Quantcast
Channel: annavetticadgoes2themovies
Viewing all 573 articles
Browse latest View live

INDIA’S FILM CENSORSHIP SYSTEM / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

$
0
0
CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT

The Censor Board’s ratings for mainstream Bollywood films reveal a gender bias and star obsession, over and above the extreme conservatism of which it is often accused

By Anna M.M. Vetticad


By the time you read this, chances are that the heated discussions about Anurag Kashyap’s Bombay Velvetwould have died down, to be replaced by chatter about Aanand L Rai’s Tanu Weds Manu Returns. Chances are too that in the midst of the din about the quality of Kashyap’s film, a crucial point would have been lost: that its gruesome violence was rated U/A by India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The U/A certificate indicates that it is deemed fit for unrestricted viewing, though parental discretion is advised for children below 12. Producers prefer U/A to an A (adult) rating which affects collections by limiting a film’s potential audience.
Let me make it clear: this column is not against violence on screen. Unless a film glorifies, romanticises or advocates violence (Bombay Velvethas not done any of this) no one should curb a director’s freedom of expression. The issue here though is that the CBFC is consistently inconsistent.
Back when Gangs of Wasseypur 1& 2were released with A ratings in 2012, there was cause for celebration, because the films’ narrative steeped in expletives, crime and bloodshed was expected to incur the Board’s wrath. These assumptions were based on the Board’s track record, which included a refusal to clear Kashyap’s remarkable debut feature Paanch in 2001 on charges that it glorified crime, indulged in double entendre and bore no positive social message. The absurdity of the accusations lay in the fact that Paanch, quite to the contrary, was about the pointlessness of violence.
Over a decade later, GoW was handled by a different Board headed by classical dancer Leela Samson whose tenure (April 2011-January 2015) marked the dawn of a new progressiveness in the CBFC. Samson’s Board was not without flaws, mostly though because of the dated rules under which even liberals are compelled to operate and because the overall system desperately needs an overhaul. Despite these constraints, films like GoW were released.
However, then too, as it is with the abysmally regressive present Board headed by Pahlaj Nihalani, and in fact long before Samson entered the picture, the ratings for mainstream Bollywood films reveal two aspects of India’s Censor system: a gender bias and a star obsession. First, over the years, films by directors who are perceived as ‘artistic’ and ‘serious’ — Kashyap being an example — have been far more likely to get scissored or rated A or both, than films by directors widely considered more mass-oriented and/or mainstream.
Second, films revolving around big-league commercial male stars tend to get gentler treatment than those with younger, less established actors or those primarily associated with off-mainstream cinema. Third, female-centric films seem to be viewed through an entirely different lens from male-centric projects, possibly because they are automatically seen as ‘serious’. Take for instance the A-rated Rani Mukerji-starrer Mardaani(2014). When actor-producer-director Aamir Khan was informed about Mukerji’s reported intention to challenge the A, he was quoted as saying he agrees with the rating because young children should not be exposed to the kind of language and violence depicted in the film, adding: “Most absurd and strange things are shown in some films which are U or U/A. I cannot believe how it is shown in the film. I think we should be careful about what we are exposing our children to.” (Source: ibnlive.com)
That’s a curious statement, considering that Khan appeared to have no qualms about the U/A certification for his blood-spattered 2008 film Ghajiniin which he played a ferocious, murderous hero. Ghajini featured far more gory aggression depicted far more graphically than anything in Mardaani. Yet it was deemed fit for children whose parents thought it suitable for their young wards.
The pattern of the Censor response to women-led films cannot be a coincidence. In a year when Bombay Velvethas received kid-glove treatment, the Anushka Sharma-starrer NH10 was certified A. Yes, NH10is bloody. No doubt too that NH10 and the comparatively mild Mardaanimerited As. The question is: why the double standards?
As already mentioned, women are not the only victims of this hypocrisy. Three years after Ghajini and Aamir Khan got lucky, the John Abraham-starrer Force— with its unrelenting scenes of blood-spurting, bone-crunching police brutality — got away with a U/A. In 2015, while Bombay Velvetheadlined by Ranbir Kapoor has been awarded a U/A, Badlapurwas certified A. Can it be happenstance that Badlapur starred the popular but still emerging youngster Varun Dhawan and gave equal significance to the darling of indie projects, Nawazuddin Siddiqui?
Can it be just chance that Badlapur’s director Sriram Raghavan remains best-known for his non-massy films Ek Hasina Thi (albeit a Saif Ali Khan-starrer) and Johnny Gaddaar? Can it possibly be a fluke that the only two U/A ratings in Kashyap’s filmography of 14 years as a feature director have gone to No Smoking (2007) with John Abraham and Bombay Velvetstarring the hottest hero of this generation?
If India’s film rating norms are to be believed, it would seem that Kay Kay Menon’s highly believable, wild, amoral character in Paanch is objectionable; but not the violence of Ranbir Kapoor’s Johnny Balraj, including a close-up of him wrapping his arm around a man’s neck to crush and twist it. It would seem that a policewoman bashing up a criminal in Mardaanicould ruin our children; but a policeman committing many more grievous acts of violence in Forcecannot. Just saying.

(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)

(This column by Anna MM Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on May 23, 2015)
Original link:
  
Note: This photograph was not sourced from The Hindu Businessline



REVIEW 333: WELCOME 2 KARACHI

$
0
0
Release date:
May 28, 2015
Director:
Ashish R. Mohan
Cast:

Language:

Arshad Warsi, Jackky Bhagnani, Lauren Gottlieb
Hindi


It could have been titled 2 Idiots. Welcome 2 Karachi is the story of a foolish Indian duo who get caught in a storm while sailing in the ocean and are washed up on a beach in Karachi. Shammi (Arshad Warsi) and Kedar (Jackky Bhagnani) encounter jehadis, local intelligence officials and the CIA while on Pakistani soil. They also accidentally blow up a Taliban camp, and are caught in a tug of war between India, Pakistan and the US, with each of the latter two countries claiming the men as their own in a bid to get credit for the destruction of those Talibs.

As you can imagine, the basic plotline is brimming with potential for a whopper of a comedy. The presence of Warsi – one of Bollywood’s best – as one of the leads is further cause for optimism. Sadly, these positives fade into insignificance in the face of a loosely written script, Bhagnani’s desperate attempts to act and the lackadaisical, seemingly disinterested direction by Ashish R. Mohan who earlier helmed the Akshay Kumar-starring superhit Khiladi786 in 2012.

Not that Mohan can be blamed for the presence of young Bhagnani in the cast – the child is, after all, the son of this film’s producer Vashu Bhagnani. Ever since he made his screen debut in 2009 with Kal Kisne Dekha, Bhagnani Junior appears to have been trying his best to become worthy of the space before the camera that his father’s wealth has got him. He continues to work out to achieve those ample biceps and that trim torso, but no gym in the world can relax an actor’s facial muscles. After six years of trying, he ought to face the truth that he is not cut out for this.

Warsi is occasionally listless but for the most part throws himself into the film with his trademark gusto. He is, however, done in by direction so directionless that it feels as though Mohan let go of the reins early on in Welcome 2 Karachi.

Slapstick comedy can be fun. Considering that the India-Pakistan relationship is this film’s hunting ground, it had the potential to be insightful and satirical even within the slapstick genre. For that to happen though, it needed to avoid wandering all over the place. That, unfortunately, is where the film fails miserably. In the absence of crispness in its storytelling, Welcome 2 Karachi is a stark reminder to those who are dismissive of effective farces that it is not easy to do what Rohit Shetty and David Dhawan do, on the occasions when they do it well.  

Considering the absurdity of the Indo-Pak reality, there are many situations in this film that are hilarious at the concept level. The execution though is decidedly dull, with a few exceptions such as a scene in which Shammi loses all self control and drops his pretence of being a Pakistani in a crowd of Pathans, while watching a cricket match between the two countries.

Sure there is some stereotyping in the film, but it is good natured and well meant, with potshots being taken at people from both sides of the border. To object to that would be churlish, especially since the ultimate goal of the film seems to be to establish that though governments are bad, people are not, and mushkil waqt main, padosi hi padosi ke kaam aayega (in times of difficulty, it is neighbours who can be most relied upon to come to a neighbour’s aid). Now if only good intentions were the key to good cinema, Welcome 2 Karachi would be a winner.

There are many scenes in which the filmseems on the cusp of becoming something special, but each time it fails to ride over that cusp. As it stands, W2K’s narrative is looser than the drawstrings on a pair of pyjamas that are falling off their wearer.

A song in the film has lyrics that go thus:

O yahaan se wahaan se chal
Bach ke nikal jaa re
Warna kisi tarah na jaan bach paayegi
Chal bhaag nahi toh
Chal bhaag nahi toh
G pe laat pad jaayegi
Chal bhaag nahi to G pe laat pad jaayegi
Bhaag nahi to saali band baj jayegi
Chal bhaag nahi to G pe laat pad jaayegi
Bhaag nahi to saali band baj jayegi.

The polite translation and précis of those lyrics would be: if you don’t run to save your life, you will get a kick in your … err … backside. Perhaps there’s a hidden message in there for potential viewers.

Rating (out of five): *

CBFC Rating (India):
U/A
Running time:
132 minutes 



REVIEW 334: DIL DHADAKNE DO

$
0
0
Release date:
June 5, 2015
Director:
Zoya Akhtar
Cast:





Language:
Anil Kapoor, Ranveer Singh, Priyanka Chopra, Shefali Shah, Rahul Bose, Zarina Wahab, Anushka Sharma, Farhan Akhtar, Aamir  Khan, Ridhima Sud, Vikrant Massey
Hindi



’Tis the season for an unconventional take on relationships in Bollywood. Just weeks after director Shoojit Sircar’s Piku came to theatres with the story of an exasperating father and his indulgent daughter, Zoya Akhtar brings us Dil Dhadakne Do(DDD) which revolves around a philandering opportunist, his doormat of a wife who is too hypocritical or perhaps too lethargic to shake him off, and the two children they’re both bent on suffocating. The standard term for such folk these days is “dysfunctional family”, but that begs the question: which family is not?

Anil Kapoor in DDD plays Kamal Mehra, an industrialist keeping up the appearance of wealth with an extravagant lifestyle even as his company teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. He cheats on his wife Neelam (Shefali Shah) who too is obsessed with maintaining a façade of happiness. Both prioritise this outward show and the survival of the business over even their kids’ welfare.

Matters come to a head on a 10-day cruise to Europe organised for relatives and friends to mark the Mehras’ 30th wedding anniversary, with the children – Ayesha (Priyanka Chopra) and Kabir (Ranveer Singh) – rebelling against their oppressive, dictatorial parents. For the record, Ayesha is a successful businesswoman in her own right, living in Mumbai with her husband Manav Sangha (Rahul Bose) and mother-in-law (Zarina Wahab), while Kabir works for his father’s company and lives in the family home in Delhi.

From her very first film, Zoya Akhtar has shown a penchant for a naturalistic style of storytelling. Events in both Luck By Chance and Zindagi Na Milegi Dobaraflowed at whatfelt like a pace that mirrors real life, without contrived attempts at twists and turns to heighten the melodrama. Ms Akhtar is part of a small but expanding band of Bollywood film makers whose works remind us that drama is intrinsic to all relationships and there is no need to artificially up the ante for effect. DDD follows the same route, with just one difference: a crazy, slightly silly (and confusing) climax that appears improbable on the face of it, but is so clearly deliberately designed to unapologetically be what we call “filmi” that I suppose it works as a kinda sorta cheery ode to conventional Bollywood madness. 

At almost 171 minutes, DDD is longer than most Hindi films are these days. It is to the credit of Akhtar and the pace she sets from the word go, that not one of those is a minute of flab. Each member of the film’s star-studded cast – including supporting players Anushka Sharma, Farhan Akhtar, Rahul Bose and Zarina Wahab – and every single character get their due, without the effort to do justice to them appearing heavy-handed in any way. Even the narrator Pluto Mehra works for the most part, not counting one somewhat preachy portion where he discusses differing social attitudes towards men and women who sleep around. But you know what, when you are that huggable, you are allowed one passing slip-up.

Aiding the director in maintaining her engaging narrative is the superlative cast. Anil is superb while striking a fine balance that calls for him to be despicable yet hard to hate. It is a challenging role but he plays it as if it is who he really is. God bless this era in Bollywood when a senior actor of his stature can get the role of a hero in a film without having to degrade himself by playing a character much younger than his real-life age.

When a veteran is on a roll, it’s tough to avoid being overshadowed, but Ranveer manages that feat, delivering a remarkably controlled and nuanced performance as Kabir. It helps that he has an incredibly appealing screen presence which he puts to good use here. This is a young man who is both a born actor and a born star. 

The story belongs to these two gentlemen, not because they get more screen time – they do not – but because they have more interesting, layered characters. Despite the disadvantage, Shefali and Priyanka shine as conflicted women, although it requires a considerable suspension of disbelief to digest a 42-year-old Shefali playing Mom to actors who are 29 (Ranveer) and 32 (PC). Can you imagine a male star of the same age – say, John Abraham – playing father to those two?! In MCP Bollywood, even in a liberal story like this one, that would be unthinkable!

The most charming, endearing relationship in this film filled with relationships is the brother-sister bond. Kabir and Ayesha’s unflinching support for each other and perfect understanding of each other is enough to warm the stoniest heart. It is also nice to see two major mainstream stars playing siblings rather than a romantically involved couple. The last time I remember that happening was with Shah Rukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai in Mansoor Khan’s Josh.

That casting decision is one of many reasons why DDD is an unconventional Bollywood film. Another is that it has four leads – the family quartet – and none is given more importance than the other. DDD is also that rare Hindi film with an ensemble cast. Among the many exciting actors in smaller roles are debutant Ridhima Sud and TV’s Vikrant Massey (from Balika Vadhu among other serials) who earlier played Ranveer’s friend in Lootera. The two make their mark as offspring of warring families who are among the Mehras’ invitees on their anniversary cruise.

In its own way, DDD is also a gentle slap in the face of misogynists who stereotype feminists as being: (a) only women and (b) people who overlook the flaws of women. Quite to the contrary, the two great feminists of this film are Kabir and Sunny, Ayesha’s old flame played by Farhan. While Kamal Mehra and Manav Sangha are skewered for lording it over their wives, the women are not let off for allowing themselves to be manipulated when they had a choice to do otherwise.

I wanted to applaud – actually, I did – when Kabir calls out his mother’s cowardice in pretending that she was unaware of her husband’s affairs. It reminded me of Amitabh Bachchan’s character Bhaskor in Piku pointing out to his sister-in-law that her frustrations about her life of professional non-achievement were her fault since it was she who chose – despite Bhaskorda’s encouragement and cooperation – not to take up a job which offered her a pay higher than her husband’s salary. Let us not forget that patriarchy survives on the collaboration of such women.

Another noteworthy aspect of DDD is the absence of community stereotyping. The Mehras are Punjabis but hey look Bollywood – they do not yell “Balle balle” or break into the Bhangra at the drop of a hat. Imagine that!

Of course there is a tiny bit of gender stereotyping elsewhere: the gossips in the film are all women, their men are never shown gossipping. C’mon Zoya, you know better than that!

Music directors Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy deliver a relevant and pulsating background score although a majority of the songs in DDD are disappointingly tuneless. Pehli Baar is the only somewhat memorable melody of the lot.

Oddly enough, despite this I enjoyed all the songs within the framework of the film because they fit the situations in which they come up and because the choreography is thoroughly enjoyable, atypical Bollywood. Particularly worth mentioning are the Broadway-style Girls like to swing featuring a cute-as-a-button Anushka who reminded me of Renee Zellwegger in Chicago and the infectious energy of Gallan Goodiyaan in which the entire supporting cast – yes all of them – throw themselves into the dancing with a joie de vivrethat is irresistible. Who knew that Rahul Bose and Parmeet Sethi could swing like that? You go, boys! And what a joy to see a grey-haired Anil dancing wildly in that same song.

DDD is not faultless, but barring that nutty ending, I had a rollicking good time watching it because it is funny, believable and sweet, the cast is lovely and most of all, because now that I’ve seen it, I’ve fallen in love with both Ranveer Singh and Anil Kapoor.

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

PS: Good job with the guest appearance, Aamir.

CBFC Rating (India):
U/A
Running time:
171 minutes



ANIL KAPOOR INTERVIEW / PUBLISHED IN MAXIM INDIA

$
0
0
“I WAS ONCE KNOWN AS A BORING MAN, ULTIMATELY THAT BECAME SEXY”



MERE KO LAGTA HAI KI MERA HAMESHA TIME CHAL RAHA HAI

Thirty-sevenyears into his film career, Anil Kapoor seems unstoppable. He stars in two of this year’s major summer releases: Dil Dhadakne Do and Welcome Back. He is also currently producing and acting in a second season of his TV serial 24,the Hindi adaptation of the hit American franchise in which he played a pivotal role in the penultimate season. As an actor-producer across media, a respected face of Indian cinema abroad, a globe-trotter, fitness freak, father and husband, Kapoor says in this exclusive interview that he is having more fun than anyone he knows.

By Anna M.M. Vetticad

You travel so much that it’s almost like planes are your second home. How do you deal with jetlag in such a way that you do not look exhausted?

When you’re as passionate about work as I am, you manage yourself both physically and mentally to stay fit and focused on your work in spite of the travel. Jetlag also depends on how physically fit you are. The fitter you are, the less the jetlag.

So give us some practical guidelines.

This interview will become about jetlag. (Laughs) Okay, here is a small example. I’m just back from Los Angeles. When I left LA, they were serving dinner on the flight but since it was breakfast time in India, I insisted they give me breakfast. That was a way of psyching myself that it’s morning although it was night there. After breakfast, I had lunch. Before landing in Mumbai, I didn’t eat anything. Instead, I came home and had dinner. That’s one way to do it. Then obviously I keep walking on the aircraft, I shower on the flight. Despite all this, jetlag is inescapable. But if you want to do good work and don’t want the tiredness to show, you will find ways around it.

Do you ever feel like being lazy?

I do. Sometimes when I get up in the morning I feel, ‘Not today ya.’ But before my mind can wander in that half-asleep phase, before I get into that negativity, I signal my brain to wake up. So I go for a workout immediately. Once the blood circulation starts because of the workout and endorphins are being pumped into the brain, you’re completely rejuvenated and positive thoughts return.

You speak of passion for work. But film sets can be so boring, with stars waiting for an eternity between shots. How do you sustain your interest during shoots?

It’s about finding that one thing in each project that makes it exciting for you. It could be that the film is completely out of the box, you’re venturing into unknown territory so there is a little anxiety. You want to do something nobody has done, so that keeps you alive even when the work per se gets boring. It could be the role, the filmmaker, the script, the money. All these things can motivate you. It depends now how many times you do it for money, how many times for art, how many times for passion for your work. The degree of all those things must be taken into consideration. Some people get motivated only with money, some get motivated only with art. Both are wrong. According to me it has to be a combination of all these things.
So it does require an effort to keep the passion going on a film set, does it not?

Effort is an understatement.

Yet the outside world often assumes it is an easy job. Do you encounter that?

Not so much now, but I feel my daughter Sonam encounters it a lot. People feel it’s a glamorous job, she’s looking beautiful, walking the red carpet, doing films with the best directors, constantly being photographed and she’s got it all easily. But it’s nerve-wracking hard work. I feel really bad and sad for her because of how hard she has to work. In fact, girls have to work harder than us. If we get up at 7am to get ready, they get up at 5. Everything for them – makeup, hair, clothes, getting ready, undoing what they’ve done – is more complicated and time-consuming than for us.

Were you able to empathise with women co-stars before Sonam entered films?

Yes, and I warned her repeatedly that it would not be a cakewalk. She was aware of what she was getting into, but in spite of that there were surprises and shocks.

How many years have you been in the film industry now?

I started shooting for my first film in 1978, so that’s 37years.

So you are completing your fourth decade in films…

Acchha fourth? Oh God, dangerous yaar! (Laughs for a few minutes) Sounds very old.

It depends on how you look at it. It’s either, ‘Oh my I’m so old,’ or ‘Wow! I have 37 years of work experience!’

Ya. I look at it as 37 years of work experience. Not work, it’s more life. As an actor, life experience really is very handy in your craft.

You say Sonam had to deal with surprises in the film industry although you had warned her of the pitfalls. What about you? Do you still encounter surprises?  

Oh yes. Earlier, people were not into huge contracts, but it was rare for anyone to back out of even a verbal commitment. Now, you can’t rely on a person’s word alone. You can’t blame people, because the stakes have become so high. So these kind of surprises are there, that things you might feel are green lit are actually not. The “ho jayega” (it will happen) attitude that people used to have 7-8 years back is now gone. Everything now has to be written down and planned. It’s better to do that.

There are certain filmmakers still living with that old kind of thinking and that too is a  surprise, that yaar abhi bhi yeh log usi tarah kaam kar rahey hai, kya hoga inn logon ka? (These people are still working in the old way. What will become of them?) You can see that the future is bleak for them, that they will suffer, but they don’t listen.

Have you learnt lessons from watching your contemporaries like Jackie Shroff and director Subhash Ghai whose careers have not survived?

I’m slightly biased. I don’t look at them that way, because I have an emotional connect with them. For me to say things about them will be chhota muh, badi baat.

Are you being diplomatic?

I swear to god I’m not being diplomatic. I’m just being sensitive.


At any point in your life have you feared that everything that you have now, the stardom, the money, the comforts could all go away?

(Laughs) You might call it arrogance, but I’ve never had the fear of not getting work.

You never thought that after the age of 50 or 60, you may not get good projects?

Destiny always favours the brave. That’s why I’ve always been ready to fail. I’ve always taken decisions which people felt were risky, but I considered sensible and thought they would add to my longevity. I can see certain contemporaries, juniors or seniors who get this feeling ki hamara time chal raha hai (it’s my time now), let’s make hay while the sun shines. I never had that feeling. Nothing has come easy to me. Everything I’ve got has come to me through hard work, commitment and integrity. I knew that no one can stop me from continuing my hard work, so why should work stop coming to me? I could have gone wrong with this assumption, but I felt secure in the knowledge that I know my craft, I can deliver and I’m sincere.

I would sometimes tell my friends, yaar when will it happen to me that I can say, ‘Yaar yeh film mein maine bilkul mehnat nahin kiya aur yeh superhit hui’? Yeh luck kabhi kabhi hona chahiye. Ek-aad film toh miley mujhe aisi jaha mujhe lagey, yeh yaar socha bhi nahin thha aur yeh blockbuster ho gayee. (Will I ever be in a position that I can say I did not work hard at all on a film yet it became a superhit? One should have such luck at least occasionally.) This has never happened to me. For every bit of success, every rupee earned, I’ve had to slog. So I told myself, I’ll keep on doing that and of course I’ll keep on reinventing myself to stay relevant. I also track people who have been consistently successful for years, read about them and 
get inspired.

For instance?

Sean Connery. He was known for being a sex symbol and playing Bond, then he made a brilliant transition to a range of other kinds of films, but remained sexy and a big star. Clint Eastwood made a transition to being such a relevant film maker. Look at his energy levels. At 84, he has delivered one of the biggest successes of his life –American Sniper has become the highest grossing war film ever. And he keeps making films every year. His brain is still ticking. People like him really inspire me – you know, people who have been huge stars, who have not wasted their stardom away by not looking after themselves or by not reinventing themselves.

Whose mistakes have you learnt from?

(long silence) Rajesh Khanna. He could have remained a star for a much longer time. Some of his films, especially the ones he did with Hrishikesh Mukherjee such as Anand, look relevant even today. He was a good actor, but slowly he put on weight, acquired the harmful trappings of stardom such as surrounding himself with the wrong people. The same applies to Marlon Brando – the greatest actor, but he didn’t look after himself. You learn from these people.

I’m also fortunate to have a second generation in my family with whom I can discuss these matters. I’m blessed because I gave importance to the institutions of marriage and family, so I’m reaping the harvest now. I too could have, you know, found easy ways of being popular.

What is “popular” a euphemism for?

Meaning, trying to get into the media by being a bad boy because that kind of person is more attractive to read about, and getting distracted by things that are temporary.

Do you mean genuine philandering or creating an image of being a philanderer?

A combination. So initially being known as a boring man, but ultimately that itself becoming attractive and sexy. At a certain stage, it feels cool to be late, arrive at premieres with arm candy, have multiple relationships, smoke, drink. It adds to your persona. The media and youngsters like it. But I knew these things could harm my longevity and I’m now reaping the harvest for decisions I took back then.  

So the media thought you were boring at one time?

Not the media so much as the industry and friends. For instance, I had a large house compared to my friends and colleagues so it was always open house, like a 24-hour coffee shop. Everybody would be sitting around having fun but at a certain time I’d excuse myself and be sleeping in my room to get up in the morning to go for work. That discipline and professionalism have paid off. That’s why I’m still in a position to say no to people, to make my choices of films and filmmakers I want to work with.

Your role in the American TV series 24 was well-received, but wasn’t it a huge risk to produce and act in a Hindi version, considering that major mainstream Hindi movie stars have not had success acting in TV serials?

No, no, I knew it will work. Look, Woh Saat Din was a film most newcomers would never do, but me and my brother were convinced it would work. Mr India was the first really big mainstream superhero Hindi film and the leading man was invisible for more than half the film, but we felt it would work. You have a certain instinct. This is the difference between people who have not given successes and people who have. And 24 has been successful in so many countries anyway. My confidence paid off. With the Indian version, we got audience segments who don’t traditionally watch TV to watch us. Still, the first season was very niche but hopefully our fan base will increase in the coming seasons.
Did you produce Gandhi, My Father because you thought it was a great project that you respect and you want it to be part of your body of work, or did you think it had the potential to make money too?

I felt I might be able to break through internationally with it. That’s why I made it in English and in Hindi. It was a good film, it won three National Awards, and although it got mixed reactions from critics, I was happy with the final cut. But it must have lacked something because everybody cannot go so wrong. Somewhere it didn’t connect, kuchh toh gadbad thhi, but I can’t pinpoint what.

Is it a regret?

No. When you get bogged down by anything, then it becomes a regret. I don’t go into that area at all. I move on. And what happened is, immediately I got Slumdog Millionaire. So I tell my youngsters and a lot of people who are in this business ki when you work honestly and you give your heart and soul to one project, it’s not necessary that you will get what you really deserve from it. If you get bogged down you might not give your 100 per cent to the next opportunity that comes along, yet it might be the other film which will give you what this film did not. With me in this case it happened back-to-back. I tried my best to make Gandhi, My Father as international as possible, I took it to Miramax, Sony Classics, Venice, Cannes, Toronto, it was rejected everywhere. I showed it to every distributor, they would say yes and then back out. Suddenly I get this small film which wins about 150 awards and becomes a huge success. Somewhere I feel that whatever hard work I put into Gandhi, My Father was reciprocated tenfold with Slumdog Millionaire.


So you have this ability to mentally disassociate yourself from a project that didn’t work out and throw yourself into the next project?

Within seconds. Within hours.

How do you do that?

Mind, mind, mind.

Tell tell tell how.

It’s the mind. You see, if you’re sincere, hard-working, committed, professional, talented, you know your craft, obviously you’re gonna get a job. People need people to deliver. Woh dhoond nikaalenge aapko (People will seek you out).

At any point in your career, have you felt the way you said you’ve seen colleagues feeling, mera time chal raha hai (it’s
 my time now)?
Mere ko lagta hai ki mera hamesha time chal raha hai (I feel that every time is my time). Even when people said things, I just kept on working.

When did people say things are not working out for you?  

I don’t know. I never could pay attention to them. I would just look at them and smile and say, “Really, you think so? Saala bewakoof (Bloody idiot).” (Laughs) Genuinely.
You were hoping Gandhi My Father would be an international breakthrough. Does this mean you were always interested in an international platform?

Who isn’t? Everybody who told me back when Slumdog happened that they’re not interested are all into it now. All of them who said, ‘Nahin, hum India mein khush hai (No, we’re happy in India),’ sab kar rahey hai (now they’re all doing it).

Why did you get so much flak in India for your role in Mission Impossible 4?
I approached that choice very internationally. I had a good role in the film, MI4is the highest grosser of the MI series and it gave me great exposure. Internationally people loved me in it. As a matter of fact, everybody was convinced that I almost saved the third act. The role was supposed to be serious but I completely changed it. Instead of playing him as a one-dimensional bad guy, I made him a multi-dimensional, really funny, little crazy kind of character. The producers were happy with my contribution to the film. In spite of that I knew there could be problems in India. After all, even Slumdog Millionaire was criticised by people here, including some big stars.
You mean Amitabh Bachchan?
Yeah. These things happen. But Slumdog became so hugely critically acclaimed that everybody had to shut their mouths. MI was of course not critically that acclaimed but a hugely successful film. I’m happy with my work in it and I’m happy I did it. But I remember telling Tom (Cruise) that this will be the reaction of a few people in India. 
Hmm, you think it was just a few people?

Or whatever it is, there will be some reaction, there might be some people who might want me to do Tom Cruise’s role. Hopefully I will, you never know, and I respect their opinion, but it doesn’t really affect me because the positive feedback I got from the world was much more. If I’d got negative feedback from the world too and the film had not been a huge success then I would have felt differently.

Was it not a mistake to promote it as much as you did, to not warn people it was a small role? Someone wrote to me on Twitter saying what disappointed him was that when he went to book tickets at a Mumbai hall, there was a standee promoting it as “Anil Kapoor’s film”, so he expected you to have a big role.

I didn’t promote it. And I tried to tell people about the length of the role. Somewhere I feel the producers, the studio were also experimenting (with the marketing), and it did help the business. I did try my best to say, “Make it into a guest appearance”, but at least my experience helped others to learn.
You mean other Indian movie stars, especially Bachchan who made it a point to inform us that his role in The Great Gatsbywas tiny?

Yeah.
You think Bachchan learnt from your experience?

I don’t know, but I think it was a smart way to do it.

So you told Tom Cruise that Indians would want you doing his role in MI? Is that happening?

Of course.
Anil Kapoor as the lead in an MI film?

Not the lead because internationally I look at myself as more of a character actor. Over here too, I’m playing the lead, but a lead who does strong characters in ensemble films. Over there the respectability of an actor is seen differently. My vision is that after 15-20 years I would do roles of the kind Morgan Freeman is now doing in Hollywood. Even after 15 years there will be certain roles I will be able to do there because things are different there. Twitter doesn’t go mad there because Brad Pitt did one scene in 12 Years A Slave.
What is your state of mind right now?
Always looking out for something more exciting, something out of the box. And with this there is a certain calm. I have so many priorities — my children, my production company, the films I’m making, the films my daughter is making, my son’s film, time spent with my wife. And all of us are having a lot of fun. I don’t think anybody is having the kind of fun I’m having. Nobody. Pata nahin, I feel very blessed. There are always surprises in life, kuchh bhi ho sakta hai, but so far so good.

(A shorter version of this interview by Anna MM Vetticad appeared in the May 2015 issue of Maxim magazine.)
Photographs courtesy: 
(3) Photograph of Anil Kapoor with Tom Cruise arriving in Mumbai for the Indian premiere of Mission Impossible 4: Spice PR

Note:These photographs were not published in Maxim

REVIEW 335: HAMARI ADHURI KAHANI

$
0
0
Release date:
June 12, 2015
Director:
Mohit Suri
Cast:




Language:
Vidya Balan, Emraan Hashmi, Rajkummar Rao, Suhasini Mulay, Amala Akkineni, Prabal Panjabi, Namit Das, Madhurima Tuli, Sara Khan
Hindi


This film should not be called Hamari Adhuri Kahani (HAK). A far more appropriate title would be Hamari Aadhi-Adhuri Khokli Film Ki Kahani.

To be fair, Mahesh Bhatt’s story for HAK is not without merit. In particular, the motivations of one character – the terror accused Hari Prasad (played by Rajkummar Rao) – are fascinating, because the extent to which humans will go to get revenge is always worth exploring. It is also worth exploring, as HAK fleetingly does, the motivations of women when they cover their bodies in numerous announcements of their marital status (the mangalsutra/thaali maala, red bangles, sindoor,  wedding ring, the works), take on their husband’s surnames and carry babies through nine months of energy-sapping pregnancy only to round it off with painful labour before blithely handing the child over to be named after the father and socially be deemed his heir, not hers.

Neither of these is an element to be ignored. Sadly, an outdated storytelling style, a surfeit of cliches, an alarming degree of literalness in its metaphors (especially the references to Radha-Krishna and Sita), some conflicted and laboured ‘feminism’ and terrible dialogue writing end up ruining the potential of this Vidya Balan-Emraan Hashmi-starrer.

Bhatt Senior’s basic plotline is interesting, but he fleshes it out poorly. Given the story’s lack of heft, director Mohit Suri’s deliberately languid pace becomes tedious early on. Worse, writer Shagufta Rafique gives HAK some of the most laughably bombastic dialogues to emerge from mainstream, high-end Bollywood in a while. She is clearly aiming for an approach that was popular in 1970s-80s Hindi cinema. Here’s the thing, Shagufta-ji… First, human beings in the real world have never spoken that way, but we were willing to indulge in a collective national suspension of disbelief for a while because it was fun to do so. The fantasy that was enjoyable back then is not so much any more though ’cos we’ve outgrown that era. If you do wish to revisit it, you need the combined panache of writer Rajat Aroraa and director Milan Luthria who pulled it off in Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai (2010) and The Dirty Picture(2011). Mohit and Shagufta, you have delivered some entertaining films together in the past – 2011’s Murder 2, for instance, was neat. But the dialogue-baaziof HAK and its half-hearted direction kill the film.

Why does a hard-as-nails, apathetic police officer unexpectedly decide to help Vasudha Prasad (Vidya) escape her husband so that she can be with Aarav? Kyunki yeh kaaynaath bhi sachche pyaar karne waalon ki madad karne ko taiyyaar ho jaata hai (because all of Creation steps up to aid the cause of true love), the gentleman in uniform explains.

Why is billionaire Aarav Ruparel (Emraan) so in love with Vasudha? Because bahut saare patey thhey mere, par ghar tumne dilaaya (I had many addresses, but you got me a home), he says.

Woven around such lines is the sketchy tale of Vasudha, abandoned by her husband a year after marriage yet clinging – literally – for dear life to her mangalsutra. Why? Because our values are racing through our veins(i.e. nass-nass mein), she says. Sad and pretty Vasudha arranges flowers for a living in a luxury hotel where Aarav arrives as a guest one day. After two meetings, much gazing and some borderline stalking, as floral scents float through the air from Mumbai to Dubai, he develops behad ishq and mohabbat (boundless love) for her.

Aarav is a business wizkid with his own dukhibachpan ki kahaani. He also has a weird reason (Oedipal, though unintentionally so, I suspect) for being drawn to Vasudha: she reminds him of his mother. Combine his back story with her miserable present and a contrived climax involving Bastar, and the result is HAK.

Vidya and Emraan have a flair for bombast-by-design as you can see from their track record (he was in Once Upon A Time…, they co-starred in Dirty Picture). Here though they are completely wasted, with little to do but pose around between those hackneyed conversations and speeches.

The film has evident pretensions to epic emotions, but extreme close-ups of the leads’ faces, her tears and her curls cannot compensate for a weak story. In fact, Vishnu Rao’s long shots of some attractive locations (an overhead view of Mumbai, a garden in Dubai, the sands of the desert city) get tedious beyond a point in this soulless film. Rao shows little imagination in capturing Bastar, though even his regular shots of a spectacular locale are better than the glaringly fake computer imagery used to conjure up a field of flowers in crucial scenes in rural Chhattisgarh.

Suhasini Mulay though gets the worst of the cinematography: when her face is caught in tight close-ups, she looks like a woman possessed by a spirit rather than an elderly relative offering kindly advice to Vasudha. It’s nice to see Amala after so many years in a Hindi film (as Aarav’s mother), but the stand-out member of the supporting cast is Prabal Panjabi (playing Aarav’s employee Apurva) whose inexplicable screen presence gives us one of HAK’s most unwittingly comical scenes: in which he declares his friendship and (platonic?) love for Aarav.

As for the film’s seeming ‘liberalism’, the unspirited Vasudha dramatically transforms into a modern-day Durga in a late scene with her husband to articulate some very valid thoughts about a woman’s identity being inextricably linked to her husband’s, but the point is entirely lost in the speechifying, the trite imagery of Durga’s idols passing behind her just then (Vasudha is very conveniently in Kolkata at the time) and the film’s completely contradictory stance until then.

No doubt women like Vasudha do exist – there is nothing wrong in portraying this reality. The problem lies in the fact that the film itself seems to endorse the stupidity of such women, going by the symbolism of a naari as a man’s slave appearing repeatedly through the narrative till then: Vasudha cleans her husband’s feet when he turns up at her house after five years, a filthy, bedraggled creep demanding her affection and loyalty; later she falls at Aarav’s feet on discovering that he intends to save that same abusive husband.

Then of course there is the not-so-minor point that early on in the film when Vasudha dashes off to save Aarav from a fire in a hotel, he yells at the hotel’s security staff with this spectacularly sexist line: ek aurat ko mujhe bachaana pada! A mere aurat! Imagine that!

Spectacularly sexist and spectacularly boring – that’s a lethal combination. It hurts to see Vidya in such a film.

Rating (out of five): *


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

REVIEW 336: ABCD 2 (ANY BODY CAN DANCE 2) (3D)

$
0
0
Release date:
June 19, 2015
Director:
Remo D’souza
Cast:


Language:
Prabhudheva, Varun Dhawan, Shraddha Kapoor, Lauren Gottlieb, Raghav Juyal, Sushant Pujari
Hindi


The first half of Any Body Can Dance (ABCD) 2 seems to be precisely what it set out to be: a tribute to musicals of the Broadway and West End – not Bollywood – style, meaning: a very slim yet not insubstantial story woven through a series of great dance routines. No better introduction is needed to the intended promise of this film than that superb performance by Prabhudheva in a bar  to the song Happy hour hai.

And then it peters out for a sizeable part of the second half.

In a film of this genre, a complex storyline is neither expected nor necessary, but you do need to wrap up loose ends and maintain an unrelenting momentum with your dances. ABCD 2 does not. In some aspects, it seems not to be even trying. Fortunately, after faltering post-interval, it picks itself up to do justice to some of the most fantastic dancers ever to be assembled for a Hindi film.

No, ABCD 2 is not quite what it could have been, but it’s only fair to point out that when the going is good it’s so bloody darned good, that I’d rewatch it without batting an eyelid.

Director-choreographerRemo D’souza’s ABCD 2 is sort of a sequel to ABCD, the sleeper hit from 2013 that featured Prabhudheva as dance guru Vishnu struggling to cope with the politics in his troupe and the games being played by a rival. “Sort of a sequel” because Prabhudheva is back as Vishnu but other actors from the previous film return playing different people.

Vishnu is an alcoholic and a genius who is pursued by disgraced Mumbai dancer Suresh (Varun Dhawan) to train a troupe for a world hip-hop championship in Las Vegas. Suresh’s team had earlier been thrown out of a major Indian contest on charges of plagiarism. Desperate to regain his honour, Suresh courts Vishnu until he relents. The road to the finale in Vegas is filled with potholes, not the least of them being Vishnu’s past, but the central characters, including Suresh’s childhood friend Vinnie (Shraddha Kapoor), refuse to give up on their passion for their art.

This being a film directed by a choreographer with multiple choreographers in the credits and several career dancers in the cast, it is not surprising that the dancing in ABCD 2 often boggles the mind. The cinematography is designed to inspire awe towards the dancers. Particularly interesting is the camerawork for the song If you hold my hand, deliberately designed to make Shraddha, Varun and Lauren Gottlieb seem like Lilliputians in a magnificent natural setting.

Both the cinematography and the choreography are well-suited to a 3D film. In fact, the choice of 3D was clearly not casually made. At many points in the film I felt I was part of the audience on screen. On other occasions it seemed like the audience on screen was seated among us.

The cast too is well chosen. Prabhudheva’s elastic body is part of Indian cinematic lore. Though he does not get enough scenes to showcase his legendary skills in ABCD 2, when he does dance he threatens to bring on a national epidemic of goosebumps.

Varun’s films so far have repeatedly showcased his considerable dancing talent. Though it is easy to separate the god from the disciple when Suresh matches steps with Vishnu, it is still evident that this young man is one of contemporary Bollywood’s best in that department.

The surprise package here is Shraddha. We already know she can act. Well. ABCD 2 shows us that she is a fluid, graceful dancer. It might be an over-statement to describe her as incredible, but it is obvious that she has the potential to get there. In fact, it would have been nice to see a greater focus on Vinnie in many more of the dance items in this film. 

The star dancer of ABCD 2’s youngsters though is Lauren playing the half-Indian Olive (not Rhea, the character she played in ABCD). The impact she makes is a measure of her considerable dancing skills, considering that she makes an appearance late in the second half. Yes the supporting players in Vishnu’s troupe are all amazing – in particular Raghav Jhuyal, Sushant Pujari and Dharmesh Yelande – but the one who chews up the screen with her moves during a solo act is Lauren. Tere naam ka tattoo is one of ABCD 2’s highlights.

The centrepiece of this film though is Hey Ganaraya which the entire team performs in Vegas. It must rank as one of the most beautiful stage dance sequences ever seen in Bollywood, complete with a stunning musical composition and rich costumes. This worthy tribute to Lord Ganesh is a brilliant Indian adaptation of hip hop which is an all-American freestyle dance form.

I wish the film had ended here. It did not.

I wish I could end this review here. I cannot.

ABCD 2 has too many flaws to be ignored. Firstly, too long a portion in the second half feels like a Las Vegas tourism ad. The dancing too, which is stupendous until the clock strikes interval, gets sterile for a while, with the early post-interval performances seeming more technically polished than drawn from the heart. All that changes, thankfully, with Olive’s arrival.

Lauren’s fire underlines a question begging to be asked: why do Remo’s films as director (F.A.L.T.U., ABCD, ABCD 2) have space for only one or two women in large male dancing line-ups. C’mon Remo, women are not exceptions among humans, they are a norm, just like men.

It’s inexplicable too that in a film filled with lovely songs by Sachin-Jigar and imaginative costumes, the director chose to end with a manipulatively patriotic number in which the men are togged out in awkward-looking outfits. Their semi-toplessness somehow does not work (despite the nice bodies on display), and the deshbhakti is just too high strung.

On the story front, the film seems often to be on the verge of telling us why Suresh indulged in plagiarism, yet it does not. How can a cheat be painted as a sweet soul without any explanation? Was the imitation unintentionally done at a sub-conscious level because he idolised the source and immersed himself in their work? Suresh and Vinnie seem to think he was unfairly accused, yet they don’t say why. This glaring loophole contributes to ABCD 2’s less than satisfactory feel.

An air of suspense is also sought to be built around Vishnu in Vegas, with him speaking on the phone to someone about money being arranged, yet we never find out why he needed that cash.

While the screenplay by Tushar Hiranandani and Remo can be faulted on these fronts, elsewhere the writers seamlessly inject sweetness into the proceedings, especially the Olive-Vinnie relationship which threatens briefly to blow up into a clichéd love triangle but does not.

Similarly, I just love the fact that a big deal is not made of Vishnu’s roots. Considering the cosmopolitan nature of Mumbai, it’s strange that there are so few non-North Indian, non-Marathi characters in Mumbai films. From an industry that might once have caricatured Vishnu, it’s refreshing to see that a song and dance is not made about his being a south Indian, or for that matter about his heavily accented Hindi.

It’s just as nice to see notoriously non-inclusive Bollywood feature a significant deaf-mute character (Punit Pathak) in the story. It might have been even better if we could have understood exactly how he operates. There are actually some interesting technicalities involved here, as I learnt from watching Neerav Ghosh’s Soundtrack starring Rajeev Khandelwal as a DJ who loses his hearing, and the film on which it was based, It’s All Gone Pete Tong. ABCD 2 leaves us with this grandiose explanation: if you feel the music anybody can dance.

If only a teeny bit more attention had been paid to the writing of ABCD 2, this could have been a great film. Well, even with its blemishes, it is remarkably entertaining. Now waiting for ABCD 3.

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

CBFC Rating (India):

U
Running time:
154 minutes



AGEIST BIASES AGAINST ACTRESSES / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

$
0
0
TOO OLD TO BE SEEN WITH?

Age remains a dirty word for women in commercial cinema worldwide, despite occasional flashes of liberalism

By Anna M.M. Vetticad

In an ideal world, being a Bond ‘girl’ would not be seen as a fillip to the filmography of an established, talented actress. This is not an ideal world though. Today’s reality is that mass-targeted cinema is still largely focused on male characters and while age is not a disadvantage for major male stars, even the fittest of fine actresses are sidelined much earlier in their lives than men.
In this scenario, the next James Bond film Spectre and Dil Dhadakne Do(DDD) merit a discussion. Hollywood sprung a surprise on us just months back with the announcement that Monica Bellucci will play Bond’s romantic interest in Spectre. At 50, Bellucci is the oldest actress to get that role, according to Western media reports, and she is even four years older than her co-star Daniel Craig, which would not be news-worthy information but for the fact that a premium is placed on female youth in glamour industries worldwide.
Here in India, it should not have made news that Bollywood star Anil Kapoor was playing a grey-haired, 50-plus father of grown-up children in DDD. But it did, because senior male actors in India tend to play characters much younger than their real age. While Kapoor deserves the kudos he is getting for evolving beyond that, it’s telling that nary a whimper has been raised about the casting of a much younger Shefali Shah as his wife.
Because Team DDD seems to be a progressive lot, it is more important than ever to ask: was no actress of Kapoor’s age found suitable for that role?
Allow me to get briefly literal and mathematical to illustrate my point. Shah is 42 and Kapoor is 58, according to various online sources. In the film, they are parents to a girl and boy played by 32-year-old Priyanka Chopra and 29-year-old Ranveer Singh. If Shah was really their mother off screen, she would have been 10 at her daughter’s birth and 13 when her son was born. Biologically you know that’s a stretch, legally of course this would mean kids born out of wedlock or in a child marriage. You could have dismissed these calculations as fussy and silly if it weren’t for the fact that the screenplay writer is clearly not oblivious to this matter and makes a subtle effort to justify the casting by pointedly assigning the following ages to the four principal characters: Dad 52, Mum 48, kids mid-20s.
When reports earlier emerged that 48-year-old Madhuri Dixit-Nene and 51-year-old Sridevi had turned down Shah’s role, the media was critical of them. The two “got queasy” and Shah “has taken up the challenge”, said a report in a leading national daily. A dear film critic friend is of the view that “Madhuri was being un-adventurous” with her decision. But no one has asked if any Bollywood director would have dared to offer the role of Priyanka and Ranveer’s father to John Abraham (who is the same age as Shah), Akshay Kumar (who is less than a year younger than Dixit-Nene) or the three Khans who all hit 50 this year.
Longevity for female stars is not a favour being granted to them, but every major film industry in the world is guilty on this front, though some are worse than others.
In India, not only are older actresses given limited roles by producers and writers, but older heroes want to romance heroines young enough to be their daughters. It’s as if actresses their age are not worth being seen or worth being seen with.
In his last three films, Tamil legend Rajinikanth has starred opposite Sonakshi Sinha, who is 36 years his junior, Anushka Shetty (31 years younger), Deepika Padukone (age gap: 35 years) and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (age gap: 23 years).
In interviews I’ve done with them over the years, both Kamal Haasan and Salman Khan insisted they are merely giving in to audience demands by acting with younger heroines. But how can you claim viewers have made a choice, when you almost never give them that choice? And if the audience does indeed make a regressive choice, could you at least have the courage to claim helplessness rather than endorse their illiberal view?
Unlike several Hollywood heavyweights, Indian actresses have rarely been critical of this phenomenon, partly because not every woman is convinced of the need for gender justice, but mostly because it is risky for them to question the status quo in their respective male-dominated industries (which are, let’s admit it, even worse than Hollywood).
Not that gentleman feminists have it easy. It has been four years since Prithviraj Sukumaran, then 29, gave an interview to Asianet in which he bravely called on his senior colleagues in the Malayalam film industry, Mohanlal and Mammooty, to “start playing their age”. Fans of both stars, gender chauvinists and status-quo-ists are still skewering him for the comments.
Speaking up is always a lonely business at first. It is time more men and women slammed film industries worldwide for turning age into a dirty word for actresses but a badge of honour for men. No, it is not a big deal that a 50-year-old woman will romance Bond. And no, Madhuri was not being “un-adventurous” by rejecting DDD; she was simply doing what any sensible male star of her stature and age would do.
(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)
(This column by Anna MM Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on June 20, 2015)

Original link: 

Photograph courtesy: (1) Spectre– Sony Pictures Entertainment (2) Dil Dhadakne Dohttps://www.facebook.com/DDDTheFilm

Note: This photograph was not sourced from The Hindu Businessline


REVIEW 337: BELASESHE

$
0
0
REVIEW COMING UP REVIEW COMING UP REVIEW COMING UP REVIEW COMING UP



REVIEW 338: MISS TANAKPUR HAAZIR HO

$
0
0
Release date:
June 26, 2015
Director:
Vinod Kapri
Cast:


Language:
Annu Kapoor, Ravi Kishen, Om Puri, Sanjai Mishra, Rahul Bagga, Hrishita Bhatt
Hindi


Just reading this film’s credit rolls is enough to bring on an attack of the giggles. When they’re at their best, and given a good script, the four leading men of Miss Tanakpur Haazir Ho have killer comic timing. As luck would have it, the writing and acting hit the bull’s eye all the way up to the interval.The result is unmitigated comedy in the foreground without being insensitive to the tragedy in the background, of a young woman forced into marriage with an old man who gives vent to his frustration over his sexual impotence by physically abusing her.

Striking that balance is an art, and writer-director Vinod Kapri has a steady hand on his brush in the first hour.

The woman in question is Maya (Hrishita Bhatt), wife of the ageing and corrupt pradhaanSualaal Gandass (Annu Kapoor). Maya finds solace in the arms of a village youth called Arjun (Rahul Bagga) whenever her husband is away from home. The wily Gandass and his sidekick (Ravi Kishen) have a third cohort in their dubious games: the local holy man (Sanjai Mishra).

So far so good. The reason why the film works up to this point is that while it does evoke laughter in the first half, it does not seek to do so at Maya or Arjun’s expense. The gags are derived from mocking the villains or having a chuckle at the eccentricities of the locals.

Around interval time though, a chain of circumstances leads to Arjun being falsely accused of raping a buffalo, and that’s when it all goes downhill. From that moment on, as the situation turns grim all around, Vinod seems unsure about what tone to go with. He appears to want to stick to comedy, but does not have the finesse to handle such a grave subject through that genre.

Worse, the film seems unsure about whether bestiality is a grave subject at all. It even gets confused about what the issue at hand is. I thought the combined themes were spousal abuse and systemic corruption until a voiceover in the end announced that Miss Tanakpur was a film about the frivolous cases that crowd Indian courts. A fabricated charge of bestiality was a poor example to pick then, since there is little awareness about this crime in India and a majority of the audience would probably not have a position on it. As a consequence, the impression created – irrespective of the intent – is that the very accusation of a man raping a buffalo is a joke.

Does Team Tanakpur believe that such sexual perversion does not exist or is bestiality not to be deemed a perversion at all? Or do they think human beings should be allowed to do as they please with animals?

It is clear that the film does not want to make light of domestic violence or make wisecracks about rape in general. Its position on bestiality though is less clear, and it does seem at times to be amused by the phenomenon. Sadly, it ends  up trivialising both. Having enjoyed the first half of Miss Tanakpur Haazir Hovery much, it feels bad to say this, but methinks there is a special place in hell reserved for folk who make light of sexual crimes.

I’m not turning this review into a lesson on bestiality. Suffice it to say that having sex with animals is outlawed in some parts of the world (India included) while others have debated the matter. Miss Tanakpur Haazir Ho could have sparked off a discussion on the subject, but in its confusion about the tone it should take and in the absence of a commitment to the cause it seems to be espousing, it ends up being a lukewarm film.

Let’s be clear about this: it is both possible and acceptable to use humour to throw light on the most sombre of themes. Doing so, however, requires incredible skill of the kind Roberto Benigni displayed when he set an entire comedy in a concentration camp in Italy during World War II, in his lovely multiple-award-winning 1997 film Life Is Beautiful. More recently, (though not on a par with LIB) Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg used laughter to take the mickey out of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in the highly controversial The Interviewlast year.

Step 1 towards pulling off such a blend is conviction. Step 2 is courage of conviction. Step 3 is great writing abilities. Miss Tanakpur Haazir Hofalters at Step 1. What a lost opportunity it is.

Rating (out of five): *

CBFC Rating (India):

U
Running time:
141 minutes


Photograph courtesy: Effective Communication

REVIEW 339: GUDDU RANGEELA

$
0
0
Release date:
July 3, 2015
Director:
Subhash Kapoor
Cast:




Language:
Arshad Warsi, Amit Sadh, Aditi Rao Hydari, Ronit Roy, Rajeev Gupta, Dibyendu Bhattacharya, Amit Sial, Brijendra Kala, Sree Swara Dubey, Achint Kaur   
Hindi


Last week’s release Miss Tanakpur Haazir Hostruggled to tell a serious story through the medium of comedy. The director of that film would be well advised to watch Guddu Rangeela. This week’s big release is a satirical thriller and consequently a roller-coaster of sorts, swinging from laughter to tears to hope to laughter to heartbreak to seething rage and then back to laughter again, unobjectionable for the most part, and largely staying focused on its central theme: the stranglehold that khap panchayats have on rural societies and state-level politics in Haryana.

For that feat alone it is worth watching.

That’s not all. Among the other reasons that make Guddu Rangeela supremely watchable, there is Arshad Warsi, an actor so charming, so likeable and so natural before the camera that his mere presence on screen is worth the price of a ticket even for a bad film (which this one is not).

Arshad here plays a small-time singer whose stage shows are a front for his work as a small-time crook. Rangeela’s partner in crime is his much younger brother Guddu (Amit Sadh). Their bête noir is the local politician Billu Pehelwan (Ronit Roy). The three get embroiled in a kidnapping that involves a teacher called Baby (Aditi Rao Hydari), a goon called Gora Bangali (Dibyendu Bhattacharya) and the caretaker of a bungalow in Shimla (Brijendra Kala).

Director Subhash Kapoor is credited with Guddu Rangeela’s story, screenplay and dialogues. He has a smooth storytelling style. Satire is his MO as we already know from Phas Gaye Re Obama and Jolly LLB. And he has a feel for the real India, which was most evident in Jolly LLB’s small-town courtroom shorn of all the glamour, bombast and cliched posturing that mainstream Bollywood has lent to the Indian judiciary. There was no “dhaai kilo ka haath” in sight there; only fumbling lawyers, a judge who would not stop eating and Arshad’s warm smile.

If only Subhash had stuck to his strengths – humour and realism – Guddu Rangeela would have been a flawlessly smooth ride. Sadly, he occasionally dilutes the film’s impact with elements that don’t fit the overall tone. For instance, the two romantic songs thrust into the proceedings, one per woman in the lead cast as if that’s a mandatory requirement. I’m not campaigning here for a songless Bollywood, but for songs suited to the narrative, like the hilarious “mowdern” bhajan Maata ka email that Rangeela sings at the start and the delightfully kitschy title track.

The humour in Guddu Rangeela is harmless, with one exception. It is unlikely that if a woman in the film had been raped, we would have been given a scene featuring her friends laughing at her wounded vagina. Why then is it okay to make a joke about a man who has been similarly violated? I understand what the director was trying to do there – he was showing us friends trying to lighten the mood around a man in agony. It might have been a good idea to devote more thought to that situation though, considering that the real world too tends to react with amusement when confronted with the reality of sexual assault on men. That scene is a marked contrast to the inoffensive nature of the rest of the film about which the worst thing that can be said is that it ends with a sexist joke about ghosts and wives already publicised in a trailer.

It’s also hard to understand the compulsion to serve up a love story whenever a woman is  around. It’s as if a female presence must be justified with a romantic angle. The liaison between Guddu and Baby here is incongruous and contrived, since there’s little chemistry between them, they barely speak, they have nothing in common and nothing can explain the ‘relationship’ that blossoms apart from an assumption some people seem to make that when a physically attractive human male and female are in the same frame, lowwwe is inevitable. Fact: it is not.

Far more interesting is the chemistry between Arshad and Amit. Rangeela and Guddu are sweetly in sync and well-suited to the older man-younger man bonding at the heart of the story.

The two of them and other motifs scattered through the film are deliberately designed to be reminiscent of Jai and Veeru in Sholay. The motorbike with the sidecar, the background score and the long-drawn-out climactic aerial shot of the dustbowl that is the Haryana countryside – it’s both amusing and endearing to see the film maker’s ode to one of the greatest Indian gangster films ever made, considering the contrasting tenor of the two films.

A word here about Amit... No actually he merits a paragraph. In a journey that has included TV, the small part a journalist in Maximum(2011) and one of the leads in Kai Po Che(2013), this young actor has displayed potential worth watching out for. In the mildly crude, buffoonish Guddu, it is impossible to spot the sedate Omi from Kai Po Che. Here’s looking at you, kid!

The scene-stealer among the supporting cast is Rajeev Gupta who was so impactful in tiny roles in the Saheb Biwi aur Gangsterfilms that it’s hard to understand why we don’t see more of him in Bollywood. Ditto for Sree Swara Dubey whose charisma was memorable in a brief appearance in D-Day (2013). She is noticeable here even in a fleeting role. He is a hoot as the corrupt cop Gulab Singh, delivering the world’s funniest Antakshari scene in partnership with Amit.

Aditi Rao Hydari is the only one who looks lost. Brijendra Kala delivers a pleasant change from the comical bit part player he has been in too many films. And Ronit Roy is suitably menacing.

For the most part then, Guddu Rangeela remains engaging because of the balancing act it achieves between its grim subject and its light touch. It also repeatedly throws up twists when you are not looking for any. This continues until the plot becomes a stretch towards the end, right from the point when a woman delivers a feminist sermon to a murderous panchayat – so believable, na? Then it turns out that Guddu and Rangeela’s seemingly  grand scheme to corner Billu Pehelwan had feet of clay. And oh yes, their accomplices turn up to support them in a shootout in the end, but we get no inkling of how they figured out where the two would be.

All complaints about Guddu Rangeela though are overshadowed by what’s worth recommending in it. Even when the film flounders, Arshad and Amit remain immensely watchable. Rangeela and Guddu never fail to elicit laughs or tug at the heart strings although, as the title track tells us, “Dono pakke ddheet hain / Aansu peete neat hain…” Such likeable rascals, those two!

Rating (out of five): **3/4

CBFC Rating (India):

U/A
Running time:
124 minutes



REVIEW 340: BAJRANGI BHAIJAAN

$
0
0
Release date:
July 17, 2015
Director:
Kabir Khan
Cast:



Language:
Salman Khan, Harshaali Malhotra, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Kareena Kapoor Khan, Om Puri, Rajesh Sharma, Sharat Saxena, Adnan Sami
Hindi


I can’t remember the last time I enjoyed a Salman Khan film so much.

Oh yes, it was Dabangg back in 2010 when director Abhinav Kashyap, Salman, Sonu Sood and the rest of the team struck a fine balance between being playful yet not stupid. Five years later comes director Kabir Khan’s Bajrangi Bhaijaan(BB) in which an excessively dramatised, play-it-safe finale does not kill its overall impact as a heart-warming entertainer.

The story had the potential to be terribly over-done: a six-year-old Pakistani girl called Shahida gets lost in India when she comes visiting Nizamuddin Auliya’s dargah in Delhi with her mother. She chances upon the good-hearted, naïve Hanuman devotee Pavan Kumar Chaturvedi a.k.a. Bajrangi who is constrained in his efforts to help her by the fact that she is mute and too young to write. When he figures out that she is from Pakistan, his attempts to legitimately get her home fail. So he decides to personally transport her across the border and to her family.

Now imagine this core concept in the hands of director Anil Sharma who gave us that India-Pakistan screamfest Gadar: Ek Prem Katha starring Sunny Deol in 2001.

Better still, don’t pain yourself by imagining that. Thank god instead for Kabir. The director of Kabul Express, New York (my favourite in his filmography) and Ek Tha Tiger, does an unobtrusive balancing act almost throughout BB. This film has none of the hollering or populist demonisation of our neighbour that spoilt the moving love story at the heart of Gadar. Nor does it awkwardly deify all Pakistanis in the interests of superficial political correctness. A thumbs up for that and so much else, Kabir.

As with all Salman’s films, BB too gives him the maximum screen time in comparison with his co-stars. As with most of his films, he brazens his way through this one too on the strength of minimal acting skills and oodles of charm. He was cute and likeable in Dabangg, in this film he is completely overshadowed by the supporting cast. Salman has been slow on his feet in films in the past five years, but Kabir has used his star attraction wisely here, giving him only one major song-and-dance sequence to shoulder and no scenes in which he has to race about unrealistically.


The list of scene-stealers in BB is led by Harshaali Malhotra playing Shahida a.k.a. Munni. Yet another great job by casting director Mukesh Chhabra. Not only is she incredibly huggable, this tiny debutant can also act. She is sweetness personified but she does not rely on that innate quality to get by, nor does Kabir over-cutesify her as directors of child actors are prone to doing.

Kareena Kapoor Khan plays Bajrangi’s supportive girlfriend and Delhi-based teacher Rasika. Though she is present in less than half of BB– and what a crying shame that is! – this fine actress does full justice to her role of a strong and broad-minded woman in trying circumstances.

Playing Pakistani TV journalist Chand Nawab, Nawazuddin Siddiqui enters the picture almost one-and-a-half hours into the narrative and walks away with the film. He owns the screen every single time he appears, which is why it is ironic when in that scene in which Chand and Bajrangi finally discover the name of Shahida’s village and Chand breaks into a celebratory dance, the camera zooms into Salman and the kid, cutting Nawaz out for a while. His dialogue delivery, his laughter, a rousing PTC (piece to camera) and that fleeting moment when he leans over to tap a colleague’s shoulder – every second that we see him is evidence of his genius. 

BB is blessed with other strong supporting actors too, among them Rajesh Sharma as a Pakistani police officer and Om Puri in a brief but memorable role as a Muslim clergyman in Pakistan.

What’s nice about BB is that it doesn’t rest primarily on its hero’s popularity as most Salman films do. V. Vijayendra Prasad’s story is affecting, timely and carefully crafted considering the hyper-sensitivity of elements in both major religious communities portrayed here. Kabir’s dialogues are for the most part bereft of bombast and intermittently humourous.

DoP Aseem Mishra not only delivers extravagant visuals in naturally beautiful settings, but also turns run-of-the-mill canvases into something special. I particularly enjoyed those shots of Munni, Bajrangi and Chand on a bright yellow bed of corn in a mini truck (though I confess I’m not sure corn would be transported without its natural casings in real life).

Though Pritam has not created any extraordinary song here, most are enjoyable while they last. Selfiele le re is particularly unmelodious, but all is forgiven in the face of the way Bhar do jholi meri is utilised to take the narrative forward when it is performed in a dargah in Pakistan featuring singer Adnan Sami in a guest appearance.

More than the music, it is the lyrics of some of the songs that leave an impression. I thoroughly enjoyed both the writing – by Mayur Puriand the enactment of Chicken Song, which goes thus: Thodi biryani bukhari / Thodi phir nalli nihari/ Le aao aaj dharam bhrasht ho jaaye…

The situation quietly weaves in a message for vegetarians who demand segregation from non-vegetarians. In fact, apart from the overt lesson about India-Pak and Hindu-Muslim amity, what is interesting about BB are the many such neat asides touching upon various issues from media indifference towards positive news to a woman defying patriarchy, all without sermonising. Note, for instance, Rasika’s refreshingly non-DDLJ response to her autocratic father’s ultimatum to Bajrangi to get a house in 6 months if he wants to marry her.

That being said, there is much in this film that defies logic, but those flaws are overshadowed by the emotional pull that had me rooting for Shahida, Bajrangi and Chand throughout the second half. I confess though that the over-wrought climax almost ruined it for me, stretched as it was to breaking point, with too much use of slow motion, not a single situational possibility left for after “The End”, and the director’s balancing act between communities becoming strained for the first time. I cannot tell you what happens, of course, but it did make me wonder what we would get if Kabir remade Balu Mahendra’s Moondram Pirai/Sadma with Sridevi and Kamal Haasan. Would he allow Sri’s character to leave without knowing that Kamal is the one who had helped her while she was suffering from amnesia? Come back and read this question after you see the film.

Again without giving anything away, I could not help but wonder if under the present dispensation in India, where Hindu fundamentalists hold far greater sway than Muslim fundamentalists, a liberal film maker felt compelled to ensure that if he shows an Indian Hindu making a move towards saying Allah haafiz (Bajrangi never actually utters the words) then he had better pre-empt any offended sentiments by ensuring that this is immediately followed by a Pakistani Muslim screaming out the words Jai Shri Ram– more than once. Perhaps the prevailing negativity in our country has led me to over-think this, but I did wonder about it.

It’s a good thing this scene came after I had already dissolved into a puddle of tears as I watched Bajrangi Bhaijaan. My vision of that long-drawn-out climax is clouded by the tears and laughter that preceded it, by the touching transformation of the prejudiced and insular Bajrangi as a result of his encounter with Shahida, and by those two rockstars Harshaali and Nawaz.

Rating (out of five): ***

CBFC Rating (India):

U/A
Running time:
159 minutes


ROMANTICISING RAPE / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

$
0
0
THE RAPE OF AVANTHIKA

Bahubali features one of the longest scenes of romanticised symbolic violation ever seen on screen. Why are we as a nation not angered by it?

By Anna M.M. Vetticad


She, a brave warrior, lies on the banks of a lake, falling asleep with her slim hand in the water. Unknown to her, he — an absolute stranger — paints a flower on her wrist.
Furious on discovering the drawing, she sets out to find out how it got there. He unleashes a serpent on her from behind, and while she stands frozen, he — still a stranger — etches another bloom on her shoulder before disappearing from the scene.
Enraged at the assault, she takes off in search of the offender. When they finally meet face to face, he grabs her, and then comes a sexual dance as he pushes and pulls her about, unties her hair against her will, strips her of her practical fighter’s clothing and skilfully transforms the rest of her outfit into more ‘feminine’ garb. He forcibly smears natural dye on her lips to redden them and lines her eyes with the essence of crushed berries. At this point, she glimpses her transformed self in a sheet of water, and quivers coyly before their dance continues. She finally falls asleep in his arms.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a woman is tamed. (Applause)
This scene featuring Prabhas and Tamannaah Bhatia appears in director S.S. Rajamouli’s box-office-busting Bahubali, released in the original Telugu and Tamil, and in multiple dubbed versions last week. It is a visually spectacular film with an engaging story rich in mythological references. Sadly, that’s what makes it dangerous because it has the potential to gain legitimacy among more viewers and to reach a far wider audience than an ugly, unpolished, unintelligent, unimaginative, un-entertaining film.
This aggressive display of ‘love’, in particular, is set against a gorgeous landscape with gentle music playing in the background. The beauty of the scene is designed to lull us into an acceptance of its insidious imagery and message, an acceptance that is bound to attract at least some reactions such as “stop nitpicking”, “have you lost your sense of romance?” and the standard “chill, relax, it’s just a film” to this column.
Actually, we can’t afford to “chill”. Certainly not when human society is still grappling with the meaning of consent in the matter of romantic and sexual relations. Prettified though it has been, the lead couple’s mating dance in Bahubali is unequivocal in its contention that it is okay to fool around with a woman without her knowing, or to force yourself on her when she resists, because that’s what courtship is all about.
If you are among those who are touched by this scene, permit me to plant the seed of a thought in your head. In your mind’s eye, if you replace the handsome Prabhas with Shakti Kapoor (or another actor who usually plays villainous roles), would you still find his actions poignant?
In the Hindi film Tanu Weds Manu(2011), Manu – again a stranger – is smitten when he sees a drunken Tanu lying passed out in her bedroom. So overwhelmed is he by his emotions that he kisses her. It’s unfortunate that many people find it hard to empathise unless they personalise a situation, but that being the reality, if you are moved by this scene, try this exercise: ask yourself whether it would be acceptable if a woman you love — perhaps your daughter — were lying asleep and your son’s friend or the male household help or an unknown man entered her room and kissed her?
If you object to either of the above alternative scenarios, why is it okay to romanticise them in a film?
The question is crucial in a nation as conservative as ours where most parents do not discuss romance with their children and where gender segregation is widespread, as a result of which many youngsters take guidance from cinema. If Salman Khan lifts Jacqueline Fernandez’s skirt without her knowledge in Kick(2014) and she shows anger at first, but soon dances merrily with him, the message to impressionable fans is that women secretly feel flattered by harassment— or what is euphemistically called ‘teasing’.
Impressionable young minds are not the only ones though who shut their eyes to the trivialisation of sexual violence on screen and resist or fail to comprehend non-traditional definitions of consent — and informed consent — off screen.
It’s really quite simple, you know. If she does not know you are doing it, it’s a no. If she does not understand what you are doing, it’s a no. If she says no, it’s a no. If she resists you physically, for god’s sake it’s a no. If she has not said yes, it’s a no. In all the above scenarios, if you replace her with a person of another gender, it’s still a no. And if you don’t have consent but still go ahead, it is rape.
For most people though, the issue of consent arises only at the point of penetrative sex in real life, or on screen with a literal — not metaphorical — depiction or suggestion of forced penetration. Everything up to that instant is considered fair game.
This is why droves of Malayalam film fans defend that scene in Annayum Rasoolum(2013) when Anna is seated on a bus, oblivious to the presence of her stalker Rasool behind her as he quietly passes his hand over her hair.
This is also why the rape of Avanthika by Bahubali is not causing the nationwide outrage that it should.
(Anna MM Vetticadis the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)
(This column was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on July 18, 2015)

Note: This photograph was not sourced from The Hindu Businessline

REVIEW 341: MASAAN

$
0
0
REVIEW COMING UP REVIEW COMING UP REVIEW COMING UP REVIEW COMING UP


REVIEW 342: DRISHYAM

$
0
0
Release date:
July 31, 2015
Director:
Nishikant Kamat
Cast:


Language:
Ajay Devgn, Tabu, Shriya Saran, Rajat Kapoor, Kamlesh Sawant, Ishita Dutta, Mrinal Jadhav
Hindi


I cannot remember ever enjoying a thriller so much, despite knowing each element in the plot.

In case you came in late on this, Nishikant Kamat’s Drishyam is a remake of the 2013 Malayalam hit of the same name starring Mohanlal, Asha Sarath and Meena. Despite the continuing insistence of members of the film-viewing public and press, Jeethu Joseph – writer and director of the Malayalam film – persists in his claim that he was not inspired by the Japanese bestselling novel The Devotion of Suspect X but by a real-life incident instead.

Be that as it may, between 2013 and this week, Jeethu’s Drishyam has been remade in Kannada, Telugu and Tamil; he directed the Tamil version, Papanasam, with Kamal Haasan in the lead; and the Hindi Drishyamcredits him for the “original story”. No doubt each critic’s and viewer’s reaction to this film will be governed by whether or not that individual has seen/liked any or all the previous celluloid versions. So FYI right at the start, dear readers, I watched the Malayalam Drishyamback when it was released in theatres, but pointedly avoided the other remakes – especially Papanasam, which was out just this month – for fear of overdosing on the story.

I’m glad I did, because I loved the original and did not think it was possible to feel as much for a remake. As it turns out, I do not. I love the Hindi Drishyam even more.

Ajay Devgn here plays Vijay Salgaonkar, a cable TV operator living in rural Goa with his wife Nandini (Shriya Saran) and school-going children, the teenaged Anju (Ishita Dutta) and a much younger Annu (Mrinal Jadhav). They are a regular, traditional family where Dad is the breadwinner and primary decision maker, while Mum takes care of the house. As with many such traditional families, all four are comfortable with this arrangement. Interestingly though, their conservatism pushes boundaries and so, for instance, they have it in them to chuckle when a stray remark about Dad’s amorous ways floats around in the presence of the older child.

It is thus established that Vijay The Master Of The House shares an easygoing relationship with the women in his life, that they are a close-knit family, that the kids feel free to confide in their parents and that there is little they will not all do for each other. Vijay is popular among the locals, his only enemy being the corrupt policeman Laxmikant Gaitonde (Kamlesh Sawant).

In a parallel universe lives the state’s Inspector General of Police, Meera M. Deshmukh (Tabu), her supportive husband Mahesh (Rajat Kapoor) and their son Sameer. This is a more liberal home where spouses stand shoulder to shoulder every step of the way. Despite their differences over Sameer’s upbringing, it is clear that between Meera and Mahesh too, affections run deep.

When these two worlds collide – the world of the middle-class Vijay and the influential Meera – havoc is created and lives nearly destroyed. When a crime is committed, the suspense is not in discovering who is guilty – we know that from the start. The thrill lies in the genius of the cover-up, in how it is revealed bit by bit and in wondering if the truth will ever be found out. This is not a whodunnit or even a howdunnit. It’s a howtheydunnitandwilltheyorwonttheygetawaywithit.

More than just the mystery, what makes Drishyamwork is that Jeethu’s story has a heart, and at the centre of it all, six people – flawed, frightened and oh so human – that we begin to care for.

Director Nishikant Kamat’s signature leisurely style is crucial here, well-complemented by the serene setting, Avinash Arun’s unflashy camerawork and the unobtrusive music. In fact, the build-up to the crime is so relaxed, that when the deed is done at last, it is designed to sock us in the gut. Everything after that is an adrenaline-infused – yet remarkably still unhurried – journey filled with edge-of-the-seat moments, until that final revelation that had me open-mouthed and wide-eyed in wonder the first time round, and is none the worse for wear a year and a half later.  

Mohanlal’s Georgekutty was more jovial than Ajay Devgn’s Vijay, as a result of which the gravity of his actions later in the film was in itself one of the twists in that tale. Ajay plays the character in a more stoic fashion, letting a smile only occasionally escape his lips, but for the most part allowing those trademark brooding eyes to do the talking. Whether it was intentional or not, the decision to play the hero differently ends up serving Ajay well since it makes comparisons redundant – after all, Mohanlal at his best is always a hard act to follow.

Another big change from the original is that Upendra Sidhaye’s Hindi script – derived from Jeethu’s story – plays down Vijay’s obsession with films. This, unfortunately, diminishes the impact of a significant point about the source of “fourth class fail” Vijay’s wisdom.

What makes this Drishyam (even) more interesting than the original though, is the tweaking – both in the casting and writing – of its women and the central man-woman relationship.

First, the vast difference in age and trimness levels between Mohanlal and  Meena – who played the wife in Malayalam – automatically made her seem more dependent and child-like around him. In the Hindi film, the 14-years-or-so gap between actors Shriya Saran and Ajay Devgn is much less but not minor at all, yet in terms of appearance they seem more like equal partners (despite Shriya’s distractingly over-made-up face). Second, Ajay’s character Vijay is less patriarchal in conversations with and about his wife, Shriya’s Nandini. Third, Nandini gradually comes into her own, at first emotionally reliant on Vijay when tragedy strikes but then growing into a partner: he may be the one with the plan, but she’s no shrinking babe in the woods either.

In a film filled with talented artistes, Tabu – who enters near interval time – sinks her greedy acting fangs into a powerful role and ends up towering over the rest. Actress Asha Sarath in the original was wonderful too, but the Hindi script has made the character marginally more likeable.

I still think the story is playing to the gallery of prevalent social notions by making the child of a working mother wayward while the good kids are the kids of a stay-at-home Mom, but Tabu’s awe-inspiring performance overshadows even that covert messaging. Her IGP Meera is forever on the verge of exploding but constantly keeping herself in check. It is a performance so contained and yet so much on edge, that I wanted to bow in my seat each time she came on screen. Befittingly then,Drishyam strays from its overall understated tone just once, to give Tabu the kind of introduction scene usually reserved for heroes in mainstream masala films.

There’s another remake waiting to be made here. When the memory of this one has faded, how lovely it will be to see, say, Vijay’s wife Nandini working outside the house and – better still – Nandini being the spouse with the brilliant plan through which Vijay supports her as they cross swords with a senior law enforcer/father over a notion of family honour that gets a relook. Now imagine that role reversal with an actress of Tabu’s stature playing Nandini and an actor-star as major as Ajay Devgn in the role of her husband or even the policeman. Imagine.

Until then, there is this captivating Drishyam, a unique thriller for parents of sons and daughters, for those with a point of view on stalking, voyeurism, police high-handedness, the nature of life in small towns, definitions of self-defence and the power of the visual. Neat job, Nishikant!

Rating (out of five): ****

CBFC Rating (India):

U/A
Running time:
163 minutes



TRIVIALISING SEXUAL VIOLENCE / COLUMN PUBLISHED ON BBC HINDI

$
0
0
(The Hindi translation of this article was published on bbc.com/hindi/ on July 25, 2015. It was written as a follow-up to the right-wing reaction to “The Rape of Avanthika”, my column that appeared in The Hindu Businessline on July 18, 2015)

By Anna MM Vetticad


“It’s not rape, it’s seduction, b**ch!”


“Ignore her Her name says she’s from Vatican city and She might have got money from church to write this column.” (sic)

This is a tiny – relatively polite – sample of the venom being spewed on my social media accounts since the appearance of my column, “The Rape of Avanthika”, in The Hindu Businessline last Saturday.

By the time the column was published, the Telugu blockbuster Bahubali– simultaneously shot in Tamil and released in multiple dubbed versions – was already a certified hit. Fans of the film, you would imagine, had no reason to be insecure.

Still, I expected a standard misogynistic backlash since I had written about the trivialisation of sexual violence in Indian cinema. The immediate provocation was an extended ‘seduction’ sequence in Bahubali, in which the hero repeatedly violates the body of the female warrior Avanthika, then – through music and dance – roughs her up, strips off part of her outfit, alters the rest of her attire and her face despite her resistance. Within seconds, she falls for him and falls asleep in his arms.

This song-and-dance metaphor for rape insidiously perpetuates a prevalent notion that the way to a woman’s heart is through force. I knew from experience that I would receive sexist vitriol for my critique. What I did not realise was that hordes of viewers have been counting Bahubali as a “Hindu success” and a matter of “south Indian/Telugu pride”.

And so, vile comments have been pouring in for a week now, from film fans and from the Hindu Right who see Bahubali– steeped as it is in Hindu mythology – as a “Hindu answer” to the “Muslim PK”. “Muslim” because of the lead actor Aamir Khan’s religion and “answer” because they saw PK’s indictment of religion per se as a Hindu-bashing exercise.

Be that as it may, Indian films have trivialised violence against women for decades. Readers of this website would be familiar with the phenomenon in Bollywood in particular. Just this year, in director Aanand L. Rai’s Tanu Weds Manu Returns, the character Pappi abducts a woman from her wedding because, despite her denials, he believes she loves him. Pappi is portrayed as loveable, his actions as a joke.

From stalking to molestation and other forms of assault, our heroes are doing it all under the guise of courtship. In Rai’s 2013 film Raanjhanaa, the hero is a pest who slashes his wrists twice and even drives the heroine into a river on a scooter in anger. In Holiday(2014), Virat Bakshi (Akshay Kumar) stalks Saiba (Sonakshi Sinha) and forcibly kisses her. In Kick (2014), Salman Khan lifts Jacqueline Fernandez’s skirt with his teeth, surrounded by a group of male dancers.

Violence, you see, is cute and amusing in Bollywood’s book. Even a seemingly enlightened director like Imtiaz Ali has featured rape jokes in both Jab We Met (2007) and Rockstar(2011).

The cliched response to such criticism is that films portray India’s reality. My experience this week tells you that fans don’t like those who raise their voices against a glorification or comedification of this terrible reality. The thing about breaking the silence though is that whenever you do, you discover multitudes who share your opinion but were feeling lonely with their views since no one around them had spoken up. Far greater than the flood of Bahubali-loving trolls abusing me this week is the deluge from men and women saying: “Thank goodness you wrote this. I thought I’m the only one feeling this way.” You are not. I am not. And we both ought to speak up.

(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)



Note: This photograph was not sourced from BBC Hindi



REVIEW 343: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – ROGUE NATION

$
0
0
Release date:
August 7, 2015
Director:
Christopher McQuarrie
Cast:


Language:
Tom Cruise, Rebecca Ferguson, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Alec Baldwin, Sean Harris
English



Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (a.k.a. MI5) is fun while it lasts, features a couple of breath-stopping stunts, but 24 hours since I saw it, it is also already fading from my mind.

When the best bits of a film are announced in a three-minute trailer, and the film itself adds little else to its content, you know there’s a problem.

When a film fails to expand on the thrills and plot elements of previous instalments in a high-adrenaline series, you know there’s a problem.

So yeah, it’s fun ‘n’ forgettable but for one department: the name’s Ferguson, Rebecca Ferguson.

The MI series is a boys’ club. I mean, there’s always one ultra-glam feisty woman around, but she is always replaced in the next film by another such woman joining a boy gang headlined by the sprightly, gutsy maverick US spy Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) of the Impossible Mission Force (IMF). MI5 is different from the rest in some senses yet emphasises its intrinsic nature in the end.

You see, director Christopher McQuarrie has given the largest portion of the stunts to (enemy?) agent Ilsa Faust, played by the lovely, agile, Ingrid Bergman lookalike Rebecca. She gets to bring down her boss’ flunkey by ascending his gigantic body in a split second and to lead a show-stopping motorcycle marathon which ends in a spectacularly anti-climactic fashion.

You get the picture? Ilsa/Rebecca is amazing, does more stunts in MI5 than any of the men and doesn’t get involved in a silly romance with Ethan. Her return in MI6 though is a question mark, while we are pretty much assured that Ethan’s four male supporters will be back – perhaps to reassure MI’s fans and lead star who may find her dominance here disconcerting, and certainly because most Hollywood action franchises shed female characters more routinely than trees shed autumn leaves (I mean, for heaven’s sake, MI5 doesn’t even bother to mention Ethan’s wife).

Well, my glass is half full here. It’s sad to see the insecurity surrounding Rebecca, but it’s fantastic to see the director pointedly setting her up to outshine her male co-stars.

The ‘story’: Ethan is convinced of the existence of a Syndicate, a shadow organisation of spies formerly employed by the world’s premier intelligence agencies. That’s the “rogue nation” of the title. Since the CIA does not buy his theory, our hero must go rogue himself to save the world.

Along the way we are served some standard MI tropes such as self-destructing recorded messages, loaded sunglasses, unbelievably believable masks and trans-continental journeys, none of them tired from over-use. There is the usual audacity too, with potential targets including the world’s most important political leaders. There is also a marvellously paced underwater stunt.

The dialogue writing is a mixed bag, with a rather neat and relevant “There are no allies in statecraft, only common interests” (uttered by the British intelligence chief) thankfully making up for the laughable “Hunt is the living manifestation of destiny” (by his US counterpart).

At the end of it all though, nothing in the story or action made me sit up and say: this is not something I have ever seen or imagined before in MIs or elsewhere. There is certainly nothing here to equal Ethan scaling Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, as he did in the last MI film, Ghost Protocol.

For the record, Tom is cute and incredibly lithe at 53, though it is clear he has been given less running about to do this time. Rebecca is tasked with most of the sweat-inducing work, which of course means Ethan Hunt’s signature sprint is barely seen here. Still, it’s nice as always to see this charismatic star so involved in a role that defies believability. Age sits well on his face and body. If one overhead shot of a weirdly chalk-like bare torso does him no justice, there is another to compensate for it: when he heaves himself off a pole while handcuffed to it.

Of the rest, returning stars Jeremy Renner as senior IMF agent William Brandt and Ving Rhames as IMF ex Luther Stickell are both convincing. Simon Pegg as Ethan’s buddy and colleague Benji Dunn is even more so with the add-on of being charming. Sean Harris is interesting as the villain. Alec Baldwin as the slightly dense CIA director Alan Hunley is, well, Alec Baldwin.

The only sore thumb of the lot is the usually dependable Tom Hollander who was so good as the obnoxious Mr Collins in Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice, but looks slightly incongruous as the British PM here. Still, the scene involving him is one of the reasons why I continue to watch this series: because it does not take itself too seriously and is willing to poke fun at its own silliness.

That’s MI Rogue Nation for you – suspenseful, amusing and thrilling in parts, yet insubstantial and unmemorable but for Rebecca. The series is now resting on its laurels. Buck up, MI people.   

Rating (out of five): **1/4

CBFC Rating (India):
U/A
Running time:
MPAA Rating (US):
133 minutes
PG-13 (for sequences of action and violence, and brief partial nudity)
Release date in US:
July 31, 2015



REVIEW 328: AVENGERS - AGE OF ULTRON (3D)

$
0
0

Release date:
April 24, 2015
Director:
Joss Whedon
Cast:






Language:
Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Elizabeth Olsen, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Paul Bettany, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson
English


Iron Man, Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Thor and Captain America … Avengers: The Age of Ultron offers the obvious thrill of seeing this superpowered/super-talented sextet from Marvel Comics all together in one film. But we already got that in 2012’s runaway global hit Marvel’s The Avengers. What does Part 2 offer that Part 1 did not? Answer: really not that much more.

For writer-director Joss Whedon – who helmed the first film too – the challenge was to portray an evolving group dynamic in The Age of Ultron, with each member settling down into this formidable assembly, having had some time since the first film to establish friendships and gauge the competition. Incredibly enough for  a bunch of colleagues this diverse and this gifted, they’re completely apolitical amongst themselves. Sure they have their differences of opinion about strategy, but where are the insecurities? Except for a fleeting moment when we see Captain America through Thor’s eyes, everything’s all sweet and honey between them.

How intriguing that a character exemplifying America’s omnipotence should feel threatened by a pre-Christian European mythological deity. Age of Ultron occasionally holds out such flashes of wry humour and depth, and vignettes of budding relationships, but it does nothing to develop them further. Now why on earth couldn’t we have got more of that in this film, Mr Whedon?

Before going further, it’s only fair to introduce the leads to non-comic-book-geeks among you. The Avengers are a superhero squad that first appeared in print in the 1960s in the US. The individual characters have their own separate lives that had been chronicled in several books before they joined hands. Over the years, the membership has varied. In the two film adaptations so far, the team has consisted of:

(a) Iron Man a.k.a Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), the eccentric billionaire industrialist, inventor and wearer of a metallic suit of armour fitted with advanced weapons and other gadgets;

(b) Hulk/Dr Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), the genius scientist accidentally exposed to radiation as a result of which, if he gets enraged or agitated, he metamorphoses from a gentle, reticent man into an uncontrollably destructive, green-skinned giant with superhuman strength;

(c) Hawkeye/Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), an archer who hits the bull’s eye every time;

(d) Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), a skilled warrior and former Soviet agent who defected to the US;

(e) Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the seemingly indestructible hammer-wielding Norse god who can manipulate weather, fly and crush his opposition in ways no human being can; and  

(f) Captain America or Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), an ordinary man enhanced through scientific experimentation during World War II, then kept frozen to be revived for future use. His costume is in the colours of the US flag. His weapon: a metal shield.

They’re a league of potentially fascinating characters played by worthy actors. In this, the second Avengers film, the six must save the world from destruction at the hands of the robot Ultron (voiced by James Spader, best known in India as that delightful devil Alan Shore from TV’s The Practice and Boston Legal). Ultron has human cohorts, the twins Wanda the mind-bender and her brother Pietro the speedster a.k.a. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, who are the product of experiments on humans. The siblings are played by Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Add to this mix the beautiful-bodied and morally interesting robot Vision, given form and life by actor Paul Bettany who has so far voiced Stark’s butler/assistant Jarvis in the Iron Man series.

This film though, is less than a sum of its best parts. The reason is simple: Age of Ultron’s plus points are dwarfed by an overwhelming feeling of how generic it is. The ‘scientific’ or pseudo-scientific explanations for sundry developments come off as boring, confusing mumbo-jumbo. And despite the pace and energy of the battle sequences, there are no stand-out moments that take the breath away because of an imaginative concept rather than the SFX involved. Remember Christopher Reeve in his Superman avatar freezing a lake with his breath and flying off with the island of ice in his arms to hold it over a factory fire that in turn melts the ice and is extinguished by the resultant shower? Not a single moment like that in this film.

Age of Ultron is better in some of the personal interactions between individual members in the league. Particularly nice is the arc of the twins’ motivations through the story. My favourite scene in the entire film is a party where all the Avengers turn up looking delicious in civilian clothing. Apart from the visual relief and the fact that several of them are stunners, there is warmth and humour in their conversations and some appealing insights into who they are.

Hulk – with his many internal struggles – remains one of my favourite superheroes of all time. Here is a humanoid who can’t control his transformations from Dr Banner to superhero, and desperately fights his strength because, as Romanoff puts it, when he does get into battle he knows he will win. In this film too, Hulk has the strongest backing of the writers. We delve into his inside story, while Hawkeye gets an entire side story (not a sparkling one, but at least it’s there). Captain America has his moments too that go beyond Chris Evans’ good looks.

Iron Man, on the other hand, is dealt with rather superficially. Yeah yeah, we know he’s cheeky, and of course the charismatic Robert Downey Jr makes him funny, but tell us more.

Thor does not develop in any way in Whedon’s hands, remaining the same dull, seemingly invincible, invulnerable guy through the Thor and Avengers series. And Black Widow is dull because the writers seem not to care enough to flesh her out. So busy were they focusing on Scarlett Johansson’s hot body and how her pretty nose peeps out from behind that curtain of wavy hair, that they did not bother to make her a creature we can invest in.

Perhaps another title for Avengers2 could be: The League of Extraordinary White Gentlemen (With A Token Woman Carelessly Thrown In For Political Correctness). There are a couple of token black people too uncaringly chucked into the blend – Avengers’ boss Nick Fury played by Samuel L. Jackson and another associate played by Don Cheadle – but in this world of white male dominance, they operate on the sidelines.

And please don’t say the team of the films can’t be blamed, since their base material is the comic series. Heard of evolution, anyone?

The entire cast is efficient, as are the leads whose inability to rise above mere efficiency is a fault of the inconsistent writing and not their acting talent. Ruffalo as Banner, Andy “Gollum” Serkis in a memorable cameo as a criminal in South Africa and Bettany as Vision are the only ones who deliver nuanced performances. To be fair, they are the only ones with characters of substance.

Avengers: Age of Ultron has some good patches. Unfortunately, they have not been stitched well enough together. Iron Man, Hulk, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Thor and Captain America remain as physically strong here as they were in the 2012 film. Cinematically though, they’ve waned with the passage of time. This is a film that takes the committed fan for granted.

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

CBFC Rating (India):
U/A
Running time:
MPAA Rating (US):
143 minutes
PG-13 (for intense sequences of sci-fi action, violence and destruction, and for some suggestive comments)
Release date in US:
May 1, 2015


PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES & OTHER MARGINALISED SECTIONS IN FILMS / FILM FATALE: COLUMN PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

$
0
0
FROM IQBAL TO MARGARITA: NO ‘THEM’, ONLY ‘US’

Physically challenged, mentally challenged,Muslim, Christian, Sikh, gay,woman… it is possible for a character to be all or any of these, yet be a source of regular stories, not just hagiographies or tearjerkers

By Anna MM Vetticad



After a few minutes, the wheelchair will disappear.
Writer-director Shonali Bose has repeated variations of this line a zillion times while promoting her Hindi-English film Margarita With A Straw, the story of a sexually adventurous college student with cerebral palsy, now running in Indian theatres.
It reminded me of a similar sentence uttered by another filmmaker precisely a decade ago. Nagesh Kukunoor’s Iqbal is a small jewel of a film revolving around a deaf-mute boy who becomes a national-level cricketer. A few minutes into Iqbal, you will forget the hero is physically challenged, Kukunoor said in interview after interview in the run-up to the release of his film in 2005.
Is it possible, you ask, to stop noticing that large metal chair bearing a human body? Is it necessary to not notice that the man addressing you is doing so in sign language?
The point both Kukunoor and Bose make is this: Disabilities can be a source of anguish, but they need not define us, and we could acknowledge a distressing aspect of a person’s reality without harping on it. A film could well be about a person with physical or mental challenges, without being about those challenges alone. And if, as a filmmaker, you cannot even consider the likelihood of such a film not being a hagiography or a tearjerker, you might want to ask yourself whether you are constrained by your vision of such a person as ‘the other’ and not ‘one of us’.
A personal example may help illustrate my concerns. My mother has been wheelchair bound for many years. Yes, it is painful to see her decline, but believe me, our conversations are rarely about that. As her family, we are constantly vigilant, but if I were to tell Mum’s story, her physical condition would be only one element in it. For the most part I would tell you about her generation-defying liberalism, her fortitude, the bright smile she still manages to summon up in spite of a cruel disease and the sense of humour that remains undefeated by those wheels.
When I watched Margaritathe other day, that wheelchair did disappear after a while. What I remember the most is how the heroine Laila’s smile travelled all the way from her lips to those eyes brimming over with sunshine. And what I remember most about Iqbal today is his sense of mischief, and that classic scene in which his sister and he infuriate a bully by using sign language to discuss the fellow in his presence.
When I see Hollywood actor Michael J Fox on public platforms, I do see his physical struggles because of Parkinson’s disease, but the overwhelming feeling is one of admiration for his strength nearly a quarter century after he was diagnosed. His recurring role as the ruthless lawyer Louis Canning in the multiple-award-winning TV serial The Good Wife is not that of a saint with a physical affliction — he plays a manipulative character who uses his tardive dyskinesia (a rare condition which causes erratic body movements) to gain the sympathy of judges and jurors.
These are regular folk with regular pluses and minuses.
It is only fair to clarify that the ‘them and us’ school of cinema is not confined to India, nor to characters with physical and mental challenges. How often have you seen an Indian film featuring an LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) person who is not a source of jokes or whose sexual orientation is not the fulcrum of the story? For many decades, mainstream Hindi cinema in particular would feature Muslim characters only with a specific purpose: either to showcase Muslim culture or as near-flawless creatures whose presence made a point about secularism.
During an interview I recorded with Madhuri Dixit in 2003, I remember her complaining that Bollywood tends to see “women-centric films” as compulsorily being about “issues”. Why must such a film be a rona-dhona story (a weepie), she asked. Why not a light-hearted comedy? No doubt her industry has changed in these 12 years, but her question remains relevant. A large part of the reason could be that, like most film industries in the rest of India, a male-dominated Bollywood too tends to see stories of women through a male gaze, with men being the norm and women the exceptional ‘them’.
It is in this context that Margarita has wrought a miracle beyond the obvious one we have already discussed. Laila is three things that would usually be treated as issues by an Indian filmmaker: she has cerebral palsy, she is bisexual, she is a woman. Hell yes, while watching the film I almost forgot that she’s a woman! And a sexually assertive one at that. Possibly because the director did not turn either element into an ‘issue’?
As for the gorgeous Iqbal, not till many months after watching it did it strike me that the hero was a Muslim. How lovely that Kukunoor did not define him in terms of his religion or his speech-and-hearing impairments. How lovely that Iqbal was presented to us as a human being who just happened to be both deaf-mute and Muslim.
Physically challenged, mentally challenged, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, gay, woman — it is possible for a character to be any or many of the above, yet be seen as a regular person rather than a showpiece in an old curiosity shop.
(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic. Twitter: @annavetticad)
(This column by Anna MM Vetticad was first published in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on April 25, 2015)

Note: This photograph was not published in The Hindu Businessline


REVIEW 329: GABBAR IS BACK

$
0
0
Release date:
May 1, 2015
Director:
Krish
Cast:

Language:
Akshay Kumar, Shruti Haasan, Jaideep Ahlawat, Suman Talwar, Sunil Grover
Hindi


It's the loudest Hindi film to come to theatres in a while. That’s saying a lot considering the decibels we were subjected to in Akshay Kumar’s last film, Entertainment.

EVERYONE in Gabbar Is Back seems to be shouting. The hero – college lecturer Aditya a.k.a. Gabbar (Akshay) – shouts at the world. The senior policemen assigned to find him shout at a subordinate. Their junior (Sunil Grover) who’s been at the receiving end of their yelling, finally shouts back at them. CBI officer Kuldeep Pahwa (Jaideep Ahlawat) starts shouting the moment he takes over the case. And the villain, a corrupt industrialist called Digvijay Patil (Suman Talwar), repeatedly shouts out this line: “Digvijay Patil, yeh sirf naam nahin, brand hai!”

Here’s how the mayhem begins. A bunch of tehsildars across Maharashtra are abducted and the body of one is found hanging in a public place. A CD is sent to the police and media explaining that these men were all corrupt, with the dead guy being the numero uno crook of the lot. A faceless person called Gabbar claims responsibility for the abductions and murder. Look out for more kidnappings of those who are tasked with serving the public but exploit us instead, he says.

The Maharashtra police, netas and janta gradually learn what has been revealed to us viewers  from the start: that Gabbar is Aditya. As the film rolls along, we discover the sad back story that turned Adi into a raging vigilante.

In the middle of all this activity, Adi finds the time to romance the lawyer Shruti (Shruti Haasan), in keeping with the formulaic demand for a live woman whose sole job it is to look pretty and fall in love with the hero. It goes without saying that Shruti is given even less importance in the script than the Vice President of India gets in Indian politics.

Gabbar Is Back is a Bollywood remake of the 2002 Tamil hit Ramaana. It was directed by A.R. Murugadoss who is credited in GIB for the story. A major Tamil film maker, Murugadoss is best known to Bollywood viewers as the director of the Aamir Khan-Asin-starrer Ghajini, a remake of his own Tamil hit of the same name. Last year he teamed up with Akshay to helm Holiday, a remake of his Thuppakki. The decline in quality from Ghajini to Holiday to GIB has been steady. Krish – who directs GIB– does nothing to lift Murugadoss’ cliched story out of its mediocrity.  

WARNING: SPOILER IN NEXT PARAGRAPH:

The vigilante has been a frequent hero in Hindi films. Unlike the populist A Wednesday, which disguised its anarchist agenda with smooth writing, GIB flaunts its intentions on its crudely designed sleeve. It clearly hopes to cash in on mass frustration with corruption by virtually calling upon the public to inflict violence on dishonest babus and businesspersons. However, in a bid to pre-empt criticism that the film is playing to the gallery, Gabbar delivers a speech in the end explaining that though what he did was right, the means he chose were wrong.

The film is conflicted about its commitment to its grave tone: after over 2 hours of rage, tears, blood and sermons, a character who is about to be hanged signs off with a joke involving the iconic Gabbar Singh from the 1970s classic Sholay, even as his head is being stuck in the noose.

In recent years, Hindi remakes of loud Tamil and Telugu potboilers have become a genre unto themselves. These films usually star Salman Khan or Akshay in the lead, with a woman – usually Sonakshi Sinha or some other dispensable actress 15-20 years younger than the hero – playing a decorative item. It’s a mystery why these male stars want to act with such junior women. In GIB in particular, the camera angles deployed by DoP Nirav Shah for 47-year-old Akshay’s close-ups further emphasise his real age. As a result, Kareena Kapoor Khan – in a cameo – and Shruti Haasan in the present both look like they’re having affairs with their Daddy in GIB.

In case you are left with any doubt that women are treated lightly by such films, please google the song Aao raja which features Chitrangda Singh in a guest appearance. “Kundi mat khadkao raja / Seedha andar aao raja (loosely translated: Don’t knock on the door, darling / Come right in darling),” she sings as she turns her back to the camera, places a hand on each buttock, swings her hips and slaps her bottom suggestively. What a fall for a woman who was hailed as “the next Smita Patil” when she made her debut in Hazaaron Kwaishein Aisi in 2003!

What a fall too for Akshay who insists on frittering away his charisma. At his best, he is capable of excellent comic timing (Namastey London), charming goofiness (Singh Is Kinng), under-statement (Special 26) and a smooth funny-fresh-serious blend (OMG). Not in this film. 

Gabbar Is Back is rife with cliches. Foremost among them is the heroine’s unfair, inexplicable rudeness to the hero when they first meet. Why is this a feature of so many mainstream Indian films? It’s as if the writers think that conflict (usually initiated by the woman) is an essential starting point for romance, so that when she does inevitably fall in love with the hero, it can be portrayed almost as a ‘taming of the shrew’ by him to gratify the male-dominated audience.

Another cliché is that signature lines or quirks are assigned to each character. Like the villain’s persistent claims of being a “brand”, Shruti responds to most questions with, “According to google…” in a wannabe-bubbly tone. Adi keeps ominously saying, “I hate sorrys.” And the bad guy tries to rival 1970s/’80s Bollywood-stye dialoguebaazi with lines like, “Jo mere kaam ka nahin, uska iss duniya mein koi kaam nahin.” Someone on Team GIB was clearly trying to come up with an equivalent of Akshay’s “don’t angry me” from Rowdy Rathoreor Salman’s “ek baar jo maine commitment ki…” from Wanted. You need better writing and overall packaging to pull off unapologetic nonsense. GIB falls flat on its face.

Even the choice of title is a gimmick. The film has no logical connection with Gabbar or Sholay although it does recycle a couple of his lines. Is the title a profound metaphor or just an excuse for the marketing punchline, “Naam villain ka, kaam hero ka”? Don’t know. Don’t care.

Gabbar Is Back. Wish he had stayed away.

Rating (out of five): *

CBFC Rating (India):
U/A
Running time:
131 minutes



THE annavetticadgoes2themovies AWARDS: BEST BOLLYWOOD FILMS & ACTING PERFORMANCES OF 2014

$
0
0

Four years since The annavetticadgoes2themovies Awards kicked off, the one thing that has remained a constant in the Mumbai film industry is evolution. Cynics may not agree, but the truth is we’ve been witnessing dramatic changes in Bollywood* in recent years. The top 5 films in my Best Films list for 2014 are all signifiers of positive developments in the industry, including the exhibition sector’s increasing receptiveness to films that were earlier erroneously considered “too serious” and “too arty” to draw an audience, the fact that backing for such films now often comes from production houses that are primarily associated with mass-targeted entertainers, audience and studio support for contentious subjects in the face of fundamentalist protests and most of all, the re-emergence of commercially driven women-centric films.

When Amitabh Bachchan strode across the big screen in the 1970s dominating film after film with unprecedented box-office success, the Bollywood heroine declined in importance. Producers who saw the Angry Young Man as a formula for potential success in non-Bachchan films too, began relegating women to the sidelines of all their stories, usually leaving them with little to do apart from look glamorous and fall in love with the hero. With fewer author-backed roles to build up their stature, the era of Suraiya, Nargis, Nutan, Madhubala, Meena Kumari, Waheeda Rahman and a string of other female stalwarts gave way to two decades of actresses with short-lived careers. During the 1970s and ’80s, Hema Malini, Rekha, Sridevi and Madhuri Dixit were among the very few exceptions to this trend.

Things began changing marginally for female stars with the return of gentle romances in a big way in the 1990s and the advent of Shah Rukh Khan. The past two decades have been a period of gradual improvement – too slow, some would say – with heroines like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta, and more recently, Vidya Balan, Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone successfully fighting to find equal space with their heroes in commercially driven films. They still don’t get as many films as their male counterparts do, in which they dominate the storyline; they still have a tough time finding projects in which they at least stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the leading man; and longevity is still a far greater challenge for women than it is for men even when they do all the right things. However, the drizzle that began in the 1990s with the Ash-Rani-Preity triad and the critical and commercial success of Madhur Bhandarkar’s women-led films at the turn of this century, turned into a steady shower with Imtiaz Ali’s Jab We Metstarring Kareena Kapoor and Shahid Kapoor (2007) and Bhandarkar’s Fashion starring Chopra (2008). It is still not a downpour, but there’s plenty of hope to be seen in a firm trend headlined by the likes of 2011’s No One Killed Jessica starring Mukerji and Balan, The Dirty Picture (2011) and Kahaani(2012) with Balan, Padukone’s multiple hits in 2013 (Chennai Express, Yeh JawaaniHai Deewani and Ram-leela), Queen (2014) starring Kangna Ranaut, Mary Kom (2014) with Chopra and this year’s NH10 featuring Anushka Sharma in the lead.

2014 was interesting on this front because it began with the success of Queen and went on to give us Mary Kom, both of which exemplify an important aspect of this trend. Despite its many evident commercially viable elements, Queen– released in the first quarter – was not as heavily promoted as a massy SRK/Salman/Aamir Khan-starrer would be. Its producers seem to have gone along with the conventional wisdom that such films require audience word-of-mouth to make money. Despite the low-key marketing, the film ended up grossing Rs 97 crore worldwide (a smashing eight times its reported budget) according to the trade website boxofficeindia.com. Six months later came the biopic Mary Kom starring Chopra playing the popular Indian boxing champion. Mary Kom was promoted unrelentingly by its producers the way any potentially massy hero-centric film would be. The pay-off came in the form of excellent global gross collections of Rs 104 crore as per boxofficeindia. Even the poorly promoted Mardaani starring Mukerji in the previous month ended its run as a moderate box-office success.

These ladies kicked opened doors that have subsequently been entered by newcomers Alia Bhatt, Shraddha Kapoor and Parineeti Chopra who are now in a position to refuse to settle for roles where the heroine is little more than a showpiece. Small gains, but worth celebrating.

So if 2014 were to be given a title, I’d pick The Year of the Woman in Bollywood. This and all other developments discussed are reflected in The annavetticadgoes2themovies Awards for Best Films and Acting Performances in Bollywood in 2014:

BEST FILM:

WINNER: QUEEN DIRECTED BY VIKAS BAHL

Vikas Bahl must have been a woman in his last birth. Or perhaps he is a woman in drag? There can be few other conceivable explanations for how this man could understand a woman’s mind so perfectly. Well okay, here’s another viable possibility: unlike those who tell us the stories of women as defined by a male gaze, here’s a gentleman who clearly listens when women speak. The director’s own empathy and acute powers of observation combined with the skills of the writing team (story and screenplay – Parveez Shaikh, Chaitally Parmar, Bahl himself; dialogues – Anvita Dutt, Kangna Ranaut) resulted in Queen, the wonderfully entertaining, heart-warming coming-of-age story of Rani Mehra from Rajouri Garden.

Kangna delivered a career-defining performance as Rani, even astutely channelling the quavering voice that has been her Achilles heel since she entered films. She had the benefit of a sparkling supporting cast including the revelation of the year, Lisa Haydon, and Rajkummar Rao who had the courage to take on the role of the heroine’s highly dislikeable fiancé.

Single women who are not solely or primarily engaged in the task of falling in love with the hero or in some other relationship with him (sister, daughter, teacher, cousin, colleague) are a rarity in Hindi cinema. Team Queen could easily have played to the gallery by stereotyping Rani as a neurotic, frustrated creature the way Cocktaildid in 2012 with Deepika Padukone’s Veronica, or they could have caricatured Rani to attract easy laughs. They did not. Their reward was the ecstatic viewer and reviewer response to their delicately nuanced, insightful, sensitive, realistic, thoroughly enjoyable film.

(For the original review of Queenclick here)

FIRST RUNNER UP: FILMISTAAN DIRECTED BY NITIN KAKKAR


One of the best films of the year came and went without advertising itself from rooftops. It did however manage to draw in audiences. It’s good that glowing reviews from mainstream media critics and audience word of mouth on the social media can help films with limited marketing budgets, because writer-director Nitin Kakkar’s Filmistaanwas certainly worth seeing. For one, it is rip-roaringly funny. For another, it is one of the most poignant and cleverly told tales on Indo-Pak relations to come to theatres in a long time.

Sharib Hashmi in Filmistaanplayed Sunny, an aspiring actor who is mistakenly kidnapped by Pakistani terrorists in place of an American they were targeting. Since this unknown Indian leaves them with little bargaining power, the hostage takers keep him imprisoned in a village on the India-Pak border until they can find their intended target. While there, the film-obsessed Sunny bonds with the locals, among them a smuggler of pirated Hindi film CDs called Aftab (Inaamulhaq), who too are in love with Bollywood.

Even when Filmistaancould have strayed into mushy, manipulative, tear-inducing territory, it kept a check on itself. With its crisp writing, incredible wit, fine balance between humour and gravitas, lovable, believable characters, sincere performances and inventive, sweet story, this one’s a gem of a reminder that art knows no borders. Waiting for your next film, Nitin Kakkar.

THE CONTENDERS:

3: Haider directed by Vishal Bhardwaj


Few filmmakers in this world can adapt William Shakespeare quite like Vishal Bhardwaj. With Haider, Bhardwaj completed his stunning Shakespearean trilogy so deeply entrenched in the Indian soil. Maqbool/Macbeth and Omkara/Othello are well matched by Film No. 3, which was drawn from Hamlet. This was an adaptation that was begging to be made.

The brilliance of transposing the tragic Prince of Denmark to the bloodied snows of Kashmir was not the only awe-inducing aspect of this film though. Love, sexual tension, jealousy and family politics exploded against the backdrop of the terror-ridden state. Kashmir – wretched and strife-torn – was a character unto herself in Haider, though a trifle marred by a failure to convincingly weave the invisibility of Pandits into the larger landscape of the film and a couple of other moments of political awkwardness. These flaws could not, however, dwarf the gut-wrenching beauty or daring of Bhardwaj’s Haider.

Shahid Kapoor delivered an immersive performance as the titular character and Tabu was flawless as his young mother Ghazala. All these months later, the mere memory of Bhardwaj’s music, Gulzar’s lyrics and the choreography (particularly in the song Bismil) give me goosebumps. Considering the present political atmosphere in the country, it’s a miracle that this magical film was released at all. Thank goodness for miracles and magic.

(For the original review of Haider click here)

4: Dekh Tamasha Dekh directed by Feroz Abbas Khan


The funeral of a poor Hindu who, years back, converted to Islam when he fell in love and married a Muslim woman, was the focal point of this biting political and social satire. Through the scenario of politicians fighting over the body of Hamid Tangewala – formerly Kishan – Khan yanked the lid off a hypocritical society in which religion and votes matter more than a human being. It takes immense skill to tell such a tragic tale through the medium of humour – director Feroz Abbas Khan and writer Shafaat Khan achieved precisely that feat. Dekh Tamasha Dekh chronicled the absurd lengths to which communalists and politicians will go to prove a point and/or cling to a constituency. The funeral in the climax should rank among the best finales ever seen in a Hindi film. It was a stinging indictment of those who fail to recognise the diversity of customs across India and even within each micro-community in the country. That one scene alone was worth the price of a ticket and a place for the film on this list.

(For the original review of Dekh Tamasha Dekh click here)

5: Miss Lovely directed by Ashim Ahluwalia


It took almost two years for Ashim Ahluwalia’s debut fiction feature to make the journey from the Un Certain Regard section at the Cannes Film Festival to mainstream theatres at home. Miss Lovely’s struggles are a telling reminder that visibility and acclaim on the festival circuit are no guarantee of a mainstream release in India. Still, an optimist will note that the film did ultimately make it, and the wait – for those who had not already downloaded it or seen it at a fest – was well worth it. Miss Lovely was an unapologetically gritty, disturbing and matter-of-fact take on the crass sex-horror film industry that operated on the sidelines of Bollywood in the 1980s. The story revolved around Sonu Duggal (Nawazuddin  Siddiqui) who wants to make a sleaze flick in a trade where his slimy elder brother Vicky (Anil George) is already a well-established name. Ahluwalia’s firm direction was buttressed by an excellent cast, foremost among them being George, a remarkable talent from theatre. Miss Lovely’s costume design and art direction were particularly commendable for their unwavering fealty to the period in which it is set. Not an easy film to watch, yet so undeniably rewarding.

(For the original review of Miss Lovely click here)

BEST ACTOR (FEMALE):

WINNER: Kangna Ranaut in Queen

FIRST RUNNER UP: Priyanka Chopra in Mary Kom

THE CONTENDERS (in alphabetical order):

3: Alia Bhatt in Two States
4: Anushka Sharma inPK
5: Madhuri Dixit in Dedh Ishqiya
6: Rani Mukerji in Mardaani
7: Sonam Kapoor in Khoobsurat

BEST ACTOR (MALE):

WINNERS (tie): Shahid Kapoor in Haider and Sharib Hashmi in Filmistaan

THE CONTENDERS (in alphabetical order):

3: Aamir Khan in PK
4: Adil Hussain in Zed Plus
5: Nawazuddin Siddiqui in Miss Lovely
6: Rajkummar Rao in Citylights
7: Sanjay Mishra in Ankhon Dekhi
8: Aditya Roy Kapur inDaawat-e-Ishq

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR (FEMALE):

WINNER: Tabu in Haider

FIRST RUNNER UP: Lisa Haydon in Queen

THE CONTENDERS (in alphabetical order):

3: Amrita Singh in Two States
4: Mona Singh in Zed Plus
5: Tejaswini Kolhapure inUgly

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR (MALE):

WINNER:Anil George in Miss Lovely

FIRST RUNNER UP: Darshan Kumaar in Mary Kom

THE CONTENDERS (in alphabetical order):

3: Asif Basra in Ek Villain
4: Inaamulhaqin Filmistaan
5: Rahul Bhat in Ugly
6: Rajkummar Rao in Queen
7: Riteish Deshmukh in Ek Villain
8: Ronit Roy in Two States
9: Sushant Singh inHate Story 2

Looking forward now to the awards season of 2015. Can any Hindi film actress better Kalki Koechlin’s performance in Margarita With A Strawor Anushka Sharma in NH10? What will the gentlemen offer us as the months go by? The conversation will continue next year.

[*Footnote: I’d like to clarify to those who are averse to the word “Bollywood” that I use it for practical purposes, with no pejorative intent, to signify the Mumbai-based film industry that produces films primarily in the Hindi language. I have discussed the use of this word at length in the Author’s Note in my book The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic.]

Photographs courtesy:
(1)  Poster of Queen: bollywoodtrade.com  
(2)  Still from Queen: https://www.facebook.com/Queenthefilm  
(3)  Poster of Haider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haider_(film)  
(4)  Stills from Haider: https://www.facebook.com/UTVMotionPictures  
(5)  Miss Lovely India poster:  http://www.miss-lovely.com
(7) Dekh Tamasha Dekhposter: Everymedia PR
Viewing all 573 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images

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