promising early scenes should have served as a warning bell. How much reason and quality writing should you expect from a film in which a man takes time off to make a clever point about the divine hand in our existence even as an avalance is approaching? A film in which most characters wrap themselves up to stay warm in the icy cold of the Himalayas, but the hero warms his blood on his chillum enough to lie shirtless in the snow for a grand introductory shot and the heroine smokes nothing yet does not freeze to death in her short shorts and off-shoulder tops?

(Spoiler alert: begins) The literalness in the film is not confined to the characterisation of Shivaay and the iconography surrounding Shiva. Soon after he exhorts a woman to bear his child, the camera cuts to an aerial shot of two adjoining rocky-lipped crevices resembling the yoni of the mother goddess within which we discover that child.

It must be stressed here that the heroine is a mother, but no goddess in the eyes of Team Shivaay. She is clearly damned in their view since she has the audacity to consider an abortion, which is perhaps their justification for a much later scene in which Shivaay roughs her up. How dare a woman not put her plans on hold for an unplanned pregnancy, no? (Spoiler alert: ends)

The music by Mithoon is nice to begin with but then becomes overbearing, and one of the many reasons why Shivaay is elongated to 172 minutes and 38 seconds.

The truth is that I enjoyed some of the hugely improbable scenarios and stunts in the film, silly though they are, including that long car chase in which Shivaay pursues a speeding vehicle on foot through busy Bulgarian roads and manages to catch up with it – I kid you not! – before being dragged for many kilometres on his knees, clad in jeans that remain unharmed by the friction. The scene is a great advertisement for whatever fabric those trousers are made of, and like I said I enjoyed that bit of nonsense as much as I have often enjoyed the nonsense served up by Hollywood action/superhero flicks.

Those Hollywood films pull off their string of improbabilities with their unrelenting pace. Shivaay, on the other hand, is the kind of film in which a maudlin song plays in the background while the camera gazes at Dad and daughter for what seems like many minutes right in the middle of a high-stakes hand-to-hand battle between the hero and an array of villains.

By then, of course, it is already too late to salvage this film that might have worked at some level if it had brutally shaved about 40 minutes off itself. I present to you Exhibit No. 1: the weirdly Oedipal interactions between embassy girl Anushka and her father (Girish Karnad) filled with stodgy, grammatically suspect, unwittingly suggestive dialogues and an extended bathtub scene, complete with a song sung by Kailash Kher, in which she seems to fantasise about Shivaay and Daddy simultaneously. Whoever created that piece of tosh clearly considers it profound. It is not.

Yes sir, Messrs Editor, Writers and Director, I am willing to sit with you and identify every needless scene and shot you could have done away with, without charging a fee for the expertise of being a viewer – because there is a kernel of an engaging film somewhere in this maze you have created; and because Shiva the Destroyer and Regenerator, dancer of the Tandav, lover of Parvathi, father of Ganesh and Karthikey, unapologetic smoker of you-know-what, Bholenath, unabashed sexual being, composed yet combustible god, source of all life, whether in an ancient or modern avatar, deserves better than this heavy-handed, over-stretched film.

Rating (out of five stars): **

CBFC Rating (India):
UA (an inexplicably light rating if you consider the extent of violence in the film)
Running time:
172 minutes 38 seconds

This review has also been published on Firstpost:





REVIEW 442: AE DIL HAI MUSHKIL

$
0
0

Release date:
October 28, 2016
Director:
Karan Johar
Cast:



Language:
Ranbir Kapoor, Anushka Sharma, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Fawad Khan, Lisa Haydon, Imran Abbas, Guest stars: Shah Rukh Khan, Alia Bhatt
Hindi


CAUTION: LONG REVIEW AHEAD

Confessions of a film critic: (1) I’m a sucker for mushy romances and good-looking stars. (2) I am a congenital crybaby. (3) Although I have rarely related to characters in Karan Johar’s films and I am vehemently opposed to the gender politics in several of them, I have still found myself getting swept away by the emotional wranglings of the writing in a couple of his works, the packaging, the gorgeous actors and the music, despite every cell of my being rebelling against what the film stood for (by that I mean Kuch Kuch Hota Haiand Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham).

If you think about it then, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil– produced, written and directed by Johar – has all the ingredients required to reduce me to a blubbering mass of tears. A parade of catchy tunes by Pritam, ranging from soulfully melodic to peppy. A story set in three atmospheric and historic European cities: London, Paris and Vienna. The most delectable actors in the subcontinent. (Oh Fawad Khan! Sigh! Double sigh! Triple sigh!) And a climax so unabashedly emotionally manipulative that it puts every other KJo film in the shade in that department.

Yet, I felt curiously detached from most of the film, enjoying distinct elements but unable to connect to the whole.

The story revolves around Ayan Sanger (Ranbir Kapoor) and Alizeh Khan (Anushka Sharma) who meet at a London nightclub and hit it off. At the time, Ayan is dating a glamorous dunderhead (Lisa Haydon). On the rebound from a break-up with the love of her life, DJ Ali (Khan), Alizeh is dating a family friend’s son (Imran Abbas, another Pakistani actor – take that, MNS!). Ayan soon wants to be romantically involved with Alizeh, but she does not reciprocate his feelings. She wants him as her bestest buddy, nothing more.

The film then follows the two through the many years of that friendship, her equation with Ali, Ayan’s bond with the poet Saba (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan) who is drawn to him sexually but not interested in love, and his continuing obsession with Alizeh.

Lookwise, everything about Ae Dil Hai Mushkil (ADHM) is glossy and flawless. Since this is a KJo venture, it goes without saying that the camerawork (Anil Mehta), art design (Amrita Mahal Nakai), costumes (Manish Malhotra, Anaita Adajania, Samidha Wangnoo) and makeup are rich and exquisite. Every earring, every strand of hair, every piece of furniture is just so. And the cast is a roll call of contemporary beauties, male and female. Visually then, ADHM is a feast.

The reason why that is just not enough is the film’s been-there-seen-that-done-this-all-before quality. At the heart of that fatal flaw lies ADHM’s hangover from Tamasha(2015) and Rockstar (2011) that is impossible to ignore. Both films were directed by Imtiaz Ali. Ved and Tara’s non-stop banter in the first half of Tamasha, driven by a shared passion for Bollywood, was riveting. She was lively and easygoing. He had a penchant for mimicking stars and was desperate to professionally explore theatre but stuck in a corporate job under pressure from his autocratic father. In ADHM, Ayan and Alizeh chatter endlessly about Hindi cinema, constantly reference films in their conversations, quote dialogues and sing old film songs. She is lively and easygoing. He wants to be a professional singer but is pursuing an MBA to please his billionaire father.

In Rockstar, Janardhan is told that he will become a true artiste only once he experiences pain in love. Being the dumbo that he is, he seeks out heartbreak to give himself a successful music career. Sure enough, he matures as a musician and becomes an internationally renowned rocker once Heer rips his heart out of his chest. In ADHM, Ayan’s songs develop a soul, he becomes an Internet phenomenon and a hit on the London club scene when his unrequited love for Alizeh takes over all else in his life.

Some of it is fun, funny and engaging, plus Kapoor and Sharma are easy on the eye and I lurved not just the music but the way it is woven into the narrative. Like I said though, it is impossible to get past that feeling of having been there, seen that, done this all before. Fun-ness and funny-ness are obviously diluted when a plot lacks novelty.

The uncomfortable familiarity of the storyline is further underlined by the fact that the Kapoor boy has been the lead in all three films. Saddled with this burden, his performance in the first half of ADHM suffers from repetitiveness. It does not help that his career is dominated by films in which – as in Rockstar, Tamasha and ADHM– he has played a man-child in dire need of some growing up. Again, been there, seen that, done it all before.

There’s something seriously wrong with a film on unrequited love when the relationship you are rooting for does not involve the protagonists but the male lead and a satellite character. Bachchan’s Saba enters the picture halfway through the story and Saba-Ayan walk away with a film that should have belonged to Ayan-Alizeh.

This is the element of originality in the screenplay. This is where Johar shows signs of his evolution as a filmmaker and as a person. For instance, we are aware that Saba is older than Ayan yet a song and dance is not made of that fact, which is a big deal coming from a director who has persistently straitjacketed women over the years though never more so than when he told us in his debut film Kuch Kuch Hota Hai that a man may never become aware of his deep love for a woman if she does not conform to the socially accepted definition of femininity. It is in this portion too that KJo displays a willingness to mock himself, giving Saba and her ex poetic dialogues that could put a cheese factory to shame, then getting a friend to laugh at them.

It is in this segment that Kapoor comes into his own, perhaps because it is here that he gets to do something he has not done before. And while I had begun to think I would never get to say this, this is where I finally discovered the actress in the former Miss World, after nearly two decades of despair watching her on the big screen. Like Ashutosh Gowariker did in Jodhaa Akbar, Johar is intelligent in the way he taps into Bachchan’s ice-cold beauty and certain studied mannerisms to make them a part of the character she plays. No credit to her on that front, but in a scene in which Saba reveals the vulnerability within her strength, Bachchan reveals something of herself that we have never seen before, not even in her cinematic outings with Sanjay Leela Bhansali.

As it happens, the lady who has been known for her sexual conservatism in her film choices (she has broken her no-kissing rule only for 2006’s Dhoom 2 so far) has allowed Johar to shoot lovemaking scenes between Saba and Ayan that are very explicit by her standards. Kapoor and Bachchan are hot together. Yes, their lips do not meet – in most films, that looks very silly – but Mehta’s camera somehow makes that work. 

It is interesting too that ADHM turns traditional Hindi film notions of marital infidelity on their head. From a film industry that has in the past made it a wife’s bounden duty to forgive her husband for sleeping around, it is refreshing to see a woman in this film telling us that her self-respect did not permit her to tolerate her spouse’s philandering ways, while another tells a man pointedly that it is not her job to pick him up when he falls.

Oh my! Is this an indicator that The World According to Johar is getting progressive? The celebration of this moment is tempered though by the  manner in which Ayan is shown repeatedly roughing up Alizeh. Everything we know about domestic violence tells us that a man who pushes a woman around once will do it again and again, yet ADHMprojects Ayan’s physical aggression towards his female friend as a mark of his ardour and the comfort level in their friendship, in pretty much the same way that Raanjhanaa in 2013 interpreted Swara Bhaskar’s character Bindiya constantly being roughed up by her male buddies including the hero. Seriously? Do Hindi filmmakers not notice and absorb the horrible things going on in the society they inhabit, or understand the role they play in perpetuating regressive beliefs?

No doubt, Johar will point out that he has shown Alizeh too smacking Ayan a couple of times. First, who said that is okay? Second though, is there an equivalence? This week’s other Hindi release Shivaay shows the hero’s eight-year-old daughter pummelling him in anger. Any kid hitting her Dad like that deserves to be severely disciplined, but Shivaay mindlessly presents it as cuteness and a sign of her deep, deep affection for him. That said, would we not react differently if the father had bashed up his child in a similar fashion?

Because it is not the same thing. See KJo, Alizeh hitting Ayan is not okay, but men are born physically stronger and your films are made in a social context where the massive majority of victims of relationship abuse are women, so please do not hold up Alizeh’s slap on Ayan’s face as a justification for the way he hits her. Johar may well argue that he is only portraying people and behaviours that do exist in the real world. Yes they do exist, but the point here is that nothing in ADHM indicates the film’s own disapproval of such actions.

The other truly disturbing aspect of ADHM is Ayan’s near-hatred for Alizeh when she rejects him. His animosity is ugly to behold. It chilled me to the bone. Again, no doubt such men do exist but the point is that this film romanticises one such man, packages him in the charismatic personality of a Ranbir Kapoor and presents him to us as a genuine lover. But this is not a lover, this is not love, this is obsession and a wounded ego, this is a sense of male entitlement, this is rage at a woman who said no, this is the kind of man who in the real India and Pakistan has been known to throw acid on a woman saying “if I cannot have you, no other man should.”

Does Ayan evolve beyond this? I shall leave you to watch ADHMand find out, but it does not matter, because what the film mildly describes as immaturity is in fact dangerous, and all the shayari in the world cannot excuse ADHM’s failure to point that out.

For a more wholesome account of unrequited love, watch Johar’s own production Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu directed by the wonderful Shakun Batra. There are men out there who do know how to take a no from a woman with equanimity, it is just that Hindi cinema usually avoids them possibly out of fear that male-dominated audiences will be put off by them.

In terms of performances, Anushka Sharma is consistently convincing throughout ADHM. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan is the film’s surprise package. Ranbir Kapoor is a mixed bag – in the early portions there are crying scenes in which it is hard to tell whether he is being intentionally farcical or the storyteller has got the mood wrong, but as the film progresses Kapoor gets lovelier and lovelier. Fawad Khan has limited screen time and left me yearning for more – not just because of his divine handsomeness (though there is that too) but because he is a fine actor. In fact, one of ADHM’s best scenes is  a crackling confrontation between Ayan and Ali. Lisa Haydon as Ayan’s girlfriend Lisa D’souza is a hoot – someone please give this woman a leading role in a  film worthy of her pizzazz.

There is considerable mixed messaging emerging from the episode involving Lisa. No doubt she is ditsy, but I do not get why Ayan had to cheapen her with his gaze or Alizeh had to cheapen her with words to elicit laughs from the audience. Also, Johar appears to be making a point via this character about how we stereotype communities we don’t mix around with a lot. She practises all day to say “Salaam waleikum” in preparation for a meeting with two people who bear the surname Khan – because as every cliché-filled dunce knows, it is forbidden in the Indian Constitution to say “hello” or “namaste” to a Muslim.

Interestingly though, Johar unwittingly betrays his own prejudices by indulging in a spot of stereotyping in precisely those sequences in the film: the Hindu character is the only one who does not speak Urdu-laden Hindi, the Muslims both speak Hindi choc-a-bloc with Urdu, whereas the Christian girl is not good at Hindi and needs to have words translated for her. Et tu, KJo?

Sometimes the impact of individual grouses is diminished by the impact of a film’s positives. That does not happen in Ae Dil Hai Mushkil in which every positive is overshadowed by the awareness that so much of what we see in the film has been seen before.

Something about Saba and Alizeh’s styling and speech and certain conversational indicators also made me wonder whether these two women had originally been written as Pakistanis, before Maharashtra Navnirman Sena decreed that all Pakistanis should be persona non grata in Bollywood. We are never told where Saba is originally from – a non-mention that is in itself worth noticing – and Alizeh pointedly says she is from Lucknow … But something is missing … There is a disconnect that is hard to explain. If they were originally written as Pakistanis, then clearly so were DJ Ali and Alizeh’s boyfriend Faisal. Were they? Will Johar ever tell?

That a political party with a track record of violence and government patronage might have compelled an artist to re-write a story… the possibility is too heartbreaking to handle, so I am setting aside the thought for the moment. It is easier to deal with the artistic merits of the film.

ADHM has many elements worth loving: my pick of the lot is the manner in which the music is used – a perfect illustration of the musical genre shorn of Bollywood’s past mindlessness on this front – and the handling of the sub-plot featuring Kapoor and Bachchan. In its entirety though, Ae Dil Hai Mushkilis not an immersive experience and after a while I lost interest in its rigmarole of relationships, the many datings and matings, break-ups and patch-ups, marriages, divorces, friendships and the one-way scenarios involved. (graphic coming up soon)

I neither loved nor hated this film. I neither liked nor disliked it. I simply did not mind it – and that is never a compliment.

Rating (out of five stars): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
UA 
Running time:
158 minutes



REVIEW 443: AANANDAM

$
0
0

Release date:
Delhi: November 4, 2016. Kerala: October 21, 2016.
Director:
Ganesh Raj
Cast:


Language:
Thomas Matthew, Siddhi Mahajankatti, Arun Kurian, Roshan Mathew, Annu Antony, Vishak Nair, Anarkali Marikar
Malayalam


A bunch of college kids from Kerala travel to Karnataka and Goa on the first “industrial visit” of their course. The trip is meant to acquaint them with the ground realities of their chosen field – the software industry – but each of the students involved has a different, non-academic motivation for going: a personal demon to be exorcised, a family trauma to be escaped, a romance they hope will take off when they are on the road.

Produced by actor-director-singer Vineeth Sreenivasan and directed by debutant Ganesh Raj, Aanandam is a coming-of-age story set in an engineering college. At the centre of the action are seven friends: Varun, Akshay, Kuppi, Gautham, Diya, Darshana and Devika. Gautham (Roshan Mathew) is the lead singer of a rock group and much sought after by other women students. He though has eyes only for his lady love Devika (Annu Antony). Akshay (Thomas Matthew) has been utterly smitten since Day 1 of college by the feisty, chirpy Diya (Siddhi Mahajankatti). Varun (Arun Kurian) is an obsessively hard-working type. Darshana (Anarkali Marikar) is an artist who barely speaks a word. And Kuppi (Vishak Nair) is an easygoing, sociable, popular guy. It goes without saying that the lives of each of the lead players in the story is somewhat, if not drastically, changed by their excursion.

The best thing that can be said about Aanandam is that it is harmless, inoffensive fun. For the most part, it is not particularly original, and if you think about it, each character is a bit of a cliché from this genre. Some of the conversations in English also sound strained and trying too hard to be cool. What works in favour of the film though is its simplicity, its sense of humour (strictly restricted to the passages in Malayalam) and its take on boy-girl equations that defies the norm in Mollywood.

In an industry that routinely romanticises and normalises stalking, stupidity and immaturity as the only routes to romance in a gender-segregated society, it is refreshing to see the writing of Akshay’s character – a young man who is determined not to harass the classmate he likes, who understands her hesitation to enter into a romantic relationship with him, and who does not dismiss her as a tease simply because she is friendly yet disinterested in anything beyond that.

Contrast this with two other Malayalam films in theatres right now. In the Mohanlal-starrer Pulimurugan, pestering is casually viewed as the way to a woman’s heart, and in the smaller Kavi Uddheshichathu? starring Asif Ali, the leading man’s ugly anger towards the heroine for rejecting him exemplifies the average Mollywood hero’s response to a no from a woman.

That said, Ganesh Raj – who has also written Aanandam– needs to sort out what appears to be his confusion on this front, since his film features a brief scene in which a young man admonishes a young woman because several of her male collegemates have fallen for her charms, as though she is somehow to blame for their vulnerability. What is she to do, Kuppi? Be less vivacious? Draw a burqa over her affability?

Still, baby steps forward should be lauded in a scenario that is so completely male chauvinistic.

On the technical front, cinematographer Anend C. Chandran delivers an array of luscious images of Kerala, Karnataka and Goa in Aanandam. It is such a pleasure to see the out-of-this world gorgeousness of Hampi getting so much screen space in a mainstream Indian film. However, Chandran’s framing is constrained in the shots of the night sky at a Goa party in the climactic scene, which should have been a natural stunner but is too glaringly CGI-dominated to be appealing.

The songs feel like they are too many and too long. It does not help that they are set against trite visuals of stolen glances, energetic dancing and conversations in slow motion, all designed to convey a breezy, youthful light-heartedness that feels contrived after a point. The songs themselves are okay, though I do not get why that number in the ruins of Hampi is sung by a troupe played by actors who are clearly white Westerners yet sing in perfect Indian accents.

The lead actors are all newcomers. While some of them fall prey to the limited writing, I think I would like very much to see more films with the quietly attractive Arun Kurian and Roshan Mathew who appears instinctively easy before the camera.

Aanandam got me into a forgiving mood, perhaps because it is such a relief to see a Malayalam film in which when a man loves a woman, he does not harass her (to paraphrase Percy Sledge). In the overall analysis, this is a mildly engaging, mildly sweet, inoffensive film. It does not have staying power in the mindspace, but it is fair enough while it lasts.

Rating (out of five): *1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
120 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 444: KAVI UDDHESHICHATHU?

$
0
0

Release date:
Delhi: November 4, 2016. Kerala: October 8, 2016.
Director:
Thomas Liju Thomas
Cast:

Language:
Asif Ali, Biju Menon, Narain, Anju Kurian, Sija Rose, Saiju Kurup, Lena
Malayalam


(Caveat: This review is filled with spoilers. The film does not deserve any better.)

It could have been an inspirational story of a battle of unequals in the sporting and social arenas. Instead it turns out to be the most appalling, misplaced contemporary bow to The Mahabharat since Yudhishthir bet Draupadi away in a game of dice. 

Thomas Liju Thomas’s Kavi Uddheshichathu? features actors Asaf Ali – who is also one of the film’s producers – and Narain playing Jimmy and Bosco, both volleyball-crazed denizens of a place called Allimoola in Kerala. Jimmy and Bosco have been enemies from their schooldays. As it happens, Bosco is secretly in love with Jimmy’s widowed sister (Sija Rose), who in turn has been resisting her mother’s well-meaning efforts to get her remarried. Meanwhile, Bosco’s sister Jasmine (Anju Kurian) returns to the village. Jimmy instantly falls for this beautiful woman who was his classmate as a child.

The film gambols along seemingly aimlessly in the first half, recounting a set of disparate events in Jimmy’s life in a slightly confusing fashion that is boring despite the occasional bouts of humour. There is too much happening in those scenes, too many characters are introduced and the direction is loosely handled. The light-hearted tone freezes at one point in a game of revenge. It ends in Jimmy and Bosco ranging their volleyball teams against each other in a local tournament with their female siblings being the stakes they’re playing for. Jimmy is promised Jasmine’s hand in marriage if his team wins the tourney, never mind that she has already spurned his romantic overtures. If Bosco wins, he will marry Jimmy’s sister.

I kid you not. This bet is the lynchpin of the story, and the two men’s proprietorial attitude towards the women in their families does not cause a single eyebrow to be raised in disapproval in the entire community. Instead, Allimoola is all agog with interest, not fury.

The R rating for films in the US stands for “Restricted”. We need to get our very own R rating in India: R for Repulsive. What other word can be used to describe a film in 2016, which is amused by two men who think it fit to gamble away their sisters’ lives?

Asif Ali’s innate charm, Biju Menon’s comic timing in his part as Jimmy’s team coach Minnal Simon who appears only in the second half, Saiju Kurup’s magnetism in a brief role as the rival team’s coach Noble Jacob who has a history with Jimmy, little Allimoola’s prettiness, that chilling confrontation between man and snakes in an unexpected setting (in a self-referential ode to the acclaimed short film Remaniyechiyude Namathil that regular Malayalam film buffs will get), the comparative tightness of the post-interval portion which is a marked contrast to that all-over-the-place first half, are all overshadowed by this preposterous, regressive premise.

Jimmy’s attitude and behaviour towards Jasmine are already disturbing before the bet is placed. It is bad enough that he follows her down lonely country roads, but worse happens. As with so many films produced by Mollywood, her rejection of the hero’s advances becomes immediate cause for him and his friends to label her an arrogant snob. Kavi Uddheshichathu? goes many steps further than the average Mollywood flick though: not only do Jimmy and gang get belligerent with her, they even threaten her. All this is treated as perfectly normal by a narrative that views Jimmy with sympathy.

Team Kavi Uddheshichathu? probably felt there is sufficient compensation for this extreme misogyny in an early scene where the men are chided by one of their own friends for discussing Jasmine cheaply. Nothing exemplifies the film’s disdain for women’s independence better than that final scene in which Lena – playing a businesswoman called Gladys who is feisty till that point– is shown taking off on the backseat of her mobike with Minnal Simon who has been eyeing her ever since they met.

Feminine love, you see, means that a woman who has been riding a motorbike all her life will hand you the keys, vacate the driver’s seat for you and ride pillion as a symbolic gesture of her submission to you. What the heck is wrong with you, Mollywood?!

Rating (out of five): *

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
137 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 445: ROCK ON 2

$
0
0

Release date:
November 11, 2016
Director:
Shujaat Saudagar
Cast:




Language:
Farhan Akhtar, Shraddha Kapoor, Arjun Rampal, Purab Kohli, Shashank Arora, Kumud Mishra, Prachi Desai, Shahana Goswami, Guest appearances: Usha Uthup, Summer Salt Band, Vishal Dadlani
Hindi


The boys are back, but will they rock the screen once again? Rock On 2reunites Aditya Shroff (Farhan Akhtar), Joe Mascarenhas (Arjun Rampal) and Kedar Zaveri a.k.a. KD (Purab Kohli) whose journey-to-their-true-selves story resulted in 2008’s wonderfully warm, relatable and inspirational Rock On directed by Abhishek Kapoor.

Back then, after being pulled in many directions away from their music, they had come together as the band Magik along with a fourth friend, Rob Nancy (Luke Kenny). Eight years later, Magik has dispersed, Joe and KD have managed to make careers for themselves in music and Adi is in Shillong desperately trying to exorcise a traumatic memory while helping the local people through a farmers’ cooperative.

Rock On worked on the strength of its solid writing by Pubali Chaudhari and Abhishek Kapoor, the credible situations, heartbreak and hope they conjured up with their words, Kapoor’s spot-on direction, the chemistry between the four male leads (a pleasant surprise since none of them were acting stars), the novelty of a Hindi film revolving around a struggling Indian rock band and the true hero of that venture: Shankar Ehsaan Loy’s throbbing, pulsating soundtrack. It was evident that this was a milieu the team understood perfectly. Everything seemed to fit just right.

With such a formidable predecessor to live up to, Rock On 2should have doubled its efforts to draw viewers in. Instead, its problems lie right at the conception level. Chaudhuri and Kapoor’s story from which the former has derived her screenplay (with dialogues by Akhtar) comes across as a half-hearted shot at cashing in on a successful brand. The sequel has appealing individual elements and moments, but in its entirety it feels semi-baked.

Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start, as Maria from The Sound of Music might have reminded them if they had asked: Adi’s motivation for leaving Mumbai remains unconvincing. That’s because we do not, in the first place, get to understand the motivation for his behaviour that led to tragic consequences five years previously thus causing him to seek an escape from the big city and bright lights. In Rock On, it was true that Adi, spoilt rich kid that he was, was initially impervious to the feelings and insecurities of those around him – leading to the break with Joe, for one – but he had evolved through that film and you will remember in the end the group had formed a talent search agency to find and promote new musical artistes.

(Spoiler alert for this paragraph) Revved up as they were at that point, driven to help those who had struggled like them, how did he (and they) so soon turn so disinterested in the plight of the people for whom they had launched that agency, which was the mainstay of their careers as we understood it at the end of Rock On? What explains Adi’s attitude in particular, his apathy towards that one singer-composer who approaches him repeatedly? Is it arrogance or indifference? If it is the latter, then what exactly was their agency doing? And for that matter, why does that boy pursue them alone without exploring options? (Spoiler alert ends)

With no answers in sight, the film kicks off on a contrived note and there is little that director Shujaat Saudagar can do to lift it off the ground. The completely contrasting battles being fought by new entrants Jiah Sharma (Shraddha Kapoor) and Uday (Shashank Arora from Titli), the reason for her fears and his desperation, the secret behind the reclusiveness of her father Pandit Vibhooti (Kumud Mishra) all tug at the heart strings, but are not given sufficient depth. There is another sidetrack about the commercially led compromises talented artistes feel compelled to make, but that gets only a fleeting mention.

Worse, the sub-plot about Adi’s efforts to rehabilitate several villages in Meghalaya after a natural disaster unwittingly smacks of condescension. Instead of insightful detailing, what we get is a touristy visit: DoP Mark Koninckx’sspectacular shots of spectacular locations, but not a single local resident who is fleshed out well enough to make a lasting impression.

The people of Meghalaya are shadows, not substantial characters here. They are either victims or villains, thrown in as a matter of convenience to take the story forward. The villains are the enemy within. The victims have no agency, they take no initiative and they sit around suffering, thus leaving it to the great mainlanders and their chieftain Adi to save them and vanquish the bad guys. It reminded me a bit of simpering heroines in old Hindi films who would stand around helplessly, waiting for the hero to rescue them from the gangster’s underground den.

If you view this aspect of Rock On 2 in the context of the alienation of the entire North-East from the rest of India, the treatment of the region in the film is almost offensive. Thing is, Rock On 2 seems to have had no political ill intentions. It is evident that Meghalaya serves no purpose for the maker/s beyond the picture-postcard visuals it offers. With almost no locational specifics in the screenplay, the film could just as well have been set in any other non-urban, naturally stunning location far from Mumbai without the change making an inch of a difference to the narrative.

Meghalaya is not all that is given short shrift. No one utters a single line throughout about the late Magik member Rob (after whom Adi’s child is named), and Joe’s wife Debbie (Shahana Goswami in a guest appearance) is dispensed with via a single line about her going off to France. For what? Why? Who knows? Akhtar’s dialogue writing for Jiah and Uday too is strained.

With so many superficialities in the writing, Rock On 2 runs up against hurdles that were forgivable in Part 1 because of that film’s wholesomeness and overall effectiveness. Abhishek Kapoor had managed to use Akhtar intelligently, camouflaging both his acting and singing limitations in excellent packaging and positioning. Here though, since director Saudagar is building on a weak foundation, Akhtar’s every deadpan expression and the sub-ordinariness of his singing voice stick out. It does not help that Rock On 2 bears the added burden of Shraddha Kapoor singing as Jiah. To be fair to her, she is not a terrible singer, she is just ordinary.

I understand Saudagar’s compulsion to let Akhtar sing in this film, He is, after all, the producer. Besides, the use of his voice – polished and straightened out with the benefit of the technology that recording studios offer these days – was an experiment that clicked in Rock On. But why oh why wasn’t a professional singer used at least for Jiah?

Not surprisingly, the most enjoyable part of Rock On 2 is the finale concert in Shillong where we get to hear back-to-back performances by real singers, not actors aspiring to be singers. Redemption comes in those late moments through, among others, Usha Uthup and Meghalaya’s Summer Salt Band performing the delightful Hoi Kiw, and of course Shankar Mahadevan himself. They are so lovely, that when they are followed by Akhtar and Kapoor doing a so-so remix of the original film’s title song, that too is fun to watch because the pulse is already racing and the adrenaline is already pumping. In that moment, less than the flaws what I noticed was this: Akhtar is no great shakes as a singer, but seeing him move on stage is a reminder that there is no question this man loves music. I wish he would play to his strengths rather than remind us of his weaknesses.

Shankar Ehsaan Loy’s compositions for Rock On were fantastic. Their work in Rock On 2 is a mixed bag in the nice-but-not-great mould. I refuse to blame them. The blame for this film’s average-ness lies entirely at the doorstep of the writers.

Rock On 2 is not insufferable, it is just hugely disappointing. They should have given it an alternative title: How To Fritter Away Goodwill For A Fondly Remembered Brand in 139 Minutes and Seven Seconds.

Rating (out of five stars): *1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
139 minutes, 7 seconds
  

This review has also been published on Firstpost:





AE DIL HAI MUSHKIL CONTROVERSY / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

$
0
0
Note: I’m happy to inform you that Film Fatale has won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award 2015 for ‘Commentary and Interpretative Writing’. You can click here to read all the Film Fatales published in 2015 (and from the launch of the column in February 2014):
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/author/anna-mm-vetticad/article6316861.eceThank you dear readers and Team Hindu Businessline for your constant support. J Anna

HOW KJO REWORKED AE DIL HAI MUSHKIL

An A-Z guide to why and how the director rewrote, re-edited and re-dubbed his film to pre-empt further anti-Pakistan ire from right-wing extremists

By Anna MM Vetticad


I finally re-watched Ae Dil Hai Mushkil(ADHM) to rid myself of doubts that have nagged me since I saw it on October 28. (Spoilers ahead)

I watched it particularly for that scene in which Anushka Sharma’s character Alizeh Khan stands on the terrace of what is supposedly a house in Lucknow, speaking on the phone to Ranbir Kapoor’s Ayan Sanger in London. Ayan is reluctant to attend her wedding. I do not have a visa, he says. On first viewing the film, I recall hesitating momentarily over that dialogue. It seemed strange coming from a British-born Indian, a British passport holder to boot, who could surely easily manage a visa to India. I shrugged it off though as possibly just a mindless excuse from a man unwilling to witness his beloved marrying someone else. On the second viewing, however, as I watched ADHM with microscopic scrutiny born of baggage I will explain shortly, I confirmed for myself that Ayan’s remark was not made lightly.

Read Alizeh’s lips, please. The city to which she invites Ayan for her wedding is Karachi, though Sharma’s voice dubbing over those lips says “Lucknow”. Now it makes sense – one constant through years of India-Pakistan tension has been that for people of both nationalities, getting a visa to the other is no cakewalk, thus perhaps prompting a doubt in the mind of even a British passport-holding Indian.

Unless you have been holidaying on Mars in recent weeks, you would know why producer-director Karan Johar might have felt driven to make such a crucial change in ADHM. Following the September 2016 terror attacks on the Army in Uri in Jammu & Kashmir, when Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) demanded a Bollywood boycott of Pakistan, it pointedly targeted ADHM for featuring Pakistani heart-throb Fawad Khan. Imagine the heat Johar would have faced if this violence-prone party had additionally discovered that five characters in his story were Pakistanis.

In the run-up to ADHM’s release, MNS asked why Fawad’s character could not simply be eliminated since it was a cameo anyway. Clearly people with zero understanding of cinema have no clue that every word, every look, every situation adds meaning to a film.

When you are in a theatre, some moments wash over you, impacting the subconscious and influencing your overall experience of a film even when you are unable to explain the exact reasons for your reactions. In my case, ADHM left me with a gnawing feeling of incompleteness. My disconnect with it was mostly instinctive. If I intend to review a film, I usually avoid pre-release promotional material and news reports as far as is reasonably possible, so I was unaware of any media speculation about ADHMon this front. While watching it though, sundry dialogues, Alizeh and Saba’s language and styling made me wonder if they had originally been written as Pakistanis. I remember noticing that Saba’s nationality is unspecified. All we know is she’s a Vienna-based Urdu poet who looks South Asian. Considering that Ayan makes a fuss about them both being British passport holders, it was odd that their country of origin did not come up. Or did it? And were those lines chopped?

I have since seen unconfirmed Internetmurmurs about how Johar reworked ADHM. After rewatching the film and contacting multiple impeccable sources in Bollywood, here is what I can confirm: first, Alizeh’s marriage was in Karachi, not Lucknow (or Lahore as some websites have surmised); second, Alizeh, her boyfriend Faisal, her ex-boyfriend Ali (Fawad), Saba (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan) and her ex-husband (Shah Rukh Khan) were all conceived as Pakistanis; third, contrary to reports, Johar did not reduce Fawad’s role in the film post-Uri, but he did rewrite, re-dub and re-editADHMto scissor out every reference to Pakistan and Pakistanis in the story.

The director has flatly denied all this in an interview I just recorded with him, but an obsessive viewer’s eyes and instincts do not lie.

Note for instance Ayan and Saba’s introductory meeting. He is heading to London from Alizeh’s ‘Lucknow’ wedding, so it is implied that they are at Lucknow airport. Baah! Chaudhary Charan Singh International Airport is a humble, decidedly unpolished affair. Clearly that glitzy lounge in ADHMwas originally meant to be in Karachi’s Jinnah International Airport.

Note too Ayan’s girlfriend Lisa’s first encounter with Alizeh and Faisal. The camera is on her back when she tells them that since they are Khans, she practised to say (cut to her face) “Salaam waleikum”. Were we not shown a front shot when she uttered the opening words of that sentence because her lip movements could not be camouflaged by dubbing “both of you are Khans” over the actual line “both of you are Pakistanis”?

This is not trivia or nitpicking. Point is, the spirit and intent of ADHM were drastically altered to pre-empt extremist wrath. An Indian befriending a Pakistani in the capital city of a former colonial power is an idea steeped in potentially beautiful sub-text that is now lost forever. A story of unrequited love involving these warring neighbours takes on far deeper meaning than ADHMhas now.

For a cinephile, it is heartbreaking that a filmmaker was so terrorised by pre-release controversies that he changed key elements in his story to avoid further irking fundamentalists. How did we, as a nation, get here?

(This article was first published in The Hindu Businessline’s BLink on November 12, 2016.)

Link to column published in The Hindu Businessline:


Related Link: Anna M.M. Vetticad’s review of Ae Dil Hai Mushkil


Related Article by Anna M.M. Vetticad: Crying Beef Over Ae Dil Hai Mushkil: Let’s Expose the Fake Patriotism, Please


Previous instalment of Film Fatale: Hey, Right-Wingers, Leave the Arts Alone




REVIEW 446: FORCE 2

$
0
0

Release date:
November 18, 2016
Director:
Abhinay Deo
Cast:


Language:
John Abraham, Sonakshi Sinha, Tahir Raj Bhasin, Adil Hussain, Narendra Jha, Patricia Mittler
Hindi


It is hard to find a film that does not promise an iota more of anything than whatit intends to deliver, and then efficiently delivers on its promise. Force 2 is an intense action flick that serves up slick stunts and technical finesse to support its straight-laced storytelling style.

Director Abhinay Deo’s latest film is a sequel to Nishikant Kamat’s Force (2011), which starred John Abraham and Genelia D’souza. That film in turn was a remake of the 2003 Tamil blockbuster Kaakha Kaakha directed by Gautham Menon, starring Suriya Sivakumar and Jyothika. Forcedid not have Kaakha Kaakha’s emotional heft, but it did have gripping, not-before-seen action plus a villain worth living and dying for. Its Achilles heel was the casting of the heroine. Four years since Force, the franchise repeats the mix, giving us gripping action once again, a solid villain and a contentious heroine.

Abraham is back in Force2 as a well-intentioned Mumbai policeman who does not play by the book because the book, in his opinion, can tie a good cop down. In the years since Yashvardhan lost his wife (played by D’souza) in the first film, he has remained as strong-willed, impertinent and determined to vanquish evil as he was back then. When a bunch of agents of the Indian intelligence agency RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) are exterminated in well-planned back-to-back killings, Yash enters the picture to find out why and to prevent further deaths.

The case lands him in beautiful Budapest. His partner and supposed boss in this mission is RAW officer KK, Kamaljit Kaur, played by Sonakshi Sinha. KK is to the always-defiant Yash what chalk is to cheese, so of course they clash repeatedly. 

Together, they find themselves up against an antagonist who somehow manages to stay ahead of them every step of the way. Shiv Sharma (Tahir Raj Bhasin) is driven by an unexplained grouse against RAW and India. It is evident from the moment we meet him that Yash and KK will solve the case when they crack the reason for his animosity.

The purposefulness of this film’s writing is both its strength and its weakness. Parveez Shaikh and Jasmeet K. Reen are here to entertain us with suspense and unrelenting skirmishes – involving wit, guns and fisticuffs – and they do that well. If only they had paid more attention to the characterisation of Yash and KK, Force 2 would have been more than just that.


Yash relies almost entirely on our pre-existing investment in him from the previous film, on Abraham’s dimpled charm and the actor’s unapologetic willingness to be objectified without denting his dignity in the way Hindi cinema tends to do with women. However, we do not see enough of the character’s journey here, nothing much to add to the Yash we already know from Force.

The film’s potentially most interesting element is the most problematic. Leading ladies in Hindi cinema are rarely in positions of authority over leading men, and they are certainly rarely at the centre of hard-core action cinema. KK, then, is a fascinating proposition. Having envisioned her though, the writers give her short shrift.


Sections of Bollywood these days are taking a long, hard look at the way women have been straitjacketed in films since the 1970s. While some are ushering in genuine change, too many are struggling to pull themselves out of the morass of their own misogyny. Sinha earlier this year starred in Akira, which made a woman the central figure in an all-out action-reliant drama but then spent so little time on fleshing her out as a human being, that the most engaging character in the film turned out to be her arch enemy – who was a man ... of course. Deo & Co are better in the sense that their KK is not a one-line concept note. We do get to see her for the person that she is. Still, she is a RAW agent who screws up on an important assignment in a way you know the male lead of this kind of Hindi film would not, and when it comes to the crunch, she still needs a man to be decisive on her behalf and have the last word.

The saving grace of the Yash-KK equation is that despite the hint of a romance between them, the film does not go too far in that direction. This is a good thing, since Sinha looks like a child in comparison with Abraham. The actress does a fair job of what she is given to do, but I wish she had been given more to do and the screenplay had been less patronising towards KK.

The best written character in Force 2 is Shiv Sharma, a criminal who is both cold-blooded and nuanced, a man we can fear yet empathise with without the film getting too maudlin in its portrayal of him. Tahir Raj Bhasin is wonderfully controlled in his execution of Shiv, making him as intriguing as Vidyut Jamwal’s Vishnu was in Force yet completely different.

Bhasin earlier delivered an excellent performance as Rani Mukerji’s bête noir in Mardaani (2014). Hopefully we will not have to wait another two years to see him again on the big screen.

Although Force 2’s USP is its action, it is not an all-brawn-no-brain venture. The film does raise a significant emotive point about intelligence gathering. When people sign up to spy on behalf of a country, they are aware that if found out, the very country they seek to serve will disown them. An espionage agent may accept that professional hazard as part of the game, but is there a way of serving the greater national good without writing people off? 

Force 2 brings up this question gently in the narrative without any chest-thumping, then lets itself down with the needless mush in the text flashing on screen in the end, text that comes across as an afterthought in a bid to tap into the loud mindlessness of the ‘patriotic’ herd that has dominated public discourse in India in the past couple of years.

Until that point though, the film is nicely matter-of-fact in its discussion on national interest. It is also such a relief to see Force 2’s portrayal of RAW when contrasted with the amateurishness of the spy story in last year’s Akshay Kumar-starrer Baby directed by Neeraj Pandey.

Force 2 is not earth-shatteringly memorable, but it is fun. Abhinay Deo must share a large part of the credit for that with action director Franz Spilhaus, cinematographers Mohana Krishna and Imre Juhasz who make us participants in the proceedings, Amitabh Shukla & Sanjay Sharma’s sharp editing and the doggedness of John Abraham’s bath towel that does not get dislodged from his waist until the very end of an extended, physically challenging fight. 

This is the kind of film we Bollywood buffs like to call paisa vasool.

Rating (out of five stars): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
127 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Stills courtesy: Spice PR

REVIEW 447: KATTAPPANAYILE RITHWIK ROSHAN

$
0
0

Release date:
November 18, 2016
Director:
Nadirshah
Cast:


Language:
Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Dharmajan Bolgatty, Prayaga Martin, Lijomol Jose, Siju Wilson, Rahul Madhav, Salim Kumar, Siddique
Malayalam


“However much paint you put on an autorickshaw, it will not become a BMW,” says a man to an aspiring actor in Kattappanayile Rithwik Roshan. The reference is to the listener’s looks, which in this film is almost entirely a commentary on the average Malayali’s obsession with light complexions and contempt for dark skin.

Kattappanayile Rithwik Roshan (KRR) is the story of a young man in the town of Kattappana in Kerala who wants to be a movie star. Krishnan a.k.a. Kichchoo’s father is a loader. His mother died when he was born, a fact that Senior holds against him. Kichchoo is taunted by the community – his own parent, family friends, schoolmates and others – for his skin colour, but their attitude changes when he bags a small role in a big film. The snide remarks however return when he spends a decade playing an extra – even if a familiar face – in Malayalam cinema.

Director Nadirshah’s film takes us through Kichchoo’s struggles with his career, unrequited love and the crippling bias he faces at every turn.

Anyone who is acquainted with Kerala will tell you that in the collective psyche of India’s most literate state, light is beautiful and dark is inadequate if not ugly. In a 1997 interview, Arundhati Roy told India Today’s Rohit Brijnath this about her growing up years in Kottayam: “I wasthe worst thing a woman could be in Kerala – thin, black and clever.” If north Indians are by and large convinced that they are better-looking than their fellow Indians south of the Vindhyas, it is equally (sadly) true that Keralites place north Indian beauty on a pedestal higher than their own. KRR is a stinging indictment of Kerala’s white colour preference couched in rib-tickling comedy.

Just as importantly however, Team KRR unwittingly reveals that although they have good intentions, they too have not entirely been able to get past their own social conditioning.

And so, while the nasty barbs thrown at Kichchoo are never glorified in the narrative, the casting tells its own story. Kichchoo falls for Ann Maria who is projected as a beauty. Kani is the next-door neighbour he barely notices although she is in love with him – she is projected as a plain Jane. Ironically, both women are played by extremely pretty actresses with one telling contrast: in the role of Ann Maria is the light-skinned Prayaga Martin while Kani is portrayed by the dark-skinned Lijomol Jose. The fact that Nadirshah thinks Martin is a stunner and Jose is ordinary reflects his own subconscious predispositions.

Likewise, the hot guy in the film (the one Kichchoo thinks Ann is hooking up with) is pointedly north Indian. And yes, the Rithwik Roshan of the title is an amusingly distorted reference to Bollywood star Hrithik Roshan whose looks – light eyes, light skin and tall, muscular frame – evidently constitute Nadirshah’s ideal of Indian male beauty.

Until the director overcomes his own deep-seated prejudices, there is Kattappanayile Rithwik Roshan, a film worth watching despite its flaws because at least it means well.

KRR is written by Bibin George and Vishnu Unnikrishnan who also wrote the director’s first film, the 2015 hit Amar Akbar Anthony. Unnikrishnan also plays Kichchoo while Dharmajan Bolgatty steps into the role of his best friend Dasappan. They are a hoot together and for the most part their conversations had me giggling helplessly. The talented supporting cast includes veterans Salim Kumar and Siddique as Kani and Kichchoo’s respective fathers.

Nadirshah and his actors are blessed with impeccable comic timing, thus giving KRR an unrelenting pace. Film buffs will enjoy the insights into the workings of Mollywood and the multiple references to Indian cinema across languages.

For the most part, KRR’s humour is at once heart-wrenching and hilarious. It is used cleverly to soften the slap this film lands on the collectivefaces of the audience who must confront their own colour obsession while watching it. There is so much to love in it – the comedy, the messaging, the acting – that its failings hurt more than they might in a crude, unthinking film.

For instance, KRR is that rare Malayalam film which chides a man for assuming that a woman was leading him on merely because she was friendly. It is also that rare commercial Indian film that acknowledges the possibility of a friendship between two people of the opposite sex after the woman has rejected the man’s romantic overtures. But the film’s gender politics is confused and disappointing. For example, Team KRRserves up a running joke about stalking featuring a likeable comedian, rounding it offwith the common – and dangerous – Indian cinematic cliché of a woman who is at first disgusted by her stalker but then becomes interested in him.

In a film that is clearly designed to be sensitive, this disturbing track unintentionally reveals as much about Kerala’s reality and Team KRR’s mentality as the story itintentionally tells.

Kattappanayile Rithwik Roshan is entertaining and moving for the most part. Perhaps a day will come when Team KRR are cured of their own prejudices, enabling them to make a film that is truly worth celebrating. This one is a baby step on a dismal cinematic and social landscape.

Rating (out of five): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
140 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:





REVIEW 448: DEAR ZINDAGI

$
0
0

Release date:
US: November 23, 2016. India: November 25, 2016.
Director:
Gauri Shinde
Cast:



Language:
Alia Bhatt, Shah Rukh Khan, Kunal Kapoor, Ali Zafar, Ira Dubey, Yashaswini Dayama, Rohit Saraf, Aban Deohans, Atul Kale, Angad Bedi, Aditya Roy Kapur
Hindi


Two points. Dear Zindagi is clearly straining at the formula-ridden Bollywood straitjacket to give us a refreshing take on love and family, and for the most part it sticks to its guns. In the end, it does succumb to the pressure to bow to perceived public demand with passing mentions of what we have come to consider inevitable in every Hindi film, but the ride up to that point is so rewarding so often that it is tempting to look past those needless moments.

Writer-director Gauri Shinde’s Dear Zindagi comes four years after her remarkable debut with English Vinglish. If that film brought the charismatic Sridevi back to the big screen as a leading lady after a 15-year hiatus, this one redefines the concept of hero and heroine in Hindi cinema.

Dear Zindagirevolves around Kaira (Alia Bhatt), a talented young cinematographer in Mumbai who despises her parents, appears confident in her romantic relationships yet is ridden with insecurities about the men she is drawn to. Those insecurities lead her to deliberately hurt her boyfriends before they get a chance to hurt her. It does not take a degree in psychology for a viewer to figure out her behaviour patterns, but Kaira is naturally confused by her fears. She ends up seeking professional help, and with some wise counsel, finds her answers herself.

When one of the biggest stars in the history of Bollywood appears on screen about 40 minutes after the opening credits, it goes without saying that this is an extremely unconventional film. Bhatt’s Kaira is the focal point of the story from start to finish whereas Shah Rukh Khan – playing her therapist Dr Jehangir Khan – surfaces towards the latter part of the first half and is nowhere to be seen in the concluding scene.

In a male-obsessed industry still tending to subordinate women in most mainstream projects, this is a decision that shows guts on Shinde’s part and Khan’s evident willingness to experiment. That other MegaKhan, Aamir, took a similar gamble with rewarding results in Taare Zameen Par (2007), and this is a winning aspect of Dear Zindagi too.

SRK gets lessscreen time but owns every scene he is a part of. In fact, Doc Jehangir enters the picture just as the film is sagging and appears to be repeating itself. His arrival immediately lifts Dear Zindagi. It sags again occasionally thereafter, but never when he is around. Besides, there is such warmth in Kaira’s interactions with the Doc that it envelops the rest of the narrative too.

It is worth mentioning that Khan in this new phase of his career when he is acknowledging his age gracefully, showing us a dash of gray and a whiff of wrinkles, is looking hot.

Kaira explodes in anger at one point when someone describes her as a pataka (firecracker). Well, that’s precisely what Bhatt is – a pataka with pizzazz and verve. What makes her so impactful is that she has had an internal journey with each of her roles so far, and not so far allowed that journey to be overshadowed by her attractive personality. Kaira is simultaneously exasperating and endearing, and Bhatt remains in control of that difficult blend throughout.

Still, the film needed more matter to wrap around these two lovely stars, and Dear Zindagi too often does not. Some of that comes from the failure to build up the satellite characters who are Kaira’s go-to people in times of need. We get that she is pre-occupied with her own emotional struggles to the point of not noticing their problems, but that is no excuse for the writing to neglect them too.

Who is Fatima (Ira Dubey) beyond being a mature, married friend? Who is Jackie (Yashaswini Dayama) beyond being a sweet, supportive, possibly younger friend? Who and what is that chubby male colleague beyond being chubby and funny? Who is her brother Kiddo(Rohit Saraf)whom she loves, beyond being her brother Kiddo whom she loves?Who and what are her boyfriends Sid (Angad Bedi), Raghuvendra (Kunal Kapoor) and Rumi (Ali Zafar) beyond being a good-looking restaurateur, a good-looking producer and a good-looking musician?

(Spoiler alert begins) And then there are those two oh-no moments towards the end – you know the kind that make you say, “Oh no, you too Dear Zindagi”? One of them seems to go along with the traditional view that characters played by a major male star and a majorfemale star must inevitably be attracted to each other if they interact long enough in a story; the other underlinesthe essentiality of a man in a woman’s life to make her feel complete. Both are fleeting suggestions, but they pull down the film’s assuredness about what it is trying to say until then. Oh no, you too Dear Zindagi? (Spoiler alert ends)

For this and other reasons the film is inconsistent and intermittently lightweight. Yet, there is much else to recommend in Dear Zindagi.

The use of music, Amit Trivedi’s breezy tunes and Kausar Munir’s conversational lyrics are lots of fun, as are Kaira’s many amusing interactions with her friends. DoP Laxman Utekar fills the film with pretty frames of Goa beyond what we are used to seeing of that picturesque state, and is just as imaginative in his focus on Khan and Bhatt’s faces. Watch out for the closing shots of Bhatt on a beach.

From an industry that usually treats parents as deities deserving to be worshipped, it is also unusual to get a story that does not ignore these gods’ feet of clay, especially considering that Dear Zindagiis co-produced by Karan “It’s All About Loving Your Parents” Johar.

Above all, it is nice to see a film making an effort to destigmatise patient-therapist interactions, in a portrayal far removed from the “paagalkhanas(lunatic asylums)” of an earlier Bollywoodera. 

Dear Zindagithen is a mixed bag. I loved SRK in the film, Bhatt is always a pleasure to watch, the story visits many themes that are uncommon in Bollywood, and several of the discussions are either witty or insightful or both. Overall though, the film comes across as being not enough because the writing needed more substance.

Dear Gauri Shinde,

You broke the mould with the delightful English Vinglish. Since you have defied convention in so many ways this time round too, you may as well have gone the entire distance without worrying about the consequences. We believe in you. Please do have faith in our faith in you.

Regards,

A genuine well-wisher.

Rating (out of five stars): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
149 minutes 53 seconds

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 449: KAHAANI 2 – DURGA RANI SINGH

$
0
0

Release date:
December 2, 2016
Director:
Sujoy Ghosh
Cast:



Language:
Vidya Balan, Arjun Rampal, Jugal Hansraj, Kharaj Mukherjee, Tota Roy Choudhury, Naisha Khanna, Tunisha Sharma, Manini Chadha
Hindi


If you believe the end maketh the movie, then writer-director Sujoy Ghosh’s Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh falls strictly in the category of the not-extraordinary. The second instalment in thisseriesstarring Vidya Balanfeatures nothing like the surprise that punched us in the collective gut in Kahaani’s climax back in 2012.

Before the end comes the beginning though, and there is much to recommend in the journey between those two points here – the atmospherics, the pall of disquiet blanketing the narrative, the unusual subject, locations rarely explored by Bollywood (Kalimpong and Chandan Nagar in West Bengal in addition to Kolkata), the cast, and most of all, Balan.

Kahaani 2begins with a young single mother in Chandan Nagar hanging out with her bedridden daughter. We soon learn that when Vidya Sinha is at work, she has a nurse coming home to take care of Mini who is paralysed from the waist down.

Vidya wants to take her daughter to the US for treatment that she hopes will give the child back the use of her legs. She persists with this belief although her kindly doctor in Kolkata cautions her against being too optimistic about a cure. Then one day an abduction followed by another tragic turn of events ruptures their happy, middle-class existence.

Who is that voice on the phone threatening to separate Mini from her mother forever? Will this Vidya – like the redoubtable Vidya Bagchi of the first film – thrash aside all obstacles to attain her goal? Keep guessing.

What made Kahaani an absolute killer was that its entertaining, layered storytelling was followed by a disclosure through which we realised that nothing had been what it seemed through the film. Kahaani 2 features many disturbing and mystifying individual elements. It also delivers some shock treatment for viewers midway through the first half. Ultimately though you realise that most things in the film were more or less what you thought they were when they first rolled by and the big reveal is just so-so.

The ending may not deliver the goods, but Balan certainly does. The media has for years now discussed her willingness to take on the physical attributes of the various characters she plays. While that is no doubt a remarkable quality, to focus on that alone would be an injustice to this fine artist since physical quirks can be used as crutches by average actors too. Balan’s strength is her ability to drown out her own personality for a role.

And so, here in Kahaani 2, there is not a trace of the hard-as-nails heroine of Kahaani, the overtly sexual, bubbly Silk from The Dirty Picture (2011)or the brazenly manipulative Krishna from Ishqiya(2010) who had no qualms about purring out the words “chutiyam sulphate”, at a time when the industry’s heroines were usually identified by their coyness.

When Vidya/Durga in Kahaani 2 recoils at the first touch of a man she loves, the actress convinces us of her character’s diffidence and fears. As a distraught mother and a victim of social indifference, she does what we have come to expect of this formidable star: she erases Vidya Balan to become the person she is playing, Vidya Sinha.

The rest of the cast offers no equivalent of the lovely Parambrata Chatterjee and Nawazuddin Siddiqui from Kahaani, but it is still good to see an evolving (dishy as always) Arjun Rampal playing the policeman with a past, Inderjeet Singh, and Jugal Hansraj – the little boy from Masoomwho grew up to a lacklustre acting career – surprisingly effective as a creep. The incredibly cute Naisha Khanna and the interesting youngster Tunisha Sharma – both playing Mini at different stages of her life – get limited space to showcase their talent, but are clearly worth watching out for.

Though Kahaani 2 has none of the memorable detailing of satellite characters that made Kahaani outstanding (where are you, Bob Biswas?) it is unobtrusively insightful in its own way. The long-term effects of sexual abuse, victim blaming, the politics in the police establishment and small-town life are all dealt with effectively. I enjoyed the sweetness of the brief romance between Vidya/Durga and her beau Arun (Tota Roy Choudhury, nice!), his kindness to her and his non-aggressive wooing. And there is a refreshing, believable normalcy in the relationship between Inderjeet and his wife played by the sprightly debutant Manini Chadha.

The big let-down in Kahaani is the writing of the climax, whether viewed in isolation or in comparison with its remarkable predecessor. For the record, these are the credits: Screenplay – Sujoy Ghosh, Dialogues – Ritesh Shah & Sujoy Ghosh, Story – Sujoy Ghosh & Suresh Nair. Ghosh, who is so confident in his conceptualisation till that point, is clearly aiming at a similar sock-the-viewer-in-the-neck impact as before, but comes up instead with an unimaginative, more or less predictable whimper.

To be fair, his deft direction and Namrata Rao’s skillful editing ensure that there is not a moment of boredom right until then. The two have found a good match in DoP Tapan Basu, production designers Kaushik Das and Subrata Barik who together manage to make the film’s small and large spaces feel cloistered and intimidating, while lending unexpected warmth to Vidya and Mini’s tiny home in Chandan Nagar.

Clinton Cerejo’s music gently wafts around the film and then ends with a bang: the neatly orchestrated, energetic rendition of Rabindranath Tagore’s Anandalokemangalaloke accompanying the end credits is so haunting that I stuck around for the very last word to disappear from the screen.

Vidya Balan is fantastic in Kahaani 2, but storywise, the film is like a pleasant meal spoilt by a mediocre dessert. If only…

Rating (out of five stars): **

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
129 minutes 55 seconds

This review has also been published on Firstpost:



DEAR ZINDAGI AND MENTAL HEALTHCARE / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

$
0
0
DE-STIGMATISING THERAPY

Dear Zindagi’s patient-doc sessions – debatable and unconventional though they are – mark a rare effort by a usually indifferent Bollywood to normalise mental healthcare

By Anna MM Vetticad


This is not a review of Dear Zindagi. I wrapped up that job on the day of its release. This column is devoted to one aspect of the film: the portrayal of mental health.

Those who have seen Dear Zindagiwould know that Alia Bhatt plays Kaira, a talented cinematographer who harbours a deep-seated resentment towards her parents. She is also so afraid of being hurt in romantic relationships that she withdraws from each one before the man she is dating has a chance to first back out. When sleep goes AWOL from her life one day, Kaira turns to a clinical psychologist — Dr Jehangir Khan, played by Shah Rukh Khan — for relief.

As an American TV serial junkie and Hollywood buff, I am used to watching therapy sessions on screen. They have ranged from the realism of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, where Sergeant Olivia Benson gets help after being abducted and held hostage by a violent sexual predator, to the comical money-mindedness of Dr Linda Freeman in the Charlie Sheen-starrer Two And A Half Men, and the OTT unprofessionalism in Anger Management starring Sheen with Selma Blair.

Hindi cinema, for the most part, has alternated between ignoring/avoiding mental fitness and swinging wildly to the other end of the spectrum with harmful caricatures, ignorance and the insensitive labelling of mental illness as “paagalpan(lunacy)”. In that context, Dear Zindagiis gigantically significant.

In a nation where a “dimaag ka doctor” is widely seen as a doc for extreme situations, here is a woman in therapy despite displaying no visible signs of what Indian society might consider a health problem. She is not apparently severely depressed, she is highly functional and a successful professional to boot, she is lively, she appears to be enjoying life, and her issues with her parents are likely to be seen as non-issues in a culture that requires us to canonise and deify our madres and padres.

Of course she also does not bear any of the physical symptoms Hindi cinema has traditionally dished out to audiences: wild hair, unkempt look, flailing arms, screaming or complete silence. The seeming normality of Kaira is, to my mind, what makes Dear Zindagialmost revolutionary in the Indian social context.

This brings us to the patient-doctor sessions in Dear Zindagi. If your vision is not clouded by SRK’s sexiness as Doc Jehangir (forgive me for the frivolous aside), it should be clear that what is depicted here is not conventional therapy. For one, Jehangir’s informality with an emotionally vulnerable youngster may make for fun cinema but could cause misunderstandings in the real world.

Now, since I have not been to a therapist myself, I have spent the week speaking to friends who have, and to psychologists and psychiatrists. One friend tells me that if anyone made a film literally recounting her conversations with her therapist, “it would be the most boring film in the world”. Others agree. Instead of the banter between Kaira and Doc Jehangir, imagine a narrative that foregrounds long monologues from a patient with occasional interventions from a professional listener who actively stays in the background. Such a film would almost certainly occupy a less commercial, less mass-targeting space in Bollywood despite SRK and Bhatt’s mammoth star appeal.

The question we must confront then is about the pluses and minuses of a trade-off between authenticity and cinematic licence to make a popular film on a hitherto untouched subject. No doubt Dear Zindagide-stigmatises therapy and the quest for emotional well-being sans sermons. The film’s resulting entertainment value gives it the potential to reach a large number of people. Is this positive a sufficient excuse for any inaccuracy in the portrayal of those sessions?

Writing for the website Scoopwhoop, Mumbai-based clinical psychologist Sonali Gupta objects, among other things, to what she sees as Jehangir in Dear Zindagi suggesting solutions to Kaira. She says: “We don’t want clients pursuing therapy in the hope that therapy is a quick fix, where therapists give advice and enlighten you with wisdom. As I always say, there is no right or wrong, it is the client who chooses his path and leads the therapy process, while the therapist plays the role of facilitator.”

Gupta has initiated a crucial debate. Without for a moment presuming to know more about therapy than a therapist would, consider this though: My takeaway from this film as a viewer was the opposite; for me a lasting memory from Dear Zindagi is of the doc pointing out to Kaira that it was she, not he, who arrived at her answers.

It is possible other viewers may see it differently and start visiting clinics with incorrect expectations, thus adding to the patient misconceptions that therapists have to clear. Yet the film would prove worthwhile if it aids even one individual in overcoming their mind blocks against therapy, while simultaneously generating public discussions, which in turn may prod DearZindagi’s writer-director Gauri Shinde, or perhaps another filmmaker, to work harder at making that next script even closer to reality yet equally entertaining.

Until then, Shinde will hopefully acknowledge this criticism while accepting the well-deserved kudos coming her way for dragging therapy away from the realm of old-style Bollywood “paagalkhanas (lunatic asylums)” to a non-intimidating space that you and I and Everyperson might enter without fear.

(This article was first published in The Hindu Businessline’s BLink on December 3, 2016.)

Link to column published in The Hindu Businessline:


Related Link: Anna M.M. Vetticad’s review of Dear Zindagi


Note: I’m happy to inform you that Film Fatale has won the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award 2015 for ‘Commentary and Interpretative Writing’. You can click here to read all the Film Fatales published in 2015 (and from the launch of the column in February 2014): 
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/author/anna-mm-vetticad/article6316861.ece Thank you dear readers and Team Hindu Businessline for your constant support. J Anna

Photograph courtesy:https://www.facebook.com/DearZindagi/


REVIEW 450: BEFIKRE

$
0
0

Release date:
December 9, 2016
Director:
Aditya Chopra
Cast:


Language:
Ranveer Singh, Vaani Kapoor, Armaan Ralhan, Julie Ordon, Ayesha Raza, Akarsh Khurana, Aru Verma
Hindi with a bit of French


First let’s get this out of the way: Ranveer Singh has a cute bum.

A flash of derriere on screen is no big deal in some parts of the world, but in India where the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has so far deemed the display of certain desi body parts a non-desi, un-kosher activity, here is a surprise. Singh gives us aclear look at his wonderfully firm backside as he runs into a hotel room to make love to his girlfriend in Befikre.

And the Censors have not scissored out that shot! Nine years after they sought to preserve our collective innocence by chopping out a glimpse of Ranbir Kapoor’s bottom in Saawariya’s towel dancing scene, mere Bharatvaasiyon, they have risked ruining our sanskaar with the sight of a man’s bare behind! A moment of silence please, at this great honour bestowed on Indian adults by the CBFC. A moment to express our deep gratitude for this acknowledgement of our maturity.

Thhoda zyaada ho gaya, na? You get the point though? Okay then, I’m done with mocking the Censors. Now onward to the review.

Director Aditya Chopra’s Befikre stars Singh and the girl from Shuddh Desi Romance, Vaani Kapoor, as lovers-turned-friends Dharam Gulati and Shyra Gill. He is a Delhi boy who has just moved to Paris to perform as a stand-up comedian at his brother’s nightclub there. She is a Parisian of Indian origin, a tour guide who occasionally helps her parents run a restaurant.

Dharam is perennially horny and a (sometimes creepy)pile-on, Shyra is not interested in commitment but is up for a roll in the hay. They are two people perfectly suited to each other’s wants and needs at the point in time when they first meet. The film takes us through the year between their hook-up and eventual break-up, and what follows.

Viewed entirely from the surface, Befikre is fun. C’mon, of course it is. Singh, as we all know, is a delightful bundle of energy and an absolute charmer. Like him, Kapoor is not a conventional pretty face, but like him she toohas an arresting presence that makes her extremely attractive. She also has one of the loveliest voices I’ve heard on a new Hindi film heroine in a while: soft and delicate, like cotton candy.

An insensitive dare involving begging and a fleeting rape joke from Dharam require a separate – long – discussion. Set those aside, and his shenanigans are by and large amusing. The duo alsoplay off each other well.

Combine the lead pair with Vishal-Shekhar’s foot-thumping music (not counting the decidedly ordinary Khulke dulke / Ishq ki bungee), an unusual blend of Hindi and French in Jaideep Sahni’s breezy lyrics and Vaibhavi Merchant’s infectiously lively choreography, and you have an entertaining package in place.

I scrutinised the entire end credits but could not find a mention of Kapoor’s fitness instructor and dance teacher. Could someone give me their names, phone numbers and the money to afford them, please? During an extended dance sequence between Shyra and Dharam, at one point she faces him with both legs wrapped around his waist and bends her torso backwards dipping her head deep towards the ground, then raises herself up ramrod straight again, her legs still around his waist, without any assistance from him, purely on the strength of her abs. If that was not camera trickery or a product of special effects, here’s an aside to salaam you for your muscle power, Ms Kapoor, and you for your imagination, Ms Merchant.

(Spoilers ahead)

The heart and soul of the filmthough leave much to be desired. How many times will Bollywood re-visit the story of a commitment-averse individual or couple who are buddies, find what they think is love in the arms of others and finally realise they are meant to be with each other instead? Films like Kunal Kohli’s Hum Tum (2004, produced by Aditya Chopra) and Imtiaz Ali’s Love Aaj Kal (2009) had novelty value and depth. Ayan Mukerji’s Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013) and even Ali’s Tamasha (2015) added new dimensions to the discussion. Befikre is entertaining at a superficial level, but at the end of the day it is nothing but old wine in a glossy new bottle.

So yeah, the couple have lots of sex and make their own decisions unlike the sanskaariladka-ladki who bowed to the girl’s despotic desiDaddy in Chopra’s debut film, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (DDLJ), 21 years back, but these are significant changes only if you assess the director’s filmography in a vacuum without the context of everything else that Hindi cinema has done since 1995. Besides, ultimately this film – like most Bollywood films – is designed as reassurance for conservative viewers that marriage can be the only acceptable conclusion to a relationship between a hero and heroine (especially if they have had sex).

Despite the generousdose of smooching between the leads, Chopra cannot camouflage his underlying conservatism. Note that after Shyra and Dharam break up, we see her in only one romantic relationship, and she does not sleep with that guy. Dharam, on the other hand, remains sexually obsessed, sexually active and has a long-term involvement with a French hottie.

Note too how lightly Dharam and, more important, the film take white women. They are nothing but bodies and sources of sex for him, creatures you proposition, not human beings to be taken seriously like the desikudi he slept with.

None of this should come as a surprise if you look back at the extreme regressiveness of DDLJ. The difference between then and now is that, for the most part Befikreis not regressive. What it is is a film pretending to be subversive, revolutionary and evolved, when all it does is endorse a status quo.

That’s why Aditya Chopra’s fourth film as a director (his first in eight years) is watchable for its packaging alone and not for what lies beneath. Even Ranveer Singh and Vaani Kapoor’s boundless verve, all that kissing, unbridled sex and tiny Western clothing cannot mask the story’s traditionalist core.

Rating (out of five stars): **

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
132 minutes 47 seconds

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy: Yash Raj Films


REVIEW 451: DANGAL

$
0
0

Release date:
December 23, 2016
Director:
Nitesh Tiwari
Cast:



Language:
Aamir Khan, Fatima Sana Shaikh, Zaira Wasim, Sanya Malhotra, Suhani Bhatnagar, Sakshi Tanwar, Aparshakti Khurana, Girish Kulkarni, Vivan Bhathena
Hindi


Sweaty bodies gripping each other in places strangers should not touch, violence as a form of entertainment, our baser human instincts getting official and mass encouragement – if you ask me why I cannot stand contact sports, these would top my answer.

Young Geeta and Babita Phogat have far more mundane reasons for hating wrestling: no girl they know does it, so why should they? Dangal is the story of their father’s bulldog-like determination to make them gold medal winners for India, and the girls’ own passage from aversion to passion for the sport.

Nitesh Tiwari’s third film as director is based on the real-life story of Haryana’s Mahavir Singh Phogat, patriarch and coach of one of the country’s most unusual sporting families: his daughters are all wrestling champions, the eldest two – Geeta and Babita – are Commonwealth Games gold medallists, and Geeta is the first Indian woman wrestler to have ever qualified for the Olympics.

This achievement is particularly striking considering that Haryana has one of India’s worst child sex ratios and a horrifying track record in the matter of female foeticide and infanticide.

Dangal is about Mahavir’s single-mindedness which brings him into conflict with his wife, his community, the country’s sporting establishment and ultimately, even Geeta.

The first half of the film is riveting in every way imaginable. Mahavir (played by Aamir Khan) gives up his wrestling dreams to financially support his family. He then decides to turn his yet-to-be-born sons into wrestlers who will bring home golds for India. This dream too is crushed when he and his wife Daya have four daughters instead in succession. One day when Geeta and Babita bash up a couple of local boys for abusing them, Mahavir sees the light. He forgot, he says, that a gold medal is gold whether won by a boy or a girl.

The songs neatly woven into the narrative in these scenes are catchy, their lyrics steeped in hilarious colloquialisms. The acting is singularly flawless all around.

Geeta and Babita as children are played by two brilliant debutants, Zaira Wasim and Suhani Bhatnagar, who knock it out of the park in every scene (if I may borrow a phrase from another game). And the storytelling matches up.

No effort is made to gloss over Mahavir’s flaws: he is a dictator at home and a terror outside. This is, without question, a traditional set-up where the husband/father’s word matters more than anyone else’s opinions or beliefs. Even the local people are afraid of him, but that does not stop them from gossipping about this man who, they are convinced, will drive his daughters to ruin by forcing them into a field they believe no woman should touch with a barge pole.

But Mahavir soldiers on. The pre-interval portion is quick-paced, amusing and moving in equal parts. To see a son-crazed old villager metamorphose into a vocal advocate of women’s rights is extremely touching. To witness him in the conflicting roles of feminist and patriarch, traditionalist and visionary (note his understanding of celebrity brand endorsements) is insightful and educational. To watch the girls grow from reluctant wrestlers into committed, self-driven sportspersons is hugely engaging and poignant.

(Spoiler alert) The second half is not as assured in its writing. This is when Geeta and Babita – now played by the older and also gifted Fatima Sana Shaikh and  Sanya Malhotra – become their own persons, and Geeta clashes with Mahavir. The father-daughter conflict is absorbing until Dangal loses its way in the rationalisation of the resolution. Are we being convinced to root for Mahavir instead of Geeta’s new coach because Daddy is always right or because this particular Daddy happens to be a great coach with strategies better suited to Geeta’s game? It should be the latter, but in the conversations between the various players in this saga,  the reasoning is fuzzy.

This leaves us with the disturbing possibility that the fuzziness is a deliberately populist move in a nation that by and large still considers it the duty of children to never question their parents.

Equally troublesome is a portion of the climax that appears to be a bow to the loud nationalism prevailing in India right now. The nicely seamless fashion in which the national anthem is played – with relevance – at that point in the narrative is diluted by a moment of needless, cringe-worthy sloganeering that seems contrived to cash in on current public sentiment. (Spoiler alert ends)

These choices are what holds Dangal back from the greatness it could have achieved. That said it remains a film with numerous attractions, foremost among them being the superstar at the centre of the action. Aamir Khan as Mahavir Singh Phogat throws himself into the role with a conviction and commitment that mirror the real-life Mahavir’s own maniacal pursuit of perfection for his daughters. The changes Khan has made to his body for this part are impressive to the point of being intimidating, but what really wins the day is the way every cell of his being seems infused with the character. Hats off to him for being as obsessive about excellence as the man he has brought to life on screen in this film.

It is a measure of his confidence and his instinct for good cinema that although he is one of Dangal’s producers, he does not allow Mahavir to overshadow his daughters or his own superstardom to overshadow the newcomers in the film. The four young women who play Geeta and Babita are smashingly good. Casting director Mukesh Chhabra has really outdone himself in this film. The talented satellite cast is the icing on the cake – Sakshi Tanwar is credible in the small role of their mother, and a scintillating Aparshakti Khurana (who we recently saw in Saat Uchakkey) plays their sweet, supportive cousin.

A large part of the second half of Dangal is taken up by Geeta’s wrestling matches. The director has wisely chosen to show us these bouts in their entirety rather than just edited clips. The film then becomes a medley of matches that are so well shot, so well played by Fatima Sana Shaikh and the other performers, and so well choreographed that they take nothing away from Dangal’s cinematic value.

The ultimate test for this film is whether it can get a viewer (like me) who dislikes contact sports to bite her nails with tension through Geeta Phogat’s multiple encounters on the  mat. I do not know about others, but I can tell you I needed a nail file after watching Dangal. A personal salaam to Nitesh Tiwari for that.

During the Rio Olympics this year, the discourse on sporting achievement in India was dominated by those who were so frustrated by the corruption in the country’s sporting establishment and our poor show in the medals tally, that even non-medallists were held up as icons. No offence intended to those who disagree, but while we do need to laud our players for ever tiny step covered despite the huge odds they face, we must question the defeatist logic in taking out celebratory processions for those who do not win.

Dangalmay be confusingly cautious around popular notions on the parental front, but in the matter of sporting achievement it does not mince words: silver is second best, it tells us unequivocally, and there is nothing wrong in aiming for gold. In an India that remains doubtful about the virtues of ambition, in a world that continues to consider ambition a dirty word for women in particular, such clarity is remarkable and inspiring.

Rating (out of five stars): ***

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
161 minutes 

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 452: TI SADDHYA KAY KARTE

$
0
0

Release date:
January 7, 2017
Director:
Satish Rajwade
Cast:



Language:
Ankush Chaudhari, Tejashree Pradhan, Abhinay Berde, Aarya Ambekar, Hruditya Rajwade, Nirmohi Agnihotri, Urmila Kanitkar
Marathi


The first Marathi film release of the year is a story of words left unspoken and thoughts left unexpressed, of relationships that do not find closure haunting us all our lives, of first love and intense friendship and everything in between.

Ti Saddhya Kay Karte (What Is She Up To These Days) is about Anurag and Tanvi who were close friends for years before his awkwardness and confusion as a teenager tore them apart. The two central characters are played by three artistes each, representing three different stages of their lives: childhood, the final years of school and middle age. It is narrated in the present by Anurag a.k.a. Anya as he looks back at the mistakes that effectively ended one of the most important relationships of his life, and the second chance he gets to repair the hurt he caused.

One of the plus points of Satish Rajwade’s film is that though it is designed as a commercial venture, complete with song and dance, it does not get loud at any point. The mellow narrative introduces us to little Anurag and Tanvi, acquaints us with their blossoming bond, and trots along quietly towards the boy’s juvenile understanding of romance and their realisation – not clearly articulated – that they may share something beyond friendship.

Like so many of us do in our later years, Anurag at that early stage begins to take Tanvi for granted. As the older Anurag reminisces about those days, he is confused about the feelings that linger from back then. To reveal more would be to give away too much. Let’s just say that for the most part the film steers clear of stereotypical notions of friendship and love.

For the most part. There are moments when the writing strays, such as when a teenaged Anurag begins romancing other girls and realises that glamorous Mohini is actually not interested in him. The older Anurag in the narration dispenses a cliché at that point. In every group there is a girl who every boy believes is in love with him; such a girl is pretty, friendly and unattainable, he explains. In other words, says Anurag, she is “beyond budget”. Although this is not the same as the “women are teases” stereotype, it is close enough to pander to members of the male-dominated audience who believe women tend to lead men on. No doubt there are those in real life who hold such views – point is that, first, no counterpoint is provided to that dialogue in the film; and second, it comes from the older and supposedly more mature Anurag, not the kid.

This is, arguably, the only bow to populism in the film.

Ti Saddhyadeparts from its common-sense tone later when a female character explains that she married her husband, among other reasons, because “after all, he was the first to ask”. It is hard to tell whether she genuinely meant this or said it only to convey to the listener the extent of the pain he had caused her. If she meant it, then it does not fit the kind of person she is shown to be until then and thereafter”: level-headed, emotional and yet not needy.

Still, there is plenty in this film to make it worth a watch. It is not earth-shatteringly original in its depiction of childhood crushes and teen romances (in fact the entire track involving Anurag and Mohini is such a been-there-seen-that episode), but the depiction of the adult Anurag and Tanvi – their internal conflicts, his remorse, her regrets, the remnants of an old wound, their individual sense of guilt towards their present partners despite not having betrayed them – is sensible and refreshingly different from the standard depiction of relationships in Indian cinema.

It helps that the gentle pace and rhythm of the narrative are engaging. Rajwade’s low-key storytelling coupled with the placid soundtrack are well-suited to the subject matter at hand. I especially enjoyed the melody and the singing of Hrudayat waje something composed by Avinash-Vishwajeet,which recurs through Ti Saddhya.

The tone of the film is established in no small measure by actor Ankush Chaudhari’s appealing voice as narrator. The adult Anurag could have been reduced to a caricature in some scenes, but Chaudhari holds back just enough to get it right. He finds a good match in debutant Abhinay Berde (son of actress Priya Berde and the late Laxmikant Berde) who plays his teen version.

The pick of the ensemble cast though is the very attractive Tejashree Pradhan who lightly tugs at our heartstrings with her restrained performance as the older Tanvi. The little ones have limited screen time, but Aarya Ambekar as the teen Tanvi is occasionally stilted, though never more so than in the song Jara jara. (For the record, the choreography and shooting of that song, with the cast posing about in an old fort and on a beach, are among the unoriginal aspects of this film.)

I am willing to live with the fact that Ambekar and Berde look nothing like Pradhan and Chaudhari, but not with the ageing makeup given to the actors playing the lead pair’s parents – it is surprisingly inadequate for a film that is otherwise technically polished.

A large part of Ti Saddhya’s appeal lies in its narrative structure, with the incessant inter-cuts between the present and the couple’s school years revealing bit by bit what brought Anurag and Tanvi to where they are at today. This could have been a huge distraction, but in the hands of editor Rahul Bhatankar is smoothly executed and effective as a result.

In recent years, film buffs outside Maharashtra have come to associate the Marathi industry with pathbreaking cinema: from Umesh Kulkarni’s works to Chaitanya Tamhane’s Court (2015) or 2016’s Sairat. Ti Saddhya Kay Kartey is not on that plane at all. It is not spectacular. This coming-of-age-late-in-life film is a simpler pleasure, nostalgic and sweet.

Non-Marathi audiences, please note:The production company, Zee Studios, confirms that Ti Saddhya Kay Kartehas been released everywhere with English subtitles. I do not know what prompted the decision not to subtitle the songs or scenes in which characters are reading (or reading out) SMSes, but for the rest, the subs are efficient.

Rating (out of five): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
127 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 453: OK JAANU

$
0
0

Release date:
January 13, 2017
Director:
Shaad Ali
Cast:

Language:
Shraddha Kapoor, Aditya Roy Kapur, Leela Samson, Naseeruddin Shah
Hindi


Tumhare liye zyaada aham kya hai? Tumhara career ya Adi?” (What is more important for you? Your career or Adi?)

Replace Adi with Aidan, Aman, Anthony, Ahmad, Rustom, Gurvinder, Armaan or any of lakhs of available male names, and what you have is a question women have been asked for decades.

What do you want more? Love or career? Marriage and children or that job? Because it has been decreed by those who know what is best for us better than we do, that wombs are incapacitated by ambition, and maternal instincts – a.k.a. every female human’s bounden duty – drown in professional success. As is often the case in life, so too in Ok Jaanu, the question is asked by a well-meaning person.

Director Shaad Ali’s Ok Jaanu is an official Hindi remake of Ali’s mentor Mani Ratnam’s 2015 Tamil film O Kadhal Kanmani (Oh My Love, The Apple of My Eye), otherwise known as OK Kanmani, starring Dulquer Salmaan and Nithya Menen. Ratnam has produced the Bollywood version in partnership with Karan Johar, and is credited with the story and screenplay here too.

Ali has had experience adapting Ratnam’s work for a north Indian setting and audience. He made his directorial debut in 2002 with Saathiya starring Rani Mukerji and Vivek Oberoi. That film was a reworking of Ratnam’s Tamil Alaipayutheywith Shalini and R. Madhavan. The retelling was lovely though not entirely as magical as its forebear. In Ok Jaanu, there is no reworking, just a scene-for-scene translation. And nothing is lost in the process except for the earlier leading man’s electric charisma and the leading lady’s zest.

Is that a good or bad thing? The answer depends on whether or not you loved OK Kanmani.

Ok Jaanu stars Shraddha Kapoor and Aditya Roy Kapur in the roles played in OK Kanmani by Salmaan and Menen. She is an architect who wants to study in France, he is a video game designer who wishes to work in the US. Tara and Adi meet by chance, are drawn to each other and decide to move in together for the few months they have in Mumbai before they go abroad.

(Spoiler alert)

“Is this love?” she asks him towards the start. She stops him from answering and he does not try further to respond at that point. Early on, they agree that marriage and babies are not for them. But as expected, six months and much sex later, they grow on each other and are confused.

The thing with films like OK Kanmani from Kollywood and Befikre from Bollywood is that they tell stories of young, urban, modern, liberal Indians not as they are but as seen through an older person’s aspirationally liberal gaze. OK Kanmani was steeped in wannabe coolth of the “please notice that I’m showing a couple having sex and living with each other before marriage” variety. Sadly, despite his relative youth, Ali has done nothing to improve Ratnam’s tone.

So yeah, Tara and Adi sleep together, live together and vow not to tie each other down, but when it comes to the crunch, the only difference between this film and almost every other such Hindi film romance featuring a commitment-phobic lead couple is that it acknowledges and underlines the point that a woman need not necessarily choose between career and marital commitment, if marriage is indeed what she wants; that two people can follow their professional dreams and still be together, that following each other to the ends of the earth could be a metaphor rather than a literal geographical journey.

And yeah, that’s a big small step, but how do Tara and Adi arrive at that change of mind? What inspires her, a young woman wounded by her parents’ divorce and custody battle, to soften up to the idea of marriage? Sure sure, she is in love, but she was in love soon after they met anyway, so what gives her this new confidence? What made Adi see life differently when justminutes earlier he described her as “Tara, my biggest mistake”?

Who knows? All we see are an actor and actress looking pretty, dressing prettily, doing fun stuff while songs play incessantly in the background, and doing the kind of things couples do in self-consciously ‘youth-oriented’ romances because they look cute on screen but would merit a mega showdown in real life (such as your boyfriend landing up inside – yes inside – your office, skulking about in the shadows and whisking you off for a day in the sun).

The director is so busy whipping up artificial energy in Tara and Adi’s relationship on screen, that he forgets one thing: conversations and quiet companionship.

When do these people talk seriously? When do they slow down from driving their jeep along a beach or making out on a high-rise parapet or breaking into a restaurant kitchen or taking food off a stranger’s table at a restaurant, to simply chat?

If it is Ali’s contention that they get to know each other in the spaces in their lives that we do not hear or see on screen, then the problem is this: as a viewer I wanted to know them too, but I came away with a superficial understanding of who they really are.

Ok Jaanu is interesting at first, but as it rolls along it reveals its hollowness, a failing that even the lead couple’s charms and the attractive production design cannot overcome.

Far more engaging than the central relationship is the bond between the elderly owners of the house they are living in, the Alzheimer’s-ridden former singer and her caring husband played ever so sweetly by Leela Samson (who was also in OK Kanmani) and Naseeruddin Shah.

A.R. Rahman’s music for this film is far from being his best. Sunn bhavara is a pleasant melody, but the title track loses some of its appeal in the journey from Kollywood to Bollywood. Even the remix of Humma humma– Rahman’s superhit from Ratnam’s 1995 Tamil blockbuster Bombaybecomes too muted in the effort to be different from the robust original.

Samson and Shah are likeable as the older couple. Kapoor and Kapur are not in the league of Salmaan and Menen, but they do share a nice chemistry that could be better exploited by better writing. That said, the snazzy graphics accompanying the credits cannot camouflage the fact that those credits give second billing to Ms Kapoor although she is the bigger star.  

Genuine liberalism and attention to detail are clearly not this film’s strengths. For one, not a single artist in a small supporting role leaves an impact. And that loud cellphone conversation across a church aisle would have got Tara and Adi thrown out of any real church in India. To know that though, perhaps you need to enter one as part of your research. Just as you need to acquaint yourself better with young people, enter their minds and understand their way of thinking, to portray them on screen with any degree of depth. Ok Jaanu is a surfaceskimmer.

Rating (out of five stars): **

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
137 minutes

A version of this review has been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:





REVIEW 454: JOMONTE SUVISHESHANGAL

$
0
0

Release date:
January 19, 2017
Director:
Sathyan Anthikad
Cast:




Language:
Dulquer Salmaan, Mukesh, Anupama Parameswaran, Aishwarya Rajesh, Innocent, Irshad, Muthumani, Indu Thampi, Vinu Mohan, Jacob Gregory, Shivaji Guruvayoor, Manobala
Malayalam with Tamil


Unlike Helen of Troy, Dulquer Salmaan has not built a reputation for setting ships sailing. Instead he employs his smile-that-could-launch-a-thousand-ships to pull off films that need magnetic leads to make up for their lack of heft. Jomonte Suvisheshangal is not terrible. It is just commonplace. After an amusing first half, it descends into predictability yet is at no point unbearable for three reasons: the young hero’s gorgeousness, the combined charisma of Salmaan and his fellow leading man Mukesh, and the warm chemistry these two men share.

If you are not looking for great depth or originality, then this could perhaps be enough for you.

Director Sathyan Anthikad’s Jomonte Suvisheshangal is the story of millionaire business tycoon Vincent and his irresponsible son Jomon who is too busy spending his father’s money to make a career for himself. Since he is a sweet, harmless chap, his family is indulgent towards him. As is expected, a dramatic turn of events soon compels Jomon to grow up.

The pre-interval portion of Jomonte Suvisheshangal is spent establishing Vincent’s wealth and money-mindedness, and luring us with Jomon’s charms. The youngster’s shenanigans are not distasteful, he is what is called a ladies’ man but his behaviour towards women is not offensive, and the only irritants are some incongruous dancing and the song Nokki nokki ninnuneedlessly inserted into the proceedings, possibly because one song per romantic interest is mandatory according to established formulae. This part of the film is light-hearted, breezy and funny.

The second half is a coming-of-age saga. Here the action shifts from Thrissur in Kerala to Tiruppur in Tamil Nadu. This is where Iqbal Kuttippuram’s screenplay falters. Jomon’s initial work struggles hold out promise, but after a while, matters start sorting themselves out too conveniently. With nothing unique to say beyond a point, no detailing whatsoever in any aspect of the storytelling and no particular insights to offer about the new culture within which the story now operates, the narrative becomes tired.

From here on, Jomonte Suvisheshangal skates along on writing that is thinner than thin ice but is prevented from cracking by the appeal of its two male leads.

The eye-catching locations are well shot, but short shrift is given to all the supporting characters in the story. Because of the space they get, Salmaan and Mukesh display their acting chops despite the limited writing, but the actresses in the roles of Jomon’s girlfriends Catherine (Anupama Parameswaran) and Vydehi (Aishwarya Rajesh) are stuck with playing colourless sketches rather than fully fleshed out people. The problem is not with the screen time accorded to them but the indifferent characterisation. Both Parameswaran who debuted in 2015’s Malayalam blockbuster Premam and the talented Tamil artiste Rajesh deserve better than to be treated as mere pretty asides.

A potentially interesting sub-plot involving a French businesswoman is left inexplicably unexplored. She is shown physically assaulting her Indian contacts, it is even implied that she hit Jomon’s boss and seriously injured him. The fact that this point is left hanging speaks volumes about our collective national post-colonial obsequiousness towards white-skinned Westerners.

Jomonte Suvisheshangal’s lack of substance is particularly disappointing because of Anthikad’s track record. The multiple award-winning director appears not to be resting on his laurels here, but on the safety net that is his lead cast. Mukesh is a fantastic actor. Salmaan – handsome and gifted – is emerging from a year in which he delivered cracking performances in two cracking films, Kammatipaadam and Kali. He could sleepwalk through a role like Jomon and might still make it work. Both deserve scripts that challenge them better than this one does.

After an entertaining start, Jomonte Suvisheshangal dissipates into ordinariness. It is left to Dulquer Salmaan and Mukesh to rescue this overly thin film.

(Note of caution for viewers who understand only Malayalam: the Tamil dialogues in Jomonte Suvisheshangal were not accompanied by subtitles in the hall where I watched it.)

Rating (out of five): *1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
158 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 455: COFFEE WITH D

$
0
0

Release date:
January 20, 2017
Director:
Vishal Mishra
Cast:

Language:
Sunil Grover, Zakir Hussain, Rajesh Sharma, Pankaj Tripathi, Dipannita Sharma Atwal, Anjana Sukhani
Hindi


If you make a lousy film and call it Coffee With D, you do not deserve better than a lazy review playing on “D” and other letters of the alphabet. Director Vishal Mishra’s tale of an Arnab Goswami clone trying to land a television interview with India’s most wanted underworld don is not B-, C- or D-grade. Z is too high a rating for it.

Radio and television star Sunil Grover – best known for playing Gutthi on Comedy Nights With Kapil and now multiple characters on The Kapil Sharma Show– takes on the role of a chap called Arnab Ghosh, whose obnoxiously aggressive journalistic style prompts his boss to shift him from a nightly prime-time slot to an early evening space reserved for a cookery show. The only way he can save his job is to do something sensational that will turn the channel around.

Never mind what the rest of the story is. The acting in Coffee With D is awkward, the sets are tacky, the production quality is amateurish, the editing is haphazard and the writer’s understanding of the functioning of the media is non-existent. This film is an insult to the word cinema, and to spend too much time reviewing it would be an insult to my profession, so let me give Coffee With D the cliched critique it deserves by scanning the thesaurus for adjectives starting with D that can be applied to it. Here goes:

D for Disastrous.

D for Dismal.

D for Doomed.

D for Dreadful.

And oh yes:

D for Dammit, why did I waste 2 hours and 3 minutes of my precious time watching this nonsense?

Coffee With D clearly thinks it is funny, gutsy and insightful. What it is instead is unfunny and of poorer quality than what a smart kindergarten kid might write. Why am I stopping at D alone? There are other letters that throw up words suited to the emotions this film incites:

A for Abhorrent.

A for Appalling.

A for Atrocious.

A for Awful.

G for Ghastly.

H for Harrowing.

H for Heartbreak because three of my favourite character actors from Bollywood agreed to star in it: Zakir Hussain as the gangster the film refers to simply as D, Pankaj Tripathi as his sidekick-in-chief Girdhari and Rajesh Sharma as Arnab’s boss Roy. Why, doston, why?

There’s more:

H for Hideous.

H for Horrendous.

H for Horrid.

H for How weird that “Bombay” is one of the words muted in the film!

R for Revolting when it makes unthinking remarks about rape and bomb blasts.

R for Ridiculously bad.

D for Dawood, the name the film does not have the guts to use.

E for Etcetera etcetera.

Seriously, I am not being clever here to elicit some laughs. The fact is there are thousands of extremely talented people out there who do not get good breaks in films and theatre because they do not have the right contacts, or fortune has not favoured them, or they could not find the money to fund a potentially solid project. Knowing this reality, it is infuriating to learn that a producer actually backed this bag of garbage in its entirety. Coffee With D made me angry because it has managed to come to theatres and get good time slots in prime halls despite being a zero, while some excellent small films never manage a theatrical release.

D for Damn you cosmos, for allowing this injustice.

This is not a film. It is a waste of time.

Rating (out of five stars): -25 stars

CBFC Rating (India):
A
Running time:
123 minutes

A version of this review has been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 456: MUNTHIRIVALLIKAL THALIRKKUMBOL

$
0
0

Release date:
January 20, 2017
Director:
Jibu Jacob
Cast:





Language:
Mohanlal, Meena, Aima Rosmy Sebastian, Sanoop Santhosh, Anoop Menon, Srinda Ashab, Alencier Ley Lopez, Kalabhavan Shajon, Suraj Venjaramood, Sudheer Karamana, Rahul Madhav, Cameo: Asha Sarath
Malayalam


Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol is a sweet, believable film about a middle-class family in Kerala. It chronicles the effect on them of the after-effects of Dad’s mid-life crisis and the inordinate amount of time he spends with his male drinking buddies, our human tendency to take our loved ones for granted, marital infidelity, the meaning of guilt, and the curveballs life throws at us that could seem run-of-the-mill to an observer yet be major crises for those experiencing them.

Mohanlal plays Ulahannan/Unnachan, a grouchy Panchayat secretary obsessed with his work and lost in a boredom of his own making that he then attributes to the daily grind and his wife. Meena plays his unhappy spouse Annieamma/Annie, craving for his affection. Their children Jini and Jerry complete their small home.

There are no melodramatic twists and turns in Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol (translation: When The Grapevines Sprout). It is not that kind of cinematic venture. Yet the plot points in the story would count as high drama if we were to face them in our own lives. Except for a song needlessly stuffed into the narrative when the family takes a vacation, this is what is usually described as a slice of life. The pleasure of watching it comes from the storyteller’s restraint.

Director Jibu Jacob and scriptwriter M. Sindhuraj do not take any overtly revolutionary stance in this film, yet there are baby steps worth noting. Of course we must ask when they – or any major Indian filmmaker – would treat marital infidelity by women as a source of humour and why cheating men are the subject of so many comedies, but cheating women are serious business. They operate within the patriarchal framework that is the playing field of most Malayalam commercial cinema but, for instance, by not stereotyping or lambasting the women that the men in this film have or hope to have affairs with or once loved, they place the onus for the men’s actions on the men themselves rather than looking for women – current wives, current girlfriends, potential girlfriends or ex-girlfriends  – to blame instead.

There is a point at which a couple of parents in Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol become concerned that their child might be sexually active in her teens. That passage is handled with extreme care so as not to take any particular position on pre-marital sex. It seems designed to avoid the anger of those who condemn pre-marital sex and those who do not. The filmmaker appears to have clarity that he is not making a statement on a larger social issue or moralising or being judgmental, but that he is simply recounting how these particular parents reacted in this particular situation. You can therefore take what you will from the episode, depending on your views. While the allusions to the social status of the girl’s boyfriend are needless (a case of reverse classism, perhaps?), the rest is cleverly written and unimpeachable.

On the technical front, Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol is a mixed bag. The cinematography and production design are effective but not extraordinary, except when Pramod K. Pillai’s camera soars to shoot the stunning sights overlaid on the song Punnamada kayal.Bijibal, whose opening track for Maheshinte Prathikaaram was one of the loveliest numbers from 2016, does nothing here to match up to that. Still, I enjoyed Oru puzhayarikil because of the way it is fitted into the storyline and for Swetha Mohan’s amazing voice. Punnamada kayal, on the other hand, was absolutely unnecessary and completely ordinary.

Mohanlal and Meena are fine actors, and deliver understated performances in tune with the film’s tone and tenor (notwithstanding Meena’s over-enthusiastic make-up artist). They are surrounded by strong actors including old hands Anoop Menon, Kalabhavan Shajon and Alencier Ley Lopez playing Unnachan’s friends, Suraj Venjaramood as the Panchayat president and Sudheer Karamana as his corrupt puppeteer.

Rahul Madhav makes an impression in a brief appearance as Annie’s brother as does Sanoop Santhosh playing Annie and Unnachan’s son. Even the littlest role seems to have been cast with care, which explains why the wonderful Asha Sarath’s dignity was sought out for a tiny cameo as Unnachan’s old friend. My pick of the supporting players in large roles are Aima Rosmy Sebastian as the lead couple’s daughter (a young talent to watch out for) and Srinda Ashab as Anoop Menon’s long-suffering wife.

Mohanlal scored a massive box-office hit last year with Pulimuruganin which he played a swashbuckling action hero conquering tigers in the jungle. There are those who contend that collections should silence all naysayers, but the truth is that he is far more believable here as a conflicted, ordinary middle-class husband. As a well-wisher and admirer of this megastar’s great talent, I wish he would seek out more roles better suited to his age and physique in films like Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol. I wish he would realise too that it would only enhance his dignity to act with women his age rather than far younger female stars like Meena. So many layers could have been added to this story with age-appropriate casting. 

That said, Munthirivallikal Thalirkkumbol is a pleasant film, both charming and likeable. It is relatable, insightful and entertaining – a blend that is no mean achievement.

Rating (out of five): ***

CBFC Rating (India):
U
Running time:
154 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 457: RAEES

$
0
0

Release date:
January 25, 2017
Director:
Rahul Dholakia
Cast:


Language:
Shah Rukh Khan, Nawazuddin Siddique, Mahirah Khan, Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub, Atul Kulkarni, Narendra Jha, Sheeba Chaddha, Guest appearance: Sunny Leone
Hindi


Pabandi hi baghawat ki shuruat hai(Restriction is the starting block of rebellion),” says the  voiceover at the start of this film, while commenting on prohibition in Gujarat. It is a simple line, yet so effective within this story and in the larger current national context as India reels under bans, prudishness, increasing censorship of the arts, eating habits and life choices, and prohibition in states where governments are well aware of flourishing gray markets.

This is the kind of writing – straightforward and effective – with which writer-director Rahul Dholakia kicks off Raees. Borne on the shoulders of this screenplay, the first half of the film is taut, pacey, action packed and utterly gripping. As the story takes us through little Raees’ early interest in the illicitalcohol trade, shows us how deeply entrenched the business is in the bylanes of his hometown such that children from ordinary homes become natural collaborators of criminals, and recounts the manner in which the adult Raees establishes himself as an ‘entrepreneur’ with political connections and a social conscience, I found myself unable to take my eyes off the screen for a single second.

The only exasperating aspect of Raees up to that point is that it seems like the heroine is being treated as a good-looking side-show. (As it turns out, she becomes important later, though her husband’s attitude towards her is disquietingly misogynistic, his actions repeatedly verging on violence. The film’s tolerance of his behaviour towards her and rose-tinted view of his other crimes becomes disturbing as it rolls along.)

That said, the narrative in the opening half is purposeful, single-minded in its desire to entertain us yet be realistic to the extent that it is possible within the confines of conventional Bollywood storytelling, and unapologetic about those goals.

So, Ram Sampath’s songs are catchy, relevant to the storyline and well woven into the narrative. The stunts are deliciously amusing in their improbability and heart-stoppingly thrilling. And like every traditional Indian hero, like Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise a few continents away, Shah Rukh Khan too emerges miraculously more or less unscathed from every battering. It does not matter, because Raees’ pre-interval storyline remains packed, and it does not pretend to be anything but what it is: a commercially driven entertainer.

The proceedings in that half are unrelenting, leaving us with little time to ponder over why the hero casually took to crime although there is nothing to suggest that he had no choice or was a congenital psychopath; and skimming over hisquestionable interpretation of his mother’s conviction, “Koi dhanda chhota nahin hota aur dhande se bada koi dharam nahin hota.”

Then comes the second half and Raees loses its way. It is hard to understand why so many writers and directors conceive and execute their films in this fashion. Post-interval, Raees’ story boasts of limited depth, and tries to camouflage this failing with a swagger. The beginning of the end comes with the song Zaalima mindlessly thrown into the narrative immediately after the interval, and it goes downhill from there.

The sad part is that Khan as the titular character is very convincing. SRK has looked graceful and dignified in his filmsstarting with Fan, in which he has made no obvious effort to camouflage his age. It helps that he rocks that beard. I do wish someone would remind him though that he looks so much nicer romancing a heroine closer to him in years.

It has been a pleasure in the past year or so to see Khan allowing the actor in him to subsume the star. In this film, he strikes an uncommon balance between being stylish, stylised and yet restrained.

Raees’ supporting cast is a roll call of some of Bollywood’s finest character actors: Nawazuddin Siddique (yes that is how his surname is spelt in the credits, not as Siddiqui) plays Raees’ bête noir, the dogged policeman Jaideep Ambalal Majmudar, Mohammad Zeeshan Ayyub is in the role of the hero’s loyal lieutenant Sadiq, Atul Kulkarni plays Raees’ first boss Jairaj, and Narendra Jha his later business associate Moosa. Kulkarni gets the first shot at one of the films most wolf-whistle-worthy lines (which is later quoted by Raees): “Baniye ki dimaag aur Miyabhai ki daring, dono hai iske paas.” Mahirah Khan – a star in Pakistan, a debutant here – is naturally easy before the camera playing Raees’ girlfriend and later his wife.

Good actors need good writing and editing on which to peg their craft though, and the post-interval Raees seems not to know where to go in these departments.

One of the positive aspects of Raees, as with last year’s Salman Khan-starrer Sultan and several films in recent years featuring central Muslim characters is that their religious identity does not define them. This is a much-needed departure from the treatment of minority community members in Hindi films until a decade back. Dholakia is not needlessly conscious of his hero being Muslim, as a result of which we get to see him as a person who happens to be Muslim, male, Gujarati and many other things – in short, a human being.  

If only that nuanced approach had been carried into every other element of Raees’ post-interval storyline. Instead what we get is a matter-of-fact account of how A happened in the hero’s life, then B, then C, then D, all the way to Z, with no detailing, no surprises, too much music, too many close-ups, shots that linger longer than they should, all in what seems like an effort to impress. This is unexpected considering that Dholakia is the man who gave us the deeply moving Parzania(2007) based on the true story of a child who went missing in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Raees is rumoured to be based on the true story of the gangster Abdul Latif who operated in Gujarat in the 1980s and ’90s. From information available on the Internet, there is a fascinating tale in there of his association with Dawood Ibrahim and of the police-politician-underworld nexus that allowed him to rise. This film scrapes the surface but fails to take forward what lies beneath. Likewise, the potentially intriguing life-long face-off in Raees between the hero and Majmudar is well begun and could have been the fulcrum of the film, but Majmudar becomes only an intermittent presence after a point. The hypocrisy of governments that introduce prohibition, the politics of riots, the virtues of vicious men all could have been beautifully studied in this film but are not.

The first half of Raees is supremely interesting and filled with promise. Besides, Shah Rukh Khan is a joy to watch in this new, exploratory innings of his career. The second half lets him down though. Style trumping substance is rarely a good thing for a film.

Rating (out of five stars): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
142 minutes 

A version of this review has been published on Firstpost:




REVIEW 458: KAABIL

$
0
0

Release date:
January 25, 2017
Director:
Sanjay Gupta
Cast:



Language:
Hrithik Roshan, Yami Gautam, Rohit Roy, Ronit Roy, Narendra Jha, Suresh Menon, Girish Kulkarni. Guest appearance: Urvashi Rautela
Hindi


It is a fascinating idea: the perfect crime committed by a blind man whose other senses are so sharp that he can do things a seeing person could not. To expand that outline into a full-length feature though would require an investment of thought. Sanjay Gupta’s Kaabil lacks thought and much else.

The Internet tells me Kaabil’s budget was Rs 50 crore-plus. I am flummoxed by where that money went since the film’s production quality and special effects are so abysmal that I suspect there may be talented software engineers who have pulled off better student assignments. The sets look unintentionally stagey, Mumbai’s familiar external locations look plastic (as if the stars were super-imposed on existing footage), and scenes that are completely CGI-dependent – such as a fire caused by a blast in a godown – are poorly done.

(Spoilers ahead for those who have not seen the trailer)

All this mediocrity is wrapped around Rohan and Supriya Bhatnagar, he a dubbing artist, she an NGO employee. Both are blind. When Supriya is raped, the police look away because her rapists are well connected. Rohan decides to avenge her, knowing that investigators would find it hard to imagine a blind man being capable(kaabil) of meticulous planning and physically demanding execution. The bulk of the film is devoted to the manner in which Rohan gets back at the men who got after his wife.

(Spoiler alert ends)

First, for a film that is meant to be a thriller, I can think of only one OMG moment – and that one has nothing to do with Rohan’s schemes. It comes when a significant detail of the crime is revealed to Rohan by the rapist’s powerful politician brother. Rohan’s revenge is far less gasp-inducing than way better cinematic works we have already seen about persons with disabilities (PwDs) who possess phenomenal abilities.

(Another spoiler alert) The Mumbai Police should feel deeply insulted by a film in which a criminal does not bother to wear gloves but is not found out because cops do not lift fingerprints off the crime scenes. Nope, it does not occur to anyone to do so, not even that seemingly intelligent senior officer (Narendra Jha) to whom the chap had given advance intimation of his intent to commit those crimes.

Likewise, a woman commits suicide but the police do not do even a cursory check of her room, which would have led them to discover her suicide note. I know, I know, the Indian police are notoriously inefficient (Exhibit No. 1: the Arushi Talwar case), but these celluloid police are worse than anything we know of their real-life counterparts. (Spoiler alert ends)

The absurdly amateurish writing is far less objectionable than the film’s pretence that it cares about women. Kaabil is a perfect illustration of the male gaze. It is purportedly the story of a husband and a wife, the story of a woman who was raped and the man’s vendetta, but what it is in truth is a sympathy fest for the husband while the wife remains an ephemeral figure whose mindset and trauma the film barely explores.

Supriya is not a being unto herself. She exists in Kaabilsolely so that the hero can fall in love with her and then display his machismo by punishing those who wronged her.

It is also terribly jarring to see an ‘item’ song in which the camera lasciviously examines a near-naked woman’s body in the middle of a film claiming to object to sexual violence against women. Such insensitivity can only come from a filmmaker feigning concern. For the record, my position on objectification is not as black and white as anti-feminists may lazily assume. For more on that, please read this article which is among the many I have written on the subject: The Naked Truth. Context matters.

Finesse in thriller writing and technical polish may not matter as much to some viewers as Hrithik Roshan does. Kaabil is a letdown on that front too. The thing about Roshan is that when he is good, he can be very very good, when he is bad, he can be Yaadein-level bad. The best that can be said about his performance as Rohan in Kaabil is that he has, in the past, been worse.

If you have not suffered Yaadein, FYI that is one of the films that marked the beginning of the end of Subhash Ghai. Roshan hammed his way through it. This beautiful-looking star needs a meticulous director to control him as an actor. His father Rakesh Roshan, Ashutosh Gowariker with Jodhaa Akbar and a couple of others have managed him well so far. He needs to seek out more like them. It is hard to understand how Roshan Senior, as the producer of Kaabil, tolerated this averageness.

It does not help Roshan Junior that Yami Gautam delivers a far more controlled performance as Supriya. There is a marked contrast between her work and his distractingly laboured effort at playing blind. Gautam needs to be commended for doing a fair job with her role despite the limited writing of her character.

The word “kaabil” is used with two meanings in this film: “worthy” and “capable”. The first is articulated in the title song “Main tere kaabil hoon, ya tere kaabil nahin” which here translates into, “Am I worthy of you or am I not?”

The film’s primary preoccupation is the other meaning though: Is he “capable”of ‘protecting’ his woman? Sanjay Gupta may argue that he is turning stereotypes of PwDs on their head with his portrayal of an extraordinarily able blind man, but his definition of kaabil when placed in the context of disability simply perpetuates patriarchal notions of manhood, masculinity and what it means to be an ‘aslimard. Read: physically strong, physically flawless.

It is disappointing that this film should come from the producer who directed and co-wrote Koi… Mil Gaya, which starred Hrithik Roshan. C’mon Messrs Roshan, you are better than this.

The kindest review I could give Kaabil is to say it is not unbearable. What it is is commonplace, unremarkable, unthinking and shoddy.
  
Rating (out of five stars): *

CBFC Rating (India):
UA
Running time:
139 minutes



Viewing all 572 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>