Om Shanti Om

I saw Om Shanti Om and must say I enjoyed it more than Saawariya. Oh wait...I haven't seen Saawariya. I'm sure I'd really enjoy OSO more than Saawariya. Just the promos of Saawariya were enough to keep me away from it. The leading lady dusts hanging carpets while she awaits her mysterious lover under a canal. I can't endure anything that seems like a prelude to global warming. The promos feature some mythical city with British Raj like architecture where it rains, snows and sweats at the same time! I tried catching Al Bore's (oops Gore's) An Inconvenient Truth but lasted just the first 20 minutes.

Om Shanti Om, for me, refused to take-off. The premise, the jokes, the gags were all in place and I had heard good things about the film and yet I felt cheated. I took the film's catch phrase, "Picture abhi baaki hain mere dost..." a little too seriously and ended up looking stupid waiting for something to happen even after the end credits rolled away. The usher had to kick me out as the next show threatened to start. I really enjoyed SRK in the first half. I thought he had a whale of a time enacting the inanities of 70's and 80's Hindi films. Ms. Padukone needs a few more outings to make an impression on me but she being the new darling of the country need not worry about my doubts. As expected, Shreyas Talpade was a treat while Kirron Kher does a great job as a stand-in for Farida Jalal in her usual Karan Johar and Yashraj films.

On a graver note, if OSO warrants one, I believe that the director could have handled the whole laughing-at-ourselves deal a little more seriously. I am sure Farah Khan loves Karz and Madhumati but making a film in which the characters tell each other to use the climax of Karz to get things done isn't the most sensible thing to do. But like Ms. Khan told a reporter that she did it because she didn't give a damn, I think I'm thinking way out of the box here.

I think Times of India, for the lack of anything more interesting uneartherd that Akshay Kumar's Return of the Khiladi sequence from OSO is a frame-to-frame rip off from a Swedish flick called Kopps. Wow! It doesn't make any difference to the people who report such stories that the entire film seems to be 'inspired' and 'lifted' and 'copied' and 'parodied' from a fistful of old Hindi films rather than a stupid one minute sequence. What Akshay Kumar does after the sequence according to me was the highlight of the film!

A few years ago when Sanjay Gupta came up with Zinda that was his ‘homage’ to Old Boy, it was TOI's Nikhat Kazmi who went to town saying that there wasn't anything wrong with the process. She believed that fantastic as Old Boy might be, sadly many in India would not be able to see it, hence Zinda. Well Ms. Kazmi should know better for she once ripped off a film review by Roger Ebert and passed it off as her own! Every time a Hindi film does well at the UK or US box office everyone hails the nth arrival of Hindi cinema globally. Hindi films are big because Indian media covers a premiere in UK or a shoot in London. I am not denying that we make pots of money as well but in spite of all this attention the insiders still consider originality to be over-rated. A Vidhu Vinod Chopra contractually forces a major Hollywood studio to acknowledge Gangsta MD (the intended Hollywood remake of Munnabhai MBBS) to be based on an ‘original’ idea of Vinod Chopra and Rajkumar Hirnani before the opening credits but has no qualms in plagiarizing Theme for a Dream to make it sound like Pal Pal!

How difficult is it to be original or at least legal about copying? If Bombay wants the world to really take things seriously then it must respect originality. It's easier than it looks for we are half way there already, aren't we really unique? How far can being original be?

Image Courtesy: www.sify.com

Three Films

Watching some films way after they release gives you a different perspective to view them. By this time you have read the reviews, heard people talk and have generally formed an opinion. In the last week I saw three films that people talked a lot about and came highly recommended. As the mind has preconceived notions, whatever unfolds kind of lives up to the expectations and if things are a tad better then the experience is heightened. Beware- the opposite can be true as well!

The first of the lot was Sydney Pollack's Out of Africa. Based on a true story the film is Karen Blixen who married Bror, fiancé’s brother for the lover wasn't faithful. She marries him for the title and to get away from Denmark. Karen joins Bror in Africa and soon takes to the continent like some fish returning to water. She decides to take care of the coffee plantation that Bror started, instead of a farm as planned by both of them, as he is too busy hunting. Bror’s roving eye finally gets the better of him and he moves out. The events don't shock Karen for she never expected anything. In Africa she finds her soul mate in meets Denys Finch Hatton. A charmer extraordinaire, Denys is the very personification of a world that is giving way to too many changes too soon. Though Karen wants to marry Denys, he is quite happy with the way things are. Fate has other plans for the lovers; they break-up for Karen can't take any more of the bohemia that accompanies Denys; a fire destroys the plantation and Karen is forced to leave Africa. Denys finally comes around and decides to be with her the way she wants but dies in an air crash. Karen leaves Africa never to return.

The film is an account of Karen Blixen's time in Africa and what a woman! Legend has it that she remains the only woman who has ever been invited to drink in the men's bar at the Muthaiga Country Club, which soon celebrates its centenary. Even though, now the club has relaxed certain rules such as allowing men without jacket and tie in certain parts of the club, the rule for men only remains inviolate. The beautiful setting and a great performance by Meryl Streep kept me riveted to the screen for the entire running time of 2 hours and 24 minutes. I just don't know why I never got around watching Out of Africa earlier. That one scene where Robert Redford washes Meryl Streep's hair is one the most sensual scenes ever and they are fully clothed!

The second film was Being Cyrus. I recall the time it released I had seen some really shitty films and refused to pay money to watch non-sense. I was forced but I decided the film on DVD. This week I finally caught up with Cyrus and the dysfunctional Sethna clan in the film. The film is about a drifter who is swayed by an older woman to whack her father-in-law and sister-in-law so that she can end up with the ancestral property. The young Cyrus is set up by Katy who is in cahoots with her brother-in-law. Cyrus outsmarts them and the older woman ends up in jail. A twist in the last 15 minutes of the film turns the events when least expected. Finally the drifter finds a new direction and moves on.

Made by debutant director Homi Adajania, Being Cyrus is a quirky little film. Nattily made on a budget smaller than a regular Page 3 type marriage party, the film is unlike anything you'd see. Though at times I felt that the zany Parsi clan was over the top but this being the vision of a Parsi himself, I'm forced to believe it more than I'd want to. The music by Salim-Suleiman was decent for a change. Saif Ali Khan, for the better part, portrays Cyrus with the right mix of bravado, recklessness and retiring coyness. The delay kind of added to the excitement to the viewing process and oh by the way I still didn't pay for the DVD!

The third film I tried watching was the MTVesque Run Lola Run. Tried being the operative word. It's got to be one of the stupidest films I ever tried watching. I gave up at 30 minutes and 33 seconds. Wow! I could make a film about that and call it '30:33'. I have come across numerous aficionados who rate this film as something wonderful, refreshing and what have you but I'm sorry to say delay or no delay it's highly over-rated. The film is about a gal Lola (you guessed it) who has to run (you guessed this too) for she has 20 minutes tom come up with 100,000 DM to save her doofus of a boyfriend. There are three variations to the tale or so I hear for till 30 minutes and 33 seconds we just started with the first variation. Considering that the film is 10 years old, am sure in 1998 this would have been cool. Perhaps Lola, for me, ran a little too far.

Image Courtesy: www.afi.com and www.bbc.co.uk

Chak De India

After Cheeni Kum and Bheja Fry, Chak De India is the third film I have enjoyed this year. The euphoria that Chak De India has generated reminds me of the same reaction that Black induced from people, even though it was blatantly similar to the Miracle Worker. A few months later many of those who loved Black sang a different tune for now they found Ms. Mukherjee's Chaplinesque walk rather funny and Mr. Bachchan too loud and over the top.

The city-bred sensibilities of the director may have worked against him and didn't allow the film to scratch beneath the surface. The film relies heavily (at times rather too heavily) on stereotypes. Now there is nothing wrong with stereotyping for (a) it saves screen time, (b) it delivers the point and (c) it helps you get out of sticky situations. Having said that am I to believe that Jharkhand is the new catchword for Jungle? Jaideep Sahni who furnished the script and the lyrics has been associated with very interesting films in the past (Khosla Ka Ghosla and Bunty Aur Babli) but this time around falls short.

The film is supposed to be about a bunch of girls who fight all odds and fulfill their dream(s) and about a coach who redeems his past failure as a player. I'm OK with Hockey not getting the center stage but even the personal track of the girls is just fleetingly touched. The cricketer boyfriend is so stereotypical that he could have been left out; the husband of the goalkeeper has two scenes and it looks like the actor (Nakul Vaid) sleepwalked through his lines. The other players have great intro scenes and some masala to enjoy in the middle but the last twenty minutes of the film just wraps up everything with so much of candy floss that it looks like a big cover-up operation.

Using hockey as a metaphor is a nothing but a smart tactic on the part of the people behind the film; cricket’s been done to death and kabadi won’t look as neat! We don't get to know anything about the game; the coach, who seems to be like a father figure, trains everyone the same way and those who don't love him can take the bench. The tactics discussed in the film sound more like basketball than hockey just like Iqbal made cricket look like baseball. Maybe it has some thing to do with the directors who stayed in America for a long time. The officials in the film are straight out of some 1980’s film which is OK for the do reflect the larger gentry’s take on women in sports but wouldn’t it make for greater drama if officials were kind of based on the real culprits? Imagine someone like KPS Gill sitting larger than life in front of SRK.

The manner in which the girls are introduced- all at the same place and in the same style. All of them seem like misfits in the blue print of life. Why? Why couldn’t one of the girls be a ‘normal ’ person who is not being subjected to torture by family or society at large? Only the Chandigarh babe is shown like that but is it that you can only enjoy what you do if you are capable of faking it as a supermodel!? The question is if I liked Chak De India and enjoyed it and am considering watching it a second time around- why the hell am I pissing and moaning so much? Well for one I think it's an opportunity wasted. Shimit Amin's comes across as a smart filmmaker but Ab Tak Chappan still seems like a better story. Chak De India for me is more of a casting success and packaging success than anything else. The casting of the girls is bang on and one just has to see them in action to believe that. The casting director happens to be a classmate of mine with whom I lost touch almost nine years ago; way to go Abhimanyu Ray.

Image Courtesy: India FM

Gandhi My Father

Making a film like Gandhi My Father would never have been an easy task. With great intentions and honest commitment theater man Feroze Khan brings to life the story of Harilal Gandhi, the eldest son of Mahatma Gandhi. Harilal's only ambition in life is to be like his father- he wanted to study law in England but by the time Harilal joins his father in South Africa; Gandhi has started the transformation that would make him a Mahatma. The father realizes that there's more to life than just studying and leading a normal existence and ends up using his first born to experiment his ideals. The son tries to live up but the desire to be a normal human being takes consumes him and he just can't continue to survive being the Mahatma's son. The bow breaks when Gandhi chooses someone else over his son to enjoy the benefits of a law scholarship offered by a supporter. The son tries to run away by posing as someone else but is sent back. He confronts his father and from that point onwards Harilal who was being called 'Chota Gandhi' throws the baton that his father wanted him to hold.

The scene shifts to India, Harilal tries getting back to his studies but fails. He then tries to work but isn't satisfied; he tries his hand at business but ends up stealing his employer's money. All this while Gandhi keeps calling his son to join the freedom movement but Harilal refuses. Harilal's life becomes a series of misfortunate adventures but he doesn't realize that blaming his father isn't the answer. He cracks under the burden of the Gandhi name and decides to convert to Islam. But even then can't get a grip on life and finally ends up becoming a Hindu again. Harilal's mother tries to bridge the gap but Hari refuses to be a part of the family; his wife dies and his children end up growing up with the grandparents but Hari just digresses further. The film finally ends with Harilal trying to convince the hospital staff that the father of the nation is in fact his real father for no one wants to believe a sorry looking alcoholic bum.

Gandhi My Father seems very episodic and that’s perhaps the only thing that mars it. Needless to say the cast is impressive and everyone Akshaye Khanna (Harilal), Darshan Jariwala (Mahatma), Shefali Shah (Kasturba) and Bhoomika Chawla (Gulab Gandhi) is in top form but still the screenplay works like a stage play. It feels like a good idea has been stretched beyond expectations; the screenplay is almost like a pattern for one feels the same thing is being repeated. There are some great scenes that manage to choke you by the sheer intensity- Harilal and Gandhi’s confrontation, Harilal meeting his mother on the platform and Harilal’s conversion- but sadly the pattern is repeated very often in the film. The editing is very strange and makes use of fades so much that one can't help but feel that it's a cover-up operation.

The fact that very little is known about Harilal poses as a problem for the scriptwriter but also frees them considerably to explore and that I think could have been handled better. Besides great acting, especially Akshaye Khanna, the costumes and the production design are impeccable and more than enough reasons to enjoy Gandhi My Father . I never got an opportunity to see the play on which this film is based but after watching the film I can safely say the play must have been really good.

Image Courtesy: www.indiafm.com

Cash

Cash is Anubhav’s Sinha’s follow-up to the action blockbuster Dus. I won’t bore you with details for there aren’t any and I’ll skip telling you about the plot for the film lacks one. By now you must have read tens of reviews which may have broken it to you that Cash=Trash. Well for the better part that is true. The film is about a bunch of people who are after three identical diamonds. These diamonds have a history behind them and everyone from independent buyers; Indian government, thieves and the Chinese mafia are after them. The third diamond turns up in South Africa and that’s where most of the action takes place. There are many players in this drama and most of it unfolds when the characters are not entering or exiting the screen in highly stylized movements. The plot can give competition to any slim wafer brand.

The film does have a few good moments but that’s all thanks to some funny scenes and nothing more. There are two action sequences that could have become the benchmark for action in Hindi cinema had the makers of the film not decided to indulge in some really bad animation. The characters oscillate between real and animation as if you were living your worst nightmare. Why would someone do that, I have no clue? The songs are not a patch on the frenzy title track of Dus save for the title track (lacks the zeal) and Mind Blowing Mahiya (nice song but no need for it!) I didn’t mind the confusing screenplay and bad acting and pathetic writing for I went in without any expectations. Imagine the film which is touted as a heist film doesn't have a single shot of the bloody diamonds that everyone is after. The only shot of the darned diamonds is an animation shot!

Cash reeks of self-indulgence on the part of the director and some really bad writing. Not that Dus was a great film but at least it had some coherence in the form of a wrapped screenplay (Yash-Vinay in either case). The film could have done without the animation and could have used some more light moments for they are the only things worth mentioning about the film. All the actors looks bored and seems like they realized midway that they are a part of something so trashy that they decided to enjoy a paid vacation in South Africa.

The only thing I liked about the film was the scene where conman Ajay is hanging from a bridge and his government official girlfriend, Shamita’s car breaks down and he helps her revive it. That was genuinely funny and of course I thought the camera work was good. The problem with films that are high on gloss is that gloss isn’t enough most of the times. Why is that people with all the resources at their disposal think that just by showing a few fancy cars zooming past and interesting locales would make up for the lack of everything else? The real problem is that people who make such films are very well aware of this little factoid but don’t bother to remember it.

I don’t know why they do that?

Image Courtesy: www.indiafm.com

Time

Kim Ki Duk’s films have a tendency to teeter between the bizarre and the beautiful but nothing prepares you for Time, his 13th feature. The first few minutes of the film are enough to rattle anyone.

The basic plot of the film revolves around a chirpy young woman who just can’t get over the fact that perhaps her boyfriend is bored with her. She keeps noticing that he constantly checks out other women, is cordial towards everyone but her and isn’t even aroused by her anymore. The man tries to convince her that she is nuts but it just doesn’t work. To save her relationship, the woman puts herself through extensive plastic surgery.

The woman just vanishes one fine day and all efforts on the man’s part to locate her fail. The woman returns but we don’t see her for she is always hiding and playing mind games with her boyfriend. Just when he’s about to get over her the woman decided to show up in her new avatar and lo and behold the man falls for her. The woman couldn’t be happier but the only thing that bothers her is the fact that the man still craves her former self. She decides to test him; she sends him a letter as the first one begging to allow her to return. The man, elated and confused, conveys to the second woman that the first one’s back and her wants to be with her; he has no clue that it’s the same woman. This action of his enrages the woman to no end for she can’t believe that her boyfriend would still desire her old self. She accuses him of using her, etc. and finally ends up meeting him with a mask covering her new face and strangely the mask is the face older woman. The man who is now on the edge decides to take off but not before telling her that a change in physical appearance eventually changes you as a person.

The film now takes a fantastic but nonetheless a weird turn when the man decides to prove his love to the woman by transforming himself. The doctor who performs both the operations assures the woman to wait for the boyfriend to return in a new form. Now living a reversed role, the woman goes through the same pangs as she looks at every man with expectant eyes. Time passes and the boyfriend does come back but only to play the same mind games; the woman by now has had enough and asks him to show up. The climax of the film has the woman running after someone who, she is convinced, is her boyfriend but fate intervenes and the man ends up dying in an accident. The film ends with on a note that states the universal fact that one has to be at peace with the inner self rather than be happy with the outer shell.

The first scene has shots of a surgeon’s knife cutting up a woman and the gut churning images of extreme makeover in progress will give anyone a queasy feeling. But Time is a love story albeit an unusual one and plays out like a perfect tragic love story confronting many questions about love. It’s also an interesting film from the aspect of dialogue, for it strangely has a lot of dialogue as opposed to his previous films. Time is a film that will invite extreme reactions. Many, especially Koreans, believe that with the passage of time Kim Ki Duk’s turning out to be some sort of misogynist and perhaps Time adds to the speculation but is it really so? Or could it just be an example of a director relentlessly doing his number and perhaps falling out, at times, with the capricious film fest mob?

Image Courtesy: www.koreansociety.org

Driving With My Wife's Lover

Driving With My Wife’s Lover is an unusual for a Korean film. For starters it’s funny which makes it unlike any Korean film, form the likes of Kim Ki Duk or Park Chang Wook (Old Boy) that you’d usually get to see in India.

The film deals with the journey a man undertakes from a town to Seoul to track down his wife’s lover. He has plans to confront and seek revenge but when he meets the lover, a cabbie, he ends up hiring him to drive him back to the small town he came from. On the way the men are confronted by a series of situations and the two opposites take off. Once on the road the man gets ample time to think about the course of action for his plans but doesn’t reveal his identity to the cabbie. A certain male bonding forces the man to abort his plans for he realizes that they aren’t that different after all. Once back in the town the man undertakes the journey again to elicit vengeance but ends up meeting the wife of his wife’s lover. The taxi driver’s wife confesses that she knows her husband cheats but her love for him stops her from doing anything while the man confesses that he wants to kill both his wife and her husband but can’t get himself to do so. Soon the two lonely people find solace in each other’s arms and end up sleeping together.

The next morning the cabbie returns and is hopping mad when he sees the wife sleeping with the man he drove around. He accuses his ex-passenger of being a fake and tells him that it’s a pity that he’s untrue to his nice self for sleeping with someone else’s wife. The cabbie just can’t take the fact that perhaps his wife could pay him back in the same coin. It’s here that the man divulges his identity to the cab driver and the look on the cab driver’s face is revenge enough for the protagonist. The film ends with an epilogue wherein the cabbie confronts the man once again. His wife has since left him but the cab driver still thinks that the man is lying about him sleeping with his wife.

The film’s humor of the film and it’s tragic-comic tone is what makes it interesting. The two men, who are same yet different as day and night, keep at each other for a better part of the film and it’s their chemistry that keeps you riveted to the screen. Eminently enjoyable, Driving My Wife’s Lover seems like an eccentric road tale film but is a well-mounted story that has some great character study. The film paints an intimate picture about love, loneliness and comfort. This stylized debut from director Kim Tai-Sik may look like a straight tale about infidelity but transforms into a journey of self-discovery.

Image Courtesy: www.cine21.com

Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky is what an Indian would call a typical ‘commercial’ film. The film is set in modern day Hong Kong and is a cat and mouse game between a mastermind of a thief and the HK Police’s surveillance department.

The film starts with the master thief overseeing his team execute a heist while the senior officer of the surveillance team is testing out a new officer on her final test to make it to the elite force. The heist is a success but the boss isn’t happy for his team members don’t seem to adhere the strict regime that thieves need to in order to keep one step ahead of the cops. His biggest fear of the cops catching on comes true when a surveillance camera catches a split second image of one of the members and from that point onwards the cops are on to the gang like bees making love to a flower in full bloom.

The young woman is selected to join the task force and on the very first day of her job manages to track the man, codename: Fatman, the same who was caught on camera. The entire film form that point onwards is how different professionals- a new rookie, a master thief and an experienced cop- battle the situation and insecurities to stay on the job. The film ends with the rookie cop proving her mettle, something which was expected but still Eye In The Sky has its moments. One would have expected a little more interplay between various tools of surveillance and a little jazzier editing but that’s not the real issue with the film.

Considering that it’s a modern film and has an age old but interesting premise, the lack of style becomes more evident for the story doesn’t really have layers. What we have at the end of the day is a very wafer thin plot and thinner characters who really don’t have anything remotely interesting to do. There are nattily done set pieces but that’s just about it. The one interesting action sequence on a deserted expressway is left midday and we don’t know why that happens. Nai-Hoi Yau directs the film and features Wong Kar Wai regular Tony Cheung as the master thief accompanied by Simon Yam as the older cop while Kate Tsui is the rookie.

Image Courtsey: www.moviexclusive.com