Showing posts with label Dibakar Banerjee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dibakar Banerjee. Show all posts

Monday, May 6, 2013

‘Bombay Talkies’: An ‘Ajeeb Dastaan’ to be Remembered!



If Raja Harishchandra is considered to be the first full-fledged Indian film ever made, Indian Cinema would officially be a century old this year, although ample evidence pointing towards an earlier beginning exists. That is, however, subject to debate and here, I do not have adequate scope to address the squabble. Whatever it is, those who have grown up on Bombay Cinema have enough reason to celebrate this hour: the release of Bombay Talkies which is a fascinating tribute to the largest film industry and its consumers (the title has been inspired by Himanshu Rai, Devika Rani and Rajnarayan Dube’s legendary studio which was founded in 1934, and had monopolized the industry for quite some time, producing the greatest films and the biggest stars of the early years). What Bombay Talkies seeks to do is delineate through four different narratives the impact of the magic of Bombay Cinema on the lives of ordinary people. The four narratives dovetail stories of people across different classes, age groups and locales, and probe into the extent to which Bombay Cinema has merged seamlessly with each life. Bombay Talkies, in other words, is not about the stars or the filmmakers; it seeks to tell the other side of the story – the story of the star-makers or in other words, the viewers, you and I. Four big names join hands to pay tribute to the PUBLIC, considered the God of commercial cinema. Simultaneously, presumably by an agreement of sorts, all four have very ingeniously invested their films with something that defines and marks themselves out from the others: Dibakar Banerjee’s debt to Ray and Tagore, Anurag Kashyap’s small-town connection, and Karan Johar’s and Zoya Akhtar’s non-normative sexual leanings. Interestingly, the four short films do not have individual titles; they are identified by the names of the directors, perhaps, obliquely implying the personal investment of each into the narratives.

Karan Johar
            In recent interviews related to Bombay Talkies, Karan Johar has been constantly ruing the creative compromises he has had to make time and again, in order to play to the gallery. While making his short for Bombay Talkies, he did not have the ‘box-office sword’ hanging over his head, and therefore, he could be himself. The film is vaguely reminiscent of his Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna where Johar, who had been romanticizing about love and purity of the institution of marriage in film after film, had dared to unravel the apparent show of marital bliss. In Bombay Talkies he moves a step further, and effortlessly throws to the wind the moral barriers he could not break through in KANK. If you remember KANK, you would recognize that it had set the template for this film; what you would notice with surprise is how Johar has come of age over these seven years that separates KANK and Bombay Talkies, and to what extent an artist might need to compromise with audience’s expectation. But then, the audience has also matured over these seven years. What could have been fatal to KANK could uninhibitedly be addressed in Bombay Talkies. In this sense, Johar’s contribution to this portmanteau film when viewed against his 2006 venture could also provide a vague idea of the changing nature of the Hindi film audience in the past one decade or so.
            
 Gayatri (Rani Mukherjee) and Dev’s (Randeep Hooda) apparently happy married life is disrupted with the entry of the vivacious Abhinash (Saqib Saleem), a gay intern at Gayatri’s office. Dev and Abhinash connect through their mutual admiration for old Hindi film songs, and in no time, Abhinash finds himself madly in love with Dev. Terrified and disconcerted at Abhinash’s sexual advances, Dev violently abuses him. Abhinash understands that Dev has been deceiving himself all his life and unlocks his chamber of deepest secrets, leaving him devastated. Gayatri is shattered but admonishes her husband for living a lie for so long. As she declares herself free and decks up in front of the mirror, a repentant Dev sits on the footbridge in little Savitri’s company, as she mellifluously sings Ajeeb dastaan hain yeh
             
Although the focus is on the two male lovers, it is Gayatri who steals the show. Dressed provocatively and candidly indulgent towards inviting glances, Gayatri seems to put herself through a test: it is never explicated, but evident that Gayatri enjoys inviting glances from young men, for it reassures her of her sexual prowess. The growing distance with her husband and irregular sexual encounters with him seem to have made her less confident of her looks, which she, accentuates often not realizing where to draw the line. When Abhinash tells her in jest, ‘Roz toh Dirty Picture banke aati ho’, he does not realize Gayatri’s vulnerabilities. Johar has commendably brought out Gayatri’s insecurities without being didactic about them. And Rani Mukherjee delivers brilliantly, completely unself-conscious of her body which is more articulate than the dialogue given to her. Bombay Talkies is definitely her crowning glory. But, the men are no less lovable. Saqib Saleem strikes a fine balance between the mischievous, garrulous and charming boy and the depressed, lonely mad lover. Randeep Hooda is remarkably restrained, and his expressions are so measured as not to give away his deepest secret. Johar has always made his actors perform; but in Bombay Talkies he has proved his mettle as a director like never before.  
             
Yes, Johar does it finally! Is it his penance for the number of times he has laughed at queer characters in the past? He makes Abhinash beat up his father, the violently homophobic patriarch who cannot accept his son’s sexuality. Perhaps, this film is Johar’s own attempt at purging the unbearable burden of populist demand for ‘othering’ the queer man or woman. Although such dialogues as ‘Gay ho terrorist nahi’ grate on the nerves, the film ends up celebrating queerness by allowing Dev to come out to himself. This is the ‘Ajeeb Dastaan’ of queer lives; sometimes, you do not want to acknowledge yourself your innate queerness, such is the social pressure. What is interesting is that Johar appropriates same-sex desire through the template of existing discourses of heterosexual romances: Hindi film songs. Lag ja galey ki phir hasi raat ho na ho effortlessly transmutes into an anthem of unspoken homoerotic desire.

Dibakar Banerjee

Although I waxed eloquence about Karan Johar’s film, I would put Dibakar Banerjee on top of the list. Based on Ray’s short story ‘Potolbabu Filmstar’, Banerjee’s film is a little masterpiece of sheer brilliance. It is indeed a fit tribute to the maestro of Indian Cinema, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that Banerjee is as good as Ray himself in this flick.
           
 Banerjee’s film is one such work of art you feel hesitant to dissect, fearing that you might spoil its splendour. An actor of inimitable potential, Nawazuddin Siddiqui brings to life Ray’s Potolbabu, as if he was born for this role. Banerjee improvises on the original story quite remarkably, and every frame, every shot, and every twitch of the muscle on Siddiqui’s face he captures, is a mark of classic cinema. Banerjee tells an intensely emotional story of a father, an actor, and a chawl-dweller, who incidentally gets to act as the ‘dhakka man’ in a film shot on a street in Bombay. As he rehearses the dhakka, his dead father, a yesteryear natya-samrat, materializes from nowhere and sarcastically reprimands him for not taking acting seriously ever. He leans on a corporation bin and says ‘Main ajkal yehi rehta hoon!’ before disappearing leaving you to absorb the suggestiveness of the dialogue. But, before that he mocks his son who is disappointed with the dialogue given to him: a mere interjection, ‘Ay!’ The ghost of the father mouths ‘Ay’ in five different ways, underlining that acting has barely anything to do with the length of the role. Sadashiv Amprapurkar excels as the ghost-father.
           
 I leave to you to judge whether Potolbabu disappoints his father or makes him proud by that one ‘Ay!’ he utters, as Ranbir Kapoor collides with him and runs past. The rest of the story is Siddique’s heart-felt performance to cheer up his ailing daughter, who is obsessed with stories of Bombay films. Banerjee makes him adapt another form of acting --- the mime (Banerjee did not forget that silent films was the beginning) ---- as he relates to his daughter the amusing story of the day! The Tobu mone rekho track creates the right kind of ambience for an emotionally charged closing scene. Ray would have been proud of Dibakar Banerjee.

Zoya Akhtar

Although this film is the weakest of the quartet, the story Zoya Akhtar narrates was indeed needed to be told. Little Vicky (Naman Jain) hates football, and wishes to gyrate like Katrina Kaif! He dreams to be a dancer, but faces insurmountable resistance from his father (Ranvir Shorey) who is devastated on chancing upon him in drags and performing to Aj ki raat! Vicky’s fate seems sealed when one night Katrina Kaif visits him as a fairy godmother who teaches him the trick to survive: sometimes it’s important that you keep your dreams hidden from others, while nurturing them with perseverance. Vicky learns this lesson well, and tricks his father into believing that he wants to become a pilot. The conventional patriarchal father is happy that his son has a conventional man-like dream. His sister is surprised at his cunningness but becomes the greatest strength in realizing his dream. The end is a bit too fantastical, in fact, illogical; but, you tend to overlook that remembering Hindi films have always demanded of you a willing suspension of disbelief.
             
Akhtar’s film is remarkably queer, and very suggestively questions gender categories and constructed nature of gender roles. I was constantly reminded of Mahesh Dattani’s play Dance Like A Man which is an intriguing tale of a male dancer’s tussle with his disapproving father. In fact, Akhtar has given voice to a very common dream which has been nurtured by many a queer man in India. Many of them have dreamt to dance like Sridevi or Madhuri Dixit; while others have often found in Meena Kumari their icon or have identified with Rekha’s anguish in Umraon Jaan! The Hindi film heroine has always been a queer icon in India, and Akhtar has chosen a very commendable topic for her film. The film also reveals the obsession with fame and glamour, the dream of ‘good life’ the film industry has been peddling successfully since its inception. Although the film is weak compared to the first two films, the subject deserves two-thumbs up!

Anurag Kashyap

I had expected a lot more from my Dev D man on the occasion of celebrating 100 years of Indian Cinema. He doesn’t disappoint, but appears remarkably lack-lustre in comparison to the two brilliant pieces of art in the first half. Like the first three films, Kashyap also delves into the father-son relationship. While Johar and Akhtar present non-conformist sons, Kashyap’s protagonist Vijay (Vineet Kumar) is a much too obedient son, who goes to extraordinary lengths to grant his father his weird wish.
             
The film is a testing commentary on stardom and fan-following. The film uncovers in meticulous detail star-power and its impact on the aam-junta! Vijay (named after several Amitabh Bachchan characters) leaves his hometown Allahabad carrying a murabba which his father wants Bachchan to take a bite from. Vijay is made to believe by his father that this murrabba would be the antidote to his ailments, and Vijay leaves no stone unturned to make Bachchan take a bite from the murabba. The film is delightful till a point, but grates on the nerves at 27 minutes! What keeps the film going is Vineet Kumar’s honest performance. Note his retro hairstyle and costume, and his faint resemblance with Bachchan. The iconic status of Bombay filmstars and their abiding influence on the crowd come out brilliantly, and many obsessive fans would identify with Vijay and his father. In fact, in the end, you would feel like pleading with Bachchan to have a bite and relieve Vijay of his Herculean task.
           
 The film ends not with triumph, but cruelty! The last scene however is subtle commentary on how it is always desirable to worship stars from a distance; they are indeed beautiful on the silver screen. But, it takes a lot to negotiate with them in reality. Kashyap, surely doesn’t or did not intend any moral lesson, but this is what you would certainly reap from the film.

NB: After the final fadeout, wait for a while…it begins all over again…the history of Hindi cinema…although quite shoddy in execution, it is nonetheless fun.
 
Image courtesy: www.top10bollywood.com; indiatoday.intoday.in; in.bookmyshow.com; movies.sulekha.com

Friday, June 15, 2012

“Shanghai”: The unattainable dream city


The title of my review of Dibakar Banerjee’s latest explains the title Shanghai that seems to elude most of its viewers. The title, indisputably, is far-fetched, and demands of the audience an awareness of the unattainable dreams Indian politicians are famed to peddle. Shanghai is the prototype city of the ultimate development human civilization can envisage at the present moment. So every Indian politician hawks this dream, unconscientiously; they are either oblivious of the predicament of several hundred people the realization of such a dream would entail, or they are simply not bothered. Dr. Ahmadi raises his voice against the brutality of such a project in a fictional Indian state, unimaginatively named Bharatnagar. He is assassinated, and the rest of the film, in a crime-thriller mode, is a search of the assassin. However, the viewer is all along aware who the real villain is. It is the characters, within the film, which has to arrive at the truth already available to the viewer. But, the film never once names the villain and attributes to the viewer such superior knowledge. The irony is the Indian viewer has grown so used to the corruption and evil practices of the State in general, that she can anticipate the end from the very beginning. 

If the end is already predictable from the very outset, why watch Shanghai? Why are people raving about the film? Is it really that great? I would say not quite. The film simply plays to the gallery, recounting and tying up into a single narrative political news that have been making headlines in the past few years in the media. Dr. Ahmadi (a glamorized, younger and suave version of Anna Hazare) is the tragic hero, the kind the nation badly needs at present. His socialist idealism, though undercut by his foreign university degree and teaching career, seeks to dismantle the general scene of aggressive capitalism in the post-global world. However, the popular version of progress that means approximating the dream technopolis, notwithstanding the quagmire such progress thrusts millions of less-privileged people into, barely changes.  
           
The film is realistic enough not to monger another dream of a better future. Rather it lays bare the atrocity of the lust for power, when Dr. Ahmadi’s widow enters into a pact with the political party that killed her husband, and contends the election. Although a responsible and honest government official resign, giving up on a prospective career, nothing changes eventually. In fact, in declaring “Shalini’s book on Dr. Ahmadi’s assassination was banned in India”, the film makes the viewer aware that she is acting voyeur to a forbidden narrative. The farce called democracy becomes all the more manifest in this declaration and the subsequent realization that dawns on the viewer. This is nothing new; official versions of history are mostly fabrications, and fiction has often intervened to relate true history. Shanghai performs the same function, reflecting on a pan-Indian reality at present.

If not for the content, the film is strongly recommended for its three mind-blowing performances: Imran Hashmi breaks new grounds as the porn filmmaker Jogi. With yellowed teeth and a bulging tummy, Imran steals the show with panache. Abhay Deol, who almost grows into the tie and the formal shirt, downplays his dimples to a startling effect to infuse credibility into the middle-class, idealistic, and serious Krishnan. Kalki’s is a passionate performance; she enacts with her eyes and body language what Shalini believes in. She would invariably remind of dedicated women freedom fighters strongly rooted in ideology. Prosenjit Chatterjee’s Dr. Ahmadi is a looker, indeed. But his forced Hindi is a downer. Banerjee could have very well made him a Bengali. Pitobash, Farooqh Sheikh and Supriya Pathak are near perfect.
           

Shanghai incidentally is smarting at the box-office under the onslaught of the agonizingly rowdy Rowdy Rathod. The postmodern lack of political and historical depth becomes ironically manifest in this. The GenY any day would give Shanghai a miss for a conventional garish Bollywood potboiler. Sad indeed! It barely matters whether Shalini’s book is banned or not! Nobody seems to care, right? 

Image Courtesy: apnaindia.com

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Love, Sex aur Dokha: Experimental at its best!

It’s been really long since we have seen such an experimental film. It’s claustrophobic in the sense that it gives you a terrible feeling that you are under the constant vigilance of an unseen eye! Kind of a Foucauldian panopticon syndrome…the very watchfulness of an unknown pair of eyes that would make you feel imprisoned when you are apparently free! The entire film is shot in a hand-held camera that triples up as the camera of an amateurish filmmaker, the spy-cam of a departmental store, and the hidden camera of sting operation. All three are love stories…the first inspired by the iconic DDLJ, a deglamourised intertext of the same working in and out of the narrative underscoring the remarkable difference between the dream-like romantic world of Bollywood and the murkiness of the real world. The second draws from several MMS scandals that have flooded the internet! The third is based on a sting operation…the project of a news channel to unmask a pop-star, by revealing to the world his casting couch. The film does not resort to any kind of commentary for its difficult to even feel the presence of a director…for in all three stories the camera is controlled by the characters. We see what the characters within the film wish us to show. It is difficult to recall any film where the director is so completely absent. By absenting himself, the director seems to have put the responsibility of telling their own stories to the characters. ‘Mind-blowing’ would be an understatement. It’s brilliant, it’s awesome! In spite of all the experiments, the film does not bore you even for a minute. I had fallen in love with Dibakar Banerjee when he had gifted us with his awesome Khosla ka Ghosla…the respect for him has increased manifold after Love, Sex aur Dhokha! The Indian film industry has really matured…no doubts about that! Three cheers for Indian films! And one more thing...You need no stars to make a good film!!!