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

REVIEW 688: MADHURARAJA

$
0
0

Release date:
April 12, 2019
Director:
Vysakh
Cast:




Language:
Mammootty, Jai, Nedumudi Venu, Anusree, Vijayaraghavan, Salim Kumar, Siddique, Jagapathi Babu, Aju Varghese, Sunny Leone, Suraj Venjaramoodu, Shamna Kasim, Santhosh Keezhattoor, Anna Reshma Rajan
Malayalam, Tamil and English


Almost a decade has passed since Pokkiri Raja’s hero Madurai Raja, in the person of Mammootty, strode across the big screen mouthing the signature refrain (roughly translated), “Raja does what he says he will do, and only says what he can and will do”. Like most macho heroes of this genre of commercial Indian cinema, he also had a signature song, with these words, “He speaks English, he speaks Tamil, but Malayalam is his mother tongue,” highlighting his character’s quirky insistence on spouting mangled English and the adolescence spent in Madurai that led to his fluency in Tamil.

The man, his mantra and his song are back this week in director Vysakh’s new release, Madhuraraja, this one too starring Mammootty. In the years since Pokkiri Raja, Vysakh has given Malayalam cinema an even bigger blockbuster, the Mohanlal-starrer Pulimurugan. Madhuraraja is written by Pulimurugan’s writer Udaykrishna, who was one half of the team that wrote Pokkiri Raja.

The press has been told that Madhuraraja is not a sequel to Pokkiri Raja, but it is.

The action here is set on the island of Pambinthuruthu in Kerala, where the criminal businessman V.R. Nadeshan’s writ runs large. For about a quarter of a century, Nadeshan (Jagapathi Babu) has caused multiple deaths with the spurious liquor he manufactures. He remains safe from the law though, because of his government and police connections.

Madurai Raja’s father, the schoolteacher Madhavan (Nedumudi Venu), is sent to Pambinthuruthu to inquire into a complaint that unruly patrons of a bar owned by Nadeshan are creating havoc with a local school next door. Obviously there is a clash between the saintly old man and the bad guy, and of course this then compels Raja to drop by.

Twists and turns follow, but for the most part the plot is not extraordinary. What helps the film pull through all the same are Mammootty’s energy, unabashed enthusiasm for this silly role and comic timing, along with some thrilling, chilling action choreography by Peter Hein. 

Every time Raja enters the scene, the camera goes low and the soundtrack volume goes sky high. This clichéd method of establishing a male protagonist’s supremacy over all he surveys was insufferable in the recent releases Mikhael and Lucifer, but is less painful in Madhuraraja because the megastar and the movie both convey the impression that they are not taking themselves too seriously.

Besides, the sequences involving a pack of ferocious canines owned by Nadeshan are so well conceptualised, so slickly shot and edited, that no one would guess Mollywood works with a fraction of the budget available to the average Hollywood film. The dogs are hungry for human flesh, and Vysakh mines their ravenousness to terrifying effect.

This is not to suggest that Madhuraraja’s otherwise largely formulaic nature or its stereotypical representation of masculinity is to be excused.

As is usually the case with Vysakh’s work, women here are only sidelights in a man’s world. The film features a casual rape joke by Aju Varghese’s character, some double entendre and swipes at feminism. A man who tries to deceive a young woman into giving him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is shortly thereafter shown lambasting another man for laying a hand on the same woman – as it is in most commercial Indian cinema of this sort, the message here is clear: that the woman who has been marked out by the screenplay as the property of a hero (or in this case, the second lead played by Jai) is fair game for him but will be protected from others by him.

Like Mera Naam Shaji last week, this one too makes a wisecrack about Kerala’s vanitha mathal (women’s wall), the massive human chain formed by women in the state earlier this year as a symbolic show of solidarity in their fight against discrimination. For good measure, in a passage involving Sunny Leone the film also muddies the waters around #MeToo by implying that willing women whip out the slogan for their convenience. Both potshots mirror the extreme resentment against feminism expressed in real life by men of this patriarchal film industry, especially since the formation of Kerala’s Women In Cinema Collective in 2017.


The significant difference between Madhuraraja and 2016’s Kasaba is that in the latter, Mammootty’s character himself was the purveyor of the misogyny that dominated the screenplay. In Madhuraraja, he is a benevolent patriarch who does not spew venom at women or mistreat them – the instances described in the previous two paragraphs all involve other characters and are all fleeting. The fact that even this counts as a step forward is a measure of how slim the pickings are out there and how grim the scenario is on this front in mainstream Malayalam cinema.

Unlike its rigid attitude to gender, Madhuraraja seems fluid in the matter of party politics. A line from Raja about the vacuum left in Tamil Nadu by the death of Jayalalithaa would suggest one particular party affiliation, but the assumption is nixed later in the film with a barb aimed at political leaders who build gigantic statues to divert the electorate’s attention from genuine issues (and we all know who is top of the mind in that arena right now).

The battle between the political rivals in Madhuraraja is enjoyable stuff, as is DoP Shaji Kumar’s work on scenic Pambinthuruthu. I particularly liked that point in the opening moments when a sketch of the island accompanying the credits transitions to an actual aerial shot of the place. Lovely.

Gopi Sundar’s songs are moderately effective – the much hyped dance number featuring Leone is reasonably catchy but frankly, it is more pleasing to the eye (thanks to Joseph Nellickal’s production design) than the ears. That lavish set piece is one of many visually rich elements in the film, though none is as memorable or as haunting as Nadeshan’s waterfront hideout where he keeps his pet beasts.

Nedumudi Venu, Vijayaraghavan, Siddique and Suraj Venjaramoodu here reprise their roles from Pokkiri Raja. (Their backstories remain the same except in the case of Vijayaraghavan’s Krishnan Nair whose limp is attributed to a different cause from the inter-clan violence cited in Pokkiri Raja.) Each of these men makes a brief appearance in Madhuraraja, none is offered any particular challenge, and therefore none of their performances is particularly worth lauding.

Tamil actor Jai plays Raja’s foster brother – he has a long role but lacks the charisma to pull it off in the way Prithviraj Sukumaran managed to make his mark while sharing screen space with a screen giant in the previous film.

The women are all unremarkable in unremarkable roles, and that includes Anusree whose character Vasanthi gets considerable screen time but is written in a most unappealing fashion.

To be fair to the rest of the cast, most resources in Madhurarajaare concentrated on Mammootty and the villainous Jagapathi Babu who is suitably intimidating and angry throughout.

Since a potentially fine actor like Mammootty seems to have decided that mass-pleasing projects mounted on a massive canvas are the way to go for him, on a relative scale this one is better than most films he has done in a long long while. He and the novelty of those bloodthirsty beasts keep Madhurarajagoing.

The film is mostly quite juvenile, if you think about it – I mean c’mooooon, the interval is announced with the words “the real play begins: intermission” – but the saving grace is that it is not pretentious. It knows what it is and does not demand that we see it as anything more. 

To borrow and play on the protagonist’s words: Madhuraraja does what it says it will do, and only says what it can and will do.  

Rating (out of five stars): **

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:



REVIEW 689: KALANK

$
0
0

Release date:
April 17, 2019
Director:
Abhishek Varman
Cast:



Language:
Alia Bhatt, Varun Dhawan, Madhuri Dixit, Aditya Roy Kapur, Sonakshi Sinha, Sanjay Dutt, Kunal Kemmu, Hiten Tejwani, Kiara Advani, Kriti Sanon
Hindi


Between one and two million people are believed to have been killed and 15 million displaced from their homes in the brutal aftermath of India’s Independence and Partition. Hindus and Sikhs murdered Muslims at the time, Muslims murdered Hindus and Sikhs, women of each community were raped, and property burnt down or stolen as human beings turned to savages in one of the bloodiest tragedies in the subcontinent’s history. There were devils and decent people on all sides, and though nationalists on both extremes would have us believe otherwise, no one group has a right to claim sainthood or even the status of the lesser evil or to exonerate itself of the havoc wrought in that period.

It takes a particularly monumental level of opportunism or apathy though, at a time when India’s Muslims are being demonised by the ruling right-wing establishment and its majoritarian Hindu supporters, to tell a Partition-era story in which Muslims are the perpetrators of all violence and manipulation, while Hindu characters are painted in gentle, pastel shades. Yet it is in this scenario, in 2019, that writer-director Abhishek Varman and his producers have chosen to bring us Kalank.

In the film’s final shot, as the camera closes in on her pristine face, the voice of Roop (played by Alia Bhatt) places the onus on the viewer for what we see in the story: positivity or negativity, mohabbat (love) or kalank (stigma, stain). The point being made is that it is up to us. 

Pish-posh and a ton of tosh! At least take responsibility for what you are doing, Team Kalank. Sure, yours is a love story on the face of it. But it is a love story steeped in symbolism that wittingly or unwittingly, either intentionally or in its bid to play safe, ends up playing into the hands of a divisive dominant public discourse.

The ball is set rolling on the eve of Independence when Satya (Sonakshi Sinha) discovers that she is dying and decides to steer her beloved husband Dev Chaudhry (Aditya Roy Kapur) towards love of another woman. Enter: Roop.

Matters work out in such a way that Roop marries the wealthy Dev even while Satya is alive. He is a nice guy, dedicated to his family-owned newspaper and the idea of preserving India as an undivided nation. He is also honest with Roop about his devotion to Satya, and promises her respect but not love.


The Chaudhrys are residents of Husnbad where the Muslim population, represented by a politician played by Kunal Kemmu, laments the fact that though they are the majority they live as if they are a minority. Roop heads to the town’s Muslim quarters, evidently less privileged than hers, where she meets the tawaif Bahaar Begum (Madhuri Dixit) and the Casanova Zafar (Varun Dhawan).

You know already from the trailer that Roop falls in love with Zafar, but there is a lot more brewing below the surface than meets the eye. As politics, economics and inter-personal rancour mingle, lives are destroyed and nothing will be the same again.

In Kalank’s scheme of things, Roop symbolises undiluted goodness, a young Mother India figure of sorts over whom everyone is fighting, torn between love/passion and duty, somehow always staying on the righteous path, never meaning anyone harm, an innocent victim of her circumstances. Dev is pure as the driven snow, a man fighting for the greater good of the country even while his combustible Muslim antagonist worries about what is presented as petty personal interests.  Whether by intent or unthinkingly is not clear, but Kalank’s screenplay serves to project big business as the saviour of the nation while self-employment and small enterprise are treated as dispensable for a higher purpose.

Zafar stands for the embittered but golden-hearted Muslim, who is transformed by the power of love.

In the midst of a spectacular performance by Bhatt, Dhawan’s sensitive turn as Zafar, and Dixit’s stately, statuesque presence, woven around those stunning costumes, extravagant sets, lavishly choreographed dance sequences and some pleasant music by Pritam, lies a tale that even while speaking of the strength of love versus hatred, still does precisely what Mani Ratnam’s Tamil film Bombay got away with doing over two decades back: it takes sides while not appearing to do so.

A betrayal by a Hindu character (Sanjay Dutt) is the reason for the domino effect of resentment that consumes everyone in Kalank. He is a token presence thrown in to counter naysayers. There is no escape though from the larger picture on this canvas on which every lie, every instance of politicking, every act of aggression, violence and bloodletting comes from a Muslim.

This is especially disappointing because in the film’s early scenes there is more than one mention – intelligent and well thought out – of Hindu and Muslim social practices that mirror each other although Muslims alone are stereotyped for it. The insightful ruminativeness of those moments gives way to the one-sidedness of the rest.

It is important to mention that Kalank is no Padmaavat. Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s 2018 release was ugly, overt and unapologetic about its Islamophobia. Varman – who debuted with the vastly superior Two States– has given Kalank a quieter tone and a sweet Muslim hero. In some ways, however, this makes his film arguably more harmful because it is drawn up in such a way as to lower even a concerned viewer’s antennae despite the hate-filled socio-political reality in which we find ourselves.

It is tempting to not think of the troubling, damaging politics of Kalankbecause it is fronted by such a likeable cast and comes in such pretty packaging. There is nothing pretty though about the lack of nuance in its portrayal of Hindu-Muslim equations and the lasting image from this film of the ferocious Muslim who destroys not just the other but also his own in pursuit of a cause.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:


REVIEW 690: ATHIRAN

$
0
0

Release date:
April 12, 2019
Director:
Vivek
Cast:



Language:
Fahadh Faasil, Sai Pallavi, Atul Kulkarni, Leena, Surabhi Lakshmi, Sudev Nair, Leona Lishoy, Renji Panicker, Shanthi Krishna, Prakash Raj
Malayalam with English


So Fahadh Faasil is human after all. Anyone thinking that New Malayalam Cinema’s poster boy could do no wrong after his dream run with the back-to-back arrival of Varathan, Njan Prakashanand KumbalangiNights in theatres in recent months is likely to be given pause by Athiran. Writer-director Vivek’s film does have a promising premise, but it struggles to stay afloat in the writing of the screenplay, the direction and even some of the acting. It coulda been a contender, as On The Waterfront’s Terry Malloy might have said, but what it ends up being instead is tepid fare. 

Athiran opens with an eerie scene in which a character played by Shanthi Krishna sees a bunch of unexplained bodies lying around her house. Fast forward to a few years later, and Fahadh Faasil’s character is headed to a home for the mentally ill in the Kerala countryside where he introduces himself as Dr M.K. Nair to the doctor-in-charge, Dr Benjamin Diaz (Atul Kulkarni). Nair reveals that he has been sent by medical authorities in Thiruvananthapuram to check on what are suspected to be questionable practices by Diaz.  

We gradually meet the inmates at the centre: a girl who dresses in a nun’s habit (Leona Lishoy), a dashing and loquacious young fellow (Sudev Nair), an oddly protective lady (Surabhi Lakshmi), an elderly professor who speaks repeatedly of schadenfreude (Vijay Menon), and others.

Dr Diaz and his suspicious Woman Friday, Renuka (played by Leena), resist Nair every step of the way, but soon he comes face to face with their most closely guarded patient: Nithya (Sai Pallavi). She is the present-day link to the dead people shown in the opening.

The best part of Athiran comes towards the beginning when Nair is on the road to Diaz’s place. Director of Photography Anu Moothedath’s camera wanders unfettered across the thickly green landscape, pulling up up and away to give us extreme high angle aerial shots, returning quietly to take a closer look at the ground, staying with Dr Nair and his fellow travellers as we listen to their chatter for a bit, wandering silently among and over trees, zooming out again and then coming back. Quite remarkably, it does all this without moving in a dizzying fashion, instead pacing itself slowly and giving those scenes a watchful air. The natural splendour of the region is inescapable as is the grandeur of the British colonial-era mansion from which Dr Diaz operates, but the overriding impression is of a land and a residence holding secrets that must be feared.

At first, Vivek’s collaboration with Moothedath and background score composer Ghibran succeeds in creating a sense of foreboding. But as time passes, the camera gets somewhat manipulative in a clichéd fashion (such as with that shot of just one of Fahadh Faasil’s eyes), and combined with an increasingly insistent score, starts chipping away at the ominous atmosphere rather than exacerbating it.

Considering the megaton wattage of the names in the credits, the acting is, surprisingly, a mixed bag. On the one hand there is Fahadh Faasil’s very intelligent performance, with some of its confusing aspects making absolute sense once the big reveal comes around in the end. On the other hand there is the usually dependable and remarkable Atul Kulkarni who over-acts throughout Athiran.

Sai Pallavi can perhaps be partly excused for her inconsistent performance, because her Nithya is meant to be autistic but Vivek (who wrote the story) and his co-writer P.F. Mathews (who did the screenplay and dialogues) don’t seem to have a well-rounded understanding of this developmental disorder, which is used in Athiran as nothing more than a tool to intimidate and confuse audiences. That said, actors have a responsibility to do their own research too, and the sharpness of Nithya’s gaze in the action scenes suggests insufficient homework done for this role. After having left a lasting impression as Malar Miss from Premam and the terrified Anjali from Kali, the solitary plus for this charismatic young Tamil-Telugu-Malayalam actor here is that Athiran shows her desire to experiment.

With the film floundering on the writing front right from the start, it is no surprise that other elements end up being shaky. Vivek probably had a good idea to begin with, but he and Mathews seem torn between wanting to make a paranormal thriller or a crime saga woven around a portrait of mental health. To throw us off their scent, they keep implying that the film is one or the other, but in the end, once the final twist is done and dusted, there are too many loose ends, red herrings and unconvincing motivations left hanging that the team seems not to have known how to tie up. Just think, for instance, of the painter who can see into the future among the patients at Dr Diaz’s home for the mentally ill.

In fact, after their introductory scenes, Nithya’s fellow patients are given nothing to remember them by beyond the defining quirk assigned to each one. Even the insertion of Kalari into the plot feels superfluous, an attempt perhaps to either divert attention from and/or provide an indigenous touch to the very obvious Hollywood source for the plot.

Besides, the narrative goes slack after a while. The musical interludes do not help at all, most especially that passage featuring a song in which a crucial character is shown romancing another in conventional commercial Indian cinema style.

It is hard to believe that Mathews was the writer of Ee.Ma.Yau., director Lijo Jose Pellissery’s incredibly beautiful funeral film released last year. The story of Athiran maybe Vivek’s, but the screenplay after all is Mathews’. Considering the expectations raised by the stellar credits, Athiran’s ordinariness is a big disappointment.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 691: ORU YAMANDAN PREMAKADHA

$
0
0

Release date:
April 25, 2019
Director:
B.C. Naufal
Cast:






Language:
Dulquer Salmaan, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Salim Kumar, Soubin Shahir, Samyuktha Menon, Nikhila Vimal, Renji Panicker, Bibin George, Suraj Venjaramoodu, Lena, Akshara Kishor, Sunil Sukhada, Dileesh Pothan, Dharmajan Bolgatty, Hareesh Perumanna, Arun Kurian
Malayalam


It must be tough being Dulquer Salmaan. On the one hand, you are a fine actor keen to work in intelligent films and be a part of the Malayalam industry’s increasing ability to make blockbusters out of sensible cinema. On the other hand, you have the looks and personality to possibly pull off those stereotypical larger-than-life characters that the senior male megastars of your industry, including your Dad, have played for decades and that continue to earn crores. The factors that recently persuaded your usually unconventional contemporary Nivin Pauly to waste himself on Mikhaelmust be at play in your life too. I can only imagine a zillion voices trying to coax you to go the way of The Great Father, Lucifer and Mikhael.

Hear ye Your Royal Cuteness, Your Majesty Prince of the Malayalam Realm, Explorer of Kingdoms Beyond, Actor Par Excellence, Knight of the Handsome Face and Sweet Smile, if Oru Yamandan Premakadha reveals anything to a long-time viewer of your work, it is that the likes of Ustad Hotel, Kammatipaadam and Kaliare your natural habitat – your reluctance to head in the opposite direction shows.

Readers should not misunderstand: to be fair to Oru Yamandan Premakadha (A Massive/Powerful Love Story), it is far from being the excruciating experience that The Great Father, Lucifer and Mikhael were. When it gets loud it is not as loud, when it is clichéd it is still not insufferable. What it is though is neither here nor there.

Oru Yamandan Premakadha (OYP) is an obvious effort by writers Bibin George and Vishnu Unnikrishnan (who earlier collaborated on Amar Akbar Anthony and Kattappanayile Rithwik Roshan) along with director B.C. Naufal to be ruminative while trying to achieve the magnitude of Mollywood’s megabucks formula films. Sorry gentlemen, but those ruminations are downright ridiculous and the shot at appearing thoughtful is in any case overshadowed by the attempt to scale up.

Dulquer Salmaan / DQ’s decision to pick this film is at one level inexplicable, because it truly is a silly script. At another level though, when viewed solely in the context of its tenor and the size of its canvas, the choice suggests a hesitation to go all-out low-key like his colleague Fahadh Faasil, even as he steers clear of formulaic rubbish.

DQ plays OYP’s Lallu, the happy-go-lucky son of a rich lawyer (Renji Panicker). The young man cares nothing for the comforts his father’s wealth can buy. He prefers leftovers from a friend’s kitchen over food from an expensive hotel, paints houses instead of opting for a high-flying corporate career of the sort his younger brother (Arun Kurian) has gone in for, and hangs out with men who his Dad considers below their station. 

Lallu has three constant companions. Teny (Vishnu Unnikrishnan) earns a living as a bad karaoke singer on the streets and is blind. The elderly widowed alcoholic Panjikuttan (Salim Kumar) is a house painting contractor. Soubin Shahir plays a man anxious to hook up with any woman who will have him.

All the girls in town have been smitten by Lallu since he was a boy, but Lallu was and is determined only to be with a woman with whom he shares a “spark” at first sight. One such angelic creature does come along at one point, but the film has meandered about for sooooo long till then and everything that follows thereafter is so stupid that it is impossible to care.

At first there are a few laughs to be had at the expense of Lallu and his buddies. Pretty soon, however, the humour peters out and the script keeps jumping from one unconnected thought to another, feeling quite vacuous after a while. If the idea is to dwell on the many unexpected and unexplained cross connections in human relations, to make a point that even the most seemingly insignificant person serves a purpose in life, then the point is poorly made. If the idea is to tickle our funny bones, then it barely works.

OYP is filled with running jokes that range from funny-at-first-but-ruined-by-repetition to downright unfunny, distasteful and/or dull, dull, dull. Like the thread about a roadside eatery owner (Hareesh Perumanna) who is so bad at Maths that he cannot calculate what his patrons owe him and therefore does not charge them. Yawn. Or that other thread involving a jobless twosome (Dharmajan Bolgatty is one of them) seated outside and talking non-stop. Yawn. Or the emaciated-looking fellow who struggles to catch fish and who is incessantly taunted for his skinniness, which includes being addressed as “onangiya sraavey” (dried-up shark). Err, nasty! Or Lallu’s repeated use of “omana kutti” in place of “ok”. Umm, no ya, trying too hard to be cho-chweet and cash in on the actor’s own omana-kuttan-ness. As for Lallu’s full name that is revealed only in the final scene, it is such a yawn, yawn, yawn. Some of these motifs have potential, but the writers fail to flesh them out well.

There are other more grave refrains in OYP that are no doubt meant to be profound, but are no less ineffectual. Like the one featuring the villainous Davis (Bibin George), a mysterious chap with a physical disability who is haunted by Mommy issues and who keeps appearing, disappearing and reappearing. Whatever.

Then there is the passing reference to a “vanitha mathil” (women’s wall), the third time in a month now that I have heard a Malayalam film make a wisecrack about the human chain formed in Kerala earlier this year as a symbol of solidarity in the women’s rights movement. Unlike the misogynistic potshots in Mera Naam Shaji and Madhuraraja, the mention in OYPis not cutting – it is meaningless. Still, the fact that the mathil is repeatedly being brought up in popular culture with pretended nonchalance indicates just how much it has disturbed the men of this patriarchal industry. There is a separate and long discussion to be had here.

That said, everything that is wrong with OYP – including its rather bizarre, mixed-up comment on the (un)importance of education –is put in the shade by the writers’ deathly serious conviction that a human being could fall deeply in love with someone they have only seen in a photograph. This is not portrayed as a mere attraction but as a profound, life-altering love.

The supporting cast of OYP is packed with familiar faces, but in the face of such uninspiring writing, most deliver generic performances. Suraj Venjaramoodu, Lena and Dileesh Pothan invest more of themselves in the film than it deserves. Two striking women who have already proved that they are solid artistes – Nikhila Vimal (Njan Prakashan) and Samyuktha Menon (Theevandi) – are squandered here as showpieces in a plot pinned entirely on the male protagonist.

DQ looks good in lungis and is charming of course, but even his charm cannot hold up nearly three hours of exhausting wanderings. Your Royal Handsomeness, whatchadoin' with this lousy script? A better name for it would have been Oru Mundane Premakadha.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


FEATURE: KUMBALANGI NIGHTS & THE JOURNEY OF INDIAN CINEMA

$
0
0
The Kumbalangi Nights Phenomenon: One small step for Mollywood, a giant leap for Indian cinema 

By Anna M.M. Vetticad

It is now in its 12th week in Kerala movie theatres despite the tsunami effect that Avengers: Endgame has had on most small films, it played for 7 weeks each in Chennai and Bangalore, 6 weeks in Mumbai and Hyderabad, and 5 weeks in the National Capital Region – this is the kind of pan-India spread and longevity that Kollywood, Tollywood and Bollywood’s flamboyant star-laden big-banner ventures hope for but rarely get. Yet the film we speak of here is not a mega project from one of India’s three largest industries, but a little gem called Kumbalangi Nightsfrom the comparatively small Malayalam film industry a.k.a. Mollywood.


Made on a budget of Rs 6.5 crore, Kumbalangi Nights sold its overseas rights for Rs 1.5 crore and had grossed Rs 27.89 crore by April 4 from the box-office across India, according to its producers – it is likely to cross trade pundits’ earlier expectations that it would close at Rs 30 crore-plus. Kumbalangi Nights has none of the grandiose dialogues and lionising camera angles that characterise films starring Mammootty and Mohanlal who continue to dominate Mollywood and rake in big bucks in far larger quantities. Its appeal lies instead in its simplicity and endearing slice-of-life tone mirroring the low-key tenor and realism of the cinema that some observers have come to see as a Malayalam New Wave of the past decade.

These films have been varied in their ambition, storylines and scale but have in common their desire to keep it real, to capture the flavour of the people and the fragrance of the soil in which they are set. Such as in that moment in Kumbalangi Nights in which the curly-haired Babymol (Anna Ben) shakes her head ever so slightly sideways in vintage Malayali style, as she tells her friend in a sing-song Malayalam accent: “Bobby and Baby – those names would look so good on a wedding card, would they not?”

Or later when Babymol has a tiff with Bobby (Shane Nigam) who storms off and boards a boat to escape her, at which point she yells across the pristine water: “I have found a name for a film about my life – Oolaye Premichcha Pennkutty (The Girl Who Fell For An Idiot).” And in the background of that soundscape ruled by stillness and quiet, we hear the boatman giggle.

Everyday lines such as these spoken by Baby & Co. have attained iconic status among audiences in the nearly three months since Kumbalangi Nights’ release. Their allure comes from their ability to transport viewers to the Kerala of reality, peopled by individuals and communities that tourists can expect to bump into on a visit, unlike the make-believe world of larger-than-life Mollywood ventures.

Kumbalangi Nights revolves around brothers Saji, Bonny, Bobby and Frankie from the rural island of Kumbalangi on the outskirts of Kochi. The siblings have a testy relationship. When their paths cross with Baby, her sister Simi and autocratic brother-in-law Shammy, warmth and a parallel discomfort are followed by self-loathing, conflict, mayhem, and finally, redemption and reconciliation.

“I was absolutely charmed by the story of a dysfunctional family like no other and the setting,” says journalist Aseem Chhabra, director of the New York Indian Film Festival who divides his time between India and the US. “The sense of simplicity appealed to me. And gosh, it was so romantic.”


Humour, socio-cultural detailing and unobtrusive political statements are the qualities that have made Kumbalangi Nights a darling of critics and viewers. Collections apart, the film has acquired a pan-India cult following comparable to the respect earned by the Tamil film Aaranya Kaandam (2011), Thithi (Kannada) and Sairat (Marathi), both from 2016, and Malayalam cinema’s own Angamaly Diaries (2017)

This though is not an account of Kumbalangi Nights’ success alone, but a chronicle of the position at which Indian cinema finds itself right now as exemplified by the journey of this particular film.

Although the exhibition sector nationwide has opened up considerably in recent years, vast tracts headquartered in Delhi and Mumbai continue to treat non-Hindi Indian cinema as subordinate to Bollywood and Hollywood. This pro-Bollywood/Hindi slant led the Maharashtra government, for instance, in 2015 to make it mandatory for the state’s multiplexes to slot at least one Marathi film during post-noon hours.

Tollywood’s Baahubali franchise strategically surmounted this Bollywood bias by getting Bollywood stalwart Karan Johar on board as a presenter-distributor of its Hindi dubbed versions. It was a giant-sized project anyway, but Johar’s association with it made it even bigger because of his clout with northern and western Indian theatres and with the ‘national’ media that is otherwise indifferent to Telugu cinema.

Despite the self-defeating resistance from the exhibition sector that contradicts its own expansion efforts, a Kumbalangi Nightswas inevitable for Mollywood on a landscape where scores of viewers nationwide are demanding more than they have been served in previous decades and the snail’s-paced leviathans of India’s film industries – producers, distributors and exhibitors – have been gradually waking up to that demand.

In that sense, Kumbalangi Nights is the right film at the right place at the right time.

Leading the confluence of factors that has led to its triumph is the journey of Malayalam cinema along two co-existing tracks. On the one hand Mollywood churns out bombastic big-budget films like this summer’s Madhuraraja starring Mammootty and the Mohanlal-starrer Luciferthat have created a storm at turnstiles in Kerala and among Malayali fans of these stars outside the state. On the other hand are mood films occupying the same plane as Angamaly Diaries and Kumbalangi NightsUstad Hotel, Kammatipaadam, Maheshinte Prathikaaram, Take Off, Mayaanadhi, Eeda and Koode among them – that have in the past 10 years or so sustained Mollywood’s nationwide reputation as a maker of quality realistic cinema that does not necessarily head off into overly artsy, esoteric or dreary territory. Their middle-of-the-road nature – thoughtful yet entertaining in varying ways – has earned them a loyal following not just among Malayalis, but also among non-Malayali cinephiles. 


Kumbalangi Nights’ debutant director Madhu C. Narayanan acknowledges the debt of gratitude that filmmakers like him owe Kerala audiences who have nurtured this movement. “When we made Kumbalangi Nights,” he says, “we did it with the absolute confidence that at least we were guaranteed the audience that had seen Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum.” Narayanan was credited for “creative contribution” in the latter, director Dileesh Pothan’s National Award winning hit from 2017.

It’s a classic chicken-and-egg situation: as a new lot of experimental Malayalam filmmakers like Aashiq Abu and Pothan emerged, viewers hungry for a change from formulaic fare backed them, and these filmmakers returned the favour by taking bigger risks and persisting in making formula-defying films not reliant on reigning megastars, thus whetting existing viewer appetites while simultaneously generating curiosity among others and drawing more people to their works day by day. “With each passing film, the audience for such cinema has increased,” Narayanan adds. “The fact that there is a ready audience for quality cinema in Kerala gives us the confidence to explore more such unusual subjects.”

This confidence complements the digital upsurge that has revolutionised entertainment in India in recent years.

Until about a decade back, conventional ‘wisdom’ in the film exhibition and distribution trades largely assumed that the only Indian films (other than Hindi) that Indians were interested in watching were in their own respective mother tongues. This myopic attitude did not take into consideration people who had for years been visiting film festivals, joining film clubs, buying DVDs or illegally downloading films online in various languages since their local theatres denied them the variety they craved. In the case of films in languages other than Hindi, this group of committed cinephiles was mostly deemed by decision makers to be too minuscule to translate into significant box-office collections if the same films were to be given theatrical releases outside the regions in which their languages are primarily spoken. Barring exceptions such as the multiple dubbed versions of Mani Ratnam’s Roja and Bombay released in the 1990s, little effort was made to build awareness and spur audience growth by resorting to dubbing and/or subtitling and strong marketing.

Producers of films in languages other than Hindi either had a frog-in-the-well attitude and/or were weighted down by a defeatist, fatalistic assumption that they did not stand a chance pan-India. They also faced – and still do – the hurdle of an unabashed pro-Hindi/Bollywood bias in the supposed ‘national’ newspapers and TV channels based in Delhi and Mumbai, a bias that automatically drastically cuts down the number of news platforms on which these films could be promoted.

(Note: Bollywood producers too lacked – and still lack – the vision to subtitle their films in a bid to expand the viewership they already garner outside Hindi-speaking regions. Despite the privileges they enjoy, industry insiders estimate that on an average only 30 per cent of Hindi film collections come from beyond the Hindi belt, so there is indeed scope to extend their reach.)

It did not help that in the pre-digital age of physical prints, dubbing and/or subtitling was logistically tougher. India’s film industries lacked the far-sightedness to realise that the additional inconvenience and investment involved would lead to a long-term widening of audiences for cinema across Indian languages.

Hollywood was much quicker to nose out the potential for its films beyond the traditional audience of English speakers in India. It has been about 20 years since American majors made it a standard practice to release their films – all the tentpole projects and many smaller ones – in dubbed Telugu, Hindi and Tamil versions in India in addition to the original English.

“Hollywood had the foresight to see that localisation was the way forward to expand markets,” says Raj Malik, Vice President – Strategy & Business Development of the Mumbai-based Inspired Entertainment, a content production, distribution and promotion company. An industry veteran who has previously held senior positions at Warner Bros, Eros and Disney in India, Malik recalls that from the late 1990s onwards, long before Indian audiences for Hollywood films had reached the size they are at today, “India offices of the big studios were carpet-bombing the market with dubbed content, ranging from Men in Black to Night At The Museum, from superhero adventures to animation features”. He adds: “Films like those of the Marvel Cinematic Universe have achieved their present scale because of the years invested in building and enlarging the worldwide audience for them in this fashion.”

India took a cue from Hollywood much later. In the past decade or so, accompanied by the mushrooming of multiplexes, there has been an increase in Indian language cinema other than Hindi (let’s avoid the marginalising term “regional cinema”, please) being released outside their home bases. Quite fortuitously, the TV media explosion at the turn of the century had led to Hindi dubbed versions of southern Indian films being regularly released on general entertainment channels, which familiarised Hindi audiences with the stars of these industries, thus piquing the interest of some of them at least to sample these films in their original languages whenever they were available with subtitles – the gains in audience numbers in theatres have been a steady trickle ever since.

The more recent rise of the social media has also helped spread the word among film buffs about good cinema across languages that the mainstream news media in the north was/is not covering. The advent of online news platforms has helped too – news websites have by and large been more open-minded in this arena than newspapers and TV channels. At the same time, as theatres have gone digital, the switch to digital prints from physical prints has made subtitling easier.

Mangesh Kulkarni, Business Head of Zee Studios’ Marathi division points out that digitisation has also simplified distribution. “Earlier one had to take prints physically to certain markets, which is no more needed,” he explains. “This is helping us open more territories more feasibly and faster. We are able to catch on another territory while the buzz about a film is very high.”

The road is still long and wearying because the birth of new media and new technology has not necessarily been accompanied by new mindsets in all quarters. So, even today not all producers subtitle their films. Booking websites and listings do not give information about subs. Theatres – including India’s biggest multiplex chain, the PVRs – routinely provide wrong information about subtitles on their helplines and at booking counters. And even when films are subtitled, these theatres often simply skip playing the subs.


This lethal combination of inefficiency, systemic failings, cultural insularity and short-sightedness has persistently stood in the way of all Indian cinema being available to all Indians, yet there has been some notable forward movement on this front. Rajinikanth-starrers, for one, have got bigger and bigger releases outside southern India, in dubbed versions and in the original Tamil, ever since Sivaji caught the imagination of the ‘national’ media in 2007. And though blockbuster status in every corner of the country remains uncommon even for Hindi with all its advantages, a pioneering distribution and promotional gameplan helped the Baahubali franchise – dubbed versions and the original Telugu – to slip through the cracks, ace all hurdles and achieve that rare distinction, with Baahubali: The Conclusion becoming the highest grossing Indian film of all time and Baahubali: The Beginning too ranking among India’s Top 10.

These however are projects with large budgets mounted on a massive scale, designed as mass offerings and with the wherewithal to market themselves heavily. Arguably the more heartening development of the past decade has been the emergence of smaller filmmakers and smaller, thought-provoking films in various languages other than Hindi impacting the pan-India box-office when released with subtitles. This has been enabled, among other things, by social-media-driven word of mouth and the economics of multiplexes, which allows space for films of all sizes.

Riding this trend, directors like Umesh Vinayak Kulkarni (Marathi), Lijo Jose Pellissery(Malayalam) and Raam Reddy (Kannada) have become familiar names among committed cinephiles countrywide with their intimate portraits of specific cultures. Nagraj Manjule (Marathi), Anjali Menon (Malayalam) and Rajeev Ravi (Malayalam) appear to have cracked the mystery of how to turn realistic, issue-driven cinema into large-scale money-spinners. They are all children of an evolving consumer whose existence is slowly compelling Indian producers, distributors and exhibitors to rethink their business plans.

Online platforms on their part have had a dual revolutionising effect on audiences: at one level, they offer easy access to films that were earlier hard to come by for those viewers who never considered language a barrier, at another level they serve to educate new audiences through exposure. This, film industry watchers believe, is further raising footfalls in mainstream theatres for cinema in languages other than viewers’ mother tongues, which demand is then translating into more shows for such cinema in theatres.

“The digital media are preparing people en masse for consumption of content whether it is in their language or any other language with subtitles,” says Zee’s Mangesh Kulkarni


The Marathi film industry, which rivals Mollywood’s reputation for quality, is a good case study here. Kulkarni says that earlier a Marathi movie’s average collections outside Maharashtra would be 5% of the total, but that has changed in recent years with films like Katyar Kaljat Ghusali(2015) and Natsamrat (2016). Small, meaningful Marathi cinema already had a dedicated audience outside the state and beyond Marathi speakers, but the scale of interest in Marathi cinema at large has shot up since Sairat, Nagraj Manjule’s 2016 film about an upper caste girl and a Dalit boy in love: 12% of Sairat’s total collections came from outside Maharashtra, the figure was 10% for last year’s parent-child saga Naal and Anandi Gopal, a biopic of one of India’s first woman doctors. 

“The market for Marathi movies outside Maharashtra was earlier in pockets with primarily Marathi populations. These last few films have broken that,” says Kulkarni. Naal“had a 3-4 week run in Chennai”, while Anandi Gopal“has done exceedingly well in Hyderabad, Bangalore and Kolkata. They were not necessarily watched by Marathi folks, they also got huge acclaim from non-Marathis in those areas.”

Kumbalangi Nights’ Madhu C. Narayanan believes video online streaming platforms not only feed intelligent, adventurous audiences, they have also made audiences at large more exacting. “Unlike in our youth, today young people have plenty of opportunities and platforms in their hands to watch films of all languages from across India and the world,” he explains. “When youngsters with exposure to so much quality cinema watch our films, we too have to compulsorily maintain a certain minimum quality.”

It is in this context that Kumbalangi Nights has been embraced by cineastes across the country. As it heads for Delhi’s Habitat Film Festival in May, this film is a timely reminder that while language maybe region specific, emotions and laughter are not.

The country’s film-crazed millions can only hope that their own increasing open-mindedness and this era of online video streaming will deal a final death blow to the misconceptions, prejudices, lack of enterprise and inefficiencies that have for decades stalled the spread of Indias own cinema within India.

This article was published on Firstpost on April 30, 2019:

REVIEW 692: SETTERS

$
0
0

Release date:
May 3, 2019
Director:
Ashwini Chaudhary
Cast:



Language:
Aftab Shivdasani, Shreyas Talpade, Pavan Raj Malhotra, Jameel Khan, Ishita Dutta, Sonnalli Seygall, Manu Rishi Chadha, Vijay Raaz, Zeishan Quadri
Hindi


Kaahe labadh-labadh kar raha hai?” sounds so much more colourful than its English translations “Why are you blabbering?” or “Why are you talking rubbish?” Siraj Ahmed’s Hindi dialogues, rooted in the soil of Varanasi, are among  the nicer elements in Setters, a film set in the holy city amidst an unholy bunch of locals running an exam paper leaking racket. Their trade is far more sophisticated than you might imagine, and gets increasingly high-tech with each passing day as the police close in on the gang. The remuneration, quite justifiably, is never less than several lakh rupees per candidate per exam.

Bhaiyyaji (Pavan Raj Malhotra) is the boss of these criminals and Apurva Choudhury (Shreyas Talpade) is his smartest lieutenant. Their troubles begin when the Superintendent of Police Aditya Singh (Aftab Shivdasani) forms a special task force to bust Bhaiyya’s business.

There is a hint of a whiff of a suggestion that Apurva was once in love with the woman who is now Aditya’s wife. These men used to be friends. Now, clearly, they are not.

Director Ashwini Chaudhary, who earlier made the post-Kargil war-and-family drama Dhoop, is credited as the co-writer of Setters’ story and screenplay along with Vikash Mani. He has designed his film as a police and crime procedural, stripping it of all the frills commonly associated with commercial Bollywood thrillers. And so there are fights but not of the one-man-vanquishes-them-all variety. There is a romance but the hero and heroine are not assigned a song and dance break from the overall tension. In fact, Setters has no hero or heroine in the conventional sense.

So far so good, and up to a point it does appear that Chaudhary has got his tone and pacing right. Some of the plot twists are interesting. The lengths to which people will go to ace an exam without studying for it are both fascinating and amusing. And Bhaiyyaji’s quirks – involving a spittoon and a chappal in particular – are an unspoken insight into the caste and class heirarchies in this society.

Yet, Setters never fully takes flight as it gradually becomes clear that there is only so much the writing has to offer and nothing further. No doubt several of the methods adopted by the gang are impressive, but there are as many that are either simplistic or simply not explained. The code language they use on the phone, for instance, is so easily deciphered by the police that it brings to mind people who use their birth dates as ATM PINs. (Spoiler alert)In one scene one of the ringleaders manages to evade a cop at an airport, but how exactly he gets her to follow another person instead of him (whether by his design or her stupidity) is not explained. Elsewhere, in a scene involving a printing press in Jaipur, one crook gets repeatedly caught trying to smuggle a paper out of the building but another gets away with it – how exactly the latter executes his clever idea is not shown, we are just expected to accept that he did. (Spoiler alert)

The writing of all the characters other than Bhaiyyaji, Apurva and Aditya is also wanting. This is not about screen time but about depth. If you work with an ensemble cast, some of them known and respected character artistes, then you had better make their roles something more than just the labels “the chikankari-worker-turned-hoodlum played by Vijay Raaz” or “the hot-headed honest Muslim cop” or “the woman cop”. Yet that is all these people amount to. They add to the numbers in the police task force and in the criminal gang, but that is about it.

Bollywood has done far better in this genre in the past with Neeraj Pandey’s Akshay Kumar-Manoj Bajpayee-starrer Special 26 and more recently with Raj Kumar Gupta’s Ajay Devgn-Ileana D’cruz-Saurabh Shukla-starrer Raid. So have India’s other film industries: the Mollywood film Action Hero Biju starring Nivin Pauly and Dhuruvangal Pathinaaru in Tamil come to mind just off the top of my head.

In a different genre but similar setting – the exam paper leaking ‘industry’ in an Indian town – this March, Tigmanshu Dhulia’s Hindi film Milan Talkies provided a rich socio-political commentary on the community within which it was set filled with credible, memorable characters.

Setters’ clipped pace is fair enough but its superficiality becomes apparent early on. A fine example of surface treatment is the awkward attempt to illustrate that the loyalty of Muslims is automatically placed under question in our country without any justification. Another is the inclusion of a woman on Aditya Singh’s squad– not only is she a mere token presence, with the character being given hardly any lines beyond “Yes sir”, but the choice of actor is also telling. The slim, trim, model-like, statuesque Sonnalli Seygall, who you may remember from Pyaar Ka Punchnama, is the only glamourous individual in the two opposing groups. In a real world where women are judged more by their looks than their talent and intellect, it is worth noting that the director was comfortable filling Team Aditya and Team Apurva with frumpy men but could not bring himself to cast a frumpy woman in place of Seygall.

There is only one other woman in the entire film: Bhaiyyaji’s daughter does not get many scenes but at least she has a mind of her own. More to the point, she is played by Ishita Dutta who possesses an X factor that makes her noticeable despite the minuteness of her role.

As a youngster yet to establish herself, I guess she has far less to complain about than others in the cast. Why would you take the trouble to rope in Vijay Raaz (Monsoon Wedding, Delhi Belly) and Manu Rishi Chadha (Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, Phas Gaye Re Obama) in your film and then underutilise them? No idea.

Of the actors playing the three focal characters, one of them far outshines the others.

We know that Pavan Raj Malhotra is capable of being fabulous, but here as Bhaiyyaji he over-acts in a number of scenes.

Shivdasani’s career highlights in the past decade and a half have been gross sexist comedies. Given one of the few roles of substance in Setters, he ruins it with his stiff, plodding dialogue delivery and insipidity.

Marathi-Hindi actor Shreyas Talpade has really been given a raw deal by Hindi cinema through most of his career despite his fantastic performance in Nagesh Kukunoor’s fantastic 2005 film Iqbal. In recent years he has been reduced to playing secondary and tertiary roles in the Golmaal slapstick comedy series. He plays Apurva in Setters with conviction, and is the best thing about the film.

In terms of concept and cast, Setters has a lot going for it. In its execution though, it does not quite add up.

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

CBFC Rating (India):
U (bookmyshow)
Running time:
126 minutes (bookmyshow)

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:

REVIEW 693: UYARE

$
0
0

Release date:
Kerala: April 26, 2019
Delhi: May 3, 2019
Director:
Manu Ashokan
Cast:


Language:
Parvathy, Asif Ali, Tovino Thomas, Siddique, Anarkali Marikar, Prem Prakash, Pratap K. Pothen, Samyuktha Menon
Malayalam


Chances are that you know a woman like Pallavi Raveendran – full of beans, with a clear vision for her professional career yet a puddle of misplaced devotion, fear and guilt around the man she loves. Pallavi’s boyfriend Govind is a conservative control freak. He wants to be not just her husband but also the boss of her time, her wardrobe and her plans. Women like her are met with incredulity in the public discourse around intimate partner violence a.k.a. domestic violence, because most people find it hard to believe that someone so apparently strong could be bulldozed by another human being.

Yet there are Pallavis all around us – the actor with the world at her feet who initially covered up the truth when her famous boyfriend physically abused her, the millionaire pop superstar who took her boyfriend back after he was violent with her, an efficient colleague using makeup to camouflage bruises from her husband’s beatings.

Pallavi in Uyare (High) is on the way to becoming a professional pilot when Govind’s possessiveness brims over. To punish her for straining at the straitjacket in which he seeks to bind her, he throws acid on her face.

That terrible moment comes as a shock even though the promotions have prepared us by letting it be widely known that Uyare is the story of an acid-attack survivor piecing her life back together. The feeling of shock arises despite there being not an atom of sensationalism in the scene, because the narrative is designed to draw the viewer into Pallavi’s dreams and hopes by then. I can speak for myself: I had begun to care.

An acid attack is not a mere gimmick in debutant director Manu Ashokan’s hands. His sensitivity is evident in the way the assault is not treated like a twist in a thriller (the sound design in this portion is stupendous). His achievement lies in the fact that Uyare is not a film about Pallavi’s tragedy, but about her journey up to that point and thereafter.

Uyare has been written by the acclaimed team of Bobby and Sanjay whose empathy for women shines through this soul-shattering yet uplifting film. It is a stark departure from the refrain about all men as paavam victims of inevitably traitorous women that is repeated in most Malayalam films. It is also a break from the trivialisation of harassment by much of mainstream Mollywood. It raises no slogans but its messaging is clear.

The story gives Pallavi supporters not saviours. She shares a heartwarming friendship with her classmate (Anarkali Marikar). And her equation with her new-found pal Vishal Rajashekharan (Tovino Thomas) is stripped of the male messiah complex prevalent in cinema worldwide, of the sort exemplified by that scene in the otherwise progressive recent Hindi film Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga in which Sweety (Sonam Kapoor) tells Sahil (Rajkummar Rao) to find others like her in other towns and “save them too”. In Uyare, no one but Pallavi saves Pallavi.

Uyare’s Vishal needs her as much as she needs him. The graph of their association overturns the global Disney Princess stereotype of women finding their salvation via gallant knights in shining armour on white horses, as it was overturned by Hollywood’s Maleficent and Frozen or their tentative precursor Pretty Woman in that final scene in which Edward (Richard Gere) references a dream that Vivian (Julia Roberts) earlier recounted to him and asks, “Sowhat happened after he (the prince in the dream) climbed up the tower and rescued her?” to which Vivian replies, “She rescues him right back.”

While on the subject of fairytales, Uyare’s only missteps involve its far-fetched optimism about the likely fate of a woman like Pallavi. The public reaction to her after she is disfigured is far kinder than it would be in reality. In Uyare’s sanitised world, the mean passenger who objects to her scarred face not being veiled is a very rare exception. Certainly there is a lot of good out there, but there is evil and selfishness too, the extent of which contradicts the film’s rose-tinted take on humankind in these passages.

This utopian worldview could still be excused, what cannot is the absurdity of two in-flight dramas involving Pallavi. Without giving anything away let’s just say that Pallavi’s reactions in both scenarios are believable, one of them a completely human, spontaneously angry response and the other spurred by a major emergency, (Spoiler alert) but her airline’s subsequent leniency towards her and the national civil aviation authorities’ silence are not just improbable, they are downright ridiculous. (Spoiler alert ends)

It is difficult to understand why Bobby and Sanjay authored such silly interludes in an otherwise intelligent, credible storyline. In the rest of the film, they get not just the larger picture right, but also the thoughtful, well-observed details with which they pepper their screenplay. Like the manner in which they demonstrate the psychological benefit of distance in an oppressive relationship. Or a man blaming his own demanding career and neglectful parenting for his child’s wayward ways instead of pointing fingers at the mother, as is the standard practice. Or a judge allowing his ego to overrule humanity.

That this is a thinking film is evidenced by the respect it shows its primary audience – that is, the Malayalam-speaking Malayali based in Kerala – by embedding Malayalam subtitles in the print for its occasional English and Hindi dialogues. This is in addition to the overlay of English subs throughout.

Uyare sets up its story very well. It conjures up an unnerving atmosphere right from the start as we are introduced to Pallavi’s charms and Govind’s surly watchfulness. This is in no small measure due to the film’s pale grey-blue-brown-black-and-white palette and low-key tenor. Though the narrative could have done without that long romantic song before Pallavi leaves Kerala for her flying academy in Mumbai, the mood is set.

It helps that cinematographer Mukesh Muraleedharan approaches Pallavi with dignity, as he does the other survivors in their brief appearance. At no point is his camera’s gaze on them exploitative and calculated to titillate. The manner in which Muraleedharan’s lens looks at Pallavi after she is injured is akin to a friend who is determined not to divert his gaze yet also not to stare, who wants not to be hurtful yet not to cause discomfort either.

Ashokan and the writers could not have found a better cast or team of technicians to translate their vision on screen.


Siddique is beautifully restrained as a father struggling to hide his heartbreak from his daughter. So is Prem Prakash playing Govind’s Dad. The scene of a confrontation involvingthe two gentlemen and Pallavi is written, directed and acted to near perfection.

Tovino Thomas plays cute well, as we know from Mayaanadhi, Godha and other films, but he also knows how not to allow cute to spill over into cloying. The challenge for him in Uyare is to make a somewhat immature, needy, insecure character not irritating but loveable, and he strikes a fine balance with Vishal.

The find of Uyare is Asif Ali. Though this young actor has been around for a decade and is a star, I have rarely found him remarkable. As Govind, however, he is exceptional. The easy thing would have been to overact this character as an overtly repulsive fellow, instead Ali makes us fear him. There is something volcanic about his Govind, as if lava is simmering just below his skin and will pour out of his pores any moment.

At the centre of this constellation of talents is a genius. Parvathy’s superpower is her ability to mutate into the persons she plays, erasing all reminders of her bodily presence in the character. This is not an actor in the role of a survivor, she IS that survivor.

Uyare’s world-class prosthetics and make-up team handles part of the physical after-effects of a corrosive substance being thrown at Pallavi’s face, Parvathy takes care of the rest. Her body language is transformative in an indefinable way, her emotions under-stated but profoundly felt. When she briefly explodes with rage at a regressive suggestion made in court, she barely raises her voice yet the force of her feelings is palpable.

Parvathy and her co-stars are a major reason why it is possible to look past the glitches in the second half of Uyare. Manu Ashokan and Bobby-Sanjay’s film is a searing portrait of an indestructible woman and a fitting tribute to the resilience of the human spirit.

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

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

A version of this review has been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:

REVIEW 694: STUDENT OF THE YEAR 2

$
0
0

Release date:
May 10, 2019
Director:
Punit Malhotra
Cast:



Language:
Tiger Shroff, Tara Sutaria, Ananya Panday, Aditya Seal, Abhishek Bajaj, Samir Soni, Manoj Pahwa, Gul Panag, Guest appearances: Will Smith and Alia Bhatt
Hindi


Can a leading man’s nice-guy demeanour hold up an entire film? The answer is to be found in the new Tiger Shroff-starrer in town. Shroff has a likeable quality about him, but his facial muscles remain more or less stationary throughout Student of the Year 2, which I suppose could be deemed appropriate considering that the plot itself has not moved since Sidharth Malhotra and Varun Dhawan battled it out over a trophy and Alia Bhatt in Student of the Year (SOTY) in 2012.

That film was directed by Karan Johar, and whatever its failings may have been – the foremost being that it sinfully underutilised Bhatt’s acting talent and reduced her to a Barbie – at least it had her cuteness, Malhotra’s hotness, Dhawan’s fledgling acting skills, the trio’s undeniable charisma and a superficial fun factor going for it. The sequel, produced by Johar and directed by Punit Malhotra (I Hate Love Storys), pretends to be about two girls and a boy but it doesn't really care about the girls, and the boy, well, he is played by Shroff who cannot act to save his life or a film.

SOTY is centred around the very very middle class Rohan Sachdev (Shroff), star athlete of the low-brow Pishorilal Chamandas College, and his rivalry with the very very wealthy Manav Singh Randhawa (Aditya Seal) of the snooty Saint Teresa College not far away. When Rohan beats Manav unexpectedly in a track event, the stage is set for a clash in their personal and student lives culminating in the annual Dignity Cup tournament between the colleges of Dehradun and Mussoorie that will also decide the winner of the Student of the Year trophy.

You know women mean even less to SOTY 2 than they did to SOTY 1 when the bad guy promises the good guy that at the end of the contest he will have the trophy on one arm and the latter’s girlfriend on the other, and his attitude echoes the attitude of the film itself, which treats their female collegemates as prizes to be won and lost, nothing more. The irrelevance of the women is further underlined by the fact that Student of the Year is a battle between eight colleges, of which we know at least two to be co-ed, yet the competitions shown are all for boys alone. The girls are not even in contention.

To analyse SOTY 2 primarily on the basis of its gender apathy would be to take it too seriously though. What it ought to be judged on are its blandness, triteness and poor casting. Cliché is piled on cliché in this unoriginal screenplay. 

The rich as the evil ones – check.

The middle class as guileless, largely good and at worst, misled by the rich – check.

Loneliness in an upper-class family contrasted with warmth in middle-class family and community life – check.

Glamorous, perfectly made up girls in tiny clothes – check.

Enviably slim female waistlines and legs perennially on display – check.

Boys with muscular, perfectly sculpted bodies – check.

Male biceps and abs perennially on display – check.

Boys who obligingly take off their shirts for our benefit – check.

Boys and girls who look doll-like in their physical flawlessness – check.

Soul – none .

Tara Sutaria who plays Rohan’s girlfriend Mridula has a lukewarm personality, but Ananya Panday, who is cast as mean girl Shreya, has an X factor that pushes its way past the layers of gloss in SOTY2. Both characters are initially positioned as significant but are in fact marginal to the proceedings. The graceful and striking Ms Panday (actor Chunky Pandey’s daughter) deserves more.

Aditya Seal acts better than Shroff but has a somewhat dull screen presence, which made me wonder why his role was not given instead to TV actor Abhishek Bajaj making his film debut here as Rohan’s kabaddi teammate. In a tiny part, Bajaj makes a far greater impression than Seal does as the second lead.

Even the choreography does not throw up anything extraordinarily original. The usually cheery Vishal-Shekhar too roll out a generic soundtrack that does not do much even for the remix of a lovely old Hindi film song in an early dance-off.

There are certain plot elements in SOTY 2 that could perhaps have borne fruit if they had been explored by a better writer, such as the starting point of the story which is about a boy making his girlfriend’s dreams his dreams and having none of his own. This is a reversal of what we see in real-life man-woman relationships, and who knows where it could have been taken. Here though, the screenplay by Arshad Syedis so preoccupied with foregrounding the men that the point wanders away before being referenced once again briefly in the middle and the end, thus adding up to not very much. 

Class struggles among the youth in educational institutions have great potential, as we know from Mansoor Khan’s memorable Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar in the early 1990s. SOTY 1 chose to spend more time on its characters’ bodies, make-up and wardrobes, its soundtrack and dance routines than on its writing, but proved to be entertaining in its own limited fashion. SOTY 2 seems not to even try.

This lack of passion is mirrored by Hollywood superstar Will Smith who dances unenthusiastically for a few seconds on stage in this film in what must rank as the worst conceptualised, worst shot superstar guest appearance in Bollywood in recent memory. Smith’s scene competes with Sutaria’s insipidity, Shroff’s acting and numerous plot clichés to be the answer to the question: what’s the worst part of Student of the Year 2?

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:



REVIEW 695: DE DE PYAAR DE

$
0
0

Release date:
May 17, 2019
Director:
Akiv Ali
Cast:


Language:
Ajay Devgn, Tabu, Rakul Preet Singh, Jaaved Jaaferi, Alok Nath, Jimmy Sheirgill, Kumud Mishra
Hindi


In the opening scene of De De Pyaar De (Give Me Love), a man throws a bachelor party for a friend. Enter: a stripper. Just as she is giving the groom a lap dance, enter: the bride. “Which man in the world will turn down a stripper at his own bachelor party?” says more than one character in defence of the fellow when the angry woman confronts him. He is projected as a hapless chap following his natural instincts, she as a humourless, unreasonable, screeching banshee.

The stripper gets drunk and ends up spending the night at the host’s house. When she wakes up she assumes something had happened between them and ribs the man gently about it. She is convinced of her hotness, sounds comfortable with the thought that he might have had sex with her when she was passed out and will not believe it when he says he did nothing. “Main behoshi ke bahaane ka mauka nahin deta,” the man explains. “Bahaana” in Hindi can be read as both “pretence” and “excuse”, so that translates to: “I do not give women the opportunity to cry rape using the pretence of having been unconscious as their excuse.”

Later in the same passage, she dispenses this wisdom about infidelity: you do not fall in love after one sexual encounter, so how can one sexual encounter cause you to fall out of love? In the context in which that sentence is uttered (that is, while discussing a woman not trusting the man she supposedly loves), here is a translation: a woman does not fall in love with a man simply because she had sex with him once, so how can she fall out of love with that man simply because he had sex with another woman just once?

The line is repeated later in the film by another character.

It’s that same old argument from the 1981 Jeetendra-Rekha-Shabana Azmi-starrer Ek Hi Bhool, in which a wife is taunted and demonised for not forgiving her husband’s single act of sexual infidelity because, after all, it was – as even the erring spouse has the audacity to tell her while demanding absolution – “ek hi bhool” (just one mistake).

Director-editor Akiv Ali’s De De Pyaar De has been marketed as an older-man-younger-woman romance, but make no mistake about this: what it truly is is a vehicle for claims of universal male victimhood, better disguised than its co-producer and co-writer Luv Ranjan’s three directorial ventures that have struck box-office gold in the past decade – Pyaar Ka Punchnama, Pyaar Ka Punchnama (PKP) 2 and Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety (SKTKS). Just to make it clear that De De Pyaar De is a tribute to Ranjan’s earlier works, it features a cameo by Sunny Singh from PKP 2 and SKTKS. The only thing missing is the song from the PKPs: Bandh gaya patta, dekho bann gaya kutta (The leash has been tied / Look, he’s become a dog). 

Unlike those three films, the stars of De De Pyaar De are big names, and perhaps because of that the misogyny is less crass and cleverly packaged instead as a call to modernity, couched in humour, wrapped in the combined warmth of Tabu, Ajay Devgn and their relatively lesser known but equally charismatic co-star Rakul Preet Singh. I kid you not, when a man cheats in this film it is described as an act of generosity towards a woman in need. His advocate is so eloquent while batting for him, that I almost wanted to give him a Nobel Peace Prize for Sexual Kindness.

The story as you already know from the promotions is centred around Ashish (Ajay Devgn) and Aisha (Rakul Preet Singh) who fall in love despite the quarter-century age gap between them. Ashish is a wealthy businessman living in London and estranged from his wife Manju (Tabu), who is a hotelier in Kullu and has brought up their two children. Aisha works through the corporate grind during the week and is a bartender on weekends.

The first half of De De Pyaar De is devoted to Ashish and Aisha overcoming their own mental blocks against their relationship. Post interval they travel to India to introduce her to his family. Confusion and misunderstandings follow, but inevitably there is reconciliation. How that reconciliation is reached or what it amounts to is what the trailer does not reveal.

Despite the troubling set-up with the bachelor party scene, what follows between Ashish and Aisha is sweet and I found myself wondering if the opening chapter was just an aside, possibly the director’s bow to his mentor’s persecution complex about men. Big mistake.

That said, it makes for such a pleasant change to see a male superstar of Devgn’s generation playing his real-life age instead of a 20/30-something screen character. He and Singh have genuine chemistry between them (although he should perhaps be officially banned from kissing women on screen since he seems to go cold in such scenes).


He of course is a talent familiar to Hindi film-goers. The very attractive Singh’s decade long filmography, however, is dominated by Tamil and Telugu cinema and she has done very little work in Bollywood so far. She is good, so the loss is yours, Bollywood.

When the action shifts to Kullu, it begins to feel a bit confusing that Ashish and Aisha’s age difference is an issue in the eyes of their family, when a viewing of Hindi cinema for the past four decades would have convinced a foreigner that a 15-20 year age difference is routine in Indian man-woman relationships. Male stars of Bollywood – from Amitabh Bachchan onwards in particular – have, after all, courted younger and younger heroines as they have grown older and their stature has risen.

De De Pyaar De’s sense of humour continues in the second half, but the misogyny too is now front and centre. It peaks in a horrid competitive scene between Aisha and Manju in which Aisha makes nasty ageist comments using a “puraani gaadi” (old car) as a metaphor for an ageing woman. It is worth noting that when she speaks of Ashish’s age early on, it is written as fond teasing, when she speaks of Manju’s age she is downright mean.

Tabu, of course, is luminous, and when she is around she overshadows everyone else including the gifted leads. It hurts though that she agreed to be part of this disturbing film in which her warmth makes an odd bedfellow with the animosity towards women underlying the entire screenplay and a weird twist in the end that is supposed to be cool but is too terribly contrived to be convincing.

She also gets to deliver the message that is obviously the primary purpose of De De Pyaar De’s existence: “We need to stop blaming him for everything.” In the scene in which Manju makes this statement, “him” is Ashish, but we were not born yesterday, so yeah we get it, “him” is all bechare men being blamed unfairly for all the wrongs in the world for which women should take equal blame, most especially when it is ek hi bhool. Haiye. Poor things.

On second thoughts, the flippant tone of that last paragraph does not sufficiently convey the sadness I felt as a woman watching a film on male victimhood with Alok Nath in the cast. Context cannot be ignored in the matter of casting, and in this case the specific link between the actor and the theme of De De Pyaar De makes it impossible to separate the art from the artist. This is the same Alok Nath who has multiple allegations of sexual harassment and violence against him, and whose first reaction to a rape charge by a TV stalwart last year was to casually say, “Neither am I denying this nor do I would (sic) agree with it” and “It is useless to react on the allegations as in today’s world only what a woman says will be considered.”

I am not delving into the timeline of De De Pyaar De’s casting and production, because Nath plays a small supporting character who could have been ousted if the producers (Ranjan’s Luv Films and T-Series – undoubtedly a moneyed lot) had the will to do so, whereas Hollywood icon Kevin Spacey was House of Cards’ leading man yet was dropped following multiple sexual abuse charges against him and Ridley Scott re-shot a film to replace Spacey for the same reason. Of course it is worth remembering, as the US magazine The Atlantic noted in October 2018, that most “men of #MeToo” in the American entertainment industry have been or are being gradually welcomed back after a brief exile. And in a film industry not far from Bollywood, Malayalam megastar Dileep – who was chargesheeted in a 2017 rape case– played a character in Kammara Sambhavam who got to mouth a line about false cases of sexual violence.

So yeah, Alok Nath is in a film about male victimhood, fronted by personages no less than Tabu and Ajay Devgn. In your face, women!

Rating (out of five stars): *

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 696: PM NARENDRA MODI

$
0
0

Release date:
May 24, 2019
Director:
Omung Kumar B
Cast:





Language:
Vivek Oberoi (credited here as Vivek Anand Oberoi), Manoj Joshi, Zarina Wahab, Suresh Oberoi, Prashant Narayanan, Darshan Kumar, Boman Irani, Anjan Shrivastav, Akshat R. Saluja, Yatin Karyekar, Rajendra Gupta
Hindi


This week’s new Bollywood release, director Omung Kumar B’s PM Narendra Modi (PMNM), is not a biography. It is an unwittingly farcical, comical hagiography of Narendra Modi and the BJP, and even that is a euphemistic description. To put it simply, this is a highly fictionalised account of the present Indian prime minister’s life.

Omung Kumar’s recall value so far has come from the vastly superior Priyanka Chopra-starrer Mary Kom (2014) and the embarrassingly bad Aishwarya Rai Bachchan-starrer Sarbjit (2016). PM Narendra Modi (PMNM) falls into the so-bad-it-could-be-fun category, except that it is not fun at all – it is, instead, an insult to viewer intelligence and viewer knowledge.

Modi ek insaan nahin, ek soch hai (Modi is not a person, Modi is a way of thinking / a concept),” says the protagonist himself at one point. Aur Modi ke baare mein soch badalne ke liye, to change the thinking about Modi, the screenplay – co-written by Anirudh Chawla and the leading man, Vivek Anand Oberoi – runs facts through a carefully chosen sieve and presents a new, rewritten history so far removed from recorded reality, that it bears little resemblance to the actual Modi. In that sense, PMNM reminded me of a scene in last year’s Malayalam feature Kammara Sambhavam in which the hero watches a PR film about his life and does not recognise himself on screen.

Things that did not happen in Modi’s life are in this film shown to have happened: he is shown being arrested during the Emergency, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee is shown praising him to the press during the 2002 riots, in the run-up to the 2014 election Modi is shown volunteering to do a live interview with a hostile TV journalist before an audience and acing it. In the face of such liberties with facts involving major historical events, all PMNM’s other follies and flaws – the word “grateful” being spelt as “greatful” in the opening acknowledgements, the lazy caricature of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Modi’s corrupt government colleague in Gujarat, the false suggestion that Modi never married, other monumental exaggerations and misrepresentations in the screenplay, Hitesh Modak’s overbearing background score and the overall tackiness of the narrative – pale into insignificance.

It is worth mentioning here that the aforementioned hostile journalist is a stooge of a corrupt industrialist called Aditya Reddy played by Prashant Narayanan. Three enemies are very clearly marked out by PMNM: Pakistan, the news media and, through the medium of the Reddy character, the dark-skinned self-serving south Indian.

On Vivek Oberoi’s shoulders falls the task of playing this larger-than-life version of Modi, determined to vanquish all three. Most of Oberoi’s co-stars are comparatively irrelevant because their roles are dwarfed by his, but despite being dealt the same hand, their performances are a mixed bag. Manoj Joshi looks oddly wimpish as Amit Shah (the BJP chief’s full name is muted out in the film for some reason), but Boman Irani brings some dignity to the role of Ratan Tata as does Zarina Wahab playing Modi’s mother. In an ocean of mediocrity, Anjan Shrivastav does a reasonably good take on Atal Bihari Vajpayee without resorting to gimmicky mimicry. 

As for Oberoi, well, in the actor who hams his way through this role, there is no trace of the young debutant who showed such spark under Ram Gopal Varma’s guidance in 2002’s Company. It is sad to watch an artist lose his touch. For those of us who saw something in him in Company, the only consolation is that his turn as Modi is less cringe-worthy than his performance as a horny young chap in Masti (2004), Grand Masti (2013) and Great Grand Masti (2016).

If you think about it, despite the apparent contrast between them, the Masti trilogy and PMNM both offer conventionally accepted definitions of masculinity. The Mastis used slapstick comedy as a vehicle to present us with men driven by their nether regions and their hormones as men naturally would be, or so we are given to understand. In PM Narendra Modi, the hero espouses an earnest, asexual, aggressive machoism, initially speaking of wanting to renounce the world and follow the path taken by Lord Buddha, and in the climactic moments ascribing his decisiveness – as the real life Narendra Modi has done – to a 56-inch chest. You see, his political journey is not a consequence of personal ambition, it is the answer to the public’s prayerful longing for “ek sachcha mard (a real man)” to lead them, to quote the words of a character early in the film.

Rating (out of five stars): 0

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 697: INDIA’S MOST WANTED

$
0
0

Release date:
May 24, 2019
Director:
Raj Kumar Gupta
Cast:



Language:
Arjun Kapoor, Praveen Singh Sisodia, Prasanth Alexander, Bajrang Bali Singh, Aasif Khan, Devendra Mishra, Jitendra Shastri, Sudev Nair 
Hindi


Do you sometimes sit in a movie hall and sense that what is unfolding on screen began with an interesting concept that somehow choked at the execution stage? India’s Most Wanted is that kind of film.

Indian intelligence officialsand globe-trotting espionage agentshave in recent years become a Bollywood fixation, but from the Saif Ali Khan-Kareena Kapoor-starrer Agent Vinodin 2012, to Baby (2015) with Akshay Kumar in the lead, and last year’s Aiyaary headlined by Manoj Bajpayee and Sidharth Malhotra, these films have tended to kick off with a promising premise and then struggle to be anything much beyond that. India’s Most Wanted (IMW) goes down the same path.

Prabhat (Arjun Kapoor), IMW’s central character, is a stubborn fellow who has a mind of his own independent of his well-intentioned immediate superior Ravi Raj (Rajesh Sharma) and the intelligence agency for which he works. As the film opens, India is being rocked by bomb blasts engineered by shadowy figures believed to be in Pakistan and Dubai. A source gives Prabhat a lead about the mastermind behind these explosions, which indicates that the man is, in fact, in Nepal. Higher-ups in Delhi are not convinced, but Prabhat decides to head off to Nepal anyway with a motley crew of colleagues, all of them conducting the operation at their own expense. Bossman Ravi Raj gives them his blessings but not his on-the-record assent.

Honest, efficient government servants defying their senior’s orders in their frustration with sarkari red tape and obduracy, and ending up in a clash with Pakistan’s ISI in a third country while hot on the heels of a brutal terrorist, that too purportedly based on a true story – this is the stuff that dreams are made of, this is thriller heaven. With such ingredients at hand, IMW should have been an exciting suspense saga. Yet from the starting block the film struggles to get into the groove, despite assembling an interesting cast who look convincing as real people rather than actors to play Prabhat’s team of rogue agents.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars but in the screenplay. Firstly, it took me a while – too long a while – to wrap my head around the chain of individuals that had got information to Prabhat and why. Some amount of confusion, especially initially, is not unusual in films of this variety, but they usually offer compensation in the form of an accelerated pace or breathtaking action or, in the case of directors opting for a quiet tone, an under-stated sense of urgency that taps the audience’s own instinctive assumptions about the drama and danger intrinsic to such situations in real life although they are alien to ordinary folk like us. Not here.

IMW aims at being an intelligence agency procedural rather than a Mission Impossible / James Bond enterprise, which is fine in theory since writer-director-producer Raj Kumar Gupta demonstrated his natural affinity for the genre in the excellent Ajay Devgn-starrer Raid (2018) set in the world of income-tax officials. IMW, however, simply does not lift off.

Even after the initial cobwebs are cleared, the narrative remains fuzzy. The primary informant’s motivations are never convincing, Prabhat & Co find their prey with what seems like considerable ease, the actions of their Nepalese counterparts are inexplicable, and the ISI comes across as a sluggish lot.

That last point – the absence of a powerful antagonist – is the final nail in the coffin. Before it is hammered in, the film has already been betrayed by its own seeming lack of faith in the tenor it has set for itself. In life-and-death scenarios towards the end, for instance, precious seconds and minutes are spent just staring down opponents in conventional Hindi filmi style. And the voiceover by the lead terrorist at regular intervals is ineffective.

To be fair to IMW, neither the Indian agents nor the ISI are downright dumbos, unlike the desisand their enemy targets in Baby.

What IMW does have going for it are Arjun Kapoor’s earnestness, the credibility of the supporting cast especially the inimitable Rajesh Sharma, the non-judgmental tone adopted towards Sharma’s Ravi Raj although he is not willing to stick his neck out as Prabhat does, the warm equation between him and Prabhat, and the realness of the settings. Nepal looks gorgeous, but cinematographer Dudley cleverly uses the visuals not so much to impress us with their prettiness as to conjure up an ominous atmosphere.

Most important, although the terrorist being hunted down by Prabhat is a Muslim, his religious identity is not over-emphasised to crudely cash in on the Islamophobia prevailing worldwide in the way Bollywood films like Padmaavatand Kesari have done since 2017-18– he is what he is, that is a fact, nothing more, nothing less. His ISI backers too are not stereotypically portrayed as demonic or fumbling cartoons – they may be sluggish, as mentioned earlier, but they are not foolish. And thankfully Prabhat’s Muslim colleague is treated as a regular person, not a contrivance planted in the screenplay to be condescendingly positioned as redemption for the Muslim community – the fact that he happens to be Muslim struck me rather late in the film because a big deal is not made of it. Despite its inevitable allusions to patriotism, inevitable considering the overall theme, India’s Most Wantedalso does not resort to the kind of loud, chest-thumping nationalism that is all the rage in Bollywood and the public discourse these days.

At a time when many Bollywood stalwarts are revealing themselves to be either opportunists or bigots, Raj Kumar Gupta deserves high praise for this aspect of his writing and direction, especially since such opportunism has yielded solid box-office dividends in the past year. Sadly, his decency alone cannot hold up a film. Barring occasional suspenseful passages, India’s Most Wanted does not live up to the expectations it raises in its opening scenes. It lacks the punch, pizzazz and substance to ensure that its Shah Rukh Khan reference hits home.

Well, I guess the director who has already given us No One Killed Jessica, Raidand the lesser known but equally commendable Aamiris allowed an off day. Waiting for your next film, Mr Gupta.

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

CBFC Rating (India):
UA 
Running time:
125 minutes 26 seconds 

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 698: ISHQ

$
0
0

Release date:
Kerala: May 17, 2019
Delhi: May 24, 2019
Director:
Anuraj Manohar
Cast:

Language:
Shane Nigam, Ann Sheetal, Shine Tom Chacko, Leona Lishoy, Jaffer Idukki
Malayalam


If you are a young person just figuring out your views on rights issues, Ishq is a great case study of what we are likely to get when feminism is a fad, a formula or a superficial pursuit for a filmmaker, not a sincere commitment and a deeply understood, carefully-thought-out ideological stance.

Director Anuraj Manohar’s debut feature begins with a knife-like indictment of what has come to be called “moral policing”. This part of the film is brilliant in its interpretation of the social dynamic that causes a woman to stay on in a dangerous, potentially fatal situation because the option – which would mean her family finding out that she was making out with her boyfriend in the backseat of a car in a darkened parking lot – is, to her mind, far worse.

Ishq stars Ann Sheetal as the woman in question, Vasudha. She is an MA student spending the day with her boyfriend Sachidanandan (Shane Nigam) when two creepy strangers accost them, threatening to report them to the police for public indecency. This is a hostage scenario not because the intruders are carrying firearms (they are not) nor because they physically attack (they do not), instead their hold over Vasu and Sachi comes from a thorough grasp of the couple’s psychology and the sociology of that setting.

Sachi is the sort of young man who tends to get aggressive with anyone behaving inappropriately, in his opinion, with Vasu. He is not, however, a hyper-masculine ass. There in that lonely parking lot, he knows that any mindless aggression from him could put both of them, her in particular, at risk. He also knows that if their rendezvous becomes public knowledge, it is she who will be maligned more than he in their conservative patriarchal society. He therefore defers to her decision about how they must conduct themselves in those chilling circumstances.

Like the creeps in the car in director Sanal Kumar Sasidharan’s S. Durga a.k.a. Sexy Durga, the two men in this film – Alwin (Shine Tom Chacko) and Mukunthan (Jaffer Idukki) – simultaneously play good-cop-bad-cop and a cat and mouse game with their prey, intimidating them even while pretending to be concerned about their security. The characterisation of these four and the writing of the events that unfold in the pre-interval segment of Ishqare impeccable and insightful.

WriterRatheesh Ravi’s acute observation powers are on display here, and Anuraj Manohar handles the scenes with sensitivity. Vasu’s tension and Sachi’s frustration over his forced inaction are palpable. As frightening as the awareness that she might be raped or that matters might escalate resulting in death for both is the realisation that what Alwin lusts after is the woman’s fear far more than physical contact with her. This is the most illuminating aspect of Ishqbecause it points to what feminist experts on sexual crimes have forever been telling us: that sexual violence is not about sex but about power.

Without giving away any spoilers, I can say that even the scene right before the interval is spot on. The way Vasu lashes out at Sachi is believable although she is being unfair to him and contradicting a position she took earlier – after all, human beings do tend to be illogical and even unreasonable while under extreme stress. Sachi’s reaction is just as believable – this world is full of men whose liberalism towards women is only skin deep, but it is just as possible that she misconstrued a question he asked her. The writer’s comprehension of Malayali society and human nature, which are evident up to here, gave me goosebumps.

Then, it all unravels. A film that is at first a condemnation of patriarchal conservatism spends almost its entire remaining 50%celebrating machismo, before a twist in the end brings it back on track by which time it is too late.

Ishq is a manifestation of our society’s disinterest in regular folk who react in a regular fashion to sexual violence aimed at them or their loved ones. This is why we as a nation bestowed the offensive title Nirbhaya (The Fearless One) on a woman who died after being gangraped on a bus in Delhi in December 2012 – it was as if she was not worth fighting for unless we could envision her as a Rani of Jhansi cum Joan of Arc. This is why vigilante justice in response to rape is popular in mainstream cinema. Films such as 22 Female Kottayam and Puthiya Niyamam stopped at romanticising revenge though. Ishq goes several steps further in its highly condemnable, self-contradictory second half.

(SPOILER ALERT, please skip this paragraph. Repeat: Spoiler Alert)

If feminism is not a mere gimmick for Messrs Ravi and Manohar, if they are genuinely well intentioned, then they should introspect about the sub-conscious misogyny that caused them to think it is okay to normalise and hero-ise a man who decides to molest a woman as revenge for her husband’s assault on his girlfriend. No excuses please, gentlemen, that scene is designed to elicit audience empathy for him, the drummed-up triumphant background score as he walks away is laudatory in its tone, and no, the turn of events in the climax is not compensation – it simply underlines your confusion and inconsistency.

(Spoiler Alert Ends)

Ishq’s bizarre post-interval proceedings overshadow everything else in it. That is a pity because the film features an incredible cast including Shine Tom Chacko at his best. It beats me why we do not get to see him and the lovely Leona Lishoy more often and in more large roles on screen.

Oh wait, I do know why Ms Lishoy does not get her due. Because few producers are willing to bet their money on women like her and her equally remarkable co-star in this film, Ann Sheetal, both memorable women with acting talent and a solid screen presence, while they invest repeatedly in men who are equally or even less gifted, thus giving these men a chance to evolve as artistes and grow as stars over time.

At least Shane Nigam deserves the space Mollywood gives him. Fresh from the success of Kumbalangi Nights, Nigam gets to up the cuteness quotient of his personality with braces for his teeth in Ishq. As if those dimples were not irresistible enough! He does a commendable job of playing Sachi to the extent that it is possible to be good when yours is the largest role in a film but the only victim of its uneven politics.

Seriously, Ratheesh Ravi and Anuraj Manohar, before waxing eloquent about the moral police, some self-policing of your ideals would be in order.

Rating (out of five stars): **

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 699: NAKKASH

$
0
0

Release date:
May 31, 2019
Director:
Zaigham Imam
Cast:


Language:
Inaamulhaq, Kumud Kumar Mishra, Sharib Hashmi, Rajesh Sharma, Pawan Tiwari, Harminder Singh Alag, Gulki Joshi
Hindi


When routine tales of human decency and human interactions make headlines, you know a society is in trouble. News ought to be that which is uncommon, unusual, unexpected, and out of the ordinary. Yet Allah Rakha Siddiqui a.k.a. Allah Miyan (clever, huh?) finds himself becoming a subject of media curiosity even as he is ostracised by fellow Muslims and viewed with suspicion by Hindus in the present day for his commitment to a craft that his family has practised for generations.

Allah Miyan is the protagonist of Nakkash (Engraver/Carver/Sculptor), which draws its title from the nakkashiwork he does in Varanasi temples. It is a skill he acquired in his childhood from his father. He knows no other trade, and now relies on it to take care of his son Mohammad. As it happens, he is that rare single dad in Hindi cinema who does not make a song and dance about being “baap bhi aur maa bhi” (both a father and a mother) to his child, an unconventional hero whose parenting challenges, love and commitment are no different from the conventionally portrayed mother. 

The world as Allah Miyan once knew it is changing though, with Hindutva politics shaping the majority community’s increasing antagonism towards him while minority community fanatics deride him. Through his troubles, his faith in humanity is kept intact by two factors: first, the secular values of the temple priest Bhagwan Das Vedanti who has complete faith in him and fights off Hindu bigots opposed to a Muslim presence in a Hindu holy place, and second, the unstinting support of his lively best friend Samad who keeps his spirits up and advocates for him within their own community. 

It goes without saying that the theme of Nakkash is relevant to the times we live in, where right-wing establishments worldwide have been overtly promoting animosity between communities. Relevance does not necessarily make for great cinema though, and Nakkash starts off looking like it might possibly go down a clichéd sermonising route. Fortunately, it does not – it simply tells a relatable story. When, for instance, Vedanti asks an embarrassed policeman, “While eating food, do you check to find out whether the grain came from a Hindu or a Muslim farmer?” he is not preaching, he is confronting an ideological fence-sitter with fundamentalist leanings in a conversation that echoes animated debates taking place in drawing rooms across the country these days. 

Nakkash examines the politics of hate through Allah Miyan whose innocence makes him a misfit in contemporary India. The sources of its inspiration are easy to spot. Such as with the politician Munna Bhaiyya who says in a speech, “Saathiyon, iss desh pe sabse pehla haq hamara hai. Yahaan pe koi baahar se nahin aa sakta.” (Friends, we have the foremost claim over this country. No outsider can come in here.) He does not name the “we” or the “outsider” nor is any real-life political party mentioned, but the references are unmistakable.

Writer-director-producer Zaigham Imam’s last film, Alif (2017), also revolved around Hindu-Muslim politics. It was a well-intentioned but shoddy affair. Imam has evolved dramatically with Nakkash, which not only tells its story well, but is also technically stronger. From the quality of the visuals it appears that he had a larger budget available this time round, especially for cinematography (Asit Biswas) and art design (Sumit Mishra). This is not a perfect production – for one, the grandeur of Allah Miyan’s metal carvings in the sanctum sanctorum of Vedanti’s temple is not adequately captured – but it is still overall a nice-looking film and miles ahead of Alif in every department.

In terms of narrative style, Imam swings between naturalism and an occasionally operatic tone, which suits Nakkash well. The plot is not designed as a thriller meant to dazzle us with its twists and turns. It is instead a believable slice-of-life saga in a toxic setting.

Anubhav Sinha’s Mulk last year is one of the few Hindi films in this hyper-Hindutva decade that has had the courage to discuss in black-and-white the troubled relationship between India’s Hindus and Muslims or the persecution of Muslims by the Indian establishment. It was frank about Islamophobia without looking at Muslims through rose-tinted glasses in the way a certain kind of Bollywood cinema once did. Nakkash goes deeper into the minuses of both communities, holding nothing back while highlighting the great, the good, the bad and the ugly among both.

Considering the film’s progressiveness on one front, the absence of a significant female perspective on the issues at hand is glaring. The only couple of women in the picture are marginal to the action. This is inexcusable because in most scenarios of communal persecution women end up being the greatest sufferers.

Nakkash’s other creases feel minor in comparison. The closing montage, for instance, is stretched and given a maudlin air. The supporting cast’s performances could have done with some finessing here and there, particularly the female actor lamenting an assault on Allah Miyan who sounds tacky. Though Harminder Singh Alag as Mohammad is cute and shares a sweet chemistry with Inaamulhaq, he needed to loosen up a bit. 

The lead cast though is superb. Sharib Hashmi as Allah Miyan’s endearingly mischievous and enigmatic buddy Samad outdoes himself, his character offering an illustrative example of the burdens that patriarchy places on men and also the dangers in a mindless, literal interpretation of religious scriptures and edicts. If you, like me, loved him in Filmistaan, his performance alone makes Nakkash worth watching.

Kumud Mishra (credited here as Kumud Kumar Mishra) lives up to his track record as one of Bollywood’s finest artistes with the dignity and stoicism he lends to Vedanti.

Rajesh Sharma, another of Bollywood’s best, has a much smaller but possibly tougher role. As a Varanasi Police Inspector who mouths some of Nakkash’s uglier lines, he makes a transition that perhaps only Sharma could have conveyed as he does, leaving us guessing about which end of the political spectrum this man will ultimately choose.

Pawan Tiwari, who is also one of Nakkash’s producers, makes the despicable Munna both repulsive and terrifying, yet stops short of caricaturing him. 

On the shoulders of Inaamulhaq falls the role of the socially awkward, reticent Allah Miyan. The actor is so far known most for brilliantly playing a Bollywood-obsessed Pakistani smuggler of pirated CDs alongside Hashmi in Filmistaan. He is an intriguing casting choice because he is not a conventional charmer who could invite empathy by his mere presence on screen – his likeability is derived entirely from the strength of his performances, and here he makes the interesting choice of putting no effort into giving Allah Miyan any overtly attractive touches. In fact when he meets a prospective bride, the actor goes in the opposite direction and makes the character decidedly odd. It is this scene though that, with blinding sharpness, throws light on the kind of person this apparently non-descript chap truly is – not a born liberal revolutionary, but a regular conservative Indian male whose social conditioning does give him pause when he is faced with unconventional choices yet a man who, despite his shuffling demeanour, somehow finds the strength and courage to walk the road less travelled. In an India rife with negativity and backward mindsets, his story is both heartening and heart-breaking.

Because of Allah Miyan, Vedantisaab and the Inspector, as much as Nakkash is a cause for despair, it is also a wellspring of hope.

Rating (out of five stars): ***

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 700: SHURUAAT KA TWIST

$
0
0

Release date:
May 31, 2019
Directors:
Praveen Fernandes, Hanish Kalia, Heena Dsouza, Sanjiv Kishinchandani, Avalokita, Gaurav Mehra
Cast:





Language:
Neena Gupta, Chunky Panday, Amit Sial, Lalit Behl, Pramod Pathak, Shahriyar Atai, Kamil Shaikh, Delnaaz Irani, Merenla Imsong, Veera Fauzia Saxena, Anurita Jha, Saurabh Goyal, Mohit Chauhan, Preeti Hansraj Sharma
Hindi


Shuruaat Ka Twist (The Twist at the Start) is an anthology of sixshort films, its distinctive feature being that the directors are all debutants who have been mentored by Bollywood stalwarts. This of course makes it stand apart from other compilations by the industry such as Bombay Talkies and Lust Stories, which have drawn attention for getting top-ranking, blockbuster-making feature directors like Karan Johar and Zoya Akhtar to dabble in this experimental space.

Shuruaat Ka Twist’s mentor list is a roll call of some of Bollywood’s top shots though: Raj Kumar Gupta (No One Killed Jessica, Raid), Vikramaditya Motwane (Udaan, Lootera), Rajkumar Hirani (the Munnabhaiseries, 3 Idiots) and Amit V. Masurkar (Newton).

The anthology begins with a very short short titled Tap Tap by Praveen Fernandes starring Chunky Panday as an out-of-work musician desperately in search of inspiration and finding it in an unexpected place. Tap Tap is faithful to the overall theme spelt out in the title, delivering an unexpected twist in the end. This is clever, concise, sharp and consequently fun fare. It also builds a solid case for producers to cast the underrated Panday in more roles and to back Fernandes for a full-length film.

Next comes Khauff by Hanish Kalia, which stars Amit Sial as a man seeking medical help for an inexplicable phobia: he stays awake every night fearing that he will die. Pramod Pathak plays his therapist. This mini movie falls in the psychological thriller genre, and at its mid-point is just the sort of film about which those of us who consider ourselves “serious film buffs” tend to get cocky and start prematurely crying, “predictable!” Be patient, oh thou cynic: it is not.  Far from it.

Sial has been a consistent performer in Bollywood but has not so far been rewarded with the screen space he deserves. Here in Khauff he does well as an enigmatic, apparently tormented soul. And Kalia’s direction offers an apt lesson to his seniors who have, in the past decade, assumed that the route to frightening an audience is a high-decibel background score, grating sound effects and sudden camera movements. Khauff is genuinely scary and its sound designby Shajith Koyeri and Savitha Nambrathis superlative. Like Tap Tap, it is smart, small and entertaining.

From here on though, Shuruaat Ka Twist becomes uneven.

Adi Sonal by Heena Dsouza has a warm moment of female bonding in the end, of the sort that we do not see often enough in mainstream Hindi cinema, which prefers to dip into social stereotypes like the evil saas harassing her bahu and the evil bahutorturing her old saas-sasur. That scene brought to mind another rare Hindi film older-woman-younger-woman equation from a few years back: a mother-in-law (Tanvi Azmi) offering a listening ear to a daughter-in-law (Priyanka Chopra) whose heart has been broken by her unfaithful husband. Read: Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Bajirao Mastani.

Neena Gupta in Adi Sonal is the matriarch of a joint family in which the male head (Lalit Behl) does nothing all day but demand to be served, and the pressure of work leads to some tension among the women who, despite that, share an underlying unspoken understanding between them. Dsouza is effective in capturing the drudgery of their existence, the patriarchal nature of traditional marriages and joint families, and the terror that domestic violence brings.

That said, Adi Sonal feels stretched, especially coming as it does right after the clipped pace of Tap Tap and Khauff, and the writing of the other two women characters is not as comprehensive as it is with Gupta’s character and her suffering younger female relative. Its flaws notwithstanding, the uncommon empathy for women made me curious to see what Dsouza might do next.

Bhaskar Calling by Sanjiv Kishinchandani is a complete departure from the tone of the remaining five shorts. This one does not have any pretensions to great intellectual depth, in fact it pointedly – and thankfully – refuses to be a profound comment on the loneliness and helplessness of the elderly.

ShahriyarAtai is a hoot as an ageing Parsi gentleman home alone when he receives a visit from a housing loan officer (Kamil Shaikh) while his daughter (Delnaaz Irani) is away at work. To be honest, halfway through I kinda sorta figured what the old chap was up to, but whatever! I had a good laugh watching Bhaskar Calling.

Guththi (The Knot) by Avalokita is the film that most resembles in tone a work by the director’s mentor. Amit V. Masurkar’s calling card today is Newton, but before he made that film, there was a lovely, conversation-heavy, hilarious cum ruminative but unfortunately under-noticed gem called Sulemani Keeda. At first the conversations between the two flatmates played by Merenla Imsong and Veera Fauzia Saxena are nice because of how real they feel. Guththi brings home the extreme closeness that can develop between two very different individuals in a sprawling metropolis, their lives far removed from a conventional family situation. It is also a melancholic reminder of how much we are compelled to give up when we make choices we are keen on.

Despite its promising subjects, Guththi sags after a while. Still, Avalokita is another talent worth exploring further.

Aside: Misspellings in film credits are infuriating. The director’s name appears twice, first immediately after Guththi and then in the rolling credits right at the end of the anthology. So is it Avalokita or Avlokita?

The closing film in Shuruaat Ka Twist is the most self-indulgent of the lot and irritatingly gimmicky. Gaurav Mehra’s Guddu features Anurita Jha as a youngster trying to escape a marriage her father is forcing her into. The climax is a call for open-mindedness towards every kind of love in this world, but by treating a sensitive issue as a mere tool to draw a gasp from the audience rather than exploring it with any degree of understanding, Mehra ends up trivialising it.

Guddu is also the most technically iffy short in this half dozen. The continuity issues in a scene in which the leads, Guddu and Nishant (Saurabh Goyal), sit chatting in a vehicle should have been reason enough to chop this one out of the set. The car door on the passenger side is, in successive shots, shown open, closed, open and closed. It boggles the mind that such inefficiency passed muster in a film with so many leading lights attached to it.

Guddu’s ineptitude pulls down the entire anthology, coming as it does right at the end. Tap Tapand Khauff’s polish, the poignance of Adi Sonal and the merriment in Bhaskar Calling merited a better companion than this one. Still, as such film collections go, four out of six is pretty impressive.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 701: BHARAT

$
0
0

Release date:
June 5, 2019
Directors:
Ali Abbas Zafar
Cast:




Language:
Salman Khan, Katrina Kaif, Sunil Grover, Jackie Shroff, Disha Patani, Sonali Kulkarni, Brijendra Kala, Kumud Kumar Mishra, Rajiv Gupta, Shashank Arora, Aasif Sheikh, Satish Kaushik, Nora Fatehi, Cameo: Tabu
Hindi


At a crucial point in Ali Abbas Zafar’s new venture, the titular protagonist’s father appears to him and says: “Desh logon se banta hai, aur logon ki pehchaan unkeparivaar se hoti hai. Tujh mein poora desh hai, Bharat.” (A nation is made up of people, and people’s identity comes from their family. The whole country resides in you, Bharat.) It is a line that at once sounds profound but means little. It also encapsulates the essence of Bharat: a film that wants to be profound but ends up meaning far less despite its bull’s-eyes.

Salman Khan partnered Zafar on the writer-director’s Sultanand Tiger Zinda Haiwith spectacular box-office outcomes. Whatever their lacunae may have been, Zafar was successful in mining Khan’s natural goofiness in both, the latter film also playing up the actor’s trademark unembarrassed, unapologetic on-screen bravado to hilarious effect. Bharat sputters on that front but scores elsewhere with mixed results: it is occasionally heart-breaking, occasionally funny, often political albeit hesitantly so, but by and large just plain dull.

Based on the Korean film Ode To My Father, Bharat is a voyagethrough post-Independence India while walking alongside a common man whose name is Bharat with no surname attached. He was a boy of 8 and a resident of Gaon Mirpur, Lahore, when his life was torn apart by the cruelty of Partition. His entire existence since has been devoted to keeping the promise made to his Dad (Jackie Shroff) that he would take care of the family.

When we first meet him he is an old man touching 70. As the extended family gathers for his birthday, Bharat (played by Khan) recounts his journey between 1947 and 2010 in flashback. Along the way, several familiar historical milestones are crossed. Post-Partition refugee camps, Jawaharlal Nehru’s death, India’s 1983 cricket World Cup victory, economic liberalisation in the 1990s, the 21st century television boom and more pass by parallel to Bharat’s initial struggle to survive in Delhi, his time as a daredevil motorbike rider in a circus, migration to the Middle East for work, his life-long friendship with the banana-eating Syyed Vilayati Khan (Sunil Grover), his long-standing relationship with the government official turned TV anchor Kumud Raina (Katrina Kaif) and unexpected good news.

The voiceover in the trailer had announced, “this country was born 71 years back...” Why then does Bharat’s story stop not at 2018 but at 2010 with the words “the beginning” on screen? Therein lies a tale. Clearly Zafar wants to make a political statement yet stay safe while doing so (the fact that he needs to protect himself is a sad reflection on the current state of our nation, but that is a separate discussion). The 1990s are heralded in the film with the narrator announcing that the new decade was marked by the arrival of two new heroes, Shah Rukh Khan (that’s very generous of you, Bhai) and Sachin Tendulkar, “but the real hero was (Finance Minister) Manmohan Singh” for transforming India’s economy. This is an unexpected ode to the former FM-turned-PM who has been much maligned, reviled and mocked in the public discourse in the past 5 years, most recently in the Hindi film PM Narendra Modi. Another former PM much reviled in recent years is projected as a hottie earlier in the film.

While both comments in Bharat are in themselves brave in the sense that they defy the mob, I suppose the decision to steer clear of 2014 too can be deemed a statement, its importpossibly depending on which side of the political divide you stand on. Clever? Somewhat. And if you think about it, amusingly so.

The format of this film is brimming with potential, and has been tapped brilliantly by cinema in the past, Hollywood’s Forrest Gump being a shining example. For the most part though, the historical events cited in Bharatserve more as markers of dates rather than having any interesting or deep connotation in the context of the leading man’s bio. Combine that with the absence of the usual crowd-pleasing Salman Khan madness, and Bharat ends up being neither here nor there.

The humour, for one, is weak.I mean, c’moooon, Bharat’s Mummy says “Tonsil” for “Titanic” (the ship) and he corrects her, pronouncing the word as “Titonic” instead. Aiyyo! Eye roll. Oddly enough, the comedy works in its most juvenile portions because those parts are headlined by the inimitable Sunil Grover or Rajiv Gupta. The two ace their respective scenes.

Khan and Kaif, on the other hand, are off the mark and off colour throughout. Nope, even when Bharat addresses Kumud as “Madam Sir” with the actor’s signature cutesiness it falls flat. Kaif’s Hindi diction has always been problematic, here it is not even papered over with the by-now-standard her-character-grew-up-outside-India excuse and the way she says the English word “store” more than once in a particularscene is very distracting.

Like the duo’s performances, Bharat’s songs too are lacklustre. Irshad Kamil’s lyrics for Slow motion are kinda entertaining, Zindais sorta catchy, but on the whole I found myself wondering when Vishal and Shekhar will next come up with a soundtrack to match the memorability they delivered in Dostana.

No doubt Zafar means well with Bharat, but his writing often unwittingly displays his social conditioning even when he is attempting a progressive message. This is epitomised by a scene in which Bharat tries to convince an African pirate that there is no colour prejudice in India, which is ironic considering that their conversation is contained in a scene featuring a racist joke about a black-skinned south Indian man.

Unlike the recent Bollywood release Kalank, the villains of Partition in Bharat are not confined to the Muslim community. In a decade when the world and India have been engulfed by Islamophobia, this is significant. However, Zafar’s decision to include the national anthem right in the middle of the film should be questioned, knowing as we do that the anthem has been a source of tension in some halls in recent years with certain audience members choosing to use it as a tool to vent a certain nationalist aggression against others.

At another place Zafar questions the need for marriage, which is a gutsy thing to do for a Hindi filmmaker – and then he pulls back. And the way Disha Patani’s character enters then abruptly exits the scene becomes yet another instance of the dispensability of glamorous women in commercial Hindi cinema.

The best of Bharat comes right in the beginning and then almost towards the end. The initial portrayal of the Partition and later efforts to reunite families separated at the time may seem emotionally over-wrought to some, but I confess I was reduced to tears in both segments.Unfortunately, what comes between, though largely inoffensive is only sporadically rewarding. Far from being a Forrest Gump with Salman Khan, Bharat is mostly a plodding trek through post-1947 to contemporaryIndia.

Rating (out of five stars): **

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:



REVIEW 702: VIRUS

$
0
0

Release date:
June 7, 2019
Director:
Aashiq Abu 
Cast:







Language:
Parvathy, Kunchacko Boban, Tovino Thomas, Rima Kallingal, Sreenath Bhasi, Revathy, Joju George, Indrajith Sukumaran, Asif Ali, Indrans, Sharafudheen, Soubin Shahir, Dileesh Pothan, Rahman, Madonna Sebastian, Sajitha Madathil, Leona Lishoy, Darshana Rajendran, Remya Nambeesan
Malayalam


The last time Aashiq Abu released a film, it left in its wake a beautiful pain that is yet to subside and a heartache that may never go away. One and half years after Mayaanadhicame to theatres, Abu is out with his next. Virus is a medical thriller cum medical/government/bureaucratic procedural featuring a constellation of some of Malayalam cinema’s biggest stars coming together to recount the successful containment of the dreaded Nipah virus in Kerala last year. 

It is a measure of the high esteem in which Abu is held in the Malayalam film industry that he was able to gather so many stars for a single project though each one gets limited screen time, no character in particular is projected as a protagonist and though the star-studded ensemble film is not common in Mollywood.

Virus firms up the director’s reputation for prioritising theme over stars, by not being a Garry Marshall-style, Valentine’s Day-type venture in which the casting was a gimmick and the result an unremarkable game of spot-the-famous-face. Here in Virus, Abu’s deployment of these big-screen luminaries guarantees memorability for each character. It also serves to underline the points that in the giant battle against Nipah even the seemingly smallest player’s actions could have meant the difference between life and death, no cog in the wheel was/is minor, and the state’s quietly diligent politicians, bureaucrats, healthcare professionals, ordinary citizens and all others involved are/were superstars no less than the glitzy artistes playing fictionalised versions of them in this film.

The investment in casting then is a tribute to these real-life heroines and heroes including Nipah’s victims, many of whom contracted the disease through an act of kindness.

The closest companion to Virus I can think of among the films I have watched is Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion (2011) starring Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne and severalother Western cinema heavyweights, and set in the midst of a worldwide epidemic. The underlying socio-political themes in Contagionwere very different though. Besides, that film was fictional and dealt in hypotheticals, Virus actually happened. Just recently. In our own country. And we have failed to recognise how those of us living just a couple of state borders away from Kerala came within a whisper of being affected by what could have ended up being a nationwide tragedy.


Virus takes us through those tension-ridden days in the summer of 2018 when the deadly Nipah surfaced in Kozhikode and Malappuram districts. As the potentially fatal infection begins to spread, the state’s health minister (Kerala’s K.K. Shailaja, named C.K. Prameela here and played by Revathy) gathers a team of officials, medicos and volunteers to investigate its origins and stem its spread. 

With clinical efficiency reflective of the methodical manner in which disease control must perforce be conducted if it is to be effective, Virus goes about its business of painstakingly chronicling their painstaking work. The wonderment of seeing so many big names in successive frames and often together wears off within minutes, as it becomes clear that there is nothing flashy about this film and that its story is supreme. 

The news media has reported that Kerala earned kudos from domestic and international quarters for its handling of Nipah last year. What Virusdoes is inspire a sense of awe at the realisation of how much must have gone on behind the scenes and how much else could have gone wrong if any individual in the entire exercise had set one toe wrong. 

In some senses it plays out like a suspense drama, although we know that the outbreak did not ultimately turn into an epidemic. The tenterhooks emanate from a question, investigated meticulously by Parvathy’s character – how did the first victim in this episode get infected? – and because of the pushes and pulls between the state and Central governments in Abu’s take on what transpired away from the media spotlight. 

(Minor spoiler alert for this paragraph)

Virus is particularly intriguing because of what it states and implies about the Centre-state tussle. What were the sources from whom the film’s writers got their information? If this account is indeed accurate or even if creative licence is at work here then, among other things, Virus is a chilling reminder of the pandemic of prejudice spreading across today’s world, as lethal perhaps as any known microbe.

(Spoiler alert ends)

With its multi-strand, non-linear narrative style, hyperlinking back and forth from one thread to another then back to an earlier one, the director – aided by Muhsin Parari, Sharfu and Suhas’ say-it-like-it-is, no-frills-attached writing and Saiju Sreedharan’s masterful editing – has the film trotting along at an unrelenting yet simultaneously miraculously unrushed pace.

Abu does not resort to artificial highlights to stress the urgency of the job at hand but does not in any way underplay it either. It is what it is – the viewer is not so stupid as to need a loud background score, drumrolls and dramatic camera movements to recognise an emergency. Sushin Shyam’s minimal music, for one, is used sparingly and, as a consequence, to striking effect. Rajeev Ravi’s cinematography supplemented by Shyju Khalid captures in no-nonsense documentary style the goings-on in Virus. With such extraordinary collaborators at hand, Abu manages to infuse the film with a sedateness that mirrors the calm Prameela/Shailaja and her associates seek to instil in the fearful populace.

A word here about the subtitling by Rajeev Ramachandran. Most subtitled Indian films treat subs merely as translations for the benefit of those who do not know the language in which the film has been made. Virus heads down a path that some outside India have already taken, by caring about the hearing impaired too. There is little awareness in India about this, which is why you oftenseeeven well-meaning people grumbling about how subs are distracting (for instance, “why does an English film need English subtitles?”) – I confess I had not given this matter much thought until one of my students lost her hearing a few years back and I was compelled to think in this direction. The couple of spelling mistakes in Virus’ subs and repeated use of the ungrammatical “tensed” (it should be “I amtense”, please) feel minor in comparison with its consideration towards a largely neglected community. So if you find yourself getting irritated because Virus’ subtitles describe ambient sounds, the tone of the background music and so on in addition to explaining dialogues, do keep this in mind.

Virus’ dissection of Kerala’s response to Nipah in 2018 offers an ocean of insights into the interconnectedness of our species with the entire animal kingdom, how crisis can bring out the best and worst in human beings, how trigger-happy governments could turn even a health issue into a communal conflagration, how humankind is forever teetering on the edge of inhumanity and held back by the best among us, and much more. What would have made it complete would have been an examination of human interference with nature that is triggering calamities earlier rare or unheard of.

The film is determined not to villainise scared citizens, but it does not pedestalise anyone either. Parvathy’s Dr Annu, for instance, is admirable for her beaver-like diligence but in a scene in which she interrogates a man who may be dying, we see her dedication to her job overriding – perhaps unintentionally – the need for extreme gentleness in such circumstances.

In C.K. Prameela and Kozhikode Collector Paul Abraham (Tovino Thomas) we see a lesson in how great leadership is about constantly putting out small fires. And through the Manipal Institute of Virology’s Dr Suresh Rajan (Kunchacko Boban) we are forced to also see that preparing yourself for the worst while hoping for the best does not necessarily mean you are a bad person or even a cynic, it could be that you are simply realistic.

Wittingly or unwittingly, especially while linking the stories of the policeman Prakash (Dileesh Pothan) and the no-hoper Unnikrishnan (Soubin Shahir), Virus also throws light on what Hindi bhaashis call a chalta-hai (casual) attitude in Indian society and systems that begs for disasters to happen.

Aashiq Abu has been at the forefront of the new parallel cinema movement that has blossomed in Mollywood in the past decade, but Virus– which he has co-produced with Rima Kallingal – is a whole new level of achievement. In an India of thin skins and combustible sensitivities, it is also courageous in the way it risks something that most of this country’s quality filmmakers avoid: it recounts recent history. This is a minutely observant, unobtrusively educative and moving ode to unsung stars, the triumph of the team and the strength of the human spirit.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Posters courtesy:

REVIEW 703: GAME OVER

$
0
0

Release date:
June 14, 2019
Director:
Ashwin Saravanan
Cast:


Language:
Taapsee Pannu, Vinodhini Vaidyanathan, Anish Kuruvilla, Sanchana Natarajan, Ramya Subramanian, Parvathi T. 
Game Over was simultaneously shot in Telugu and Tamil. A Hindi dubbed version has also been released. This is a review of the Hindi version.


I dropped coffee on myself at one point post the halfway mark in Game Over. This happened at a moment so startling in the film, that I think I let out an involuntary yelp of surprise and my paper-cup-holding hand reflexively shot up to cover my mouth. The coffee stain is gone, but the fear evoked by that scene still lingers.

Taapsee Pannu stars as Swapna, a stay-at-home video game professional in writer-director Ashwin Saravanan’s film. Something is eating away at her when we first encounter her, but we are not told entirely what it is. A memory of a physical assault appears to be the cause, and now she finds herself getting panic attacks especially in the dark. Her therapist (Anish Kuruvilla) has assured her this is an “anniversary reaction” triggered by the realisation that it was around this time in an earlier year that she was assaulted.

Before viewers are introduced to her though, there is an eerie, horrifying prologue about the gruesome murder of another woman (Sanchana Natarajan) in a quiet neighbourhood in a sprawling city. Her connection to Swapna is not revealed, but thoughts of her bloody end are inescapable as we watch Swapna struggle to cope with her own trauma in the company of her housekeeper and sole companion Kalamma (Vinodhini Vaidyanathan).

Game Over is as crisp and to-the-point as a thriller can get. It wastes no time on song and dance or back stories for each character. And Pannu and Vaidyanathan are terrific throughout, their performances as perfectly pared down as the tone of the film. Swapna is suffering mental anguish, she is avoiding her concerned family, she shares a heartwarming bond with Kalamma, the latter and the doctor know exactly what happened to her in the past, we do not – these are the basic elements around which Saravanan weaves his brilliantly minimalist psychological drama which he has co-written with KaavyaRamkumar.

The director has so far made one film in Kollywood – Maya starring Tamil superstar Nayanthara – and has another unreleased Tamil film in the cans. He has approached Game Over as a pan-India project, writing the story as more or less geography-neutral, casting Pannu – who is equally well known in the north and the south – as his lead, shooting simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil, also releasing a Hindi dubbed version with Bollywood stalwart Anurag Kashyap as a presenter.

As a Hindi speaker who does not know Tamil, I am grateful Saravanan made an effort to reach Hindi audiences, because Kollywood is way better at scary films than Bollywood. The closest I can remember to being this spooked out while watching a Hindi thriller in recent years is with Pavan Kirpalani’s fabulous Phobia starring Radhika Apte (2016) and Akshay Akkineni’s Pizza (2014), which was in any case a Hindi remake of KarthikSubbaraj’s Tamil film of the same name.

The beauty of Game Over is that even after it is over, what was going on in the film remains anybody’s guess. It is not a Sixth Sense in which you see that crucial scene towards the end and go: Ah okay, so that was it then? Here in Game Over, you have to figure it out completely on your own, based on various clues strewn around such as that poster on Swapna’s wall saying, “What if life is a video game and deja vu are just check points?” So are we inside a video game in which the protagonist must play to survive? Or are we inside the mind of an individual with mental health concerns? Are we seeing one of her dreams along with her? Is there a serial killer on the loose in the city? Or is there a paranormal, after-life explanation for it all?

These questions and the obvious commentary about the trauma of survivors of violence, particularly women, are cerebral considerations that come up while reacting to Game Over at an intellectual level. Before getting to that stage though, there is the very primal level at which the film operates, designed as it is to scare the bejeezus out of us, keeping us constantly on edge and going against all expectations each time it lulls us into an assumption that it is about to get predictable though it never does.

This is like nothing we have been served by Bollywood so far, so bless you Ashwin Saravanan for not confining yourself to Kollywood or Tollywood viewers and dubbing it – so well – in Hindi.

Game Over is inventive, it is intelligent, it does not take the viewer lightly and above all else, it is terrifying.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 704: UNDA

$
0
0

Release date:
June 14, 2019
Director:
Khalidh Rahman
Cast:





Language:
Mammootty, Shine Tom Chacko, Arjun Ashokan, Lukman, Omkar Das Manikpuri, Ranjith Balakrishnan, Bhagwan Tiwari, Jacob Gregory, Dileesh Pothan, Chien Ho Liao, Easwari Rao, Cameos by Asif Ali and Vinay Forrt
Malayalam with Hindi and a sprinkling of other tongues


If you grew up admiring Mammootty and have had your heart broken repeatedly over the decades as he embraced a spiced-up, clichéd type of cinema in which his natural acting talent was drowned out by loud background scores, stereotypically lionised heroics and extreme misogyny, 2019 is a chance to heal. In recent years in particular, a dismal assembly line of gimmicky performances in machoistic films have overshadowed the very occasional relief offered by the Malayalam megastar’s moving work in gems like Munnariyippu (2014) and Pathemari (2015).

Writer-director Khalidh Rahman’s Unda comes at a time when the actor seems to be decisively changing course, offering dazzling reminders of his versatility by straddling multiple industries and delivering back-to-back brilliance in Yatra(Telugu), Peranbu (Tamil) and even Madhuraraja(Malayalam), the latter undeniably masala fare and certainly not bereft of problems, yet far removed from the decibels and triteness that had become characteristic of Mammootty’s performances in comedies. Unda seals the deal: in a survey of India’s biggest commercial male stars across languages, 2019 should be declared the year of Mammootty.

Unda (Bullet) is a Malayalam-cum-Hindi film set in Chhattisgarh where a contingent of the Kerala Police is sent to help the Indo-Tibetan Border Police during a tension-ridden election. Maoists have declared that they will not allow voting to take place. It is the job of security forces to ensure that it does.

Into this politically, culturally and geographically unfamiliar territory, Sub-Inspector Manikandan C.P. (Mammootty) and his team find themselves thrown in at the deep end. Before they left on a 40-day tour thatwill cover Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand, they were told they must do Kerala proud. When they reach their first destination they realise that they have been orphaned, their own state government having sent them into a battle zone with limited equipment and zero training, leaving them at the mercy of angry, time-constrained, unkind, stressed-out colleagues in north India who lambast them for their cluelessness.

Unda was shot on location in Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Kerala. DoP Sajith Purushan’s work is designed to keep viewers on edge without being obviously manipulative. If you are used to the rich greens of Malayalam cinema, then the comparatively sparse, dust-encrusted forests of Bastar become a metaphor for the stark contrast between Mani’s home situation and his present circumstances. He and his associates from Kerala are brave, well-intentioned, disciplined men, but they are dragged down by dated firearms, strained supplies and their vastly different background. Most of them have never fired a gun in their lives, having not needed to so far in their relatively peaceful state. This puts them at high risk here in Bastar, where violence is the order of the day as security forces and local extremists are in constant war mode. Understandably then, they feel humiliated, helpless, betrayed, furious and afraid.

Unda is a slice-of-life saga that reads like pages out of the diary of one of these men. Khalidh Rahman steers clear of the formulae that such films usually resort to. He does not, for instance, assign a romance per cop, nor give any of them elaborate schmaltzy back stories, yet we get to know most of them well through the work dynamic between them, snatches of their repartee with each other and the occasional telephone call back home.

So there is Jojo (Shine Tom Chacko) whose marriage is on the rocks and who vents his aggression on his colleagues. Girish (Arjun Ashokan) is a happy-go-lucky youngster who has been pulled away from preparations for his impending wedding. And Biju (Lukman) is growing tired of being targeted by his fellow policemen with casteist banter and slurs. This motley crew has to be held together by Mani Sir whose popularity is sorely tested when his juniors realise he is pretty much at sea in Bastar.

One of the many engaging aspects of Unda is the way it has a bit of a laugh at our expense after setting us up to expect the sort of standardtreatment that has come to be identified with Mammootty and Mohanlal films. So the screenplay delays Mammootty's introductory scene, as his big commercial films often do these days, but it then deflates anyone anticipating a grand entry for Mammukka complete with heralding music and his trademark swagger – instead we get to first meet Mani in a quietly amusing crowd scene. During one confrontation, the volume of Prashant Pillai’s otherwise beautifully understated, localised background score does suddenly rise, but it does not giganticise Mammukka in the way most other films do, instead in a tragi-comic fashion it serves to underline his endearing vulnerability here. Mani is far removed from the invincible, glamourised, trigger-happy policeman Mammootty has played a million times in his long career.

Unda then is often funny, despite its grave setting. There is also a sweet simplicity to the team spirit of Mani’s men.

Ultimately though, like Dr Biju’s Kaadu Pookunna Neram (2017) starring Rima Kallingal and Indrajith Sukumaran, what Unda leaves us with is an overwhelming sadness at the realisation that these policemen, members of a much-hated profession, are in their own way a victim of the system that daily threatens the lives of Bastar’s tribals. A local man called Kunalchand (Peepli Live’s Omkar Das Manikpuri making his Mollywood debut here) laments that he is in the firing line of both the Maoists and the police, because the Maoists think he is a police informer and the police simply assume he is a Maoist, this eternal round of suspicion leaving space for another enemy altogether to invade their peace. The Kerala Police team are not as impoverished and desperate as Kunalchand, but they too are pawns in the hands of larger forces who take advantage of their need for employment.

That said, Unda does not paint these policemen as unflinchingly flawless, nor dismiss the north India-based security personnel as unmitigated nasties. Bhagwan Tiwari’s Kapil Dev, for instance, at first does come across as unfairly impatient and mean – observe how he is initially contemptuous of Mani & Co because they do not know Hindi, as though it is his right to demand that they do – but we see other sides to him as the film rolls along.

And remember that Biju is taunted not by these newcomers, but by the very people who travelled with him from home. The writing of Biju is elegant, believable and so illuminating, a gentle note that prejudice does not always come from the unequivocally evil but often from those who might by and large be deemed good, that bias is often so deeply ingrained in us that we do not even realise that we are giving expression to it.

Unlike Kapil Dev, Unda is respectful of language differences. If you buy a ticket for a Malayalam film it is reasonable to expect that the film will be in Malayalam, yet many Mollywood films feature dialogues in various languages (especially Tamil) without subtitling them for the benefit of its primary audience who are Malayalam speakers. Unda not only features English subtitles throughout for the benefit of non-Malayalam-speaking viewers, but it also has Malayalam subtitles embedded in the print through large swathes of the film’s Hindi dialogues – the latter are missing in some places, but the fact that they are there at all is a refreshing change. Mahesh Narayanan’s Take Offis another rare recent film that did likewise.

Although there is a lot to recommend in Unda, the complete absence of the female voice in the narrative is troubling. The women who do appear in the story are so marginal that they may as well have not been there. In this area, Kaadu Pookunna Neramscores considerably over Unda. Women are usually the biggest sufferers in any conflict situation, and to ignore them completely when you otherwise show so much sensitivity in the treatment of a delicate subject, is just inexcusable. The marginalisation of women was an issue with the director’s first film too – Anuraga Karikkin Vellam gave more screen time to women but failed to enter their minds unlike its male leads.

Unda could have also done without the distant exotic figure that Mani keeps seeing in Chhattisgarh. If the idea was to convey a man’s anxieties translating into hallucinations, I wish it had been done without playing on the stereotype of the Adivasi held by city-based viewers.

It is precisely because there is so much to love in Undathat these issues are disappointing.

Expecting the unexpected is par for the course for Malayalam film buffs, but it still takes a moment to get used to Unda. Not because its story, setting and treatment are unique (they are), but because Mammootty agreed to subsume his stardom in a role. It is such a pleasure to see this great artiste so thoroughly inhabiting a role that at least for the 2 hours plus of Unda’s running time, he becomes a distant memory because S.I. Manikandan C.P. is all he will let us see.

His ensemble of co-stars are equally credible and real. Lukman as Biju, for one, is sheer perfection. And Shine Tom Chacko switches smoothly chameleon-like from the repulsive Alwin in Ishq just recently to the many shades of Unda’s Jojo – miserable, fearful, unwilling to admit to his fears, likeable and unlikeable in equal measure. Jojo’s sketchy grasp of Hindi gives Unda one of its most hilarious scenes.

Of all the art lovers in this world, the Malayalam film follower is especially blessed. I cannot believe my good luck that I live in an era when Madhu C. Narayanan’sKumbalangi Nights, Aashiq Abu’s Virus, Manu Ashokan’s Uyare and Khalidh Rahman’s Undahave all come to theatres in.the.same.year.

Rating (out of five stars): ****

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 705: CHILDREN’S PARK

$
0
0
Release date:
Kerala: June 5, 2019
Delhi: June 14, 2019
Director:
Shafi
Cast:



Language:
Sharafudheen, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Dhruvan, Joy Mathew, Hareesh Kanaran, Gayathri Suresh, Manasa Radhakrishnan, Sowmya Menon, Shivaji Guruvayoor
Malayalam and Tamil with some Hindi


Maybe there is something to be said for a film that is intermittently funny but tells an ordinary story in an otherwise ordinary fashion, making it hard to remember what it was about five minutes after stepping out of the hall. Whatever that something is, I will try to find it as I write this review of Children’s Park.

Director Shafi and writer Raffi’s Children’s Park is centred around three crooks, a get-rich-quick scheme involving an orphanage and the old man who once ran it. The dubious trio’s team-up occurs when Rishi’s late father ignores his son in his will and leaves a bulk of his wealth to this home for the parentless called Children’s Park. Through a series of circumstances, some of their making and some not, Rishi (played by actor Dhruvan), his best friend Jerry (Vishnu Unnikrishnan) and the small-time politician’s aideLenin Adimala (Sharafudheen) end up running the place.

You know from the word go that the threesome will ultimately be reformed by their new-found love for the children. That in itself is no reason to write off the film, because sometimes what comes between a beginning and a predictable finale can be rewarding enough. Children’s Park has its moments, all of them pivoted on humour and the comic timing of Unnikrishnan and Sharafudheen, but these comedic patches and dialogues are not sufficient compensation for the largely hackneyed nature of the narrative.

For a start, the film’s writer treats the children like   background scenery throughout until they become crucial in the closing fight scenes. Before that happens, there is absolutely nothing to remember them by – no conversations, no effort at characterisation, nothing. This is contrary to the expectations set up by the really loooong opening song played entirely over visuals of children.

Mention of that number brings to mind Children’s Park’s odd attitude to language. The song is in Hindi, there are several extended, important scenes featuring a gangster named Muthupaandi who converses with his gang only in Tamil, and when the children speak in the end they too speak in Tamil – neither the song, nor these verbal exchanges are subtitled, which means a viewer of this film will fully understand it only if they are proficient in three languages. If the producers are not interested in attracting a non-Malayalam-speaking audience with English subtitles, that is their choice, but at the very least there should have been Malayalam subtitles for the Hindi and Tamil portions out of consideration for the primary target audience (meaning: Malayalam speakers) who spent money on tickets for what we were told is a Malayalam film.
 
The women of Children’s Park are only slightly less showpiece-like than the children. Their sole purpose in the plot is to give the male leads one good-looking female human each to fall in love with. 

All the fun in the film is to be had from the comicality of Jerry, Lenin and the artistes playing them. Vishnu Unnikrishnan took centre stage as an actor with Kattappanayile Rithwik Roshan in 2016 and is an excellent comic. Sharafudheen has a very likeable personality.

Rishi is played by Dhruvan, the least charismatic, least interesting of the three actors, and frankly I think it is a measure of Kerala’s white skin obsession that he gets described as a “glamour boy” by another character. Dhruvan first drew attention in a terribly amateurish film called Queen (2018) that felt and looked like something kindergarten children might create. In terms of production quality and writing, Children’s Park is a big step up from Queen but Dhruvan fails to add any spark whatsoever either to Rishi or the film.

That said, even Unnikrishnan and Sharafudheen can carry Children’s Park only so far and no further. The often entertaining Hareesh Kanaran plays the cook at the orphanage, but the humour developed around him is too juvenile and the actor himself, perhaps because of that, is off colour.

There is a running joke throughout Children’s Parkrevolving around two gluttons who run a dhaba. It works only once in the film, and that is in the way their food obsession is woven into the climax, but for the rest it is just boringly repetitive. The fact that it does click in that solitary instance is a reminder of Shafi’s comic potential. But as with his last film Oru Pazhaya Bomb Kadha (2018), that potential remains unfulfilled here in Children’s Park because he is just not trying enough and seems satisfied with rolling out cliché after cliché such as that ho-hum Me Too wisecrack and the mindless placement of pretty women as props. In earlier works such as his 2002 blockbuster Kalyanaraman, at least he served up enough laugh-out-loud moments of nonsense to tide over the episodic plotline and clichés. That film may have been loud and garish, but at least we got to giggle over nutty lines like “Thalararuthe Ramankutty, thalararuthe”.

To be fair to Children’s Park, it is better than Oru Pazhaya Bomb Kadha. The occasional humour, Sharafudheen and Unnikrishnan are its saving graces (though I must say I am already tired of the way the latter’s characters keep dissing his own looks), but even they cannot change Children’s Parks overallimpact as an unremarkable, unmemorable film.

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

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


REVIEW 706: KABIR SINGH

$
0
0
Release date:
June 21, 2019
Director:
Sandeep Reddy Vanga
Cast:



Language:
Shahid Kapoor, Kiara Advani, Kamini Kaushal, Suresh Oberoi, Arjan Bajwa, Adil Hussain, Nikita Dutta, Soham Majumdar, Kunal Thakur
Hindi and English with (unsubtitled) Punjabi


It takes almost 50 minutes for the heroine of Kabir Singh to utter her first sentence. “Kabir, what do you like in me?” says this fragile-looking child-woman who was a mute puppet in his hands until then. “I like the way you breathe,” he replies. Ooh, keh diya na dil ko touch kar jaane waali baat!

Okay, my apologies for the flippant tone, but please excuse it as a defence mechanism against one of the most horrific, harrowing, horrendous odes to misogyny and patriarchy ever created by Indian cinema in any language – humourised and romanticised for our viewing pleasure.

Kabir Singh is the Bollywood remake of the 2017 Tollywood blockbuster Arjun Reddy starring Vijay Sai Deverakonda and Shalini Pandey in the roles played in this Hindi version by Shahid Kapoor and Kiara Advani. To call both problematic is an understatement. As I watched Kabir Singh, I could already hear in my head the tired clichés that are rolled out as rebuttals to criticism of such films and are likely to be regurgitated for this one.

“C’mon ya, men like that do exist.”

“Are you saying films should not depict reality?”

“If negative characters could influence people to become bad then how come positive characters do not immediately reform society?”

Or, as Kapoor himself pre-emptively said earlier this week in a newspaper interview: “If we start judging characters, we can’t make movies that are real.”

Oh brother, stop. Please stop. This is exhausting, but for the zillionth time: it is not the depiction of reality that is objectionable here, it is precisely because violent, destructive misogynists do exist and women for centuries have suffered at their hands that it is deeply troubling when a film portrays such a person as cool, funny, and, as Kapoor puts it, a man with “a good heart” who “loves purely” and “wears his emotions on his sleeve”.

Again brother, stop. Stop with the euphemisms, please. Call the Kabir Singhs of the world what they are and show them up for what they are: obnoxious, ugly sociopaths.

Kapoor plays Kabir Rajdhir Singh, an ill-tempered, aggressive albeit academically brilliant medical college student who one day sees a pretty girl on campus and decides she is his. Her name is Preeti Sikka (Kiara Advani) but he does not know that then. They have yet to even have a conversation, but like a dog urinating to mark his territory, Kabir goes to an all-men junior class, announces to the students that they can have their pick of the other women in the college but this one is his woman, and demands that they spread the word on his behalf.

Mind you, all this and everything that comes thereafter (he is a chain-smoking alcoholic and drug taker who descends further into a spiral of substance abuse and sex addiction when he is forcefully separated from Preeti) is depicted in a comical tone and projected as intensity, passion and profound emotion. Every one of the despicable Kabir’s actions is portrayed as the handiwork of a loveable, mad genius. Besides, the heroine who seems initially intimidated by him soon falls in love with him, he treats another woman like meat and she too promptly tells him she loves him, his friends – male and female – adore him, he is popular with the nurses in his hospital on whom he threatens to vent his horniness... I mean, c’mon ya, if so many people are smitten by him he must be having “a good heart”, no?

Judge for yourself the heart so good that Kabir kisses Preeti for the first time while she stands statue-like, having not expressed any interest in him till then, he physically imposes himself on her subsequently too, he orders her around like one might a pet animal that one is fond of, after they have sex for the first time he instructs her in a proprietorial manner to cover up in public, after she falls for him he roughs her up, treats her like shit, repeatedly hits her and tells her she was a nobody in college whose identity rested entirely on her being known as his girl, and worse.

As if none of this was enough, a song titled Tera Ban Jaungahas lyrics that go thus:

Meri raahein tere tak hain

Tujhpe hi toh mera haq hai

(Translation: my path, every path I take, leads to you / I have a right over just you.)

The point about a“right” over a lover is re-asserted in the song Tujhe Kitna Chahne Lage, in which the words go, “Tere ishq pe haan haq mera hi toh hai” (I alone have a right over your love).

From the 1990s, Hindi cinema gradually bade goodbye to the portrayal of violence, molestation and stalking as legitimate forms of courtship. It never went away entirely, but for the most part, if a leading man was a stalker, he was categorically slotted as the villain of the piece as he was in Yash Chopra’s Darr. The romanticisation of stalking and the mistreatment of women while wooing them has made a big comeback this decade, epitomised by Raanjhanaa (2013) and various Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar starrers. Kabir Singhis in the same league: dangerous to the core because it is such a slick production.

For one, it is well acted, especially by Kapoor, Advani (known so far for M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story, Lust Stories, Bharat Ane Nenu), Arjan Bajwa playing Kabir’s brother and Soham Majumdar in the role of the hero’s best buddy Shiva. Kapoor, in fact, is so good here that it is heart-breaking to see him use his gift thus, to see the spectacular star of Vishal Bhardwaj’s spectacular Haider (2014) descend to this cinematic abomination.

The cast is one of Kabir Singh’s many pluses. The cinematography by Santhana Krishnan Ravichandran is plush, the editing by Aarif Sheikh and Vanga himself is truly slick, and the songs are attractive. That said, those numbers are ruined by the manner in which they are used in the narrative along with the overbearing, ear-splitting background score. The songs are pleasant when heard separately, but they are slammed into the film’s soundscape like whiplashes akin to the screechy effects used in bad Bollywood thrillers to startle the audience.

Most insidious is the writing of Kabir Singh, which uses humour to lull us into an acceptance of its terrible, terrifying hero’s obnoxiousness. As offensive as his patriarchal, misogynistic attitude towards the heroine and other women is the fact that towards the end writer-director-editor Sandeep Vanga seems to be trying to evoke sympathy for him by getting him to tearfully confess that he is an alcoholic. Clearly with this goal in mind, a few bars from the nursery rhyme Twinkle Twinkle Little Star are also woven into the background score – in a silly and tacky fashion, it must be said – when Kabir is dealing with the death of a loved one.

Towards the end, Vanga even seems to be attempting a statement about the limits that supposed democracy places on us when a lawyer says of Kabir that such free-spiritedness in a democracy is not okay. Ah, so being a creep is “free-spiritedness”. Got it.

That line is one of many dialogues in Kabir Singh that are written to sound deep and intellectual, but mean little to nothing especially considering the context in which they are spoken.

The naming of the hero in Vanga’s Hindi remake seems to be a bow to the poet-saint Kabir, and to underline the point, in a voiceover in the opening scene the fellow’s grandmother (Kamini Kaushal) recites one of Kabir’s dohas. I do not know whether to laugh or cry at this desecration of the great man’s writing. Kabir Singh and its Telugu forebear Arjun Reddy must rank among the most disturbing examples of the obsessive stalker hero being glamourised by Indian cinema.

Rating (out of five stars): *

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

This review has also been published on Firstpost:


Poster courtesy:


Viewing all 573 articles
Browse latest View live


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