Review: Oye Lucky Lucky Oye

To say that a new dawn is visible in Bollywood is a tad contrived, but somehow that is all I can think of when I think about Dibakar Banerjee, the director of Oye Lucky Lucky Oye. Banerjee’s earlier film, Khosla Ka Ghosla came at a time when small-budget films with relatively unknown or character actors like Parvin Dabbas, Ranvir Shorey and Boman Irani were still treading a tightrope between appreciation and rejection, and yet, the honesty of the film, its complete rootedness, pulled it through, and got Banerjee a National Award.

Oye Lucky... comes three years after Khosla... and it is visible that Banerjee is not sitting smug in the success of his last venture, but is out to deliver a story that is based on real events; it may be based once again in Delhi, it might once again be a combination of fact and fiction, but its originality puts it in a class by itself, and to compare it with Khosla... is actually an exercise in futility.

Oye Lucky... is the story of Lucky (Abhay Deol) a lower-middle class boy whose simple desires are thwarted by his father (Paresh Rawal), only giving rise to aspirations of a different, more affluent lifestyle. Surrounded as he is by bullies and thieves in the making, his desire pulls him towards petty crime and ultimately towards thievery of a much larger scale. He comes in contact with Gogi (Paresh Rawal), a singer with a backdoor business of supplying stolen goods to people. Lucky’s quick style earns him some demand in Gogi’s group, but his dreams are bigger; he isn’t made to serve anyone else, his only aim being profit and of course some fun. He meets the quiet Sonal (Neetu Chandra) through Dolly (Richa Chadda), Gogi’s dancer and begins a relationship with her. He goes on to meet Dr. Handa (Paresh Rawal) who, though initially fooled by his impressive lifestyle, soon puts two and two together and tries to swindle him.

The keen observation that builds this film is unprecedented. From the director to the production designer, we can see a complete and very controlled vision of Delhi. It is not overstated in its filth or affluence or gaudiness, instead the architecture of the houses with its small rooms but open verandahs, the easy access from one wall to the other, the iron doors of some houses are what are competently captured. Little details work wonders, like the red chillies set out on a newspaper in the sun, the clothes drying and of course the public walls with very Delhi ads and election messages. Characters use names on areas in west Delhi, but that is just an added bonus for Delhi audiences who can relate to Lucky’s joy at being able to take a girl from Amar Colony to Rajouri Garden.

A glimpse of the Delhi Police works as an oblique comment in the film. We are used to seeing their brutality, their corruption and an entire host of related things. Some of those things are there in Oye Lucky..., but they too are understated. It is the body language, the things around them, the appearance of police stations that is emphasized. The dark dingy rooms of the thana, inspectors in various stages of undress, the enmity yet a camaraderie between the police and the thief occupy this film, speaking to audience without shouting a message in our faces.

The actors are in sync with the director who has conveyed his pitch, soul and vision of the film to them perfectly. They depict every detail as if it comes most naturally. Abhay Deol is striking in his persona of Lucky. He takes on the anger and desires of the young Lucky and develops it just a notch as ‘he has grown up’. His romantic life serves as a good balance to his otherwise ambitious, somewhat aggressive outlook. It betrays hints of the young, awkward sardar that lives in the suave looking Lucky. The resentment with which he observes the rich around him is well-stated; he may be sitting in a coffee shop like the rich girls around him, but he can never occupy it with as much command as they do. And this is perhaps what draws Sonal to him. She is as accomplished as any of the girls in skirts, but she too resents their ease with clothes she can only aspire to wear. Hers is a touching character who is well aware of her 'sinful' surroundings - be it her sister and her occupation or Lucky and his. She tries in the most dignified way to disance herself from something that she is in close proximity with and that makes her all the more endearing.

Richa Chadda who plays Dolly was an apparent force in the film, one of the most visible comments made by the director. Her need for sympathy, attention and love are conveyed by the things that touch her. Rejection brings out a hardened side natural to anyone, and in particular an emotionally abused girl.

Archana Puran Singh was the comic strength of the film portraying the Delhi Punjabi aunty to the hilt. Mispronunciation, contrived relationship forging and an aspiration for what Delhi folk call ‘high life’ make this character. Agreed that she is something of a caricature compared to most other characters in the film, but she increases the comic quotient thereby making the film more endearing, not to mention the ‘being-able-to-relate’ angle that she brings in.

The only point of disappointment for me in the entire film was Paresh Rawal and that is surprising because I thought he would carry the film. Younger actors around him overshadowed his somewhat artificial performances in all three personae. Three roles and very little to write home about, Paresh Rawal sadly became the weakest point of the film.

Great visuals, actors, story, songs, and Dibakar’s keen observation are things we hardly see packaged together, and it is this that this hearteningly simple film will stand out for.

Review: Dostana

If you're looking for evidence of Bollywood coming of age, then please direct your glance somewhere far far away from Karan Johar. He has never claimed to be anything more than an entertainer, and that is exactly what he is. One wonders what it means when posters of a film say, 'Karan Johar presents Dostana. Directed by Tarun Mansukhani.' Is he merely a producer, or has he somehow stamped the film with the hoo haa Dharma Productions is famous for?

As is well publicised, Dostana, starring Abhishek Bachchan, John Abraham and Priyanka Chopra, is the story of two men in Miami looking for a flat. They find one, and it is perfect because it has two rooms to spare, but it is not meant for them. The landlady tells them only girls (baby-log) can occupy the flat as the third flattie will be her single niece. The two hatch the imperfect plan andpretend to be gay to win the lady's trust and a roof over their heads. They have to continue the pretence in front of the niece, who happens to be the stunning Priyanka, and then in front of some more people, and then some more and it goes on. Needless to say, they fall in love with her and life is all the more complicated.

Just because Bollywood has managed to say the word 'gay' out loud without being shut down, would be a massive change if the film wasn't the way it is. It walks a fine line between severe homophobia and an ability to get over it and look beyond. In spite of statements by Karan Johar himself, the film indeed does indulge in stereotyping at one level. For instance, the scene where Abhishek tells the two women their 'love story', the visual is of exaggerated effeminacy. There is however Boman Irani who plays M, the editor of Verve. Once I was over the stupendous job Irani did, I realised, here is an actual gay character, who might be a tad too colourful for the Indian male palette, but is also a grand success. He is the editor of Verve, and he leaves the job to become Editor in Chief of Diva. He isn't a perfect person, definitely not a saint, but he is also not a closet case, fighting society and sitting ready to die of AIDS, which is the only place homosexual characters have had in Bollywood so far.

This film isn't meant for the upliftment of the unfortunately suppressed and discriminated gay community in our country, in no publicity campaign has it claimed to be so. It does resort to some tried and tested jokes against gay people, and I am sorry to report that they work like magic with the audience, but I am determined to believe that it also looks forward in some very small ways, perhaps even unintentionally. First, because apart from the usual gay jokes, there is an underlying sense of humour in the film, which would worked for it even without its gay-angle. Second, and most significantly, the end of the film. There is a kind of ambiguity it leaves us with, which, given the masculin ideal of Bollywood, is radical. The thought, that even buffed up, sensitive, 'normal' people can be gay. We may not know it, and even they may not know it.

Dostana has a lot of elements associated in our minds with the undefined entity called 'western culture' - be it the roommate arrangement, the clothes, the career choices, the relationship choices, and of course the girl drinking beer in the middle of the day - and audiences seemed to have warmed up to it. The question in my mind is, will the film, with its mass appeal and a conscious decision to not preach, work as the ultimate 'lesson' and coming of age technique for Bollywood and consequently for its audience?

Review: Hou Hsiao-hsien's Flight of the Red Balloon (Voyage du Ballon Rouge)

Click here to read an article I wrote on Hou Hsiao-hsien's Flight of the Red Balloon.

Jhumpa Lahiri's Unaccustomed Earth

Jhumpa Lahiri never loses sight of who she is. An Indian, yet an outsider. It isn't an unusual thing to be, and many old NRIs yearn for their home soil and whatnot, but Lahiri's writing walks that thin line between something is dripping with nothing but nostalgia and one that is eager to forget its roots.

With The Interpreter of Maladies, a new identity emerged which has now taken definite shape with Unaccustomed Earth. There is a new Indian - who is not unfamiliar with India, but knows it in tiny details of that are more or less taken for granted. Be it the sabzi-sandwich she takes to school for lunch, or in the Indian, more specifically, Bengali terms of address she uses most mechanically. Unlike the confused hybrid that inhabit NRI writing, these characters are comfortable with their identities, mostly because their creator has come to terms with hers. She puts this part of herself in each of her characters, but then lets them develop as individuals with their own stories and their own struggles. There isn't a preoccupation with nostalgia, a static Indian-ness that dominates writing of this kind, but an acknowledgment of a world that is somewhere a part of each of the characters, which reveals itself in unusual ways.

There are few writers today who write with as much ease as Jhumpa Lahiri. Every word, every story engulfs you in a hauntingly quiet way. As always, her approach is gentle yet effective, and the stories won't leave you easily. With The Namesake, it seemed Lahiri had lost the absolute control and precision she has over her words. It was a moving story, but a tad rambling, and it seems to me now that it is the comparatively shorter life of a short story that she works better in. The novel seemed to guide her, while she is the master of the short story.

Musings on Hellboy and the superhero

With the fuss around the almost-superhero – James Bond, relooking at this much-loved genre becomes inevitable. A strange dichotomy faces us today, technological advances are at an all time high, to put it crudely, with James Bond all but flying, it looks like very few things are unachievable; and yet, the demand for fantasy is growing. Be it Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, or the any of the superhero films – the craze is unprecedented. The superhero films are particularly interesting, primarily because they provide the link between the human and the fantastical, with characters that look like you and me, but have that extra something that gives them the power to make the world a better, safer place.

Not unlike most superheroes, Hellboy (created by Mike Mignola, filmed by Guillermo del Toro) lives on earth, separated from his actual parents, and is lovingly adopted by someone he comes to think of as father. And like most, he too has a responsibility towards the people, one of keeping them safe. The question that arises at least once in every superhero film, ‘Does the world need xyz?’ is to facilitate the answer - yes, the world does in fact need a hero – and this is the case with Hellboy (Ron Perlman) as well.

In spite of all these similarities, there is an inherent difference with which Hellboy has been approached. The Hellboy films play a tricky game of in and out of the superhero genre – using the popularity when in, and reflecting on the genre when out.

Hellboy came into the ‘real world’ with the American attempt to destroy a portal made by the Nazis to conjure a power that would ensure their victory in the World War. Professor Trevor Bruttenholm, an American doctor, comes with a small army to stop the Nazis. Their attempt is partially successful, and they are left with a little red creature, with horns on its forehead – evidently not human, but also not animal. Bruttenholm adopts the creature and calls him Hellboy. Hellboy grows up to be a big red monstrous looking creature, but has the superhero-special sort of heart, courage and ability to save the world.

What, then, is Hellboy’s origin? Superman’s father was a scientist on Krypton, Spiderman was licked by a radio-active spider who inadvertently passed on his characteristics to Peter Parker — but where did Hellboy come from? He is a result of the darkest magic that was called upon to destroy the world, (actually to provide victory to the Nazis, but it’s the same thing apparently). The Americans found him in the most hellish times, and therefore, Bruttenholm names him Hellboy. The name is a constant reminder of the existence of a dark side, at least potentially, to this heroic character. It goes hand in hand with the horn stubs that are present on his face. In the first film itself, we can see that the dark side has merely been subsided by his constant interaction with ‘the good’ – the changeover being a matter of skill and strategy in the hands of Rasputin. There is a vision of what the world can be, and by suggestion, how safe it is right now.

There is a question waiting to be asked; del Toro leaves it to the audience to ask it – what is maintaining this balance? The answer is – Hellboy. Or rather his sense of right and wrong, that corresponds with ours. He uses his strength for what is right, but can be pulled into using it for what isn’t. The relatively unidimensional Superman stands in sharp contrast. The White man with neatly parted hair, cannot have a compromising side. This is perhaps the reason he is an iconic figure in a sense America itself – given the costume. Hellboy, with his capacity for evil will never be an icon, or a symbol of America, though he is raised there. He likes candy, swigs beer from cans like any average Joe, and cracks the usual ‘I would give my life for her but she wants me to do the dishes too’ jokes, but he can never be American. There is a particularly moving scene in Hellboy 2, when the public has started fearing Hellboy all of a sudden because the mother of the baby he saved thought he was trying to kill him. Just as Hellboy starts to discover his paternal capacity, he is accused of trying to harm the baby. Liz (Selma Blair) keeps trying to say, he’s trying to help, but no one listens. Of course, the moment could have been more powerful if Blair was a better actress, but the idea comes across fairly well. The people he considers his own, who he risks his life to save, suddenly decide he is a monster. Supernatural elements aside, there is a critique of American society that creeps up here, one that comes at an opportune moment.

The first Hellboy film saw del Toro’s fascination with the ugly, not just in the figure of Hellboy himself, but also in the figures of Abe (Doug Jones) and creatures like Sammael that Rasputin invoked. This art of reversing order and making the ugly attractive took definite shape in Pan’s Labyrinth, and reached perfection with Hellboy 2. The big, clumsy Hellboy and a slimy fish-like Abe are together the most effective duo that come to the rescue of human beings. They are contrasted with Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), the Director of the FBI, the normal among the paranormal. He spends his time trying to deny the existence of Hellboy, and looks idiotic not just to the public, but to the Bureau of Paranormal Research as well as he tries desperately to exercise control, and fails (in both films). The figure of Sammael, the foulest creature in the film, is stretched to a limit in its grotesque appearance that you move beyond the initial distaste and start coming to terms with the scale del Toro has in mind. The emphasis on the grotesque creates a beauty that is, in some senses, removed from the Christian ideal of beauty. The troll market in Hellboy 2 is a good example of what I mean. In one film, there are two worlds visible – that of downtown New York, and that of the underworld, where the troll market is, and Hellboy looks visibly happy to be there – because everyone there is like him – no one stares and no one thinks he’s a freak. The complete vision of the troll-market is almost sublime, in a way where awful really is awe-full. The lack of a definite shape, and instead a kind of grotesque mass that pervades the Hellboy films, has a flowing quality, which gains significance when seen from the perspective of history. The first Hellboy deals directly with historical figures like Rasputin, but then push them beyond all sense of logic, time, space and death. The visual of the purple blood flowing everywhere, gives us a sense of excess, which defies the control of a traditional historical narrative. History then goes beyond the human. Its ugliness and animal-instinct provides a perspective to human history that is fast becoming del Toro’s trademark.

The sense that one goes back with, after watching Hellboy, or any del Toro film for that matter, is far from fleeting. Whether it is a fascination for the superhero, for history or just for sheer theatrics and a grand scale in filmmaking – with Hellboy, he has decided to please everyone.

Confessions of a no-Bond-er

Click here to read article I wrote on the release of Quantum of Solace for NDTVMovies.com.