“Dharam Sankat Mein” (Hindi Film Review)

From the makers of “Oh My God” proclaimed the trailer of the movie under review. It promised a whole new way of looking at religion - the favourite theme of this particular franchise. The length of the film also gave ample scope for sizing up another aspect that director Fowad Khan highlights. In 129 minutes, “Dharam Sankat men” looked like a fresh fare but half-way loses the essence of explaining beyond symbols and religious rituals despite a swashbuckling starkest - Paresh Racal, Naseeruddin Shah, Anu Kapoor and Murli Sharma. 

The story is credible though. DharampalTrivedi (Paresh Rawal) is a devoted Hindu without the devoutness, he questions rituals and dogmas of every religion but harbours ill-will against muslims. “You muslims are responsible for…” that kind of stuff. His family, on the other hand, follows Neelanand Swami (Naseeruddin Shah) and his cult religion. Charm’s son is in love with the daughter of one of Neelanand’s ardent followers. The deal is that Dharam should become more religious and fall in line with the family’s veneration of the Swami’s Satsangs and paraphernalia so that his son’s marriage with that girl can happen, with the blessings of the Swami. But a life-altering dilemma strikes Dharampal as he goes to the bank to open the locker of his deceased mother as a nominee - an earth-shattering news awaits him in an adoption certificate there which says he is first born a muslim. He finds his biological father’s name is Mir Shoukat Ali, he goes to the orphanage and confirms that and goes to the Imam (Murali Sharma) to request a meeting with his real father. The Imam says that is possible only if he shows up as a “true” muslim in attire and spirit - he wants to convert him, in fact. Only one man helps Dharampal in his endeavours to learn the muslim culture, the tehzeeb and the rich Urdu and the fundamentals of religion - Sheikh….Ahsaan…Bahadur (the full name reads like an address, says Dharampal on his first meeting over a tiff). Played brilliantly by Anu Kapoor, he is Dharam’s neighbour and a lawyer driving vintage car. He becomes a close confidante and a friend to Dharampal and eventually moves a petition against Imam to allow Dharam to meet his biological father. Will he meet him? Will his son eventually marry the girl of his choice? What happens to Naseeruddin Shah - Neelanand Swami? Is there a happy ending? Find out.

Despite a treatment that is light on content but deeply contemplative, Fowad Khan pulls off a decent attempt at showcasing some of the core issues of religion and the ways in which we process it in our lives. Dharam gives a damn about religion whether his adopted one or the one followed by his biological father but makes a quantum shift in paradigm once he finds he is not in majority but in minority. And he cares a damn about the rituals forced upon him by a stubborn Imam. Anu Kapoor is a liberal at heart - he understands the pangs of being singled out for all the troubles caused by the terrorists - but he confronts an Imam who is denying Dharam his most basic legal and fundamental right to meet his real father. Imam played with precision and dignity by Murali Sharma is one who never questions religion but loves to convert  - a banality poignantly highlighted. Naseeruddin Shah, plays the most frivolous character of a Swami out to parley in worldly pleasures by enacting the blind faith of a mass followership. Parish Rawal’s family shows a modern generation that is trapped sometimes in devoutness without reasons to question the status quo or the not-so-inscrutable Swamis. In as many characters as above, director Fowad Khan shows balance, dexterity and restraint in highlighting issues which are gaining more importance than primary issues of humanitarianism and broad-mindedness among India’s teeming multi-religious society. From Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians, Muslims and Hindus, there are thousands of symbols across India’s billions. No doubt, this movie is a move in the right direction - attempting a broader understanding of religion amidst growing skepticism and uneasiness with each other. But the movie meanders after the search for the real father ends. And then it becomes an exercise in symbols and rituals. 

Fowad loses a great opportunity to explain the singularity of all religions by explaining the rationale for rituals - there are enough films that explain the scientific logic behind Hindu symbols but he could have explained  how sitting in the Namaz postures is helping millions of Muslims to be free from Arthritis - a fact based on new studies. Things like that are missed opportunities but you rarely get a subject as engrossing and intelligent as this. In throwing new searchlights on the psyche of some Hindus and Muslims, director has shown great sense of taste and some humour in highlighting starkness of contrast but he could have used to increase the similarity too. Coming back to the Namaz and the serene recitals, he could have explained the tenets and the logic behind some of the rituals. And the singularity with say a Namaz and a Surya Namaskar. That would have been a game-changer. By over-stressing on the restless imperative of the hero Paresh Rawal keen to meet his biological father, a lot of meat has been given up. The produce, Viacom, however must be congratulated for selecting a good story with ample scope for imaginative screenplay and deepening our understanding of one of the most mystical religions in the world. It has opened a big door in building brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims but the door is still half-open because the director skirted many issues which require exposition beyond symbols and rituals. In that sense, “Oh My God” was more broad-based and philosophically satisfying because it goes beyond one or two religions. Another limitation of the film is the desperation of Paresh to meet his father -  the justification to see him was neither amplified nor shared with his family. Why bother so much, one wonders - Steve Jobs never went back to his biological parents and so are millions of babies who grow up to be fine men and women in neighbourhoods far removed from the roots of the original religion. People just move on in life, in case Fowad Khan doesn’t know. The subject of this film is narrow in its coverage and hence interpretations had to be narrower but the treatment is something that could have been far more satisfying. Music by a team of four composers has a soulful appeal. Production values look great and dialogues are both hard-hitting and evocative they are, thankfully not provocative which is a great achievement for a film of this dimension. The movie deserves an above-average rating for the efforts to open a big door. Hopefully, this will not be the last film on such themes because as a society, as a multi-cultural society, we need more such film-makers to talk turkey about issues that must pave way for conflict-resolution and broader understanding. Parish Rawal is outstanding yet again in a role carried consummate ease - he shows his wry sense of humor, his caliber and he carries the film on his shoulders. Anu Kapoor, the most-knowledgeable Anthyakshari anchor in Indian Television history uplifts an ordinary role into an extra-ordinary performance. The way he pronounces the multi-nuanced language of Urdu will make even Urdu University professors fall of their chairs. Those two scenes of verbal judo between him and Paresh Racal are worth it all. Mural Sharma, finally gets a role that will win many hearts. As an Imam with an attitude of a Madarassa out to convert the first man in, he pulls off an impactful role that delivers. Naseeruddin Shah is a character that is frivolous but not endearing in the way he is portrayed - as a clown, nothing more, nothing less. It is good that his autobiography which came last year will never make a mention of such roles, even in future editions - it is a forgettable role and unbefitting of his stature. The movie is watchable once but the last twenty minutes bore you with an over-kill. But the title is a killer - the dilemma of "Dharam".

Rating: 3/5

#Bollywood #DharamSankatMein #PareshRawal #AnuKapoor #MurliSharma #FowadKhan #Viacom #OhMyGod #MovieReviews

Dr D Ramanaidu - A legend among producers

D.Ramanaidu’s contribution to Indian Cinema in general and Telugu Film Industry in particular doesn’t end with his cremation. The man has played a major part in the evolution of films as a mass medium to growing their appeal and even profiting from their continuing appeal. On face value, the statistics of his achievements as a film producer are staggering: over 150 films in 15 languages including English, debut chances for 21 directors and a few music directors and several technicians. His life is an outstandanding example of how to choose a field you love and then grow in that field to dizzy heights and more importantly, stay relevant and be in the thick of action till the very end.  At the time of his passing, “Gopala Gopala” produced by his son is still running in theatres and a blockbuster called “Bahubali” is in production stages in which his grandson plays a pivotal role.The legacy created by Dr.D Ramanaidu is not just the negatives of those films or the studio but the values which are continuing with his sons Suresh and Venkatesh and his grandsons. His contribution and overall impact on the film industry is a nonpareil in the world of cinema.

He made epic films with superstars of the day, cast them in dual roles (“Ramudu Bheemudu”), made scripts out of top-notch novelists of the day (“Premnagar”, “Secretary”,”Jeevana Tarangalu”, “Agnipoolu”), created modern-day multi-starters with both heroes (Krishna, Sobhanbabu) and heroines (Jayaprada, Sridevi) and also several low-budget films once the budgets started soaring because of hero remunerations. He started productions in the name of his eldest son Suresh and created a decent-scale studio which allows film producers to walk out with the first copy of the film if they have a script in hand - it used to be the tagline in nineties itself before Ramoji Rao came and changed the mindset of thinking from small to big. Dr.Ramanaidu also remade his films into Hindi and created big hits which helped launch stars like Jitendra and gave a second lease to actors like Rajesh Khanna and Anil Kapoor. His model of film production is that he treated it like a sacred business where all the team members are treated well but expected to be professional. There were reports in trade weeklies of how Dr Ramanaidu used to return extra copies of video cassettes or prints to some distributors in north who didn’t budget correctly. Coming from agricultural background in Karamcheedu helped Naidu to count the pennies so that he won’t become a pound-foolish producer.

If you study the careers of the people who preceded Dr Ramannaidu, it appears Naidu learnt his lessons from them too. The most famous example is Dr Raghupati Venkayya - in whose name the most famous and prestigious award for contribution to Telugu Film Industry is given - an equivalent to Dada Saheb Phalke Award. Dr Raghupati Venkayya made the first talkie in Telugu and started a production company with his son R.Prakash. But where Dr Venkayya erred was in not entrusting the financial affairs of the studio to his son. Subsequently, Dr Venkayya’s company was mishandled due to staff ineptitude and financial mismanagement. His company ran into debt and Dr Venkayya became bankrupt. In many ways, Dr Ramanaidu’s life is a mirror reflection of the very opposite of what Dr Venkayya did; Dr Naidu gave his first son free rein in running the production house and the staff were treated well but with rewards for performance and stick for slippages. Which is why, when a few years back one of the foreign production houses came to Hyderabad to buy out Ramanaidu Studios, lock stock and barrel, the offer came to a staggering Rs.1400 crores. Dr Naidu shot down any proposal to sell the studios while he is still alive.

Dr Naidu may have well had a point in holding out. He has little reasons to sell - unlike Padmalaya Studios which had elephantine debt before selling to Zee or Annapurna Studios which had been constructed on land pre-leased from Government. Dr Naidu’s family has ensured that they are a formidable force not only in film production and post-production but also in distribution. Towards the end of the last decade before 2000, they have started cornering the exhibition trade after tasting blood in distribution and production. Lease Rentals were hiked by 200 per cent which allowed several hundreds of theatre-owners to become part of the distribution chain of Suresh Productions - this was soon to become a trend that made many distributors lament but it created an apple-pie of a fabulous business model that dictated the content that is exhibited for the last decade. Even the most talented film-makers had to seek the powerhouse distribution chain controlled by Dr Naidu’s family whether it is “Eega”, “Ashta Chamma”, “Uyyala Jhampala” or the upcoming “Bahubali”. Very few production houses in the country wield so much influence at the box-office as D.Ramanaidu’s family did. Which is why, offers will never cease to pour in. Ramanaidu’s son Suresh has not only consolidated the family business towards safety but also towards a stronghold status in the way the rentals prop up a revenue model which was not even funded by banks until a decade back. Today, even working capital finance is given to his company and a few other companies. Venkatesh, his second son, went on to become the producer’s son who remains always a producer’s hero - he belted many hits in his career, became a safe hero, helped deliver one-sixth of his career hits in his father’s production banner and helped create many multi-starrer movies. Venkatesh and Suresh together held the flag aloft and created the most successful film business family in South or North India. Only Yash Chopra films comes close to what Ramanaidu’s family achieves but Yash Chopra hardly made films in South.

Despite a cult status and a towering influence, Ramanaidu never shied from public service and his recognition as a TDP MLA is proof of his love for politics and achievements as the best Parliamentarian in 2003. Many swear by the support and moral strength given by Ramanaidu in their personal struggles and careers, for many Ramanaidus’ business acumen and discipline in fiscal affairs was a guide and pathfinder. Producers like VB Rajendra Prasad, Murali Mohan, Achi Reddy, KS Rama Rao, MS Raju, Dil Raju and now Bandla Ganesh sought his advice on making successful films and staying solvent - many listened but few benefited from Naidu’s sage counsel. But despite the many highs of Ramanaidu’s career and filmography, if one must objectively assess the man’s impact on Indian Cinema, there are few facets that glare out. By treating film business as much like any other business of trading/speculation/profiteering etc, Ramanaidu has been an exemplar of seeking risk-adjusted returns. So, we find that except for a few at the initial phase, mid-phase and some in the last decade of 90s, most of his films were forgettable hits which didn’t have the class appeal of some of the other producers and makers who made fewer than one tenth of the films that Ramanaidu made - like Murari, Krishnamraju, Krishna Reddy, Aswini Dutt, ANR, NTR, Bapu-Ramana, Edida Nageswara Rao, etc.). His films had the most formulaic content and represented a hackneyed mishmash of the hollowest content which also had the stigma of obscenity, truth be told. Except in occasional films when a classy actor like Kamal Hassan starred in “Indrudu Chandrudu” or a Suresh Krishna directed “Prema”, Naidu’s films after ANR and NTR era were lackadaisical and hardly classics. Loud dialogues, crazy stunts, socialistic and anachronistic themes and puerile songs with belly-dancing and hip-shaking item songs were the mainstay of his films - until son Suresh and Venkatesh changed most of that since they took centrestage. The films he re-made in Hindi with Jitendra, Rajesh Khanna and Anil Kapoor and even those with Venkatesh were intensely feudal and mascochist which merely perpetuated the male chauvinist appeal of the audiences. Towards the last decade, he virtually moved out of production scene and tried to salvage the catalogue value with arty films and message-oriented films. The last good film from his involvement was “Madhumaasam”. 

Despite the flaws which are natural in any film personality’s colossal career, Ramanaidu is a life that will be revered and respected as long as indian Cinema stands. The man gave us a volume of output that will remain forever unsurpassed; he made films as a career and as a business more lucrative than any other film-maker. He had a well-lived life, long enough to deeply impact Telugu film industry as it stands in Hyderabad today with wings spread strategically to wherever it can next re-locate or consolidate itself. Yes, there are regrets too - that he never bought more land than the sprawling acreage of Ramanaidu Studios where you get the best vantage view of the city, that he never directed a film, that he never made a multi-starrer with Rajinikanth and Kamal Hassan, that he never got a superstar after Chiranjeevi to act, that he couldn’t make a remake of “Ramudu Bheemudu” with NTR Jr. The list may go on like a litany but the legacy he left is richer than what the unfinished business could have achieved. Respect, for Dr.Ramanaidu always. R.I.P

#Ramanaidu #SureshProductions #DRamanaidu #DrRamanaidu #Tollywood #FilmIndustry #Bollywood #Indianfilmindustry #MovieReviews

"Shamitabh" (Hindi Movie Review)

The voice that should have become as world-famous much before the man who still casts a spell on billions of fans was once rejected by All India Radio. Yes, we are talking about Amitabh Bachchan’s voice which is the finest amalgam of texture, timber, diction and a baritone that reads the best Hindi dialogues. So what happens when that voice has an ego that eventually engulfs a superstar? Without delving deeper into a storyline that gives away the plot, “Shamitabh” is a 153 minute roller-coaster ride through the emotions that oscillate between ego and ego-massage between two men who are joined at the hip; both of them can’t do without the other and both know this - Dhanush and Amitabh Sinha (Sr.Bachchan). Akshara Hassan is the anchor in the film building bridges between the two who throw tantrums at each other. Great performances by all the three principal stars including debutante Akshara Hassan. Yet director R.Balki, undoubtedly one of Bollywood’s exciting directors, fails to give a clean output that can sustain interest. What went wrong?

Could it be Ilayaraja’s music? No, the maestro has given three good songs and embellishes the scenes with his own majestic interpretation of how we should read a film. And he has done this for the 1000th time in his career with this film. On the other hand, director messes with the picturisation of songs. The golden rule in South is, you don’t break Ilaiyaraja’s song, you don’t insert dialogues in between Ilaiyaraja song because his music is like a symphony with interludes that ascend and descend seamlessly. If you break his song, the beauty is lost. In almost all the songs, Balki commits this crime which disrupts the sense of sounds we grew up with. Can’t beat it right? Is it PC Sriram, the ace cinematographer who lets it down? Nope, he doesn’t add his interpretations to the camera angles, his work has always been a subset of the director’s eye and this movie is no exception. R.Balki must take it on chin for making a film high on form but low on substance. He gets majestic performance from Amitabh; even Dhanush is spirited and Akshara shows much promise despite unconventional looks but the story-telling sucks. Instead of building layers into the storyline, director resorts to extracting monologous performances from 'Amitabh in the graveyard' or breaks into a song that shows a Western Toilet in flowing glory. (What a criminal waste of "Piddly" song - the best in the album - showing WC in all variants of design!) Or he takes potshots at all that’s wrong in Bollywood - middle-men acting big, producers launching zombies into heroes, NYTs making it out in bed with stars at  night, directors cocooned in their delusions of grandeur and so on. Nothing new.

The fault in our stars…is an undercurrent to the film’s plot as the director gets under the skin of a rags-to-riches Dhanush who becomes a Superstar. Beyond this undercurrent, the film hardly moves and characterisation is lacklustre; Amitabh gets to use his “voice” maximum even when he is off-screen. Dhanush hogs limelight in the first half but only until Amitabh enters. The film has many gaps in narration. Balki takes the flashback route to tell the story of a rags-to-riches superstar but halfway we lose it whether the movie is in present tense or past, although the film moves back and forth. A lot many scenes are repetitive and don’t either move the story or surprise us, which is not the case usually with Balki. He has an Admaker’s eye but in his efforts to balance commercial cinema with artistic license, he forgets to entertain. And leaves more gaps in the narration with a disappointing climax. As it is, the plot is interesting but difficult to fathom how a superstar can grow without a home-grown voice and keep it Bollywood’s best-unknown secret. Leave that, why does he show a superstar with humble beginnings on one side but  uses people on his way to stardom without acknowledging  their contribution - be it Akshara or Amitabh? Why does he carry flings with co-stars when he is in love with Akshara? Why does Amitabh throw tantrums everytime with Dhanush but cooperates with the latter when he is in bed with someone? Why dos Akshara leave her assignment as Assistant Director and go all out to help Dhanush at the outset - is it that easy for an AD to skip work and knock on the doors of the who’s who? In the second half, when Dhanush refuses to work with Amitabh and agrees to make an all-mute film with real star Abhinaya (that girl who acted in SVSC) the director doesn’t appear serious about making a sensitive statement about such actors. More, Dhanush is made to abandon the project itself halfway. A lot many questions unanswered.

What redeems the film? For sure, performance by Amitabh Bachchan.  And his witty one-liners. Balki’s brief to Bachchan is to insert theatrical oddities in a commercial cinema with him as the centrepiece. “No Whiskey, very risky”…”Don’t use your little finger  so much or you will change the definition of No.1 in Bollywood”…”My voice is worth more than your weight” are a few of AB’s best one-liners. Dhanush is good in parts but his characterisation is confusing. I wonder what happened to him when he was hearing the script of this film for the first time. It seems he turned down 33 scripts before choosing “Shamitabh”. It is quite a sub-optimal choice for him because despite his antics, he is over-shadowed by Amitabh and doesn’t use his strengths well. After “Raanjhaa”, this doesn’t really cement his entry in Bollywood. Akshara Hassan has the face of her father and the eyes of her mother, she carries her role with maturity and poise but I am afraid she doesn’t have the glamor of her sister. Since this is her first film, I hope she proves her acting talent with more versatile roles. Ilaiyaraja’s music is good only to the extent Balki uses him. In some crucial scenes, unless the director and cinematographer understand the subtle nuances of the scene and present it well, Ilaiyaraja can interpret in his own way and give it a different dimension. That’s what happened in many scenes, where the emotions get jumbled in Ilaiyaraja’s ensemble. Compared to Balki’s previous films like “Cheeni Kum” and “Paa”, the sync between the maestro’s music and the director’s intent is largely amiss. What pulls down the film is lack of entertainment and comedy and the depth that can counter the non-stop rendition of Amitabh Bachchan’s “voice”. One of the best lines Bachchan says goes something like this: “ I don’t want my film to go to Sundance festival, Cannes festival, Venice festival and so on. I want my films to get released for Diwali, Dasera and Christmas festivals and do big business.” Or to that effect. Alas, “Shamitabh” becomes a joke on the same lines - it may go to Sundance and Cannes, hasn’t got released on any festival here and may hardly do big business. Watchable only if you have loads of patience and undiminished love for Amitabh. If you skip it, however, nothing changes.

Rating: 2.75/5

#Shamitabh #AmitabhBachchan #Dhanush #RBalki #ErosFilms #Bollywood #Ilaiyaraja #IlaiyarajaMusic

The Best and Worst of My Film Reviews in 2014: A Report Card

Films Reviews rarely get rated. Even on million dollar websites and sensational TV Channels, you hardly find eggs and rotten tomatoes on a reviewer's record of the year. I have no such luxury. But I aspire in that direction. I take my reviewing seriously. When I watch a film, I look for entertainment not intelligence. I judge if the film is watchable or not. I decide if the film is a good example for family audiences. I rate it on aesthetics, refinedness, creativity, acceptability and above all, sustainability of run at the box office. And then I rate it  as honestly  and objectively as I can  - on calibrations of 0.25 on a scale of 1 to 5. If it is average, a rating has to cross 2.5. If it crosses the average rating, it has to be decently good film to touch 3 and beyond. It is really good film if it crosses 3.5; it means it is a paisa vasool. It has to be a crappy film if it doesn't even make it to 2. Then all my ratings are relatively ratable - means if you put two movies with 2.75 each, then the movie rated 3 has to be really better than 2.75 to get the rating it got. This rating business is not to my liking but it became a feature of my reviews on feedback from friends on social media who find it useful in navigating the labrynth of analysis I inflict on readers. So this year, I am giving all of you a report card of the movie reviews I have done for releases in 2014. Thirty two films have been reviewed this year as of 30th December and I have put all my ratings against them - usually reviewed within 48-72 hours of the film's release. As I see, there are some famous misses like "Race Gurram" which went on to collect over Rs.50 crs. But if there is one metric on which I like to be judged vis-a-vis others, it is consistency, dear reader. Most movies rated 3 and above have been top grossers. Movies like "BangBang", "Kick" and even "PK" have all crossed Rs.250 crores or beyond and they were rated 3.5 by me. If there are any misses, I own up to all of them. If there have been bang-on or consistent, it raises my enthusiasm to more responsible levels. As always, love your feedback and more essentially, the brickbats. Please remember, however, that films are quite personal in the way our minds process them. It is not necessary we need to agree. And there is never one way to view them or review them. Even if I take my films seriously, you needn't take the reviews, least of all mine, seriously. If the crowds vote on a film with their feet one way or the other, sometimes it is a good idea to junk all reviews and go for a film, or not, whichever applies. Happy Viewing and Happy Year ahead. Yours humbly.

Films Reviewed in 2014 and their respective ratings.

=======================================

Yevadu (Telugu) - 3.25/5

The Wolf of Wall Street (English) - 2/5

1-Nenokkadine (Telugu) - 2/5

Highway (Hindi) - 3.75/5

Aaha Kalyanam (Telugu) - 2.5/5

Legend (Telugu) - 3/5

Pratinidhi (Telugu)- 3/5

Paisaa (Telugu) - 2/5

2 States (Hindi)- 3.75/5

Race Gurram (Telugu)- 2/5

Rowdy (Telugu) - 3/5

Kochadiyaan (Tamil)/Vikramasimha (Telugu) - 2/5

Anamika (Telugu/Tamil)- 3.5/5

Manam (Telugu)- 3.5/5

Ulavacharu Biryani (Telugu) - 3.25/5

Kick (Hindi) - 3.5/5

Drushyam (Telugu)- 3/5

Bobby Jasoos (Hindi) - 3.25/5

Anjaan/Sikindar (Tamil/Telugu)- 2.25/5

Run Raja Run (Telugu)- 4/5

Aagadu (Telugu) - 2.75/5

Anna Belle - 2.7

Karthikeya - 2.5/5

Loukyam (Telugu) - 3/5

BangBang - 3.5/5

Govindudu Andarivaadele - 2.5/5

Brother of Bommali - 2.75/5

Linga (Tamil/Telugu) - 1.5/5

PK (Hindi) - 3.5/5

Mukunda (Telugu) - 3.5/5

Ugly (Hindi) - 3/5

Night At The Museum part three - 4/5

#MovieReviews #FilmReviews #MovieRatings #Ratings #Hollywood #Bollywood #Tollywood #Kollywood #IndianFilms 

"Ugly" (HIndi Film Review)

I always fear Anurag Kashyap's films not just because they are dark and sordid and present  a grim picture of humanity. I dread his films for the monsters of fear that prey on my mind long after I moved out of the parking lot. "Ugly" had all the trappings of an Anurag Kashyap film - written and directed by him, full-blooded "A" certificate, negative title that promises to show the ugly side of modern life in Mumbai and produced by "Dar" motion pictures as if fear has become the new private equity in Bollywood productions. (But isn't it always the case with most films in India, alongwith love). So I went to the film, thankfully, alone. I was warned. And I paid the price. For 123 minutes, Anurag Kashyap cast his evil spell with a realistic story, "inspired by actual events" about a 10-year old girl's kidnapping. The kidnapping happens in a busy corner - a male supermodel parks his sedan and tells his daughter just to stay put in the car for five minutes as he finishes his errand upstairs. He is joined upstairs by his friend and protege - a casting director. He tells the hero-aspirant that the girl is missing. (But how did he know a girl is inside the car?). They search all over in vain and rush to the police station. Many frivolous chats with the FIR team later,  enters Ronit Roy - Crime Detection ACP. He takes special interest in the case because the missing girl is his foster daughter. His wife - Tejaswini Kolhapure (remember Padmini Kolhapure? Her sister) and the hero-model were once married and now divorced and Kali - the missing girl is their daughter. The story then moves with a riveting speed on what lies beneath a simple plot - there are layers of ugly side to each character: the hero-model loves his ex-wife and daughter a lot but lives-in with another model, Ronit Roy overworks his official machinery on the case of missing Kali so that he settles old scores over the hero-model, Tejaswini Kolhapure is unemotional as a mother but is trapped in feelings of helplessness over an unhappy marriage and many, many affairs with her ex-husband's associates, she is chronically depressed and has a grouse against Ronit Roy for being stone-deaf to her desires and demands, the casting director associate of the hero-model has many shades of grey and plays double games with everybody in the plot and then there are side-characters, kith and kin of Tejaswini who capitalise on the kidnapping drama and add to the angst of the two leading male characters.

The drama unfolds at breakneck speed but on familiar grooves - the police team keeps a tab on most people with GPRS installed devices and tracking equipment of all phones - and the suspects - all lead characters carry on their conversations unabashedly, adding to the viewers' confabulations. Hidden motives include greed, lust, guilt, revenge and revulsion. Anurag Kashyap is good at exposing the dark side but leaves the frames of highlighted emotions unadulterated - you hate them but that's what it is like, take it or leave it. It's a society that has thrived on it's own insecurities and created a rabid, almost incurable feedback loop of crime insensitivities. Here, the lower and upper middle-class is trapped in exploitative and manipulative mind-games with each other and therefore becomes a breeding ground for transactional trade-offs setting it up for the most unthinkable crimes. Behind every great fortune, there is  a crime but behind every crime there is a fortune and those who failed in life. "Ugly" is a mirror to those folks who eke out their living with faultlines in their moral fibre. 

Despite the film's speed, it lags because many sequences were not edited well - a surprise in Anurag Kashyap's films. In many scenes, the lag comes because of the director's obsession with showing the vulnerabilities and the imperfections of the characters. For instance, when the hero and his associate narrate how the girl was kidnapped, the police officer asks the most insensitive questions and also the dumbest questions which are the ways in which the police system works in India - be dumb so you get entertained and educated. The loose ends in the plot, however, remain unanswered like the gaps in investigating the obvious clues or witnesses, or maybe that's the intended message of Anurag Kashyap. But the ending is a shocker  - and reveals Anurag's fallible side of cinematic sensibilities - he has no boundaries when it comes to commercial cinema, he can shock you out of your wits without an apology. That's what "Ugly" is all about - an extension of his bare-all attitude and a periscopic view of life in it's ugliest shades. You may not come out with any feelings of positivity - because the characterisation shows as if "Sab Mile Huwe Hai". This maybe a school of cinema that I don't want to see too much of. Despite the intelligence and the candidness, the film is full of hard-core expletives that come out as a mouthful from even the most urbane people in India. Music by GV Prakash Kumar is wasted but the BGM by one Brian McMere is spine-chilling. Watchable once but only if you like sordid and dark human drama.

Rating: 3/5 

#Ugly #MovieReviews #Bollywood #AnuragKashyap #DarkCinema

"PK" (Hindi Film Review)

Aamir Khan's latest film has raised enough curiosity while in the making and post-production stages. This year's most-awaited film combines Aamir Khan's starpower and universal appeal with the production values of Vinod Chopra and Raj Kumar Hirani and the stamp of quality associated UTV Motion Pictures. It delivers mostly in a 153 minute saga of an atypical story of an alien who lands on our planet without a bonafide reason but meanders his way through the deserts of Rajasthan to the din of Delhi. To a large extent, the promo preceding the release of the film gave away the plot - a nude Aamir Khan is stranded on a railway track holding a 1980-model two-in-one transistor that is diagonally held to cover his vital parts. But what does an Alien know about Earthlings? What does he know about human beings? How does he communicate with them? In which language? What binds him to stay on and move from Rajasthan to Delhi and back to Rajasthan? These are the questions that move the needle  in a dramatic way characteristic of Raj Kumar Hirani who gave India some of the memorable films of the 21st century. 

Raj Kumar Hirani's speciality is unique in Bollywood. He works with familiar starcast of lesser-known but proficient stage actors. He only collaborates with Shantanu Moitra and Swanand Kirkire as the duo who compose music and lyrics. His producer is Vinod Chopra who believes his stories have an evocative emotional appeal. His best-man for the job of writing, editing and dialogues is Abhijeet Joshi except whenever an extra dimension of a blockbuster novel is borrowed. He picks his lines from one kernel of an idea and then expands that to build layer after layer of experiential wisdom and learning on the theme to come up with a winning script. His films touch the Hindi heartland but resonate across the spirit of India everywhere. He doesn't rely on too much jazz, special effects or extravagant settings to work his magic on celluloid. He choses topics that test your integrity levels at the most basic levels and then weaves a credible human drama spruced up with enduring values of compassion, affection, honesty and faith. His films take you on a roller-coaster ride of emotions and end up usually on a high note - of optimism, of hope and cheerfulness. His films make buzzwords out of simple words that convey the central messsage of the film - like "All's well" or "Jaadu ka chappi".  ("Wrong number" in this film). His films are extremely high on cinema literacy - meaning the messages that are intended by his team in the process of content delivery are symbolically apt and exceptionally easy to digest by both the intellectuals and the unevolved. His films combine responsible film-making with entertaining comedy - a combination that makes him a nonpareil. No wonder, Aamir Khan chose him twice in his career. If you observe Aamir Khan's filmography so far, he hardly repeated his directors. Early on, he worked with director and uncle, Mansoor Khan in two films - QSQT and JJWS. Later, between 1990 and 1999, he worked with director Inder Kumar in "Dil" and "Mann". Afterwards, in spite of working with some exceptional talents like Asutosh Gowarikar , he never repeated directors until Hirani directed him in "3 Idiots" and now "PK". That speaks of Aamir Khan's faith in the scripting and execution capabilities of Hirani.

The story of the Alien stranded with a transistor needs to be told. Someone plucks a filament of thread from Aamir Khan's neck. That thread has a pendant  embedded with a  signal transmmitter that re-connects him to the starship which helped him descend to earth. So he cannot go back to his world unless the transmitter is found. This takes him to unusual places and people including Sanjay Dutt who plays a delectable character that protects PK to learn and grow into the worldly ways of Earth. Aamir is called PK because everyone thinks he is drunk and doesn't know what he is talking. But Aamir is clever, logical and intuitively smart - he can pick the lingos of people just by holding their hands and lo! he can divine their past and current intentions. PK's quirky nature kills the curiosity of most people except Anushka Sharma who is a TV anchor in search of breaking news stories. She works for a TRP-hungry Bomman Irani who reluctantly meets PK and piqued by his unfamiliar refrain and laser-sharp intellect. Anushka eventually wins the confidence and love of PK but the real twist in the film comes here where at least one of the two men in Anushka's life who had a great spell on her hold the key to his "return passport" - one of them is her lover Sushant Singh Rathore; the other is a Godman Futurist Sourabh Shukla. The conflict between PK and Sourabh Shukla is the central point of the film as director weaves a fantastic deconstruction of what makes people flock to faith and faith-healers and how religion has come to occupy a lion's share of our minds and dictates our choices. Roughly reminding of "Oh My God", "PK" takes a tangential tour of all the major faiths and puts threadbare questions that we don't seem to be asking while taking everything as gospel - why is white color used by Hindu widows and new Christian brides? Why do Hindus and Muslims take out their shoes entering the holy places of worship whereas we enter Churches wearing them? Why is black inauspicious for Hindus but good for Muslims? What if forecasts come true only because of coincidences that are not apparent to us at the time they occur? What about the superstitions that abound in every religion? Why are we not seeking logical explanations in the name of blasphemy? 

To be fair, the film raises valid questions last revisited in "OMG" about the overarching role that religion has come to occupy in our lives. There are a number of bad examples that improve the veracity of the claims of the agnostics and the intellectuals. But there are some omissions of what blind faith can sometimes do in improving the lives of people. But for that, the movie gives you a candid camera view that will influence us to revisit some of the responsibilities that we have abrogated ourselves from taking while handing over the baton to Gods and Godmen. For all that, "PK" deserves a rich rating which could have otherwise been a perfect five. Performance-wise Aamir Khan gives a five-star performance with an incessant glare that must have hurt his pupil in the shooting. He has proved again why he is India's finest actor who can make you think and laugh and cry with his histrionics, with lines or without lines. While this movie is an entertaining take on some of the themes touched upon in the "Satyamev Jayate", it has the potential to generate fresh controversy in the treatment of scenes - like entering a church with cocunuts and incense sticks but nothing sacrilegous inside a temple or a mosque. But respect for Aamir Khan goes up as he showed the courage to tackle sensitive topics through visuals like polygamy amongst muslims or the proliferating soothsayers who thrive on the fear of devotees. Anushka Sharma fits easily into a role cut out for her personality and she lives upto her reputation for "kissing" - the only thing you never expected in Raj Kumar Hirani's films. The romance between SS Rathore and Anushka is cute. Music by Shantanu Moitra befittingly elevates the moods of the film and never tries to dominate the scene itself - how many music directors in India can do that? Sourabh Shukla has given a masterly performance as a cold-blooded Godman. Don't remember if this was his best performance till date after "Satya".  Entertainment-wise first half rocks with hilarity oozing out of every scene as an alien comes to terms with life and living on earth. Second half dullens after a prolonged debate about religion takes over the script with half-hearted attempts. But the climax finishes off the movie and takes it to new high in true Hirani style of talking turkey and clearing the air on matters of life and death. 

Notwithstanding the vulnerabilities of the script and the occasional slippages, "PK" gives a paisa-vasool feeling and leaves you with searching questions that linger on. 

It is mostly suitable for family viewing despite some double-entendre dialogues in Bhojpuri on sex and memory. I rate the film 3.5/5 for the movie, warts and all.

#AamirKhan #PK #Bollywood #ShantanuMoitra #RajKumarHirani #VinodChopra #UTV #PKMovie #MovieReviews

"Kick" (Hindi Film Review)

Salman Khan returns again in 2014 with a swashbuckler of a film "Kick". The last one "Jai Ho" was a great story remade from Chiranjeevi's "Stalin" about a Good Samaritan who starts a chain reaction of good actions. "Kick" has been in the works for a long time and easily the most awaited film for Salman Khan fans and Eid weekend entertainment-seekers. Remade from a blockbuster Telugu film "Kick" released in 2009, the film was a sensation earlier which created stardom for atleast four people - Ileana D'Cruz who never looked better since, Music Director Thaman who got offers for atleast 30 films after that, director Surinder Reddy who is hailed as the new Red-Bull action film-writer-director and hero Ravi Teja who is the raunchiest, naughtiest star in Indian films - a deadly combo of Dada Kondke and Amitabh Bachchan. Given that background and record, "Kick" had to deliver for Salman Khan who is waiting for a hit after his last film got washed out under fatwas of all kinds. It delivers on many counts.

"Kick" (Hindi) faithfully builds on the original plot of the Telugu film and then alters a few angles here and there - a medico/psychiatrist Jacqeline Fernandez bumps into an aimless prankster Devi Lal Singh (Salman Khan) who loves her. Devi is driven by adrenalin and loves the "kick" of things - he joins and chucks jobs, dates and breaks up and seeks adventures of the kind that even blissed out creatures under the sea don't venture into. Jacqueline loves him and loathes him and soon dates Randeep Hooda, a police officer at her father's behest. She narrates her story to Randeep to pass time. Randeep, in turn, tells his story of a fugitive who is still at large - a "Devil" who hoodwinks him all the time while decamping with ship loads of money. Who is the man in Randeep's life? Is he the same as in Jacqueline's ? The twists in the film take you far from Delhi to Poland and back with hyper-action sequence after hyper-action sequence - that remind you of the dare-devilry of a "Krish" or a "Dhoom" franchise.

What makes the film mostly watchable is the tempo of the plot which is essentially two flashbacks and one forward-moving story. In 148 minutes, the film starts as a fun film, just like the original and gets into top gear around interval time with a dramatic bang. To adapt the original nativity to the Hindi sensibilities, three people worked  on the screenplay including Rajat Aroraa and then Chetan Bhagat was asked to chip in. Atleast twice, Salman Khan asked Chetan to rewrite a better screenplay. His effort to nativise can be seen in few places - one in the interplay between the characters of the heroine's family and second in the treatment of the gang of villains and creation of a few more plot points which give depth to an otherwise frivolous fun film. The raw appeal gets short-changed with deja vu motifs borrowed from "Dabbaang". Comic scenes like the police station where father-son collide  (which could have been over-extended) or the hero reprise as a memory-loss patient would have created a cloudburst of uproarious laughter. There are few sentimental scenes with the kids which is the crux of plot. Instead, we see many scenes which make way for  in-film advertisements for Mother Dairy and NISE Gel - wonder why UTV had to resort to such, not seen this kind of stuff in a long time.

Performances-wise, Jacqueline paired well with Salman although she lacks emotional play. Randeep Hooda gets a meaty role against Salman Khan and remains in the zone throughout. But the surprise packet of the film is Nawazuddin Siddiqi. He gets the loudest snares and the best lines in the film. His swagger, his dangerous giggle preceded by a tongue-lashing sound and his menacing looks leave a lasting impression. Salman's generosity in sharing screen space with one of the iconic actors of our times is rare. Music by Himesh Reshmiya is average, wonder whatever happened to his melodies. Even a song with Nargis Fakshri is wasted in mindless gyrations and noisy rhythms. What elevates the movie though is the exceptional background score by Julius Packam - and one number by Yo YO Honey Singh which comes in the second half. Dialogues are racy and crisp - and many had the original touch, if not better impact thanks to the collaboration of the team which usually writes for Milan Luthria movies. Hyderabadi fans will rejoice that their most-favorite Hindi superstar utters three dialogues in pure Telugu - as a tribute to the Telugu original. Mithun Chakraborty as Salman's father shines yet again - wonder why we are not having enough of him in the role of a hero's father. The original disco dancer shakes a leg with a crow-feet superstar and the screen outcome is hilarious. A welcome trend in Salman's films is the absence of statutory warning for cigarette smoking - it saves three minutes of a grotesque warning and saves millions from undue influence. But why, I wonder was a warning for booze was not given when Mithunda and Sallu drink like fish at a party?

On the whole, a clean and watchable film with paisa vasool action and entertainment built on the bedrock of a blockbuster plot. The originals can't be compared here as both Tollywood and Bollywood have learnt to adapt winner scripts better to native sensibilities. For example, "Dabbanng" the original was remade into "Gabbar Singh" with better comic sensibilities to deliver the biggest blockbuster in Tollywood at that time. "Kick" (Hindi) is fully adapted to the HIndi audience with sentiment, action and comedy. With over 4000 screens, and a long weekend till Tuesday, "Kick" may rake in like never before.

My Rating: 3.5/5

"Bobby Jasoos" (Hindi) Movie Review

You are Vidya Balan, lovingly called Bobby. You live in Moghalpura, Hyderabad, a pincode that has a density of over 100 people per sq.meter. Narrow lanes, dingy corners, claustrophic separator roads and noisy people. You have a doting mother and two younger sisters but your dad has an eerie coldness to you and doesn't treat you like the eldest child in the family - that regrettable male fixation thing. Still you pick a reputation as a quick-fix spy - someone who noses in on neighbourhood girls with "excusable" traits to help out reluctant bridegrooms or help aunties with "reliable" information. One thing leads to another and you soon become a sleuth to reckon with your own "adda" and assistants. One of them, played by the charming Ali Fazal becomes your unwilling lover and eventual supporter of all risky undertakings. One such undertaking, the riskiest one, comes calling in metastazing instalments from one Anees Khan, played with uneasy grit and intensity by Kiran Kapoor who comes in limousines and oozes out royalty unlimited. What does Anees Khan want? He comes and goes in a jiffy everytime but leaves Bobby with two brown envelopes, one gives cryptic details of the girls he wants Bobby to track down and the other envelope gives a hefty advance sum. The pattern repeats, Bobby succeeds in getting to the "X" or "Y" and the stakes get bigger. Then, at interval time, Bobby gets a doubt. What is happening to the girls she is ferreting out for Anees Khan? What if there is a twist in the tail, for the girls? What follows is a different drama with hugely unintended consequences and a cool ending.

Made by a debutant director Samar Shaikh, "Bobby Jasoos" is not a regular spy-thriller fare. It is a quirky, raw attempt at blending the genres of thriller with emotional drama and desi humour from the street corners of the bustling old city of Hyderabad. If you want to savor the charms of Charminar with a candid camera  that peeks into what a half of Hyderabad are all about - stuck in simple ways, hard living and countless paradigms of male stereotypes and "chalta hai" attitudes while eking out a honest day's labor, "Bobby Jasoos" serves you right. Vidya Balan is one woman too many in the film as she straddles many roles and costumes to come up trumps on her assignments - using innovative and sometimes bizarre ways of ensnaring her "target". There are emotional angles - the father-daughter angle between Rajendra Gupta and Vidya Balan and the romantic angle between Ali Fazal and Vidya Balan which make the film evocative amidst the distractions of a boisterous i-spy game played by Vidya throughout. The film's weaknesses lie in its treatment by Samar Shaikh. Director takes a flippant route to the protagonist's job description and makes mockery of how many folks get fooled by the maverick methods of Bobby Jasoos in getting to her targets - even as she covers humongous ground in uncovering them. She covers her constituency of Moghalpura better than what the local MLA does - covering the range of her target universe with her own sampling techniques - doing a census of an audition for a serial her aunts watch for smoking out the girls of the desired age-group or making elbow room in Spoken English tutorial classrooms to figure out the right birth marks of the girl. All that gets sometimes trite and outrageously irritating - because not a voice is raised in the neighbourhood against such antics.

Be that as it may, the redemption of the film lies in its many strengths - its starcast that is too perfect from Supriya Pathak, Tanvie Azmi, Kiran Kapoor, Vinay Varma (what a cameo by Suthradhar Agency's Vinay!) and the lovely pairing of Ali Fazal with Vidya Balan. Music, especially the BGM and the two cute songs uplift the film's dull moments. One of the songs, composed like a ghazal duet with an unusual rhythm stands out. Dialogues liberally sprinkle the notorious "Hurdu" slang of Hyderabadis with killer effect - "Hau", "Nakkho" abound enough to tickle you. Undoubtedly, Vidya Balan is the greatest strength of "Bobby Jasoos" as she effortlessly delivers a range of emotions with her spontaneity and charm. Neither obesity, marriage nor recent flops deters her confidence as she exudes perfection in her roles of a focused spy or as a misunderstood daughter or as a paradoxical lover. This may be an imperfect spy thriller by Samar Shaikh but "Bobby Jasoos" wins your hearts with positivity and sincerity to the plot. At 121 minutes, "Bobby Jasoos" is a family entertainer that deserves cosmopolitan adulation.
My rating: 3.25/5

The Politics of the Hindi Language

The Politics of the Hindi language must never be extended beyond paying just lip-service. And there are many reasons for this even if you are tempted by the shenanigans of "national language", "national integration" and all that jazz. Nonsense.

To begin with, you cannot impose Hindi language as if it is a god-send or it has to be spoken by all of India's population. There are as many national languages in India as Hindi which are as beautiful, lyrical and classical, infact, more classical than Hindi. It is not heaven's exclusive license to Hindi to be spoken of highly and get multiplied manifold times. Down South, Tamil is one of the world's oldest languages and beats the pulp out of many others in the sheer volume of literature. Infact, it is more than 2000 years old language with wide variety and cultural richness. Telugu is equally old, dating back to atleast a thousand years of rich lineage. In a survey of the world's most beautiful languages done in 2011, judged primarily by three reasons - lyrical beauty, elegance of letters as they are written/printed and the richness of the alphabet, Telugu came second only to Korean language beating most languages in the world including Modiji's second-favorite language, Hindi (the first one must be his mother-tongue, I am just guessing). The Telugu film industry is India's largest segment in the number of films made per annum. Malayalam is another mesmerising language that has a cult followership across and outside India, aided by a race who have been migrant yet proud of its heritage. Malayalam's movies, warts and all, continue to dominate the film industry in India on matters of story-telling essentials. Malayalam's language itself resonates with most of the words derived from Sanskrit. Kannada, considered a mirror language to Telugu has a history that is co-terminous with that of Telugu. Scratch the surface and you will find many other languages in South India which are vibrant, exciting and alive - Konkani, Tulu are few examples of tongues which are equally vibrant and celebratory of the richness of life and language albeit without formal written scripts. Then you have the languages of the west and east - from Punjabi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bhojpuri, Bihari, Bengali and Assamese - all have their own niche.

At the height of the Mauryan empire which ruled for three generations the whole of the Indian subcontinent from the edge of eastern Iran to today's Bangladesh, portions of South would remain outside its direct control. For most of the Mughal rule and the British rule, the Southern peninsula always enjoyed a halo of respect, identity and privilege to thrive in its atypical avatars and myriad hues. When the British ruled India, they understood that South cannot be reined in by imposing HIndi, so they indoctrinated English into the veins of trade and employment, creating a class of administrative army that kept their linguistic identities yet breathed fire into English. The intercourse with English created a renaissance but Hindi's rise was slow but not uniform. Given a choice of three languages, many South Indians still prefer to learn English rather than Hindi and there are historical reasons for that which have to be understood and empathised with. Even a docile prime minister Nehru understood the language divide that exists between North and South India. He created a Deputy Prime Minister post exclusively for catering to the interests of South - a tradition that continued until Shastri's rise.

Experts who do not understand this divide jump to conclusions that South is anti-nationalistic or anti-patriotic. Nonsense. It is just that language has always given a rare indemnity from colonial invasions and tortures to the South Indians; on some occasions it provided them quasi-independence or even satellite status while allowing a socio-economic resurgence on a scale that seldom was surpassed. Traditionally, it was the South that opened to the sea routes, developed maritime trade and allowed comprehensive mapping of the Indian Oceans between the Arabs and the Portugese, and later the next European powers that came calling to India - the Dutch, the French and the British. The South also adapted easily to Western influences faster than the North. When Vasco Da Gama came to India and hit the coast of Kerala first in 1498, he thought the people of Kerala were closer to Christianity than Hinduism because he felt the buildings looked like Christian churches rather than Hindu temples. Infact, the "Hindu" itself was a word the Europeans coined to describe the race from the valley of Indus. So much on the South-Indians.

PM Modi should realilse that Hindi has earned its spurs more from the proliferation of Hindi-speaking people who permeate the country and the world and the cultural exports of Hindi into Bollywood, the cuisine and the television. But it hasn't grown to become the language of the country in totality. Hence, that cannot be the reason to impose Hindi on the rest of the country. Hindi is a pulsating and lively language that is beautiful and simple but imposing it as a mandatory language has its down-syndrome. Yes we all love Hindi films and Hindi actors and Hindi writers and Hindi singers but know that no Indian language can be singled out as the lingua franca. For good or bad, the jury is out on which language is the best. Again, for good or bad, English has become the language of convenience and the language of business which cannot be replaced in many lifetimes. It is unwise to thrust your limitations of language on everybody else and re-invent the wheel. There is no long-term good now in learning a language at the cost of development and growth. Sooner or later, the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians and the Chinese will realise that winning the battle against English is not the same as winning the war. It feels great to know that Spanish is the fastest growing language in the Americas, thanks to centuries of spanish invasions. But who cares for Spanish unless the world switches to Spanish. Ditto for the Mandarin. You may speak in Hindi addressing the Bhutanese and the Americans but the impact will never be the same as speaking in the language that rules the air waves.

Talk about language chauvinism, you must know this, DW - Deutsche World and RT - Russia Today, two of the state channels of German and Russian governments broadcast in English language are growing faster than the English channels of CNN and BBC - proof that language chauvinism serves little purpose in a world that almost became a global village with English. Also proof that the Germans and the Russians are eager to playing English. Play to your strengths but don't let language be a barrier to communication. The best way to build national pride is through building up levels of literacy, build up self-reliant people who are productive, skilful, employable or entrepreneurial and get global recognition not by getting chauvinistic about languages. The politics of Hindi language has always proved costly for a Union Government committed to restoring federal balance in India. I fail to understand why this time has to be different.

And the Oscar doesn't go to...

And the Oscar doesn't go to...

So even the Oscars couldn't defy "Gravity" its anti-gravity moment. The mexican director would have lived out his space in  trance as his film bagged seven oscars out of ten. Predictable? Not so much. Or maybe. Because over the years, the awards have a degree of giving out max to those films which generate the maximum adulation from the global audience. This could be because the Hollywood Studios and their gargantuan think-tanks are hitting  a dry run when it comes to big markets like China, HongKong, India, and the MiddleEast where cultural dissimilarities are making their films come a cropper. "Gravity" collected Rs.62 crores in Indian theatres despite the hoopla. "Dookudu" and "Gabbar Singh" generated a higher RoI than that film.

On that count, you can see why films like "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Gravity" sweep the awards even if with  diluted standards and dumbing down of English for the global audience. It is like a Miss World contest or Miss Universe contest - Hollywood which represents the apogee of American Culture wants  and crowns film-makers who strike gold with more eyeballs rather than film-makers who are altruistic (Oliver Stone), brazenly American (Martin Sorcerese), uncompromising (Steven Spielberg) or self-obsessed and controversial (Woody Allen).

 If the trend continues, 20 years down the lane, I think there will be more foreign language films competing for the Oscars or film-makers with the American sensibilities but a global pulse like Eduardo. That leaves the Indians with a terrific opportunity - don't make films for the Oscars, try to beat them in sensibilities and cultural opulence and larger-than-life sliceness. One day, with SFX a "Bahubali" or a "Hanuman" or a "Mahabharat" will gross as much as a Spidey or a Batman. Americans have killed more film industries since the 1920s by their clinical imperialism of the culture of Americana which has a distinct closeness with most Western cultures except the Koreans, the Chinese and the Indians. Watching the Oscars this time became more boring than a Pogo channel where the anchor hustles with a masked face. No wonder, the Oscars are now looked down by those who covet the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes, the Cannes or now the Sundance where unconventional yardsticks of measuring success are bringing out such exciting films like "Boyhood" and "Wajdah" (2012). 

On the contrary, Oscars are still stuck on  criteria that the critics and the audiences don't seem to agree often but are determined by quixotic whims and messages from the masters who call the shots at the industry. Any idea why Sandra Bullock didn't get the best actress award? Any thoughts why Leonardo Dicaprio continues to be at the non-receiving end of the awards? Despite a uni-dimensional way of judging the films, the Oscars get the maximum mileage but still lesser than what the Superbowl or FIFA World Cup command. 

Today, close to seven billion people are watching films and a fraction of them are wanting to make films in as many unique way as their sensibilities and paradigms motivate them to. The Oscars can go to anybody who is trained to give a well-rehearsed elevator speech. But lets not think that their success is a benchmark - don't be misled by the UNESCO heritage-type statements going out when the Oscar goes to a film that talks about slavery in Africa, a war waged in Afghanistan or Iraq or a legend in South Africa. There are more ways to watch a film, make a film and even review a film. Remember tonite that Oscars may be more anti-diluvian in ways you haven't  yet realised.

"Highway" (Hindi) Film Review

“Highway” is a surprisingly pleasant and at one level a bold film by Imtiaz Ali. Pleasant because he breaks the mould of regular commercial fare with an irregular theme that will stop you on your tracks. Bold because there are more than one or two messages that run undercurrent to the main narrative which are disturbing in the pace of modern life. I am taken in by the titles of Imitiaz Ali always because he is one of the few directors who hits the bull’s eye on putting titles that sum it up while conveying motifs that he wants to linger on you long after you left the movie hall. Look at his previous films – “Jab We met” , “Love Aaj Kal” and “Rockstar” and you will find one main theme but also many subtexts embedded. Likewise, “Highway” is a motif for what happens when a contract killer kidnaps a girl about to enter an arranged wedlock and both of them hit the highway of life as they are compelled by circumstances to travel together across the “roadiest” surfaces of North India.

In 133 minutes, Imtiaz Ali transports us to a world of rich visuals of snowy peaks and sylvan surroundings, rough roads and dingy corners but the perimeter for everything remains the highway where in a truck Randip Hooda drives down without knowing where the destination is in order to escort away Alia Bhatt (debutante) from police interception before deciding to leave her, because he realizes he had actually kidnapped a rich girl of mighty surname of a biggie –“Tripathi”.

The story moves, layer by layer with the girl actually feeling more comfortable with the kidnappers and enjoying the ride as one helluva ride of a lifetime, away from the suffocations of air, life and outlook that are common in affluent households. Aliah is the girl who shows maximum variation in her characterization as she moves from being terrified to diffident to curious to comfortable to confident in her interactions with the kidnappers. As she opens up to the largeness of life in the open, she realizes these kidnappers are a lot less harmful than the people of her cocooned life at home, where there are insensitive parents and predators like her uncle. In one scene, she blurts out about the same uncle who used to haul her up physically while tempting her with imported chocolates since the age of nine.



Randip Hooda is a hardened criminal who melts with Alia’s childlike innocence and frankness. He also opens up gradually and becomes someone the girl begins to develop more than a trusting relationship before the dramatic end. Watch that end because it has the same quirk that marks all the climaxes of Imtiaz Ali’s films - something out of everybody’s comfort zone. I don’t agree that the film looks like a documentary at all because a documentary cannot bring life into a narrative without a voiceover.

In “Highway”, Imtiaz Ali uses two instruments to bring that narrative to bear pristinely – cinematography and music. Anil Mehta gives a stunning output in his picture frames, of course aided by the eye for detail of the director who revels in novel stuff. Eating on top of ant-hills, sky-kissing your way to see the clouds fritter away, keeping your head at the edge of the highway road while the vehicles speed in and out or dripping your hands into the swirling water currents meant for water-rafting – Anil Mehta gives us spectacular visuals. AR Rahman, of course, gives an original score that is in sync with the moods. Compared with his previous films, Rahman uses good pauses at times to sometimes use silence to elevate the impact of the scene – like when the girl speaks out against sexual abuse or when Randip and Alia interact. Rahman also uses some folk songs and a famous beat of “Wanna Mash up?” as a necessary interlude in the film, to show the contrast between his music and somebody else’s composition. A sporting move which other legends hardly attempt. In a collaboration of such fine talent, a worthy addition indeed is Rasool Polakutty’s diligent sound design – you can know every sound has a meaning and a context to why you hear.

Even if humor is subtle and unsubstantial, you have some laughs here and there, and that comes between the two main characters. The only gaps in the film are the establishment of the motives of the gang that originally kidnaps the girl and characterization that throws little light on them. It could have elevated Randip Hooda’s role better. Despite all of that, he emotes well. One can attribute this film to be an attempt by Imtiaz Ali to bring different and meaningful cinema to the urban folks. Are today’s girls more safer outside of homes than people at home – that’s a strong message. Are mothers and fathers playing their roles as parents well in giving the kids everything they need but not enough time and attention – that’s the underlying message. And finally, the broad message is that when the rubber hits the road, you might realize that the destination is less important than the journey and often goodness can come from people you dislike at first – almost like an Austen sensibility.

It is unlikely this film will boil well at the kettle of box office but it leaves you with a good impression and a lasting message. For that, I rate it 3.75 on 5 and take away points for the bits that didn’t add up.

"Dhoom-3" Movie Review (Hindi)

If I tell you that the first shot of the film is a young boy helping his father resusciate the Great Indian Circus facing liquidation from a banker who has invoked the equivalent of Sarfesi Act and that young boy grows up to restore the pride of his father in making the Great Indian Circus a must-go in Chicago, does it tell you where it all leads up? The young boy becomes Aamir Khan who targets the bank - Western Bank of Chicago - the bank that made his father Jackie Shroff bow out with his life and commits heist whenever he wants. Thats the bone of "Dhoom-3" for you - a kind of Dr Jekyll and Hyde in Aamir Khan - who just exchanged one kind of stardom with another for this role of double shades, in more ways than one, which you will realise as you watch. 

Shot entirely in Chicago, the film revolves around Aamir Khan from the start to finish in all the 172 minutes of sometimes breezy and sometimes agonising frames of stylish stunts on BMW motor bikes that vroom ahead with 360 degree turns, over-turns and even amphibian dexterity like the cars in James Bond films. The franchisee stamina is tested to a point of some fatigue which doesn't find much relief in most characters including the so-called-hero Abhishek Bachchan and his flunkie Uday Chopra. Infact, Abhishek should try to relinquish his second-most well-known job as a hapless cop (after baby-sitting) for someone else to add verve and vigor. He looks singularly boring and needs to move on as much as the predictable Uday Chopra who could have been booked under Nirbhaya Act routinely for the number of women he leches on as a cop in this film.

Katrina Kaif is the romantic centrepiece of this testerone-filled story who performs stunning acrobatics in her role as a circus troupe artist. She sustains the lightest and the emotional scenes of the film well with Aamir Khan. Aamir Khan is the deserving reason to watch the film but most of the time you feel you are being taken for a ride because of the ludicrous plot with gaping holes in the script and the storyline. This is where I like to ask Vijay Prakash Acharya what he had in mind when he narrated the story to YRF films or Aamir Saheb. When a banker comes knocking on the doors of the Great Indian Circus because of payment default, what is wrong with it? Is asking for your loan back an act of cruelty that makes you turn so spiteful that you hit on my bank anytime and run with the heist? What were Abhishek and Uday - cops in India doing in Chicago? Why were they called when there is abundant local talent? With so many heists happening on just one bank, why are so many people clueless about the modus operandi and the man behind the act when he leaves so many clues? Is the 27 minute flashback at the outset required to justify the villainy of Aamir Khan? If so, will all villains get so much footage to explain their motives ? Why does every heist of Aamir Khan end with dollar notes falling  on the street people of Chicago like autumn leaves? Why doesn't he just take that money and run? Or, why doesn't it add up to the per capita income of Chicago? 

When you walk out of the film, you realise this is a film where everyone is reverential about Aamir Khan playing a villain and one must project him in as much good light as possible because the character he is playing can otherwise do no wrong under normal circumstances. This is an opportunity lost for Aamir Khan, methinks because thats not how the legends of Hollywood think or down south, some of the hero villains like NTR, Rajkumar, Rajnikanth did? If you are playing a villain, make even the best villains feel sorry by the menace in your character, don't pussy-foot around and don't think of your star image. While Aamir excels in his role, he could have outshined more than just giving a sheepish smile and a cunning eye to outwit police. The film could have also been shorter sans some repetitive stunts, most of whom are clearly graphics. The warning at the outset could have been aptly worded: Please do not try these stunts at home as they are unreal and designed by graphics. In the second half, there is an extended chase between Aamir and Abhishek where both of them hurl weapons and counter-weapons at each other on speeding bikes. It was hilarious and reminds one of the Astras and counter-astras used in mythological films on chariots. If every successive villain in the next editon of "Dhoom" thinks like Aamir Khan in giving a justification to character, the franchise will become an innocent version of Amul Dairy. Music by Pritham lacks melody and background score by somebody else heightens the drama. Unless you are a vroom Dhoom fan and do not enjoy speeds which optimise the fuel, this film lacks in substance and variety but delivers in style, speed and thrills and yes, the surprise that Aamir Khan throws at you at the beginning, the interval and the end. I would still rate it 2.5 out of 5 for the effort and Aamir.