Quick Review: V for Vendetta

I saw this movie more than a few days ago. But it merits some comment because it hasn’t entirely left my mind.

The movie is done more simply that one would expect. Not too many movie-theatrics… by which I mean special effects… and too much attention to technique. In fact… there is only one scene where special effects look “special” and that’s the end fight scene which interestingly was highlighted in the trailer… perhaps to sell more tickets. In fact, the special effects in the movie seem mediocre… especially the explosion in the beginning. Pretty weak.

I somehow found the “masked” character less disconcerting than I expected; especially after the trailer. However the back-story to why V wears a mask seemed simplistic.

It had a sort of minimalist feel… which is something I feared before watching it… especially post the Matrix era… I do like visual stimulation.

So I guess that leaves us with a story and characters; and it is on this level that V for Vendetta works.

I was surprised by the humanity of the portrayal; the realism within the bizzare; and also the ability to involve us in a story that’s not about us… really.

Plus, it worked as a simple morality tale… ie… can make “people” think. And that too was nice to see.

On the whole; a watchable and engaging film. Not for everyone… but at least for a few.

Jaaneman is surprisingly a “must watch”

Believe it or not, though I wouldn’t pay any money to see Salman or Akshay in a movie theatre, my wife and I still went to see Jaaneman because of a favourable review we had heard, and the desire (mine) to support new perspectives in Indian cinema.

(Again our troubles with cinema halls continues and I really despise theatres that raise prices without improving service. Well Rex (Bangalore) has now further raised the rates, and it’s movie sound continues to be terrible.)

The movie was really-really enjoyable (for a one-time watch). I must say at the outset that even though I don’t think Jaaneman is a “good” movie… ie. script etc. but it’s thoroughly enjoyable if you are a Hindi movie fan. It was fun and surprisingly insightful of the medium. There were many-many paisa vasool moments and I find myself still laughing at some of the moments in the film.

Of course the premise is corny… but the film doesn’t take itself too seriously and so even its corniness is ok. The biggest hurdle for a viewer to overcome is that Akshay Kumar is an astronaut. If you can be ok that, then you might just love Jaaneman like we did.

My list of what I liked best in the movie…

1. The narrative technique… especially flashbacks. wow.
2. The film didn’t take itself too seriously… unlike Swades that wanted us to believe that Shah Rukh Khan was indeed a brilliant indispensable NASA scientist… in this movie… it didn’t matter too much that Akshay wasn’t too smart… and yet also too smart. Good balance.
3. The movie music… especially the way it worked with the narrative… though the best paisa vasool moment was the fastforward. ps. an extra word about the music… it has actually grown on me… I’ve been listening to it quite regularly.

What I didn’t like… hmm… there were a few things… especially the sometimes overthetop humour… and the sometimes unnecessarily over+under dressed Salman Khan. But hey… within the Hindi film genre… even that worked.

Perhaps another thing I need to say… I’m ready to move away from stars! ie. while Salman and Akshay and Priety were reasonably ok in their roles… it was only Akshay Kumar who benefited in the story with his star (larger than life) status… because his movie character was a definite parody of that. The other roles (Salman and Preity) could have easily be performed by lesser known… and perhaps equally/more talented actors. And it may have become a better movie. Still… I’m not the one spending money on these actors… so why should I care who the producer hires and for what reason.

Going back to positives… I also liked some of the emotionalism in the movie… which while a bit dramatic… was still understated. *spoiler warning* Akshay’s tearing his kurta scene actually fit within his character. So also Salman’s deadpan look when accused of “stealingthebaby”.

I also liked the use of Priety Zinta… who it could be said… had no role… but in this her lack of presence was actually fitting to the “voyeur” tendencies in the movie. She didn’t have to do anything… because we were seeing her from the eyes of the two men.

More can be said, but for now this is enough.

If you know what it means when I say that Indian cinema is growing up… and you like what is happening… then this movie is for you.

Review: 300 has come (Previously… Preview: 300 is Coming)

(latest update… the preview becomes a review)

I must confess. I just saw this movie and was NOT blown away. However, I really really liked it. I think there’s a difference. If I was to rate it amongst this genre of movies, I think I would rate

1. Kill Bill 1-2
2. Pulp Fiction
3. 300
4. Sin City

As expected, I loved the adrenaline rush I got watching the whole movie.. it was not just the battles. I really liked the entire presentation, the narrator’s ‘over-drama’ which in the context of ‘live story telling’ works. I even liked the over-the-top visuals; the beasts, the extra-dark immortals etc. Which clearly give the impression that we are in a “biased” tale where some are heroes are some are dastardly villains.

What prevented me from getting blown away was surprisingly the battle scenes. They were good, I especially liked the scene when they meet a new challenge at every corner.

But somehow, Xerxes was presented as too dumb. Why couldn’t he break the wall? But more importantl, only the first battle scene where there is a huge “push of Xerxes’ army” against the Spartans. that’s probably more realistic… instead all the battle scenes look like there is enough room to jump and manouvre and so it doesn’t look like there are actually 200000 soldiers waiting. Instead it looks like xerxes sent a battalian of 50-100 soldiers each time. Didn’t it?

Anyway, that doesn’t distract from the fact that it’s worth a watch, and even makes you want to check up on your history. So check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

PREVIEW: HERE

OK. I accidently found out this movie. And felt that because of Sin City and the look of 300, I wanted to watch it. A few days later I discovered that this movie is one of the most looked forward to movies currently… described as a “fanboy masterpiece”. Hmmm. I guess I don’t like the associations, but I can’t discount the fact that I like these kinds of movies. Not movies like Troy… or even Gladiator. But films like Kill Bill, Sin City and now I expect 300.The cool traditional trailer is found here.

And the really good preview of the movie, with perhaps more information than someone may want (ie. spoiler possibilities) is here.

Recent movies watched

I haven’t had time to reflect on each, but there have been a few movies I’ve watched recently.

Men in Black: Excellent Trip down memory lane. I enjoyed going through it section by section; it was funny even now.

Mission Impossible 3: A grim part III, but not that great, and not that bad. Time pass.

After the Sunset: As far as movies go, this was an enjoyable movie… though from the middle to the ending was a bit rushed; or underdeveloped. Still I did enjoy the film.

Brother Bear: Hmmm. I was avoiding watching this movie for a while, but when a friend lent us his vcd, we were “compelled” to watch it. It had its cheesy moments and also its fun-times. All I can say is… I am really glad with the birth of CG. Thank you Pixar!!!

Quick Review: Chup Chup Ke

From the sublime of previous posts, to the simply-terrible of tonight, I saw Chup Chup Ke… with anguish. I couldn’t believe that a few posts ago I mentioned Priyadarshan in the same breath as Hrishikesh Mukherjee. Of course my point was that in “natural” cinema, Priyadarshan is leading the way today. But Chup Chup Ke was anything, but natural. Totally hammed, loud and extremely grating (to the nerves) the film was a hotched-potched attempt at comedy and drama.

But the most disturbing thing of the movie was not all of the above… but the way the whole plot resolves with the “gungi” and for whom everything should go right otherwise a curse will fall. Rather than view the “gungi” as a person, there is a gross demeaning portrayal of her as something to be protected… and done good for. Ultimately, her victory is no victory at all but a concession.

Terrible. But I guess I forgot that usually Hindi popular cinema is trash. Only sometimes, rarely, do some gems stand out. I guess when we see the current deplorable state of cinema that we then truly appreciate the greats.

Missing the point? Conversation ‘Lage Raho’

(warning: this is a movie discussion, hence spoilers included. If you haven’t seen the movie, please do.)

There was an interesting article printed in the Hindu Supplement (Magazine) section, dated 1 October 2006, titled “Nothing Gandhian about it” by Ajit Duara about how Lage Raho Munnabhai is simplistically Gandhian and hence not Gandhian at all. The article in its webform is found here. http://www.hindu.com/mag/2006/10/01/stories/2006100100110500.htm

The article above argues that “the makers of such films… have deliberately dumbed down and simplified “Gandhian values” for an “original” screenplay sequel.” Now, while the author (Duara) has not stated how this act is deliberate, in that the Duara has not proved that the filmmakers knew Gandhian values and deliberately misinformed the audience. However, more pertinently, his contention is that the Gandhian philosophy on display “lacks sophistication” and is dumbed down to “astounding moronic levels.”

Without delving in the author’s arguments too much, I want to agree initially agree with Duara that the movie “dumbs down” Gandhian values. But through that I want to argue that, it is the brilliance of the movie that allows for this “simplification” and uses it for its advantage/impact.

Duara says in his article, “I suppose the logic is that if Munnabhai can appreciate Gandhian values, so can any other idiot in India.” For me, that’s the point. The movie sees Gandhi through the eyes of Munna. If we forget that, we miss the whole movie. The classic scene that floored me (and heralded another remarkable growth in Hindi cinema) was the psychological realism when it is proved, to both the audience and Munna, that the Gandhi that munna sees is a projection of his own imagination, a result of his own reading (and interpretation). That scene alone deserves an award for pushing Hindi cinema beyond where no one has gone before.

Lage Raho does not necessary resurrect Gandhi… but rather gives birth to a new Gandhi… a Gandhi that is reinterpreted by, in Duara’s words, “an idiot”. Yet, the simplistic message comes from a profound philosophical truth

But to prove that this is no accident, the director shows this constantly. Firstly, through the word Gandhigiri, that is typical of Munna’s reinterpretation of Gandhi. Secondly, all the solutions are in fact the inverse solutions to Munna’s earlier (implied) actions. So, the “ulta kar” philosophy of Munna, that so challenges him, is precisely because Munna does ulta as he sees Gandhi would do; not necessarily as the real Gandhi would speak. Thirdly, Munna’s view of Gandhi himself is limited by Munna’s view of what is important. In the wonderful scene with Lucky, Munna and Gandhi on the sofa, Munna’s Gandhi is saying (almost proudly) that it was he and not his killer that is famous; who has statues etc to his credit. Obviously, the real Gandhi (whoever we think he is) may not have said this, like this. But Munna’s Gandhi definitely would. Because, as we see always, Munna does value influence, importance and impact; and he sees Gandhi’s way a better alternative to his own lifestyle.

Hence I argue that the Gandhi and Gandhi’s philosophy in view in Munna Bhai Lage Raho, is not Gandhian Philosophy (rightly pointed out by Duara), but rather Munna’s Gandhi, which according to the message of the movie, is also valid. In fact, the film clearly says that we either encapsulate Gandhi into a picture/book/statue… or alternatively we bring him into our hearts. This bringing into hearts is not a simplistic internalisation of absolute Gandhian truisms, but a living-worldly reinterpretation of Gandhi for today. And the Gandhi in view may not be the Gandhi of old, but it would be a vision inspired by the Gandhi of old… and in that, is the continuation of the Gandhian legacy.

To further highlight this, the ending of the movie, we see Lucky’s Gandhi, whose Gandhi allows himself to be photographed. For Lucky, his Gandhi may also not fit our ideals of Gandhi, but it is Lucky’s Gandhi nevertheless. And there too, I see this not as a fluke, but as an intentional theme of the movie.

I feel Duara is fed-up with people who are saying that Lage Raho resurrected the vision/impact/message of Gandhi. I guess he’s right there.

However, to stop there would be missing the point. Because Lage Raho does not necessary resurrect Gandhi… but rather gives birth to a new Gandhi… a Gandhi that is reinterpreted by, in Duara’s words, “an idiot”. Yet, the simplistic message comes from a profound philosophical truth; that ultimately… all our messages/interpretations of Gandhi mean nothing if not applied as the real Gandhi (and us) may want to.