Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
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?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Ramchand Pakistani - Review
There's a lot about Mehreen Jabbar's film, Ramchand Pakistani, that can be appreciated. Syed Fazal Hussain, who plays Ramchand, is on the top of that list, Nandita Das is close to the bottom, and the film itself hovers somewhere in the middle.
To clear the air, it is important to mention that the balanced political standpoint of the film speaks to its credit. For once, an India-Pakistan film isn't about terrorism and the big bad guy across the border. And that is a huge relief. But that is almost all that is convincing about the film. It has moments with immense potential. Whether it is with reference to relationships that build up or even a comment on prisoners and their state, especially the fact of innocent people who have been thrown into jail for small mistakes, as is the case of Ramchand and his father. Unfortunately, they remain mere moments.
The story, as it might be evident already, is about Ramchand, a young, tribal Hindu boy living in Pakistan, his mother (played by Nandita Das) and his father (Rashid Farooqui). One day, the boy unknowingly walks across the border near the Thar desert, and his father follows, trying to stop him. They are both arrested and sent to jail in the Kutch region on the Indian side of the border. The mother tries in vain to locate them, she registers FIRs, makes endless rounds of the police station, but to no avail.
The jail Shankar (the father) and Ramchand are thrown into, would be any prisoner's paradise. The interaction with the police starts with suggested torture but for the rest of the film, it turns into an example of communal, social harmony. With the exception of one potential child molester, the inmates all get along famously, they help each other like family members and all is a little too well in jail-land. The inspectors, both male and female, are sympathetic, kind and concerned. Without any provocation, the head arranges for Ramchand to study and brings in a special female inspector for the purpose. The lady, who has some strangely mixed-Mumbaiya-cum north Indian speech, makes a few remarks about the boy, who is an untouchable, touching her utensils, but one little blurt from him pretty much silences her.
What I'm trying to point out here is the lack of a follow up of any potential leads that could give this film a strong base. There are a few stray interesting incidents, or potential relationships that, for all practical purposes, are in the pipeline, but they just don't develop. They remain connection-less episodes. An example: at one point, Shankar tells the inspector that they treated like dogs in the jail; and while that may be the reality of the actual situation, that is not what is communicated in the film. There is an assumed connection with the real world, and that doesn't work, not when what we see in the film is the very opoosite of 'being treated like dogs'.
There was also the beginning of another relationship, between Champa (Das) and a Muslim member of the community, Abdullah (Noman Ijaz). The tenderness of their relationship is moving and once again has immense potential, but all it takes is one little, almost matter-of-fact comment by a friend that has Abdullah pack his bags and leave the scene. The anxieties of these relationships could be many and they weren't explored in this film. And that is the case with the depiction of jail life as well. I was a bit shocked to realise that the Pakistani prisoners blend in that easily with the rest. No strife? I know people to people relations are good, but there are always malefactors. But they were wished away. Also, who is Ramchand going back to? It is a million dollar question, but it is packed off in one little statement. There is no room for exploration therefore. In fact, i would say that with these mistakes, the film digs its own grave because it chooses to crush the intensity of things in simple statements.
I am not saying, at any point, that everything should be literalised and made all to evident as it is in any run of the mill film. This particular case is more disappointing, precisely because there was so much possible within the ambit of the same film, keeping intact the sensitivity with which it has been approached.
To clear the air, it is important to mention that the balanced political standpoint of the film speaks to its credit. For once, an India-Pakistan film isn't about terrorism and the big bad guy across the border. And that is a huge relief. But that is almost all that is convincing about the film. It has moments with immense potential. Whether it is with reference to relationships that build up or even a comment on prisoners and their state, especially the fact of innocent people who have been thrown into jail for small mistakes, as is the case of Ramchand and his father. Unfortunately, they remain mere moments.
The story, as it might be evident already, is about Ramchand, a young, tribal Hindu boy living in Pakistan, his mother (played by Nandita Das) and his father (Rashid Farooqui). One day, the boy unknowingly walks across the border near the Thar desert, and his father follows, trying to stop him. They are both arrested and sent to jail in the Kutch region on the Indian side of the border. The mother tries in vain to locate them, she registers FIRs, makes endless rounds of the police station, but to no avail.
The jail Shankar (the father) and Ramchand are thrown into, would be any prisoner's paradise. The interaction with the police starts with suggested torture but for the rest of the film, it turns into an example of communal, social harmony. With the exception of one potential child molester, the inmates all get along famously, they help each other like family members and all is a little too well in jail-land. The inspectors, both male and female, are sympathetic, kind and concerned. Without any provocation, the head arranges for Ramchand to study and brings in a special female inspector for the purpose. The lady, who has some strangely mixed-Mumbaiya-cum north Indian speech, makes a few remarks about the boy, who is an untouchable, touching her utensils, but one little blurt from him pretty much silences her.
What I'm trying to point out here is the lack of a follow up of any potential leads that could give this film a strong base. There are a few stray interesting incidents, or potential relationships that, for all practical purposes, are in the pipeline, but they just don't develop. They remain connection-less episodes. An example: at one point, Shankar tells the inspector that they treated like dogs in the jail; and while that may be the reality of the actual situation, that is not what is communicated in the film. There is an assumed connection with the real world, and that doesn't work, not when what we see in the film is the very opoosite of 'being treated like dogs'.
There was also the beginning of another relationship, between Champa (Das) and a Muslim member of the community, Abdullah (Noman Ijaz). The tenderness of their relationship is moving and once again has immense potential, but all it takes is one little, almost matter-of-fact comment by a friend that has Abdullah pack his bags and leave the scene. The anxieties of these relationships could be many and they weren't explored in this film. And that is the case with the depiction of jail life as well. I was a bit shocked to realise that the Pakistani prisoners blend in that easily with the rest. No strife? I know people to people relations are good, but there are always malefactors. But they were wished away. Also, who is Ramchand going back to? It is a million dollar question, but it is packed off in one little statement. There is no room for exploration therefore. In fact, i would say that with these mistakes, the film digs its own grave because it chooses to crush the intensity of things in simple statements.
I am not saying, at any point, that everything should be literalised and made all to evident as it is in any run of the mill film. This particular case is more disappointing, precisely because there was so much possible within the ambit of the same film, keeping intact the sensitivity with which it has been approached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)