“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

"Once Upon a Time in Mumbai": Retelling a Postmodern Myth

Are myths really timeless? Yes, they are. Is it impossible to trace the origin of a myth? No, not really. For, myths do not always belong to prehistoric times. Myths can be created every day. In fact, the myths surrounding the Mumbai underworld are perhaps the most recent, and created and perpetuated by the Hindi film industry. Beginning in the late 60s, throughout the 70s and well into the 80s, this myth has been repeated so many times that for a Hindi film-buff the villain had become synonymous with the smuggler, who lived in a palatial mansion with an underground den having electrocuted entrances and where money, jewellery and all sorts of desirable things were hidden in chambers with password protected doors and blinking red-lights. This is magic realism at its best. Postmodern fictional representation often uses a trope which is referred to as ‘literalization of metaphor’. These fantastical garish films of the 70s and 80s did not ever use the world underworld. Rather they literally situated the villain (or the don) in a den that was underground. The best example would be Mogembo’s hi-tech den in Mr. India.

The Hindi film villain was always a diabolical smuggler, who also became a tragic hero in Don. Although the villain was finally killed, and all was set aright, the glamour surrounding the underworld and the easy road to money it ensured was difficult to overlook. The city of Bombay, apart from being the epicentre of the film industry and the associated glamour, also catapulted into a much desirable destination, thanks to the rumours (sometimes truths) about how its underworld was a utopia where fame, money, glamorous women and every other pleasure was easily accessible. Milan Lutharia’s Once Upon a Time in Mumbai, traces the reality behind the origin of the myth. ‘Once upon a time’− the very title resorts to the oft-repeated first line of fairy tales, thereby cleverly juxtaposing legend and reality, for it squarely locates the myth in a real space − the city of Mumbai. Although the disclaimer denies any relation to the lives of Haji Mastan and Daud Imbrahim, the story as it unfolds, speaks otherwise. One may argue that Once Upon a Time in Mumbai is nothing new, for Ram Gopal Varma has already told the same story in his critically acclaimed Company years ago. But the novelty of this film is that it not only reveals the myth which has so far served as the main source of plot material for numerous Hindi movies of the 70s, it also goes commendably in the retro mode to tell it in the 70s way! The sets, the costumes, the high-strung acting, the power-packed punch lines, the loud background score…everything is so very 70s, after all. Ram Gopal Varma’s Company was in the realistic mode; but Once Upon a Time, true to its title, recreates the fantastically over-the-top glam-world of the 70s. The departure from the stock 70s plot is made where the film refuses to draw the line between good and bad, and explores the grey area. That a lot of research has gone into the making is clearly visible. However, my approach to the film may send out the wrong signal that I was rather impressed by the movie. Actually I wasn’t. For, after all, the plot and execution is pretty average.

Of the performances, I would rate Emraan Hasmi and Prachi Desai quite high. Ajay Devgn is quite believable in the role he plays. I did not like Kangana Ranaut, for I do not like her, generally. Thank god, she did not sit precariously forlorn on the window sill or attempt suicide in her favourite hang-out, that is, the washroom. The supporting cast does not impress for the focus is so squarely on the two heroes that they almost sleep-walk through the film, it seems. By the way, Randeep Hooda makes a surprise come-back as the tough cop and puts up a praiseworthy show, as slick as his waistline.

I do not really recommend this film, but a one-time watch, when you have nothing to waste money on, is not discouraged.