“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

"Anamika" (Telugu Film Review) /"Nee Enge En Anbe" (Tamil Film Review)

In times of male-chauvinist cinema plots in Telugu and Tamil film industries with kinky moustaches and thigh-slapping bravado, "Anamika" is Viacom's (Network 18) proud entry into the South bastions with a rivetting story based on "Kahaani" that shows Vidya Balan in totally different light after "The Dirty Picture". They picked Sekhar Kammula who has evolved cinematic sensibilities to direct the film and a bankable female star Nayanataara to play the title role of "Anamika". Despite the story's original contours being intact, some axis-shifting changes have been made to nativise the original story.

The original story is of a woman, in her late-pregnancy visiting Kolkata in search of her missing husband. The plot thickens with a stunning, unthinkable climax. It was too sophisticated but the film did phenomenally well bringing laurels to both Vidya, Viacom and Sujoy Ghosh; it particularly did well in markets like China and Hong Kong as these markets welcome unconventional subjects. Given this background, Viacom's choice of Nayanataara in a normal role sucks out the sympathetic chord that enhanced the emotional quotient of the original for reasons best known to the director, the producer and the star heroine. It seems Sekhar wanted bigger challenges for the film. So, the story is straightened a bit, dumbed down for the South audiences with impressive twists and a unique ending that is still unconventional for a vernacular film. Don't want to break the suspense over this thriller of 139 minutes - a unique feat for Sekhar Kammula with a starcast that did a consistently good job throughout except Naresh.

It is Sekhar's luck that such an immaculate team of technicians and crew got roped in for this bi-lingual project and he does a reasonably good job of turning in a watchable thriller with a finish that breaks the female stereotypes. His choice of the Old city of Hyderabad in a cute setting of the microcosm of life amidst rhythmic pandemonium is evocative. Despite a tight script that leaves little room for indulging in Sekhar's famously subtle potshots on current paradigms about life through common people's portrayal, Sekhar registers one or two signature scenes - especially the one in the police station where she is at the receiving end of a callous constable along with others who are used to it. And then, at the kitchen of the hotel where she is staying - where the people are out to help her unlike government servants who are paid to help but won't. Sekhar's strength lies in telling a good story without a rush to impress or embellish - to that extent this is a fine film even if you have or haven't seen the original film. He is also terrific at characterisation, each role is essayed with a precision and nuanced acting that makes the duration of the character's screentime irrelevant. This is Sekhar's greatest under-stated strength which few directors can match.

Vaibhav Reddy, son of director A.Kodandarami Reddy gets a meaty role as the helper policeman who escorts Anamkia in her search for truth. The irreverent hotel manager, the callous constable, and the curious minister Naresh  - all of them are utilised well except that the role of Naresh lacked killer instinct and the justification it needed in the end. Too many questions about his role in the plot were left unanswered. Among the roles that stand out in the film  - the role of renowned theatre actor Vinay Varma as the lusting SI who makes an indecent proposal to find Anamika's husband is intense but short-lived. It is difficult to finess a stage actor to the nuanced performance  packed in by Vinay buyt Sekhar pulls it off. Vinay gives the film's most dramatic "villain" moment and makes an oh-so-soon exit before interval. After him, Pasupathi as Mr Khan gives a standout performance with a variation that may be a few notches below what Nawazuddin Siddiqi achieved in the original. You cannot compare Pasupathi's role with Nawazuddin but he carried the role with all seriousness and intensity that captures the essence of a righteous officer with shades of grey that finally deliver justice. Nayanataara as the silent sufferer who takes on a system steeped in disempowering  the womenfolk is the perfect character played by her in a long time since "SriRama Rajyam". By choosing a role that shows her  deglamourised yet unapologetic for smoking out what she wants in her quest for her husband, she proved her talent goes beyond cherubic smiles and curvaceous dressing.

A word about the technical talents in the film before a word or two about Sekhar. Good to see MM Keeravani haunt you with one helluva song "Kshana Kshanam" that grooves in and out throughout the film's narration. He also composed an arresting BGM for the film with a contemporary appeal that is uncharcteristic of him. This is one of the rare films where his musical arrangements in RR kept pace with his inimitable talent for song-and-dance melodies. Having composed for quite a few films in Bollywood in the past like "Criminal", "Sur" and "Jism",  MM Keeravani  is one of the most under-rated composers in the country, who sadly announced his retirement after "Bahubali" in December 2015. The film's other hero is Marthand K Venkatesh, the editor who shortened the film in Sekhar's format to fit the bill in 138 minutes or so. If the film has defects despite Marthand Venkatesh's editing, they must sit on Sekhar's report card. And these are: Why Sekhar left a few gaps in the plot? Like, who was the guy with a devilish smile and a shooting revolver and why was he killed? What was Naresh's role in the killings? Who was Milan Damji really? Why is Anamika made to look like Bengali houswife in the backdrop of a Dussehra pandal erected by Bangalee Samithi rather than our own "Ammoru"? Questions that were better answered in the original. But if you pass these up as minor flaws in a genre that Sekhar Kammula is not used to handling regularly, then "Anamika" is quite an engrossing thriller to watch. It takes Tollywood to a new high in standards of film-making and investment by studios of repute. "Anamika" deserves to be more widely watched for the effort and class it exudes.
My rating: 3.5/5

"Bombay Talkies" Hindi Film Review

"Bombay Talkies" is the name of the latest film co-produced by India's youthful new-age directors: Dibakar Banerjee, Anurag Kashyap, Karan Johar and Zoya Akhtar. As the name suggests, it is meant to be an eulogy on Bollywood's century-old idioms. With the exception of Karan Johar, and to some extent, Zoya Akhtar, the other two are one of the two brilliant filmmakers who have sought new ground in bringing in realistic and hard-hitting story-telling with a rare irreverence to old norms while trying to achieve youthful yet compelling emotional connect with the audiences. The producers have selected the most apt title for a film which has four different tales rendered by these four directors - Karan, Dibanker, Zoya and Anurag with half-hour slots each in a total running time of 127 minutes (which includes the four-minute tobacco ad pre-and post interval and a gaudy "Om Shanti Om" style medley of Bollywood boys and girls - from Aamir to SRK to Ranbir and Kareena and Vidya Balan). Originally, Bombay Talkies was founded in 1934 by the First Lady of Indian Cinema - Devika Rani and her first husband Himanshu Rai. They went on to make many films which had an impact on the development of early Indian Cinema. Bombay Talkies became an icon for the arrival of Indian Cinema and subsequently, we all know how Mani Ratnam started his own Madras Talkies as a motif for South Indian Cinema.

Back to "Bombay Talkies" the movie. The four films are directed individually by the four talents above, with their respective name splashed on the screen when their film starts with a 15 second blackout separating one from another to indicate the end of one film and the beginning of the other. That way, the format is a little different from "Darna Mana Hai" where the stories lead upto the climactic story ending. That makes this a winning collaboration with a must-watch tag. What makes the four stories watchable is the bench-strength use of promising technicians like Amit Trivedi who scored thrilling music for all the four stories, inter-mixing the need to elevate the many moods essayed in each director's short story with impressive repertoire of folk music, playback, instrumentation from everyday rhythms and purcussions. Anyone who has long spotted Amit Trivedi from the time he debuted on MTV Unplugged till "DevD" OST got released will vouch that Amit Trivedi is the most-dazzling find amongst the current crop of Bollywood music composers. His music is rich, varied and culturally resonating with the heartbeats of Hindi heartland music, no wonder he still hasn't got the call from masala-oriented South film producers. 

How are the four stories? Are they real? Yes. Credible? Yes. Evocative? Yes, again. 

First story is an explicit take on Indian Male homosexuality directed by Karan Johar (what else where you expecting?). Randeep Hooda and Rani Mukherjee live their own lives in different cubicle nations within the media industry. They are almost sex-less and live a boring civil life until their frustrations surface with the entry of an intern at Rani's office. This young lad is a self-confessed Gay and he gets cosy with Rani in a platonic way only to get cosier with her husband in a plutonic way. Karan seems deft in handling the emerging theme of homosexuality and its repurcussions in conservative Indian families. The gay abandon with which Karan revels in re-creating the sexual preferences of an emerging male order makes it a subtle watch with some hummable music remixed of the old sixties by Amit Trivedi. That room, that music room of old LP records and audios owned by Randeep Hooda in the film must be any music lover's delight - it must belong to one of them - Anurag Kashyap, Producer Viacom's Raghav Behl or Farhan Akhtar, Zoya's sibling.

The second story is the most brilliant of the short films, directed by Dibaker Banerjee. It shows an in-form Nawazuddin Siddiqui as a go-nowhere dweller of a certain chawl in Mumbai, with a bed-ridden daughter who is tired of dad's old stories and a wife who juggles many jobs in three shifts. As if to make a statement on Ponzi schemes, Dibaker introduces EMU farming which has caught on with India's aspiring middle-class. One day, our Mumbai householder goes for the job of a Security Guard, misses it by a whisker and lands himself in a crowd watching Ranbir Kapoor's latest shoot. He gets a rare call from the film's Assistant Directors to enact a two-second scene - to bump into Ranbir from the other end, engrossed holding a newspaper. He exults at the opportunity and gets ten minutes to rehearse in a solitary set away from the din where he works himself up to do the role. In that interlude, he imagines having  an intense conversation with his theatre-obsessed father - brilliantly played by Sadashiv Amrapurkar - who was always pushing him to get to the basics of life. Then the shot readied, improvisations done, Nawaz goes home in a trance forgetting the small change, and the bottle of water earned as a perk for the brief role. He goes home, re-enacts the day's exciting proceedings to his daughter and wife, in a majestic  narrative without words and only flute music in background. This is the best story and my research tells that this is based on one of Satyajit Ray's famous short stories. 

The last two stories are more effusive of the magic spell of Bollywood on India's youth and children. Zoya's story is about a young boy whose father drives him to football but the boy loves the dances of Bollywood. He eulogies Katrina Kaif and becomes her in dreams and in daylight as he pursues dancing to the point of raising money for his sister. The end is filmy with sibling love and dream coming true but this is the only story which has an item song, if you can call that of Katrina's onscreen and off-screen presence in the film. The last story by the nonchalant Anurag Kashyapa is about a father (Sudheer Pandey) and son (Vineet Singh). The father's wish is to send the son with an heirloom bottle of "Murabba" (a kind of a ladoo made of sweet pumpkin) to Bollywood's Badshah's house - Prateeksha - the home of Amitabh Bachchan for a bite by the legendary actor so he can die in peace, something his father did with Yousuf Khan a.k.a Dilip Kumar. The saga is all about the days of wait and exasperation by the youth from Allahabad as he encounters many others who live on a pail of water in order to shake hands with Bollywood's glitterati. It is a pithy take by Anurag to capture the timeless appeal of Bollywood's icons. There's a sweet ending with a twist in the tale but Anurag handles it well with  raunchy wit.

On the whole, all the four stories have their signature styles of their creators who are in between their swinging and cutting-edge form. Undoubtedly, my take is that the honors go the four in this pecking order: Dibaker, Anurag, Zoya and Karan. What spoils the party in the end as we are about to applaud a rare ensemble of a talented foursome is a loud reprise to the ruling Divas of Bollywood in their audacious dream costumes - as I said from Kapoors to Khans. This must have been some producer's silly idea to endear an otherwise charming junction of upmarket, mofussil and fairy tales to the front-benchers who whistle at sighting each of the two generations of glitterati including Sridevi, Juhi and Madhuri. A great, watchable experiment and hopefully, Viacom should make it viable for more coming in this direction of sterotype-smashing cinema. 4 out of 5 for "Bombay Talkies". But I wonder why, U/A for a film that starts off the first story with hair-raising homosexuality. Maybe India will be the 15th nation in the world to endorse same-sex marriage now that the Censors have no objection to it.