Rio de Janerio - home of the Carnival - a city filled with an unparalleled mystique in one of the most fun-loving large nations of the world. I've never been there (will get to it) and when one is exposed to the City of God (based on an actual neighbourhood in Rio by the name - Cidade de Deus), its a stark reminder that there are two versions to every megacity's story, if not more. Mumbai, New York, Chicago or Tokyo - every city has films based on them - either one that romanticizes the beauty of the city or one that romanticizes the crime. City of God is a hard-hitting, yet wonderfully written and directed, film that does the latter.
The film was so well-acclaimed that it made it to the Oscars a year late since it was overlooked the first time (oh well...that was thanks to the persuasiveness of Harvey Weinstein whose Miramax distributed it). I saw it very early on in 2002 and then on DVD recently, which allowed for the added bonus of watching a documentary that speaks of the reality in Cidade de Deus - the constant balance achieved between drug peddlers, drug buyers and the police along with the corruption and guns that maintain the status quo. It may sound unbelievable, even after seeing the entire film and references to real people in the end credits, that the film is based on that very reality. Within the end credits, there is even the original interview with 'Knockout' Ned, a high-flyer in the film, whose entry into the drug 'industry' is one of many stories that intertwine around that of the protagonist.
Fittingly, the protagonist is a photographer, documenting the mayhem visually as it unfolds. Fernando Meirelles (who made his first English feature this year - 'The Constant Gardner') resorts to non-linear narration that gives us an entertaining history lesson on the development of the favelas (planned slums in the 60's). The most notorious of these, even today, happens to be Cidade de Deus, where gun-totting boys begin hitting the streets and rival gangs as early as age 5!
Li'l Ze (aka Li'l Dice) puts in a delightful performance and so do cool characters such as The Tender Trio (Shaggy, Goose and Clipper), Rocket (the protagonist), Benny (the coolest Hood), Shorty, Steak, Penguin, Angelica, Stringy, Blacky, Carrot , Tuba and Knockout Ned. Other lessons taught to us, as the narrative progresses, are the process of drug packaging for pot and coke, the distinction between Hoods and the Runts whose ages define their place in the hoods' power structure, and the hierarchy of the drug peddling system - 'errand boy' to 'lookout' to 'dealer' to "vapor" to "soldier" to 'manager' to BOSS!
While it seems that the meaningless violence contained in each of these mini-ecosystems (the favelas) can be construed as self-sufficient for these young boys and men to justify their existence and needs, I can't think of a better film that shows the oft-repeated cycle of an eye-for-an-eye, albeit justified by economic ends (the drug trade in this case). The mob films pale when faced by the City of God - suits aren't cut the same way as vests (baniyaans) and slick pistols can't offer a bullet of resistance to the rounds of semi-automatics. Slick and rapidly paced, to the point that the (anti-)heroes rise and fall faster than the tides, its a desperate story - one that shows a strata of youngsters ostracized by society, building a parallel one and thriving in it with no value placed on human life. Emotions, such as love, do surface when the odd gangster is smitten by it but there is no room nor respect for it in the hood. Each kid begins to assume that the rules of the favela are the rules of life. If one is lucky to escape it, they join the rat race outside the favela. If not, they thrive in the rat race within. The characters know fear, and yet, they are fearless since they truly live for the moment and die in a moment.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Film Review (H'wood): Syriana (2005)
The title's catchy - it rolls off the tongue and is clearly suggestive of the Middle Eastern region of Asia. After some attempts at figuring out why it was picked, to tell us a story about oil, a fellow blogger lets us in that it's a seemingly fictional name assigned by certain Washington think-tanks, to a hypothetical construct of the Middle East, after hypothetically applying a coat of 'democracy' paint.
The stars - Matt Damon, George Clooney, Amanda Peet, Christopher Plummer etc.- will definitely bring in the crowds and just for that, its great to see the big names lend their acting skills to such compelling stories, despite the controversies they get drawn into - these controversies fuelled by the very political interests depicted in the movie. It's the same writer that brought us the film Traffic, centered around the drug trade. This story unfolds in a similar fashion, in the way it is told - a set of tight concurrent sub-plots that are loosely held together to emphasize the central plot - The vicious cycle that has been in motion in the oil industry for several decades now.
What does this cycle mean for governments of the the middle eastern states and the biggest consumer of oil - the US? Is there a dark nexus between industry, government, and the justice system? How does it affect the lives of people who are so embedded in this cycle that they can't simply opt out? Is there a conscience at all in any remote corner? The film doesn't offer clear answers; it lets you decide. For that reason, it has been called a 'complex' film in several reviews. If you've sampled another must-see film of the genre - an at times over-the-top but hard-hitting doc called 'The Corporation', this is a fairly simple film for the viewer. The viewer has then probably mulled over the behavior that drives a profit hungry oil industry. Very simply, it is quite like the opposite of the Google philosophy - Do whatever it takes to deliver profits, evil or not.
The treatment of one sub-plot, that of an average Pakistani immigrant teenager working in the tough vicinity of an oil field, was the only weak link for me. It was driving a sensitive point home and, therefore, didn't take the risks that it needed to convince me of how the oil industry in particular shaped the mental make-up of the teenager. This apart, every element of the intelligence agencies' manipulative stance in foreign policy, special interests around the US capital, and the selfish interests that overpower the best of middle eastern royals are all brilliantly captured. Idealism is quashed with the lure of greed, power and other such simpler-to-understand human motives.
Like the best of political statements made on screen, the audience is asked not to go back home and forget what they just absorbed but is forced to think. Yes - for those who can get past their love for Matt, George and Amanda, its a 'thinking-movie', as a South Asian would say. Is the cost of oil $2.19 at the nearest gas station or $2.22 at the next? Research has shown that a good majority of people will drive a mile to save a few cents per gallon of gas. And yet the real cost of guzzling gas should be measured in actions around the world, taken to bring you that gas profitably - actions that will shape a few more generations. What if we really do start running out of gas, despite drilling the sh*# out of every corner of the world, ecological political correctness notwithstanding? I wonder what the ones in power at that juncture will be driven to do (please refer recent history lessons)! Syriana only offers us a snapshot of the chessboard as it stands today, not knowing the end game. Choices everyone of us makes around consumption of energy and the questions we ask of our governments, for starters, will help us avoid a checkmate on the board......... "Check"!
The stars - Matt Damon, George Clooney, Amanda Peet, Christopher Plummer etc.- will definitely bring in the crowds and just for that, its great to see the big names lend their acting skills to such compelling stories, despite the controversies they get drawn into - these controversies fuelled by the very political interests depicted in the movie. It's the same writer that brought us the film Traffic, centered around the drug trade. This story unfolds in a similar fashion, in the way it is told - a set of tight concurrent sub-plots that are loosely held together to emphasize the central plot - The vicious cycle that has been in motion in the oil industry for several decades now.
What does this cycle mean for governments of the the middle eastern states and the biggest consumer of oil - the US? Is there a dark nexus between industry, government, and the justice system? How does it affect the lives of people who are so embedded in this cycle that they can't simply opt out? Is there a conscience at all in any remote corner? The film doesn't offer clear answers; it lets you decide. For that reason, it has been called a 'complex' film in several reviews. If you've sampled another must-see film of the genre - an at times over-the-top but hard-hitting doc called 'The Corporation', this is a fairly simple film for the viewer. The viewer has then probably mulled over the behavior that drives a profit hungry oil industry. Very simply, it is quite like the opposite of the Google philosophy - Do whatever it takes to deliver profits, evil or not.
The treatment of one sub-plot, that of an average Pakistani immigrant teenager working in the tough vicinity of an oil field, was the only weak link for me. It was driving a sensitive point home and, therefore, didn't take the risks that it needed to convince me of how the oil industry in particular shaped the mental make-up of the teenager. This apart, every element of the intelligence agencies' manipulative stance in foreign policy, special interests around the US capital, and the selfish interests that overpower the best of middle eastern royals are all brilliantly captured. Idealism is quashed with the lure of greed, power and other such simpler-to-understand human motives.
Like the best of political statements made on screen, the audience is asked not to go back home and forget what they just absorbed but is forced to think. Yes - for those who can get past their love for Matt, George and Amanda, its a 'thinking-movie', as a South Asian would say. Is the cost of oil $2.19 at the nearest gas station or $2.22 at the next? Research has shown that a good majority of people will drive a mile to save a few cents per gallon of gas. And yet the real cost of guzzling gas should be measured in actions around the world, taken to bring you that gas profitably - actions that will shape a few more generations. What if we really do start running out of gas, despite drilling the sh*# out of every corner of the world, ecological political correctness notwithstanding? I wonder what the ones in power at that juncture will be driven to do (please refer recent history lessons)! Syriana only offers us a snapshot of the chessboard as it stands today, not knowing the end game. Choices everyone of us makes around consumption of energy and the questions we ask of our governments, for starters, will help us avoid a checkmate on the board......... "Check"!
Film Review (Short doc): Ladies Special (2003)
Two one-way journeys on the Mumbai local trains every working day are the sole domain of the women commuters of Mumbai. Virar-to-Churchgate in the AM; Churchgate-to-Virar in the PM - 2 'Slow' trains i.e. stop at every local station in between the end points and blend every flavor of the fiesty brand of women that are unique to the megapolis.
I've done the less manic Andheri-Churchgate circuit for the 2 of 3 years that I spent in Mumbai and occassionally wondered about the atmosphere in this one-of-a-kind train ride. Now, Nidhi Tulli allows everyone a glipmse of the life inside - a glimpse that will at least partly satisfy the curiosity of the millions of men who ride the Mumbai trains everyday and are perhaps restricted to a second-hand verbal account of the stories and friendships that sometimes unfold over years of sitting together in the same compartments every day.
30 mins can't capture this lifetime, but they definitely verify that some of the train myths are indeed true - celebrating a fellow passenger's transition to a married life, prayers offered to the rising sun, lyrical feats from Bollywood numbers to bhajans, and the piece-de-resistance...preparation of the vegetables for the evening meal. Its a journey that the passengers seem to cherish as much, if not more, as what awaits them at their destinations - a far cry from the daily solitary car ride shared with the FM radio or with a voice over a mobile phone.
I've done the less manic Andheri-Churchgate circuit for the 2 of 3 years that I spent in Mumbai and occassionally wondered about the atmosphere in this one-of-a-kind train ride. Now, Nidhi Tulli allows everyone a glipmse of the life inside - a glimpse that will at least partly satisfy the curiosity of the millions of men who ride the Mumbai trains everyday and are perhaps restricted to a second-hand verbal account of the stories and friendships that sometimes unfold over years of sitting together in the same compartments every day.
30 mins can't capture this lifetime, but they definitely verify that some of the train myths are indeed true - celebrating a fellow passenger's transition to a married life, prayers offered to the rising sun, lyrical feats from Bollywood numbers to bhajans, and the piece-de-resistance...preparation of the vegetables for the evening meal. Its a journey that the passengers seem to cherish as much, if not more, as what awaits them at their destinations - a far cry from the daily solitary car ride shared with the FM radio or with a voice over a mobile phone.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Film Review (Int'l): Blow Up (1966)
Inviting sprawls of lush greens, quirky British lanes, crisp colors, glossy prints, surreal light, a vintage open-top Rolls, a sensual wood propellor, the stillness of image accelerated by simply the sound of wind through blades of grass, the lead actor framed tightly by two blow-ups of photographs shot by him, a young Vanessa Redgrave - all of these and more wrapped into one of the most pristine visual exhibitions built around a plot that otherwise questions everything but beauty itself.
My first Michelangelo Antonioni film! (Red Desert will be next.) Blow Up(1966) is one of his much acclaimed classics. The man has made films for over 60 years now - and another generation of film lovers is just about waking up to his films. When it comes to the legendary directors, I prefer to let ignorance be bliss and will restrict my comments on just the film.
Adapted from a Julio Cortazar story, Blow Up is more compelling as a visual spectacle than as a hard story line. It feels like a series of portraits on a clearly frustrated creative genius and his existence. In a little over a day in this photographer's life (played by a young intense David Hemmings), we are witness to the zeitgeist of the 60's - design, fashion, installation, space, depth, color, nature, freedom and beauty. Hemmings plays the part convincingly and his seems a quest to filter out everything around himself but beauty.
The story begins with a bunch of noisy travelling performers and one wonders about their intrusion in the film until we're reintroduced to a different perspective on them in the closing sequence. The protagonist is spending a 'typical day in his life' and captures evidence of a murder while seemingly shooting innocent snapshots of an affectionate couple in the park. He takes the film roll home, and is pursued by the woman in the pictures - a version of Ms.Redgrave that few of us in this generation would have seen - who wants the roll to be destroyed, for reasons obvious to her at that point. The director explores the nervous moments of intimacy between this pair with a subtlety that leaves you sighing. Hemmings fakes the surrender of the film roll to the woman and then proceeds to BLOW UP the photos to study the dynamics of the couple. Along with the photographer, the viewer traverses the mysterious build-up through each iteration of the Blow Ups and it leads to many revelations - a body on the distant grass, a camouflaged human form and some hints of a devious plot. Hemmings is shown to have suddenly found purpose as he sets out to solve this mystery. We take the thrill ride, only to be led to an anti-climax and the refuge of sensing that one is not alone in having the odd day spent in searching for answers.
In the pursuit of beauty, every other seems listless. In the pursuit of answers, every question assumes more importance. In the pursuit of good film, Antonioni has stayed true to the art form.
My first Michelangelo Antonioni film! (Red Desert will be next.) Blow Up(1966) is one of his much acclaimed classics. The man has made films for over 60 years now - and another generation of film lovers is just about waking up to his films. When it comes to the legendary directors, I prefer to let ignorance be bliss and will restrict my comments on just the film.
Adapted from a Julio Cortazar story, Blow Up is more compelling as a visual spectacle than as a hard story line. It feels like a series of portraits on a clearly frustrated creative genius and his existence. In a little over a day in this photographer's life (played by a young intense David Hemmings), we are witness to the zeitgeist of the 60's - design, fashion, installation, space, depth, color, nature, freedom and beauty. Hemmings plays the part convincingly and his seems a quest to filter out everything around himself but beauty.
The story begins with a bunch of noisy travelling performers and one wonders about their intrusion in the film until we're reintroduced to a different perspective on them in the closing sequence. The protagonist is spending a 'typical day in his life' and captures evidence of a murder while seemingly shooting innocent snapshots of an affectionate couple in the park. He takes the film roll home, and is pursued by the woman in the pictures - a version of Ms.Redgrave that few of us in this generation would have seen - who wants the roll to be destroyed, for reasons obvious to her at that point. The director explores the nervous moments of intimacy between this pair with a subtlety that leaves you sighing. Hemmings fakes the surrender of the film roll to the woman and then proceeds to BLOW UP the photos to study the dynamics of the couple. Along with the photographer, the viewer traverses the mysterious build-up through each iteration of the Blow Ups and it leads to many revelations - a body on the distant grass, a camouflaged human form and some hints of a devious plot. Hemmings is shown to have suddenly found purpose as he sets out to solve this mystery. We take the thrill ride, only to be led to an anti-climax and the refuge of sensing that one is not alone in having the odd day spent in searching for answers.
In the pursuit of beauty, every other seems listless. In the pursuit of answers, every question assumes more importance. In the pursuit of good film, Antonioni has stayed true to the art form.
Film Review (Indie): Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi (2003)
"A Thousand Such Dreams" is what the title of this multi-award winning film literally translates to. In a fine example of what's to come from the stable of Indies, from India (though this was backed by PNC, Pritish Nandy's venture), the title is self-fulfilling. Using film as a medium to portray a moving story of 3 protagonists, their complex relationships and their dreams in a turbulent period in post-independence India, we partake in the fulfillment of the director's dream. [I've only seen one other Sudhir Mishra film - 'Is Raat Ki Subah Nahin' (1997) - a gripping story that runs from dusk to the next dawn, and brought 3 other interesting actors of that generation to the fore. Those 3 actors disappeared over time, but I sure hope these 3 stick around for a while. I had not kept track since but it seems that I'll have to dig up his other films now - Chameli, Calcutta Mail etc.]
A story set in pre-emergency India and using the backdrop of the socialist movement along with the evolution of multi-party politics and culminating with the emergency, it follows three college friends through about a decade of their lives.
Siddharth (Kaykay Menon) and Geeta (Chitrangada Singh) love each other immensely but Geeta always seems to come a distant second to Siddharth's 'socialist India' dream. Siddharth fits the stereotype of the disillusioned kid amongst the English educated elite - a legacy of the British Raj. He finds his purpose in rebelling against the zamindari system and finding justice for poor farmers, and joins the naxal movement. Geeta discovers that running away from Siddharth and his ideals is no cure for her shattered dreams of living her life with him. She struggles with her choices initially but comes to believe that love is the only absolute. The wild card is Vikram (Shiny Ahuja) - born to a Gandhian father, he is frustrated with the lack of progress in the political thinking of the time and quickly grasps the nuances of making the system work for his dreams of riches. He always loved Geeta but his dreams were not good enough for her. Their paths cross often and reality constantly seeks to dampen their dreams but not their spirits. The director uses the passage of time to play with the viewers' relationship with each of these dreamers. Each character evokes a multitude of feelings as the story reaches its culmination. A macabre turn of events creates an unforgettable climactic setting where once and for all, your feelings to each protagonist are finally resolved. This emotional roller coaster ride is what makes it a great film. The excesses in the film are necessary at times and are used in the right places - the lack of make-up and props leave you with raw surroundings, earthy colors and beautiful actors (for example, Ms.Singh is far more beautiful as Geeta than she is at the film's premiere)... and the regret of missing it on big screen.
The music is a must-own, reflecting genres of classical strains that are distinctly 'Hindustani', a tradition that is centuries old and has been distilled through many eras of Indian history. Shubha Mudgal and Swanand Kirkire lend their inimitable voices to Ghalib's poetry. Adopting the more non-intrusive style of background tracks, the music and the lyrics are both used deftly to tie into the narrative of the story and the character transformations in the film. There is a line from Ghalib, which is Urdu poetry, and which I shall humbly try to translate into the language of the masses -
"Such are these Thousand Dreams, (that)
Gladly would I give my last breath to fulfill each"
It's once again a reflection of the distribution bias towards Bollywood that this film was barely released anywhere in North America. It was a 2003 release that we are discussing in 2005. If you haven't seen it, its worth the effort in getting to a copy (no - Netflix doesn't carry it, as yet). In a story that is about love, politics, ideals, and friendship, there is something for every idealist and every story-lover in this film. As the titles roll by, I ask myself of, not a thousand but, one such dream. Our grandparents had independence and our parents' misguided youth is well represented by this film (at least the ones who didn't emigrate). Is our generation simply cursed - not to be entitled to such dreams? Or do we hide under the cloak of 'reality' and not dare to dream?
A story set in pre-emergency India and using the backdrop of the socialist movement along with the evolution of multi-party politics and culminating with the emergency, it follows three college friends through about a decade of their lives.
Siddharth (Kaykay Menon) and Geeta (Chitrangada Singh) love each other immensely but Geeta always seems to come a distant second to Siddharth's 'socialist India' dream. Siddharth fits the stereotype of the disillusioned kid amongst the English educated elite - a legacy of the British Raj. He finds his purpose in rebelling against the zamindari system and finding justice for poor farmers, and joins the naxal movement. Geeta discovers that running away from Siddharth and his ideals is no cure for her shattered dreams of living her life with him. She struggles with her choices initially but comes to believe that love is the only absolute. The wild card is Vikram (Shiny Ahuja) - born to a Gandhian father, he is frustrated with the lack of progress in the political thinking of the time and quickly grasps the nuances of making the system work for his dreams of riches. He always loved Geeta but his dreams were not good enough for her. Their paths cross often and reality constantly seeks to dampen their dreams but not their spirits. The director uses the passage of time to play with the viewers' relationship with each of these dreamers. Each character evokes a multitude of feelings as the story reaches its culmination. A macabre turn of events creates an unforgettable climactic setting where once and for all, your feelings to each protagonist are finally resolved. This emotional roller coaster ride is what makes it a great film. The excesses in the film are necessary at times and are used in the right places - the lack of make-up and props leave you with raw surroundings, earthy colors and beautiful actors (for example, Ms.Singh is far more beautiful as Geeta than she is at the film's premiere)... and the regret of missing it on big screen.
The music is a must-own, reflecting genres of classical strains that are distinctly 'Hindustani', a tradition that is centuries old and has been distilled through many eras of Indian history. Shubha Mudgal and Swanand Kirkire lend their inimitable voices to Ghalib's poetry. Adopting the more non-intrusive style of background tracks, the music and the lyrics are both used deftly to tie into the narrative of the story and the character transformations in the film. There is a line from Ghalib, which is Urdu poetry, and which I shall humbly try to translate into the language of the masses -
"Such are these Thousand Dreams, (that)
Gladly would I give my last breath to fulfill each"
It's once again a reflection of the distribution bias towards Bollywood that this film was barely released anywhere in North America. It was a 2003 release that we are discussing in 2005. If you haven't seen it, its worth the effort in getting to a copy (no - Netflix doesn't carry it, as yet). In a story that is about love, politics, ideals, and friendship, there is something for every idealist and every story-lover in this film. As the titles roll by, I ask myself of, not a thousand but, one such dream. Our grandparents had independence and our parents' misguided youth is well represented by this film (at least the ones who didn't emigrate). Is our generation simply cursed - not to be entitled to such dreams? Or do we hide under the cloak of 'reality' and not dare to dream?
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Film Review (Short): Little Terrorist / Adventures in Shorts (2004)
Little Terrorist is Ashvin Kumar's second attempt at directing a short after the first, 'Road to Ladakh', turned out to be too long for distributors' newer definition of a 'short film' (it was 48 mins in length). The up and coming short film genre was in fact the only genre at the advent of film shown in public theater, before Chaplin and others discovered the longer version. Films were silent and 10-15 mins long. Now, shorts have become the hotbed of experimenting for young directors and the basis of critiquing a new filmmaker's storytelling ability and creativity.
For just his second attempt to be one of five Oscar nominations this year, 2 years after his filmmaking debut with Road to Ladakh, Ashvin Kumar's is quite an achievement. Many wins at other film festivals are also testimony to the quality of this feel-good story, depicting the innate kindness of neighbours separated by fences - fences that force borders between nations. The story is a demonstration that religion and a physical border are meaningless in the midst of friendship and an underlying bond of a community, forceably split by political agendas. Ashvin uses three characters - either very young or very old - to throw us hope with an idealistic story of kindness and friendship. I don't remember Ashvin alluding to the choice of age for his characters in his 'Behind the Scenes...' documentary, but it had to be subconscious at the least - the purity of the untainted youth and the wisdom of a grandfather-like figure are oblivious to the machinations of nations, their politics and their use of commoners as pawns. The film was an adaptation of a news article in 2003-04 that described a Pakistani boy who had accidentally slipped through the Indian border.
Road to Ladakh, the director's first short (currently being shot as a full-length feature) is a far more intense kindling of love between strangers, both isolated in a remote location for very different reasons and whose regular lives seem absent of emotion. Irfan Khan shows us why he's becoming a critic's darling with what we Indians call a strong silent performance. Koel Purie's debut comes off as impressive until we see the documentary 'The Near Un-Making of Road to Ladakh', where we discover the pitfalls it took to get her there.
Adventures in Shorts is one of the most underrated DVD's that I have come across. Not too many people are aware that there is more to the Little Terrorist and Ashvin Kumar than a 15 min film and an Oscar nomination. The DVD itself documents a filmmaker's journey - more real than either film. With the camera rolling alongside Ashvin and his film characters, the story travels to Cannes with Ashvin (captured in the included doc, 'Can You Cannes?) and then to Ladakh for his first short film, back to Cannes and finally to a shoot in Rajasthan that lasts less than a week. Not bad for a Film School dropout who was trying to sell the idea of a short film to anyone who will listen and whose persistence took him to the Oscars. For those who've expereienced a bout of Silicon Valley entrepreneurship, its like being through a series of Film startups with the tidbits of information about Cannes, the amateur actors, the exotic but very difficult locales, the accidents, the improvizations and the wild idea of putting together a very talented team together from a website.
The docs in the DVD almost warrant their own review but it has to be seen in its entire 175 mins to be enjoyed by anyone who loves good film, innovative filmmaking, and a maverick underdog who will do anything to get his film to be seen by audiences - at Cannes and LA, no less. The DVD is also testament to this director's clever ideas of merging good film with stories around the film that truly engage the audience. Keep an eye out for this director - he'll be making news, and more importantly, cheeky and cutting-edge cinema.
For just his second attempt to be one of five Oscar nominations this year, 2 years after his filmmaking debut with Road to Ladakh, Ashvin Kumar's is quite an achievement. Many wins at other film festivals are also testimony to the quality of this feel-good story, depicting the innate kindness of neighbours separated by fences - fences that force borders between nations. The story is a demonstration that religion and a physical border are meaningless in the midst of friendship and an underlying bond of a community, forceably split by political agendas. Ashvin uses three characters - either very young or very old - to throw us hope with an idealistic story of kindness and friendship. I don't remember Ashvin alluding to the choice of age for his characters in his 'Behind the Scenes...' documentary, but it had to be subconscious at the least - the purity of the untainted youth and the wisdom of a grandfather-like figure are oblivious to the machinations of nations, their politics and their use of commoners as pawns. The film was an adaptation of a news article in 2003-04 that described a Pakistani boy who had accidentally slipped through the Indian border.
Road to Ladakh, the director's first short (currently being shot as a full-length feature) is a far more intense kindling of love between strangers, both isolated in a remote location for very different reasons and whose regular lives seem absent of emotion. Irfan Khan shows us why he's becoming a critic's darling with what we Indians call a strong silent performance. Koel Purie's debut comes off as impressive until we see the documentary 'The Near Un-Making of Road to Ladakh', where we discover the pitfalls it took to get her there.
Adventures in Shorts is one of the most underrated DVD's that I have come across. Not too many people are aware that there is more to the Little Terrorist and Ashvin Kumar than a 15 min film and an Oscar nomination. The DVD itself documents a filmmaker's journey - more real than either film. With the camera rolling alongside Ashvin and his film characters, the story travels to Cannes with Ashvin (captured in the included doc, 'Can You Cannes?) and then to Ladakh for his first short film, back to Cannes and finally to a shoot in Rajasthan that lasts less than a week. Not bad for a Film School dropout who was trying to sell the idea of a short film to anyone who will listen and whose persistence took him to the Oscars. For those who've expereienced a bout of Silicon Valley entrepreneurship, its like being through a series of Film startups with the tidbits of information about Cannes, the amateur actors, the exotic but very difficult locales, the accidents, the improvizations and the wild idea of putting together a very talented team together from a website.
The docs in the DVD almost warrant their own review but it has to be seen in its entire 175 mins to be enjoyed by anyone who loves good film, innovative filmmaking, and a maverick underdog who will do anything to get his film to be seen by audiences - at Cannes and LA, no less. The DVD is also testament to this director's clever ideas of merging good film with stories around the film that truly engage the audience. Keep an eye out for this director - he'll be making news, and more importantly, cheeky and cutting-edge cinema.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Film Review (Doc): Final Solution (2004)
Recently, I was at a screening of the film Final Solution, by Rakesh Sharma. It was my second time in six months - that I was at a large auditorium sprinkled with a fair dose of academics, students, self-styled socialists (not to be confused with socialites, they have no time for such things) and the mandatory set of Gujarati gentleman decrying the biased perspective of the filmmaker. The change in my own thought process in that same six months was quite remarkable. However, to put that change in perspective, one almost has to be 'Waiting for Godot' to be drawn to such a film (unless in one of above 3 categories) and subject oneself to a provocative, yet masochistic, visual experience of this documentary.
This time, there were not one, but two pairs of people who were opposed to the one-sided portrayal of the now age old Hindu-Muslim issue. The question from the first pair was inundated with incorrect statistics about the misery of the Kashmiri Pandits but the stats turned out to be irrelevant since the director pointed out that no single person can address every issue in the country and that his peers (some of them good friends of his) were making at least 3 films with the Pandits as a subject. The second question, from the other pair of gentlemen with origins in Ahmedabad, was more emotional and bemoaned the lack of coverage of past atrocities on Hindus and that it was for the first time that casualties were heavier on the Muslim side in a few decades of riot-related violence. One can't deny this man his point on statistics. There were two things that changed over the last 15 years I suppose - one was that Hindus had become more belligerent in their retaliation i.e. the equivalent of India's nuclear deterrent strategy to scare our neighbors from making silly and cheeky intrusions across the border. The second was that media coverage is not muted any more and is not in the hands of the state alone i.e. such domestic violence will eventually get seen in a democratic nation such as India and will be portrayed in a relatively fair manner. (It is discomforting though that an event such as Godhra was not more relevant for every Indian in the country - this I speak from my own experience with family etc.). However, these two changes are irrelevant to the answer that was rightly given by Rakesh - that after the 1984 aftermath of the Indira Gandhi assisination, there hasn't been such a blatant display of "state-sponsored" killing of a minority community - in this case, inaction by first responders such as the police being as much of a crime as outright support.
Though they are not comparable on scale, the ramifications of such events, when expressed in 'time to recover' do indicate the damage. Without going into the original version of the Final Solution (as coined by Hitler), even the carnage against the Sikh community in Delhi (sponsored then by the so-called secular Congress) has taken two decades to 'recover' from, if such 'recovery' is ever possible for some people, and this was after the separatist movement in Punjad died quickly after. With the punches and counterpunches thrown by the Hindutva parties and the extremist Muslims, this one may take a lot longer. It doesn't help to have Kashmir and Pakistan as issues taken in the same breath in the midst of any Hindu-Muslim issue discussed anywhere in India.
The status quo is fragile since it is shrouded with mistrust at every level - a throwback to what allowed the Brits to easily dominate a vast nation, applying limited resources of its own and using immense guile. Warning against the false comfort of the status quo, the film begs the audience to seek answers to the right questions. As a documentary that asks powerful questions, there is hardly anything more compelling than this film in recent times. It touches issues from gender and children to ghettoization and the Hindutva mindset. It eloquently brings forth the subconscious thinking of the average Hindu and Muslim in these sensitive areas of the country. It leaves you terrified at the impact such events leave on children, who are practicing their math with body counts and their biology with atrocities committed against women. It leaves one praying that the souls of the dead (in this case, the train victims) are left in peace rather than be sullied through a call for vengeance while targetting the next riot victim.
The drama of life and pervasive hatred is not too palatable for the average well-educated, white-collar Joe (or rather 'Jai' or 'Jaffar'). So, even upon personal persuasion, this film hasn't been viewed by too many people that I call friends and who are, without any doubt, my family. The other sublime elements of this film is that it is technically and structurally a great film. So, it should be a cult film by that measure at least but the topic is too hard-hitting for the 'Jais' and much abused by the 'Jaffars' to make the cut to cult.
If I have a pet peeve in life, it is that too many problems are thrown at us without solutions. To counter the idea of a Final Solution, the answer can never be easy, because the problems are multi-pronged and deep-rooted. So, it leaves me thinking of where the debates can be held. Like most educative documentaries, the countersolutions will have to be battled in the classrooms and will inspire another young generation to dream of an ideal secular India, albeit for a few years before they close the classroom door and enter the societal one - a door glossed with a coat of opportunism rather than opportunity, hiding ugly layers of intolerance, insecurity and indifference. Coming back to the change in me, it has forced me to question everything, as good art often does. I haven't found the answers nor has the film but there are thousands of minds in pursuit of those answers thanks to it - even if one finds the answer for themselves, if not for Indian society, the film will have achieved its purpose.
This time, there were not one, but two pairs of people who were opposed to the one-sided portrayal of the now age old Hindu-Muslim issue. The question from the first pair was inundated with incorrect statistics about the misery of the Kashmiri Pandits but the stats turned out to be irrelevant since the director pointed out that no single person can address every issue in the country and that his peers (some of them good friends of his) were making at least 3 films with the Pandits as a subject. The second question, from the other pair of gentlemen with origins in Ahmedabad, was more emotional and bemoaned the lack of coverage of past atrocities on Hindus and that it was for the first time that casualties were heavier on the Muslim side in a few decades of riot-related violence. One can't deny this man his point on statistics. There were two things that changed over the last 15 years I suppose - one was that Hindus had become more belligerent in their retaliation i.e. the equivalent of India's nuclear deterrent strategy to scare our neighbors from making silly and cheeky intrusions across the border. The second was that media coverage is not muted any more and is not in the hands of the state alone i.e. such domestic violence will eventually get seen in a democratic nation such as India and will be portrayed in a relatively fair manner. (It is discomforting though that an event such as Godhra was not more relevant for every Indian in the country - this I speak from my own experience with family etc.). However, these two changes are irrelevant to the answer that was rightly given by Rakesh - that after the 1984 aftermath of the Indira Gandhi assisination, there hasn't been such a blatant display of "state-sponsored" killing of a minority community - in this case, inaction by first responders such as the police being as much of a crime as outright support.
Though they are not comparable on scale, the ramifications of such events, when expressed in 'time to recover' do indicate the damage. Without going into the original version of the Final Solution (as coined by Hitler), even the carnage against the Sikh community in Delhi (sponsored then by the so-called secular Congress) has taken two decades to 'recover' from, if such 'recovery' is ever possible for some people, and this was after the separatist movement in Punjad died quickly after. With the punches and counterpunches thrown by the Hindutva parties and the extremist Muslims, this one may take a lot longer. It doesn't help to have Kashmir and Pakistan as issues taken in the same breath in the midst of any Hindu-Muslim issue discussed anywhere in India.
The status quo is fragile since it is shrouded with mistrust at every level - a throwback to what allowed the Brits to easily dominate a vast nation, applying limited resources of its own and using immense guile. Warning against the false comfort of the status quo, the film begs the audience to seek answers to the right questions. As a documentary that asks powerful questions, there is hardly anything more compelling than this film in recent times. It touches issues from gender and children to ghettoization and the Hindutva mindset. It eloquently brings forth the subconscious thinking of the average Hindu and Muslim in these sensitive areas of the country. It leaves you terrified at the impact such events leave on children, who are practicing their math with body counts and their biology with atrocities committed against women. It leaves one praying that the souls of the dead (in this case, the train victims) are left in peace rather than be sullied through a call for vengeance while targetting the next riot victim.
The drama of life and pervasive hatred is not too palatable for the average well-educated, white-collar Joe (or rather 'Jai' or 'Jaffar'). So, even upon personal persuasion, this film hasn't been viewed by too many people that I call friends and who are, without any doubt, my family. The other sublime elements of this film is that it is technically and structurally a great film. So, it should be a cult film by that measure at least but the topic is too hard-hitting for the 'Jais' and much abused by the 'Jaffars' to make the cut to cult.
If I have a pet peeve in life, it is that too many problems are thrown at us without solutions. To counter the idea of a Final Solution, the answer can never be easy, because the problems are multi-pronged and deep-rooted. So, it leaves me thinking of where the debates can be held. Like most educative documentaries, the countersolutions will have to be battled in the classrooms and will inspire another young generation to dream of an ideal secular India, albeit for a few years before they close the classroom door and enter the societal one - a door glossed with a coat of opportunism rather than opportunity, hiding ugly layers of intolerance, insecurity and indifference. Coming back to the change in me, it has forced me to question everything, as good art often does. I haven't found the answers nor has the film but there are thousands of minds in pursuit of those answers thanks to it - even if one finds the answer for themselves, if not for Indian society, the film will have achieved its purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)