srsaprba Reviews

Penguin (2020)

Turkey could have been more apt title

[1/10 · 23 June 2020]

This is another Indian variant of viral strain of B-grade Hollywood horror genre, though such things have been tried before. Any one remembers Sigappu Rojakal (1978) ('erra gulabeelu' in Telugu)? Got very good rating on IMDB (7.8 as of this writing) not because it is exceptional, but very likely it was very novel at that time. The novelty factor vanishes with this film, except perhaps for the director who needed to do lot of catching up on the state-of-the art of bad horror film making.

A physically vulnerable person (pregnant lady in this case) constantly putting herself in a known danger just to investigate the mystery (of missing kids) is a constantly irritating theme over the ages, and that waste is recycled here. Going alone, driving alone, without any help, it looked as if Keerti Suresh's character was well aware that this was all just a film shooting, and one could all have a jolly laugh at the end of the day about fake blood over a dinner. Somehow, some character in some horror film manages to have trouble starting the car, open the door handle or some such contrived tension - and yes, this film is no exception to this worn out device.

Keerthi Suresh tried, but bit too hard and she is let down by a bad story and directionless direction. Excessive focus on her sidelines supporting cast, reinforcing the weakness of the story. If one wants to create a highly intelligent psychopath characters, the director should endow them with intelligent talking, not facile dialogues and relying instead on shock value of cheap gory details.

Sye Raa Narasimha Reddy (2019)

Soundly Patriotic Unsoundly Cinematic

[7/10 · 13 October 2019]

South Indian cinema for a long time has been under the shadow of Tamil films when it comes to large budget. Bahubali (2015, 2017) changed that to some extent. With Sye Ra, is center of gravity shifting to Telugu films? We do not know, but the mind boggling impact of the film can hardly be exaggerated.

This highly fictionalised hagiography of Narasimha Reddy who led a heroic rebellion against British in 1846 is imbued with such gravitas that Chiranjeevi excels in the role as no one could. He was ably supported by other stellar cast including Tamanna, Nayanatara, Amitabh and a host of others.

By British one should remember it was East India Company (EIC) which was the power, before control was acquired by the British Crown ten years later in the wake of the Sepoy Mutinee. The film in fact starts with Jhansi Laxmi Bai (Anushka Shetty in a guest role) referring to this episode as if to suggest this rebellion as the forerunner of the struggle that ultimately led to independence. This again was a concoction.

What is true is that EIC overhauled the traditional agrarian structures that played havoc with the farmers. In theory the changes were more egalitarian, but adversely affected everyone including relatively higher status section, 'polygars', to which Narasimha Reddy family belonged. Polygars' erosion of their status was one of the grievances against EIC. The popular resentment against British was harnessed by Narasimha Reddy who channeled this into a rebellion. This socio-economic context is missing from the film which depicted the situation as a part of freedom struggle against the exploitative British to free 'mother India'. This is like painting trees in a canvas but forgetting the ground.There was little unity among the polygars, let alone in wider India in the form of nationalism which did not evolve until much later. Nor was the notion of 'Bharatamaata' existent although Seetarama Sastry's grand song "pavithra dhaathri bharataamba muddhu biddavavura" evokes this.

Sye Raa rewrote history, not just in collections, but actual history. We learn that Narasimha Reddy beats even death at his birth, becomes a boy to be tutored by no less than Amitabh Bacchan to hone his vengeful sentiments against the British. The seer advises him that it was no use depending on muscle, one also needed this, pointing at his head. This advice was not all too well heeded by the director himself as there was more of muscle power than brain power on display, with lot of shouting, and even more shouting across both sides of the divide. This is a contest between little guy vs big guy, morality vs evil,and the audience would naturally root for the upright underdog. Add to this, the heady ingredient of patriotism, mythological bent of 'narasimha', you have an intoxicating movie formula. However, in an epic film of this scale, fighting a superior British force would call for superior tactics to outwit the former, requiring strategic thinking. But why should director waste time in thinking when he has no less than Chiranjeevi who could take on hundreds of opponents single handed, in standard Telugu film hero style? He doesn't, and the boy Narasimha Reddy evolves into a middle aged looking man in about fifteen minutes into nearly three hour film. The director was in hurry to get his main lead hit the ground running, literally. Sai Dharam Tej, who has striking similarities to Chiranjeevi could have filled in the youthful image for a brief period before bringing the big and aged Chiranjeevi to allow a better transition.

The hero is made to look superior with the usual device of making his opponents ridiculously cheap, with the British counterparts uttering inanities. This is a fatal flaw. Bellowing war cries, one character could be exchanged for the other without loss of generality. The characterization lacks depth with all major personalities resorting to theatricals rather than showing their strong personalities through their talking. This is a high decibel patriotism. Gandhi in Gandhi (1982) would be quite out of place in this film set. Ironic, considering the film was released in celebration of his 150th birth anniversary. Alternative would require high quality dialogue writing. Lacking this, the director fills this lacunae with action sequences.

That concept extends to female leads. Even in a historical film of this type, the director managed to please macho enthusiasm of Chiranjeevi's fans with customary multiple love interests - Tamanna and Nayantara. The former falls into the hands of British and the officer, upon learning of her love for Sye Raa, becomes forerunner of Gabbar Singh in 1975, ordering her to dance, that too nude (Gabbar Singh had better manners, but he is imbued with Indian values and they are dastardly British). She adapts a trick from Arundhati (2009) to weaponise her long garment to become a suicide bomber (talk of one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter!). This was however crass kinky notion, similar to Vijayashanti scene in Pratighatana (1985), no doubt, to create empathy for the victim. In another scene the British guy claims first night rights to newly wed girls,in lieu of taxation. Imagine a public policy set against such depravity. The fine print here is that Indians were not particularly fighting a worthy opponent, but a vastly inferior and depraved creature. What is so heroic in that? Gandhi would never agree to such a characterization of the British. Narasimha reddy - the original - must have fought a vastly superior enemy with high intelligence than the one shown in this historical perversion. In that sense, he and Gandhi are true heroes than the celluloid Sye raa, no matter how much the latter shouts patriotic slogans.

The second half of the film is devoted to some intrigue engineered to bring down the great man by his own people. At least this thread could have been developed to create a character based story line. This was not to be the case. Characters remain two dimensional, including Chiranjeevi who is three dimensional only physically, outshouting the British who, if not for the costumes, complexion, could be mistaken for another Rayalaseema faction with English accents. Yes, costumes! They are excellent, but the director Surender Reddy seems to imagine that a historical film is all about fitting exotic outfits to characters in the same way Sanjay Leela Bhansali did in Padmavat (2018), In the end, during the trial, the judge states that he would spare Sye Raa's life if he apologized. We know from Tagore (2003), 'apology' was the last word Chiranjeevi would like (and by this point it was through and through Chiranjeevi film), so he did not budge, accepting the consequences.

Excessive actions sequences have no novelty after Bahubali. One does not need another camera angle of gravity defying acrobatics of Chiranjeevi. No need of John Woo's pot boiler slow motion stunts which evoke a temporary high. A novel way of showing choreographing these could have been attempted. An example is Robin Hood (2018), also about a rebel fighting extortionist taxation (English against English, in this case). The choreographic talent, as often is the case, is expended in songs and dance, omitted from the essential item: battle scenes.

Alluri Seetarama Raju (1974, starring Krishna and Vijaya Nirmala) based on the eponymous leader of rebellion against the British was comparably a superior technical advance, being the first cinemascope film in Telugu. The characterisation of historical figures, one would hope, has progressed in the 45 years since then. This is not the case unfortunately. We see Chiranjeevi rather than Narasimhsa Reddy, Amitabh Bachhan rather than Guru Gosayi Venkanna - perhaps this is a reverse method acting. The action is outstanding under these constraints, but these great actors excel in their roles as a standard fare, thus this was no different.

This was a wasted effort in spite of its commercial success, and whatever loyal Chiranjeevi fans, or born again Chirjaneevi fans or neophyte fans claim. Chiranjeevi himself reportedly wanted to play a historical character. This film fulfills that wish and meant much to him. Now, who can be critical about this film? Chiranjeevi himself because he would know that people who actually love films will not come out of the film screening with that satisfaction one feels with the likes of missamma, nartanaSaala, maayaabaZaar, Lagaan, Gandhi, Wages of Fear, Spartacus, Dasboot, Zurrasic Park, Schindler's List, The God Father and so on. On those grounds, not a great film for the 'true film lovers' and the box office success does not match the real quality of film making. We are yet to see a world class film that matches high caliber potential of Chiranjeevi. Hopefully the commercial success of this spurs advances in that direction.

Rangasthalam 1985 (2018)

A very artificial stage

[6/10 · 6 April 2019]

Synopsis: Two brothers confront a draconian village president to take him head on with the help of a high end functionary of a political party.

Ramcharan did what few of his contemporaries dared to do - starring in a risky offbeat film which some even termed an 'art film' which in popular parlance means absence of fancy costumes, stylistic gravity defying fight sequences, and suspension of belief. Till the end it is not clear who would survive the film - I mean among the characters, not the audience. This is because Ram Charan's Chitti babu is a hot tempered, uncool non-superhero, but vulnerable. He is also handicapped with deafness, a handicap that extends to the film's weak story line. It is also a mystery why Chitti babu refuses hearing aid except to artificially inflate dragging narration of the film in figuring out who the bad guys are. The deafness device is overused, especially when his brother is seriously harmed and trying to utter the name of the perpetrator and Chitti Babu obviously could not hear due to over dramatised auricular malfunction.

Anasuya Bharadwaj, with an anachronistic dress sense for the story supposedly set in 80s, is purely serving as a glamorous Rangammatha aunt to Chitti babu. The sad flashback is only expected to enhance her bedazzling persona when Chittibau is commiserating with her. Even with the combined fire power of her travails and that of the villagers who lost loved ones due to vile village head Bhupathi ( Jagapathi Babu), the latter remains a stereotype cartoonish villain - irritating more than frightening, making it another weak characterisation. The most miscast person is Aadhi Pinisetty as Kumar Babu who is too soft to show necessary gravitas for the role of the elder brother of volatile Chitti babu, and as a candidate to the village throne. Aadhi often comes across stronger in villain roles more than positive ones, another instance where negative roles add more sting to the character than acting talent. A stronger screen presence could be someone like Allu Arjun who is no stranger to offbeat portrayals of martyrdom through Vedam (2010). The funeral scene was especially too long overdrawn mawkish harangue, and drains audience empathy.

Another hole in the story line is concerning relationship between Kumar Babu's love interest Padma (Poojita Ponnada) being the mentor Dakshina Murtyhy's (Parakash Raj) daughter. Audience also do not know this relationship and also do not know that the brothers did not know. The ignorance of this weak factoid is converted into a linchpin of the whole story and explanation for the camouflaged hostility of the girl's father towards the brothers.The final twist of vengeance reminds 'ab tak chappan' (2004, *ing Nana Patekar) which was adapted into Telugu 'siddham' (2009, *ing Jagapathi Babu), wiping out further novelty from the film.

Overall, it is a risky effort, but a wasted one due to poor characterisation and story.

Ram Charan, however shines forth single handed. The item number with Pooja Hedge demonstrates his astounding graceful athleticism that makes him a preeminent dancer in Telugu cinema, or perhaps in India. Samantha is charming, but again, she is treated as a rustic ornament to the whole film, not doing enough justice to her talents - another instance female roles being given short shrift, even when there is great scope in a film like this.

Nota (2018)

Muddled romantic vision of politics

[6/10 · 6 April 2019]

Varun (Vijay Devarakonda), a chief minister's happy-go-lucky son inherits that august position, in time honoured Indian political tradition, when the dad Vinothan (Nasser), grounded by corruption cases, resigns. Varun is a fun loving chap, but the guy works in London, as if to hint that he is apart and did not inherit dad's traits. He also got a tender heart which he serves as a side dish on special occasions. He wants to celebrate his birthday in an orphanage. How lovely! There starts a one man army to transform the state in one fell swoop, doing nice things to people. We have seen this before, Leader (2010), Bharat ane nenu (2018), and this is yet another muddled romantic vision of bringing just democracy to people with dictatorial powers and near unlimited money supply. These one man dictatorial shows existed in real life too, in the past century. The story repeats, first as a tragedy, next as farcical Telugu films.

This film spans additional threads in the vogue. Secret accounts of political leaders in Panama stashing thousands of crores; an odious Swamiji befriending Vinothan, with power on the latter's political influence, and Lord of the Rings' Sauron like eye on his material affluence. Varun starts investigating all this and dispatches one of his game designer colleagues to hack Panama accounts. Apparently, game companies that operate on tight budgets and often go to wall, have funds for such an enterprise. Never mind. Kicking away the context to foreign countries is a device used to take liberties with the plot. Satyaraj as Mahendra continues his Bhishma kind of kindly demeanour from Bahubali, radiating even more benevolence and advises Varun as if the latter were a philosopher king. Nasser takes up where he left off in Bahubali too, sounding more menacing than ever, plotting against his own son at some point. Then we come to know of some twists that entwine the lives of Varun, Vinothan and Mahendra.

There are two lead women who are mercifully spared usual song and dance ensemble with the hero. However Varun's characterization is pretty weak. On the one hand he is a playboy clubber, to please some section of the audience, next he is foreign returned, with supposedly thoughtful sophisticated concerns on corruption, to please another section, and then forgetting the sophistication, morphs into "rowdy CM" which excites "mass". His CM position does not prevent him from irresponsibly getting drunk, shown to be funny, cool, glamorous and trendy.

Ko.Ku (Kodavatiganti Kutumbarao) remarks somewhere that one should not write stories set in an environment the writer is not familiar with. "Yes, minister (1980-88)" the British political satire and its sequels fall in this category, with comical interpretation of dour British political developments. So is the case with 'House of cards (2013-18)', rather outlandish sinister interpretation of politics on the other side of the Atlantic. Both are nevertheless credited with closely mirroring the reality, passing KoKu's test. Films like NOTA do not inspire such confidence. These are absurd interpretations of not so well informed writers, with politicians reduced to cartoons. These are not political, but just another excuse to show heroics of the lead guy under the guise of "alternate politics" - a strange non existing beast. Late British politician Tony Benn, before standing down as MP, famously said he was quitting parliament because he wanted to focus on politics. Giving up power for empowering people. There has been a spate of Telugu films where the protagonist assumes dictatorial powers to empower people. Spot the difference!

Interesting in plot, weak in execution, unrealistic and unconvincing main lead.

Geetha Govindam (2018)

Another love (non)story

[5/10 · 4 January 2019]

Boy falls for a girl, but literally falls on her due to a mishap, triggering a big misunderstanding and then they obviously get together in the end.

Another love story. Rashmika Mandanna is Geetha and Vijay Devarakonda is Vijay Govind, capturing the film title. He is a college lecturer with one student Neelu developing a huge crush without reciprocal sentiments from Vijay. He got some ideas about his own life partner, and comes across Geetha in a temple. Lovely looking girl in traditional clothes in a temple setting has pretensions of holiness conferred in the context and yes, yet another instance of love-at-first-sight blossoming in the guy's heart.

Then he has to go on a bus journey to attend his sister's engagement. Geetha also happens to travel in the same bus. Telugu cinematic surprise surprise! Unsurprisingly, her seat is next to Vijay's. The guy is ecstatic and tries to woo her, pretending to be extra nice to fellow passengers - supposed to be comedy, but Telugu films have seen better. An elderly lady wants to exchange her uncomfortable last row seat with his. He is rather annoyed at being separated from his beau, but unsurprisingly the girl joins him in a short while, because very conveniently her new neighbour has even more annoying snoring. Unsurprisingly again, the last row is empty, but for these two. Having dragged the story this far, bringing these physically together, the director moves on to the next gear.

Here comes the linchpin of the story: the old story of 'sleeping beauty' gets a selfie upgrade. Geetha sleeps on one side of the seat, while Vijay, on the opposite end, unable to contain his joy, moves closer, and resisting temptation to touch her, attempts to take a selfie while nearly reclining on the girl who is asleep. Unsurprisingly again (we will soon lose count of these 'unsurprises'), the bus gets into a bumpy ride just at this moment, and he falls on her and seals his fate with an accidental kiss.The princess wakes up, naturally, and starts scolding him for this misbehaviour. He pleads with her, saying that he was only trying a selfie and the kiss was not deliberate. She does not believe and blows her fuse - albeit cutely, because in Telugu films, badly yelling at misbehaving good looking heroes is not polite.,

A point to note: throughout the film, there is an implicit assumption that the hero was innocent, and trying to do a selfie close to a sleeping woman was OK. That he is violating her personal space does not occur even to the heroine (the girl being a usual decorative piece). He is after all not trying to touch her, a few millimeters still separate them. That's alright then. Fast forward to a few scenes, hero gets annoyed and thrashes the miscreants who are provocatively revving their motor bike close to the girl, albeit without touching her. That's harassment, as this clever college lecturer infers, acquiring sudden commonsense. Well, that's obvious because those blokes are ugly. If only they were a good looking guys like the hero, the scene would have been considered charming. Or if the bus incident involved a horrid looking fella, that would have been abhorrent too, rather than the cuddly misunderstanding the director peddled it as.

Geetha vows to have him thrashed by her brothers for the trouble he caused, but does not alert fellow passengers who could have apprehended him (another 'unsurprise'). Vijay escapes, runs into his native town only to know that his sister was going to be married to Geetha's brother. Geetha spares him for the sake of his innocent sister, much to his relief. The separated pair need to be physically brought together. Conveniently, Geetha is told by the ever convenient elders to take Vijay's help in wedding related activities like shopping, card distribution. Any sensible girl would have right away rejected the prospect of being thrown together with her molester. But this being a Telugu romantic film, and a 'comedy', she accepts to create comical friction that director no doubt thought was funny. His idea of creating a strong heroine is to show her uttering dialogues with clenched teeth as a sign of protest. Cuteness on steroids.

Of course the heroine should eventually feel remorseful that the hero is a damn fine chap, after all. The moment arrives soon. Recall the college girl infatuated with the lecturer Vijay. She sends an indecent image of her to impress him. He being a decent chap goes to her home and slaps her in front of her mother to teach her a moral lesson, and as the opportunity beckons, rambles an additional lesson on why she is the only child to them (really, these lecturers should stick to syllabus). The real moral lesson here is that a girl cheapening herself in the eyes of a guy becomes his property to be beaten up. Our strong heroine is mighty impressed by the guy's powerful moral fibre, and goes after him, but as the usual macho protocol dictates, it is now hero's turn to reject a beautiful girl as she supposedly falls short of the exacting standards he has set (he has a rather schmaltzy requirement that his would be wife should remind his dead mom). The heroine despairingly remarks that if only he had slapped her, she would have learnt a lesson too, come to senses, and things would have been hunky dory. Before we leave this slapping cheeky chappy, a slight detour. In an old black and white film, in a scene involving ANR, a character utters that if a wife did not listen, one should beat her up to control her. That's what good husbands are supposed to do. That was over 40 years ago. We have progressed much. Now, this great facility is not limited to wives, but also extended to potential wives.Thank you very much!

Well, this drags on for a while and they predictably settle in the end. The immaturity of the characters shows through; and so does their love story, stretched thin on a flimsy bus episode. Vijay Devarakonda's monotonic action continues. If he were a serial killer in the next film, he would deliver with same diction as he would do to a lover in a romantic film, and past several films. Rahul Ramakrishna talents were under utilized with juvenile comedy which improves somewhat with the entrance of Vennela Kishore.

That this has become a superb success speaks more about Telugu cinema than the film.

U Turn (I) (2018)

Story diluted to the point of no return

[7/10 · 4 January 2019]

Rachana, an aspiring intern with a major newspaper is working on road civic sense of people who take illegal shortcuts like u-turns on busy roads. She wants to interview to understand mindset of people whose actions expose other road users to perilous conditions. One would imagine this to be an utterly insipid topic (even for an intern), until it unfolds into a major murder mystery. One of the prospective interviewees ends up dead on the day she attempts to visit his home. The police pick her up as a suspect, but Nayak (well played by Aadhi Pinisetty in a very restrained sure footed note), realizes that something major was afoot. When people taking u-turn on the flyover start facing fatal consequences, Samantha's investigative zeal compels her to repeat a dangerous experiment Benjamin Franklin (who conducted the potentially fatal kite experiment) would have been proud of. She takes the dreaded u-turn to find out what happens. It would be an uphill task to resolve a gripping mystery like this on normal terms. Thus the film, goes downhill, making a u turn from normal to paranormal. An added curiosity is a mysterious homeless man who looks like a darker version of Peter Dinklage (of 'Game of Thrones' fame), albeit less mercurial, and assists Rachana. This mystery however does not span any interesting thread, and the homeless man remains role-less for the rest of the film.

The fatal flaw in the film is why people are taking u-turn precisely at the same spot spanning about a couple of feet on a road stretching hundreds of meters. The story could have provided plausible explanation (for e.g. Divider stones coming off loose in that particular segment).

The film preaches civic sense, but the missing issue is common sense. Why were the builders allowed to leave heavy loose stones as dividers on a busy road? The vengeful vigilante spirit (Bhumika Chawla) should have gone after that builder, then the authorities approving this, then the minister responsible, and then.. OK, let's stop here. Speculating on these macabre lines against the powerful all the way to the top may land people in trouble these days. The ghost instead prowls on smaller fish, taking law into its own hands (is there something like ghosts violating law?)

Samantha carries the whole film with her superior acting, and she reminds Anasuya (2007), whose eponymous role was played by none other than Bhumika, that too as a news reporter investigating murders. The film has no distracting songs, focusing on the story. There are no heavy duty scenes of blood, gore for a film of this genre, and instead sports some of the cutest ghosts in the town.

Paranormal stories are hard to get right. Once the cat (ghost actually) is out of the bag, the mystery unravels. Unlike with humans, anything can happen with these entities, making the story too fluid, inconsistent and diluted because of which the initial gripping story became watered down. This is no 'The Omen' (1976), but then few are.

RX 100 (2018)

Knock out first three letters in the title to get the rating...

[27 September 2018]

The most interesting sequence in the film is the appetizing street bajji and bonda making scene, compensating for the insipid dialogues and sub par comical poetry which makes the hero, who apparently has very low bar for sense of humour, laugh. A city educated girl, already in a relationship, comes home to village and falls for ruffian rugged looks of a rustic hulk, with shabby denouement - a poor story handled poorly.The movie could have been developed into a thrilling story of femme fatal, but as often happens, the real story is ten minutes which is just a cover for filling up rest of two and half hours with what now a days euphemistically goes by 'raw', 'bold' scenes and plenty of violence, in a formulaic trope. Kartikeya Gummakonda's is not bad when he is not acting or talking, especially in climax scenes with modulated rumbling diction that passes for a bad Telugu TV serial. Payal Rajput as the lead lady is decent without being scintillating. Her persona with commitment issues, even if not a role model, could have been moulded into a more interesting one, but this opportunity is frittered away, with little character development.

Sacred Games (2018–2019)

Somewhat engaging, but more profane than sacred

[6/10 · 12 August 2018]

The story is about a feared fearless gangster Ganesh Gaitonde (Played by Nawazuddin Siddiqui) who calls cop Sartaj Singh (Saif Ali Khan) to inform of an impending calamity to befall Bombay in 25 days time. There is no apparent connection between them to warrant this tip off, until the gangster reveals that he knew Sartaj's father. This is the appetizer that sets the stage to uncover a dark conspiracy.

The story goes to and fro from past to present tracing the life of Gaitonde, born to a pious Brahmin priest. Early on, he realizes that priesthood is not his true calling, but being a gangster is. He did not want to serve God, he wanted to be Him, and develops annoying habit of posing the question: 'do you believe in god'? When Sartaj gets around to face the gangster, the god predicts that, except for 'Trivedi' whole Mumbai would be doomed. Without elaborating further, the god "disappears", and given the circumstances, Sartaj knew that he was not lying. Why the gangster could not sing like a canary, instead of leaving this as a puzzle to occupy a long TV series, is still a puzzle. May be that is the underworld speak, to keep up the suspense, for prospective film projects. The episode ends, just as it started - with a killing, with more killings in between, spends lot of meandering time introducing characters such as Radhika Apte's RAW analyst Anjali Mathur, Sartaj's corrupt, trigger happy domineering boss DCP Parulkar (played by Neeraj Kabi).

The story depicts - surprise surprise - nexus between underworld, films and politics in which professional outcasts like Sartaj do not easily fit in. A good cop predictably falls foul of the bad cop Parulkar who prevents Sartaj from investigating the case, and resents RAW's interference. Equally predictably, Sartaj continues freelance investigation, encouraged by Anjali whose role is too bland, neither semi-dynamic Alia Bhatt's RAW agent in 'Raazi' (2018), nor analytical Claire Danes in Homeland (2011-). Almost like an after thought, she is given some anti sexist lines to utter to serve up token feminism. Warming up to this progressive trope, the director exhibits prosthetic concern for transgenders too, lest one forgets. Sartaj character has frequent brushes with the nasty guys, but is blessed with more lives than a cat - laughable in a story packed with more death than life. They simply let him off. Blood and gore gangsters are perhaps particularly kind to the policeman who goes out of his way to investigate them.

Various events are introduced: Sartaj comes across a really large amount of counterfeit cash in a house; an ex-partner of Gaitonde survives a shootout massacre, rescued by RAW, but still lucks out (one wonders why no one thinks of providing security to their prized catch); then there is another of Gaitonde's associates, the communal psychopath with cuddly name like 'Bunty' who has actress Nayanika in his sadistic stranglehold.While audience is trying to make sense of these events, we are thrown back again to delve into murky raise of Gaitonde.

After nearly half a dozen episodes, one gets the feeling that the story is a collection of randomly dotted events, punctuated by violence (and to some extent sex), clumsily interwoven with potpourri of past events like partition, Sha Bano, Bofors, Babri Masjid etc - Hindu/Muslim fault lines. Again these are just thrown in pretentiously to give an impression of a sweeping epic, which it is not, as Gaitonde hardly participates directly in these. It is more a calendar - Gaitonde could perhaps say to a girl..'do you remember the lovely day when we first met? Babri Masjid was getting demolished..' or something like that.

But Gaitonde's is besotted with Kukoo (Kubbra Sait) the 'lucky charm' of Suleiman Isa (Saurabh Sachdeva), a rival gangster. He manages to detach her from Isa, which, as the cinematic etiquette demands, earns eternal enmity between the men. There is however not much to the Kukoo's character other than a few banal sound bites to warrant such infatuation from the pretenders to the Bombay's prized underworld crown. It is also astounding that Gaitonde did not realise Kukoo was a transgender in spite of having sexual relations, unless, he is 'sexually agnostic' to coin a meaningless phrase in line with the pompous names given to each episode as if to sound profound ("Aswathama", "Halahala" ect). Sartaj's subordinate, comical Katekar ( Jitendra Joshi) investigates a missing person in a separate thread. The cognitive overload of various such seemingly unrelated strands, and with the device of flashbacks, and violence gives the veneer of engaging drama. Only in the final episodes, the story comes into to its stride, in slow and partial denouement of various threads. At times it feels like a low rent Ram Gopal Varma's film with extreme levels of obscenities (if you edit out, you literally delete entire scenes) and quite a few sex scenes added. Somehow many people seem to consider such sordid thrills as a novelty and monumental achievement, on par with Hollywood standards, and golden age of Indian cinema is around the corner. Ahem! In this charming view, the series offered creative freedom to film makers who have apparently been denied to express themselves. Nudity and sex scenes were defended on that majestic excuse 'the story demands it'. I am sure even the story of 'Snow white and seven dwarfs' can be retold such a way as to save complete costume budget for the producer. Poor Ben-hur (1959) must be handicapped by this lack of such 'creative freedom' compared to the TV series Rome (2005-2007), or Spartacus (2010-2013). Casablanca (1942), no doubt, also lacked imagination, as some critics of that demented mindset also sarcastically remarked. It was a triangular love story, right? Blimey, what a great film it could turn into by sprinkling realistic sex scenes between Humphrey Bogart and Inrgid Bergamn! Pity it did not reach Hollywood stellar standards that Indian programs are now aiming for. 'The Godfather' could have been a better off if only the director took lessons from the artistry of the sex and profanity of Sacred Games, but alas, this gem came too late to save it. Closer home, Amjad Khan's Gabbar Singh in 'Sholay' (1975) likewise ruined the character by not spewing out appropriate filth true to character. Next time, in any remake on par with Hollywood standards, he should mind his language. Until that future masterpiece gets made, Satyajit Ray's accolade that it was a great film should be questioned.

For all this 'creative freedom' claptrap, self censorship is not far off, when convenient. Rajiv Gandhi can be ridiculed with sexist obscenities, but you wouldn't find any leader of the opposite political spectrum targeted - it would be too risky to upset the powerful. Stick to sticking it to the weak.

Glossy rich high world and poverty ridden grungy underworld are two extremes, opposite sides of the same Bollywood coin, serving our voyeuristic fascination with the glitzy glamour on one hand, and decadent grubbiness on the other, both of which are far removed from middle class humdrum. Fed up with ultra rich, ultra unrealistic trite romances, this series is lapped up as a true portrayal of festering underbelly of Bombay. I suspect most of these commentators praising the authenticity have no first hand clue about either of these extremes (nor do I profess to know ). Nevertheless we hear critic after critic prattle about the realism of Sacred Games - probably because it contains high decibel filthy language of the locale. That's the creativity for you - avant garde Bollywood style. When story is slack which it is most of the time, insert gratuitous sex scenes and obscenities and violence to give filler shocks, to give an aura of edgy gritty reality. And it is far too easy to do that in Indian context, a cheap alternative to creating really interesting story - which is hard, and as we have seen, there is an additional advantage that there would be no shortage of admirers queuing up to award 'creativity' brownie points for ropy titillation. For all the talk of creativity, this is pretty formulaic, a well beaten Hollywood track. Take a dark grim story and then spice up with nudity, sex and violence. That sells. The directors can tell an aspiring actress: 'you may be mahaanati Savithri, but unless you strip, you are unfit. We value freedom of expression'. What they are defending is commercial freedoms under the garb of creative freedoms. Nor is this a pioneer of the genre. Govind Nihalani's critically acclaimed 'ardha satya' (1983) explores similar issues and Om Puri with tortured conscience would have made a more fitting Sartaj.

The series still manages to engage viewers, even with such pseudo-grittiness, and here one should applaud the filmmakers' expertise. The acting is excellent, especially Nawaz Siddiqui's complex combination of ruthlessness to enemies and tender loyalties to his women. Saif Ali Khan's restrained cop without super-hero is refreshing. Radhika Apte was given limited scope which is a shame, but actors in the other roles shine. One may not get bored binge watching this series, which is an achievement in itself. However, this is no 'Narcos' (2015-2017) which focused more on strong plain storytelling rather than dark gimmicks to compensate poor story or lack of character depth. Nor is this anyway close to the quality of gripping 'Babylone Berlin' (2017) which got a similar theme of a cop investigating a potential chemical attack, set in the backdrop of late 1920s Germany during the tempestuous dark times of collapse of Weimar Republic.

'Gangs of Wasseypur' (2012) by Anurag Kashyap was praised sky high, more likely because it is not a 'maine pyar kiya (1989), but is again a slow burning violence ridden family feud, often dragging, and over hyped. Sacred Games is an improvement, engaging but not an extraordinary unmissable entity.

Toilet: A Love Story (2017)

Firing blanks on a strawman

[5/10 · 19 May 2018]

A newly married girl arrives at the husband's home to settle down only to realize that there was no toilet in the home. The villagers take a leaf out of the saying 'The world is my oyster' and suitably Indianise this to 'world is my toilet' - indulging in jolly open defecation socialization. As the niche films go, this is a really even more offbeat off regular offbeat topics, and the film makers need to be congratulated on even contemplating such a topic, that too by roping in A-lister like Akshay Kumar who plays the male lead Keshav Sharma. From such a lofty concept, the execution goes down the toilet in no time. There is usual formulaic love story. The guy falls for a girl (Bhumi Pednekar as Jaya Sharma) and stalks her - in typical Indian film style. She rebuffs him, rather severely at some point, the hero gets peeved, and after usual Bollywood drivel about how deeply he is in love, she repents and relents. Then it is the hero's turn to rebuff - that macho charisma needs to be presented - that a well educated and well-sought after girl is after the male who is sub par. This is where the 'villain' comes in - hero's father, a rank traditionalist who goes by the religious principles - or his interpretation of it. He is a stickler to scriptures, from marriages to toilets. First part is easy. The bride needs to have particular physical characteristics, but in these days of designer costumes, designer hands is not far off and the contraption works. This is just an introduction to show how tough it would be to change the old man's mind.

All the while we were under the impression that open defecation is a problem because of poverty preventing an affordable toilet and/or habitual attitude against built in closed structures in favour of open air performance. The habitual often goes by the term 'cultural'. Not so, say the film makers. They assert that the real problem is religious tradition, and in particular- Brahmanical tradition. No doubt, the director found a marketable opportunity for such a socially emotive bugbear for the audience to identify themselves against. The Keshav's father is a staunch toilet traditionalist, The new bride, Jaya, being modern, would have none of it.

Open defecation - to deify or defy is the crunch question. After dismissing wife's travails initially, Keshav takes her concerns seriously after she reads the riot act - 'provide me a toilet, or else..'. The film takes quite a few artistic liberties in delivering comic solutions - from visiting a home with toilet under the pretext of visiting an old immobile lady, to exploiting a train that stops for a very short while. While these are excusable, pitching the problem as modern vs religious tradition is crass. The real problems of lack of safety, hygiene have been given perfunctory treatment. Instead, they resort to the straw man - tradition over whose marketing potential countless love stories have been filmed. Other than the unusual topic, there is hardly anything edifying about the film.

Mahanati (2018)

An unfinished beautiful painting

[8/10 · 19 May 2018]

A rags to riches story fascinates and provokes admiration, just as riches to rags story evokes sympathy. How are we to feel about the life of Savithri who in a short life span of 45 years combined both? She was never in destitution, to be sure, but the film wants the audience to experience extreme highs and lows along with her, and by and large delivers. The film fields some of the biggest names, even in minor roles, a sign of the admiration, nay, veneration with which she is held. It is an honor just to be part of this film.

It begins at the end, with a poignant scene of one of greatest actresses, lively and proud, who reached highest levels of stardom brought down on a stretcher, to the lowly grungy hospital floor as an unknown, nearly lifeless and in coma. The exploration of her past comes in the form of two journalists Samantha's Madhuravani (surely a tribute to Savithri's outstanding role in kanyaasulkam which unfortunately does not feature in the film), and Vijaya Devarakonda's Anthony.

Child Savithri shelters a stray dog when she herself is seeking a shelter. If true, what happened to that dog may forever be lost to the posterity. What we know, however, is unlike some dog lovers, her caring and sharing nature extended to 'stray' humans who often repaid this magnanimity with emotional and financial exploitation.

We see that Savithri is raised in her uncle and aunt's home after her father passes away when she is still a months baby. The uncle (ably played by Rajendra Prasad) motivated by the lucrative glitter of film world puts every effort to make her an actress. He is protective more than affectionate, merely a guardian, not a father figure she craves for. Then in her first visit to Madras she comes into contact with Gemini Ganesan. Dulqer Salman whose supremely charming portrayal will win many a female hearts, gives a hint of what impact handsome Gemini Ganesan had on an impressionable young teenager who finds in a guy twice her age what she misses in her life - caring father figure and an attentive romantic lover. A tiny detail of his being an already married man, with kids, and with an appetite for extramarital affairs on the side is hidden from her until she is already emotionally too far into the relationship to step back.

In the popular imagination, marrying an already married man was the source of her tribulations. Surprisingly, as per the film, it plays little role in her downfall. One gets the impression that things would pan out in the same way, if she were the only married wife of Gemini Ganesan. The first wife rarely comes into picture, and the husband convinces Savithri with his male sophistry that his relationships with multiple women weighed less than his love for her.

Then the film dwells into some of her finest performances, and lucky breaks, for her and for Telugu cinema, like missamma. The film initially, tantalizingly predicts her acting with NTR and ANR, but all three were never shown together in any frame, in spite of excellent candidates like missamma and gundamma katha (the latter did not make it to the cut, though superior to doctor chakravarthy which did). Mohan Babu's SVR got more screen presence with her and the only major actor shown talking about her acting prowess. Why? Because there is also an elephant in the room - in this case missing - when depicting her film career: NTR. He is virtually absent. Reportedly this was due to the refusal of Jr NTR portraying the legend, out of some pig headed humility, and the director refusal to field any one else. Unfortunately, even while making such great films, crass clannish considerations seep into and blight Telugu cinema. The director simply should have fielded some one else. This was an egregious blunder. At least among Telugu audience, depicting Savithri's professional world without NTR is akin to showing her personal world without Gemini Ganesan.

The cracks appear in the marriage when her career is taking off when husband's is nosediving. Skirmishes are legion. When she takes to acting the guy takes to drinking and philandering. He protests disingenuously that she knew all this before the marriage. That was 'when she was Savithri, but now she is Savithri Ganesan' is her caustic reply. What she valued above anything else was trust and when people close to her break it, she is broken, repeatedly. The emotional turmoil compels her to walk out on Gemini Ganesan, in the process, severing her from the only support system she would otherwise have had in handling her finances which fall prey to a series of misjudgments and chicanery by the people she trusted.

All this was by and large known and it was the details that were lacking in the public domain. How well she was taken care of during her last months had been a controversy. Her own daughter, in earlier interviews, and her son, more recently, have refuted allegations that Savithri suffered due to neglect. There were millions of her admirers and reportedly some donors who came forward to bear the expenses. The film could have been an opportunity to set the record straight.This most crucial and tragic phase of her life remains unanswered, due to director playing it safe. Admittedly it is a tightrope act to make a bioepic that could potentially offend those who are still alive. One gets the feeling that his role as a husband has been sanitized.

Where the director excels is in the script and the introduction of fictional characters in the form of journalists. In the interleaving of past and present, their love is blossoming at the same time Savithri's is wilting. While the biography limits the director's ability to take too many liberties with the story, no such restraint existed for the fictional part and he exploits this creative dimension to the hilt and provides contrasting comic, but empathetic juxtaposition to increasingly gloomy downturn of Savithri's life. Madhuravani's Samantha speaks in stutters because she got stammer. There is no reason for Vijay Devarakonda speaking as if he is about to acquire one. He appeared to be the same character downloaded from his earlier 'pelli choopulu'. He could have been cast bit differently. However, both of them carried their roles with aplomb. So did Mohan Babu as SVR. It is charming to see the roles of legendary figures like Marcus Bartley, Singeetham, KV Reddy, mercurial Chakrapani. We miss countless others like Jamuna, Relangi, Suryakantam, Gummadi, redoubtable Adurti Subbaarao; and no MGR, Sivaji Ganesan either. The film could have an extended version for non-theatrical release. There is little mention of living contemporaries like Jamuna (Gudipudi Srihari, giant of a film critic, places her ahead of Savihtri), Kakarala Satyanarayana, who, but for his age, could have walked into SVR's role.

Even these excellent performances are majestically upstaged by mesmerizing Keerthi Suresh in the title role. Her portrayal in the iconic 'aha naa pellanta' song is so close to the original that people, even without the excuse of short sight could mistake one for the other. This is just one of the many scenes she radiates as the legend. This is also severe indictment of hidebound Telugu film's habit treating female leads as decorative pieces instead of harnessing their talent.

The director's another significant achievement is to bring Savithri to a new generation of young people.

Finally this film is a beautiful, albeit an unfinished painting on a great canvas. I highly recommend seeing this on big screen.

Arjun Reddy (2017)

Over hyped film of immersive misogynistic narcissism

[5/10 · 11 February 2018]

This is the story of a guy and somewhat a girl, who are in deep love, develop strong relations, the girl getting married off to another, the guy getting addicted to booze, drugs, and a beard - an essential accessory for any Telugu film hero with disastrous love affair. The film starts with the hero (Vijay Sai Deverakonda) as a doctor in unkempt avatar with unpleasant characteristics. The provenance of the beard can be traced back to a violent fracas on football field, causing a showdown with a colourless dean. In defence, the hero serves up first of many infantile philosophies that pepper the film. He says "Football is a violent sport" (it is not), he plays for satisfaction, not medals. His friend who accompanies him, orders the class to stand up and "respect the champion". Every student stands up instantaneously as if national anthem has been set loose all of a sudden. They are so supine, scared, and scarred by the braggadocio of the guy who is permanently angry for no reason.

However he is supposed to be great at sudies, excels in sports, eventually would do record operations even when drunk and drugged, and in spare time, when not emitting sexist rants, flies spaceships (I made up one of those). He also administers anatomical drawings on body, as a teaching aid, as if he were a modern day Vesalius. The director's idea of demonstrating keen intellect is to show him staring with keen anger while delivering juvenile banter as some sort of profoundness. Women are supposed to throw at his feet, even when he hits rock bottom, drunkard and jobless drug addict - such are these Telugu films.

Enter, Preeti the first year fresher, who has instant anodyne effect on the hero. Ever since he is besotted with her, he marks her as his property by planting a kiss on her cheek without her consent. Later in the film, we would hear another insipid philosophical babble on his 'private space' that should be respected by others, of course, being a 'free spirit', he could invade others' space at will if they happen to be women. There starts the dog like devotion and aggressive possessiveness of the hero. In time honoured convention in Telugu films, the hero lays claim to her, 'protects' her from ragging predators. Warming up to dog motif, again, without her knowledge, people label her 'his girl', just as one would say 'his dog', which is a good template to understand his attitude towards her. Only thing he does not objectify is one real dog in the film, which is elevated to human, whereas the girl is downgraded to a faithful dog. In many scenes, you might as well replace the dog with the girl, as the dog barely barks and the girl rarely speaks. Then he hears of Preeti being marked rather inappropriately by another male dog during Holi celebrations. That heralds a sequence of rage filled obscene expletives which are now celebrated for being bold, raw, intense never before shown in Telugu films, director breaking the conventions of ordinary films making. The abuse is of course very conventional, targeting women, uttered by the hero (yes the same guy who would prattle pretentiously on how not to objectify women), to avenge the vile touch. The girl falls into his arms for protecting her honour, somewhat in Taliban style. And Telugu hero must acquire another essential accessory - a second heroine, of course with zero dignity. His treatment of her resembles kicking out a dog when he wanted to reject her.

Showdown with the girl's father: The director often needs squalid characters to show hero in better light. The domineering father is a rank casteist stereotype who detests guy. He catches him kissing her at his home and angrily confronts him. By this time the director probably has convinced some good number of audience to fondly imagine that it is perfectly acceptable to visit someone's home, kiss their daughter and demand what the hero later blathers about as 'private space'. The girl's marriage is forcefully fixed and the hero gives her six hours to make up her mind to move out with him. What is the best way to reinforce his point to the woman? Slap her of course. He is medieval, but as we are told, he is a free spirit, so it is supposed to be ok.

Then there is a ridiculous, completely out of context scene about PMS, contrived to show the audience how sensitive he is to female concerns, as if to tell 'I am not a sexist beast, I have this delicate side', crassly exploiting to extract brownie points. In another scene, the director makes him sermonise a moronic NRI not to objectify women. The characters surrounding the male lead are cardboard which is at least two dimensional. The hero is unidimensional, with angry face at one end, and pseudo empathetic drivel on the other.

During his disciplinary hearings, he remembers Hippocratic oath, presenting himself as a guy with integrity. Such pangs of conscience! This guy does not remember the pledge we are drilled down in schools. "All Indians are my brothers and sisters". This sounds like kitsch, but intended to reflect fraternal spirit from the three pillars of Indian constitution - liberty, equality, fraternity. There is little fraternal feeling in this pledge loving bloke. When the girl's father asks him to look after his daughter like a "sister", he utters "he does not have sisters" in a pompous tone mocking Preeti's father for his old fashioned thinking. His own thinking or lack of it towards women is rather antediluvian. Even then, a character admiringly rambles that he has never seen a free spirit like this guy in a democracy. He neither understands free spirit, nor democracy (unless the free spirit means free booze), and spews this arrant nonsense. Coming to think of it, people in lunatic asylum are free spirits too. A man who needs a muse to be a lamb, but deforms into a brute ('free spirit') and loses self control when he loses her is fundamentally a weak person, though his brutishness appears as a sign of strength.

While he is growing a beard, Preeti is growing his child, heavily pregnant. This is going to be film about beard, borne like a cross, not a potentially career ending silly pregnancy. A shawl would have added to the hero's pathos, but is too ethnic for our westernized pseudo progressive. He is an odious sociopath, but since he is handsome, needs escape route. Conveniently grandma dies, creating instantaneous transformation, faster than 2-minute noodles, manifested by the removal of that blasted beard. He is a changed man. Whatever changed, his propensity to deliver incomprehensible gibberish as philosophy does not cease, and his dad, mesmerised, has instant transformation himself (since loss of beard is the "game changer" of Telugu cinema). If only his friends found him a decent barber in time...never mind, better late than never.

Anthony Hopkins as Dr.Hannibal Lecter remarks while lobotomising Ray Liotta's policeman that he did not need that part of the brain dealing with good manners. Our hero surely seemed to miss this part, even without a lobotomy, as demonstrated by his crude language with nurses, about patients, friends, especially regarding women. (By the way isn't Dr.Lecter a high end 'free spirit', with impeccable manners?). Once he asks his married classmate 'inkaa neellosukoledaa', enquiring about her pregnancy. When he sees a woman, he sees them as baby making machinery of future Arjun Reddys.

Finally what did this path breaking film break? The dialogues sound casual without bombastic music. Nothing new, if one observed some old Telugu films (e.g. Rojulu maaraayi (1955), shaavukaru(1950) ). Story is banal, narration is dragging; comedy shines sometimes with outstanding Rahul Ramakrishna's Siva, but comic potential in Telugu films is enormous and not particularly novel. Songs: not having been bombarded with pre-release audio tracks to condition auricular senses, did not particularly find them greatly appealing. Much is made of Vijay Devarakonda's action, but superior performances come from Kanchana and Rahul Ramakrishna who transformed normal roles into scene stealing glue that holds this dismal film together. Maniacal roles are not the best yardsticks of performance. They inject more to the character than any acting. Batman's Joker is an example, with the actors having high chance of receiving high accolades! His performance is decent, but no better than in another of his recent films 'pelli choopulu' (2016).

Then what is unique? This differs from others in using cuss words, peppering with obscene gratuitous expletives, under the pretence of showing realism, and the director is showered with epithets of 'bold' 'raw', 'honest'. Perhaps, dicing the film with even filthier language would have been termed "bolder". And of course, heavily publicised kissing (creating a very useful marketable controversy) . He also created one of the shallowest female leads, even by the abysmal standards of Telugu cinema, quite a feat. He is hailed as some sort of Sergei Eisenstein of Telugu films for this crudity. Forgot, there is another first by our Eisenstein. Never before seen piddling in the pants. Can any one beat that? Truly, "bold", "raw" , "path breaking" is alive and pissing. If you are not convinced by the dog motif mentioned earlier, this scene should confirm great canine like qualities of the hero, this time marking himself - a symbolic statement of his self indulgent narcissism.

The ultra westernized tenor gives pretensions of modernity covering up misogynist behaviour. We can only expect more of such 'youth' films. On the opposite end, we have traditionalists who want to impose their own authority under the pretext of protecting women from western influences. Women will be caught out in a pincer movement of devil of and the deep blue sea.