Project Consistency.

As fun as blogging is, it often takes a surprising amount of time and effort. Often I'll have an idea for a blog post and then find myself spending closer to two hours typing, editing, looking up pictures for it. I know, my blog posts don't come off as especially honed to perfection, but I do tinker with them, and that takes big chunks of my free-time.

And to be honest? I'm lazy. That's why I still haven't got around to doing some reviews I've meant to have done ages and ages ago. That's why some reviews just have promotional photos and not screencaps. And when there's a time in my life when an hour of free-time is precious, I usually don't spend it blogging.

But I don't want to let this blog fall by the wayside even when my life does get busy, so I'm going to try to write and then queue up at least one post per month for the rest of 2012. Right now I've got an obscene amount of free-time so hopefully this will work.

What you can expect:

• Reviews of films I've been meaning to do but haven't for the longest bloody time (including Kandasamy, Ayan).
• Reviews of films with screencaps that I previously reviewed without screencaps after the first viewing (Kaminey, bunch of others).
• Just random picture entries (I've got so many vintage Hema Malini pictures that are gorgeous and deserve an entry of their own).
• Random song entries, because I don't talk about music half as much as I should on this blog.

Let's hope this entry works as a commitment device for me to keep this promise..

London Paris New York: globe-trotting for the broken-hearted.

Two people meet, on three occasions, in three different cities, but always for merely one day.

Sound familiar? In some ways, it probably does. When Rum told me on Twitter that London Paris New York was accused of being a rip-off of Richard Linklater's classic Before Sunrise, I wasn't that surprised. The similarities are definitely there. But hopefully there's enough originality here for me to focus on.

LPNY actually reminded me a little of Hum Tum, which also has that whole "meeting in different cities on different occasions" going for it, and also the theme that both characters gradually maturing with each meeting. However, if Hum Tum was flawed in the random animation, it stood on firm ground when it came to characterisation; LPNY's biggest tragedy is perhaps that it quite doesn't.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the characters - Ali Zafar plays Nikhil Chopra, a rich producer's kid who sees his future in films inevitable. He's as superficial and self-confident as you'd expect. Aditi Rao Hydari's Lalitha is from a different world - middle-class, feminist, book-worm, education-minded, with a clear plan in leaving a mark on the world. As filmi logic dictates, he must mock her for her seriousness and bookishness, and she must conclude he's kind of a sleaze, albeit an absolutely charming, adorable one.

Both leads have an easy chemistry with one another, and they chat to each other in a way that feels grounded in current reality. You feel as if you could actually meet these two people at an airport somewhere, and they'd be exactly as they are here.

The problem, however, is that I never felt like the characters actually mature enough. The complications to their relationship aren't all that well-written, and Nikhil is just kind of an ass in the way that he harps on Lalitha for her perceived flaws. Why does he like her so much if most aspects of her personality are so objectionable? How come her book of facts she's gathered about different cities of the world is not fascinating to him but makes her a bore? And for such a rational girl, Lalitha sure makes the most stupid mistakes to create conflict between the couple. The issues just feel so contrived that it removes the charm of the enjoyable dialogue between the two in each city. The script also makes the cardinal mistake of making Nikhil say he's matured, but failing to show it in his actions.

But as films go, despite these problems, it's not an altogether bad viewing experience. Ali Zafar is pretty close to making a fan out of me, and the songs are a delight (especially with Zafar's voice!). For a newcomer, Aditi Rao Hydari also does a good job - I look forward to seeing more of her.

Beginning of Y-Film but Luv Ka The End.

Last month I reviewed Mujhse Fraaaandship Karoge, a fun youth caper of purposefully mistaken identity and then some. Out of curiosity I decided to check out Y-Films' first venture, Luv Ka The End, another tale of college-age kids and their bizarre relationships. And while watching this film, a realisation suddenly hit me: Y-Films is essentially importing the American teen comedy format into an Indian, middle class/upper middle class urban setting. And why not? Teen comedies work, and even if the kids are a bit older here, they seem to act in the same way that they do in the American ones: they care about cliques and clothes and friends, and they especially care about the opposite sex. Parents, on the other hand, are barely visible, as they merely get in the way of fun.

The sad thing is that if MFK is Clueless, Luv Ka The End is American Pie. It's not just the crassness of the humour, and the vaguely offensive elements (like homophobia) that makes me conjure up this comparison -- it's also that MFK, for its flaws, has the potential to be a fun youthful little film that's rooted in a very certain time but will probably be worth watching for years to come, whereas LKTE already feels try-hard and annoying.

But let's talk plot: Luv Nanda is the boyfriend of our female lead, Rhea, and on her 18th birthday, she has promised to spend the night with him for the first time. However, soon after Rhea being forced to cancel the date due to unexpected circumstances, she finds out that Luv, who seems to care more for his car than for her, is indeed a grade-A asshole, to a ridiculous degree. Together with two of her girlfriends, she hatches a plan to revenge him for cheating on her.

It's like Ladies Vs Ricky Bahl, only on some sort of overly sweet teenage party juice, that makes the film feel hyperactive, every single character needlessly exaggerated (and I'm not just talking filmi exaggerated), superficial and hopelessly devoid of any genuinely likable characteristics. It's a shame, because this could have been Ladies Vs Ricky Bahl, just with a lesser budget, and taking place during the course of one night. Instead the film is just kind of unpleasant to sit through. As awful as Luv's character is (and trust me, he is truly a despicable character!) you don't feel much sympathy for the girls seeking revenge, either, as they're also loud, stereotypical and annoying. Where MFK breathed life into its characters, this film fails to do so.

There's a guest appearance at the end of the film that almost made the watching experience worth it for me; fans of the guest star will probably already know who I'm talking about. But even so, I wouldn't recommend this one.

Ekk Main aur Ekk Tu: the film fitting of flat adjectives.

Passable, serviceable, bland. These are just some of the words that passed through my mind when watching the Imran Khan-Kareena Kapoor starrer, Ek Main aur Ekk Tu. Not all of these words have negative connotations - to be passable is perfectly fine in many ways. If you want to take the "glass half full" approach to life, you could say being a serviceable film actually sets a film ahead of the majority of forgettable, plain bad feature films that are out there.

So let's focus on the positives for a while: I was not once bored, nor did I find the storytelling or pacing awkward. The film chugs along at a nice pace, event after event, and though almost every turn is predictable, there's no fast-forwarding or scene-skipping that needs be done. The songs are overall quite nice as well, the leads both do fine, and the characterisations are consistent and mostly believable. The film tackles some age-old subjects, like identity of young people, parental expectations, knowing what you want in life - and then trying to get it. It doesn't re-invent the wheel, but it never claims to try, so that's fine.

The problem? Well, it's like Ramsu's review put it: the film does absolutely nothing right or wrong. It's just flat, and bland and rather tasteless, with no sharp edges or points of exuberance or irritation. It doesn't annoy nor does it inspire. It just is. Like that. You know precisely who the characters are, and there are no significant flaws in the way that they are written; Kareena's Riana is spontaneous and free-spirited where Imran's Rahul is uptight and conformist. But you just don't find yourself caring too much about their happiness or unhappiness. Charisma, chemistry or any kind of spark seems to be missing.

It's hard to say, with films like these, where the blame lies, and then - being that I am such a forgiving person - even harder to say whether one should even really blame the makers. The blandness of the film makes sure that you walk away from it, not even feeling all that annoyed that the film didn't rock your world. I spent less than two hours with it, and didn't hate the experience - it's just that it wasn't even that much of an experience.

Surely films are made to make us feel something, whatever that something may be?

Bollywood free association.

[This is the post you write when you really don't know what else to write about - essentially, one of those exercises they always make you do in writing classes, just writing whatever comes to mind on that moment, clearing your head. ]

I really want to see Agent Vinod, not just because I've been waiting for it for a small eternity but because, well, I feel like I want to believe in a film again, and also wow, remember when Saif used to be good? You might not, it's been like six years, six goddamn years! Unbelievable. And also, remember when Salman wasn't good? And now he's in pretty much everything and he's always pretty much pretty good, or you know, Salman good, which on the scale from one to Salman is pretty friggin' Salman.

I don't know, it just comes back to that old problem of having to keep my distance because my access to films is so limited. There's no use in getting swept up in the hype when forced to wait for a DVD release and I don't want to get all, "you don't know how lucky some of you are, kids" but hey you don't know how lucky some of you are, apart from those of you who aren't, and come to think of it, a lot of you might be worse off than me in terms of Indian film shortages so what am I even talking about it.

I was talking about Robot with a friend of mine who also saw it at the film festival I saw and we had the best time just recalling everything that happened and everything that happened that didn't make a lick of sense (which was most of it, to be honest) and I just kept wanting to show my friend some Shankar films that do actually make some sense because I guess I just want to make sure that she would understand why I don't think his films are as rubbish as Robot kind of was, in terms of characterisation and story, and don't you just hate it when people - whoever those people may be, fans or haters or whatevers - assume that's just how Indian films are, senseless and pointless? Like yes, some, of course, Hollywood has got Fast & Furious, too, and did you see Transformers 2 (I didn't) but still there's characterisation there and

Wow, I really should rewatch Lagaan. I always wonder what are other people's "I really need to rewatch that" films because I feel like I'm personally always just rewatching some and then letting others rot in my DVD shelf even though it'd do me good to re-evaluate how much I like them now, like Beth mentioned Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron and I was like "holy hell I saw that way back when I was a newbie and liked it but did I even get any of it? I got that it was a dark comedy and Naseeruddin Shah as a youngster" so anyway I guess my point was that I need to rewatch that.

And also I guess Naseer-saab wasn't that much of a youngster in JBDY but you know, I'm a young kid, I ride shotgun.

It's been such a long while since Bollywood stars have made guest appearances in my dreams and that's pretty sad in a way, like you always hope that you end up with dreams full of magic and wonder, but the other week I had a dream where I just made awesome to-do lists and worse yet, Vikram was not on that list and

..now I am really uncomfortable with that joke even as I made it because again, being such a youngster, I'm reminded, Vikram's older than my dad, so like

These things are best just not thought of at all. But I do genuinely want to see Agent Vinod, and I should hope it's a good film.

Muhjse Fraaandship Karoge: triple-A rated Y-Film.

Buzz or hype are both ridiculous-sounding words for a very real phenomenon, which can often make or break a film-watching experience. If you've heard a film praised to high heavens, it can be hard to reconcile the fact that you didn't find it that good. As a rule, I tend to avoid reading that much about films before seeing them, to avoid this, but sometimes, you've really got to glad for the existence of buzz.

This is one of those times.

I'm sure not that many of us have been keeping a keen eye on Y-Films, Yash Raj Films' youthful out-shoot. Their first film, Luv Ka The End, wasn't exactly popular with the audiences. But thankfully despite this, some people did go see Mujhse Fraandship Karoge (that's three A's, just so you know!) and reported back, and that reporting back seemed to unanimous: this is a fun, little film, definitely worth seeing.

And so, with this little online buzz behind it, I checked out MFK and also found it delightful. The premise is a bit of silly spin on You've Got Mail, which was in itself a silly spin on The Little Shop Around the Corner: two people, who in real life loathe one another, and are constantly running into arguments, interact with each anonymously via other means (in this case, Facebook) and discover to have great chemistry together. You can see the premise coming a mile away, but the way the film deals with this and the complicated little web of lies the leads form, is refreshing. The film is well-directed, well-edited, and well-acted. It doesn't reach for mountains but manages to be a better film than a lot of films with bigger budgets and bigger stars.

So consider this short review another push for more eyes to see this flick. It's not without flaws (for example, I had my doubts whether the film portrays the hip youthful college culture as accurately as it wants to), but it aims for something and absolutely succeeds in that aim, in my eyes. It's a good, fluffy Hinglishy film, that doesn't fail to entertain.

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?