My Oscar Wishlist 2015

After the debacle of 2014, I have decided I will not be boastful about my predictions. This year, I humbly give you...my wishlist for the Oscars. (These are the nominees I hope will win this Sunday, not the ones I think will win) (I don't think I can make this any clearer) (NOT predictions, wishes)

Best Picture - Birdman; Alejandro G. Iñárritu, John Lesher and James W. Skotchdopole, Producers

Director- Boyhood; Richard Linklater

Actor - Eddie Redmayne;  The Theory of Everything

Supporting Actor - J.K. Simmons; Whiplash

Actress - Rosamund Pike;Gone Girl

Supporting Actress - Patricia Arquette; Boyhood

Animated Feature - How to Train Your Dragon 2; Dean DeBlois and Bonnie Arnold

Adapted Screenplay – Whiplash; Damien Chazelle

Original Screenplay – Boyhood; Richard Linklater

Cinematography – Birdman; Emmanuel Lubezki

Costume Design - The Grand Budapest Hotel; Milena Canonero

Film Editing – Boyhood; Sandra Adair

Foreign Language Film – Leviathan, Russia

Makeup and Hairstyling - The Grand Budapest Hotel; Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier

Original Score - The Grand Budapest Hotel; Alexandre Desplat

Original Song - Lost Stars; Begin Again (Music and Lyric by Gregg Alexander and Danielle Brisebois)

Production Design - The Grand Budapest Hotel; (Production Design: Adam Stockhausen; Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock)

Sound Editing – Birdman; Martín Hernández and Aaron Glascock

Sound Mixing – Whiplash; Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley

Visual Effects – Interstellar; Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher

*I have not included some categories like short live action film, short documentary, short animation and a few others for a lack of knowledge about the nominees.

**The only prediction I am willing to make is Neil Patrick Harris making a '12 Years A Slave' joke about Linklater's Boyhood

#BoycottHaider

Like dipping your feet in the shallow end and taking the temperature of the water, the first viewing of Haider is simply meant to take all the Shakespeare out of your system. The second viewing, in the wake of an unfounded wave of nationalist protests demanding to #boycottHaider, gets a whole new meaning.

The film begins with a doctor, fulfilling his duty towards humanity by operating a militant just like any other patient, being ratted out and detained for being an accomplice. His house is set on fire, and his wife is a mute spectator as he is taken away by the authorities, only to disappear later. The sequence that precedes this one, is of the doctor leaving home holding an identity card and joining a line of hundreds of locals that walk, under supervision of armed guards, to part-take in a drill to identify the accomplice. The only time we have seen such a visual is when films are portraying the anti-Semitic regime rounding up the Jews in Nazi Germany. And no, we did not expect something of that nature to happen to citizens of our nation.

The doctor is Haider’s father. He returns to his village and is detained for referring to his home town by its alternate name – Islamabad. His girlfriend comes to his aid, rescues him and drives him home. On their way, she explains how she negotiated with the officer and describes Haider as “woh militant nahi, poet hai…” This line is a part of a large dialogue and comes and goes like a silent whisper. But, thereon, it echoes throughout the film. She means to say that Haider does not pose any danger as he is only a poet. The question to be asked is, could Vishal Bhardwaj have elucidated it more elaborately that when tortured, a poet can be far more lethal and dangerous than a militant. Haider himself knows, from having researched on the revolutionary poets of British India – be it Bismil or Faiz, that the poets were the most dangerous minds of that era. If only it were that simple for us to comprehend.

After learning that his father was taken into custody by the army before he disappeared, Haider makes it his life’s mission to find his father no matter which prison he is held captive in. And in a conversation with the two Salmans, he casually remarks that “poora Kashmir ek qaidkhaana hai.” Nobody is free here. A scene with a befuddled Kashmiri standing outside his own house, unwilling to enter without being frisked, further emphasises Haider’s remark. He speaks of how the AFSPA, a tool to facilitate the safeguarding of the people had turned on them, with the army abducting the smallest of suspects dumping them into our lite-versions of Guantanamo Bay and torturing them. Chutzpah, a Hebrew word, illustrates the politics of double standards and highlights how the Kashmiris have been left hanging between a hard place and a harder place.

“The nationalists having a problem with the film’s portrayal of the armed forces is justified,” is something someone who hasn’t watched the movie would say. In a region of perennial unrest since 1948, vengeance has been the emotion that is as common as snow in its winter. The oppressed take up arms for freedom, and the two oppressors, as it were, have arms for the sake of safety and counter attack. There are militants and armies of two nations fighting in Kashmir since the birth of the nations. On ground zero, it stops being a political issue. A father disappears, a mother is raped – a child picks up a gun. Similarly with the army, the law and order aside, if a man who you share a bunker with, who wears the same uniform do, who is the only friend you made since your posting in Kashmir from some other part of India is killed – the first thing on your mind will not be mother nation and national pride, it will be revenge for a fallen brother. And Haider’s fault is that it shows it. The commanding officer who orders the RPG strike on the doctor’s house mouths “no militant dead or alive is worth the life of my soldier.” Nowhere does he say “kill that terrorist for ruining the peace in my beautiful country.”

Haider, disillusioned by all this and more, loses his mind, and so do we. With every passing scene, the film makes you uncomfortable as you find all this is happening too close to home. The gunshots fired in Kashmir can now be heard from your bedroom window. You don’t like it. You regress into thinking that the film is about Shakespeare’s Hamlet. You want to re-focus your mind to thinking about how this is a story about one man’s revenge. How this is about a story about family, deceit and bringing peace to the dead one. How it’s about a son and his overly attached mother coming to terms with life without the father. But Haider doesn’t let you do that. It feeds you a large spoonful of Shakespearean tragedy and before you gulp it down, stuffs into your mouth another spoonful of a national issue which has either been neglected or portrayed trivially even in the finest of our films (read Roja).

And that is Haider’s fault. It is the film’s fault that you cannot separate Hamlet from Kashmir anymore. It is the film’s fault that it tries to show “Jhelum laal laal hua” to a people who have convinced themselves that “aaj blue hai paani paani” and, it is the film’s fault that the people are who blinded by the “sunny sunny sunny din” completely overlook Faiz’ “laajim hai ke hum bhi dekhein, woh din ke jiska waada tha…”

Whether bad films create bad audience or whether bad films are created because there is bad audience is an endless conundrum. But one thing is for sure, we are a bad audience. We do not like politics in politics alone, how could we be okay with it showing up in our films. Nowhere in our collective idea of entertainment does an honest political drama have a place. Therefore it is necessary to #boycotthaider

The song 'Bismil', which was a revelation in the second viewing, when taken out of context of the plot of the film, has a hidden message - a plea. The people of Kashmir in particular and the people of India in general, are the bulbul-e-bismil, who are innocent and naïve. The gul refers to our first Prime Minister and “khushboo-e-gul mein ishq bharaa tha” refer to the promises that were made to J&K by the government of India – promises that weren’t quite fulfilled. So on and so forth.  “Khushboo-e-gul mein zeher bhara hai” is the warning and the final plea to the people is to come to their senses and see what is happening, which the film so eloquently showcases. Hosh mein aaja, hosh mein aaja, ae bulbul-e-bismil.

Firing Blanks

Film: Bang Bang
Director: Siddharth Anand

Siddharth Anand’s Bang Bang is apparently an official remake of Knight & Day. Pause.

In comparison, it is terribly under-funded and has watered down the plot further for Indian audience. Pause.

Katrina Kaif. Pause.

Hritik Roshan, in his close-ups, makes that face all guys make while playing video games while his body double and or poorly executed special effects do the work for him. Pause.

Danny Denzogpa is the antagonist. And everytime he is on screen you keep thinking why they couldn’t get him for Agneepath. Pause.

You could have stopped reading this after the first pause. Or before that. Pause.

If you want to read further you will be disappointed because factoring in the 150 odd minutes it requires to watch the film, spending any more time over it would make it difficult to look at yourself in the mirror. Period. 

Rating: 7 bananas out of 5 stars

Transcending Shakespeare

Film: Haider
Director: Vishal Bhardwaj

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity suggests that time is relative; contrary to the common understanding that time follows a strict linear path – the one we confine it to for the sake of functionality on a day to day basis. But after Maqbool, Omkara and now Haider, Vishal Bhardwaj has proved that he collaborated with this one guy called William Shakespeare, who was born roughly half a millennium before him.

Haider is unrelenting - not the character, the film. Its honesty and courage are only surpassed by its aesthetics. It leaves you dumbfounded with its treatment, overwhelmed by its subject and makes you fall in love, with a story you have loved since the first time you heard it, all over again. It is brave, flambuoyant and intricate, just like its director.

Much has been spoken about Bhardwaj’s karmic connection with Gulzar with every single time they work together. But when it comes to the people he works frequently with, Shakespeare is a close second. With Maqbool which was an adaptation of Macbeth, Omkara which was based on Othello and now Haider based on Hamlet, the director’s appreciation of human history’s most inspiring literary works is absolutely fascinating. Like his previous two adaptations, Haider, which completes the trilogy, too, showcases Bhardwaj’s ability to take Shakespeare’s idiom and internalize it in a setting so rooted that the line between the text and the film becomes imaginary.

Which gets us to Kashmir, where the film is set beginning it’s tale in the year 1995. Haider, a university student returns home from Aligarh after his father has disappeared after being framed for working with militants. On his return, he finds that his mother is too close to his uncle for his liking. He decides to search for his missing father along with many disgruntled Kashmiris, who are looking in vain too. He then finds out that his father has been murdered and pledges vengeance. Well, you know how it goes.

However, where Bhardwaj triumphs, is in presenting an agonizing saga of the lives of many who existed for many Indians only in news bites. The film touches upon the political dynamics, gives a holistic view on the role of armed forces in the region, enlightens you with the causal need for and the horrific consequences of AFSPA 1958 (Armed Forces Special Powers Act), provides various perspectives on the Kashmiri people’s perception of nationhood, freedom, oppression and it does so while, on the surface, playing out a Shakespearean tragedy.

Kashmir’s contribution to Haider is not limited to its socio-political unrest, but it also provides as an excellent setting. The damp, wet winter and the dead-white snow painted with blood tells the story of how things have gone wrong in what was once referred to as the heaven on earth. At the same time, the same setting provides a cool, cozy hideout for Haider and his lover Arshia and show that there is still warmth in the cold wreckage and a little hope in the heart.

It is often said that literature constitutes a large part of cinematic story-telling and contributes a lot to cinema. However, Haider’s dialogues and lyrics are so meaningfully crafted and precisely executed that they could be a great piece of literature by themselves. Gulzar’s “Aao Na”, Vishal Bhardwaj’s “dil ki gar sunoon to hai dimaag ki to hai nahi jaan loon ke jaan doon main rahoon ke main nahi” (on Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be”) and Faiz’ “Gulon mein rang bhare” (which you can hear playing on a transistor in the voice of Mehdi Hassan) make you feel immense gratitude towards your ancestors who thought language would be a good idea.

Amidst this intense drama, Bhardwaj reserves his moments to, in some way, leave a director’s watermark on the film. Right from a subtle reference like Khurram (Haider’s uncle) saying “370 saal se guzaarish kar rahe hain…” to Ghazala (Haider’s mother) to (there couldn’t be a better way to explain this) trolling Salman Khan, he throws punches at you which hit you only if you are in its path.

Of the many departments of the film that deserve individual standing ovations, casting is one. From the extras of little significance to the protagonist, Haider is one of the few Hindi films that get it flawlessly right. Tabu has given one of her finest performances as Ghazala, portraying her with immense vulnerability. Kay Kay Menon as Khurram is tenacious and comes close to having the same effect as his character in Anurag Kashyap’s Gulaal. Shraddha Kapoor’s Arshia exceeds expectations with her heavy emphasis on some English words, but beyond that, she fails to make the most of a golden opportunity.

Shahid Kapoor, on the other hand, is not the Shahid Kapoor we have seen for a decade or more now. He slides into his character and gets comfortable over the first half of the film and as the second half warms up, he takes center-stage and owns it. His disturbed tirade at a square in the city, his description of ‘Chutzpah’ (a word, if you have not heard before, that will change your perspective on things a little) and his “mai rahoon ke mai nahi” monologue are examples of how you get it right. His dialogues, postures, gestures will leave you with some unforgettable images.

In its entirety, Haider has crossed many a boundaries to become something big and powerful. It is bigger than the characters’ tragedy, it is bigger than the condition in Kashmir, and if you can fathom it, it takes Hamlet’s central theme of vengeance and goes beyond it. Haider humbly transcends Shakespeare and stands before us as a cultural mammoth that will be remembered for many years.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Three weddings and four funerals

Film: Finding Fanny

Director: Homi Adajania

It is said that a film can change your day, your mind or your life; and Homi Adajania’s Finding Fanny is a strange little tale that, if nothing else, will make your day. The director’s third, this film unfolds comfortably around you and makes you live its story while it is happening to its characters.

The film opens with a first person narration by Angie (Deepika Padukone) who leads us into a quiet village called Pocolim in Goa, where Ferdinand Pinto (the post-master of that village, played by Naseeruddin Shah) receives a letter he had sent 46 years ago – a letter expressing his love for Stephanie ‘Fanny’ Fernandes. For those of among you who are immune to irony, read the previous statement again.

Pocolim is a small village, and as Savio da Gama (Arjun Kapoor) promptly states in a scene, “Here, everyone’s business is everyone else’s business.” Angie is a widow, having lost her husband Gabo (played sportingly by Ranveer Singh who lights up his 15 seconds on screen with as much joie-de-vivre as he does in that Ranveer Ching song) on their wedding day. Oh, let it be mentioned that he dies due to choking on the figurines atop the wedding cake. If the irony in the film was not clear to you with the postmaster’s mail not being delivered, here’s your second chance.

                                     

Angie’s mother-in-law, Rosalina ‘Rosie’ Eucharistica (Dimple Kapadia) is a woman of repute and a control freak. Now, add to this mix a renowned painter (Dom Pedro played by Pankaj Kapur) with a fetish for big women, and you have a melting pot of quirkiness.

Here’s a legend to help you link the five characters quickly. Angie, a widow, wants to help Ferdinand find Fanny, using Dom Pedro’s car, which he bought from Savio. She convinces Dom Pedro to lend the car by allowing him to spend some more time with his muse and her mother-in-law – Rosie. And since none of this sorry lot can drive a car, Savio, Angie’s old flame, is compelled to do so. Also in the car - Rosie’s cat.

There you have it, an unlikely group on an unlikely mission to find love. The only thing common between all of them is longing and the quintessential need for love. The outcome of this crazy road trip is quite predictable, however, this predictability does not stem out of you having out-witted the writer and the maker, but instead out of hope. The film does to the characters what you wish to be done unto them.

The humor of Finding Fanny is its situations, more than its words, which means irrespective of whether you watch it in Hindi or English, you will have laughed at the same instances. Most of this aforementioned humor is embedded in irony and unless you watch closely, you may miss out on certain jokes that have been painstakingly constructed within the narrative. However, it must be said that the writers have caught the right vein in writing the dialogues for the English version of the film. “Waiting for Christmas or what?”, “Why means what?”, “I think there’s a robber outside!”, are the dialogues that seem like a part of the setting. One simply cannot pull off writing Hindi dialogues for a Goan character without ridiculing the Goan or Hindi or both.

The setting plays a very important role in the story. First and foremost, these characters could not exist outside the realm of Goa – the perfect blend of eccentric, compassionate, loving, comical, simple-minded and otherwise content folk. Secondly, it sets up a great backdrop for a journey, especially those where you end up finding something completely different than what you set out to look for. To top it off, Anil Mehta’s camera has managed to capture some splendid landscapes of a vintage car easing through the twirls and swirls of exotic locations.

The ensemble cast further outline the caricatures of their characters. Naseeruddin Shah is underwhelming, albeit sweet, as Ferdinand. Pankaj Kapur as Dom Pedro is sincere and does no more than is asked. As for Dimple Kapadia, this is perhaps one of her career best performances and emphatically stands out among the group. Arjun Kapoor as a disgruntled lover is bearable but can do much better. And Deepika, whose character is a personification of The Beatles’ All You Need Is Love, is simply adorable.

You love the characters, care for them and you feel the same way about life as they do. And somewhere in the first half hour, the story doesn’t matter anymore. You simply take a seat in the car with and try to find Fanny. Aren’t all our lives simply a search for the proverbial Fanny? (Pun intended, totally. Just like in the title.) A gamble, a venture in the dark, a chance…all of it built on hope. And amidsty its three weddings and four funerals, if there is one thing Finding Fanny does, is tell you that you are not alone in your search, it is with you.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Punching thin air

Film: Mary Kom

Director: Omung Kumar

If you walk into this Omung Kumar film with the expectation of being blown away by India’s most celebrated south-paw, you are in for a surprise. You do get punched after watching Mary Kom, however, it is not by of the inspiring story of MC Mary Kom, but by a glove filled with melodrama, unnecessary sympathy, in-your-face patriotism, untimely product placements and what feels like a bag of loose change.

The film begins with a little girl picking up a boxing glove from a wreckage and ends with her winning the world championship for the fourth time; between which, she faces opposition from within the community, fights corruption from within the association and all that comes with being an athlete, and a woman at that. The film journey’s through her life as the eldest daughter of a rice farmer to a national champion to being a wife, a mother and a world champion.

Frankly, there couldn’t be a better story to tell, and the failure here lies with the storytellers who simply glance through the important milestones and stitch those moments with melodramatic overtones. The screenplay is haphazardly strung together and there are moments in the second half where you are left disinterested as Mary oscillates between training and looking after her children.

The supporting elements to the narrative too fail to integrate and bind it into one compound and there are always little shots of melodrama to distract you from thinking how a lot of issues are being omitted. Right from the trivialization of the rebellion in Manipur to a caricatured portrayal of corruption in the system, the film overlooks many a fundamental problems. Be it the long scene where Mary is made to apologise for her outburst to the federation or the causal outburst where she, with no prior hints at the issue starts screaming that the federation is being prejudiced against her for being a Manipuri.

That apart, comparison to other boxing films would come automatically; however, that only weakens the case for Mary Kom. The moment you start thinking Million Dollar Baby or Raging Bull or Rocky (if you are into that), you realise how poorly shot it is. The scene where she picks a fight with a boy, or the montages of her training just highlight how uninspired and non-committal the film is.

There was a huge outcry about Priyanka Chopra playing the lead in the film, but after having watched the film, that criticism can finally be validated. Priyanka as Mary Kom is as poor a casting as it would be to cast Mary Kom to play Priyanka Chopra in a biopic about her life. It is the equivalent of Zack Galifianakis portraying the Mahatma in Attenborough’s Gandhi. The other characters in the film are too uni-dimensional, be it the no-nonsense coach, the skeptical father, the supportive husband, the spiteful federation representative and the fierce German nemesis.

The mushy background score, the perennially weepy protagonist and the patronizing story make for a tableau of sympathy-seeking story, which makes the treatment of Bhaag Milkha Bhaag seem neo-real. It is high time we stopped spoon-feeding emotions to our audience and leave it to them to appreciate the beauty of a life well lived. Mary Kom the person, Mary Kom the persona, and Mary Kom the phenomenon, are all let down. We are sorry magnificent Mary, we owe you a film.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5

A well-done rant on commitment

Film: Shuddh Desi Romance

Director: Maneesh Sharma

The title, Shuddh Desi Romance; and the fact that the 27 kisses in the film have been overtly publicized might trick you into believing that this is some kind of a gooey, romantic film. However, Maneesh Sharma surprises yet again by bringing something new to the table, with a subject that has been beaten to death by our very own Hindi film industry - commitment.

Raghu (Sushant) has cold feet before his marriage to Tara (Vaani) and his doubts strengthen as he meets Gayatri (Parineeti) on the baarati bus. He runs away from the marriage and then falls in love with Gayatri. However, the two confused lovers have their own trust issues and face similar problems as they plan to get married. A series of coincidences follow which see the tables turn, and exposes the flaws in every character.

A decent screenplay, apt background score and visuals to match the mood, make Shuddh Desi Romance a great product. Contemporary dialogues that gel with the setting make the overall experience more authentic. The film instantly establishes a connect with the audience, thanks to the main characters breaking the fourth wall ,time and again, and addressing the audience directly.

The chemistry between the couples is a little iffy, but forgivable. Vaani Kapoor puts up a good performance on her debut and Sushant picks up from where he left in Kai Po Che. Parineeti's character is well within her comfort zone and she pulls it off pretty well, making her actions look seamless and habitual (even smoking).

The real hero of this film, however, is Rishi Kapoor, who plays Tauji, a local businessman who provides everything from catering, to bands to hired baraatis for weddings. Surprising the audience yet again with a different role, Tauji is the innocent bystander as the three leads bring the place down.

Addressing issues like the fleeting nature of today's young mindset, the film indirectly touches upon a lot of adjacent problems like fear of commitment, indecisiveness and a general sense of immaturity when it comes to handling relationships.

Maneesh Sharma's film is a sad commentary on today's youth and their construct of romance. However, Shuddh Desi Romance does not restrict itself to commentary, and dodges the bullet of becoming too preachy. It shows a really beautiful mirror, lined with pink confetti and bokeh, which shows what the lesser-photogenic couples do in contemporary urban India.

Nothing new in its philosophy, but the ease with which the film puts forth its point without losing its humour is noteworthy. If a Hindi film is what you want to watch this week, this is the one. 

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on September 7, 2013 

Carnival of 'Rust'

Film: Zanjeer

Director: Apoorva Lakhia

Prakash Mehra's Zanjeer (which was made in a much simpler time when it was acceptable to see an angry young man take on an army of goons), charted a path for Amitabh as the angry young man, gave Pran yet another unforgettable role as Sher Khan and was laden with heavy duty dialogues and story of the hit duo Salim-Javed. Apoorva Lakhia's re-make, starring Ram Charan, is simply a loud, confused tale, oscillating between the genre of the angry young man and the new-age Dabangg sensibility.

The adapted screenplay, written by Suresh Nair and the director himself, doesn't deviate much from the plot structure of the original, save for setting the film in contemporary times (something that the re-hashers of Agneepath did not do). The protagonist, Vijay Khanna, who is tormented by the same dream of a masked murderer on a horse, kicks the chair and says “yeh police station hai, tumhare baap ka ghar nahi. Jab tak baithne ke liye kaha na jaye, chup chap khade raho” and has the swagger of a young man whose blood is boiling. However, this, and many more parallels that are subconsciously made by everyone who has seen the original, make Lakhia's film look like a cheap imitation.

Prakash Raj, who re-creates Ajit's character on screen, is reduced to a comic relief element for almost the entire first half. His opening scene, which shows him slit a man's throat after a house-servant whispers “Sir, gaddaar Shaun hai” in his ears, makes him appear more amusing than intimidating. Majority of his scenes are laden with unnecessary sexual overtones and see him reduced to a joke. Similarly, Mahie Gill, who plays Mona, is a colossal waste of a talented actor, as she moans and grunts her way through dialogues that add absolutely no substance to the film.

The only plus point of the film is Ram Charan's physique, which for the first time, allows the angry young man to take off his shirt and not look like a malnourished child from Sudan (apologies to AB of 40 years ago). Priyanka Chopra too is reduced to a good looking girl, who is just a narrative tool for a few moments of romance and intimacy.

The lesser said about Sanjay Dutt's Sher Khan, the better. Comparison with Pran is a sin we aren't willing to commit. But getting to re-live those lines itself would have been a good experience, had Dutt not spoiled it with his monotony.

Having made this film when police officer protagonists are selling like hot cakes, Zanjeer struggles to find its identity as whether it wanted to be a re-creation of the seventies' sentiment or a remix, which incorporated the story in today's age of Singham and Chulbul Pandey.

The film doesn't actively bore you, but leaves you with nothing to cherish. And if by the end of the first half, you're still not sure if this is a remake, Mahie Gill says to Prakash Raj, while watching Ajit and Bindu in the original Zanjeer, “Tumhari personality kitni milti julti hai.” Well, you decide.

Rating: 1 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on September 7, 2013

Bored!

Film: Percy Jackson - Sea of Monsters

Director: Thor Freudenthal

Having long given up on the wish to see a good cinematic adaptation of a series of books, it is now easy to enter the cinema hall expecting to be letdown. Sadly, Thor Freudenthal's Percy Jackson - Sea of Monsters is simply an addition to yet another god-awful book adaptation of Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson series.

On a conceptual level, which is the inheritance of the novel, it seems like such an exciting prospect that the protagonist is an offspring of an Olympian god. Like Hercules, but contemporary. But if this film and its prequel, Percy Jackson - The Lightning Thief, are to be believed, life as a demi-god in the modern setting is duller than the life of a balloon salesman on FC Road.

Picking up from where the prequel left us, the film gives a back story to the shield that protects the half-blood camp. A flashback, shows us how Talia, the daughter of Zeus, sacrificed herself to save three others. Zeus then gave her life in the form of a tree which marked the boundary of safety for the half-blood kids. But our lightning thief returns, breaches the wall and thus begins Percy's next great adventure, the search for the Golden Fleece that has the power to save lives.

A few tedious references to Greek mythology apart, the film lacks humour, compassion and a general ability to keep you engaged for 100 minutes. After the first 30 minutes, which have you convinced that nothing good can happen in the film, you conveniently disengage yourself from the screen and argue with yourself as to which character is the lamest. Unfortunately, the film isn't long enough for you to conclude that debate satisfactorily.

The one thing you deserve out of every film which makes you wear those bulky 3D glasses, is some quality visuals. Alright, make a lousy film, but atleast give the viewers half-a-dozen moments where they live the movie. But no, the imagery is largely derivative and intriguing on no level. The biggest monster of the film titled 'sea of monsters', immediately reminds you of the Kraken from Pirates of the Caribbean. At that point, you know that the makers too want you to think of other things, and not watch this unimaginativeness.

You don't see Zeus, or Poseidon or Haedes in this one. You don't even see Pierce Brosnan in this one. The only god in the film, is the one overlooking you – Boris, the Greek god of Boredom. 

Rating: 1.5 out of 5 

Published in DNA (Pune) on August 31, 2013

A revolting experience

Film: Satyagraha

Director: Prakash Jha

Satyagraha, Prakash Jha's recent endeavour to take up a socially relevant topic and make a film about it, raises the same question as his previous films Chakryavyuh and Aarakshan did. Why? An overburdening series of topical events woven haphazardly into a dramatic narrative, Satyagraha too trivializes a rather deep issue of revolution.

The charges against the film are similar to his previous films. Watering down the intensity for the masses, the film further dilutes its contexts with unnecessary item numbers and romantic scenarios. Set in a town called Ambikapur, somewhere in Central India, the film addresses the rampant corruption that exists in the system and how the people's representatives are detached from the common man himself.

Jha uses his technique of archetypal characters, each of whom stand for a section of society and takes the story forward. Amitabh Bachchan plays Dwarka Anand, an idealist, fondly referred to as Daduji. Ajay Devgan is Manav Raghavendra, an opportunist and the face of modern India. Kareena Kapoor plays Yasmin Ahmed, a tough spirited TV journalist and Arjun Rampal plays Arjun, a youth icon committed to becoming a leader. Manoj Bajpai, who plays Home Minister Balram Singh (the nemesis), is a personification of all the corrupt practices in politics.

After a half-decent build-up in the first half of the film, the film ends up being a victim of some rogue screenwriting. The satyagraha itself, falls on the backdrop of a series of political moves which turns this film into yet another Rajneeti without the obvious parallels to Mahabharat or The Godfather.

The multi-starrer film has some unintentional moments of irony. Amitabh's opening scene in the film sees him curse the officers of 'Alliance Power' a private company that provides electricity. And Ajay Devgan, who in Yuva fought the misgivings of the system by entering it, comes to that very conclusion at the end of this film, after all is lost.

With a loose narrative which doesn't engage you, the film fails on multiple levels. It fails to reflect the gravity of the situation; it fails to put forth the commandments of the philosophy of satyagraha (aside from a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in the town's main circle and a fast-unto-death plot point) and it fails to create the atmosphere of urgency, by lingering on the unimportant scenes longer. Let alone the story, the setting of the film lacks cinematic singularity, which we more recently saw in Dibakar Bannerji's Shanghai.

The film has to be discarded primarily for its immature stance and secondly for it being titled Satyagraha. If someone wishes to watch this film to learn about the spirit of non-violent revolution, they'd gain more knowledge by simply looking up the word on Wikipedia. If films could change society instantly, this film would take us one step closer to being naive.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on  August 31, 2013

Consortium of corny punchlines

Film: Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara

Director: Milan Luthria

Shouldn't it have been Twice Upon A Time? Or a conventional Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai 2? Maybe a suffixed Returns or a completely different title altogether? But no, they decided to go with Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara (OUATIMD). And sadly, in this sequel to the film which was a decent re-creation of the 80s flamboyance, there are no talking points that go deeper than how the title should have been composed. In fact the entire film is as insignificant as the Y in the Ay and the A that was in the prequel's Mumbaai.

Overconfident from having sold the prequel, Luthria's film goes overboard with heavy-duty dialogues that swell up like helium balloons before bursting into nothingness. Every single line in the film, except perhaps the lyrics of the songs, is punctuated and exaggerated to sound deliberately ostentatious, which after a point makes you sick. The punches are only ironically amusing and it is hard not to judge the person sitting next to you, if he/she is genuinely falling for them.

Set roughly in the late 80s, the film picks nearly a decade after the climax of the previous film. Shoaib, played by Emraan Hashmi earlier, grows up and indigestibly turns into Akshay Kumar. And while the setting of a gangster thriller idly loiters around; OUATIMD plays itself out like a ridiculously childish, set-piece love triangle.

After Lootera, the sudden rise in expectations from Sonakshi have led to further disappointment as her character Jasmine sees her regress into the submissive, powerless role where she is at the mercy of two powerful men. One of those men, Shoaib, played by Akshay, is the villain, while Imran's Aslam is the archetypal hero.

Akshay Kumar simply recites punchlines throughout the film, with a cigarette, that has no regard for continuity, constantly lit between his fingers. Lacking the powerful aura of Ajay Devgn's Sultan Mirza and the charisma of Emraan's Shoaib, his black shades and well-kept hair hardly create a persona. While the first film gave us the memorable “Duaa mein yaad rakhna” by Sultan Mirza, Akshay's Shoaib throws one too many dialogues for us to remember any of them. And Imran Khan disappoints once again (or dobaara, if you may), with his contemporary body language and South Bombay accent. Maybe he never received the text that said the movie was set in the 80s.

Overall, OUATIMD is a null and void movie which serves no purpose other than killing time inside an air-conditioned dark-room. However, it will make truck loads of money and set precedents for more dobaaras of the same category.

At 160 minutes, the film is a fitting punishment to give to someone who has just lost a bet. With repetitive sentiments and caricatured leads, the film is a long test of endurance for anyone with a good taste in cinema. Beyond redemption, it wouldn't matter what the critics say. To put it in Shoaib's words, (read in Akshay's husky voice) -- “Agar aisi film ko rating diya, toh number bura maan jayenge.”

Rating: 1 out of 5 

Published in DNA (Pune) on August 17, 2013 

Pull the chain, stop this train!

Film: Chennai Express
Director: Rohit Shetty

“Don’t underestimate the power of a common man,” says Shah Rukh on numerous occasions in the film. The statement couldn’t be truer. With the crowd flooding films like Golmaals and Singham, the cinema of Rohit Shetty’s genre (we don’t have a name for it yet) has enough encouragement to bloom, and Chennai Express is a byproduct of the same sentiment.

A film whose fate cannot be altered even by a film critic with the abilities of Professor X, critiquing Chennai Express based on standard parameters would be an exercise in futility. Having said that, this film does not even live up to the standards of previous Rohit Shetty films. The film which starts off as an unabashed, in-your-face laugh ride derails (pun intended) into a set-piece drama from the nineties.

It tells the story of a 40-year-old single man, Rahul, who is assigned the task to immerse the remains of his dead grandfather in the sea at Rameshwaram. He boards the Chennai Express with a plan to cheat and leave for Goa with his friends. However, he has no idea that the hand he extends to help Meenama board the train in DDLJ fashion, will also bring him his life’s biggest conflict.

You see the film from Rahul’s perspective and therefore most of the humour is generated from his inability to understand Tamil and his forced attempt to stereotypically mimic the sounds. With a dearth of mind-blowingly hilarious moments, you have to make do mostly with whatever little banter Deepika and SRK share.

SRK’s effortless portrayal of Rahul relies heavily on the fact that he is playing his pet character on screen. From self-deprecating humour to puppy-face romantic looks to a beaten-to-pulp lover displaying courage, he puts his entire repertoire from DDLJ on display again.

Deepika, whose name quite fittingly appears before SRK’s in the opening credits, is the real star of this film. Her timely, accented punch-lines like “Kahaan se laiye ayisi bawkwaas dictionary?” and other cute Hindi phrases are what keep you upbeat during the endless 2.45 hours. And, the way she looks throughout the film, if enough girls watch the film, Deepika may be responsible for bringing sarees and half-sarees back into mass-fashion.

Apart from that, Chennai Express is a typical medium-distance journey in a second-class bogey. Rohit Shetty’s fetishes for cars toppling like dominos and fist fights with hefty people flying in all directions are stimulating on no level. Add to that a clichéd plot where Sathyaraj, who plays Meenama’s father Durgeshwara Azhagusundaram, finally let’s go of his daughter’s hand in the Jaa Simran Jaa sentiment, absolutely kills the mood.

Watch it for Deepika Padukone and a couple of chuckles, if you must. Most importantly, be careful common man, your attendance will make or break the film.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on August 10, 2013

Uninhibited Noir Erotica

Film: BA Pass

Director: Ajay Bahl

On a Friday with nearly a dozen so-called star-less films releasing, Ajay Bahl’s BA Pass, starring Shilpa Shukla (our beloved Bindya Naik from Chak De! India) perhaps has the most familiar face. Based on Mohan Sikka’s The Railway Aunty, the film takes us on a journey of a young boy into a dark world that he is unfamiliar to.

Following William Blake’s pattern from Songs of Innocence and of Experience, the film opens with a recently orphaned FY BA student, Mukesh, who finds himself at the mercy of his reluctant aunt, with two younger sisters to take care of. While running household errands after attending college, and playing chess at a graveyard with a coffinmaker, a dodgy employment opportunity knocks on his doors. A lonely housewife, Sarika, seduces him and thrusts him into prostitution. One thing leads to another, and slowly, Mukesh’s life begins to collapse and all he can do is watch helplessly.

While the first half of the film lingers on how Mukesh loses his innocence, the second half is an ode of how he experiences life in the vividly dark shades of deceit, doubt and misfortune. What make the entire journey engaging are the raw visuals used in taking the story forward. However, after an intense show, the film’s graph radically falls in the final act, delivering an insufficient ending.

The most disconcerting imagery of an innocent boy entering a world of wrong, is done in the most honest and brutal way possible and (permissible by the censor board). But, even though the censor regulations enforce a certain limitation on what can be shown, the film manages to dodge the barbs and maintaining the required darkness. And although Shilpa Shukla is unnaturally overdressed in most love-making scenes; it still conveys the necessary message unlike Saif Ali Khan in Race, who makes love to Bipasha Basu with his pants on.

If the story doesn’t appeal to you, if noir films aren’t your cup of tea, you can still watch this film solely for Shilpa Shukla’s powerful performance. However, after Bindiya Naik in Chak! De India and Rajuben in Anurag Kashyap’s TV series Rajuben, it would be a treat to see her play a character of a different shade. Shadab Kamal, who plays Mukesh, has put a great effort in displaying the transformation of how a boy, under hostile circumstances, becomes a man.

Set in Delhi, the film is shot mostly interiors, but the exteriors fail to explore the dubious, shadowy, neon-lit back alleys which we are familiar with, thanks to Dev D. That apart, BA Pass is a good attempt at an erotic, noir drama and does enough to touch you. Had it been produced in a country with a more lenient censor board, it could have been much more.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on August 3, 2013

Old Haunted House, New Hair-raising Horror

Film: The Conjuring

Director: James Wan

Ask any horror-film enthusiast and he will tell you to be a little cautious when a title has the word ‘Ring’ in it. And in the case of James Wan’s The Conjuring, they would be right. Based on an incident in the US in the 1970s, the film manages to, forgive the expression, scare the living s**t out of you.

Ed and Lorraine Warren are world renowned paranormal investigators, who are called to help a family terrorized by a dark presence at a secluded farm house. Forced to confront this demonic entity, the Warrens find themselves caught in the midst of the most horrifying case they would ever handle. Unlike the assembly line horror films, The Conjuring manages to create a living connection between its characters (who are more than mere sacrificial lambs in its narrative) and the audience.

By letting the camera linger on the dark portions of the frame and letting the imagination do most of the scaring, Wan assumes a high position as a storyteller and then, manages to make you jump out of your seat with the sound of a single clap. The film cashes on the fear of the unknown and only gradually reveals the imminent threat, letting the audience assume worse things than the film could have shown.

Once it reels you in, and has you wondering whether now is a right time to get your coffee refilled, it descends into playing out more conventional methods of scaring you — the creaking doors, woman in white and sudden loud noises. To some extent, as a character gets possessed by the evil spirit, the film’s narrative also gets possessed by the damned souls of almost every haunted-house film cliche.

Leading the audience to fear by cheating them always defeats the purpose of a horror film. But The Conjuring manages to steer clear of predictability in an almost Hitchcock-like suspense form. Time and again, Wan and his team manage to spring moments on the screen that make the entire cinema hall gasp for breath in unison. In addition, the most neglected element of this genre, the acting also works in its favour. Right from the five kids to the lead duo of Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson, the performances are more than adequate.

Finally, for the litmus test of a horror film: The Conjuring will affect your following night’s sleep. It will make you listen for sounds you don’t normally hear, terrify you when you see some suspicious movement, keep you away from lakes, big houses, dark rooms and mirrors for a while. And most importantly, remember not to hold hot coffee in your hand during tense moments.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on August 3, 2013 

Fraud Shakespeare

Film: Issaq

Director: Manish Tiwary

What’s in a name? That which we call Issaq, be by any other word, wouldn’t be as awful. To think that Vishal Bhardwaj’s adaptation of Othello (Omkara) was on the verge of being called Issaq, going by the sound of how Ishq is said in the larger part of North India, would make you shudder after you watch this film. However, the destiny of the word Issaq was somewhere entwined to a Shakespearean adaptation.

But in Manish Tiwary’s world, the adaptation begins and ends with a few simplistic pick-and-drops. Verona becomes Varanasi, Capulets become Kashyaps, Montagues become Mishras and the sweet smell of a tragic, yet rosy romance is lost in the pungent odour of its twisted narrative that combines more elements than are necessary in a film.

As if family rivalry and a romance in its midst wasn’t dramatic enough, Issaq adds an element of Naxalism, with Prashant Narayanan as a leader of a Naxalist faction that randomly attacks and yells “Lal Salaam!” for no reason whatsoever. This might be the Indianised adaptation of the part in Romeo and Juliet when the Crusaders marched over Verona. Oh wait, William never wrote that. The overall screen time wasted on the peripheral, fruitless sub-plot could have been used to better depict the romance.

But that would do no good either. The principle characters of the film, Prateik as Rahul and Amyra as Bachchi, leave you utterly dissatisfied. In most of their romantic encounters, you want to stop them and request a re-take. In fact, the lousy effort from Amyra who speaks with a Western accent and then goes on to pronounce words like “Sa-pecial” makes it utterly ridiculous. However, it is fitting then, that our Romeo, Prateik, compliments his Juliet with a lousy performance of his own. We have waited too long for him to live up to his potential (and genes) and this is as good a time as any to give up.

Makarand Deshpande, who plays a yogi baba (with a Naxalite back-story as well), is the herb-smoking rendition of the Apothecary. And whatever herb it is that he was puffing, make sure you do too (if you want to watch the film without wanting to stab yourself). A few other secondary characters have indeed given appreciable performances, like Rajeshwari Sachdev in a role parallel to Capulet’s wife and Ravi Kissen as (one might infer) Tybalt. But throughout his loud role, he never touches the “Peace? Peace. I hate the word.” sentiment. The film initially has its characters perform in a theatrical manner but loses the poetic dramatisation somewhere in the middle.

Relocating a five hundrend year old story into an alien setting is quite a task, but we have seen films where it has been done with ease and grace. From Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood to Bhardwaj’s Maqbool – there are numerous examples where Shakespeare’s tales have been beautifully re-enacted on screen. However, Issaq simply adds too many elements to its narrative and in maintaining all of them, presents a dismal finished product.

The film has given Shakespeare’s last words in Romeo and Juliet, “For never was a story of more woe. Than this of Juliet and her Romeo” a new meaning.

Rating: 1 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on July 27, 2013

A Shipment par excellence

Film: Ship Of Theseus
Director: Anand Gandhi

Cinema will become great if it receives great audience. But it is equally important that this great audience gets the opportunity to watch great films and that is why cinephiles should rejoice at the commercial release of Anand Gandhi's Ship Of Theseus. Based on a novel concept and treated with a fresh perspective, the film doesn't simply make for a good watch, but is also a motivator for more and more indie filmmakers to come forth and seize the day.

The title refers to the Theseus' paradox, wherein the Greek philosopher Plutarch questions whether a ship that has been restored by replacing all its parts, remains the same ship. The film addresses this philosophical query of identity, justice, beauty, meaning and death through the lives of an experimental photographer, an sickly monk and a young stockbroker.

With a voice of its own, all the dialogues in the film try to prove a point using their characters' vantage points. The characters themselves portray life as is, without dramatising a situation that is at hand. Aida El-Kashef's portrayal of a blind experimental photographer is overwhelmingly believable. And if you thought Farhan Akhtar's transformation in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was commendable, wait till you see the Christian Bale-like transformation Neeraj Kabi has gone through for his role as a monk suffering from liver cirrhosis.

Gandhi's realist treatment reminds you of Kieslowskian imagery, which shows you life without any filters and creates its impact through realistic actions. Be it the dialogues, the camera movement or the sound design, the film engages you emotionally, stimulates you on an intellectual level and at times, makes you physically uncomfortable with its honest, stark visuals.

The film makes you question a lot of concepts in your life and to some extent, changes the way you think. If that is not success, what is? Ship of Theseus touches you, moves you, makes you feel and provides the whole package of a cinematic experience. It is also advisable for cinema geeks to watch this film repeatedly, so as to find the embedded philosophical values.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Published in DNA (Pune) on July 20, 2013