70's week: The fashion, the decorations, are wah!

My first post on the plot aspect of Parvarish might've been a little drab in tone but here we are at the epicentre of the many joys that 70's masala has to offer. The clothes! The villain lairs (as pictured above, with the all-around-the-clock dancing girls and pit of quicksand!), the lavishly decorated funky rooms!

The must-have red phones. For us goris and goras this might mostly bring to mind the 60's Batman television series, but be honest, doesn't that just make it all the more awesome?

The fat phobics of today may dislike Neetu's jeans tummy but I for one adore it to pieces.

"Do they have any non-tight pants in the 70's?" I asked my friend Mog as we were watching this film.

"I'm trying not to look at the pants region," she replied. "My eyes are constantly drawn towards it."

"I've stopped trying," I admitted.

This room is awesome and totally fit for the song where Amitabh has a creepy blond wig on and he sexually harrasses Neetu who pretends to be the maid.

And she's wearing this, naturally. Also note round bed. Now if only it spun.

German flag sweater! If only he could see into the future of international Hindi cinema fandom and realize that Shahrukh is that country's choice of Bollywood star. Come on, Deutschland, Amitabh liebt ihr auch!

I don't know what this ensemble is but I guess Amjad can rock it, too.

..just not as hard as these guys.

While the leather cap might be the most outrageous thing worn in Parvarish, and it's certainly not the most famous 70's flick, fashionwise, there's something great about it, nonetheless.

It's all good.

But if your heart does desire more outrageously unique 70's fashion, take a look at these..



Tum Haseen Main Jawaan - Maa - Dharam-Veer. Nice!

Wednesday's post will be on romance storylines & heroines.

Oh and as you'll notice I put the brilliant 70's Week badge by V Love Movies in the sidebar under "currently..." - I think I'll keep this feature even after 70's Week ends, to highlight recent cool posts or whatever. It's a feature I think Filmi Girl had up at some point which I really liked.

70's week: Lost-and-found, maa ka pyaar and so forth.

I'm going to take a bit of a different approach to 70's Week 2010. Instead of covering a bunch of different 70's films, I'll mostly be covering one - Parvarish directed by Manmohan Desai, released in 1977. Not because I think this is the 70's film and no other film is as important but because I rewatched this recently and it hit me this is everything a 70's film can be, and so much more. It's just really good, and yet it doesn't quite have the name a lot of 70's classics have made for themselves.

So I'll be doing thematical posts of 70's masala traits that Parvarish ("Upbringing") has - to promote it among those who haven't seen it yet and to give those who have a chance to share their love. I mean I guess theoretically some of you might dislike this film or be 'blah' about it. But ..I can't imagine that anybody actually is.

The posts WILL include spoilers. But you can skim and look at the pictures if you don't want to be spoiled!

First up is the building block to most Manmohan Desai masalas; the lost-and-found family drama.

Parvarish, like a lot of 70's films, starts from the backstory. A bandit Mangal Singh (Amjad Khan) finally gets nabbed by the police, specifically DSP Shamsher Singh (Shammi Kapoor) just as Mangal's wife has given birth to a baby boy. She asks the DSP to take the baby and make sure Mangal never gets his hands on that baby, so that the boy won't grow up to be a crook like his father. Shamsher Singh takes the baby home and adopts it, the boy Amit (Amitabh Bachchan) growing up alongside his own son Kishan (Vinod Khanna). Due to some confusion, Kishan mistakenly believes he is the son of Mangal, and thus grows up leading a double life as a crook unbeknownst to his family, while Amit becomes a police officer like his adoptive father Shamsher.

Just typing that plot wore me out, as complexity of relations is inherent to these sorts of lost-and-found stories. The idea is always that a child gets separated from their parent(s), for better or worse, and later reunited. This is usually laid out up-front, but sometimes the plot twist is only delivered later (though the audience usually guesses it's coming). In Parvarish, it's never unclear that Amit is Mangal's son, but of course, his ignorance of the fact makes Kishan's double life all the more interesting.

Even if we know the truth, it doesn't take much away from the viewing experience, because Parvarish, as most 70's masalas, is jam-packed with all the required masala ingredients. An awesome villain's lair, car chases, diamonds, songs, romance, comedy.. I think predictability is too often taken to mean bad script-writing, but I think with the case of the lost-and-found story trope, all it adds is anticipation for what's to come. With Parvarish, you want to see what happens when Amit finds out he's Mangal's son, and Kishan discovers he isn't. With Seeta Aur Geeta, you want the twins to meet.

Another common 70's masala trope of "maa ka pyaar", that is, accentuated love of a mother, or a hero's love for his mother, is quite weak with Parvarish. Indrani Mukherjee (also the mother in another Desai classic, Dharam-Veer) plays the mother who loves both his sons but this love doesn't play a huge part in the story.

The main tension is that between the two brothers, one devoted to serving the law and the other to breaking it. Kishan manages his double life with relative ease, even if there are many close calls to Amit finding out the biggest crimes are run by his very own brother.

Whether upbringing decides a person's character, the film is very clear about. Kishan is a criminal, not because a criminal's blood runs in his veins, but because he is essentially brought up by Mangal Singh. Amit, believing Shamsher to be his father, grows up to believe in following the law.

The awesome reveal of Kishan's double life happens at a hotel apparently named Bhai Bhai (brother brother) - or outside the hotel you have this blinking signs because Manmohan Desai is no euphenism for subtlety, but what about sisters?

Our heroines Neetu Singh and Shabana Azmi share a very tender but goofy sibling relationship, and the fact there's quite a lot of them in the film seems quite rare based on my (limited) 70's film watching. The only other film with sisters in it I can think of is Seeta Aur Geeta, so it certainly feels awesome that this film has some. Go sisters!

Tuesday's post will be about fashion and decorations, so see you then!

Saat din, Abhay ke saath - my week with Abhay.

I'm typically late to the party. Not too late, I always catch the tail-end of it. But I always find myself starting the "getting ready" routine only when I know most people are on their way to the location or already there. So that's when it comes to real life parties, but in other things, too. The cool things are typically in my periphery for a long time before I'm all, "wait, that thing everybody's talking about? I just caught on and they're right, it's awesome!". Of course, there are the exceptions, but let's ignore those, for the sake of a neat metaphor, shall we?

So Abhay Deol was one of those hip things I saw other people get into and sort of gush about and I was just like, "Oh, some guy Shweta is really into? I could investigate this but I have dishes to do."

I know, I suck.

But then I caught on enough to watch Honeymoon Travels Pvt Ltd (discussed here) and thought, yeah, okay, I kind of see it now. But you know, that movie had so many people, I didn't feel like I'd fully looked into this whole thing (I could call it a phenomenon but it's not like Abhay fangirlism is sweeping the nation? or is it? it should!).

That is, until, this week I watched four Abhay Deol movies. Studies? Life? Who cares! If my teachers ask, I'll tell them, I am a Dharmendra nepotist. If his nephew is doing movies, then dammit I am going to watch those movies. If my teachers ask, "Who is Dharmendra?", I'll tell them, "Tera baap!" ["Your dad!", only it sounds cooler in Hindi, naturally].

Dev.D (2009) I must preface with the following disclaimer; I haven't seen the previous Hindi film adaptations of the story but I know the story of Devdas itself. Anurag Kashyap's take has been praised for taking the old story to a brand new level, and indeed the film is awesome to watch. It flows smoothly, the visuals are great, the music is integrated seamlessly and all acting is top-notch; Abhay plays the lead role with just the right panache in the beginning and later, wrecklessness that spirals more and more out of control. Mahi Gill as Paro is a total find, and even though I didn't love Kalki Koechlin as Chanda, I thought she did a good job. The women are not helpless, and totally unapologetic about their sexuality; this was a great, rare feat in Hindi films.

I guess the only real flaw, if you can call it that, is the fact that the ending didn't make me a fan of the film. I never had a problem with the story of Devdas, my disinterest towards the other filmed adaptations came mainly from the fact I didn't like the director (Sanjay Leela Bhansali) or wasn't too interested in the main star (with the case of Dilip Kumar's Devdas). So I wasn't dying to see the story spun into something radically different. Some were, and those people loved this movie, and I can see why they would. But personally? It was like, not love, between me and the film.


Socha Na Tha (2004) was the first film by the now well-known Imtiaz Ali, and also Abhay's debut as I understand it. It's a fresh little love story, about Viren (Abhay) and Aditi (Ayesha Takia being adorable), who get matched for matrimony by their parents but decline the offer. As they meet, however, they discover they find it very easy to talk to one another and as the relationship between their families grows sour, they themselves become friends and naturally, then some more. The film is a little dated in terms of the overblown family affairs messiness, but the love story itself is very cute and well-written, with sharp dialogue. Ayesha Takia is just fantastic in this, and perfect counterpoint to Abhay's slightly clueless Viren.

The subtitles began lagging on the last third, which diminished a lot of my enjoyment of the film, but there's one particular scene where the couple has some incredible bickering that left me feeling great about the movie. Imtiaz Ali sure has a handle on dialogue; just like in JWM, the conversations between the two leads seemed natural, yet witty, funny and perfectly adorable.

Manorama Six Feet Under (2007) is a thriller directed by Navdeep Singh, telling the story of Satyaveer (Abhay) who abandoned his dreams of being a novelist after his first novel, Manorama, sold very few copies. He lives a dull existence in a desert town called Lakhot with his wife Nimi (Gul Panag), until a woman named Manorama comes to his door, and hires him as a private detective like the main character in his novel. This involves Satyaveer with a web of lies, cover-ups and murder.

I wouldn't call this film badly scripted in general, but sadly something just made the whole thing drag and feel dull like tumbleweeds somewhere in the middle. It starts off nicely, and picks up pace considerably once the pieces of the puzzle begin to form, but the middle part almost made me turn the movie off. Thankfully I stuck with it, and once again loved Raima Sen, who plays Manorama's flatmate Sheetal and Vinay Pathak, the policewallah who is also Satyaveer's brother-in-law. Gul Panag who shone in Dor is very effective here, and there's a brilliant chemistry between her and Abhay in this; it feels very ordinary but at the same time has those signs that despite the mundaness of the relationship, these two people do love each other deeply. Abhay is great, too. You can tell the character is filling a hole in his existence, by getting involved with something he knows he probably shouldn't, and even when he encounters setbacks, he's not likely to give up.

I liked it, especially for the acting, and the film noir likeliness, but the story really could've been tighter.

My favourite out of the Abhay Deol films I've seen thus far, though? Oye Lucky! Lucky Oye! (2008) without a doubt. A black comedy about Lucky, a thief extraordinaire, whose greatest talent is his wit and his acting, the way he smoothly talks people out of their possessions, and gets away with it with the greatest of ease. It's just an incredibly well written, fun ride, that constantly had me chuckling. The cast of characters also includes Paresh Rawal in three roles (and Paresh Rawal, being the comic genius that he is, fantastically gives each character their own flair, so much so I almost forget he is playing all of them), Manu Rishi as Lucky's hapless sidekick (and apparently also the film's dialogue writer!) and Neetu Chandra as Sonal, Lucky's girlfriend. The acting was all around great, but naturally the film belongs to Abhay's comfortable demeanor, though I can't not mention Manjot Singh, who plays young Lucky with the vibrant humor that the older version of the character definitely downplays.

This film was really so ace that I am using the word 'ace' and finding it difficult to actually name something I didn't totally love. It's not too lengthy so the pace felt comfortable and it's jam-packed with moments I feel I need to rewatch to appreciate properly, some big ones (like when a cop wants to know who is Sunny) and some smaller ones (like the little conversation between Sonal and Lucky's older brother's wife, probably the only one between two women, but so thick with things unsaid it caught my attention). And like a cherry on top, there's a reference to Vinod Khanna. Film, you had my heart, right there and then.

It's a definite favourite for me. I love it when Hindi cinema does black comedy, especially when it's this damn good.

And now? Now I just eagerly await Aisha (however they choose to spell that title), with Abhay and Sonam Kapoor who look adorable in this first look. Apparently the film is a loose adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma, which is not my favourite Austen because I find Emma quite an annoying character throughout most of the story, but I really like Sonam and she's no eyesore, and Austen adaptations are always fun so .. yay!

And to those who are still late to the Abhay party? Consider this post your e-vite. A lot of us are already here and having a blast. The bar is serving Dimple cocktails but they are running out of Malibu so come on, hurry, hurry, hurry!

I'll be waiting for you. Come say hi when you get here!

Mini-reviews, part paanch.

Did you know "punch" was originally an Indian drink, and the word came from 'paanch', Hindi for five? It's true! Not to be confused with Punsch, the Swedish traditional liquor that goes by the name "punssi" in Finland, generally consumed during Shrove Tuesday, which was yesterday. I had a pulla and it was lovely.

Oh, right, mini-reviews. The idea of these is to cover many movies quickly without making a post about each of them. The previous ones are here. I might eventually review some of these at length but for now, small paragraphs will suffice! These are films I've seen ages ago, most way before I began this blog.


41. Boys (2003) - This Tamil film by Shankar is a celebration of youth, a spring-board for many a young star (or perhaps just Siddharth and Bharath). The A. R. Rahman soundtrack is modern and rocking. Too bad the movie's not great. It has some pretty nice comedy but overall it's just not up to standards set by later movies with some of the cast members, or films directed by Shankar. Still, for a Siddharth completist, it's a must-see.

42. Jodhaa Akbar (2008) - Originally reviewed here. Damn epic, glorious film. But maybe a little too epic, too glorious? The visuals are nice, the love story is wonderful and the chemistry between Aishwarya and Hrithik is certainly there, but I think it suffers from the typical Ashutosh Gowariker flaw of being overly long, and a little too packed. Nevertheless, this historical epic has it all, and the hottest sword-fight ever.

43. Don (1978) - Originally reviewed here. I like the original Don but it doesn't fall into any favourites categories. Then again, neither does the remake. It's basically just a lovely 70's classic, with a badass Zeenat performance (her character beats Priyanka in the remake any day of the week).

44. Hamesha (1997) - Ugh, almost don't want to write about this movie. So, Kajol and Saif are favourites and unfortunately this is the only film in which they are romantically paired with (Yeh Dillagi doesn't really count to me since it's clear she only loves Akshay's character in that film). It's this supposedly epic re-incarnation story that is just so horrifically 90's with the fashion and the melodrama and the mullet and it just.. Please do not watch it. Even if many people have actually enjoyed it and been like "What's wrong with you, it's great cheese!". I like cheese. But this cheese stinks.

45. Andaz Apna Apna (1994) - My favourite comedy in any language ever, reviewed here. It's also really loud and slapstick and not everybody's thing but what do I care? It is so my thing.

46. Lekin... (1990) - Slow-paced but rather interesting supernatural mystery type film from director Gulzar. I watched this because it had Vinod Khanna and Dimple Kapadia, and a brilliant dance sequence by Hema Malini, the best one I've ever seen her do. If you don't mind watching 90's Vinod, it's a good film to go for, though like most Gulzar films, it's pretty slow and has super-long song sequences. Only this director can make a poetic film about such a peculiar question as, "Do ghosts exist?".

47. Shaque (1976) - A Vinod-Shabana film I watched in sync with Carla, my review here and hers is here. It's a weird one, basically a lowkey drama film about a wife (Shabana) who suspects her husband (Vinod) has killed a man and the drifts this causes in their marriage. As a drama goes, it's pretty good, but at some point near the end the film takes a sudden left turn and goes all masala on us. It's really sad it's not a better film because if it was, it'd be the best sample of this pair's collaboration.

48. Gangster (2006) - Does anybody else feel weird talking about Shiney Ahuja after his trouble with the law regarding a rape charge? Ugh, anyway. Gangster's an okay film. I thought Kangana as the woman struggling with her love being a gangster was effective, but that's about it - I hate to be judgmental but this movie basically made sure I'll never watch another Emraan Hashmi film. The utterly ripped off soundtrack is unfortunately also very catchy. Pritam, how we hate you.

49. Patthar Aur Payal (1974) - This is basically an okay 70's masala I like perhaps a little too much for its actual quality; it's one of those films that has crystalized as special to me even though it's merely all right. Dharmendra plays a bandit reformed by the love of a good woman (Hema Malini). But naturally there's a villain (Vinod Khanna). There are some pretty nice songs, though. Here's my favourite.

50. Life in a Metro (2007) - Hey, doesn't this share a director with Gangster? This film has a cast of characters whose lives zigzag in the city of Mumbai. Again, it's an okay film with some stand-out performances (Irfan! Sharman Joshi! Konkona Sen Sharma!). Kangana again plays a deeply troubled young woman, which makes me wonder if she's being a little typecast.. The film has its good moments, which is why I could edit it down to the better storylines and cut out all the distracting songs, picturized badly on a bunch of guys who wander the streets aimlessly.

God of disinterest - Naan Kadavul.

I like to keep my Valentine Day's watching horribly dark and so thought-provoking my head is spinning, so I opted for Naan Kadavul, a 2009 Tamil film directed by Bala. Name sound familiar? I've talked about his filmography before. This one he won a National Award for and I can certainly see why. Naan Kadavul is an incredibly powerful cinematic experience, though one I never want to rewatch.

The film is titled "I am god" for its depiction of an Aghori ascetic Rudra (Arya) whose father abandoned him in Kasi, and later came to find him again, only to discover Rudra utterly emerged in the Aghori sect, distant and unable to form human connections. Regardless, his guru allows Rudra's father to take the ascetic back to their Tamil Nadu home, where the mother is understandably distraught at the sight of this creature. Slowly the movie shifts towards telling the story of a group of beggars with various disabilities, one of whom is a blind girl Hamsavalli (Pooja Umashankar). They beg outside the temple Rudra eventually takes residence in, wasting away his days smoking ganja.

The cast of characters being so underprivileged, begging for a ruthless boss, is quite hard to watch, but Bala's depiction of them never feels downright exploitative. These are characters with humor, with agency, with courage to challenge even the ones they ask money from.

The movie is full on Bala, with a constant sense of hopelessness hanging over the story-telling, but even with this, I wanted to see these characters, especially Hamsavalli come out on top. Somehow. I wasn't sure how. I wasn't sure why. But I wanted it to happen. Even though I knew full well it wouldn't.

Rudra's character is somebody who I couldn't quite figure out until I read a thing or two about the Aghori ascetics. Like most Bala main characters, he is essentially an outsider without his own choosing. He is completely removed from society in the traditional sense, and from human relationships; he has enveloped god and has become Kala Bhairava (fierce manifestation of Shiva). He is extreme in every manner imaginable, in his talk, in his stance, in his lifestyle. He acts not like how I'd imagine a god would, but certainly with the bravado of one. I'm glad the story shifts away from him because he's not at all relatable as a character, though he is fascinating.

What is God? Well, Rudra claims he is God, but he is also a very particular sort of God. What struck me as weirdly radical was the absolute lack of care he has for humans, or human suffering. He is detached from all this to the point of absurd, and since the film doesn't really doubt his deity (though characters in it do), one is left to ponder, is this what God is? Blind to the suffering of his worshippers?

Contrast this with the incredible human, vulnerable Hamsavalli, in a performance that surely was more award-worthy than Priyana in Fashion. Her story allows the viewers deeper into the lives of the beggars, and this really becomes the center of the story; it's rather unheard of that the most human characters in a film are this much in the margins of society. The cast of characters is nicely varied, and one particular stand-out is the "keeper" of the beggars, Murugan (Krishnamoorthy), who feels absolutely terrible about the job he has to do, and feels he is sinning every day by working for the dreadful man who makes these beggars beg for him. There is something really interesting about this life he's gotten himself into, half-befriended all these disabled beggars, half-contributing to their suffering.

The soundtrack is a hauntingly beautiful one by Ilayraja, and the film is also punctured by Tamil oldie songs popping up every now and then during the first half, which I thoroughly enjoyed even though it harkened back to one scene in Pithamagan a little too much.

I hesitate to call Bala's films realistic, because the word has so many meanings. Is realism what could happen in real life, or what does? I feel like that no matter what awful based-in-real-life things he rolls out for people to see, the undercurrent is always a little fantastical and melodramatic. At the same time, I can only really blame my own psyche for thinking that the more grim and horrible Bala's films become, the more grounded in reality they actually are.

If you're a fan of Bala's, like I am, you've probably seen this by now. It's a tough film to recommend, but it's also a tough film not to recommend. Definitely won't be everybody's cup of chai but I liked it a lot. It's rare to see film-making this potent, or stories of this kind, period.

And since I feel like I can never quite do justice when talking about films of this sort, some further reading for those interested: The Hindu review [spoilers for the film] - Qalandar's review [note: contains spoilers for another Bala film, Pithamagan]

*** Photo note: The first picture is a pre-shooting promo still. The latter two are more representative to what the film looks like. But I liked the first picture so much I had to post it anyway.

The easiest way to live to 90! The concept of Pran Years.

This meme will hopefully spread like wildfire around the internet because not only does it honor the lifework of Pran Krishnan Sikand, it's also a fantastic way to disguise your real age, should you want to do so. (Pran's birthday was recently so this is topical, too!)

Pran Years also puts out a challenge to all who consider themselves Pran fans. You can't really go all completist on a filmography that boasts nearly 300 titles ...but you can try!

So here's the math of Pran Years.

* Each year is as many Pran Years as the films he made that particular year. For a lack of a better source, IMDb will be our source for Pran filmography.

* If Pran didn't make any films that year, it counts as two Pran Years, because that year was still in during the lifetime of Pran.

* Should you wish to count your grandmother's Pran Years, and she was born before Pran (that is, before 1920), any year before Pran's birth counts as one Pran year.

So let's math it out!

Pran's last film appearance was in 2003 so between that and now there are 14 Pran Years (henceforth PY). I was born in 1987 so my PY count comes up to 69. My dad, however, is 251 PY-old. Even a millennium child would be 16 in PY!

Pointless? Silly? Yes! But also a lot of fun.

A much more difficult way to live up to 90 years old, by the way, is actually living to 90 years old, which Pran admirably has. May he live well beyond that.

Indian - a big film deserves a big review.

I suppose it's not totally impossible for a person who primarily taps into the Hindi side of Indian films to understand what the term, "a film by Shankar" truly means. After all, he has done Nayak: The Hero with Anil Kapoor and Rani Mukherji, and there are Hindi-dubbed versions of both Anniyan (relabeled Aparichit) and Indian (which translated to Hindustani) out there. But at least to my non-Indian sensibilities, his style is full-on Southie, and his broad-appeal films need to be digested in Tamil, as most of them were intended to.

I've talked about Anniyan before, and reviewed Sivaji: The Boss. Besides those, I've seen Nayak and Boys, and now I've also seen Indian, which is nothing short of essential Shankar, coupled with the acting legend Kamal Hassan and an A. R. Rahman soundtrack.


The plot of Indian is fairly simple in the beginning, but blows up to extremely epic proportions by the end of the film. Chandru (Kamal Hassan) does servant-type favors to a rich family in order to get a promotion in his public servant career. The daughter of the family Sapna (Urmila Matondkar) bosses him around haughtily, which doesn't sit well with his animal-loving girlfriend Aishwarya (Manisha Koirala). Meanwhile, a police detective Krishnaswamy (Nedumudi Venu) is tracking down a series of murders, where all victims are government employees and the killer appears to be an old man (also Kamal Hassan) who simply goes by the name Indian...


So, what is Shankar all about, then? First and foremost, at the core of most of his films are the societal ills that affect India as a country. I've often thought about these social message Southie masalas, that tackle pretty serious topics, like corruption, black money, etc. The films typically offer up one hero to preach at the crowds and scare the evil-doers into acting responsibly and morally. The message is; if we all stopped doing this, we wouldn't have this problem. Everybody needs to correct their own behavior, and if we all do so, the problem will cease to exist.

Simplistic but true. In both Indian and Anniyan, it takes more than a few bodies to get the message through, something that may not sit well with everybody. But I think I read somewhere that these messages of social change coupled with rather extreme violence are a sort of cathartic release for the audiences, who in their ordinary lives grow frustrated at the corruption or such issues. In real life there is no Vikram, Rajnikanth or Kamal Hassan hero figure to kill all the baddies, but to see the scenario takes away the anger built up in everyday life.

Pure speculation on my part, of course. I've always lived in one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Even if the corruption is exaggerated in this movie, corruption is a big problem and I can't even imagine what the realities must be like..


While the social message, coupled with home-state pride and tons of patriotism (Jai hind! Vande maatram! and so on), is at the core of the film, it is cushioned by masala elements. There are plenty of incredibly imaginative song picturizations (with all the picture manipulation you can imagine they had in 1996), comedy bits here and there, and the romance between Kamal and Manisha is pretty cute.

Even if Indian isn't as solid as some other Shankar films I've seen (Anniyan remains a heavily rewatched favourite), it brings on entertainment in staggering amounts. And the song picturizations are virtually undescribable, so much so I think most of my screencaps are taken from the songs because oh god, they're so fantastically Shankar. Visual, explosive, crazy, full of special effects.. Let's examine the first song, wherein Urmila and Kamal shake a leg together (Kamal may be just a man with a pudgy face to some of you but he's actually a classically trained dancer and is quite entertaining to watch).

We begin with painted faces and bodies. You know, as you would.

Moving onto futuristic black clothes. His cape! It sparkles!

Hawaii-inspired holiday clothes. I can't see the logic that connects this to sparkly cape but I concede because Shankar's cinematic logic is superior to my measly human one.

So then there are some costume changes and Kamal breathes fire. Have I mentioned how much I adore Shankar? This is one of those reasons why.

And of course, the denim costume changes and Urmila's shirt that has fluffy bits over her breasts. I couldn't come up with this stuff. Even on drugs.

Can you make sense of this? It's a total brainmeltdown. I think Shankar just burst through all existing dimensions with his use of CGI. Hot damn.

I love it, love it, love it. But I can't take any more and therefore moving onto another song!

Little penguins and Manisha! Cutest!

Koala kisses!

Non-koala koala kisses! There is something so ridiculously cute about the way this Australia-filmed picturization begins.

But eventually it gets a little strange. They're on an old-timey ship and...

Kamal is a cowboy and...

They're in Australia so naturally they dance in front of the Sydney Opera House.

I think that's enough song picturization screencaps, but I have to post one more. At one point the movie launches into a flashback sequence of the colonial period, which is shot in black&white. Until the point of independence, when we finally get colours and this song, with a glorious cavalcade of Indian costumes from different regions and time periods.

I don't really have that many complaints. It's a good film, maybe just a tad too declaring and harsh, with the hero just a little too full of patriotic zeal. I accept all of that as traits of a Shankar movie, but that doesn't mean I necessarily enjoy. The old make-up on Kamal Hassan and Sukanuya who portrays the wife of "Indian" (at least I think the actress is Sukanuya - if it's not, feel free to correct me) was fairly good but lacked wrinkles and was layed on so thick it made them look very stony-faced. Kamal Hassan's acting can be very expressive but in this character he could only really act with his body and eyes, and I felt the lack of facial expression really hurt the character's believablity and sympathy one should have towards him.

Overall, Indian is the quintessential Shankar films but one that I wouldn't recommend as anybody's first Shankar film. It's a little dated but doesn't fail to entertain.

--

Another movie ticked off my Southie to-watch-list. Yay!

What I know, what I've learned, and what I've yet to find out.

I learned English as a second language, and it took a while for me to figure out that ignorant and the verb "ignore" didn't share meaning. You're ignorant if you don't know something, but that doesn't mean you ignore information out there. Or does it?

As a non-desi fan of Indian films I often have to admit ignorance on topics that the movies deal with. I've never been to India (yet!), I'm obviously not Indian and even though I know people of Indian descent, some who've lived there all their lives, I'm not a part of that culture. I'm an outsider to it. My information comes from books, news, discussions with people, and yes, even movies, but not any actual experiences.

Lately I've been thinking about this sort of cultural/historical/religious ignorance that I have as a non-Indian viewer, and how much I should make the effort to mend the gaps. I mean, I'm obviously beyond asking questions like, "Why do they touch their parents' feet?" or "Why does that bearded man wear a turban?", and I know a thing or two about history and religions and customs and the variety that is Indian culture. But when it comes to a country so complex, you can never know enough. Should I make more of an effort to find out, though?

I am avoiding using the pronoun "we" even though I feel like a lot of non-Indian fans of these films probably have moments when they feel the same. It's always weird to learn through movies. Not in the sense that you think whatever a movie portrays is reality, but to be inspired to find out what actually happened and what the movie did differently, or what circumstances made the movie as it is. I learnt about Tamil Nadu politics because Mani Ratnam made Iruvar. I learnt about the 90's riots through Black Friday. This kind of thing.

On the other hand, I know information rarely sinks in unless it has a framework to work into. It's very hard to take in new information unless you have existing information. I remember reading a big book on Indian culture and I honestly don't remember a thing about it, because when I read it, I had very little knowledge of India in general, and the framework to connect all of that new information wasn't there. I think when the active interest is there, whether it's built by interest in culture or interest in films or whatever, then you can build the framework, and little by little adding to it, whether it's information about cultural traditions, religion, different regions, language..

It goes without saying education in most "Western" countries does not spare many thoughts on the history of India, or Asia in general. I've never been a history buff, either, even though I got good grades in it. My interest was always in how people lived, not leaders and wars and dates. It took an interest in movies to figure out blindingly basic facts about the country; it's really quite embarrassing.

But still, you might point out, we don't learn the entire of French history to watch Amelie. We don't need to understand how the US Senate works to enjoy Star Wars. Sure, true enough. But I think it adds something, if only a lessened possibility of misunderstanding, or a sense of better understanding, or a more critical viewpoint, or whatever you like. I don't think we should stay wholly ignorant, even if the films are "just" entertainment. Because once you have that fledgling interest, it's easier to build on that than somebody who doesn't necessarily give a damn, but learns something just to learn it. They might remember those facts they've picked up, might even connect it to some other information they have, but it's different from somebody who not only wants to learn, but has a goal attached: better understanding, even if ultimate understanding always escapes us (because one can never really learn everything there is to know about a culture, any culture).

What do you guys think (whether you're desi or not)? Am I once again over-analyzing this? :)

Striker - disjointed thoughts on the film and online distribution.

(Since the film is so readily available for most of the readership of this blog, this review will contain spoilers.)

I don't have a lot of thoughts on Striker and whatever I have is pretty disjointed and weird. I feel the need to mention the great revolution behind the YouTube release and how I hope smaller Indian films will continue to do this for the benefit of us foreign watchers. I'm not sure how much money the Indian film related blogosphere generates in terms of buzz that makes people go see films, but I'm sure it increases awareness of the film in general (possibly for the festival circuit?) and hey, at least us bloggers get to watch it around the same time and therefore chat about it without the usual DVD release delay.

I also wouldn't object to companies putting past hits on YouTube, like Rajshri have done, for example. The way I see, it'll probably decrease piracy. I mean, if your choices are buying HAHK, downloading it or watching the film on YouTube, surely the last one is the best option, as it's free, legal and not any hassle? If you really like it, you can and probably will buy the DVD.

So yes, it's a good way to catch new fans who otherwise wouldn't have run into your movie, and I'm hoping Rajshri's and Studio18's testing of this method has proven beneficial. I guess only time will in the case of Striker.

But onto discussing the film as a film; it's adequate. What a dreadful word to use about such an enormous effort, but there you have it. It's technically a well-made movie. The cinematography, the music, the lightning, the art design ... everything seems considered and skillfully done. The acting is solid all around. Late 80's and early 90's Mumbai/Bombay looks and feels just that.

The plot doesn't really drag, or anything, it's nicely engaging, though not necessarily on an emotional level. It's not too complex, but there are moments where it rushes ahead and I'm sitting there going, "Wait, what?". The way the carrom game ties into the plot is somewhat peculiar. The thing is, Striker's never a sports movie, or even a gambling movie, as much as it's a story of a kid dealing with underground hasslings (and the game is a part of that) and getting severely burnt by it. I understand it's based on a true story, but as a whole it seems to lack a clear narrative.

What makes the slight wobbliness of the story as a whole really come through is the last 15 minutes or so, which shows us Siddharth's character Surya suffer a couple of utter breakdowns, one of them which results in his raping who is to become his wife five minutes later, and later a breakdown results in him violently murdering the villain, which seems like an extreme and slightly out of character thing to do. Minai's review talked about the rape scene, and there's plenty of chatter about it elsewhere. Suffice to say I agree with a lot of others; it's a terrible scene that ruins a character, and it's pretty unnecessary considering the whole of the plot, too.

I guess the worst thing about Striker is that I'm really sort neither here nor there about it. I don't feel very angry or incredibly disappointed; neither am I full of love and anticipating a rewatch of it. As a Siddharth fan I am glad he did something different for once, and broke the daisy-chain of romantic hero characters he's been doing for a small eternity. I just hope his next serious role pick is a little better.

---

(Unrelated, realized I can't use 00s tag for new movies anymore. So break out the weird-looking "10s" tag!)