It does not happen often that you finish watching five movies in a single day, within 12 hrs. But from today, it is going to be my case for one full week. With five great movies today, the fest begins for me. And today it belonged to the ladies.
Two of the five movies had women directors. And all but one had ladies as protagonists: Mar Nero (Black Sea), a beautiful Italian film about the old Gemma and her young Romanian caregiver; Zanan-e Bedun-e Mardan (Women Without Men), a surrealistic political Persian drama about four women and how the unrest in Iran during 1953 affects their lives; Applaus (Applause), a Danish film about the personal turmoil in the life of a famous middle-aged actress; and finally Fish Tank, an English film about the fifteen-year old tough and wiry Mia. I had a chance meeting with Mr. Lekh Tandon and the movie we saw was the disturbing and brutal sexploitation film from Greece, Kynodontas (Dogtooth), which left the audience shocked and enraged.
The best performances were those of Ilaria Occhini as Gemma in Mar Nero, for which she has already won Best Actress Silver Lion at Locarno; and of Paprika Steen as Thea in Applause. But the movie that gave me a truely cinematic experience today was Andrea Arnold's Fish Tank, the winner of Jury Prize at Cannes, 2009. The red-black silhouette of the pretty and talented Katie Jarvis dancing to the tune of California Dreamin' made my day:
All the leaves are brown And the sky is grey, I've been for a walk On a winter's day...
As evident by my last post, I was extremely excited about this day, the opening day of Mumbai Film Festival, 2009. The opening movie was Steven Soderbergh's latest offering, Matt Damon starer, The Informant!. The opening ceremony, followed by this movie was scheduled at 1900hrs. And I was there well in time. They gave me my delegate pass, after looking at the counterfoil of my registration form and informed me that I can join in from the next morning. I was not allowed to attend the screening tonight! "Today's entry is only by invitation." - the girl at the help desk explained with a forced smile. "Well, I don't know who was supposed to invite me.", I said. She couldn't appreciate the humour. I forgave her.
I had waited for this day for two months. I had waited for the evening the whole day. I didn't watch any movie during the day as I had to watch this. And there I was, on my way back. The Red Carpet, the media flashes, the announcements, the music, the Security, the expensive cars, the honourable guests - it was all there. But it wasn't for me. The Mumbai Film Festival had started. And I was going back.
Let me put it clearly. I knew the Opening Ceremony was not meant for the general public. But who cares about that! I was just expecting the thousand bucks I had paid to get the delegate pass would let me in one of the four theaters - all screening the opening movie. The opening day couldn't give anything for me to cherish. Tomorrow is going to be my Day #1.
I don't blame anyone. I forgive them all. But it is true that I was feeling a mix of too many emotions at that moment. One of them was disappointment. Others, too personal for me to talk about. It is OK, I said to myself, and moved towards Landmark book store. The wonderful book on the cinema of Jean Renoir was waiting for me...
It has been a long wait. Over two months. And finally, it is over. Believe me, the last few days were real slow.
The only film festival I have attended is Pune Film Festival 2008. Had watched 17 movies in 4 days. It was an experience I could never forget. This year, I missed it. And was gearing up for the 2010 Pune fest, to be held in January. Got to know about this fest to be held in Mumbai and for the past two months I have been waiting impatiently.
Finally the wait is over. I am not going to do anything else but lose myself to this binge of movies. I never watch more than one movie a day, let it grow on myself, read about it and watch another on getting up the next morning. But from tomorrow, I am going to indulge. I hope to finish 35 movies during this week. Have already spent hours planning it out from the schedule they have released. Perhaps the planning was the most exciting part.
I'll have to leave home at 8am. And would return only at midnight, to leave again the next morning. It is going to be a hell of a ride. And although, I would miss the company of my friends who were there with me at Pune 2008, one of them is coming to Mumbai and would join me for three days. And my brother would join me for some shows as well. I can't wait any more. The stage is set just too well...
P.S. I dont know whether I'll have time. But would love to post daily reports about my experience there. Although, it seems too much to demand from myself, I'll sincerely try. C ya!!!
Cinema has always tried to translate expression from other media like the novel and the theater, and with an obvious arguable success. Three years ago, I came across this movie, especially recommended by my friend. Today, I’m writing what I feel about it, as asked by another. And as I write these words, I can still recount the experience I had had while watching this unique celluloid translation of the popular graphic novel, SinCity.
Those were the days when I was extremely critical about the stuff I watched, and appreciated. I was extremely choosy and for me the best form of cinema was the realist film with a purpose, a theme, a moral. But as the film opened, I was struck by its beautiful imagery and uplifting score. I don’t remember, but perhaps it was some saxophone playing. And there was this bold use of colour, or the lack of it. It was a visual I had never ever seen in my life. Or had I? This film had indeed managed to infuse life into the art of the graphic novel. For the next couple of hours or so, as I gazed transfixed at the amazing blend of beauty and disgust, I felt the makers shouting in my ears: “We would bullshit! And you would sit and watch!! And it would last as long as we want it to.”
I didn’t feel for the characters, but I admired some of them and hated others. As the film is a series of loosely-linked short stories, there was not a definite graph of emotional connect that I had for it. Instead, it was like being engrossed without being attached. Love making scenes had hardly appeared so magical. Action had hardly been so daringly ruthless. I can not forget two scenes: one that involved the death of the ‘Yellow Demon’, I don’t remember his name, if he had any; and the scene where Elijah Wood’s character gets his limbs, and eventually the whole body, chopped off, and the smile on his lips just refuses to fade away. The directors (there were three of them – Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino) succeeded in such sequences and more because they willingly ignored the realistic temperament inherently associated with film and took a sort of expressionistic approach, greatly inspired by the original graphic novel – a medium where things are indeed magically beautiful but essentially unreal, wherestunts are indeed most daring. If any attempt was made to dilute this impact, it would have been just another movie, far from being an adaptation of the original, and an exceedingly disappointing one. Although, the film lacks a connection at emotional level, and those who fail to appreciate its imagery and style might choose to leave it mid-way, or even before, I feel its overtly non-sentimental approach was its style statement and its merit. For me it was a pure cinematic experience.
Having a clear cinematic vision is a rare virtue and being able to achieve that requires tireless effort and character, and most of all – honesty. Whatever seems apparently, I would call SinCity one of the least pretentious movies. Today, three years later, I am a lot more acceptable to film expressions ranging from purely abstract to purposefully documentary, from silent melodramas to long hours of subtlety. I still, at least through the films I want to make, would like to choose issues and convey meaning in a way as realistic as possible, and would like to be known as a maker of serious, important and effective cinema. But I would be equally proud if I could make a film like this. Bullshitting can be fun. And doing it with sincerity and honesty, very much an art. And it finds its patrons. The cult popularity of this film is a fact as true as its merits.
P.S. I just found out that his name was The Yellow Bastard. I love him!
The phenomenon of cinema can be studied in three ways: economic, aesthetic and political. The economic aspect of movies is indeed important, but with respect to the economics of the world, it is hardly significant. The aesthetic aspect of cinema concerns with its study as a form of human expression. But it is the politics of films – the way it relates to the world, is something that makes it the most powerful form of art. While the socio-politics of film describes how it reflects and is integrated with human experience in general, the psycho-politics explains how we personally and specifically relate to it. So, in order to study the ‘impact’ of films, we need to study its political nature, which can be done on three levels: the Inherent nature of films, the Mimetic nature of films and the Ontological nature of films (Ontology= the metaphysics of the nature of being).
Inherently, its intense communicative nature makes it strongly political. It is a widely popular phenomenon. It represents reality more powerfully and convincingly than any other art form. In fact, the ‘dream function’ of the film is a major reason behind its success and acceptance. Film is plural, rather than unique, that is, it is infinitely reproducible. It is available at regular basis to a large number of people and unlike other traditional arts, it meets the observers on their home grounds. It has also enabled the observer to participate directly in the logic of the film. In fact, this art form has exceeded from being a relation between the artist and the art. It has involved the observer as well, and the relationship between the artist, the art and an active observer is the power of cinema.
Mimetic: There is this traditional film debate on Realism versus Expressionism on how to use the medium. Realism celebrates the raw material of films: the realistic plot, characters and issues. Expressionism gives more power into the hands of the filmmaker. It allows them to re-create or modify reality. While the earliest films of Shyam Benegal easily qualifies as an expression of realism, the films of V. Shantaram is the finest example of good quality expressionist film making in India. Whichever be the case, film either reflects or re-creates reality and does it so well that has indeed developed into an essay in which we can work out the patterns of a new and better social structure.
Ontological: Film tends to deconstruct the traditional values of culture. While on the one hand, its depiction of sex and violence does disturb the moral norms of the society, its ruthless exposure of the ills of the society is definitely a desirable virtue. Films have historically mirrored the cultural and moral values of our culture and, to a lesser extent but definitely, have helped in modifying them. Cinema today is not only an illustration to sociology, it is an important tool of sociological change.
However, two strong limitations have definitely lowered the possibility of impact of films. One, its production: the huge costs involved do not allow everyone to use this as a medium of expression. It is indeed the costliest art form. Secondly, the channels of distribution are limited. Even if I make a 2-hour film of mine, how do I make people watch it? Another challenge is what cinema faces from television. The phenomenon of TV has appeared to be more powerful than cinema. But, and I invite criticism in this regard, TV is hardly art. Like the radio, it is a medium of communication. It is a tool that broadcasts art forms like music, dance and fiction.
One important point here would be to study the Celebrity phenomenon. Traditional heroes were either fictitious or real. Films fused the two types: real people became fictional characters. In fact, the earliest of Hollywood producers insisted that the actors work in anonymity. Obviously, it was not to happen. And the complex relationship between stars and the public has been a prime element of the mythic and political nature of film ever since. Amitabh Bachchan was not popular for being AB, nor for being Vijay, but for being the Angry Young Man. Of course, later, as he successfully played romantic and comic roles, he became Amitabh Bachchan. Although it seems ridiculous, but it is a fact that the only ‘characters’, apart from the numerous Hindu Gods who are worshipped in a movie-crazy society like ours is (apart from a couple of cricketers) the film stars (the first name that comes to mind here is Rajnikanth). You can dismiss this fact if you wish, but sociologically speaking, it is an extremely valid point. And the interesting observation here is, people do not worship the real man behind Rajnikanth. Neither do they worship the individual characters he plays. It is the fusion of the real and the fictitious that people are crazy about. It seems appropriate to mention that the basis of cinema is indeed an illusion. What we see on screen is a series of stills that give us the perception of ‘motion picture’. The process is extremely painstaking and clinical and even ‘boring’ for the common man. But what cinema has done is to achieve an amazing confluence of the best of all art forms: fiction, theater, dance, music, architecture and fine arts, not to mention costume design and jewelry design as well, and has emerged as so strong a force that has the ability to move hundreds of people at a time, deeply affecting their emotions, thoughts, belief and value-system. Cinema is an illusion, and what a grand illusion it is!
The article is a part of my personal notes from the study of James Monaco’s brilliant book How To Read A Film.
Chapter 1: Basterds At Fame, Inorbit last week, I had the fortune of watching a Tarantino film in theater for the first time. And since during this period between his last film and this I had covered his complete filmography, it was indeed eagerly awaited. For the first time I was eager to experience a fresh film of a foreign film maker with whose works I was completely acquainted and in love. The certificate by CBFC, India kickstarted this unforgettable experience. But there was an error. It read 'Inglorious Basterds.' A female voice from behind me announced - "Spelling mistake!" I forgave her. Perhaps she was not aware of this famous 'mistake' in the title of the movie she had come to watch. That when it is Tarantino, 'bastards' can very well be spelt 'basterds'. I forgave her; she was wrong because she was ignorant.
Chapter 2: Inglourious But then it hit me hard. The movie is called 'Inglourious Basterds', an extra U in its first word apart from the E replacing A in the second. And the CBFC certificate showed 'Inglorious'. May be the lady behind me knows about Tarantino and the movie indeed! May be she is not ignorant at all. And that means she is damn correct about the 'error'. So, this time I forgive CBFC. The point is - however hard you try to know and predict Quentin Tarantino, he still manages to surprise you. You felt you have done it right when you wrote 'Basterds' instead of the literal English-language word. But you still missed a U. You still missed a Tarantino trademark, a beautiful detail.
Chapter 3: Glorious Basterds After an utterly forgettable 'Grindhouse', Tarantino is back in style. And it was a pleasure to see how he celebrates his love for cinema in this film, and leads us to an unforgettable climax that challenges the history known to man. They say he is getting repetative. I don't care. As long as he does his stuff the way he does his stuff, we're gonna love him. After all, really, we havent seen a lot of things, until we see them through the eyes of QT.
Diwali Night. I take the fast train from Churchgate on my way to Andheri. Two gentlemen sit before me. I greet them ‘Happy Diwali’ and the train leaves. Sitting in my window seat, I look at the city that I have made the home of my being and my dreams. And soon I find small slum-like dwellings not good enough to be called houses, but yet decorated in their limited capacity and shining in the spirit of the festival.
I smile.
At Dadar, more people join in. Men making way for more men. Four sit on the seat meant for three, something the gentleman before me calls ‘Bombay adjustment.’ I smile again. ‘You from Bombay?’- he asks. I tell him that I’m from Bihar, living here for the last fifteen months. And then I add that this ‘adjustment’ is one of those things that make Bombay a beautiful city. He smiles back in approval. And I turn my gaze back to my love- this city of dreams, of hope, of life. We, in this short conversation of ours, had shared our love for this city. And all three times when we took its name, we said ‘Bombay’ and not necessarily ‘Mumbai’.
It was sad to know that Karan Johar had to apologise to Raj Thackrey for using ‘Bombay’ instead of ‘Mumbai’ in his production ‘Wake Up Sid’. As Shobha De wrote in her column the next day, Raj Thackrey has clearly missed the point. Couldn’t he see the love this film showed for this great city? I like to call my beloved with names more than one. And does it really matter what name I use as long as I love her enough.
I loved ‘Wake Up Sid.’ And I have an extremely personal reason for it. The film had its warm and emotional moments. But those that choked me the most and brought tears in my eyes most easily were not the scenes of interpersonal relations or joy or sorrow. It was the mention of ‘Bombay’ and the palpable love the writer-director has for this city that affected me the most. As I came out of the theatre, I knew one thing for sure – I’m in love.
Thanks Ayan, thanks Karan, and the wonderful cast and crew of ‘Sid’. Thanks for making me realize that I am madly in love with Mumbai. And I love to call it Bombay. Somebody’s got some problem with that?
For almost fourteen years now, Maratha Mandir, the single-screen theatre near Mumbai Central station begins its day with a show of this great saga of love. Every single day in all these years the imposing personality of ‘Bauji’ feeds the pigeons at Trafalgar Square with his famous and familiar chant of “Aao”. And almost involuntarily receives his wife’s call on reaching his shop. Chhutki is still ‘Chhutki’, and Simran’s world of dreams still raises curtains, every single day, over the face of arguably the best romantic hero in Hindi film history. A film that is, in every sense, Indian, and a great example of what Hindi cinema stands for, DDLJ has always been an important movie. But you have not seen it until you do it at Maratha Mandir.
But the impact that these now regular stuff have during the three-hour run of this beautiful, heart-warming, musical romantic-comedy-of-sorts is unparalleled. As the film began with the tunes of ‘Ghar aa ja pardesi’, I could feel goose bumps all over me, a strange thrill, close to a shiver and eyes blurred with a tear-film of unbelievable joy. It was not the emotion of the story that touched me; it was the pure magic of cinema, testimony to which is this unique theatre, where every morning that sound of Raj’s mandolin triggers a reaction among the crowd that is hardly there in the films released these Fridays. As Simran sits sulkily in her Punjab home, having accepted her fate, the tune haunts her incessantly, only to finally get real into the celebrated return of the prince for the rescue of the princess, marked by a London bell on an Indian cow. One of the most loved romantic songs of all time follows and the audience roars in approval. “Ise kehte hain reaction”, my brother added. And it was the only film where we didn’t feel irritated at people mouthing lines along with their acquaintances on screen, (not really) predictingthe resounding slap Raj is about to receive and adding that touch of “To kya hua agar….”. We didn’t mind all this, because all of us in there were celebrating cinema and this magical film which, like all great love stories, seems to live forever. As ‘Pops’ corrects Raj (when he says ‘Wo zamana aur tha Pops’) – “Mohabbat ka naam aaj bhi mohabbat hai bete! Ye na kabhi badli hai, aur na kabhi badlegi.”
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968): Arguably the greatest sci-fi film ever made, it had no dialogues for about two-thirds of its running time. A film experience that goes beyond comprehension, it was a precursor to the great sci-fi era to follow. Spielberg called it the ‘Big Bang’ of his generation.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964): Regarded by many as the greatest satirical film ever made, this cult classic defines dark-comedy in cinema. A big highlight being Peter Sellers playing three different characters so well that audience could hardly realize.
Barry Lyndon (1975): A period costume-drama with an epic storytelling. Special lenses were used to shoot some of the indoor scenes that were lit only with candlelight, creating two-dimensional diffused-light images reminiscent of 18th-century paintings.
A Clockwork Orange (1971): An extremely controversial futuristic film with explicit depiction of teenage crime. I personally was deeply affected by its language. It was removed from circulation in the UK after Kubrick received death threats and was not available until his death in 1999. In one scene, Kubrick threw the camera off a rooftop to achieve the effect he desired.
The Shining (1980): It was received unfavourably by critics in the beginning, but eventually has earned the reputation of one of the best-made horror films. However, this film earned Kubrick the reputation of a megalomaniac perfectionist; he demanded, reportedly, hundreds of takes of certain scenes. This film was one of the pioneers of the Steadicam, and the first to use it in the improvised low mode position, extremely close to the ground.
What makes him a genius?
From film noir to sci-fi, period drama, war, horror, crime, mystery and satire, the versatility that he exhibited as a storyteller is unparalleled. He made thirteen feature films and at least eleven of them are considered as among the greatest. I daresay, no other filmmaker in cinema history can boast of such a record.
His ‘The Killing’ (1956) is perhaps the first popular film with parallel tracks, an innovation used in ‘Mystery Train’, ‘Pulp Fiction’, ‘Amores Perros’ etc. Add to this the huge transitions in storyline, as in ‘2001: A Space Oyssey’ and ‘Full Metal Jacket’ (1987), parts of the same story working as chapters, and various other significant technical innovations and perfectionism make Kubrick a complete school of cinema by himself.
Extreme varied opinions about many of his films like ‘Lolita’ (1962), ‘A Clockwork Orange’, ‘Full Metal Jacket’ and ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ (1999) can be attributed to his own take on morality and ethics. His non-sentimental, non-judgmental and hence controversial view-point made him a ruthless storyteller. I remember how while watching ‘Full Metal Jacket’ my opinion kept changing whether it is an anti-war film or pro-war film. In fact, it was none. It just stated things as they were.
He is one of those finest of filmmakers whose ‘open narrative’ style combined surrealism and expressionism and left things for audience’s interpretation. When I finished watching ‘2001’, I didn’t care a bit about what it meant; the sheer experience was mind-blowing. In his own words, “A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.”
Facts that add to his legacy
Almost all of his films were adapted from literary works and many used a voice-over narration, sometimes taken verbatim from the source.
Some of his other trademarks include: using pre-recorded classical music rather than an original score, the (in)famous ‘Kubrick stare’, a scene in or just outside a bathroom in all his movies, and extensive use of point-of view shots, wide angle shots, character tracking shots, zoom shots and shots down tall parallel walls.
He was one of those great English-language filmmakers who never received due recognition from the Academy. The only Oscar he won was for supervising the special effects of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’
His last three films were made over a period of decades – ‘The Shining’ (1980). ‘Full Metal Jacket’ (1987) and ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ (1999). Four days after screening the final cut of ‘Eyes Wide Shut’, a 70-year old Stanley Kubrick died of a heart attack in his sleep.
I realized his merit as late as March 2009. But I can not explain what joy it was to discover such unparalleled body of work. Today, Stanley Kubrick is one of my most favourite directors, right up there with Krzysztof Kieslowski.
“If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed.” – Stanley Kubrick
Watching lots of Hindi movies these days, for a change. An earlier post talks about 'Barah Aana'. Following and preceding it were the following, in no necessary order:
Mumbai Meri Jaan: Definitely worth a watch. But to be honest, I felt the theme and the performances were bigger than the movie. The theme and the sub-plots are so powerful, it leaves you moist-eyed more than once. And some great performances by some of the best in business. Just felt the post-climax was a little too stretched out and pretty much predictible. But my heartfelt thanks to UTV for backing such a project.
Tahaan: It began too good. But gradually lost its grip. Children are so wonderful to look at. And it is sad to try to save a deficient script with the help of some great kids. It is not possible, well, most of the times.
Oh My God!: It was a good one. Keeps you smiling throughout. And at times it gets pretty much serious. Good piece of cinema. Reminds you of the Hrishida-Basuda period.
Maharathi: When you have acting giants like Paresh Rawal, Naseeruddin Shah, Boman Irani and Om Puri in each of your frame, do you care for more. I can't. I can keep watching them forever. And the movie was quite decent. Felt good after watching it. But soon got to know that it is based on a James Hadley Chase novel. Felt sad. Not because it is not original. But for the fact that the makers didn't acknowledge it. I don't think I would be able to respect this otherwise fine film any more.
Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye!: Only on my second viewing could I realize what this film is. It is just too good, among the best made films in recent times. I would like to talk separately about it as there is so much to talk. Just one thing - although 'Khosla ka Ghosla' might appear as a better film, Dibakar Bannerjee has matured even more in his second venture. Looking forward to his entire film career. Insha Allah!
Now small takes each on the recent releases:
New York: Barring a couple of scenes, I felt it was amateurish. Sorry to say, as many people seem to have liked it. It is a certified hit. Good for the industry. But I felt it is a perfect illustration of the theory of EDR. (Will go into its detail in a separate post later.)
Kambakkht Ishq: They say it has made 100 crores in its first week worldwide. I cached it in the cheapest single-screen theater you can find in Mumbai. The crowd was roaring most of the time. I was feeling tortured, almost. But thanks to this film, for opening the floodgates for a desperately starved industry.
Short Kut: Perhaps the publicity-wallahs need to be thrashed. It was marketed as a laugh riot. And it was an unbearable, emotional experience. This time even the crowd was with me, at the receiving end of this torture. Just wanted to confess something. I went for Amrita Rao. Indulging in guilty pleasures once a while is OK, I suppose.
And now I conclude by talking about two films by Govind Nihalani that I watched recently:
Droh Kaal(1994): Perhaps it could have been better written. And there were some portions that demanded a better take and editing, esp. those involving the extras. Otherwise the film was fine. I am being so critical because I know what Nihalani is capable of. I rate his 'Drishti'(1990) as among the most perfect films in Hindi cinema. His trademark style of characters indulging in long dialogue is always a pleasure. But somehow it wasn't as magical in 'Droh Kaal'.
Aakrosh(1980): I was so happy to know that this film bagged six Filmfare awards. One of the best acting performances by Naseer Sa'ab. One of the best films from Hindi Parallel Cinema. One of the best films anyway. In fact, this film is so good that I would like to dedicate my next post to Govind Nihalani. It is the title poem of his 'Ardh Satya'(1983). This along with 'Hazaar Chaurasi ki Maa'(1994) are other Nihalani movies that I can watch forever. And I am thrilled to realize that about 5-6 of his movies are yet to be seen by me!
So, these are the films that I viewed recently. Looking forward to 'Sankat City' and 'Morning Walk'. And dying to catch 'Harry Potter 6' FDFS. Signing off...
Let me apologize for not watching this in the theater. But it released with three other films - 'Straight', 'Aloo Chaat' and 'Firaaq'. And I could not afford more than one film per weekend. So I chose to go for 'Firaaq'. And it was tonight, just an hour ago that I watched 'Barah Aana'.
I strongly believe in independent cinema and hope that small films can actually help in bringing about a much-needed change in the film-making temperaments of the Hindi Film Industry. But on most occasions, these films are not as good as they promise. And they hardly make money, even if they are among the better lot.
'Barah Aana' is definitely well-made. If you believe in this kind of entertainment, it actually manages to do that. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And it enlightens. It is deep. It has layers. And it makes you think. I had heard people were not sure about the ending. A leading film-critic mentions in his review that there are surreal elements in the film. Not sure what they are talking about. It is just smart storytelling, with a sense of purpose and economy of words.
My heartiest congratulations and thanks to the makers - the gutsy producers, the director and his crew and the fabulous actors. One word for Naseeruddin Shah, not about his acting, which everyone is talking about, but for his nod to act in this film. Films like these need the support of veterans like him and it is exceptionally pleasant to find him gracing this brave attempt with his charming presence. And thumbs up for the dialogues by Raj Kumar Gupta. Wish I could write like him.
I highly recommend this 95 minute venture to those who want to spend a quality time smiling. And sorry once again for watching a pirated version. Hoping this article helps me in making up for that.
