Once Upon a Time in India

This is a true story.

In the year 2001, a seventeen-year old boy discovered cinema. He started understanding the difference between the crap that had dominated the popular cinema of his consciousness, the cream of the crap that had resulted in some blockbusters, and the rare cinema rooted in aesthetics of the craft. One important lesson was to understand how 'sound' matters in a movie, among many other big and small mantras he picked up from that textbook of a movie. The final and the most essential lesson was how passion, in fact lunacy, was essential for making a truly immortal film.

The movie that taught the young boy this, went on to win the hearts of people all over the globe. Today, it is considered as one of the landmark films of Hindi cinema. This boy, struck by the achievement and short-sighted by faith, had exclaimed among his movie-crazy friends: "In the next ten years, we are going to have at least five Academy nominations, and two wins!" More than nine years have passed. The boy is now 26. He is waiting no more. He has lost all hope. He has lost his faith.

'Satya' was the film that planted in me the seeds of film-making passion. But I started learning the art with 'Lagaan'. The first foreign-language films I watched were 'No Man's Land' and 'Amelie', because they were in competition with 'Lagaan', and thus I discovered world cinema. I used to follow every word that Gowariker said those days, and thus, following his inspiration, I discovered Guru Dutt, V. Shantaram, and Bimal Roy. The film was followed by a documentary on its making, titled 'Chale Chalo: The Lunacy of Film Making'. I went to watch that in a theatre, covering a long distance by bus, alone.

'Lagaan' had the tagline: Once Upon a Time in India. I never knew it meant something like this can only happen once!

To be fair to Ashutosh Gowariker, I do not expect him to re-create something as wonderful as 'Lagaan', or even 'Swades' for that matter. I accepted the flaws of 'Jodha Akbar' and the flaw called 'What's Your Rashi?' with a smile, understanding, as he says, why he made these movies. But this time, I am left disappointed, and angry. You taught me Sir, the importance of correct sound in cinema. Why then, is the sound (including the background score) of this latest film of yours so terribly done? Why have your characters lost themselves to stars, or incompetence of the cast, or your complacence? I remember you had promised this film would be shorter. By your standards, 2 hours 45 minutes is short. But when are you going to realize that each film should be completed within the time that best suits its purpose? I refuse to believe that your passion and your 'lunacy of film-making' remains the same. And that, Sir, is a crime, especially for you than anyone else.

This is a true story. Ashutosh Gowariker is no more among my favourite film-makers. Unfortunately, he has managed to instill an insecurity and fear in me. I am no more worried about my success in this industry. I am afraid of being destroyed post that success, by my own complacency and errors of judgment, and by the loss of the purity and passion I earned through cinema.

Heart of Gold

Last evening, we were lucky to be at Metro Cinema. The occasion was the golden jubilee celebration of 'Sujata'(1960), one of the best films by Bimal Roy. It was a pretty warm and informal affair, and the focus was on the movie itself, something that is lost in the pomp of a 'loud celebration.' I had watched the film a few years ago, but to experience it on the big screen was a beautiful experience. I just feel lucky!

The most remarkable thing that I felt in the film, apart from the deeply moving story and great performances, was the display of cinema aesthetics at their best - the pure experience of the romance called film. Also, it would be apt to mention a sequence almost mid-way into the film when the story pauses, for a considerable time. It is night, and the characters are just there, sitting together, and then talking over phone. This sequence also involves more than one song, including the soulful 'Jalte Hain Jiske Liye'. Wished it to go on and on...

After the experience, my brother wants to make a film with Nutan! Sadly, that can not happen - we came into the world a bit too late. He also wants to make a B&W film. That can happen, with a gutsy producer backing us. But one thing that we can actually learn from these films is to work honestly, and to remember that we are not bigger than the films that we make. Good or bad, it is the film that stays long after the maker is no more. The romance shows if the maker experienced it himself. And those films live forever, beyond jubilees and celebrations...

Defining Its Maker

Friday morning, a friend sends me a text: “Dude, are you going for ‘Guzaarish’. Do tell me whether I should watch it or not.” Half an hour later I was in the theatre. It was fifteen minutes past the scheduled time, and we were still waiting for the projectionist to start the film. Someone joked: “The print hasn’t reached yet. Bhansali is still working on the film.”

This is the problem with being Sanjay Leela Bhansali. The world knows about your painstaking ways of making a film, your obsession with attaining your ‘vision’, a virtue that is not common among Hindi filmmakers. The world knows you work hard, and many things that you do are really good. But you are still joked at. In fact, one thing that the world surely doesn’t know is what to expect from you. ‘Guzaarish’, in my opinion, is an answer to that.

I have always felt that ‘Saawariya’ was not as bad as it appeared, and the harsh reaction it generated. And was hoping, the director would make sure his next offering is decent. Now, that next film is out and the three reviews I have read are extremely favourable, lauding it as one of the best films in recent times. One regular reviewer of a popular daily has been replaced by some other ‘critic’, with the promise that the original reviewer will be ‘back next week’. It seems the media is trying to compensate for the harsh reactions three years ago.

Why, for instance, none of these reviewers have objected to the garish make-up and the distractingly generous cleavage-revealing look of the leading lady, who plays a nurse? Why, haven’t they written about the inconsistent writing, that goes awkwardly out-of-control with the first scene of the second half? Why, for god’s sake, have they ignored the fact that there is more than just ‘inspiration’ taken out of the Javier Bardem starrer ‘The Sea Inside’? One critic, after admitting that the film is also inspired from ‘Whose Life is it Anyway?’ and ‘Prestige’, goes to the extent of saying: “Just because you trace the source of the inspiration does it anyway demean SLB’s ‘Guzaarish’? It most certainly does not. The film is a masterpiece…”

A masterpiece! I confess it left me teary-eyed in a scene or two. Hrithik Roshan did look sincere, if not impeccable. The wants of most characters were well in place. And the film appeared to be making an earnest effort to inspire us with love and life. But a masterpiece?

Perhaps the critic is not wrong. My pillow-side pocket dictionary defines ‘masterpiece’ as ‘someone’s best work.’ The critic might be right because perhaps this is the best Bhansali can deliver. He is definitely not as bad as ‘Saawariya’ and he will perhaps never make a film better than ‘Guzaarish.’ It is not a terrible film. And SLB is not a terrible filmmaker. He is just an artist past his prime, caught within his own world of diminishing objectivity and ‘inspiration’. Correct me if I’m wrong, but ‘Guzaarish’ seems to be the precise definition of its filmmaker.

As for my reply to my friend, and my advice to you, here it is: “Nothing great. But you should watch it.”

P.S. Just before the film, watched the theatrical trailer of ‘No One Killed Jessica’. It left me stunned. Waiting eagerly for you, Mr. Gupta.

My First Quarter!

‘The Man with a Movie Camera’ is the 200th movie I have watched this year (not counting the not-so-good ones). So, I’m happy.

But I’m particularly excited because it is the 250th movie I have completed from the 1000 Greatest Movies list I so obsessively follow. (You can find the list by clicking to the link provided at the right-hand column under the title “Top Movie Lists: Check Your Score”.

Here are the last ten movies that helped me reach the landmark:

‘The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums’ (1939, Ranked #254)
‘The Exorcist’ (1973, Ranked #185)
‘A Taste of Cherry’ (1997, Ranked #643)
‘Shoeshine’ (1946, Ranked #744)
‘MASH’ (1970, Ranked #573)
‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ (2001, Ranked #704)
‘All About Eve’ (1950, Ranked #70)
‘Back to the Future’ (1985, Ranked #361)
‘Rocky’ (1976, Ranked #459)
‘The Man with a Movie Camera’ (1929, Ranked #101)

What a movie to finish the quarter!

Time to celebrate! And to ‘eye’ the 300 figure mark!

The Return of the Musician

Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s music is very much like his movies. Love it or hate it, but you can not deny that it is born out of arrogant conviction, that might be indulgent, but is intricate, imaginative, and interesting. His obsession with pure and classical art is apparent in the music he creates. It thus does not have an essentially popular appeal. But like his films, he doesn’t seem to be caring more about the audience than about his own creative energy, which is overtly saturated with melodramatic emotions. I consider him a flawed artist, but he is an artist anyway. That does not necessarily make him a good storyteller. But yes, that makes him a good musician. And that is the reason behind the difference between his music, that always works, and his movies.

I am not very fond of the music of his first film, but his collaborations with Ismail Durbar and Monty, ‘Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam’, ‘Devdas’, and ‘Saawariya’, apart from the only song from ‘Black’, have been phenomenal. During the past decade he has been the only filmmaker with such a consistent record of high-quality playback music. Personally, his music gives me the fulfillment that I expect from none. In fact, I wait for his music more eagerly than his movies.

I have to accept that the music of ‘Guzaarish’ does not match the standards of the three preceding movies. Just one ‘Daras Bina Nahi Chain’ from ‘Saawariya’ was better than all the ten tracks of this. Also, a major disappointment is the poetry, which has been deteriorating consistently with every movie of his. Bhansali is more interested in putting together ideas and words, rather than working within the conventions of lyric-writing. In fact, I joke that the lyrics have also been written by Bhansali himself. Interestingly, and perhaps suitably, the CD cover does not credit anyone for ‘lyrics’. It says: ‘Words by Turaz and Vibhu Puri.’ The lyrics are not bad, but very typical, at times outrageously so. It goes with our idea of Bhansali. But imagine what a wonder someone like Prasoon Joshi would have created on these tunes?

Ultimately, the best thing about Bhansali’s music is that it allows you a discussion on it, a long, never-ending discussion. You just need to find someone who understands the basics of music, and more importantly, loves these songs. My brother and I have been doing this for more than a decade now. During the first few hearings, all our energies are directed to ‘understand the structure’ of these free-flowing, apparently ‘formless’ songs. It is always a challenge to correctly hum the lines, in sur. The challenge that these songs provide you as a singer is the single most fascinating aspect of this music. I would love to sit with someone who could just correctly hum these lines: “Bas itni si tumse guzaarish hai… Ye jo baarish hai, us mein teri baahon mein mar jaaoon… Bas itni si, chhoti-si, ek khwahish hai…”

In this era of instant chartbuster music, here is one musician whose music, in spite of being an integral part of the films, is independent of them. ‘Saawariya’, the movie, came and failed, but its music still gives us the high that we have stopped expecting from Hindi film music. I am not expecting much from the movie releasing this Friday, being more than happy with the magic its music has created. Bravo, maestro! En core!

Must Watch Before You Die #7: 'The Man with a Movie Camera' (1929)

Artists who are intellectually and aesthetically more advanced than their contemporaries are called the Avant-Garde (literally ‘the vanguards’), pioneers contributing in the evolution of the art. For all those who knew this term, and for those who came to know while reading these words, here is a movie that best defines it. Dziga Vertov’s silent experimental film called ‘The Man with a Movie Camera’ (1929) is, and will remain, one of the most mind-blowing experiences of motion picture.

Why is it a must watch?
• Because its opening titles daringly read: “Excerpts from a camera operator’s diary… This film is an experiment in cinematic communication of visual phenomena, without the use of intertitles, script, actors, and sets… Aims at creating a truly international language of cinema based on its absolute separation from the language of theatre and literature.”
• Because it does succeed in communicating cinematically the passion of a man with a movie camera, the fascinating patterns in the everyday world around us, and the power of film to entertain, and go beyond it. It also argues for the case of filmmaking – that it is a kind of occupation with complicated technique and long-hours of patience and devotion. Of course, what it ‘communicates’ to you would depend on how you look at it.
• Because it might be the first film to have attempted to show filmmaking itself. It shows a man going around with a movie camera and shooting. It shows a woman working patiently in the edit room. And it shows the final product being screened for the audience. Also, the movie being screened also shows the cameraman. So, it shows the screening of itself!
• Because I doubt you are ever going to find a film that contains so many technical innovations in one: Parallel Montage, Match Dissolve, Freeze Frame, POV Shots, Fast and Slow Motions, Jump Cuts, Stop-Block, Split Screens, Dutch Angles, and the earliest Spl Fx. All of these were not strictly ‘innovated’ in this film, but I have never seen something technically and historically as important as this.
• Because it is the father of all cinema rebellions and revolutions, celebrating the power of motion picture by simply playing with images, and entertaining and stunning us, without any story or performances. Just different rates of frames per second. Just film – shot, cut, projected.

As Vertov said, “My path leads to the creation of a fresh perception of the world I decipher in a new way, a world unknown to you.” That perception is the magic a filmmaker weaves through the make-believe of cinema!

Waiting for Godard

Last week I walked out of the theater during the intermission of a movie, deciding to ‘abandon’ it. I have watched movies worse than this, but strangely, have never actually left one midway. I was feeling guilty, doing this for the first time, but mainly because it was a ‘small’ film sans stars, with honest intentions, but a terrible execution. This summarizes the state of independent Hindi cinema today.

Half a decade ago, there was this myth of an upcoming independent cinema revolution that would change ‘Bollywood’ for good. This myth rode on the success of a shameless rip-off of a French comedy, and the promise of new names like Anurag Kashyap, Dibakar Banerjee, Imtiaz Ali, Sriram Raghvan etc. Today, some of these directors have turned to stars and are making big-budget films. Others have been inconsistent about the commercial and critical success of their movies. And worse, in spite of a mob of first-time filmmakers appearing during this period, hardly a few can match the talent and the aesthetic maturity of their predecessors. Let us summarize the situation:

• Even the most talented and gutsy filmmakers, can not avoid the opportunity a star or a big budget provides.
• Even the best and most interesting of small films have failed to achieve commercial success. None has replicated the dream-run of that ‘rip-off’.
• Most, if not all, films made with ‘honest intent’ are so pedestrian in their aesthetic value that we are forced to think – whether this person should be making movies? Others are ‘almost there’ – in spite of having an interesting plot and characters, these films have an air of complacence and lose steam mid-way.

I have not yet talked about the problems of marketing and distribution that these movies face, because that was always expected, and we were hoping that these films will slowly, but consistently, help in changing the scenario. The hope has dimmed. The clout of stars and big-budget films is as mighty as before. The New Wave of Hindi Cinema seems to be dying a premature death, in utero.

And we can not blame the audience. The makers need to understand that ‘independent cinema’ is not the license to serve half-baked, technically poor specimens of ‘honest and brave attempts’. There can be no excuse for out-of-sync dialogues and annoying background score, leave aside improper framing and purposeless edit patterns. Bad ‘big’ films have less of these problems. And the presence of good-looking ‘stars’ and ‘sets and locations’ make sure you have something to watch. A big, bad film is bad. A small, bad film is worse. The number of patrons of small, meaningful cinema is rising. But it is the responsibility of the filmmakers to ensure that the audience sits-through the movie once they have entered the theater despite poor publicity, and not ‘abandon’ it mid-way. The unnecessary transfer of guilt does not, and would not help. The last thing we would wish is this wait for ‘the revolution’ to be an endless one.

Mumbai 2010 Afterword: It's A Wonderful Life!

A film festival is like life itself. Too much is packed in a short span of time. There is a mad rush to get as much as we can, and are limited only by our own constrains of body and spirit. There are lots of hits and misses, depending on the choices we make. And in spite of all this we can only have a limited slice of this gigantic pie - it is all over before we could realize it.

"This time they do not have such a good collection of movies." You can often wonder this yourself, if not this being a common complain among the delegates. The truth is, only the most well-informed of cinephiles can be sure of something like this. Out of close to 200 films screened, a person can practically watch a maximum of 35-40. What if he was struck by the worst of luck and those were actually the weakest films of the festival? His complain, though true from his own perspective, would still not be relevant as he missed 160 other films. How can one tell? How much can we know enough to judge something as enormous as this?

My first experience was Pune 2008. Watched 17 films in four days and was extremely satisfied, in spite of some poor bets. I still have that catalogue. And today I regret not having watched "Cries and Whispers", "Red Desert", "Bhuvan Shome", "Devi", and "M" that were screened there. Also, there was a retrospective on Pedro Almodovar. Back then I was not aware of his merits, neither of Bergman or Antonioni or Lang. What would have been my reaction to that impressive line-up had I known cinema a little better? It is only in retrospection that I can see what I missed. The impression of an edition of a festival ultimately depends on the movies you choose to watch, which is also the most fascinating and important aspect of it.

I do not want to know the plot. I choose movies by researching, and picking the ones that have been awarded at other festivals during the past one year. Also, I choose filmmakers whose previous works have impressed me. I also have very interesting experience with Hungarian and Turkish films and am a little biased towards them while making my choices. But the most important thing is - I do not want to miss a film or a filmmaker who has earned a reputation over the decades and is now celebrated the world over. Hence, I did not miss the films by the Japanese masters this time; neither did I miss 'The Exorcist' or 'Khandahar'. Also, I made sure to watch the latest films by Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola, and Abbas Kiarostami. And since I mixed movies - classics and fresh, and filmmakers - legends and first-timers, I had a very wholesome experience.

If you were unsatisfied, you can just say: “I wasn't very lucky”. And hope for a better experience next time. Unlike life, thankfully, there is a next chance in this. I am more than satisfied. Thanks to the makers for all the great films, to my bad luck for all the not-so-good ones, and to this great carnival that has made me alive again with the hope and the inspiration to do some good work. Meanwhile, the wait for MAMI 2011 has begun...

Mumbai 2010 Day #7: Is It Over?

"Is it over?", a helpless Chris MacNeil asks Father Karras after a horrifying session of exorcism performed on her daughter Regan.

"Is it over?". I am saddened as I leave PVR and the festival ends. During the last one week it has been a part of me. It will be a difficult year-long wait for the next edition.

It was my first experience of William Friedkin's 'The Exorcist'(1973) and I believe all the reputation, legacy, and notoriety associated with this classic is justified. Unlike other horror films, it doesn't depend greatly on 'chills' and 'shocks', but there is a lingering, disturbing impact of the film achieved by long sequences of possession and exorcism of the little girl. After all these years, the scariness might have aged, but the psychological impact has not worn out. The film was followed by a discussion on it by Jane Campion.

The German film 'Shahada'(2010), by Burhan Qurbani was like the Islamic equivalent of yesterday's 'Of Men & Gods'. Tackling similar issues of faith, quoting extensively from the religious texts, and made equally brilliantly, 'Shahada' also has a more popular appeal. Undoubtedly, one of the best movies of the year. This film also made me realize that these days I am very fascinated by movies asking spiritual and theological questions.

'Shahada' could have been a beautiful 'last film' of the festival. And after that I was confused whether I should risk its impact by watching the 10.30pm screening of the Turkish film, 'Kosmos'(2010), by Reha Erdem. Some said it was an ordinary film. Thank god I decided to go for it, and discovered that it wasn't ordinary at all. It was in fact very unusual, a tale of a corrupt, lustful 'messiah' who steals compulsively and 'heals' people mysteriously. I won't be able to forget this film. And weird films like these are necessary to complete your festival experience.

As I was returning home late night, I crossed the Lakshmi-Narayan temple on my way. As a habit, I closed my eyes and uttered a prayer. What instantly came to my lips was a 'Thank You God' along with a wide smile that lasted for some time. Blessed to experience cinema at its best!

P.S. For the record Must Watch Movie Before You Die #6 The Exorcist (1973)

Mumbai 2010 Day #6: Duties and Dilemmas

I chose to watch Benedek Fliegauf’s ‘Womb’(2010) because its script had won Krzysztof Kieslowski Award at Cannes this year. And it was apparent why. The film deals with the ethical and moral questions related to cloning and incest, and tells an immensely dramatic story without appearing to be doing that, very similar to Kieslowski's cinema. It will take a thousand years for such a film to be made in India.

‘Certified Copy’(2010) was a popular choice among the audience. A day in the lives of an English author and a French lady, and set in Italy, directed by the Iranian master Abbas Kiarostami, the film was a confluence of cultures. Ending on an ambiguous note, it was like an O. Henry story in ‘Before Sunrise/Sunset’ flavour, with Kiarostami’s touches. Loved the film, and Juliette Binoche, again. She had won the Best Actress award at Cannes for this film.

I just realized, three of today’s films were honoured at Cannes. ‘Of Men and Gods’(2010), directed by Xavier Beauvois won the Grand Prix this year. Based on the real story of a small group of Cistercian monks serving the Muslim community in Algeria and trying to survive the hostility of the local terrorist groups, it was one of the most spiritual films I have seen, besides being extremely affecting and well-made. My pick of the day.

Another special screening late night. Sofia Coppola’s ‘Somewhere’(2010) won the Golden Lion at Venice 2010. It was her second film that I watched, and like the hugely acclaimed ‘Lost in Translation’(2003), it left me wondering – Why is this such a good film? It had just a glimpse into the superficial luxuries and the lustful life of an average Hollywood star, and the responsibilities he has to fulfill towards his daughter. Neither a definite progression of story, nor a clear ending, it didn’t even try to be taken seriously. Perhaps some day I would know why.

On the penultimate day, my count reaches twenty-four. I don’t expect much from tomorrow. Just one good movie would do. And the one I have selected is truly special! Just a few hours left for that…

Mumbai 2010 Day #5: Family Matters

Could watch only three movies today. Seems this is how it's going to be for the next two days as well. If only I had finished my assignment before this fest...

Tai Kato's 'In Search of Mother'(1962), the story of a drifter looking for his mother who had abandoned him as a child was very good in parts. But it was inconsistent. I liked the ending, though.

Rajko Grlic's Croatian film 'Just Between Us'(2010) used an interesting structure to tell the story of a family of promiscuous people, just about everyone sleeping with multiple partners. Call it a sex comedy, but it ended with a message. The last line of the film was: "These bones slept with that bones. So what?"

Thanks to another 'public demand', I got to watch the third film of the day. 'Next Year in Bombay'(2010) is a documentary by Jonas Pariente and Mathias Mangin on the small Jewish community in and around Mumbai. One interesting thing I would like to share here is this. There was a shot of a public transport bus stopping at the stop before moving ahead. That shot was an inversion (mirror image) of the original shot. The entrance and exit to the bus were on its right side and the bus-number was inverted. I asked the directors, who were present during the screening, the reason for it. They said, while shooting they shot this bus that moved from right to left of the frame. During the edit they realized that it was not a desirable motion. (Psychologists say our perception of motion is largely affected by the way we write. So, a left-to-right motion is more comfortable for the eyes of English/Hindi audience than a right-to-left motion.) So, in the edit, they decided to invert the image.

Alfred Hitchcock has used the reverse of this principle. In 'Vertigo' when the protagonist, who fears height is running up the spiral stairs of a tower, he moves from right-to-left-to-up. This, psychologists say, is the most disturbing motions for our subconscious!

P.S. It is interesting to note that cultures reading right-to-left would probably find the same shot less disturbing!

Mumbai 2010 Day #4: Ruins and Regrets

A family of husband and wife with their kids, twins. A tragedy. Father dies. Son and Mom go on to live a life of poverty. Daughter is adopted by a rich family. Decades pass. In the end they reunite, again due to a similar tragedy. Add to this some subplots like: pre-marital pregnancy, lonely mother at home as son is away working, the new daughter-in-law complaining of the house being small, and all, and all. What looks like a summary of popular Hindi cinema cliches of the 60s is China's Official Entry for the Oscars this year, Feng Xiaogang's 'Aftershock'(2010). Easily the weakest movie this festival. I don't know why there was such a demand for this film, so much so that it had to be re-screened at 10.30 in the night. China's last year's entry, 'Forever Enthralled' was such an amazing film, and even that couldn't be shortlisted in the top five. I don't see any hope for 'Aftershock'. By the way, the friend sitting next to me claimed he heard some sobs during the movie!

Mikio Naruse's classic 'When a Woman Ascends the Stairs'(1960) tells the story of a virtuous bar-woman and her journey through customers' infatuation and the desire to live a better life. Naruse is not as popular as other Japanese masters, but after this I would like to watch more of his films. I was very tired when the film started and could not pay much attention to it. But it slowly engulfed me with its beautiful emotional appeal. Also, I don't think I have seen a Japanese film of that era with such a formal grammar of shooting and edit. Very impressive.

I was called for an important meeting. So I could watch only three films today. But thank god I watched Mrinal Sen's 'Khandahar'(1983). The film made my day. Easily, one of the best Hindi films you are going to see, starring Naseeruddin Shah, Shabana Azmi, Pankaj Kapoor, and Annu Kapoor, this film is also a mesmerizing visual experience, shot at a vast landscape of ruins. Three city boys visit what was once the palace of a royal family over a weekend. And they meet a girl living with her paralyzed mother, both waiting for a man who would never come. Like the old building, slowly awaiting its death, this mother-daughter duo's indefinite wait is not very different. Eventually, time will take them away, and we won't be able to do anything. This film was chosen as one of the ten best films released all over the world in 1983-84. I am not surprised. Watch it if you want to experience the rare gems of Hindi cinema. I feel proud again.