Must Watch Before You Die #25: 'Cannibal Holocaust' (1980)

Ruggero Deodato's 'Cannibal Holocaust' is the most disturbing film I have watched. It is several times more disgusting than 'Caligula', 'Irreversible', 'Baise Moi', 'Dogtooth', 'The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover', 'I Stand Alone', the Saw series or the disturbing bests of David Lynch, David Cronenberg, or Lars Von Trier, including 'Antichrist'. And I know that recommending this movie as a must-watch might become a little controversial. But there are several reasons for me to do so. Please click here to understand my motive behind starting the 'Must Watch' section on this blog and you might get an idea of why I'm recommending this film over several other great ones.

I am not in a state-of-mind to coherently communicate everything I have in my head. So let me just jot them down, point-wise:

• This is widely considered as the most controversial film ever made. The filmmaker was imprisoned and the film was banned in several countries.
• This film started the 'Found Footage' genre, way back in 1980, though the genre became popular only with 'The Blair Witch Project' by the end of the 90s. From '[Rec]', to 'LSD' and 'Ragini MMS' - now several movies are using this concept.
• I loved the structure of the film. I really wish I could make something like this, as far as the structure and style is concerned.
• The blood and gore in this film is genuinely nauseating and I would have definitely puked if the scenes were longer. I also realized that as long as it is a part of our logical or emotional perception - and integral to the story or the moment, we are not necessarily nauseated. But when the scene is purely a sensory perception - stretching beyond the need of the story, it incites the feeling of nausea, as it happened to me on my first day in an Operation Theater. I believe this insight itself was an interesting learning from this film!
• There are simulated but realistic scenes of brutal murders, cannibalism, and slashing of male and female genitalia. But the more controversial elements are the obviously real scenes of animal torture. So all animal lovers are going to hate me for recommending this movie. 
• I deliberately chose this very repulsive poster for this blog post as I want to warn you at the same time as I recommend watching this movie. Do NOT watch it if you think this poster is too disgusting for you.
• And if you decide to watch it, please go for the UNCUT version. Otherwise, the point is lost.
• Bring on the moral brigade. I'm ready for their wrath.

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".

Movie-time at Macondo

I’m the happiest person on earth these days. And I’m the saddest. The reason for both is a wonderful experience I’m having, and for a change, it has nothing to do with cinema. The name of that experience is “One Hundred Years of Solitude”, one of the most amazingly original piece of fiction, more infectious and influential than anything I have read. The author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, is my latest God.

I have wanted to talk about him and this novel on this blog ever since I started reading it. But since I had restricted myself from discussing anything except cinema on this space, I could not. Then Marquez himself came to my rescue. The twelfth chapter of the book began with following lines and I instantly got the ‘excuse’ to share it here.

[The eleventh chapter ends with the first locomotive arriving in the isolated town of Macondo: “…the innocent yellow train that was to bring so many ambiguities and certainties, so many pleasant and unpleasant moments, so many changes, calamities, and feelings of nostalgia to Macondo.” Following is the opening passage of the twelfth chapter]

“Dazzled by so many and such marvelous inventions, the people of Macondo did not know where their amazement began. They stayed up all night looking at the pale electric bulbs fed by the plant that Aureliano Triste had brought back when the train made its second trip, and it took time and effort for them to grow accustomed to its obsessive toom-toom. They became indignant over the living images that the prosperous merchant Bruno Crespi projected in the theater with the lion-head ticket windows, for a character who had died and was buried in one film and for whose misfortune tears of affliction had been shed would reappear alive and transformed into an Arab in the next one. The audience, who paid two cents apiece to share the difficulties of the actors, would not tolerate that outlandish fraud and they broke up the seats. The mayor, at the urging of Bruno Crespi, explained in a proclamation that the cinema was a machine of illusions that did not merit the emotional outbursts of the audience. With that discouraging explanation many felt that they had been the victims of some new and showy gypsy business and they decided not to return to the movies, considering that they already had too many troubles of their own to weep over the acted-out misfortune of imaginary beings.”

So cinema flopped, failed to impress the people of this magical land. I didn’t mind, just thanked Marques sa’ab for weaving it in his work about which book-reviewer William Kennedy writes: “the first piece of literature since the Book of Genesis that should be required reading for the entire human race… Mr. Garcia Marquez has done nothing less than to create in the reader a sense of all that is profound, meaningful, and meaningless in life.”

So after completing seventy per cent of it, I’m sad. Some of the most endearing characters are dying in solitude, and the novel is about to end. But I find myself agreeing entirely with the above-mentioned book-reviewer, and want my Mom to read this urgently, and am looking for a Hindi translation of the book for her. This is the funniest and the saddest story I have ever read. And I believe, anyone who ends up reading this book will find his way of looking at the world change forever – by being magically aware of its beauty and sordidness, merits and futility, all at the same time.

P.S. By the way, cinema did not perish from Macondo. Later in the novel there is mention of people spending time at the movie theatre. “Then she got dressed, went to the movie theater, and in the darkness of the seats she recognized her daughter. The upsetting feeling of certainty stopped her from seeing the man she was kissing, but she managed to hear his tremulous voice in the midst of the deafening shouts and laughter from the audience.”

(image courtesy: http://thegourmetdilettante.blogspot.in/)

'The Descendants' (2011)

Days are extremely hectic, so I don't get to write on this space too often. Even my 'movie-count' has gone down - only a dozen movies in 2012 so far.

But I managed to watch Alexander Payne's 'The Descendants' (2011) at PVR Juhu this morning. I was kind-of surprised to see the fairer sex outnumbering the males in the audience, though it completely makes sense now. This is a film to watch with your loved ones (except kids for its "inappropriate language"). Please go for it.

And watch it on big screen. Good American Dramas rarely come to our cinemas.

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.)

Must Watch Before You Die #24: 12 Angry Men (1957)

I must confess that I'm not very sure about every movie I recommend here as a 'must watch', because my reasons for selecting one might not be sufficient to convince others. But at times I am absolutely confident about the choice, and Sidney Lumet's '12 Angry Men' is one of those movies. I watched it last night for the second time and was blown away by it yet again. As I recommend it here, I can't imagine there can be any one who would not like this film.

'12 Angry Men' is a must-watch because:

• It is perhaps the finest example of the triumph of the script. The film has nothing to seduce you - visually, art-wise, not even attractive women or lovable kids. It just has a clear and captivating plot with some unforgettable characters. For all students of cinema this is one example of what good writing can achieve.
• It proves that you do not need any resources to make a good film. If you have a good script, all you need is good performers. The way Lumet has used the limitations of space and time to his advantage is amazing. 90 minutes in one small dull room, in almost real time, and it still won't let you blink. For all young filmmakers wanting to make their first film, it is a great inspiration. It was Lumet's first and then he had an illustrious career with films like 'Dog Day Afternoon' and 'Network'. Today he is considered as one of the finest American filmmakers of all time.
• It is one of the most violent films, despite having no moment of physical violence. Not a single slap, but it is still so powerful. It is also a great psychological study of human minds, and an effortless and sharp critique of the society we live in.
• Most importantly, and like other Lumet films, it should be watched for its performances.

I'm so inspired by this film that this morning I started a shot-by-shot study of it. Hopefully, I'll finish it in the next 10 days. I don't know whether posting it here would be helpful for the readers of this blog, but we'll see. Presently, it is giving me immense satisfaction as a student of screen grammar.

Do watch it soon!

Gurudev Uvaacha #3

Just read a fascinating Hitchcock interview conducted by Peter Bogdanovich. Following are some excerpts. Click here to read the complete interview.

You never watch your film with an audience. Don't you miss hearing them scream?

Hitchcock: No. I can hear them when I'm making the picture.

'Young and Innocent' (1937)

Hitchcock: When you are dealing with melodrama, you mustn't let the characters take themselves where they want to go. They must come where you want to go. So it's really an inverted process... You lay out your story and you put the characters in afterwards. That's why you don't get really good characterizations.

Wasn't 'Rebecca' (1940) the first film in which you experimented with a tracking camera as opposed to the use of montage?

Hitchcock: Only because we were going around a big house. I don't think it was really right, because after all, the eye must look at the character. It must not be conscious of a camera dollying unless... for a particular purpose.

How did you get the idea of the windmill sequence in 'Foreign Correspondent' (1940)??

Hitchcock: When I am given a locale... it's got to be used dramatically. We're in Holland. What have they got in Holland? Windmills? Tulips? If the picture had been in color, I would have worked in the shot I've always wanted to do and never have yet. The murder in a tulip field. Two figures. The assassin... comes up behind the girl. The shadow creeps up on her, she turns, screams. Immediately we pan down to the struggling feet, in the tulip bed. We dolly the camera in to one of the flowers, sounds of the struggle heard in the background. We go right to one petal -- it fills the screen -- and, splash! a drop of red blood comes over the petal. And that would be the end of the murder.

How did that long tracking shot for the famous balcony love scene in 'Notorious' (1946) develop?

Hitchcock: I felt that they should remain in an embrace and that we should join them... The whole idea was based on not breaking the romantic moment... The idea came to me many, many years ago when I was on a train going from Boulogne to Paris... The train goes slowly through a town called Ataples... There's a big, old, red brick factory, and to one end of the factory was this huge, high brick wall. There were two little figures at the bottom of the wall -- very small -- a boy and a girl. The boy was urinating against the wall, but the girl had a hold of his arm and she never let go. She'd look down at what he was doing, and then look around at the scenery, and down again to see how far he'd got on. And that was what gave me the idea. She couldn't let go. Romance must not be interrupted, even by urinating.

What was your main reason for making 'Dial M for Murder' (1954)?

Hitchcock: When your batteries run dry, when you are out creatively, and you have to go on... Take a comparatively successful play that requires no great creative effort on your part and make it. Keep your hand in, that's all... If you have to make a film -- as I was under contract to Warners at the time -- play safe. Go get a play and make an average movie -- photographs of people talking. It's ordinary craftsmanship.

Isn't 'Vertigo' (1958) about the conflict between illusion and reality?

Hitchcock: Oh, yes... The basic situation contained so much analogy to sex. Stewart's efforts to recreate the woman were, cinematically, exactly the same as though he were trying to undress the woman, instead of dressing her. He couldn't get the other woman out of his mind. Now, in the book, they didn't reveal that she was one and the same woman until the end of the story. I shocked Sam Taylor, who worked on it, when I said, "When Stewart comes upon this brunette girl, Sam, this is the time for us to blow the whole truth." He said, "Good God, why?" I told him, if we don't what is the rest of our story until we do reveal the truth... A man wants to make a girl over and then, at the very end, finds out it is the same woman. Maybe he kills her, or whatever. Here we are, back in our old situation: surprise or suspense. And we come to our old analogy of the bomb: you and I sit talking and there's a bomb in the room. We're having a very innocuous conversation about nothing. Boring. Doesn't mean a thing. Suddenly, boom! the bomb goes off and they're shocked -- for fifteen seconds. Now you change it. Play the same scene, insert the bomb, show that the bomb is placed there, establish that it's going to go off at one o'clock -- it's now a quarter of one, ten of one--show a clock on the wall, back to the same scene. Now our conversation becomes very vital, by its sheer nonsense. "Look under the table! You fool!" Now they're working for ten minutes, instead of being surprised for fifteen seconds.

In 'Psycho' (1960), aren't you really directing the audience more than the actors?

Hitchcock: Yes. It's using pure cinema to cause the audience to emote. It was done by visual means designed in every possible way for an audience. That's why the murder in the bathroom is so violent, because as the film proceeds, there is less violence. But that scene was in the minds of the audience so strongly that one didn't have to do much more... Can you imagine how the people in the front office would have cast the picture? They'd say, "Well, she gets killed off in the first reel, let's put anybody in there, and give Janet Leigh the second part with the love interest." Of course, this is idiot thinking. The whole point is to kill off the star, that is what makes it so unexpected. This was the basic reason for making the audience see it from the beginning. If they came in half-way through the picture, they would say, "When's Janet Leigh coming on?" You can't have blurred thinking in suspense.

Cinema 2011: Looking Back at my Cinema Experience of the Year

It was the year when I finally watched ‘Gone with the Wind’, ‘Ben-Hur’, and ‘Once Upon a Time in America’ – movies that are definite milestones in the career of a movie-buff. Keeping up with 2009, and 2010, I watched close to 240 good films. But I will remember 2011 as the year that took this romance to new, complicated, levels. Studying cinema, writing screenplays, making short films, and most importantly – sharing perspectives and passion with young and fresh cinephiles, it seems to be the beginning of crazy times ahead. Also, for the first time I feel myself updated with the current happenings of International Cinema. As the critics are coming up with the lists of the bests of the year, I have heard of most and watched many.

Following are the highlights of the year:

• Finishing the filmography of Andrei Tarkovsky and the Coen Brothers, and also, barring one avoidable film each of, Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch: While Kubrick surely remains my favourite English-language filmmaker, and the Coen Brothers and David Lynch among the modern favourites, Tarkovsky has been the most difficult filmmaker to watch. It is easy to acknowledge him as a rare artist, but watching his movies is tough. I plan to study him further in 2012, and re-watch all seven of his feature films, hoping to appreciate him better.

• Scoring high with other masters: As on date I have watched 19 Hitchcock films, including all major ones. Other high scores are: Kurosawa’s 14, Bunuel’s 13, Bergman’s 12, Scorsese’s 12, Fellini’s 11, and Spielberg’s 11. Top it with Satyajit Ray’s 18. I now find myself more interested in their filmographies than individual films.

• Understanding the brilliance of Billy Wilder, Terrence Malick, Abbas Kiarostami, and Lars Von Trier: Earlier I had just watched one or two of their features. Today they are among my all-time favourites.

• New Discoveries: Most impressive have been Buster Keaton, David Cronenberg, the Dardenne Brothers, and Ang Lee. Also watched one-two films each of Fatih Akin, Mani Kaul, Werner Herzog, Jacques Tati, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Pier Paolo Passolini, Emir Kusturica, and Roberto Rossellini. Need to watch more of them.

• Continuing with exploring the films of Roman Polanski, Michelangelo Antonioni, Bernardo Bertolucci, John Huston, Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi, Woody Allen, and Ken Loach.

• Big Screen Re-watch: ‘Seven Samurai’, ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, ‘Schindler’s List’, and ‘GoodFellas’.

• Studying ‘Citizen Kane’. Also, ‘Vertigo’, ‘Bicycle Thieves’, ‘Pather Panchali’, ‘Breathless’, and ‘Pulp Fiction’.

• The film book of the year was ‘Directing: Film Techniques and Aesthetics’ by Michael Rabiger.

2012 promises to be extremely hectic on the work front. I also want to devote more time to teaching. But watching and studying cinema will remain my first love. As the first day of the year storms in and the world is going mad with celebrations, I’m confused over one big problem: which movie to start the year with?

30 Big Lessons from a Short Film

1. Making short films is the best way to learn film-making.

2. Unavailability of equipment, finance, or professional crew should never be an excuse for not making a film, esp. short. I had these inhibitions. No more.

3. Zero-budget does not necessarily mean zero-budget. A budget of 3-4K can also be considered zero if spent extremely judiciously.

4. Working with a child actor is fun. But it has its costs.

5. Working with more than one child actor is a pain, especially if they know each
other well. They treat the shoot like a holiday and have a blast, making your job impossible. Next time, cast children unknown to each other.

6. You are not the most stressed person on set. Possibly, it is the actor.

7. While scheduling the shoot it is not important to consider whether it is manageable by you. The bigger question is – is it manageable by the actors. Make sure they are comfortable and not over-worked. Their mental health is more important than your own.

8. An appropriate performance is only appropriate. You have to put in extra-effort (and I don’t know what it means) to extract something magical from your actors.

9. Do not be satisfied with the actor performing the way you expected. Inspire him/her to surprise you every time you take a shot. Or your film will be only as good as your narration of the script.

10. There are times when you let the actor improvise the way he/she wants. There are times when you follow the lines from the script verbatim. Making the right decision at the right time is the difference between an ordinary and a good film.

11. An actor improvises a line. You like it and shoot it. But make sure you have one good take of the line as written in the script as well. The improvisation may appear out-of-sync with the storytelling when you edit the scene. There was a reason why the writer spent such a long time writing those lines. Respect the written word.

12. Do not ‘Okay’ a take until you have seen the framing and the performance in a monitor. The LCD screen of the camera is deceptive, uselessly deceptive.

13. After the first day of shoot, you wonder whether you should continue making films.

14. The second day is always much better than the first.

15. If you are determined to learn and improve, by the end of the third or fourth day, you will see an obvious positive change.

16. Shooting is like a mad festival. It is stressful, but it is fun.

17. Murphy also functions invisibly. Even after a relatively smooth shoot, when you think you got what you wanted, he can surprise you at the editing table, when you realize you just do not have good takes to complete the film.

18. Like always, the only way to counter this invisible face of Murphy is – planning. Meticulous planning may not always work, but it will always be better than not planning.

19. The biggest merit of planning extensively is – it keeps you stress-free during the shoot, and that enables you to take vital on-the-spot calls.

20. After watching the rough cut, you feel how wrong your judgment during the shoot was.

21. Try not to be ashamed of making big manipulative changes during the edit. Editing is as much your storytelling tool as any other. To be honest, it is the first step where the script starts to lose its relevance. You may end up making a film different from your initial vision, but if it works, nothing else matters.

22. There is a massive difference between the rough cut and the final cut. Massive. Huge.

23. Good sound design can enhance the performances too, especially in the non-dialogue shots.

24. Imaginative use of background score can be your movie-saving tool.

25. Understatement is an art to be mastered. Inexperienced makers attempting understated drama may end up with something that looks superficial and barely affecting.

26. Over-reliance on the script may be as bad as ignoring it.

27. It is difficult to decide which of the two realizations is more painful – that your filming could not do justice to your writing, or that your writing was not good in the first place.

28. If you had planned well, you can still end up with a bad film. But you will be better placed to diagnose where you went wrong. All points above prove this.

29. The best way forward would be to plan the next short film, giving particular attention to address the specific problem areas you experienced and diagnosed.

30. Life as a film-maker is going to be full of insecurities and self-doubts. And this is something no level of planning or practice can prevent. Hence proved: despite trying to be an elaborate planner, a shrewd manager and a deft craftsman, filmmaker is ultimately an artist! ;)

Black Diamond Lady

The December edition of Filmfare celebrates 60 years of its icons. From Ashok Kumar to Kareena Kapoor, the magazine has covered forty-eight icons from the history of Hindi cinema. I'd lost interest in the magazine after high-school, but I really liked this latest edition, especially the rare pics that it has assembled.

Each star is headlined with one line, some apt, some ridiculous. Following are the one-lines I liked, in alphabetical order:

Aishwarya Rai: It's a Wonderful Life...

Amitabh Bachchan: The Grandmaster

Ashok Kumar: The First Superstar

Balraj Sahni: The Thespian

Dharmendra: Man for All Reasons

Guru Dutt: Poet of Angst

Jaya Bachchan: Next-Door Darling

Jeetendra: Luck Supreme

Madhubala: India's Sweetheart

Meena Kumari: Tears, Idol Tears

Mumtaz: Spice Rack

Nargis: First Lady

Nutan: Acting Ace

Parveen Babi: Bohemian Rhapsody

Raj Kapoor: The Ringmaster

Rekha: Against all Odds

Rishi Kapoor: A Suitable Man

Salman Khan: Dark Knight

Sanjeev Kumar: World of His Own

Shashi Kapoor: Charm Grenade

Smita Patil: As Time Goes By...

Tabu: Far from the Madding Crowd

Zeenat Aman: And God Created Woman

The magazine is also conducting an online poll on the most iconic talents in the history of Hindi cinema (including music directors, lyricists, and the most iconic film). If you are interested, vote by visiting http://www.filmfare.com/icons/

Must Watch Before You Die #23: The Age of Innocence (1993)

After a really long time, a love-story has affected me so deeply. Despite being set in the 19th century, amidst the superficial lives of the upper class New Yorkers, Martin Scorsese’s ‘The Age of Innocence’ is devoid of any hint of melodrama, and manages to strike a chord universally. I believe it will continue to do that forever. It is one of those non-Hindi films I can show to my Mom, and then discuss in detail, drawing parallels from the profoundly mature and moving stories of love and longing by Gulzar (Read ‘Andhi’, ‘Mausam’, ‘Ijazat’). And I’m confident that most people out there, who have loved, or loved and lost, will cry the tears that only welled up my eyes. (And that is a big cut-off as I hardly get sentimental watching love stories!)

The film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning eponymous novel by Edith Wharton – the first female author to win the award. In one of the film’s many brilliant scenes, the narrator, aptly in a female voice, shares with us what the male protagonist thinks about her innocent wife: “He thought it was wonderful how such depths of feelings could coexist with such an absence of imagination.” Note the amazing insight it provides into the characters. The tender purity of this line echoes all through the 140-minute film and I believe it required a woman to write something as beautiful as this.

And I also believe it required a master like Scorsese to translate it to cinema so effectively. Scorsese in my opinion is a film-maker who makes European Cinema set in America, and uses the best of Hollywood to form strong and unique authorial expressions. Not many film-makers have managed to achieve that incredibly impressive balance between art and commerce, niche and popular, substance and style, or form and content. So ‘The Age of Innocence’ is not only one of the most beautiful film you will see, its beauty goes beyond sets and costumes to the magical mix of inventiveness and classical film grammar. It is one of those films which you can enjoy watching on mute, as well as by just listening to the sound-track with your eyes closed. Of course, you would not prefer to close your eyes, especially because of the amazing performances by Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Winona Ryder. The intricately nuanced acting by them is one of the biggest achievements of the film, and perhaps the biggest reason to watch it all over again. ‘The Age of Innocence’ celebrates cinema’s unique confluence of all forms of expression and tops it all with a rare sensitivity. You have to watch it, soon.

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.