A couple of initial thoughts on Dhobi Ghat.

I suppose it's fairly fitting that when I first tried to watch Dhobi Ghat, I was late and then, about 15 minutes into the film, the projector broke down. Over a year later, I finally get the film on DVD and begin watching again. The back of the DVD contains a lie: I'm watching a 97 minute film, expecting it to be roughly 178 minutes. So it's all a weird, splintered experience - first I just got a glimpse, and when I was finally getting into the characters, the projector died. Then I anticipated a longer story, and when the ending credits came up, I stared, puzzled, at my TV.

Of course, not the first time the back of the DVD has lied to me. Won't be the last, either.

Dhobi Ghat is a portrait of Mumbai, and four people in it. For a portrait of a city that at least has the appearance of constantly being in motion, this portrait is strangely still. A lot of time is spent on just surveying surroundings. A lot of it feels like that amazing cup of coffee on a Sunday morning that you sip, safe in the knowledge you don't have to be anywhere that day; you can just be. It's a languid film.

I certainly liked it, but I've yet to determine precisely how much. I enjoyed the way the four characters were varied - from the poor dhobi (washer) Munna played by Prateik, to the ultra-rich, educated NRI Shai (Monica Dogra), as this showed the dramatically different sides of the city. The jobs that Shai only sees as a sort of exotic tourist attraction that would make for good photographs, Munna actually does.

At first I thought about writing something about economic privilege and how it colours the film, and how it perhaps doesn't try to highlight the problematic aspects of it. Upon further thought, however, I realised it rather does, but the way it's portrayed, can be subtle. After scenes where Shai has begun to treat Munna as more of a friend, not a servant, we see him interact with Arun (the artist character played by Aamir Khan). To him, Munna's merely a servant. The difference hits the viewer uncomfortably in the face, even though Arun doesn't mean anything by it - it's just how things are. But the privilege of Shai doesn't disappear just because her and Munna get close. In fact, it only further highlights it.

While I was most fascinated by the story of Arun discovering the tapes of Yasmin (Kriti Malhotra), a middle-class housewife, brand new to marriage, the Shai-Munna story was much more revealing. Shai is basically the kind of character who in a different film would probably be the Bollywood heroine who'd eventually tone down her brat-like behaviour and become a Good Indian Woman for the hero to marry. In this film, however, you see her making choices that are frankly morally questionable. But she sails through life, where other people would run into bumps in the road, because of her privilege.

I want to say that the film achieved its goal, as it made me think about all of these things and more, but then I wonder - perhaps it had a more modest goal, of just throwing together some characters without flagging up that many questions in the viewer. As a debut film for director Kiran Rao, I wouldn't say it's impressive - it's well-made, and it's promising. I hope she delivers on some of that promise.

Alternative Valentine's: pondering friendship.

Over here, we don't celebrate Valentine's as a day of romance, but as a day of friendship. I much prefer it - for one, I don't have to feel like a lonely person, and two, friendship is one of those things that definitely ought to have a holiday.
So I started to think about the status of friendship in Hindi films. Besides the classic "Yeh Dosti", there's the much quoted line from Maine Pyaar Kiya: It's not necessary to say sorry or no thank you in friendship.
I often wonder whether anybody actually took this line to heart and lived their friendships like this. As much as the line is a sweet thing to quote to your best friend when they've done something wrong or when you've done something wonderful to them (nothing to be sorry about, yaar - nothing to thank me over, either, that was nothing), it's not precisely true. In fact, perhaps the very opposite ought to be true. In friendships, you should thank your friend, and be sorry for causing them grief, because it just frankly shows you care.


But moving on. The anecdote goes, Farhan Akhtar set out to write Dil Chahta Hai because he noticed that the Hindi film hero's friends tend to disappear during to the second half of the film. They're there to help the romance along, provide comedy, offer support - but as soon as the film moves onto the main romance, the friends no longer have a function. So DCH puts the romance in the sidelines and makes the friendship the focus - the film isn't over until the friends are all together, nevermind the girls they get along the way.
This is an interesting notion, and very true in films, but perhaps - once again - not so much in life. Friends tend to stick with you through failed or difficult romances. But in great love stories, your soulmate is all you need - once you have him/her, what do you need these meddlesome friends for? They're better off finding their own soulmates, provided there's a subplot they can fit this into.

But there are some really wonderful, true-to-life portrayals of friendship in Hindi films. Friends don't always do a disappearing act - sometimes they're even the focus. And of course, there's the cliché of a pair starting out as friends and eventually realising their feelings for one another...
We are, well, at least I am, still waiting for some things: the female Dil Chahta Hai is one, as friendship between females seems to rarely get center stage or get elevated to that epic "Yeh dosti" type of friendship level. Again, there are exceptions - beautiful, cherished exceptions. But mostly I'm still waiting.
Then there are the absolute travesties, too. For example, to whom is Dostana a tale of perfect friendship? Lying and then attempted seduction on the sly is not what I call a friendship!

And of course, then there are friendships that are too epic for their own good, such as Main Khiladi Tu Anari.
And that, I think, is a good place to end this post on.

A small comforting thought: Abhishek Bachchan.

Whenever I think about the new batch of actors and actresses, the ones who've debuted in the period of 2009 - present, I keep this in mind: it took Abhishek Bachchan four years to show promise (Yuva), five years to deliver on that promise (Bluffmaster, Bunty aur Babli), and six years to really make it (Guru). The fact of the matter is, I'm really unimpressed by most of these new stars. I like some of them, but not that much. I see promise in a few of them, but again, I'm not feeling any passion yet.
Of course, it bears mentioning that times have changed. The early 00's were a different time, and not to get all nostalgic for a period that wasn't perhaps any sort of high point in Hindi film history - though good movies were made, as always - but nowadays, it just seems that everything moves faster. Stars are debuting in big films, and the pressure is on to make it faster. You've got to be good, and to be fair, most of them are good - well, most of them can dance and look good, at the very least. But that special charm is still missing, that acting ability that has to be beneath the abs or the gorgeous face in order for you to really win the audience over.
Again, this is fully subjective. If you feel like these new stars have what it takes already, more power to you; you'll get to enjoy their movies more. For me, that just hasn't clicked yet.

But if there's anything I hate, it's sounding like an old grump when I don't feel like one. I'm open-minded, I'm keeping my eyes open, I'm watching films with these new stars even though I'm not passionate about any of them.
And most of all, I remind myself: these things can take years, like they did for Abhishek, or Kareena.
As long as they don't take decades, like with Saif Ali Khan, I think I'm content in waiting...

Still gathering thoughts: sexuality & tragic stardom of The Dirty Picture.

Despite the perhaps all-too-academic sounding title, I simply wanted to write another post about The Dirty Picture for a very simple reason. I read bunch of reviews that looked at it critically, analysed it a bit and perhaps concluded it wasn't a film worth its hype, or even worth the price paid for a ticket. And even though I disagree with that assessment - I still love the film and anticipate rewatches! - I did agree with some points those reviews brought up. (This is not the first time this has happened, obviously. I can agree with a lot of things about my favourites which other people found fatal flaws.)

SPOILERS FROM HEREON.

The biggest question for me are the multiple conundrums the film throws at us and perhaps doesn't quite resolve. Silk's sexuality gets center stage, but Silk herself - or even deeper, Reshma, doesn't. Perhaps rightly so, you may think. Isn't her sexual agency what made her who she is? It's what carries her through. She uses it to her magnificent advantage, and perhaps best of all, does not let anybody victimise her for doing so. She's not a meek girl who a sleazy producer propositions in a typical casting couch cliché; she goes out there and does whatever she feels she needs to do, and things simply click in place.

However, this is not a survivor story - when she has her final down to end the supreme high she's been riding on, she still has agency, but doesn't pull herself back out. She perseveres through hatred, but not sadness.

People have commented a lot on the fact that all this story is framed through the words and perspective of the man who hates her, Abraham. This is, depending on your perspective, either an interesting choice or a lazy one. Lazy one, because it allows Silk to be displayed precisely for this sexual agency that Abraham, in almost an unabashedly misogynist manner, loathes. It provides the masala and the titillation for the masses without scratching deeper into the character that Vidya Balan so beautifully portrays.

But this choice can also be an interesting one, because this allows the viewer to question their own viewership. When Silk is framed through Abraham, it becomes clear that we're getting a version of her story, rather than her actual story. We, just like Abraham, merely sit in the audience of the film of Silk, rather than truly stepping into her shoes. We're the same audience Silk builds her success on, but at the same time the one who categorises her into the role of a vamp, so she cannot show she can do more. We don't need to be shown more, we're happy with the sexy song and dance, to have our base need for entertainment catered to.

I say we, but obviously I don't know what everybody else was thinking when they began to think through this film. I can't make this judgment about everybody. But I did start to have these thoughts, because this kind of stardom, this idealised, fragmented idea of what a star is like, is very important to Indian films. The film remains a masala, and I'm not trying to portray it as anything but - it doesn't blatantly hold up a mirror to its audience, but there are these things that rather make me wonder.

I've got this book on Marilyn Monroe, only it's not a book about Marilyn herself, or rather - it's precisely that. It's about the Marilyn created, the stories told of her, the reality that is constructed with bits and pieces of her myth, from her dyed blonde hair to her tragic suicide. We all know her story, and we all have a version of this story; we see her as a victim, or a queen, or a little girl who was just lost, or a woman exploited by men, or whatever. And there are stories similar to hers, and these kinds of iconic women with tragic endings tend to fascinate the culture at large. What happened? What went wrong? Why wasn't she the ideal that we saw on-screen, but just a human being who was sad? Or is that just another interpretation, desperately trying to reach some sort of conclusive truth where none can be found?

So you can see why the film makers wanted to tell this story, because it grips people, it fascinates people, and everybody wants to get at some sort of greater truth of it all. That's the nature of stardom, even when it's built on raw sexuality, the distance between the "real" person and the "star persona".

The question remains - could we get Silk's real story? Or would we be more satisfied with this version, because it creates the myth on our behalf - even through the imperfect lens of Abraham's character?

Masala, titillation, entertainment: The Dirty Picture.

I confess it took me about 20 minutes to figure out the kind of film that The Dirty Picture was trying to be. I think that despite seeing the colourful, glorious trailer, I was still expecting something a bit more grounded - the way that sound effects accented the dramatic moments felt a bit off at first. But pretty soon after something just clicked. There is depth to The Dirty Picture, but it's not the sort of depth an art film or a social film would try to infuse into this life of the sex symbol Silk, played by Vidya Balan. The depth comes from the fact that this is just a superbly written masala picture, but it doesn't try to be a message film or gritty social commentary. And that's a very, very good thing.


Why is it a good thing? Because I find it's more respectful to the character if you don't try to make a message film from her. There's something pretty great about the lack of moralism - at least in my eyes - in The Dirty Picture. While narrated by her biggest enemy, there isn't any kind of judgment on Silk for her choices, good or bad by the way that her story is told. I didn't feel invited to approve or disapprove of her all the time - there were nuances to her, as to the other characters. Any judgment comes from the people around her, but she faces all this with distinct defiance.

She is what she is, and she's defined by her choices, but also by the world around her. It's an interesting dichotomy, and one that everybody in the film portrays very well. For a masala, there are naturally villains and heroes - she is the heroine, definitely. But there are also shades to the characters.


Balan's brilliance is almost a given at this point. I've been so impressed and frankly just moved by her performances in films like Paa and No One Killed Jessica, so I always knew she'd excel here - she can portray Silk's fragile side, her self-confidence even when it goes to the point of arrogance and her exuberance. Perhaps the bigger surprises therefore are the other performances, like Tusshar Kapoor as the man who adores Silk, or Emraan Hashmi as the man who loathes her. Hashmi especially won me over - the journey his character takes is intriguing, and I had severe prejudice about him, having only seen him in Gangster, which was only not a very good film but also not a very good performance. (The fact he's spent half his career practically eating faces of female co-stars hasn't endeared me to him either. I'm fine with kissing but his films rarely seemed to feature good on-screen kisses.)

But in this, I positively loved him, and I thought the chemistry between him and Vidya was practically through the roof. I would not mind seeing them in another film together, and I hope I'm not the only one.


As with any good masala, the songs were a delight, and the cinematography beautiful. I've not read a whole lot of response to this film, but when people name this the best film of last year, I think I'd be strongly inclined to agree. I saw a fair amount of last year's batch of pictures, and considering my enjoyment, and how likely I am to rewatch something, it's pretty clear that Dirty was perhaps the best picture of them all.

Ladies vs Ricky Bahl - come for the get-ups, stay for the jilted women.

When I called Band Baajat Baarat "the Bunty & Babli of wedding planning" I clearly should have looked ahead to the next venture by the same leads and director, because Ladies Vs Ricky Bahl is essentially Bunty aur Babli turned upside down or in-out or just heavily dosed with recreational drugs. That's not necessarily a knock on the film - some of the best bits were the ones which gave me the same vibes as the best scenes in BaB do. However, the rest...

Even though wiktionary defines the Finnish term "auervaara" as simply as a casanova, the term actually carries the idea of a man who scams women for their money. Ricky Bahl (Ranveer Singh) is a 21st century auervaara, that's for damned sure - instead of old, unmarried women, like his 20th century counterpart, he romances young, pretty daughters of well-to-do businessmen and the like. But his jig is up when three women he's conned - played by Parineeti Chopra (Dimple), Dipannita Sharma (Raina) and Aditi Sharma (Saira) - decide to team up to con him, with the help of formidable sales girl Ishika (Anushka Sharma).

I went in expecting pretty much nothing at all. It was clear that The Dirty Picture (which I will see, soon I hope!) was the film to watch out for in December, and Ladies vs.. was a mere blip in the radar for both critics and audiences. I was therefore pleasantly surprised that what I got was a reasonably solid Yash Raj entertainer, with some caveats.

Probably the biggest caveat is the film's main star himself. I'll give him some slack since it's only his second film, but the weight he has to carry here is just too much. Whereas other actors might have pulled off the cheesy costumes and fake facial hair he has to don for some of his cons with just the kind of cheesy panache required, Ranveer just looks a bit awkward, or trying too hard, or trying too hard to look cool despite cheesy get-ups. Then there are a couple of scenes, where even the conman ought to bring out some true, honest-to-god emotion. I looked, and looked, and looked, and couldn't find any.

The movie asks - rightly - for its audience to root for the ladies, but the main star still ought to win me in some way, I feel, and Ranveer just didn't pull off that feat. But it's only his second film, and to his benefit or disadvantage, he started off big and is continuing big. With new stars we often speak of promise, and delivering on that promise. I'm not going to lie - what Ranveer lacks in acting he makes up in cuteness, gym-going, dancing and all this other shallow nonsense. So perhaps I am too harsh on the guy, but the ladies certainly were the reason I kept watching, not him.

So the ladies won out for me - in more ways than one, and Anushka Sharma was also a joy to watch, though we didn't get a whole lot of her, and some that we got of her was pure beach-outfit-objectification type of material. However, when she gets to act, she shines, and I am warming up to her even more than previously. It's early days for her, just as it is for Ranveer, but I look forward to her developing more than him.

But let's talk about the three women here some more. I found them probably the most real and interesting part of the film, and it's a shame the film takes at times a pretty cavalier attitude to the fact they've been conned. Of course, only Saira, whose family runs a little cloth boutique in Lucknow, really suffered financial setbacks from Ricky's con. Dimple is the daughter of a rich family, so only her heart gets broken, and her pride knocked about a bit. Raina's defeat is professional - she's the go-getter high-achieving businesswoman, unaffected by the con romantically, but nonetheless pissed off. The way they bond and find a common goal in defeating Ricky is quite charming, and generally they just fast became my favourite part of the movie.

The songs are all quite fun, though fairly standard in terms of Salim-Sulaiman's style. But they do the job, and the leads are both good dancers, so they're fun to watch.

If you'd asked me last night, I would have been far less hesitant to recommend Ladies Vs Ricky Bahl, but some sleep has made me think a bit more. There's a lot I would fix in this movie, and the love story - despite being developed quite well for the time that it has to develop - I couldn't care all that much about, so it's far from being the perfect movie. But it is fun entertainment throughout most of its run, and I think the three newbies in this should all be good to watch out for.

Filmi year 2011.

The blog! It lives! Kind of.

So 2011 was a very busy, engaging, interesting year for me in many respects. Not so interesting in terms of getting a bunch of films watched - in fact, I rather sucked at that. But perhaps I've also become defeatist - "catching up with Bollywood" has been on my "to-do" list for about 3 years now and my obsession doesn't show any signs of the sort of vitality it had going in 2009 or so.

But that doesn't mean it's the end for this blog or for Indian films and myself. Kya bakwaas! I think Indian films will always remain an interest, whether I watch a film every week or a couple a year, whether I visit my filmi forums or blogs regularly or not, whether I'm up on what's coming out and what's not. And I think it's time I accepted this more relaxed attitude and just went with the flow instead of stressing about not having seen this or that new release.

Still, looking at the Wikipedia article for Bollyfilms in 2011, you know, I did see most things. I loved Nobody Killed Jessica in January last year, I enjoyed 7 Khoon Maaf at the film festival in September, I watched smaller films like Chalo Dilli and Tanu Weds Manu, too. I dyed my hair in December and put on the blockbuster extravaganza of Bodyguard during it. I even watched a bunch of films that I'd missed from last year.

So what's up this year? Well, most things either underwhelmed me or disappointed me. I enjoyed NOKJ, and thought 7KM was good, though not as good as Bhardwaj's previous films. I understood the Salman entertainer value of Bodyguard, though I didn't entirely vibe with its megalomaniac success (it was fun but I doubt I'd rewatch it?). Zindagi Milegi Na Dobara, as previously reviewed, seemed to have everything going for it but I was still left disappointed. It should be the kind of feel-good friendship film I normally embrace - but I just simply didn't like it that much.

Another film I feel I should have enjoyed more than I did was Mere Brother Ki Dulhan, which I enjoyed for the songs and the secondary pairing, but just didn't really like on the whole. The characters, the plot, the constant filmi references (which I normally love!) just got a bit tiring.

Probably the best experience of the year was seeing Robot/Endhiran at the Helsinki International Film Festival - with the whistling and the catcalls, it was 10% of what it must be like to see a Rajni film in Tamil Nadu, but just that fact made the film immensely enjoyable.

There's still some left I want to see and might enjoy - Delhi Belly, Dum Maro Dum, Mausam, The Dirty Picture, Ladies vs Ricky Bahl. So I look forward to watching those this year.

On the Southie side, I've neglected a lot of goings on with my favourites - Siddharth, Surya, Vikram to name the main names I look out for. I've heard bad things about Siddharth's latest output - big thanks to NewLaura on Twitter to always answering my questions about his latest releases! - and Vikram just doesn't seem to have put out anything that's reached DVD. I bought Raavanan on DVD last year but still haven't watched that. It's hard to be out of the loop, especially as I feel like I was never in the loop with Southie films to begin with, having such horribly limited access to them.

Weirdly enough, the film I probably enjoyed the most and rewatched the most, and one I really need to screencap and review properly for this blog was a DVD purchase made in the UK, the 2009 Tamanna-Surya film Ayan. It's just one of those all-around brilliant entertainers, good acting, good songs, great story. It hits all the buttons. So it's the one that made it instantly on my favourites list, unlike so many other titles I watched this year, regardless of the fact I got to it so late.

But enough about all that. How was your filmi year 2011? Anything you think I'd enjoy in particular? Any films that escaped everybody's attention that's worth checking out?

Oldie photos.

I feel like my brain is completely running on underdrive thanks to doing so much studying. Me and some friends did watch Andaz Apna Apna and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, confirming once again that I can watch those two as many times as possible and they'll still stay favourites. And I have some newer films I need to review but like I said, too brainless. So have some oldie photos for the lack of actual substance.

Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara - audio review.

I decided that instead of writing an incredibly rambling review, I'd record one.

Whether this was a smart move on my part is anybody's guess, but here's the review link:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD/LISTEN. You can listen by pressing "play", or you can download. It's 11MB, around 12.5 minutes long, and in MP3-format.

I say "um" a lot, but I also edited a ton of "ums" and "ers" out..

Robot or Endhiran - no rest for the lithium-powered.

I was psyched, absolutely psyched to see Robot at my annual film festival blast of Indian films. Usually they only have Hindi films on display, usually only one, but this year they delivered big time with this, 7 Khoon Maaf and Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, which I'll review once I've seen it. I'd been anticipating Robot for ages - it was Shankar, it was big budget, it looked like it'd be crazyfun, so to see it in theater was a dream come true.

The audience certainly delivered, as did the surround sound in the theater. I think most Finland-dwelling Tamil speakers made the showing and put up an impressive display of whistling and cheering for the Superstar, and of course at every mildly naughty suggestive line of dialogue. No, it wasn't seeing the film open in a packed Madras cinema, I'm sure, but it was the closest we could get to such an experience in this cold country.

So what about the film itself? Well, it was Shankar alright. Rajni pulls triple-duty for the joy of his fans, as he's both the titular robot Chitti as well as his creator Vaseegaran, and even the version 2.0 we see on the second half. The big budget allows Shankar to go all out and I really do mean ALL OUT - besides the nice-looking visual effects, there are lavish song sets, foreign locations, and a climactic showdown unlike no other, in both good ways and bad. There's a certain insane visuality to Shankar films that everybody who's seen one recognises. That's all here, too.

So if I wasn't smiling ear-to-ear, I was laughing, clapping my hands, despite myself, even doing the clichéd slapping of the knee. But the full enjoyment of the film as a watching experience doesn't sadly take away the problems the film has. While I definitely think it's a must-watch for the insanity, the megalomaniac budget and the sheer show of Rajni-mania (the fans cheer him when he's good, but they also cheer for his villainous avatar!), these are some of the reasons why it doesn't quite jump on top of my must-buy list as well.

1. Aishwarya Rai dances gloriously but her character is underwritten to say the least. She throws nonsensical tantrums, her romance with both the creator and the robot is bland, her character is materialistic and acts bizarrely at best, annoyingly at the worst. She's just not very fun to watch.

Shankar's never been known to write fantastic female characters, but at least some of his heroines, like Sada in Anniyan, seem to have a good head on their soldiers. Aishwarya's Sana is merely a prop to allow for Chitti, then Vaseegaran to display different facets of their characterizations. Yes, even the robot is infused with more genuine personality traits than the female lead. This veers on insulting, to be quite frank.

2. As silly as it sounds as a criticism for a Shankar movie, as the dude is all about visuals, the story is hopelessly hollow. Gone is the usual social message, placed with a couple of moralistic conclusions towards the end. Usually the visual effects are a side-show, gratuitously used but only one of the tools that Shankar uses to tell his story. This time, they play the lead role.

I want to hope that because of the visuals, whatever story there was, I merely missed it in the flurry of eye candy. But I'm afraid that if I look again, there's very little there to hold onto.

3. Last but not least, and cover your eyes in Tamil Nadu because this might be blasphemous for the Rajni-fans: he's a good actor, so why not let him act? Sure, he hams it up on the second half and there's a couple of choice moments here and there, but while the whole point (and this I get) is that he's playing a robot, not known to emote very well, I still wonder why there was barely any effort to carve a real character out of the man who created him.

Or is this a gripe like you could level at many actors, that once they become famous, they become famous to such an effect that say, Rajni the Actor had to take a step back to make way for Rajni The Star? Pardon me, Superstar.

Point being, I really need to watch older Rajni films as it seems that he's not cast to act in these films: Shankar's merely putting him on display for the fans. And for me, the Star has little appeal unless I also get a glimpse of the Actor inside.

But as I said earlier, if you've not seen this one, for goodness' sake, do!