satyanshu_singh Reviews

Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey (2010)

My inspiration has let me down!

[4/10 · 4 December 2010]

This is a true story.

In the year 2001, a seventeen-year old boy discovered cinema. He started understanding the difference between the crap that had dominated the popular cinema of his consciousness, the cream of the crap that had resulted in some blockbusters, and the rare cinema rooted in aesthetics of the craft. One important lesson was to understand how 'sound' matters in a movie, among many other big and small mantras he picked up from that textbook of a movie. The final and the most essential lesson was how passion, in fact lunacy, was essential for making a truly immortal film.

The movie that taught the young boy this, went on to win the hearts of people all over the globe. Today, it is considered as one of the landmark films of Hindi cinema. This boy, struck by the achievement and short-sighted by faith, had exclaimed among his movie-crazy friends: "In the next ten years, we are going to have at least five Academy nominations, and two wins!" More than nine years have passed. The boy is now 26. He is waiting no more. He has lost all hope. He has lost his faith.

'Satya' was the film that planted in me the seeds of film-making passion. But I started learning the art with 'Lagaan'. The first foreign-language films I watched were 'No Man's Land' and 'Amelie', because they were in competition with 'Lagaan', and thus I discovered world cinema. I used to follow every word that Gowariker said those days, and thus, following his inspiration, I discovered Guru Dutt, V. Shantaram, and Bimal Roy. The film was followed by a documentary on its making, titled 'Chale Chalo: The Lunacy of Film Making'. I went to watch that in a theatre, covering a long distance by bus, alone.

'Lagaan' had the tagline: Once Upon a Time in India. I never knew it meant something like this can only happen once! To be fair to Ashutosh Gowariker, I do not expect him to re-create something as wonderful as 'Lagaan', or even 'Swades' for that matter. I accepted the flaws of 'Jodha Akbar' and the flaw called 'What's Your Rashi?' with a smile, understanding, as he says, why he made these movies. But this time, I am left disappointed, and angry. You taught me Sir, the importance of correct sound in cinema. Why then, is the sound (including the background score) of this latest film of yours so terribly done? Why have your characters lost themselves to stars, or incompetence of the cast, or your complacence? I remember you had promised this film would be shorter. By your standards, 2 hours 45 minutes is short. But when are you going to realize that each film should be completed within the time that best suits its purpose? I refuse to believe that your passion and your 'lunacy of film-making' remains the same. And that, Sir, is a crime, especially for you than anyone else.

This is a true story. Ashutosh Gowariker is no more among my favourite film-makers. Unfortunately, he has managed to instill an insecurity and fear in me. I am no more worried about my success in this industry. I am afraid of being destroyed post that success, by my own complacency and errors of judgment, and by the loss of the purity and passion I earned through cinema.

Peepli [Live] (2010)

Intent and Imperfection

[7/10 · 15 August 2010]

Aniruddha Guha (DNA) writes in his review of 'Peepli Live' that it 'leaves you impressed but unaffected'. I read the fairly positive review, trying to find out whether Guha tries to diagnose the reason behind this impression he gets from the film. Perhaps he does. I'll try to elaborate.

The premise of the film is extremely powerful, as it plays around, in a stark black comedy, the expected death of a poor farmer, Natha. But in spite of brilliant performances, sharp and intelligent lines, and a different, 'real', and believable setting, there seems to be something missing. And that 'something', in my opinion is the mantra all screen writing gurus insist on. I would name it: 'Progression and Pace'.

After establishing the primary conflict of the film, the writer is supposed to take us on a journey. Not to a circus where we sit and wait for performers to exhibit their vibrant colours but to an active, involving journey of human emotions. Irwin Blacker brilliantly puts it as: "Plot is more than a pattern of events: it is the ordering of emotions." To invoke the desired emotional response, the writer has to establish a serious 'want' for the protagonist – what exactly is at stake; the higher the stake, better the chance for drama. But to actually achieve drama, the writer needs to elaborate and enhance the conflict. Create obstacles in the path of the protagonist who is striving to achieve his dramatic need. These obstacles, preferably as harsh as they could be, and the protagonist's efforts to overcome them is what makes drama affecting. His success or failure in doing so is hardly important. And this entire act of confrontation has to crafted with intelligence and an acute critical eye, making sure that each scene takes the story forwards – it progresses from one plot point to the other with a definitive sense of purpose, remembering that each tree is important without losing the idea of the forest.

'Peepli Live' has the 'want' perfectly in place. But it lacks a purposeful progression of story through well-defined obstacles and attempts by the characters to overcome them. Also, the presence, and active involvement of such a large number of secondary characters causes the plot to meander, not meaninglessly, but diluting the force of the impact. There are sequences which do work. But notice carefully – all those instances are strong plot points, high on conflict-want confrontational drama. Of course, this is a very orthodox approach of writing films. And if you are a genius, you can actually make a beautiful and affecting 'circus-like' film on a thin plot if you manage to create memorable characters and sequences, as Fellini did in most of his movies. But for all of us who are not Federico Fellini, and I think most are not, the conventional rule of 'progression with a sense of purpose' is the rule to follow.

This brings me to the 'pace' of the film. Contrary to the common notion, a film need not be 'pacy' to make an impact. It is attaining just the perfect pace suiting the mood of the film that matters. 'Peepli Live' has apparently too many things happening without actual progression of the story during the most of its hundred minutes. The story is stagnant, but the 'events' are happening hurriedly. So, we do not get time to think and feel the drama that is already minimal. Hence, we feel unaffected. The most affecting portion of this satirical film created in overtones is the final sequence, the denouement or the post-climax. Over the faces of Budhiya and Natha's wife, lost over their bleak fate and ignorance about Natha's reality, the camera makes an obvious meandering motion backwards. Kieslowski would use such camera movements to suggest some supernatural 'eye' looking at our characters. I could not help but feel the same as the camera pulls back and after a long journey through villages and towns reaches a modern city. Without a word more of dialogue or staged action, it presents before us the faces of numerous labourers working at a construction site – all migrants from rural India – trying to survive in the inhuman loneliness of the polluted cities? One of them is Natha, and we have just witnessed his story. But wouldn't there be similar, if not equally heart-wrenching, stories behind all of these helpless faces? There is so much conveyed during this entire closing sequence. And although the closing title reduces it to a 'fact' about farmers in India who have left agriculture and spoils the understated brilliance of it for me, it still succeeds fairly. Notice that this entire sequence has only one strong dramatic reveal; otherwise it is just the stagnancy of its progression, or the 'slow' pace that generates such a strong emotional response in us.

'Peepli Live' would work better in its repeat viewings, when you already know the story, its nature and limitations. It's then that the wonderful detailing and the 'moments' in its narration will make you smile. Its business story and importance, or the lack of it, in Hindi cinema history will always be worth discussing. But to understand the triumph of cinema, we need to keep these aside. The intent of a movie and the courage behind its making must be applauded if it deserves that. And after having done that justly, to really understand the cinematic achievement of it, the craft of the film should be analyzed. Perfection is not the prerequisite for great art, it is the stimulation that it provides to the audience is what matters. 'Peepli Live' does that, by not only making you think about the social issue it addresses but also, if you are interested, by inspiring you to diagnose the merits and demerits of its craft as a work of cinema. That, I believe, is enough of an accomplishment.

LSD: Love, Sex Aur Dhokha (2010)

Light, Sound aur Dibakar

[9/10 · 19 March 2010]

How many times does it happen that during the 8.30 am 'first-day-first-show', you also have one of the lead actors watching the film? It happened today. The actor was Raj Kumar Yadav, who plays the lead in the second story of the film, with his bunch of friends, to cheer at the CBFC certificate and clap at the rolling credits. The film was LSD – which is going to be remembered as one of the gutsiest film ever made in this country. And if you ask me, it is one of the better made ones too.

Everyone is talking about the use of digital cameras in the film, that shake, that go out of focus, that even get stained by blood and water. They are talking about how 'different' it is in its theme, style and use of unknown actors. But it is not the elements that make this film different and significantly better than most of others, it is how the director uses them - an evidence of how cinema can be created by a basic understanding of the medium, of picture and sound, and storytelling, and how a style can be carved out of the technology you use. And this technology, as Godard et al taught us, need not be expensive or state-of-art.

There are scenes in the film pictured in long single shots – as there is just one evident hidden camera. Unlike other films, here you do not have multiple camera setups, so you can not cut between shots – unless you want to use the obviously jerky jump-cut (which in my opinion often breaks the dramatic build-up of the scene). So, you obviously can not 'cut time' and hence the scene occurs in real time, giving you not only dialogue but also the pauses between them – those significant, dramatic moments between the conversations. And to add to that, there is no background music here, only ambient sound. By something as basic as this, the director has managed to create unforgettable cinematic moments and deeply affecting scenes. This is just one of styles adopted by LSD – that makes it truly different, as far as Hindi films are concerned.

You will find so many similar small but brilliant international films in festivals. This time, thanks to the producers, we have one such gem from India, released commercially. I pray for its success – it will help not only independent and digital cinema, but Hindi cinema in general. After Khosla ka Ghosla and Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!, with LSD, Dibakar Banerjee establishes himself as one of those few men in our industry, who know cinema, and who have an expression of their own. And I must congratulate and thank him for proving once again, that to make a good film you hardly need budget and stars. You just need to have a story you are dying to tell, and the cinematic vision, the heart, and a little guts, to do that.

Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year (2009)

Rocket Singh: Attempt of the Year

[8/10 · 11 December 2009]

As I came out of the theatre, a lady was telling to her husband, in one of the most innocent tones possible in Mumbaiyya Hindi, which roughly meant: "I did not get what they were talking throughout the film". It did not surprise me at all. During the interval, my brother had called me. He was in the interval too, coincidentally. We talked for 10-15 seconds. And in that short period, we mutually agreed: it is a difficult film.

What do you expect from the director of 'Ab Tak Chhappan' and the writer of 'Company' and 'Khosla Ka Ghosla'? What do you expect from the next project by this duo, after the hugely successful 'Chak De India'? The problem is, whatever you expect gets hugely affected by the promotion of the current film, and the filmography of these talented people remains nothing more than factual details in the minds of people who care.

This problem, promotion, or selling itself, is the biggest error committed by a film that, ironically, comes with a tag line: "Salesman of the Year." And this could be fatal for the film. It has been promoted as the story of a protagonist who appears to be funny enough to entertain. Sadly, the film is not a comedy. So, if you want a laugh-riot that can make your weekend, it is not the correct film for you. It is a difficult film. And not all difficult films are masterpieces! Rocket Singh is far from that. It is not even the story of this young Sardar. The protagonist of the movie is 'Rocket Singh' which does not exist in person, but as an idea. That idea is the theme, the story and the protagonist of the film. That idea is the message.

But this film manages to achieve something that is rare in this industry madly following a 'formula' that does not exist. This film takes some daring steps. It tries to bridge the gap between the actual changes Indian society has been going through and the stagnancy that has plagued the commercial cinema of this country. The traditional villain has been replaced by the corporate set-up. The point of confrontation is not modesty of a woman or the love-interest of the hero. Here the humiliation is not physical. It is verbal and mental. And it hurts you as much as it has always done. And you want revenge. But even the revenge is not relying on adrenaline, but on planning and making smart moves, and taking calculated risks. There is no comedian. The life itself is a big, dark comedy. And the hero is not a tough guy protecting the poor, but a middle-class man who is running as a salesman in spite of having a place to live, food to eat, and friends to party with. But this is what the life of today has become. And this film tries to explore that reality. The reality that does not have strong, emotional points of conflict, but which is a continuous, never-ending struggle.

In its attempt, it has become a difficult film. During the interval I was thinking: is this subject powerful enough to be made into a feature film? The second half picks up and there are some genuinely funny moments. And a convincing Ranbir Kapoor tries his best to keep you emotionally connected, as does most of the support cast. But in the end, Rocket Singh remains an honest and gutsy 'salesman' that did many things right, but failed while trying to sell itself. If you can ignore this mistake and appreciate the attempt, you might like it. An actor who makes her debut with this film has said that it does not belong to any genre, and this is what will work for the film. I almost agree with the first part of the statement. But will it work? If it is successful, I would be pleasantly surprised, but it is unlikely. As for me, well, I liked it, almost.

Paa (2009)

The story of Auro, a 13-year old boy suffering from progeria. And the story of his Maa, and Paa. In true Bollywood style.

[4 December 2009]

Imagine this. R Balki arrives with his second film after Cheeni Kum (2007), starring Abhishek Bachchan, Vidya Balan, Paresh Rawal and introducing a twelve-year old child actor. We do not know this kid, although it is possible that he impresses us all after we see him perform. But does this essentially guarantee a bumper opening for the movie? Can we safely assume that the audience will come into the theatres? Now, take this. The entire cast and crew remains the same. And although it is indeed possible to find an immensely talented child artist and create the desired character using prosthetic make-up and voice modulation, the director decides to cast Amitabh Bachchan as the child. And he calls the film Paa. The result is for us to see, in the form of one of the most smartly promoted films of our time. This is what we call star power. This is what I admire about the phenomenon of a superstar. And this is what this film uses in the best possible way.

The film also uses the personality, and not the acting, of Abhishek Bachchan to create a gen-next politician, and we connect. It uses Vidya Balan to portray a strong, independent, modern Indian woman, and most importantly – a mother; and we connect. And it utilizes the human curiosity for the weird, our tendency to look at 'freaks' with wide eyes and held breaths, and converts that 'freak' into a warm, lovable and memorable character called Auro, and takes us into his world. It uses songs, melodrama and the Bollywood cliché to tell a story. It relies on the time-tested formula of emotional manipulation and succeeds in making the audience cry. It has decent production values, is marketed smartly and sold at cheap rates. The result is not a great, timeless, flawless piece of art. The result is a film that knows how to use the illusion of the medium. The result is a movie that moves.

The best thing about Paa is that it knows what it is doing. It does not claim to be 'socially relevant', and does not ask us to leave our brains home before coming to the theatres. Instead it asks us to bring our brains, our hearts, our entire selves, not excluding the 'curiosity for the weird' that we all have but fail to accept. It treats itself as a film for everyone, and successfully creates an entertaining cinema experience. In its attempt, it often gets inconsistent, but it never seems uncertain. It is an innovation, and yes, that it is, which is sure of itself, including how to sell itself. It is an innovation that does not go wasted, and that is indeed an achievement in the Hindi film scenario of today.

It has been a few decades now and Hindi cinema is desperately in the need for revival. For that to happen, if it ever happens, we need socially relevant cinema, we need cinema as works of art, we even need cinema with an international appeal, and with the guts to experiment . But what we need most is innovative ideas, true to Hindi cinema sensibility and tradition, not necessarily great in the absolute cinema-sense, but films which make people come, watch and connect. We need more films like Paa. I have no idea about how it is going to fare at the box-office. If it is a commercial success, my point would be proved beyond doubt. If it fails, well, I will try my best not to lose hope.

Namkeen (1982)

A Gulzar film with a difference

[8/10 · 31 May 2009]

I have watched almost all Gulzar films. Ijaazat, Aandhi, Mausam, Machis, Meera, Kitaab, Koshish, Parichay, Khushboo, Angoor and Kinara - all were nice. Some close to masterpieces, others great work and just a few not-so-good ones. Like 'Mere Apne' wasn't too appealing for me. Lekin, Achanak, Hu Tu Tu and Libaas are those I haven't seen yet. But still there are certain elements that are common in almost all Gulzar films. 1. Stories of longing, unfulfilled love (Ijaazat, Aandhi, Mausam, Machis, Khushboo and Kinara) 2. Screenplays with strategic flash-backs and flash-forwards (Ijaazat, Aandhi, Mausam, Machis, Kitaab and Kinara) 3. Mature, multilayered characters who talk like Gulzar (all of his films) 4. A title that can be interpreted in beautiful ways (Ijaazat, Aandhi, Mausam, Kitaab, Parichay, Khushboo, Angoor, Kinara)

This time it was different. It was again a story of longing, of unfulfilled love. But its screenplay structure is slightly different. It looks more like a Shyam Benegal, Mrinal Sen, Govind Nihalani type of screenplay, with Gulzar's dialogues. It takes its own time to grow, moves slowly and is not as cerebral as his other screenplay structures. Even the plot points are subtle and not dramatic enough.

There is one flashback sequence, coming late in the movie. Otherwise it is a linear narrative.

Characters are mature but not multilayered. They are simple, which is a welcome change from Gulzar. They are poor, caught in the simple troubles of life. For them, everyday bread is a greater concern than falling in love. They are not very educated and although they still 'talk like Gulzar', they are more like themselves.

And the title is based on one of the principal characters.

It is more like an European film. Its drama is like that of a Kieslowski film. It is more like an account of the lives of these people than a complete story with dramatic twists.

It is still great. And it ends in a beautiful and haunting manner. Moving you deeply.

Now, the catch.

I have watched this film just today. And what I come to know is - the DVD version is abridged. The original cut had a dramatic twist in the end. Hence the lack of drama that I talked about in my comment. I read what the original ending was. But I prefer it this way. The DVD version was good enough for me. I doubt the original cut would have appealed me equally.

It is a must watch for Gulzar fans. For those who are new to his cinema, you should first go for Ijaazat, Maachis, Mausam, Aandhi, Kitaab and Koshish.

Like Stars on Earth (2007)

a special film for the special child in all of us

[9/10 · 21 December 2007]

for a mainstream Hindi film, the following is rare: 1. a film for children2. the only star of the film getting a limited screen space 3. high quality animation4. choosing undertones over melodrama, 5. no regular masala stuff 6. strong message that can actually change lives of people 7. conviction and honesty of the makers palpable in every frame 8. and in spite of all this, the movie offering complete, healthy entertainment...

the only problem with the audience is that although we keep shouting on the extreme want of quality cinema, meaningful cinema, when a good film actually comes, we tend to find more flaws in it than appreciating it. Are we insecure of accepting somebodies honesty and creative genius?

Sure, Taare Zameen Par has moments that could have been better, but shouldn't we just try to overlook those and once, for all, applaud the effort the makers have put...

and believe me it is not difficult... for there are innumerable other moments that leave you spellbound, a wet film over your eyes, a strange pain down your throat, a mild ache at your heart, but a pure smile on your lips... there are times you wish you were a kid...

may be it takes a child to love simple tales told with honesty and warmth... may be we grown ups have lost that quality we all once had... but Taare Zameen Par should touch a chord somewhere in every one's heart... we all have been after all, at least for some beautiful part of our lives, special. the film is dedicated to that special child in all of us...

P.S- no one can hate it...at least i would like to think that way

The Sound of Music (1965)

Hollywood should come up with more movies with songs and dance numbers

[9/10 · 9 January 2007]

I saw this movie just a few days ago. I have seen a number of English movies, but this was special. I am from India and the movies here inevitably contain songs and dance numbers, barring a few exceptions. But as many as 10+ songs in a Western movie was something new for me, and it was unique. But I loved it. I showed the movie to my mother. She doesn't understand English very well, I had to keep interpreting the lines for her. But she too loved the movie. I had read somewhere, this is one movie, a copy of which should be there in every home on Earth. And i agree. It is an experience I wont ever forget. however, I wonder, why are musicals so rare in the west? we watch almost 100 Hollywood movies every year, and I have watched just two with songs. Movies from the west are good, I only wish they produce more of musicals, I am sure the world is ready for some of those. And I am sure, the west can make great musicals each month. I hope someone grants me my wish.

Jal Bin Machhli Nritya Bin Bijli (1971)

the story of a girl who is extremely passionate about dancing, and how she fights all odds for celebrating the great art of music and dance.

[8/10 · 22 December 2006]

it is difficult to believe that this is a movie by V Shantaram. he had started making movies when it was still the 'silent era' in India, the late 20s. this movie was made in 1971. it is difficult to believe a single artist can grow so much in technique and execution during one lifetime.perhaps he always was great, ahead of his times, he kept waiting for technological advancements and when it happened, he knew very well how to make the best use of them. those who are not well-exposed to the Indian style of film making may find this movie an amusing experience and may fail to relate with the pure worship of music and dance which the movie so honestly delivers. the title, when roughly translated to English, means- 'A fish without water, lightening without dance!' the maker takes us to the lives and passion of two artists, and we realize how important music and dance can be for someone, that it transcends all boundaries of real and unreal, life and death, relations and materialism.the climax witnesses a unique blend of the real and the divine, and the will power of the girl enables her to achieve the pure dream of her life. in one word, this movie is a 'spiritualistic' take on the art of dance. and it is beautiful. there are different types of dance and the choreography, even decades down the line, remains a text book of sorts. perhaps the honesty and classical look of the movie make it difficult for many people to appreciate it, but for those who do get attached to it, would cherish it throughout their life. even if there are a handful of them, i am sure V Shantaram would have been glad. hats off to the great artist.