Mumbai by the decibel… a piece on SHOR IN THE CITY
Shor In The City, like the city it takes place in and which is a character in the narrative, is an anachronism. It attempts at tackling the chaotic dimensions of the Mumbai way of life by using the now-common multiple stories approach, and in the process ends up offering splintered vignettes of it. Perhaps there is a subtext in the haphazardness… a method to the madness of this bursting-at-seams city where back-stories are done away with in favour of a relentless adrenaline rush. But just when you think that the film will offer an image of the city devoid of the cinema-trope handicaps where every prostitute has a heart of gold, Mumbai’s shown to have an innocence underlying all its ugliness. Enough of the Mumbai ‘spirit’ already.
This is a ‘Bombay’ film, a veritable genre that witnessed its highs in the 70s and briefly resurfaced in a raw avatar courtesy Ramgopal Varma’s underbelly films in the 90s. A ‘Bombay’ film today, unlike its multihued secular ego in the 70s, is a dark and dreary one. The crumbling of the city and its ethos has left filmmakers to see it as a haunting hallway of misfits. Delhi is the new site of joie de vivre; and the ‘Dilli’ film, marked by its flawed vibrancy, the new terra firma for an updated ‘Indian-ness’. The best thing that filmmakers Nidimoru and D.K. do then is to infuse Mumbai, and by extension a multiplex-age ‘Bombay’ film, with a bleach of colour that, even while threatening to bleed in the next whirlpool, uplifts what could’ve been a very depressing affair.
And in this whirlpool are Abhay (Sendhil Ramamurthy)- a returning NRI trying to set up a business in Mumbai, Sawan (Sundeep Kishan)- a young cricketer hoping to make it into the Indian Premier League, and a trio of loitering bootleggers and hustlers- Tilak (Tusshar Kapoor), Mandook (Pitobash Tripathy) and Ramesh (Nikhil Dwivedi). The link connecting these three separate tracks is Tipu bhai (Amit Mistry), an almost omnipotent local presence. Set during the noisy eleven days of the city’s Ganesh festival (providing more visual texture than narrative richness), Abhay must deal with the ‘lost-in-translation’ don (Zakir Hussain) standing in the way of his venture while Sawan must eke out money to bribe his way into an IPL team. All along, Tilak acts as the moral voice (borrowed from the wisdom he gleans in Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist) of his triumvirate as they wonder what to do with a bag full of arms that they’ve chanced upon.
All of this makes for very good cinema, and the writing ensures that it is brisk and crisp. The acting is also uniformly good, Pitobash being the pick of the lot. The women, all unconventional and girl-next-door beauties, perhaps make their parts stand out better than the writing privileges them, but that is merely a quibble. The larger concern is whether this- non-linear narratives, frenetic editing, multiple plots, coincidental endings, casual banter –is the only voice for independent Bollywood. Dev.D, Love, Sex Aur Dhokha and now this, among others, are all good films no doubt, but all derivative of the Tarantinos and Ritchies and what-have-you. For how long will Bollywood shout and scream on borrowed lungs?
– Abhishek Bandekar
29/04/11
SATYAMSHOT 
April 30, 2011 at 4:45 AM
you really are one of the finest writer around in net
one can say only a student of cinema can scrutinize the movie so much without giving anything of the movie away
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 6:57 AM
Thank you for your kind words. To repeat myself, I believe the job of any critical analysis is to not summarize the proceedings of a film and give capsule remarks on performances, music, etc. but to analyse the film so that the lay viewer is enabled to see it for what it is, and to help him/her appreciate the aspects of the film which s/he may have otherwise missed.
Thank you again.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM
“to analyse the film so that the lay viewer is enabled to see it for what it is, and to help him/her appreciate the aspects of the film which s/he may have otherwise missed”
Hmmmm….a highly egoistic statement…in my opinion.
I might be lay and dumb as a viewer and may not “understand” finer nuances of acting/technicality/cinematography etc etc or that the song was based on this or that raga….but as a lay person I just enjoyed the most beautiful raga without KNOWING the raga…the most beautiful scenary without understandign the complexity for art directory/cinematographer, that went into making that of that scene.
Then comes a smart ass reviewer and trys to “educate” me.
LOL. Keep it to yourself. I never ever bother to read reviews of these ladeedah reviewers. I think liking and not liking a movie is subjective and one cannot have this holier than thou attitude!!!!!!
A lay person will get his entertainment and intellectual person will get his own enjoyment from the SAME movie…for different reasons…like Shakespear’s plays or Amitabh Bacchan movies.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 4:17 PM
I think you are completely misreading Abzee.. he just means here (and this is a goal I share even if I don’t often realize it) that he aims to write for a non-specialist audience. This is laudable aim. Why? Because if one were to come up with a Lacanian reading of Shor in the City only ‘specialists’ would be able to make sense of it. At the same time what Abzee’s trying to do here (and elsewhere) is offer intelligent commentary that doesn’t in the usual manner of reviews simply summarize plots and then say at the end that the film is good/bad.
I would make a further point here. Yes it is true that there are different ways of deriving enjoyment from the same film. However this does not mean that all modes of access are the same. For certain films a greater level of analysis deepens the ‘enjoyment’. This doesn’t mean that everyone has to aspire to this. But one also cannot say that this is completely subjective. I love Shakespeare as much as anyone else but I also know that I can learn a very great deal from specialists in this matter and as such deepen my understanding and enjoyment of the plays. Because it’s not that enjoyment is a completely spontaneous activity while understanding is something different that is more ‘labored’ and so on. They go together. When you watch a film you also bring certain tools of understanding. No one starts off with a blank slate. There is a level of education always implied whether one gets it formally in some sense of by way of watching other films or whatever.
To get to your raaga example indeed I too enjoy many songs without knowing the raaga but if I did know them my enjoyment would increase because I would understand how it had been used for a certain song and so on. Understanding this level of artistry too increases one enjoyment. It’s like when you analyze certain shots in a film and wonder how the effect was produced or for instance where the camera was placed to get that result and so on. This sort of understanding goes hand in hand with enjoyment. Shakespeare once again. The more one understands ‘how’ Shakespeare employs the full resources of language or even strains its limits in certain ways to produce ‘meaning’ only increases one’s thrill at/with the works.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 5:21 PM
Satyam I will have to respectfully disagree. This so-called critical analysis by Abzee is total BS as far as I can see. But then again, I am a lay person and I make no bones about it, so what do I know?
Dev.D was a very indulgent, pretentious, over-stylized film. But LSD certainly did not have a derivative voice. It might have been influenced by western cinema in terms of the way it was shot and stylized, but it had very original content and Dibarakar’s trademark portrayal of everyday Indian life with cynical humor. Tarantino and Ritchie, I will agree, heavily influence Vishal Baradwaj,, but Dibarkar is one of the most original, ‘authentic’ Indian filmmakers out there today.
[If you are as knowledgeable about cinema as you claim to be (as opposed to us mere lay people) it should be immediately obvious that Dev.D’s primary influence was Danny Boyle and Alberto Moravia, who was even directly referenced in the film. And that Bharadwaj is the one who is most strongly influenced by Tarantino and Rodriguez. So the Dev.D and LSD>>Tarantino, Rodriguez was very poor ‘critical analysis’ on your part]
And even if such filmmakers heavily influence Bharadwaj’s style, his ‘Easterns’ are still some of the finest mainstream films being made in Hindi today. These films might be derivative of Tarantino, but Tarantino himself is deeply influenced by everything from yazuka films to Philipino horror. And one of his most derivative works, Plup Fiction, is widely considered to be one the most significant watershed moments in cinema. These are not borrowed lungs as you over-simplistically put it. Nothing wrong in not existing in a cultural void.
If anything, DMD, which you were so exuberant in praising, was far more heavily influenced both by Tarantino and by older Indian genres. (which seems to be your primary criticism of Shor, at least to this lay person)
See here: http://upodcasting.com/1527/review-dum-maaro-dum
As long as a film can take a clichéd method of story telling and convert it into good, entertaining cinema, it is still valid .How can you declare something an anachronism simply because it is re-interpreting an old genre (and by your own accounts does so successfully in a way that makes for very good cinema).
Anyway, I think everyone (except Taran Adarsh and his like, who are really more trade analysts than critics) know what a critic is really supposed to do. You’re just stating the obvious. You’re hardly the first Indian critic to have discovered this novel concept, Baradwaj Rangan and Jai Arjun have been doing it for quite sometime, and doing it with a lot more skill and a lot less self-indulgence than you.
And obviously, this is not the only voice of Independent Bollywood (erroneous classification anyway, there’s nothing independent about the way these films are financed.) There are films like Udaan, Peepli Live, Dor, Paheli and Stanley Ka Dabba being made. Whether these are good films or not, is another point, but they are certainly hindi films that are ‘independent’ in spirit and do not fit into the mold you describe. Poor analogy (borrowing is hardly the same as being inspired by, or outright imitating) and selective blindness to arrive at a pseudo-intellectual conclusion.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM
Is all of this for me? Because I haven’t talked about Dev D or LSD anywhere. Presumably that’s addressed to Abzee? Or is most of it for him? Just want to be clear about this before I respond to anyything..
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 5:59 PM
And I think the change in the cinematic image of the city is extremely natural. Mumbai today is dystopia incarnate. In the 70s, when it was still developing it, there was hope for redemption in the future.
But today, as a globally important financial centre, that still has not shown any significant signs of holistic development, the darkness and dreariness is very natural. I dont see what is wrong in conveying that despair onscreen. And this very transition proves that it not an anachronism.
As for the streak of innocence underlying the cruelty, it is the most fundamental aspect of Mumbai/ Bombay Noir. Even in the best of Bombay/ Mumbai Noir literature such as Maximum City and Beautiful Thing, that streak of innocence is present. It is this innocence that makes the darker side of Mumbai all the more brutal by comparison and brings out the humanity in the city.
Of course, I am talking about your criticisms in relation to modern Bombay Noir in general, not to Shor in specific.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 6:04 PM
To illustrate my point about the streak of innocence- think of a film as bleak as Biutiful. That sort of a portrayal would ring a very false note in a film about Mumbai. The prostitute with a golden heart might be a cliche, but it is a cliche that I think suits Mumbai perfectly.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 7:48 PM
OK..agree now…maybe I over reacted to his statement as a cocky statement and possibly was not meant to be taken it as such.
Though I am still not convinced…I am not sure if job of reviewer is to enable the movie goer to see the finer or more sophisticated aspects e.g. reviewer can tell me “oh a very rare raga called bhairavi was used because it was morning time and that raga is sung in morning and the way she was holding veena/guitar was very authentic…etc etc”. Still for a lay person who is clueless what raga bhairavi …..so I learnt something, true…did it add more value?…it adds zero value to me as a movie goer.
Technically one cannot learn classical music or raga in a day either…its a life long aspect.
Reviewer’s review stil is his subjective opinion on the movie.
Motivation of a lay person to watch a movie would be to get entertained and to read shakespear for personal enjoyment of drama. If you need a guidebook to read shakespear, then poor shakespear failed as a writer. If you need a reviewer to watch a movie and write a review to tell you finer points and make you understand the subtle nuances, then director failed as a director. The shakespear plays or director’s movies are not supposed to be some esoteric piece of work that should go above regular-aam janta and only intellectuals can watch…right?
So the beauty of Shakespeare was in the fact that aam junta was able to enjoy it as much as the PhD type of smarties too…it had a universal appeal. For the lay person, it can go as much deep as it already had (lol). IT would be presumptious of reviewer to think that lay person can absorb more…they may not have that capacity to go deeper (methinks…based on my own personal experience of my intelligence….lol). IT is also presumptious of the reviewer to think he got EVERYTHING and no one is more intelligent to know more deeper stuff then him. So to assume that his readership consists only of duffers and people of lesser intelligence (then him) itself, for me, is OUTREGEOUS.
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 1:47 AM
No one is saying that a critic HAS to write any kind of piece. And of course it’s subjective and one person’s opinion. But this also doesn’t mean it’s anarchy out there! It’s not about being more intelligent or anything over here. Nor is it about opposing the professional critic to the lay person. This is simply the wrong way to look at it. We enjoy many things in an experiential sense and we don’t need critical tools for this enjoyment. That’s absolutely fine. This does not however mean that there is nothing else to learn out there. The greatest critics are precisely those who give one something to think about. They’d don’t just say ‘I enjoyed the film, you will too!’. Also the ‘populist’ argument is a dangerous one. First off I don’t believe in labels like ‘aam junta’. I’ve never quite discovered these phantoms! But what if this ‘aam junta’ wants nothing more than an Akshay kumar comedy?! I’m not sure why one should be enslaved by what such an audience wants or by how such an audience sees the world.
Leaving this aside it is absolutely not the case that art or meaningful entertainment is for ‘intellectuals’. Again this too becomes a way to deflect things. But you seem to be saying that whatever one derives from any work based on one’s own taste and understanding is all that’s required and nothing more is needed. Now of course you’re right in one sense and no one would contest it. But on the other hand why do you have a problem with the person who explains the raag? You think it makes zero difference too you but what if it did when presented the right way? Yes Shakespeare was mass entertainment too and that’s fantastic but that doesn’t mean the limit of his art is reached this way! It might be an aspect of his achievement that he can be accessed this way but that’s hardly the end of it. And no one who approaches any work of art in a ‘deeper’ way gets everything either. Because it is not about ‘knowledge’ in the sense of accumulating information about a work that then gives one proportionately greater enjoyment. It’s rather about enriching one’s experience as a whole. To say that one would be enjoying a work or not in the very same way irrespective of what tools one applied or where one was coming from in the widest sense of the term seems rather presumptuous.
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Satyam…this one is a first….I understood EVERY word of what you were saying…not sure if I should say bravo to you or to myself.
I see you POV. I am in aggrement in almost everything you are saying.
I guess I had objection with the idea that “I am enlightening the lay persona” of a critic…the moment you wear this hat and have THIS as the purpose of reviewing a movie, you will adopt a attitude/personality that will have undesirable effect.
When AB Sr. the master craftsman approaches his work, he does so in TOTAL humility. He even things he didn’t do a good job or feels he is mediocre (!!!).
Where as we the really mediocre people, feel that we *know* more and lets educate these “lay” people…total lack of humility in performance of ones work!!!!
IT was this cockiness (or perceived cockiness/ego/holier than thou attitude) that I reacted against.
In general I have absolutely no issues if one takes on reviewer’s comment to better understand things…heck, I have used cliff or sparknotes myself for better understanding SHakespear and in the proccess widened my horizons and things sometimes have made better sense. I cannot say I enjoyed Shakespear more AFTER reading cliff notes but that I finally understood lot more stuff…my enjoyment still was static (did not increase)…sometimes it was the history or background stuff…etc made more sense in terms of context. But writer of cliff notes knows why someone is reading cliff notes but writer of movie review, should not ASSUME that people are reading his review so that they can have a cliff note on movie.
I never read any reviews BEFORE hand…I want to preserve that fresh outlook and not cloud my reactions with someone else’s judgement. Though I have noted that when I have very high expectations from a movie, I come back disappointed. Movies that I have enjoyed the most are the ones for which I was totally clueless and had ZERO expectations of any sort.
Regards,
Di
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 1:16 PM
Humility is always essential but it should also work both ways. Again just getting back to Abzee’s original post I don’t think he intended any cockiness. But also I think that people who sometimes want to take a discussion to a higher level (for want of a better term) are often attacked for being arrogant and so on. Not saying you were doing this. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong in accepting one can be educated on many matters in life. In other words even is someone is being arrogant it is still possible they can educate us in some way. It’s like a director might be terribly arrogant about many things but I’d nonetheless learn a great deal from him if he were willing to teach me. The question of attitude is different from the question of understanding.
On Cliff’s Notes actually I am not at all surprised you didn’t enjoy Shakespeare more after reading them. I would never recommend this sort of thing to anyone at any level. This is a fairly fossilized approach to any artist or work. But this perhaps gets to the heart of the matter here and what I think Abzee is saying. It is not a question of ‘knowledge’. It is not that you somehow ‘know’ more about something in terms of the facts and so on and then you enjoy it more. That is a failry ‘dead’ way of approaching anything. And it applies even to something like history. One can know many facts in terms of dates and events and so on but that ‘knowledge’ is of a very superficial kind. what makes the difference is perspective. Now clearly a basic level of knowledge is always assumed. I cannot comment on a raaga without knowing at least something about it. But truer insight always depends on a deeper and more imaginative perspective. So again with your Shakespeare example the Cliff’s Notes though these might in instances make you aware of certain things in the plays will not ultimately make you love them more because the approach is a severely limited one. Here’s an exercise for example — the word ‘nature’ occurs in King Lear many times but it means something very different depending on what character uses it. Sometimes it is different even when used by the same character. Now if one could read King Lear just paying great attention to this one word in the play a whole matrix or reading for the play would emerge. Just by focusing on that one word. And here’s a miniature example of this from Love’s Labor’s Lost:
Light seeking light doth light of light beguile
As you can see ‘light’ occurs four times here but actually it means something different each time. A well known scholar on Shakespeare Harry Levin ‘translated’ this thus:
‘Intellect seeking wisdom cheats eyesight out of daylight’
In other words one can miss the obvious in life when one has one’s head too much in the clouds. And I find this quotation apt for the current discussion as well. This is how works should be approached — as living, breathing things. The works should not be studies as ‘blasts’ from the past but as ‘immediate’ ones. The question then is about approaching them in the right way. Simple summaries etc tend to do the opposite. The vitality of the work is converted into a dry, academic deal. Which is why most people, if not all, don’t start loving authors after reading such ‘notes’.
Finally this whole opposition about intelligent people versus lay people and so on is misplaced. It’s not about intelligence at all but perspective and insight for which one doesn’t need to be a genius. The rest is about exposure to the tools one needs to develop certain kinds of insight. Whether by way of formal training or otherwise. It might be my wish and my limitation that I cannot listen to Kishore Kumar at any more than an impressionistic level. That’s fine. But I also cannot be suspicious of someone who gets into a more ‘technical’ analysis of his songs. Nor can I insist that our respective enjoyment is the same and that knowing the raagas or not makes zero difference. This too wouldn’t be a statement of humility. Because my opinion would then assume knowledge of something which I actually did not have! So the sentence would not make even the most elementary sense. The humility again has to cut both ways.
I know Abzee very well and I am quite certain no arrogance was intended on his part. And I also think we are sometimes too quick to jump on those who get into a ‘deeper’ approach (for want of a better word) when we are otherwise quite happy to display a fair lack of humility in many matters ourselves. ‘Intellectual’ becomes a dirty word only when the discussion gets beyond us. Otherwise we never have this charge ready in other contexts!
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM
BTW….for all that gloating….your paragraph number 3 is only summarizing of the movie plot!!!! This is what most reviewers do anyway…!!!!
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM
P.S.- By Alberto Moravia’s influence on Dev.D, I really mean Goddard’s adaptation of his book, Le Mepris. Although Kalki is shown reading the English version of the actual book. But there was definitely that idea of ‘contempt’ for the lead male character from both Paro (when she tauntingly tells Dev that her much older husband is excellent in bed) and from Chanda (when she calls Dev a slut).
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 6:42 PM
P.P.S- In my first comment I meant Ritchie, not Rodriguez
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Superb piece Abzee.. your writing on just about any film is ‘essential’ (hope you’re saving these somewhere!). I especially like your second paragraph.
LikeLike
April 30, 2011 at 3:41 PM
“For how long will Bollywood shout and scream on borrowed lungs?”–Quote of the day abzeekin…..
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Dikra…even Shakespear was not original. IT doesn’t matter if you borrow but HOW you borrow. How beautiful the works of Vishal bharadwaj is…wah..wah..kya baat hai. He takes on ideas from shakespear and gives it total desi spin….LOVE it LOVE it….after watching his work, one can’t say oh…shakespear tha…it is so very ethnic and complete delight.
The air that flows in the universe is same..the air gandhi took in, we are breathing too. THe lungs are original and our own!!! There is no copyright on the air. So there cannot be such allegations for directors who are like VB. Now there are out and out commercial directors who make shady copies of western movies just make a quick buck. I am sure Shor didn’t fall in that category.
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 1:20 AM
“For how long will Bollywood shout and scream on borrowed lungs?”–Quote of the day abzeekin…..
its going on for to long…
from tashan to shor in the city … well one has seen different approach on tarantino’s work
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM
“The air that flows in the universe is same..the air gandhi took in, we are breathing too. THe lungs are original and our own!!! There is no copyright on the air. So there cannot be such allegations for directors who are like VB.”
hahaha Dimps is on fire!! Enjoyin it….
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM
Awsme mvi! Who cares frm which yugandan or rwandan mvi it was inspired, all i knw is its terrific! Mvi nt to b missed!
LikeLike
May 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Actually what you are saying then Satyam is to have open mind…and I agree. The “lower” level and “higher” level or different levels, both should have open mind and humility from both sides.
“Nor can I insist that our respective enjoyment is the same…”
There is no way to know it, is there??
I used to LOVE watching birds and would spend hours into it, just immersed in nature, listening to the sounds, them making nests…then comes in my intellectual relative who handed me bird-watching book…asked me to make notes..which bird comes when/what season…what kind of bird it is. Initally for months I was making notes, writing down cardinal and this or that wood pecker. So busy I was that I completely lost the total joy of watching the birds as an “uneducated” person!!!
I have same experience in almost every field. When I didn’t evaluate bhagwan technically, I was full of bhav. Once I got “intelligent”, debates increased and bhakti went down.
Reading reviews on movies: I used to read reviews and THEN watch movies and how THAT ruined my entire movie going experience.
I am not advocating “remain unintelligent” for rest of the life. It is always good to read reviews AFTER watching a movie and expand your horizon, think on it, agree/disagree with the reviewer. Maybe pick up what bird it was after seeing its activities to learn more. But that instinctive love/understanding/enjoyment…don’t ruin it.
I guess this was sort of message of the movie three idiots. So busy are the students in trying to mug for exams that they forget the joy of learning.
Or may be I opened another can of worms with this discussion.
Overall I agree with you. I will have more open mind and not judge the “intellectuals” and have the attitute that proletariats have for the bourgeousis (spell check here).
LikeLike
May 5, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Re. Shor in the city
Have not seen the movie
BUT
liking these 2 songs:
Saibo
Justajoo
Different…very rustic
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Saw Shor and liked it though less than the filmmakers’ previous film 99 which felt more engaging and had characters that I cared more about. Shor is a perfectly good movie and half the battle is won with the quality of the cast here, but overall it doesn’t feel particularly fresh. It’s entertaining and I’d take it any day over an overrated schlockfest like LSD. In any case, these guys deserve an award for getting a real, actual performance out of Tusshar Kapoor if nothing else! I plan on catching up with some films (DB and Stanley Ka Dabba mainly) but it’s been a dire year so far barring this and the year’s best film to this point – DMD.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 12:40 AM
ill take DG as the best film this year over DMD. and no thats not the Aamir Khan fan in me saying it. lol. DMD is second in my opinion. pataila house being one of the under rated movies this year.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 8:59 AM
Perhaps because it’s so unlike any Hindi movie I entirely forgot about Dhobi Ghat. This is of course one of the year’s best, certainly the most unique movie of the year, though I don’t find it as gripping all the way through as DMD.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM
I too would take DMD over DG. But in any case these are the only two Hindi films I’ve truly liked this year. And I doubt any of the upcoming ones this year will join this list for me. Unless I’m forgetting something.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:19 AM
I don’t think there’s anything coming out for the rest of the year that seems all that interesting. Unless Aamir’s thriller with Excel is coming out which I don’t think is the case…Aarakshan seems to be the next thing to look out for, though there it’s Jha who can be somewhat uneven, and from the trailers Saif’s casting seems to be a real misstep.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:53 AM
Aamir’s film is due in Jan. This is definitely one I’m looking out for. With aarakshan I am not expecting anything more than an enjoyable narrative a la Rajneeti. I have the gravest doubts about Jha doing any sort of justice to this subject. And unfortunately he’s given Bachchan a predictable sort of character.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:25 AM
The other movies I’ve wanted to see are Shagird and Shaitan, though I can’t say I’m pumped for either. Particularly the latter which seems like a teenage temper tantrum more than a movie.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:57 AM
yeah shaitan has been lying around for a while but I haven’t got into it. Similarly Kashmakash. This is the dubbed Hindi version of Rituparno Ghosh’s Bengali film. But of course I don’t like dubbed films at all which is why I have been avoiding this in a sense!
On Shagird as I just said it’s a compulsive watch though it covers no new terrain. Nana is in top form here (though predictably so) but the less said about Mohit Ahlawat the better!
Anyway I might be getting to a fourth Tree of Life viewing at some point. Thought I’d stop at 3 but something about this film has really haunted me.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:04 AM
With Tree of Life part of the compulsion to see it multiple times (at least for me) is that beyond being a great film it also demands viewing in a movie theater. For as long as it’s out one must take advantage!
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 11:28 AM
agreed.. as I said before it’s a crime to miss this on the big screen.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Shaitaan is not bad but feels like you have seen many movies like it.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM
Mostly agreed with this. Probably liked it less than you did. On that note I enjoyed Bhindi Bazaar Inc quite a bit. The film could have done with some better casting on the leads and is perhaps rather contrived towards the end but overall a rather engaging watch. Shagird similarly was a very compelling watch even if it was nothing very new. Nana made for somewhat compulsive viewing though he too has done this a number of times before.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 9:08 AM
Haven’t heard of that. Will check it out…
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:26 AM
Glad you liked Bhindi Bazaar.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:28 AM
Saw on sidebar you saw Delhi Belly and Lincoln Lawyer? Any comments?
ps – Liked Lincoln lawyer. Some predictable stuff but enjoyable.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Yes Lincoln Lawyer is very enjoyable. McConaughey is is fine form here. Probably his best part. I’m a sucker for this kind of portrayal anyway!
On Delhi Belly I was planning to put up a brief note on it at some point. Didn’t care too much for it. It was intermittently entertaining but I was expecting more from it at a purely narrative level. Did like the atmospherics as well. Just think they could have done a lot more here. As for the language that too has been overrated (partly it’s Aamir’s genius to make this an issue!) and as you pointed out Bhindi Bazaar has the very same language. Didn’t find it forced at all within the film (DB). Again it’s engaging enough with some stand out zany moments (the whole sequence with Vijay Raaz in the apartment, the roof collapsing, the dancer’s foot coming through… or the moments at the jeweler’s), just don’t think there’s anything special here. Certainly didn’t see a madly entertaining film here. To be honest (and despite the whole teen vibe) I probably preferred JTYJN. Should say in fairness that I don’t have much of a taste of this (DB) genre even in Hollywood. But I’m not surprised that it’s acquiring cult status.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Re: Haven’t heard of that. Will check it out…
I think Satyam knew that mention of Mohit Ahlawat is going to do the trick!
Unless you were referring to BBI.
LikeLike
July 15, 2011 at 10:27 AM
LOL – I was talking about BBI, sir.
LikeLike