Tribute to the Master: K. Balachander

KB as he is popularly referred in South India is a director who has created actors (not stars) like Kamal Haasan and Rajnikanth.

I have been exposed to his work since childhood owing to the fact that my dad is a die-hard fan of KB.

His first film that I watched as a kid was Sindhu Bhairavi. (a movie which dealt with extra-marital affair)

Ofcourse, I lacked the maturity to understand the concept at that time, but years down the line when I watched it again I was stumped by the nuances of a relationship dealt by KB.

I have watched a lot of his movies and TV serials. (Thanks to Sun TV, Jaya TV, Vijay TV :-) )

There are many things that I adore in KB’s work,

· Dialogues; simple yet so very deep
· Characters that you can totally relate to
· Progression of the script; KB ensures that the viewer never loses the interest at any point of time
· KB’s passion for Carnatic Music and Tamil Literature(like Thirukural)
· Treatment of complications that arise in any relationship

This maverick director has always taken up subjects that are way ahead of time.

As a writer, I would rate him as the Ayn Rand of South India.

He has more than 100 films under his belt as a director and lot of TV serials too.

Some of his recommended classics:

- Server Sundaram(Writer)
- Thillu Mullu
- Sindhu Bhairavi
- Apoorva Raagangal
- Punnagai Mannan
- Ek Duje ke Liye(Hindi)
- Duet

This list can go on and on.

I am sure many of my friends will it difficult to relate to this post.

But, I had to introduce this maestro to all those who think Tam-movies are all about unrealistic stunts, fat actresses and wigs. :-)

Cheers to cinema!

Tribute to the Master: Stanley Kubrick

It was about a year back that I was introduced to the work of this cinematic genius at IIM B.

I watched all his movies in the forthcoming weeks.

His enthralling work prompted me to research more and more about him.

As a student of film-making, I find Kubrick’s influence in the work of almost all good directors who succeeded Kubrick’s generation.

So much so that, film-makers like Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, and Quentin Tarantino have cited Kubrick as a source of inspiration in some of their interviews.

Kubrick has made only 13 major films in his lifetime; his critics owe this to his methodical slowness, but his fans would like to differ :-)

Almost all his movies rank among the classics in their respective genre.

His portfolio of films is unmatched in terms of variety.

Some of the recommended classics: (in the order of my personal favorites :-) )

- A Clockwork Orange
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- Lolita
- Full Metal Jacket
- Dr. Strangelove
- The Shining
- Eyes Wide Shut

Watch these movies for stylish camera work, unique narration and effortless realization of complex characters on-screen which are easier to pen down.

If you haven’t seen his movies, you are definitely missing out on some seriously original stuff in the age of plagiarism. Watch them!

Cheers to Cinema!

Vantage Point: Gripping…

I have to confess that this blog has made me indulge in some meaningful activity during weekends in this barren land (read Gurgaon). Watching this movie in PVR was a great experience.

Some excerpts from the audience in the cinema hall:
Excerpt 1: “Kya movie banayi hai yaar, kya concept hai, ek dum sexxyyy”
Excerpt 2: “Theek thaak hai… Director bahut aalsi (Lazy) hoga… “
Excerpt 3: “kuch samaj hi nahi aa raha hai be… ek hi story ko ghuma ghuma ke kyun dikha rahe hai…”
Excerpt 4: “Rashomon style of narration, nothing new…”

Ahem… Ahem… Excerpt 4 was mine :). Thanks to my friend Keerthi who introduced me to the world of Akira Kurosawa. Rashomon was a masterpiece by this genius.
Rashomon style narrates an event with conflicting accounts by different witnesses in a manner that the truth is difficult to be verified.

Vantage Point deals with an event in a similar way. The event in this movie is an attempted assassination of the US President during an anti-terrorism summit in Spain. The event actually spans across 25 odd minutes of this act. But it is accounted by 8 different witnesses. Unlike Rashomon, the truth actually unfolds as the director moves from one account to another. The director has definitely innovated in this regard by weaving the story in manner that each narration by a witness unfolds new dimensions to the plot behind the act. The plot thickens as we move from one narration to another and takes you by surprise by the time it peaks. The climax is slightly filmi-ishtyle, because by this time you realise that the truth is totally revealed. The director could have run that extra mile to make this climax more interesting in terms of secrecy.

Performances by all the characters are decent. Dennis Quaid perfectly potrays his character of a Secret Service agent who is trying to gather himself after an incident in which he took bullets aimed at the President. Forest Whitaker’s narration of the incident was little slow and disappointing; the director missed out on only this end. Other narrations are good; some might even surprise you.

Overall, the movie is a good watch for people who like this style of narration. The Director definitely deserves a pat in his back for his innovation with the Rashomon style. All in all, if you are game for something different this week and you have not seen Rashomon; then go ahead, watch this movie.

Rating: ***1/2

Cheers to Cinema!

Behind the Scenes: Remakes

About two years back, Remakes seemed to be the talk of the town. The grapevine had rumors of remakes by almost every director. An over-smart director dared to a touch classic like Sholay for a remake. He went on to make many stupid statements in front of the press which eventually resulted in his remake becoming the joke of the town. Most of the cinema-lovers were surprised to see a new-kid-in-the-block taking up a movie like Don for a remake. And some veteran directors went a step ahead of these people, by taking up their own films for a remake. What courage! :-)
Almost all of these remakes bombed at the box-office; arguably few have done average business.
These directors state that they have packaged the classic in a new format and presented it to the audience. But, do they understand what this packaging means? Packaging it in a new format does not mean shooting the movie in foreign locales, having Hollywood technicians on-board and signing multi-million dollar lead actors.
Retrospection reveals some reasons why they have failed. Film makers have taken up great films for a remake without applying their heads. They have gone ahead with the assumption that the so-called “Right Formula” for success already exists in the film and they don’t have to play with that.
Wondering what this “Right Formula” means? Clearly, the movies that they have picked for remakes have achieved the status of a classic because of many reasons, be it the immortal characters of the film, or the unique storyline or those super-hit dialogues or the exemplary music.
When a remake is to be attempted on such a classic, the director needs to rework this “Right Formula” in such a way that it is more pertinent to the present audience. I strongly believe that the director should not hesitate to change the storyline if he feels that it can give that extra zing that the viewer is looking for. Of course, it is extremely important that his amendments meet the standards set by the classic (Standards are subjective, only good directors can fulfill this requirement :-) ). Only beyond this point, the director should think of showcasing his other creative juices in terms of technicalities like cinematography or action or art direction.
To sum it all, making a remake is a huge responsibility on the director’s shoulders. Hope to see a director emerging victorious in this fixture some day.
Oh! Did I hear some extremely talented singer/composer making a remake of “Karzzzzzzz”!!! :-)

Cheers to Cinema!

Jodhaa Akbar: Almost Magical

Before starting off with the analysis, I want to clarify this to all readers that I believe that making a movie based on historical facts is the biggest test that a Director can face. Many great directors have fallen into this trap.
In an age when popular audience has become more and more demanding, many directors have claimed their understanding of modern cinema. Inspite of all their bullshit fundas, their movies have failed to impress the audience. But there is a league of directors who dont speak, they just perform. For me, Ashutosh Gowariker belongs to this league.

Unfortunately, before its fate could be decided, his Jodhaa Akbar has met with a lot of distraction. Keeping those controversies aside, I consider JA as a piece of fiction.

The movie starts off in Ashutosh's signature style powered by a voice-over by Amitabh Bachchan. It nicely takes you through the most important events of Akbar's childhood and Jodhaa's upbringing. In his journey to accompolish his father's dream of ruling entire India, Akbar makes a lot of enemies in Rajputs and also within his own empire. His political marriage with Princess of Amer, Jodhaa is not appreciated by many people. Amidst all this, love blossoms between two strangers who belong to different cultures. Director successfully deals with the translation of their mutual respect into love.
The story later deals with Akbar’s transformation into a ruler of masses caused by Jodhaa. Unlike Lagaan and Swades, Ashutosh slips this time as Akbar’s transformation fails to leave you with the same feeling of happiness. Of course, there are some twists and turns in the story, most of which do not actually give any new dimension to the storyline.
The climax might remind you of Troy like setting, but we can forgive the director for that.

What the film succeeds is in maintaining its soul, which is the love story between Jodhaa and Akbar. This is the best thing about the entire movie. The length of the movie could have been controlled without getting into too many aspects of Akbar’s life. But kudos to Ashutosh for intelligently dealing with some interesting details about Akbar like his inability to read and write.
Performances from the lead actors are power-packed. Hrithik truly impresses you as the Mughal Emperor. His sincerity with every role that he dons is clearly evident on screen. You will see him hitting the home-run in most of the scenes, be it the elephant-taming scene, or be-it the scene when he listens to Jodhaa’s demands before marriage. One small criticism on his performance could be his inconsistent voice modulation; in some scenes you feel like he apes Prithviraj Kapoor’s voice.
Aishwarya comes up with a good performance, but she ruins some of her important solo scenes by showing signs of influence from Ekta Kapoor serials. Its only her chemistry with Hrithik that saves her performance.
Ashutosh must be applauded for his splendid effort. He is successful in maintaining the focus of the film throughout those four hours. But he could have dealt with Akbar’s transformation in a much better way so that it could have left an impression in the viewer’s mind. But nevertheless, he has done justice to the script written by Hyder Ali.
Cinematography by Kiran Deohans blends with the narration excellently.
A.R.Rahman’s Music enriched by Javed Saab’s lyrics is blissful and has been superbly picturised on screen.
This movie will not be recorded in the history books of Hindi films, but it will surely prompt few more directors to come up with heavy-budget scripts and thereby make producers poorer.
Overall, it is a worthy watch because the director keeps his promise.

Rating: *** (Good)

Cheers to Cinema !

Mithya: Perplexed !!!

I spent this sunday watching Mr.Rajat Kapoor's latest flick 'Mithya'. I tried to watch it with an unbiased frame of mind, especially after gathering the opinions of people who had seen it. Tough task, indeed!
The plot opens on a very ordinary note, where in Ranvir Shourey plays a small-time actor in Bollywood (or Hindi film industry, as some would prefer to call it), who aims to make it big in the Sapnon ka Shehar a.k.a Mumbai. But what makes the start special is the unique sense of humor engraved in the scenes. Its an hybrid of dark and slapstick humor.
The first half deals with Ranvir's character trapped in a ploy laid out by a gang headed by Saurabh Shukla, to displace an underworld don. Just when you start guessing if the plot turns out to be a parody of Farhan Akhtar's Don, the director surprises you with a twist where Ranvir's character loses memory in an accident.
At interval, you are left wondering if the character has really lost memory or if it is another ploy; considering the fact that we have seen so many hindi movies where characters have faked amnesia. I believe this is the point where the narration goes weak.
The Director could have made this look more credible, atleast for people who have grown up watching hindi movies.
In the second half, the director completely loses his initial style of narration; by dealing with Ranvir's relationship with the Don's family (especially the wife) and his encounters with Saurabh Shukla's gang and prior-to-amnesia love interest Neha Dhupia.
The movie goes out of hand in the end, when the director deals with the Neha Dhupia's love for the Ranvir while he tries to find his identity. Amidst his crisis dealing with the underworld gangs and love for Don's family, the character loses the grip that was created in the first half.
The climax is a huge disappointment when Ranvir's character regains memory after being shot in the head and calls out Neha's name in a very filmi ishtyle.
The only thing that stands out in the movie is Ranvir's performance. His acting comes across as a revelation in an age where the masses have got overdoses of Khans' histrionics. We all knew that Ranvir was a splendid performer, but he surprises us by carrying the entire movie on his shoulders very responsibly. His performance is arguably one of the best we have seen on the big screen in the recent past. You would fail to accept that any other actor could have done justice to the character after watching some scenes, be it the one in which Ranvir accepts to play a part of the ploy or the one in which he struggles to answer the Don's wife.
Vinay Pathak's character could have been given more airtime in the second half, considering the pace it set for itself in the first half. Naseer's character fails to leave an impression, the genius cannot be blamed for this; the director should have made it more interesting like the one in Kaizaad Gustad's Bombay Boys. I wont waste your time by commenting on the other characters.
As a director, Rajat Kapoor is extremely promising; but he needs to concentrate on his narration. A director can make very limited assumptions about the viewer while telling a story.
Rajat gives you the impression of a director with honest intentions. But he needs to improve without losing his conviction.
Cinematography and editing are not path-breaking. So I need not comment on them too.
Its only because "Meri akal mere pichwaade mein nahi hai" that I am rating this movie as just above average.
Rating: **1/2
Cheers to cinema !

It begins....

Finally! I got a reason to blog. Considering the growing number of average movie critics on the internet (P.S - I am not referring to Atlee & Killi :D ), I thought my inclusion will even more complicate the system. I am taking my chances and going ahead with this effort.
My sole purpose is to project the right sense of the movie from the director's head.
Disclaimer: I wont pay for your bad decisions and misinterpretations :)