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

“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.

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

Epic Film

Once upon a time

When Lumieres invented

A device which could record what

Mind could see

After the birth of recorded minds,

That they called a film

Those could not speak,

A man was born,

They called him D’Annuzio

He thought of a film,

Of worlds at war,

Where human sentiments

Went for loyalty of masters

And what his mind could see

Would be interaction of people

On a scene,

With scale so huge,

That each and every scene

He had scene

Would enchant the viewer,

It was then,

When that particular film

Was born from the existing

Films that felt like

Those great poems

From Valmiki and Vyas

That narrated a point

Of time good or bad

That visual poetry

Inspired another creature

Who felt there was no limit

For sentiments to cross borders

And infinite distances

And attempt to live against the war

For the one always desired

And hunt for peace

And a Nation was born

With a film so magnanimous

That everyone

Who had a mind which

Could see

That there is no limit

Of emotions and visual creation

And every scene that could add

To the emotion would be

As grand as the emotion

From there on

That film left its

Home to explore

And be explored

Not only in form of

Images but also as

The form of a life cycle

Of its, own, which

Will be born and grow

On its own and will end

The way a legend does

That lifecycle would be of

A man, feelings, relationships

Event, war, adventure

Or a thought process, itself

But it would be born

It will be conceived,

Nourished and grown

And will be left for its demise

By its creator whose mind could

See, yet that kind of a film

Had its own milestones

In its way to glory,

It traveled countries and

Origins and few of them

Were inspiring enough

And discovered by many

Few here,

Few somewhere else

One was created when

They invented 70mm

And a man whose mind

Could see wider than other

Got inspired by a British

Officer ready to fight and relish violence

Hyper energetic, fickle minded

In love with war

Ready to capture and empower

The Turks, for and with the Arabians

Drifting between humanity and its Loss

Once upon a time, that film was made.

Once upon a time here

A man who could see

A youngster’s spirit to

Be free, his spirit to

Stand by for what he believes in

And ready to die for,

The youngster ready to play

A game invented by those who ruled here then

The youngster’s spirit to fight would enchant

One of the ladies on the side of those

Who ruled here then

And her sentiments would be

Read by another female on the youngster’s side

And the youngster would fight

Fight for his share of freedom

Once upon a time

A director’s mind would see

Once upon a time in India

And Once upon a time this film would be made

Once upon a time a writer

Would think not about

A period from history,

But a period close enough

About a man made of principles

A man made of morality

Yet man doing immoral

To the society

Empowering the powerful

Who be father of those

The protector of those

Who felt their family

Needed a larger person

To help

Once upon a time

A film-maker got inspired by

That story,

He visualized those emotions of

That family would come together

To protect each other,

To keep it safe

Once upon a time that

Considered by some as

Greatest film of all time

That film was made

Once upon a time here

A film-maker would be

Inspired, by those eccentric

Personalities, who had violence and fear

As their business to make a living

He would visualize

Birth of a relationship,

Between those who lived under

A world that existed but not seen by all

He would nurture that relationship to

Its highs,

And then he would clash

The moralities,

Shattering the relationships

And law would take over

And that company of

Men would be killed

And that well ordered enterprise

Would be taken over by law,

Yet those men,

Would always feel for each other

Once upon a time that film would be made.

Once upon a time a director would

Visualize The Dawn of Man,

Where he would learn about learning

Where he would know that science is

There to ease

From there on, he would embark for

A journey, traveling space and time

In hunt for truth, knowledge, perfection and inspiration

Only ending up to discover

That he is an infant in front of knowledge

About himself, let alone knowledge of

Universe that is as mysterious and inspirational

As god himself.

Once upon a time this film was made.

Once upon a time

A film maker would visualize

That life is made of struggle

And struggle leads to greed

And greed is a sentiment

And sentiments are violent

But there is only one thing

That would either invoke

Or avoid violence among men.

And that would be money,

For which everyone whether moral,

Immoral or poor would fight for

Or compromise for

Once upon a time that film was made

And once upon a time those kinds of films

Would inspire a film-maker here,

And he and his team would visualize

A village fearing lawlessness of and

Gruesomeness of a dacoit

Two fearless friends would be

Hired by a man filled with

Grief of losing his family

Filled with vengeance

And thus the greatest Hindi

Film ever would be made.

And once upon a time

A film lover

Dreaming about lifecycles

Of such films, how

They were conceived

Nurtured, grown and culminated

Would be inspired to realize

An idea and write something

On what they called an

“Epic Film”

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

Why RGV must never be killed!!!!

Film after film whenever his film is released, each and every hot shot critic is ready with his guns to attack RGV seeking vengeance more than what even that poor lady from 13 Assassins (whose arms were severed) seeks from the possible king, could dream of. Just finding another reason to kill him in their hearts, curse him and abuse him.

But there numerous reasons, for which Ram Gopal Varma and his films will live, long enough to be remembered as most artistically created commercial films. Once I was watching this video, Shared by Anupama Chopra from NDTV, where she was interviewing Soderbergh, and she incidentally asked the most obvious question, “What is the quality a director should possess” and he replied in one word “Empathy”. I ask, how many film-makers have it, they all are ready to turn Indie way, or the commercial, good old formula way, or to some extent even the Hollywood way, but talking about individuality, with empathy, rare item. RGV has it, we accept it or deny it, because if not, then there is no way a film-maker would go back to explore a human being indulged in violence or explore a human being with lost sensibilities and much to his own loneliness just waiting for his demise and suddenly a change in his life would make him lively, more active, less estranged, for those who can’t follow the second example I am talking about, its Nishabd, which is not Lolita, which is not a dirty Old man film and which is definitely not peppy, humorous flower made story, it’s a story about a grown up, done with his life, finding pleasure and light in images, through those images he finds excitement, and when they are infiltrated by liveliness of a young girl, he feels more lively himself. It’s rare to find vision of such immense intensity, and No this is not a Nishabd review, it is indeed a “SILENT SHOUT” as lifted from his own blog, that we should not kill the man, who is still giving (or at-least attempting to) his heart and soul, to explore and add to the art and science of visual storytelling and communication.

Because not every day, a film maker will think about a man with anima as natural as any other ordinary human being holding a persona of a gangster, but RGV will, and also he will consider exploring sentiments of a murderess, claustrophobic, in love, regretfully thankful and regretfully compassionate. Now, I have not seen that movie, maybe he did lose focus, but who doesn’t, even Eastwood does sometimes.

As I have always believed a film should never be reality itself, either it should be fictitious enough to be fantasy or it should be an alternative edition of reality, Which hindi films (especially formulaic) films never tend to do so, people might find Dilwale Dulhania….. a classic (even RGV himself) but no where it’s even close to a fantasy or an alternative reality, and to me it’s not entertainment either. But that’s not the point, with every RGV film, bad precisely mentioned by critics, we kill him, by avoiding his cinema, many a times, not even trying it, so shameful it is for us, when Rotten Tomatoes lists The Tree of Life as a summer blockbuster and we can’t even enlist a film like “NAACH” so poetic and so true to self and indulgent enough, to be seen and felt, sometimes it’s just so disappointing when a critic of the stature of “Taran Adarsh”, who has watched more movies than any other internet movie buff like me, fails to explore its genuinely honest nature of a relationship build with thankfulness, indulgence, art and ego, also the purity of vision of a human being and the world around her and the way she feels it. For any patient viewer who has seen that film, and relate to those images, could easily say it was an attempt of making a master piece, only pulled back by his technical crew to some extent, note: Music directors, Lyricists and even to some extent Popularity Minded Choreographers who were at the center of the film, yet could not do justice to the director’s vision, by creating appropriate compositions to suit the images. Yet I am no one to be critical of, I am NOT a critic, I will be and forever be a FILM appreciator, and those images can be created by a film-maker with defined humility for purity, and that too more than anything else, purity of sentiments. And that is precisely the reason we might kill one of the best Indian film-makers of this age, or in some cases I would rather say, THE best Indian Film-maker of this age. Not that He will be bothered about it, or would even care about it, but it’s on our side to be careful of, like we may lose respect for our father and think about killing him as depicted in “Tree of life”, may be because of his activities, or certain wrong decisions, that too we still are kids in front of that creator, who might just be as foolish as jack, and yet loss of respect would be killing him inside us and that would be a loss, considering myself, who is in love with movies as much as RGV is in love with his [even Disastrous]films.

And then considering each and every blogger/critic/self-promising film-maker/attention seeker et al, who immediately jumps into character assassination whenever he/she finds a reason dissect his films don’t really understand that they all can do it whatever they are, right now, because RGV once broke all norms and explored feminine beauty in Rangeela, for which the characters in cinema would fall for, he made a scenario where more than characters, audience themselves would fall for, when He explored that anima behind gangster persona is just another human being, trying to live happily, with his girlfriend, his friends, his wife and he created Satya, when he decided to capture humor behind Insanity, characters aimless enough to not to bother about the world but have fun, while they run and take the audience on a joy ride, he made Daud, when he decided to capture the agony of college boy, disgusted with violence and inspired by heroism, he created Shiva, when he thought that every man, whether their business’ might contradict, whether their thought process may vary, every man holds compassion for another man, and friendship is the greatest entity of a social animal, whether he is a gangster or a policeman or a friend turned folly, he made Company, when he thought that an old man retired to his green valleys, full dullness and boredom suddenly finds another reason to be lively, yet he can’t express it in words, but reciprocation of sentiments could never be verbal, he made Nishabd, when he thought that, more than anything, the essence of being lost is scarier than existence of a criminal within the same endless space, wild enough yet, beautiful, but keeping the beloved safe from harm would be the state of mind of the involved, the wild criminal and his interaction with his own people and the one he holds captive, he made Jungle, when he thought, tension inside a house, with awkward scenario that almost doesn’t change at all, yet the whole environment hides into its own mysterious self, he made Kaun, when he thought that emotions if given wings, can fly, and young are energetic enough, to leave their houses, follow their stupid fantasies, just trying to be happy and run away, being adventurous, He made Mast. So what if all of his films weren’t great, so what if too many of his films were distasteful, for any other film-maker who takes 2-3 years to deliver a good picture is tolerable, then why not give appropriate time to him, maybe he is just exploring, maybe he is still finding most appropriate way of making his masterpiece. Sitting idle and plainly thinking over stuff would get one nowhere, I would rather prefer working things out.

Many a times people have killed him by saying he under rates scripts, I disagree to that, if he would under rate scripts, then why would there be a new writer every time when he makes a film, he, I can only suggest that, under rates plots, which in his case might be appropriate, specifically when someone exploring emotions and feelings, plot might be unnecessary, as it was in Goodfellas and to some extent, The Godfather, but who are we to decide, RGV made his first film in 1988, and now its close 2011 end, and that means he is making films for 23 years now, and as a matter of fact I am only 22!!!! And definitely he would reject this notion, cuz it would remind him that his time is getting reduced every day, and may be even after 23 years he has not done what he ambitioned to. So, I think we should wait, may be like him, who himself is waiting, for getting everything right and ready to trigger, maybe he is just warming up or maybe he is still exploring to find that ultimate technique, that ultimate idea amongst techniques and ideas.

So before we kill him once again, we should think that, after Sholay if India has a classic then it is Satya, if there is a guy who made a gangster movie more appealing than others then it is him, and as far as I am concerned he made Company, that, I would rate more than Goodfellas, cuz I am Indian and it appeals more, and because He made the most genuine hindi love story, when he made Nishabd, and because he explored wilderness of a Jungle by making “Jungle”, and because he explored “Psychologocial Horror” when he made kaun, and because many other movies that he has made, haven’t been so aimless, while he explored, almost all possible genres of cinema in hindi, I would call him an auteur, because he has returned time and again, ultimately to only one thing and that is the sentimental situation of ordinary people in extravagant situation, or extravagant people in ordinary situation, or any other possible permutation of words, we should avoid killing him.

Because one day everyone will die, you, me and RGV himself, but all that would remain will be DVDs, Blu-Rays and torrent links to video files of his films, with credits ending up with Directed by: Ram Gopal Varma.

And one day when I will be old enough, wandering in my video library, probably my grandchild will ask me with curiosity, following my continuous stare at a shelf labeled RAM GOPAL VARMA, “DadaJi, Who is Ram Gopal Varma?” and I would Politely respond “He is a treasure to Indian Cinema”.

Linear and Non-Linear Narratives

Linear and Non-Linear Narratives

Linearity and non-linearity, what does it mean, and how much does it hold in context of cinema. Mathematically, if on a graph with x and y axes, if it is a straight line passing through the origin, or ideal curve of x directly proportional to y, that is linear, and non-linear if that is not straight line, x proportional to y², or x inversely proportional to y, Or any curve on x-y plane that is not a straight line, is a non-linear curve.

Now combining the two, let suppose if, x axis is narrative and y axis is the timeline of the story being told, if the two are going in harmony, and you can connect the links, without any effort, of the narrative one after the other, smoothly, then it is a linear narrative. Or if the director is suddenly skipping chunks of story, hopping to scenes, that have (or may have) happened before, or to scenes that have to happen and appear. Confusing?? Let me clarify for example, there 5 scenes in the film, 1,2,3,4 and 5. If the director goes from 1 to 5, it is linear or he starts with 3 then goes to 5, then 2, then 1 and ultimately 4 and (if required) 5 again or may be 1 and 5 are same. Now if this is the narrative, then it is non-linear.

Now considering my viewpoints on this, I feel this is a very commonly used, non-conventional narrative technique (well, I….. don’t exactly know if there were more than 2 possible techniques other than linear which is conventional and non-linear un-necessarily lablled as non-conventional!!!!!). I have read several forums, director’s Point of views, people say ideally the film should start from one point and end at end point, with scenes in ordered chronologically, that’s the classical way. Then I ask them which way was the story of “Citizen Kane” told? It’s not the point which one is important or better that I want to talk about, it’s the point that I wish to discuss is, its effectiveness. I have seen here in India, many people try and attempt multi-linear screenplays, non-linear narratives (mark, Raavan) and fail miserably to create an impact. Well in such cases I strongly believe, the director should be very sure in what way, non-linearity should affect the narrative, if not he should go for the straight way out. The people attempting non-linear screenplays keep bragging about their unconventional film-making technique and audiences aren’t ready about it, and I would (if it was in my strength) ask them to shut up and look at their product whether it is qualitative enough, to appeal?

The point here is if you look at ideal non-linear narratives, the first example I would take is “Memento”.

It was specifically designed in a manner that audience should be unclear about things as is the protagonist. Now here the non-linearity is effective, why, because it is used as a tool to comprehend the psychological state within the running time of the film. Now looking at Ghajini, Is it non-linear storytelling? whether it is an adaptation? Is it better or worse than Memento? And so many questions, lets answer them one by one, is it non linear….. yes it is, is it an adaptation….. no its not, is it better or worse than memento, now, the point is the 2 films are incomparable, Ghajini is a mass based, conventional hindi film, with sentimentalities, action, comedy, romance, revenge, etc. etc. masalas found in Hindi cinema told with non-linearity, while it is inspired by memento,rather it uses research made by Nolan for Memento, on the other hand memento is an Offbeat, unconventional English film focused to capture the helplessness and struggle of a handicapped man, who is in search of justice. Now I am not going to discuss the plot of Memento here, rather its narrative design and structure. While the basic plot is of a man seeking revenge on murderer of his wife, while he is struck with short term memory Loss, because the 2nd of the 2 killers(first one he killed at the same time) left him with a cerebral injury. With basic information in his hand about the horrible incident bits and pieces of police records, written notes etc., he starts an investigation of his own where police fail to help him. Now the film actually starts with a scene protagonist has killed a man, with a Polaroid in his hand. Now the film begins, with two parallel timelines, one in black & white and other in color. Black & white scenes starts in motel room, where the hero wakes up and tries to recollect, and he receives a phone call. Now the film literally alters between black & white scenes and the color ones. The black and white scenes are actually in chronological order and representatives of the plot and color scenes are in reverse chronology that represent his hunt for the killer, where he doesn’t remember what happened before the current moment, other than what he has written, tattooed or people he got snapped there is no memory of previous incidents with him, exactly as the viewer feels while watching the film. In Nolan’s structure the linearity is further skipped when chronological scenes are homogenously mixed with reverse chronological scenes. The story is divided into two halves, let suppose there are 11 scenes in the story-line then the film starts with 11th, then comes the 1st then 10th more well explained in the diagram,

Now here is my point why is such a complicated story telling technique important when a film can be filmed simply, then why did Murgadoss also used it. Well, I think he used Non-linearity in an attempt to avoid viewers from predicting it. Now after too much of reading this you must be wondering that it is pretty evident from the article that I am very fond of Memento but what’s my view point of Ghajini, actually for me Ghajini is just another one time watch entertainer, watch and forget, it is alright, but if I would have its DVD…… Nah…… but Memento would is there, up on my shelf always only because every time I would watch it I would discover something new. As far as I am concerned, since I am also a wannabe film maker (It’s my dream, I am going to give it a shot too!!!!), whether I would use it or not? Now this strongly depends on the idea. I believe (although it is certainly a great narrative technique), it is un-necessary until and unless, while narrating a film, the director wants to drift away from reality into dreams, memories, daydreams, thoughts, nightmares, feelings etc or drifting back into reality. Now see talking about reality with non-linarity, one would certainly jump on my head and say what about “Flags of our fathers”, “Reservoir Dogs”, “Kill-Bill”, “Pulp-fiction” and some-one could even shout “The Social Network”. Now let’s handle the argument regarding “The Social Network” first. Now, in such cases I believe, a non-linear film should surrender sufficient amount of linearity to become noticeably non-linear. Moreover, the two timelines, the lawsuit and founding and expansion of facebook, they go almost hand in hand and in absolute chronology, the arguments about founding and ownership of facebook would present the scenes happened earlier. If you ask me that is the best possible way of using non-linearity, it was also used by Welles in “Citizen Kane” and Sorkin & Fincher in “The Social Network”. Now here is the point, The Social Netowrk is a conventional film, with non-linear narrative and Memento is an unconventional film with non-linear narrative. That pretty much summarizes conventional and non-conventional films, I would write about it separately someday.

Now talking about “Flags of our fathers”, it is mostly based on memories collected from people about a corpse man by his son. So as and when he would meet different people different people would have a unique and different timelines and their involvements with the person being researched about. So automatically the film goes back and forth in time. How effective it is in this perspective, since they are memories, where emotional attachments and male bonding is in question obviously the nightmares, the pain, the enjoyment (remember the very last scene of the film) those soldiers shared it gets enhanced with that narrative, well I believe, when such a film is in its screenwriting stage there is something going on with the writer/s*. Talking about “Kill-Bill”, well first of all, I did not like the film, secondly, I did not like its non-linear design, because it was just putting me off, rather than heightening the impact, thirdly I don’t even know why the film was made, what Tarantino wanted to do, pay tribute to Samurai or Kung-Fu films? NO!!!!!! This is not a negative review of “Kill-Bill”, but I found it tasteless and its structure to be useless, if you liked the film then go on and praise its non-linearity, I won’t. Talking about reservoir Dogs, I loved it, first of all, as far its non-linearity is concerned, something was up with Tarantino while he was writing it*. Talking about “Pulp-fiction” (Ahh……… I just love talking about Pulp-Fiction)………. I don’t consider it as a non-linear film. OF-COURSE IT IS!!!!!!! I KNOW, but it is just in little sense, Tarantino just skips a chunk of the storyline and adds it in the end making its structure from a,b,c,d,e to (a part of)b,a,c,d,e,b. That’s it, and he did it, only to maintain his primary motive of the film, that he is making a fiction film with entertaining style of an economical comic book, where its chapters are meant to entertain and you will literally enjoy the protagonists (or rather the antagonists…… :O…..good question?? incidentally no heroes in this film) beating the bad guys and stupid situations in which they are stuck. Pulp-fiction is basically a crime-gangster based film whose narrative can be compared to release of editions of comic book series, or comic strips similar to those in news papers, where its chapters are so ordered, as they are published, edition after the other about their protagonists Travolta, Jackson and Willis. So as it does that your favorite comic book character dies and so on after some time, a new series starts, the character lives again and prevails, but this is a film not a strip, so instead of making his protagonist ACTUALLY alive, Tarantino chooses non-linearity, and probably that’s why Tarantino named it “Pulp-Fiction”, and hence the non-linearity justified, yet still that is the reason I do not consider it much non-linear!!!!!(I would write in detail about “Pulp-Fiction” someday).

Now coming back to whether I would use it or not. Certainly I would if, given a chance, I am allowed to make a film where protagonists drift away from reality into surreal scenarios, dreams, memories etc. Basically if I am making a Drama film, Non-linearity would be restricted to that comparable in Citizen Kane, The Social Network or may be even Godfather Part 2. But Mostly I would prefer linear narratives. One my most favorite film genres is “Film-Noir”, Noir means Black, it is basically a French word, it was given to films exploring themes of murder and death treated with darkness, where everything is dark, including the natural behavior and characterization of roles played by actors, where cinematography, images, music everything is dark. Without example it would be difficult to explain, most of the mystery films of the past can be referred to as Film-Noirs, example: Chinatown, Bees Saal baad, Gumnaam, to some extent “No Country For Old Men” in modern perspective. Now Nolan Made “Following”, a Film-Noir, very non-linear (I think he cut the film took the scenes put them in box and shook the box, and readjusted the scenes randomly) K, It was a good film although, but I think mystery film is best when it goes in straight line, the Chinatown way, The audience should be able to feel the mystery within, the sequential presentation of the happenings would be more enchanting as far as feeling the film is concerned, in such a case, like that of “Following” audience is disconnected to the plot because most of the time people just keep joining the links, by the time it’s too late. That should not happen, a film should say what it wants to, but never should it try to confuse the audiences only to prove that a director is able to punch them hard in the end, would not be the primary agenda of film-making, if you want to really want to punch audiences hard then Watch these films by Ram Gopal Varma: Satya, Kaun and Company, stellar examples of linear storytelling and he does punch you in the gut in the end.

All in all both the tools are great each one is equally powerful, for me mostly I will prefer straight line storytelling, but at any level if hopping out of regular timelines takes the impact to a higher level, I would not, for once think about staying on the straight path. But I believe a film should be dazzling through and through, from start to end.

*: Now What I believe whenever a writer is writing a script, specifically non-linear, based on memories, he usually puts himself in the equation and thinks, what and which way he would, remember the scenes, and how those memories would affect his mind state or his mind state right now would trigger what sort of memories. Obviously, different persons would have different mind states and hence a different memory would be triggered, which cannot be obviously chronological. Think about yourself, at different points of time different memories of childhood, college days, school days come to you, when were they chronological?? No, they were usually not, unless you are lost for hours. All this has to be combined in a plot and told through characters, thus the non-linearity, and by mentioning this passage I skipped a chunk of text from earlier point and concluded here so I made this article also Non-linear.

Dr. Strangelove

Why my blog name is Dr. Strangelove……… for people those who know……… don’t need a description for people who don’t let me have the pleasure of describing A STANLEY KUBRICK FILM Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb……… Now this is one of the most remembered classics by one of the most followed visionary Director/producer/screenwriter STANLEY KUBRICK………

Now this title is scintillating isn’t it………… the reason is the film is based on scintillating themes…… Stanley Kubrick was no ordinary film maker…… because his films were not only a means of entertainment(although he made sure that his films do entertain) but……….. he always used them to send his messages, which were hidden as a treasure in his films. And Probably you  need a map to figure them out and he gave his audiences to make their own maps and he always acknowledged them.

so here……. I give you my own Map…

Stanley Kubrick in each and every film he made…….. he put one thing certainly….. human being losing their humanity, they either lose their minds or they are insane or something like that.

Now let me give you relative plot-lines(in very brief):

1.      In this film we have a brigadier General “Jack D. Ripper” who orders a fleet of B52 bombers for a nuclear attack on Russia.

2.      Nuclear attack cannot be initiated without American president unless and until highest authority of the Air-Force feels, it is Apt or it is a state of emergency.

3.      The Brigadier general has a strong Anti-Russian Mentality, he believes Russian’s are the reason for IMPURITY(I’ll explain that a Bit later.) and thus it needs to be destroyed and for him this is the state of emergency.

4.      Once the B52s reach the Russian Borders they have to report to American President to go-on with the orders, that is the Fail-Safe point.

5.      The reality that comes out is….. The B52s were already at Fail-Safe when the order “PLAN-R” that is emergency and can be ordered by a Brigadier General or a senior Army Staff. And once they are beyond Fail-Safe, they can’t return until the operation is completed and a part of the PLAN R says….. all communication to the base must be cancelled…!!!!!

6.      But With an exception that there is a secret code which can be transferred via a single enabled communication path…….. that obviously the brigadier general knows, and his operation is so dear to him that anyone trying to stop him will be executed by his army men.

7.      The US president comes to know that if a nuclear attack is made on Russia, then Russia has already made a DOOMSDAY machine which is automatically triggered by a computer which has a predefined set of environmental data, it compares the data to that of the attack if the response of the computer is positive for Nuclear attack, The Doomsday machine is Triggered(As explained by Dr. Strangelove).

8.      There at Brg. General Ripper’s Base Group Captain Mandrake, who issued Plan R on the orders of Ripper, realises that there is no EMERGENCY at all. He tries to call the planes back but he needs that 3 letter code, that only Ripper knows.

What happens next, I prefer you watch it.

AUTOPSY:

Here I explain the various themes that I figured out of the film and my retrospective.

Theme No.1 The Loss of Humanity (almost in all Stanley Kubrick Films)

General Jack D. Ripper is a shining example of Hatred, anti-communist, and so much that he prefers extinction of a nation.

Russians, who have developed a Doomsday machine (I don’t know if that is real, but in film it is shown so). This shows their immorality, if they are harmed, it is certain that whole planet pays for it.

Theme No. 2 Immoral Obsession of Glory

In the last scene when Aircraft Commander Major King Kong(don’t ask me, he was named so….:P) when the nuclear bomb doesn’t hop out of the craft(because of a few damages it faces in air combat), he almost climbs on it and pushes it out of the craft riding on it as a cowboy riding on the horse!!!!! Throughout the film he has been talking about the glory he would achieve once the operation is over.

In the very beginning in the war room General Tugidson takes sides of Ripper and says that if the operation is complete U.S. will be the SOLE SUPERPOWER!!!!!

Theme No. 3 Human Society needs a reformation (again found in almost all Kubrick Films)

The whole film has a target of informing the audiences the Vision of Dr. Strangelove where a world will be reformed the way animals live in jungle, where female to male ratio is more, and hence there will be a more satisfied life form, and this stupid human race needs to be annihilated.

Theme No. 4 Common man’s helplessness

Dr. Strangelove, President Muffley and Group Captain Mandrake(All Played by Peter sellers) are Personified by a single actor to represent a common man, who though intelligent is Crippled(Strangelove),  he struggles to survive(President Muffley) and remains helpless(Mandrake).

Theme No. 5 Man’s never satisfied sexuality(again this is found in a lot of Stanley Kubrick Films).

Dr. Strangelove by his name and vision is objective towards sexuality where he says women should be chosen appropriately and with ratio of 10:1.

Jack D. Ripper believes Russians need to be annihilated because they have polluted Americans by polluting their “Bodily Fluids”.

General Turgidson when called, his phone is lifted by a model in lingerie, the model herself talks in a seductive tone to the caller, referring her connections with other officers.

The Vision

The whole point of the film was to describe that human society has lost its sanity, as its name suggests Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. It describes or rather satirizes the absurdity of national rules which are meant to avoid the war, will in real practical situations would rather compel towards its happening. Moreover the nuclear war situation itself is a stupid phenomenon and will happen only because of the stupidity of the human beings. Human beings anyhow will never understand the importance of human life and will always put their petty pleasures over the life forms. It is not only a satire on people at war but also a satire on human beings and their inbound impurity and badness. To date it is a shining example of Black comedies and probably will always be.

Execution

Stanley Kubrick always believed in setting up sets…… which were enclosed and all dialogue to be recorded on set. He always made it very comfortable for actors and believed in importance of dialogue. Although his method of working and arrogance of-course created differences between his actors (specifically in this film George C. Scott) and himself even many a times with the studio personnel. Still I believe it is he who is only one who can have metaphors and irony in his films, themes of morality/immorality, for example: optimism and hope of improvement v/s pessimism & hopelessness, at the same time making it sure that, film does entertain.

I name my blog as Dr. Strangelove in memory of a visionary perfectionist who really believed in perfection and always applied a lot of thought to his films and Dr.Strangelove the character (which I believe was built by Kubrick himself to represent/personify his own vision of social restructure) who represented a human being who tries kill himself in his own stupidity and starts trying to save himself once he is in a situation*.

PS: If you scroll down to the end of this blog, you may find my profile picture. Now once you have done this, you can open Stanley Kubrick’s Wikipedia page to find my inspiration.

*: in the last scene Dr.Strangelove gets excited on the reformation of society, the way he visualised, and stands upright from his wheelchair.

Although, This film is beyond the limitations of ratings still you might expect me to rate it……

so,

My Rating:★★★★★