Images from Gunday (updated)
thanks to Xhobdo..
thanks to Apex..
The First Look poster of YRF’s GUNDAY, is out. The company note describes the film set during Calcutta’s most unsettled times in the early 70’s, where the inseparable Bikram and Bala, grow from being small time, inconsequential wagon breakers and coal thieves, to becoming the biggest and most powerful black marketing mafia-men. Starring Ranveer Singh, Arjun Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra and Irrfan Khan. Directed by Abbas Ali Zafar.
P.S.- Feel that Habib Faisal would’ve been a better fit for this subject.
SATYAMSHOT 
December 14, 2012 at 8:42 AM
This appears to be one hell of a disaster. One actor whose only acting talent is to act like a delhi street smart guy and the other one, whose villainous smile was the only thing he could showcase in his debut movie. Continuing the all style no substance formula, the trailer would be high on style with gun shots, the same anti hero styles, the 70s protagonist chewing gum. Give me a break.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 9:51 AM
Agred, and not sure why Irfaan is taking up such projects, On one hand he does Life of Pi and Paan singh then he comes out with this. Sad.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 9:52 AM
He needs a pay check too..
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Ha, true, But one would understand that from doing HW films like Spiderman and LOP, one would get a fat paycheck. Going by what Om Puri, Naseer and Anupam have mentioned in the past that 1 HW films is equivalent to doing 5 Indian ones regarding the pay packet.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Yeah it’s a payday. That aside, I think what’s sad is that more authentic directors aren’t paying him the attention he deserves.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Right on, He needs to work with the Ratnams, Santoshis or even Hirani’s of the industry. Any of these 3 directors, If he does I would be a happy camper.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Or Mehra, or Sippy, yeah. So far among the really worthwhile filmmakers the only one to have used him on multiple occasions is Vishal Bhardwaj. He really hasn’t worked with anyone else who’s especially strong in Hindi cinema, even though he’s enlivened their works with his presence.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Indeed those 2 names you mention would use him brilliantly. But honestly, I would really really like to see him with Santoshi more than anyone else. Santaoshi I feel has been doing some really crap work lately (he is doing Phata poster something) with SHAHID, really? haha. He needs to get back to the table and start writing some stories/screenplays that work well for actors like Irfan and Abhishek (dying to see them 2 together). Speaking for Bharadwaj, Yes he has used Irfan well, but lately he is just getting corrupted too, god knows what happens to these guys after their initial offings. Hope Rohan and Hirani dont change that.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM
I didn’t like 7KM at all but aside from this I’ve liked every single one of his movies to varying degrees. I’m less kind on Kaminey over time but Makdee, Maqbool, The Blue Umbrella and Omkara are all fine works. I’d actually like to see Abhishek in a Bhardwaj film at some point. Or perhaps Amitabh in a Lear adaptation!
Santoshi gave Amitabh Bachchan his last truly great performance in one of the best mainstream movies of the past twenty years in Khakee. Would like to see anything he does, even if I’d prefer that he avoid the APKGK route. That was a harmless film, but not one I care about at all. Khakee though is the kind of hard, serious masala film that would do good to release these days, if only to counterbalance the nonsense that’s otherwise on display. Of course a recent film that did something similar (DMD) didn’t find quite the audience it deserved so perhaps that’s not good career advice!
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM
yes and we even see this with Talaash. The moment you have a risky subject problems begin. Aamir of course still gets this film to a total that would be impossible for any other star. It wouldn’t even be in the same range. But by his own lofty standards the trending leaves a lot to be desired. Since people trusted him enough to show up here they clearly had problems with the film.
On DMD as I said at the time Abhishek in better shape could have gotten a much stronger initial here. But it still wouldn’t have been a huge grosser. And we see the proof with Talaash where despite opening to 68 crores or so the film is finding it really hard to do a 100, in fact at this point it would be surprising if it did. People get into the more superficial debate of problems with the script and so on. But that never stops atrocious films in more acceptable genres from making a lot of money even when not many like them that much! Interestingly if you compare DMD’s trending to talaash it is more or less the same. actually DMD was a bit better than this. Talaash would have to get to 100 to match the DMD the latter (depending on whose numbers you believe).
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Agreed on all counts GF, but just the Kaminey part, Didn’t really like that one. Ending to me seemed like a Hukumat kind of fight. If you know what I mean (I think I am stealing words from someone here on that note).
Yes, Bachchan in Khakee is just outstanding in the past 20 years. and There is not better masala affair than that. (satyam sir had a very good comment about that some time ago, On how Khakee had all the Masala elements and if it released today, it would find a really good audience and the #’s would be much better than what it did back then). About Jr with Bharadwaj, that would be interesting too, but right now as we all know he needs hits for about a couple of years before he starts giving the cinema that HE really believes in. Beggers can’t be choosers at this point you know.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Talking of ending, I liked savages ending. It made every body happy. There was no director cut or anything. They showed both ending in the movie itself 🙂
ps – I thought Kaminey was well made. Ending was over the top but I have seen too many movies with similar ending.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM
It’s either stars flattening cars on one end, or more (presumably) restrained masala like this starring actors one couldn’t care less about.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Santoshi is a right choice but i dont think Rathnam and Hirani can use Irrfan effectively. Hirani especially- He may cast him in some happy happy zero impact role and thats about it. If you track hirani’s first 3 films, you will notice that the protagnoist had audience friendly lines and even more feel good scenes, but never great performances. I dont even blame the actors for that. The role and portrayal doesn’t demand much. Its all very breezy.
Rathnam on the other hand,though being a great director doesn’t have that connection with the Hindi speaking actors in a way that he could’ve.
Irrfan has been best utilized by tigmanshu right from star bestsellers to Haasil to Charas to Paan singh tomar.
P.S. as much as I dislike Rohit shetty’s style of filmmaking, I have to say he made most of Irrfan’s fabulous comic timing (Sunday).
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:07 AM
“Rathnam on the other hand,though being a great director doesn’t have that connection with the Hindi speaking actors in a way that he could’ve.”
I have to completely disagree with you on that note. If that was true, we wouldn’t have some great peformances coming our way form the Hindi belt of actors in Ratnam films, For ex, Pankaj Kapur in Bombay, AB jr in Yuva, Guru, Raavan. SRK in Dil Se, I give a mention Manisha in Bombay and Dil Se, Mithun in Guru. Many such performances, These are the only few that come to mind. I am sure many will disagree with that note Paapaas. But Yeah you are right about Dhullia. Do you know if he is making anything next?
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Considering that some of Irrfan’s best performances are in English, I don’t think the language issue you bring up here would be any kind of real hurdle…even otherwise this language argument against Ratnam has always struck me as a kind of grasping-at-the-straws to explain why something in his films or the films themselves don’t work. When Guru released, no one brought any of this up,. It’s only when Ratnam stumbles to connect with his Hindi audience that this argument is put forth. When Raavan was cornered on this issue, I couldn’t follow the logic that Ratnam suddenly “forgot” how to work with Hindi actors after having learned how to do it in Guru!
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM
The funny thing also is that tons of other directors very much rooted in a Hindi-speaking tradition doing all kinds of different stuff also don’t fare much better. No one says anything about this. You can’t get more rooted than Bhardwaj and he hasn’t had a hit so far. Even Kaminey petered out rather quickly after a strong start. In fact there is no director other than Mehra with RDB who has anything like the Guru total after adjusting for inflation (Barfi recently is probably the only other one I can think of) doing different within mainstream formats.
Of course Ratnam in his own Tamil hasn’t ‘connected’ much better! Most of his prestige deals since the 90s haven’t really worked.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Here’s the Deal: You cannot critique one by saying well others aren’t doing any better. Who says Bhardwaj has to establish a standard for Rathnam to match or better or vice versa.
My point regarding language was- there is sense of comfort and ease which comes with the language and that in my opinion is very much required when you are dealing with an actor like Irrfan. Having said that, I didnt mean to say Ratnam would do a bad job with Irrfan. Its just that he may not be able to exploit his talent that good enough.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Language is important but there are simply too many great examples of directors and actors working very well in projects where they don’t share a common language.
On ratnam incidentally I’ve heard this from reliable sources but when he’s shooting in Hindi even though he understanding of the language is extremely basic (to put it kindly) he can immediately pick up in a shot (in real time) when an actor goes wrong somewhere doing the Hindi. he stops things, confirms this with someone on the sets who knows the language and he is usually right. Again not saying the language issue is inconsequential but it can be exaggerated.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM
“Again not saying the language issue is inconsequential but it can be exaggerated.”
Leaving aside language, I think the bigger issue that Ratnam’s audiences have had (in Tamil and Hindi) since Iruvar has been his filmic grammar. He doesn’t spoon feed his narratives, doesn’t always provide heavy exposition, and I think what’s risked in this approach is an emotional connection with the audience. In Hindi cinema I think this lack of connection is often attributed not to the storytelling style but, bewilderingly (in my opinion) to the ethnicity of the filmmaker! Directors from the South elsewhere (Priyadarshan, RGV, Murgudoss most recently) are never quite confronted with this same criticism even when they also fail. And that’s because their failures are not necessarily a result of their tinkering with cinematic language and the resulting emotional effects.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM
ratnam hasn’t been able to pull it together for a while now. most of the his films since roja have left a lot to be desired, even the better ones. he does very well with moments but seems to have lost the knack for a tight, cohesive script.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Agreed. I do look for subtext but mostly as an audience I want to see an engaging movie.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:20 PM
You’re not alone in thinking that. But for my part, even on his weakest day, he’s far more interesting to me than directors that are simply engaging their audience on the script level and offer little-to-nothing else. Incidentally I think his two best films (Iruvar and Kannathil) were made post-Roja.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM
But I think he doesn’t want a tight cohesive script understood in traditional ways. He could clearly make that sort of film. Perhaps he’ll do so with Kadal as well. But his more ambitious films have certainly tried not to be completely constrained by the commercial format or the expectations generated by it. Speaking for myself I find most of his films in this more ‘mature’ period to be very gripping, vital efforts. I am not necessarily arguing these films don’t have problems. But I wouldn’t really locate them at the level of script. Because I think that Ratnam in this phase often opens up questions that then don’t allow for neat resolutions.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 1:04 PM
i don’t disagree that he is capable or that even his weak efforts are more worthy than most. but those are hardly favorable arguments. i am judging him by his standards, not other better directors, or international directors or rohit shetty standards. and he hasn’t realized the potential in a lot of his recent work.
satyam, i know we are all more inclined to ignore the flaws in works we admire. but saying these films do not have scripting issues is just…. i don’t even know. they clearly do. even a film that’s not sticking to traditional narratives or neat resolutions can have a tight, engaging script. those are two different things. raavan was a mess. not because it challenged the bourgeois, or made us uncomfortable or all those other arguments you like to pull out. yes, it did all that. it was also a mess of a script. this wasn’t an engaging, tight little unconventional film that will only appeal to a particular target audience, it was aiming to be that but completely lost its way. that doesn’t mean some people haven’t liked it but it mostly missed the mark in every way. in fact his recent track record (i mean over a decade) has made me not jump with joy every time i see a new poster that says ‘a mani ratnam film’. and it will take actual turnaround to bring that excitement back.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 1:22 PM
I actually don’t have a problem at all with Iruvar, Dil Se, KM, Raavan and some others. I am also not lowering any standards here. I think these are better films than many he did in the 80s! And yes none of these films was made for a niche audience. But looking at the films no one could reasonably expect mass hits here either! Perhaps Ratnam has been making relatively niche films as big scale productions. It’s surely too easy to say the scripts aren’t tight and cohesive. Mysteriously he gets a big success whenever he truly wants to in this phase. Alaipayuthey? Guru? The moment he builds up some capital he’s back to more risky stuff. he surely knows by know what works and what doesn’t. I’d be surprised for example if he doesn’t get a hit in Kadal. Actually if you check out his interviews with Rangan one of the things that comes through very clearly is that he just isn’t interested in repetition of any sort. I think some things could be altered in Raavan and it would be a commercial success. the framework for one is very much here. It’s not like D6. But if you made those changes it wouldn’t be a Ratnam film! Again I’m not at all suggesting there are no problems in these films. I have argued both ways for many of these works. However it is also true that questions of ‘script’ and ‘narrative’ and ‘connection’ and so on only come up with certain kinds of films. All these couldn’t be deciding factors when plenty of commercial films are very successful without cohesive scripts, without truly connecting with the audience very much, etc. Was anyone making a huge emotional connection with Dhoom? It was just a joy ride. Do people go most of these 100 crore grossers for scripts? Certain kinds of films are just not rewarded at the box office very often, even in the US or elsewhere. The difference is that in India the criticism is totally mixed up with the box office result. In the US it’s kept separate. So Raavan might just not be a film for everyone. If you made Gangs of Wasseypur with top stars you’d get a bigger initial. You wouldn’t get a hit! Even with some very clear emotional hooks to the story Talaash hasn’t been embraced. I think we tend to place most kinds of box office failure at the doorstep of the director when some of it should be placed at that of the audience.
Do you really think that an audience that cannot stop lapping up so many 100 crore grossers in those very genres is really best placed to show up the very next day for Talaash?! I always provide this example but if you look at the top grossers of the 70s these were usually more sensible masala. There were very many dumb films that did well but these weren’t generally the biggest grossers. Khakee underperformed at the box office. This was a perfect film that did everything right, it ought to have been a blockbuster but wasn’t. This multiplex audience will simply not reward certain ideological takes on contemporary India. I cannot think of even one counter-example. A major success that was truly edgy and that couldn’t be read any other way. Forget everything else. In a very safe genre Ranbir’s Rockstar pretty much faded away after a good initial. Did far less than ZNMD though it opened stronger than the latter. So you can look at different films, you can look at niche stuff or more commercial formats. This just isn’t an audience that rewards edgy! Shanghai didn’t do too much even as a niche film and despite such positive reviews. Zero people showed up recently for Chakravyuh (though I haven’t seen this yet). I could keep providing examples. Show me an edgy film in any sense and I’ll show you either a failure or an underperformer. Show me a success for a ‘different’ film and I’ll show you either a fake one or something that can also be read in conformist ways.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 1:43 PM
where did box office come in? i wasn’t talking about that at all. i don’t care how well these films did or didn’t do. and yes, his subjects are not designed to be mass hits anyway (even guru wasn’t that big, did better in some areas than others i think). on the other hand, saying they didn’t do well because they were so awesome the lowly junta couldn’t understand them is facetious. the housefull audience is not lining up for these films (although there is always overlap) but the ratnam audience is not expecting to whistle on item numbers either (which ratnam has too). and talaash had a lot of problems in the second half which were fixable keeping it the same film. i don’t know if that would affect the collections, but it would have made it a better experience for me.
anyways, i was talking about my personal feelings about these films, the way the announcement of a ratnam film does nothing to excite my interest any more. because i have found his recent films disappointing. and i am not someone who thinks he is the scorcese of india or anything. since i don’t watch much regional cinema, i haven’t seen his entire body of work and don’t hold him to standards as high as others in the first place. for me, he is just not somebody to watch out for any more. of course, i’d be happy if delivered something brilliant. but that’s not something i expect from him.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 1:44 PM
and shanghai and chakravyuh examples hardly make the case. terribly weak films.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM
I don’t know. If Ratnam doesn’t get one excited I’m not sure what can. Don’t mean this insultingly, just genuinely curious about what or who in the current film culture is more interesting…
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM
i am more interested to see what a hirani or kashyap can come up with next. and that’s not a comment on their talent or ratnam’s, i just find them more interesting at this point.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Hirani is easily one of the filmmakers in Hindi cinema that I’m interested in. Kashyap…not so much. There’s nothing he’s offered so far that can’t be got by other, better festival filmmakers out there. Having said this I’ll watch his movies. Just can’t say I’m ever pumped for a release of his. Found at least the first part of GOW incredibly overrated.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM
yes, i agree kashyap hasn’t done anything fun since dev d (i haven’t seen gow yet). but i am still interested to see what next. they are both film makers who can bring the mainstream and less mainstream together well, or at least i believe so. something that ratnam was doing, but he leaves me cold now.
would include dibakar and bhardwaj too, just wasn’t impressed by their last films. let’s see what happens.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:00 PM
GF and Satyam, have any of you written anything on Blue Umbrella and/or Makdi? Would love to read your thoughts
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Blue Umbrella –
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/08/11/goodfella-reviews-the-blue-umbrella/
One of the famous comments which GF made was CDI was not even the best movie released on friday 🙂
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM
This made for a lovely read GF. Thanks much
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM
I thought Ranvir was very good in Band Bajaa Baarat and Arjun Kapor was good too in Ishaqzaade. ( thoigh I must admit, in both these films their female counterparts were a class apart – briliant.) But I see tremendous potential in these two future stars who have individualistic looks different from the standard chocolate star-son mould. No wonder directors ranging from Sanjay Bhansali ( Ram Leela ) to Vikramaditya Motwane ( Lootera) go for ranvir while Arjun too bags projects like this and 2 States.
But like most projects initiated by Aditya Chopra this one too does not interest me. But both Ramleela and Llootere should be interesting.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM
“If you track hirani’s first 3 films, you will notice that the protagnoist had audience friendly lines and even more feel good scenes, but never great performances.”
Really? So only audience-unfriendly lines and feel-bad scenes count for grrat peerformances? I thought both Sanjay and Arsad in Munnabhai 1 & 2 and aamir in 3 Idiots were brilliant.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM
the second line of your response is understandable because its an opinion, while the first is a question which is stupid. Did I ever say that audience unfriendly lines and feel bad scenes account for bad performances. I just said, Hirani’s movies have the protagonist utter witty lines and create that happy atmosphere without any scope for the actor and more precisely the ROLES. so yes munna circuit and rancho may have been good to brilliant(acc to you) but the truth remains they were good to the roles. the roles themselves weren’t great.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Given that Munnabhai and Circuit are two of the most iconic film characters in recent memory (this is less a matter of opinion, can’t think of anyone who’d disagree with this statement) I’d say it’s not just what the actors bring (though of course Dutt and Warsi are instrumental) but what Hirani gave them to work with…
In general, I think your attitude towards lighter performances is symptomatic of a greater trend whereby comedic performances are undervalued in the company of more serious dramatic work.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM
GF. Okay I read that comment of mine and I now understand how it may have come across. I dont undervalue comedy and I too agree Munnai and circuit are iconic. Let me try again- What i wanted to say was Hirani’s characters do not require as much effort as some others and thats where a Tigmanshu or lets say even a Nishikant Kamath (Mumbai meri jaan) had.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Agreed GF, In that sense, Dharam’s Chupke Chupke performance was just good cause of its witty lines (the whole english and hindi comparison etc). Even Amol shouldnt get credit for Golmaal then? Hahaha.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM
“What i wanted to say was Hirani’s characters do not require as much effort as some others ..” True. More than effort what they require is talent. There are some actors no matter how much effoirt they put wont be able to a do a Munnabhai , a Circuit or a Rancho.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:17 PM
“What i wanted to say was Hirani’s characters do not require as much effort as some others ..” True. More than effort what they require is talent and suitability for the role. There are some actors no matter how much effort they put wont be able to a do a Munnabhai , a Circuit or a Rancho.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Why are you being so defensive? I have not called Sanjay,Arshad or Aamir untalented. That, these people are suitable or best fit for the respective roles, doesn’t make the roles any great. Its just compatible from both ends.
LikeLike
December 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Gunday — what a name… 🙂
Who’s the cast here-can’t tolerate boney kapoors wooden son
Ranveer atleast has some spark
LikeLike
December 15, 2012 at 12:41 AM
We can’t have them gallivanting up there like kangaroos, can we? *Mary Poppins* 🙂
LikeLike
December 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM
“We can’t have them gallivanting up there like kangaroos, can we? *Mary Poppins*”
haha 🙂
maggie –am getting used to your daily dose of fun posts–keep em coming..lol
LikeLike
December 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM
I must not have anything better to do ..lol
LikeLike
December 15, 2012 at 3:44 PM
“I must not have anything better to do ..lol”
Don’t u worry maggie–do find time for your ‘fan’ 🙂
LikeLike
December 15, 2012 at 12:30 AM
hardly interested in this. Could e something to do with the leads. Boys trying too hard to be macho n being taken seriously
LikeLike