Watch Ghajini, if not for the story, then just to see Aamir Khan in a role you have never seen him in.
Ghajini, as is popularly touted, is an out-and-out masala action thriller. But the basic premise is interesting as well--a person with extreme short-term memory loss trying to avenge the death of a dear one. Its the short-term memory loss part that is both intriguing and controversial, as Ghajini shares this theme with a popular Hollywood movie, Memento.
After having seen both, I'm inclined to say that although the basic premise of both movies is the same, the makers of Ghajini have added enough originality in the script to make it substantially different from Memento. While the strengths of Memento were its extremely innovative screenplay and the convoluted plot, the strengths of Ghajini are its rawness, intensity and performances. In any case a direct rip-off of Memento would never work in Hindi.
What makes Ghajini stand apart is the sheer ruthlessness of the character of Aamir Khan post his tragedy. The whole movie is centered around the fact that the protagonist develops an almost animal-like instinct to hunt and kill while simultaneously forgetting the very purpose of being that way. Every day for Sanjay Singhania begins with being puzzled at where he is, and then read the clues that he has left for himself to remind what the new purpose of his life is.
The two strengths of the movie are its screenplay, and Aamir Khan. The current story and the flashback making the current story relevant are woven very nicely in the movie, especially the way in which the flashback is woven into the narration. This is further enhanced by some slick editing that keeps the audience gripped for most of the movie. Particularly impressive are the seemingly irritating and faulty parts of the movie that eventually reveal their purpose in the overall scheme of things. The short-term memory loss could have left too many threads unfinished given Bollywood's conventional inability to be logical, but the script is watertight for the most part and that is commendable.
This role is a first for Aamir Khan, and he comes close to playing a double-role. His previous and current selves are extremely contradictory, and as good as Aamir Khan has been in romantic roles, I was always left wanting for more of his murderous side. Like Saif in Omkara, Aamir's appearance does half the convincing about he being a killing machine. The other half of course, are Aamir's extremely intense moments in the movie where he acts animalistic, revengeful and almost insane simultaneously. And its one of the rare movies in Bollywood, where shots about the protagonist exercising and flexing his muscles are very relevant to setting up his character, and not simply a crowd-pulling stunt. For his killings are quite raw. Some of the action sequences are very filmy, but overall Aamir Khan's character does look invincible.
The romantic flashback of the movie, although critical to the story, proves to be the bane. Some sequences are stretched too much possibly to make the movie an all-encompassing entertainer, and leave the audience wanting for the original focus of the movie--revenge. And the songs are especially distracting. Not only are they insipid to listen to, they unnecesarily portray Aamir Khan as a muscular lover-boy. I would much rather watch him kill a couple more :-)
The film also seems somewhat incomplete because the two facets of Sanjay Singhania's character are not linked together enough. It is a given that he transforms from a quiet suave businessman to a killer; no elaboration is provided on how this transformation takes place, and why he has taken it upon himself to avenge the tragedy.
In spite of these shortcomings, Ghajini is eminently watchable for its good screenplay, taut script and good acting. At last an action movie that is not completely filmy!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
So who am I?
For the last six years, some grey matter in my brain has been continuously dedicated to answering this question. I came to the US six years ago to study a subject that is not popularly pursued in India, and wanted to become a college professor after my studies--a profession that is neither lucrative nor coveted in India. At least that was the assurance I used to give myself and others whenever the common platitude "Oh you aren't coming back, you'll see!" was callously thrown at me.
A recent rediff article got me thinking on a related question--who am I? As a soon-to-be father I find myself revisiting this question repeatedly, mainly because I am horrified at the prospect of my own kids not identifying with their parents or their country of indirect origin. On the one hand I would want them to see India and Indian culture as I see them while not appearing to impose it upon them, while on the other hand encouraging them to adopt some western habits that I retrospectively wish I had been exposed to as a child.
I realize that part of the problem is that I myself have been confused over the years about what I should and should not be adopting. I smile at complete strangers and initiate discussions about the weather, but am as untrusting as ever. I like more and more English movies and realize why the world is so gaga about them, but am also the most vociferous supporter of Hindi films I know. I spent the first two years of graduate school firmly believing in my desire to settle into family life in India, the next two contemplating how that was actually going to happen and whether it should, and the last two concluding that its not a decision that I can make at a split second and act on it. I can't help wondering whether these evolutions are a result of my own identity changing over the years. It cannot be because I have somehow drastically westernized myself, because I have not. I still remain the mind-numbingly "un-westernized" guy I always was, so much so that every trip to India finds me wondering if I indeed flew east.
So what WAS my identity before? I was a Maharashtrian born to Maharashtrian parents, until I was ridiculed for my poor Marathi when I moved to Mumbai. I was a Nagpurian and had good enough command over Hindi to ridicule Mumbaiyya-hindi, until I found myself adapting to the local Hindi dialect in the four years that I spent in Mumbai. As an exchange student at 15, I was the Indian guy who apparently exceeded everybody's expectations by speaking fluent English and playing scrabble. Eventually I found myself inviting comments like "Your english is so good, your sense of humour is so British" in one continent, and "you haven't changed at all! I can't believe you were in the US for six years!" in another. Indeed its interesting how it took a long stay in the US to convince myself and others how unchangingly Indian I am.
Maybe its the chasm of 5000 miles separating me and my home that is magnifying the apparent change in my identity. I am a person with conservative ideas and principles, shockingly opinionated in some areas and shockingly liberal in others, personally averse to most forms of luxury but constantly working to provide them to my loved ones, with two homes of differing permanence on two continents and absolutely fluent in two languages (which two depends on where I am). And oh yeah, I am and continue to be an Indian at heart, with my definition of "Indian" as diverse, simultaneously concrete and vague and hence exciting as the sub-continent itself! Too bad that will form a ridiculously large acronym...
A recent rediff article got me thinking on a related question--who am I? As a soon-to-be father I find myself revisiting this question repeatedly, mainly because I am horrified at the prospect of my own kids not identifying with their parents or their country of indirect origin. On the one hand I would want them to see India and Indian culture as I see them while not appearing to impose it upon them, while on the other hand encouraging them to adopt some western habits that I retrospectively wish I had been exposed to as a child.
I realize that part of the problem is that I myself have been confused over the years about what I should and should not be adopting. I smile at complete strangers and initiate discussions about the weather, but am as untrusting as ever. I like more and more English movies and realize why the world is so gaga about them, but am also the most vociferous supporter of Hindi films I know. I spent the first two years of graduate school firmly believing in my desire to settle into family life in India, the next two contemplating how that was actually going to happen and whether it should, and the last two concluding that its not a decision that I can make at a split second and act on it. I can't help wondering whether these evolutions are a result of my own identity changing over the years. It cannot be because I have somehow drastically westernized myself, because I have not. I still remain the mind-numbingly "un-westernized" guy I always was, so much so that every trip to India finds me wondering if I indeed flew east.
So what WAS my identity before? I was a Maharashtrian born to Maharashtrian parents, until I was ridiculed for my poor Marathi when I moved to Mumbai. I was a Nagpurian and had good enough command over Hindi to ridicule Mumbaiyya-hindi, until I found myself adapting to the local Hindi dialect in the four years that I spent in Mumbai. As an exchange student at 15, I was the Indian guy who apparently exceeded everybody's expectations by speaking fluent English and playing scrabble. Eventually I found myself inviting comments like "Your english is so good, your sense of humour is so British" in one continent, and "you haven't changed at all! I can't believe you were in the US for six years!" in another. Indeed its interesting how it took a long stay in the US to convince myself and others how unchangingly Indian I am.
Maybe its the chasm of 5000 miles separating me and my home that is magnifying the apparent change in my identity. I am a person with conservative ideas and principles, shockingly opinionated in some areas and shockingly liberal in others, personally averse to most forms of luxury but constantly working to provide them to my loved ones, with two homes of differing permanence on two continents and absolutely fluent in two languages (which two depends on where I am). And oh yeah, I am and continue to be an Indian at heart, with my definition of "Indian" as diverse, simultaneously concrete and vague and hence exciting as the sub-continent itself! Too bad that will form a ridiculously large acronym...
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Kismat Konnection--the review
Kismat Konnection for me was another $10 gamble. I like Vidya Balan, 80-90% of her movies make at least some sense. Plus Aziz Mirza also usually doles out interesting stuff. Maybe this movie would change Shahid Kapoor's kismat...
The movie indeed starts and maintains interest for a while. Poor Raj Malhotra is all talent but rotten luck. Whatever has to go wrong, does. Enter Vidya Balan, his unsuspecting lucky charm, and his luck changes overnight thanks to her. Interesting, and full of potential. This "dream run" of the movie takes about the first one hour. After that its falls right back on earth.
Vidya Balan may be the kismat konnection for Shahid Kapoor, but her fiance in the movie is the kismat konnection for the audience. For when his short run in the movie ends predictably, the audience totally runs of luck. The love story of the two main characters then proceeds suspiciously along "Lage Raho Munnabhai" lines. There are deviations from the utterly predictable, but you miss them because they are few, far in between and quickly dampened by the utterly predictable. I enjoy the "filmy" melodramas of Bollywood where the director succeeds in making jaw-dropping U-turns to realize a happy ending, but this one really should've been left alone. For Shahid Kapoor's last stroke of luck in the movie is too much even for a movie.
Now the cast. Vidya Balan, as commented above, acts predictably for a character that is quite similar to her Munnabhai one. Her mis-costumes continue, alas. Shahid Kapoor repeatedly seems so much like he's trying to copy SRK that its difficult to give him points for acting. In this movie his hairstyle also matches SRK's DDLJ hairdo, further damning him. He should really try to carve out his own style because his current one is too SRK-like (not that that is bad, but seeming like a current star is hardly a road to stardom). He looks innocent, dances well...all in all displays his usual strengths and exposes his usual weaknesses. The only mildly entertaining character is that of Juhi Chawla, who graces us with an extended guest appearance. Nice touch, although easily lost in the overall mediocre product that is Kismat Konnection.
But undoubtedly the most irritating part of the experience is not the story, it is the music. Barring for the one title song (that seems well placed strictly in a relative sense), the music is bad, and is made worse by showing up at precisely those moments in the movie when the audience's patience is running thin.
Kismat Konnection: Shahid's other KK was surely luckier for him! I don't see the two K's saving this one.
The movie indeed starts and maintains interest for a while. Poor Raj Malhotra is all talent but rotten luck. Whatever has to go wrong, does. Enter Vidya Balan, his unsuspecting lucky charm, and his luck changes overnight thanks to her. Interesting, and full of potential. This "dream run" of the movie takes about the first one hour. After that its falls right back on earth.
Vidya Balan may be the kismat konnection for Shahid Kapoor, but her fiance in the movie is the kismat konnection for the audience. For when his short run in the movie ends predictably, the audience totally runs of luck. The love story of the two main characters then proceeds suspiciously along "Lage Raho Munnabhai" lines. There are deviations from the utterly predictable, but you miss them because they are few, far in between and quickly dampened by the utterly predictable. I enjoy the "filmy" melodramas of Bollywood where the director succeeds in making jaw-dropping U-turns to realize a happy ending, but this one really should've been left alone. For Shahid Kapoor's last stroke of luck in the movie is too much even for a movie.
Now the cast. Vidya Balan, as commented above, acts predictably for a character that is quite similar to her Munnabhai one. Her mis-costumes continue, alas. Shahid Kapoor repeatedly seems so much like he's trying to copy SRK that its difficult to give him points for acting. In this movie his hairstyle also matches SRK's DDLJ hairdo, further damning him. He should really try to carve out his own style because his current one is too SRK-like (not that that is bad, but seeming like a current star is hardly a road to stardom). He looks innocent, dances well...all in all displays his usual strengths and exposes his usual weaknesses. The only mildly entertaining character is that of Juhi Chawla, who graces us with an extended guest appearance. Nice touch, although easily lost in the overall mediocre product that is Kismat Konnection.
But undoubtedly the most irritating part of the experience is not the story, it is the music. Barring for the one title song (that seems well placed strictly in a relative sense), the music is bad, and is made worse by showing up at precisely those moments in the movie when the audience's patience is running thin.
Kismat Konnection: Shahid's other KK was surely luckier for him! I don't see the two K's saving this one.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Jaane Tu...--the review
Good films are of two kinds. There are films like Tare Zameen Par and Swades: very good scripts that simply need direction that does not spoil them. Then there are films like DCH: no story per se, but enhanced by a spectacular cinematographic effort. Jaane Tu... falls in the latter category.
Jaane Tu can be summarized as having nothing new in the script and almost everything new in the crew. And yet it clicks, it clicks big time. Two very good friends who haven't thought "that way" about each other eventually realize that they are made for each other. A simple college love story which is totally predictable should you try to put it in words. In fact the whole movie proceeds as a story narration. But its not the story that is talkworthy, its the execution.
Abbas Tyrewala deserves kudos for his story writing and story telling. All the characters in this film are written very well and none of them seem superficial, filmy or unbelievable. The movie is peppered with little sub-plots and character stories that are wholly reminiscent of DCH. All the characters grow and mature well in the course of the movie. The music of the film, like most AR Rahman renditions, grows on you once you have seen the movie.
Now the actors. Some of the best characters in this movie are the parents. Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah perform their parts very well, and are very entertaining. Ditto for Jayant Kriplani and Anuradha Patel, albeit more briefly. The unknowns in the college group, especially "Rotlu" provide the perfect backdrop for the two main characters, Jai and Aditi. A special mention for the very brief but impressive debut by Prateik Babbar, Smita Patil and Raj Babbar's son. He portrays the sullen, artistic brother to Aditi quite convincingly, and let's hope he does not try to do a muscular dancing Hrithik in his quest for stardom.
Genelia Dsouza as Aditi is the most perfect cast: a peppy girl with extreme moods and a fighting streak. She looks dashing in the movie and acts well too. I sincerely hope she makes it big and we get to see her a lot more in upcoming movies.
Then of course, we have Imran Khan: the boy with Aamir Khan's lineage, boyish looks and apparently, blessings. In Jaane Tu, he delivers success based on acting and looks, not by body-building and dancing, which is a rare commodity these days. He has the apt looks demanded by the character, a chocolate-faced boy with the rare streak of anger. His acting abilitiy can be described as decent, although not spectacular. He and his character synergize each other in many ways, and that's why this is an apt debut for him. Whether he turns out to be a versatile actor like his Mamu, or another Jugal Hansraj however, remains to be seen. Let's hope he can do more than play the innocent looking college boy.
Overall, the movie is certainly worth a watch. It makes you want to go to college once again!
Jaane Tu can be summarized as having nothing new in the script and almost everything new in the crew. And yet it clicks, it clicks big time. Two very good friends who haven't thought "that way" about each other eventually realize that they are made for each other. A simple college love story which is totally predictable should you try to put it in words. In fact the whole movie proceeds as a story narration. But its not the story that is talkworthy, its the execution.
Abbas Tyrewala deserves kudos for his story writing and story telling. All the characters in this film are written very well and none of them seem superficial, filmy or unbelievable. The movie is peppered with little sub-plots and character stories that are wholly reminiscent of DCH. All the characters grow and mature well in the course of the movie. The music of the film, like most AR Rahman renditions, grows on you once you have seen the movie.
Now the actors. Some of the best characters in this movie are the parents. Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah perform their parts very well, and are very entertaining. Ditto for Jayant Kriplani and Anuradha Patel, albeit more briefly. The unknowns in the college group, especially "Rotlu" provide the perfect backdrop for the two main characters, Jai and Aditi. A special mention for the very brief but impressive debut by Prateik Babbar, Smita Patil and Raj Babbar's son. He portrays the sullen, artistic brother to Aditi quite convincingly, and let's hope he does not try to do a muscular dancing Hrithik in his quest for stardom.
Genelia Dsouza as Aditi is the most perfect cast: a peppy girl with extreme moods and a fighting streak. She looks dashing in the movie and acts well too. I sincerely hope she makes it big and we get to see her a lot more in upcoming movies.
Then of course, we have Imran Khan: the boy with Aamir Khan's lineage, boyish looks and apparently, blessings. In Jaane Tu, he delivers success based on acting and looks, not by body-building and dancing, which is a rare commodity these days. He has the apt looks demanded by the character, a chocolate-faced boy with the rare streak of anger. His acting abilitiy can be described as decent, although not spectacular. He and his character synergize each other in many ways, and that's why this is an apt debut for him. Whether he turns out to be a versatile actor like his Mamu, or another Jugal Hansraj however, remains to be seen. Let's hope he can do more than play the innocent looking college boy.
Overall, the movie is certainly worth a watch. It makes you want to go to college once again!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Jodhaa Akbar--the review
Timing, they say, is everything. Jodhaa-Akbar and the opposition to it should only enunciate the point of the story instead of censoring it.
Jodhaa Akbar is a story of the little-known side of an imperialistic Mughal emperor, an otherwise shrewd administrator and cunning politician. To see the point of the movie however, one must remove the word "Mughal emperor" from the above sentence. The movie to me, illustrates not what a certain figure in history did or did not do, but how change can sometimes be brought about by the greatest of contradictions in one's personality.
Jalal Mohammad (Akbar), an imperialist and shrewd administrator who also struggles with authority, arranges a marriage of convenience with Jodhaa, the daughter of a Rajput king weakened by his pride and the goodwill of his subjects. What begins as no less than a modern corporate merger slowly evolves into a love story that sees Akbar transform into a secularist and an authoritative ruler and Jodhaa inadvertently into a harbinger of social change from her purely personal love and devotion. And that makes the movie relevant to today's times, more than the actual historical accuracy, the name of the princess in question and the all-encompassing and omnipresent "sentiments" that seem to be hurt at the drop of a hat.
Full marks have to be given to Ashutosh Gowarikar for creating a story well-researched and executing it in a grand way. I'm not sure if the warning at the beginning of the movie predates all the opposition that it has faced, but it was enough for me to concentrate on the execution and the metaphor more than the historical accuracy. The direction is simple yet emphatic. The scenes are shot very well and repeatedly steer the movie away from the historical drab that it could have been. The sets, especially the lighting, are still of Lagaan quality.
On the negative side, it is high time the director learned the virtues of brevity and speed. 3.5 hours is far too long for a movie that does not involve a cricket match in its climax. Romance can be shown effectively by slow dialogue, epics of music and subtle story-telling. But not all three. Another aspect was that the war scenes are depicted unusually well from a bird's eye view, but the 1-1 sword fights looked somewhat raw and unmajestic.
With this movie Ashutosh Gowarikar completes his experience with the triad, Aamir, Shahrukh and Hrithik, much like Farhan Akhtar did last year. And like him, he has managed to cast these three actors in very apt roles. Hrithik works as Akbar solely because the aspect of Akbar that this movie portrays is that of romance, impulsiveness and a certain lack of authority. And of course he has the physique of a warrior so he carries off the war scenes as well. As with Shahrukh's performance in Swades, the subtle expressions on Hrithik's face are the most noteworthy part of his performance.
Aishwarya can be described with one word: celestial. She has looked truly stunning in this movie. And most importantly, the squeaky crying and pedestrian attempts at intensely emoting are almost totally absent in this movie. In a nutshell, this movie shows us a rare glimpse of how beautiful she is, and that she is capable of acting well.
Other actors for the most part have performed well too. Sonu Sood was far more impressive than I had initially suspected. Ila Arun was very good too. The rest almost have to be simply present and not perform badly. The music was a big disappointment. Much has been made of A R Rahman's renditions, especially Khwaja mere Khwaja, but I found it strictly average at best. Maybe it will grow on me.
All in all, a movie worth watching just for the effort and totally undeserving of the recent bans on it in Mumbai and other areas. The warnings and citations at the beginning should suffice to allay all misgivings. But then since when were blanket bans and protests objective and well-intended :-)
Jodhaa Akbar is a story of the little-known side of an imperialistic Mughal emperor, an otherwise shrewd administrator and cunning politician. To see the point of the movie however, one must remove the word "Mughal emperor" from the above sentence. The movie to me, illustrates not what a certain figure in history did or did not do, but how change can sometimes be brought about by the greatest of contradictions in one's personality.
Jalal Mohammad (Akbar), an imperialist and shrewd administrator who also struggles with authority, arranges a marriage of convenience with Jodhaa, the daughter of a Rajput king weakened by his pride and the goodwill of his subjects. What begins as no less than a modern corporate merger slowly evolves into a love story that sees Akbar transform into a secularist and an authoritative ruler and Jodhaa inadvertently into a harbinger of social change from her purely personal love and devotion. And that makes the movie relevant to today's times, more than the actual historical accuracy, the name of the princess in question and the all-encompassing and omnipresent "sentiments" that seem to be hurt at the drop of a hat.
Full marks have to be given to Ashutosh Gowarikar for creating a story well-researched and executing it in a grand way. I'm not sure if the warning at the beginning of the movie predates all the opposition that it has faced, but it was enough for me to concentrate on the execution and the metaphor more than the historical accuracy. The direction is simple yet emphatic. The scenes are shot very well and repeatedly steer the movie away from the historical drab that it could have been. The sets, especially the lighting, are still of Lagaan quality.
On the negative side, it is high time the director learned the virtues of brevity and speed. 3.5 hours is far too long for a movie that does not involve a cricket match in its climax. Romance can be shown effectively by slow dialogue, epics of music and subtle story-telling. But not all three. Another aspect was that the war scenes are depicted unusually well from a bird's eye view, but the 1-1 sword fights looked somewhat raw and unmajestic.
With this movie Ashutosh Gowarikar completes his experience with the triad, Aamir, Shahrukh and Hrithik, much like Farhan Akhtar did last year. And like him, he has managed to cast these three actors in very apt roles. Hrithik works as Akbar solely because the aspect of Akbar that this movie portrays is that of romance, impulsiveness and a certain lack of authority. And of course he has the physique of a warrior so he carries off the war scenes as well. As with Shahrukh's performance in Swades, the subtle expressions on Hrithik's face are the most noteworthy part of his performance.
Aishwarya can be described with one word: celestial. She has looked truly stunning in this movie. And most importantly, the squeaky crying and pedestrian attempts at intensely emoting are almost totally absent in this movie. In a nutshell, this movie shows us a rare glimpse of how beautiful she is, and that she is capable of acting well.
Other actors for the most part have performed well too. Sonu Sood was far more impressive than I had initially suspected. Ila Arun was very good too. The rest almost have to be simply present and not perform badly. The music was a big disappointment. Much has been made of A R Rahman's renditions, especially Khwaja mere Khwaja, but I found it strictly average at best. Maybe it will grow on me.
All in all, a movie worth watching just for the effort and totally undeserving of the recent bans on it in Mumbai and other areas. The warnings and citations at the beginning should suffice to allay all misgivings. But then since when were blanket bans and protests objective and well-intended :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)