Bollywood Talk

Now I am in Mexico for awhile

2011-09-12T22:59:00.000-04:00

I am temporarily living in Merida, Mexico. It will be very hard to find my Bollywood movies but I still follow Bollywood in the news and my latest find is that Amitabh Bachchan will guest star in a remake of "The Great Gatsby" for his friend, director, Baz Luhmann. Plus, looks like I will miss the opening of SRK's Ra1.

My Name is Khan: Featuring a Cast of Thousands (extras)

2010-02-18T00:27:00.001-05:00

This movie illustrates why I love Bollywood movies. They make such an effort to express the emotions in complex situations and make me want to know more.

I am going to talk about the movie’s highlights and not the whole story because I think that would give too much away.

SRK’s onscreen entrance was not as dramatic as his entrances have been in the past; this set the tone for the movie. The opening scenes at airport security certainly recalled SRK’s 2009 detainment at a U.S. airport. The scenes were humiliating.

Gradually, SRK’s character, Rizwan Khan, develops as you see him mutter and roll small rocks in his hand repetitively. While security’s check on Khan showed no security flags, they ask him where he is going. “I am going to meet the President of the U.S”, Khan replies. He tells the officers, “I want to tell the President, My Name is Khan and I am not a terrorist.” The officers are not amused.

As Khan’s trip takes him across the U.S., he keeps a diary and the audience learns about his life, his marriage and the sad fallout of the 9/11 in the backlash against innocent Indians, particularly Muslims.There are many scenes with diverse populations that it is truly a cast of thousands.

Tanay Chheda, the young actor from Slumdog Millionaire, plays the young Khan. Khan’s mother (Zarina Wahab) treats Khan with love and acceptance and she finds ways to help her son. She coerces an educated man to tutor her son when Rizwan has trouble in school because of his autism.

During the 1983 riots in India when Hindus attacked Muslims, Khan’s mother taught her son that Hindus and Muslims were not different, telling him that there were only two kinds of people, good and bad. Rizwan becomes a repairman. He is good with mechanical things and can fix almost anything.

His brother, Zahir (Jimmy Shergill) is jealous of his mother’s attention to Rizwan and when Zahir goes off to college in the U.S., he stays there after graduation and his mother never gets to meet his wife. After their mother dies, Zahir brings Rizwan to the U.S. to live with his family in San Francisco. Zahir sells herbal beauty products and gives Rizwan a job as a door-to-door salesman.

Rizwan has a highly functional form of autism called Asperger’s Syndrome. Eventually, you get used to his odd posture, his canted head, his avoidance of looking directly at people, his phobias, his habit of repetitive language and his disjointed conversations. You see his intelligence, his sense of humor, his honesty, his spirituality, and his attempts at socialization. During his travels as a salesman, he encounters Mandira (Kajol), a hair stylist. Mandira is Hindu and Khan is Muslim. Though Rizwan is awkward, he manages to sell her shop some of his products.

Rizwan falls in love with Mandira and finds ways to hang around her. Mandira is intrigued by Rizwan but does not show any real interest in him. Rizwan lets Mandira know he is aware that she is a divorced, single mother. Rizwan is not romantic, the closest he comes is when he wears a sweater in the color that Mandira likes. At one point, he asks her to marry him but she tries to laugh it off. They make a bet, she will marry Rizwan if he can show her something about San Francisco she has not seen. Over time, after many attempts, Rizwan finds something Mandira has not seen and they marry. Sam, Mandira’s young son, reluctantly accepts Rizwan as his step-father then more like a brother.

After 9/11 occurs, while the Khans’ entire community is saddened by events and you see scenes of shared community grief, soon Indians are being harassed and attacked. These scenes give you a sense of what is like for Muslims and Indians from children to shopkeepers, to professionals post 9/11.

Rizwan has a difficult time with emotion but he voices expressions of concern and love when he states that Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, said “the death of one innocent is equal to the death of humanity.” Rizwan and Mandira share a song, “We Shall Overcome” which becomes the movie’s theme.

A tragedy strikes the Khan family... and out of anger and fear, Mandira sends Rizwan away. In her anger, she tells him to go to the President of the U.S. and tell him, “My Name is Khan and I am not a Terrorist.” The movie is about Khan’s travels in his attempt to do as his wife asked. The story then becomes one of separation and forgiveness.

There many touching scenes like when Khan prays outside a bus stop. Khan has been tracking the President’s itinerary and follows him in his attempts to meet him. Along the way, he is helped by other people and he helps others as well. Also, Khan encounters ugly situations as well. Try to imagine what various disasters seem like to a person with autism.

I knew the movie would be sad. It made me cry and I don’t like to cry in public. There were many subtle and not-so-subtle character studies as various characters and scenes portray moments in the U.S.’s recent history.

Even though I felt, again, that many scenes from several western movies were dropped into this movie, maybe I should look at them as tributes like they are in Bollywood movies. Because the storyline and acting exceeded any cliche is why I can forgive them.

Oh and ok, except for a few familiar gestures, I forgot that Rizwan was SRK; I think that is called acting.

It will be interesting to see what future movie ideas Shah Rukh Khan and Red Chilies Entertainment choose to pursue. My Name is Khan is a modern, realistic, well-researched movie. It has a mature storyline with many fully developed characters.

Since I began watching Bollywood movies, I have watched how a movie industry has struggled to define its changing audiences, and struggled to grow technologically and thematically such as with the ongoing debates over Bollywood’s traditional use of song-and-dance routines. While I support Bollywood’s ever-changing search for a new magic formula, my personal hope is that there will always be “masala” movies from Bollywood.

Director: Karan Johar

Cinematography: Ravi K. Chandran

Art: Sharmishta Roy

Screenplay: Shibani Bathija

Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Kajol, Zarina Wahab, Jimmy Shergill, Tanay Chheda, Parvin Dabas and more.

3 Idiots is Full of Laughter

2010-02-03T13:55:00.001-05:00

I have been talking about Bollywood ever since I saw Asoka in 2002. I have induced some family and friends to see various Bollywood movies, so it was great to share watching 3 Idiots with a friend. Being a screenwriter, she is attentive to details, plot and characterization, so it was especially nice that she enjoyed the movie. We laughed out loud.

Students starting engineering school and their orientation and hazing open the movie. One student Rancho (Aamir Khan) is different from the others as seen in his refusal to bow to senior students pressure during hazing with a chemistry trick to thwart the process. Hari (Sharman Joshi) and Farhan Qureshi (Madhavan) and Rancho become friends and the movie follows their adventures.

The school administrator, Viru Sahastrabudhhe (Boman Irani) creates an tense atmosphere following his motto, “Compete or die.” Boman Irani is both comical and frightening as the aging administrator.

Humorous scenes of campus life are at times disrupted by serious scenes like when a student succumbs to the pressure of making good grades and long hours of studying by choosing to commit suicide.

The administrator holds up an ink pen and tells the new class, I have been waiting 32 years for that exceptional student to pass along this pen.

Rancho is different in the way he looks at the world. He challenges convention and asks questions. His favorite saying is “All is well.”

Many of the musical interludes are delightful. The shower scene musical number is funny and light-hearted. Surprisingly, some music lyrics are in English.

Some of the students’ antics include crashing a wedding which is more than a funny scene because new characters are introduced and added to the storyline such as when Rancho points out to a woman, Pia, (Kareena Kapoor) who he thinks is the bride that her fiance is more concerned about money than people.

The end of semester ceremonies include a student speech which Rancho has altered to make it funny but the student, Chatur Ramalingam (Omi Vaidya), remembers the joke and is determined to retaliate.

As the students separate to go their own way, they vow to meet again in the future at the same place and same time.

When the Hari, Farhan, and Chatur meet again, Rancho has not appeared, so they go in search of him and find another story along the way.

In many instances, I felt I was seeing whole scenes from western movies dropped into this movie. With Rancho’s character I felt I was seeing Good Will Hunting, The Wedding Crashers, The Paper Chase, and Patch Adams. The emergency baby delivery scene was like watching Apollo 13. This movie was truly delightful. But, while movies often represent universal experiences, movies also illustrate unique perspectives and that is what I felt was missing. Or, in another way, Bollywood is reflecting the westernization of India’s culture.

The movie is well-acted with beautiful and brightly colored cinematography, and delightful choreography. I enjoyed seeing the reunion of the Rang De Basanti actors, Aamir Khan, Sharman Joshi, and Madhavan.

This is the first time I thought Aamir Khan appeared to enjoy himself.

Shah Rukh Khan Detained at Newark Airport

2009-08-23T16:52:00.009-04:00

News of SRK's detention has made the news in the US and in India and a lot of people are mad. Some accuse SRK pulling this as a stunt to promote his film, My Name is Khan. Others are angry at the US for being ignorant and xenophobic. I think there is a simpler answer.

When I read that SRK's film, My Name is Khan, was being picked up by Fox Star Studios. as the distributor, I thought, "Uh Oh," that may not be a good thing. While it is good news that an "American" company selected an Indian film to distribute, that did not necessarily mean they would be able to do it adequately or with respect for the genre.

After reading several articles about SRK's detention, while others blamed SRK or his company for pulling a stunt, it is more likely that Fox Star Studios, which is financing and distributing the film, would pull a stunt like this. Fox Star Studios' parent company, News Corporation, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, has been known to distort the news. Fox News, Inc. which is also owned by Murdoch has been documented countless times for spreading lies and rumors. See Media Matters.org or Buzzflash.com for examples.

Murdoch's companies make money spreading lies and rumors. A stunt like putting SRK's name on a suspected terrorist list in America without telling SRK would be just the kind of thing an organization run by Murdoch would do.

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-02-05T20:23:00.028-05:00

Of course, I had to see Slumdog Millionaire. The buzz is enormous. I try to avoid reading reviews of movies I plan to write about but it was hard with Slumdog Millionaire. I saw the movie at the E Street Cinema in Washington, DC on Super Bowl Tuesday night. By the time, I watched the movie, I had seen the Golden Globe Awards and heard some of the criticism of the movie.

You are introduced to the main character, Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), as a contestant on the Indian "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" He has gained local fame by answering several questions correctly as the jackpot increases. TV host, Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor) is getting increasingly irritated by the young man's run of luck. At the end of the segment, Jamal is arrested and taken to a police station where he is tortured. Prem believes Jamal is cheating and wants his confession. But, as the torture continues, Jamal does not confess. He is adamant that he knew the answers. So, the story unfolds in flashbacks to his childhood where his various experiences introduce him to varied bits of trivia.

Many of the flashbacks are shot in the vast Mumbai slums. Rapid action scenes of young Jamal and his brother, Salim, follow their youthful exploits including losing their mother in a religious riot as Hindus attack and burn parts of the slum where many Muslims live. After losing their mother, the boys find a variety of ways to survive. They serve tea on trains until they are thrown off. They beg. They pick trash. Mixed in are a few days in a classroom. Then a bus arrives and carts them off to a phony orphanage camp. At first, they are happy because they get fed. But, then they must beg for the leader, Maman, much like Oliver in Oliver Twist. Then, Salim, Jamal's brother witnesses Maman mutilate one of the children. He rushes his brother and their new found friend Latika out of the camp but only Jamal and Salim escape.

Jamal had fallen in love with Latika and never forgot her as he and Salim continue their efforts to survive. Bits of humor flit through the scenes such as when the boys set up some American tourists as they tour the slum with their cameras. While they are shooting, the boys' cohorts strip the car. When the tourists return, the young boys dash off saying, "You wanted to see the real India, well this is it."

For me the turning point in the story is while searching for Latika, Salim and Jamal encounter Maman and face capture again. Salim shots Maman and only the boys escape again. Jamal had learned that Maman was using Latika to attract older men.

As the flashbacks return to Jamal in the contestant's seat facing the game show host, you can feel his discomfort and his resilience.

As a young man, Jamal had become a chai wallah (tea assistant) in a call center. There he finds his brother's phone number and mets Salim again. Salim has become a criminal. But, Salim leads Jamal to Latika. She had become the mistress of a crime boss. Jamal tries to convince her to leave him. She asks what will we live on. He says, "love." He learns she likes the show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" because it is escapism for her.

Jamal applies to become a contestant on the show because he believes Latika will see him.

Prem accepts the police's belief that Jamal is not cheating and the show continues. Now, there is an undercurrent of tension between the two.

Many think this movie is like a Bollywood movie. In some ways it is and in some ways it is not. The story is not new. Orphaned brothers who struggle to survive and take divergent paths in adulthood is a common Bollywood theme. Conflict between the protagonists is the crux of the movie where the bad brother eventually saves the good brother from harm. A similar Bollywood movie Ram Janne, features two protagonists who are not brothers, they are orphans who help each other survive. One orphan, Ram Janne, becomes a criminal, the other, Muli, runs an orphanage.

Everyone got so excited about the dance number at the end of the movie. In a real Bollywood movie, there are as many as six song and dance numbers sprinkled throughout the story.

In many Bollywood movies, I am left with questions, the same holds true with Slumdog Millionaire. I wondered what made the two boys different since they had similar experiences. Also, I thought that Salim's character was not shown in a favorable light. He was the older brother and had protected Jamal many many times. When faced with an adult criminal, Maman, Salim took the only choice he felt he had when he killed him. I felt that Salim could have taken another path in life rather than the one the movie portrayed.

Also, I never felt that the adult Latika's character reflected the abuse, loneliness, dreariness of her life experiences. It made the reunion with Jamal seem shallow.

The child actors who were in most of the movie really deserve alot more credit than they got at any of the awards ceremonies or film festivals. They were the real stars.

There is controversy over how the children were treated. Did they get paid enough? How did acting in the movie affect their lives? These are the questions people are asking of the movie producers and directors. The producers did pay the children more than three times an adult wages, created a trust fund for them when they completed school, and found a school for the children and are paying for their education.

Poverty is a reality worldwide. Sadly, the lives of these children will probably not change much in the future.

Sadly, I believe most of the controversy over Slumdog Millionaire is based on jealousy. Indians are angry that it was not a Bollywood movie that is making such news but a movie made by an outsider. Bollywood movies often contain violence and scenes of poverty and criminality. On the positive side, let's hope that the world will now take an interest in Bollywood movies.

Director: Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan

Producer: Christian Colson

Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy based on novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup

Cast: Jamal Mallik, Prem Kumar, Freida Pinto, Irrfan Khan, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (young Salim), Ayush Mahesh Khedekar (young Jamal), Rubiana Ali (young Latika) and more.

Rab Ne Bana Jodi

2008-12-17T16:41:00.017-05:00

My first Bollywood movie in over a year!

It was fortunate that the movie, Rab Ne Bana Jodi, was playing at the Union Station theaters in Washington, DC. They were much easier to reach than Laurel, Maryland or Virginia theaters. But, the movie was not advertised well at this location, so very few people came to the showing on a Tuesday night.

During the movie previews, I was happy to see that Hrithik Rosan has a new movie, New York, coming out. But, I was disappointed in Aamir Khan's new release, Ghajini, because its storyline looks so much like Momento.

My first reaction to Rab Ne Bana Jodi was-- Shah Rukh Khan with a mustache? SRK's character, Surinder, was a studious, office worker at Punjab Power. SRK's co-star, Anushka Sharma, played Taani, the daughter of an old friend of Surinder. They met briefly during her wedding celebrations.

Rapidly the movie introduces the story's central conflict. Taani's fiancee is killed in an accident on the eve of their wedding.

This tragedy is too much for Taani's father. He has a heart attack and from his hospital bed, he asks Surinder to marry Taani and also asks Taani to accept Surinder as her husband. Both accept the offer but for different reasons. Surinder has fallen in love with Taani and in Taani's grief she agrees to please her father.

Surinder's character shows his sweetness, consideration and devotion when he brings Taani, now his wife, home. He gives her his bedroom while he sleeps in the attic. He makes no demands on her.

Surinder goes to work everyday and Taani faithfully cleans the house and prepares his meals.

Soon Surinder's friends finds out about his marriage and complicate his life. Surinder's best friend learns that Surinder loves Taani but she says she can not return his love.

Soon, Taani seeks a relief from her boredom and asks Surinder if she can take dancing lessons. He agrees.

Surinder's friend, Bobby, helps Surinder transform himself into Raj, a happy-g0-lucky guy who joins Taani's dancing class. Eventually, the two become partners. At first, Taani keeps the relationship formal but because Surinder as Raj wants to see Taani happy, he jokes with her and coaxes her to join him in other activities. Soon, they are spending a great deal of time together.

When Surinder comes home late from the office, he claims he has a lot of work and will be late alot. Taani doesn't seem to care.

In his attempt to reach out to Taani as himself, Surinder takes her to the movies. There the movie itself becomes a movie within a movie. In some cases, Taani sees Raj on screen talking to her. Other times, Taani sees Raj dancing in elaborate routines with a bevy of beauties including some familiar faces.

It was during these scenes, I missed a large audience because I was the only one clapping or cheering when I recognized some of SRK's former co-stars. The choreography was elegant and extravagant much like western movies old musicals.

In real life, Surinder as Raj struggles to act cool, even his t-shirt announces, "Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime." It's funny to see Surinder try to overcome his clumsiness.

All of Surinder's misguided efforts are to make Taani happy but how can a massive deception like this achieve that goal? When in the end, Taani falls in love with Raj but not Surinder.

How the movie resolves this dilemma does not satisfy me. While I appreciated the sentiment that love happens when you see "god" in the other person.

Surinder was willing to give Taani up to a fantasy to make her happy. Slowly, Taani begins to realize how much Surinder has done for her.

I don't like being a critic. Who am I? I've never put a pen to paper to write a screenplay. I would never get in front of a camera. So what do I say when I liked 98% of the movie, yet wonder about the 2%? One thing is while Anushka is an attractive capable actress, I did not feel any chemistry between her and SRK.

There was something reminiscent about this movie. While most movies are a rehash of the same stories over and over. I felt that this movie took a truly sensitive subject and failed to let the main characters connect in a real way.

While the movie told the story of one man's love in a simple manner, winning his love's heart was complicated, confusing, and deceptive.

In a way, it was a man's movie that said, "love me as I am." In another way, it was a woman's movie that said, "Love me as no one else can."

While Taani had little opportunity to get to know her groom before their marriage and she made little opportunity after. He was a quiet, shy, introverted, good-hearted person. She had been a loving, happy, outgoing person. They deceived each other.

Yet, when a man loves a woman, he tries at times to be more than he is, he tries to be something she can admire. He explores the brave, poetic and romantic in himself.

I wish I could have seen her explore her role as a wife and a woman in a marriage.

Aditya Chopra: Director, writer, producer
Cinematography: Ravi K. Chandran
Choreography: Shiamak Davar, Raibhavi Merchant
Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Anushka Sharma and more

Lage Raho Munna Bhai

2007-10-24T18:31:00.000-04:00

This kind of movie happens once in a lifetime. Before Lage Raho Munna Bhai there was Munna Bhai MBBS, a comedy about a “goon” who pretends to be a doctor to impress his parents. It was an Indian “Patch Adams.” When I went to see Lage Raho Munna Bhai, I was expecting a second-rate takeoff of the first Munna Bhai instead it was a completely new story. Several of the actri play the same characters such as Sanjay Dutt and Arshad Warsi who play Munna Bhai and Circuit, respectively, and other actri play new characters such as Boman Irani, who played the uptight hospital administrator in Munna Bhai MBBS, plays Lucky in Lage Raho Munna Bhai. I was touched by the fact the Director and Producer choose to bring back many of the secondary characters such as Jimmy Shergill.

In essence, Lage Raho Munna Bhai is about a hoodlum, Murli Prasad Sharma, known as Munna Bhai, who is in love with Jhanvi, a popular radio talk show host, played by Vidya Balan. He listens to her show every morning. When she holds a Mahatma Ghandi quiz for her listeners, Murli wants to win the contest in order to meet her. His sidekick, Circuit, decides to “kidnap” Ghandi experts to help him answer the questions. After winning the contest and meeting Jhanvi, he seeks to impress her by pretending to be a history professor. Then he has only five days to study about Ghandi before he gives a lecture to an elderly group of men abandoned by their children who reside in Jhanvi’s home.

A psychological phenomena moves the story forward and more complications among various stories become entwined. Lucky, a real estate developer, seeks to buy Jhanvi’s home as a wedding gift for, his daughter, Simran’s in-laws. To do this, he bribes a government official to prevent Jhanvi from renewing her lease, so he can grab the house. When Lucky realizes Munna’s love interest is Jhanvi, he treats Munna, Jhanvi and her residents to a vacation in Goa. Jhanvi’s residents provide their own twists to the story.

Munna is unable to express his love for Jhanvi because he has lied to her about himself. The trip is cut short when Jhanvi finds out her belongings are out on the street and her home now belongs to Lucky.

By this time, Munna and Jhanvi have created a radio show about Ghandi where Munna addresses callers’ problems with Ghandisms with a little help from Babu. Now, Munna has a bigger problem. How will he get Jhanvi’s home back?

The remainder of the story deals with Munna’s attempts to persuade Lucky to return Jhanvi’s home. He asks callers to send Lucky flowers in hopes he will “get well.” Jhanvi and her residents camp out on the sidewalk in front of Lucky’s home to protest the loss of their home. After Lucky lies about his daughter’s birth time to her future father-in-law because he is superstitious, Simran played by Diya Mirza learns of her father lies and deceptions. She runs away from the wedding and grabs a taxi ride driven by Victor D’Souza (Jimmy Shergill). Victor intervenes and calls Munna for advice. After the bride returns to the wedding and tells her in-laws the truth about her birth time, the father-in-law rejects her upon hearing the truth, Munna steps in to convince him that her courage and truth is more real than the astrologer’s predictions.

The ending, which resolved all the conflicts, did not conclude as abruptly as many Bollywood movies do; it was a pleasant surprise. This movie is delicious and mischievous.

What makes this movie exceptional besides the fact the story has a fresh approach is that it is a wonderful composition of comedy, drama, romance and inspiration. Both the Director, Rajkumar Hirani, and Producer, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, created a well-crafted movie.

The settings are a kick, like Munna’s hangout in the wash area where Munna and Circuit work out their schemes. Here they imagine Munna’s romance with Jhanvi in colorful, hysterical, funny and sweet visions of wedding ceremonies and dating scenes.

There are countless funny scenes. I still get a kick out of the opening parking lot vignette. Other funny and charming scenes include Munna studying in the library or the birthday party which is a stitch, a riot, over-the-top and the wedding songs in Goa are delightful. Others include where a neighbor spits tobacco juice on his neighbor’s apartment outside wall, or when a pensioner, who has been denied his pension for lack of money to pay a bribe, takes off his clothes to pay the bribe embarrassing the clerk

At times, Munna struggles to live by Ghandi’s philosophy, especially the idea of living truthfully, or turning the other cheek.

Arshad Warsi as Circuit, Munna’s thug sidekick, is great. He’s a natural. Warsi plays Circuit complete with gold necklaces, rings, and jewelry. He welds and twirls a knife and gun as extensions of his hands and is as easy with a threat as breathing.

Sanjay Dutt is a Bollywood bad boy but as Munna he comes across as a heavy with a heart of gold. While I have seen Sanjay Dutt in more extensive dance numbers, his simple yet delightful dance numbers added texture to the story.

The various multi-themed stories and choreography are woven expertly with the main storyline. The song-and-dance routines are what song-and-dance routines should be in a movie. They express desires, fantasies, hopes and joys seamlessly throughout the story. Because many take place “in-place” they fit the story. Even various cell phone ringtones seemed musically integrated into the story.

One actor I admire is Boman Irani. He is versatile. Irani can be charming, hilarious, subtle, menacing and more. He has an amazing ability to inhabit various characters. With just a new slant to his eyes, a small change in facial expression or posture, changes in hairstyles, and of course his various outfits, he is convincing as a scatter-brained school principal, a threatening police officer, a staid administrator, and now as a warm but manipulative real estate developer.

To me, this movie is what Bollywood is all about. The story is exuberant, warm, charming, textured, and comes from the heart.

Director (and Film Editor): Rajkumar Hirani
Producer: Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Vir Chopra, Anil Davda
Music: Shantanu Moitra
Cinematography: C.K. Muraleedharan
Choreography: Ganesh Acharya
Cast: Sanjay Dutt, Arshad Warsi, Vidya Balan, Boman Irani, Dilip Pradhavalkar, Diya Mirza, Jimmy Shergill and more.
144 minutes, color, Hindi, September 2006

Still following Bollywood but a Change in Residence has slowed me down

2007-07-11T17:21:00.000-04:00

I am here in Utah on a temporary job.

I am far away from my Hindi movie theater. I have not found a movie theater in Utah that plays Hindi movies, yet. But, I just found a wonderful Indian restaurant, The Indian Oven, in Logan.

The restaurant had lovely table settings in blue and red with substantial blue cloth napkins. They had a buffet as well as a full menu. I had Vegetable Coconut Kuma and Ginger and Garllic Naan bread. I suspect the Naan was a Chef's own receipe. My meal was wonderful, all the spices were delightful and surprisingly, they blended well and none overwhelmed another. I always get a sweet Lassi which seems to fill me up but I like the beverage. I took home half the meal and the dessert, Gulab Jamun, which is one of my favorites. But, I was in such a hurry, I forgot to tip the waiter. I will be bringing some friends there soon, so I will catch up with him, then. Anyway, Indian meals are meant to be shared among friends and family with good conversation.

I did get a tip from the owner about a movie theater in Salt Lake City, so hopefully, I will be able to watch Shah Rukh Khan's new movie, Chak De India, which is supposed to release August 10, 2007!!!

Dil Se -- A War Protest Movie

2007-03-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

It has only been 58 years since India gained independence from Britain in 1947. There were many bloody struggles in India’s war for independence and millions died during Partition when Muslims and Hindus either traveled to the newly created nation of Pakistan or from Pakistan into India. Kashmir is still in dispute and India has been fighting terrorism since independence as recent subway bombings in Mumbai illustrate.

There are many movies that illustrate the horrors of war in attempts to suggest peaceful alternatives. While war is fought by nations, it is carried out by individuals. Mani Rantam wrote and directed Dil Se as a sensitive portrait of two people with different views of war based on personal experiences.

Dil Se is a story of Amarkanth Varma, an idealist radio journalist, who meets and falls in love with a lonely young woman, Meghna, on a railroad platform. At first, their stories diverge as she catches the next train while Amar has gone to get her some hot tea.

I was enthralled with the movie from the opening credits. The director added small details that not only added texture to the story but later you realize he is also giving the viewer and the characters information that foreshadow the depth and complexities of the emotional conflicts to come. Little touches like in the opening scenes where Amar is dressed in a black shirt and red sports jacket and Meghna is dressed in a red dress but covered with a black shawl, almost as if to say Amar wears his heart on his sleeve and Meghna keeps her heart hidden from view. Another example is when Amar goes to fetch Meghna some tea, he jokes and tells her not to move because he has a bomb in his suitcase and it could explode. Later, this joke seems prophetic.

As part of his job as a radio producer, Amar (Shah Rukh Khan) gathers various man-on-the-street perspectives for a program about the upcoming 50th anniversary celebrations of Indian Independence. He hears from some that they have suffered more since independence and from others that India has prospered since independence. To expand his research, Amar seeks out the leader of a revolutionary movement. The leader’s main complaint is that the smaller outlying states of India were forgotten after the war for independence and many villages have suffered and continue to suffer in a multitude of ways. For Amar, whose father and grandfather served in the Indian army, he struggles to understand the dissents’ evaluation of their current treatment at the hands of the Indian government.

When Amar returns, he runs into Meghna (Manisha Koirala) but she claims she never met him before and they part. As you can imagine, Amar is confused. He is certain she is the girl he met on the train platform. Another day, he spies her making a phone call and he follows her. Again, she rejects him but this time he hitches a ride on the back of the bus she is on and he lands in her village. Here, Amar declares his love for her; again she rejects him claiming to be married. When Amar seeks to apologize to her, she sends several men to convince Amar that his pursuit is futile but in the ensuing fight, Amar learns she is not married and his hope is renewed.

While covering festivities in Lucknow, Amar glimpses Meghna in the crowd. He searches for her and finds her on a bus. As the police go down the aisle asking about identification and travel purposes, Meghna says she is Amar’s wife. Amar is more amused than suspicious by her change in attitude.

The bus travels north to the mountains. After it breaks down, the passengers gather their belongings and walk toward their destinations. Amar follows Meghna. Amar has been open and ardent about his feelings about her. She has continually rebuffed him but she appears to warm up a bit but not without visible internal emotional struggles that leave Amar and the viewer puzzled.

Late into the night, Meghna leaves while Amar is sleeping. She leaves a mysterious message in the sand. Amar returns to the city feeling he has lost her. He agrees to marry Preeti, a woman of his family’s choosing. Preeti (Preity Zinta) is a bouncing, cheerful girl. They find that they both have loved and lost, but it does not take her long to realize that Amar’s thoughts are elsewhere.

Amidst their wedding preparations, Meghna appears at Amar’s house with a girlfriend asking for temporary shelter and a job at All India Radio where Amar works. He agrees. Watching the emotional struggles play across their faces as Amar and Meghna participate in the wedding festivities pictures two confused, unhappy, young people. Both Shah Rukh Khan and Manisha capture the pain, confusion, and regret of their lost love just as Preity expresses the joys and hopes for her future.

Soon the festivities are disrupted when Amar discovers Meghna’s true purpose for coming to the city and working at All India Radio. Because he is still loves her, he thinks he can stop her. It is chaos from here on. Amar tries to piece together information of Meghna’s whereabouts before the police find her. He locates her near the parade route. When he confronts her about her treachery, he learns about her tragedies. He offers to give up everything for her and begs her to run away with him. She wants to go with him. She wants those dreams of love and family, but she also wants justice for her people. She refuses. He attempts to physically stop her but police intervene. Later, the police release him but thugs lay in wait and beat Amar up. When he returns home, Preeti confronts him as she bandages his wounds. She asks, “Should Meghna’s name be on these wedding invitations rather than mine?” He evades her questions. He is intent on stopping Meghna. The police raid the home and he dragged off to be questioned and drugged to elicit information but he escapes.

The action in these scenes is fast-paced and the emotions of all involved are heightened and intense. Amar still wants to save Meghna and she is tempted but his love can not offer her the solace she seeks. Amar makes the ultimate offer. He loves her and has accepted her pain.

For me, this is a well-crafted movie. Shah Rukh Khan’s and Manish Koirala’s performances are among the best I have seen. The choreography is incredible and inspiring.

I may have read somewhere that Amar’s love represents India’s pain over the loss of the territory of Pakistan, the horrible death and cruelty inflicted on so many Indians, and its longing to make amends. Meghna’s pain, desire for justice and love represents the desire of Pakistan to heal its rift with India because while war was initiated by governments, it was individuals who were affected.

1998, Color, Hindi, 163 minutes
Director: Mani Ratnam
Story/Screenplay: Mani Ratnam
Producer: Shekhar Kapoor, Ram Gopal Varma, Mani Ratnam
Cinematography: Santosh Sivan
Cast: Shahrukh Khan, Manisha Koirala, Preity Zinta and more.
Music: A.R. Rahman
Lyrics: Gulzar
Singers: Lata Mangeshkar, M.G. Sreekumar, Kavitha Krishnamoorthy, Sonu Nigam, Mahalakshmi, Udit Narayan, A.R. Rahman, Anupama, Anuradha, Sapna Awasthi, Sukwinder Singh

Don and The Departed: A Comparison

2007-02-01T13:57:00.000-05:00

Before I begin this comparison, an explanation is needed.

It has happened. It probably happened a few Bollywood movies ago. The way I view Bollywood movies has changed. The initial intrigue and pleasure at finding a new form of filmmaking is wearing off. I have begun to expect more. The same process happened with Hollywood movies many years ago. When I read Bollywood critics lamenting about predictable plots, poor acting, contrived stories, and excessive violence and sexuality, they echo my sentiments about Hollywood movies.

Both Hollywood and Bollywood followed parallel paths in movie making after the Lumiere brothers toured Bombay, London and New York making presentations of moving pictures without sound around 1896 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_and_Louis_Lumière). Early moving pictures were in black and white or sepia. Color came later. Technical developments continue to improve the quality of filmmaking. India’s first feature film was Raja Harishchanra, released May 3, 1913 in Mumbai. Then came talkies. Alam Ara was released March 14, 1931. (Source: The Bollywood Saga, 2002).

Since I am not paid to write movies reviews, when I buy a movie ticket, I have a vested interest in the movie. The level of my satisfaction seems linked to my expectations whether the movie will be good or bad. Also, if I am not drawn into the story usually by caring about the outcome through finding sympathy with one or more characters, I am unable to suspend disbelief to accept various ploys in the storyline.

I balk at writing a review for a movie I did not like personally for whatever reason. After seeing Don, a Bollywood gangster movie featuring several top Bollywood stars, I thought a comparison between Don and The Departed, a Hollywood gangster movie featuring several top Hollywood stars, would be interesting.

These movies share many similarities. Both are “gangster” movies. In Hollywood, The Godfather is considered the gold standard for gangster movies. In Bollywood, several movies such as Company, Sarkar, or Satya could compete for that label. In these two movies, each has a plot that revolves around an undercover agent embedded in a major criminal network. Each has a multi-star cast, a well-known director, and excellent technical crews. Both were set in well-known locales, Malaysia and Boston. Neither had a significant female character. Both had large budgets. Both display a preponderance of violence, intimidation, and amoral behavior glorified as entertainment.

Don – the Chase

This review should have been written from the viewpoint of a young male for the audience was full of young males who whooped when Priyanka Chopra was on the screen. There are many ways to enjoy a movie. Maybe it is the actors, or the music, or the choreography, or the story, or the cinematography. Usually, it is some combination of these elements. But, I found no magical combination in Don.

The murder of a drug gang associate initiates a series of deceptions where rival gangs fight to gain control over the Malaysian drug trade while law enforcement officers seek to capture the leader of one rival gang, “Don,” in order to uncover the top drug trafficker. (Image source: http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/Aeon/News/2006/10/22/images/200610211516497.jpg).

Civilians intervene in the story. The sister of the murdered associate, Kamini, played by Kareena Kapoor, and the associate’s fiancée, Roma, played by Priyanka Chopra, seek revenge. One attempts to seduce “Don,” the other infiltrates the gang to assist in “Don’s” capture.

Sadly, criminals and law enforcement officers take turns being stupid in order to move the story forward. Characters from both camps have access to a wealth of expensive surveillance equipment yet get caught, escape, or ‘lose” evidence easily.

The crux of the story is whether a “Don” look-alike planted into the Don’s organization can uncover the top drug trafficker before the look-a-like is discovered.

Shah Rukh Khan (SRK), who plays dual roles as the “Don” and Vijay, the “Don” look-a-like, gave an uneven performance. Each scene is more of a vignette than a string of scenes that tell a story, so the moods of SRK’s characters are inconsistent from vignette to vignette. Rather than building to episodic mini-climaxes, the scenes fall flat. So, fear of capture or exposure is never fully developed. DCP DeSilva’s character (Boman Irani) is the thread that holds the story together and whose mood sets the tone from vignette to vignette.

The clothing, settings, and dances were stale and there was no chemistry in the various interactions among the maze of characters.

While the males loved Priyanka Chopra, who is a pretty woman and a lovely person, she has a limited range of expressions. I detected two expressions in her repertoire, a little pout when she is sad/angry/stoic and a little smile when she is happy/sexy/joyful. She is stiff in every scene. Remember, this is a movie not a beauty pageant; these are two different visual formats. But, it dawned on me, in simple terms, maybe males enjoy seeing car chases, explosions, fights, undulating half-dressed women over and over again, regardless of whether the acting is good or the story is well told, and females enjoy watching romantic scenes, harmonious familial interaction, stories where good triumphs over evil over and over again, regardless of whether the acting is good or the story is well told.

The most important element in telling a story is to get the moviegoer to care about the characters, then they care about the outcome. But, possibly, from a male’s perspective, what is important is the absence of feelings other than a greed for power and money. While the ending was a bit of surprise, it had no emotional impact.

Director: Farhan Akhtar, Producer: Ritesh Sidhwani. Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Arjun Rampal, Kareena Kapoor, Isha Koppikar, Boman Irani and more.
Color, Hindi, 168 minutes, available on DVD at www.erosentertainment.com

The Departed

An early scene tells the viewer what the movie is about – Irish Catholic criminal gangs war with Irish Catholic police with lots of graphic murders and violence in Boston.

The multi-star cast features Matt Damon as Colin Sullivan, a former choir boy, who becomes a police officer. Because Colin feels indebted to local gangster, Frank Costello, he also serves as a plant for Costello. Damon’s acting does not vary from his previous Bourne roles. He never convinced me of his mixed loyalties.

Nicholson plays Costello as a sleazy, aging, drooling, hysterical warlock. Portraying the aging gangster in such a sick manner should be a disincentive to future gangster-wannabes.

Leonardo DeCaprio plays William Costigan, a Southie from a hopeless family, who also becomes a police officer but is intimidated by higher ups to become a plant inside the Costello organization. DeCaprio works hard to lose his pretty boy looks and is quite the grim, intense, brooding young man. (Image source: http://www.themovieblog.com/archives/Departed-Poster.jpg)

The story follows William from bars to brawls to back streets to secret warehouse meetings. The story also follows Colin from office to home and back with an unrelenting sameness. The moviegoer knows from the start that William and Colin are plants unknown to each other.

Other co-workers played by Alec Baldwin, David O’Hara, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and a host of others scream at each other all the time exhibiting a host of prejudices and immature behavior. It is a wonder they manage to accomplish anything significant given the lack of cooperation and suspicion.

How many curse words does it take to convince the moviegoer that these are mean bad-ass dudes or should I say duds since the story was laced with concern over penal function?

A mental health professional played by Vera Farmiga serves as a focal point in the lives of Colin and William. The role was meant to add tension but her role is insignificant. When Colin quotes Freud to her saying “The Irish are impervious to psychoanalysis,” he tells her, “and you have a client list full of mic cops,” that sums up the futility of her position in the movie. (Image source: http://www.scorsesefilms.com/photos/images/matt-damon-departed-uniform04.jpg)

The dialogue is a string of crude jokes mixed with cursing and screaming where everyone thinks everyone else is the plant. It is almost funny. The actors looked like they enjoyed making the movie. They spent the whole movie cussing, fighting, and killing each other. They must have had great fun with the multitude of bursting blood capsules every time someone was shot. (Image source: http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100501860.jpg)

No character evolved. Again, the cops and the criminals have to be stupid in order to move the story forward and the use of cell phones is central to the story. The ending was contrived.

So was the point of these movies that violence exists and there is nothing anyone can do about it? Sadly, the form, style, length, and storyline of these two movies are so similar that the only difference is that one is in English and one is in Hindi.

In the end, maybe some of the criticisms I have for these “rooster-flicks” are shared by men who can not find anything to like about “chick-flicks.”

Director: Martin Scorsese, Producer: Brad Grey and Michael Aguilar. Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Vera Farmiga and more.
Color, English, 151 minutes, available in DVD at www.amazon.com

What Happened to Farah Khan's Happy New Year?

2007-01-11T18:52:00.000-05:00

Did I miss something? First, there's the big build up about casting and shooting, then nothing.

Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (Never Say Goodbye)

2006-08-13T17:21:00.000-04:00

(image source: http://i.indiafm.com/img/feature/06/aug/kank1.jpg)

KANK is an intense adult drama. It opens with snippets of scenes giving a glimpse of each of the main characters’ lives at the present time, featuring five of Bollywood’s top stars: Ambitah Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Abhishek Bachchan, and Preity Zinta.

Dev Saran (Shah Rukh Khan) has just won a major soccer match which will garner him offers with great financial opportunities, at the same time, his wife, Rhea (Preity Zinta) has landed a job at a fashion magazine. They are high-powered, ambitious people. They meet in college and married.

Shift to Rishi Talwar (Abhishek Bachchan) who is in a frantic rush to get to his wedding ceremony. Dev’s mother, Kamaljit (Kirron Kher), is the wedding’s caterer. The lives of the two couples intersect when Dev stops by to see her. The wedding ceremony has not begun because the bride is delayed. Dev wanders the house grounds and finds the bride, Maya (Rani Mukherjee), sitting on a bench. It is clear she is having doubts about getting married.

Dev tries to lighten her mood. He asks if she loves her future husband. She says they have been friends since childhood. He asks her again, “Do you love him?” “When there is friendship, there is little room for love”, is her response. Dev suggests she learn to make do with little love stories.

Maya asks him, “Do you love your wife?” He replies, “We are happy.” Maya wants to know, “Do you wait for love?” After more discussion, Dev says, “Goodbye.” Maya stops him, “Don’t say goodbye, it kills the hope of meeting again.” They part and both look back with wonder. Sadly, Dev is distracted by their conversation and fails to see a oncoming car.

The movie picks up again four years later and Dev is a changed man. His injuries from the car accident terminated his sports career. He is angry and bitter. He is rude to strangers and his family. To avoid conflict, Rhea focuses on her job with “Diva”, the fashion magazine. Dev coaches his son's, Arjun (Arjun Rampal), soccer team but he is impatient and harsh with the children. Dev feels his reduced state acutely not just because he can no longer play sports but also because his wife supports him.

(image source: http://www.indiatarget.com/stills/slide_show/kak1.jpg)

Maya’s relationship with Rishi is more like mother and son. While Rishi is passionate about his love for Maya, she is in conflict with her feelings. Rishi’s father, Sam (Amitabh Bachchan), a widower, adds color to the story as he pops in and out of everyone’s life with a different young beauty on his arm each time.

Dev and Maya run into each other again and Maya tells him, “If I had not met you, I would not have married.” Dev replies, “If I had not meet you, my life would have been different. We are both wounded.”

Various misunderstandings complicate the story. Both couples have different expectations of each other. No one is a true villain.

In frustration, Dev and Maya become confidants hoping to help each other in their relationships. They begin to meet regularly at the train station. The train station becomes an analogy for their stalled relationships, which are always moving but going nowhere. Gradually, Dev begins to realize he feels different about himself when he was with Maya.

The intensity of Rishi’s frustration, Maya’s disappointment, Dev’s anger, and Rhea’s distraction symbolize their desire for the greatest of all relationships that of husband and wife. Each felt when you married, you married your soulmate.

Another aspect of the relationships is their mismatched ambitions. In the beginning, Dev was as ambitious as his wife but after his injury, he never recovered from the loss of his career. Maya is uncomfortable with Rishi’s fast and flashy lifestyle. Rhea is caught up in her new business venture.

At their best, couples grow as individuals and as a couple with shared interests. At their worst, couples tear each other apart. Both couples recognize their relationships need help and they make attempts to repair them. Each partner in the two relationships illustrate that there are many doors to the heart and not everyone finds the right door.

Eventually, Maya and Dev acknowledge their love for each other as their marriages deteriorate. While Maya and Dev try to sustain both their relationship and their marriages, their spouses are unaware of their partners’ actions. It makes you wonder if anyone knows what is in another’s heart.

(image source: http://i.indiafm.com/img/feature/06/aug/kank1.jpg)

Dev shows the least concern for how his actions will affect others. Maya had hoped for friendship then seemed unable to stop herself from crossing the line into romantic love. Rishi thought flowers and sweet words were all that was needed for a relationship to work. Rhea valued her business success over the success of her marriage.

Dev is often coarse and cruel. He uses his wife to make Maya insecure. Dev also becomes jealous of Rishi. Love has not encouraged Dev to grow emotionally; he becomes more brutal in his relationships.

Once Dev and Maya cross the line into intimacy, they enter the world of betrayal and lies. The pressure of their illicit relationship drives Dev to joke at a family dinner that he has fallen in love with another woman, Maya. Dev then treats Maya cruelly when he says he won’t leave his wife.

But what is also reflected in each couple is that they married young and as they changed they grew apart. They also lived in a fast-paced, money-driven society with lots of trappings and distractions. Neither relationship seemed grounded.

Dev and Maya break off their relationship believing if they tell the truth they could save their marriages. When Dev tells his wife he has strayed from the marriage but wants to give the marriage another chance, Rhea throws him out. Rishi confronts Maya and asks her to leave. Dev and Maya pretend to each other that their spouses will forgive them. Yet, each leaves for different jobs in different towns.

Observations: Do not tell me Shah Rukh Khan cannot act. SRK played the Dev character so convincingly; I forgot he was Shah Rukh Khan. Also, there are many “inside” references, humorous moments, and guest appearances.

Pleasures: Karan Johar handled the difficult scenes with taste.

Disappointments: Karan Johar has made a Bollywood film with little reference to India or the Hindu religion. The story seemed to lack an anchor or a cultural context, almost as if the setting, New York City, was a culture unto itself and sufficient for a cultural foundation. I found the culture empty, devoid of any fundamental beliefs or moral guidance. Also, while the song and dance routines offer some light moments in this intense drama, the huge disco scenes were impersonal, and lacked the crisp coordination and stylized look that make dance numbers special.

3:25 minutes, Hindi with English captions, Color
Writer and Director: Karan Johar
Producer: Anadil Hossain
Music: Shankar Madadevan, Loy Mendonsa and Ehsaan Noorani
Cinematography: Anil Mehta
Art Direction: Sharmishta Roy
Choreography: Farah Khan
(source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449999/)

Krrish

2006-07-14T19:27:00.000-04:00

2006; Hindi with English subtitles; 154 minutes

(source: http://www.chinapress.com.my/data%5C2006-07-02%5Centertainment%5C0702pen91.jpg)

I was looking forward to Krrish because I hoped it would showcase Hrithik Roshan’s skills as a dancer and his physical prowess. Krrish does illustrate Hrithik’s admirable physique, and his grace and agility in cinematographically beautiful settings that include a variety of delightful special effects. But, except for the introduction of Hrithik’s character, Krishna, the storyline flounders and few of the secondary characters are adequately developed to elicit sympathy.

I have always defended Bollywood filmmakers when they made a story similar to a Hollywood story because I felt they kept the universals of the story and made the characters, settings, and conflicts sufficiently different. Sadly, with Krrish, it was like watching a compilation of several movies. In Tarzan-like fashion, Krishna meets in his love interest in the forest. A ghost story gimmick seems to mimic the Blair Witch Project. The bad guy, Dr. Arya, wants to invent a computer that can see into the future, much like Paycheck, and who had an enormous facility on an island like Dr. No. Then, there were the alien communications like ET and Close Encounters.

I am aware that in many Bollywood movies images, bits of dialogue, snippets of songs and more from other movies are inserted to add entertainment value and pay homage to well-loved movies but I never felt that whole sections of the referenced movies were inserted into the current movie like I did with Krrish.

(source: http://img.indiaglitz.com/hindi/wallpaper/MOVIES/krrish/krrish11_800_080506.jpg)

In Krrish, few of the usual underlying moral premises are stated clearly – familial loyalty is there and occasionally the idea that fighting for a good cause is heroic is stated but for the rest of the movie the characters seem to be sensation-seekers out for money, fame, or power.

Unfortunately, I have come to a place in my Bollywood film watching where the novelty is wearing off and I have begun to expect more. This is not always good. It is easy to criticize. Movie making is a tough business. I recognize how hard it is for a director to film a story for far-flung audiences with wide-ranging, changing expectations.

Krrish is a sequel to Koi…Mil Gaya and the previous story is woven into the present story. Krishna is the son of Rohit, a man who encountered an alien and was changed physically and mentally. But, at Krishna’s birth, disaster struck and he lost his parents. Krishna’s grandmother has taken him into the countryside to keep him from public view for fear of his safety. As the child grows, he exhibits extraordinary powers but while he enjoys using them, his grandmother continues to warn him about appearing different.

Priya, Krishna’s love interest, played by Priyanka Chopra, is portrayed as a vain, stupid girl who lacks integrity. She is not an intrepid reporter like Sridevi’s Seema Sohni in Mr. India. Nor does she have the backbone of Manisha Koirala’s Meghan in Dil Se. There is little drama in various obstacles to Krrish’s love for Pryia which I missed because Pryia’s character never developed beyond a pretty girl more worried about her clothes than any conflicting values in her life. Again, it is easy to criticize – few women can handle the stunts required for Bollywood movies, but I wanted to see something like Rani’s zest, she throws herself into her roles, while she is beautiful, she is more physically comfortable with wild and wacky stunts. I missed Madhuri’s wide range of emotional expressions. I missed Kajol’s joie de vivre. I missed Nagris’s melodrama. Chopra is more like eye candy for males. It was hard for me to maintain interest in the story when Priya kept getting Krishna into trouble with her lies.

The bright spots were when Hrithik was on screen. Hrithik appeared to enjoy doing the various stunts. He is a gorgeous human being. He has an abundance of grace and style. I will never get tired of watching him move. He is a splendid dancer and a great martial arts student. I hope Hrithik finds a character or theme where he can continue to demonstrate the beauty of his well-kept physique. On top of all that – he a good person and it comes across on screen much like Shah Rukh Khan.

(source: http://img.stopklatka.pl/wydarzenia/32000/32000/32089-01.jpg)

While the ending was sappy, it was still tearful. While the Krrish character was original, the story was not.

Regrets: Missed the full-blown emotional tug-of-war and the lack of originality in the story.

Pleasures: Watching Hrithik dance and do martial arts stunts; the countryside scenery and the scenes shot in Singapore. Also, the circus scenes were fantastic and seemed to stand out from the rest of the movie.

Credits:
(Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432637/)

Director and Producer: Rakesh Roshan

Writing credits: Screenplay -- Robin Bhatt, Sachin Bhowmick, Honey Irani, Akash Khurana, and Rakesh Roshan; Dialogue -- Sanjay Masoom

Cast: Rekha, Hrithik Roshan, Priyanka Chopra, Sharat Saxena, Puneet Issar, Hemant Pandey, Manini De, Naseeruddin Shah, Preity Zinta, Kiran Juneja, Archana Puran Singh

Music: Salim Merchant, Suleman Merchant, Rajesh Roshan

Cinematography: Piyush Shah, Santosh Thundiiayil

Art Direction: Samir Chanda

Visual Effects: Marc Kolbe, Craig A. Mumma

Stunts: Siu-Tung Ching (choreographer and stunts), Shyam Kaushal (stunt coordinator)

Kajol is Back in Fanaa

2006-06-03T11:42:00.000-04:00

I caught Fanaa, opening night, and it was a full house.

How does one write a movie review without giving away the plot?

In Fanaa, Kajol plays Zooni, a young blind girl on her first venture away from her home in Kashmir. In the story, Zooni’s blindness illustrates that sometimes we see things with our hearts but we are blind to dangers and deceit, and with sight sometimes we do not see the real person in front of us.

Zooni travels with a troupe of dancers to Delhi to perform in part of the Independence Day celebrations. Included in the trip are several days of tours of the historic sites in Delhi. The group has arranged for a bus and a guide. The guide is a charming rouge, Rehan, played by Aamir Khan. Khan plays Rehan with both charm and cruelty. He admits openly he only wants to satisfy his own desires and that he does not believe in love as he flirts with the girls. But he falls in love with Zooni and she falls in love with him. Rehan is every young girl’s parents’ nightmare.

(image source: http://www.ndtv.com/images/topstories/fanaa.jpg)

A Bollywood movie doesn’t cut to the chase as quickly as a Hollywood film. Various aspects of the characters and sub-plots are given time to develop before the central conflict is unfolded.

The cinematography is stunning. It is as if the cameraman is in love with India. Delhi is shown in a rainbow of colors, shining and majestic. Yet, Rehan shows Zooni the dark side of Delhi’s history, too. Kashmir is pictured like a winter wonderland with endless vistas of beautiful snow capped mountains. The camera captured the silence and wonder of snow.

Director Kunal Kohli blends many of the musical interludes with the story almost seamlessly. There is one musical number choreographed with a large number of dancers, the rest of the musical interludes lets the music simply touch the characters as the story moves forward which I think represents Indians’ love of music and poetry as part of their daily lives. Later in the movie, the fantasy love scenes are shot in wonderful blue and white settings and each love scene is done tastefully.

Interwoven into this love story is the continuing story of terrorism. This time it is the battle over Kashmir. Zooni loses Rehan to terrorism before she returns home to Kashmir.

At the interlude, the story changes from a love story to suspense. India’s counter-terrorism organization is tracking a terrorist group that has had success over the years in bombing various important cultural and political sites. Tabu is dead-on as the organization’s agent who works to build a psychological profile of the group’s mastermind even as agents within the organization seek to thwart her efforts. The organization seeks to capture this mastermind before the terrorist group’s final plan is carried out. The plan threatens to kill millions of Indians. The premise the terrorist group uses in its defense is if we are sufficiently armed and are perceived as a threat of massive proportion then we can affect the balance of power and achieve our goal – independence for Kashmir. Isn’t that the premise behind every nation that has nuclear weapons?

At the heart of many Bollywood movies are human relationships and the importance of family.

Zooni is a meaty role for Kajol and she carries it off beautifully. As a young blind girl, Zooni is gentle, loving and hopeful. Later in the film, Zooni is a single mother. She is older, wiser, and she is fiercely protective of her family. Aamir Khan’s character, Rehan, is a man torn between loyalties and desires. At first, he is seen as a self-centered charmer who preys on young women. He has cut himself off from his emotions. Then he falls in love with Zooni and he battles his emotions in a struggle over his loyalties. Is he loyal to his love for Zooni, or is he loyal to his former life? Khan’s character believes that loyalty to a belief carries more weight than loyalty to love, even familial love.

I know little about Aamir Khan’s earlier movies, but in his recent movies such as Laagan, Mangal Pandey, Rang de Basanti, and now Fanaa, it seems that Khan is selecting stories that portray a gritty realism. In these films, Khan is carving out a particular type of role for himself. He does not want to be the lover; he wants to be a man of action. Yet, when he must play the lover, he does so reluctantly. He struggles with the emotion of love, literally fighting himself to keep from falling in love. When he is a man of action, he wants to be rational, unaffected by emotion, and loyal to his vision. But loyalty can also be a strong emotion. Khan wants to play to a male audience who feels it is manlier to be pragmatic than to a female audience who feels love is central to life. Yet, when his character, Rehan, feels he must choose love or loyalty, the war between his competing desires plays across his face. (image source: http://blog.chosun.com/web_file/blog/25/25/1/Fanaa.jpg)

Whereas, as a woman, Kajol’s character’s struggle is not choosing between two strong desires. For her, love is part of life, just as is loyalty. She thought love could heal, love could change a person, love could make a prince out of a beggar. Her struggle is in loving a flawed human being and learning that love can be shattered by deceit. In a way, Zooni’s character is torn because she is forced to make a choice she never imagined she would have to make.

Pleasures: It is great to have Kajol back on the big screen. Plus, the costumes were fresh and vibrant. The shots of Delhi and the snowy mountain scenes were beautiful.

Regrets: The ending was too similar to the "Key to Rebecca" by Ken Follett.

FYI: Fanaa -- is an Urdu word which means annihilation. In Sufi tradition, it also means destroyed in love. (source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439662/trivia)

Director: Kunal Kohli
Producers: Yash and Aditya Chopra
Executive producer: Sanjay Shivalkar
Music: Jatin Pandit, Lalit Pandit
Cinematography: Ravi K. Chandran
Choreographer: Saroj Khan
Runtime: 168 minutes

Sholay: A Flash from the Past

2006-02-24T20:32:00.000-05:00

Sholay (Flames)

1975; 204 minutes; Hindi with English subtitles

Director: Ramesh Sippy
Producer: G.P. Sippy
Writer: Javed Akhtar, Salim Khan
Music: Rahul Dev Burman
Cinematography: Dwarka Divecha
Playback singers: Rahul Dev Burman, basu Deo chakravarty, Babu Ghanekar; Shankar Lal; Maqbool
Dances: P.R.L. Raman
Cast: Dharmendra, Amitabh Bachchan, Sanjeev Kumar, Hema Malini, Jaya Bhaduri, Amjad Khan, A.K. Hangal, Satyen Kappu, Leela Misra and more

Sholay is considered an Indian movie classic. I enjoyed most of this film, which starts with an eye-popping shoot-out, followed by chase scenes through the backcountry, and canyons of rural India. The cinematography is excellent. The camera work is a blend of styles including fast action, slow motion, and panoramic views. But, eventually, the relentless scenes of violence wore me down.

Many of the performances were enjoyable. I thought Dharmendra (Veeru) was smashing and Amitabh Bachchan’s (Jai) onscreen persona crackles with energy and emotion. Sanjeev Kumar plays the village chief, Thakur Singh, with dignity and Hema Malini’s character, Basanti, bounces with charm.

In essence, the village chief, Thakur Baldev Singh, a retired police officer, asks a fellow police officer to track down two criminals (Veeru and Jai) he met in the past to ask them to come to his village and help him end the tyranny of a local thug, Gabbar Singh (Amjad Khan) because he thinks they are brave and have the potential to be decent human beings. When the police officer questions his judgment saying, “A fake coin is a fake coin.” He replies, “a man is not a coin.”

The criminals, Jai and Veeru, have been a team for sometime and travel from con to theft to scam as they escape just ahead of capture, most of the time.

What starts out as a buddy flick becomes a civil war between Thakur Baldev Singh, Veeru and Jai, and Gabbar Singh’s gang of thugs.

Many other characters intervene in the story like S. Bhoplai, the greedy shopkeeper; the inept prison warden, a Hitler look-alike, who states he doesn’t believe in reform because “How can you change, if I can’t change?”; Hariram, the jail barber and squealer; and the chatty buggy driver, Basanti (Hema Malini).

Gabbar Singh, the thug who terrorizes the village, is a piece of work. He plays Russian roulette with his men when they run from the village under gunfire. While at first, none of the men are shot, you know what’s coming.

Thugs attack the village and the village protectors retaliate, back and forth, with one horror after another. When the thugs break up the village Holi celebration, it’s like a shoot-out at the OK Corral.

Thakur and Gabbar have a long history. Gabbar killed Thakur’s brother’s family as revenge for Thakur imprisoning him.

Scenes of normal events of life break the flow of constant conflict. Veeru has fallen in love with Basanti. Jai goes to Basanti’s Aunt to plead Veeru’s case. Instead, he paints a poor picture of his friend’s lifestyle scuttling Veeru’s chances to marry Basanti. But, that’s not the end of this substory.

Veeru wants to settle down. Jai isn’t ready though he shows a quiet interest in Thakur’s widowed daughter-in-law, Radha (Jaya Bhaduri).

In one raid, Gabbar kidnaps Basanti. Veeru follows and is captured. Gabbar forces Basanti to dance to save him. When Basanti dances, she endures many humiliations and agonies showing her strength of will much like a fight scene does for the hero.

So much horror and tragedy is perpetrated by Gabbar, I wanted to shoot him myself just to end the relentless torture.

At one point, the villagers have had enough of the violence, too, and question whether all the killings are worth the refusal to give Gabbar the protection payment. One man says, “We are farmers not soldiers.” Another replies, “To lead an honorable life, there is a price.” When an elderly and blind villager loses his son to the violence, he refuses to give in to Gabbar’s violence and threats saying, “An honorable death is better than a life of humiliation.”

The ending is a mixture of sorrow and survival.

Chocolate is not Sweet

2006-02-11T15:47:00.000-05:00

WARNING: this movie shows scenes of gang rape, group sex, prostitution, and gratuitous violence as pleasurable and desirable activities.

Most offensive scene: a glimpse of a gang rape was subliminally slipped into one of the pornographic song and dance routines. This is mind rape not “entertainment.”

Some Bollywood critics complain their movies need to be more realistic, more “westernized” to be accepted internationally. If this film is an example of a “westernized” Bollywood film, then the soul of Bollywood has been lost.

This is a gangster movie produced by those who want to see the criminal lifestyle glamorized and to make money off portraying titillating acts of violence, murder, robbery, pornography, and prostitution geared toward a youthful male audience.

This is not a family movie.

The theme of this movie is “money is power and with power you can do anything you want.”

The story of how two members of a London musical group came to be arrested for murder and robbery is not a story about good versus evil. It is just a story of evil.

The acting is sullen and unimaginative. None of the characters are sympathetic. I never cared what happened to them. They were middle-class, self-absorbed petty criminals.

The song and dance scenes are pornographic and inconsequential. Visual pornography, in my mind, is when scenes of gang rape, group sex, or other sexually twisted behaviors are shown in their entirety as if to fill the minds of the audience because they lack an imagination. Pornography is meant to make those who feel powerless in life, to feel powerful momentarily. Pornography usually shows one or more persons in a “dominant” position, a position with the power over the life of a “submissive” person. Pornography usually shows the “submissive” person performing degrading acts of sex or violence or having degrading acts of sex or violence performed upon them. Pornography is joyless and humorless.

The person, who participates in pornographic acts of gang rape, group sex, or other sexually twisted or violent behaviors because they think it is cool, do not realize they have sold their soul in the process.

In addition, pornography, which can be visual or verbal, is made to stimulate a primitive part brain that responses, psychologically and physically, to violent or sexual stimuli, in attempt to encourage people to enjoy this type of behavior, to give them a momentary sense of power, and to numb them to the consequences of this behavior so that they begin to accept this behavior as “normal.”

Ask yourself – who controls your mind?

Regret: I am sorry Anil Kapoor lent his name to this film. He plays a London lawyer attempting to help the two arrested Indian musicians.. Anil’s character, Krish, seemed laden with accoutrements like he was drowning in an excess of material goods and self-advertisement.

(image source: http://www.bollyfm.com/chocolate_cover.jpg )

Producer: Spice Entertainment
Director: Vivek Agnihotri
Starring: Irrfan Khan, Anil Kapoor, Arshad Warsi, Suniel Shetty, Emraan Hashmi, Tanushree Dutta and Sushma Reddy.
Music:Pritam
Lyrics: Mayur Puri, Praveen Bhardwaj, Dev Kohli, Ajeet Srivastava

Film Festivals and Bollywood

2006-02-07T21:33:00.000-05:00

One way to show your enthusiasm and support for Bollywood films is to attend a film festival showing Bollywood films, especially new ones.

The link above is just one of many that lists a variety of film festivals.

In Washington, DC, near where I live there are several film festivals --

DCIFF (DC Independent Film Festival)
March 2 - March 12
There are several Indian-based films in the festival.

In Quest for the Spectacular by Aunshuman Apte
About an actor in Mumbai trying to make it in Bollywood.
Sunday, 3/12/2006 2:20pm
Avalon Theatre

Lucky by Kristen Palana
An young Indian American woman faces an arranged marriage while trying to live the American dream.
Friday, 3/10/2006 9:10pm
Jewish Community Center

Ordinary Lives by Sheetal Agarwal
Documents the struggles of a family of ten living in a 180 square feet shack in Mumbai.
Wednesday, 3/8/2006 12:00 pm
Gala Theatre -- Tivoli

Truck of Dreams by Arun Kumar
Parallel stories of Bollywood -- of a truck carrying Bollywood movies to outlying villages and the dreams of a village girl.
Friday, 3/10/2006 9:10pm
Jewish Community Center

DC Film Fest
April 19 - April 30, 2006
In last year's festival, several Indian films were shown such as Raincoat, Dil Se, and Mughal-e-Azam. Films are shown at several area theaters. The website www.filmfestdc.org does not list the 2006 film program yet, so keep watching the site for the listing.

Maryland Film Festival/Baltimore
May 11 - May 14

Silver Docs
June 13 - June 18

Will update post with information as I find it.

Rang de Basanti

2006-02-04T17:39:00.000-05:00

Director: Rakyesh Mehra
Producer: Rakyesh Mehra, Ronnie Screwvala
Cinematography: Binod Pradhan
Music: A.R. Rahman
Lyrics: Prasoon Joshi, Nacim and Blaaze
Screenplay: Rensil Dsilva
Art Direction: Allan Amin
Cast: Aamir Khan, Alice Patten, Madhavan, Soha Ali Khan, Kunal Kapoor, Siddharth, Sharman Joshi, Atul Kulkarmni, Kirron Kher, Waheeda Rehman, Anupam Kher

Quick Take: Historic events of the Indian revolt against British colonialism are set against the backdrop of the lives of present-day college students. The film is beautifully shot. Scenes are fluid and realistic. Music is treated as background more like Muszak than performances. Aamir Khan’s acting is layered, subtle, and superb. He generously shares the screen with the other actri, each of whom portrays their varied characters with energy and believability. The story is a call to idealism with a terrible twist at the end that echoes with images of Tiananmen Square.

Review

The opening prison scene in sepia sets the stage for the blend of past and present as reenactments of British acts of brutal suppression of Indians seeking freedom from their colonial yoke mix with images of rowdy college students filming a documentary of Indian revolutionaries Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Ashfaqulla Khan, Ram Prasad Bismil, Durga Bhabhi and Chandrashekhar Azad.

The story of a young British woman’s goal of making a documentary of the Indian revolutionaries inspired by her grandfather’s diary wraps around the present day story of the lives of young college students. Her grandfather, Major McKinley, participated in Britain’s attempts to squelch rising protests after World War I by capturing, torturing, and hanging the young revolutionaries. His diary entries foretell the fall of Britain’s rule of India.

After Sue’s (Alice Patten) production company nixes the project she has been working on for two years, she packs up her materials and goes to India to make the documentary on her own. She stays with a friend, Sonia (Soha Ali Khan) on a college campus and begins to audition students for the roles. The auditions are humorous much like “American Idol.” Frustrated she has not found anyone to play the revolutionaries, Sonia, takes Sue to a party to lift her spirits.

Bonfires, beer, music, and pranks entertain the crowd of students at the party. Sonia greets several students and laughs at their antics. DJ (Aamir Khan) is seen with a friend atop a stonewall drinking beer while bending backwards over the river below to see who can drink the most without falling in. As Sue watches, she realizes Sonia’s friends would be perfect for her documentary and enlists Sonia to help persuade them to act in her film. Sue joins in the party as the students dance and gyrate randomly on the beach to western music.

Scenes of fast cars and motorcycles, drinking, and seeking easy sexual favors from girls flash by as the students head toward DJ’s home. There, as the group eats dinner, scenes from the past blend with the present as the story of the revolutionaries continues in flashbacks. Sue implores them to help her saying, “They were heroes. They fought for their country’s freedom.” The students are unimpressed. Later DJ tries to explain to Sue why they seem aimless and why he and the others love college. Their country is over-populated, has major unemployment problems and other seemingly insurmountable problems. In college, we are masters of our destinies. After college, we are at the mercy of fate. At least on campus, I am somebody. But when I get out I will be nameless, faceless, lost in the crowd.”

Gradually, we meet each student. Karan’s father (Anupam Kher), who is rich, greets his son with questions. Has Karan decided which American college he will attend? When Karan (Sidddharth) mutters a few words, his father says in disgust, “Yours is the SMS generation, no conversation beyond four lines.” His father fails to see his son’s confusion and need for a goal beyond making money. A phone call regarding the sale of cheap airplane parts interrupts their interaction.

Laxman’s Muslim family berates him for his associations with non-Muslims saying “This country has never accepted Muslims.” To which Laxman (Atul Kulkarni) replies, “I can not fill myself with hate.”

India’s fight for independence from British Imperialism was harder for their nation than it was for the American colonies. The American colonists had vanquished the native population through murder, disease, and relocation, so they only had the British army to fight. Whereas in India, hundreds of tribes of various religious beliefs had existed for thousands of years, internal conflict among the various groups kept the population from uniting against British rule. But, the young revolutionaries were Hindi, Muslim, and Sikh. They had overcome their differences to fight for a greater cause, the freedom of their country. That Sue, a Britain, has to explain this to the students is ironic. One student remarked, “They would call you nuts today, if you said you wanted to fight for your country.”

Eventually, the students agree to do the documentary and many scenes follow of the rehearsals mixed with youthful outings and pranks. In the face of what they think their world has become, they do not feel they have anything in common with the revolutionaries they portray.

The massacre of hundreds of unarmed people in Jallianwallah Bagh on April 13, 1919, by the British, was the spark that set off the revolution. The event is reflected in horrific reenactment flashbacks. This act of violence turned a non-violent people into revolutionaries.

Music scenes are shot to blend with the story. Essentially, the students prance to a musical background of youthful songs as they carouse in the city streets.

Up until the interval, the film is replete with humorous asides such as when the students are leaving a movie theater and they explain to Sue, “That’s why India grows trees so we can dance around them.”

While roaming the countryside, Sonia’s boyfriend, Ajay, an Air Force pilot, asks her to marry him.

(Image source: http://www.hindu.com/2006/01/29/images/2006012904760201.jpg)

After the interval, the students watch the documentary they made. They are sobered by it. But quickly fall back to their previous perspective, “There’s nothing worth giving your life for. When we leave college, we will have to fight just for the basics. Corruption is in our DNA.” They believe it does not matter what you do, nothing will change.

Then, they see the news their friend Ajay (Madhavan), the Air Force pilot, has died in a plane crash. At first, there is speculation that the plane malfunctioned due to the purchase of cheap defective replacement parts. But, as public demands for an inquiry increase, government officials begin to denigrate the dead pilot’s reputation to place the blame on him.

His friends and family retaliate by holding a candlelight vigil to protest the defamation of his reputation and to support the investigation of corruption. The parts dealer, Karan’s father, reassures the Minster of Defence, “Public memory is short.”

When the vigil continues to bring pressure on the government, riot troops are called in and the crowd is beaten into submission. Ajay’s mother (Waheena Rehman) is beaten into a coma. This is how the Indian government answers its public.

When Laxman, is beaten up by his own family with his father’s consent for his acceptance of others, I knew how he felt.

The tenor of the film changed. The group of friends becomes comrade-in-arms as they plan their revenge against a corrupt and unresponsive government. One student notes, “The Defence Minster is suppose to safeguard the nation not sell it.”

Pleasures: I appreciated the modern look of the sets and cinematography. In addition, this is a great ensemble film shorn of excessive sentimentaility. Plus, I am a sucker for handsome men like Madhavan. His part may have been brief but he graced the screen with charm and electric good looks.

Regrets: I missed the full-blown song-and-dance routines but I understood what the director was trying to do with the music. My disappointment is that the solution the film offers seems as empty as the corruption it was meant to rectify.

Commentary

While I understand this film is a call to idealism, I could not see how the ending would achieve that result. This film has many scenes of violence. While they may have been “tastefully done” there were still too many for me. I have strong feelings about the use of violence. I want to believe people can find more diplomatic ways to resolve their differences.

What did the director hope the response would be to his film? Does he think young people will take to the streets and begin killing anyone they decide is corrupt?

Bluffmaster

2006-01-24T19:33:00.000-05:00

Director: Rohan Sippy
Producer: Ramesh Sippy
Screenplay: Shridhar Raghavan
Dialogue: Rajat Arora
Music by: Arash, Vishal Dadlani, Sameeruddinand Shekhar Raviiani
Cinematography: Himman Dhamija
Cast: Abhishek Bachchan, Priyanka Chopra, Ritesh Deshmukh, Boman Irani, Nana Patekar

This film is a comedy buried in a light soul-searching drama. You could also say it’s a male-bonding version of "Bunty Aur Babli" without its charm and style. While the film was enjoyable, Abhishek looked tired. I wondered if he was juggling too many films while shooting this one.

Bluffmaster opens with an elaborate scam introducing Roy Kapoor (Abhishek Bachchan), a major con artist, proving if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But things quickly fall apart. At Roy’s engagement party, a guest, the recently scammed gentleman, informs Simmi Khanna (Priyanka Chopra), Roy's fiancee, and her parents about the source of Roy’s income. Simmi promptly dumps Roy.

As Roy ponders his future, enter Dittu, a conman in training. Dittu seeks to learn from a master, so he strikes up a friendship with Roy in an unusual way. A series of scams follow mixed with occasional encounters with Simmi where Roy attempts to win her back. While some of the scams seemed pulled from other films, the door-to-door salesman scam is a kick. But somewhere in the mix you wonder who is being scammed? Riteish Deshmukh as Dittu brightens the screen as a cheeky young man with a delightful collection of T-shirts.

Roy takes Dittu under his wing outlining the rules of the con game while at the same time trying to dissuade him from becoming a con artist. Roy tells Dittu, “I choose the wrong road.”

Then Roy begins to have fainting spells. Enter zany Dr. Bhalerao (Boman Irani) who tells Roy he only has three months to live. One piece of advice Dr. Bhalerao gives Roy is “Life tastes sweetest when death is at your door.” Then things really get mixed up.

(Image source: http://www.lexpress.mu/)

In a final scam Roy seeks to save Simmi from a predatory hotel owner (Nana Patekar) and the outcome is unexpected.

Dropped into the fast-paced dialogue are funny references to Bollywood and Hollywood films the audience enjoyed.

Another enjoyable feature was the cinematography especially the panoramic shots of various Mumbai cityscapes.

One regret is most of the music scenes were chaotic. Disco dancing lacks the ability to show off a performer’s dancing skills and I know Abhishek can dance.

I think I will begin to put a “U” label in my reviews. This was another macho flick with the requisite meeting in the bathroom at the urinals. Do women have a common meeting place in films?

Garam Masala

2005-11-25T21:23:00.000-05:00

Director: Priyadarshan
Screenplay: Neeraj Vora
Cinematography: Tirru
Choreography: Pony Verma
Art: Sabu Cyril

Garam Masala is a farce, a comedy built upon absurd situations. Full of humor, slapstick, and swarms of beautiful women, Garam Masala is good for laughs.

Akshay Kumar and John Abraham play two bumbling photographers, Makrand and Shyam, who shoot pictures of beautiful women for their employer at the magazine, Garam Masala but fail to produce pictures suitable for print.

Mak and Shyam use their occupation as a way to meet and bed as many women as they can, tripping over themselves in the process. They tell so many lies to get what they want, they cannot keep track of their stories. When Shyam wins an international photography contest by fraudulent means, he becomes Mak’s boss. Mak becomes jealous and they part company.

To replace his means of impressing women, Mak lands a job as caretaker of a beautiful home. Many friends are willing to help Mak succeed in setting up an attractive trap to lure beautiful women. One friend, a mechanic, supplies him with expensive cars. Another friend introduces Mak to three airline hostesses Sweety, Puja, and Deepti played by Neetu Chandra, Nargis Bagheri, and Daisy Bopana.

Mak immediately promises undying love to all three and maintains a schedule so the women do not meet. At least, that is his plan.

To complicate matters, Mak ignores the fact he is engaged. Besides balancing the schedules of the airline hostesses, he must also placate a neglected fiancée, Anjali, played by Rimi Sen.

Mak’s cook, Mambo, played by Paresh Rawal, is the funniest character in the movie. Hired by Mak after stating outrageous demands, Mambo reluctantly helps Mak in his deceptions. He rebels every time one of Mak’s female guests demands a certain dish and by the time he has prepared the dish, a new girl has been ushered in through a host of revolving doors and is offended by Mambo’s cooking. He throws out the food and packs his bags.

When Shyam returns, he bribes Babbar, the mechanic, played by Rajpal Yadav, with the promise of liquor and money to get Mak’s new address. Once at Mak’s, Shyam gives him two rupees. Babbar turns his nose up and stuffs the bills back in Shyam’s shirt pocket along with a contribution of his own.

Shyam joins in Mak’s games. Changes in flight schedules have the trio, Mak, Shyam, and Mambo running in circles and falling all over themselves fabricating story after story to divert the various women. When Anjali pops up now and again, she adds to the trio’s mounting confusion. Eventually, Mak’s fantasy life topples as the various girlfriends and fiancée collide.

I love the versatility of Bollywood actri. Many try drama, comedy, romance, adventure and more. Akshay Kumar is an agile, talented, attractive man with a high wattage smile. He dances, jumps, stumbles, rolls, crawls, falls, and runs with ease as his character’s schemes unravel. John Abraham stirred faint memories of Johnny Walker as Akshay’s sidekick. One additional note, the song and dance numbers featured beautiful stylish sets.

SRK Quits

2005-11-15T08:08:00.000-05:00

SRK Quit Smoking.

While this blog is not a SRK news blog, it is wonderful to hear that SRK has chosen to quit smoking not only because he is a role model for both his fans and his children but also for his own health.

I wish him congratulations and the best of luck in beating the nicotine habit.

Mr. and Mrs. 55

2005-10-27T23:28:00.000-04:00

Now I get it.

This film is both a social commentary and a comedy. The opening scenes sets the stage for "Women's Liberation" versus "love and marriage." An unemployed cartoonist, Pritam (Guru Dutt), has an accidental meeting with a lovestruck, well-to-do girl and becomes infatuated. The girl, Anita (Madhabala), lives with her aunt, Seeta Devi (Lalita Pawar), who is a women's suffragette.

Anita's grandfather has died and left Anita his estate on the condition she marry. Because the aunt wishes Anita to have freedom from the ills of marriage, she seeks a groom willing to marry her niece on the conditions that he not see her after the marriage and that he divorce her soon after.

Pritam accepts the job offer without knowing the details. Once he learns the details, he refuses to be bought but when he finds out the girl he was to marry is Anita, he changes his mind and accepts the offer.

One of the funniest moments in the dialouge is when the aunt, who visits Pritam's humble abode, a rented room, asks, "Are you a communist" and Pritam replies, "No, a cartoonist." Pritam is a man content to live a simple life as long as he is free to live with dignity. He is not interested in material goods.

Meanwhile, Pritam and Anita meet on several occasions before the marriage. Anita is unaware Pritam is her intended groom. Affection grows between them. Early interactions between Pritam and Anita reflect a playful subtext regarding the battle of the sexes.

Anita does not find out Pritam is her future husband until they enter the Judge's chambers. After the civil ceremony, she turns her back on Pritam and refuses to speak to him because she feels he deceived her and is a greedy person.

Soon after Anita and Pritam marry, he gets a job. Unbeknownst to Anita, Pritam has not cashed any of the checks he received in payment for marrying her.

Soon the aunt demands that Pritam divorce Anita. Instead he "kidnaps" her and takes her on a long trip back to his family and his village. Along the way, he continues to try and charm Anita to convince her of his love.

Pritam acts the gentleman and Anita observes his family. In conversation with his sister-in-law, she sees a different side to marriage. The wife expresses a great sense of joy and cheerful duty in caring for her home, husband, and children. My only objection to the sentiments expressed was when Anita asks her if her husband beats her, the wife does not answer directly but says her husband gets angry if he finds his rice has not been perfectly cooked. To include occasional abuse as part of a "happy marriage" is inappropriate.

Anita has grown fond of Pritam but can not sort out her feelings because so many have manipulated the relationship. Her aunt comes to Pritam's village to retrieve Anita. In a burst of frustration with Pritam, Anita returns to her aunt's home. Pritam accepts his fate and stages a photographic session to make it appear he has engaged in dishonorable behaviors so Anita can get a divorce easily. He takes the photographs and the uncashed checks to the aunt. This is where the aunt shows her true colors. Rather than recognize that Pritam has committed a selfless act of love and that he is an honorable person, she pressures Anita to divorce Pritam using the photograph as evidence but does not tell her the source of the photograph or that Pritam returned the checks. Soon Anita learns from Pritam's friend that he staged the photograph and returned the checks.

Anita confronts her aunt with the truth -- and tells her to "go and gain real life experiences rather than giving lectures," because maybe many women are happy in their marriages.

Anita rushes to find Pritam who has made arrangements to fly to Mumbai. As you can guess, the two meet again and make-up.

While the film exaggerates stereotypical negative views of women's suffrage, men should not be rewarded for bad behavior by forcing women to stay with them. The flip side of "women's suffrage" are examples of men who divorce their wives of longstanding for younger wives. The ability to utilize the legal system to redress or remedy injustice or criminal behavior should be available to all.

Madhabala, Guru Dutt, and Johnny Walker provide fine performances. Madhabala's Anita is a bit pouty but she gives an energetic performance and looks wonderful in a black sari as it blows in the wind as she walks through Pritam's village at night. Guru Dutt, who also directed the film, cuts a fine figure and has a good sense of comedic expression as well as an understated expression of emotion. Johnny Walker as Pritam's sidekick is funny. Other secondary characters like the aunt's secretary and Walker's girlfriend also provide fine performances.

Shot in black and white, Guru Dutt made excellent use of shading. At times, the intense contrast added to the mood of various scenes.

Starring: Guru Dutt, Madhubala, Lalita Pawar, Johnny Walker, Yasmin, Kumkum
Screenplay and Dialogues: Abrar Alvi
Cinematography: V.K. Murthy
Lyrics: Majrooh Sultanpuri
Music: O.P. Nayyar
Produced and Directed by: Guru Dutt, 1955

What I learned from Shah Rukh Khan

2005-10-22T09:52:00.000-04:00

In early 2002, after buying a VCR, I began purchasing films. As my film library grew, I decided to broaden my horizons and check the foreign film selections. Among the first foreign films I bought was an Indian film called Asoka.

My previous experience with Indian films was Gandhi. After Asoka’s closing credits rolled down the screen, I was transfixed. Indian films were different from western films. They were three hours long with song and dance routines dispersed throughout. Female actresses looked like real women not like the skinny twenty-year-olds in western films. Men expressed emotions, and multiple generations were represented. Though the dialogue was Hindi, the stories and body language were universal.

I wanted to know more, so I entered the male star’s name, Shah Rukh Khan, into Google and it came up with over a million hits.

It didn’t take long to realize Shah Rukh Khan was a major Bollywood star. To learn more I read about Khan’s life and career. I also immersed myself in his films I got from a local Indian video store.

Some of the best parts of Indian movies, for me, are the song and dance routines, the women’s saris and jewelry, and the doti of the men. I love the energy and style of the dancing, especially the choreography of Farah Khan and Pandit Birju Maharaj. Every woman, no matter her age or shape, looks great in a sari and the men look regal.

Because of many changes in my life during this time, I was grateful to escape into the world of Indian film because it wasn’t here. I could lose myself in another world. I bought a sari and Indian jewelry. I learned a few words in Hindi, drank chai tea, ate Indian food, followed Indian news, and got an India travel guide.

Often when watching Indian movies, you are watching both the story on the screen and also the story of a changing culture. I struggled with the concept of understanding India through its films when I asked myself, “Did western films really reflect the history and culture of my world?” I didn’t think so. But, for the moment, Indian films were all I had.

India’s history is thousands of years old (2500 BC). With a population over one billion, with hundreds of different nationalities and religions, conflict was common.

As I followed Indian news, I watched the nation struggle with cultural conflicts, religious and political, that were often violent. In fact, during the height of my obsession, I had hoped to make a short trip to Mumbai but when the Victorian train station in Mumbai was bombed, I changed my mind. I continue to follow the news in all 29 states and 6 territories of India as they struggle with political unrest, varying economic conditions, corruption, poverty, and the struggle over the sovereignty of Kashmir. India claimed independence from British rule in 1948 after many bitter struggles and the establishment of a Muslim nation, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Kashmir remains, today, a disputed territory.

Indian films reflect these issues and more. In Indian films, you get drama, humor, tragedy, suspense, and celebration.

On screen emotional struggles are often raw and awkward in contrast to the slick dialogue of western movies. In Indian movies, characters are portrayed in exaggerated terms leaving no doubt who is good or evil.

One common conflict in Indian films is forbidden love. Arranged marriages are part of India’s culture but India’s youth are pushing for finding their own love matches, so Indian films reflect this cultural schism.

Another underlying motif of modern Indian films is the historical territorial power struggle of powerful Rajas transferred to political families, large corporations, or corrupt gangs.

Scandals in 2003 about mafia influence in the Indian film industry exposed the corruption that Indian society has not brought under control.

The Indian film industry produces over 800 films a year. It is the biggest film industry in the world.

By the time, I watched Asoka, Khan had become a producer as well as actor. He had been married for over 10 years and had two children.

As I continued to watch Khan’s films and other Indian films, read film reviews and interviews, I came to admire Shah Rukh Khan. His personality shone through in all of his characters. He is a good person. He is generous and passionate. He is energetic, expressive, funny, and attractive.

His philosophy about acting is focused on his audience: “I was here to ask for love. I was here to woo them not impress them. I was here to make them realize I was just one of them, like them, except that my job puts me in different situations and stories. And if I was able to hold up this mirror to everyone I was sure my audience would appreciate me because they would reciprocate their love to one of their own….”

Khan was accessible. He was open and honest in his interviews. He was also humble and some say arrogant. He handled his rise to stardom well. He never lost his sense of himself. He gives god credit for his success. He puts his family and friends first. He is loyal to those who supported him in his career. He took risks. He had become phenomena as one of the most widely recognized and admired stars in India, Asia, and Britain.

Because I found his life’s story interesting, I wanted to understand how he made some of the major decisions in his life. How did he decide to become a film actor? Where did he meet his wife? How did he handle success? How did he handle conflict? How did he choose his films? What were his future plans?

All my questions made me wonder about the concept of a role model. Who were my role models? Should film stars be considered role models? How does one feel about this additional life-long role assigned to them?

Khan has great praise for his parents. His parents were his role models. His mother, Fatima, was an Oxford-educated magistrate. His father, Mir Taj Mohammed, was a freedom fighter and a sensitive, intelligent man. They encouraged him and expected him to do well, but did not put many restrictions on him. His father had started several businesses but was not a great businessman. His family’s economics fluctuated but Shah Rukh Khan never felt deprived.

Khan was intelligent and had determination. When faced with getting a zero in learning Hindi in grade school, he studied late into the night until he got tens.

In college, he majored in mass communication and enjoyed advertising art. He also excelled in sports and wanted to pursue a professional sports career. But, an injury changed those plans. “One cannot be sure of one’s best efforts…. as sometimes your best is just not good enough. And that is one truth I live by even today. One should not get disappointed but try hard next time.” A friend suggested he try television. Khan always turns a negative experience into a positive one.

He loved his parents but lost them early in his life, his father at 15, his mother in his early 20s. He openly grieves their loss in most interviews. “Mother taught me that nothing is permanent…. So enjoy what you have this moment, for it can be taken away from you the next. Everything is transient.”

At 19, he fell in love with Gauri Chibber, a Hindu girl. Khan is Muslim. They dated in secrecy because mixed marriages in India are frowned upon. His future wife’s family disapproved of their engagement, so much so his fiancé’s mother went on a hunger strike. Alternating crowds stood outside his home in Delhi to protest their marriage. Hindus came in the morning, Muslims in the evening.

Undeterred, Khan eventually charmed Gauri’s whole family. On their wedding day, he eagerly participated in the Hindu wedding ceremony, which has many rituals. Khan wanted to know the meaning of each one. As he and Gauri, prepared to leave, her family wept over losing her. To ease their pain, Khan offered to let her stay and he would just visit frequently.

He is known for professing his love for his wife, Gauri, and their family.

Khan was a good student but for some unknown reason, Khan’s college dean discouraged him from continuing in college. Yet, Khan is philosophical about the detours in his life, he feels "no experience that you have in life can ever be wasted."

He had success in several television series and decided to try film, so Khan, his wife, and sister moved to Mumbai. In India, it is common for extended families live together.

Khan has won many awards and made box office history with the movie, Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (Braveheart Takes a Bride), which ran to packed houses for over five years and is still running today. Khan is practical about his acting talents, he feels he has a limited range of expressions but he says “If you can pull it off, it’s a performance, if not it was just an accident, try and do it again and again till one day you die.”

Khan's philosophy about business and money is "These four principles cover my business philosophy: You should work for it, you should not lose money in any business, you should make enough money so that you are in a position of choice. And finally, if you start a business employing a lot of people, the end result, regardless of whether it made money or not, should be that all those people involved should be happy that they gave it a shot. He also believes one should have a greed for: knowledge, money so that you can have choice, and love.

Shah Rukh Khan loves New York City, and came to promote Asoka in September 2001. He and his family were only a few blocks away on September 11. As Khan notes, “We could see the clouds of dust and smoke that engulfed the sky…. the situation was so surreal.” Khan sat by the window for hours, “the police coming, the smoke rising and everything, it was very shocking.”

This was my first experience with fandom. I had never been so taken with a star or an industry. I began to see the positive side of fandom as well as the negative.

Life often requires us to review our perspectives, our feelings, our attitudes, our values, and our actions. I had become stale and rigid in my routines and my views of the world and life. Shah Rukh Khan became a role model for me because I learned from him some of the qualities about making good choices, and the importance of hard work, determination, humility, gratitude, loyalty, humor, love, and joy.

In March 2003, I learned Khan was going to have surgery to correct a longstanding back injury. I, along with millions of others, sent him get-well wishes.

Caring about someone even from afar made a difference in my life.

###

Paheli and the Oscars

2005-09-30T15:44:00.000-04:00

Everyone has an opinion about the choice of "Paheli" for India's Oscar submission. Some feel other films should have been chosen for various reasons. Others agree with the choice.

For me, as long as the discussion remains on the various aspects of filmmaking, I think it's good to talk about how films are chosen for awards.

I appreciated "Paheli" for many reasons. I liked the idea of recreating a folk tale of a far-fetched idea of a ghost falling in love with a woman. I also recognized that folk tales can also relay wisdom and insight, or serve as cautionary tales. Folk tales hold universal appeal for all audiences.

"Black" and "Mangal Pandey -- The Rising" were among those considered for Oscar submission. Whlle, "Black" is an incredible film -- beautifully crafted and portrayed, the Helen Keller story is well-known and that is one reason why I think it was not chosen.

"“Mangal Pandey -- The Rising"-- is also a well-crafted film and while the idea of seeking independence and overthrowing suppressors has universal appeal, it is an adult theme. Plus, its theme is similar to Lagaan, a recent Oscar winner.

"Paheli" is many things. It is well-crafted and portrayed. It is also colorful, funny, gentle, sweet, sad, and surprising.

I stopped watching Western films many years ago for many reasons. The stories seemed silly or violent for the sake of violence. Every other movie seemed to be about some freak terrorizing teens, or it would be another shoot-em up, car chase, sex for the sake of sex movie.

I walked out of "Monsters Ball" which won several academy awards. I also walked out of "The Green Mile." Both movies seemed emotionally dead and violent for the sake of violence to me. Many fine Western movies have not been nominated for an Oscar, an example is "Frequency" (2000), a successful, well-crafted movie. I understand the reason for awards but just because a movie is nominated or is not nominated does not necessarily mean it is a good or bad movie.

What I seek to take away from any discussion on film-making is a greater appreciation for the craft of making a film in all its various aspects. Plus, I gain a wider perspective of the world when others share their views.

I have noticed one thing since I began reviewing Bollywood films and this observation holds true for all filmmaking. There seems to be two mindsets for how a story should be portrayed. One perspective is what I call "hard-core realism" -- people in this category seem to view the world as a harsh, cold, survival-of-the-fittest place where you have to watch your back and you have to acquire more "stuff" to survive. The other perspective is what I call "Optimistic" -- people in this category seem to view the world as a friendly, hopeful place, where cooperation among family, friends, co-workers, and strangers are the basis for a healthy civilization. Both views are real.

Quick Take: Mr. India, Mr. & Mrs. 55, The Hits of Udit Narayan, Bollywood All Time Hits V2, Yours Forever--SRK, Main Hoon Na companion DVD disk

2005-09-18T21:29:00.000-04:00

Mr. India -- I can see why this film was so popular. It's intrepid girl reporter tracks crime stories; It's megalomaniac wants to destroy the world with high tech weapons; It's mad professor discovers great invention that could be misused by criminals; It's Invisible Super Hero saves the day. All interlaced with some sweet and comical song and dance routines. Amrish Puri (Mogambo) is such a good bad guy. Anil Kapoor (Arun Verma) plays an innocent, compassionate, and sometimes lonely young man, who has made it his life's mission to raise orphans, with a genuine sweetness and depth of character. I loved the camera work that made Arun become invisible and also when it allowed the audience to see his presence in various scenes. Sridevi (Seema Sohni) is very funny and the children are great.

Mr. & Mrs. 55 -- I need to watch this one again -- it is fast-paced, so I lost track of the storyline but I loved the "funny" opening scenes where women's liberation is touted and then the mood shifts to a young woman who is in love with love. The twist is that Anita (Madhubala), the young woman, must marry in order to inherit her grandfather's fortune. Her aunt seeks to find a suitor who will agree to marry Anita for a price, so she can get the inheritance, and then divorce her. Anita is unaware of these arrangements. This is where I got lost. The aunt, Seeta Devi (Lalita Pawar) finds a struggling cartoonist who agrees to marry Anita. Unbeknownst to the aunt, the cartoonist, Preelam Kumar (Guru Dutt), who, by the way, is gorgeous, has already met Anita and is intrigued with her. I fell in love with Johnny Walker, Preelam's sidekick. He moves so fluidly -- his comic timing and his body language are wonderfully funny. I loved his romantic song duet with a secretary under a table. You can't help but smile when he is in a scene. This movie is a classic and I can see why -- dramatic camera work, satirical social comedic script, and great performances.

The Hits of Udit Narayan -- a collection of 32 song-and-dance routines sung by playback singer, Udit Narayan. Many of these songs were new to me. It was Udit's song, "Ruk Ja O Dil Deewanne" from DDLJ (song is not in this collection) that caught my attention. His voice has a wonderful lilt. Often if I like a song from a collection, I will watch the film.

All Time Hits V2 -- collection of 50 song-and-dance routines from Bollywood hits. This collection has many of my favorites including Ishq Kamena, three from Devdas, and several Anil Kapoor numbers. Anil has a wonderful classical dancing style.

Yours Forever...SRK -- includes 25 song-and-dance routines, film highlights, several interviews and film clips.

Main Hoon Na -- the companion DVD disk -- includes Director's commentary, the making of Main Hoon Na, Deleted scenes and outtakes, and more. The absolute best part of the DVD is Farah Khan's commentary as the film runs -- what an introduction to filmmaking -- she answered one of my questions about the film--Why was the underground space where Raghavan and his cohorts planned their terrorist schemes in Darjeeling ankle deep in water? Because for some reason, Farah Khan was unable to get the floor painted black as originally planned.

Mangal Pandey -- The Rising

2005-09-17T12:28:00.000-04:00

Directed by : Ketan Mehta
Producer : Bobby Bedi
Music : A. R. Rahman
Cast: Aamir Khan - Mangal; Rani Mukerji - Heera; Amisha Patel - Jwala; Toby Stephens - William Gordon; Coral Beed - Emily; Kirron Kher, Lol Bibi....
Cinematrography: Himman Dhamija
Screenplay: Farrukh Dhondy
Choreography: Saroj Khan
Music: A.R. Rahman

The topic of this film -- an early rebellion against British rule in 1847 -- is a serious subject.

While the film was cinematically well-done and well-acted, it lacked an inner fire for me.

The story is illustrated through the friendship of Mangal Pandey, a Sepoy employed by the East Indian Company (EIC), and an EIC officer, William Gordon. This brought the story into the personal realm.

The film raised a thousand questions for me like:

Must all rulers be cruel?

What are the true functions of capitalism?

Why do we tolerate slavery?

The list goes on.

What made the film poignant was its timing. It was released just prior to the 58th anniversary of Indian's independence from British colonization (8/15/1947).

I admire Aamir Khan's vision to produce this film. While historical films often do not do well at the box-office, they are necessary to bring history alive and to remind us of forgotten times and forgotten heroes and heroines.

SRK Calendar

2005-09-17T00:36:00.000-04:00

USA --

Sept. - Dec. , 2005, - Filming of Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna - New York, USA (the exact dates - TBA)

An Open Letter to Anil Kapoor

2005-08-27T15:10:00.000-04:00

Dear Mr. Kapoor:

Thank you for accepting the invitation to lead New York's India Independence Day Parade, August 21, 2005.

I came from Maryland to visit a friend and to see you lead the parade. While I am a "foreigner," I celebrate freedom for all people.

I am an unabashed fan of Bollywood -- I enjoy your films.

You spent hours in the hot sun walking the parade route and went out of your way to shake hands with as many of the bystanders as possible. I got the impression you had no bodyguards because the crowds swarmed around you. After you reached the reviewing stand, you continued to shake hands with those around the stand and wave to those you could not reach.

After the parade, you participated in many other celebratory events. It must have been a long day for you.

You are a great ambassador for your country and your profession.

Watching you walk the parade route in the hot sun is an example of why I think Bollywood stars are the hardest working actors in the film industry. Many Bollywood actors do their own stunts, dance and sing (even if it is later dubbed), and then many perform live in other venues as well as serve as guest-of-honor at various events. Also, I think Bollywood stars appreciate their fans more than other film stars.

Luckily, my friend, Jona, was a much better photographer than I -- her pictures of the parade and you came out wonderful.

Thanks again for coming all the way to the United States to celebrate the 58th anniversary of India's Independence.

Namaste --

Revisiting Taal

2005-07-30T11:47:00.000-04:00

Producer: Raju Farooqui and Subhash Ghai
Director: Subhash Ghai
Music: A.R. Rahman
Cinematography: Kabir Lal
Art Direction: Sharmishta Roy
Choreography: Shiamak Davar, Ahmed Khan, Saroj Khan
Playback Singers: Udit Narayan, Sonu Nigam, Srinivas Patro, A.R. Rahman, Anuradha Sriram, Sujatha, Alka Yagnik
Starring: Anil Kapoor, Akshaye Khanna, Aishwarya Rai, Alok Nath, Amrish Puri,

An Indian friend of mine from New York loves the movie Taal. We are both fans of many of Bollywood's leading actri.

Often when we correspond, she would throw in a good word for the movie Taal.

I had gotten the video of Taal and watched it once, maybe twice. I just couldn't see the attraction. But, Taal kept being mentioned in various Bollywood articles and reviews as a great movie. So, I decided to watch it one more time, to see if I could figure out its appeal.

I am glad I did. I think it's always wise to watch a film more than once because so much is missed in one viewing. Since I had already watched Taal more than once, I did not expect my view to change.

My original conception of the story was -- Rich boy meets poor girl. They fall in love. Their families clash over the relationship. The couple separates. Fame sidetracks the young girl. A crass music producer/director lures her into the entertainment business and for the sake of her family she complies. In the meantime, the young man takes steps to convince his family he is truly in love with the girl and believes they will come to accept her. He haunts the girl's workplace to remind her of his undying love. But, because of unresolved insults to her family, she does not relent and eventually accepts a marriage proposal from the music producer.

At first, it was hard for me to buy into the drama of the clash between the two lovers, Mansi and Manav, (Aishwarya Rai and Akshaye Khanna) and their families. Because one family was from a village, the other from the city, one poor, the other rich, a clash was inevitable.

Also, when I first viewed Taal, I had a image in my mind of Anil Kapoor's acting abilities. For some reason, I did not like his character in Taal, a profit-obsessed, shallow businessman.

While Aishwarya Rai played her character beautifully and the movie showcased her beauty and talent superbly, I did not feel the same about the other characters.

I think my first impressions colored the rest of the film for me and I missed some of the subtle changes. In addition, remember, while body language is universal, I only have the captions to give me an idea of the conversations.

But, when I watched it again, I found the underlying themes in the story more interesting. In addition, the movie was also a cautionary tale highlighting the unglamorous side of the entertainment world.

Amid a complex relationship between their neighboring families, London-educated, Manav Mehta, son of a rich man, meets Mansi, daughter of a poor folk singer, in a variety of ways -- first as a image captured from a picture, then in glimpses of her in her village, after he falls down a mountainside, at a visit to her home, at a party at his home, at a friend's wedding, at her secluded spot in the mountains where she practices yoga, at a public ceremony, and so on, until the two fall in love.

Manav predicts the future clash of their families but he also promises Mansi a true and undying love. One underlying theme presented here is that people find god in many ways, in books, in idols, in the flame of a lamp, or in myths and beliefs. For Manav, god resides in his heart. He speaks and acts through the god in his heart. He says he is honest, true, loyal, and gentle and Mansi's love for him is a belief and trust in him.

The film revolves around music both as tribute to magical and beautiful music and as an illustration of the unsavory side of the music business. Mansi's father is a poor folk singer. Mansi and Manav's families have already clashed by the time they visit Vikrant Kapoor (Anil Kapoor), the music producer/director. They learn how Kapoor steals folk music, including Mansi's father's songs, and reworks them into popular songs. Kapoor offers Mansi a job -- as a singer. She accepts.

In the meantime, Manav works to convince his family to accept Mansi. He also learns of the humiliation Mansi and her father suffered in a visit to his home. Using reason and commitment to his promise to Mansi, he challenges the basic belief that a family can be ruined by a poor choice of in-laws. The family sees it as a clash between sophistication and simplicity, implying that the rich are morally superior to the poor, but their actions and behavior demonstrate otherwise.

As an Indian woman, Mansi walks a fine line. She does not publicly voice strong opinions but must be quietly fierce in defense of her honor and the honor of her family. As Mansi's career develops, she slowly adopts some of the business's characteristics. She cuts herself off from her feelings. We are asked to see that success does not always bring happiness.

Aishwarya Rai is showcased beautifully in multiple song and dance routines -- music video style. The film's music also illustrates many of the film's themes.

The beauty of women has been used since humankind rose from the mud in many ways. In images and words, beauty is defined by a woman's body; but women's bodies have also been used to embody evil or as resources to be conquered and subjugated. Humankind uses woman's body as an expression of its aspirations and its ills.

Indian filmmaking uses images of beautiful women as the embodiment of purity and spirituality as well as images of women as the embodiment of vice and base emotions. In Taal, you see Mansi peek out from her head scarf in public gatherings. You see her dance and sing in her village and then on stage in scenes of pastoral beauty and lavish glamour. Whereas, Manav's aunts, dressed in suits, wear grim faces as they watch Manav and Mansi's relationship develop and as they attempt to derail it.

Culmination of the story illuminates much of Kapoor's character. Underlying the tough facade is a sensitive man. In one scene, he defends the honor of all women by refusing to let any of his "stars" appear in lingerie or nude pictures. In the final scene, Kapoor recognizes that Mansi is still in love with Manav and releases her from her promise to marry him as he steps back into his role of music director. He directs her to run to Manav. Anil Kapoor did an excellent job portraying the complex character of the music producer.

Critics of Bollywood say Bollywood films are simplistic, or unrealistic, or unpolished, or too long, or.... I say Bollywood films are multi-layered. On the surface, they can appear as caricatures of human interactions, but if you catch some of the underlying themes, the stories take on a deeper universal meaning. Also, it is Bollywood's style to make it clear who is good and who is evil. As for length, often Bollywood scenes are generous, they allow time for various aspects of the characters and story to develop. Taal exhibits some of these qualities.

2005 Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge Celebrates 10 Years of Continuous Screenings

2005-07-16T18:25:00.000-04:00

Released 10/20/1995
Producer: Yash Chopra
Director: Aditya Chopra
Screenplay: Aditya Chopra
Music: Jatin Pandit, Lalit Pandit
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi
Cinematography: Manmohan Singh
Art Direction: Shamishta Roy
Choreography: Saroj Khan, Farah Khan
Playback singers: Udit Narayan, Lata Mangeshkar, Kumar Sanu, Asha Bhosle & Abhijett, Pamela Chopra and Manpreet Kaur
Starring: Shah Rukh Khan, Kajol, Anupam Kher, Farida Jalal, Amrish Puri, Satish Shah, Pooja Ruparel, Himpani Shivpuri, Mandra Bedi, Parmeet Sethi and more.

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (The Brave-hearted Will Take the Bride) is India's "Casablanca," a film made without any idea of its future success and fame. It captured a nation's heart and changed Bollywood filmmaking. This year, DDLJ surpasses 500 continuous showings setting a record. The film is still shown in Maratha Mandir Cinema in Mumbai and has been featured in various film festivals, nationally and internationally.

From my perspective, it is story about the fulfillment of a young girl's romantic dream of love.

The overall tone of the film is light-hearted, joyful and playful -- for example, early in the film, Simran (Kajol), the oldest daughter of a London-based Indian family, sings of a dream lover and dances with joy reflecting youthful innocence and exuburance. When her father Chaudhry Baldev Singh (Amrish Puri) receives a letter from his old friend back in his Indian village, Simran is reminded of her arranged marriage to her father's friend's son. Her dream is shattered.

Simran's friends convince her to take a month long trip with them on Eurorail. Simran persuades her father to let her go as a last outing before her marriage.

Raj Malhotra (Shah Rukh Khan), the carefree, mischievous son of a rich business man, has also planned to take a trip with his friends on Eurorail before he enters his father's business. Simran and Raj cross paths during the trip and after a series of misunderstandings and misadventures, they fall in love.

The crux of the story is how will Raj and Simran get back together. Simran has gone to India to get married. An Indian marriage ritual is celebrated for several days before the actual marriage ceremony. Raj has just a few days to figure out a way to charm Simran's father into letting him marry Simran. This appears to be an impossible task because promises have been made and Bauji's honor is at stake if Simran does not marry his friend's son.

Even Simran believes it is impossible when she pleads with Raj to elope with her. But, Raj wants her father's permission to wed Simran because while he, too, has lived in London all his life, he is Indian in his heart and wants to uphold tradition.

Vignettes of members of both the bride and groom's family illuminate their outlook and character. Simran's mature younger sister is her confidant. Simran's mother is her friend. At one point, Simran's mother (Farida Jalal) offers to assist the young lovers in eloping but Raj convinces her that his way is right. Ajit Singh's son, Kamalijeet, is portrayed as a selfish, brutal man. Simran's Aunt plays Raj's father's romantic interest. Grandmothers, Aunts, Uncles, siblings, and friends fill the house with activities surrounding various stages of the marriage preparations and celebrations.

The movie is full of humorous moments. Raj flirts with Simran, his piano-playing gymnastics are a hoot, and he continues to tease and play jokes on Simran. I appreciated the subtle humor of the love song between Simran and Raj as they revisited their time together in Europe in fantasy. Now all the times Raj was inconsiderate, he is sweet and thoughtful, and all the times Simran was angry or ungrateful, she is cheerful and affectionate.

Interlaced with wonderful song and dance routines, the movie maintains a fast pace. Early in the film, while the group of Eurorail travelers attend a party, Raj's surprise song and dance routine that he performs to entertain his friends is funny, full of energy, and flirtatious as he sings to Simran. Plus, Simran's drunken escapade through the streets of Switzerland is wonderfully funny as Raj races after her. Also, during the marriage celebrations, Raj slips his way into the proceedings and leads a wonderful counterpoint dance with the ladies.

In the end, while the young people do not follow the traditions of their elders in the same manner, they retain what they perceive as the important facets of their traditions, chastity, loyalty, respect, commitment, and honor.

Music ties the story together with the recurring haunting notes from the song, Tujhe Dekha.

DDLJ Info Bits ----

According to author, Anupama Chopra, DDLJ director, Aditya Chopra, son of director and producer Yash Chopra, has become an enigma. He rarely gives interviews and prefers anonymity because he likes to go to movie theatres to watch new releases without being noticed.

DDLJ's theme is that generations of non-resident Indians the world-over can still hold traditional Indian values. That sentiments about non-resident Indians are expressed at all, I find interesting. I wonder if it is India's strong emphasis on family ties that reaches across borders to distant relatives and countrymen.

Paheli (Riddle) About The Magic of Love -- Opening Night 6/24/2005

2005-06-25T01:12:00.000-04:00

Paheli opened in Laurel, Maryland last night. The theatre was three-quarters full.

I loved it. When I walked out, I thought, "Hey, there were no fight scenes. No one was killed." How often can you say that?

Ok, in case you wondered, the film stars Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukherjee, Anupam Kher, Juhi Chawla, with guest appearances by Sunil Shetty and Amitabh Bachchan.

What was it I loved? It was colorful and funny. It was a fantasy. You could lose yourself in the story and yet peer into life's dilemmas.

The story based on a novel by Vijayadan Detha is a marvelous adaptation of his folk tale, "Duvidha." The use of animated characters and a bit of special effects set the stage for a magical story. To me, it is a husband's cautionary tale -- be the love your wife desires and you shall reap bountiful rewards.

Two delightful puppets (voice overs: Naseeruddian Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah) assist in the story narration.

After her marriage, Lachchi travels by caravan to her future home. When the caravan stops to rest near an oasis, Lachchi passes under a banyon tree and a ghost sees her and falls in love with her. The ghost appears in many forms in attempts to attract Lachchi's attention. After the caravan leaves, the ghost is tormented by his love for her.

The husband, Kishan (SRK), is a prig. All he cares about is money not romance. Kishan tells his new wife "making money was the foremost duty of a trader." "Only wealth matters," he says as he leaves the morning after their wedding. His journey to outlying villages to collect taxes and barter for goods will take five years. Lachchi, his wife (Rani), cannot come to terms with the situation even though she is surrounded by loving in-laws. While her sister-in-law, (Juli Chawla), tries to console Lachchi by telling her the story of her husband's abandonment, Lachchi longs for the love she had hoped for.

Kishan stops at the same oasis to take a break. Curious, the ghost takes human form (Aasif Sheikh) and learns that Lachchi's husband has left her for five years. He takes the shape of her husband and comes to the family home as their son. At first, the ghost as the son, Kishan, must convince the father (Anupam Kher) that his return will be profitable. Once convinced, the father and family welcome him lovingly. When the imposter enters Lachchi's bedroom where she waits, he tells her the truth and pours out his heart. He tells her his love is true and undying and asks her to accept him. He gives her a choice. He is ready to accept her rejection. Torn between wanting to be a loyal wife in a loveless marriage and the gift of eternal love, Lachchi chooses love.

For a few years, the imposter Kishan and Lachchi live as a loving couple within her extended family. Love is SRK's theme and in this role he shines as a loving husband, son, neighbor, and father.

During this time, various events illuminate some of the family's history. Interlaced, in this time period, are the odd messenger (Rajjpal Yadav) who claims to have been sent by Kishan from a distant village, and similar remarks by others that are dismissed, especially as they can see Kishan is here in his home.

While the sets and costumes were lavish, the story took center stage, and as the imposter's plans are foiled by the early return of Lachchi's real husband, the story continues to provide many surprises.

If blood and gore is what you want in a movie, or if you like fight scenes and gritty realism, Paheli is not your kind of movie.

Another thing I loved was SRK looked healthy. After seeing Veer-Zaara, I was frozen with concern. SRK was too thin in that film, with Paheli, I can relax.

http://www.pahelithefilm.com/ feedback@pahelithefilm.com

Director: Amol Palekar
Cinematographer: Ravi K Chandran
Choreography: Farah Khan
Action Sequences: Allan Amin
Film Editor: Amitabh Shukla
Music: M.M. Kreem
Lyrics: Gulzar

Quick Take: Veer-Zaara, Swades, Bride & Prejudice, Kaal, Waqt, and Bunty & Babli

2005-06-15T20:38:00.000-04:00

Veer-Zaara--I am silent on this film because SRK's appearance affected me. He looked much too thin.

Swades--I am happy to say that SRK came to my hometown, Greenbelt, MD, to film several scenes set at the Goodard Space Flight Center. I enjoyed Swades and appreciated its message asking that NRI's contribute to the country of their origin.

Bride & Prejudice-- loved this film. It was wonderful to see and hear Ash in English. I got a kick out of the western style song and dance routines the sisters performed. Plus, I loved the crowd of street dancers. I went with my sister, mother, and niece and we laughed alot. It was such fun. Upon another viewing, I found the character, Mr. Kholi especially delightful. While portraying an unpolished outlook, at the same time, he was sweet, funny, vulnerable, and kind.

Kaal-- I read several articles prior to seeing the movie, so I was prepared for the story. The story went as I expected. I did appreciate the sentiment expressed over the loss of habitat for the lion. Also, I appreciated the camerawork. But, I missed the mix of a variety of characters and the complex storylines.

Waqt--I liked this film for its silly extremes.

Bunty & Babli-- What a riot of a movie. Lots of funny capers and wonderful song and dance routines. Mr. B's (Amitabh Bachchan) character was quirky. Rani Mukherjee seems like she can do no wrong. This may be the first movie I have seen with Abhishek Bachchan. He was quite good. He had to play a variety of emotions and in one scene did a wonderful job of pretending to be a phony salesman.

Audiences, film publics, and ticket-buyers

2005-02-22T22:21:00.000-05:00

Who decides the audience for a film? The director, producer, scriptwriter, or the cast? They all have a vested interest in the success of the film but who decides the audience the film speaks to?

Will it be a love story for the young, for the old? Will it be a comedy, slapstick or subtle? A mystery or misunderstanding to be solved? Will it be historical or fantasy?

The reason for my questions is another attempt to address Bollywood film critics and western movie makers.

In western films, usually it is a single homogeneous audience that is targeted like young males, or lovers and couples, or children. Only a few films are considered family-movies where both adults and children alike can enjoy a movie together. Not so, with many Bollywood films. Often a Bollywood film will have two or three stories running simultaneously and often the various stories feature children, youth, and adults, so that the film appeals to old and young, and male and female.

My reason for pointing this out is that I find few western films that consider audiences other than young males. Yet, Bollywood critics seek to homogenize their films into a concentrated form that also will appeal to primarily young males. How can Bollywood critics complain about low ticket sales if they don't make movies for a variety of audiences?

Who buys film tickets? I have no demographic information at the moment, but if Shah Rukh Khan is considered one of the most highly appreciated stars in Bollywood, it is because many of his admirers are women. They are buying a lot of film tickets.

Comments on Subhash K. Jhan's "No Holds Barred - Back Biting in Bollywood" Glamsham.com 2 2005

2005-02-19T10:22:00.000-05:00

Jhan's opening line, "You can't bitch a classic out," hit the right note in regards to Bollywood critics reactions to Sanjay Leela Bhansali's "Black."

Here in the USA, I caught "Black" at a local theater soon after it was released and then followed the movie reviews. I was surprised by the diverse reactions.

At first, many critics classified the movie as beautiful but too "sophisticated" for a general audience. In my own review, I had noted that while "Black" is a beautifully-crafted film because it lacked the usual Bollywood film elements such as multi-subthemes with the substantial presence of secondary characters, the mix of humor and drama, and the song-and-dance routines it would find a limited audience. But, I also noted that Bollywood is big enough for many top films. They don't have to be the same. Without fresh views, new techniques and new actri Bollywood's future growth could be impacted negatively.

Then, reviews quickly began to focus on poor economc returns at the box-office using this criteria to label the film a failure. Next, came Bhansali's supporters and detractors and what I noted about the detractors was many had a vested interest in the failure of the film. They wanted to promote their film or their favorite director in an attempt to capture some of the media attention "BLACK" was getting.

I am limited in my experience with Bollywood films. I began watching Bollywood films in 2002 focusing mainly on SRK and Anil Kapoor films. While I have attempted to review some classics like "Mother India," I have a ways to go before I can compare current films with the long history of Bollywood filmmaking. But, I can recognize that Mr. Bhansali has created a unique movie.

I have seen comments that Bollywood is not producing as many films as in the past. I have read that year to year Bollywood film revenues have flutuated sometimes to a point of concern for the future of Bollywood filmmaking.

I see that Ash Rai and SRK continue to gather International attention in various magazines like Time and National Geographic and that each is involved in entertainment vehicles that have the potential to reach global audiences.

At the same time, I see new talent like Farah Khan (director -- Main Hoon Na) creating new and vital film projects.

Bollywood has many great opportunities in its future and one is that it can be a film industry that makes a variety of diverse and well-crafted projects that appeal to various audiences.

So, I say to those who find fault with Mr. Bhansali's "Black" because it is not-indian enough, or it is not "realistic", or for whatever reason, remember there's always room for other views and talents.

Maybe Bollywood could expand it's definitions of its film genres rather than always saying a film is a drama, a comedy, a thriller, horror, suspense. Why not, say something like -- for Black -- non-musical drama, for Veer-Zaara -- a poignant love story with musical background, what I am trying to say is create new categories to create new loyal audiences who may want to see an action film with blood and gore -- or a love story with upbeat songs-and-dances-- for example.

You can make the argument that many Bollywood films are remakes of other films but that is not true. For example, SRK's "Josh" is said to be a remake of "West Side Story,"which was considered a remake of "Romeo and Juliet." While there are some similar elements, the story also has overriding sub-themes that West-Side Story did not have. Chandrachur Singh's character was not part of a gang, he was educated as a chef, and tried to run his own sweet shop. You don't find this sub-theme as well-developed in West Side Story. There may be illusions to Tony's future career in WSS but it is not played out. Also, it is Max who "kills" the brother of Chandrachur Singh's character not Chandrah Singh's character who kills and Max's trial becomes a mystery to solve.

It has been said there are no new stories to tell but when Bollywood makes a movie you may find similiaries to other stories but that is because these stories are universal and can be found in almost any culture's stories. I often think it is a kind of jealousy that leads people to accuse others of copying a story. I feel that Bollywood is struggling to establish standards of quality for its stories in order to elevate them to "classic" status.

One film, Virasat, is a classic to my mind. It captures the eternal struggle between parent and child, between one loyalty and another and the cost of making a choice. Another movie comes to mind as a classic, Dil Se, a story of a nation torn apart by civil war, strife, and corruption played out by two people affected quite differently by their country's history.

Mr. Bhansali's critics need to gain control of their feelings and take that energy and keep Bollywood film industry healthy by making a diverse selection of films.

Western films have become anemic because there is so little diversity. In the USA, film devotees crave fresh input from directors, scriptwriters, and actors but because the film industry has a stranglehold on the production and dissemination of films there is a dearth of good films.

India's willingness to tackle topics of social importance is also an important factor in its films. Addressing the emigration of so many Indians to other countries, social ills like poverty, spousal abuse, orphans, ignorance and corrruption represent bravery to me. Western movies haven't offerred these themes in most of its movies.At times they offer pure patriotic propaganda which is not the same. India's films can be said to push patriotism, too, but it is often laced with realistic representations of their own failings.

One classic in Western films, "Casablanca," is about refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and the occupation of France. Movies with social and poltiical themes can succeed but Western filmmakers don't want to reach an intelligent audience--they offer only thrills, action, blood-gore, horror, and sex. There are exceptions but these movies like "Frequency" don't make the academy awards.

Movie goers are looking for alternatives to Western movies because of it's lack of diversity. Many look to the Sundance Festival of independent filmmaking for movies of quality.

Western movies only target the 20-something audience particularly males. If Bollywood is successful, ask yourself why. Is it because half or even more of its audience are women? Does Bollywood want to make only movies that are "realistic" like blood and glore, horror, and sex films to please the male component of its audience and ignore half of its audience.

I will tell you that Bollywood makes movies that provide both audiences with a slice of what they seek -- love story, comedy, drama, and action (blood and gore). I think SRK's movies: Bazzaigar and Karen Arjun are two examples. Both have several bloody fight scenes, both have mysteries to solve, both have love stories, whereas Bazzaigar has some comedic moments, I don't recall many in Karan Arjun. But the point is that a mixed audience could view these movies with enjoyment.

Black is Blue, Brown, and Light

2005-02-05T10:07:00.000-05:00

BLACK

Producer: Applause Entertainment
Director: Sanjay Leela Bhansali
Cast: Amitabh Bachchan, Rani Mukherje

Director Sanjay Leela Bhansali offers this film as a tribute to Helen Keller. It is a remake of the Helen Keller story.

I am a filmgoer not a critic. So, I don't always use the proper terms for the technical aspects of filmmaking when I describe how I experience a film.

Sometimes I think film critics forget not all filmgoers are as aware of all the technical aspects of filmmaking as critics. Like a wine connoisseur who has more taste buds than the average person and can taste subtleties missed by others, a film critic focuses on details in the structure, characterizations, plot, dialogue, camera work, direction, musical score, lyrics, choreography, and more to a finer degree than an average filmgoer.

As a filmgoer, I am more forgiving of a plot that may take a bit of imagination to piece together as a whole, or characterizations that may be bolstered by affection for the actri, or dialogue that may be mentally revised to suit the scene.

If you are familiar with the Helen Keller story, the director sticks close to the story including the famous dining room scene and water scene. Because in this story, Michelle, the blind and deaf girl, has a male teacher, the director, while staying with the original story, must take a slightly different slant when he tells how Michelle and her teacher grew over the years to reflect the successes and missed opportunities that Helen and her teacher, Anne Sullivan, experienced.

The cinematography in "Black" is a large part of the film. Most scenes are beautifully cast in a variety of shades of blue and brown with light streaming in or illuminating parts of the scenes. The use of color and light recalled the film "Barsaat" by Raj Kapoor with his dramatic use of black and white shading.

Rani Mukherje has become a surprisingly good actress. I first saw her in "Hey Ram" and her character, while played well, did not stand out. Then she seemed to burst on the scene as a screen model, glamorous and pretty. Now, she is everywhere. I saw a bit of her talent range in "Calcutta Mail." She is expressive, funny, and a good dancer. She is a quick study and improvises on the spot. Playing Michelle in "Black" appeared to be a challenging role for Rani. Rani does not have a stoic face, so she seemed quite expressive at times when I expected a more solemn countenance. But, Rani developed her own style to express the hesitating walk and perplexed expression of a blind and deaf person.

The young girl, Ayesha Kapoor, who played Michelle as a child, did an excellent job. She is a natural actress. She seemed to flow in the role and move through the scenes flawlessly. How did a young child learn to mimic the face of a blind person? She is most convincing.

I had only seen Amitabh Bachchan in recent films like Mohabbatein, KKKG, Veer-Zaara, and Baghban. I had no way to judge his performance in “Black” against his earlier work. But, his energetic and sympathic portrayal of Michelle's teacher, Mr. Sahai, took my breath away as he took on the challenge of teaching Michelle and devoted his life to her intellectual growth.

One thing I like about Bollywood films is they are not afraid to illustrate the varied history of India, openly or subtly, in their stories. In this story, Michelle comes from an Anglo-Indian family. With no reference to the past, you instinctively know that the alliance stemmed from the history of British colonization.

At times, I found the opulence of the settings oppressive. What is the purpose of opulence if not to impress?

I missed several aspects in this film that I find in many Bollywood films. There were no song and dance routines. There were no substantial secondary characters or multiple themes. In my mind, these missing aspects limit “Black” to a highly-perceptive adult audience. Also, except for a western-style wedding, there were no rituals in any scenes. I had become used to seeing various temple and worship rituals in Bollywood films, so their absence was noticeable.

But, in a healthy film industry like Bollywood, it is nice to be able to view the vision of different directors, and the talent of many fine actri and filmmakers. Bollywood films don't have to all be the same. “Black” is a stunningly visual film, and a finely crafted and portrayed story.

One memorable line came when the college trustee says to Michelle's teacher, "Science does not believe in miracles."

My only objection was -- when are movie theaters going to change their menus? Popcorn, candy, soda, and nachos and cheese are fattening and poor nutritional food choices. I suggest that movie theaters reexamine their snack selections. Movie theaters are behind the times. Restaurants and fast-food venues have revised their menus to include vegetarian choices, fruit and fruit juices, vegetable snacks, decaffeinated beverages, and more. Why not movie theaters?

p.s. if you are paying attention to this blog, you may note that this is my first review of a non-SRK film.

From the Statesman--Rage Worship

2004-11-14T19:22:00.000-05:00

by Shoma A. Chatterji
11/2004

I took the following statement from Chatterji's article "Rage Worship":

"the random use, abuse and misuse of violence by the average hero of the average mainstream film have reduced him to a marketable commodity devoid of human values. He mirrors the terrorist in Punjab and Kashmir, the fascist in Gujarat, the regional facist of Assam, the legitimised army killer and rapist in Manipur much more than he is in any way close to our mythological heroes Ram, Ravana, or Yudisthira..."

to heart as I watch the increase in the acceptance of violence as a means of governing world-wide.

There is no more perfect slave culture than a population that had been oppressed by fear, violence, and poverty.

Chatterji's statement applies to Western films and culture, too, and to my mind, as a westerner, much more so, because Western films have reduced violence to an entertainment value without any social context. Western films portray acceptance of violence as a way of life. Just as Bollywood and India have fought corruption in their industry and in their culture, the United States seems to be run by the mafia. Our government and our industries are run by thugs and thieves who enjoy robbing and killing their own people. They are destroying their own economic engine--the middle class--for short-term personal gain. Our government has a history of genocide starting with the Native Americans, African Americans, and Mexicans. We took their land, we enslaved their people, we throw their governments into turmoil by supporting civil war, and it seems that our government wants to continue this policy in the Midddle East.

If the United States was instrumental in saving Europe from Nazi domination, who will save the world now from the United States?

Ram Jaane

2004-11-13T13:21:00.000-05:00

1995, Hindustani, color, 172 minutes, Eagle Films
Director: Rajiv Mehra; Producer: Parvesh Mehra; Cinematography: S. Pappu; Story/Screenplay/Dialogue: Vinay Shukla; Audiography: Karnall Singh
Lyrics: Anand Bakshi; Art Direction: Nitish Roy; Music: Anu Malik; Action: Mohan Baggad; Choregraphy: Nimesh Bhatt; Playback Singers: Udit Narayan, Abhijett, Alka Yagnik, Sadhana Sargam, Anuradha Shriram

Cast: Shah Rukh Khan, Vivek Mushran, Juhi Chawla, Pankaj Kapoor, Punit Issar, Tinnu Anand, Deven Varma, Gulshan Grover

I thought I’d seen most of the film highlights of SRK’s career to date. On a visit to a local Indian video store, I picked up Ram Jaane, a film made early in SRK’s career that I hadn’t seen.

I watch Bollywood films more than once because there is so much to take in. The first time I watched Ram Jaane, I found little to like.

Coincidently, the gangster motif in the film juxtaposed in my mind with a recent interview I heard on NPR about the influence of the underworld on Bollywood films. It was like a visual presentation of the underworld lifestyle.

But when I watched it again, I saw much more to like. I was able to get past the violent nature of many of the characters and scenes.

Ram Jaane is a story that questions society. Two boys are orphans and friends. One, Ram Jaane (Shah Rukh Khan), is street smart and fearless, the other, Murli (Vivek Mushran), is gentle and kind. The first becomes an accomplished underworld operative, the other grows up to run a home for orphans. As adults their paths cross again when a childhood friend, a girl, Bela (Juhi Chawla), returns to the neighborhood. Both have a romantic interest in her but Murli does not express his desires because he knows Ram Janne is interested in Bela, too. Murli feels he owes Ram Jaane his life because when they were young and running the streets together, Ram Janne had saved his life.

But Bela loves Murli and tells him so. All of this occurs against a background of criminal and political corruption. Ram Jaane has scores to settle and in the process kills several people. To catch Ram Jaane, the police and thugs clash with Murli and his orphans. By threatening Murli’s home for orphans Ram Jaane attempts to intervene and is caught.

In an eloquent courtroom presentation, Ram Jaane points to society and the legal system as participants in his crimes, the crimes of the underworld, and corruption of public officials like the police. By turning a blind eye to corruption, the legal system has created an environment where orphans turn to crime.

Beautiful Juhi Chawla is wonderful as Bela. She has many moving scenes and also quite a few energetic dance numbers that show off her talents as an actress and dancer.

Vivek Mushran as Murli gave an understated, muted performance, perfect for his role as a quiet, gentle man whose mission was to help orphans.

One surprise in this film was SRK’s acting style. While I caught glimpses of his trademark style, in this film his style has not been perfected. His style is rough in places but consistent with his character. SRK’s character is often crude, fearless, loyal, violent, honest, and naive.

Elements of the storyline overrode any objections I had about SRK’s acting style, as with many Bollywood films, the social statements are an important part of the story.

Postscript--After watching Ram Jaane again, I felt SRK's final prison scene is one of his best.

I Vote Yes to Keep the Dance and Song Routines

2004-10-31T21:11:00.000-05:00

I want to counter those who criticize Bollywood films. Some say they are less polished than "western" films. But, Bolllywood has it's own style and that style is valuable. Many Bollywood films are layered with various stories and themes. They are also realistic, so if emotional scenes seem raw, this is because in real life emotional scenes are raw. I enjoy the multi- layered and -themed characteristic.

Several critics claim the dance and song routines are unecessary especially in dramas. But, show me any other film industry that invests in musical talent as much as Bollywood. I love the fact that Bollywood films support all the arts by showcasing choreography that reflects national dance styles, and singers, musicians, and lyirists.

My vote is that Bollywood keep that which it has made unique and wonderful.

Shah Rukh Khan and the Temptations Show 9/4/2004

2004-09-05T07:03:00.000-04:00

Shah Rukh Khan came and I saw him live at the MCI Center in Washington, DC.

Since becoming immersed in Indian films in 2002 and becoming a fan of Shah Rukh Khan, I made it a goal to see SRK in person.

I read Indian news and use the Internet to keep up with SRK's doings. When I heard he was going to lead the India Independence Day Parade in New York in 2003, I caught a train to New York. Unfortunately, he was running late, and I had to catch a return train home, so I missed him. But, I did make friends with an Indian woman who stood next to me along the parade route. We still communicate.

Then, I found out SRK was going to do a variety show tour that included a night at the MCI center. I knew where I would be on 9/4/2004.

I wore an beautiful dark green Indian outfit with silver Indian jewelry bought especially for the show. My niece came with me. It was great to be among a crowd of women in Indian fashions. I love saris and other Indian fashions. They are beautiful. My family and friends really liked my outfit.

I was not disappointed in any way. Everything that is said about SRK is true. He has enormous energy and is very personable. The show ran for over three hours and SRK was on stage alot. Towards the end the stars did a medley of songs from SRK's movies and I was dancing in the aisle. I was so comfortable with the music, I knew all the songs.

SRK interacts with the audience. He invited people on stage and danced with them.

The audience roared and cheered SRK and the other stars throughout the show. There was no shortage of enthusiasm.

While our seats were in the upper level and SRK, Rani Mukerji, Preity Zinta, Priyanhia Chopra, Saif Ali Khan, and Arjun Rampal looked tiny down on the stage, I still enjoyed the show. A troupe of dancers backed up the stars in the musical numbers.

While I like all the other stars in the show, I came to see SRK.

An odd yet true reaction I had seeing SRK in person was that it was like seeing him in film that is how much his personality comes across in film. I had to remind myself this is live, he's really here on stage talking, dancing, and singing.

He thanked the audience, the convention organizers and many others for supporting him and the tour many times. He let the audience know he wanted them to have a good time.

While many of the dance numbers were modern, Rani and Priety performed a traditional dance routine towards the end of the evening. It was beautiful.

I like the fact that Bollywood stars reach out to their fans. To my mind, Bollywood stars work harder than other film stars. I also like the fact that in Bollywood the music is an integral part of the films.

Another thing I love about many Bollywood movies and this show is that they are geared toward multi-generational audiences.

I am still thinking about the show, letting it sink in that I really got to see SRK. Probably the sign of a real fan. I realized that SRK is so real, you can count on him to be honest, kind, professional, positive, energetic, generous, and hardworking.

I hope my pictures come out.

Here's another thing I like about Bollywood

2004-07-27T19:38:00.000-04:00

I just got finished reading some news of Bollywood on various internet sites and it struck me that one of the things I love about Bollywood is because they make so many films, everyone can find one they like. Everyone can find actors, actresses, backup singers, directors etc. that they like.

I began to realize that those who criticize SRKs for his "feel good" movies were people who preferred stories with more "realistic" aspects. They seem to qualify "feel good" movies as being less appealing intellectually, or creatively. But, in the world of artistic expression there are a variety of styles, as it should be.

SRK is India's "Disney." Pardon my comparison to Hollywood.

Shah Rukh Khan is Coming to the MCI Center 9/4/04

2004-07-23T20:47:00.000-04:00

The minute I wrote that headline, I panicked.

The United States is in a terrible place right now. Our government is considering postponing our national elections due to threats of terrorism. September is close to November when elections are held. Fear and concern ran through my mind. I pray SRK and his troupe come to the USA without any hassles or harm.

Anyway, SRK and a troupe of Bollywood stars are coming to the MCI Center in Washington, DC on Saturday, 9/4/2004. For more information, call 1 800 551 7328, 703 658 3171, or email: bollywoodc@aol.com.

Disappointed

2004-07-21T17:38:00.000-04:00

A quick note, I am disappointed that three of Shah Rukh Khan's films were not fully appreciated. They are Asoka, Dil Se, and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani.

Asoka was my introduction to Indian film. After watching the movie, I knew it was unique. I read various comments about Asoka. It was viewed as a risk because it was a semi-historical film. Critics found fault with its facts. Sometimes films are meant to convey an impression not to enact an exact reality. Because of Asoka, I did a lot of reading about India's history and about the career of SRK. I found both absorbing.

By the time I saw Dil Se, I had watched many of SRK's early films. I found Dil Se beautiful. A sad film can be beautiful. The story treated the subject of terrorism with realism and compassion. There was something about SRK's performance I had never seen before, to say he was more natural isn't quite right; I think it was his most emotional role. The choreography was more than striking; it was inspired.

Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani, a SRK production, to my mind was a love letter to the Indian people. The story is about a father who kills his daughter's rapist, a government employee shielded by influence. It is also a story of how the corruption is uncovered and how the Indian public comes to support the father. Plus, I think it is SRK's funniest role. He likes comedy and I think his parody of himself and others as media idols is a stitch. Juli Chawla is also wonderful in this movie. As with many Indian movies, humor, tragedy, romance, and drama are woven into the story.

All this does is remind me I need to catch up on so many stars like Juli, Ash, Manisha, Maduri, Kajol, Anil, Chandrachur, Jackie, Sanjay, and so many more. For each time I branch out, I find more to love about Indian films.

(c) 2004 Canary Press Co.

Main Hoon Na--It's also about having fun

2004-07-20T17:30:00.000-04:00

Almost everyone knows about "Main Hoon Na", the Shah Rukh Khan backed film debut by director, Farah Khan.

I am sensitive to violence and try to avoid it but with Indian movies that has proven hard to do. The underlying theme of Main Hoon Na is the tense relations between India and Pakistan. There are several scenes with violence. While I could cover my eyes, I couldn't block out the sound.

I appreciated the underlying story of attempts to make peace with Pakistan and to illustrate the horrors of past conflicts. This is another thing I appreciate about Indian films. Most call them escapist but they are hardly that when many feature subplots regarding corruption, deception, abandoned children, abused women and, of course, violence. These elements are not far from the reality of many Indians. Most Indian movies try to end by solving the plot conflicts, by having the bad guy get captured, jailed, killed, or in some way punished. Indian films raise many social issues and attempt to correct injustices.

In the film, terrorists threaten to disrupt a fragile peace process by threatening the life of the Army General's daughter. Major Ram (SRK) is sent to her college town to act as a student and serve as a bodyguard. At the same time, he is on a personal mission to find his half-brother Lakshman (Zayed Khan) and heal old wounds.

Other reviews have dealt with the various subplots and pivotal scenes, suffice it to say that the General's daughter; Sanjana (Amrita Rao) and Lakshman are used by Raghavan (Suniel Shetty), the terrorist, in an attempt to derail the exchange of Pakistan and Indian prisoners of war.

Luckily, most of the movie focuses on the college antics of Sanjana, Lakshman, and their classmates which spells out lots of songs, dances, and fun as Ram gets to know Lakshman, his mother, Sanjana, and the college chemistry teacher.

I loved so many scenes, the opening dance number, Ram’s comic fashion changes, the fantastic song and dance dream sequences, and the humor.

I did appreciate the special effects in the confrontation scenes with Ram and Raghavan. I have to say though, I hated to see SRK take the body blows and falls. I winced because I was aware of his back problems.

Zayed Khan (Lakshman), who stepped in to replace Hrithrik Roshan, did a great job; some reviewers dissed his dancing skills. But, I say hey, the guy dances, for me that's more than enough plus he has his own sweet style. I love men who dance.

Sushmita Sen as the chemistry teacher was elegant. Amrita Rao has a lot of style. Her acting was very convincing and her dancing was charming. I don't know how tall she is but she looks like a sprite, so tiny and delicate. The supporting cast was great, too.

I loved the ending of the film when they introduced the credits. The various scenes make me laugh and I dance to the music. The only disappointment was Gauri Khan, the producer and SRK's wife, did not put in a personal appearance. My guess is that Main Hoon Na credits may be the only film credits that are read in their entirety.

I also appreciate the fact that SRK is so open in his interviews; I have learned a lot about film making from him. I appreciate the fact that he wants all his films to succeed on many levels and he is willing to go the extra mile to achieve that. After months of hard work, the filmgoer is transported for a few hours.

For me, Main Hoon Na is like the end of a long pleasant trip. I have followed SRK’s career since 2002, purposefully going back to his early films in an attempt to watch him grow as an actor. I think I achieved that. Khan has grown as an actor. While watching Main Hoon Na, it was hard to remember him in Deewana as the young man in love, who shook with the realization that he now wanted something in his life, a woman, a wife, and who cried bitterly as he pounded a brick wall. He jumped with energy, had a baby face and flying, black hair.

Khan has grown into a handsome man with chiseled cheeks, his hair trimmed and slicked back. His acting is polished. His emotional expressions while forceful are more tightly controlled. He's the adult now mingling with youth. A role reversal. But, his energy and joy of life still shine through. Now that I am watching SRK in real time, it's interesting to see the various mature roles he is taking on in films like Montabbein, Devdas, Chalte Chalte, and Ka Ho Na Ha. This is another thing I like about Indian movies, Indian movie stars really work hard their whole career and since Indian movies are multi-generational, stars can play a variety of characters their whole lives. To my mind, western movies focus almost entirely on youth.

In human relations, Shah Rukh Khan's generosity to others is paid back like some law of physics that says the more you give the more you get.

There are many reasons why Shah Rukh Khan is a star. One basic reason is the camera loves him. He looks good from any angle.

What will Farah Khan do next?

I think Ms. Khan has the right approach to her work and it's a similar one for SRK, do what you love. Farah loves to dance and now she loves to direct. But, she says she has no new project in the works because nothing interests her. Boy, wouldn't I love to take a break from work and only do the jobs I liked. It's really not a bad idea, because when you love something you give it your best.

(c) 2004 Canary Press Co.

Devdas 1955 vs Devdas 2002

2004-07-11T13:14:00.000-04:00

After seeing the 2002 remake of Devdas, I wanted to see the 1955 black and white version.

I have a lot to say about Devdas, the 1955 version and the 2002 remake.

To gain a better understanding, it's always better to watch a film more than once. Contrary to Dilip Kumar’s adversity to making comparisons, I find sometimes comparisons can add a depth of understanding to a story. Comparisons can also enhance appreciation of an art form.

The 1955 Version

http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/DEVDAS.htm

The 1955 Devdas was in black and white starring Dilip Kumar, Suchitra Sen, and Vaija Yantimala. The 2002 remake was in color starring Shah Rukh Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Madhuri Dixit.

Most of the Indian movies I had watched previously were shot in the 1990s or 2000s with the exception of the 1970s Bobby, and Mother India, so I was surprised at the rural setting and the bare staging of the 1955 version. The remake was considered the most lavish Indian film to date.

The 1955 movie spent more time desccribing the youthful relationship between Devdas and his childhood friend, Paro. You get more of a sense of separation. The two families, Devdas's and Paro's are neighbors but come from different castes. So, early on it is established that the relationship is fated for failure.

In the 1955 version, you see Devdas and Paro as young children. Devdas is a rascal. He is always getting into trouble. Paro is his faithful playmate. Eventually, his parents send him to Kolkata to stay with an Uncle hoping he will settle down and study.

When Devdas returns home after his long absence, he assumes he can resume his relationship with Paro but the politics of his family intrude. A battle over money is one source of the conflicts.

The expression of emotions in Indian films is both constrained and bold. So, the meetings between Paro and Devdas are brief. While little is said enough is conveyed to communicate that Devdas and Paro are in love.

At first, they thought their parents would agree to their marriage, but both fathers had reasons to object. Devdas’s father objected because Paro’s family was of a lower caste. Paro’s father objected because he felt dishonor in approaching Devdas’s family regarding Paro’s marriage and felt he could find her a richer husband.

When Devdas returns, he seems more subdued, more introspective. Yet, when he is confronted with the conflicts that arise from the prospect of marrying Paro, he is torn. He wants to please his parents, but he also wants to marry Paro. When he cannot resolve the conflict, he returns to Kolkata with the idea he will forget Paro and she him.

In the meantime, Paro is betrothed to another man. The rest of the movie deals with Devdas’s inability to forget Paro and Paro’s acceptance of her fate.

A friend, Chunni, introduces Devdas to Chandramukhi (Vaija Yantimala), a courtesan in a brothel. Devdas expresses distain for her. But, she falls in love with him. Eventually, he begins to drink.

Even though Paro has married, she carries Devdas in her heart. Her approach is more practical and more accepting of her fate. But, her plight illustrates that she yearns for a life with her love.

Chandramukhi seeks to find out where Devdas is and how he is. He visits her now and then and sometimes when he is under the weather. Under the influence of her love for Devdas, Chandramukhi changes her lifestyle and gives up prostitution. In contrast, Devdas adopts self-destructive behaviors.

While there were songs dispersed throughout, only Chandramukhi’s character dances.

Eventually Devdas ruins his health. Chandramukhi has found him in the streets, drunk. She brings him home to care for him. After Devdas recovers he professes a love for Chandramukhi. But, he also feels a need to travel, to find himself. During the trip, a friend encourages him to drink. He becomes ill. He feels close to death, so he finds a carriage and driver to take him to Paro’s home one last time. He had promised Paro he would come to her door when he was in need.

In the 1955 version, the other characters, family and friends, are not well-developed. Their relationships are hinted at—such as Devdas’s conflicts with his brother and sister-in-law.

When I watched the 1955 version again, I enjoyed the movie much more; I was able to focus on the emotional struggles of Paro and Devdas. I felt many could identify with Devdas’s predicament. Also, I felt that the emotional struggle was heroic in some ways.

The movie explores in my mind how a person is affected by the web of relationships in their life and how many aspects of one’s life are decided by others, which is what makes the movie universal.

Dilip Kumar won “Best Actor” and Vyjayanthimala won “Best Supporting Actress” for the 1955 version. The character Devdas and his story have had a wide effect on Indian cinema and culture. The 1917 story of Devdas has been made into film nine times. “Every Indian grew up sensitized to the saga of Devdas.” (Barrow and Krishnaswamy, Indian Cinema) Many Hindi film characters have been modeled after Devdas.

Dilip Kumar distances himself from the Devdas character, for him it was just another role. He did not always agree with the characterization of Devdas especially when Devdas struck Paro. (http://www.rediff.com/entertai/2002/jul/03dilip.htm)

The 2002 Remake

In the 2002 remake, Shah Rukh Khan plays Devdas and Aishwarya Rai plays Paro. The remake is considered the most lavish Indian film to date. Here the neighboring families of Devdas and Paro live in elaborate mansions filled with stain glass windows, painted floors, and works of art. The costumes are colorful and rich.

The movie opens with Devdas’s family preparing to celebrate Devdas’s return; references are made to childhood events throughout the movie.

In interviews about Devdas, Shah Rukh Khan explains that he saw the Devdas character as weak and played him as such.

Many of the characters and their relationships are well developed. Devdas’s and Paro’s mothers play a big role in the story. Devdas’s brother and sister-in-law are seen as weak and scheming, respectively.

There are songs and dances in the remake featuring many lavish numbers. Maduri Dixit shines in her role of Chandramukhi. Her dancing is superb.

The remake stays true to the story in many ways keeping most key scenes such as:

Paro hides from Devdas upon his arrival
Paro and Devdas meeting at the water’s edge
The conflicts over caste and money
Paro and Devdas believe they would be able to marry
Devdas striking Paro
The meeting of Pavarti and her new step-daughter and gift of jewelry
The ending

In the movie, all three characters, Devdas, Paro, and Chandramukhi love and believe in a love that transcends self.

Most scenes are more elaborate than the 1995 version, such as

--when Devdas visits Paro after his return. She has run away into her room. He follows. She hears his steps and lights a wall lamp. He enters as the light casts a glow on Paro’s face. In the remake, the lamp has come to represent Paro’s undying love as she has kept a lamp lit for Devdas since he left.

http://www.revistacinefagia.com/cineditos019.htm

--Paro’s nighttime venture to Devdas to see if he is committed to their relationship. In both the 1955 version and the remake, Paro and Devdas discuss her possible dishonor and how to view their parent’s objections. In the 1955 version, it is a simple scene. In the remake, the language is more frank. Plus, Devdas’s father confronts Paro and calls her and her mother indelicate names. Paro’s mother lectures Paro on family honor.

Both films have Devdas back in Kolkata after the conflict has driven him away. He writes to Paro to persuade her that they should consider themselves friends.

In both films, Paro is engaged and Devdas returns during the ceremonies. When he and Paro meet, he tells Paro that he was wrong to send the letter and that he loves Paro. Paro by this time has accepted the fact that Devdas will not take any action to bring about their marriage, so they have cross words. Devdas responds by striking Paro, leaving a wound on her forehead.

For me this was the turning point in the film, it is Devdas’s admission of failure and his weaknesses.

In the remake, the scene is more poignant because after striking Paro, Devdas leads her to her wedding procession and later carries her bridal litter as she heads towards her new home. After her marriage ceremony, Paro goes to meet Devdas once more. Both Shah Rukh Khan and Dilip Kumar play these scenes with a mixture of pain, meanness, and sadness expressing the unbearableness of the situation.

The wound becomes a symbol of ownership which Paro takes pride in.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020610-257165,00.html

In the 1955 version, Paro and Chandramukhi are aware of each other, but they only pass on the road. In the remake, they befriend each other.

In both films, a friend of Devdas’s leads him to a local brothel to help him forget his troubles. Jackie Shroff in the remake gives an excellent performance as the friend, Chunni.

The dialogue in the remake is fuller with more illusionary references.

The difference in brothel settings is striking. In the 1955 version, Chandramukhi’s outfits are simple and she dances alone in a small room in a boarding house. In the remake, Chandramukhi lives in a lavish temple-like dwelling and dances with over eight other dancers. Her outfits are embroidered with gold and jewels and she wears a wealth of bracelets, necklaces, earrings and anklets.

In the remake, Devdas’ gradual deterioration is played out in many painful scenes. Whereas in the 1955 version a few scenes illustrate his decline but leave the viewer to imagine the details.

In the remake, many enjoy Devdas’s predicament, as if he got his comeuppance. But, the characters that take pleasure in bringing Devdas pain are not happy either and while their plans succeed in eliminating Devdas, their goal was power and resources not happiness.

In a sense, Devdas’s life questioned the concept of happiness. What makes one happy?

Within the confines of social conventions, Paro and others still try to save Devdas. Anyone who has had a family member or friend struggle with alcohol the scenes are realistic and the feeling of helplessness is true.

Devdas was a lucky man to be loved by two women. As Chandramukhi says, “Loving isn’t always about receiving. Love is a mirror in the soul. Amour god’s gift to life’s design”

http://www.filmfestivals.com/filmweb/devdas/02.jpg

What is also portrayed in the movie is the idea that Devdas has character, that he is worthy of love even though he has no direction in life and he is indecisive. For some it may seem odd that women would love a man like Devdas but again, I think the scenario is realistic in that few of us are heroic 100% of the time, some struggle with indecision often, and often we find ourselves in situations that are restrictive, where we are asked to subjugate our needs and wants for the sake of family or society. Family and society are not always right when it comes to determining what is good for each human being. It raises the questions, when is sacrifice good, when is it bad?

In another sense, the movie is about spirit and soul, which are not fed by wealth or position but by compassion, love, forgiveness, joy, humility, and charity. But the film implies that those who seek a soulful happiness don’t stand much of a chance. The movie also implies that those in power will seek to cast out those who do not abide by their rules or those whom they deem imperfect. In essence, those in power have the power of life and death. Yet, those cast out have the power to love.

I could identify with Devdas and his relationships with his family and his society. His mother, who claimed to love him, was blind to his true feelings and character. She allowed others to influence her perspectives. This is so true, it seems that many people are easily influenced by others to believe the worst about someone they know or barely know without question. The film also portrays to my mind that the struggle to be a good person is made more difficult by examples of those who are rewarded for bad behavior and evil deeds. When the sister-in-law does not suffer for her lies and schemes, it communicates that being evil is ok. Devdas and Paro are punished for their love.

Because Devdas does not take the route others take when faced with conflict or loss of a love, he is labeled weak. But, in one sense he is honoring his love by choosing to dwell on his situation. His father chooses people by their place in the caste system. His mother sees mercenary goals in others but is blind to her daugher-in-law's schemes and lies. Paro's mother is the only character who is fully aware of Paro and Devdas's feelings. She is sympathetic but when she is scorned by Devdas's family, she arranges a marriage for Paro because honor is more important than love. Chunni is casual about all relationships. Devdas' brother and sister-in-law are too shallow to exhibit any noble feelings, having money is their only value. Chandramukhi whose life has made her almost immune to love falls deeply in love and makes many scarifices to help Devdas. While Devdas loves Paro, in his confusion and conflict he sinks into a depression that curtails any useful decision-making that could help him. None of these scenarios bode well for love.

The underlying feudal power structure of Indian society is reflected in the film. Marriages are arranged to enhance familial power bases and wealth. Households while inter-generational also require a lot of servants drawn from surrounding villages illustrating a divide between the rich and the poor. Emotions are then defined along caste lines. Love and sympathy are given miserly and usually only to their own. For me the scene where Devdas is lying outside Paro’s new home dying and no one from the manor comes to help him expresses a power structure that says we only help our own, the rest are left to their own devices. This does not mean Indian society is unique in this way; all societies practice some kind of hierarchy.

When Chandramukhi stands up to the selfish aristocrat’s son claiming that brothels exist because of aristocrats’ behavior and values, her assessment was a clear indictment of any society that creates a pool of citizens who are deemed less than human or less worthy of respect for the benefit of those in power.

We all must make judgements on many levels when we choose to befriend or love someone, but that does not give license to disrespect those we don't choose.

(c) 2004 CanaryPress Co.

Bollywood Critics

2004-06-28T19:03:00.000-04:00

What I had wanted to capture in this Blog was the joy and wonder I experienced as I watched and learned about Indian films.

I do not hold Western films as the gold standard of filmmaking, so I get irritated when comparisons are made between "American" films and Indian films.

I also wonder at some of those who criticize Indian films, especially SRK's films.

When I was young, I used to avoid criticizing others, I thought there was a better way, but in my late 30s and 40s, I felt I was living in a sea of critical people, so I felt I had to be critical in order to survive. That's not how I want to live. SRK inspired me to avoid criticizing others, so I will try not to be critical.

A common criticism of SRK is that he has a limited range of emotional expressions. SRK admits this himself. SRK says he is an entertainer. While I can see what the critics say, I can also see how he tries to give each character their own personality. What more can you ask? No person is the same as another, no actor is the same as another. What comes across in SRK's movies is his energy and his joy of life. You feel you are seeing the real person.

One of the reasons I enjoy Indian films is that they are different from American films. I especially love the song and dance routines. For example, I love the songs, dances, and music from "Main Hoon Na." Farah Khan's choreography is pure joy. I love the ending especially; I am usually jumping right along with them.

While I am definitely a SRK fan, SRK's movies introduced me to many other fine actors and actresses and one in particular, Anil Kapoor is drop dead gorgeous. I am now collecting his movies. So, when people want to compare actors, I realize I like them for their differences. Take dancing for example, I would characterize SRK's dancing as athletic, Anil's as classical, and Hrithik's as balletic, but I love all the dancing in the Indian movies.

Also, the more I watch, I pick up on underlying jokes. I'd be hard pressed to pick a moment to illustrate, but one comes to mind. In "Calcutta Mail," when Rani's character, Bulbul, convinces Anil's character, Avinash, to go with her to a bridge to meet a fictitious lover, they travel by bus and during the ride Bulbul dreams of love with Avinash but another woman walks off the bus with him in the start of the song and dance routine. I think the woman is Anil's real wife. If you watch enough movies you can see little bits from other movies, or little jokes.

Many western movies offered lately have been about violence, sex, or silly, raunchy humor. While often the movie's dialogue is crisp and literate, it does not sound like everyday language. While the cinematography may be good, often I can't relate to the story because the characters are so young, or rich, or violent.

In Indian movies, while I am at a disadvantage since I only have the captions to go by for the dialogue, the body language is universal. The stories are multi-layered with many subplots, which I find interesting. Indian movies usually feature a wide variety of ages and lifestyles; I can always find someone to relate to. Plus, the women look real, not the skinny, perennial 20-somethings in Western films.

I don't go to many western movies. When I went with a friend to see "Monsters Ball," after 15 minutes, I went and sat in the lobby, I couldn't take the mindless violence. But, when "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" came out, I saw it four times. It was hopeful. t was fun. It was joyful. It was also an independent film.

That is not to say that Indian movies don't have violence, in fact, violence figures in most of the films I have seen so far. For example, in Karan Arjun, the bad guys were so bad I couldn't sit still, I could hardly bear it. But, I stuck it out because I felt that the purpose of the violence in these characters was meant to illustrate that they were really cruel people, without a doubt. Plus, at the end, I practically shot Amrish Puri's character myself, that's how evil his character was.

But, what Indian films say with this violence is that the Indian populace lives daily with acts of violence and corruption, which I find sad. It seems that the whole world is descending into violence and corruption including the US.

Whereas in western films, I get the sense that the violence is shown to titillate the audience, to inspire a kind of pleasure in the violence. This is not unheard of and people can be desensitized to violence.

If we stay with the SRK theme, his movie, "Baazigar" had a very bloody climax. I marvel at how the heroes are portrayed in Indian films, the heroes seem to be able to take blow after blow, bullets, knife thrusts, and much body throwing. I have gotten used to these scenes because I keep in mind it is staged and I still don't feel the violence is there for pure entertainment; it seems a measure of the hero's resolve and endurance.

Until recently, you could expect certain standards in Indian films. For one, there were no explicit sex scenes. Female stars did not kiss or disrobe.

After watching over thirty films with themes about orphans and illegitimate births, corruption, love triangles, revenge, feuding families and power struggles, separated lovers, political intrigue and unrest, faith, lost love, and criminals, plus some of India’s classic films such as Mother India, Barsaat, Bobby, Laagan, Monsoon Wedding, and the 1955 Devdas, I follow the careers of Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai, Jackie Shroff, Juhi Chawla, Rani Mukherji, Chandrachur Singh, Salman Khan, Kajol, Manisha Koirala, Johnny Lever, Sunjay Dutt, Ajay Devgan, Madhuri Dixit, Dilip Kamar, Rishi Kapoor, Amrish Puri, Karisma Kapoor, Kareen Kapoor, Mr. B., and others, plus directors, producers, choreographers, lyric and music writers, playback singers, and the business of filmmaking.

What I like about many Indian films is that they are created for the whole family and going to the movies for Indians is a family event.

Music is a big part of Indian films. Many of SRK's films have been popular partially for the music, such as Kuch Kuch Hota Ha. Indian stars lipsing playback singer's recorded lyrics.

One of the interesting aspects of many of the song and dance routines in Indian movies is that they revolve around a man and woman falling love. The dance is meant to represent the stages of love. Most of the dances are fantasies in the minds of the man and woman. I like a balance. While I like realism, I don't need every aspect of the sex act portrayed, it is much more enjoyable to let the viewer's imaginaton make up their own version of the story.

I found an excellent comeback for Bollywood critics at www.livinginIndia.com titled “World Cinema" and Bollywood by Priya Lal. She said what I have wanted to say but she said it much better.

I know that SRK has responded in interviews to the question of why he has not done a Hollywood picture. Hollywood hasn't asked him and he will not go begging. He should be proud of his career. Hollywood is not led by the brightest minds. It's their loss. What Bollywood filmmakers should remember is that they reach a much larger audience than Hollywood. There are a billion Indians compared to about 200 million Americans (which includes immigrants). So, India should not bow to Hollywood for anything.

As for the notion that Bollywood copies Hollywood. Hollywood copies everybody. For example, “West Side Story” was based on Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet." There is little that is original in the world of storytelling. Every generation builds upon the stories of past generations. It is hoped that the best ideas will be carried forward. Bollywood has a tradition of fine filmmaking.

Another thing, Indian movies should be Indian. While modernization is inevitable, that should not translate to a capitulation to Western methods of filmmaking or the expression of Western culture.

It would be tragic if Indian films lost their cultural identity.

Any topic can lead to universals

2004-06-27T16:19:00.000-04:00

It's not hard to see a leap in subject matter when you go from Indian films to the Iraq war because India's history is littered with conflict between Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups.

I wanted to keep this Blog in the realm of personal perspectives, yet also factual and balanced but it's hard because I have strong feelings about war. The real reasons for this war are lost in a fog of propaganda from all sides. Every day innocent people are dying.

The United States had no business attacking Iraq.

I had hoped as a people we had grown beyond using violence as a means to get what we wanted.

When I watch Indian films, the recent (1948) Indian war of independence from Britain is reflected in the subtext or is even the topic of many films.

For the U.S. we seem to forget that when we came here as colonists we were welcomed by the native population. What did they get in return? We took their land; we killed them or transported them to uninhabitable lands. We took away their language and their culture. It seems that every country has a history of genocide of a targeted population; even India has a poor history with many native tribes.

But this behavior wasn't new, Europe had been exterminating or relocating various ethnic or religious groups for centuries. What the Germans did to Gypsies, the "imperfect", and the Jewish population was not new.

While I respect Muslims for wanting to keep their culture from being westernized, I deplore the violent means by which they attempt to achieve it. Yet, from their perspective, they are defending themselves from violence. Just as the Irish have tried to expel the British, the Palestinians-- the Israelis.

Even in recent US history, "American" militiaman, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a government building, killing hundreds as an act of revolution against the U.S. government. Why didn't the government gather up all the young white Caucasian males as terrorists?

I seek a logical application of justice but often it is just an illusion.

I get the impression that if males were left to their own devices we would all live in fear of violent gangs who thrive on disruption of civil life. You see it in Russia, South America, Central America, Mexico. We saw it in Bosnia and Slovenia, and even in the United States. We are becoming a world of thugs rather than a world of statesmen and stateswomen.

Will the next generation be able to bring us out of the "Dark Ages?"

Welcome to Bollywood Talk

2004-05-05T13:33:00.000-04:00

This Blog was created in an attempt to capture the pleasure I found in watching Indian films. Immersing myself in one form of artistic expression affected me in many ways and I wanted more information. Questions developed.