“Joota Phake Leather Dil Chicha Ledar” Barfi! Movie Review

If there were lines of poetry, written by someone, and he were describing innocence, naughtiness, magic, and dreams, his description would begin with extracting silk from rays of light, painting clouds from dispersed water droplets, autumn leaves hazed out by smoke, floating joy in the evening mingled with all colors of the spectrum. That’s precisely the magic of “Barfi!”. In cinema, the greatest subject, as we have learnt, is the face of the human being, where characters talk, not through words they speak, but through their eyes. And slowly, poetically, lyrically, they come closer, and closer.

This, is that artistic film, where characters, if they talk, they do it via expressions, they don’t simply speak it out. When Shruti (Ileana) tells us that, when she first met Barfi when her parents got relocated to Darjeeling, we are told his back story, of how he earned his name, or how he cried in mute, or he couldn’t listen to shac-shacs, all through a song, the song that refuses to be sentimental, even if there is a devastating reality told, it is still charmingly sweet and amusing. And this is where the film succeeds. It avoids unnecessary schmaltziness, over sentimentality and melodrama, well, almost.

The beauty lies in its moments, and there are plenty. Because every time when it is evening, the frame is never completely lit, but it does gradually, slowly, the lights are turned on, or sometimes, suddenly. Or sometimes, minor details are shown by the moving headlight of the steam train, and suddenly they are hidden again. And the steam train, or fog, or haze, everything that is used to add beauty of this film, seems to be taken from a dream and when everything is so imaginative, and this visual flair is added to the non verbal flow of emotions amongst the characters, you know that the director, Anurag Basu, is gifted, the film is superlative and his cast & crew is ready to give in total commitment, perhaps, they have.

But then sometimes, that isn’t enough. And this film falls short, somewhere. This film, no matter for how long it tries to stay away from melodrama and superfluous show of weakness of its characters, and that pitfall of a film about physically/mentally challenged, it goes straight into it. Just, as another love story takes off. When Barfi tries to help her childhood friend Jhilmil (Priyanka Chopra) who is shown mentally challenged. And this triggers a plot, the greatest weakness of this film. And the focus of the film diverts from the chemistry amidst the characters to the plot, and there this film stumbles, and continues to stumble, even if it drags, in the second half, and drastically towards the end. Perhaps, whenever Ranbir Kapoor Joota Phakes Leather, the movie’s dil goes chicha ledar (he throws his shoe high up in the film, to signal his presence, to call Jhilmil).

Still, even if the unnecessary plot reduces the overall impact marginally, even if Priyanka Chopra isn’t half as effective as she could be (though I must say she isn’t bad, she is just not good enough), this film still gives us that rare magical cinematic elegance, as Scorsese told us in his own dreamy masterpiece, Hugo, cinema can be used to create and capture dreams, that we just don’t find in Hindi movies these days. And this film gives us that, along with characters who don’t speak, they widen their eyes, they squeeze it, they have a very beautiful grin on their face when they meet, and they look at each other, for a long time, or they don’t, even if they do, it is more than visible that they are thinking about something else, even if they are seeing something, they are thinking something else.

And this was just not possible without the tremendous effort put in by the technicians. The magic wouldn’t be half as effective if it was not properly shot by Varman’s far more than effective imagery, or Poddar’s authentic production design, or striking costumes, or Pritam’s & Amitabh Bhattacharya’s songs. And score, those scenes, would have terribly missed the background score, even if Pritam pays homage to Michael Giacchino’s “Married Life” from the film “Up!” when Ranbir Kapoor throws his shoe high up for the first time, still when the whole film pays homage to Charile Chaplin and The Notebook, I don’t mind that with the soundtrack too, it really works, more than most of the times when we produce the cacophonous ear drum exploding score.

And the actors, Ranbir Kapoor outdoes, everyone we have in our industry, everyone. It is this performance we as an audience, and this character he as an actor of this calibre, deserves. It is unique, subtle, powerful, enchanting, with his shoulders high above all, all in this film. Ileana, who most of the times, as her character demands, is plain vulnerable, and she does her part so well, that seeing what and how Shruti goes through makes your heart melt. Priyanka Chopra, falls into the pitfall, perhaps her story, which forms the major part of the film, is the weakness, and the culmination, because it reduces the overall impact, also makes the experience tiring to some extent, she does it fine, if, first of all, her character sketch wasn’t overdone, secondly, her story supported her well, either of the two don’t happen and only weaken the film.

Still, for every fiber of light that floats in the air, saturated color that literally moves in the forms of costumes, players of the skit in a traditional marriage, or a refracted image through a transparent sphere of glass, the whole film feels magical, every subconscious calculation that directs a physical movement, or every test of loyalty is bizarre and funny in its own way, and it is rich and dense and colorful. For that glossy imagery, masterful expressions, and cinematic purity, where characters feel more than they think, “Barfi” as a film must be applauded. It would be a masterpiece, if only Barfi hadn’t thrown his shoe, so high up.

First Published on Madaboutmoviez

Gangs of Wasseypur, A Journey that begins like a party but ends with boredom

It begins with the song from the iconic TV serial, “Kyuki Saans bhi kabhi bahu thi”, and suddenly the TV is burst open by gunfire, the area is deserted, while a man tries to escape and one of the men with a gun kills him. They close all the open shops in that street and evacuate the place signaling a possible firefight, they locate a house and open fire, throw grenades inside the house, fire randomly, tirelessly and to verify if there is a survivor, the leader of the clan simply makes a phone call to check if anyone receives it or not, inside a traditional restroom a bunch of people who have the phone don’t receive it, and the hoard of people firing and exploding to kill are so naïve and overconfident that they don’t go inside the house to even verify whether anyone is alive or everyone is dead. We know at the end of the film that this scene will be featured in the next part and such a severe flaw hints early on that part-2 will not be as good as part one.

Part one, how good it actually is, is another question altogether. But as an experience, it shows us a world, unseen, heard a lot but never experienced, and it comes to life. Where every statement is twisted, every human being living is angry and everyone is an opportunist. A world, where one sees, that way of life here is to live like an animal and inside this dirty land where people breathe coal and speak foul, everyone is capable of being the lion in this jungle, all one needs to understand is, if there is loss, there is vengeance, and for every act of vengeance there is a possible enemy and to defeat him, is to become powerful.

It begins when a villager impersonates an iconic dacoit. The villager, Shahid Khan, is caught very soon, and forced to exile from his village. He joins a coal mafia and a potential politician, Ramadhir Singh, who very quickly understands that this villager, iron fisted, vengeful and angry, is useful but ambitious who plans to overthrow the politician, he gets him killed by the people from the family of the dacoit, Sultana Daaku, or the Quereshis or the butchers from that village. But what remains behind, is his brother, his brother’s son and the most precious truth for which he fought the world his son Sardar Khan, whose mother dies at the time of childbirth, who needed prompt attention, that shahid couldn’t give in, because he wasn’t allowed out of the coal mine and by the time he could fight his way out, it was too late.

And this beginning, lasts over 40-45 minutes and how spectacularly it unfolds, it draws us in. In one of the scenes, when Shahid impersonates the Dacoit, Sultana Daaku, he stops the train and tells him, “पटरा उटरा सब उखाड दिए है चचा, चलाइयेगा तो भीतर चले जाइयेगा” (uncle, we have pulled out all the rails, you go forward, you go down), such impactful this line is, that since the movie, if anyone really achieves something in his real life, people refer this line, that he could pull out the rails.

Or a scene when an angry Shahid brutally kills those guards who don’t let him out of the mine, a fist fight so visceral that leaves you with Goosebumps.

The humor, where Sardar’s wife finds him in a brothel and he pleads in front of her that he was manipulated, or the way they talk amongst each other, they tease each other, they challenge each other and try to bring them down, even in the angriest of the moments, the brutal moments, they are funny in their own honest way, every line dialogue meant to tease, meant to annoy and for us audience rooting for our amoral hero, meant to amuse.

Even when Sardar in one of the scenes when he tries to flirt with Durga, a woman character who seduces him, he simply says, “इतना बड़ी हो गयी हो, ब्याह नहीं हुआ है” (so old you are, still single?), or imitates her when she washes clothes. The chemistry when he knowingly returns from the shower ,that he does openly, wearing a langot and gamchi, durga with those lustful eyes she relishes his built, sometimes openly, sometimes while she is hiding.

This world, where jealousy, envy, vengeance and anguish build the characters, where even moral acts are done because of the hunt for power or to hamper the ego of the opponent, all the colors seem plausible and loveable. That panache with which each character executes it and brings his own bit to the character, makes this world worth visiting worth fighting for.

Like years to spend and places to visit, characters grow and time is spent, this movie moves forward from one character to another, one generation to another, we see a city grow and children turn into youngsters. That coal mafia leader, following his success to a lavish businessman into a powerful politician, now, whose business and political stance being hampered by the continuously interfering Sardar Khan, calls the Quereshis back, into the picture, but then, a girl from the Quesreshis marries Sardar’s eldest son. Khans move on to better things than mere vengeance and establish better business and look for better life. Much to the dismay of the eldest successor, betraying his family, being the politician’s mule kills Sardar Khan. This marks the end of two things, the overtly amoral and always loud Sardar Khan, and one half of this huge saga, and marks the beginning of new generation of men ready to seek satisfaction from their enemy’s devastation.

New generation of youngsters join this story, ready to take on this city and emerge as lions of this jungle. Unfortunately, even if every character is new, every character has got his own style and lavishness, it is, once again, characters, talking in that Sarcastic dialect, teasing, irritating, annoying, having fun, forcing their strength on others, uncaring about the rest of the world and all they are thinking is their selfish interest, and nothing wrong with that, but, to the makers, people, we’ve been there, seen that.

So we begin, with a youngster, who dies seeking revenge and in a very Sonny Corleonesque way the younger brother takes on the family and promises eye for an eye. Now once again we have business, we have people hating each other, we have a newer generation of people who are fond of movies, the lead hero, who is doped but not once we see this world through his eyes. Rather in part one we are shown for some time, whenever he comes on screen, of how he sees this world, but not here.

Gangs of wasseypur part one, primarily, dwells in that lawless land, its dwellers fighting amongst each other, meeting, talking, hating, doing business, trying to save each other, trying over power others, trying to live big. In its true terms, Part one, acknowledges Gangs of Wasseypur, and explores the gangs as such. Part 2, is a mere continuation, and families dwell and fight, even when they have settled, or rather agreed to.

So how do the makers take it forward, force another twist? They introduce another character. This guy brings in business, profit and money, but as they say in this film, the guy holding the reigns now, Faizal knows nothing about business, he knows profit. So this new character, Shamshaad, brings money and again we have a new enemy. And then we bring the old enemies back. How do we do it? We introduce another character, Faizal’s youngest brother Perpendicular, and he brings in more conflict. But then we have to bring in the actual villain back into the picture right? After all he needs to die to end this story, how do we do it? We introduce another character, from the part one, we had Sardar khan’s illegitimate son, so we add him too.  Alright, so we have a herd of characters, we have the setting right; we have researched it well, so we have the humor right, all we need is, we just have to give each character some space to breathe in, and we have a new film altogether. In between we add slow motion shots, because Anurag Kashyap is directing so we have a chase sequence, prolonged chase sequence set to chicha ledar, but it isn’t half as captivating as the one in Black Friday. We have hero heroines sharing chemistry, but still the scene where he asks permission continues to be more effective than every scene they share together irrespective of the goodness of the scene where looks older than he should or she sings to make him feel good.

This, introduce a new character, and take the story forward technique exists in the first film as well, but it was something absolutely new, and unseen, it compels to go into the scene, but here after the 2 hours 40 minutes of that experience, the same sense of humor, we know of, the world we are familiar to, and the business that grows and the hatred that continues, it continues on and on and on forever. Kids are born, they grow up and cause problems for each other, they become each other’s enemies, and this happens over and over and over again since the beginning of the first film till the end of the second film and this becomes repetitive in nature.

One man grows in the field of crime, he has an opponent, he is killed, his son seeks vengeance, he harms his enemy, enemy gets him killed with help of his enemy’s enemy, who becomes the friend, so that one man’s grandson takes over, he grows, he earns more enemies, the grandson seeks revenge, he gets it, but one of his illegitimate brothers become his enemy and he wants vengeance from his father’s family and more power in his life so he kills his half brother, the remaining members of the family are killed in process, those alive leave the town.

Or in simple words, one man grows, another man pulls him down, another man grows become the kingpin, the first man’s son pulls him down, that son grows, then he is pulled down, then that son’s son grows, he is pulled down, then his brothers grow, one of them is pulled down, another half brother is introduced, everyone join hands to grow, but bring the kingpin down, and ultimately everyone goes down, ultimately all I want to say is “पटरा उटरा सब उखड गया चचा, इतना पिक्चर चलाया की भीतरे चले गया”

All this set to a contrasting superb soundtrack, shot aesthetically, humor set in right place and tone filmed properly, but it is the same god damn thing, ultimately it is Anurag Kashyap’s overkill that burdens this picture of boredom and that uniqueness and quirk is lost, it looks so god damned conventional in such a perspective that you have this attitude towards the film where you say, alright budd, I know you are funny, you are angry, you are stylish but enough man, go get that dud killed, get yourself killed and let me buy a ticket back to my place, enough of wasseypur. Seriously, at the end of it, you need a new place to visit, new people to meet, new point of views to discuss.

Another major problem with Gangs of Wasseypur-2 is, in this film, only two characters seem complicated enough, Pankaj Tripathi’s Sultan, and Zeishan Quadri’s Definite. Every other character is allotted so little poetry to him/her that you just can’t build much of an opinion for them. All the characters are grey and nuanced, but still you don’t get lot of time to study and observe, you are asked to see the action, character arc is disjointed. In part one, the 2 primary characters, shahid and sardar have a complete lifecycle, they breathe, they get angry, they tease, annoy and they fight and they Die. After a point in this film, specifically, part 2, no one dies, they come and then more come in and then more come in. And to end one’s story there is a new one introduced. More plots, little characterization and more jumps make it disjointed and impacts cohesion. It’s like throwing more tomatoes on the wall, but after all a stained wall is a stained wall, staining it further won’t make it dirtier or shocking.

Characters no longer drive the story, the setting does, the dialogue does, the music does, the technique does too, but no, not the characters. This makes in for an overtly underwhelming experience. Ultimately, it turns out to be just a film, it is good, but it’s just not great. The scale, the vision, idea and everything is unique, and it’s too much of uniqueness takes its uniqueness away. It becomes a conventional wasseypury film.

When initially the film’s character was Sardar’s character, it looked and felt like the film portraying superfluous Sardar Khan, the music too supported him there. Later on, when Faizal was meant to be central character, there is a bunch of central characters, and the colour retained from the previous film, mixed with so many new ones which ultimately tone it down and it is a done deal, this film feels too bland and anecdotal. We get an unfocussed, distracted overlong epic, which hops from one mini plot to another. After a while it doesn’t matter, it will reach somewhere, somehow.

This epic, full of characters, is saved by its ensemble. So many, so talented actors grasp all the nuances, within whatever space they get to breathe in, and flourish. The way they look at each other, they talk to each other, doesn’t matter when Manoj Bajpai on loud speaker announces he will demolish the whole Singh family, or when Ramadhir Singh tells his son, again and again that it is beyond him to succeed as a politician (especially the scene in part 2), or when Zeishan Quadri Bombards Shamshaad’s den with a grenade disguised as kashmiri apple, or when perpendicular simply robs a jewellery shop, every actor has his moment, every character has his scene, or her scene. Richa Chaddha till the end of the saga speaks through her eyes and her mouth whenever required, her anguish is most relatable and she stands out as the female lead, along with Huma Quereshi’s Moshina, only one character in front of whom, even Faizal gets his heart in mouth or misses catching his cigarette by his lips. Saba Parveen is indeed the sweetest of the lot and the way her demise is portrayed it leaves you devastated. Pankaj Tripathi’s Sultan, the most complicated and the most nuanced of the lot is the truest villain of this feature and deserves to be applauded.

With Anurag Kashyap’s indulgence, that exists mostly in part one, and very little in part 2, every, well composed shot or dramatically crafted scene, for every soundtrack playing the role of another parallel narrative, it is ultimately, like recurring Yashpal Sharma, it becomes a repetitive film, where every laughter seems forced after some time, many scenes seem unnecessary and feels far too long, it is all in all, an average film, with occasional brilliance, Gangs of wasseypur may be produced with a lot of love and care, it indulges the best parts of the film over and over again, it becomes too boring and uninteresting ultimately, by the time this story ends, you do not retain a lot from this visit to wasseypur and move on, this party begins with new tracks, but like one of the last scenes set to dub step of Keh Ke Loonga, a track used in previous film, this film too uses the same tracks slightly modified, over and over again where dancing on those tunes leads to exhaustion and boredom.

The Debate of good cinema

How does one define it? Everyman has got his own his definition to it, and everyman deserves his/her opinion be respected. People tell me I watch movies that are not entertaining, or movies that are very slow and boring. Recently I recommended one of my friends “Dark City” and his response was it took him 5 days to watch it.

I wondered everyman would find a film like “Blue Valentine” or “Shame” or “Rampart” a boring picture, because they would want a film to be about heroes, bad guy going boom by the good ones, but how can someone find a film like “Dark City” boring? After all, that film dwelled in mystery and fantasy and good and evil and every spice that an entertaining film comprises of, it isn’t that slow, it wasn’t meant to be taken that seriously, it was even funny in its own way. The thought of it makes me wonder that, perhaps, most of us people have long accepted monotony, in terms of our life and if not there then at-least in terms of cinema. Where inside a cinema hall, even if we don’t know the reality, our superstars exploding the screens and thrashing the villains encompass the entertainment, if they are angry we are angry, of they are scared, we are if they cry, well, we do so as well.

This sometimes makes me feel proud of myself and sometimes it disappoints me. Because at times, I wonder had I been a die-hard fan of a hero/heroine/director, I might have accepted his mediocre work, but since I am not, I can reject it and easily have a neutral opinion. But this disappoints me too because I being one looking for most unique forms of entertainment, if I forward it to someone they simply refuse it, and at times degrade me on my taste of cinema, because at a point of time, I rejected his.

Perhaps this turmoil between us people who look for quality v/s those who look for style, or may be vice versa (because through their eyes, it could be the other way round), would continue. There would always be movies, universally accepted by all, accepted by a majority, accepted by a minority, or a cult who would be ready to fight for it no matter how huge is the population hating the art form, after all every film once produced does something to the audience. After all, cinema is like food, Indians here prefer spicy, tangy food, also the way people talk, live in a superfluous fashion, so is the taste in cinema, and it doesn’t matter how bad it might be for health, after all everyone needs pleasure and if most of them like it, what’s wrong in it being successful, the only thing wrong is us trying to explain how bad it is, after all people like it and they have full right to do so and when they reject a film like “Being Cyrus” or “My Wife’s Murder”, perhaps they didn’t find what they were looking for and they didn’t buy it, nothing wrong there is it?

Which makes me think, whether I should tell someone a film I liked, or should I watch a film someone else liked, well, nothing wrong in trying but the best way to have a peaceful thought of being a film lover is, by stopping this bad habit of showing off the kind of films I watch and love and ranting about how good they are, better watch them alone and marvel the craft and achievement of it, rest can have fun watching their superstars making a fool of themselves. Last statement was indeed slightly emotional, but what can I say when one of my room-mates, when he watched it on full HD quality, he said “‘Hugo’ is a good picture”, on which I told him that it is so unfortunate that such great a film also flopped, even there in the US, to which he replied “it was bound to flop, because it is very slow and it isn’t entertaining”. Last weekend, he watched “Rowdy Rathore” twice, I didn’t reply then when he said “Hugo isn’t entertaining” and don’t intend to, to each his own, period.

Originally published on Madaboutmoviez

Two Movies, Twice the trouble-Snow White and the Huntsman and Rowdy Rathore: Double review

Few days ago I reviewed Ishaqzaade in a negative light. Today I realized how meritorious that film was. Cinema as an artistic medium can be used to create new worlds, original characters or fictionalize real ones in a unique way.

I am all for fantasy, whether it is presented in its purest form or it is regular Bollywood escapism. I used to watch movies in1990s, I was a kid then, and I used to hate them, because there would no heroine to love, no hero to look up to, no villain so evil or no character amusing enough to sit by side, their jokes just mundane. A film can create a world where one could get lost, where characters could be loveable, amusing, stylish, devilish or even seductive. Then came a time where films attained quality to them, even if they were clichéd, they were good enough. 21^st century did bring to us Hiranis and Bhardwajs and Dibakar Bannerjees, but suddenly, despite cinema is progressing, we find Films like Rowdy Rathore turning out to be the money spinners. May be few film makers have started thinking in the right direction but audiences are still there, and they still like such films and when I write this review, this film already holds the record of the 3^rd best opening.

And I don’t blame the Indian audience, when a film like Transformers 3 can be a billionaire film, well anything can happen anywhere, and seemingly this might happen again with the Snow-white and the Huntsman. A fantasy film has that special opportunity that it can take the audiences to a place they have not seen but what really pulls them in is the story and the characters and their trouble and their emotional states, especially when it is a fairy tale, no matter which way it is done whether it is dark or it is schmaltzy, the unique world can be interesting if the viewer can lose himself with the characters, unfortunately there is nothing startling or exciting that a fantasy film offers.

Even though Snow-white and the Huntsman can be at least looked at, Rowdy Rathore is hardly interesting and even sadist at times, and ironically Akshay Kumar is the only tolerable entity of his feature, and this has happened with me after a long time, while Kristen Stewart in her film stays flat Charlize Theron and Hemsworth are alright.

While I intend to explain why Ishaqzaade was more meritorious, I mention this here again, I do not intend to defend the film because that film too jumped into the hands of unimpressive bad cinematic outdated craft in the 2^nd half of the film that killed the whole film, still it could at least provide a dynamic curve for its characters for some time, these films do not even try and the Hindi film I watched today poorly pushed itself into disastrous regression. I might have to rate these movies on a scale, but I don’t want to because that really doesn’t matter.

I don’t say a movie on badlands is always a bad one, there is always a possibility of an outstanding western that can be churned out from a picture like this, but all it needs is a thought and composition of scenes which felt real, even if they had nothing to do with reality. Next week we have Dibakar Banerjee with his Shanghai  and I am curious what he has done with his town. Till then all I can do is, be disappointed about the condition of the successful cinema, which is so mediocre and inelegant.

This review was first published on MAM.

“Ishaqzaade is not entertaining zaada”-Movie Review

There is a big deal of cinema, loaded in Ishaqzaade. Spectacularly, the Hindi new age cinema, if only it was consistent enough and characters, even though rooted, were not burdened with same dramatic stupidity. That is specifically for the second half, when the whole film leaves its build up behind and takes a short cut to the culmination.

The actual problem with Ishaqzaade lies in taking itself too seriously. While it tries real hard to be a very cool film, all the effort goes down the drain because of inconsistencies. Not that it absolutely isn’t, for the most of the first half, it is, witty and funny and energetic. But in the second half, it becomes so unfocussed and it is just not startling or abrupt as it should be. The scene composition is authentic but it is not engaging and at times, it does become preachy and so disastrously avoids its natural attitude, needless to say interest is lost.

While I could blame the second half for the rest of the review, first half too isn’t absolutely clean, and at times it does feel overdone. The film is perhaps one of the very few films that goes up and jumps from that height to fall flat. Despite superior characterization and a truckload full of talented supporting characters, they can’t save the ship from sinking. Perhaps the hints are there at the very beginning of the film and you just feel weakness at places but still fun is there, so you kind of ignore it and join the action packed romance.

But after some time, the way it progresses, it becomes apparent that even if something really unpredictable happens, if it does, would not be surprising. One simply watches the film, with shades and hints of goodness amongst plain ordinary that continues to be prevalent despite severe attempts at humour which occasionally work and occasionally fail.

Sometimes I wonder when a director has a script in his hand and visualizes his scenes, can’t he feel that he is losing interest or he is being repetitive and his characters are losing that charm with which they seduce the audiences or even they could titillate them. Even with sincere dedication actors who look like they should, talk like the way they should, but all that cannot avoid the loss of involvement, and at the end of it, it really doesn’t matter where they would end up.

Ishaqzaade couldn’t bring variety to the overall package, it is just another film with the same story, where the film maker tries to add a typical flavor and an issue but losing the punch somewhere in between and it turned out to be what it is, a just another film.

The story starts with kids fighting off and raised with hatred to each other and their politically countering families, and they fall in love from there on, it is a flavoured, tasteful film, starting off with startling twists, and ultimately losing itself to too much of Indian conventional cinema.

Film makers, I have recently noticed, seem to be short of ideas. In this particular film I have seen the director take short-cuts one after another. Things are taken too simplistically and nuanced characters suddenly become singular toned. It was the 1990s when characters were singular toned, and precisely for a good part of this film, characters were random and brutally interesting, but suddenly they become the old, seen-that stuff.

As the film ended it becomes a matter of consideration that characters are no longer with you in an awe inspiring fashion. They were there inside, they were good looking, occasionally lovely, at times funny but ultimately distant and they just didn’t bite hard enough to retain heartache.

This review originally appeared on Madaboutmoviez.

Agent Vinod Review

“I steal from every single movie ever made”, when Quentin Tarantino said those words, how deep he really meant it, only he can tell. It is impossible to avoid to not to be inspired before creating something, and when Quentin Tarantino said that, while he made his own films, he made a relevant reverential reference to a particular film produced earlier which might have influenced him when he made his films, and that can be easily identified in those films he made.

Agent Vinod falls in the same category, perhaps Sriram Raghavan’s previous film Johnny Gaddar did too, if only, it was that good. In India, if you make a spy-action-comic-thriller, the idea of it comes with certain defined drawbacks. Probably it is the narrow mindedness of Indian cinema that it doesn’t try to be inventive, especially in terms of content. Visually, Agent Vinod is on par with most of the standard Indian films, it looks exactly as it should, and certain parts of it prove that Raghavan is an extraordinary film-maker.

But Indian film makers are poor thinkers. In a way that, not a lot of thought is applied when the decision, of what should be the content, has to be taken. When, an Indian spy film is planned, automatically certain decisions are taken, probably without a lot of consideration, for example jumping from one location to another, from one character to another, adding multiple twists and how will it affect the overall effect of the film, while Agent Vinod tries to be funny and occasionally intelligent lighthearted moments do exist, but Saif’s Agent Vinod is immensely forgettable and is hunchbacked by the load of conventionalities and little inventiveness where he can do no wrong and is perfectly sharp as far as action and elimination, or even beating the bad guys, is concerned, his intellectual brilliance is only suggested when it was expected to be mind blowing.

Agent Vinod starts off with the same formula as every spy movie does. It establishes its hero, then the main plot is triggered, which starts with hinting something hidden or something that could cause a disaster, then something else will happen somewhere related to it, and the hero has to be deployed, and through the series of the defined set of incidents, where you can find similarities with Indian spy movies, released earlier, for example, 16 December, Dus even Asambhav and Zameen sometimes, that it made me wonder that how much I was missing respect for Vijay Anand.

But Agent Vinod has his moments, especially in the first half. Where the style and wit, both are present, action is engaging, girls are good looking, colors are appropriately contrasted, and Prem Chopra is delightful, even Ram Kapoor is. The Starting of the film, preceded by a quote from The Good the Bad and The Ugly (which is more relevant to the trailer than the film), which begins with a battle in the desert, interlaced with very stylish opening credit sequence, excites you. And most of the first half keeps you engaged and unavoidable looks and characters.

It is glossy, indeed, rarely I find such textures in a Hindi film, visuals are as sharp as they could be, it is so brilliantly toned at times that you simply can’t put down the effort Raghavan has given in crafting a scene as well as its action, supported by a killer background score that is far more effective than a couple of out of place songs and unashamed usage of technique is sometimes let down by abrupt cuts at certain places. Editing is more liberal on the overall length of the film, it seems tad long at times, because of which the style is no longer important after a while, the content loses importance, Agent loses importance, Villains lose importance, even the suspense does. Ultimately in the second half, even the interest is lost, though a high point is there too, when the Rabta song starts playing.

When I first watched the trailer, understanding Raghavan’s craft, I knew this won’t be the film and I would be surprised to see what I find out. To my dismay I was both right and wrong. Right, that trailer isn’t right about the film, wrong that I would be surprised. It is just another, watchable-one-time good looking action flick, falling on its knees unable to bear the regularities of Indian Cinema.

My Rating: 2.5/5

Overrated Indian Films of recent times

Overrated Indian Films of recent times

Before I begin attacking films I feel have got more than their worth, either critically or commercially or both, please note, these are my personal opinions, and yes, they are debatable but before you are offended, thinking that I have degraded one of your favorite films, I want you to know that this means no harm to anyone or his/her personal affection for a film.

1. Paa

This is one film, when I was watching with my family, my father slept, my mum was drowsy and I tried really hard to keep my eyes wide open. Such a boring film I might have seen in ages and it is really strange that people loved it.

My problem with Paa is, it is as clichéd and relies so heavily on genre conventions that you almost know what will happen. There is nothing new in the script, it gets preachy, nothing interesting is crafted, music is okay, acting is good, and anything else, is there anything else I might have missed that is As-usual with this film, oh and of course,  how can I miss weepy women.

This is one film, where I feel, overdose of schmaltziness was thrown in front of us and we were expected to love it, most of us did. Perhaps, I feel this movie specifically worked for the reason why Indian television has fairly low standards. This simplistic attempt continues to be one of the most boring hit films we might have seen.

2. Kaminey

Both the films released the same year, this one wasn’t that successful, I am saying it wasn’t that big a hit, because then I read bollywoodhungama, and that said, I don’t have another clue how this film fared at the box office, but for sure, this film was loved by (most of the) critics.

The point here is, this film was, in simplest terms, a mess. A love story, that was half baked, overdone caper story, brother-brother love-hate story that was a strange one, buddy plot was shallow, and Kaminey were merely ordinary villains, or simply Kaminey were not that Kaminey. People say it was homage to Quentin Tarantino, I ask how? When did a film by QT deviate from its basic premise? I don’t remember a single QT film deviate one bit from its core intention that was easily reflected by the title of that film. Ultimately what we had was a distracted caper film, hopping between mini plots and multiple story lines, few of them well done, acting was superlative, and dry humor in between that resulted in a good film, but my point here is over rated movies, critics called it a milestone, few said that’s a start, for me it is just another good but forgettable film.

3. Good Night | Good Morning

This one opened to minimal shows, universal acceptance, and loads of sympathy. Honestly, I dig this film, and when I’d say it is over rated, people would immediately jump up and say, dude I don’t remember seeing more than a 3.5/5 rating for this film. My point here is, not the ratings it received, but the way critics wrote the review. Many times, a reviewer may write the film in negative light, but still give a 2.5/5 rating, sometimes for credibility, sometimes for the sake of the fun that film delivered, many times, critics review the film greatly but give less stars because they know that audience won’t really be bothered about that film and again credibility would come into question.

GNGM faced either of the two situations I mentioned above, reading reviews of that movie might make you feel that the movie is an instant classic but the ratings are restricted, or it might feel that movie is just okay but then rating is good enough. It is this oxy moronic scenario and debatable goodness of this sweet little film that compels me to include it in this list, because this film, though a lot of thought is applied to it along with innumerable cultural and religious references, is extremely inelegant.

It tries to take a lot of interesting themes to handle, like Stanley Kubrick does it, it throws in a lot of cinematic discussion, like Quentin Tarantino does, it tries to show the love of a place or a city and its beauty, like Woody Allen does and many other cinema people that are beyond the scope of my knowledge, tries hard to be cerebral, tries to be a good love story, tries to be an intelligent talky, and I don’t know how hard this film tries to be what. It does turn out to be a good film, but not even an inch deep and least sentimental when it was almost a love story, about opposites attract and about those who are lonely.

If only its characters weren’t good enough this could be a severe debacle and would have floundered painfully, that it didn’t but reviews said, it is creative, path breaking, tremendous and it is this and that and blah and blah, okay guys, I believe in poverty porn now.

Oh yes and a voiceover in this film in the end does tell you that it was also trying to explore all stages in the lifecycle of falling in and out of love, wow, that was meant to be felt rather than told isn’t it?

4. 3 Idiots

Now I am waiting the real knives and scissors and other sharp objects to come and attack, before I start writing about this one, it is quite possible that I am severely trolled and people may stop reading it any further, but heck, I was waiting for this to happen.

3 idiots is just another example of how formulaic films have taken over serious quality. All that is needed is the right ingredient and WHOA, we have a Masala film. First of all the controversially credited book on which it was based wasn’t a superlative one, it was another sympathy oriented story. Then it was a spicy love story, then it was preachy, then its humor was clichéd, perhaps there was no such thing that could be called inventive or fresh, including its subject.

Add to it, taking away bride from her marriage, executing a delivery with a vacuum cleaner and periodic doses of schmaltziness, alright.

3  Idiots is a shining example of how a blockbuster movie is defined, you go with your family, you have fun, your parents do, your best friends do, and then you go again and then again repeat from step one. I had loads of fun watching this film, but when someone says, 3 Idiots was one of the best films of all time, I think again and I just smile and tell myself, if people find it really entertaining and not one moment to be excessive and awkward, it’s alright.

After reading this, my best friends will come running behind me with bats and hockey sticks and anything that could hurt.

5. Udaan

Now this is a good film, I know it, because of the honesty with which it is produced, but this is strangely out of place for me, and exclusively for me it is over rated, if someone tries to disagree with me, this is one film where I will not defend myself, but I have to write it because I feel this film is extremely outdated in terms of treatment where idea is topical.

Teenagers and youngsters today are fearful, about most of the things in life; let it be love, career and other important things. Their parents don’t understand it, that is true, fathers can be brutal, and that is true as well. But this was one film where such a brilliant subject was handled with so much heavy handedness that it didn’t connect to me at all.

When I was watching this film, nothing, I repeat nothing I found that was interesting. This must be a deep film, loveable, with a character most of us would root for, but I stayed on the surface, poetry absorbed dialogue wasn’t inspiring and moreover, instead of disgust for the father, I was completely disconnected, I just watched the story and when the lead character really wins, it doesn’t give me a ray of hope or pleasure that I would be emotionally associated with the character. This could be my pampered upbringing or the life as I see it, that I couldn’t relate to it, but ultimately, I was bored watching this film.

And this is one film, when I call it over rated it questions my credibility as a film lover, but as 3 Idiots I had to write it as I feel that way.

6. Gandu

The winner of them all, I watched this film, only and exclusively because it is a pampered film, promoted only through word of mouth, online publicity, blogs and indie film makers jumping around it and what not to celebrate it. This is one film where almost every film journalist must have sworn to promote it at least once, and almost every film critic must have sworn to blog about it directly or mention it somewhere or the other.

I may not defend myself for Udaan, because that is a story its maker wanted to capture, characters are true, and the film is crafted with honesty, if only, all that really worked for me, but this is one film, where I tend to offend anyone who intends to promote to this film as sheer genius.

It might be a good experiment, but it is an awful film. Let’s say, you are in a party and your host starts shouting and abusing, saying all his guests suck and he, the host, is really smart and cool and an artist and starts boasting about himself at the same time offending his guests, with this film, the director becomes the host and audiences become his guests. When you don’t want people to see your film then why do you make one, or if you want them to connect to it then why do you want them to leave it in between?

I, for one a poor small time film maker, feel that a director usually has 3 to 4 scenes and one basic idea with him to make a film, he asks someone to write a story around that idea and those 3 to 4 scenes, and then he makes a film. When I think about this film, the most carefully crafted out scenes in this film are those which are most abusive, where nudity and masturbation is shown with such wildness, that I wonder what Kaushik (director of this film) had in his mind when he thought of this film. Perhaps, he wanted to show hard core sex on screen, may be that was his child hood fantasy, or he wanted someone to see him masturbate, or maybe he wanted someone to read sadness in his life came because he has had a sexless life or because he wanted to abuse people because everyone else abused him? Or maybe because he would see a lot of old people having sex in front of him and being least bothered about him and even he too wanted all that pleasure, wow, we have such a perverted film maker with us now, who has probably crossed all the boundaries of ruthlessness, made a snuff film, labeled it as an indie and sold it to all those hypocrites who aren’t sure but had fun with all that content in that film.

To add to the profanity seeing a goddess statue and fantasizing about her, along with his best friend having a threesome, laughing at his mother when she is having sex with her guest, this only proves that director is not an artist, he is a loser as the title of his film suggests, where success is just a matter of luck as he shows, where art is as impure as he thinks and without a clarity of what he wants to say he simply jogs in between those profane scenes he’s been thinking of all his life.

This film doesn’t try to explore its characters, scenes are so short that do everything but distract the viewers from rooting for them as well, his idea of the film is unclear and all in all it is a disaster and I am glad it didn’t reach wide audiences, perhaps, it doesn’t deserve their respect, and not every guy with a camera is David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick that he would make a thematically ambiguous film.

7. Zindagi Na Milegi Dobaara

INT. Guest House

After Diving and Abhay Deol had a heated chat with kalki Hritik Roshan and Katrina Kaif have a chat playing with cutleries in a kitchen.

Katrina kaif(KK)

To Tumne bataya nahi kaisa laga

Hritik Roshan(HR)

Thank You

KK

Don’t thank me, jo bhi kia tumne kia.

HR  makes a humble gesture

KK

So, How was it?

HR

<Sigh> It was magical, aisa laga jaise ki mai dunia ki sabse shaant jagah mei hu <sigh again> It was beautiful

KK

 <With a Graceful chuckle> I was 16 jab maine apni pehli dive ki, aur uske baad mujhe rokna, heh, it was impossible.

HR

Haan, isme ek Nasha hai.

KK

Nasha?! Nasha mat kaho, its such a negative word. Diving is <orgasm face and sigh> something else for me, it’s like meditation, insaan ko apni ek ek saans, ek ek pal ka ehsaas hota hai

Salil Shankar

Ohh yeaahh, ohhh, c’mon, c’mon, yeaah, dialogue, dialogue, yeaahhhh

KK

Just imagine,

Hritik Roshan, makes a “Khushi Ke aasu tapkao” face once again,

but no, not again, only face, lot of glycerin may  be harmful for his eyes

KK (continues)

 agar hum apni saari zindagi aise jee sakte

Salil Shankar

Toh ya to regular day job ki tarah isse bhi frustration hone lagti nahi toh koi machlee hume khaa jaati, warna paani mei baithe baithe humay zukaam ho jaata aur usay thik karane k liye wapas zameen pe aakar doctor ko dikhana padta aur fir hum paani mei jaake ek doosre se kehte, kaash hum zameen par hee reh sakte. Aur meri bakwaas gayi bhaad mei, lifelong holidays hee banate rahenge toh saale paise kaha se kamaenge, upar se itne mehnge holidays manate rehne ki aukaat hoti bhi, ya tere jitna raees superstar hota bhi toh bhi, guarantee se, mai ye line toh na hee bolta.

Zindagi na milegi dobaara is filled with such unintentionally hilarious dialogue, its dramatic moments are crafted with such hollowness that you don’t really absorb the sentiments, even the humour, It was bundled with absolutely useless  and once again unintentionally hilarious side stories, and pitiful moments. This is one more film that is another example of looks driving and killing the substance, where, to reach its highlight scenes all the drama in between is so simplistically built that I sometimes wondered, Farhan co-wrote this, he wrote Dil Chahta hai as well no? and even Rock On was alright, then, this? You’ve gotta be kidding me!

Agree/Disagree, comment box is open, and I am here , you question, I answer.

RGV’s Most underrated movies

RGV’s most underrated movies

1. Not a Love story

Audiences hated it, critics, even more, but when I watched it, I wasn’t bored; I wasn’t irked by the so called tastelessness, I wasn’t disappointed by the overall film either. Thinking of it, “Not a love story”, may have not explored what people were expecting. It wasn’t that brutal as well, but it wasn’t half as bad as Hindi cinema could possibly be, like the sheer absurdity that is thrown at us day after day, it was far more entertaining, realistic, stylish, thrilling and even slightly funny at times.

Of course this film was not without a couple of short-comings, to see Deepak Dobrial dwelling in histrionics, Mahie Gill going over the top when she weeps is really awkward, background score literally attacks your eardrums and is almost every time out of the place (if you notice the background score instead of feeling it, then you know it is incorrectly overdone). Moreover, when you see a psychological film, the angst should seep deep inside somewhere and evil does take over, the way it is shot and cut hopping from one condition to another does distract some times.

Ultimately, a film trying to capture mistakes done, one after the other because of the passion or to become a star or out of sheer anguish or confusion or covering the previous mistakes committed, this doesn’t really succeed, but as far as a standalone film is concerned, saying that it isn’t entertaining or absurd is killing quite an interesting and brave film.

My Rating: ★★★

2. Naach

When I watched it, I didn’t read a lot of reviews; I wasn’t that a movie lover and I watched in a cinema hall, it released with 2 other (one passable and another awful) films, Aitraaz and Veer-Zaara (in that order), and I watched all of them one day after the other, as it was Diwali time. A couple of years ago, I watched it again, and I can’t tell you how gloriously, carefully and affectionately I feel this movie is crafted. Between one scene to another, as this film floats with (not that good as it deserved) music and (not as strange as it initially looks) choreography, the way Abhi (Abhishek Bachchan) sees Reva (Antara Mali) create sequences and falling for her, the way her ego avoids genuineness and chooses loneliness considering Abhi’s success, his ignorance. Rarely, I repeat, rarely emotions are captured with such finesse. Ram Gopal Varma has usually shown that he loves his characters, he loves the way they think and he loves the way they ignore to attract and he loves the way they fail to compromise and then compromise, and then art is true, when it can be felt. The complicated feelings, reflected by simple reactions, where they ignore the ones they think, are the only ones they can confide to and they want them but find someone else and that someone else is left confounded, and all this, shot so beautifully and acted so naturally that this film literally breezes through its, not-so-important, story. And then people say, all Ram Gopal Varma is concerned with is Antara Mali’s body, sigh.

My Rating: ★★★½

3. Nishabd

This film, in my opinion and terms, is an achievement for Hindi cinema, not because people think that the subject is brave, but it is an achievement for what it tries to capture, and those are, sentiments, pure, negligent and meticulous. When energy strikes something cold, liveliness is felt. For an old man whose feelings are long lost, all that remains are memories, which could be looked back, again and again.

As I said, Ram Gopal Varma has usually shown that he loves his characters, perhaps Nishabd is a shining example of that. Perhaps he loves those ones more who do smile but aren’t really happy deep inside. Inside they are lonely, they are afraid and they just hope that things will be fine, and they don’t. Nothing really will happen until there is a diametric change and that does happen, and to let it happen they don’t stop or run away but keep on going, until they realize that stupidity has happened and it is too late.

For an old man, retired to tea gardens, all that are pleasing is natural beauty and scenes that he captures on camera, passionately. One day, a visitor comes, a young, energetic, peppy, arrogant girl kid, nothing really happens then. But one day her playfulness gives him an idea to capture on camera, in those stationary, dull moments of life an old man finds life to be captured in its full form, so he does it and from there begins an emotional turmoil, leaving the old man confused and passionate at the same time.

As the above 2, this one is not a perfect film. It would be perfect, if it had ended as meticulously and gradually as it was previously. Barring the last 20-25 minutes of the film the whole film is sheer poetry. And as far as this film is concerned, it is so finely crafted that it tells me, a film-maker wannabe, what a good film really is, what cinema is capable of and slaps me hard in my face, when I think of making a film and then I think of this film, that shouts literally on my face, how shallow we are, in terms of taste in cinema and life over all.

My Rating: ★★★★

Barton Fink-There’s much more to the life of a common man

**This text contains spoilers, reader, please read only if you have seen this film**

As usual there is something unique about a Coen Brothers film, and usually, it is possible that you don’t figure out everything when you watch it, my previous outing with Coens was a sweet one (Miller’s Crossing) the extremely unpredictable crime film, that was an unexpected genre film (1^st of the only 2 genre films they have made, other being a western, rather Not-so-great (in my opinion) True Grit) from their side. Now coming back to the point, yes, Barton Fink, a Playwright, who is called by Hollywood, an opportunity, people die for, he is sceptical, why, maybe he is not sure, whether the more commercial Hollywood can take him the way he is, now here it is the first act, the hotel (definitely inspired by overlook and shot with inspiration from and homage to Kubrick) begins with an unending ring, he can’t write in that environment, cuz he is distracted, more by his motivation less, uninspired decision to take this task, of writing a wrestling B picture story, and in an inappropriate manner, turning the blame on noise created by the occupant next door, who in turn comes, apologizes and befriends him.

Now here lies the conflict and greatness, the conflict that a common man, how is he less than a king, the basic need of a common man is, someone could pay attention to him, or someone could help him, be with him, yet the human being, once he finds an opportunity, he starts imposing, on the other guy, who might be looking for equal measures of attention or maybe peace, and may be, Fink’s activities, might be disturbing the other guy as well. Now let’s take it to a broader perspective, maybe, fink, is the wrong person to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, let’s say, a tasteful playwright, in business oriented Hollywood at the time of World War II, or a sexually suppressed man, in a hotel room (with the next occupant being a madman) lying next to a dead body. It’s so deliberate, that the conflict going on inside the mind is synchronized with immediate physical surrounding synchronized with environment completely (it happened with ‘A Serious Man’ as well, I didn’t like that film though).

Of-course, the Hollywood big studio system, which doesn’t care for beauty or poetry, all they want is a commercial marketable story, which this film shows Hollywood as hell for creative people.

Now another aspect of it, Fink says ‘Common Man’, without completely understanding the complexity of it, a common man, is someone with whom something uncommon is going on, maybe a killer, killed someone to help the one being killed, or maybe he killed someone in order to make someone else realize, that he should stop his stupid activities that might be disturbing him(let’s say Fink making love and those sounds they make, might disturb Charlie), or maybe he killed someone, just to defend his ground or even simple, an urge to divert attention towards his pain. Now we will expand it, to a broader perspective, a playwright, he got his own taste of stories, he is being asked to write a story of a B picture, now in his mind, this foolish thought comes,(MY STANDARDS ARE TOO HIGH YOU TASTELESS DORK) and feels he is distracted, though he gets signals from different people, for example “Writing is peace”, for any writer, continuous writing becomes the point, instead of making a fool out of himself by saying stuff like “it comes from within”, now how are we expanding it, Hollywood gives a writer an opportunity to create and it pays high, but the writer is making excuses, thinking that place (read Hollywood) where he is staying sucks, and is irritated by fellow inmates(read citizens), doing stupid activities, trying to find some kind of entertainment, instead of writing, but he doesn’t realize, that may be, his activities, might be irritating other inmates(read citizens) and in the due course of time, he might be disturbing that place itself, and that place is a place, its hot, and you mess with it, hell breaks loose upon you, perhaps that’s the personification, or may be the physical interpretation of the disaster that has happened, but in the end, Fink, does write the story, it is rejected, yes, but he is on contract, so it means, he will be paid, it also means, he can hope and as for now, that visual pleasure by the sea side, is his, the bad guy is out for war and he doesn’t know what’s there in the box, may be something good. Happy Ending, may be, that’s how I take it.

And of-course there are references to religion (Bible), racism (“Jewish name”), World war II and Hail Hitler, those are the messages, I couldn’t really get, because of my lack of knowledge, and that’s my retrospective of Barton Fink, perhaps a great, great film!!! And of-course comment section is open, add to it, your retrospective, we can talk. J

Dramatically Appropriate

INT. A STAGE AND 2 CHAIRS

On a stage inside an auditorium, there are 2 chairs, separated

by a desk, on that desk, there is a label, on that, it is

written, Michael Winston, with Boss of Cinema as

subscript and suddenly one young man comes on stage, neatly

dressed, with a file in his hands, examines the auditorium,

looks left and right, and faces the seating side of the

audience. Takes one chair and settles down, he faces the

label, he keeps the file. Another old man, probably in his early

60s, with a very relaxed body language comes from the other

side of the stage and sits on the other side of the desk.

clears his throat, lifts the file, draws his spectacles, wears

them, pulls out the CV from the files and starts speaking.

MICHAEL

(formally heavy voice)

Hmm, fairly interesting Mr. Winstar

ROBIN

please call me Robin.

MICHAEL

fine, Robin, considering you have

seen 200 films, what makes you

think,you can call yourself a movie

geek, and be a member of A LEAGUE

built by US, after having a lifetime

of movie watching experience.

ROBIN

(calmly)

Because its no where written I can’t

call myself that, and because even if

I have not seen even a third of those

you have, it does not mean that my understanding for cinema is

useless.

MICHAEL

(Patiently)

Robin, when was the last time you

watched a film and thought about its

rights and wrongs.

ROBIN

I don’t think about rights and

wrongs, I prefer thinking about the

film itself, and that too only when I

liked it, otherwise, there is nothing

to think about, perhaps that’s the

reason Mr. Winston, my mind is

devoid of cynicism and it is filled

love for the art and that’s the

reason I am a film lover and you are

a critic, your duty becomes to write

about the possible rights when it is

bad and hunt for weaknesses when it

is good, on the other hand I prefer watching a movie

and recommending it

when it is good and things to watch

out for what others might skip

observing.

MICHAEL

And then perhaps what makes you

capable of identifying what others

might skip observing, that’s the

fundamental reason of being a GEEK,

and please call me Mike, because, on

this stage, at this point, the two of

us are equals, for anyone who might

see us.

ROBIN

There is no question of capability

Mike, I don’t hold a PhD in film

criticism neither do I have that

experience as you have, nor I am a

journalist as you are, the only thing

I can identify in a film is the

dramatic effect, which varies from one film

to another.

MICHAEL

Dramatic effect Robin, one can

understand, when one can understand

human beings, their sentiments, their

agony, their disturbance and

happiness.

ROBIN

And perhaps that is the reason why

“The Shawshank Redemption” is the

best film I have seen, because on any

path of Redemption lies hurdles and

and it takes each and every step

forward to the ultimate destination.

MICHAEL

So, disappointing Robin, you have

written “Citizen Kane” in your list

of watched films and yet you can’t

connect to the sentiments of a rich

man, earning loads of money and

losing life, that was genius.

ROBIN

It might be for you sir, for me the

most memorable characters will be

those, who will find occasions, when

there will be no reason to be happy,

to be hopeful and lively in

situations that have no reasons to be

one, and because its strength lies in

his relations and its mysterious

self, and its unpredictability, and

changes that occur in imprisonment similar to those that we see in life

where most of the life is monotony

yet we keep hoping of beauty and

living in brightness.

MICHAEL

Yet, the drama is built by dialog and

character specification, Kane’s

grandness and his obsession to stay

in limelight for everything, to live

large and popularity, was his only

love that led to his loneliness, that

too, because he was pulled from his

poverty to ascertained Rich life,

that too narrated with such crisp

narrative, out of convention rather

than simplistic linear that is

used in your favourite film, well I

have full respect for that film, but

as far as I am concerned, its tough

for me to call you a geek if you

can’t relate to Kane.

ROBIN

Unfortunately Mike, I could never

connect to Kane, because I was always

more connected to those hopeful

themes, narrated with as much

simplicity as possible, with its

seamless narrative, it literally

floats, that’s why you are a critic,

you are in love with a film that ends

with sad demise of a rich man hunting

for happiness and I am in love with a

film that ends…. well you know, how

does it end!!! More over, its not

that I hate citizen Kane, most

honestly, because that colour and

that sound design and of-course

unclear video quality, distracted me

for most of the time, so that I could

even completely focus on its

narrative! And as far as crisp

narrative is concerned then there is

“The Social Network” another

masterpiece.

MICHAEL

Masterpiece! you don’t really

understand what is a master piece, a

master piece is something really,

really, unique, unfortunately since

the late 70s, no more film makers

attempt masterpieces.

ROBIN

and how you realize a film is a

masterpiece Mike?

MICHAEL

well, a drama film in truest form is

a masterpiece, when the story is

independent of visual effects,

distracting action, overloud music

and extravagant production values,

its characters, dialog and conflict,

because I believe any one can make

non-vegetarian dishes tasty, and to

make a salad taste good, it needs

talent.

ROBIN

Exactly, Mike I agree with you, now

tell me one thing, and How different

is “The Social Network”?

MICHAEL

“The Social Network” might be a great

film, but definitely not a

masterpiece, a masterpiece would be a

film by Orson Welles!!

ROBIN

and I thought, being a movie geek,

you ought to be un-biased, I believe

in what you have previously said, A

great film would be an absorbing

story with its characters, “The

Social Network” is no different Mike,

its the story about a Boy, like every

other boy, energetic, talented,

envious, with his own disrupted

relations, attention seeking, growth

oriented and workaholic and revelling

stardom combined with most natural

characters surrounding him, envious

of him, angry with him. How different

are those themes from your Citizen

Kane!

MICHAEL

So is your disgust against the

classics…

ROBIN

(interrupting)

No, I don’t have anything against the

classics, because of those films,

these films today were made, but for

me, new films will be more

effective, because I find them more

appealing, moreover there is one

film, spaghetti western, made in

1966, that is perhaps the 2nd best film I have seen in my life

MICHAEL

And that is “the Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, As I should most expect, an epic violent B grade western.

ROBIN

Ok, so you are the one amongst few

distasteful of that film, Mr.

Winston. But unfortunately, it

was perhaps the most entertaining

film I have ever seen, also absorbing

2nd only to The Shawshank Redemption!

For Sheer vision of Leone, for that

conflict, I have never seen before or

since I have seen that film, for that

absolutely stunning camerawork, and

that funny Eli Wallach’s interactions

with others and for that Clint

Eastwood’s enigmatic action and for

that Van Cleef’s badness, The Good

The Bad and The Ugly is and will be

the most entertaining film for me and

The Shawshank Redemption, The Good

The Bad and The Ugly and The Social

Network will be the best 3 films I

have seen.

MICHAEL

If so is your attitude Mr. Winstar,

then I don’t think so, I would call

you movie Geek, because I think you

have lot to learn. Perhaps it seems,

you are in right direction. Hopefully

some day very soon, you will be one. Good Luck for your future endeavours Mr. Winstar, it was nice talking to you.

ROBIN

If Being a movie Geek means being

similar to you, then I am better the

way I am, Mr.Winston, I am good

as a film-lover, perhaps I think, I

better not be a movie-geek, and I

have discovered that my dramatic

sense is appropriate.

Robin stands up, takes his file, and leaves the stage, While the old man sits on his desk and curtain of the auditorium falls

PS: This is my 10^th post on this blog, and hence an anniversary post, this post discusses the most important film genre the “Drama film”, 3 best films I have ever seen, and perhaps the most important film ever made according to critics and how I could not enjoy that film!!!!

This post is an entry to the Reel-Life Bloggers contest organized by wogma.com and reviewgang.com