The master storyteller Martin Scorsese returns to his home turf of gangsterology, goons, good guys, violence and bloodshed with his latest offering "The Departed". There is a general grouse that violence in Scorsese films are unmitigated and graphic, which is undeniable. He has set the benchmark for cringe-inducing violence and bloodshed in film (at least until the appearance of a director named Quentin Tarantino). In Scorsese films, violence is used more as a tool to shock and involve the audience, than as an end in itself (unlike in Tarantino films where violence is the means and the end, and the screenplay is more like a pean to violence.) Scorsese is more interested in the criminals themselves- he wants to probe their twisted souls, and dig out some humanity from those deranged landscapes.
"The Departed" is one such character study of the world of organized crime in Boston. (This is a remake of a Hong Kong cop classic “Infernal Affairs”.) Frank Costello, played by Jack Nicholson, is the lord of organized crime in Boston. He makes his prodigy Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) infiltrate the state police force, wherein at about the same time, a recent recruit of the state police, Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), infiltrates Costello’s gang. This sets up a curiously rigged high-stakes game, where the role of the hunter and the hunted is continuously reversed. The fact that both Sullivan and Costigan have a common love interest doesn’t hurt the complexity factor either.
The film could serve as a text book example of a well executed ensemble piece. Almost every single supporting character (and there are quite a few of them), is fully chalked out and realized, and manned with first rate actors. Mark Wahlberg stands out playing Dingam as a potty-mouthed muscle flexing cop, who intimidates and cows down opponents with his razor sharp wit and abrasiveness. Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen pitch in with solid performances. Amongst the lead actors, Nicholson stands out. Investing the role with a sort of glee filled rascality, he achieves the delicate balance of making the audience care for him just enough, without sympathizing with his actions.
The film, in its best parts, propels with a seething energy, ably aided by the legendary editor Thelma Schoonmaker. It works most effectively as a crime thriller. The screenplay’s attempts to transcend into greatness are only half-successful; the complex character studies initiated are either cursory or in broad strokes. One area where the film succeeds effortlessly is in combining crime and dark humor; this is one of the funniest crime thrillers you will see.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Science of Sleep – Movie Review
To describe “The Science of Sleep” would be a loopy exercise. The film is inventive as hell, imaginative as if there is no tomorrow, and loopiest of all loopy films. It’s like you write a nice little love story on a pack of playing cards, and give each card to a sleep-deprived, hyper-creative art student to doodle on, and assemble the cards back in order.
Each individual scene in the movie makes wild detours, is punctuated with dreamy interludes that frequently puncture the fabric of reality, leading to a constant state of intoxicated delirium. You are never sure where the film lands you – are you in a dreamscape or are you in reality? Sometime this could lead to total chaos, but the movie somehow finds a way to tell the story and find coherence between all this artistic mayhem.
Stephane (played by Gael Garcia Bernal, “Motorcycle Diaries”) visits his widowed mother in Paris. He moves into one of the apartments his mother rents out. A budding graphic artist, he is tricked by his mother into accepting a dead end rote job. His co-workers are an interesting bunch of modern age dinosaurs- people who have accepted their place (as modest as it might be) in society, and go through life with a sense of resigned discontent.
Stephane deals with the disappointments in his life by taking refuge in his spectacular imagination. When reality becomes unbearable, he slips into his fictitious world, and revels in the endlessly interesting possibilities that reality doesn’t afford him. Imagination is his last defense against insanity. Stephane finds a soul mate in his new neighbor Stephanie, who is slightly odd, interesting, and is also taken to creative pursuits. Their meet-cute encounters are like brainstorming sessions between the lead animators in Pixar Studios. They feed off each others creativity and oddity, and in no time they are inescapably drawn to each other. And, as in any romantic story worth its salt, complications ensue (the question is whether are these real or are they also parts of Stephane’s figment.)
Gael Garcia Bernal wields his considerable talents with apparent ease to create a fully realized character. Even at times when the movie is a jumble, the individual moments between the characters and the inventiveness of the makers hold it together. This is a sheer achievement in the craft of making films. The director, Michel Gondry, the maker of the wonderful “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, exercises enormous control over the medium and executes this jumble of a movie with great finesse.
Each individual scene in the movie makes wild detours, is punctuated with dreamy interludes that frequently puncture the fabric of reality, leading to a constant state of intoxicated delirium. You are never sure where the film lands you – are you in a dreamscape or are you in reality? Sometime this could lead to total chaos, but the movie somehow finds a way to tell the story and find coherence between all this artistic mayhem.
Stephane (played by Gael Garcia Bernal, “Motorcycle Diaries”) visits his widowed mother in Paris. He moves into one of the apartments his mother rents out. A budding graphic artist, he is tricked by his mother into accepting a dead end rote job. His co-workers are an interesting bunch of modern age dinosaurs- people who have accepted their place (as modest as it might be) in society, and go through life with a sense of resigned discontent.
Stephane deals with the disappointments in his life by taking refuge in his spectacular imagination. When reality becomes unbearable, he slips into his fictitious world, and revels in the endlessly interesting possibilities that reality doesn’t afford him. Imagination is his last defense against insanity. Stephane finds a soul mate in his new neighbor Stephanie, who is slightly odd, interesting, and is also taken to creative pursuits. Their meet-cute encounters are like brainstorming sessions between the lead animators in Pixar Studios. They feed off each others creativity and oddity, and in no time they are inescapably drawn to each other. And, as in any romantic story worth its salt, complications ensue (the question is whether are these real or are they also parts of Stephane’s figment.)
Gael Garcia Bernal wields his considerable talents with apparent ease to create a fully realized character. Even at times when the movie is a jumble, the individual moments between the characters and the inventiveness of the makers hold it together. This is a sheer achievement in the craft of making films. The director, Michel Gondry, the maker of the wonderful “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”, exercises enormous control over the medium and executes this jumble of a movie with great finesse.
Monday, October 02, 2006
School for Scoundrels - Movie Review
"School of Scoundrels" has all the components for a mindless, crass, formula-based flick. Only thing missing is any reasonable entertainment value. One can sit through such exercises in borderline idiocy, if the movie has some good cheer, some laugh-out-loud moments, and some good old fashion escapist entertainment. "School of Scoundrels" has all of the above, just not enough of it to justify our time or effort.
Roger (played by John Heder of "Napoleon Dynamite"), is a New York city parking enforcement officer, a regular nice guy, who suffers from the standard issue problems of low self esteem, social ineptitude, and acute reservedness. He is a sort of guy whose book shelf is filled with rows and rows of cheesy self-help books. This is the sort of character that mainstream Hollywood loves these days; this character could have easily been transplanted (to and) from about half-a-dozen recent movies (e.g., "The 40-year-old-virgin").
Roger has a crush on his neighbor Amanda (played by the button-cute Jacinda Barret), which he has difficulty expressing. Also, adding to the complexity is the constant presence of Amanda’s girl friend (Sarah Silverman). (How the movie manages to waste the comic talents of the always funny Silverman is another story). One of his acquaintances, sympathizing with Roger's pathetic state of affairs, offers to help him by referring him to a self help coach ("I know a guy, who does this thing"). When a character in a movie says something cheesy like this, that should mean (in a good stupid movie), "buckle up your seat belts, and get ready for the ride". A good screenplay should have soared from this point, but this movie limps and grovels to take-off, but to no avail.
Roger goes to the self-help crash course conducted by Dr. P (Billy Bob Thornton), and further complications ensue. The movie has some of the best talents working for it. Billy Bob Thornton, the wonderful actor, who consistently creates fully rounded odd-ball characters out of almost any material given to him (e.g., "The Bandits", "Bad Santa"), fizzles out serving an insipid screenplay. John Heder, has made a career out of playing some version of the "every-man-loser" typecast, plays one more such role, reasonably effectively.
The film is directed by Todd Philips who directed the crass, cult classics like "Road Trip" and "Old School". Those movies were funny, this movie is not. Some of the supposedly funny scenes in this movie involve a paint-ball gun and John Heder's groin area, and in another occasion, a defibrillator and Thornton's groin area - this is how inventive the screenplay is. It is not that the movie is out rightly unfunny, it is just insipid, and lingers-on like the taste of a cheap gas-station-coffee. Wise souls will avoid this movie.
Roger (played by John Heder of "Napoleon Dynamite"), is a New York city parking enforcement officer, a regular nice guy, who suffers from the standard issue problems of low self esteem, social ineptitude, and acute reservedness. He is a sort of guy whose book shelf is filled with rows and rows of cheesy self-help books. This is the sort of character that mainstream Hollywood loves these days; this character could have easily been transplanted (to and) from about half-a-dozen recent movies (e.g., "The 40-year-old-virgin").
Roger has a crush on his neighbor Amanda (played by the button-cute Jacinda Barret), which he has difficulty expressing. Also, adding to the complexity is the constant presence of Amanda’s girl friend (Sarah Silverman). (How the movie manages to waste the comic talents of the always funny Silverman is another story). One of his acquaintances, sympathizing with Roger's pathetic state of affairs, offers to help him by referring him to a self help coach ("I know a guy, who does this thing"). When a character in a movie says something cheesy like this, that should mean (in a good stupid movie), "buckle up your seat belts, and get ready for the ride". A good screenplay should have soared from this point, but this movie limps and grovels to take-off, but to no avail.
Roger goes to the self-help crash course conducted by Dr. P (Billy Bob Thornton), and further complications ensue. The movie has some of the best talents working for it. Billy Bob Thornton, the wonderful actor, who consistently creates fully rounded odd-ball characters out of almost any material given to him (e.g., "The Bandits", "Bad Santa"), fizzles out serving an insipid screenplay. John Heder, has made a career out of playing some version of the "every-man-loser" typecast, plays one more such role, reasonably effectively.
The film is directed by Todd Philips who directed the crass, cult classics like "Road Trip" and "Old School". Those movies were funny, this movie is not. Some of the supposedly funny scenes in this movie involve a paint-ball gun and John Heder's groin area, and in another occasion, a defibrillator and Thornton's groin area - this is how inventive the screenplay is. It is not that the movie is out rightly unfunny, it is just insipid, and lingers-on like the taste of a cheap gas-station-coffee. Wise souls will avoid this movie.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Fearless - Movie Review
Meditation has many forms. Silent introspection of one’s inner self, sitting on top a hill for hours, as rewarding as it might personally be, really doesn’t translate into great cinema. Martial arts in its purest form, is another form of meditation. It is the painstaking pursuit of a singular goal, of mastery over a form, with great dedication and sacrifice. There are few subjects in this world that are so steeped in spirituality and yet have such an exuberant, entertaining form of expression.
Jet Li’s “Fearless” (if you are not already aware, Jet Li is planning to quit making martial arts movies, and this is apparently his last one), tells the story of the real life martial arts guru Huo Yuanjia at the turn of 20th century China. Growing up in a martial arts household, Huo has a natural predisposition to street fighting and bravado, and great disinclination towards academic learning. Growing up, his only ambition is to be the unchallenged champion of the Tianjin province. Of course, graver things happen to Huo and the ones around him, pushing him into a dark phase of his life. When he emerges out of this, his talent is co-opted by wisdom, and bravado is replaced by responsibility.
The story follows the predictable arc of martial arts flicks. And all these issues have been dealt with much more skill and depth in previous films (one example is “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”). But, unhindered by a weak screenplay, this film holds together remarkably well. The early parts of the film have a more authentic approach, reminiscent of the early films in this genre - by employing a more in-your-face approach, exaggerated emotions, melodrama, and caricaturish characters (compared to a more irony-infused approach in recent films).
There are some wonderfully crafted fight sequences along the way. One that needs mention is the sequence staged on a wooden platform 200 ft above the ground, with stand alone wooden bars serving as steps- a vertigo inducing thrill ride. These fights, while excellent in their own respect, suffer from the huge shadow cast by films like “The Matrix” and “Crouching Tiger…”, and fail to measure up their exacting standard.
The film explores the idea of competitive sports with great wisdom. The practitioners of martial arts use competition as more of a stock-taking exercise, than as an end in itself. In a way, worthy competitors are our greatest companions. They are among the few people who fully understand the toil and courage needed to achieve a level of excellence (in any field), leading to an un-spelt camaraderie and respect for each other. Our fiercest competitors might be our greatest motivators and closest collaborators (more than we might care to realize or admit). But the characters in “Fearless” realize this, admit to this realization, and celebrate it.
Jet Li’s “Fearless” (if you are not already aware, Jet Li is planning to quit making martial arts movies, and this is apparently his last one), tells the story of the real life martial arts guru Huo Yuanjia at the turn of 20th century China. Growing up in a martial arts household, Huo has a natural predisposition to street fighting and bravado, and great disinclination towards academic learning. Growing up, his only ambition is to be the unchallenged champion of the Tianjin province. Of course, graver things happen to Huo and the ones around him, pushing him into a dark phase of his life. When he emerges out of this, his talent is co-opted by wisdom, and bravado is replaced by responsibility.
The story follows the predictable arc of martial arts flicks. And all these issues have been dealt with much more skill and depth in previous films (one example is “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”). But, unhindered by a weak screenplay, this film holds together remarkably well. The early parts of the film have a more authentic approach, reminiscent of the early films in this genre - by employing a more in-your-face approach, exaggerated emotions, melodrama, and caricaturish characters (compared to a more irony-infused approach in recent films).
There are some wonderfully crafted fight sequences along the way. One that needs mention is the sequence staged on a wooden platform 200 ft above the ground, with stand alone wooden bars serving as steps- a vertigo inducing thrill ride. These fights, while excellent in their own respect, suffer from the huge shadow cast by films like “The Matrix” and “Crouching Tiger…”, and fail to measure up their exacting standard.
The film explores the idea of competitive sports with great wisdom. The practitioners of martial arts use competition as more of a stock-taking exercise, than as an end in itself. In a way, worthy competitors are our greatest companions. They are among the few people who fully understand the toil and courage needed to achieve a level of excellence (in any field), leading to an un-spelt camaraderie and respect for each other. Our fiercest competitors might be our greatest motivators and closest collaborators (more than we might care to realize or admit). But the characters in “Fearless” realize this, admit to this realization, and celebrate it.
Friday, September 08, 2006
The Illusionist – Movie Review
“The Illusionist” is an immaculately executed period thriller. What it lacks for in originality and plotting, it more than compensates with rich detail and deft storytelling. “The Illusionist” tells the story of Eisenheim (played by Edward Norton), a magician in the early 20th century Vienna. As a young boy, growing up as a cabinet-maker’s son who is smitten by magic, Eisenheim falls for and has a short, passionate and ill-fated relationship with the young duchess Sophie. When their ill-botched plans to elope are terminated by the powers that be, Eisenheim disappears into the wilderness, only to reappear years later as a supremely talented illusionist. As mandated by the law of romantic storytelling, their paths cross again, and in no time Eisenheim and Sophie are passionately in love again (the adult version this time).
Where is the fun in the world if everyone gets what they want, so the plot thickens with the appearance of vested interests, villains, and almost-villains-whose-conscience-is-awaken-at-the-right-moment. The crown prince of Vienna, Leopold, has plans of his own to get engaged to Princess Sophie, and other plans of larger reach such as reorganizing the power structure of the royal house of Vienna. Leopold is aided in this scheming by his executive-lynchpin Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti). “The Illusionist” waves this yarn of political intrigue, bureaucratic dogma and dilemma and period drama around the romantic thread.
The way Eisenheim’s shows are staged (or filmed rather) needs special mention. The introductions by his manager have the right dosage of awe-inducing hyperbole. And then Eisenheim walks on to an empty stage. There are no distractions on the stage- no gadgetry or gimmicks, or flashy clothing. The lean Eisenheim fills the stage with just his persona and presence. Edward Norton was born to play this role. He slowly tilts his head and starts speaking, and his words arrive with a sense of finality to them. It’s like his actions and words have been long set in motion, and they are just filling their logical positions like a domino set in motion. Paul Giamatti, Hollywood’s penance for the likes of Steven Segal, enriches the role of the inspector with his full-throttled approach. All this works because of the perfect setting of tone and atmosphere executed with ample help from the composer Philip Glass, production designer Ondrej Nekvasil and cinematographer Dick Pope.
A word about the moustaches in the film- they appear in all shapes, sizes and vigor. Apparently, in this movie, the more powerful you are, odder-looking and vigorous your mustache will be. The actors should have demanded for a mustache-allowance for sporting these specious looking beings.
The movie has you in a spell during its entire duration, which you willingly surrender to. When you walk out of the theater, the spell vanishes, but, what fun while it lasts!
Where is the fun in the world if everyone gets what they want, so the plot thickens with the appearance of vested interests, villains, and almost-villains-whose-conscience-is-awaken-at-the-right-moment. The crown prince of Vienna, Leopold, has plans of his own to get engaged to Princess Sophie, and other plans of larger reach such as reorganizing the power structure of the royal house of Vienna. Leopold is aided in this scheming by his executive-lynchpin Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti). “The Illusionist” waves this yarn of political intrigue, bureaucratic dogma and dilemma and period drama around the romantic thread.
The way Eisenheim’s shows are staged (or filmed rather) needs special mention. The introductions by his manager have the right dosage of awe-inducing hyperbole. And then Eisenheim walks on to an empty stage. There are no distractions on the stage- no gadgetry or gimmicks, or flashy clothing. The lean Eisenheim fills the stage with just his persona and presence. Edward Norton was born to play this role. He slowly tilts his head and starts speaking, and his words arrive with a sense of finality to them. It’s like his actions and words have been long set in motion, and they are just filling their logical positions like a domino set in motion. Paul Giamatti, Hollywood’s penance for the likes of Steven Segal, enriches the role of the inspector with his full-throttled approach. All this works because of the perfect setting of tone and atmosphere executed with ample help from the composer Philip Glass, production designer Ondrej Nekvasil and cinematographer Dick Pope.
A word about the moustaches in the film- they appear in all shapes, sizes and vigor. Apparently, in this movie, the more powerful you are, odder-looking and vigorous your mustache will be. The actors should have demanded for a mustache-allowance for sporting these specious looking beings.
The movie has you in a spell during its entire duration, which you willingly surrender to. When you walk out of the theater, the spell vanishes, but, what fun while it lasts!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The Wicker Man - Movie Review
Sometimes movie-watching is like riding a roller-coaster - you end up exactly where you started, but the thrill you experience during the ride is all you are looking for. Examples of this would be Terminator 2, True Lies. Sometimes it is like climbing a mountain - you sweat and toil during the climb, but the view it affords in the end is worth all the effort - it gives a glimpse of life you are willing to work for. Watching "The Wicker Man" is like boarding a flight to go to some exotic destination, you sit in the plane on the runway waiting for it to take off, and at the end of two hours, you are simply informed that was the journey and are asked to get off. The journey is neither worth the destination, nor the destination worth the journey.
Edward Malus (Nicholas Cage), a sheriff whose daily work is patrolling the highways, gets a letter from his former fiancee'(who left him for apparently no good reason, a few years ago), asking him for help in finding her now 5-year-old daughter who has mysteriously disappeared.
After undergoing the necessary emotions, Malus decides to go to Summersisle - the location of the girl's disappearance- which is an ominous and mysterious farm community located in an island in the Pacific Northwest. Malus is confronted by the weird inhabitants, their strange customs and hostile attitude during his search for the missing girl.
Under normal circumstances, a half-way decent screenplay could have extracted an amusing movie out of this premise. Not here. The movie misfires on all cylinders. Brilliant actors are criminally wasted - Nicholas Cage gallantly strives to save the movie with his commitment and skills, but to no avail. The grand dame of method acting, Ellen Burstyn, looks outright silly- now that is an accomplishment. Even the gifted composer Angelo Badalamenti, the genius who churns out masterpieces for David Lynch, provides an ever present, rankling background score that is more a nuisance than anything else. The supporting characters are so witless and clueless, they seem to exist just to mouth some cryptic-sounding blabber and squint and stare pointlessly. Once the movie shifts to the island, there is not a single exchange that seems authentic or sounds true.
Of course, the movie tries to execute a slew of textbook horror movie tricks. But in an un-engaging narrative, they look like the tricks of a pathetically exposed magician, who is determined to continue performing. Here is a tip - if a studio withholds the press screening of a movie before its release (as it happened with this one), there is a message to be heard - don't waste your time by even bothering to try it. Let the movie critics be the ones to voluntarily subject themselves to these kinds of exercises in pointlessness. Dear readers, listen and heed.
Note: This article was originally published in dailycampus.com
Edward Malus (Nicholas Cage), a sheriff whose daily work is patrolling the highways, gets a letter from his former fiancee'(who left him for apparently no good reason, a few years ago), asking him for help in finding her now 5-year-old daughter who has mysteriously disappeared.
After undergoing the necessary emotions, Malus decides to go to Summersisle - the location of the girl's disappearance- which is an ominous and mysterious farm community located in an island in the Pacific Northwest. Malus is confronted by the weird inhabitants, their strange customs and hostile attitude during his search for the missing girl.
Under normal circumstances, a half-way decent screenplay could have extracted an amusing movie out of this premise. Not here. The movie misfires on all cylinders. Brilliant actors are criminally wasted - Nicholas Cage gallantly strives to save the movie with his commitment and skills, but to no avail. The grand dame of method acting, Ellen Burstyn, looks outright silly- now that is an accomplishment. Even the gifted composer Angelo Badalamenti, the genius who churns out masterpieces for David Lynch, provides an ever present, rankling background score that is more a nuisance than anything else. The supporting characters are so witless and clueless, they seem to exist just to mouth some cryptic-sounding blabber and squint and stare pointlessly. Once the movie shifts to the island, there is not a single exchange that seems authentic or sounds true.
Of course, the movie tries to execute a slew of textbook horror movie tricks. But in an un-engaging narrative, they look like the tricks of a pathetically exposed magician, who is determined to continue performing. Here is a tip - if a studio withholds the press screening of a movie before its release (as it happened with this one), there is a message to be heard - don't waste your time by even bothering to try it. Let the movie critics be the ones to voluntarily subject themselves to these kinds of exercises in pointlessness. Dear readers, listen and heed.
Note: This article was originally published in dailycampus.com
Monday, May 22, 2006
The Da Vinci Code - Movie Review
Disclaimers first. I haven't read the book. Neither am I an authority on Catholic theology/history. I view this movie simply as entertainment - a movie(or perhaps the writer) that cleverly conjoins well known (unrelated) facts to forward a conspiracy theory. The celebrated film critic Roger Ebert crystallizes the situation in his review: " DaVinci Code - the book is utterly preposterous, the movie is preposterously entertaining". Even Dan Brown says so: that is why the book is listed under the "fiction" section. So, the question that is most relevant to this review is: viewed as entertainment, how effective the movie is?
Viewed in this vein, most of the times, the movie oscillates between being moderately entertaining to reasonably entertaining, with a couple of 10 minute stretches that are certifiably boring. The story (wink! wink!) is, well..., wait..., uhhh... sorry, I cannot complete this sentence with a straight face. What if Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married? What if they had a child? What if their descendent(s) are still with us, today? What if the Catholic church (or a secret cell in it, actually) wants to keep this under wraps and will go to any extends, including directing a creepy looking priest, who is remarkably well built, and looks very close to what Paul Bettany will look like under silver blond hair, to terminate the last of these possible descendents? What if there are an equally zealous group, who are hell-bent on protecting this possible descendent? What if all of the above is true?
The movie starts with the murder of the a museum curator, who before dying, very conveniently, takes time to leave behind an elaborate coded message on the walls, annals and all possible surfaces of the Louvre, in Paris. His death brings the two principal characters together: Sophie, his granddaughter, and Prof. Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbologist, who happens to be in Paris to deliver a lecture. This sets into motion a cat and mouse (and sometimes a mouse turned cat, chasing former fellow mice) game, between the lead pair and all the evil forces that are inevitably unleashed. During this process the English channel is criss-crossed a few times, and you get a free tour of the landmarks on both sides of the channel. For a film that is filmed entirely in Europe, it somehow manages to be visually bland. If you want to see how visually pulsating a movie filmed in Europe could be, rent the DVD of "Munich", and enthrall yourself.
The first half-hour or so of the movie limps by, in spite of the incredulous things happening around, until Paul Bettany's priest literally dashes into the screen and injects a shot of adrenaline to the movie (and the audience). But, during this time period, there is enough Audery Tautou and Audery Tautou-stares on the screen to keep one (speaking for myself) engaged. She is the most effective of the actors in the movie, projecting the right amount of incredulity and awe. Tom Hanks, playing Langdon, is colossaly wasted, and comes close to being invisible. This is partly his fault, but mostly the credit for this goes to the screenwriter and the director. This is deeply unsettling for a Tom Hanks junkie like myself. Tom Hanks is one of the greatest actors of this generation. Whenever I watch his earlier work ( I have seen "You've Got Mail" at least 20 times), I am dumb struck by his effortless talent and spontaneity. But in his recent work ("The Terminal", "Ladykillers"), his performances are not that effective. These roles require enormous skill just to attempt them, which Hanks obviously has. But his recent acting is affected with a touch of self-conciosness that somehow undermines his performances. It is almost like his spectacular star status and the consciousness of his power in Hollywood is catching up with him. I look forward to the day, when he will make me eat my words.
Effective conspiracy theories know how to tread the thin line between "could-be-possible" and "definitely impossible". They throw enough facts and logic at us to make us question certain things without pulling the rug completely. In that aspect, this is a remarkably successful attempt. Though, to escape certain inevitable awkwardness, it answers a lot fewer questions than it poses. In the end, they track down the sole living descendent of the Christ-Magdalene union. At this point my mind kept wandering off to imagine what sort of monumental pressure (procreationaly speaking, that is) this descendent must be under. I already hear that they are going to make another Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" with Tom Hanks returning to update his role. So for the 60 million fans who bought "The Da Vinci Code", and the countless ones who freeloaded on them, keep your engines running.
Viewed in this vein, most of the times, the movie oscillates between being moderately entertaining to reasonably entertaining, with a couple of 10 minute stretches that are certifiably boring. The story (wink! wink!) is, well..., wait..., uhhh... sorry, I cannot complete this sentence with a straight face. What if Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married? What if they had a child? What if their descendent(s) are still with us, today? What if the Catholic church (or a secret cell in it, actually) wants to keep this under wraps and will go to any extends, including directing a creepy looking priest, who is remarkably well built, and looks very close to what Paul Bettany will look like under silver blond hair, to terminate the last of these possible descendents? What if there are an equally zealous group, who are hell-bent on protecting this possible descendent? What if all of the above is true?
The movie starts with the murder of the a museum curator, who before dying, very conveniently, takes time to leave behind an elaborate coded message on the walls, annals and all possible surfaces of the Louvre, in Paris. His death brings the two principal characters together: Sophie, his granddaughter, and Prof. Robert Langdon, a Harvard symbologist, who happens to be in Paris to deliver a lecture. This sets into motion a cat and mouse (and sometimes a mouse turned cat, chasing former fellow mice) game, between the lead pair and all the evil forces that are inevitably unleashed. During this process the English channel is criss-crossed a few times, and you get a free tour of the landmarks on both sides of the channel. For a film that is filmed entirely in Europe, it somehow manages to be visually bland. If you want to see how visually pulsating a movie filmed in Europe could be, rent the DVD of "Munich", and enthrall yourself.
The first half-hour or so of the movie limps by, in spite of the incredulous things happening around, until Paul Bettany's priest literally dashes into the screen and injects a shot of adrenaline to the movie (and the audience). But, during this time period, there is enough Audery Tautou and Audery Tautou-stares on the screen to keep one (speaking for myself) engaged. She is the most effective of the actors in the movie, projecting the right amount of incredulity and awe. Tom Hanks, playing Langdon, is colossaly wasted, and comes close to being invisible. This is partly his fault, but mostly the credit for this goes to the screenwriter and the director. This is deeply unsettling for a Tom Hanks junkie like myself. Tom Hanks is one of the greatest actors of this generation. Whenever I watch his earlier work ( I have seen "You've Got Mail" at least 20 times), I am dumb struck by his effortless talent and spontaneity. But in his recent work ("The Terminal", "Ladykillers"), his performances are not that effective. These roles require enormous skill just to attempt them, which Hanks obviously has. But his recent acting is affected with a touch of self-conciosness that somehow undermines his performances. It is almost like his spectacular star status and the consciousness of his power in Hollywood is catching up with him. I look forward to the day, when he will make me eat my words.
Effective conspiracy theories know how to tread the thin line between "could-be-possible" and "definitely impossible". They throw enough facts and logic at us to make us question certain things without pulling the rug completely. In that aspect, this is a remarkably successful attempt. Though, to escape certain inevitable awkwardness, it answers a lot fewer questions than it poses. In the end, they track down the sole living descendent of the Christ-Magdalene union. At this point my mind kept wandering off to imagine what sort of monumental pressure (procreationaly speaking, that is) this descendent must be under. I already hear that they are going to make another Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" with Tom Hanks returning to update his role. So for the 60 million fans who bought "The Da Vinci Code", and the countless ones who freeloaded on them, keep your engines running.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Mission Impossible III - Movie Review
Summer is here. Take out your wallets (and handbags) and be ready to shell out some serious cash towards the coffers of Hollywood studios. MI-3 officially kicks starts the summer blockbuster season. Blockbusters- meaning that you are expected to leave your sense of logic at home and if possible shave off 10-20 points from your IQ score- for maximum results and enjoyment.
Lets get back to the movie. Like all returning secret agents, agent Ethan Hunt is happily living a normal life, after a self-imposed retirement. And like any self-respecting secret agent, he is of course having an unbelievably great relationship, and when the movie starts, the pair is just about announcing their engagement. Here is a question: How do you prove the alpha-male status of a near-superhero agent? Conventional wisdom dictates that the incredibly good looking hero have a steaming, incredibly romantic relationship with another incredibly good looking member of the opposite sex. Wrong answer. Pair him up with an obviously not-so-goodlooking-heroine and this is supposed to instantly humanize our hero and bestow a romantic-god-everyman status on him. This act of romantic magnanimity, is supposed to reinforce and elevate his alpha-male status.
Once again, I am digressing. This is the wrong approach to view a blockbuster. Now, seriously, lets get back to the movie. Agent Hunt is called back into action, after one of his prodigies is kidnapped. He inevitably tangles himself up with the bad guys, and serious mayhem ensues. The bad guys are really bad, the good guys are relentlessly good, and the heroine is insultingly insufferable. The action sequences are thrilling enough to carry the film and there are enough foreign locations and action set-peices and emotional turmoil in the movie to keep you engaged for two hours.
The bad guy here is Philip Seymour Hoffman. He gives a stunning performance, a performance with such merit, that I started questioning whether the movie deserves such a performance. I haven't seen such evil exude out of any villain. One look at him, you might want to turn in the opposite direction and start running. The movie is supported by a list of first-rate actors: Billy Crudup, Laurence Fishburne & Jonathan Rhys-Myers. The background score is used with delicious playfulness to incite the mood and suggest impending twists, without overexposing the already extremely famous theme music.
Such franchise films (like James Bond films) develop a template which is faithfully followed with enough variation to invite the viewers back to the theaters. Some components of the MI template: (i) rubber masks, which allows the hero and villains to switch identities instantly (this concept is stretched to the limits of human acceptance).(ii) self-destructing video-messages (iii) Tom Cruise suspended by a thin wire, almost hitting the floor (several times in this movie). This is a good action movie, certainly not in the top-tier of action films (like True Lies, The Rock and Face-Off). It could serve as an action appetizer for the impending summer blockbusters (Superman Returns and Pirates of Carribean 2).
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Bhagat Singh and the Roo Baa Rooo Conundrum
I got a very interesting comment from a friend to my review of "Rang De Basanti". I thought the comment needed to be answered fully and thought I should make it a part of the main-section of the blog. So, if you want the full story, please refer to my review of RDB. I have quoted tafosi's comment in part and have added my response to it.
tafosi said:
" You are right in a way because whatever you've said makes absolute sense due to your interpretation. Going by that, you will find no complaints. However, while seeing the movie, after seeing the movie and after reading everything that people have to say about the movie, my opinion on one thing has not changed. For me it is not a political movie. There was no political significance and I would love to ask the director if that was his intention. For me, the film was a character study of passionate, but flawed young men of India. They are the breed who live their life on the extreme, all about being impulsive and let the consequences be damned. In fact, the freedom fighters whom they portray, were themselves flawed. Once again, passionate yet impulsive. Yes the political message does appear to be resounding, but quite honestly it was never about that with me and once I was prepared to overlook that fact, I really liked the movie."
My Response:
I don't know, Ritesh. I won't characterize these characters as passionate and impulsive. These guys are narcissistic, self-involved and their cluelessness can only be topped off by their self-love. I don't think any other thought (apart from themselves) enters their mind- of course before they loose one of their own. I don't sympathize with these guys.
And to compare them to Bhagat Singh is an outrage. Bhagat Singh was a great intellectual and a revolutionary. The methods he used might be debated, but his love towards his fellow men is unquestionable. He was 24 when he was hanged. But if you read anything that he has written, you will appreciate and understand what a complex person he was. I recently found a good site that has accumulated all his correspondences and speeches:
http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/political_workers.htm#top
His now classic booklet "Why I am an atheist" is a soul-searching and bold treatise. If you give one of these documents to the characters in RDB, they wouldn't be able to make head or tail out of it, unless we are able to introduce an item number with Malaika Arora in pitching these ideas to them.
He (Bhagat Singh) and his copatriots were not impulsive- they were deliberate and calculative. When they planted the bomb in the assembly, they went out of their way to make sure that nobody is hurt in the blast and this act was aimed at solely to get their voice heard.
The movie begs to be taken as a political movie. Here are some references the movie throws our way: (i) the saffron-cald activists seen all through the movie, they could have chosen any colour, but the political ambitions of the movie had to prevail. (ii) in the first scence, when Bhagat Singh is lead to his hanging, we see him reading a book by Lenin. So, taking it as a political film, the film fails miserably. If you don't take it as a political film, then, it is even more outrageous - in this case, they are willing to use any historical figure to spice up the proceedings and introduce some fake patriotism.
tafosi said:
" You are right in a way because whatever you've said makes absolute sense due to your interpretation. Going by that, you will find no complaints. However, while seeing the movie, after seeing the movie and after reading everything that people have to say about the movie, my opinion on one thing has not changed. For me it is not a political movie. There was no political significance and I would love to ask the director if that was his intention. For me, the film was a character study of passionate, but flawed young men of India. They are the breed who live their life on the extreme, all about being impulsive and let the consequences be damned. In fact, the freedom fighters whom they portray, were themselves flawed. Once again, passionate yet impulsive. Yes the political message does appear to be resounding, but quite honestly it was never about that with me and once I was prepared to overlook that fact, I really liked the movie."
My Response:
I don't know, Ritesh. I won't characterize these characters as passionate and impulsive. These guys are narcissistic, self-involved and their cluelessness can only be topped off by their self-love. I don't think any other thought (apart from themselves) enters their mind- of course before they loose one of their own. I don't sympathize with these guys.
And to compare them to Bhagat Singh is an outrage. Bhagat Singh was a great intellectual and a revolutionary. The methods he used might be debated, but his love towards his fellow men is unquestionable. He was 24 when he was hanged. But if you read anything that he has written, you will appreciate and understand what a complex person he was. I recently found a good site that has accumulated all his correspondences and speeches:
http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/political_workers.htm#top
His now classic booklet "Why I am an atheist" is a soul-searching and bold treatise. If you give one of these documents to the characters in RDB, they wouldn't be able to make head or tail out of it, unless we are able to introduce an item number with Malaika Arora in pitching these ideas to them.
He (Bhagat Singh) and his copatriots were not impulsive- they were deliberate and calculative. When they planted the bomb in the assembly, they went out of their way to make sure that nobody is hurt in the blast and this act was aimed at solely to get their voice heard.
The movie begs to be taken as a political movie. Here are some references the movie throws our way: (i) the saffron-cald activists seen all through the movie, they could have chosen any colour, but the political ambitions of the movie had to prevail. (ii) in the first scence, when Bhagat Singh is lead to his hanging, we see him reading a book by Lenin. So, taking it as a political film, the film fails miserably. If you don't take it as a political film, then, it is even more outrageous - in this case, they are willing to use any historical figure to spice up the proceedings and introduce some fake patriotism.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Rang De Basanti (Hindi)- Movie Review
Over the last few years, one has come to get used to the "hush-hush" reverence with which Amir Khan's new projects are received. And his latest one had even more "hush-hush" factor because it has another "hush-hush" talent A. R. Rahman associated with it. Once the movie was released, the second round of standing ovation started. Superlatives were exhausted. Blogs were clogged with praise.
RDB is the story (well, if one might call it that) of a group of college students with devil-may-care, I-have-nothing-to-do-with-studying, beer-gustling, high-speed-racing-in-the-dark, designer-cloth-cladding attitude, the likes of whom seem to populate every Bollywood movie these days. There lives are interrupted by a documentary filmmaker (a young British, should I spell it out for you, woman), who is hell-bent on making a documentary based on the lives of Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru, Sukh Dev and Chandrasekhar Azad. Our "devil-may-care" college students are cast in the above mentioned roles. There are extended rehearsal sessions that are filled with generous doses of fun, frolic (so that the filmmakers can wedge enough number of song sequences and slick montages set to peppy music) and small helpings of sentiment and reflection. In the course of which, due to some unrelated, unfortunate happenings, they loose one of their own.
Now, the movies' master plan becomes visible and you can start drawing parallels between pre-interval rehearsal sequences and post-interval on-screen happenings. (I advice you to have a box full of sharpened pencils to help you draw parallels, as the filmmakers are hell bent on pointing every possible one with flash backs and ominous music.)
This movie could have been dismissed as another Bollywood potboiler, from which you are not supposed to expect any better. But the movie begs for our attention. It wants to be more. In the early sections of the movie, there are saffron-clad political activists always in incendiary, clash mode. If you start to expect any ideological debate/revelation, you are in for a big disappointment. The filmmakers want to aim for, well- everything. It is supposed to be a sharp political commentary on modern India. It is supposed to draw parallels with history and inspire the brains out of its audience. The problem is : the movie has the political insight of a twelve year old. The issues it raises and the solutions it directs at us have zero understanding of the complexity that shapes the ground realities.
Satyajit Ray, in one of his interviews, said that "artists are not needed to forward a solution for every problem they tackle. Because, the artist might not know the solution, all he can do is point in the right direction". This movie has no sense of direction, leave alone pointing in the right one. Even when it invokes (which our "devil-may-care" college students enact) the sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, it doesn't engage in any intellectual probing or political, ideological stock-taking. It just uses their lives to orchestrate action sequences and high-speed pursuits in sepia tinted film, while the main characters deliver pseudo-jingoistic diatribe with lot of eye-squinting, eyebrow-arching fake intensity.
The audience reaction to this movie is another case in point. Mostly, the movie is aimed at ( and received by) the new generation of multiplex going youth. The movie seems to have induced a mixture of reverence, inspiration and admiration. The politics the movie discusses is deemed as extremely relevant and pertinent.
There is a belief/theory that a movie can only be as good as its director. Here is a corollary: a movie can only be as good as its audience. If this movie is deemed by its audience as a matter-of-fact portrayal of the current political scenario and its arguments are accepted as cutting-edge political discourse, then one needs to take a closer look at the audiences' political understanding.
This leads to a larger problem facing Indian soceity: the total political disengagement of the current crop of youth. The source of this problem is not hard to find. There is no half-way decent mechanism for the youth of today to engage themselves politically. Universities and schools in India, where there should be ample scope for such political development, have been completely sanitized of any political movements (barring a few government run colleges). On the other hand, it is considered a taboo to have any political affiliations or dialogue on campus and there is a system that inherently discourages such political engagement. A society with such flawed mechanism pays its price: almost total cluelessness of its next generation.
RDB is the story (well, if one might call it that) of a group of college students with devil-may-care, I-have-nothing-to-do-with-studying, beer-gustling, high-speed-racing-in-the-dark, designer-cloth-cladding attitude, the likes of whom seem to populate every Bollywood movie these days. There lives are interrupted by a documentary filmmaker (a young British, should I spell it out for you, woman), who is hell-bent on making a documentary based on the lives of Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru, Sukh Dev and Chandrasekhar Azad. Our "devil-may-care" college students are cast in the above mentioned roles. There are extended rehearsal sessions that are filled with generous doses of fun, frolic (so that the filmmakers can wedge enough number of song sequences and slick montages set to peppy music) and small helpings of sentiment and reflection. In the course of which, due to some unrelated, unfortunate happenings, they loose one of their own.
Now, the movies' master plan becomes visible and you can start drawing parallels between pre-interval rehearsal sequences and post-interval on-screen happenings. (I advice you to have a box full of sharpened pencils to help you draw parallels, as the filmmakers are hell bent on pointing every possible one with flash backs and ominous music.)
This movie could have been dismissed as another Bollywood potboiler, from which you are not supposed to expect any better. But the movie begs for our attention. It wants to be more. In the early sections of the movie, there are saffron-clad political activists always in incendiary, clash mode. If you start to expect any ideological debate/revelation, you are in for a big disappointment. The filmmakers want to aim for, well- everything. It is supposed to be a sharp political commentary on modern India. It is supposed to draw parallels with history and inspire the brains out of its audience. The problem is : the movie has the political insight of a twelve year old. The issues it raises and the solutions it directs at us have zero understanding of the complexity that shapes the ground realities.
Satyajit Ray, in one of his interviews, said that "artists are not needed to forward a solution for every problem they tackle. Because, the artist might not know the solution, all he can do is point in the right direction". This movie has no sense of direction, leave alone pointing in the right one. Even when it invokes (which our "devil-may-care" college students enact) the sacrifice of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, it doesn't engage in any intellectual probing or political, ideological stock-taking. It just uses their lives to orchestrate action sequences and high-speed pursuits in sepia tinted film, while the main characters deliver pseudo-jingoistic diatribe with lot of eye-squinting, eyebrow-arching fake intensity.
The audience reaction to this movie is another case in point. Mostly, the movie is aimed at ( and received by) the new generation of multiplex going youth. The movie seems to have induced a mixture of reverence, inspiration and admiration. The politics the movie discusses is deemed as extremely relevant and pertinent.
There is a belief/theory that a movie can only be as good as its director. Here is a corollary: a movie can only be as good as its audience. If this movie is deemed by its audience as a matter-of-fact portrayal of the current political scenario and its arguments are accepted as cutting-edge political discourse, then one needs to take a closer look at the audiences' political understanding.
This leads to a larger problem facing Indian soceity: the total political disengagement of the current crop of youth. The source of this problem is not hard to find. There is no half-way decent mechanism for the youth of today to engage themselves politically. Universities and schools in India, where there should be ample scope for such political development, have been completely sanitized of any political movements (barring a few government run colleges). On the other hand, it is considered a taboo to have any political affiliations or dialogue on campus and there is a system that inherently discourages such political engagement. A society with such flawed mechanism pays its price: almost total cluelessness of its next generation.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
The New World - Movie Review
"The New World" is the fifth film by Terrence Mallick, in the last four decades. Still, his films rouse great respect and anticipation. George Lucas while receiving his American Film Institute life time achievement award, joked "Next to Terry Mallick I am the person who gets great amount of credit for the least amount of work".
"The New World" is a film that deals with the early European explorers who landed in Jamestown, Virginia in 1609. They are received with a mixture and warmth and suspicion by the native American tribe inhabiting that area. The princess of the tribe, Pocahontas, develops an attraction for the rebellious Captain John Smith (Colin Ferrell). The film starts of as a comparative study between the old world and the new world and the clash of the civilizations. Then it shifts gears into a full-throttled love story. It is actually two films rolled into one.
The movie has a curious structure. It develops relationships and events with snippets of information and montages assembled to perfection. This leads to a shaky start, but once the film settles down it flows with great majesty and poise. This brings us to the question of the pace of the movie. Some moviegoers might complain about the lethargic pace of the movie. Well, if you can just give in to the movie, it sucks you up and never lets go. Certain human emotions and issues become accessible only at a certain pace. It is comparable to meditation- even though it is tough to get into this state, once you are there, the serenity and bliss that one finds there is not possible to experience while you are, say, cardio-training (which is similar to what you feel while watching Fast and the Furious or Independence Day).
What is it about screen presence? How come when certain people come on screen, they just set the screen on fire- all other men, matter and objects seem to just recede mysteriously into oblivion. This is not something one can develop- you either have it or not. Pre-"Baba" Rajni had it, Marylin Monroe had it, Q'Orianka Kilcher, who plays the princess Pocahontas has it. What a mesmerizing presence.
The early part of the movie neatly handles the job of contrasting the two worlds and the men inhabiting the worlds- the key word in this comparison being harmony. Harmony with the world around you, harmony with yourself. It handles the aspect of love in a very tempered way. The first love that ceases Pocahontas is filled with passion and raw emotion- and the world seems impossible without it. But as she walks through life, she figures out that there is another form of love- possibly the more meaningful kind- a love that is informed by the hardships of life and experience- a one that is equally moving and rewarding. Such themes have been dealt with extensively in movies. For example, "Age of Innocence", based on the Edith Wharton novel, deals with almost exaclly the same themes. But, rarely has it been done with such finesse and slightness of touch. It is in the climax that the pace of the movie pays off. The emotional crescendo that the movie achieves at the end is informed and well deserved. Lot of movies try to marry grand themes with personal stories, lot of movies aim for greatness and immortality, only a few get there, and only even fewer get there with such command.
"The New World" is a film that deals with the early European explorers who landed in Jamestown, Virginia in 1609. They are received with a mixture and warmth and suspicion by the native American tribe inhabiting that area. The princess of the tribe, Pocahontas, develops an attraction for the rebellious Captain John Smith (Colin Ferrell). The film starts of as a comparative study between the old world and the new world and the clash of the civilizations. Then it shifts gears into a full-throttled love story. It is actually two films rolled into one.
The movie has a curious structure. It develops relationships and events with snippets of information and montages assembled to perfection. This leads to a shaky start, but once the film settles down it flows with great majesty and poise. This brings us to the question of the pace of the movie. Some moviegoers might complain about the lethargic pace of the movie. Well, if you can just give in to the movie, it sucks you up and never lets go. Certain human emotions and issues become accessible only at a certain pace. It is comparable to meditation- even though it is tough to get into this state, once you are there, the serenity and bliss that one finds there is not possible to experience while you are, say, cardio-training (which is similar to what you feel while watching Fast and the Furious or Independence Day).
What is it about screen presence? How come when certain people come on screen, they just set the screen on fire- all other men, matter and objects seem to just recede mysteriously into oblivion. This is not something one can develop- you either have it or not. Pre-"Baba" Rajni had it, Marylin Monroe had it, Q'Orianka Kilcher, who plays the princess Pocahontas has it. What a mesmerizing presence.
The early part of the movie neatly handles the job of contrasting the two worlds and the men inhabiting the worlds- the key word in this comparison being harmony. Harmony with the world around you, harmony with yourself. It handles the aspect of love in a very tempered way. The first love that ceases Pocahontas is filled with passion and raw emotion- and the world seems impossible without it. But as she walks through life, she figures out that there is another form of love- possibly the more meaningful kind- a love that is informed by the hardships of life and experience- a one that is equally moving and rewarding. Such themes have been dealt with extensively in movies. For example, "Age of Innocence", based on the Edith Wharton novel, deals with almost exaclly the same themes. But, rarely has it been done with such finesse and slightness of touch. It is in the climax that the pace of the movie pays off. The emotional crescendo that the movie achieves at the end is informed and well deserved. Lot of movies try to marry grand themes with personal stories, lot of movies aim for greatness and immortality, only a few get there, and only even fewer get there with such command.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The best of Politics and Prose
This following quote is from A. G. Noorani's review of a diplomatic memoir in Frontline. I have always admired Noorani's scholastic extensiveness and rigour and eagerly look forward to his articles in Frontline every other week. But never I suspected such a master-stroke in political/literary prose. So for the one or two souls who accidentaly land in this e-space- enjoy!
"All memoirs resemble female attire in their uneasy compromise between the desire to reveal and the necessity to conceal. Sir Christopher Meyer's memoirs resemble a particular attire - the bikini. What is revealed is interesting; what is concealed is vital."
The full article can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2227/stories/20060113001007500.htm
"All memoirs resemble female attire in their uneasy compromise between the desire to reveal and the necessity to conceal. Sir Christopher Meyer's memoirs resemble a particular attire - the bikini. What is revealed is interesting; what is concealed is vital."
The full article can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2227/stories/20060113001007500.htm
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Pride and Prejudice - Movie Review
Adapting one of the most beloved romantic novels of all time is strewn with dangerous pitfalls. Any misstep guarantees creative abyss. This adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" not only sidesteps all those pitfalls but succeeds commendably in giving one of the best romantic comedies of the year.
The film launches the proceedings with great verve and energy, and zips past for the first 45 minutes. Traditional English society doesn't give itself to this type of energetic story-telling. Most of the actions, however passionately motivated they may be, are clothed in impeccable, stifling manners and seemingly innocuous utterances. Violence and action in such settings occurs not in the foreground. The movie breaks all these barriers and finds a way to unfold with breakneck pace and urgency. Watch the ballroom scene, where it zooms directly into the action conveying such immediacy and intimacy with the characters.
Another achievement is recreating the period settings. The film has a impeccable sense of space and time. The claustrophobic over decorated interiors of the Bennet's, the expansive country locales, farm houses- all aiding the story-telling, without any intrusion.
Recreating legendary characters is a high-risk, high-payoff endeavor. Kiera Knightley ("Pirates of the Caribbean"), contrary to her previous uninspired work, pulls-off playing Elizabeth Bennet with great aplomb. She has enough range and charisma to support her role. The rub is Matthew McFadyen, who plays Mr. Darcy. Instead of portraying a character who personifies emotional and class conflict, he looks like a moody puppy with under-developed social skills.
The real pleasure is watching the supporting characters in action. Judy Dench, with a hairdo resembling a raging ball of fire, has mastered the art of stealing the movie even if she has minimal screen time. Brenda Blethyn, Rosamund Pike (the bond girl from "Die Another Day"), and Jena Malone- all turn in worthy performances. The most interesting character in the film is Mr. Bennet. Donald Sutherland has the most fun playing this character. He is man who has learned to live with contradictions. He is not very pleased with his wife's actions, but still very much loves her. Watch him in the ballroom scene, in the background, where when his wife stands close to him, he slyly turns towards her and ruffles his nose in the feathers in his wife's hat. This action says volumes. This old man is practical enough to play along with the societal requirements, but has preserved enough of the child in him, to give in to such romantic impulses.
Unlike other romantic comedies, this film doesn't end with the lovers proclaiming their love for each other. It follows the emotional arc of the story to its completion by placing at the end, the scene where Mr. Bennet gives his consent to his daughter's wedding. This scene glows with such understanding, warmth and tenderness, it results in one of the most endearing father-daughter conversations in film.
The film launches the proceedings with great verve and energy, and zips past for the first 45 minutes. Traditional English society doesn't give itself to this type of energetic story-telling. Most of the actions, however passionately motivated they may be, are clothed in impeccable, stifling manners and seemingly innocuous utterances. Violence and action in such settings occurs not in the foreground. The movie breaks all these barriers and finds a way to unfold with breakneck pace and urgency. Watch the ballroom scene, where it zooms directly into the action conveying such immediacy and intimacy with the characters.
Another achievement is recreating the period settings. The film has a impeccable sense of space and time. The claustrophobic over decorated interiors of the Bennet's, the expansive country locales, farm houses- all aiding the story-telling, without any intrusion.
Recreating legendary characters is a high-risk, high-payoff endeavor. Kiera Knightley ("Pirates of the Caribbean"), contrary to her previous uninspired work, pulls-off playing Elizabeth Bennet with great aplomb. She has enough range and charisma to support her role. The rub is Matthew McFadyen, who plays Mr. Darcy. Instead of portraying a character who personifies emotional and class conflict, he looks like a moody puppy with under-developed social skills.
The real pleasure is watching the supporting characters in action. Judy Dench, with a hairdo resembling a raging ball of fire, has mastered the art of stealing the movie even if she has minimal screen time. Brenda Blethyn, Rosamund Pike (the bond girl from "Die Another Day"), and Jena Malone- all turn in worthy performances. The most interesting character in the film is Mr. Bennet. Donald Sutherland has the most fun playing this character. He is man who has learned to live with contradictions. He is not very pleased with his wife's actions, but still very much loves her. Watch him in the ballroom scene, in the background, where when his wife stands close to him, he slyly turns towards her and ruffles his nose in the feathers in his wife's hat. This action says volumes. This old man is practical enough to play along with the societal requirements, but has preserved enough of the child in him, to give in to such romantic impulses.
Unlike other romantic comedies, this film doesn't end with the lovers proclaiming their love for each other. It follows the emotional arc of the story to its completion by placing at the end, the scene where Mr. Bennet gives his consent to his daughter's wedding. This scene glows with such understanding, warmth and tenderness, it results in one of the most endearing father-daughter conversations in film.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Shopgirl - Movie Review
Steve Martin wrote the screenplay of "Shopgirl", based on his novella, and stars in the lead role in the film. This film is an intimate character study involving mainly three characters. The majority of the film involves watching one or two of these characters on screen. A film so sparsely populated with characters and events, packs so much drama, suspense, heartbreak and laughs that could rival films produced with twenty times its budget.
The opening scenes of the film should be prescribed as mandatory coursework in film schools for what a good screenplay should be. Just by stringing three shots together, at the beginning of the film, the screenplay says all that needs to be said about Claire Danes' character. These three shots eliminate what could have been 10 minutes of explanatory screenplay. Mirabelle (Danes) has moved to Los Angeles from Vermont, to start her life afresh. She works in the glove section of a departmental store, lives alone, draws in her spare time and has a non-existent social life. She meets two men in succession, Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) a struggling artist who also works in an audio equipment shop, and Ray Porter (Steve Martin), a millionaire, who made his millions in the computer business, and shuttles between his palatial homes in LA and Seattle, in a private jet.
Her dates with Jeremy are one strange encounter after other. But these experiences are endearing enough for her go through with it. Jeremy is not the smoothest operator in town, but at least he is an original. Then the movie moves into the core relationship in the movie, that between Mirabelle and Ray Porter. Ray is suave, sophisticated, and says and does exactly what is expected of him. It is as though he has pre-programed himself in life, irrespective of whom or what he encounters. The arc of this relationship closely resembles the old guy/ young girl syndrome between Woody Allen and Mariel Hemingway in "Manhattan"- where the old guy is so sure of himself and manipulates the young girl so thoroughly, that at the end, when he realizes that what he had was the real thing, it is too late. He has manipulated himself out of happiness.
The film showcases strong performance from all three lead actors. Steve Martin morphs into his character seamlessly. His performance looks like it has been drained out of all emotions and inflections - this is not lack of effort, it is a calculatedly achieved minimum, a supreme contribution. Even the minor characters are fully drawn and well fleshed out (Mirabelle's father, though he appears in exactly two scenes, stays with us). There are two technical contributions that needs to be mentioned. First, the set design of the exterior of Mirabelle's house- the design of the stairs and positioning of the apartment entrance adds a subtle layer to the proceedings and at the same time suggesting a virtual dead-end for the character. Second, the make-up for Bridgette Wilson-Sampras' character- it silently proclaims the moral disrepute of the character.
The opening scenes of the film should be prescribed as mandatory coursework in film schools for what a good screenplay should be. Just by stringing three shots together, at the beginning of the film, the screenplay says all that needs to be said about Claire Danes' character. These three shots eliminate what could have been 10 minutes of explanatory screenplay. Mirabelle (Danes) has moved to Los Angeles from Vermont, to start her life afresh. She works in the glove section of a departmental store, lives alone, draws in her spare time and has a non-existent social life. She meets two men in succession, Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) a struggling artist who also works in an audio equipment shop, and Ray Porter (Steve Martin), a millionaire, who made his millions in the computer business, and shuttles between his palatial homes in LA and Seattle, in a private jet.
Her dates with Jeremy are one strange encounter after other. But these experiences are endearing enough for her go through with it. Jeremy is not the smoothest operator in town, but at least he is an original. Then the movie moves into the core relationship in the movie, that between Mirabelle and Ray Porter. Ray is suave, sophisticated, and says and does exactly what is expected of him. It is as though he has pre-programed himself in life, irrespective of whom or what he encounters. The arc of this relationship closely resembles the old guy/ young girl syndrome between Woody Allen and Mariel Hemingway in "Manhattan"- where the old guy is so sure of himself and manipulates the young girl so thoroughly, that at the end, when he realizes that what he had was the real thing, it is too late. He has manipulated himself out of happiness.
The film showcases strong performance from all three lead actors. Steve Martin morphs into his character seamlessly. His performance looks like it has been drained out of all emotions and inflections - this is not lack of effort, it is a calculatedly achieved minimum, a supreme contribution. Even the minor characters are fully drawn and well fleshed out (Mirabelle's father, though he appears in exactly two scenes, stays with us). There are two technical contributions that needs to be mentioned. First, the set design of the exterior of Mirabelle's house- the design of the stairs and positioning of the apartment entrance adds a subtle layer to the proceedings and at the same time suggesting a virtual dead-end for the character. Second, the make-up for Bridgette Wilson-Sampras' character- it silently proclaims the moral disrepute of the character.
Monday, October 31, 2005
The Weather Man - Movie Review
John Lennon said "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans". If you write a 104 minute screenplay based on this quote and cast Nicholas Cage to play the lead, you have "The Weather Man".
David Spritz (Nicholas Cage), is a Chicago weatherman, recently separated from his wife and two kids. The film is not interested in giving us the details that caused this estrangement . He is apparently flourishing in his job. He has a subdued, but seemingly normal relationship with his famous father (a Pulitzer prize winning author, played by Michael Caine). But there is something lurking underneath the surface that suggests more trouble than the obvious. There is a 10 second close-up of Cage's face in the beginning of the film, where he is just staring at the camera. Through this shot, he is able to suggest a spiritual turmoil underneath without even twitching a single muscle. Now there is star who knows how to act.
The weatherman's (Cage) problem is that he cannot take himself or his job seriously ("I just read the weather, I don't even predict it"). Groucho Marx crystallized this predicament in his brilliant one-liner "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member". This problem seems to be afflicting movie characters since the Marx brothers' time. In a recently released movie "Elizabethtown", the lead character asks "Don't you think that you are just fooling everyone, and someone is just going to call your bluff someday?". It seems that people have a problem quantifying their lives. They need a reference frame against which they can measure their success. And this reference point is almost always too idealistic and unreachable for real life to measure up to. Cage's character in the movie has the same problem. He measures his life with that to his father's. His father published his first book when he was 28 and got his Pulitzer when he was 31. And anything he does in the weather business seems too trivial to even merit comparison with his father's achievements. He writes novels (bad ones at that) in his free time, tries to be a good father by awkwardly spending more time with his kids. He wants more. Doesn't everybody?
There is a possibility of an excellent movie here. But, what we get is only a reasonably good one. The movie has loads of half-baked, heavy sounding, pseudo-Zen babbling. Well, what better can one expect. To expect insights into life's philosophy from a big-budget Hollywood movie is like turning to Dr. Phil's show to solve domestic discord. The movie works not by giving profound insights, but by providing quirky moments and letting good actors do the rest of the job. The strongest parts are the scenes between Nicholas Cage and Michael Caine. Caine provides a perfect counterfoil for Cage's deadpan stares and constipated expressions. The only thing that is more frustrating than wasted talent is half-utilized talent. When you get a glimpse of what could have been..., well, don't we all want more.
David Spritz (Nicholas Cage), is a Chicago weatherman, recently separated from his wife and two kids. The film is not interested in giving us the details that caused this estrangement . He is apparently flourishing in his job. He has a subdued, but seemingly normal relationship with his famous father (a Pulitzer prize winning author, played by Michael Caine). But there is something lurking underneath the surface that suggests more trouble than the obvious. There is a 10 second close-up of Cage's face in the beginning of the film, where he is just staring at the camera. Through this shot, he is able to suggest a spiritual turmoil underneath without even twitching a single muscle. Now there is star who knows how to act.
The weatherman's (Cage) problem is that he cannot take himself or his job seriously ("I just read the weather, I don't even predict it"). Groucho Marx crystallized this predicament in his brilliant one-liner "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member". This problem seems to be afflicting movie characters since the Marx brothers' time. In a recently released movie "Elizabethtown", the lead character asks "Don't you think that you are just fooling everyone, and someone is just going to call your bluff someday?". It seems that people have a problem quantifying their lives. They need a reference frame against which they can measure their success. And this reference point is almost always too idealistic and unreachable for real life to measure up to. Cage's character in the movie has the same problem. He measures his life with that to his father's. His father published his first book when he was 28 and got his Pulitzer when he was 31. And anything he does in the weather business seems too trivial to even merit comparison with his father's achievements. He writes novels (bad ones at that) in his free time, tries to be a good father by awkwardly spending more time with his kids. He wants more. Doesn't everybody?
There is a possibility of an excellent movie here. But, what we get is only a reasonably good one. The movie has loads of half-baked, heavy sounding, pseudo-Zen babbling. Well, what better can one expect. To expect insights into life's philosophy from a big-budget Hollywood movie is like turning to Dr. Phil's show to solve domestic discord. The movie works not by giving profound insights, but by providing quirky moments and letting good actors do the rest of the job. The strongest parts are the scenes between Nicholas Cage and Michael Caine. Caine provides a perfect counterfoil for Cage's deadpan stares and constipated expressions. The only thing that is more frustrating than wasted talent is half-utilized talent. When you get a glimpse of what could have been..., well, don't we all want more.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
North Country - Movie Review
When complex social problems are fictionalized in film, mostly they are reduced to simplistic moral tales which end up glorifying an individuals' (mostly a highly paid Hollywood star) triumph over the forces of evil. Reality proves otherwise. Any meaningful and lasting change is brought about by broad based efforts of numerous people, where some individuals play an instrumental role. A change for better is society's triumph over itself.
"North Country" deals with the issue of sexual harassment faced by the women working in a steel mine in northern Minnesota. Sexual harassment not just by their male co-workers, but by the entire community that consists of the mine workers and their families. In doing so, it underlines a key fact - such acts of gender-prejudice is not perpetrated by men alone, as much as being perpetrated by the society as a whole. Centuries of marginalization of women is brutally rationalized by one simple sentence by Sissy Spacek's character "kids are your purpose, the Father brings home the money"
Josey Aimes (Charlize Theron) flees an abusive relationship, with two kids in tow, to move in with her parents. She tries out odd jobs before somebody mentions that she could make 6 times as much by working in the steel mine. Her father, who has worked in the mine for the majority of his life, doesn't hide his displeasure at Josey's decision - "women just don't do such things". To start off, she is subjected to a far more intrusive medical exam than one would expect. Then, the torture starts-some outrageous acts passed off as fun, some explicit comments, actions, some implicit gestures. All aimed at sending one message - women have no business doing a man's job.
The women respond to these situations with whatever means accessible to them. But most of the recourses are fruitless, and taking an extreme step might put their jobs at risk. The movie deals with the various facets of this problem in the most convincing of ways. The filmmakers are very ambitious to dive into the depths of this problem. This over-ambition almost derails the movie in the final act.
Charlize Theron returns with a strong performance after her oscar-winning role in "Monster" The movie parades an army of Hollywood A-list actors in supporting roles, like Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sissy Spasek, and Sean Bean. The court room scenes are anchored in hard-boiled realism with the help of pitch perfect performances from the defense lawyer (Linda Emond) and the judge (John Aylward). The conversation between the defense lawyer and the President of the mining company is a brilliantly staged shadow fight of thinly veiled professional intimidation and psychological one-upmanship.
The stunning landscape of rural Minnesota in winter provides the backdrop for the human drama much like a David Lean film, where the epic settings provide a perfect backdrop for a personal story. This is done with no uncertain help from the cinematographer Chris Menges. The director is Nikki Caro, whose previous venture was the much loved "Whale Rider". With this movie she proves that she is one of the most promising directors to watch out for.
Note: Previously published in www.dailycampus.com
"North Country" deals with the issue of sexual harassment faced by the women working in a steel mine in northern Minnesota. Sexual harassment not just by their male co-workers, but by the entire community that consists of the mine workers and their families. In doing so, it underlines a key fact - such acts of gender-prejudice is not perpetrated by men alone, as much as being perpetrated by the society as a whole. Centuries of marginalization of women is brutally rationalized by one simple sentence by Sissy Spacek's character "kids are your purpose, the Father brings home the money"
Josey Aimes (Charlize Theron) flees an abusive relationship, with two kids in tow, to move in with her parents. She tries out odd jobs before somebody mentions that she could make 6 times as much by working in the steel mine. Her father, who has worked in the mine for the majority of his life, doesn't hide his displeasure at Josey's decision - "women just don't do such things". To start off, she is subjected to a far more intrusive medical exam than one would expect. Then, the torture starts-some outrageous acts passed off as fun, some explicit comments, actions, some implicit gestures. All aimed at sending one message - women have no business doing a man's job.
The women respond to these situations with whatever means accessible to them. But most of the recourses are fruitless, and taking an extreme step might put their jobs at risk. The movie deals with the various facets of this problem in the most convincing of ways. The filmmakers are very ambitious to dive into the depths of this problem. This over-ambition almost derails the movie in the final act.
Charlize Theron returns with a strong performance after her oscar-winning role in "Monster" The movie parades an army of Hollywood A-list actors in supporting roles, like Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, Sissy Spasek, and Sean Bean. The court room scenes are anchored in hard-boiled realism with the help of pitch perfect performances from the defense lawyer (Linda Emond) and the judge (John Aylward). The conversation between the defense lawyer and the President of the mining company is a brilliantly staged shadow fight of thinly veiled professional intimidation and psychological one-upmanship.
The stunning landscape of rural Minnesota in winter provides the backdrop for the human drama much like a David Lean film, where the epic settings provide a perfect backdrop for a personal story. This is done with no uncertain help from the cinematographer Chris Menges. The director is Nikki Caro, whose previous venture was the much loved "Whale Rider". With this movie she proves that she is one of the most promising directors to watch out for.
Note: Previously published in www.dailycampus.com
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Good Night and Good Luck - Movie Review
While watching "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", the first film directed by George Clooney, one was able to see glimpses of a good director, showing modest promise. Clooney has come a long way with "Good Night and Good Luck"- his second attempt. Good Night and Good Luck is one of the most gripping, terse 90 minutes I have ever spent before a talking screen. One of the important and the most difficult contributions a director makes to the film is setting and implementing its tone. This film is an achievement of tone and mood.
The movie is based on the legendary face-off between Ed Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy over the actions of House committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA) in 1954. Exploiting the cold war hysteria, Sen. McCarthy launched a witchhunt in the early fifties which was aimed at branding and isolating left-leaning intellectuals and artists as communists. This unleashed a reign of terror in which artists such as Charlie Chaplin and Orsen Welles among numerous others were black-listed as communists. There was a growing restlessness among the leading intellectuals and artists against this terror-regime and the methods used to brand people.
Ed Morrow was the host of the weekly news program "See it Now", in which along with his producer Fred Friendly (played by George Clooney), they brought the methods used by Sen.McCarthy and the HCUA under fire. This led to a protracted battle in the media which galvanized the anti-McCarthy sentiments in the American society, which eventually led to the downfall of McCarthy and the US Senate passing a censure motion condemning his conduct by 67 votes to 22.
David Stratharin brings Ed Murrow to life through an inward looking performance of steely resolve. A large part of the movie involves close-ups of his face and his reactions. And his performance serves the film in the best possible way, unobtrusively. The only casting choice which doesn't serve the movie very well is George Clooney himself. At least for me, it was mildly unpalatable to see Clooney in anything less than a leading, larger than life role. And more so to see him play second fiddle to Ed Murrow's character was bit of a reach for me. But, that is only a minor aberration in this genuine achievement.
The movie provides a good window of the inside operations of a television network in the 50's and the argument between the president of CBS and Murrow and Friendly sounds almost innocent in todays standards, considering the role of (or the lack of it) TV networks in the equation of news vs. entertainment currently. This movie joins the illustrious list of movies that expose the inner workings of TV networks such as "Network" and "Broadcast News"
When Murrow and Friendly decide to take on Sen. McCarthy, the TV network (CBS) and the advertisers back-off and Murrow and Friendly are forced to spend $1,500 of their own money to promote the program in newspapers. The scene showing the airing of this live episode is a deliciously orchestrated orgy of great cinematography and editing. At the end of the program, after Ed Morrow signs off with his trademark "Good Night and Good Luck", there is the wonderful scene in which everybody's attention turns to the telephone expecting adverse feedback. The deafening silence that permeates the theater during this wait is one of the those true moments that only cinema can manufacture, and is a testament for what good cinema can achieve.
Note: More information on McCarthyism can be obtained from
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
The movie is based on the legendary face-off between Ed Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy over the actions of House committee on UnAmerican Activities (HCUA) in 1954. Exploiting the cold war hysteria, Sen. McCarthy launched a witchhunt in the early fifties which was aimed at branding and isolating left-leaning intellectuals and artists as communists. This unleashed a reign of terror in which artists such as Charlie Chaplin and Orsen Welles among numerous others were black-listed as communists. There was a growing restlessness among the leading intellectuals and artists against this terror-regime and the methods used to brand people.
Ed Morrow was the host of the weekly news program "See it Now", in which along with his producer Fred Friendly (played by George Clooney), they brought the methods used by Sen.McCarthy and the HCUA under fire. This led to a protracted battle in the media which galvanized the anti-McCarthy sentiments in the American society, which eventually led to the downfall of McCarthy and the US Senate passing a censure motion condemning his conduct by 67 votes to 22.
David Stratharin brings Ed Murrow to life through an inward looking performance of steely resolve. A large part of the movie involves close-ups of his face and his reactions. And his performance serves the film in the best possible way, unobtrusively. The only casting choice which doesn't serve the movie very well is George Clooney himself. At least for me, it was mildly unpalatable to see Clooney in anything less than a leading, larger than life role. And more so to see him play second fiddle to Ed Murrow's character was bit of a reach for me. But, that is only a minor aberration in this genuine achievement.
The movie provides a good window of the inside operations of a television network in the 50's and the argument between the president of CBS and Murrow and Friendly sounds almost innocent in todays standards, considering the role of (or the lack of it) TV networks in the equation of news vs. entertainment currently. This movie joins the illustrious list of movies that expose the inner workings of TV networks such as "Network" and "Broadcast News"
When Murrow and Friendly decide to take on Sen. McCarthy, the TV network (CBS) and the advertisers back-off and Murrow and Friendly are forced to spend $1,500 of their own money to promote the program in newspapers. The scene showing the airing of this live episode is a deliciously orchestrated orgy of great cinematography and editing. At the end of the program, after Ed Morrow signs off with his trademark "Good Night and Good Luck", there is the wonderful scene in which everybody's attention turns to the telephone expecting adverse feedback. The deafening silence that permeates the theater during this wait is one of the those true moments that only cinema can manufacture, and is a testament for what good cinema can achieve.
Note: More information on McCarthyism can be obtained from
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Oh No! I have a blog!
I still don't know who is going to be interested in reading some silent ramblings of an unenamoured mind. I guess, I write- so it exists. Inspired after visiting a blog of a friend of mine (sbhaskar.blogspot.com), and as a convenient sidetrip to avoid attending to work, I created this blog finally. Once again, the merit of writing weblogs has escaped me so far- and hope to find a good reason to continue doing this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)