Today I watched Love Sex aur Dhokha.
Not paying much attention to the latest Bollywood stuff these days, I knew nothing about this movie. In fact, I had not even heard its name until yesterday when one of my flatmates had shouted to me, as I was having my bath, whether I would like to go for it. I had then agreed to it basically in want of any fitter occupation on the lazy Sunday.
But the movie was different. It was a very fresh experience in terms of what Bollywood usually churns out. And for a change, it did not make me feel like 'why did they have to make the second half' or 'why did they have to solve the mystery', at the end of the movie, as had often been the case these days!
It had three different stories having a coincidental conjuncture - showing us parts of lives captured in different cameras - being narrated to us mostly through those cameras. In a way, the cameras are more the protagonists of the story than the principal human characters.
The first tale involves a camera of a student of a film institute trying to create a masala movie - and falling for the actress in the process, and what follows thereafter. Most of the scenes shown to us are from his camera - as he shoots - or progresses through his movie making - keeping his camera rolling most of the time.
The second tale is that of a security camera of a departmental store - showing us its part and involvement in a voyeuristic endeavour of capturing and selling 'real' footages having sexual undertones (or proper sex), involving the male-female regulars (staff, customer, etc.) of the store.
The third tale is that of a revenge sting operation orchestrated by a debutante against a popular pop star, in attempt to implicate him by exposing his methods of demanding sexual favours in return for providing the 'launch' to debutantes.
The three stories are connected by a thin line - coincidental, yet very distinctly portrayed, mainly serving the purpose of continuity, such that the audience finally feels the three plots to be part of the same larger landscape, instead of them being discreet experiences.
The entire film employed a very honest and direct mode of expression making some practically unrealistic sequences comes across as real and normal. The director had been able pull the audience very successfully into the realm of the movie. The characters, their dialogues, all seem very real - the entire cast had done a very good job in their roles - portraying just the characters they were expected to portray, falling very smugly into the places.
Technically, the movie uses the kinds of shots and angles that would appear natural to sting cameras, security cameras, hand-held digicams, and such - truly the shots from the cameras which seem to be telling the story. Yet, all this is done in a masterful way - keeping the storytelling and the impacts alive.
The movie also very successfully keeps the audience laughing all through, sometimes with its use of bold profane words in the exact same style as they are really used among friends, sometimes with its satirical humorous takes, and sometimes, as in the first tale, with simple direct portrayal of our own imitation styles of Bollywood emotional sequences.
Overall, it is a good movie, a fresh experience, and a recommended watch. It seems modern Bollywood is finally shaking off its fears and coming of age.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Movie Quotes
Some quotations I loved, and remember, from Movies:
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
"BEND low, O dusky Night,
And give my spirit rest.
Hold me to your deep breast,
And put old cares to flight.
Give back the lost delight
That once my soul possest,
When Love was loveliest.
Bend low, O dusky Night!"
- Nowhere in Africa (poem is by Louis Chandler Moulton)
"He who never speaks badly of women, does not love them.
Because to understand them and love them, you must suffer for them.
So then, and only then, can you find happiness on the lips of your beloved."
- Il Casanova di Federico Fellini
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned."
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
"BEND low, O dusky Night,
And give my spirit rest.
Hold me to your deep breast,
And put old cares to flight.
Give back the lost delight
That once my soul possest,
When Love was loveliest.
Bend low, O dusky Night!"
- Nowhere in Africa (poem is by Louis Chandler Moulton)
"He who never speaks badly of women, does not love them.
Because to understand them and love them, you must suffer for them.
So then, and only then, can you find happiness on the lips of your beloved."
- Il Casanova di Federico Fellini
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Mar Adentro: A Film about the Right to Die
Yesterday, I watched Mar Adentro (Spanish, translates as 'Sea of Life'). The film was about a physically disabled man wanting to die. The film was masterfully done. It won the Best Foreign Language Oscar in 2004. I should have been able to experience its substance to the fullest. But I could not.
Because, something I had read years ago, something once pointed out to me by someone, which kept coming back to me.
It was during a sort of debate I have had on an earlier post 'The Right to Die'. I had then read of a particular judicial case of whether or not to administer death to Terri Schiavo - a person in persistent vegetative state. She had become brain dead, and after long years of judicial debate, the court had ruled in favour of administering death, considering it to be what Terri Schiavo herself would have wanted, and respecting her wish. I had agreed, and wrote an article against people who seems to be denying us the 'Right to Die'. The debate had then ensued on the blog when another one questioned this logic, and we continued for quiet a while researching the case of Terri Schiavo over the internet.
In the course of this debate, I was once pointed out a link to an article, which did have quiet an effect on me, though it did not derail me from my belief that the right to die is as much mine as the right to live. A phrase from that article which struck me most was: "... I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead." Do we glorify death for such cases because we ourselves are afraid of being in those states? Would extremely disabled people see life and death in the same way as we do? If they choose to die at all, would it be out of not being able to lead what we call a 'proper life', or just to get rid of unbearable pain or suffering? The article had more an effect on me than I had then thought, as I realise today, from its coming back to me while watching this beautiful movie. Anyway, that debate ended when logic was finally challenged with faith - and as always, no logic could ever counter faith, no matter how strong the logic be. Basically, we both jumped onto faith - me leaping into faith in logic (for the case), my opposition leaping onto faith in life and the sacredness of its continuity.
Coming back to Mar Adentro, it is a beautifully done movie, recommended for any movie lover.
Because, something I had read years ago, something once pointed out to me by someone, which kept coming back to me.
It was during a sort of debate I have had on an earlier post 'The Right to Die'. I had then read of a particular judicial case of whether or not to administer death to Terri Schiavo - a person in persistent vegetative state. She had become brain dead, and after long years of judicial debate, the court had ruled in favour of administering death, considering it to be what Terri Schiavo herself would have wanted, and respecting her wish. I had agreed, and wrote an article against people who seems to be denying us the 'Right to Die'. The debate had then ensued on the blog when another one questioned this logic, and we continued for quiet a while researching the case of Terri Schiavo over the internet.
In the course of this debate, I was once pointed out a link to an article, which did have quiet an effect on me, though it did not derail me from my belief that the right to die is as much mine as the right to live. A phrase from that article which struck me most was: "... I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead." Do we glorify death for such cases because we ourselves are afraid of being in those states? Would extremely disabled people see life and death in the same way as we do? If they choose to die at all, would it be out of not being able to lead what we call a 'proper life', or just to get rid of unbearable pain or suffering? The article had more an effect on me than I had then thought, as I realise today, from its coming back to me while watching this beautiful movie. Anyway, that debate ended when logic was finally challenged with faith - and as always, no logic could ever counter faith, no matter how strong the logic be. Basically, we both jumped onto faith - me leaping into faith in logic (for the case), my opposition leaping onto faith in life and the sacredness of its continuity.
Coming back to Mar Adentro, it is a beautifully done movie, recommended for any movie lover.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
I Love To See You Cry...
<< Promoted from my paper diary... >>
That relationship in which there is no tears is no relationship at all. The intensity of feelings, of sadness should cross all barriers - of anger, of rationality, of determination, of poise, of self-respect - all the barriers which stands against the sublimation of the innocent soul in love, in complete surrender.
These moments of pain will bound the souls together in a bond stronger than any other.
On such bonds, on such depths of foundations, can lofty mansions be built elevating man to absolute clarity, truth and beauty.
Without pain there can be no happiness.
Without tears there can be no rapture.
I love to see you cry. Because your tears stand as the strongest and truest testimony that you feel.
P.S. (added later): Are tears the price women have to pay for the insecurities of men? If she knew it all, will she willingly pay the price?
That relationship in which there is no tears is no relationship at all. The intensity of feelings, of sadness should cross all barriers - of anger, of rationality, of determination, of poise, of self-respect - all the barriers which stands against the sublimation of the innocent soul in love, in complete surrender.
These moments of pain will bound the souls together in a bond stronger than any other.
On such bonds, on such depths of foundations, can lofty mansions be built elevating man to absolute clarity, truth and beauty.
Without pain there can be no happiness.
Without tears there can be no rapture.
I love to see you cry. Because your tears stand as the strongest and truest testimony that you feel.
P.S. (added later): Are tears the price women have to pay for the insecurities of men? If she knew it all, will she willingly pay the price?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Scribbles: 19th April, 2009
It has been some time, some months, since my last post. Has there been nothing to write about? No - that cannot be the reason - because there is always things to write about if you want to write.
Anyways - some posts ago - I had maintained here that if there is even the tiniest of the things one can do towards the realisation of one truest desires which will not render him in some irrecoverable position, then one should go for it. Honestly speaking, I knew not then how much I myself would have been able to follow on to it. But today, I can complacently state that I have - at least on a few most important aspects - been able to follow up on my own principles.
I know not if these were wise to do, I know not what fruits these will finally yield decades later - but what I do know is that I'm happy and and have no regrets, and that I will never have any regrets out of these. Through all my years, I do have learn't one important thing - something which I should have probably learn't long ago - that any day one would rather make his own mistakes than somebody else's.
Anyways - some posts ago - I had maintained here that if there is even the tiniest of the things one can do towards the realisation of one truest desires which will not render him in some irrecoverable position, then one should go for it. Honestly speaking, I knew not then how much I myself would have been able to follow on to it. But today, I can complacently state that I have - at least on a few most important aspects - been able to follow up on my own principles.
I know not if these were wise to do, I know not what fruits these will finally yield decades later - but what I do know is that I'm happy and and have no regrets, and that I will never have any regrets out of these. Through all my years, I do have learn't one important thing - something which I should have probably learn't long ago - that any day one would rather make his own mistakes than somebody else's.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Antarmahal
Believe me - had the climax been anything less than what it was, I definitely would have thought much less of the rest of the film - I would have thought it deliriousness coming from Rituparno going by how his latest films (at least the latest few I have seen) touches on this very same theme one way or the other.
I have just watched Antarmahal, and notwithstanding the above, true to his genius, Rituparno Ghosh brought forth such a climax, that I cannot help feeling that maybe the rest of the film was still justified coming even from him.
The entire film was laden with female sexuality, her body, her spirit, and the maltreatment of all these as it was supposed to have been practiced 100s of years ago in Bengal.
The film was good as is usual of him, but while watching the film, I had started complaining that all his films somehow touches on this same subject - and it gets treated in his trademark way - and all this becomes monotonous, and sometimes even ghastly given the subject. Once or twice, the effect is fantastic, but one really cannot go on digesting the same pattern as often as Rituparno seems to shelve it out. I was thinking why on earth does he not think of the thousand other sensitivities lying out there for him to exploit?
But the climax of Antarmahal balances it all. All in the last 10/15 minutes. And indeed, these last minutes do propel the film in dimensions other than just female sexuality, mind and body. Art and the artist were hailed. I'm sure - the last two or three scenes, including the showing of the goddess' face to the foreign painter, the brief shot of Soha Ali Khan after the idol was opened publicly, and finally the dolls with the sacred flames lit in the last scene - all these will stay with me for a while.
Now, after being done with it all, and looking at the film from a perspective, I find myself asking about the acting - who acted best, et all. And somehow, I'm unable to answer that. No one seems to have got such dramatic chances of acting. Or maybe everyone got equal shares. I'm not sure. At first thought it seemed that the film did not provide much chances of such acting. But then, it is very obvious that a film like this cannot be carried without good acting. And yes, all through the film none of the actors ever felt out of themselves.
Maybe this is truly good direction - coupled with good acting from all - as a result of which, none of the characters protruded obliquely above the others - yet all of them fell nicely into the overall picture, thereby culminating in an overall good effect.
I have just watched Antarmahal, and notwithstanding the above, true to his genius, Rituparno Ghosh brought forth such a climax, that I cannot help feeling that maybe the rest of the film was still justified coming even from him.
The entire film was laden with female sexuality, her body, her spirit, and the maltreatment of all these as it was supposed to have been practiced 100s of years ago in Bengal.
The film was good as is usual of him, but while watching the film, I had started complaining that all his films somehow touches on this same subject - and it gets treated in his trademark way - and all this becomes monotonous, and sometimes even ghastly given the subject. Once or twice, the effect is fantastic, but one really cannot go on digesting the same pattern as often as Rituparno seems to shelve it out. I was thinking why on earth does he not think of the thousand other sensitivities lying out there for him to exploit?
But the climax of Antarmahal balances it all. All in the last 10/15 minutes. And indeed, these last minutes do propel the film in dimensions other than just female sexuality, mind and body. Art and the artist were hailed. I'm sure - the last two or three scenes, including the showing of the goddess' face to the foreign painter, the brief shot of Soha Ali Khan after the idol was opened publicly, and finally the dolls with the sacred flames lit in the last scene - all these will stay with me for a while.
Now, after being done with it all, and looking at the film from a perspective, I find myself asking about the acting - who acted best, et all. And somehow, I'm unable to answer that. No one seems to have got such dramatic chances of acting. Or maybe everyone got equal shares. I'm not sure. At first thought it seemed that the film did not provide much chances of such acting. But then, it is very obvious that a film like this cannot be carried without good acting. And yes, all through the film none of the actors ever felt out of themselves.
Maybe this is truly good direction - coupled with good acting from all - as a result of which, none of the characters protruded obliquely above the others - yet all of them fell nicely into the overall picture, thereby culminating in an overall good effect.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Muslims to answer?
They have put Muslims in the frontline. Following the Mumbai terrorist attack orchestrated by people who happen to be Muslims from Pakistan.
I just saw a program where they have literally put some eminent Muslims in a row - and a mass of audience (Hindu?) are asking them questions. Questions about how the innocent Muslim will clear the mass misunderstanding brewing in the masses, manifesting in a person getting scared by seeing a Muslim in sight (!!!).
What do these eminent persons think about how to clear up this psychological impact?
There was visible exasperation and anger in the face of some of the ones who had been called forth.
The program host maintained - and these persons said and agreed - that other Muslim should not at all be called forth to explain. Why should they be at all require to explain and clarify their innocence? Terrorism has no religion, and we all no that.
But the irony was that, by hosting a program of this kind, the very program is acting against this philosophy - they have called forth these people to answer. To have them explain away their position. This very program, I think, was acting more against the cause which it seeks to address, than any person getting scared when seeing a Muslim.
Some people are beyond religion. Truly religious and devoted people also always fall in this category. It shows on their face. No matter what religion they follow, they are all united in some core basic values and understanding. All religions are united in their basic values - of humanity, tolerance and responsibility.
I could not help but feel sorry for these people - who for no action of their own - who by some twisted coincidence of fate have been put on trial. They are fully entitled to the exasperation and anger showing on their face despite the attempts to veil them. I think it is a gross insult even to bring up this topic to them in this way.
I just saw a program where they have literally put some eminent Muslims in a row - and a mass of audience (Hindu?) are asking them questions. Questions about how the innocent Muslim will clear the mass misunderstanding brewing in the masses, manifesting in a person getting scared by seeing a Muslim in sight (!!!).
What do these eminent persons think about how to clear up this psychological impact?
There was visible exasperation and anger in the face of some of the ones who had been called forth.
The program host maintained - and these persons said and agreed - that other Muslim should not at all be called forth to explain. Why should they be at all require to explain and clarify their innocence? Terrorism has no religion, and we all no that.
But the irony was that, by hosting a program of this kind, the very program is acting against this philosophy - they have called forth these people to answer. To have them explain away their position. This very program, I think, was acting more against the cause which it seeks to address, than any person getting scared when seeing a Muslim.
Some people are beyond religion. Truly religious and devoted people also always fall in this category. It shows on their face. No matter what religion they follow, they are all united in some core basic values and understanding. All religions are united in their basic values - of humanity, tolerance and responsibility.
I could not help but feel sorry for these people - who for no action of their own - who by some twisted coincidence of fate have been put on trial. They are fully entitled to the exasperation and anger showing on their face despite the attempts to veil them. I think it is a gross insult even to bring up this topic to them in this way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)