True to the Image

The immortal image of the star-director 'Guido', played by Marcello Mastroianni, from Fellini's "8 1/2" is the official face of this year's Cannes film festival, arguably the greatest on this planet. And the recently-announced list of movies to be screened there in the third and fourth week of May shows how the festival has lived up to all expectations, bringing several star-directors under the same roof.

Imagine Jean-Luc Godard, Atom Egoyan, Ken Loach, David Cronenberg, Mike Leigh, and the Dardenne Brothers in competition for the highest prize of the festival - the Palme d'or. And there are more names to this list. Michel Hazanavicius is coming with his next film after 'The Artist'. Tommy Lee Jones has a film he just directed. Then we have Bennett Miller ('Capote', 'Moneyball'), Olivier Assayas (with his fourth Palme d'or nomination; his last film 'Something in the Air' had won awards at Venice 2012), the 25-year old Xavier Dolan with his fifth feature film (all his four films, including 'Laurence Anyways' and 'Tom at the Farm' have won awards at Cannes or Venice), Naomi Kawase (had won Camera d'or in 1997 and this is her fourth Palme d'or nomination since then), and Nuri Bilge Ceylan (five of his films, including 'Distant' and 'Once Upon a Time in Anatolia' have won awards at Cannes and Berlin).

The latest films by Zhang Yimou and Olivier Dahan ('La vie en Rose') are being screened out of competition.

And then we have Wim Wenders, Rolf de Heer from the Netherlands (with seventh film at either Berlin, Venice or Cannes), and Ryan Gosling with his directorial debut among the eighteen films in the Un Certain Regard category. This list also has the sole Indian film, 'Titli' by Kanu Behl.

Meanwhile, I am planning my own "Cannes in Andheri 2014" film festival that will start once I get back to Mumbai.

A New Season

Filmfare has just announced the nominees of its popular awards section and has disappointed again after some brave decisions they took last year. The BAFTA nominations were made last week and the Golden Globes were awarded yesterday. "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "Inside Llewyn Davis" are already released in India. 'American Hustle' is coming this Friday, and other top contenders at the Oscars should follow soon once the Academy announces the nominees in a couple of days from now. 'Dedh Ishqiya' has raised our hopes after a disastrous 2013 for Hindi cinema. 'Miss Lovely' is about to be released and its critical and, more importantly, commercial success will be more than welcome. Kamal Swaroop's avant-garde cult film, 'Om Dar-ba-dar" is finally making it to the big screen after more than 25 years. Amidst all this, I am celebrating my very own 'Berlin in Andheri Film Festival 2014', as we wait anxiously for this year's first major festival to kick-off in Berlin next month.

A new season of experiencing the fresh lot of movies has begun. Have you fastened your seat-belts yet?

Top 10 at Oscars 2013

Last year I had watched the Oscars ‘live’ for the first time. And having watched several of the major films made it more exciting and entertaining for me. So if you are planning to do it this year, read about the Oscar buzz, indulge into predictions, and get up at 6 am that Monday morning and reach office late (the event gets over around 10 am India time), here are the ten movies watching which will ensure you remain oriented throughout the ceremony and it doesn’t appear as merely a fashion parade to you. These ten movies (in alphabetic order), having together earned 68 nominations, are going to cover almost all major awards categories this year:

1. Amour (5 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): Including this French-language gem in the Best Picture list the Oscars have done themselves a favor. The best of International cinema are generally works not in English language and this is one big reason why the Oscars do not find many takers among the fans of World Cinema, as the scheme of the Academy limits the awards to English-language films, except in one category. That category, of the Best Foreign-Language Film is perhaps the most predictable this year, with ‘Amour’ as the clear front-runner. The 85-year old Emmanuelle Riva is the oldest actress to have earned nominationin Oscar history. I watched this film at MAMI this year, and it is unlikely that it will find a release in India. You can either download it, or wait for the original DVD.

2. Argo (7 nominations, including Best Picture): Ben Affleck’s rise as a film-maker is something to applaud. I have to admit that I’m a little surprised, especially because I have never taken him seriously as an actor. A few hours ago, ‘Argo’ has won Golden Globes for Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director, and this will majorly boost its chances at the Oscars. The film was released in India several months ago and I regret having not watched it. Have to watch it somehow, very soon.

3. Beasts of the Southern Wild (4 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): This film’s inclusion is another good news, this time for small, independent film-makers. The little Quvenzhane Wallis has also earned a Best Actress nomination, becoming the youngest actress to achieve this feat, beating Keisha Castle-Hughes who was nominated for ‘Whale Rider’ (2003). I had watched this unforgettable film at MAMI, and its release in India seems utterly improbable.

4. Django Unchained (5 nominations, including Best Picture): Quentin Tarantino’s latest has just won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay. For me, this is the most eagerly awaited film of the lot. Unfortunately, the official date of its release in India is 29th March, and I will not watch a downloaded copy of it. In all probability, I will watch the Oscars this year without having watched this movie, and will wait for it to hit a big screen near my house.

5. Life of Pi (11 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): The successful run of this film in India continues and it is still playing at several screens. Watch it today if you haven’t. It has earned 11 nominations, and that includes a nomination for the Indian singer Bombay Jayashri. If you are not aware of her, please use Google. I don’t mind telling you that hers was the amazing voice that sang the passionate ‘Zara Zara’ from ‘Rehna Hai Tere Dil Mein’ (2001).

6. Lincoln (12 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays the title role, is a strong contender for the Best Actor award this year, for this film that has earned the maximum nominations. Do not be surprised if it wins the Best Picture as well, going by the Academy’s traditional fascination with biopics, costume dramas, and Steven Spielberg. It is releasing in India on the 8th February, and deserves a big screen watch.

7. Master, The (3 acting nominations): I was a little surprised and upset to know that this movie was not nominated for Best Picture, nor was PTA nominated for Best Director. He is one of the best directing talents in the world today, and this film was eagerly awaited. I still do not know whether it is releasing in India, and if yes, then when. Please let me know if you find out.

8. Miserables, Les (8 nominations, including Best Picture): From the director of ‘The King’s Speech’, this film has just won Golden Globes for ‘Best Film (comedy or Musical)’ and acting awards for Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway. It is releasing in India this Friday, and I am going for it on the first day itself.

9. Silver Linings Playbook (8 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director): This film came and went, and I missed it. If you’ve missed it too, we can now regret doing that together. It was also the Opening Film at MAMI this year and I never took it too seriously. Now, I wish I had watched it when it had come. Torrents, anyone?

10. Zero Dark Thirty (5 nominations, including Best Picture): Releasing in India on the 1st February, this is a film that will definitely fascinate most of the audience, mainly because of its content, and also because of its director. Her ‘The Hurt Locker’ had defeated big films in 2010 at the Oscars, and this time ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ was being hailed as a worthy successor to it. However, Kathryn Biegalow’s non-inclusion in the Best Director list has created some controversy back there, with many believing it to be the result of the interference from the US politicians. Controversies aside, watching this film will be one important agenda early next month.

The Oscars this year are on the morning of 25th February (India time). Watch as many movies out of these as you can, and enjoy the event on your little idiot box. Like last year, I will have to visit a friend’s place for the same. The wait has begun…

P.S The release dates as per the information I could find online and are subject to change.

P.P.S. Clicking on the movie titles above will take you to their respective trailers. Watch them and share your views about them - which ones fascinate you majorly!

Readjusting Expectations

Ridley Scott’s ‘Prometheus’ released recently with mixed reviews. I haven’t watched it yet, but a section of the audience claims it was ‘boring’. There are people who thought Martin Scorsese’s ‘Shutter Island’ was just about OK. The films of Steven Spielberg range from masterpieces to ordinary. Even back home, we see good film-makers coming up with not-so-good films. So, why does this happen? How the best of filmmakers end up making films which are unarguably inferior from their standards? How do they overlook certain flaws in their works which even a common audience with no knowledge of film-making finds palpable?

Let us assume that throughout their careers these film-makers remain as motivated as their first film, and as experienced as their last, that they never compromise on intent, vision, effort, and execution, that they always get the same kind of support from their producers, cast, and crew, that they are equally fit – mentally and physically, and that the factors beyond their hands – luck, chance – remain constant every time they make a film. I hope you understand that this is not possible and little changes in a few of the above-mentioned factors will affect the film being made, but let us still assume that all these factors remain constant, along with the director’s understanding of what he is doing. The nature of the process will still not let him make his films equally good. And making a truly great film will rarely happen. Here is the reason why.

Filmmaking is one of the most unnatural forms of creation. It is not at all organic. You do not start creating the film from its first shot – a few seconds every day, to reach the interval in a few weeks and the conclusion in the next few. It is not like a giant jig-saw puzzle you solve over days. When it comes to film-making, you first create that nightmare of a jig-saw puzzle. Once the script is ready, the stage where you 'see' the full film for the last time until the rough-cut on the edit table, it is broken down to schedules, scenes, shots, and takes, and creation occurs in random order. You might be shooting the last scene before the first. And it might take you several years to create a film that will be ‘received’ in a couple of hours. It is only when you start joining the pieces of this jig-saw puzzle together on the edit table that you, the filmmaker, get to see how your film looks like. And by then you have lost all your objectivity. You don’t laugh at the jokes, never feel any thrill or pathos looking at your footage, and all you can see are the glaring errors you have committed. On the contrary, you might fall in love with everything you see, and can not judge a bad shot from worse. You fail to realize that what you have shot is short of great.

I believe it is this ‘unnatural’ process that causes some invisible error, something being lost in translation. It is like when you enter a forest, you lose touch with its ‘whole design’ once you start focusing on the trees and the vague paths ahead of you. And when it comes to film-making, you have to select each path carefully, and stare at each tree as if it were the most important object in this forest, and then silently hope that you are correctly navigating through the maze.

So, what do you do when you end up making a not-so-good film? In my first meeting with Anurag Kashyap he had told me – “Do not be scared of making a bad film.” This I think is an essential wisdom in film-making. I’m not saying that you compromise on your vision, or intent, or efforts. I’m not saying you let complacence seep in and corrupt your soul. Nor am I saying that let overconfidence blind your judgment. A filmmaker should work hard with all his conviction, honesty, and integrity, and then let go of his fear of failure. I think it should be like Sachin Tendulkar’s attitude when he says that while walking into the ground with the cricket bat in his hand, all that matters to him is whether he prepared well. The result on the pitch is not and will never be as important as that. There are things you cannot control, and in the end all you can be critical about is your preparation, not your performance.

But I think it is easier said than done. I dread the day I will see the rough cut of my film and sulk into depression and refuse to let it release for the public. By that time several crores of rupees will be riding on it and it would be an ethical and professional crime not to actively promote the film and ask people to watch it, knowing very well that it is a poor film. But as they say, your child is your own, even if it is born with severe congenital deformities. You cannot abandon it. All you have to do is readjust your expectations with your creation. If it is not bad, if it is decent, try to feel proud of it. And let the world make their opinions. If you have been honest with your vision and effort, chances are you will never end up with a film that is bad, despite the unnatural process adopted to create and solve the jig-saw puzzle that is called a movie. Readjusting your expectations is perhaps the only way to preserve your sanity in this insane world of film-making.

How to Produce Smart and Successful Sperms

Step 1 – Conception: The writer gets pregnant (in the head) with an idea that is novel, exciting, and promising. Preferably, that idea should be modern – something that was impossible to imagine during the 90s or before. Go for taboo topics if you feel the courage.

Step 2 – Incubation: A lot of blood and sweat is invested to write the script over the next few (read many) months. The best mantra will be (as suggested by Bergman or Wilder or both, I don’t really remember) – you shall entertain, and you shall not sell your soul.

Step 3 – Selection: The director casts the best actors possible for each role, big or small. (Casting, according to Kurosawa, is the most important step in film-making, after writing). Well-written characters will always inspire the actors to do their best, often at a low-cost.

Step 4 – Production: An intelligent and caring producer takes on the project and provides love and support to the team, led effectively by the director. One important tip here is – do not compromise on production value. Negotiate with your talent to cut their costs but not with what shows on screen – the sets, the costumes, the overall look of the film. And yes, there are two words that matter most here – conviction and honesty.

Step 5 – Promotion: Here, the concept that kick-started the writing process will come handy again. A modern and promising idea can create curiosity in the mind of the audience. One section might take this ‘high concept’ as a gimmick, but it will generally work, esp. if it has a sexual connotation. Having a star do an item number for promoting the film is also a good idea. If the star is producing the film, you save a lot of money there as well.

Step 6 – Ejaculation: As always, the timing of release is essential for good performance. “IPL is bad for film business” is a myth. A smart sperm will find one Friday during IPL when no ‘biggy’ is being released and with good reviews and word of mouth will penetrate the tough shell of the ovum waiting for it (read “poor audience, poor both money-wise and helplessness-wise, starving for good entertainment”).

P.S. We badly need such smart sperms, at least once every month. The millions others are too weak to survive in the competition and the cinema consciousness of the audience, and as a result go waste. We call upon the filmmakers for such 'sperm donation' to bring joy in the barren lives of the movie-goers, frustrated with the infertile Hindi cinema of today. Vicky made a few thousand bucks per 'donation'. We promise you crores of them. Just check the latest trade reports.

Suspension of Disbelief

"There is a thin, invisible strand between the audience and the screen. It’s called believability. That strand gets stronger and stronger as the picture progresses. It can be easily snapped if you start out being too crazy or unbelievable. As Bill Walsh says: “an audience must believe in and care about your lead characters over the unspooling of the first reel (ten minutes) of the movie. If they truly believe, you can take them anywhere.”

"You have to make the audience care about your on-screen people and their dilemmas, and when that occurs you’ve created believable unbelievability. Audience will just not get with a film that starts with what they perceive as unbelievable unbelievability. 

"Movies are unbelievable. Your job is to make the audience believe its unbelief."

                                  

                                                                        -          Lew Hunter in his book “Screenwriting 434”

The Hero and the Storyteller

Last two Fridays have suddenly made the Hindi movie buff happy and hopeful. ‘Paan Singh Tomar’ and ‘Kahaani’ – two very diverse films from two very different film-makers have achieved the right kind of success, and I can not help but notice some striking similarities between the two.

First of all, both films have unlikely protagonists, played by actors of unarguable repute who have suddenly claimed the status of stars. Both Irrfan and Vidya Balan are the finest actors we have today, but none have enjoyed the fan-following that many ‘stars’ have. Hopefully that will change now. Vidya did it with ‘The Dirty Picture’ and now she has followed it with ‘Kahaani’. And going by the cheers and claps that Irrfan’s performance is receiving, I am forced to dream that it will soon become a regular thing – powerful actors, not necessarily stars, will drive the audience to the theatres and their films to commercial success. Also notice that both films have just one big actor, and they are surrounded by a wonderful supporting cast. The work of these supporting actors must be applauded, because it is not easy to be noticed in a small role when you are sharing screen space with such fine and well-known lead actors.

The second common point between the two films is their makers. Sujoy Ghosh and Tigmanshu Dhulia had started their respective careers with small but significant films that eventually attained a remarkable fan-following. But then their careers could not take flight. Now they are back, reminding us of the promise they had made with their first films, and have just made the most successful films of their careers. They chose powerful and ‘different’ stories, based in their ‘home-territories’ – the milieu closest to their personalities, and we saw the result – confident, uninhibited storytelling, flavored with detailed understanding of the ‘worlds’ these stories were set in. Try to imagine ‘Kahaani’ without the infectious and intimidating Durga-Puja fervor on the streets of Kolkata, or ‘Paan Singh Tomar’ without the local dialect and the barren landscape, and you will understand the importance of milieu in cinematic storytelling. These two films have proved yet again that in the vast collective consciousness of our country there are numerous stories waiting to be told, and which can be exotic, not by mimicking foreign films and cultures, but by simply exploring the richness of our own culture and tradition. There is so much of inspiration around us that it is unfortunate that we have to resort to remakes and sequels and shameless plagiarism from other sources in order to make successful films.

And that brings me to the third and the most heartening similarity between the two films – the response from the audience. Gone are the days, and I hope this is true, when we watched brilliant films in empty theatres and regretted their commercial failure only because they were not ‘main-stream’. Both ‘Kahaani’ and ‘Paan Singh Tomar’ are very engaging and entertaining films, and thanks to the unanimously positive reviews and strong word-of-mouth, the theatres are full. I watched both movies on Monday mornings and the theatres were fairly crowded. This is the most encouraging sign for me.

Going back to the three observations, I feel, there is nothing new in what I have written. Whenever a competent film-maker comes up with a strong story and adds parts of his/her own self into it, it results in a good film. Whenever fine actors get author-backed roles, lead or otherwise, they give memorable performances. And the film-buff is always delighted to appreciate such efforts by true heroes and self-assured storytellers. That it has happened with two films within a span of eight days is a good news for all of us. And we won’t ever mind this happening more often.

Not Bad At All!

I had no reason to believe that 'Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu' could be a good film. I hated the promos and the lead pair was hardly exciting for me. I wasn't surprised when Taran Adarsh praised this film, but was when I read favourable reviews from other critics as well. Add to this that rare occasion when a friend from college is visiting you and you are tired after roaming about the city all night and do not have the energy to do anything else in the next four hours before his train takes him back. So we decided to indulge in this gamble, and watched this film with low expectations and a little hope.

I was largely unaffected during the first hour of the film, despite some cool treatment by the director. I just felt that it was not as funny as the makers thought it was. But I liked the performance of the leading lady. However, post-interval, I suddenly got a feeling that things are going to improve remarkably and kind-of prophetically told my friend that the director is now going to tighten his grasp on us. We were soon involved in the film, and liked some of the scenes a lot.

The masterstroke was the end. [SPOILER AHEAD] The ambiguity with which the film ended was something I truly appreciated, and ironically it gave me a feeling of contentment unlike some of my fellow audience. I overheard one of them saying, as we exited the theater - "Ye kya baat huyi? Na idhar hi rahe, na udhar hi!" But thanks to the ending, a competent direction, and Kapoor's effortless performance, I was pleasantly surprised. The only thing that remains forgettable about this film, in my opinion, is its title. I don't think I'll remember it by its title in future, but I'll recall it as "the first film by Shakun Batra".

Last Night at Juhu

I had a conversation with the writer and the director of the latest release ‘Agneepath’. True to my nature, I did the most of talking. Following are the excerpts:

(As I came out of Chandan Theatre, with thousands of others, the Writer spotted me. He was coming out of the next-door PVR.)

The Writer: Hey Satyanshu! How did you like the film? I really want to know your reaction.

Me: Well… I’ll get to that later. But first I’ve some questions for you.

The Writer: Go on!

Me: You took a long time to justify why a young Vijay decides to make ‘revenge’ his life’s sole ambition, the entire story until we see the first glimpse of his grown-up self is about that, and I was pretty involved during that part. So I must say the film began well for me.

The Writer: Oh, thank you!

Me: Wait… hold on… I’m not complimenting you… Anyway, let me first ask you those questions. At the interval point I realized that Vijay had spent most of our film time plotting and acting against his father-figure Rauf Lala. Why did he do that? Was eliminating Lala the only way for Vijay to reach Kancha? I don’t believe that! We were prepared to watch him avenge his father’s death and here he was, busy needlessly, with Lala. The final clash with Lala was justified as Lala was ‘selling’ Vijay’s kid sister, but Lala did that to avenge the death of his son, and I would say he was justified in doing so. Don’t you think Vijay lost his focus for the most part of the film and his incoherence confused the audience?

The Writer: No one has been complaining that!

Me: Yeah, I agree. They are too confused to pin-point this major personality flaw in Vijay, the hero who confused his vengeance. And there are more questions… See. Vijay went to fight Kancha alone, right? With neither his army of eunuchs, nor with Om Puri’s police force, nor with the goons he had stolen from Rauf Lala. He went alone, almost empty handed, right? So why did he wait all these years? And, this brings me back to my first question, why did he work tirelessly to eliminate Lala? Was it because he could not find proper means of transport to go back to his village all these years? Why did he keep waiting? We would have cheered his incredible single-handed victory over Kancha anyway, didn’t he know that? Was he waiting to build enough muscles to be able to life the giant Kancha at the most vulnerable point of the duel? Or was he waiting for the film to approach its third hour of run time?

The Writer: Have you watched the original?

Me: I’ve watched ‘Scarface’.

The Writer: I’m talking about the original ‘Agneepath’. Have you watched it?

Me: No.

The Writer: Watch it. Then we will talk.

(Interrupted by the entry of the Director)

The Director: So, you didn’t like it?

Me: Well… I think it was OK. But I really liked your work as the director. It was you who managed to create an atmosphere that kept me involved. You took a weak script and unconvincing characters and made a powerful film. I would say all merits of the film (including the performances) are yours, and all demerits (including the performances) are the writer’s.

The Director: But I’m the writer as well.

Me: WHAT?

The Director: Don’t you see? You’ve been talking with me about the script for so long now!

Me: Oh, really??? Um… I don’t know… Sorry. Excuse me!

(And I quietly slip away.)

Bolo, Dirty Dirty Dirty!

This Friday afternoon, after buying the 55-rupee ticket for Rs100 at Gaiety from Abdul Bhai (name changed to protect identity), we had a short chat. He was glad. The movie had opened really well. Standing at the gate of the iconic theatre, as if he owns the premise, he was also aware of the 'House Full' status of Chandan Cinema at Juhu. "Vidya Balan has pulled it off amazingly, carrying the film on her shoulders!" - he beamed.

Vidya Balan - the casting choice that had shocked us all, has proved to be the only reason to watch the film, so much so that it's difficult to imagine some other actress playing this role. With possibly one of the most unforgettable female roles in Hindi Cinema, she has successfully obliterated my judgment of the film. It was quiet an emotional experience for me, because I was not just watching her act or perform, but also wondering what the actress would have gone through in order to do what she did. Thanks to the inconsistent writing of the film, I was able to detach and think and appreciate her so much more - reminding myself of her filmography and admiring her guts to do something as outrageously bold as this. The fact that I found her barely titillating or 'hot' helped me think of her as a woman rather than an object of desire - which could have hardly happened with some other actress. The film surely failed to do justice to her, but perhaps I didn't mind that. The 'hero' had overawed me, and that experience was more than what I had expected. Just one scene can summarize my opinion of the film - the pre-interval 'award function' scene. I would have hated that scene in the screenplay and no one in the world could have convinced me that it will work. Vidya Balan did, by making the scene memorable and by making the scene her own, and going well beyond it. She surely goes well beyond the picture as well.

Another interesting question is troubling me for the past two days, since I watched this film - how else could have the writer approached the character? The writing was truly one-dimensional and devoid of any depth that this fascinating character apparently promises. But then was there any other option? I may be wrong, but the character in real life must have been frankly superficial, kind of disillusioned, and must have gone through terrifying conflicts from within - trapped in the whirlpool that she created for instant 'success', going deep with every passing day, till the time she could not afford staying alive. To treat this character truthfully would have resulted in a dark and disturbing psychological drama, with the protagonist so flawed that we could have only pitied her. Instead, the writer decided to project her as an underdog, an optimistic dreamer, with smart and quick decision-making abilities, and charm and confidence. Under the garb of her 'bindaas' attitude, the writer managed to cover the disillusioned, superficial character she was, and made sure the audience rooted for her. Though I want to determine a better approach of writing this character, the choice made by the writer was perhaps the only way to make a commercial entertainer out of it. The black marketeers should thank him for the same reason for which the critics are being harsh in their reviews. It is, after all, for the makers (including the writer) to decide what they would like to hear - "More Dirty, Less Picture" from a critic, or "Haan bolo, Dirty Dirty Dirty!" from those swarming at the gates of single screen theatres, reaping the great opening the film has made.

Modern Paisa-Wasool

For me it is a rare feeling – to go into theatres and watch a Hindi movie that claims and emerges to be truly paisa-wasool. The films I like do not claim to do that, and those that claim fail to satisfy me. Recently it was ‘Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara’ that I truly enjoyed. And today after watching the first show of ‘Sahib, Biwi aur Gangster’ I feel the same.

Please do not infer that both of these movies are equally good. I’m not saying that. I’m just feeling happy, because it is these movies that restore my faith in Hindi commercial cinema. To survive in this industry, in this country, you need to be an entertainer. And if you manage to do that with anything that is even slightly different or personal or topical, anything that makes it different from the soon-to-be-expired formulae, in my opinion you have succeeded.

So, in my opinion ‘Sahib, Biwi aur Gangster’ succeeds. Watch it for its characters, even the smallest roles have ‘character’ in them. Watch it for its actors – it is difficult to choose the best. Watch it for its dialogue, most of which are very proudly filmy, but some subtly layered. I want to congratulate Tigmanshu Dhulia for the film he has made – the milieu is his territory and he walks through it with confidence and flair.

Do not raise your expectations after reading this post. It is a film worth the money you spend on the ticket. You may not enjoy it as much as I did, or you may even truly love it. But definitely, you will agree that we will stop complaining about the quality of our commercial entertainers if we have a movie like this every fortnight.

P.S. There were only six people for the 10.30 am show at Fun Republic. I desperately hope it increases with word of mouth. Spread the word, if you can.

The Real Challenge

For their ‘Understanding Cinema’ project, my students are busy making their short films. I have required from each group, apart from their films, a poster, a trailer, a PR news article, and a film review. My intention was to make them realize the importance of marketing in this form of ‘art’ and ‘communication’. And they have responded with excitement. They have gone ahead to find different ways to create a buzz for their movies.

It started with a group starting a gossip blog reporting the making of its film. Another group followed, by creating their protagonist’s blog, and thus having us interact with the character even before the movie was shot. This blog is particularly beautiful, though not as sensational as the previous one. But this kind of publicity goes well with the topic this group is working on, which is ‘Hindi Parallel Cinema’ – thus focusing on its target group of artsy audience. There is another group circulating their own version of Mumbai Mirror – with gossip articles added to the already spicy daily. I love their enthusiasm. Other groups are launching their production house logos, and I’m amazed to see the technical expertise they have at their age. But the group that has managed to impress me the most is the one exploring the topic of ‘French New Wave’. Instead of creating a blog, they have created a Facebook page, thus managing to reach, and more frequently so, a wider audience. Apart from this, they are already uploading Teasers on YouTube, which are very true to their topic and really interesting.

All this exercise is important in order to really ‘understand cinema’. The commerce of this expensive medium can not be ignored and the only way to survive in this business is by keeping the finances correct – you can even survive making truly bad movies if you have got your monies right. And because of the unpredictable nature of this trade, that is a real challenge.

Had a chat with Anurag Kashyap at a preview of his latest film. He has reduced this game to a simple arithmetic, and that makes sense. For a movie with the production budget of, say, two crores to break even at the box-office, around 4-5 lakh people should walk into the theatres. This should happen within the few weeks of the movie’s stay at the theatres, and includes the movie-going audience all across the country. The point is, considering the population of some of the major cities in this country, this number is hardly significant. Five lakh people from all over India is really nothing. But we still can not guarantee that they will come, willing to spend on a movie. There are two things we can interpret from this – the film business in India is yet to tap its fullest potential (consider this – only 2 to 3 crore Indians watched ‘3 Idiots’ in theatres), and the need is to devise a marketing strategy that manages to achieve the cut-off figure mentioned above (which will be around 50 lakh footfalls for a 20-crore movie). This latter issue will determine the success story of new cinema and new film-makers.

P.S. I think ‘That Girl in Yellow Boots’ is an important film, but I didn’t like it. Now, if 100 people don’t watch it because of my opinion mentioned here, I have caused a loss to the target figure of 5 lakhs. See, how difficult it is!

Simple. Clear. Successful.

I feel guilty for having watched 'I am Kalam' so late. Guilty, because now I do not have sufficient time to recommend it to all. Tomorrow would be the last day of its run in the theatres. And most will miss the chance of spending on a good Hindi movie, for a change.

Most Hindi movies are bad because they lack clarity of intent and execution. Nila Madhab Panda's 'I am Kalam' succeeds because it has its basics right. I would like to enumerate some points, that we already know but fail to consider while making our films, which are the reasons behind this little film's triumph:

• Create interesting characters. Do not try to make the audience pity them, rather give them some dynamic qualities that the audience will admire.
• Keep the story focused and moving, simply, without resorting to complications, but conflicts.
• Understand the scope of your film and work within your canvas with complete trust on your story.
• Do not preach, even if you have something meaningful to say. Try to keep things light and entertaining.
• Cast correctly.
• Camera angles and great shots do not necessarily make a good film. Aesthetic weakness can not ruin a film with a good script. Aesthetic brilliance can not save a film with a bad script.
• Do not take yourself too seriously. Humility is a desirable quality in a filmmaker.
• (And as Dr Kalam says) Never stop dreaming. If you believe in your film, you will be able to find the theatres despite the unfavourable mechanisms of this film industry.

Strongly recommended.

The Woman and the Man from the Old South

I have had a copy of ‘Gone with the Wind’ for close to four years, but never dared watching it. The only reason was its daunting four-hour running time. A couple of days ago, on my 30-hour train journey, I watched five films, the first being this Victor Fleming historical. I feel relieved – as if a long-pending job is over. And I feel fulfilled – an unforgettable cinematic epic is now a part of my consciousness.

Adjusted for inflation, ‘Gone with the Wind’ would be the highest grossing film in the history of cinema. It played in certain theatres for more than 3-4 years. It is certainly as magnificent as a movie can be. It is also one of those rare instances where the film is believed to have done justice to its literary source, though I must confess that I haven’t read the Margaret Mitchell novel. In fact, I’m not sure whether I would ever read it. And that brings me to the biggest sense of fulfillment on watching the film.

The real triumph of the story of ‘Gone with the Wind’ is its two main characters – Scarlett O’Hara and Rhett Butler. Although she might very well have been the heroine of an immortal Shakespearean tragedy, a protagonist as flawed as Scarlett is rare in cinema. I don’t think I’m wrong to believe that she is the most selfish and conceited of all characters in the story. And thus she attracts, unintentionally so, Rhett Butler, the compulsive non-committal philanderer, believing in his own morality and giving a damn to the world. There is nothing conventionally likeable about the two except, may be, their good-looks. Apparently, it is difficult to understand how a story with primary characters as corrupt as these secured such an insane amount of funding to be made into a film during the era dominated by the conventional studio mind-set. But the monumental success and popularity of the film proves that the audience related to them. This time, they did not worship the hero and the heroine for being superhumans of great character, valour, or beauty, but they empathized with the lead pair for being what they were – opportunistic, and self-centered. The audience loved the unapologetic characters because they were everything a man-animal (or a woman-animal) would secretly like to be, and they expressed something the society does not let us express. In fact, this very reason makes Scarlett and Rhett immortal and evergreen; they are as valid today as they ever were. Any story, based anywhere in the world, with these two as the lead pair would always be fascinating and more true than others involving more idealistic or romantic characters. I do not know whether I will have the patience to read the epic in its original form, but thanks to cinema, I will never forget this story of the Old South, and the woman and the man I could so relate to – two of the most lovable anti-heroes we will ever see.

Dirty Picture!

There is something about Aamir Khan Productions that, despite all mixed news and not-so-positive gossip, makes its movies work. And interestingly, these movies work at different levels, fulfilling their respective aspirations. So while ‘Lagaan’ was an epic commercial, critical, and even international success, ‘Taare Zameen Par’ made money by manipulating the audience’s emotions, apart from making ‘dyslexia’ known to Indians as they had known malaria! ‘Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na’ was never meant to be a path-breaking film, just to be loved by the young crowd, and launch Imran Khan. And it successfully did both. ‘Peepli [Live]’ and ‘Dhobi Ghaat’ were small films with different sensibilities. Though their commercial performance should not be a benchmark to judge them, they still made more money than better ‘small’ films made outside this production house.

And then comes ‘Delhi Belly’.

It seems Aamir Khan has gained tremendous notoriety because of the way he promotes his films. This opinion against him is as natural as is the sentiment against powerful, capitalist institutions and nations. I don’t belong to that group of critics. But I think it is unfortunate that lately his movies are known more for their promotion campaigns than for the movies themselves. It is unfortunate, that on this date, the words ‘Delhi Belly’ denote expletives-ridden, uninhibited, adult content, rather than a good movie, which it definitely is. It will be unfortunate if the movie fails to get rid of this image, which is not untrue, but does absolutely no justice to the more wonderful aspects of it – the incredibly crafted screenplay, the perfect casting, the finely balanced performances, and the self-belief that when everything is correct, a film finds its audience. However, the worse thing that might follow if the movie does succeed is – the credit of its success being given to its ‘foul’ language and ‘adult’ sensibilities. I shiver with the fear that more movies will try to follow this, instead of realizing the true merits of the film, and we will be served with bad and truly degenerate stuff. ‘Delhi Belly’ will then be remembered for another bad reason – for setting the trend of ‘dirty’ cinema.

Watched the first day first show. After a long, long time, I saw the Hindi film audience laughing and smiling and excited as they left exit doors of the theatre. And yes, almost all of them were younger than me!

For Trivia Freaks

Two Hindi films, about 30 years apart. Both were shot in the same state of India.
The names of the lead pair are the same. Also, the name of the male lead appears in the title of the first film.
The lead actress of the first film played the role of the hero’s mother in the second.
Also the narrator of both films is the same.

Watched Mrinal Sen’s ‘Bhuvan Shome’ today. There were merits in the film, telling the story of Bhuvan Shome sahab’s redemption. He is a middle-aged Railway Officer, a strict disciplinarian and a lonely widower leading a monotonous life. One day as he goes hunting, an encounter with a young woman brings about a subtle but important transition in him. He no more wants people to be scared of him. I loved that this graph of the story was not on-the-face but I thought the film itself was slightly over-indulgent. Also, the style was clearly inspired by the French New Wave and hence I can not give the film any credit for originality. By Hindi film standards, yes, it must have been an innovation, and an important film.

However, I loved the young Suhasini Mulay – she was spontaneous, natural, and raw. She should have done more films and I think it is our loss that she didn’t, until recently.

Well, today is the 10^th Anniversary of the other film in question. I no more respect its makers as much as I did back then, but this film will remain special for me, and for Hindi cinema.

Crowd-Sourcing and 'Source Code'

Watched 'I Am'. I was not interested in the movie per se. But in what went behind its making. The director and his associates approached friends and the aam janta to contribute for the movie. 400 people from 45 different cities across the world made financial contributions. Though not a first, this film will remain a fine example of what resolve and relationships can do. For those involved, I believe, being able to make it possible would have been the matter of greater pride, over what they finally made. And even otherwise, the movie does work, because of its issues, stories and, as Rajeev Masand rightly puts - its 'inherent honesty'. I would not say it was a very good film, but definitely worth a watch. Even on a very critical note, I'll have to admit that each story in itself was so affecting that my attention to technical deficiencies gradually waned. And there was not much to complain about.

Also watched the sci-fi thriller 'Source Code' that according to Roger Ebert is the best movie of the year yet. I hope that is not true, though I liked it a lot. Two things that I felt about it - one, the same merits that make it a good film, are its limitations and keep it short of being great; and two, it is a fairy tale, after all... For debating with me on these points you'll have to watch the film. Do it. You will be entertained, for sure.

Deserving Winner

It has been really hectic all these days. There were so many things I wanted to write about, but just could not get the time. I wanted to write about a conversation I had with Kundan Shah a few weeks ago. I can summarize that as: “Do not cater to the audience. But respect them.” I wanted to write about Sudhir Mishra’s ‘Dharavi’ – that I managed to catch on big screen, and which is definitely one of the better Hindi films you will see. And I wanted to write about the best birthday gift I have received in a long time – a 9-movie collection, all Satyajit Ray films.

But yesterday was such an important day that I forced myself to find time and write these words. As mentioned in a previous post, I had been mentoring the making of a 3D film, a non-fiction visual poem on the town of Vrindavan. Yesterday was the award ceremony. Our film stood 3rd and won the Best Editing award. (The only other awards were Best Cinematography and Best Film). The winning team is going to have a trip to Hollywood and I was a little disappointed. But in the end, I think they were the deserving winners – ‘Goli Aatam’ – a Tamil film about a little girl who challenges a bunch of boys in a game of marbles.

But there is more news. The organizers have selected one film to be sent to Panasonic Japan. And that is ours. More than anything, we are proud of the movie we made, and are glad to be part of an experience we will never forget. Some of the readers of this blog contributed in the making. I must thank them for everything they did.

After the award function, I went to watch ‘The King’s Speech’. And despite my awareness about the movie’s subject, it moved me deeply. I was amazed by ‘Black Swan’ and dazzled by ‘Inception’. And I really appreciated ‘The Social Network’ and ‘True Grit’. But ‘The King’s Speech’ in my opinion really deserved the Best Picture Oscar. Cerebral entertainment is great, and a difficult thing to achieve. But being able to appeal to the heart is even more difficult. And more often than not, they do it by keeping things simple. Two winners – ‘The King’s Speech’ at the Oscars, and ‘Goli Aatam’ at Panasonic Dimensions, just reinforced that.

Here are the links for you to have a glimpse at the competition, and what we did there:

• 3D Workshop at Lonavla
• Shooting at various locations
• Editing in Mumbai
• Award Function

And here is a Triveni that closes the chapter for me, and opens others:

एक अवार्ड फंक्शन में हार मिली आज;
अभी चाँद तले मरीन ड्राइव पर बैठा हूँ।

और क्या-क्या देगा ये शहर मुझे - ये ख़याल है...

Favourite Firangi

If I have to choose one international filmmaker I have most closely followed, as I have done with a Vishal Bhardwaj or an Ashutosh Gowariker, it has be Darren Aronofsky. His cinema has always affected me, and several others of my generation, but more than that I’m fascinated by his personal journey as a filmmaker. I have watched all his feature films. And today I watched his latest – my first Aronofsky film on big screen. Here is an account of my discovery of him.

I was not particularly interested in watching ‘Requiem for a Dream’, although it was extremely popular in our hostel. I am generally turned off when a film is popular for its sensational content (it was a drug movie), or for the individual brilliance of its ‘shots’. And this film left everyone talking about both. So, I started watching it reluctantly. When it ended, it had changed my vision as a filmmaker. I remember making notes on the innovations that film brought on screen. But the impact was mainly at a deep psychological level. ‘Requiem’ is not a drug-film. It is a film about love and alienation, about dreams and obsessions, about the fragilities of human mind. And then I realized what the film called itself. Suddenly, it was a profound film before my eyes, and its maker – someone I had to follow.

‘Requiem’ is one of the most popular ‘rare’ films in boys’ hostels around the country. So, there were many fans, and we soon managed to find Aronofsky’s first film, ‘Pi’ (1998). After the film ended, I sat for 45 minutes, making notes on what it was about, and was glad to ‘interpret’ it in my own way. I don’t know how correct I was. But since then I realized the importance of independent cinema. Made on an initial budget of $60,000, with contributions from family and friends, the film became a huge critical success, and grossed 50 times its investment. This was Aronofsky’s first film. If I think of it today, arranging its equivalent of Rs 30 Lakhs does not seem much of a problem, getting an idea like ‘Pi’ does. The success of his first film led him to make the $4.5 million ‘Requiem’ in 2000.

We were waiting anxiously for his next film. Made after Aronofsky declined the offer to direct ‘Batman Begins’, ‘The Fountain’(2006), is a timeless love-story, incredibly shot, and featuring some great performances, but a commercial disaster. It was the most ambitious and indulgent Aronofsky film, $35 million went in its making. It was difficult to comprehend, and did not have the thrilling nature of his first two films. But for his worshippers like us, it was a big thing. He had upheld our trust in him. We thought of him as a cerebral, fearless filmmaker, and he had delivered more than expected.

So, we were disappointed when his next ‘The Wrestler’ (2008) arrived. It was a very good film. But it was not a Darren Aronofsky film, we thought. However, the trade didn’t mind and the film became his biggest commercial success, and was also critically acclaimed. It changed my perception of him. I thought, and perhaps rightly so, the filmmaker now wanted to surprise us, and more importantly, surprise himself. Thus he made a film no one would have thought he would make. And he proved that he can tell a simple story with as much finesse as his cerebral, surreal tales.

Cut to 2010. ‘Black Swan’ was in my list of ‘Dying to watch these fresh and upcoming films’ that you find on the sidebar of this blog for months. The world is already raving about it, so there is hardly anything that I can add. I would just say this – a filmmaker who can manage to blend the best of writing, drama, music, dance, and art into cinema is for me the truly complete filmmaker. After all, this is what cinema is all about, a confluence of the best forms of expressions. I had the downloaded version of ‘Black Swan’ on my laptop for a month but I waited for its theatrical release. And I’m so happy today. To be honest, one reason for that happiness is that the film gave us our original cerebral and psychological master back.

W(n)ot a Film!

“By any stretch of imagination, it can not be called a film” is what a friend of mine feels about ‘Dhobi Ghaat’. Aamir Khan, slowly gaining notoriety for the way he aggressively markets his films, has always maintained that this film would not appeal to the traditional Indian audience. There are people calling it boring, others praising it for its ‘freshness’. For me, it is neither. It is one of those numerous ‘hyperlinked’ films that world cinema has witnessed since ‘The Killing’ (1956) or even earlier, and what has been a fashionable trend among the movies of the last decade. By Hindi film standards, it is both fresh and slow, and even unaffecting. And this time I am not even ‘happy that a film like this got widespread release in India’. Being the wife of one of the most powerful men in the industry has done the trick. Kiran Rao has been fortunate in that sense, but that does not, in any way, mean that she is not talented.

The writer-director has made a film she can be proud of. It is not a great piece of cinema, but it is very well done. It is sure of its intent, and its content, or the apparent lack of it. It has its own way of affecting you, but as one leading film critic rightly wrote, it is an ‘acquired taste’. We can ‘acquire’ that taste only by watching films like these. And the presence of a superstar in this otherwise ‘small’ film will surely bring more people into the theatres. That is the only saving grace for the atrocious decision of casting Aamir Khan, who disappoints in his portrayal of the reclusive painter. Awkward with his English lines, he seems to be trying too hard, failing the character that, after a long time, suited him in all its dimensions. ‘Dhobi Ghaat’ proves once again that an actor ‘bigger’ than the character can never do justice to it. Correct casting is what Akira Kurosawa considered ‘the most important part of filmmaking besides writing’. I would like to add another exercise in the list, and that is ‘acting workshops and rehearsals’. I believe these are the reasons why Kriti Malhotra playing the girl in the videotapes is a delight to watch. And Prateik and Monica Dogra fit into their roles to near perfection.

I don’t expect the film to be widely loved. But I do hope that more and more people watch films like these. Because the coming generation of Hindi filmmakers is actually going to ‘stretch the imagination’ of the Indian audience, including the aforesaid friend of mine, and redefine what can be called cinema. ‘Dhobi Ghaat’ is a small step in that direction.

P.S. After watching the film, please try to answer this – why was it given an Adult certificate? As I type these words, small kids near my building are dancing to ‘Sheela’. It is some celebration down there, and they are lip-syncing to ‘Sheela ki jawani… I’m too sexy for you…’ whatever!